Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature 3110702193, 9783110702194

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
In Memory of Géza G. Xeravits (1971–2019)
Table of Contents
Notions and Concepts of Time: Introduction
Part I: “Axial Ages:” The Construction of Time in Identity, History and Festivals
Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity
Ontologie im Mondlicht
“All’s well that ends well”
Time Factors in Early Rabbinic Religiosity
Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzepte in historiographischen Texten des 1. Jhs. n. Chr.
Biblische Zeit und christliche Historiographie
References to Jewish Festivals in the LXX Book of Judith
Ben Sira and the Sabbath
Part II: Specific Constructions of Time in Deuterocanonical Literature
Was tut Gott in der Nacht?
Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees
Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit
Ideas of Time in the Diaspora Tale of Tobit: Tobit’s Incipit (1:1–2) as Case Study
The “Shape of Time” in the Book of Tobit
Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)?
Part III: Terms of Time and Space in the Book of Ben Sira
Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira
The Notion of Time in Sir 18:19–26
Aspects of Time in the Book of Ben Sira: אחרית
Die Bedeutung von קץ im Buch Ben Sira
Part IV: The Construction of Apocalyptic Time
Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age
Concepts of Time in the Visions of Daniel
Zeitkonstruktion im 4. Esrabuch. Eine Skizze
Contributors
Index of Sources
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2020/2021

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2020/2021

 Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages, Jeremy Corley, Michael W. Duggan, and Renate Egger-Wenzel

Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature  Edited by Stefan Beyerle and Matthew Goff

ISBN 978-3-11-070219-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-070545-4 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-070547-8 ISSN 1614-3361 Library of Congress Control Number: 2021942537 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.

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: bsix information exchange GmbH, Braunschweig Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgements The International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL) held its biennial meeting in July 14–18, 2019 at the Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Studies at Greifswald (Germany). More than thirty scholars from ten countries in Europe, Israel, North and South America as well as South Africa gathered for the 2019 ISDCL meeting, hosted by Stefan Beyerle. This collection of essays documents most of the talks of the meeting on the topic of “Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature.” We thank all colleagues who contributed with their essays to this volume. We also thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for its significant financial support. Furthermore, the conference was financially supported by the Foundation Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Studies Greifswald. At the Institute, Dr. Christian Suhm, its Academic Coordinator, together with Nadine Bauerfeind and Dennis Gelinek, M. A., did a tremendous job making the conference such a success and by providing a stimulating academic atmosphere at the Institute. Antje Arens, Theresa Paul and Michael Vogt, secretary and research assistants at the Faculty of Theology (Greifswald University), helped immensely with the processes of organizing and making the conference happen. Last but not least, we thank Marielis Adami, Dr. Alessandro Casagrande, Dr. Christoph Krasemann, Anna Last, Emily Olsen and Hannah Siry for proofreading and the indices.

September, 2021

Greifswald (Germany) and Tallahassee, FL (USA) Stefan Beyerle and Matthew Goff

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-201

In Memory of Géza G. Xeravits (1971–2019) Géza G. Xeravits was an extraordinary Hungarian scholar in the field of Old Testament and Early Judaism. He was interested in Antiquity in general, and in Jewish studies in particular. He was always able to connect with his audiences, students and friends by means of his brilliant intellectual and entertaining personality. He was born in Budapest on February 20, 1971, and died after a long struggle with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) in Zsámbék on September 27, 2019. Géza Xeravits graduated from the Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest. His first position was a lectureship at the Saint Athanaz Greek Catholic Seminary, Nyíregyháza. He did his Ph. D. in Theology at the University of Groningen (2002). From 2002–2009, he was Assistant Professor and Professor at the Reformed Theological Academy, Pápa. From 2009–2015, he was Professor and Chair at the Department of Bible, Sapientia College of Theology, Budapest. From 2015–2018, he was Professor of Old Testament at Selye J. University, Komárno (Slovakia). In his last year he was research professor at the Theological Faculty of the Károli Gáspár Reformed University, Budapest. His main field of study was the Qumran community, and the group’s literature and theological thinking. More broadly he was interested in the Old Testament, especially the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Psalms on the one hand, and the so-called deuterocanonical literature on the other. Later his interest turned to the representations of biblical themes in late antique synagogue art. His first book on the scriptural interpretation of the Qumran community was published already before his graduation in 1995. He founded the Hungarian Biblical journal Studia Biblica Athanasiana of which he was editor in chief until his death. He received several scholarships that allowed him to study in Leuven and Groningen. He was the doctoral student of the head of the Qumran Institute of Groningen, Florentino García Martínez, in the Netherlands, where he wrote his dissertation which was published by Brill.1 During his work in Pápa he was the co-founder and secretary of the Shime’on Centre for the Studies of Hellenistic and Roman Age Judaism and Christianity. At this institute he edited the book series Simeon Books, Deuterocanonica and Horizonts. His main initiative was organizing a series of international conferences on deuterocanonical books in Hungary. The proceedings of these ten conferences were published by Brill and de Gruyter. After becoming ordained as a deacon at the Saint Maurice Monastery 1 King, Priest, Prophet. Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library. STDJ 47. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-202

VIII  In Memory of Géza G. Xeravits (1971–2019)

(Bakonybél) in 2006, he founded the academic book series of the Monastery (Lectio divina). He completed his habilitation2 at the Pázmány Péter Catholic University in 2008 and as a result he became a full professor at Pápa. He became a member of the international advisory panel of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL) and member of the advisory board of reviews of the journal Biblische Notizen. After his employment at the Sapientia College of Theology as professor and chair of Biblical Studies, in 2009 he founded the book series of the chair (Bibliatudományi Tanszék Kiadványai), which produced twelve volumes. In 2010 he was elected as the vice president of the Hungarian Society of Hebraists, a position which he held until his death. During his work at the Selye János University starting in 2015 he was awarded a scholarship of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), as a result of which he published his monograph: “Take Courage, O Jerusalem…”: Studies in the Psalms of Baruch 4–5 (de Gruyter 2015). As a recognition of his scholarly work he received the József Schweitzer Memorial Prize in 2017. During his work at Károli University he prepared the volume of his collected essays From Qumran to the Synagogues: Selected Studies on Ancient Judaism (de Gruyter 2019). He was able to enjoy the pleasure of its publication before his death. Next to his specifically scholarly work, he took part extensively in organizing and guiding pilgrim journeys to the Holy Land, and to countries of ancient Christianity like Georgia, Armenia and Ethiopia. As an intellectual distillation of his pilgrimages he published three books.3 From his last book series: On the Edges of Christianity A kereszténység szegélyein which was planned to discuss Armenia, Ethiopia and Georgia, only the portion on Armenia was finished; and the manuscript is not yet published. During his teaching at Pápa he even climbed the Himalayas in Nepal. Through the mixture of his intellectual talent and the recognition of his personal achievements, his lectures and friendly discussions with him became superlatively enjoyable intellectual pilgrimages for the students and professors who worked with him. 2 Könyvtár a pusztában bevezetés a holt-tengeri tekercsek nem-bibliai irodalmába. Deuterocanonica Subsidia 1. Bevezetések. Pápa: PRTA-L’Harmattan, 2008. Later published with some changes and redaction in German: Géza G. Xeravits/Peter Porzig. Einführung in die Qumranliteratur. Die Handschriften vom Toten Meer. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2015. 3 Jeruzsálem—a Föld köldöke. Szent városok, szent körzetek Tibettől Etiópiáig. Budapest: L’Harmattan—Agra, 2012 (Jerusalem—the Navel of the Earth: Holy Cities, Holy Districts from Tibet to Ethiopia); Zsidó és keresztény szent helyek a késő-ókori Palesztinában. Budapest: Agra, 2016 (Jewish and Christian Holy Places of Palestine in Late Antiquity); Egy nap Jézus nyomában: Az Olajfák-hegyétől a Szent Sírig. Budapest: Biblical Museum Budapest, 2017 (A Day in the Footsteps of Jesus: From the Mount of Olives to the Holy Sepulcher).

In Memory of Géza G. Xeravits (1971–2019) 

IX

As an international scholar, he wrote 17 books, edited 25 volumes and published 113 academic papers in Hungarian and international journals and books.4 Géza Xeravits took part in the discussions during the Budapest conference in 2017 that helped plan the ISDCL conference that produced the papers for the present volume. Dedicating this volume to the memory of his life and work, we thank God for the academic and intellectual richness we received from discussions with Géza Xeravits and from reading his scholarship. He wrote: “‘Why do you look for the living among the dead?’—asks the angel. But he could ask: why do you look for the light in the darkness?, or the winner among the losers? This message shouts loudly into the closed greyness of our loneliness, it lights into the darkness of our bleakness, it opens our graves and leads to life.”5 József Zsengellér

4 For a full bibliography see https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication?cond=authors;in;10011978& cond=category.mtid;eq;1&&page=1&labelLang=eng. For full texts of publications see: https:// selyeuni.academia.edu/GezaXeravits. 5 Krisztus köztünk…! Gondolatok a Szentírásról. Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2009, 33. His staggering last thoughts written by means of a computer able to read the motion of his eyes was published some days before his death: “My all is living” (“Mindenem él”), Embertárs 93 (2019): 203–15.

Table of Contents Acknowledgements  V József Zsengellér In Memory of Géza G. Xeravits (1971–2019)  VII Stefan Beyerle and Matthew Goff Notions and Concepts of Time: Introduction  1

Part I: “Axial Ages:” The Construction of Time in Identity, History and Festivals Benjamin G. Wright III Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity  19 Niko Strobach Ontologie im Mondlicht Zeit und Identität in Thomas Manns Joseph und seine Brüder  43 Martina Kepper “All's well that ends well” Protological Speculations and Eschatological Teachings in Hellenistic-Roman Texts  67 Stefan C. Reif Time Factors in Early Rabbinic Religiosity  93 Eve-Marie Becker Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzepte in historiographischen Texten des 1. Jhs. n. Chr.  111 Christfried Böttrich, Sabine Fahl, and Dieter Fahl Biblische Zeit und christliche Historiographie  131 Literarische Strategien in der Kratkaja Chronografičeskaja Paleja (KP)  131 Nicholas Peter Legh Allen and Pierre Johan Jordaan References to Jewish Festivals in the LXX Book of Judith  149

XII  Table of Contents

Jeremy Corley Ben Sira and the Sabbath  169

Part II: Specific Constructions of Time in Deuterocanonical Literature  191 Christine Abart Was tut Gott in der Nacht?  193 Michael W. Duggan Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees  211 Friedrich V. Reiterer Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit  235 Lucas Brum Teixeira Ideas of Time in the Diaspora Tale of Tobit: Tobit's Incipit (1:1–2) as Case Study  285 Francis M. Macatangay The “Shape of Time” in the Book of Tobit  295 József Zsengellér Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)? Time in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum  311

Part III: Terms of Time and Space in the Book of Ben Sira Severino Bussino Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira  339 Núria Calduch-Benages The Notion of Time in Sir 18:19–26  369 Pancratius C. Beentjes Aspects of Time in the Book of Ben Sira: ‫אחרית‬ 387

Table of Contents 

XIII

Renate Egger-Wenzel Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira  403

Part IV: The Construction of Apocalyptic Time Matthew Goff Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age  429 Stefan Beyerle Concepts of Time in the Visions of Daniel  453 Oda Wischmeyer Zeitkonstruktion im 4. Esrabuch. Eine Skizze  473 Contributors  485 Index of Sources  489 Index of Modern Authors  521 Index of Subjects  529

Stefan Beyerle and Matthew Goff

Notions and Concepts of Time: Introduction This collection of papers records contributions that focus on different notions and concepts of “time.” To provide a better understanding of these concepts, the authors of the essays in this volume utilize specific methods and approaches including different hermeneutic strategies. The following outline proceeds from more conceptual and general approaches towards specific terminology and literary genres.

Part I: “Axial Ages:” The Construction of Time in Identity, History and Festivals First of all, as reflected in recent scholarship, the concept of time, especially within an approach that lays emphasis on questions of perception and structure, is analyzed by discussing problems of construction and organization, such as time and identity, periods of time, festivals, peripeteia or the relationship of space and time.1 The German philosopher Karl Jaspers once referred to the ancient period between the eighth and the third centuries BCE that coincidently disclosed dramatic changes in thinking within different cultures such as the Greco-Roman world, including Egypt and the Near East, Persia, India and China, as the “Axial Age.”2 The German essay was edited in 1949, and after rather sparse, but also critical, discussions and evaluations, Jasper’s thesis currently witnesses some kind of renaissance.3 All contributions in the first section of the volume associate aspects of “axial” or pivotal ages with “timelines” in a way that focuses on organizational patterns and peripeteia, i. e., a sudden reversal of fortune or change in circumstances. In his thoughtful and well-structured essay, Benjamin Wright stresses the relationship between “time” and “identity.”4 After some semantic suggestions 1 Cf., most recently, also Assmann, Achsenzeit; Stern, Time and Process; Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire; Ben-Dov/Doering, The Construction of Time in Antiquity. 2 Cf. Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History. 3 For an earlier productive reception of this idea, cf. the studies of Eric Voegelin or Shmuel N. Eisenstadt. Very recently, Robert Bellah, Jan Assmann and Jürgen Habermas became part of the discussion: cf. Assmann, Achsenzeit, 228–79. 4 On the relationship between “time” and “identity” in 2 Maccabees cf. also Michael Duggan’s essay in this volume. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-001

2  Stefan Beyerle and Matthew Goff

of key terms like “time,” “temporality” and “identity,” his helpful introductory overview discusses notions of time within four different Second Temple sources that represent four specific concepts of time: the Book of Judith (time as historiography), the Letter of Aristeas (translational or mythic time), 1 Baruch (exilic time), and the Wisdom of Solomon (thanatological time). As regards the Book of Judith, Wright emphasizes the fictional character of the setting, but he also explains that Judith exhibits features of Greek historiography (Herodotus, Thucydides). Speeches in Judith, following the symbouleutic and the epideictic rhetorical traditions, show a historiographical concept of time. Its aim is to mediate time “between past and present.” In Jdt 9:7–10 and 16:1–17, respectively, the songs of the sea (Exod 15) and of Deborah (Judg 5) are utilized. In the Letter of Aristeas Wright detects translational or mythic time.5 This concept functions in terms of invoking paradigmatic events from the past in order to construct the present time by the means of a translation from Hebrew into Greek. Hence, the translation of the law of Moses serves to construct the identity of Jewish Alexandrians within the cultural environment of a Hellenistic culture at the end of the second century BCE. Interestingly enough, Pseudo-Aristeas constructs an “Exodus,” by means of references, without an “Exodus,” i. e., the quest of leaving Egypt or Alexandria. Like Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem, the translators take on the authoritative role of Moses when they translate the law. As for the Book of Baruch (1 Baruch), Wright focuses on the penitential prayer of confession in Bar 1:15–3:8. In the Book of Baruch, comparable to what we find in the Book of Tobit,6 the Babylonian Exile functions as a kind of trauma, and exilic time tends to reconfigure this trauma and enable people to reimagine the traumatic past and conceive of a restored future. In this way the past and the present collapse. In the penitential prayer the listeners are exhorted to confess their sins the same way the exiled people in Babylon did, and this is presented as the only way to assure a restored future. With the Wisdom of Solomon (chs. 1–5) the aspect of thanatological time comes into view. The composition’s socalled Book of Eschatology does not coalesce—or “collapse”—time, the past and the present, different from aspects of time in Judith, the Letter of Aristeas and the Book of Baruch. In Wis 1–5 death conveys a temporal quality that dispels the ignorance of the ungodly, while the righteous know that they are already immortal. Therefore, Jewish identity does not rely on tradition but on one’s piety and virtuous life-style. 5 For a different concept of mythic time in the Book of the Watchers and mythic motifs from the Hellenistic hybridization of classical-antique and Near Eastern religious beliefs cf. Matthew Goff’s contribution in this volume. 6 Cf. Francis Macatangay’s essay in this volume.

Notions and Concepts of Time: Introduction 

3

To some extent in the wake of Wright’s analyses, Niko Strobach explains the identities of the protagonists in Thomas Mann’s novel Joseph and His Brothers, here Jaakob, Eliezer, and Joseph/Usarsiph, with a view to their relationship to certain concepts of time. Mann’s “Super Midrash” on the Joseph Story (Gen 37–50) distinguishes between two “systems” of time: a “sun grammar” and a “moon grammar.” Strobach’s approach is guided by questions of “ontology:” do persons exist, and, how do they construct their identity? He wants to bend to the boundaries of what a person was, and how Thomas Mann’s novel explores the borderland between “myth” and “time”—what the novel calls, with the view to an “I,” the “borders of flesh and time.”7 Strobach analyses how theoretical insights from Ernst Mach have influenced the narrator(s) in Joseph and His Brothers. Also, the—later published—assumptions of Derek Parfit perfectly fit in with the positions of the narrator(s). Conclusively, the narrator explains cases of “open,” or flexible, identity, not of individuality. What is intended by the narrator is a “(onto-)logical language game.” Ultimately, Thomas Mann’s novel seeks an adequate self-image of every person in terms of identity and time. Martina Kepper provides a comprehensive overview of protology and eschatology in Hellenistic-Roman writings. Her essay starts with a discussion of Hebrew terms: ‫ ְּבֵראִׁשית‬and ‫ַאֲח ִרית‬, both of which imply temporal and spatial nuances.8 With a view to the cosmic and universal understanding of time in the Hellenistic era, Kepper opines that it was fostered by the Seleucid “invention” of a “political” construction of time.9 Time in terms of an individual lifetime follows a linear—not cyclical—idea as in chronology, historiography or genealogy.10 Also the future comes into view when the Zodiac or physiognomics are concerned.11 The philosophical side of time is heavily influenced by Aristotle and—differently—Plato. For the latter a protological perspective is important. For Plato αἰών is everlasting and connected with the demiurge or craftsman-God who formed χρόνος following the paradigm of αἰών. As a test case for how Hellenistic thinking influenced Jewish religion in the Second Temple period, the essay turns to Wis 7. For instance, the Septuagint neologism πρωτόπλαστος (Wis 7 Assmann, Thomas Mann und Ägypten, 37–61, calls it the “mythic I.” 8 On the latter Hebrew term in Ben Sira, see the essay by Pancratius Beentjes later in this volume. On “protology” cf. also the essay by József Zsengellér on Pseudo-Philo in the present book. 9 Here, Kepper refers to Paul Kosmin’s thesis: cf. Time and Its Adversaries (see also Stefan Beyerle’s essay in this collection of essays). 10 Cf. on this aspect the contribution of Lucas Brum Teixeira, among others, in the present volume. 11 For physiognomics and astrology cf. also Leicht, Astrologumena Judaica, 24–28; Popović, “Astrologische und magische Traditionen,” 111–36.

4  Stefan Beyerle and Matthew Goff

7:1) portrays “Solomon” as a common human being, with the idea of man created by God right at the beginning of time (cf. Gen 2:7). The end of “Solomon’s” life is described by terminology that combines temporal and spatial semantics.12 Beyond this, Kepper’s detailed analysis of Wis 7 elucidates how PseudoSolomon uses “pagan” Hellenistic thinking and modelled it in a specific way to conceptualize “protology” and “eschatology.”13 Rabbinic literature conceptualizes time in an entirely different way. Stefan Reif discusses conceptions of time in early rabbinic religiosity. As a starting point, the paper clarifies the religious and ideological background of the rabbis by looking very briefly at Second Temple Judaism. Most important is Reif’s insight that for the rabbis time is a relative and not an absolute concept. While rabbinic literature attests a sensitivity for time as history, the halakhic tradition remains vastly unconcerned with linear or historical concepts of time that are structured in terms of the past, present and future. In mishnaic quotations, broadly discussed, time is associated or connected with the natural world, rituals or human activity. In the second part of his examination, Reif focuses on prayer texts. In sum, the rabbinic notion of time, to some extent, reflects older perceptions that also emphasize relative time structures. Eve-Marie Becker questions concepts of time in historiographical sources from the Roman empire in the first century CE. Becker, first of all, explains notions of an authoritarian and structured sense of time (Seneca, Ovid or 4Q180). Seneca and Ovid on the one hand and 4Q180 on the other differ in that the Qumran text is non-authorial and eschatological, while the former authors point to a mythic concept of time and history. In early Christianity both approaches are connected. The historiographical concepts of time in first century literature help forge identity (Latin memoria, historia). It is “an operation against Time the all-destroying” (Arnaldo Momigliano).14 Many historical writings from the early Roman imperial period are similar to Second Temple Jewish historiographies in that they both are interested in the principle (Greek: aitia) of historia (cf. also already Herodotus). What is more, historiographical narration functioned in antiquity as a means to practice “time mastery,” for example by providing orientation within the religious and pagan worlds of antiquity. Christfried Böttrich, Sabine Fahl, and Dieter Fahl address the Slavonic Paleja tradition which dates to the Byzantine period. The authors provide an

12 For further Second Temple Jewish texts wherein terms of time also denote a spatial aspect cf., e.g., the contributions by Jeremy Corley and Stefan Beyerle in this collection of essays. 13 For further insights into concepts of time in the Book of Wisdom cf. Friedrich Reiterer’s contribution in this volume. 14 Momigliano, “Time,” 15.

Notions and Concepts of Time: Introduction



5

overview of non-biblical topics and narrations in the shorter version of the chronograph tradition (Kratkaja Chronografičeskaja Paleja). In a detailed discussion they give insights into the chronological methods of the so-called compiler of the chronograph tradition, who obviously did not use or create a chronographic system, but compiled chronological “pin points” from different traditions. “Time” is of central importance in the context of feasts and festivals. This relates predominantly to the structural and organizational functions of time. What is more, the connection between these structures and the perception of “time” also constitutes identities and space: in a given period of time and at a specific location, a more or less clearly defined, particular group of people reconvene to share religious and cultural habits and values. The book of Judith is a significant case in point, because its chronological setting and Jewish reception connects the Maccabean and Hanukkah traditions.15 However, Nicholas Allen and Pierre Jordaan argue that the fact that in the tale of Judith the Second Temple is saved during the month of Av helps to negate the destruction of the First Temple which is commemorated at the same time of year. If interpreted correctly, it would appear that the Judith tale as espoused in LXX Judith had the original intention to be associated with Tish‘a B’Av and not Hanukkah. Jeremy Corley’s essay analyzes traces of the Sabbath in the book of Ben Sira. It should be noted that the noun “Sabbath” is not attested in the book, not in the Hebrew, Greek or the Syriac versions of the composition. However, several passages in this wisdom text may refer to the seventh day and its festal character. Corley starts with Sir 33:7–9, a rather enigmatic text especially in the Hebrew versions. He opines that while the noun ‫( מועדים‬Sir 33:8, Hebrew: Ms. E) could denote other festivals, allusions to the first creation story from Gen 1 in the context of Sir 33:7–9 and a combination of allusions to the creation account with the idea of the Israelite election (cf. Jub. 2:19, 31) rather indicate a reference to the Sabbath. In a Diaspora situation the Sabbath could serve to mark a difference of identity. In Sir 17:12 the mention of an “eternal covenant” (Greek διαθήκην αἰῶνος; cf. Exod 31:16), which alludes to the Sinai theophany, and the separation of the holy things from the profane in the Lucianic manuscripts of 18:3, could also allude to the Sabbaths. In Sir 16:26–28 the motifs again echo the first creation story in Genesis. Sir 24:4–11 also alludes to the sequence of creation acts in Gen 1:1–2:3, but deviates from arrangements in the latter part of the creation story, wherein texts indirectly refer to the Sabbath by means of its chronological order. Ben Sira replaces the temporal pattern of the Sabbath rest by a spatial pattern of “resting.” Finally, Sir 6:28–31 could be an allusion to the 15 Cf. Schmitz/Engel, Judit, 67.

6  Stefan Beyerle and Matthew Goff

Jewish custom of finding repose by studying the Torah and wearing fine and clean clothes on a Sabbath day (cf. CD XI.3–4). All these studies take conceptualizations of time and their—sometimes limited—deployment in Second Temple and modern times into consideration. They lay emphasis on questions concerning the religious and cultural functions of time, and of how time was reified within organizational structures. In the second part of this volume specific constructions of time will be analyzed based on deuterocanonical compositions such as the Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, the Book of Tobit and also Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.

Part II: Specific Constructions of Time in Deuterocanonical Literature Christine Abart asks about divine actions at night and how God “behaves” during the night. The essay examines reflection on the Passover night in the book of Wisdom (Wis 17–19) and 1 Macc 13:22. Abart emphasizes that “day” and “night” not only refer to a specific duration but also to the mental state of the protagonists in the texts. Especially in the Book of Wisdom a metaphorical meaning of the word “night” combined with its literal sense is apparent. At midnight, when the night turns into a new day, divine intervention achieves a salvific effect on the “righteous” (cf. Wis 18:15), while lawless people are shackled by darkness and fettered by the long night (17:2). In 1 Macc 13:22 snowfall functions as a natural wonder, which provides another indication of God’s nocturnal intervention. In his essay, Michael Duggan lays emphasis on the fact that in the Book of 2 Maccabees time functions to reinforce Jewish distinctiveness.16 The analysis distinguishes between the abridgement of the epitomist (Jason of Cyrene) and the edited version of 2 Macc, including the letters (1:1–9; 1:10–2:18). The abridgement introduces a chronological dichotomy in which the era of divine wrath gives way to the era of divine mercy (8:5). The festival of temple cleansing on the twenty-fifth of Chislev and the celebration of the victory over Nicanor on the thirteenth of Adar constitute the high points of the so-called abridgement. Duggan points to the aspect of memory of the past with regard to the concept of time in 2 Macc. Consequently, the festival of temple cleansing—or other festivals like Sukkot—is a festal re-enactment of the past. As Duggan puts it: “The commemoration of the temple cleansing provides inspiration for the Jewish community, in Egypt as in Israel, to identify with the temple, to honor Jerusalem, to 16 Cf. also Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 132–35.

Notions and Concepts of Time: Introduction



7

cherish the holy land, and especially to resist compromising their observance of Jewish ancestral laws by uncritically embracing Hellenistic culture.” Furthermore, the second letter in 2 Macc depicts Judaea as comparatively free of conflict and prepared to welcome Jews from the diaspora (2 Macc 2:15–19; cf. 3:1– 15:37; 1 Macc 1:11–13:40), especially from the Egyptian diaspora. Reflecting on the history of Israel invites Egyptian Jews to find their way back to eretz Israel. Here, again, aspects of “time” and “space” are intermingled. Friedrich Reiterer starts with an examination of the semantic range of the Greek terms chronos, kairos and aion, as they are indicated in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Only then Reiterer addresses texts from the Wisdom of Solomon. In the eschatological part of Pseudo-Solomon, especially in Wis 2:4–5, chronos characterizes an ongoing period, while kairos determines a specific point in time. In Wis 12:18–21 aspects of “time” and “space” are connected.17 “Time” and “space” in Wis 12 refer to a common world of human life. However, even those passages in Wis 1–6 that presuppose an apocalyptic worldview hesitate to construct a concept of time that transcends physical life.18 In general, Reiterer refers to several motifs and terms that show substantial influence from contemporary Greek philosophy, such as Epicurean or Stoic thinking, on the Wisdom of Solomon.19 In Wis 15:14–16 and 3:6–8; 4:1–3, Reiterer interprets the noun aion as referring to an eternity of a human life after and beyond “physical death.”20 Lucas Brum Teixeira focuses on another deuterocanonical text, the Book of Tobit. He mainly refers to the longer Greek version of the book and analyzes the incipit in Tob 1:1–2. Here, the essay detects four different aspects of information: (1) an opening title-like statement, (2) a genealogical list of Tobit’s ancestors; (3) a chronological statement about Tobit’s time, and (4) a geographical reference. Therefore, the incipit highlights genealogy and chronology, the latter by means of a chronological statement. Brum Teixeira’s most important arguments address the question of how genealogies create a linear concept of time (“ancestry”). This concept refers to the protagonist Tobit whose literary portrait depicts him as an individual affected by the Assyrian occupation of Northern Israel. However, the narration combines the tribal constitution of pre-monarchic Israel with Assyrian “history” in the late eighth century BCE. Furthermore, chronological and topological aspects intervene to prepare the reader of the Book of Tobit 17 This is also indicated by the use of aion in Wis 13:9; 14:6; 18:4. 18 On apocalypticism and the “transcendence of death” cf. Collins, “Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 84–91. 19 On this aspect cf. also the contribution by Martina Kepper in this volume. 20 On different concepts of “death” in Wis 1–6 cf. Kolarcik, The Ambiguity of Death, and the essay by Benjamin Wright in this volume.

8  Stefan Beyerle and Matthew Goff

for the two main issues of the composition: the suffering of the righteous and endogamy. In many ways, “time” and “space” coalesce in the incipit of the Book of Tobit. With a general interest in the “shape of time,” Francis Macatangay’s essay on Tobit goes beyond the incipit in Tob 1:1–2. Similar to Brum Teixeira’s essay, Macatangay also gives some attention to the historical setting of the narration: the Assyrian history and, especially, the conquest of Northern Israel in the late eighth century BCE, including several historical incongruities and anachronisms in the Book of Tobit. Referring to Paul Ricoeur’s thesis that time is mainly a socially or narratively constructed phenomenon, Macatangay comes to the conclusion that in the Book of Tobit the linear and the circular concepts of “time” bridge the gap between the protagonist’s personal experience and expectations that are embedded within a wide horizon of “historical” contexts. The linear direction of “time” leads to God’s mercy which is “materialized” in Tobias’s marriage with Sarah and Tobit’s healing. All this presupposes that “exile” is still present in the writer’s narrative time.21 József Zsengellér examines notions of time in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, a kind of rewritten scripture, based on narratives in the book of Genesis up until 1 Samuel, that dates from the first century CE. Zsengellér starts with an explanation of protological concepts in LAB: in LAB 28:4 “time” belongs to a separate, different kind of time that takes place before the creation— different from that which starts at creation (cf. LAB 28:7; Gen. Rab. 1:2; 4:2–4). The essay detects a threefold structure of cosmological times, or three “aeons,” in LAB: “time before creation” (“protology”), the individual time of the created world that exists for 7,000 years (“worldly time”) and the eschaton (“eschatology”). Also in the third aeon, “time” is different when compared to worldly time. Zsengellér places special emphasis on worldly time and its measurement– “chronology.” The essay engages three different aspects of the LAB: in its narrative flow, hermeneutical system and kerygma. Especially in LAB 19:14–15, the text reflects on a division of units of time, as it introduces “time” as an abstract entity and independent power (like Greek χρόνος). But in LAB 39:4–5 it becomes clear that “time” is subordinated to God. Within the threefold segmentation of “time,” protology, worldly time and eschatology, the second entity only is measurable and separated from eschatology by the Last Judgment. Otherwise, in the periods before creation and of the last things, “time” is endless and infinite.

21 Cf. on the latter insight also Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,” 253–72.

Notions and Concepts of Time: Introduction



9

Part III: Terms of Time and Space in the Book of Ben Sira Every critical evaluation of notions of time has to discuss relevant ancient terms and how they were contextualized within Second Temple literature. The following section collects papers which focus on the Book of Ben Sira and its conceptualization of time and space in its Greek and Hebrew versions. In many respects, “space” determines both, as an antipode and a complementary concept comparable to “time.” Severino Bussino’s essay interprets references to “time” in the Book of Ben Sira as indicators of a specific “reality” the author of this wisdom composition tried to promote. The study lays special emphasis on the way Ben Sira includes particular concepts of time in his general reasoning in his sapiential worldview. Bussino firstly analyzes the terminology in the Greek and Hebrew texts of Ben Sira—and also, pars pro toto, of Sir 4:23; 43:6 in the Syriac version. In general, time is something that helps define the human condition. Furthermore, Bussino’s paper focuses on specific grammatical constellations, e.g., God and human beings as subjects in the context of terminologies for “time.” Bussino diagnoses a progressive or dynamic meaning of “time” within these contexts. The aim of those dynamics is social, pedagogical and also theological. In the words of the author: “By means of the notion of time, Ben Sira can build a system of teachings that urges his students to maintain a broad perspective towards reality, taking into account the wide spectrum of different aspects of life, even if they appear contradictory.” In the follow-up to Bussino’s survey on concepts of “time” in the Book of Ben Sira, the subsequent essays cover specific paragraphs or chronological terms in the instruction of Ben Sira. Núria Calduch-Benages discusses the notion of time in Sir 18:19–26. Among the Hebrew fragments, found in the Cairo Genizah, Masada and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the pericope is not attested. Thus, Calduch-Benages starts with the Greek text without ignoring other versions such as the Syriac or the Latin text. What follows is a discussion of vv. 19–26 within the context of 18:15–29 and a clarification of its structure: the unit consists of five (18:19–23) and three distichs or “double-lines” (18:24–26). After a thorough philological and theological analysis of all examined sections Calduch-Benages detects foresight, in the sense of farsightedness or prudence, as the key concept in Sir 18:19–26. The admonition enables Ben Sira’s students to be prepared for an unfortunate response, sickness, mistaken judgement, the non-fulfilment of a vow made to the Lord or even punishment at the hour of death. This preparation is meant to happen “in time.” The Greek noun καιρός conveys a double sense in Sir 18: a condition for the good outcome of human

10  Stefan Beyerle and Matthew Goff

action (“appropriate time”) and a description of the divine order—the fixed time for divine work. As regards the latter, time remains opaque for all human beings. Especially within exegetical discussions concerning eschatology, the Hebrew term ‫ אחרית‬is of particular importance. Pancratius Beentjes opines that this Hebrew word covers a wide range of semantic aspects in the Hebrew Book of Ben Sira that extend far beyond references to the eschaton. The essay starts with the collocation ‫ זכור אחרית‬in Sir 7:36 and 38:20, wherein ‫ אחרית‬should be understood as “(future) consequences” (7:36) or “that which comes after” (38:20: in terms of a reorientation of life after a period of mourning), and not as “end of personal life” or “afterlife.” In the following passages, Beentjes discusses portions from the Hebrew Ben Sira text in which the meaning of the term ‫ אחרית‬oscillates between “end” and “posterity/children” (Sir 11:28; 16:3; 25:7; 32 [35]:21–22). Furthermore, in Sir 31(34):22 the semantic aspects of the terms “finally” and “by its result” are concerned, while in 3:26 and 11:25b the “end” and in 48:24–25 the “future” is rendered by ‫אחרית‬. To sum up, a careful study, assisted by means of a translation of ‫ אחרית‬as “that which comes after,”22 leads to a wide range of semantics of ‫ אחרית‬in the Hebrew Book of Ben Sira. In her analysis of qeṣ in Ben Sira, Renate Egger-Wenzel starts with a lexicological view of the term by emphasizing aspects of time and space. The terms ‫קץ‬ and ‫ קצה‬are used in connection to three different groups: humans, non-spiritual beings, and the divine. Unlike God, humans’ life in time and space is limited. But, in Ben Sira, there is no clearly articulated concept of an otherworldly existence. Nevertheless, Ben Sira uses the term ‫ קץ‬to describe his notion of eschatology and adds some apocalyptic remarks, but he does not refer to distinct historical events of his time.

Part IV: The Construction of Apocalyptic Time A model of “time” is attested in apocalyptic writings and apocalypses dating from Second Temple Judaism. It is an undeniable truism that apocalyptic time tends to construct a linear chronological concept awaiting a salvific future—or perdition—at “the latter days” or “the end of time.”23 Most recently, Lorenzo DiTommaso discussed “time” and “history” as a core axiomatic proposition be22 For a similar semantic aspect of (‫ אחרית )הימים‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls cf. Steudel, “‫אחרית‬ ‫הימים‬,” 225–46, and most recently Hogeterp, “‫’ ַאֲח ִרית‬aḥarît,” 152–58. 23 Cf. from a broader social science perspective, Hall, Apocalypse, 9–25, with figure 2.1. on p. 12.

Notions and Concepts of Time: Introduction



11

sides “space” and “human condition.”24 DiTommaso opines that “Apocalyptic time is linear, unidirectional, and finite. It proceeds forward, from inception to culmination. It does not move in reverse. It is not cyclical, as in most other religious traditions.”25 Beyond, or “underneath,” this general tendency, apocalyptic sources include different aspects of time, as the essays in this section suggest. Matthew Goff digs into deeper layers of a mythic worldview from the early Hellenistic period when he analyzes the religio-historical context of the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36). Goff’s paper investigates the extensive interest of the Watchers story in Genesis 6 and its antediluvian setting against the cultural backdrop of Hellenistic discourse about the deep past and the origins of human civilization. The Book of the Watchers counts among the earliest Jewish apocalypses (third century BCE). Consequently, at least the most ancient part of the composition (1 En. 6–11) may signal “resistance” against the political violence of the diadochi after the death of Alexander the Great. But a “resistance” reading of the book cannot explain the antediluvian setting and literary reference to Gen 6:1–4. Goff argues that the Hellenistic era was characterized by substantial enlargement of territory which was closely connected with an expansion of various types of new knowledge in topic such as agriculture, astronomy and writing, producing a certain crisis of knowledge. Mesopotamian texts, like the Uruk List of Kings and Sages, attest an antiquarian dimension of Mesopotamian “scribalism” in the Hellenistic period. In Mesopotamia—and also in Egypt—Hellenistic discourse about the distant past is clearly recognizable. Both early Enoch apocalypses, the Book of the Watchers and the Astronomical Book, were influenced by a crisis of knowledge that is discernible in Hellenistic antiquarian traditions.26 Furthermore, the essay discusses the motif of monsters and giants, as they appear in Gen 6:1–4 or 1 En. 6–11 concerning the offspring, e.g., of the watchers. The tradition may reflect a well-known telluric theory saying that in the most ancient times humanity had more vitality and was bigger—gigantic and more powerful—in terms of stature. Within Hellenistic lore the gigantomachy and the distant past represent two sides of the same coin—both are located on the fringes. On the whole, an interest in the deep past is a broader phenomenon of the Hellenistic period. Goff not only explains the cultural

24 Cf. DiTommaso, “Time and History,” esp. 56. 25 DiTommaso, “Time and History,” 60. 26 For a different cultural context and function of “knowledge” within the boundaries of “wisdom” and “apocalypticism”, e.g., in 4QInstruction, cf. Goff, “Wisdom, Apocalypticism, and the Pedagogical Ethos of 4QInstruction,” 57–67.

12  Stefan Beyerle and Matthew Goff

landscape of the watchers’ myth, but he also shows how closely linked are “time” and “space” in antiquity. As a first step, Stefan Beyerle’s essay explains different hermeneutics of time in the ancient world, taking particular account of the ancient Near East. He comes to the conclusion that both a simple distinction of “linear” and “circular” time and the still predominant scholarly disregard of the punctual aspect of “‘thick’ present” of the apocalyptic traditions and literati in Second Temple times, in terms of “qualitative time,” underestimates the varieties of temporal structures in apocalyptic writings.27 In the visions of Daniel, two different accounts refer to a specific chronological entity (Dan 7:25; 12:7), “a time, times, and half a time,” that was combined with cosmological or wholistic hermeneutics of time and, in reference to this, also relates to a “heptadic system” of time (cf. Dan 9:26–27). Within a heptadic system, time is qualified by referring to the distant future with hope for a dramatic and positive ending. Furthermore, ‫ִעָּדן‬, ‫מ ֹוֵעד‬, and καιρός sequence a this-worldly pursuit of religiously determined “accidents,” the years of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the ravages in Jerusalem initiated by the Seleucid king (167–164 BCE). Consequently, the aspect of “qualitative time” in these sections is Janus-headed, as its semantic range pertains to a distant future and the “‘thick’ present” in the years of the religious crisis. With a view to this present, terms for “time” in Dan 10–12 (see 11:21–45; cf. vv. 27, 29) point to the second campaign of Antiochus IV against Egypt, and in terms of “quality time,” they highlight the divine plans of a structured timeline, wherein the assigned interval of “a time, times, and half a time,” ranging from Antiochus’ IV campaign against Egypt and the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple, also includes spatial and transcendent overtones—see also the heavenly or angelic spheres in Dan 10 and 12. Oda Wischmeyer points out that 4 Ezra is counted among the most significant writings in ancient Jewish literature that articulate a concept of time, more particularly with a view to the future (see above). Wischmeyer, first of all, follows Hermann Gunkel’s view that 4 Ezra is the work of one author, but she also agrees with Michael Stone, who goes beyond Gunkel’s analyses, in establishing a clear development of argument within the seven visions of 4 Ezra. Wischmeyer lays emphasis on the religious and theological argumentation in 4 Ezra. As regards notions of time, the apocalypse looks into the future only by considering topics of creation and the Israelite (salvation-)“history.” Within a complex structure that considers “creation,” “the imminent future,” “salvation history” and the time of the author, the latter conceptualizes “time.” He creates the 27 See especially Ben-Dov, “Apocalyptic Temporality,” 289–303, and the following contribution of Oda Wischmeyer in this volume.

Notions and Concepts of Time: Introduction 

13

“apocalyptic swerve,” a sudden and complete change of direction from thisworld to the other-world (cf. 4 Ezra 7:16). By integrating clusters of innovation and of ideas from Jewish traditions, the author organizes time in terms of a “‘thick’ present” (Jonathan Ben-Dov).28 Sarit Gribetz and Lynn Kaye recently summarized what they called the “Temporal Turn” in Jewish Studies. They state: “We argue that sustained attention to time, time-keeping, and temporality has illuminated important dimensions of Jewish texts and Jewish history that would otherwise not have been appreciated, and has thus provided new insights about these sources’ significance for the development of Judaism and Jewish communities.”29 As regards new insights and the significance of time in ancient Jewish—and early Christian— sources, three aspects from the discussion in this volume should be accentuated. Generally speaking, terminological orientation provides helpful tools in terms of a first approach. However, studies on the Book of Ben Sira (cf. part III) in particular illustrate the importance of articulating a multifaceted concept of time, including wide semantic ranges of specific terms.30 What is needed is a “contextualized” reading of concepts of time, not just when hermeneutical aspects such as “Axial Ages,” festivals or calendars are concerned. By means of this “contextualized reading,” three overall conclusions of this volume come to the fore. As with the rabbinic literature,31 time in deuterocanonical and cognate literature does not function as an absolute concept. Even though several sources (Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees) show influences from their Hellenistic environments, their construction of time remains specific, sometimes also directed against Hellenistic impact. A second point may highlight that a classical taxonomy in “circular,” “eschatological” and “punctual aspects” of time does not fit with the complexity of constructions of time in the Second Temple sources. Time appears polymorphically in the texts, and it sometimes neglects rules of chronology, e.g., with reference to creation or the other-world (Pseudo-Philo, Book of the Watchers, Visions of Daniel or 4 Ezra). Finally, several cross-references of “time” and its functions should be remembered: in texts like the Book of Ben Sira, 2 Maccabees, Judith, the Letter of Aristeas, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon or the apocalypses, conceptualized “time” is closely connected to questions of space and identity. As regards these connections, reviews of his-

28 Cf. Ben-Dov, “Apocalyptic Temporality,” 289–303, and the contribution of Stefan Beyerle in this volume. 29 Gribetz/Kaye, “The Temporal Turn in Ancient Judaism and Jewish Studies,” 338. 30 Like ‫אחרית‬: cf. Pancratius Beentjes’ essay, or ‫קץ‬: cf. Renate Egger-Wenzel’s essay in the present volume. 31 Cf. Stefan Reif’s contribution in this collection of essays.

14  Stefan Beyerle and Matthew Goff

tory or “historiography” provide tools for a construction of space and identity, but they do not remain the only strategy for these purposes.

Bibliography Assmann, Jan. Thomas Mann und Ägypten. Mythos und Monotheismus in den Josephsromanen. 2nd ed. München: C. H. Beck, 2018. Assmann, Jan. Achsenzeit. Eine Archäologie der Moderne. München: C. H. Beck, 2018. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “Apocalyptic Temporality. The Force of the Here and Now.” HBAI 5 (2016): 289–303. Ben-Dov, Jonathan, and Lutz Doering, eds. The Construction of Time in Antiquity. Ritual, Art and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Beyerle, Stefan. “The Imagined World of the Apocalypses.” Pages 373–87 in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature. Edited by John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness. Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Collins, John J. “Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death.” Pages 75–97 in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Reprint. Boston and Leiden: Brill, 2001. DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “Time and History in Ancient Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Writings.” Pages 53–87 in Dreams, Visions, Imaginations. Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Views of the World to Come. Edited by Jens Schröter et al. BZNW 247. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2021. Goff, Matthew J. “Wisdom, Apocalypticism, and the Pedagogical Ethos of 4QInstruction.” Pages 57–67 in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. Edited by Benjamin G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills. SBL Symposium Series 35. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Gribetz, Sarit Kattan, and Lynn Kaye. “The Temporal Turn in Ancient Judaism and Jewish Studies.” CurBR 17 (2019): 332–95. Hall, John R. Apocalypse: From Antiquity to the Empire of Modernity. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2009. Hogeterp, Albert L. A. “‫’ ַאֲח ִרית‬aḥarît.” Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten 1.152– 58. Jaspers, Karl. The Origin and Goal of History. Translated by Michael Bullock. Reprint. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010. Knibb, Michael. “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period.” HeyJ 17 (1976): 253–72. 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. Kosmin, Paul J. Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire. Cambridge, MA, and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2018.

Notions and Concepts of Time: Introduction



15

Leicht, Reimund. Astrologumena Judaica. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der astrologischen Literatur der Juden. Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Momigliano, Arnaldo. “Time in Ancient Historiography.” Pages 1–23 in History and the Concept of Time. History and Theory. Studies in the Philosophy of History Beiheft 6. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1966. Popović, Mladen. “Astrologische und magische Traditionen im antiken Judentum und die Texte vom Toten Meer.” Pages 111–36 in Qumran aktuell. Texte und Themen der Schriften vom Toten Meer. Edited by Stefan Beyerle and Jörg Frey. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 120. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011. Popović, Mladen. “Apocalyptic Determinism.” Pages 255–70 in Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature. Edited by John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Schmitz, Barbara, and Helmut Engel. Judit. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2014. Stern, Sacha. Time and Process in Ancient Judaism. Oxford and Portland, OR: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2003. Steudel, Annette. “‫ אחרית הימים‬in the Texts from Qumran.” RevQ 16 (1992–95): 225–46.



Part I: “Axial Ages:” The Construction of Time in Identity, History and Festivals

Benjamin G. Wright III

Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity Abstract: The last three decades have seen a resurgence in scholarly interest in the concepts of time and temporality in Jewish Studies, which has included a focus on ancient Jewish texts. In this paper, I examine the different ways that four texts which have not received a lot of attention employ concepts of time and temporality to help fashion a Jewish identity. Judith, the Letter of Aristeas, Baruch, and the Wisdom of Solomon take different approaches, which I call historiographical, translational, exilic, and thanatological time, to shape the identity of their audiences. Keywords: time, temporality, Jewish identity, Judith, Aristeas, Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon Time is on my side; yes it is. Time is on my side; yes it is. —Rolling Stones, 19651

1 Introduction22 The Rolling Stones sang “Time is on My Side” about a lover who has walked out of a relationship. The singer bides his time and waits for his wayward lover to come back. Wayward love is not why I chose to use the line in my title, however. The title and lyrics of “Time is on My Side” highlight how time can be thought to ally itself with someone and not with someone else and how time can be manipulated and constructed for specific purposes. In the Rolling Stones’ song, even durative time does not simply pass in seconds, minutes, hours, and days; it forges an alliance with the singer against his lover. Time will do the convincing in the future that he apparently cannot in the present, and he expresses confidence that she will “come runnin’ back to me.” 1 From “Time is on My Side” on the album “Rolling Stones No. 2” (Decca Records, 1965). 2 My thanks to Sarit Kattan Gribetz who read a draft of this paper and offered helpful suggestions that refined several of my arguments. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-002

20  Benjamin G. Wright III

When Stefan Beyerle asked me to contribute to this conference, I had only a faint idea of what I would encounter in the scholarly literature. In the latter part of the twentieth and into the twenty-first century, the study of concepts of time and temporality in early Jewish literature has seen a vigorous resurgence. In a 63-page article, Sarit Kattan Gribetz and Lynn Kaye have chronicled the interest of scholars in Jewish Studies in time and temporality, which was the subject of intense attention in the mid-twentieth century only to be displaced in the century’s latter years by questions about place and space.3 Since the beginning of the millennium, however, the “temporal turn,” as Gribetz and Kaye call it, “has gradually grown into a burgeoning sub-field in ancient Judaism and Jewish Studies.”4 As one indication of this resurgence, they list in their bibliography more than 125 entries, just from the 1990s and 2000s, that treat some aspect of time in Early and Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. Indeed, the conference in Greifswald came on the heels of conferences on time and temporalities in early Judaism held in 2016 at the University of Toronto and in 2017 at Harvard.5 In this essay, I want to look at four texts—Judith, the Letter of Aristeas, Baruch, and the Wisdom of Solomon—that, as far as I can tell, have not received extensive study with specific attention to time and temporality, although two of these texts were the subject of papers in Greifswald.6 I also want to think about some of the ways that time and temporalities in these texts play a role in constructing a Jewish identity. Of course, a person’s identity is constructed of multiple aspects and can shift over time, both on the basis of internal affiliation or external ascription. People as well can maintain multiple identities simultaneously. In the same way, a single text might exhibit multiple concepts of time and temporality. So, in this essay, I make no claim that I am identifying essential features of time or identity that rule out other perspectives or even that I can isolate the most important aspects of these issues. I will not, for example, treat eschatology or apocalyptic ideas, which have received extensive treatment, especially with respect to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the community who lived at Qumran, nor will I discuss calendars for much the same reason; these, too, have been the subject of papers in Greifswald.7 I certainly do not try to be 3 Cf. Gribetz and Kaye, “Temporal Turn.” 4 Gribetz and Kaye, “Temporal Turn,” 336. 5 “It’s About Time! Rethinking Temporality in Early Judaism” (University of Toronto); “The Sense(s) of History: Ancient Apocalypses and Their Temporalities” (Harvard University with the Enoch Seminar). 6 Cf. the essays by Martina Kepper, Christine Abart, Friedrich Reiterer in this volume. 7 See the other papers in this volume by Matthew Goff, Stefan Beyerle, Oda Wischmeyer and Jeremy Corley, Nicholas Allen and Pierre Jordaan. For scholarship on eschatology and apoca-

Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity 

21

exhaustive, even for the texts I will discuss, since the articles in this volume and in the bibliography demonstrate how much can be said about any single text, such as Ben Sira on which six papers were given at Greifswald (see Part III of the present volume). Steve Winwood wrote, “Time is a river rolling into nowhere.”8 In this essay, I will make some soundings in that river by which I hope to highlight some of the ways that ancient Jewish texts employed time and temporality as mechanisms for shaping the identity of their readers.9 Before I get to my texts, however, I ought to make at least a few comments on the three critical terms I am employing: time, temporality, and identity. For time and temporality, I rely on the useful distinctions that Gribetz and Kaye make. “Time” generally denotes “the idea of continual change,” but it can also indicate a specific point in time or durative time. In this sense, then, the idea of time is not immutable or rigid, but it expresses “a conception that is itself continually constructed, relative, and local.” “Temporality,” then, can be distinguished from “time” as referring to “concepts, perspectives, orientations, or ideas related to time that do not necessarily operate with an explicitly defined idea of what ‘time’ is.” The term “presumes blurred boundaries and conveys greater conceptual instability and volatility than ‘time’.”10 So, for example, we will see that some texts exhibit temporalities that collapse time by translating a specific past time into the present, which actualizes that past moment in the “now” of the reader. Like time, the idea of identity has garnered a great deal of scholarly attention in the last few decades. To take just three examples among the many possibilities, Shaye Cohen’s Beginning of Jewishness, published in 1999, has become a standard reference point for discussions of Jewish identity. In 2004, Carol Newsom’s The Self as Symbolic Space examined how the “speech community” of the Qumran texts and its discourses worked to form the subjectivities of the Qumran covenanters. More recently, in their 2018 monograph, Goy: Israel’s Multiple Others and the Birth of the Gentile, Adi Ophir and Ishay Rosen-Zvi examine the discourses and practices surrounding the term goy in which they explicitly lyptic ideas, see, for example, Goldberg, Clepsydra; Ben-Dov, “Apocalyptic Temporality”; BenDov, “Time and Natural Law”; Tzoref, “Pesher and Periodization”; Hamidović, “L’eschatology essénnienne”; Henze, “Dimensions of Time in Jewish Apocalyptic Thought.” On calendars, see Stern, Calendar and Community; Goldberg, Clepsydra; Ben-Dov, Horowitz, and Steele, Living the Lunar Calendar. 8 From the song “The Finer Things” on the album “Back in the High Life” (Island Records, 1986). 9 In this paper, I use the term “reader” for someone who interacts with the text, whether that be by actual reading of a manuscript or hearing the text read aloud. 10 All quotes in this paragraph come from Gribetz and Kaye, “Temporal Turn,” 339.

22  Benjamin G. Wright III

note that to configure an other is at the same time to configure oneself or one’s own community.11 When I refer in what follows to constructing “identity,” then, I am speaking generally about the way that the discourses of time and temporality in these texts contribute to the goal of fashioning how readers ought to understand themselves as being Jewish. How do time and temporality play a role in forming a subjectivity that we in the modern world label as Jewish? In this sense, my approach is related to Newsom’s and Ophir and Rosen-Zvi’s in which I am attending to the discourses of the text, which themselves only offer glimpses into the ways that ancient identities were formed, were shaped, were fluid, and were malleable, since, after all, in most cases we only have access to particular kinds of speech acts and we often cannot penetrate behind the curtain of those speech acts to a real person or persons.

2 Historiographical Time in the Book of Judith The book of Judith tells the dramatic story of the rescue of the Jews from the Assyrian army at the hands of the widow Judith.12 Scholars have placed the book, which dates to approximately 100 BCE, in different genres, but, like other Hellenistic texts, it bends and blends genre characteristics such that it transcends any single designation. It opens with a setting in history, although an obviously fictional one: “It was in the twelfth year of the reign of Nabouchodonosor, who ruled over the Assyrians from Nineue, the great city” (1:1).13 Scholars have long recognized the confused, even, nonsensical historical setting, characters, and situations that we find here and elsewhere in Judith. In Deborah Gera’s view, the egregious historical mistakes are deliberate. As one piece of evidence for this conclusion, Gera points to the familiarity of Judith’s author with the biblical history of Israel given in Achior’s speech in chapter 5 from which she concludes that Judith “is pseudo-history, not wrong history.”14 Whereas the author has intimate familiarity with biblical texts, he also knows 11 Also, see recently Collins, The Invention of Judaism; Gruen, The Construct of Identity, and the heated debate surrounding Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaism.” For a wide-ranging discussion of Mason’s article, see the forum on Marginalia Review of Books (http://marginalia. lareviewofbooks.org/jew-judean-forum/; last accessed April, 2021). 12 On Judith as it relates to my discussion, see Gera, Judith; Schmitz, Gedeutete Geschichte; Newman, Praying by the Book, chapter 3 on Jud 9. Also, Schmitz, “Vor-Denken.” 13 All translations of Judith, Baruch, and Wisdom of Solomon come from Pietersma and Wright, New English Translation (NETS). Those of the Letter of Aristeas come from Wright, Letter of Aristeas. 14 Gera, Judith, 26.

Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity



23

Greek literature, especially Greek tales of Persian courts as chronicled by Herodotus, Ctesias, and Xenophon.15 Mark Caponigro has pointed to a number of influences from Herodotus in Judith, and so, in some respects, we can compare elements of Judith to Greek historiography, even if the book does not conform in toto to histories such as Thucydides’s or Herodotus’s.16 Indeed, whatever its novelistic features might be, the story of Judith ostensibly takes place within a setting of world events, however obviously fictional that setting is, and it exhibits features of Greek historiography. As is well known, Greek historians composed speeches for their characters, whether they were based on what the historian thought a character might say or ought to say or on what the historian claimed were the remembered words of a character.17 Most significantly for my purposes, one finds numerous speeches on the lips of Judith’s main characters.18 The text is replete with speeches that give advice to individuals or public bodies about what course of action to take, the symbouleutic type. We also find those that do not require a decision but rather focus on the prowess and ability of the speaker with the goal of showering praise or casting blame, the epideictic type,19 under which Judith’s prayers might be considered. We find within these speeches how one of the temporalities in Judith functions in what we might call historiographical time. Ancient historiographical speeches served to mediate between past and present. This was not an ancillary or even secondary function. Rather, it was their purpose, as John Marincola points out, and they accomplished this mediation in at least three ways: (1) they were often modeled on predecessors; (2) they might use historical exempla; and (3) they often contained anachronisms or updatings that characterize the speaker’s present, not the time of the historical action.20 Marincola writes that in their speeches ancient historians made the past and its historical actors come alive with an immediacy that could not always be managed in the narrative itself. If their speakers echoed those of earlier times and earlier historians […] this was for them and their readers the guarantee that they had executed their task responsibly and faithfully—that they had told things not so much as they really were but as they really are.21 15 Cf. Gera, Judith, 45–78. 16 Cf. Caponigro, “Judith.” 17 Cf. Marincola, Companion, especially on Polybius’s discussion of how historians ought to write their speeches. 18 See Schmitz, Gedeutete Geschichte. 19 On these two types, see Marincola, Companion, 127. 20 Cf. Marincola, Companion, 130. 21 Marincola, Companion, 132.

24  Benjamin G. Wright III

The speeches in Judith, especially Judith’s, operate in the ways that Marincola outlines. They participate in this unique dimension of embedded speech in ancient historiography, presenting to the reader different historical moments as a seemingly unified “present.” Within the speeches, terms for time further collapse the distance between the past and the present, slowing down the action and drawing the reader into it, which culminates in the reader’s ability to participate in the praise of God in chapter 16.22 Thus, Judith’s claim in 16:16 that sacrifices do not mean much to God but that “the one fearing the Lord is great forever” recalls and reinforces God’s response to Judith’s piety, her fear of the Lord, which is already noted in 8:8. Through her actions and words, she pulls the reader into the action, and she acts as an exemplar for the reader who has been part of the action since she first gets introduced into the story. Several examples of how Marincola’s three ways that speeches mediate time appear in Judith will illustrate the point. First, the use of predecessors. Judith’s prayer in 9:7–10 echoes material from the song at the sea in Exodus 15, which, Gera notes, “draws an explicit analogy between the present enemy […] and the archetypal vanquished enemy.”23 So, for example, 9:7–8—“you are the Lord who crushes wars; the Lord is your name”—cites Exod 15:3 almost verbatim. The same Exodus passage underlies parts of 16:1–17, along with the song of Deborah from Judges 5.24 All three passages, for instance, emphasize the motif of whose “hand”—God’s in Exodus 15:6, Jael’s in Judges 5:26, and Judith’s in 16:6—is responsible for the defeat of the enemy, and all three mention the enemy’s cavalry (Exod 15:1, 4; Judg 5:22; Jdt 16:3, 5). Second, in the first real speech of the book in chap 5, Achior, the Ammonite commander, responds to Holophernes’s questions about the strength of the Jews with a series of historical exempla intended to inform the king of the only way that he might defeat the Jews. Achior’s appeal to historical exempla has immediate relevance to the present time of the narrative. He observes that if the Jews obey their god as they did by going to Canaan, where their god gave them a lush and fertile land, and if they call out to their god as they did in Egypt, then they would not be defeated. If they sin before their god, as they did after they settled in Canaan, then their god would destroy them. Achior concludes And now, O lord and master, if there is in fact negligence amongst this people, and they are sinning against their God, we will mark this offence which is amongst them, and we will go up and make war on them. But if there is no lawlessness in their nation, then let

22 On the slowing of the action, see Schmitz, “Vor-Denken,” 225–28. 23 Gera, Judith, 312. 24 Gera, Judith, 448.

Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity



25

my lord pass them by, rather than have their Lord and their God shield them. And we shall be disgraced before all the earth (5:20–21).

In his arrogance, though, Holophernes dismisses Achior’s warnings and sends him off to Bethulia so that he will die in the town along with the Jews. Of course, the story does not turn out that way. On the use of speeches to update or anachronize, we see anachronism in the conversion of Achior the Ammonite. In chapter 14, after Judith returns with Holophernes’s head, she brings Achior to identify it for the Bethulians. When he sees the head, he praises Judith in a short outburst (which admittedly barely qualifies as a speech), after which Judith describes all that happened. As a result of the dramatic defeat of the Assyrians, “Achior came to believe utterly in God and had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised, and he has been added to the house of Israel until this day” (14:10). Scholars are divided as to whether the conversion of an Ammonite, one of the traditional enemies of Israel, represents a pro- or anti-Hasmonean position. For my purposes, the anachronism of an Ammonite’s conversion and the updating—“until this day”—betrays a commentary of one sort or another on Hasmonean policies.25 Judith’s interpretation of the rape of Dinah and the vengeance of Simeon perhaps best represents Marincola’s notion of updating. In her prayer in chapter 9, Judith reminds God of Simeon, whom she calls an ancestor, and his slaughter of the Shechemites from Genesis 34.26 In the biblical story, Jacob reacts angrily to the slaughter, worrying that the Canaanites will annihilate him and his family as a result. In Judith’s prayer, however, Simeon’s actions were righteous, prompted by zeal for God, and God approved of his violence against the Shechemites. This interpretation of the story coheres with other Second Temple period recountings of the same event. In Judith’s case, Judith Newman has argued that it summons an updated past as a typological blueprint for the present, pointing to the kind of righteous action that Judith will undertake against Holophernes.27 In each of these instances, the speeches transport the different past moments into the present of the narrative, and they shape the way that the reader views Judith as an exemplar for pious and zealous behavior in the “now” of the reader. If we look more closely at the speeches, however, we see that they are rife with temporal terms that draw the reader even more fully into the action. Words and phrases such as “now” (νῦν), “today” (σήμερον), “on this day” (ἐν τῇ ἡμέρῃ ταύτῃ), or “on this very day” (ἐν τῇ ἡμέρῃ τῇ σήμερον) litter the speeches, 25 See the discussion in Gera, Judith, 418–21. 26 See the discussion in Newman, Praying by the Book, chap. 3. 27 Cf. Newman, Praying by the Book, chap 3.

26  Benjamin G. Wright III

particularly Judith’s, bringing the past actions of Judith into the reader’s present. They complement the way that the speeches mediate past and present in the narrative by collapsing the time between Judith’s actions and the reader’s response. Moreover, the narrative portions of the text employ very few of these same terms, making their appearance in the speeches even more noticeable. I will take three examples of this phenomenon, two of which come from the character of Judith. In chapter 7, Holophernes decides to besiege the town rather than to attack it, and he takes control of its water sources. When the Bethulians see what is happening, they lose heart, beseech the town elders to surrender, and indict the elders, interpreting this as God’s punishment: “And now there is no helper for us, but God has sold us into their hands […] and now call upon them and surrender the whole city to the people of Olophernes […] lest he [i. e., God] act according to these words on this very day” (7:25–28). The elders agree that if nothing happens within five days, they will surrender. In a scant four verses, the speech is in the “now” on three occasions, a dense use of this temporal language. Judith is introduced to the narrative in chapter 8, and in her first speech she upbraids the city elders for their unfaithfulness. She begins her castigation in 8:11 with άκούσατε δή μου, “Now listen to me.” What the elders have said “on this day” is not right, she says. “And now who are you, you who on this very day have tried God […] and now you question the omnipotent Lord” (8:12–13). She continues to say that in this day there are no idolators among God’s people, as there had been in the past, and so God will deliver Bethulia. She concludes, “And now, brothers, let us prove to our brothers that their life hangs upon us…” (8:24). The combination of “listen to me” and the number of temporal terms speaks to the book’s readers along with the characters in the text, exhorting them to faithfulness to God. In her prayer in chapter 9, Judith, like Achior, cites a series of historical exempla, and the speech depends on Exodus 15. In 9:5, she says of God: “For you accomplished the things previous (τὰ πρότερα) and those at hand and those thereafter (τὰ μετέπειτα) and at present (τὰ νῦν), and those of the future (τὰ ἐπερχόμενα) you contemplated and what you conceived of came to pass.” Here God rules all of time, but the temporal scale of things accomplished comes up to Judith’s present, and thus, through the frequent use of terms for the immediacy of time into the reader’s present. Not only for Judith but for the reader has God conceived of the future, and God will bring it to pass. While that future, Judith’s and the reader’s, remains unseen, the message of Judith’s prayer, God’s control of time, acts to reassure both heroine and reader. The very dense use of temporal language that populates the speeches continues in the exchange between Holophernes and Judith in chapters 11 and 12,

Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity 

27

in the climactic beheading in chapter 13, and in her return to Bethulia in chapters 13 and 14. This language sets up Judith’s praise of God in chapter 16 with the kind of immediacy that Marincola points to in Greek historiography. With readers now embedded in the time of the narrative action through the various speeches, they can participate in Judith’s praise, which extols God for deliverance against enemies and which has close connections with Exodus 15, as in chapter 9. The hymn culminates in verses 13–17 in which fear of the Lord features prominently: I will sing to my God a new hymn: O Lord, you are great and glorious, prodigious in strength, unsurpassable […] For the mountains will be shaken from their foundation together with the waters, while the rocks will melt away like wax from your presence. But yet to those who fear you, you will be most gracious to them. For every little offering is a little thing for an odor of fragrance, and all fat is insignificant for a whole burnt offering to you, but the one fearing the Lord is great forever.

This emphasis on fear of the Lord brackets the introduction of Judith in chapter 8, which notes that she “feared God exceedingly.” The dense temporal language in the book’s speeches collapses the past of the narrative with the present of the reader, then, and works to construct the subjectivity of a Jew who, like Judith, fears the Lord and depends on God for deliverance, the God who “set [the enemies] aside with the hand of a female” (16:5).

3 Translational Time in the Letter of Aristeas At the end of the second century BCE, an unknown Alexandrian Jew, who had a good Greek education, took on the persona of a courtier of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus and composed a narrative about the translation of the Jewish law from Hebrew into Greek. The story is well known. Ptolemy, desiring to collect all the books in the world for the Alexandrian library, tasked Demetrius of Phalerum with the collection. The laws of the Jews required translation, and Ptolemy dispatched a delegation to the Jewish high priest Eleazar in Jerusalem to bring back authorized copies of the law along with scholars prepared to translate it into Greek. These scholars come to Alexandria, translate the law, and return to Jerusalem. The text is written in the voice of a certain Aristeas, a Gentile courtier who claims to be an eyewitness to and participant in all the events and who narrates them for his “brother” Philocrates.28 Like Judith, Aristeas contains a number of speeches, but unlike Judith, terms for time and imme28 For introductory issues and commentary see Wright, Letter of Aristeas.

28  Benjamin G. Wright III

diacy in them are noticeably lacking. Yet, a text can manipulate and construct time without relying on a specific set of temporal terms or phrases. To be sure, Aristeas contains many instances of time words, such as day or time, but they occur as part of the narrator’s chronicling of events, as durative terms within the narrative action. They establish a timeline for the narrative, but they do not function as a means of bridging the gap between the past and the reader of the narrative. What we see operative in the Letter of Aristeas is what I will call translational or perhaps mythic time, the use of translation—which updates the text linguistically and exegetically and accounts for the passage of time—to invoke paradigmatic events in the past in order to construct the present time as one of great significance, thus infusing the present moment with the potency of the paradigmatic/mythic past. In the case of Aristeas, this use of translation to forge a linkage with a paradigmatic past, the giving of the law by Moses, serves to construct the identity of Alexandrian Jews vis-à-vis the cultural environment of Hellenistic Alexandria.29 In short, the Letter of Aristeas presents the translation of the law, almost certainly the Pentateuch, as a second giving of the Law, which contains all that Moses had intended for it when he gave it initially. In this case, however, Ps.Aristeas, as I shall call the work’s author, employs the Exodus story as a way of claiming that Jews in Alexandria do not have to leave Egypt but rather that they have common cause with enlightened Gentiles in that city and that, despite certain unmistakable differences, they can participate in the larger Hellenistic cultural world of Alexandria. In other words, Ps.-Aristeas creates an Exodus story without an Exodus.30 Through use of the Greek translation—both by means of the legend of the translation’s origins as well as the translated text itself—the paradigmatic/mythic past is not frozen, but it can be manipulated for the purpose of embedding the present within it. It is “history” in the service of providing meaning to the present, indeed even of reliving that past. In this way the time between the past and the narrative’s present collapses. Now to the details. We see the biblical story reflected throughout the narrative. The book is structured with a frame story, the translation of the law, which brackets the entire work. In between we find distinct sections, often called digressions, each of which serves as part of an updating and rewriting of the Exodus story. The first encounter with the mythic narrative comes early. After the

29 On Aristeas as myth, see Wright, “Letter of Aristeas and Reception History,” 67. See also Honigman, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 37–41. On Aristeas and Jewish identity, see Wright, “Problem of the Hyphen,” Honigman, “Jews as Best,” and Barbu, “Aristeas the Tourist.” 30 Cf. Wright, Letter of Aristeas, 56–59 and Hacham, “Letter of Aristeas.”

Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity



29

description of the project to collect books, we learn that under Ptolemy I many Judeans were taken captive and a large number sold into slavery in Egypt. Aristeas argues to Ptolemy II that to undertake the translation of the Jewish law while many Judeans were enslaved makes little sense. After all, Aristeas reasons, “the god who established the law for them directs the kingdom for you” (§ 15). Furthermore, he tells the king, “These people revere God, the overseer and creator of all things, whom all, even we, also worship, O King, using different names, Zeus and Dis” (§ 16). After hearing Aristeas, Ptolemy agrees to release the Judean slaves, who are numbered at a little over 100,000. Thus, Ptolemy II becomes the pharaoh of the Exodus who frees slaves. Rather than being compelled by the signs and wonders of Exodus, though, he willingly accedes to the request, becoming a benevolent pharaoh. As part of the delegation, Ptolemy sends gifts for the Jerusalem Temple: a magnificent table and bowls. The long ekphrasis on their construction in §§ 51–82 clearly has been inspired by Exodus 25. Next comes a long travelogue, which includes several episodes from the Exodus story. The workings of the temple, its sacrificial system, and the priestly ministrations have drawn on material from Exodus and Leviticus. The short ekphrasis on the high priest’s garments has its origins in Exodus 28. The description of Jerusalem and its surroundings incorporates Hellenistic models but ultimately finds its roots in the biblical land “flowing with milk and honey.” The description of the land’s size as 600,000 aroura explicitly depends on the number of Hebrews in Exod 12:37 and Num 11:21. In Jerusalem the delegation asks Eleazar, the high priest, about kosher law. This question prompts a long apologia from Eleazar about Jewish law in which he criticizes idol worship and gives allegorical interpretations of the food laws, particularly those about birds and ruminants. Throughout his speech, Eleazar’s interpretations of Jewish law situate him as a type of Moses, giving the law a second time, this time in Greek, and he provides its true meaning, the meaning.31 So, for example, he says in § 144, “Do not come to the exploded conclusion that Moses legislated these matters on account of a curiosity with mice and weasels or similar creatures.” Eleazar will go on to spell out Moses’s “real” intent in giving Judeans their law. Indeed, he says that in the laws concerning the eating of birds, Moses “established a sign.” Eleazar’s speech participates in what Hindy Najman has called Mosaic discourse.32 His interpretations (1) rework and expand earlier tradition, claiming its authority; (2) they are understood to be Torah; (3) they re-present the Sinai revelation; and (4) they are as-

31 Cf. Wright, Letter of Aristeas, 58–59. 32 Najman, Seconding Sinai.

30  Benjamin G. Wright III

cribed to Moses.33 Of course, while Eleazar’s speech authorizes his interpretations as Mosaic law, these interpretations also ultimately depend on the Greek translation, the Septuagint, which, at the same time, implicitly confers Mosaic authority on the translation itself. Even the long symposium section, in which each of the translators answers questions from Ptolemy, interprets the Exodus narrative. The translators stand in the place of the seventy elders who ascended Sinai with Moses. We also are informed in § 121 that these men “had not only acquired skill in the literature of the Judeans, but also not incidentally had given heed to preparation in Greek literature.” As Eleazar’s—and by extension Moses’s—deputies, then, they are uniquely situated to render the law and its true intent into Greek, both in language and thought. Throughout the seven symposia, we find in the translators’ answer to Ptolemy numerous influences from the Pentateuch and from Greek literature. In § 228, we even find a direct reference to the fifth commandment of the decalogue about honoring parents. Thus, the translators function similarly to Eleazar in granting Moses’s authority to the translation. Within this construction some significant aspects of the Exodus story are necessarily excised. Our Alexandrian Jewish author sees no need for Jews to escape the great Hellenistic city. In fact, one of the purposes of the work is to assure his Alexandrian Jewish readers that elite, educated Gentiles understand that Judean difference originated with a national lawgiver who gave laws to a particular people, and those laws, which might be seen as emphasizing the distance between Gentiles and Judeans, really signal common notions of morality and piety.34 So, we do not find a Sinai encounter with God nor a wandering in the desert. With a benevolent pharaoh who facilitates the second giving of the law, there is no need to flee. Indeed, even though Ps.-Aristeas knows the Septuagint of Deuteronomy, he ignores the injunction in 17:16 prohibiting the people from returning to Egypt. Not only have they returned, they are a flourishing community. The Exodus story forms much of the glue that holds the Letter of Aristeas together, but in some ways, it is turned on its head. A mythic narrative about flight from oppression, divine deliverance, and the giving of a law that binds the deity and the people gets rewritten and thus relived in the author’s and readers’ present as a story about commensality and the amelioration of difference, without eliminating it. The fact that Ps.-Aristeas employs the Exodus story and yet has to reconstruct significant pieces of it to fit his present points to the story’s fundamental significance as the paradigmatic event for constructing the 33 Cf. Najman, Seconding Sinai, 16–17, and Wright, Letter of Aristeas, 58. 34 See Wright, “Pseudonymous Authorship.”

Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity 

31

identity of Alexandrian Jews.35 By placing Eleazar in the sandals of Moses, Ps.Aristeas employs the paradigmatic story to confer Mosaic authority on the Greek translation as well as on his interpretations of it, which allows his readers to negotiate the relationship between Jewish and Hellenistic culture. Time is collapsed between past and present—the Sinai event is essentially repeated in Alexandria—in order to account for and valorize Jewish difference, while at the same time it grounds Eleazar’s allegorizing interpretations in the mythic moment of law-giving. Moses, not Eleazar, intended these ideas when he gave the law initially. The past and present intersect perhaps most closely in §§ 308–316 where the assembled Judean community accepts the translation as scripture, which reflects the Hebrews’ acceptance of the law in Exodus 24:3–4. Immediately following, those assembled place a curse on anyone who might change the text at all, a clear echo of Deut 4:1–2. The assembled Alexandrian Jews of Aristeas and the Hebrews of Exodus 24 become in a temporal sense the same people. Ps.-Aristeas’s use of translational or mythic time seconds Sinai (to use Najman’s language) and constructs an Alexandrian Jewish identity founded on the authoritative status of the Septuagint. At the same time, he interprets the Greek translation in order to forge a relationship between elite Jews and Gentiles, who have common cause in the moral values embedded in that scriptural corpus.

4 Exilic Time in Baruch 1:15–3:8 The small text that we now call Baruch is constructed of four main sections: a narrative introduction (1:1–1:14); a penitential prayer of confession (1:15–3:8); a wisdom poem (3:9–4:4); and a poem of encouragement and hope (4:5–5:9).36 Most scholars understand the book in its present form as making a unified argument, even though the various parts can be distinguished from one another. The work is a pseudepigraphon, attributed to Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, and it relies heavily on Jeremianic language and ideas along with other biblical intertexts. The book is set, according to 1:2 “in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month, at the time when the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and set it on fire.” In the narrative introduction, Baruch reads the words of “this book” to Jeconiah and the exiles in Babylon, who collect and send money for the temple in Jerusalem together with “the vessels of the house of the Lord […] that King 35 See other Jews writing in Greek in Egypt, such as Artapanus and Ezekiel the Tragedian, for whom the Exodus story is also fundamentally important. 36 For a more detailed structural breakdown, see Floyd, “Penitential Prayer,” 52–53.

32  Benjamin G. Wright III

Sedekias of Iouda son of Iosias had made.” In a letter, the exiles request that the money be used to buy sacrifices and offerings for the altar. Thus, we learn that in the narrative world of Baruch the sacrificial cult has been restored in Jerusalem. Scholars differ on how precisely the book can be dated. Jonathan Goldstein argues that it was written in 163 BCE.37 Rodney Werline, based on his assessment that the penitential prayer reworks the prayer of Daniel 9, puts it sometime after the Hasmonean restoration of the temple.38 Others are content to put it in the second century BCE or even simply to call it a “relatively late text from the Second Temple period.”39 For my purposes, a date somewhere in the Hasmonean period makes sense, but the exact date and historical circumstances of the text’s composition matter less than the use of pseudepigraphy and a setting in the Babylonian exile. I will concentrate my remarks on the penitential prayer of 1:15–3:8, which is included in the letter of the exiles as a prayer to be said by those in Jerusalem “in the house of the Lord on a feast day and on days of a season” (1:14), although these times are not specified further in the text. Thus, the exhortation by Baruch in a Babylonian setting to say this penitential prayer of confession at regular times situates the text in what I will call exilic time. The situation of the prayer is somewhat curious, since, as Werline notes, the restoration of the temple cult ought to result in praise to God, but in fact, the prayer reinforces that God’s judgment still rests on the people, who need to engage in confession and repentance.40 The prayer itself emphasizes that God’s punishment persists “to this day” (1:13, 15). It opens with “to the Lord, our God, belongs righteousness, but to us shame of faces as this day (ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη),” because his people have not “listened to the voice of the Lord, our God, to walk in the decrees of the Lord that he gave before us” (1:15, 18). This state has continued from the time that God brought the Hebrews out of Egypt “until this day (ἓως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης)” (1:19). The result has been that “there have clung to us the bad things and the curse that the Lord instructed to his servant Moses as this day (ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη)” (1:20). In fact, the prayer is laden with references to “this day,” mostly within the sections of confession, and thus, it emphasizes that those who pray remain in exile. The prayer has close reflections of Daniel’s prayer in Daniel 9, but it also resonates with the important Jeremianic idea ex-

37 38 39 40

Cf. Goldstein, “The Apocryphal Book of 1 Baruch.” Cf. Werline, Penitential Prayer, 87. Floyd, “Penitential Prayer,” 52. Cf. Werline, Penitential Prayer, 87.

Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity



33

pressed in Jer 27:11–12 (LXX 34:11–12) that if the people would serve the king of Babylon, God would allow them to remain in the land41: And we did not obey your voice to work for the king of Babylon, and you have established your words, which you spoke by the hand of your servants the prophets […] and you made the house, where your name was called over it as this day (ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὓτη) because of the wickedness of the house of Israel and the house of Iouda (2:24, 26).

Exile, then, is a present condition that can only be alleviated by the people accepting their circumstances. The attribution to Baruch, which situates the text squarely within Jeremianic tradition, and the place of the people in exile serve as more than a fictional setting for the author. Michael Floyd observes a tension in the text between the exile in Babylon and the restoration of the temple cult, specifically mentioned in 1:8 and 10. The exile “is presented schematically in the abstract … as if it were a condition that persists even after the ‘restoration’ happens.”42 Thus, the present circumstances of Baruch’s author are understood as the continuation of exile that has yet to be overcome and that anticipates a future restoration. Here we might think productively about Baruch’s discursive use of the idea of exile within the framework of Hindy Najman’s emphasis on the ways that exile was reimagined in the Second Temple period in order to envision a possible future.43 In her analysis of Fourth Ezra, Najman argues that the theological issues worked out in the figure of Ezra, the main character in a work written after the destruction of the second temple, indicates that the trauma of the destruction of the first temple was never really overcome in ancient Judaism. This “post-traumatic stress disorder,” if you will, carried with it a rupture in the ways that the people encountered the divine. In the Second Temple period writing and textualization constituted two modes of continuing to experience encounter with the divine. Yet, as Najman writes, “We should expect to find in these texts, as we do in fact, the recurring theme that the present is but a pale reflection of the past.”44 Fourth Ezra, as a response to the destruction of the second temple, tries to unfreeze time by rebooting the past.45 Although Baruch dates from well before the second destruction, I think that it does something of the same thing. Whatever the specific circumstances were that led to Baruch’s composition, the exile and the inadequate restoration of the

41 42 43 44 45

Cf. Werline, Penitential Prayer, 90–97. Floyd, “Penitential Prayer,” 54. Cf. Najman, Losing the Temple. Najman, Losing the Temple, 15. Cf. Najman, Losing the Temple, 16–17.

34  Benjamin G. Wright III

sacrificial cult serve as the locus of confession and repentance in a call to obedience to the Torah, which in 3:9–4:4 contains divine Wisdom: “She is the book of the decrees of God, the law that remains forever. All who seize her are for life, but those who forsake her will die. Turn, O Iakob, and take hold of her; pass through toward the shining in the presence of her light. Do not give your glory to another, and your benefits to a foreign nation. Happy are we, O Israel, because what is pleasing to God is known to us” (4:1–4). This turning to Torah will result in a return of the people along with comfort for and the true restoration of Jerusalem. The way that Baruch reconfigures the trauma of exile works to enable the people to reimagine the traumatic past and conceive of a restored future. Within this reimagined past and anticipated future, the prayer of 1:15–3:8 employs different strategies that collapse the temporal distance between the past and the present. First, the “you” of the text ought to be construed as addressing both the fictional audience and the reader of the text: “And you shall read aloud this book […] to confess in the house of the Lord.”46 Within this participatory confession, we find temporal language in strategic places that underlines the readers’ participation in the confession. In 1:15–20, the phrase “until (or, as of) this day” occurs three times. In 2:26, God has made the condition of the temple “as it is today.” In verses 27–35, the language turns to God speaking in the future tense, further obscuring the time between the exiles of the text and the reader of the text. “And they will return to their heart in the land of their exile, and they will know that I am the Lord […] I will return them to the land […] I will not disturb again my people Israel from the land that I have given them” (2:30, 34, 35). For Baruch, as in other Second Temple texts, exile is a both a time and a place when and where purification and penitence can happen and proper adherence to the Torah can be achieved.47 In this way the imagined future for the exiles of Baruch is also that of the readers of the text. Here, then, the use of “today” within a text that ostensibly takes place in the past—and in a prayer of confession and penitence—reminds the one praying of the lack of closure on that past, and consequently it erases the time between the past and the present in which the destruction, and particularly exile, remain a lived reality in the “now” of the writer and his audience. Present exile reflects the past even if in a

46 NETS translates ἐξαγορεῦσαι as “declare,” but the verb’s sense of confession makes sense in this verse. 47 On wilderness and exile as suffering, purification, and revelation, see Najman, “Towards a Study,” 144.

Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity



35

pale sense.48 The traumatic past, then, gives meaning to the present, while at the same time it provides a way of responding to and of dealing with the trauma of the present, offering a “radical hope” for the future.49 The text constructs its readers as the penitent exiles who realize that proper obedience to Torah is the only way to assure a restored future. As exiles who confess the sin of those past and present and who petition God for deliverance, the readers of the text actively participate in the work of healing and hope.

5 Thanatological Time in the Wisdom of Solomon 1–5 A product of Alexandrian Judaism, the Wisdom of Solomon is usually dated somewhere between 30 BCE and 70 CE. The work can be divided into three main parts: (1) The Book of Eschatology (1:1–5:23 or perhaps 6:21); (2) The Book of Wisdom (6:22–10:21); and (3) The Book of History (11–19). Most recent scholarship, however, accepts that it is a unified composition in which the author employs a combination of protreptic and epideictic rhetoric to make a sophisticated argument for a particular way of life.50 The Wisdom of Solomon exhibits multiple approaches to temporality, depending on which section one examines. I will concentrate on the first section, primarily chapters 1–5, and the way that death functions as thanatological time in the way that Judith Newman has expressed it: “Perhaps there is no better occasion to ponder the meaning and essence of time than towards the end of one’s mortal existence. Anticipating death and taking stock of what has transpired during a lifetime provides a finite frame through which to crystallize a perspective on such matters of consequence.”51 Whereas Newman focuses on the testament or farewell discourse in Jewish literature as the way of taking stock, I want to think about the time of death in the Wisdom of Solomon 1–5 as a potent moment of recognition of a person’s knowledge or ignorance, of reward or punishment. The Wisdom of Solomon represents this moment as one in which some human perspectives are crystallized and some are shattered.

48 Cf. Najman, Losing the Temple, 15. 49 The phrase “radical hope” comes from Jonathan Lear, discussed in Najman, Losing the Temple, 13–16. 50 See Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 178–81. 51 Newman, “Blessing in the Latter Days.”

36  Benjamin G. Wright III

As numerous scholars have commented, death in the Wisdom of Solomon has different senses, most prominently (1) mortality, (2) physical death as punishment, and (3) ultimate death, experienced as separation from God and the cosmos.52 We find some extraordinary claims about death in the text. The author does not attribute human mortality to sin, nor is God the origin of death. In 1:12–16 the ungodly summon death, who is personified as a mythical power, and they make a covenant with him:53 Do not zealously seek death by the error of your life, or bring destruction on yourselves by the deeds of your hands; because God did not make death, nor does he does delight in the destruction of the living. For he created all things that they might exist, and the generative forces of the world are wholesome, and there is no destructive poison in them, nor is the kingdom of Hades on earth. For righteousness is immortal. But the impious by their deeds and words summoned death; considering it to be a friend, they wasted away and made a covenant with it, because they are worthy to belong to his party.

Death, then, enters the world through the invitation of ungodly people. In chapter 2 we hear the reasoning of those ungodly people who wrongly think that physical death is all that there is, and that, since there are no post-mortem consequences, they can oppress the righteous without fear. In contrast to the thoughts of the ungodly, the author claims that God creates human beings for spiritual eternity, and those who have invited death put humanity to the test: “Because God creates us for incorruption, and makes us in the image of his own nature, but through an adversary’s envy death enters the world, and those who belong to death’s party put humanity to the test” (2:23–24). I have departed here from the usual translation given in places such as the NRSV or NETS, which render 2:24 as “but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it.” Jason Zurawski has argued cogently that this verse does not refer to supra-human evil, but rather to those who have summoned death and made a covenant with him.54 He concludes that 2:24 parallels the language of 1:16, which describes death’s party.55 God creates human beings for spiritual incorruption, but the ungodly pine after and summon death. As those who belong to death’s party, they become spiritually dead and put other human beings to the test—that is, they 52 See Grabbe, Wisdom of Solomon, 52, relying on Kolarcik, The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom, 1–6. 53 Cf. Dodson, ‘Powers’ of Personification, chapter 3. See also Zurawski, “Separating the Devil.” 54 Cf. Zurawski, “Separating the Devil.” He argues (pp. 387–89) that the aorists in 2:23–24 are gnomic aorists that suggest continuing action. 55 Cf. Zurawski, “Separating the Devil,” 389.

Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity 

37

become temptations for others to join death’s party and thus to die spiritually as well. The righteous pass this test and enjoy spiritual immortality, so that when they undergo a physical death—in the words of 3:1–3—“the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them; in the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died and their departure was considered to be suffering, and their going from us to be destruction, but they are at peace.” Within this framework of God’s intention for creation and the reality of the ungodly summoning death, the author places two speeches on the lips of the unrighteous in chapters 1–5, which take the form of a diatribe in which imagined philosophical antagonists ostensibly speak for themselves.56 To the ungodly, life is random, without rhyme or reason, physical death is final, and “the body will turn to ashes and the spirit will dissolve like empty air” (2:3). As a result, they see no reason to act other than to please themselves: “But let our strength be the standard of what righteousness is, for what is weak proved to be useless” (2:11). As a result, they oppress the righteous, who are “inconvenient to us” (2:12), because, on the one hand, the righteous reproach the ungodly for their sins and, on the other hand, they claim to be children of God, who will deliver them. The ungodly decide to “test what will happen at the end” of the righteous person’s life (2:17), to condemn the righteous to death, because the righteous claim that God will protect them. Following this speech, the author claims that the ungodly actually are ignorant of the fate of the righteous, which the author sets out in chapters 3 and 4. Although it might appear that the righteous are destroyed, as we saw above, they only appear to have died. In fact, they have not died at all but have undergone God’s discipline and have been “greatly benefited” (3:5). Because the souls of the righteous end up in the hand of God, our author argues that piety and virtue are the primary determiners of immortality. Contrary to common thought, living a long life and having many children do not of themselves signal a righteous life. Rather, God will show favor to a virtuous woman who has not born children or to a virtuous eunuch (3:13–14), and a short life might well be a sign of a perfected soul that God has “hastened from the midst of wickedness” (4:14). In this way, “God watches over his holy ones” (4:15). In the end our author notes the vindication of the righteous: “The righteous who are dead will condemn the impious who are living, and youth that is quickly made perfect, the prolonged old age of the unrighteous” (4:16), because the ungodly do not understand the actual fate of the righteous. Thus, the ungodly “will become dishonored corpses, and an object of outrage amongst the dead forever” (4:19). 56 Cf. Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 114.

38  Benjamin G. Wright III

The second speech of the unrighteous comes in the midst of a scene of God’s judgment in chapter 5. In this post-mortem moment, the ignorance of the ungodly will be dispelled, and they will understand the true fate of the righteous and their own status as already spiritually dead. The speech ends in 5:13 with the lament, “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.” The ungodly disappear like the keel of a ship in the waves (5:10) or like the trail of a bird in the air (5:11); they are like walking dead, zombies whose souls have vanished. The punishment of the ungodly comes in their realization that they are dead already. In summoning death and becoming part of death’s party, they have died, and their testing of the righteous has failed: “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 he will shield them” (5:15–16). In these first chapters of the Wisdom of Solomon, then, death does not serve as a critical, potent time because it separates the souls of the righteous from those of the wicked. Rather its potency stems from its temporal quality as a moment that dispels the ignorance of the ungodly, a moment when they realize that they are already dead and soulless and a time that confirms the hope of the righteous that they are already immortal. The ostensible vagaries of life— premature death or childlessness of the virtuous or the long life and progeny of the wicked—have meaning, which is revealed at death and in the subsequent judgment of God. In the Book of Eschatology, the author argues that one’s physical life is not all there is and that righteousness does receive a reward. As he says in 1:15, “righteousness is immortal.” Rather than collapse time as we saw in the previous three texts, the Wisdom of Solomon narrows and focuses time on the moment when truth gets revealed. By highlighting the time of death as possessing great potency for dividing between knowledge and ignorance, and between reward and punishment and the consequences for the immortality of the soul, the text works to shape a Jewish identity that does not rely on traditional assessments of righteousness but on different criteria of faithfulness, virtue, and piety. The righteous, however, will not have to wait until God’s postmortem judgment to stand “with great confidence in the presence of those who have oppressed them”; they can stand with great confidence in the “now,” because they already know what fate awaits them.

Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity



39

6 Conclusion In each of the texts we have examined, temporal language assists in constructing a particular sort of subject: one who fears the Lord (Judith); one who can remain distinctly Jewish while participating in the larger Hellenistic cultural world (Aristeas); one who is penitent and turns to obey Torah (Baruch); and one who has confidence in God’s post-mortem reward for virtue and piety in this life (Wisdom of Solomon). Each works to shape the Jewish identity of its readers by manipulating and constructing time, and attention to the constructions of temporality in these texts offers us additional insight into their discursive goals. For the Rolling Stones, time’s durative nature works toward the desired end of the songwriter. For the texts that we have considered here, the durative aspects of time matter less than how the distance between past and present can be bridged or overcome to make meaning in the “now” or how the potency of one moment can reveal the realities of true life and death. Steve Winwood’s river “rolling into nowhere” epitomizes the durative nature of time, once it’s past, it’s past, never to be recovered. The texts that I have examined in this essay have shown us that through different temporal constructions time can be recovered, that it can be focused, and that our own relationships to temporal constructs of past, present, and future can help us to know who we are and where we fit in the world.

Bibliography Barbu, Daniel. “Aristeas the Tourist.” Bulletin der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Judaistische Forschung 23 (2014): 5–12. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “Time and Natural Law in Jewish-Hellenistic Writings.” Pages 9–30 in The Construction of Time in Antiquity: Ritual, Art, and Identity. Edited by Jonathan Ben-Dov and Lutz Doering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “Apocalyptic Temporality: The Force of the Here and Now.” HBAI 5 (2016): 289–303. Ben-Dov, Jonathan, Wayne Horowitz, and John M. Steele. Living the Lunar Calendar. Oakville, CT/Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2012. Caponigro, Mark Stephen. “Judith, Holding the Tale of Herodotus.” Pages 47–59 in “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith. Edited by James C. VanderKam. SBLEJL 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. HCS 31. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Collins, John J. The Invention of Judaism: Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul. The Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies 7. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017.

40  Benjamin G. Wright III

Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Dodson, Joseph R. The ‘Powers’ of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the ‘Book of Wisdom’ and the Letter to the Romans. BZNW 161. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Floyd, Michael H. “Penitential Prayer in the Second Temple Period from the Perspective of Baruch.” Pages 51–81 in Seeking the Favor of God: Volume 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline. SBLEJL 22. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Gera, Deborah Levine. Judith. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Goldberg, Sylvie Anne. Clepsydra: Essay on the Plurality of Time in Judaism. Stanford Studies in Jewish History and Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2016. Goldstein, Jonathan A. “The Apocryphal Book of 1 Baruch.” PAAJR 46/47 (1979–1980): 179–99. Grabbe, Lester L. Wisdom of Solomon. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Gribetz, Sarit Kattan, and Lynn Kaye. “The Temporal Turn in Ancient Judaism and Jewish Studies.” CurBR 17 (2019): 332–95. Gruen, Erich S. The Construct of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism: Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History. DCLS 29. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Hacham, Noah. “The Letter of Aristeas: A New Exodus Story?” JSJ 36 (2005): 2–20. Hamidović, David. “L’eschatologie essénienne dans la littérature apocalyptique: temporalités et limites chronologiques.” REJ 169 (2010): 37–55. Henze, Matthias. “Dimensions of Time in Jewish Apocalyptic Thought: The Case of 4 Ezra.” Pages 13–34 in Figures of Ezra. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer, Veronika Hirschberger, and Tobias Nicklas. Leuven: Peeters, 2018. Honigman, Sylvie. “‘Jews as Best of All the Greeks’: Cultural Competition in the Works of Alexandrian Judaeans of the Hellenistic Period.” Pages 208–32 in Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Nations, Practices, and Images. Edited by Eftychia Stavrianopoulou. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Honigman, Sylvie. The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study on the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas. London/New York: Routledge, 2003. Kolarcik, Michael. The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom. A Study of Literary Structure and Interpretation. AnBib 127. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. Marincola, John. “Speeches in Classical Historiography.” Pages 118–32 in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Edited by John Marincola. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Mason, Steve. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History.” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512. Najman, Hindy. Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. JSJSup 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Najman, Hindy. “Towards a Study of the Uses of a Concept of Wilderness in Ancient Judaism.” Pages 143–59 in Past Renewals: Interpretive Authority, Renewed Revelation and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity. Edited by Hindy Najman. JSJSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Newman, Judith H. “Blessing in the Latter Days: The End of Life as a Potent Time-Space.” Paper Delivered at the Qumran Session, SBL Annual Meetings, Nov. 20, 2017.

Time is on My Side: Concepts of Time and Jewish Identity



41

Newman, Judith H. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. SBLEJL 14. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Newsom, Carol A. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran. STDJ 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Ophir, Adi, and Ishay Rozen-Zvi. Goy: Israel’s Multiple Others and the Birth of the Gentile. Oxford Studies in the Abrahamic Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Schmitz, Barbara. Gedeutete Geschichte: die Funktion der Reden und Gebete im Buch Judit. HBS 40. Freiburg: Herder, 2004. Schmitz, Barbara. “Vor-Denken und Nach-Denken: Die Funktion der Reden und Gebete im Buch Judit.” Pages 221–29 in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5–9 July 2003. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Stern, Sacha. Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar, 2nd Century BCE to 10th Century CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Tzoref, Shani. “‘Pesher’ and Periodization.” DSD 18 (2011): 129–54. Werline, Rodney Alan. Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious Institution. SBLEJL 13. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 43. New York: Doubleday, 1979. Wright, Benjamin G. III. The Letter of Aristeas ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Wright, Benjamin G. III. The Letter of Aristeas and the Reception History of the Septuagint. BIOSCS 39 (2006), 449–67. Wright, Benjamin G. III. “The Problem of the Hyphen and Jewish/Judean Ethnic Identity: The Letter of Aristeas, the Septuagint, and Cultural Interactions.” Pages 115–35 in Strength to Strength: Essays in Honor of Shaye J. D. Cohen. Edited by Michael Satlow. BJS 363. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2018. Wright, Benjamin G. III. “Pseudonymous Authorship and Structures of Authority in the Letter of Aristeas.” Pages 43–61 in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. Edited by Isaac Kalimi, Tobias Nicklas, and Géza G. Xeravits. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Zurawski, Jason M. “Separating the Devil from the Diabolos: A Fresh Reading of Wisdom of Solomon 2.24.” JSP 21 (2012): 366–99.

Niko Strobach

Ontologie im Mondlicht Zeit und Identität in Thomas Manns Joseph und seine Brüder Abstract: Among the many philosophical aspects in Thomas Mann’s 2000-page novel Joseph and His Brothers, based on Gen 25–50, this paper focuses on time and identity. Unlike other interpretations, while not opposing them, it restricts itself to using the word “identity” as it is usual in contemporary logic and analytic ontology. A thorough semantic analysis of the differences between “sun grammar” and “moon grammar” yields the result that Mann had a lot to say about identity across time even in this sense of “identity.” This is argued by taking a close look at several important characters of the novel, Jaakob, Eliezer, and Joseph/Usarsiph. Keywords: identity, time, person, ontology, Thomas Mann, Derek Parfit, Jan Assmann.

1 Einleitung Vielleicht ist der Text, der im Zentrum des vorliegenden Beitrags steht, im weitesten Sinne ein deuterokanonischer Text oder damit verwandt.1 Immerhin hat ein früher Rezipient Thomas Manns Romanwerk Joseph und seine Brüder2 in die Gattung „Super-Midrash“ eingeordnet.3 Mann entfaltet die – selbst bereits ziemlich umfangreiche – althebräische Josephs-Novelle,4 die in das Buch Genesis 1 Mein Dank gilt Stefan Beyerle für die Einladung zur Konferenz der ISDCL 2019 in Greifswald und sein Interesse an meinem Thema sowie Roland Bennewitz, Juergen Eschner, Tobias Martin, Giovanna Morigi, Christian Suhm, Christian Thies und Mechthild Strobach. Sehr herzlich danke ich Friedemann Drews für das akademisch-interdisziplinäre und freundschaftliche Abenteuer eines gemeinsamen Seminars zu philosophischen Themen in Thomas Manns Josephsroman an der WWU Münster im Sommersemester 2017. 2 „Joseph und seine Brüder“ wird im Folgenden mit dem Kürzel „JB“ nach der im Literaturverzeichnis genauer angegebenen zweibändigen Ausgabe von Jan Assmann et al. mit Band und (über beide Bände fortlaufender) Seitenzahl zitiert. Die Kommentarbände dieser Ausgabe werden im Folgenden mit dem Kürzel „K-JB“ zitiert. 3 Laut K-JB I, 409–10: Ludwig Lewisohn in New Palestine (Washington, D. C.) 34 (15.9.1944), 519–20. 4 K-JB I, 117, erwägt sogar die Einordnung in die Gattung Roman. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-003

44  Niko Strobach

des Alten Testaments eingeflochten ist und heute Gen 37–50 umfasst, zusammen mit den Berichten über Josephs Vater Jaakob (in Gen 25–35) in riesenhafte Dimensionen.5 Der Josephsroman ist zwischen 1933 und 1943 in vier Bänden erschienen.6 In der besten neuen Ausgabe füllt er fast 2000 Druckseiten. Das auf ihnen Gesagte ist so vielschichtig und anspielungsreich, dass ihnen in dieser Ausgabe etwas über 2000 Seiten an bewundernswertem Kommentar eines Teams um Jan Assmann zur Seite gestellt sind. Hier kann nur ein Aspekt unter vielen herausgegriffen werden, freilich kein nebensächlicher. Warum Thomas Mann in einem Beitrag aus der Philosophie? Weil er – von ihm selbst schon gedanklich aufbereitete – Daten liefert fürs Philosophieren. Das für diesen Beitrag einschlägige Teilgebiet der Philosophie ist die Ontologie in dem Sinne, in dem Vertreter der analytischen Philosophie das Wort „Ontologie“ verstehen. Die Ontologie sucht plausible Antworten auf die Frage: Was gibt es?7 Zum Beispiel: Gibt es Personen? Und, falls ja, auf welche Weise? Den Josephsroman als – unter anderem – philosophischen Text zu lesen, liegt nahe. Im Text ist der Erzähler der Geschichte sehr prominent. Er reflektiert ständig gedankenschwer, was er tut. Offensichtlich philosophische Themen kommen im ganzen Werk vor. Im Folgenden wird ein zentraler Bezugsautor der 2017 verstorbene englische Philosoph Derek Parfit mit seinem bahnbrechenden Werk Reasons and Persons von 1984 sein. Denn nicht zuletzt handelt der Josephsroman von Selbst-Verständnis, problematisiert das Individuum, die Person. Am Ende der langen Einleitung, der „Höllenfahrt“, macht sich der Erzähler Mut, dass es ihm gelingen wird, von Jaakobs Clan8 vor über 3000 Jahren zu erzählen:9 „[E]s sind Menschen wie wir – einige träumerische Ungenauigkeit ihres Denkens als leicht verzeihlich in Abzug gebracht.“ Man kann sich die Frage stellen: Worin genau besteht die träumerische Ungenauigkeit ihres Denkens? Im Folgenden soll auf sie eine Antwort vorgeschlagen werden. Das ist möglich. Denn es wird sich zeigen: Bei allem Lesegenuss, den der Josephsroman bietet, ist er so genau geschrieben, dass man ihn auch mit philosophischem Anspruch an Genauigkeit mit Gewinn lesen kann, wenn man das denn gerade will. Die Zitate sind auf das Ziel des vorliegenden Beitrags zugeschnitten. Im ungekürzten Original ist alles noch viel schöner. Zur Gliederung: Zunächst (2) soll die Handlung des Josephsromans so kurz wie für die Zwecke dieses Beitrags möglich zusammengefasst werden. Dann (3) 5 Für eine nützliche Konkordanz von Gen und Josephsroman vgl. K-JB I, 117–18, 120–21. 6 K-JB, 33–34. 7 Vgl. Quine, „On What There Is.“ Alex Hutter verfolgt in seiner Studie zu Manns Josephsroman ein anderes Projekt (vgl. Hutter, Narrative Ontologie, 18–23). 8 Vgl. JB I, 550: „Brüderclan“. 9 JB I, LVIII.

Ontologie im Mondlicht



45

gilt es, etwas Theorie zu Identitätsfragen und zu Personen einzuführen. Danach (4–6) sollen drei Fälle diskutiert werden: Jaakob und Jaakob, Eliezer (bzw. Jizchak) und schließlich Joseph/Usarsiph.

2 Was passiert? Die ersten eineinhalb der vier Bände spielen unter Hirten. Jaakob möchte die schöne Rahel heiraten und arbeitet dafür sieben Jahre für deren Vater Laban.10 Der jubelt ihm in der Hochzeitsnacht zunächst Rahels Schwester Lea unter.11 Sie ist nicht so schön wie Rahel, dafür umso fruchtbarer. Die Schwestern haben es nicht leicht miteinander als Ehefrauen desselben Mannes.12 Nach vielen Jahren verlässt Jaakob den Schwiegervater endgültig als erfolgreicher Herdenzüchter. Er erkennt für sich nur einen Gott an.13 Er hat von seinen beiden Frauen und ihren Mägden insgesamt zwölf Söhne, die somit untereinander Brüder oder Halbbrüder sind. Rahel hat nur zwei Kinder, Joseph und Benjamin. Sie stirbt im Alter von 41 Jahren.14 Wer ist Erstgeborener und damit Chef unter den Brüdern? Der zuerst geborene Sohn Jaakobs, der bärenstarke und gutmütige Ruben, Sohn von Lea? Nicht mehr, seit Ruben sich mit Bilha, einer der Mägde seines Vaters (und der Mutter zweier seiner Söhne)15 erwischen ließ.16 Also Joseph, der erste Sohn Rahels, der Frau, die Jaakob ja zuerst heiraten wollte, sein eigentlich erster Sohn? Das hätte Jaakob gerne.17 Joseph tritt dem Leser zum ersten Mal deutlich vor Augen als im hellen Mondlicht in der Nähe des Unterweisungsbaum sitzender 17-Jähriger, wenn die Kamera des Erzählers am Ende der langen einleitenden „Höllenfahrt“,18 rasant aus dem mutmaßlich unergründlichen „Brunnen der Vergangenheit“19 heraus

10 JB I, 174–247. 11 JB I, 269–75 nach Gen 29:25. 12 JB I, 248–99. Jaakob sagt einmal zu ihnen: „[I]ch liebe euch ungefähr gleichmäßig!“ (JB I, 330). 13 JB I, 21–23. 14 JB I, 345–60: 346. 15 Gen 30:5–8. 16 JB I, 31–33 (vgl. auch 360, 388–89, 459, 477–78, 614) nach Gen 35:22; 49:4, wo aber keine Rede davon ist, dass gerade Joseph Jaakob davon erzählt (JB I, 31–32). 17 JB I, 388–89. 18 JB I, IX–LVIII. 19 JB I, IX.

46  Niko Strobach

in die Nacht des 16. März 1399 v. Chr. fährt.20 Joseph ist anders als die anderen, hochbegabt, „hübsch und schön“,21 verhätschelt und arrogant. Jaakob fördert das noch. Er lässt ihm vom Familien-Lehrer Eliezer22 „nützliche und übernützliche Kenntnisse“23 beibringen: Schreiben, Fremdsprachen, mythische Astronomie.24 Joseph schwatzt dem Vater den prächtig geschmückten Hochzeitschleier seiner Mutter ab,25 zeigt sich den Brüdern darin26 und trägt ihn auch bei einer Art Inspektionsbesuch, den Jaakob Joseph bei ihnen machen lässt.27 Der Gewaltausbruch ist ungeheuer.28 Ruben kann die anderen gerade noch dazu bringen, Joseph nicht sofort zu töten, sondern in einen Brunnen, eine Zisterne mit verschließbarem Deckel, zu werfen.29 Finsternis. Die Brüder erklären Joseph für tot.30 Drei Tage später ziehen Mitglieder einer vorbeiziehenden Karawane einen jungen Mann aus der Zisterne.31 Neun der Söhne Jaakobs bekommen das mit, Ruben jedoch nicht. Sie verkaufen ihn an die Karawane.32 Er erklärt nicht, in welchem Verhältnis er zu den Verkäufern steht.33 Sie werden dem untröstlichen Vater weismachen, Joseph sei bei einem Unfall ums Leben gekommen.34 Ruben will Joseph heimlich aus dem Brunnen befreien, aus Mitleid, aber auch, damit der dankbare Jaakob ihn, Ruben, als Erstgeborenen reinstalliert.35 Doch der Brunnen ist leer. Ruben versteht die Welt nicht mehr: Ist Joseph tot oder nicht? Der Verkaufte gibt sich den Namen „Usarsiph“.36 Usarsiph kann gut mit Worten umgehen. So wünscht er dem Anführer der Karawane auf besonders an20 Vgl. K-JB I, 513–16. 21 JB I, 9 nach Gen 39:6, vgl. hierzu K-JB I, 670. 22 Eliezer kommt nicht in Gen 25–50 vor, wohl aber in einer Generation mit Abraham in Gen 15,2. Vgl. dazu Abschnitt 5 dieses Beitrags. 23 JB I, 70. 24 JB I, 371–82. 25 JB I, 449–63; „Schleier“: 461. 26 JB I, 482. 27 JB I, 539. 28 JB I, 539–44. 29 JB I, 544–52. 30 JB I, 553. 31 JB I, 574–83. 32 JB I, 587–605. 33 JB I, 597. 34 JB I, 557–58, 603, 614–56. 35 JB I, 550, 586, 606. 36 JB II, 707. Auch die Variante „Osarsiph“ kommt vor, vgl. 1514–15. Zum Namen: K-JB 972–73. „Thomas Mann gewinnt dem Namen […] eine überraschende Deutung ab: [Joseph] nennt […]

Ontologie im Mondlicht 

47

genehme Art eine gute Nacht.37 Und Usarsiph kann schreiben. So ist er der Karawane als Buchhalter nützlich. In Ägypten steigt Usarsiph zum Hausverwalter eines reichen Mannes auf. Dessen Frau verfällt ihm. Das führt zu seinem zweiten Fall, ins (ziemlich humane) Gefängnis. Als der Pharao einen Traum nicht deuten kann, führt die Bekanntschaft mit einem ehemaligen Mitgefangenen Usarsiph als Traumdeuter an den Hof. Mann lässt Usarsiph ausgerechnet auf den 17-jährigen Echnaton treffen. Der ist mit seinem monotheistischen Experiment, nur noch einen Sonnengott gelten zu lassen, die skandalöse Ausnahmegestalt der ägyptischen Geschichte. Als junger Gottkönig hat er Probleme damit, in welchem Verhältnis er zu seinem „Vater am Himmel“38 steht. Mann montiert altägyptische Dichtung39 zu anfallartig einsetzendem Mitleid mit aller Kreatur, auch mit den Mäusen.40 Echnatons Mutter Teje, die starke Frau im Palast, macht sich Sorgen. Bevor Usarsiph den Pharao behutsam zur eigenen Deutung seiner Träume anleitet, muss er sich vorstellen, das heißt: sagen, woher er kommt. Er erzählt von Rahel und Jaakob,41 und von Abraham als seinem Ur-Großvater als einem, der „Gott entdeckte“.42 Echnaton ist entzückt: noch ein Monotheist – etwa auch ein Pazifist, so wie er selbst? Nein, erklärt ihm Usarsiph, Krieg muss manchmal sein.43 Teje ist ausnahmsweise sofort einverstanden mit einer Maßnahme Echnatons: Diesen Usarsiph braucht das Land dringend als tatkräftigen Vize-Pharao. Not treibt die anderen Söhne Jaakobs nach Ägypten. Sie wissen nicht, wer ihnen da als Inhaber eines höchsten Staatsamtes entgegentritt. Doch nach langem Hin und Her lüftet er das Geheimnis mit den scheinbar einfachen Worten „Ich bin’s“.44 Der Roman endet versöhnlich.

sich wie einen Verstorbenen Osiris-Joseph (Osarsiph) oder Usar-Siph“ (K-JB, 973). In Gen 39 wird von keiner Namensänderung berichtet. 37 JB II, 707: „‚Lebe wohl‘, grüßte Joseph im Dunkeln. ‚Möge die Nacht dich in sanften Armen wiegen und dein Haupt entschlummern an ihrer Brust, friedesüß, wie dein Kinderhaupt einst am Herzen der Mutter!“ 38 Z. B. JB II, 1515. 39 Im verwendeten Gedicht werden tatsächlich, unter anderen Kreaturen, die Mäuse erwähnt. Es stammt allerdings nicht, wie andere überlieferte Gedichte, von Echnaton (K-JB II, 1406). 40 JB II, 1528. 41 JB II, 1514. 42 JB II, 1522. 43 Ebd. 44 JB II, 1762 (als Kapitelüberschrift); 1772 („Ich bin es ja“) nach Gen 45:3–4.

48  Niko Strobach

3 Etwas Theorie zu Zeit und Identität Vieles, was es gibt, existiert eine Weile lang in der Zeit. Man kann sich deshalb zum Beispiel in einem Hörsaal die Frage stellen: „Existierte dieses Vortragspult schon gestern?“ Das ist eine gute Frage. Es könnte sein, dass es brandneu ist und heute bei Anlieferung zum allerersten Mal zusammengeschraubt wurde. Dann würde die wahre Antwort „nein“ lauten. Andernfalls lautet sie „ja“. Man kann inhaltlich dieselbe Frage etwas gewundener, aber dafür präzise so formulieren: „Existierte schon gestern etwas, das mit diesem Vortragspult identisch ist?“ Das Wort „identisch“ darin ist nicht schwer zu verstehen. Das Sprachspiel45, das gerade mit ihm gespielt wurde, hat mit den Sprachspielen, die man mit Wendungen wie „kulturelle Identität“ oder „auf der Suche nach seiner Identität sein“ spielt, nichts zu tun. Ein Beispiel für das Spielen eines solchen Sprachspiels mit dem Wort „Identität“ ist:46 „Soziale Rollen, ohne die eine Identität gar nicht denkbar ist, bestimmen sich immer aus den je synchronen Verhaltenscodes einer Gesellschaft.“ Die Wahrheit dieses Satzes ist zumindest zu erwägen. Würde das Wort „Identität“ dort im (onto-)logischen Sinn gebraucht, so wäre der Satz hingegen eindeutig falsch, da z. B. auch der Polarstern mit sich selbst identisch ist. Hätte man die gerade gestellte Frage auch so formulieren können: „Ist dieses Vortragspult noch dasselbe wie gestern?“ Nein. Denn diese Frage ist doppeldeutig. Soll sie heißen: „Ist dieses Vortragspult noch dasselbe, das es gestern war?“ Dann muss die wahre Antwort „ja“ lauten. Denn dieses Vortragspult ist identisch mit diesem Vortragspult. Und auf das hat sich der Fragesteller gerade mit dem Wörtchen „es“ bezogen. Oder soll sie heißen: „Ist dieses Vortragspult, das heute hier steht, dasselbe wie das (bzw. identisch mit dem) Vortragspult, das gestern hier stand?“ Dann muss die wahre Antwort nicht „ja“ lauten. Ein anderes Pult, das gestern hier stand, wurde vielleicht gegen das neue, das seit heute hier steht, ausgetauscht. In seiner Funktion oder Rolle als Vortragspult in diesem Hörsaal ist das neue dann der Nachfolger des alten. Da es heute erst zusammengebaut wurde, gab es gestern noch nichts, das mit ihm identisch ist (oder „identisch war“, darauf kommt es hier nicht an). Eine Person ist über eine besondere Fähigkeit charakterisiert: Sie ist sich ihres eigenen Existierens in der Zeit bewusst.47 Auch von einer Person lässt sich nach dem Schema fragen:

45 vgl. hierzu Wittgenstein, Philosophische Untersuchungen, § 7, § 23. 46 Assmann, Thomas Mann und Ägypten, 49. 47 Locke, Essay, Buch II, Kap. 27.

Ontologie im Mondlicht



49

(S) „Existierte schon [vor so-und-so langer Zeit] etwas, das mit ihr identisch ist?“ Man kann eine Person fragen: „Existierte schon [vor so-und-so langer Zeit] etwas, das mit dir identisch ist?“ (eine fremde Sprache könnte so die Frage „Wie alt bist du?“ formulieren). Und eine Person kann ins Grübeln kommen und sich fragen „Existierte schon vor [vor so-und-so langer Zeit] etwas, das mit mir identisch ist?“ Man kann für den Zeitparameter im Schema (S) verschiedene Werte wählen, z. B., wie eben im Zusammenhang mit dem Vortragspult den Wert „gestern“ (= „vor einem Tag“). Man kann sich auch eine Person vorstellen, die sich fragt: „Existierte schon vor vier Tagen etwas, das mit mir identisch ist?“ Antwortet sie mit „nein“, so fühlt sie sich offenbar recht jung. In der Regel wird hier alles für die Antwort „ja“ sprechen. Warum? Um es mit dem Vokabular des Josephsromans zu sagen: Jemand, der hier mit „nein“ antwortet, scheint die „zeitlich-fleischlichen Grenzen seines Ich“48 nicht verstanden zu haben. Die legen es nahe, dass die Person, die da heute grübelt, von sich ausgehend ein Leben zurückverfolgt bis zu einer Geburt (oder bis frühestens zu einer Zeugung ca. neun Monate davor); und dass sie für jede Zeit t, die weniger lang her ist als diese Geburt (oder die Zeugung), bestätigt, dass es zu t schon etwas mit ihr Identisches gab. Dass sich die Person an diese Geburt nicht erinnern kann, spielt keine Rolle. Im dritten Fallbeispiel wird die Antwort „nein“ auf die Frage „Existierte schon vor vier Tagen etwas, das mit mir identisch ist?“ sehr ernsthaft als wahre Antwort in Erwägung zu ziehen sein. Es könnte sich auch jemand fragen: „Existierte schon vor 120 Jahren etwas, das mit mir identisch ist?“ Ist die Antwort „ja“, so staunt man. In der Regel spricht hier alles für die Antwort „nein“. Warum? Wer hier mit „ja“ antwortet, scheint ebenfalls die „zeitlich-fleischlichen Grenzen seines Ich“ nicht verstanden zu haben. Sonst würde er für jede Zeit t, die länger her ist als die für sie einschlägige Geburt (oder Zeugung), verneinen, dass es zu t schon etwas mit ihm Identisches gab. Im zweiten Fallbeispiel wird man die Antwort „ja“ als eine Antwort in Erwägung ziehen, die vom Fragenden ernst gemeint ist und die er – für uns nachvollziehbar – für plausibel hält. Schließlich könnte jemand sich fragen: „Existierte schon vor 25 Jahren etwas, das mit mir identisch ist?“ Ist die Antwort „nein“, so kommt es darauf an, wann die für diese Frage einschlägige Geburt stattfand. Nehmen wir an, das war vor 20 Jahren, so ist die Antwort „nein“ nicht verwunderlich, fand sie vor 55 Jahren statt, dann schon. Hier scheint wieder jemand die „zeitlich-fleischli48 JB I, 72.

50  Niko Strobach

chen Grenzen seines Ich“ nicht verstanden zu haben. Und doch findet sich im Josephsromans ein Plädoyer dafür, dass die Antwort auch in einem solchen Fall „nein“ lauten sollte. Das soll das erste Fallbeispiel sein.

4 Fall 1: Jaakob und Jaakob Wer plädiert? Der Erzähler. Der ist nicht unbedingt mit Thomas Mann identisch, aber er steht ihm auch nicht fern. Der Erzähler ist kein systematischer Denker, er macht sich bloß Gedanken beim Erzählen. Er darf im Laufe der Erzählung seine Meinung ändern, ohne dass das ein Widerspruch wäre. Er darf mit einer Antwort ringen, sie halbfertig liegen lassen. Er darf sich, die Brauchbarkeit von theoretischem Vokabular austestend, in Unverständliches versteigen, sich verrennen. Vielleicht irrt er sich. Das Plädoyer lautet:49 So begann Jaakobs Aufenthalt in Labans Reich[, …] das […] seinen Mann festhielt und […] nie wieder herausgab, [so] daß es sich wirklich und wörtlich als das NimmerwiederkehrLand erwies. Denn was heißt das: Nie und nimmer? Es heißt: so lange nicht, als das Ich, wenigstens annähernd, noch seinen Zustand und seine Form bewahrt hat und noch es selber ist. Eine Wiederkehr, die nach fünfundzwanzig Jahren geschieht, betrifft nicht mehr das Ich, das, als es auszog, in einem halben [Jahr…] wiederzukehren erwartete […], – sie ist für dies Ich eine Nimmerwiederkehr. […N]ie kehrte der Jüngling wieder, sondern ein ergreisender Mann tat es […].

Will der Erzähler hier nur dafür plädieren, dass Jaakob nicht der gleiche bleibt? Nein, das ist geschenkt. Niemand ist beim Mittagessen noch der oder die gleiche wie vor dem Frühstück. Der Erzähler plädiert für etwas viel Radikaleres: Zwar trug 25 Jahre zuvor ein Jüngling den Namen „Jaakob“, und 25 später trägt ein dann Ergreisender den Namen „Jaakob“. Aber es gab 25 Jahre zuvor nichts mit dem Letztgenannten Identisches. Die Namensgleichheit hat mit Identität nichts zu tun. Leicht tragen unter hundert Männern zwei den Namen „Peter“. Falls der Erzähler sich nicht irrt, so stehen die beiden Jaakobs in einer engen Beziehung zueinander: Der eine ist Nachfolger des anderen. So erinnert sich der spätere Träger des Namens „Jaakob“ an ziemlich viel, was der frühere Träger des Namens „Jaakob“ erlebt hat; er teilt mit ihm ziemlich viel von seinem Charakter, seinen Überzeugungen und Werten. Derek Parfit ist in der theoretischen Philo-

49 JB I, 204, im Kapitel „Wie lange Jaakob bei Laban blieb“.

Ontologie im Mondlicht



51

sophie berühmt dafür, dass er in Reasons and Persons vertreten hat: Genau auf diese Beziehung kommt es an, nicht auf Identität.50 Der spätere Träger des Namens „Jaakob“ kann ferner mit dem früheren einen Lebenszusammenhang herstellen. Das geht über Parfit hinaus, in dessen Gedankenexperimenten Personen ihre Körper wechseln wie Hemden. Der spätere Träger des Namens „Jaakob“ kann deshalb die alltagssprachliche Aussage „Ich bin 45 Jahre alt“ für sich übersetzen in „Mein Vorgänger wurde vor 45 Jahren geboren“. Man sieht daran: Die für ihn einschlägige Geburt ist nicht seine Geburt. Er wurde gar nicht geboren, er entstand. Der Erzähler nimmt nicht Stellung zu der Frage, wann. Falls der Erzähler hier für die Wahrheit plädiert, so ist dies eine sehr schwierige Frage. Vagheit ist ein logisches Problem. Aber das widerlegt nicht sein Plädoyer. Denn vage Übergänge kommen vor.51 Warum also nicht auch hier? Dies ist eine besonders herausfordernde Passage. Die vom Erzähler hier vertretene Meinung ist unvereinbar mit der folgenden Ansicht: (M) Die zeitlich-fleischlichen Grenzen des Ich sind in jedem Falle und für jeden Wert des Zeitparameters maßgeblich für Wahrheit und Falschheit von Identitätsbehauptungen. Manchmal ist der Erzähler auch gestimmt, (M) zu befürworten. So radikal, (M) abzulehnen, scheint er nur an dieser Stelle zu sein.

5 Fall 2: Jizchak (und Eliezer) Im zweiten Fallbeispiel lautet der Zeitparameter im Schema (S) „120 Jahre“. Der Erzähler unterscheidet zwei verschiedene Sprechweisen. Die eine nennt er Sonnengrammatik, die andere Mondgrammatik. Zum einen ist die Benennung eine Anspielung auf die zentrale Auferstehungsverheißung des Neuen Testaments.52 Zum anderen assoziiert der Erzähler mit den verschiedenen Sprechweisen verschiedene Lichtverhältnisse und stellt dem Sonnenklaren das „schattenscharfe“53 Mondlicht gegenüber. Was machen Sprecher der Mondsprache anders als Sprecher der Sonnensprache? Das prominenteste Beispiel dafür ist Eliezer.54

50 Für Details vgl. Abschnitt 5. 51 Vgl. Inwagen, Material Beings, 271–83. 52 „[D]ie Klarheit der Sonne ist eine und eine andere des Mondes Klarheit“: JB I, 70 nach 1 Kor 15:41. 53 JB I, LVIII. 54 JB I, 70.

52  Niko Strobach

[… Jaakob hatte] auch des Eliezer Erwähnung getan, der [dem Abraham] von einer Sklavin geboren worden sei […]. Nichts ist klarer, als daß er mit diesem Eliezer nicht denjenigen gemeint haben konnte, der […] den Knaben Joseph unter dem Unterweisungsbaum […] zu fördern pflegte. Man kann es wohl sonnenklar nennen, daß der, den er meinte, der Eliezer war, [der ein Sohn Abrahams war …] Aber [in der Klarheit des Mondes] nehmen die Dinge sich anders aus als in [der Klarheit der Sonne], und sie [= die Klarheit des Mondes] mochte diejenige sein, die damals [als die Menschen lebten, von denen der Roman erzählt] dem Geist als die wahre Klarheit erschien. Darum sei unter uns gesagt und zugegeben, daß Jaakob mit ‚Eliezer‘ dennoch seinen eigenen Hausvogt und ersten Knecht gemeint hatte, – auch ihn nämlich, beide auf einmal also, und nicht nur beide, sondern ‚den‘ Eliezer überhaupt: denn seit dem ältesten zu seiner Zeit hatte es […], den […] Eliezer, gar oft gegeben […].

Auch für den Erzähler ist das rätselhaft. Die Erzvätergeschichte des Buchs Genesis beginnt mit Abraham und seiner Frau Sara. Ihr Sohn Isaak wird geboren, als Abraham schon sehr alt ist. Isaaks freigelassener Halbbruder ist eine Reihe von Jahrzehnten älter als Isaak. Er ist schon ein alter Mann, als er die Aufgabe hat, die Heirat von Isaak mit Rebekka zu arrangieren. Jaakob ist Sohn von Isaak und Rebekka. Der Lehrer seines Sohnes Joseph ist sein eigener, Jaakobs, freigelassener Halbbruder, nicht der Halbbruder seines Vaters Isaak. Man kommt auch mit einigermaßen realistischen Zahlen leicht auf 120 Jahre zwischen der Geburt von Abrahams Halbbruder und Josephs Ausbildung. Was hier vorgeht, lässt sich besser verstehen an einem anderen Fall, den der Erzähler ausdrücklich mit dem Fall von Eliezer parallelisiert: Jizchak (oder Isaak). Von Jizchak wie von einer Reihe seiner Vorfahren, die ebenfalls Chefs des Clans waren, werden einander ähnelnde gewitzte Taten berichtet.55 Der Erzähler führt, in einem für ihn durchaus ungewöhnlichen, aber dennoch ernst zu nehmenden, gleichsam scholastischen Tonfall aus:56 Erwägen wir die Möglichkeiten! [Möglichkeit 1: Imitation oder Nachfolge] Entweder hat Jizchak […] in leichter Abwandlung dasselbe erlebt, was sein Vater […] erlebt hatte. In diesem Falle liegt eine Erscheinung vor, die wir als Imitation oder Nachfolge bezeichnen möchten, eine Lebensauffassung nämlich, die die Aufgabe des individuellen Daseins darin erblickt, gegebene Formen, ein mythisches Schema, das von den Vätern gegründet wurde, mit Gegenwart auszufüllen und wieder Fleisch werden zu lassen. [Möglichkeit 2: Offene Identität] Oder aber [Jizchak] hat die Geschichte nicht ‚selbst‘, nicht in den engeren fleischlichen Grenzen seines Ich erlebt, sie aber gleichwohl als zu seiner 55 Was dabei genau vor sich geht und was für ein etwas überraschender Fall von direktem Eingreifen Gottes dabei vorkommt, spielt hier keine Rolle. Es ist dargestellt in JB I, 72–77 nach Gen 12:10–20, Gen 20, Gen 26 (vgl. K-JB I, 585–86). „Erfolgreich tricksen“ ist hier positiv gemeint. 56 JB I, 77.

Ontologie im Mondlicht



53

Lebensgeschichte gehörig betrachtet und den Späteren überliefert, weil er zwischen Ich und Nicht-Ich weniger scharf unterschied, als wir es […] gewohnt sind […]; weil für ihn das Leben des Einzelwesens sich oberflächlicher von dem des Geschlechtes sonderte, Geburt und Tod ein weniger tiefreichendes Schwanken des Seins bedeutete, [Kommentar] so daß also [als Möglichkeit 2, N.St.] schon [bei Jizchak] der Fall des späten Eliezer vorläge, welcher dem Joseph Abenteuer des Ur-Eliezer in der ersten Person erzählte; die Erscheinung offener Identität […], die derjenigen der Imitation oder Nachfolge an die Seite tritt [!] und in Verschränkung mit ihr das Selbstgefühl bestimmt.

Der Erzähler versieht die erste Möglichkeit mit dem Etikett „Imitation oder Nachfolge“. Er versieht ferner im Kommentar zur Fallunterscheidung nur die zweite Möglichkeit mit dem Etikett „offene Identität“. Interpreten müssen hier deshalb vorsichtig sein: Spricht man über Imitation und Nachfolge, so ist damit zu offener Identität noch nicht unbedingt etwas gesagt. Zwar tritt beides im Denken der Sprecher der Mondsprache „in Verschränkung“ auf.57 Aber der Erzähler differenziert begrifflich zwischen beidem – mit gutem Grund. Die große Bedeutung der Möglichkeit Imitation oder Nachfolge ist unter Stichworten wie „Leben im Mythos“58 oder „[Wandeln] in Spuren“59 seit Entstehung des Josephsromans immer wieder bemerkt worden. Exemplarisch lässt sich dazu das 2. Kapitel des Buchs Thomas Mann und Ägypten von Jan Assmann aus dem Jahr 2006 heranziehen, das einen Abschnitt mit dem Titel „Mondgrammatik und das ‚nach hinten offene Ich‘“ enthält.60 Eine Absicht des vorliegenden Beitrags ist es, diesen Aspekt in Gedanken zu trennen von Fragen nach der Identität im in Abschnitt 3 erläuterten (onto-)logischen Sinn des Wortes „identisch“. (Onto-)logische Identität hat nichts zu tun mit der Einzigartigkeit, die üblicherweise mit dem Wort „Individualität“ bezeichnet wird und von der manche anderen Sprachspiele mit dem Wort „Identität“ oder mit der Wendung „das Ich“ ausgehen.61 Wenn der Josephsroman gehaltvollen Text zur Individualität (etc.) enthält, so garantiert das nicht, dass er überhaupt gehaltvollen Text zur (onto-)logischen Identität enthält. Es wird sich jedoch zeigen, dass es so ist. Und zwar handelt es sich oft um dieselben Passagen, die für die Individualität (etc.) besonders gehaltreich sind. Was Assmann überzeugend als zur Individua57 Ebd. 58 Assmann, Thomas Mann und Ägypten, 49. 59 Ebd., 45. 60 Ebd., 37–61. Assmann referiert selbst a. a. O. wichtige Stationen dieser Rezeption. Vgl. zu diesem Punkt auch K-JB I, 68–78, 580–84. Vgl. zum Thema auch: Assmann, Religion und kulturelles Gedächtnis, 185–209. 61 Wollte jemand im Zusammenhang mit Leibniz’ Prinzip der Ununterscheidbarkeit von Identischem das Wort „Individualität“ benutzen, so würde er ein anderes Sprachspiel mit ihm spielen.

54  Niko Strobach

lität (etc.) Gesagtes in diesen Passagen herausgearbeitet hat, bleibt hier unbestritten. Es sei nur dafür plädiert, dass noch etwas hinzukommt. Der Kommentar des Erzählers deutet an: Um über die Mondgrammatik und Eliezers Gebrauch des Wortes „ich“ etwas zu erfahren, ist nur die offene Identität einschlägig. Man kann sich zur offenen Identität die semantische Frage stellen: Unter welchen Umständen ist es wahr und unter welchen falsch, wenn zum Beispiel Jizchak sagt „Ich habe erfolgreich getrickst“? Hier lassen sich verschiedene denkbare Ansichten unterscheiden. Diese Unterscheidung findet sich nicht im Text. Aber sie ergibt sich, wenn man sich fragt: Wie könnte es kommen, dass jemand in der Mondsprache über die weit entfernte Vergangenheit in der 1. Person spricht und die Sprecher der Mondsprache ihm oft zustimmen, während Sprecher der Sonnensprache das nicht tun? (Offene Identität 1) Jizchaks Existenz ist zwar durchaus begrenzt von den „engeren fleischlichen Grenzen seines Ich“. Jizchaks Rolle ist aber schon oft, von mehreren verschiedenen Spielern, gespielt worden. Ein Spieler dieser Rolle zu sein, das gehört zu seinem Selbstgefühl. Individualität ist für ihn nicht wichtig – und für die anderen Sprecher der Mondsprache auch nicht. Damit ist zu ihrer Sprache noch nichts gesagt. Was ist ihre Semantik? Für einen Sprecher der Mondsprache im Sinne dieser Variante ist die Äußerung „Ich habe erfolgreich getrickst“ aus Jizchaks Mund genau dann wahr, wenn einer der beiden folgenden Fälle vorliegt: (a) Jizchak selbst hat erfolgreich getrickst; (b) es gab jemanden, dessen Rollen-Nachfolger Jizchak ist, und der hat erfolgreich getrickst. Ein Sprecher der Mondsprache im Sinne dieser Variante könnte sich über seine Sprache äußern und sagen: „Der Träger des Namens ‚Jizchak‘ ist mit keinem seiner Vorgänger identisch. Sonst hat die Rede von Vorgängern und Nachfolgern keinen Sinn. Der Träger des Namens ‚Jizchak‘, dessen Äußerung wir gerade gehört haben, ist nicht hunderte Jahre alt. Wenn er meint, seine Äußerung ist deshalb wahr, weil er erfolgreich getrickst hat, aber er hat gar nicht, dann irrt er sich. Das passiert ihm dauernd; er glaubt, er hat das gemacht, er rechnet sich das zu – zu Unrecht, sicher, aber begreiflich.62 Mir passiert das auch. Es kommt doch leicht vor, dass jemand sich irrtümlich daran zu erinnern glaubt, etwas erlebt zu haben, gerade bei einer immer wieder erzählten Begebenheit aus der Familiengeschichte. Bei Jizchak passt auch noch die soziale Rolle. Der Irrtum macht aber nichts: Seine Äußerung ist in jedem Fall wahr. Ein erfolgreicher Vorgänger genügt ja dafür. Seine Äußerung ‚Ich habe getrickst‘ 62 Vgl. Mann, Selbstkommentare, 129 (aus „Freud und die Zukunft“ [1936]): „[D]urch Zeitaufhebung rücken in ihm sämtliche Eliezers der Vergangenheit zum gegenwärtigen Ich zusammen, so daß er von Eliezer, Abrahams ältestem Knecht, obwohl er realiter dieser bei weitem nicht ist, in der ersten Person spricht.“

Ontologie im Mondlicht 

55

kann wahr sein, auch wenn der Zeitpunkt der letzten erfolgreichen Trickserei lange vor seiner Geburt liegt.“ Dieser Sprecher der Mondsprache ist sich zwar mit einem Sprecher der Sonnensprache einig darüber, was es gibt. Er ist sich mit ihm aber nicht einig über die Wahrheitswerte von Aussagen über die entfernte Vergangenheit, in denen das Wort „ich“ vorkommt.63 (Offene Identität 2) Ein Sprecher der Mondsprache sagt: „Jizchak ist hunderte Jahre alt. Man kann Vorkommnisse seines Auftretens zählen oder markante Phasen seiner Existenz – aber nicht Vorkommnisse, Exemplare von ihm. Er ist nicht etwa eine Rolle, die nacheinander verschiedene Spieler hat. Wie soll jemand eine Rolle sein? Er selbst tritt auf. Jizchaks Existenz ist nur nicht begrenzt in fleischlichen Grenzen. Es gibt ihn selbst schon so lange. Da niemand als Chef geboren wird, beginnen seine Auftritte nicht mit Geburten, sondern (typischerweise) mit Fällen fleischlichen Ablebens, die aber seine Existenz nicht etwa beenden.64 Dafür, dass er wahrheitsgemäß sagen kann, ‚Ich habe erfolgreich getrickst‘, ist es notwendig und hinreichend, dass er wenigstens bei einem seiner Auftritte erfolgreich getrickst hat – ob dieses Mal oder bei einem der Male zuvor, ist egal. Hauptsache, er war es.“ Dem letzten Satz stimmt der Sprecher der Sonnensprache zwar zu. Aber dieser (hypothetische) Sprecher der Mondsprache ist mit dem Sprecher der Sonnensprache uneins darüber, was es gibt. Deshalb ist er mit dem Sprecher der Sonnensprache uneins über Wahrheitswerte von Aussagen in der 1. Person über die entfernte Vergangenheit. Es lässt sich nun eine Antwort auf die Frage vorschlagen: Worin genau besteht die träumerische Ungenauigkeit des Denkens eines Sprechers der Mondsprache wie Jizchak? Er positioniert sich gerade nicht im Sinne der einen oder anderen gerade beschriebenen Varianten: (1) Ein Sprecher der Mondsprache denkt beim Sprechen nicht daran, ob, falls die erste Variante der offenen Identität vorliegt, Fall (a) (= eigene Tat) oder Fall (b) (= Tat eines Vorgängers) vorliegt.

63 Ziel ist es hier, beide Varianten der offenen Identität im Ausgang vom Text des Josephsromans verständlich zu formulieren. Zur ersten Variante ließen sich wenigstens zwei Fragen weiterverfolgen, denen hier nicht nachzugehen ist: (1) Wie verhält sich die Mondsprache laut der ersten Variante zum so genannten Tarski-Schema „Ein Satz ‚p‘ ist genau dann wahr, wenn p“? Vgl. Tarski, „Wahrheitsbegriff“. (2) Wie verhalten sich Sätze in der 1. Person über andere in der entfernten Vergangenheit im Sinne der ersten Variante zu Sätzen in der ersten Person mit Bezug auf modale counterparts bei David Lewis? Vgl. Lewis, „Counterpart Theory.“ 64 Zu einer der vielen spiegelnden Dopplungen im Josephsroman gehören parallele Phänomene in Ägypten im Rahmen des Thronwechsels (JB II, 1424–27) und der fast durchgängige Gebrauch von „Pharao“ mit der Syntax eines Eigennamens.

56  Niko Strobach

(2) Ein Sprecher der Mondsprache denkt beim Sprechen überhaupt nicht daran, zwischen den beiden Varianten der offenen Identität (Vorgängerkette oder Uraltperson) zu unterscheiden. (3) Ein Sprecher der Mondsprache unterscheidet (gerade deshalb) nicht zwischen Imitation der Vorgänger und Wiederholung des eigenen Verhaltens. Das „Zwielicht [seines] und des allgemeinen Bewußtseins“65 erlaubt ihm das. Entsprechend zum Falle Jizchaks lässt sich nun ohne weitere Erklärung verstehen, wie es sich mit Eliezer verhält, der „schon oft im Fleische gewandelt war“.66 [Der alte Lehrer meinte], wenn er von „sich“ sprach, zu einem guten Teil Eliezer, den Knecht Abrahams […]. So zum Beispiel hatte er dem Joseph […] die Geschichte, wie er, Eliezer, […] Rebekka […] für Jizchak gefreit hatte, haargenau […] als seine eigene Geschichte und Lebenserinnerung erzählt […]. Dem hörte Joseph [ohne] Befremden über die grammatische Form [zu], in der Eliezer es zum besten gab, und [ohne] jede Anstoßnahme […] daran, daß des Alten Ich sich nicht als ganz fest umzirkt erwies, sondern gleichsam nach hinten offenstand, ins Frühere, außer seiner eigenen Individualität Gelegene überfloß und sich Erlebnisstoff einverleibte, dessen Erinnerungs- und Wiedererzeugungsform eigentlich und bei Sonnenlicht betrachtet die dritte Person statt der ersten hätte sein müssen.67 Wenn […Joseph] in das Gesicht des kündenden Alten blickte, der […] auf so freie und großartige Weise Ich zu sagen wußte, so beschlichen ihn oft wohl eigentümliche Gefühle. [Joseph] sah durch ihn [= den Erzählenden] hindurch in eine unendliche Perspektive von Eliezer-Gestalten, die alle durch den Mund des gegenwärtig Dasitzenden Ich sagten, und da man im Dämmer des schattenmächtigen Baumes saß, hinter Eliezer aber die hitzig durchsonnten Lüfte flirrten, so verlor diese Identitätsperspektive sich nicht im Dunkel, sondern im Licht …68

Der Erzähler begibt sich unter Sprecher der Mondsprache und findet sich in sie hinein: [Eliezers] war die Ehre gewesen, als Brautwerber für Isaak […] gen Naharina zu ziehen. Oft […] erzählte er dem Joseph von dieser Reise – ja, wir lassen uns […] verführen, hier einfach das Wort ‚er‘ hinzuschreiben, obgleich es nicht Abrams Eliezer war, der zu Joseph sprach, nach unseren heimischen [Sonnen-]Begriffen nicht. Was uns verführt, ist die Natürlichkeit, mit der er ‚ich‘, sagte […].69 65 JB I, 79. Es gehört zu diesem „Zwielicht“ wohl auch, dass die Frage „Wie alt bist du?“ in der Praxis der Sprecher der Mondsprache nicht oder nur selten aufkommt. Dadurch kommt es zu umso weniger Situationen, in denen eine Entscheidung dringlich würde. Eventuellen Parallelen zu Situationen ontologisch indeterminierter Übersetzung nach Quine, Word and Object, Kap. 2, lässt sich hier nicht nachgehen. 66 JB I, 78. 67 JB I, 71–72. 68 JB I 397. 69 JB I, 396.

Ontologie im Mondlicht



57

Übrigens sieht man hier, dass es dem Erzähler nicht darauf ankommt, ob Pronomina der ersten oder der dritten grammatischen Person im Spiel sind. Wenigstens zeitweise zweifelt der Erzähler, an seiner Heimatsprache, der Sonnensprache: Was aber auch heißt denn hier „eigentlich“, und ist etwa des Menschen Ich überhaupt ein handfest in sich geschlossen und streng in seine zeitlich-fleischlichen Grenzen abgedichtetes Ding?70

Seine Versuche, eine gute theoretische Antwort zu formulieren, zeigen zwar eine gewisse Belesenheit in der europäischen Philosophie. Der Erzähler liest Formulierungen der Philosophen Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel („die Unterscheidung zwischen Geist überhaupt und individuellem Geist“) und Ernst Mach („Ordnungs- und Bequemlichkeitsannahme“) auf.71 Auch Johann Gottlieb Fichtes Unterscheidung von „Ich“ und „Nicht-Ich“ ist ihm geläufig.72 Aber man sollte sein Ausprobieren von philosophischem Vokabular nicht als die Feststellung eines Ergebnisses missverstehen. Dass der Erzähler auch die „Antimetaphysischen Vorbemerkungen“ von Mach kennt, ist bemerkenswert, setzt es doch voraus, dass Mann diesen Text rezipiert hat. Wirklich gründlich verstanden hat der Erzähler Mach jedoch nicht. Denn die Elemente, die Mach zufolge denkökonomisch geordnet werden (manche davon zu einem Ich), sind an sich subjektlose Mach’sche Empfindungen. Hingegen lassen weder der Erzähler noch die Sprecher der Mondsprache irgendeine Tendenz zu einer Sinnesdatenontologie erkennen. Was auch immer die Hirten im Josephsroman für eine Ontologie haben mögen, sie ist geerdeter. Wichtiger als der tastende theoretische Versuch des Erzählers ist an dieser Stelle sein Zugehen auf die Sprecher der Mondsprache: Diejenigen, von denen er erzählt, beeinflussen ihn. Der Josephsroman ist auch ein Entwicklungsroman seines Erzählers.73 Der Schwebezustand der Sprecher der Mondsprache passt verblüffend gut zu Ausführungen von Derek Parfit in seinem Buch Reasons and Persons. Parfit präsentiert Fälle, in denen es schwer bis unmöglich ist, zu sagen, ob von zwei gegebenen Personen überhaupt eine mit einer zuvor existierenden Person identisch ist – und, falls ja, mit welcher. Berühmt geworden ist der folgende science 70 JB, I 72. 71 Ebd. 72 JB I, 77. 73 JB I, 77: „[Jizchak unterschied] zwischen Ich und Nicht-Ich weniger scharf […], als wir es (mit wie zweifelhaftem Recht, wurde schon angedeutet) zu tun gewohnt sind oder bis zum Eintritt in diese Erzählung zu tun gewohnt waren […]“.

58  Niko Strobach

fiction-Fall eines Teletransporters, der aus einem Scanner auf der Erde und einem Replikator auf dem Mars besteht:74 Ein Scanner alter Bauart zerstört auf der Erde Gehirn und Körper einer zu beamenden Person, um die genauen Zustände all ihrer Zellen zu registrieren und funkt diese Informationen Richtung Mars. Dort macht ein Replikator aus neuer Materie ein Gehirn und einen Körper, die dem zerstörten Gehirn und Körper genau gleichen. Die aus dem Replikator aussteigende Person hat beim Aussteigen die gleichen Erinnerungen wie die Person, die auf der Erde in den Scanner stieg. Das spricht dafür, dass sie mit ihr identisch ist. Scanner neuer Bauart replizieren ohne zu zerstören. Es scheint deshalb, dass jemand, der einen neuartigen Scanner auf der Erde verlässt, und eine aus dem Replikator aussteigende Person auf dem Mars um die Identität mit der in den Scanner eingestiegenen Person konkurrieren müssen. Voneinander Verschiedenes kann nicht mit demselben identisch sein. Wer hat Recht? Man kann letztlich nur sagen: Wer in den neuen Scanner eingestiegen ist, hat zwei Nachfolger, die ihm gleich nahestehen. Nachfolger in welcher Beziehung? Parfit nennt sie Relation R. Sie hat viel mit Erinnerungen zu tun, aber auch mit Werten und Einstellungen. Parfit vertritt: Wenn b R-Nachfolger von a sein wird, dann ist es bedeutsam für a, wie es b in der Zukunft ergehen wird.75 In der uns bekannten Wirklichkeit wie auch im imaginären Falle des alten Scanners liegt es zunächst nahe, dass nur a selbst R-Nachfolger von a ist. Selbst dann ist das, worauf es für a ankommt, nicht, mit sich selbst identisch zu sein, sondern in der Beziehung R zu sich selbst zu stehen. Spätestens der kuriose Fall des neuen Scanners lässt im Hinblick schon auf den Fall mit dem alten Scanner Zweifel aufkommen, wenn a auf der Erde in den Scanner steigt und b auf dem Mars den Replikator verlässt: Ist b, der zweifellos ein R-Nachfolger von a ist, mit a identisch? Spätestens, denn schon im Falle des alten Scanners kann a nur mit b identisch sein, wenn man es über die fleischlichen Grenzen hinaus mit derselben Person zu tun haben kann. Man mag diese Zweifel auf das wirkliche Leben übertragen. Der Fall von Jaakob und Jaakob kann als Veranschaulichung solcher Zweifel dienen: Der Einwanderer mit dem Namen „Jaakob“ ist zwar (noch in hinreichendem Grade) R-Nachfolger des Ergreisenden mit dem Namen „Jaakob“. Aber der Erzähler streitet ab, dass der Einwanderer mit dem Ergreisenden identisch ist.76

74 Parfit, Reasons and Persons, 199–201. 75 Das heißt nicht, dass man nur das Wohlergehen der eigenen R-Nachfolger berücksichtigen sollte. Es geht dem Ethiker Parfit letztlich um ein Argument gegen den Egoismus. 76 Vgl. oben Abschnitt 4.

Ontologie im Mondlicht 

59

Parfit ist es wichtig, dass das, worauf es ankommt, unabhängig von Identitätsfragen ist, so dass man es für das, worauf es ankommt, in der Schwebe lassen kann, welche Antworten auf die Identitätsfragen die wahren sind.77 Eine Frage liegt nun nahe: Steht der Lehrer Josephs mit dem Namen „Eliezer“, in einer Beziehung zum Knecht Abrahams mit dem Namen „Eliezer“, die Parfits Relation R ähnelt? Der Lehrer Josephs müsste dafür nicht mit dem Knecht Abrahams identisch sein. Und der ersten Variante der offenen Identität zufolge ist er es auch nicht (er spricht nur in der 1. Person von ihm). Es müsste sich im Wesentlichen um eine Nachfolger-Relation im Hinblick auf die soziale Rolle handeln. Eine Nachfolger-Relation im Hinblick auf Erinnerungen, wie R es im Wesentlichen ist, sollte es jedoch nicht sein, noch nicht einmal zum Teil. Der Lehrer Josephs ist zwar in subjektiven Zuständen, die sich wie Erinnerungen anfühlen und die Brautfahrt nach Naharina zum Inhalt haben. Er mag sich dabei genauso fühlen, wie sich der Knecht Abrahams im Rückblick fühlt. Das garantiert aber nicht, dass es sich bei diesen Zuständen um Erinnerungen an die Brautfahrt nach Naharina handelt. Parfit meint zwar: Wer eine Erinnerung an etwas hat, muss noch nicht einmal identisch sein, mit dem, der das Erinnerte erlebt hat. So könnte sich Jane an einen Venedig-Urlaub von Paul erinnern, weil ihr Pauls Erinnerungen bei einer Gehirnoperation eingepflanzt wurden.78 Doch selbst Parfit verlangt von einer Erinnerung an etwas, dass das Erleben des Erinnerten die Erinnerung verursacht. Den lebhaften subjektiven Zuständen des Lehrers Josephs fehlt jedoch die Kausalverbindung zum Erlebnis des Knechts Abrahams. Es ist zu betonen, dass das Wort „Eliezer“ in der Mondsprache keine Rolle bezeichnet, die Spieler hat, auch keinen Typ, keine platonische Idee oder sonst eine Universalie, also etwas, das Instanzen oder Exemplare hat (oder gar Inkarnationen).79 Im Fall der ersten Variante der offenen Identität ist das ohne Weiteres klar: Hier ist der Träger des Namens „Eliezer“ ja für den Sprecher der Sonnensprache ganz gewöhnlich. Er fühlt sich offenbar als Instanz eines Typus und mag das auch sein. Aber das ist etwas ganz anderes als ein Typus zu sein.80 Auch im Fall der zweiten Variante hatte der Sprecher der Mondsprache aus77 Parfit, Reasons and Persons, 268, 274–87. 78 Ebd., 219–23, 262. 79 Übrigens ist eine juristische Person kein Typus. Insofern die im Zusammenhang mit Eliezer diskutierte „fille de cuisine“ Marcel Prousts eine „personne morale“ ist, tendiert sie vielmehr in Richtung des Uralt-Eliezer der zweiten Variante der offenen Identität. Vgl. zu Proust: Assmann, Religion und kulturelles Gedächtnis, 197 und K-JB I, 69. 80 Parfit, Reasons and Persons, 296: „I might regard myself as a token of a type. Might I instead regard myself as the type? [… A] type is an abstract entity, like a number. We could not possibly regard ourselves as abstract entities.“ Es ist unmöglich, hier auf den Kontext, so gen-

60  Niko Strobach

drücklich betont, dass der Träger des Namens „Eliezer“ keine soziale Rolle ist. Ein Spieler einer sozialen Rolle sein ist nicht dasselbe wie eine soziale Rolle sein.81 Es ist wichtig, den Unterschied zwischen der Instanz eines Typus und dem Typus zu beachten, aber nicht immer leicht. Geläufige Sprachspiele mit dem reflexiven Verb „sich identifizieren“ (mit der sozialen Rolle, dem Typus, dem Beruf, der Familie, einer Partei, einem Fußballverein etc.) interferieren hier. Ein einschlägiges Beispiel dafür findet sich bei Assmann: „Die geschichtlichen Inkarnationen dieser Rolle heißen alle Eliezer und identifizieren sich so mit ihrer Rolle, daß sie in der ersten Person von ihren Vorgängern sprechen.“82 Das stimmt (im Sinne der ersten Variante der offenen Identität); aber wer das tut, glaubt nicht, eine Rolle zu sein. Dieses Sprachspiel mit „sich identifizieren“ ist einfach etwas anderes als das (onto-)logische Sprachspiel mit den Wörtern „identisch“ und „Identität“.83 Eliezer im Sinne der zweiten Variante der offenen Identität existiert länger, als ein übliches menschliches Leben lang ist (auch wenn er kurioserweise nie Kind ist). Ebenso lang existieren die Nachfolger im Sinne der ersten Variante zusammengenommen. Das dritte Fallbeispiel, Joseph/Usarsiph, bewegt sich wieder im Rahmen eines üblichen menschlichen Lebens (in den zeitlich-fleischlichen Grenzen). Falls dabei voneinander verschiedene Nachfolger vorkommen, wird deshalb die Existenzdauer jedes einzelnen von ihnen kürzer sein als ein übliches menschliches Leben. Die Dauer macht etwas aus: Sprecher der Sonnensprache sind an einen Joseph gewöhnt, während ein einziger langer Eliezer für sie gewöhnungsbedürftig ist. Und mehrere Eliezers von gewohnter Länge sind für sie weniger gewöhnungsbedürftig als mehrere kurze Josephs.

annte series-persons, einzugehen, obwohl Eliezer im Sinne der zweiten Variante der offenen Identität ihnen ziemlich stark ähnelt. 81 Thomas Mann schreibt zwar im Hinblick auf die Sprecher der Mondsprache selbst wenigstens einmal von „Identität mit dem mythischen Typus“ (Mann, „Ein Wort zuvor,“ zitiert bei Assmann, Thomas Mann und Ägypten, 45–46) Er distanziert sich selbst sofort von dieser Formulierung („ich drücke mich wohl dunkel aus“, ebd.). Die folgenden Sätze zeigen, dass es ihm mehr um Individualität geht. Wenn er ebd. den „Charakter“ eines Sprechers der Mondsprache den „Typus im Fleisch“ nennt, so ist damit viel eher die Instanz eines Typus als ein Typus selbst gemeint. 82 Assmann, Religion und kulturelles Gedächtnis, 197. 83 In „Freud und die Zukunft“ (1936) gebraucht Mann das Wort „Identifikation“ eng assoziiert mit der Imitation und meist qualifiziert durch „unbewußt“, „mythisch“, „kindlich“. Ein „womit“-Relatum fehlt in der Regel. Einmal ist von „kindliche[r] Identifikation mit … einem Vaterbilde“ die Rede (Mann, Selbstkommentare, 129, 132, 135). Auch dies ist nicht das (onto-)logische Sprachspiel mit „identisch“ oder „Identität“.

Ontologie im Mondlicht 

61

6 Fall 3: Joseph/Usarsiph Die Instanz des Schemas (S), die bis zu diesem Punkt noch nicht auf den Josephsroman bezogen wurde, ist: „Existierte schon vor vier Tagen etwas, das mit mir identisch ist?“ Die zentrale Szene des Josephsromans ist der Brunnensturz. Die Situation, in der die Frage und die Antwortmöglichkeit „nein“ ernst zu nehmen ist, ist die Situation direkt nach der Rettung aus dem Brunnen. Relativ einfach ist der Aspekt der Imitation bzw. Rollen-Nachfolge im Gegensatz zur Individualität: Der Gerettete muss von Null anfangen. Er wird nicht als neuer Clanchef installiert werden, sondern geht einen neuen, nichttraditionellen Weg und macht eine einmalige Karriere. Er ist ein self-made man. Ägypten ist Amerika. Aber es gibt hier einen tieferen Punkt. Ist Usarsiph überhaupt identisch mit Joseph? Oder hat es Usarsiph vor dem Brunnensturz nicht gegeben, gab es also vier Tage vor der Rettung nichts mit Usarsiph Identisches? Das würde bedeuten: Joseph ist im Brunnen untergegangen. Der Gerettete ist ein Nachfolger von ihm, der dort entstanden ist. Ist er dann ein R-Nachfolger des Gestürzten im Sinne Parfits? Im Hinblick auf Erinnerungen schon, im Hinblick auf Werte vielleicht nicht. Auffällig ist jedenfalls: Der Gerettete versucht nicht anzuknüpfen. Er widerspricht nicht dem Verkauf. Er akzeptiert den sozialen Tod des Gestürzten. Er benutzt für sich (sehr lange) nicht den Namen „Joseph“. Er gibt sich selbst einen neuen Namen, „Usarsiph“. Der Erzähler tut viel, um für diesen Fall die Antwort „nein“ auf die Identitätsfrage plausibel zu machen – oder wenigstens sehr erwägenswert. Nach dem Brunnensturz verschnaufen die Brüder: „Nun gibt’s ihn nicht mehr“, sagten sie. „Uff, das wäre getan, und wir können nun ruhig schlafen.“84 Um den sozialen Tod des Gestürzten zu beschreiben, greift der Erzähler zu kühnen Dativ-Konstruktionen.85 Der Anführer der Karawane sagt bei der Rettung:86 „Auf, tut ihm diesen Mantel über, denn er kam nackt und besudelt aus der Tiefe wie aus Mutterleib und ist gleichsam zweimal geboren.“ 84 JB I, 553. Als es dann doch nicht so glattgeht, verweigern sie dem Geretteten den Namen „Joseph“, als sie mit dem Anführer der Karawane feilschen (JB I, 599): „‚Wie heißt er denn, der Hundejunge?‘ ‚Der heißt nicht‘, erwiderte Dan. ‚Wie sollte er heißen? Der hat überhaupt keinen Namen bis jetzt […] Wir nennen ihn Heda und Du oder pfeifen auch bloß‘.“ Nach dem Verkauf können die Brüder wieder aufatmen: „Nun gibt’s ihn nicht mehr!“ (JB I, 605). 85 JB II, 680–82: „[…] entschwunden und verstummt sein diesem bisherigen Leben […N]icht grausamerweise schwieg Joseph dem Vater. […W]ar Joseph […] tot oder nicht? Er war es. Daß er dem Vater verstummen mußte, war dafür der bündigste Beweis.“ Diese Verwendung des Dativs erinnert an Friedrich Rückerts „Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen.“ 86 JB I, 582.

62  Niko Strobach

Und der Erzähler kommentiert 87 […D]ie Redensart „sich wie neugeboren fühlen“ traf […] genauer auf ihn zu als vielleicht jemals auf irgendein Menschenkind […] – denn war er nicht wirklich neugeboren? Es war ein tiefer Einschnitt und Abgrund, der seine Gegenwart von der Vergangenheit trennte, es war das Grab. Da er jung gestorben war, stellten […] seine Lebenskräfte sich rasch […] wieder her, was ihn aber nicht hinderte, zwischen seinem gegenwärtigen Dasein und dem früheren, dessen Abschluß die Grube gewesen war, scharf zu unterscheiden und sich nicht mehr für den alten Joseph, sondern für einen neuen zu erachten.

An dieser Stelle ist Protest denkbar: Ist es nicht übertrieben, das wörtlich ernst zu nehmen? Warum denn Joseph und sein Nachfolger Usarsiph – und nicht einfach Joseph? Dafür sprechen eine Reihe von Punkten: 1. Der Gerettete kann schon schreiben und gut mit Sprache umgehen. Er fängt mit seinen Fähigkeiten nicht von Null an. Also muss es ihn zuvor gegeben haben. 2. Der Erzähler benutzt für den Geretteten durchgängig den Namen „Joseph“. 3. Der Text ist voll von rückbezüglichen Ausdrücken, gerade während Situationen der Distanzierung.88 4. Der Gerettete spricht von sich im Brunnen.89 5. Usarsiph erzählt beim Pharao die Geschichte von Joseph als seine Geschichte.90 6. Joseph (bzw. Usarsiph) gibt sich doch am Ende als Joseph zu erkennen und beweist damit geradezu, dass Usarsiph mit Joseph identisch ist. Benjamin hat es verstanden. Es ist alles ganz einfach: Dort aber breitete Joseph die Arme aus […] und gab sich zu erkennen. […] Jetzt sagte er einfach und trotz der gebreiteten Arme sogar mit einem kleinen bescheidenen Lachen: „Kinder, ich bin es ja. Ich bin ja euer Bruder Joseph.“ „Aber er ist’s ja natürlich doch!“ schrie Benjamin, fast erstickt von Jubel […] „Du bist’s, du bist’s, aber selbstverständlich 87 JB II, 680. 88 JB II, 688: [Der Anführer der Karawane:] „‚Und [deine Mutter? -] hat sie dich nicht mit einem Namen genannt?‚ ‚Ich habe ihn verloren, mein Herr, denn ich habe mein Leben verloren. Ich darf meinen Namen nicht kennen, wie ich mein Leben nicht kennen darf, das sie in die Grube stießen‘.“ JB II, 1514: „[Der Pharao:] ‚Wie heißt du eigentlich?‘ […] ‚Wie ich heiße‘, antwortete Joseph, ‚so hieß ich nicht. […] Aber seit feindliche Brüder mich in die Grube stießen und ich dem Vater starb […], hat, was ich bin, einen anderen Namen angenommen: es heißt nun Usarsiph‘.“ Der Pharao spielt daraufhin mit dem Gedanken, sich auch umzubenennen (in „Echnaton“). Umbenennung setzt Identität voraus. 89 JB II, 679: „Es waren ja nur drei Tage, die ich in der Grube verbrachte.“ 90 JB II, 1498–1500: „Rauh war Esau, mein Oheim […] meines Vaters Zwilling […] Dienen ließ ihn [= Jaakob] der harte Bas [= Laban] um die Sternenjungfrau […] Rahel, das Mutterschaf, die mich gebar in übernatürlichen Schmerzen […].“

Ontologie im Mondlicht



63

bist du’s natürlich ja doch! Du bist nicht tot, […] aufgefahren bist du bis zum siebenten Söller […]“91

Wie weit kann es jemand durchhalten, dagegen die These zu verteidigen, dass Joseph mit Usarsiph nicht identisch ist? Erstaunlich weit. Er kann gegen jeden einzelnen der genannten Punkte etwas vorbringen: (ad 1) Nachfolger können Fähigkeiten von ihren Vorgängern erben. (ad 2) Der Erzähler hat dafür plädiert, dass der Name „Jaakob“ innerhalb von 25 Jahren unmerklich seinen Träger wechselt (Abschnitt 4). Die Weiterbenutzung desselben Namens verpflichtet ihn nicht auf eine Identitätsbehauptung. Er kann es mit dem Namen „Joseph“ auch so halten, nur dass hier der Name schnell und dramatisch seinen Träger wechselt. (ad 3 bis 5) Alle scheinbar rückbezüglichen Wendungen lassen sich als Rede über den Vorgänger reinterpretieren. „Mein Vater“ heißt „der Vater meines Vorgängers“ etc. (ad 6) „Ich bin’s“ heißt nicht etwa: „Es gab damals etwas, mit Namen ‚Joseph‘, das mit mir identisch ist.“ Es heißt vielmehr: „Wisst, dass dieser Joseph damals mein Vorgänger war. Ich bekenne mich dazu, sein Nachfolger zu sein. Ich nehme seinen Namen an. Ich habe von ihm die Verwandtschaft mit euch geerbt und freue mich heute darüber.“92 Die Kaskade an Adverbien, die aus Benjamin herausschießt, weist den Leser gerade auf das Gegenteil des scheinbar Gemeinten hin: Selbstverständlich93 ist an „Ich bin’s“ gar nichts.

7 Fazit Wer hat Recht? Das bleibt in der Schwebe. Das „Ich bin’s“ ist in seiner Bedeutung nicht so transparent, wie es scheint. Der Erzähler blickt zunächst herab auf Menschen, die er für ein bisschen primitiv hält, weil sie „nicht recht wissen, wer sie sind.“94 Ein Ergebnis dürfte sein, dass sich das überhaupt nicht so leicht wissen lässt, wie es scheint. Die systematische Analyse der im Josephsroman

91 JB II, 1772–74. 92 Mann diskutiert die Formel „Ich bin’s“ in „Freud und die Zukunft“ (1936) an weiteren Beispielen: Napoleon sagt z. B. „Ich bin Karl der Große“ (vgl. Mann, Selbstkommentare, 132–33). Das passt zur Idee, dass der Vize-Pharao nicht identisch mit dem Gestürzten ist. 93 Dass, wenn man diese Nuance betonen will, der sich Versöhnende „natürlich“ Joseph ist, kann er insofern bejahen, als die für ihn einschlägige Geburt (aber nicht etwa: seine Geburt) die des Gestürzten ist. 94 JB I, 77.

64  Niko Strobach

auffindbaren ontologischen Optionen und die Bezüge zu Parfit haben gezeigt, was das im Einzelnen heißt. Zur Bandbreite der ontologischen Optionen gehört es, gegebenenfalls an robusten Überzeugungen im Sinne der Sonnensprache festzuhalten, zeitlichfleischliche Grenzen für ontologisch maßgeblich zu halten und nicht an einen Trägerwechsel des Namens „Jaakob“ im Laufe von 25 Jahren zu glauben. Ein philosophischer Text kann eine Meinung testen, sie auf die Rüttelpiste schicken. Auch wenn die Meinung dabei (vorerst) Überzeugung bleibt, ist dadurch etwas gewonnen: Sie ist keine naive Überzeugung mehr. Das ist etwas wert. Auch in diesem Sinne ist Thomas Manns Josephsroman ein philosophischer Text. Dabei geht es um etwas Wichtiges: ums angemessene Selbst-Verständnis.

Bibliographie 1 Quelle und Kommentar JB = Mann, Thomas. Joseph und seine Brüder. Herausgegeben und textkritisch durchgesehen von Jan Assmann, Dieter Borchmeyer und Stephan Stachorski unter Mitwirkung von Peter Huber. Zwei Bände (Bände 7.1 und 7.2 der Großen kommentierten Frankfurter Ausgabe der Werke, Briefe und Tagebücher Thomas Manns). Frankfurt/M.: S. Fischer, 22018. Band 1 = I; Band 2 = II. K-JB = Assmann, Jan et al. Kommentar zu JB. Band 1 = I; Band 2 = II.

2 Weitere erwähnte Literatur Assmann, Jan. Religion und kulturelles Gedächtnis. München: C. H. Beck, 2000. Assmann, Jan. Thomas Mann und Ägypten. Mythos und Monotheismus in den Josephsromanen. München: C. H. Beck, 2006. Hutter, Axel. Narrative Ontologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Inwagen, Peter van. Material Beings. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, 1990. Lewis, David. „Counterpart Theory and Modal Logic [1968].“ Pages 26–38 in vol. 1 of Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Locke, John. An Essay concerning Human Understanding [1690]. Edited by Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Mach, Ernst. „Antimetaphysische Vorbemerkungen [zu Analyse der Empfindungen, 1886].“ Pages 93–116 in Österreichische Philosophie. Edited by Kurt Rudolf Fischer. Wien: WUV, 1999. Mann, Thomas. „Ein Wort zuvor: Mein ‚Joseph und seine Brüder‘.“ Einführende Worte zu der Dichterlesung am 5.11.1928 in Wien. Neue Freie Presse, Wien, 31.10.1928.

Ontologie im Mondlicht 

65

Mann, Thomas. Selbstkommentare: „Joseph und seine Brüder.“ Edited by Hans Wysling and Marianne Eich-Fischer. Frankfurt/M.: Fischer, 1999. Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Quine, Willard V. O. „On What There Is [1948].“ Pages 6–55 in From a Logical Point of View/Von einem logischen Standpunkt aus. Zweisprachige Ausgabe. Edited by and commented by Roland Bluhm and Christian Nimtz. Stuttgart: Reclam, 2011. Quine, Willard V. O. Word and Object. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press, 1960. Tarski, Alfred. „Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen.“ Studia philosophica 1, (1935): 261–405. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophische Untersuchungen [1953]. Pages 224–580 in vol. 1 of Werkausgabe in acht Bänden. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1988.

Martina Kepper

“All’s well that ends well” Protological Speculations and Eschatological Teachings in Hellenistic-Roman Texts quid est ergo tempus? si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio What, then, is time? If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not. Augustine, Conf. XI.14, trans. by Philipp Schaff

Abstract: If Paul Kosmin is right, the new temporal regime established by the Seleucids right after coming to power at the beginning of the 3rd century BCE stimulated a wide range of localized, vernacular efforts to re-imagine time. Speculations about time can be found in philosophical treaties as well as in the lived religion of Hellenistic-Roman times. The so-called deuterocanonical literature proves to be part of this development. A clear example of this ongoing debate surely is the Wisdom of Solomon. Its author uses different strategies to adopt, update, and reformulate the idea of God being the creator and master of time, an idea that is already extant in older Jewish authoritative writings. We find a nexus of time-related arguments throughout the book, which uses protological statements stemming from the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 as well as eschatological ideas about life after death for the righteous. The argumentation culminates in “Solomon’s” speech in chapter 7. With great philological skills and from an especially exegetical point of view, the idea of God as master of time is expanded: by using a probably well-known quotation from a Greek-Hellenistic poem, the author states that God as creator and perfector of time surely also is the ruler of the time “in between,” which is also called “the middle of times.” The argument is summed up by the pedagogical advice to seek wisdom in the transitional times the addressees are living in to make the right decisions for life. Keywords: Wisdom of Solomon, creation, Septuagint, scribal exegesis, Orphic literature, Hymn to Zeus, wisdom for life.

What is time, and why are we speculating about it? The famous saying by Augustine quoted above has been criticized by modern philosophers such as https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-004

68  Martina Kepper

Wittgenstein for confusing two different concepts of time, namely the measurable and linear time of physics and the phenomenological time of experience.1 This discrepancy between time as a given physical constant with a cosmological aspect against the individually experienced and linear real lifetime is not a modern problem, though. It may be traced far back in history and therefore is not unfamiliar to the (later) biblical as well as to the so-called deuterocanonical texts. In fact, we may discover even an increasing interest in notions of time from different points of view in Jewish texts that stem from the Persian up to the Hellenistic-Roman period.

1 Notion of Time as Cosmic Order in “Biblical” Texts During the historical period under discussion, it is definitely anachronistic to talk about texts of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, because the canon of these texts that is now familiar to us did not exist in the last three centuries BCE.2 Nevertheless, we can be quite safe to assume that the so-called First Creation 1 This distinction between these two types of “time” has been defined as time in the presence every person is experiencing (“subjektive Erlebnisgegenwart”) against an objective and measurable timeline (“objektive Zeitreihe”), cf. Kaspar/Schmidt, “Wittgenstein über Zeit,” 574. 2 This paper tries to give a short and eclectic overview of the “Großwetterlage” of notions of time in the last centuries BCE as depicted in Jewish-Hellenistic writings over and against the cultural background of that era in general. Therefore, the exact dating of every single text is not of greatest importance for the argument. But what we should have in mind is that in the last two centuries we only have the so-called canon formulas in SirProl, 2 Macc 2, Philo, Contempl. 25 and 4QMMT C, 10, pointing to different texts that were held in authoritative status, but we do not know exactly in which textual form, or, as a famous definition clearly points out: certain texts were seen as authoritative, not certain forms of texts; this issue is depicted in the increase of modern text-critical studies. For discussion cf. Witte, “Der ‘Kanon’ heiliger Schriften des antiken Judentums,” 215–41, and Ulrich, “The Notion and Definition of Canon,” 29. This question of which textual shape is used is of great importance, of course, but our main point of reference will be the Wisdom of Solomon, one of the latest texts that was transmitted only within the Septuagint, with no Hebrew equivalent extant. Therefore text-critical issues are excluded unless otherwise stated. Equally, the question of which sociological group referred to which texts, a highly disputed issue in Qumran as well as in Septuagint studies, lays beyond the scope of this paper. For a thorough introduction into the Jewish-Hellenistic writings cf. now the work of Siegert, Einleitung in die hellenistisch-jüdische Literatur (although he sometimes might be too harsh in his appraisals to former studies), and for Qumran texts cf. Xeravitz/ Porzig, Einführung in die Qumranliteratur, and Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer I.

“All’s well that ends well” 

69

Account in Genesis 1 and 2 was available and held in authoritative esteem during the period in which the deuterocanonical texts emerged. And this Creation Account formally states that time was created by God as his first act on the first day of creation by dividing between light and darkness (Gen 1:3–5). So, every reader of the Torah—regardless of which textual form it might have been available to a given period and a given community—is clearly and without any ambiguity informed that God, the Creator, is also the master of time.3 The creation of the heavenly bodies on the fourth day (Gen 1:14–19) and especially the blessing of the seventh day (Gen 2:3), reflected in the recurring observance of the Shabbat, are probably the most impressive reference to a cyclic understanding of time.4 For the Biblical tradition, therefore, it is clear that time has cosmological and theological implications: belonging to the created things (creatio prima) it is a constant that guarantees the Creator’s enduring guidance of the cosmos (creatio continua, cf. Gen 8:22). In Hebrew, as represented in the authoritative writings5 as well as in incriptions, abstract nouns are quite rare, but two of them clearly point to temporal connotations. First, the Torah programmatically begins with such an abstractum, as the first famous word is ‫ ְּבֵראִׁשית‬/ berēšīt, normally translated as in the beginning. We are used to understand this term as a reference to time rather than to space although the objects that are created in this verse are the spatial beings of the heavens and the earth.6 By doing so, we probably are following the interpretation inaugurated by the Greek translation of Gen 1:1 which renders its Hebrew Vorlage by Ἐν ἀρχῇ, thus adopting the notion of “beginnings” or 3 The Creation Account might have been shaped by anti-Babylonian sentiment when it was written, but as the text went down in history and gained more and more authoritative standing, it might have provoked further attempts to adopt its meaning to notions of time rivaling the biblical account in different texts of Jewish-Hellenistic times, as we hopefully will see in the following argumentation. For a general dating of the Greek translation of Genesis in the middle of the 3rd century BCE see Kepper, “Genesis,” 80–81. 4 This understanding of time in biblical texts has been put forward by Ludger SchwienhorstSchönberger, cited by Janowski, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, 373, with Janowski’s own interpretation on page 372. 5 As already said, this definition is disputed. I would follow VanderKam according to whom the books cited and commented on in the Dead Sea Scrolls should be understood as authoritative for this community, which would include for example Jubilees and 1 Enoch that later on did not become part of the Masoretic tradition, cf. VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 394–95. 6 The noun rēšīt is derived from the root ‫ ר ֹאׁש‬/ rōš which shows spatial as well as temporal and figurative usage, cf. Müller, “‫ ר ֹאׁש‬rōš,” 709–11. The Hebrew text itself probably has neither temporal nor spatial connotation but states that God created the heavens and the earth “as a first (of the created beings),” if we understand the preposition as a Bet essentiae, cf. Oswald, “Das Erstlingswerk Gottes,” 419.

70  Martina Kepper

“first principles” already formulated by the so-called Pre-Socratics and used in an ontological sense by Plato.7 Second, mainly in prophetic literature the opposite, the end of time, is announced as a time when salvation for the righteous and damnation for the wicked will take place.8 Following the same nominal pattern9 this idea is marked by the term ‫ ַאֲח ִרית‬/’aḥarīt. But whereas the beginning (rēšīt) is a distinct point of beginning, the end (’aḥarīt) hints at a somehow indefinite future as most of the approximately 60 occurrences are found within the formula ‫ְּבַאֲח ִרית‬ ‫ ַהָי ִּמים‬/ beaḥarīt hajjāmīm (in the end of days) thus implying that this end will take place during a certain period of time in the future. One passage using these terms is of special interest because it sheds light on the notion of time which we could claim as describing “the” notion of time in the now canonical texts in a nutshell: this is a passage from Second Isaiah that mocks all idols of Babylon. In Isa 46:9 we find the famous, probably first real monotheistic statement in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible: For I am God, and there is none else. As the main argument for this creed, the verse that immediately follows (v. 10) uses both terms mentioned and applies them to God as a kind of epithet: God is God and none else because he is the one declaring the end from the beginning: ‫ ַמ ִגּיד ֵמֵראִׁשית ַאֲח ִרית‬/ maggīd mērēšīt ’aḥarīt.10 God, therefore, is the only God because he is the master of time overseeing all time from the beginning right to the end. To sum up the argument: this God who masters 7 Cf. Plato Phaedr. 245d: ἀρχὴ δὲ ἀγένητον. ἐξ ἀρχῆς γὰρ ἀνάγκη πᾶν τὸ γιγνόμενον γίγνεσθαι, αὐτὴν δὲ μηδ’ ἐξ ἑνός· εἰ γὰρ ἔκ του ἀρχὴ γίγνοιτο, οὐκ ἂν ἔτι ἀρχὴ γίγνοιτο. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀγένητόν ἐστιν, καὶ ἀδιάφθορον αὐτὸ ἀνάγκη εἶναι. But the beginning is ungenerated. For everything that is generated must be generated from a beginning, but the beginning is not generated from anything; for if the beginning were generated from anything, it would not be generated from a beginning. And since it is ungenerated, it must be also indestructible. For a discussion of the text, cf. Schofield, “ARXH,” 228. If the translators of the Septuagint were aware of Hellenistic philosophical discourses and chose their vocabulary accordingly or rejected the contemporary philosophical ideas is a highly disputed question. We could name researchers as Martin Rösel und Joachim Schaper opting for the first position and others like Jan van der Merwe and Pieter Willem van der Horst in favor of the latter. I would side for the idea that some terms and formulas definitely show acquaintance with contemporary philosophical discourses, but we should investigate every single text in its own right to prevent any shortcomings, as the Septuagint first of all is a translation and therefore not totally independent of its Vorlage. 8 We will not draw upon the notions of time as expressed in other important literature of the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible. For these, cf. the opus magnum by Janowski, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, 361–403. 9 This would be the qǎtīl-pattern connoting abstract nouns, cf. GKC § 84 l. 10 The Greek rendering interprets slightly different: ἀναγγέλλων πρότερον τὰ ἔσχατα πρὶν αὐτὰ γενέσθαι / he announces the ends before they happen. Obviously, the translator chose the standard equivalent τὰ ἔσχατα for ’aḥarīt and took the Hebrew preposition as a temporal marker.

“All’s well that ends well” 

71

time is the only God and so he is the only one who is able to save his people (Isa 46:7), whereas the gods of Babylon are nothing but futile idols.

2 The Notion of Time as Cosmic order in Writings of the Hellenistic Era It probably is this theological quality of time that prompted an increasing interest in time during the last three centuries BCE, as can easily be seen in the literature of that period. Knowing the right time and keeping the right time for cultic activities—therefore being in harmony with creation—even served as markers for group identity. This is especially true for the community that produced writings11 traditionally but inaccurately described as sectarian that were found in the vicinity of Khirbet Qumran. We find texts that deal with the ‫משמרות‬/mišmarōt12 or times for the Temple services, as well as a bulk of calendrical texts concerned about the right times for festivals and shabbats.13 They were the only Jewish group following the solar calendar, and the renunciation of following the lunar calendar was the reason for their segregation from the Temple in Jerusalem in the first place.14 Especially illustrative may be 4Q252. In this commentary on the story of the flood as described in Genesis 7 and 8, the end of the flood is terminated “at the end of a complete year of three hundred and sixtyfour years” (4Q252 ii 3).15 Another text from Qumran directly links the creation of light on the fourth day of the week to the presence of God (as Shekhinah) in the month of Gamul (4Q319 vi 9–10). The Book of Jubilees, as another example, tries to rewrite the first Book of the Torah by means of chronological re-arrangement to make sure that all the stories of the ancestors happened at a distinct time in the right jubilee. And

11 For a discussion of this probably misleading term and a different classification, cf. Xeravitz/Porzig, Einführung in die Qumranliteratur, 10–12. 12 This term (in the singular ‫משמרת‬/mišmǽræt), derived from the verb ‫שמר‬/šmr “watch out for,” is used to describe the prescribed order in which the 24 families of priests are supposed to conduct service twice a year at the Temple in Jerusalem, cf. 1Chr 24:7–19 and Gleßmer, Die ideale Kultordnung, passim. 13 Cf. for instance 4Q320 or 4Q329a, dating probably to the second century BCE. For a list of all relevant texts about this topic cf. Xeravitz/Porzig, Einführung in die Qumranliteratur, 179 (with literature for further reading). 14 This topic is disputed. Cf. Xeravitz/Porzig, Einführung in die Qumranliteratur, 180–81, and most recently Wassén, “End Time Temples in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 59–64. 15 ‫תמינה לימים שלוש מאות ששים וארבעה‬. For text and translation cf. Parry/Tov, DSSR 1, 472–73.

72  Martina Kepper

last, the Septuagint translation of Book of Genesis tries to correct different times of the antediluvian generations to make sure that none of these mythological persons arithmetically could have survived the Flood. Of special interest is the list of Toledot or generations from Adam to Noah in Genesis 5. The numbers differ greatly between the Hebrew tradition now extant in the Masoretic text and the Greek version in the Septuagint: for example, Adam was 130 years old when he fathered Seth and lived a total of 800 additional years according to the Hebrew text, but according to the Septuagint he was 230, a plus of 100 years, at Seth’s procreation and lived 700 more years. And the total lifetime of Enoch— both in the Hebrew and Greek tradition—totals 365 years, astonishingly the same number of the days of the year according to the solar calendar.16 Knowing the right time became even part of exegesis, for which Philo is one of the most lucid examples. One example may be his speculation about time triggered by a verse of the Torah, namely Exod 12:2: The text is a command to hold the month in which the Exodus took place as the first month of the year. But this month is not given a name, neither by the Hebrew nor the Greek text of Exod 12:2. It is simply called “this month:” ‫ ַהֹחֶדׁש ַהֶז ּה‬/ haḥodæš hazzæh in Hebrew and Ὁ μὴν οὗτος in Greek. So, Philo wants to make clear exegetically which month is the correct one. First, he stresses the importance of the right calendar to decide which month is the right one in order with the Torah. For him, the lunar calendar is the only possible one,17 and this calendar starts from the vernal equinox. The first month after the vernal equinox is represented by the Ram in the Zodiac and, therefore, is both the beginning and the strongest of the months.18 Philo is combining Babylonian astrology19 as represented by speculations about the Zodiac and biblical exegesis concerning the right time, in this case for the cyclic recurrence of the year and the seasons so that the time for remembering the Exodus as the most important event in the history of salvation for Israel conforms with the Torah as well as the calendar in use in his time. As a last example, we may hint at a rather new and astonishing theological development: the temporal epithet of God as αἰώνιος. It occurs for the first time in LXX Isa 40:28 as a rendering for ‫ ֱאלֵֹהי ע ֹוָלם‬/ ’ælohē ‘ōlām in Hebrew and classifies time in the sense of history as the time ruled and controlled by the God of 16 Cf. Brayford, Genesis, s. v. 17 Cf. Philo, Spec. 2.10–36; Mos. 2.41. 18 Philo, QE 1,1. As the text of this treatise is handed down to us only fragmentarily in different translations I refer to the reconstruction of Marcus, Philo. Questions on Exodus. 19 Babylonian astrology has been introduced to the Hellenistic world some 300 years before the time of Philo by the Babylonian priest Berossos, at the latest, if we accept the account of Josephus, C. Ap. 1.129.

“All’s well that ends well” 

73

Israel who is able to change the fate of his people by using the Persian emperor Cyrus as his servant to free them from the Babylonian Exile. This idea, although maybe not only of temporal but also of spatial connotation,20 is rendered by the Greek translation with the above-mentioned adjective. According to the GreekEnglish Lexicon of the Septuagint the adjective occurs 163 times in the Septuagint and seems to be a standard equivalent for the Hebrew noun ‘ōlām in the sense of “everlasting, without beginning or end, eternal,” thus applied to the covenant formula, cf. for example Gen 9:12; 2 Sam 23:5; Ps 104:10; 1 Macc 2:54. As the Hebrew text of Isa 40:28 definitely shows, two nouns combined by a constructus, the translation by an adjective is surprising as the noun αἰών, the stereotypical rendition of ‘ōlām in the sense of “long space of time, age, eternity” and attested about 750 times in the Septuagint would have been the more natural choice. But this subtle change gives the text a slightly different theological meaning: God is not the transcendent “God of eternity,” the one that philosophers speculate about, but the “everlasting God,” the God Israel can totally rely on, no matter how devastating the current situation might be. That this epithet was understood as some kind of consolation can be traced to the Book of Baruch21 where it occurs 8 times in the passage where Jerusalem is speaking to her children Israel about consolation and salvation (cf. 4:8, 10, 14, 20, 22, 24, 35; 5:2). In a situation of grief, fear, and despair addressing the God of Israel as everlasting or eternal is a sign of hope and consolation. The Creator and Master of time has the authority of ruling his creation in favor of his people. Maybe it is fair to say that this notion of time as cosmic entity and universal history ruled and mastered by the God of Israel as reflected in the deuterocanonical writings as well as in the Septuagint was influenced by the establishment of the so-called Seleucid Era Epoch, if we follow the main argument of Paul Kosmin. The government of time as established by the Seleucid emperors as a political device of crucial importance in order to govern their huge empire probably provoked a lot of vernacular authors to conceptualize their own notions of time.22 20 Cf. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 98, referring to the seminal study of Ernst Jenni on the Hebrew term ‘ōlām. It is further applied to God in the so-called Apocalypse of Isaiah in Isa 26:4, but with a different text in Hebrew. 21 The Book of Baruch insinuates the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem as contemporary. Of course, the compilation of this deuterocanonical book took place some centuries later, cf. the table of the different datings proposed in Adams, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, 5. They differ from 200 BCE to 118 AD. 22 For the concepts, especially in Judea after the victory of Antiochus III over the Ptolemies, cf. Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire, 123–33, with notes and reference works he is drawing upon on pp. 272–73.

74  Martina Kepper

3 Notions of Time as One’s Individual Lifetime in the Hellenistic Period In addition to speculations about the importance of time in the scope of its cosmic importance, we could also emphasize an increasing interest in speculating about time relating to one’s own fate especially after death during the Hellenistic period. As a matter of fact, this notion of time is linear, as every life has a beginning and an end.23 The emphasis of combining the linear individual time span and the cyclic overall or cosmic dimension of time is a topic in many writings in the Hellenistic-Roman epoch. A rather dramatic text is, of course, the narration about the martyrdom of the seven sons and their mother in 2 Macc 7: whereas the tortured six sons base their confidence in the resurrection of their bodies by God on their strict obedience of the Law,24 the mother refers to God as the creator of the world and mankind: “Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the origin of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again” (2 Macc 7:23 NETS translation), thus expanding their lives to eternal times. Again, a major popular issue was contemplation about the Zodiac as the appropriate medium to gain information about one’s own life. This question concerned obviously many Jewish and non-Jewish people alike. We may call it a cross-cultural symbol, evident in the Ptolemaic Temple of Edfu (2nd century BCE) as well as in the Greek Pronaos of Dendera in Roman times.25 According to Seneca26 the end of the world will be foreseen by a conjunction of all planets in the constellation of Capricorn. It is no wonder that Zodiacs were popular in Jewish communities, too,27 and were accepted as an iconic representation of Jewish 23 For a thorough discussion about the connection between biblical anthropology and time, cf. Janowski, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, 362–64, referring to Jan Assmann who states that every culture—Jewish as well as pagan—finds its own interaction of linear and cyclic institutions, thus constituting and reformulating concepts of time within every individual life as well as cultural memory. 24 Also cf. the motif of “noble death”: Philo, Prob. 88–91, describing the Essenes; cf. 1 Macc 6:43–46. It can be found as early as the 8th century BCE (cf. fragment of the words of Ahiqar 2:22–31) and was especially applied to philosophers as Socrates, of course (Plato, Apol. 28a– 30b), as well as Zenon (Diog. Laert. 9,26–28). For a general introduction cf. van Henten/Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death, 43–50. Another motif would be the “early / untimely death,” ἄωρος, as depicted in tomb inscriptions, cf. also Job 22:16. 25 The sequence of the planets in the Zodiac seemed to be arbitrary, though, cf. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, 274. 26 Seneca Nat. 3.29–30. 27 We may refer to the seminal study by Goodenough, Jewish symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, passim. Cf. also Hachlili, “The Zodiac in Ancient Jewish Art,” 76–77, for literature on

“All’s well that ends well”



75

faith within the paradigm of aniconism so that they could find their way into Jewish synagogues in later times, such as Dura Europos and Bet Alfa. The Qumran Community even used physiognomics to find out which zodiac sign a person had.28 In his seminal study on the emergence of the idea of bodily resurrection George Nickelsburg emphasized the influence of Zoroastrianism which the caste of scribes responsible for the formation and tradition of the Jewish authoritative writings came across during Persian times.29 According to him, the impetus for this development seemed to be a problem of justice: righteous people who adhered to the ancestral laws were persecuted by their fellow people and martyred (cf. 2 Macc 7). But these scribes tried to solve this problem by applying temporal categories: as the wicked obviously did not receive any punishment for their cruel deeds during their lifetimes, the reward for the righteous and punishment for the wicked will take place in the world to come.30 Bodily resurrection in this regard can be understood as an expansion of the individual lifetime so that it can be coordinated with the end of times in cosmological perspective. It is no wonder, then, that the combination of individual fate and the overall cosmic constellations of time and space also led to the belief in astral immortality. The German classicist Wolfgang Speyer coined this anthropological concept by describing human beings as beings “in between” (“Dazwischen”).31 People understood themselves as earthly beings but also as belonging to the astral or cosmic sphere. As part of the individual piety we may detect this concept by the mass of so-called Orphicae lamellae or Orphic gold plates, often put in the hand or the mouth of the buried corpse. The inscriptions on these little gold plates used the formula: “I am a son of heaven and earth alike.”32 All these different notions of time belong to the so-called “lived religion” of the Graeco-Hellenistic period. As Jörg Rüpke asserts, religion is “a form of communication with special agents (sometimes including objects) that are fre-

the topic. A recent study dealing with the infrastructure of ancient synagogues would be Weiss, “The Synagogue in an Age of Transition,” 25–42. 28 Cf. 4Q186 and Popović, Reading the Human Body, 165. 29 Cf. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life, 32. 30 The loci classici for this idea are Dan 12:1–3 and 1 En. 22. 31 Cf. Speyer, Zwischen Traum und Wirklichkeit, Zeit und Ewigkeit, 279. 32 Eighteen gold plates are known to us so far, either of Orphic or Dionysian background. They try to guide the human soul through the underworld and are meant to guarantee that the soul is treated preferentially. Most of them stem from the 4th century BCE, although some were found in Rome and belong to the 2nd century CE, cf. Johnston, “Orphicae Lamellae,” 58. For a critical edition of the texts cf. Riedweg, “Initiation—Tod—Unterwelt,” 359–98.

76  Martina Kepper

quently conceptualised as god or gods, ancestors or demons.”33 For him these means of “lived religion” are as important for understanding of ancient societies as are the material relics found in architecture. The experience of time as a feature of everyday life surely was present in the societies of the Hellenistic empires and also found their way into the Jewish writings of that period.

4 Philosophical Speculations about Time in the Greek-Hellenistic Era As a counterpart of these religious speculations by individuals about time we also find philosophical debates. Philosophers questioned its origin and essence. We may take Plato as a starting point.34 In the dialogue Timaeus Plato distinguishes between two different types of time: the one belonging to the world of ideas he calls αἰών. It is without beginning or end. It is simply being, an οὐσία, a permanent presence. The other one, called χρόνος, is connected with the visible κόσμος; it came into being together with the visible world and will vanish together with it.35 Distinguishing between two kinds of time solves the philosophical problem as to whether time has a beginning, and therefore also an ending, or if it is everlasting. For Plato, time as αἰών has divine quality, but χρόνος does not. In a protological perspective, αἰών is everlasting and connected with the demiurge or craftsman-God who formed χρόνος according to the paradigm of αἰών. For Plato, therefore, time is connected with the origin of everything that exists and connected to the world of ideas at the same time.

33 So Rüpke, Urban Religion, 18. He introduced the concept of “Lived Ancient Religion” by describing urbanization as the most important impact on the development of social identities in antiquity, thus adopting this sociological concept to spatial entities. 34 It is highly disputed if Plato was the first to develop the doctrine of the first principles, later called Protology by modern Philosophers in his so-called “unwritten teachings”; for the problem of these unwritten teachings cf. Aristotle, Phys. 209b13–15. 35 See Plato, Tim. 38b-c: Χρόνος δ’ οὖν μετ’ οὐρανοῦ γέγονεν, ἵνα ἅμα γεννηθέντες ἅμα καὶ λυθῶσιν, ἄν ποτε λύσις τις αὐτῶν γίγνηται, καὶ κατὰ τὸ παράδειγμα τῆς διαιωνίας φύσεως, ἵν’ ὡς ὁμοιότατος αὐτῷ κατὰ δύναμιν ᾖ· τὸ μὲν γὰρ δὴ παράδειγμα πάντα αἰῶνά ἐστιν ὄν, ὁ δ’ αὖ διὰ τέλους τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον γεγονώς τε καὶ ὢν καὶ ἐσόμενος. Time, then, came into existence along with the Heaven, to the end that having been generated together they might also be dissolved together, if ever a dissolution of them should take place; and it was made after the pattern of the Eternal Nature, to the end that it might be as like thereto as possible; for whereas the pattern is existent through all eternity, the copy, on the other hand, is through all time, continually having existed, existing, and being about to exist.

“All’s well that ends well” 

77

His counterpart Aristotle holds a different view. According to his famous definition, time is the number of movements from the past to the future.36 As it is connected with movement it simply cannot have any divine quality. Like space or reason, time is an accidens. It is measurable and countable, and therefore dependent upon someone who counts. As time is a cosmic entity, the one counting the intervals of time must be of cosmic quality, too. For Aristotle this is the soul or the rational part of the soul (ψυχὴ καὶ ψυχῆς νοῦς).37 As every human being has a soul, every human being is able to experience time. Time is given; protological speculations are not necessary. Both philosophers agree that time, at least as χρόνος, is a linear movement with a beginning and therefore also an end. A third voice contemplating about time during the last two centuries BCE would be the Stoics. For them, time is also countable, because it is made of intervals or extensions (διάστημα).38 But as numbers are infinite, so is time.39 This idea may stem back to Anaximander, who also claimed time to be ἄπειρον. It is incorporeal (ἀσώματος) and can only be perceived by reason (νοῦς).40 What differs from the peripatetic view is that time is characterized as circular and that there is a constant recurrence and rebirth of the same people or παλιγγενεσία,41 which rather elegantly combines the cyclic notion of time in its cosmological quality as well as its linear notion as experienced during one’s lifetime, but extended again to cosmic dimensions, as it is stated, that it will be the recurrence or rebirth of the same (person) afterwards: τὸν αὐτὸν ἐμὴ πάλιν γίνεσθαι (SVF II, 627 (p. 191.1–4). The scribes who rewrote and handed down the Jewish authoritative texts during the last centuries BCE surely found themselves within this matrix of lived religion and philosophical speculations about time. In their tradition, the biblical creation account in Greek promulges the view of time as being created. We find a distinct beginning of creation because God created time in the form of night and day. And he promised to Noah at the end of the Flood Story that the cyclic recurrence of the seasons will never stop. The prophets added to this no36 See Aristotle, Phys. 219a–b: καὶ τότε φαμὲν γεγονέναι χρόνον, ὅταν τοῦ προτέρου καὶ ὑστέρου ἐν τῇ κινήσει αἴσθησιν λάβωμεν. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ὁ χρόνος, ἀριθμὸς κινήσεως κατὰ τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον. 37 See Aristotle, Phy. 223a: εἰ δὲ μηδὲν ἄλλο πέφυκεν ἀριθμεῖν ἢ ψυχὴ καὶ ψυχῆς νοῦς, ἀδύνατον εἶναι χρόνον ψυχῆς μὴ οὔσης, ἀλλ’ ἢ τοῦτο ὅ ποτε ὂν ἔστιν ὁ χρόνος, οἷον εἰ ἐνδέχεται κίνησιν εἶναι ἄνευ ψυχῆς. τὸ δὲ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον ἐν κινήσει ἐστίν· χρόνος δὲ ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν ᾗ ἀριθμητά ἐστιν. 38 SVF II, 509 (p. 164.15–17; Chrysippus) and 510 (p. 165.1; Zenon). 39 SVF II, 503 (p. 163.5–10; III sectio Apollodorus Seleuciensis 8 (p. 260.16–23). 40 SVF II, 331 (p. 117.18–23). 41 SVF II, 613 (p. 187.7–10 = Philo, Aet. 47).

78  Martina Kepper

tion that God is not only the creator but also the master of time as he is able to fulfill his will through foreign kings whom he made his servants. And regarding the problem of collective or individual guidance and help through one’s lifetime, the texts provide us with the ancestral promises or prayers as evident in Psalms and Proverbs. How were these notions of time updated in the Hellenistic period?

5 Wisdom of Solomon 7: Exegesis as an Answer to Challenging Notions of Time As an example of the prolific interdependence between Jewish exegesis and contemporary Hellenistic culture, we now turn to a passage in the so called Wisdom of Solomon.42 In chapter 7, just at the beginning of the second part of the book which deals with the way true wisdom can be found,43 we find a long speech in a first-person perspective: 7.1 Εἰμὶ μὲν κἀγὼ θνητὸς ἄνθρωπος ἴσος ἅπασιν καὶ γηγενοῦς ἀπόγονος πρωτοπλάστου· καὶ ἐν κοιλίᾳ μητρὸς ἐγλύφην σὰρξ

I myself am mortal like everyone and a descendant of the first-formed individual born on earth and in the womb of a mother was molded into flesh (translation: NETS)

The reader is supposed to think that King Solomon himself is speaking. Although being the great king of Israel, he is contemplating about his individual lifetime which had a beginning and will have an end, thus adopting the popular concepts of lived religion in the time wisdom was written.44 His words are very humble and he refers to this concept in a quite surprising and unique way. Two aspects are of interest: first, the text shows an expected kind of medical knowledge in a biological sense, since the beginning of life is connected with the mother’s womb as the place where the body is formed. But the wording of this verse is quite telling: the fetus is “molded” (γλύφειν). Compared to other Old Testament / Hebrew Bible texts this verb is astonishing. Conception normally is 42 For text, translation and commentary cf. Niebuhr, Sapientia Salomonis. 43 For different approaches to separate the parts of the book and his theory about the literary hinges (“Scharnierverse”) connecting the three parts, cf. Engel, “Die Sapientia Salomonis als Buch,” 135–38. 44 The date of this deuterocanonical writing is disputed but a majority of researchers opt for the last decades of the 1st century BCE, cf. Niebuhr, Sapientia Salomonis, 30–33.

“All’s well that ends well”



79

expressed as an act of creation by using the verb πλάσσειν, depending on the creation account (cf. Gen 2:7, 8, 15, 19, cf. also Ps 119:73). Sometimes we find more detailed medical knowledge when conception is compared to the curdling of cheese (Job 10:10). But the verb γλύφειν used in these verses mainly refers to the field of highly specialized metal work, for instance within the field of temple construction (2 Chr 3:7). So why did the author decide to choose this terminus technicus? We may conjecture an exegetical interest: The verb γλύφειν is a constituent part of polemics against any kind of idols that are made of precious materials (Isa 44:9–10; Hab 2:18). The Wisdom of Solomon itself uses the verb with this connotation during its vast polemic against idols in the third part of the book, cf., e.g., Wis 13:13; 14:15; 15:5: idols are only “molded” by craftsmen and therefore useless and vain. Furthermore, Deut 4:16 prohibits any molding of statues (πᾶσαν εἰκόνα) shaped as humans. On the other hand, the creation account (cf. Gen 1:26, 27; cf. also 5:3; 9:6) formally states that God created man in his image (κατ᾿ εἰκόνα θεοῦ). So, we may think of a simple syllogism that might have prompted the wording: If idols are “molded” as anthropomorphic or theriomorphic images, and man is an image of God, then he also is “molded,” thus becoming a living statue in the image of God (cf. Wis 2:3). Such considerations are highly speculative, of course, but maybe they can be supported by another observation. As Exod 28:9 and 36:13 state, the twelve names of the “sons of Israel”—in this case literary the twelve sons of Israel or Jacob—shall be “molded” in precious stones in the ephod the high-priest wears in the tabernacle in a liturgical context, so that every new generation feels connected with the first generation of the Exodus, the ancestors and at last the antediluvian figures of the biblical primeval stories. Exactly this notion of time as a nexus of genealogical descendance is at issue in Pseudo-Solomon and directly points to constituting history in a manner similar to the Toledot-formula in Gen 5 and 10 and to the social constitution of the people of Israel that is grounded in the promises to the ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.45 So we do find a common theological concept concerning the beginning of life: “Solomon” describes himself as born by his mother and descenced from a member of the family who reaches far back in history, even back to the mythological time when man was created. And he does so with very select vocabulary: neither ἀπόγονος nor γηγενής are frequent terms in the Septuagint. In fact, both show a quite pejorative meaning in most of the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible texts translated into Greek, as they are used to describe

45 These formulas occur quite often in different texts, cf. for example Gen 50:24; Num 32:11; Deut 9:5 relating to the promised land and 2 Kgs 13:23 with reference to the covenant.

80  Martina Kepper

the descendants of the sons of God, the Nephilim and the Rephaim.46 But both words are deeply rooted within Greek-Hellenistic culture, as they are used very eloquently by historians and tragedians.47 The most astonishing word describing “Solomon” as a descendant of the first created human being, Adam, surely is πρωτόπλαστος. The author of PseudoSolomon uses the rhetorical device of antonomasia to paraphrase the names of the biblical characters he is referring to. So, instead of “Adam” the author uses πρωτόπλαστος twice (7:1; 10:1), a word which is a hapax in the Septuagint. The word occurs twelve times in Jewish-Hellenistic literature, twice in Philo48 and is then adopted by the Christian church fathers. We find no attestation within Greek-Hellenistic texts, so we may call it a Jewish neologism. It consists of two distinct words: First, πρῶτος, “first, foremost,” attested more than 200 times in the Septuagint as an equivalent for the numeral “one” (Heb.) 49 and a form derived from the verb πλάσσω. The formation of this “new” word is surely inspired by scripture itself, because it alludes to the Greek translation of Gen 2:7 using the same verb: καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, thus using a common word connoting the formation of man and transforming it with great linguistic skills into a neologism. Concurrently, the author refers to contemporary notions of time dealing with one’s own fate but draws back not to different historical persons as in normal genealogies but refers to the mythological past of creation, thus connecting “Solomon” as a normal human being with the idea of man created by God at the beginning of time. Within the paradigm of his contemporary lived religion, this is a different view than the astral “being in between” offered as an explanation for one’s individual fate. “Solomon” is a lucid example of “a being in connection:” the life of every individual is connected with the protological idea of creation by genealogy. This connection is said to be unbroken through the ages. Interpreted by means of temporal implications, we find an exegetically inspired combination of time as history, further classi-

46 Cf. Ps 48:3; Prov 2:18; 9:18; Jer 39:20 for γηγενής, and 2 Sam 21:11, 22 (a plus within the Septuagint); 1 Chr 20:6 (for a man with six fingers) for ἀπόγονος. Only Jdt 5:6 and 4 Macc 18:1 do not show a pejorative meaning. 47 The oldest attestation of ἀπόγονος probably is Thucydides, Histories I.101; it is frequent in Herodotus and Sophocles. For γηγενής we could cite Aeschylus, Suppl. 250; Euripides Phoen. 931 as examples. The word is also frequent in Plato and Aristotle. 48 Cf., e.g., LAE 1:1; 1 Esd 2:10; Apoc. Sedr. 4:4; T. Ab. B 11:9, 10, 11; 13:3, 5. Philo uses the word twice: QG 1.32 and QE 2.46. 49 The index of Muraoka (cf. A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two Way Index to the Septuagint) lists different Hebrew words that are rendered by the Greek πρῶτος, besides the number “one,” it is used for ‫ ראשית‬with temporal connotation.

“All’s well that ends well” 

81

fied as salvific history of God and his people, with a notion of time as a cosmic entity. As “Solomon’s” life has a beginning it must have an end. So v. 6 of the same chapter alludes to the end of his individual lifetime, again using a very special set phrase: 7,6 μία δὲ πάντων εἴσοδος εἰς τὸν βίον ἔξοδός τε ἴση.

But there is for all one entrance into life And the same way out (translation: NETS)

This is, of course, an illusion to the common memento mori motif that found its way into the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible (cf. Eccl 9:12). Reflections about mortality as conditio humana found nearly proverbial expression within the formula: θάρσει οὐδείς ἀθάνατος.50 Connecting the beginning and the end of life, thus accepting that the linear lifetime of every human being is finite, shows the same concern as evident in writings of the contemporary culture. And it is even “Solomon,” the proverbially wisest and most powerful king of Israel, who describes himself as mortal (cf. Eccl 5:15). But as common as the motif may be, the wording of the conclusion “Solomon” is drawing is quite unique. Death as a departure from life normally is circumscribed by the phrase τελευτή, a statement expressing the definite end of life.51 Instead of this static idea the author employs a metaphor denoting a kind of journey: as there is a “way in,” birth, there is also a “way out” of the linear lifetime, death. The time span in between, life itself, seems to be conceptualized as a transitional phase and thus being some kind of provisional and preparatory for the real life wherever this may be. All these spatial terms used with temporal connotations rest upon the term ἔξοδος for death, and the choice of this reference to the contemporary lived religion may again be inspired by scribal exegesis, combining two different verses from Jewish authoritative texts. The speech of Solomon in Wis 7 as a whole is obviously inspired by the Solomon narrative in 1 Kgs / 3 Kgdms 3–11, especially his prayer at Gibea at the beginning of his reign (1Kgs / 3 Kgdms 3). In the Hebrew text of 1 Kgs 3:9 Solomon asks God to give him a heart that is able to discern between good and evil in order to judge his people.52 As a justification for this claim “Solomon” says in the Greek translation:53 50 The main location of the formula is in inscriptions on tombstones, cf. Simon, “θάρσει οὐδείς ἀθάνατος. Études de vocabulaire religieux,” 188–206, esp. 198–202. 51 Cf. for example Gen 27:2, Josh 1:1; Judg 1:1. It is the Septuagint’s standard equivalent for the root ‫מות‬. 52 1 Kgs 3:9: ‫ ְוָנַתָּת ְלַעְבְּדָך ֵלב ֹׁשֵמַע ִלְׁשֹּפט ֶאת־ַעְּמָך ְלָהִבין ֵּבין־ט ֹוב ְלָרע‬. 53 The Hebrew text of 1 Kgs 3:7 uses two infinitives which the LXX renders by two nouns: ‫ ְוָאֹנִכי ַנַער ָקֹטן לֹא ֵאַדע ֵצאת ָוֹבא‬.

82  Martina Kepper

1 Kgs 3:9: ἐγώ εἰμι παιδάριον μικρὸν I am a little child καὶ οὐκ οἶδα τὴν ἔξοδόν μου καὶ τὴν εἴσοδόν μου not knowing my way out nor my way in.

The Hebrew text of 1 Kgs 3 refers to the important royal ability to know when to go out for war or not, expressing the idea that kings normally first go out of the city for war and hope to come back and return to the city they left.54 The Septuagint translation hints at this reference or allusion by keeping the word order, but the Hebrew verbal forms are rendered by two nouns which are exactly the same nouns used in Wis 7:6, but here in different order. The translation technique of changing an infinitive into a noun is not in itself unusual but the pronoun μου occurring twice is an expansion within the Greek translation. Probably this expansion stimulated the different and individualizing interpretation now evident in Pseudo-Solomon as referring to one’s individual lifetime and no longer to the royal prowess in warfare. First, the author changes the word order so that the biological order of birth as the “way in” and death as the “way out” is established. But there remains the question whether this “way out” and “way in” refer to the expanded cosmic notion of time as exemplified in the first verses. This becomes clear if we compare another text, namely the Greek translation of Prov 8:35. There, “Lady Wisdom” claims: αἱ γὰρ ἔξοδοί μου ἔξοδοι ζωῆς55

For my ways out are ways out to life.

Here again the term “way out” in the sense of death as the end of the individual lifetime shows up. The Hebrew letters mem, tsade, aleph are read by the Masoretes as a participle in the qal stem of the root ‫מצא‬, “to find,” and are thus rendered as “who finds me finds life” in most of the recent translations. But the same combination of letters, mem, tsade, aleph, was obviously interpreted by the Septuagint translator as a participle in the hiph‘il stem of the root ‫יצא‬, “to show or guide someone out,” written defectively and thus rendered by the noun ἔξοδοί, “(my) ways out.” It is rather safe to think that the author of the Wisdom of Solomon had this special verse in mind, because a) it makes no sense (lectio difficilior) and b) it is the only example out of 66 total occurrences in the Septuagint where ἔξοδοί has a temporal (way out of someone’s lifetime) not a spatial connotation. By alluding to this somehow confusing verse the author of the 54 This connotation can clearly be seen in texts like Num 27:17, 21; Deut 31:2; Josh 14:11; 1 Sam 29:6. There seems to have been a distinct time to go out for war that did not interfere with the agricultural necessities of the agrarian societies (cf. Knauf, 1 Könige 1–14, 169). 55 This translation reflects the Hebrew text ‫ִּכי ֹמְצִאי ָמָצא ַח ִי ּים‬. The verse shows a ketiv-qere problem, which is presented in the apparatus of BHS. We are following the qere.

“All’s well that ends well” 

83

Wisdom of Solomon elaborates the concept of Solomon’s lifetime as a paradigm for living with wisdom and thus leading to life. The technique is the scribal activity of combining dark or confusing passages of scripture to formulate new ideas: Living with “Lady Wisdom” leads to life, a theme that is expressed within the Book of Wisdom at length in the six chapters proceeding this speech in chapter 7. In fact, we can detect this eschatological concept throughout the book: God, the creator, created everything in order that it might exist (Wis 1:14) so that immortality is given to the righteous (Wis 4:1; 8:13). They are wise enough to understand the mysteries of God’s plan (Wis 2:22), revealed in scripture with the help of wisdom (Wis 8:18; 15:13), and will survive the prosecution of the evildoers (Wis 2:10). But the reward of immortality is something the righteous have to hope for in the future during a presence that is full of strife and brutal prosecution (Wis 3:4). So, the book tries to convince its addressees that following the way of wisdom is the right choice in life (cf. Prov 1–9), as contemporary philosophical schools also did through the popular literary genre of logos protrepticos.56 In Wis 7 the exhortation to follow wisdom is further supported by a special reference to notions of time which are unfamiliar to (later) biblical texts. So far, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon has emphasized his interest in notions of time that point to the mythological past by stating that king Solomon is mortal but also God’s creation, genealogically connected with the first created human. We may call this a protological reference. In his present lifetime, the span “in between,” though, his duty is to seek wisdom. He was successful as a “person,” obviously, as he has been given knowledge to understand the world in every detail. This hints back, of course, to the tradition of Solomon being the wise king par excellence, but this is stated by using phrases that also show some knowledge of contemporary philosophical concepts.57 As we have seen, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon employs different strategies to expand the Solomon narrative which probably was extant in the time he wrote in reference of time, thus combining the contemporary notions of 56 Whether the Book of Wisdom as a whole belongs to the genre enkomion (religious praise) or logos protrepticos (philosophical exhortation) is disputed, with a majority opting for the latter, cf. Niebuhr, Sapientia Salomonis, 22–24. 57 Cf. especially Wis 7:17: αὐτὸς γάρ μοι ἔδωκεν τῶν ὄντων γνῶσιν ἀψευδῆ, εἰδέναι σύστασιν κόσμου καὶ ἐνέργειαν στοιχείων (For he himself gave me an unerring knowledge of the things that exist, to know the constitution of the world and the activity of the elements; translation, NETS). The phrase σύστασις κόσμου alludes to Plato, Tim. 32c, which is also used by Philo, Aet. 25, whereas the expression “activity of the elements” may refer to Plato, Tim. 48b and Theaet. 201e, also applied by Philo, Cher. 127; Contempl. 3–4 and Aet. 29 as well as some writings of the NT: Gal 4:3, 9; Col 2:8, 20, cf. Niebuhr, Sapientia Salomonis, 119.

84  Martina Kepper

time concerning the individual fate and the truly biblical notion of time as being created and therefore ruled by the God of Israel. As his speech is developing, “Solomon” claims that by wisdom he is able to understand everything in the cosmos, with a special emphasis on time (Wis 7:18–19): 18 ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος καὶ μεσότητα χρόνων, τροπῶν ἀλλαγὰς καὶ μεταβολὰς καιρῶν, 19 ἐνιαυτοῦ κύκλους καὶ ἄστρων θέσεις,

the beginning and end and middle of times the alterations of the solstices and the changes of the seasons, the cycles of the year and the constellations of the stars (translation: NETS)

Most commentators emphasize the author’s adoption of contemporary notions of cosmic time in this verse. They interpret the mention “beginning and end and middle of times” as a reference to the knowledge of astrology. But this is not convincing, as astrological knowledge clearly is alluded to in v. 19. So, the threefold-formula “beginning, end, and middle of times,” especially with the somehow irritating word order needs another explanation. Commentators have shown that this is an allusion to a very popular Orphic hymn praising the power of Zeus.58 Plato also quotes it,59 and we also find it for instance in the Derveni Papyrus,60 which claims that it stems from of old. And of course, it is said to be of Platonic origin in Ps.Aristotle, De mundo when it relates that Zeus is the one who rules the times. As nothing that exists is infinite61 all must come to a wellordered end. Zeus as the supreme God is, therefore, the guaranty of a fitting ending: καθάπερ καὶ ὁ γενναῖος Πλάτων φησίν· “ὁ μὲν δὴ θεός, ὥσπερ ὁ παλαιὸς λόγος, ἀρχήν τε καὶ τελευτὴν καὶ μέσα τῶν ὄντων ἁπάντων ἔχων, εὐθείᾳ περαίνει κατὰ φύσιν πορευόμενος” As the noble Plato also says: “God, as the ancient story tells, holding the beginning and the end and the middle of all the things that exist, brings them to an end, travelling with a straight path according to nature” (Ps-Arist., De mundo 401; translation Thom).

What makes it quite convincing that the author of the Wisdom of Solomon is alluding to this Hellenistic proverbial saying to express the well-known biblical notion of God being the master of time is, first, that the (later) biblical texts do 58 Cf. Orph. frag. 31 Bernabé = 21 Kern. 59 Cf. Plato, Resp. 621b; Phileb. 14a; Leg. 645b; Theaet. 164d, quoting Orph. Frag. 378.35–6 Bernabé = 247.35–6 Kern. 60 Cf. Thom, Cosmic Order and Divine Power, 65–66. 61 The following quotation explains the names of mythological entities by analyzing their meaning etymologically: 401a 12: Πεπρωμένην δὲ διὰ τὸ πεπερατῶσθαι πάντα καὶ μηδὲν ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἄπειρον εἶναι (Fate because all things are limited and nothing that exists is infinite; translation, Thom).

“All’s well that ends well” 

85

not use this threefold-formula of beginning, end, and middle. In fact, it is unique within the Jewish-Hellenistic writings, which prefer a twofold-scheme, cf. LXX Eccl 3:11: God created man ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς καὶ μέχρι τέλους. Or Sir 24:9: πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἔκτισέν με, καὶ ἕως αἰῶνος οὐ μὴ ἐκλίπω. Philo uses the rare word μεσότης three times but never to denote the middle of the times but only beginning, middle and end of the cosmos, which is the same spatial use as in pagan Greek-Hellenistic writings.62 Second, that the word order puts the word “middle” not in the middle but at the end is puzzling, not to mention that μεσότης is a hapax within the Septuagint. So, it seems quite safe to say that the author of Wisdom deliberately is referring to a text popular in his times, combining the linear concept of time as part of the cosmological order. But he does not simply quote it but alludes to it in a very specific way because he adopts its meaning to his theological point of view through three minute changes: First of all, the formula in the Hellenistic texts applies this knowledge to Zeus, not to a mortal man. Second, it is exactly knowledge that Solomon claims to have been given, not power as in the proverbial saying. And third, the object of this knowledge is not spatial, namely the cosmos, but temporal, the times as χρόνος. Again, we can only speculate what triggered the reference to the proverbial pagan saying. A possibility might be the surprising word order, namely putting “middle” not in the middle, but at the end of the list. As the saying stems from Greek poetry, the original cause might have been just metri causa. But by adopting the word order that puts “middle” not in the middle, it is exactly the “middle of times” that is highly stressed with regard to content, which underlines a clearly theological interpretation. The plural form of the expression “middle of the times” points to distinct, countable linear ages. But in fact, out of 127 occurrences of the term, only very few, and especially late texts use the plural.63 Thus, “times” as history (“Ereignisgeschichte”) are meant, not time as a special moment in time which would be the term in the singular. The Wisdom of Solomon shows a clear distinction between χρόνος in the singular or plural: the singular is used when a certain interval is meant which is limited either by a 62 Philo, Her. 126: λάβε μοι” καὶ τὴν ᾄττουσαν αἴσθησιν ἐπὶ τὸν αἰσθητὸν κόσμον, “αἶγα,” πάντα “τριετίζοντα,” κατ᾿ ἀριθμὸν τέλειον παγέντα, ἀρχὴν μεσότητα τελευτὴν ἔχοντα· This is his allegorical explanation for the sacrifice of a three-year old goat: It must be three, because the intelligible cosmos has a beginning, middle and end. Note that Philo is presenting the logical order within a linear concept of time. 63 We may note Ezra 4:15; Neh 10:35; 13:31; Dan 2:21, 44; 4:37; 1 Esd 1:22, 40; 2:12; 8:73; 2 Macc 6:21; 12:15; 14:3, 36; 3 Macc 7:19; 4 Macc 13:21. This totals less than 10 %. Philo uses the singular and as well as the plural very frequently but in a general sense: it means “seasons” in Opif. 41, or “old times,” etc. Cf. also 2 Macc 6:21; 12:15; 14:4.

86  Martina Kepper

distinct beginning or end. Examples are the time it takes after which a person is forgotten after his or her death (Wis 2:4), or the time of the pregnancy which ends with the birth (Wis 7:2) or the time it takes to get acquainted to something new (Wis 14:16). But in cases where the plural is used it denotes an unlimited time span during which the person in these “times” is given the opportunity or has the task to live according to the ancestral laws that lead to life: man can transcend his physical lifetime through righteousness to attain “eternal times” (Wis 4:13), wisdom is the only one that knows the “end of all times,” and, above all, God gives “times” for repentance for the wicked (Wis 12:20): If we apply this to the above-mentioned passage, we get a very significant theological notion of time: knowing the beginning and end of times suggests that the beginning and end of history should be understood as a merism that totally conforms to the Jewish understanding of history as ruled and governed by God. Stressing the “middle of times” classifies the historical times Solomon and his readers are living in, the present part of history, as an age leading to a determined future. Knowing how “the times” started, namely as being created by God, and knowing that it will lead to eternal life for the righteous sheds light on the interpretation of exactly the times “Solomon” and his readers are living in: it holds the task of doing the right thing in the middle or meantime and find the right decision for one’s fate.64 By adopting a pagan saying, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon finds a way to combine the ancestral tradition that promotes choosing Wisdom for life and stresses the importance to make that decision wisely. The pagan saying functions not as philosophical speculation about time but as advice for ethical contemplation about one’s choices in life. This is underlined by the term μεσότης, as already mentioned a hapax in the LXX as well as in the deuterocanonical literature. But it is a technical term in ethical discussions.65 By using a probably well-known saying and placing it in a different theological context, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon appears as a well-educated and competent scribe, fully aware of the questions the lived religion of his time put forward, and able to find answers to these questions through about the legacy of Jewish authoritative writings available to him.

64 As it does in the only occurrence in T. Ab. B 9:8. 65 In fact, most of the 191 results for a lemma-search in TLG stem from Aristotle’s Ethica Eudemica as well as Ethica Nicomachea. We could take Eth. Eud. 1227b 5 as one example: ἐπειδὴ ἡ ἀρετὴ μὲν ἡ ἠθικὴ αὐτή μεσότης τίς ἐστι καὶ περὶ ἡδονὰς καὶ λύπας πᾶσα. The “middle” is a means of definition.

“All’s well that ends well” 

87

6 Conclusion In his illuminating book on the relevance of the temporal regime the Seleucids instituted when coming to power in the last decades of the 4th century BCE, Paul Kosmin66 detects three door-opening ideas that probably caused a new approach to notions of time for the conquered people of the new Empire from then on: first, the pre-Seleucid era has definitely come to an end and can only be looked at in retrospect. The loss of political power by the local elites may have been compensated by speculations about one’s own—glorious—past by interpreting the own national traditions. Second, contemplating the past in a historical perspective surely functions as some kind of escapism from the traumatizing present. So, the scribes or intellectual elites responsible for this kind of reformulation of their own past merely understood their present as only transitional. And third, if the past is definitely over, and the present is only transitional, this opens new opportunities for the future to which the literal traditions have to be adopted, expanded, and reformulated. It is no surprise, then, that the Jewish authoritative writings show signs of these endeavors. Different corpora obviously took different approaches to update their literary legacy and adopt it to their present situation. Notion of time seemed to be a crucial point in this process. The example of the Wisdom of Solomon shows that these intellectual elites were not only trained in their ancestral tradition but familiar with all means of Greek paideia as well. The author shows great Greek philological skills by coining new epithets for scriptural figures like πρωτόπλαστος for Adam. The reformulation of the received tradition also shows great exegetical interest in adopting or even citing or interpreting commonly known Greek phrases into a “biblical” context and by harmonizing lacunae in content of the texts alluded to in other traditional Jewish writings, as in, for example, his use of the verb γλύφειν. But above all, the author of the Book of Wisdom clearly shows signs of a literary Greek education, as he is able to choose a probably well-known proverb of the Greek tradition and adopt it to his own theological conclusion: as we are living “in the middle of the times,” so it is our duty and our task to choose the right path that leads to life. It may seem odd to use the title “All’s well, that ends well” taken from one of Shakespeare’s so called “problem plays” for a paper dealing with exegetical questions concerning notions of time in Jewish-Hellenistic literature. But it seems somehow fitting. These Shakespearian plays cannot be categorized onedimensionally as either comic or tragic. The protagonists in Shakespeare’s “problem plays” are put into situations that are vexing. They get tested and 66 Cf. Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire, 134.

88  Martina Kepper

tempted, suffer but withstand, and in the end, they are saved and moral order is restored. During the time of endurance, though, they are far from being well. Only in retrospect this time-span is classified as well because of its final outcome or restoration. Compared to the situation of the Jewish population in the Hellenistic world, there are some striking similarities. Jews were living in uncertain and difficult times, in their homeland Palestine as well as in the diaspora. We are well informed that the politeuma of Jews in the Hellenistic metropolis of Alexandria had to struggle against the Greek population although they officially had full civic rights. The pogrom of 38 CE even led to an embassy to emperor Caius Caligula in Rome, accompanied by Philo of Alexandria. In the unsafe times he was living in, and as an intellectual scribe challenged by so many philosophically convincing other concepts the author of the Book of Wisdom found very skillful techniques to reformulate the combination of protological and eschatological theologoumena he found in scripture. The special impact on notions of time in this deuterocanonical text is the scribal approach to combine the protological and eschatological notions of time and extend the authoritative texts of his community in order to provide his fellow people with ethical advice in difficult times by stating: God the creator has our times in his hands, he started it, and he will bring it to a glorious end for those who stay loyal to him. In the meantime, let’s choose wisdom for life.

Bibliography The Greek texts and translations are retrieved from: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/ and www. perseus.tufts.edu (last accessed September, 2021). Adams, Sean. Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014. Arnim, Hans von. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (SVF). vol. 1–4. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1903– 1924: Repr. 2016. Baird, Jennifer A. Dura-Europos. Archaeological histories. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018. Barr, James, “The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity,” JAAR 53 (1985): 201–35. Bernabé, Alberto, ed. Poetae epici Graeci. Testimonia et Fragmenta, pars II, fasciculus 1. Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta. Repr. München and Leipzig: Saur, 2004. Betz, Hans Dieter. “A Child of Earth am I and of Starry Heaven.” Pages 102–19 in The “Orphic” Gold Tablets and Greek Religion: Further along the Path. Edited by Radcliffe G. Edmonds III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

“All’s well that ends well” 

89

Brayford, Susan A. Genesis. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007. Coope, Ursula. Time for Aristotle: Physics IV.10–14. Oxford Aristotle Studies, Oxford: Clarendon, 2005. Engel, Helmut, “Die Sapientia Salomonis als Buch. Die gedankliche Einheit im Buch der Weisheit.” Pages 135–43 in Die Septuaginta—Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte. 3. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 22.–25. Juli 2010. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser and Marcus Sigmund. WUNT 286. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2012. Fröhlich, Ida. Time and Times and Half a Time: Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras. JSPSup 19. Sheffield 1996. Elliger, Karl. Deuterojesaja. Teilband 1: Jesaja 40,1–45,7. BKAT 11.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978. Gleßmer, Uwe. Die ideale Kultordnung. 24 Priesterordnungen in den Chronikbüchern, kalendarischen Qumrantexten und in synagogalen Inschriften. STDJ 24. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. Hachlili, Rachel. “The Zodiac in Ancient Jewish Art: Representation and Significance.” BASOR 228 (1977): 61–77. Henten, Jan Willem van, and Friedrich Avemarie. Martyrdom and Noble Death. Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Horky, Philipp Sidney, ed. Cosmos in the Ancient World. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Janowski, Bernd. Anthropologie des Alten Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Jones, Alexander, ed. Time and Cosmos in Greco-Roman Antiquity. New York, Oxford and Princeton: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University and Princeton University Press, 2016. Johnston, Sarah Iles, “Orphicae Lamellae.” DNP 9.57–58. Kaspar, Rudolf F., and Alfred Schmidt. “Wittgenstein über Zeit.” Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 46 (1992): 569–83. Kepper, Martina, “Genesis.” Pages 75–87 in Introduction to the Septuagint. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019. Knauf, Ernst Axel. 1 Könige 1–14. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2016. Kosmin, Paul J. Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2018. Laato, Antti, and Johannes C. de Moor, eds. Theodicy in the World of the Bible: The Goodness of God and the Problem of Evil. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Lange, Armin. Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer I: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Marcus, Ralph, ed. Philo. Questions on Exodus. LCL 401. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953. Mathys, Hans-Peter. Vom Anfang und vom Ende: Fünf alttestamentliche Studien. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2000. Müller, Hans-Peter. “‫ ר ֹאׁש‬rōš.” THAT 2.701–15. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two Way Index to the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2010.

90  Martina Kepper

Nickelsburg, George W. E. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity: Expanded Edition. HTS 56. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Niebuhr, Karl Wilhelm, ed. Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit interpretierenden Essays versehen. SAPERE 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Nilsson, Martin. Geschichte der Griechischen Religion. Vol. 2: Die hellenistisch-römische Zeit. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft V, 2, 2. München: C. H. Beck, 1988. Popović, Mladen. Reading the Human Body. Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism. STDJ 67. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007. Oswald, Wolfgang. “Das Erstlingswerk Gottes—Zur Übersetzung von Gen 1,1.” ZAW 120 (2008): 417–21. Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Vol 1: Texts Concerned with Religious Law. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004. Riedweg, Christoph. “Initiation—Tod—Unterwelt: Beobachtungen zur Kommunikationssituation und narrativen Technik der orphisch-bakchischen Goldblättchen.” Pages 359–98 in Ansichten griechischer Rituale. Geburtstagssymposion für Walter Burkert. Castelen bei Basel, 15. bis 18. März 1996. Edited by Fritz Graf. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner, 1998. Rüpke, Jörg. Urban Religion. A Historical Approach to Urban Growth and Religious Change. Boston and Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020. Schofield, Malcolm. “ARXH.” Hyperboraeus 3 (1997): 218–36. Siegert, Folker. Einleitung in die hellenistisch-jüdische Literatur: Apokrypha, Pseudepigrapha und Fragmente verlorener Autorenwerke. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2019. Simon, Marcel. “θάρσει οὐδείς ἀθάνατος. Études de vocabulaire religieux.” RHR 113 (1936): 188–206. Speyer, Wolfgang. Zwischen Traum und Wirklichkeit, Zeit und Ewigkeit: Der Mensch als das Wesen des “Zwischen”. Salzburger Theologische Studien 51. Innsbruck and Wien: TyroliaVerlag, 2014. Stemberger, Günther. “Die Bedeutung des Tierkreises auf Mosaikböden spätantiker Synagogen.” Kairos 17 (1975): 23–56. Thom, Johan C. Cosmic Order and Divine Power. Pseudo-Aristoteles, On the Cosmos. SAPERE 23. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Witte, Markus, “Der ‘Kanon’ heiliger Schriften des antiken Judentums im Spiegel des Buches Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira.” Pages 215–41 in Kanon in Konstruktion und Dekonstruktion. Kanonisierung religiöser Texte von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart—Ein Handbuch. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Stefan Scholz. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2011. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Notion and Definition of Canon.” Pages 21–35 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publisher, 2004. VanderKam, James C. “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 5 (1998): 382– 402. Wassén, Cecilia. “End Time Temples in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Expectations and Conflict.” Pages 55–87 in Apocalyptic Thinking in Early Judaism. Engaging with John Collins’ The Apocalyptic Imagination. Edited by Sidnie White Crawford and Cecilia Wassén. JSJSup 182. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2018. Weiss, Zeev. “The Synagogue in an Age of Transition, from the Second Temple Period to Roman Times.” Pages 25–42 in: Synagogues in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Edited

“All’s well that ends well”



by Lutz Döhring and Andrew Krause. Ioudaioi 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020. Xeravitz, Géza, and Peter Porzig. Einführung in die Qumranliteratur. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2015.

91

Stefan C. Reif

Time Factors in Early Rabbinic Religiosity Abstract: Having described in brief the situation that pertained in the late biblical and post-biblical periods, the paper will summarize some of what has recently been written in respect of time, calendar and the recording of events and identify the central elements of thought that lay behind the early rabbinic Weltanschauung. Early rabbinic texts will be examined and some conclusions will be reached as to what the principles once were and how they may later have been modified. Keywords: calendar, rabbis, texts, principles, modifications.

1 Aims In ascertaining the nature of any aspect of rabbinic thought or practice, it is almost always necessary to refer back to the Second Temple period. This is true whether one is searching for continuity or attempting to establish the degree of religious innovation. Rabbinic religiosity—like its early Christian counterpart— was not created in a vacuum but was developed and modified in its first two or three centuries by Jews who had known, or inherited, traditions for their predecessors who had lived at a time when the Jerusalem Temple stood. During that time, there was a degree of Jewish independence, and numerous groups responded in a variety of ways to the challenges of the Greek and Roman civilizations around them.1 The first aim of this paper will therefore be to describe in brief the situation that pertained in the late biblical and post-biblical periods (or the deuterocanonical age, if you will), primarily inspired by the Hebrew Bible and its literary and theological offshoots. Since the topic of “time” has been carefully considered by a number of Judaic scholars in the course of the past few decades, it will then be important to summarize some of what has been written in respect of time, calendar and the 1 I have dealt with the methodological problems faced by the historian in making use of, and reference to, the Second Temple period, in Reif, “Methodology,” 24–27, where there are numerous bibliographical footnotes. For additional and later literature, see Gafni, Jews, 1–3, and his extensive bibliography on pp. 441–76, especially the publications of Shaye J. D. Cohen cited there. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-005

94  Stefan C. Reif

recording of events. On the basis of such a summary, it will be possible to identify the central elements of thought that lay behind what the early rabbis felt and taught about such matters and how they incorporated them into their overall Weltanschauung. The next stage of my presentation will relate to early rabbinic texts that deal with aspects of the statutory liturgy and to derive from these a clearer notion of what the composers of such prayers had in mind as far as the broader concept of time is concerned. One of the questions that will require treatment is the degree to which such texts reveal a monolithic approach or, alternatively, an emergent adjustment to the ideology of earlier generations. Once the analysis of these sources has been completed, it will remain only to draw some conclusions about the topic that stands at the head of this article.

2 The Second Temple Period On the basis of the pentateuchal texts—whenever one wishes to date them—it is clear that by the Second Temple period, Jewish religiosity was very much tied up with Temple, Sabbaths, festivals, purity and tithing, as well as with charitable duties of one sort or another. For example, arriving at dates for special days, using the ritual bath at nightfall, deciding when a tithing season began and ended, and knowing which period was appropriate for each act of charity were all dependent in one way or another on some form of calendar. It is equally clear, then, that in order to meet one’s religious obligations in these respects, one had to distinguish days and nights, as well as weeks, months, and seasons, mainly by the moon but also by the sun. Given that the rabbis inherited and modified these religious requirements and eventually added to them a statutory liturgy for numerous occasions in the calendar, it is important to understand their concept of time and how that effected some aspects of their religiosity. Some recent publications point the way to such an understanding. A number of contributions to a collection of essays edited by Jonathan BenDov of the University of Haifa, Israel, and Lutz Doering of Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany, note this state of affairs and are consequently worthy of citation. In the introduction, reference is made to the “basic cycles of nature and of the human body that relate to human perception of time: the phases generated by the sun and the moon, the sequence of the seasons, the cycle of illnesses brought about by seasonal weather, or the female menstruation cycle.”2 The editors also cite Sacha Stern’s perceptive comment 2 Ben-Dov and Doering, “Introduction,” 3.

Time Factors in Early Rabbinic Religiosity



95

that “the calendar was at the heart of ancient societies and cultures, as an organizing principle of social life and as constitutive of ideologies and world-views … it belongs to the core of social history.”3 Within the body of the essays, a number of the contributors also make points that need to be stressed in painting an overall picture that was surely inherited by the early rabbis. Ben-Dov draws attention to the centrality of the Sabbath and the creation of the world in priestly literature but notes that such literature does not produce any specifically Jewish calendar. Only when challenged by the Egyptian and Greek usages were the Jews of the Second Temple period forced to offer their own versions of the calendar.4 Stern himself discusses politics, power relations and the history of calendars in the Roman Empire and how the Jews had somehow to find the means of merging the lunar calendar with the Julian calendar.5

3 Assessments of Rabbinic Views The word used for time within the rabbinic literature is the Hebrew ‫ זמן‬and it is important to reach an understanding of precisely what this word meant in such literature. In his important study Time and Process in Ancient Judaism Stern clarifies that linguistic issue. He explains that ‫זמן‬, which is usually translated as “time,” should more correctly be understood as “appointed time,” “any point in time,” “period” or “season.” For the rabbis time was not a temporal concept but is better understood as an event or process with which another event or process is designated to coincide or to be co-ordinated. Significant in this context is the fact that hours were no more than approximations. In sum, time for the rabbis is consequently a relative and not an absolute concept.6 The commencement and the termination of Sabbaths and festivals demanded some sort of definition of time and are therefore of concern to Doering.7 The talmudic discussions presuppose what he calls a buffer time which protects the sanctity of those occasions, even if it is has to be acknowledged that such a sanctity did not necessarily attract a universal acceptance. In his words, the “earliest tannaitic references to qiddush and havdalah connect the blessing over the day closely with a meal at home, and there is also evidence of meals on Friday afternoons and evenings in the Diaspora. Meals, therefore, provided an op3 4 5 6 7

Ben-Dov and Doering, “Introduction,” 2. Ben-Dov, “Time and Natural Law,” 25–27. Stern, “Calendars, Politics,” 31–49, especially 48. Stern, Time and Process, 32, 49–54, 58 and 126. Doering, “Beginning of Sabbath,” 220–24.

96  Stefan C. Reif

portunity for rendering the legally relevant ambiguities of time practically irrelevant by a controlled domestic celebration.”8 In this connection it should be noted that the evening prayer is later than those domestic ceremonies but to a large extent usurped their role and changed their time and place.9 Stökl Ben Ezra explains how the liturgical calendar and the development of lectionaries (both annual and triennial) in Late Antiquity created a more meaningful and recognizable form of time.10 Some parallels in texts and customs between the early Jewish and Christian liturgies are drawn by Hayward and may be valid for the discussion of later developments.11 At the same time, it should be noted that one of his cited rabbinic prayers was still no more than optional for the outstanding Babylonian authority, R. Sa‘adya ben Joseph, in the tenth century and attracted opposition into the middle ages.12 I hope that it will not be regarded as an act of immodesty if I also summarize some of what I had to say about the rabbinic approach to history in an essay published in 2006.13 The Talmud’s position is that there is validity only in halakhic and not in historical argument and that whatever happened in the past is no longer relevant to current rulings since Israel’s status stands outside the ordinary workings of time and place. The assessment of the past was a simple one in so far as its current standing was concerned. It stated that ‫מה דהוה הוה‬ “what happened in the past is now in the past” and was no longer applicable.14 Anachronisms were no problem to them and, as Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi puts it, they “seem to play with time as though with an accordion, expanding and collapsing it at will.”15 For Jacob Neusner, rabbinic literature from 200 to 600 CE totally rejected the Hebrew Bible’s historical way of thinking and replaced it with a paradigmatic approach to time and events. In his words, “The past takes place in the present. The present embodies the past.”16 Hebrew University scholar Daniel Schwartz expresses similar views. He notes how issues of time, place and change were viewed as a religious amalgam and that talmudic-midrashic literature cannot therefore be characterized as historical in our understanding of the term. 17 For Arnaldo Momigliano “History 8 Doering, “Beginning of Sabbath,” 224. 9 See the reference to the article by Ta-Shma in n. 31 below. 10 Stökl Ben Ezra, “Seasoning the Bible,” 243–45. 11 Hayward, “Roman Ember Days,” 248–64, especially 258. 12 Sa‘adya, Siddur, 220. 13 Reif, “The Function of History,” 262–64. 14 Y. Kil. 1.4 (27a) and b. Pesaḥ. 108a; see Urbach, “Halakhah,” 120. 15 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, 17. 16 Neusner, Idea of History, esp. 3. 17 Schwartz, “Alexandria,” 40–55.

Time Factors in Early Rabbinic Religiosity



97

had nothing to explain and little to reveal to the man who meditated the Law day and night.”18 A common underlying assumption was that there was a continuous process of Torah transmission from Moses to the rabbinic teachers and this was in itself an interesting combination of the past and the present but one which did not hesitate to recognize that what was obvious to Akiva may have been incomprehensible to his Mosaic forbears.19 Lest it be assumed that the rabbis had no sense at all of the difference between past and present, Isaiah Gafni stresses that they did have such a sensitivity but were anxious to assert that only the correct interpretation of the past was acceptable to their theology. As he puts it, the statement “what happened in the past is now in the past” is “in essence a sort of signpost warning of potential distraction, a divergence into unchartered waters, rather than a consciously stated opposition in principle to any contemplation of the past.”20 Texts were cited in that article that demonstrated that some elements of the historical did occur from time to time and that these certainly increased in number and significance in the immediate post-talmudic period. It may well be the case that the origins of such elements are not to be sought exclusively in posttalmudic Babylonia but may also have had some existence in earlier Palestine but that remains an open question and one that need not detain us in the present context. The purpose of this presentation is to add a few more annotated texts to those that I analysed in my earlier article from 2006, cited above.

4 Mishnaic texts Whether Rabban Gamaliel II of Yavneh introduced such practices ex nihilo or was at least partly influenced by earlier religious custom, it cannot be gainsaid that during the period of his patriarchate in the late first and early second centuries, he attempted to lay down categorical instructions concerning statutory Jewish liturgy. Among the matters that he wished to control was the timing of the prayers that were to be recited each day.21 The first chapters of the Mishnah that was composed by his grandson and successor as patriarch, R. Judah b. Simeon, are concerned with the matter of establishing the correct, or accept18 Momigliano, Classical Foundations, 44. 19 See, for example m. ’Abot 1, and the story about R. Akiva in b. Menaḥ. 29b. 20 Gafni, Jews and Judaism, 44–49, with the quoted sentence on 49. 21 For an outstanding summary and a critical assessment of the scholarly controversy of the 1990s about the liturgical role of Rabban Gamaliel, see Langer and Sarason, “Re-Examining the Early Evidence.”

98  Stefan C. Reif

able, timing for the recitation of the shema‘ and the ‘amidah, both of which were regarded as central to the observant Jew’s daily devotions.22

4.1 M. Ber. 1.1 ‫ ַעד‬,‫ ִמ ָּׁשָעה ֶ ׁשַה ֹּכֲה ִנים ִנְכָנִסים ֶלֱאֹכל ִּבְתרו ָּמָתן‬.‫ֵמֵאיָמַתי ק ֹו ִרין ֶאת ְׁשַמע ְּבַעְרִבית‬ ‫ ַר ָּבן‬.‫ ַעד ֲחצ ֹות‬,‫ ַוֲחָכִמים א ֹוְמ ִרים‬.‫ ִּדְבֵרי ַרִּבי ֱאִליֶעֶזר‬,‫ס ֹוף ָהַא ְ ׁשמו ָּרה ָה ִראׁש ֹוָנה‬ .‫ ַעד ֶ ׁשַי ֲּעֶלה ַעּמו ּד ַה ָּ ׁשַחר‬,‫ַגְּמִליֵאל א ֹוֵמר‬ From what time is one obligated to read the shema‘ in the evening? From the time when the priests come home to eat their heave-offering until the end of the first watch. That is the view of Rabbi Eliezer. The Wise [= the majority of the Rabbis] say: Until midnight. Rabban Gamaliel says: Until the first light of dawn.23

The commencement of the obligation to recite the shema‘ in the evening is tied not to a fixed time as we would understand it but to an event that was familiar to the population of Jerusalem when the Temple stood. The heave-offering that was gifted by the ordinary Israelite to the priest was defined as a “holy item” and, according to Lev 22:4, could therefore be eaten only in a state of spiritual purity. If the priest had been defiled in any way, he had to perform a ritual act of immersion and wait until the sun had set (v. 7) before his status of purity was restored and he could consume the relevant food. Although the origins of the ruling and the definition of the timing would appear to have originated in Temple times, there is evidence pointing to a continuation of the gift and the consumption of the heave-offering after the destruction of 70 CE.24 The editor of the Mishnah could therefore, almost a century and a half later, still retain this ancient definition in the expectation that it would be understood by the observant worshipper. The remaining three descriptions of time in this passage relate to the period of darkness. Since the length of that period was, of course, greater in the winter than in the summer, “midnight” was the halfway point between dark and light, the end of the first section of darkness was a third of the way through it, and dawn represented the transformation from night to day. The strictest view demands immediate recitation at dark while the most lenient one extends the obligation as far as it can, that is, to first light. The timing here is consequently linked with the ritual context on the one hand and the natural world on the other. 22 Reif, “Theological Significance.” 23 Danby, Mishnah, 2; Albeck, Mishnah, 1.13; Kehati, Mishnayot, Zera‘im, 1.7–9; InstoneBrewer, Prayer and Agriculture, 42–43. 24 B. Pesaḥ. 72b.

Time Factors in Early Rabbinic Religiosity



99

4.2 M. Ber. 1.2 ‫ ֵ ּבין‬,‫ ַרִּבי ֱאִליֶעֶזר א ֹוֵמר‬.‫ ִמ ֶׁ ּשַי ִּּכיר ֵ ּבין ְּתֵכֶלת ְלָלָבן‬.‫ֵמֵאיָמַתי ק ֹו ִרין ֶאת ְׁשַמע ְּב ַ ׁשֲח ִרית‬ ‫ ֶ ׁש ֵ ּכן ֶּדֶרְך‬,‫ ַעד ָ ׁשלֹׁש ָ ׁשע ֹות‬,‫ ַרִּבי ְיה ֹוֻׁשַע א ֹוֵמר‬.‫ ְוג ֹוְמָרּה ַעד ָהֵנץ ַהַח ָּמה‬.‫ְּתֵכֶלת ְלַכְרִּתי‬ .‫ְּבֵני ְמָלִכים ַלֲעֹמד ְּב ָ ׁשלֹׁש ָ ׁשע ֹות‬ From what time is one obligated to read the shema‘ in the morning? From the time when he can tell the difference between blue and white. Rabbi Eliezer says, between blue and green. He can still say it until the sun rises. Rabbi Joshua says until the end of the third hour, because members of the nobility arise at that time.25

Since the previous mishnaic passage makes reference to the first light, it is obviously necessary for the rabbinic legislator to explain how one is to define such a time in more practical terms. The anonymous ruling, which is generally the authoritative one,26 suggests that this may be ascertained by checking whether there is sufficient light to enable one to distinguish blue from white. The blue and white colors which the Mishnah has in mind are those of the threads of the ‫ציצית‬, usually translated as “fringes,” to be attached to the four corners of one’s garment. According to Num 15:38, one of the threads is to be blue and one may assume that the others are the natural color of wool.27 Once one has donned his garment, with the fringes attached, he can check whether he can yet distinguish blue from white. If so, he may recite the morning shema‘. The view recorded in the name of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus fixes the time a little later, namely, when one can distinguish blue and green. Recitation may continue until the sun has fully risen. So far, this is no matter of leniency or strictness but of temporal definition. The third view cited in the Mishnah is undoubtedly a more lenient one. R. Joshua ben Ḥananya is of the opinion that one may still define it as morning until the end of the first quarter of daylight hours since members of the nobility do not arise until that time. Again, one should take account of the fact that an hour is a variable commodity but R. Ḥananya does at least make use of the term, unlike those teachers mentioned in the previous passage who opt for other forms of identification. The systems of timing utilized here relate to one of the rituals, to the natural world, and to one element of the social environment.

25 Danby, Mishnah, 2; Albeck, Mishnah, 1.14; Kehati, Mishnayot, Zera‘im, 1.11–12; InstoneBrewer, Prayer and Agriculture, 43–44. 26 B. Šabb. 46a and 81b. 27 On the matter of the blue thread, see Finkelman, “Out of the Blue.”

100  Stefan C. Reif

4.3 M. Ber. 1.3 ‫ ֶׁש ֶנ ֱּאַמר ו ְּבָׁשְכְּבָך‬,ּ ‫ ו ַּבֹּבֶקר ַיַעְמדו‬,ּ ‫ ָּבֶעֶרב ָּכל ָאָדם ַיּטו ּ ְוִיְקְראו‬,‫ֵּבית ַׁשַּמאי א ֹוְמ ִרים‬ ,‫ ִאם ֵּכן‬.‫ ֶׁש ֶנ ֱּאַמר ו ְּבֶלְכְּתָך ַבֶּדֶרְך‬,‫ ָּכל ָאָדם ק ֹוֵרא ְכַדְרּכ ֹו‬,‫ ו ֵּבית ִהֵּלל א ֹוְמ ִרים‬.‫ו ְּבקו ֶּמָך‬ ‫ ו ְּבָׁשָעה ֶׁשְּבֵני ָאָדם‬,‫ ְּבָׁשָעה ֶׁשְּבֵני ָאָדם ׁש ֹוְכִבים‬,‫ָלָּמה ֶנֱאַמר ו ְּבָׁשְכְּבָך ו ְּבקו ֶּמָך‬ .‫ע ֹוְמִדים‬ The scholars of Shammai’s school say: In the evening one should recline to read [the shema‘] and in the morning one should stand, as the verse puts it (Deut 6:7) “and when you lie down and when you rise up.” The scholars of Hillel’s school say: One should read it in whatever state one is in, as the verse puts “whether you are lying down or rising.” In that case, why does the verse mention lying down and rising? It intends to indicate the time when people go to sleep and when people get up.28

This passage reports an early difference of opinion about the required physical position of the individual who is reciting the shema‘. Should one mark the evening recitation in a relaxed state, as appropriate in the evening, and the morning recitation in a more dynamic state, as is more suited to that time of day? Both schools use the same verse in support of their view, one taking it literally and relating it to a physical position, while the other explains it in an applied sense. For the school of Hillel, the verse is not describing one’s physical position but referring to the two times of day when one should recite the shema‘, namely, the evening and the morning, and it defines those occasions by reference to what is normally done by people at such times of day. The remainder of this mishnaic passage, not here cited, lends support to the Hillelite view by reporting that R. Ṭarfon followed the Shammaitic school when out and about one evening and endangered his life as a result, since there were bandits around. Here, then, timing is associated with human activity and not so much with the natural world or with rituals that are easily recognized. Those who wished to follow rabbinic guidance, and for whom the instructions were being formulated and transmitted, would certainly have had no trouble in understanding the timing when it related in such a way to normal human activity.

28 Danby, Mishnah, 2; Albeck, Mishnah, 1.14–15; Kehati, Mishnayot, Zera‘im, 1.13; InstoneBrewer, Prayer and Agriculture, 44–45.

Time Factors in Early Rabbinic Religiosity



101

4.4 M. Ber. 4.1 ‫ ְּתִפַּלת ַהִּמ ְנָחה ַעד‬.‫ ַעד ַאְרַּבע ָׁשע ֹות‬,‫ ַרִּבי ְיהו ָּדה א ֹוֵמר‬.‫ ַעד ֲחצ ֹות‬,‫ְּתִפַּלת ַהַּׁשַחר‬ .‫ ְּתִפַּלת ָהֶעֶרב ֵאין ָלּה ֶקַבע‬.‫ ַעד ְּפַלג ַהִּמ ְנָחה‬,‫ ַרִּבי ְיהו ָּדה א ֹוֵמר‬.‫ָהֶעֶרב‬ The morning ‘amidah may be said at any time until midday. R. Judah says, until the fourth hour. The afternoon ‘amidah may be said at any time until the division between afternoon and night. R. Judah says, until half way through the afternoon. The evening ‘amidah has no fixed time.29

This part of the tractate Berakhot is dealing not with the recitation of a scriptural passage as an act of daily piety but with recitation of the set of rabbinic benedictions formulated in or around the early second century CE. These contained praises of God and recognition of his powers at the beginning and end, with either requests for his assistance in between, on a weekday, or references to the special day, on a Sabbath or festival. This set of benedictions is known in early rabbinic texts as ‫“ התפילה‬the prayer,” that is to say, the prayer par excellence, the one that is central to rabbinic liturgy. Interestingly, it became customary to stand for this recitation and the prayer was therefore called “the standing [prayer],” in Hebrew ‫העמידה‬. In the land of Israel they also stood for the shema‘ while in Babylonia, somewhat remarkably, it became the custom to sit for the biblical reading while standing for the rabbinic one. Perhaps this was the Babylonian authorities’ way of stressing the importance of following rabbinic instructions, rather than simply respecting biblical precedents.30 The timings are similar to, but not identical with, those of the recitation of the shema‘. In the case of the ‘amidah, there are three recitations, rather than two, each day, and this mishnaic passage sets out to fix the times at which these three ‘amidot should be recited. The anonymous codifier allows its morning recitation until the mid-point of the daylight period, whatever that may be, depending on whether it is summer or winter. The view of R. Judah b. Ilai is less lenient, allowing the recitation only until a third of the daylight period has passed. For the afternoon recitation, the anonymous codifier allows it “until evening,” without specifying exactly how dark it has to be when the afternoon ‘amidah is no longer permitted. R. Judah b. Ilai is again stricter, allowing the afternoon recitation until the mid-point between mid-day and “dark.” For the evening ‘amidah, no timing is legislated, presumably because at this point in

29 Danby, Mishnah, 5; Albeck, Mishnah, 1.20; Kehati, Mishnayot, Zera‘im, 1.32–34; InstoneBrewer, Prayer and Agriculture, 53–54. 30 Reif, Judaism, 157–61.

102  Stefan C. Reif

the development of rabbinic religiosity, the recitation of an evening ‘amidah was still regarded as optional, and not obligatory.31 All the views in this mishnaic teaching relate the timing of the prayer to the natural day, with some opting for a tighter schedule while others permit more flexibility. Two pieces of data are, as it were, missing. There is no specific statement about when the starting point is for any of the ‘amidot nor any precise definition of “evening.” The talmudic discussions and later halakhic authorities deal with these matters and offer more precise guidance but at the earlier tannaitic stage there was clearly less anxiety (or educational ambition?) about maintaining a comprehensively precise timing.

4.5 M. Ta‘an. 1.1 ‫ ִמי ּ ֹום ט ֹוב ָה ִראׁש ֹון‬,‫ ַרִּבי ֱאִליֶעֶזר א ֹוֵמר‬.‫ֵמֵאיָמַתי ַמְזִּכי ִרין ְגּבו ּר ֹות ְגָּׁשִמים‬ ‫ ָאַמר ל ֹו ַרִּבי‬.‫ ִמי ּ ֹום ט ֹוב ָהַאֲחר ֹון ֶׁשל ָחג‬,‫ ַרִּבי ְיה ֹוֻׁשַע א ֹוֵמר‬.‫ֶׁשל ָחג‬ ‫ ָאַמר‬.‫ ָלָּמה ַמ ְזִּכיר‬,‫ ה ֹוִאיל ְוֵאין ַה ְגָּׁשִמים ֶאָּלא ִסיַמן ְקָלָלה ֶּבָחג‬.‫ְיה ֹוֻׁשַע‬ ‫ ֶאָּלא ְלַה ְזִּכיר ַמִּׁשיב ָהרו ַּח‬,‫ ַאף ֲא ִני לֹא ָאַמְרִּתי ִלְׁשא ֹול‬,‫ל ֹו ַרִּבי ֱאִליֶעֶזר‬ .‫ ְלע ֹוָלם ְיֵהא ַמ ְזִּכיר‬,‫ ִאם ֵּכן‬,‫ ָאַמר ל ֹו‬.‫ו ּמ ֹו ִריד ַה ֶגֶּׁשם ְּבע ֹוָנת ֹו‬ From when should we mention [in the ‘amidah] God’s power to bring rain? R. Eliezer says: From the first day of the festival of Sukkot. R. Joshua says: From the last day of the festival of Sukkot. R. Joshua challenged R. Eliezer: Since rain on the festival of Sukkot is a curse [for those spending their time in the frail and temporary sukkah building], why mention it [in prayer]? R. Eliezer replied: I too did not say that we should request rain but that we should mention the phrase “God has the power to bring the wind and the rain,” that is to say, at its correct season. To which, R. Joshua replied: On that basis, the mention of such divine power could be recited at any time.32

The Mishnah in tractate Ber. 5.2 has already discussed in which benediction of one’s daily ‘amidah one should mention the divine power to bring rain, and in which one should make a request for rain. Here, the matter is when in the year one should begin to do the former. The argument between R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and R. Joshua b. Ḥananya centers on whether such a mention may be regarded as an invitation, as it were, for God to do his work in this connection, or merely a rehearsal of his powers. Such an invitation should be made only when one wishes to have the appropriate response; such a rehearsal should ideally not be time-restricted. Even with regard to the request for rain included in the ‘amidah, R. Eliezer has already been reported (m. Ber. 5.2) as favoring its 31 The controversy about whether the evening ‘amidah was obligatory was discussed at length from the talmudic into the medieval period; see Ta-Shma, “Evening Prayer.” 32 Danby, Mishnah, 194; Albeck, Mishnah, 2.331; Kehati, Mishnayot, Moed, 2.249–50.

Time Factors in Early Rabbinic Religiosity



103

inclusion in the thanksgiving benediction, perhaps indicating that he viewed such a mention as an acknowledgment of God’s power and his generosity. It would seem from his final comment that this is how R. Joshua understands R. Eliezer’s view. For himself, R. Joshua sees the mention of the divine control of the weather patterns as seasonally relevant and expressive of the worshipper’s desire for the divine activation of such control when it is most needed by humanity. Again, there is no mention in either of the two mishnaic texts just cited of a date in the calendar. The codifier prefers to tie the topic to a well-known point in the festival season. Since the rabbinic calendar is seasonally adjusted to have Pesaḥ (Passover) consistently in the spring and Sukkot (Tabernacles) always in the autumn, the mention of rain may be confidently attached to the autumnal festival when the season changes and when, the worshipper hopes, the rains cannot be long delayed.

5 Prayer texts Although the theory about what to include in the statutory prayers was well established in tannaitic times, there are good grounds for assuming that there was some flexibility in the matter of the precise wording throughout the talmudic and geonic periods. Certainly, the communities of the land of Israel often had their own liturgical preferences and did not necessarily follow the instructions widely disseminated by the Babylonian authorities and adopted by many other centers of Jewish population.33 It may illuminate the matter of timing and the role it played within common prayers, as well as clarifying whether any changes were gradually being made to the earlier rabbinic notions, if we look closely at some prayer texts themselves.

5.1 Benediction for Produce of the Land Version in Babylonia: ‫נו את השנה הזאת לטובה ולברכה בכל מיני תבואתה וברכה‬--‫ברך עלינו ה’ אל‬ .‫ ברוך אתה ה’ מברך השנים‬.‫כשנים הטובות‬ Bless for us, our eternal God, this year with the finest and most blessed produce of all kinds, and bless it like the best years. You, Lord, are the essence of praise, who has the power to bless years.

33 See footnotes 21 and 30 above.

104  Stefan C. Reif

Version in the land of Israel: ‫נו את השנה הזאת לטובה ולברכה בכל מיני תבואתה תקרב‬--‫ברך עלינו ה’ אל‬ .‫ ברוך אתה ה’ מברך השנים‬.‫מהרה שנת גאולתנו שנת שלומים לריב ציון‬ Bless for us, our eternal God, this year with the finest and most blessed produce of all kinds. Hastily bring us the year of our redemption, the year in which the cause of Zion will be avenged. You, Lord, are the essence of praise, who has the power to bless years.34

The topic dealt with in this ninth benediction of the ‘amidah is the produce of the land in the current year. Both versions pray for divine blessing on the produce in all its variety. Their beginnings and ends match but they differ in the section leading up to the eulogy. The Babylonian rite expresses the wish that the produce of the current year should be the equivalent of that experienced in the most productive years of the past, that is to say, it should reach the highest possible level. The rite of the Jewish homeland expresses the wish that the current year should be blessed with the arrival of Jewish redemption, in which the promises of the prophets about Israel being recompensed for her suffering will be truly fulfilled. What we have before us in these two prayers are different approaches to time. The Babylonians make a comparison between the present and the past and hope for a repeat performance of past pleasures.35 Although the central notion is qualitative rather than temporal, there is here, nevertheless, a sense of how the past should relate to the present. For the Jews of the land of Israel, the comparison, or rather the contrast, is between the present suffering and the eschatological relief. There is an historical flavor to the Babylonian prayer of the eastern communities and a theological one to that of their co-religionists in the east. As Uri Ehrlich has noted, R. Sa‘adya Gaon did not approve of such messianic additions since they were not primarily concerned with the worshipper’s daily needs, as were the other central benedictions of the ‘amidah.36

34 The detailed textual history of the ‘amidah in these two rites, and of the great variety of their formulations, is comprehensively traced and analysed by Ehrlich, Weekday Amidah, 125– 43. The text cited here as that of the land of Israel is based on two Genizah fragments in New York; see especially ibid., 136. See also Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 44. 35 See the comment of Debra Reed Blank cited below and documented in n. 42. 36 Ehrlich, Weekday Amidah, 131.

Time Factors in Early Rabbinic Religiosity 

105

5.2 Pre-shema‘ benediction of the morning service ‫נו מלך העולם יוצר אור ובורא חשך עשה שלום ובורא את הכל‬--‫ברוך אתה יי אל‬ .‫המאיר לארץ ולדרין עליה ומחדש בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית‬ You, our Eternal God, are the essence of praise and the universal sovereign, the one who forms light and creates darkness, makes peace and creates everything; who brings light to the Earth and those living upon it, and renews his work of creation every single day.37

The first pre-shema‘ benediction, of the morning and the evening services, praises God for creating, respectively, light and darkness and for ensuring that the one consistently and reliably follows the other. This reference in the morning version to the work of creation, that is, ‫מעשה בראשית‬, as the rabbis dubbed it, is not a dissertation on the big bang theory but an acknowledgement of God’s eternal power. The present tense, or participial form, is used and God is described as performing this miracle of creation on a daily basis: ‫מחדש בכל יום תמיד‬ ‫מעשה בראשית‬.38 What is noteworthy here is that the composer of this liturgy is not presenting the creation as an act that took place in the past, but rather an ongoing act by God that maintains the efficient existence of the universe. The concept is one of timelessness rather than of time. The praise of God is, like so many rabbinic benedictions, an acknowledgement of the benefits that he continuously bestows on humanity in the here and now.

5.3 The Geu’lah benediction after the shema‘ The benediction that follows the recitation of the shema‘ in the morning and in the evening begins by confirming what has just been quoted by the worshipper from Num 15:41 about the relationship between God and his people Israel, and then going on to exemplify this by reference to the redemption from Egypt and other divine rescues of Israel from a variety of troubles. The benediction is known as ‫גאולה‬, “redemption.”39 Towards the end of the benediction, before the recitation of the eulogy stating that God has redeemed Israel (‫)גאל ישראל‬, there is a poetic introduction to the verses in the Song at the Sea at Exodus 15:11 and 18 that states ‫ מי כמכה‬and ‫ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד‬,“who is like you” and “the Lord will reign forever” and refers to the rescue at the Reed Sea. It is interesting to compare the morning version with the evening version and to refer to a later addition:

37 See Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 16–17; Sacks, Koren Siddur, 89–91. 38 See b. Ḥag. 12b. 39 See Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 21–22 and 86–87; Sacks, Koren Siddur, 102–7 and 247–49.

106  Stefan C. Reif

Morning: ‫וענו שירה ואמרו כולם מי כמוך‬, They then all sang the song: “Who is like you …” Evening: ‫וענו שירה בשמחה רבה ואמרו כולם מי כמכה … יחד כולם בקול אחד הודו והמליכו ואמרו יי ימלוך‬ ‫לעולם ועד‬, Then all of them with great joy sang the song: “Who is like you” … In unison they all acknowledged God as King and said “The Lord will reign forever.” Later texts add ‫“( משה ובני ישראל‬Moses and the children of Israel”).

It should be noted that the simplest version appears less interested in the historical event than in the use of the verses as a piece of poetry for liturgical purposes. The other—probably later—version expands on the event by providing more of what we might call the human details. The poetic liturgy is then effectively vying with the historical event for the attention/concentration of the worshipper. This undoubtedly tells us something about the changing attitude to historical data in the development of the rabbinic liturgy. It possibly reflects the expanding interest in history that may be detected in rabbinic Judaism as it moved from the geonic (post-talmudic) period into the early middle ages. There is undoubtedly a growing tendency in those centuries, possibly under the influence of the Classical world, to include both prosaic and poetic additions to the liturgy that make reference to personalities and events of what we, but perhaps not they, would call history. Although there may have been some Jewish scholars with a more historical approach as early as the late geonic period, especially it seems in southern Italy, the standard liturgy, as recorded in the earliest known prayer-books, remained, as one might expect, centred on theology in general and eschatology in particular.40

6 Grace after Meals Since the grace after meals (‫ )ברכת המזון‬consists of many elements that probably derive from the earliest contexts of rabbinic liturgy, a few words should be added about its first (and oldest) three benedictions.41 The first benediction thanks God for proving food for his creatures. The second has what might be called historical references to the gift of the land of Israel to the Jewish people and the Exodus from Egypt, but the continuation speaks of the covenant, the Torah, the commandments and God’s mercy, indicating clearly that it is these topics that constitute central elements in Jewish theology. Towards the eulogy, the topic is again the food produced by the land gifted to Israel by God. Simi40 Reif, “Function of History,” 275. 41 Baer, ‘Avodat Yisrael, 554–57; Finkelstein, Birkat Ha-Mazon; Sacks, Koren Siddur, 962–73; Shmidman and Ehrlich, “Poetic Passage.”

Time Factors in Early Rabbinic Religiosity



107

larly, the centrality of Jerusalem in the third benediction stresses its restoration, another eschatological notion, although ultimately based on the historical precedent. As Debra Reed Blank has astutely observed about various rabbinic benedictions, “divine action in the past is invoked as the paradigm for divine behavior in the future and as a justification for human expectation of same behavior.”42

7 Conclusions In the Second Temple period, some sort of calendar had to be adopted in order to meet Jewish religious obligations, especially with regard to such matters as Sabbaths and festivals, ritual purity, tithing and charitable acts. The rabbis adopted but also adapted such expressions of religiosity and attached to them a statutory liturgy for daily and special occasions. In the earliest rabbinic literature, the notion of time reflects a traditional, process-related worldview. The earliest references to prayer meals at home, such as on the Sabbath, are only vaguely related to time, as it was later understood. The requirements concerning when one should recite the morning and evening shema‘ and ‘amidah demonstrate that time for the rabbis was a relative, and not an absolute, concept. There are indications in the later rabbinic liturgy that time and precision gradually took on a growing importance, possibly as a result of external cultural influences. While, in the earlier texts, ritual context, natural world, social environment, human activity and theological considerations were the deciding factors in the timing of religious rituals, the later sources had the advantage of operating in periods which had seen the adoption of a relatively fixed calendar.43 Historical elements barely occur as such in the earliest expressions of rabbinic religiosity and undoubtedly yield precedence to non-historical concerns. Later rabbinic teachers take on board the aspects of the historical and incorporate them into their authoritative texts of various genres with somewhat less reserve, and with a more limited degree of hesitation, than were exercised by their predecessors.

42 Blank, “Theological Grammar,” 19. 43 Stern, Calendar and Community, 175.

108  Stefan C. Reif

Bibliography Albeck, Chanoch, ed. Shishah Sidrey Mishnah. 6 vols. Jerusalem-Tel Aviv: Bialik-Dvir, 1959. Baer, Seligmann. Seder ‘Avodat Yisrael. Rödelheim: Lehrberger, 1868. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “Time and Natural Law in Jewish Hellenistic Writings.” Pages 9–30 in The Construction of Time in Antiquity. Ritual, Art and Identity. Edited by Jonathan Ben-Dov and Lutz Doering. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Ben-Dov, Jonathan, and Lutz Doering, eds. The Construction of Time in Antiquity. Ritual, Art and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Ben-Dov, Jonathan, and Lutz Doering, eds. “Introduction.” Pages 1–8 in The Construction of Time in Antiquity. Ritual, Art and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Blank, Debra Reed. “The Curious Theological Grammar of Ga’al Yisra’el.” Pages 9–21 in The Experience of Jewish Liturgy. Studies Dedicated to Menahem Schmelzer. Edited by Debra Reed Blank. BRLA 31. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. London: Oxford University Press, 1933. Doering, Lutz. “The Beginning of Sabbath and Festivals in Ancient Jewish Sources.” Pages 205–26 in The Construction of Time in Antiquity. Ritual, Art and Identity. Edited by Jonathan Ben-Dov and Lutz Doering. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Ehrlich, Uri. The Weekday Amidah in Cairo Genizah Prayerbooks: Roots and Transmission. Hebrew. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013. Elbogen, Ismar. Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History. Translated and edited by Raymond P. Scheindlin. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society and Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993. Finkelman, Eliezer. “Out of the Blue: Why Fringes Lost a Heavenly Hue.” On-line at http:// www.tekhelet.com/pdf/0959.pdf. Finkelstein, Louis. “The Birkat Ha-Mazon.” JQR NS 19 (1928–29): 211–62. Gafni, Isaiah. Jews and Judaism in the Rabbinic Period. Image and Reality. History and Historiography. TSAJ 173. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Hayward, Robert. “The Roman Ember Days of September and the Jewish New Year.” Pages 248–64 in The Construction of Time in Antiquity. Ritual, Art and Identity. Edited by Jonathan Ben-Dov and Lutz Doering. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Instone-Brewer, David. Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Prayer and Agriculture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004. Kehati, Pinḥas. Mishnayot Mevu’arot. 12 vols. Jerusalem: Hechal Shlomo, 1977. Langer, Ruth, and Richard S. Sarason. “Re-Examining the Early Evidence for Rabbinic Liturgy: How Fixed were its Prayer Texts?” Pages 203–31 in On Wings of Prayer. Sources of Jewish Worship. Essays in Honor of Professor Stefan C. Reif on the Occasion of his Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages, Michael W. Duggan and Dalia Marx. DCLS 44. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Momigliano, Arnaldo. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Neusner, Jacob. The Idea of History in Rabbinic Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Reif, Stefan C. Judaism and Hebrew Prayer. New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Time Factors in Early Rabbinic Religiosity 

109

Reif, Stefan C. “Liturgy in the Second Temple Period. Methodology.” Pages 21–31 in Problems with Prayers. Studies in the Textual History of Early Rabbinic Liturgy. Edited by Stefan C. Reif. SJ 37. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Reif, Stefan C. “The Theological Significance of the Shema‘.” Pages 107–25 in Problems with Prayers. Studies in the Textual History of Early Rabbinic Liturgy. Edited by Stefan C. Reif. SJ 37. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Reif, Stefan C. “The Function of History in Early Rabbinic Liturgy.” Pages 260–77 in Jews, Bible and Prayer. Essays on Jewish Biblical Exegesis and Liturgical Notions. Edited by Stefan C. Reif. BZAW 498. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. Sa‘adya b. Joseph. Siddur R. Sa‘adya Gaon. Kitāb Ǵāmi‘ Aṣ-Ṣalawāt Wat-Tasābīh. Edited by Israel Davidson, Simha Assaf and B. Issachar Joel. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1963. Sacks, Jonathan, ed. The Koren Siddur. Jerusalem: Koren, 2009. Schwartz, Daniel. “From Alexandria to Rabbinic Literature to Zion: The Jews’ Departure from History and Who it is [sic] Who Returns to it?” Pages 40–55 in Zionism and the Return to History: A Reappraisal. Edited by Shmuel N. Eisenstadt and Moshe Lissak. Hebrew. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1999. Shmidman, Avi, and Uri Ehrlich. “‘We Shall Glorify You, our King.’ A Poetic Passage in the Second Benediction of the Grace after Meals.” Pages 317–35 in On Wings of Prayer. Sources of Jewish Worship. Essays in Honor of Professor Stefan C. Reif on the Occasion of his Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Nuria Calduch-Benages, Michael W. Duggan and Dalia Marx. DCLS 44. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Stern, Sacha. Calendar and Community. A History of the Jewish Calendar, Second Century BCETenth Century CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Stern, Sacha. Time and Process in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Littman Library, 2003. Stern, Sacha. “Calendars, Politics, and Power Relations in the Roman Empire.” Pages 31–49 in The Construction of Time in Antiquity. Ritual, Art and Identity. Edited by Jonathan Ben-Dov and Lutz Doering. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel. “Seasoning the Bible and Biblifying Time through Fixed Liturgical Reading Systems (Lectionaries).” Pages 227–47 in The Construction of Time in Antiquity. Ritual, Art and Identity. Edited by Jonathan Ben-Dov and Lutz Doering. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Ta-Shma, Israel M. “The Evening Prayer—Permission or Obligation.” Pages 131–44 in From Qumran to Cairo. Studies in the History of Prayer. Edited by Joseph Tabory. Jerusalem: Orhot Press, 1999. Urbach, Ephraim E. “Halakhah and History.” Pages 112–28 in Jews, Greeks and Christians. Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. Essays in Honor of William D. Davies. Edited by Robert Hamerton-Kelly and Robbin Scroggs. SJLA 21. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim. Zakhor. Jewish History and Memory. Stroum Lectures in Jewish Studies. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982, 1996.

Eve-Marie Becker

Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzepte in historiographischen Texten des 1. Jhs. n. Chr. Abstract: The article presents concepts of time and time measurement in diverse Greco-Roman, Jewish and early Christian texts dating to the early Roman Imperial period. It then considers the specific role and conceptual function of historiographical texts in ancient discourses about how to perceive, measure and structure time and how to cope with temporality. In that discourse frame, the early gospel writings appear as early Christian modes of memorializing the past for the sake of mastering (present) time: the gospels thus participate in the ancient historiographical project of operating “against Time the all-destroying” (Momigliano). Keywords: time, temporality, memory, historians, historiography, gospel writings, Paul, dating systems.

Zur abendländischen Geistesgeschichte gehört die Bearbeitung großer Fragen und Themen. Zu diesen Themen zählt auch die „Zeit“. Augustinus war ihr fragend auf der Spur und hat dabei einen der wichtigsten Texte zum Thema „Zeit“ hervorgebracht: „Was also ist die Zeit? Wenn niemand mich danach fragt, weiß ich es; wenn ich es einem Fragenden erklären will, weiß ich es nicht“ (Augustinus, Conf. 11,17).1

Die „Zeit“ (lat. tempus; gr.: χρόνος) ist – trotz oder wegen ihrer Unwägbarkeiten – schon seit jeher, so auch im antiken Kulturbetrieb und im geistigen Leben, ein stets präsentes Phänomen und Thema. Als solches hat die „Zeit“ in den entsprechenden Forschungsfeldern bereits vielseitige Aufmerksamkeit erfahren.2

1 Übersetzung: Fischer, Aurelius Augustinus, 25. 2 Vgl. etwa in jüngerer Zeit nur: Assmann und Theunissen, „Zeit,“ 1186–1262; Goldberg, Zeit und Zeitlichkeit im Judentum; Assmann, Steinzeit und Sternzeit; Demandt, Zeit; Ben-Dov and Doering, The Construction of Time in Antiquity. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-006

112  Eve-Marie Becker

Die Fragestellung dieses Beitrags zielt auf die Konstruktion von Zeit in den Literaturen des 1. Jahrhunderts mit einem besonderen Augenmerk auf den historiographischen Texten der frühkaiserzeitlichen Welt. In ebendiese Welt nämlich stoßen die frühchristliche Bewegung und ihr Literaturbetrieb – insbesondere die Evangelienschreiber – vor.

1 Die „Zeit“ in den Literaturen des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Auch wenn die frühkaiserzeitliche Welt – genauer: die Welt zur Zeit des Prinzipats (ab 30 v. Chr.)3 – noch keine systematische Beschäftigung mit dem Thema „Zeit“ kennt, wie wir sie einige Jahrhunderte später bei Plotin (Enneaden) oder dem schon genannten Augustinus (Confessiones) finden werden, so ist das Thema „Zeit“ doch in vielfältiger Weise auch in den literarischen Texten des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. präsent und relevant. Das schließt – wie wir später sehen werden – die frühchristliche Literatur ausdrücklich mit ein.4 Eingangs sollen einige, nicht ganz zufällig gewählte, zeitlich benachbarte Beispiele aus der griechisch-römischen, wie der frühjüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur benannt werden, die phänomenologisch beschreiben können, warum und wie „Zeit“ thematisiert wird – und zwar in Texten, die verschiedenen literarischen Genres und zunächst gerade nicht der Historiographie zuzuordnen sind. Es ist zu prüfen, wieweit bestimmte literarische Formen und Genres den Diskurs über die „Zeit“ in spezifischer Weise ermöglichen und prägen.5

3 Die Periode der sog. „frühen römischen Kaiserzeit“ beginnt mit dem Prinzipat des Augustus (30 v. Chr.) und gilt gemeinhin im 3. Jh. (235/284 n. Chr. = inkl. Severus Alexander / bis Diocletian) als abgeschlossen: Bleicken, Verfassungs- und Sozialgeschichte, 12. 4 Allgemeine Literatur zum biblischen Zeitverständnis: Westermann, „Zeitkonzeptionen II,“ 710–17; Mohn, Koch and Frey, „Time I.-II.,“ 715–17; Erlemann, „Zeit IV.,“ 523–33; Schmitt, „Zeit C.,“ 1207–9. – Zur Konstruktion von Zeit im Rahmen von (frühchristlicher) Geschichtsschreibung: Becker, The Birth of Christian History. 5 So weist Theunissen, „Zeit II. Antike,“ 1190, auf ebensolche Eigenheiten in den großen antiken Gattungen hin: „Epos, Lyrik und Tragödie sind jeweils wesentlich durch Aspekte von Zeitlichkeit geprägt. Ist für das Epos eine lange sich hinziehende Z(eit) formkonstitutiv, so für die Lyrik eine als persönliche oder geschichtliche Gegenwart erfahrene. Noch formprägender als die von Aristoteles herausgestellte Einheit in der Z(eit) ist für die Tragödie, daß tragisches Geschehen auf eine Katastrophe zutreibt, in der die Z(eit) sich in einen alles entscheidenden Augenblick zusammenzieht.“

Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzepte in historiographischen Texten des 1. Jhs. n. Chr. 

113

(a) Seneca Der stoische Philosoph Seneca bezeichnet in einzelnen Traktaten und in seinen Briefen an Lucilius die Wahrnehmung der Zeit als eine menschliche Eigenschaft. In diesem Zusammenhang beginnt er seine Briefsammlung programmatisch mit dieser Feststellung (Ep.1):6 „Alles, Lucilius, ist fremdes Eigentum, die Zeit allein ist das unsere …“ (… tempus tantum nostrum est … 1,3).7

Da die Zeit flüchtig ist (Ep. 1,3; 101,5), gilt es, den „Wert der Zeit“ (pretium temporis: Ep. 1,2) entsprechend zu bemessen, um so den rechten Umgang mit ihr zu lernen. Dazu zählen das rechte Nachdenken über die Zeitlichkeit des Menschen und der Umgang mit seiner Sterblichkeit und seiner Geschichtlichkeit: Deren Leben ist am kürzesten und gestörtesten, die das Vergangene vergessen (… qui praeteritorum obliviscuntur), das Gegenwärtige vernachlässigen (praesentia neglegunt), für das Künftige in Furcht sind (de futuro timent): wenn sie zum Ende gekommen sind, erkennen sie zu spät, die Unglücklichen, so lange sind sie, während sie nichts taten, beschäftigt gewesen (… occupatos fuisse) (De brev. vit. 16,1).8

Der sapiens bewährt sich gerade darin und dadurch, dass er sich dem nutzlosen Vielbeschäftigtsein im öffentlichen Leben entzieht und stattdessen in der Auseinandersetzung mit seiner (individuellen) Zeit- und Geschichtlichkeit – der brevitas vitae – letztlich die Todesangst überwindet: In drei Abschnitte gliedert sich das Leben: was war, was ist, was sein wird. Davon ist, was wir tun, kurz, was wir tun werden, ungewiß, was wir getan haben, gewiß. Das ist es nämlich, worüber das Schicksal sein Recht verloren, was niemandes Willkür wieder unterworfen werden kann. Diesen Abschnitt verlieren die Vielbeschäftigten; nicht nämlich haben sie die Zeit, Vergangenes wieder zu betrachten, und wenn sie Zeit dazu haben, ist ihnen unangenehm eines bereuenswerten Ereignisses Erinnerung … Niemand, außer wer alles getan hat nach seinem eigenen Maßstab …, dreht sich gern zu Vergangenem um … (De brev. Vit. 10,2–4).9

In diesen Worten Senecas, die letztlich den Weisen zur Beherrschung der Zeit – also dem, was so sehr kurz ist (… praesens tempus brevissimum est …: De brev. Vit. 10,6) – anleiten sollen, wird die Zeit zu einem Thema geschichtlichen Den6 7 8 9

Zur Interpretation von Ep. 1 vgl. auch: von Albrecht, Seneca, 17–25. Übersetzung: Rosenbach, L. Annaeus Seneca. Ad Lucilium. Epistulae Morales I-LXIX, 5. Übersetzung: Rosenbach, L. Annaeus Seneca. De vita beata. De otio., 225. Übersetzung: Rosenbach, L. Annaeus Seneca. De vita beata. De otio., 203–5.

114  Eve-Marie Becker

kens, denn: Der Umgang mit der „Zeit“ erfordert das Nachdenken über die Struktur und die Suche nach der Ordnung der Zeit. Dabei entsteht geschichtliches Denken. Denn Zeitbeherrschung ist nicht zuletzt, wie Seneca betont, Geschichtsbeherrschung. Während Seneca den philosophischen Essay De brevitate vitae wohl bereits im Jahr 49 n. Chr., nach seiner Rückkehr aus der Verbannung auf Korsika, verfasst hat (vgl. De brev. Vit. 13,8), sind die Epistulae morales als Alterswerk zu lesen – sie stammen allesamt aus jener Zeit, in der sich der einstige Erzieher Neros bereits aus dem öffentlichen, d. h. dem politischen Leben Roms zurückgezogen hatte und nun als Privatier dem otium entsprechend zu leben suchte. In ebendiese Zeit fällt auch die Abfassung des Traktats De otio.10

(b) Ovid Der römische Dichter Ovid (gest. ca. 17 n. Chr.) eröffnet seine Fasti – eine der wichtigsten Quellen zur Geschichte der römischen Religion – in einem Proömium mit folgenden programmatischen Worten (Fast. 1,1–2): Von der Erklärung der Zeiten, wie quer durch das Jahr sie die Römer ordnen, und von des Gestirns Kommen und Gehen singe ich (tempora cum causis Latium digesta per annum lapsaque sub terras ortaque signa canam).11

Ovid – in seinem Werk zugleich Dichter wie impliziter Autor12 – fährt im Anschluss an das Proömium so fort, dass er die Einführung des Zehnmonatsjahrs auf Romulus, den Gründer der Stadt, zurückführt: „Als der Gründer der Stadt auch die Zeiteinteilung bestimmte, setzte er fest, daß zehn Monate habe das Jahr“ (tempora digereret cum conditor Urbis …; Fast. 1,27–28).13 Ovid verbindet hier mit den im mythischen Erzählen liegenden Anfängen der Stadt Rom, die auch für den Historiker Livius („Ab urbe condita“) konstitutiv sind, insbesondere die Einteilung der Zeit (digestum temporum). Mythos, Historie und Religion greifen Hand in Hand. Dabei ist der geschichtliche Erzählwil10 Zur Biographie und den Werken Senecas, besonders auch dem zeitgeschichtlichen Kontext: Wilson, The Greatest Empire, 183–91; Rimell, „Seneca and Neronian Rome,“ 122–34; Edwards, „Absent Presence in Seneca’s Epistles,“ 41–53. – Speziell zu de otio: Schofield, „Seneca on Monarchy and the Political Life,“ 68–81. 11 Übersetzung: Holzberg, Publius Ovidius Naso, 7. 12 Zu Ovid als historischem Autor vgl.: Egelhaaf-Gaiser, „Im Schutz der Musen und des Bacchus,“ 57–82. 13 Übersetzung: Holzberg, Publius Ovidius Naso, 7.

Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzepte in historiographischen Texten des 1. Jhs. n. Chr.



115

le nicht zu unterschätzen, denn Ovid geht es, wie er in der kurzen selbst-reflektierenden Einleitung zu seinem Werk erklärt, darum, letztlich die Gründe (aitia) darzulegen, wie die römischen Feste ihre Namen erhielten (causa: 1,1). Ovid dichtete – wie Niklas Holzberg herausstellt – „für ein Lesepublikum, das sich von politischen Problemen nicht ungerne ablenken ließ“.14 Die persona des Dichters in der ars amatoria wie in den Fasti war eine „Identifikationsfigur für den die Segnungen der pax Augusta genießenden neuen Typus des homo privatus“.15 Das Nachdenken über Zeit fällt so in den Raum der Privatlektüre.

(c) 4Q180 Auch in einem wohl in zeitliche Nähe zu Ovid, in spätherodianischer Zeit zu datierenden Textfragment der qumran-essenischen Gemeinschaft findet sich – durchaus ähnlich wie bei Ovid – die Vorstellung von autoritativ festgesetzten und gegliederten Zeitabschnitten. In 4Q180, auch als „Pesher of the Periods“ bezeichnet, ist u. a. zu lesen: „Eine Deutung hinsichtlich der Zeitabschnitte: daß Gott eine Zeit gemacht hat, um zu vollend[en alls (sic) Seiende] und Gewordene …“.16 Die Einteilung der Zeiten und die generationengeschichtliche Ordnung der Zeitabschnitte, die im Folgenden seit Noah gerechnet wird, wird hier allerdings nicht – wie bei Ovid – einem heroischen Stadtgründer, sondern dem göttlichen Handeln zugesprochen. Die göttliche Erschaffung und Einteilung der Zeitabschnitte zielt – wiederum im Unterschied zu Ovid – zugleich auf deren eschatologische Vollendung. Weitere Eigenheiten des Qumran-Textes sind zu bedenken: Anders als bei Seneca oder Ovid haben wir es bei 4Q180 und verwandten Textfragmenten (z. B. 4Q181; 4Q464), die den Pesharim zuzuordnen sind, nicht mit Autorenliteratur zu tun. Dieser Umstand ist nicht nur für die textpragmatische Bestimmung des Pesher, sondern auch für dessen zeitgeschichtliche Einordnung relevant. Texte, die den Pesharim zuzuordnen sind, haben vielfach performativen Charakter, d. h. – und hierbei im Anschluss an Carol Newsom beschrieben: „they do not

14 Holzberg, Publius Ovidius Naso, 349. – Zu Ovid und seiner Zeit vgl. auch von Albrecht, Ovid. Eine Einführung, 13–31. 15 Holzberg, „Einführung,“ 349. 16 Übersetzung: Maier, Die Qumran-Essener, 125. – Zur Abbildung und Wiedergabe des Textmanuskripts: https://maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il/Pages/PMain.aspx?misyzira=39180.

116 

Eve-Marie Becker

only report or instruct but they enact; they constitute activities and construct realities“.17 Der Autor Ovid hingegen bietet sich in seinem Werk dem Leser als Identifikationsfigur an, die gewissermaßen „über“ dem Text selbst steht. Als dezidiertes Autorenwerk, das der Biographie einer historischen Autorenperson zugeordnet werden kann, lassen sich die Fasti zudem biographisch deuten und in die Zeitgeschichte des frühen 1. Jhs. n. Chr. stellen.

(d) Frühchristliche Autoren und Texte Von der theologischen und eschatologischen Prägung der Zeitvorstellungen, wie sie in 4Q180 begegnet, einerseits und Ovids auktorial geprägtem, myth-historisch angelegtem Zugriff auf Zeit und Geschichte andererseits ausgehend, führt der Weg zur Betrachtung frühchristlicher Zeitkonzepte. (d.1) Paulus – wie Seneca oder Ovid als ein orthonymer Autor tätig – betrachtet die „Zeit“ insbesondere vom Aspekt der Erfüllung her und ist darin wiederum den Vorstellungen in 4Q180 nicht unähnlich. Allerdings erwartet Paulus – anders, als es in 4Q180 zum Ausdruck kommt – nicht die Vollendung der Zeit, sondern er geht von der bereits geschichtlich eingetretenen Vollendung im Sinne der Erfüllung der Zeit aus: „Als aber die Fülle der Zeit kam…“ (Gal 4,4a: ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου …). Die Deutung der Zeit als „erfüllter Zeit“ wirft Fragen nach dem Gegenstand, dem „Wie“ und „Wodurch“ der Erfüllung auf. Paulus selbst greift diese Fragen in Gal 4,4b wie folgt auf: „… sandte Gott seinen Sohn, geworden aus einer Frau, geworden unter das Gesetz“ (… ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον). Paulus denkt die Zeit von einer im Handeln Gottes liegenden Begründung her, die – je nach Betrachtungsweise – theologischen (so in gewisser Analogie zu 4Q180) oder myth-historischen (so in gewisser Analogie zu Ovid) Charakter hat: Gottes Sendung des Sohnes ist göttliches Handeln. Als göttliches Handeln stellt sie zugleich ein mythisch entzogenes und ein geschichtlich verortetes Ereignis dar (vgl. auch Phil 2,6–11). Die paulinische Vorstellung von der mit dem 17 Tzoref, „Pesher,” 152 – unter Hinweis auf: Newsom, „Pairing Research Questions and Theories of Genre“, 270–88. So gilt für 4Q180 oder 4Q464: „These texts do more than describe the need for instruction – they are not only about revelations pertaining to former times, but they themselves instruct“ (Tzoref, „Pesher,“ 153). – Vgl. zur Interpretation insgesamt auch: Berner, Jahre, 355–60 – Zur Bedeutung der Qumran-Texte für „Zeit“-Konzeptionen vgl. auch Goldberg, Zeit und Zeitlichkeit im Judentum, 233–35.

Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzepte in historiographischen Texten des 1. Jhs. n. Chr. 

117

Kommen Christi „erfüllten Zeit“ wirkt auf die im letzten Drittel des 1. Jahrhunderts entstehende Evangelienliteratur sichtbar nach.18 (d.2) Markus weitet gleichwohl den Erzählzeitraum aus. Nach Markus beginnt schon Jesus selbst – also prospektiv – sein Wirken mit der Ansage einer „erfüllten Zeit“ (Mk 1,14–15): Nachdem aber Johannes gefangengenommen worden war, kam Jesus nach Galiläa und predigte das Evangelium Gottes und sprach: Erfüllt ist der kairos und nahe gekommen die Gottesherrschaft. Erneuert euren Sinn und glaubt an das Evangelium (Μετὰ δὲ τὸ παραδοθῆναι τὸν Ἰωάννην ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ λέγων ὅτι πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ· μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ).

(d.3) In der Folge des Paulus und Markus geht Lukas im historiographischen Doppelwerk mit seinem Ansatz der Periodisierung von Zeit noch einen Schritt weiter. Lukas versteht die Zeit Jesu als Zeit der Erfüllung und unterscheidet diese von einer vorhergehenden Zeit des „Gesetzes und der Propheten“ (Lk 16,16): Das Gesetz und die Propheten (reichen) bis Johannes. Von da an wird das Gottesreich verkündigt, und ein jeder drängt in es hinein (Ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται μέχρι Ἰωάννου·ἀπὸ τότε ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίζεται καὶ πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται).19

Zeitkonzeption und -deutung sind auch im frühen Christentum durch zeitgeschichtliche Umstände bedingt, die sich auf das individuelle wie auf das kommunitäre Zeitverständnis auswirken: Während Paulus – jedenfalls zu Beginn seiner literarischen Tätigkeit – vom zeitlich nahen Eintreffen der Parusie ausgeht (1 Thess 4–5), wachsen noch zu Lebzeiten des Apostels Zweifel an und Skepsis gegenüber (s. Phil 1–3) einer nahe bevorstehenden Parusie Christi sowie die Einsicht in den nötigen Umgang mit der Parusieverzögerung. Hierher wird im Wesentlichen das paulinische Interesse an Zeitdeutung rühren. Obwohl Markus die Proklamation der „erfüllten Zeit“ mit der Verkündigung Jesu beginnen (Mk 1,14–15) lässt, legt er in der Endzeitrede in Kapitel 13 zugleich dar, dass der genaue Zeitpunkt des Endes offenbleiben muss: Jener Tag und jene Stunde, an dem der Menschensohn kommt (13,24–27), ist nur Gott selbst bekannt: Mk 13,32: Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ.

18 Zum Zeitverständnis bei Paulus vgl. Wischmeyer, „Konzepte von Zeit bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium,“ 361–92. 19 Zur „exklusiven“ Interpretation des μέχρι vgl. Wolter, The Gospel According to Luke, 274.

118  Eve-Marie Becker

Statt über das Ende zu spekulieren, bietet Markus einen „eschatologischen Fahrplan“ (Mk 13,5–23), der letztlich zu Wachsamkeit im Umgang mit der Zeit anleiten soll: Mk 13,33: Βλέπετε, ἀγρυπνεῖτε· οὐκ οἴδατε γὰρ πότε ὁ καιρός ἐστιν.

(e) Kurzes Ergebnis der vergleichenden Textbetrachtung Die exemplarisch gewählte Sicht auf Zeitvorstellungen in den ausgewählten Literaturen des 1. Jahrhunderts gewährt wichtige phänomenologische Einsichten in den literarischen Umgang mit der „Zeit“ in der frühkaiserzeitlichen Welt: Erstens: „Zeit“ wird bei Seneca, Ovid, Paulus und Markus und in 4Q180 vom Aspekt der Beherrschung, Einteilung oder Vollendung bzw. von der Erfüllung her wahrgenommen und gedacht. Die „Zeit“ stellt einen Themenbereich dar, der die Frage nach der menschlichen Verfügungs- und Bestimmungsgewalt und nach der Messbarkeit von zeitlichen Abläufen aufwirft. Zweitens: Die gewählten Textbeispiele führen uns bereits in die Bereiche (griechischer und lateinischer) Lexik und Syntagmatik ein, die bei der literarischen Behandlung von „Zeit“ wichtig sind, wie etwa: tempus, pretium temporis, digestum temporum oder χρόνος, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου bzw. πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός. Drittens: Das Nachdenken über „Zeit“ findet bei Ovid, Seneca, Paulus und Markus – und wahrscheinlich auch in 4Q180 (hier allerdings nicht nachvollziehbar gemacht!) – in konkreten zeitgeschichtlichen Zusammenhängen statt, in denen der Umgang mit der Zeit aus individuellen wie kommunitären Interessen fraglich (geworden) ist und entsprechend problematisiert wird. Viertens: Das Nachdenken über „Zeit“ führt die exemplarisch genannten Autoren und Texte in der ihnen je eigenen Weise zur Frage nach geschichtlichen Ursprüngen und/oder nach dem Umgang mit der Geschichtlichkeit des Menschen. Daraus erwachsen myth-historisches und/oder historisches Erzählen. Unter welchen Vorzeichen und in welchen Formen – so möchte ich nun weiter fragen – vollzieht sich die Betrachtung der Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzeptionen speziell im Rahmen der frühkaiserzeitlichen Geschichtsschreibung?

Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzepte in historiographischen Texten des 1. Jhs. n. Chr.



119

2 Die „Zeit“ als Thema der Geschichtsschreibung im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. In den nicht-historiographischen Texten oder Textformen führt das Nachdenken über „Zeit“ zur Ordnung und Strukturierung von Zeit im Interesse der Beherrschung ihrer Flüchtigkeit. Im Rahmen der erzählenden Geschichtsschreibung werden „Zeit“ und Geschichte eigens literarisch konzipiert und gedeutet. Dabei gilt: Das Nachdenken über Zeit erweist sich für die Geschichtsschreibung als konstitutiv – entsprechend hat Jacques Le Goff einmal festgehalten: „… The distinction between past and present is an essential component“ von Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung.20 Umgekehrt bietet der Rahmen historiographischen Erzählens zusätzliche konzeptionelle Möglichkeiten der Zeitdeutung, die die philosophischen Essays oder Traktate, Lehrgedichte und Briefe oder auch die Pesharim, die wir zuvor betrachtet haben, eher nicht oder nur am Rande bereithalten. Das Konzept der „annales“ (s. etwa Tacitus) – also der annalistischen Ordnung und Darstellung von Geschichte, das insbesondere seit den annales maximi und Fabius Pictor (3. Jh. v. Chr.) für die römische Geschichtsschreibung charakteristisch ist und im 1. Jahrhundert neben Tacitus auch von Cremutius Cordus (gest. 25 n. Chr.) gewählt wird –, ist das augenfälligste Beispiel für einen Typus von Geschichtsschreibung, der bei der Zeitdeutung im Sinne der Strukturierung von Zeit seinen konzeptionellen Ausgang nimmt. Wir können noch einen Schritt weitergehen: Das Thema „Zeit“ ist geradezu intrinsisch verbunden mit der Geschichtsschreibung. Dass und wie antikes Geschichtsdenken (und -schreiben) und antike Zeitkonzeption und -deutung eng, ja untrennbar miteinander verwoben sind, hat besonders die jüngste altertumswissenschaftliche Forschung in vielfältiger Weise herausgestellt (z. B. Donald J. Wilcox; Denis Feeney; Katherine Clarke; Jonas Grethlein).21 Dabei wurden die klassischen Überlegungen zu antiken Zeitkonzepten, wie sie etwa Arnaldo Momigliano 1966 angestellt hatte („Time in Ancient Historiography“),22 gewinnbringend erweitert – und zwar insbesondere durch: 1. die Ausweitung des Text- und Quellenmaterials, das antike Zeitvorstellungen dokumentiert,

20 Le Goff, History and Memory, 1. 21 Vgl. zum Folgenden ausführlich – mit Literaturhinweisen: Becker, Birth, 130–53; Wilcox, The Measure of Times Past; Feeney, Caesar’s Calendar; Clarke, Making Time for the Past; Grethlein, Experience and Teleology in Ancient Historiography. 22 Momigliano, „Time in Ancient Historiography,“ 1–23.

120  Eve-Marie Becker

2. 3.

die Erweiterung des literarischen Begriffs von „Geschichtsschreibung“, der auf die Überwindung von (zu) engen Gattungsgrenzen zielt, und die Anwendung narratologischer Methoden (s. Irene J. F. de Jong)23 bei der vielfältigen auswertenden Beschreibung von „Zeitkonzeptionen“, die insbesondere in der geschichtsschreibenden Literatur begegnen.

Ich möchte im Folgenden die nur knapp angedeuteten Forschungsdiskurse weder eigens wiedergeben noch zusammenfassen,24 sondern fragen: Welche genuinen Begriffe und Konzeptionen von „Zeit“ werden in historiographischen Texten konstruiert? Wie stellt sich das Wechselspiel von Zeit- und Geschichtsdeutung im Rahmen geschichtsschreibender Literatur konkret dar? Und welche spezifischen Modi der Zeitdeutung erlauben insbesondere die historiographischen Texte des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.? Auch bei der Bearbeitung dieser Fragen setze ich phänomenologisch an und stelle aspekthaft einzelne wichtige Merkmale historiographischer Geschichts- und Zeitkonzeption seit der thukydideischen Historiographie zusammen. (1) Im antiken literarischen Diskurs dient die Beschäftigung mit der Zeit, wie schon angedeutet, vor allem der Bewältigung von flüchtiger Zeit. Besonders die Geschichtsschreibung macht es sich zur Aufgabe, die „Zeit“ als Faktor von Vergänglichkeit und Destruktion im Dienste der Bewahrung der memoria zu verstehen. Momigliano hat diese Vorstellung 1966 wie folgt auf den Punkt gebracht: „History is to the Greeks and consequently to the Romans an operation against Time the all-destroying in order to save the memory of events worth being remembered“.25 Historia, memoria und tempus kommen in den Werken der antiken Historiographie zusammen – das gilt besonders für die frühkaiserzeitliche Welt des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., in denen geschichtsschreibende memoria unter den zeitgeschichtlichen Bedingungen römischer Expansion beständig revidiert und neu konstruiert wird. An diesem Prozess nimmt auch die junge frühchristliche Bewegung mit der Konstruktion ihrer eigenen narrativen memoria (= Evangelien; Apg) extensiv teil. Memoria, historia und Zeitdeutung dienen nicht zuletzt der frühchristlichen Identitätsfindung.26 (2) Die historiographische „operation against Time the all-destroying“, um noch einmal mit Momigliano zu sprechen, beginnt mit terminologischen Fragen: 23 Vgl. de Jong, Time in Ancient Greek Literature. 24 Das habe ich an anderer Stelle bereits getan: Vgl. dazu noch einmal ausführlich: Becker, Birth, 130–53 und 196–202. 25 Momigliano, „Time,“ 15. 26 Vgl. Becker, „Shaping Identity by Writing History,“ 152–69.

Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzepte in historiographischen Texten des 1. Jhs. n. Chr. 

121

Sie setzt mit der Frage ein, wie im Rahmen eines Geschichtswerkes überhaupt von Zeit zu sprechen sei. Der wichtigste Begriff für Thuykdides ist χρόνος. Thukydides verwendete diesen Begriff entweder im Sinne eines „interval count“,27 in welchem der Historiker dem Leser entsprechende Ereignissequenzen vor Augen führt, oder er füllt den Begriff unter Verweis auf konkrete Zeiteinheiten (Lebensalter, Tage) so aus, dass er mit Lebensdaten von Königen oder Priestern in Zusammenhang gebracht, d. h. synchronisiert werden kann.28 (3) Die historiographische Aufgabe besteht sodann darin, Systeme der Datierung zu finden und möglichst überregional durchzusetzen. Diesem Gebiet widmet sich besonders die Kalenderforschung (römisch, frühjüdisch, frühchristlich). Fabius Pictor, mit dem die römische Geschichtsschreibung beginnt, synchronisierte die Gründung der Stadt Rom noch mit dem ersten Jahr der achten Olympiade (FRH 1 F 8): … κατὰ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος τῆς ὀγδόης ὀλυμπιάδος.29 Das komparativ synchronisierende Verfahren ist dem Umstand geschuldet, dass es im Griechischen oder Lateinischen keinen eigenen Begriff für ‚Datum‘ gibt.30 So erklärt Polybius explizit, wie er sein Datierungssystem an den Olympiaden ausrichtet (Hist. 1,3). Hierin liegt so etwas wie der ‚Westliche Beginn‘ von ‚oecumenical datings‘.31 Auf der Basis der olympiadischen Datierung nimmt Polybius dann ‚relative Datierungen‘ (z. B. Hist. 4,28) vor. Tacitus, und damit sind wir in der frühkaiserzeitlichen Welt des Prinzipats, weist ein historiographisches Datierungssystem zurück, das sich an den Olympiaden orientierte. Er wählt stattdessen ein Datierungsverfahren, das – anders noch, als es bei Fabius Pictor der Fall war – an den Konsuln und der Gründungsgeschichte Roms Maß nimmt („Ab urbe condita“). Die gewählten Datierungsverfahren haben direkte Auswirkungen auf die Konzeption der jeweiligen Geschichtserzählung – nach Donald J. Wilcox können wir bei Tacitus und schon zuvor bei Livius von einer ‚episodischen Geschichtsbetrachtung‘ sprechen.32 Der römische Historiker Velleius Pa27 Feeney, „Time,“ 141. 28 Zum Ansatz der Geschichtsschreibung des Thukydides vgl. Kagan, Thucydides. 29 Vgl. Die Frühen Römischen Historiker 1. 30 Feeney, „Time,“ 141: Es existiert „no Greek or Latin word for ‚date‘“. 31 Wilcox, Measure, 83–118. Die Datierung nach Olympiaden erfolgt seit Eratosthenes (3. Jh. v. Chr.). Polybius „used the Olympiad year to synchronize events from different parts of the Mediterranean and show his readers that common forces and principles were at work in the complex workings of the Roman conquest“ (a. a. O., 92). – Vgl. zum Folgenden Becker, Birth, bes. 140–41. 32 Da existiert kein „absolute reference point“ bei Livius und Tacitus: „In writing their histories as annals, Livy and Tacitus adopted a practice that militated against the construction of a single linear series. Instead they tended to present the events in relative time, looking at them episodically within the year rather than in the linear order of a number of years“, Wilcox, Measure, 94.

122  Eve-Marie Becker

terculus (gest. ca. 31 n. Chr.) wiederum schlägt ein „Troia capta-Datierungsschema“ vor (1,1,3–4), das dem Thema und Darstellungszeitraum seines eigenen historiographischen Werkes weitgehend entspricht (s. u.).33 Die Suche nach durchsetzungsfähigen Datierungssystemen und der antike Wettstreit darum führt uns vor Augen, wie die Frage der Datierung dem Historiographen selbst obliegt und dabei zu einem „matter of literary ‚authority‘“ und – so wäre zu ergänzen – literarischem Wettbewerb wird.34 Der griechische Historiker Dionysius von Halikarnass diskutiert in seinen „Chronica“ entsprechend Fragen der Datierung (s. Ant. rom. 1,74,2; vgl. FGrHist 251).35 Katherine Clark hat gezeigt, wie lokale settings und Formen der Zeitrechnung „the construction of a particular aspect of time, the past, and within a particular context, the polis“ korrespondiert.36 Die vergangene Zeit wird so zum Gegenstand literarischer Konstruktion und bleibt gleichermaßen ‚in the making‘. Doch wo liegen jenseits der genannten terminologischen und datierungstechnischen Fragen die genuinen Aufgaben der Historiographie im Umgang mit der Zeit? (4) Tacitus setzt in seiner biographischen Schrift Agricola mit der Feststellung ein, dass die Aufgabe der Geschichtsschreibung in der Erinnerung und Weitergabe (tradere) erinnerungswürdiger Taten und Sitten liege: Clarorum virorum facta moresque posteris tradere … (Agr. 1,1).

Geschichtsschreibung – ob, wie im Falle des Tacitus zu beobachten, in Form von Annalen, Historien oder Biographien verfasst – dient der zeitlichen Ordnung menschlicher Taten und menschengemachter Ereignisfolgen (s. auch Livius, Ab urb. cond. Prol.), mögen diese auch durch übernatürliche (z. B. kosmische) Zeichen oder Eingriffe (s. Prodigien, fatum) begleitet werden (s. etwa Tacitus, Ann. 6,22; Hist. 1,4). Die Betrachtung einzelner Begebenheiten oder Ereignisfolgen führt dann gleichzeitig auch zur auswertenden Beschreibung von Epochen (saeculum, z. B. Tacitus, Hist. 1,3). (5) Die Wahrnehmung von Zeit in der antiken Welt spiegelt – seit Parmenides (gest. nach 450 v. Chr.), der behauptete, dass Zeit als solche jenseits der Gegenwart nicht existiere (D. K. Frgm. 28B8) – den Versuch, Erfahrungen von Veränderung und Bewegung, die im Rahmen der Physik, Astronomie oder eben auch der Geschichtsschreibung gemacht und bedacht werden, zu interpretieren. Entsprechend dient die Geschichtsdarstellung der ereignisbasierten Beschreibung von Veränderung. Veränderungen aber sind an Raum und Zeit ge33 34 35 36

Wiseman, „Velleius Mythistoricus,“ 74–76. Vgl. Williams, „Time and Authority in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus,“ 280–97. Vgl. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 401.471. Clarke, Making, 5.

Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzepte in historiographischen Texten des 1. Jhs. n. Chr. 

123

bunden. Elias J. Bickerman geht so weit, die historische Faktizität von Ereignissen37 von eben deren Bindung an Raum und Zeit herzuleiten: Time is the proper dimension of history. A fact is historical when it has to be defined not only in space but also in time. A fact is placed in the fourth dimension, that of time, by measuring its distance from the present. Chronology, an auxiliary of history, enables us to state this time-interval between a historical fact and us by converting the chronological indications of our sources into units of our own time reckoning.38

Für jede geschichtsschreibende Literatur ist daher eine Darstellung wesentlich, die Ereignisse und Akteure in ihrer Bewegung in Raum und Zeit zeigt. Diese Vorstellung lässt sich semantisch wie narrativ in antiken Werken der Geschichtsschreibung konkret nachweisen – dazu zwei Beispiele: (i) Der Begriff διάστημα (lat. distentio), der nicht zuletzt in zahlreichen Werken antiker Historiographie begegnet (z. B. Polybius, 9,1,1; 3 Makk 4,17; Apg 5,7; vgl. aber auch Sir Prol. 32), bezeichnet wörtlich ein zeitliches „Intervall an Bewegung“.39 (ii) Die Verwendung von Reiseberichten (itinerarium) stellt ein spezifisches narrativ-kompositionelles Element geschichtsschreibender Literatur dar, mit Hilfe dessen eine personenzentrierte Darstellung von Ereignisfolgen, die an die Bewegung der Protagonisten in Raum und Zeit gebunden sind, besonders anschaulich, ja geradezu greifbar wird.40 (6) Die Werke antiker Historiographie zielen nicht allein auf eine chronologisch geordnete Darstellung von Ereignisfolgen. Im Rahmen historiographischen Erzählens sollen vielmehr diejenigen Gründe (aitia), die bestimmte Geschichtsverläufe verursachen und bedingen, offengelegt werden. Es geht dabei im Wesentlichen darum, die inneren Kausalitäten in einem Geschichtsverlauf herauszuarbeiten. Tacitus unterscheidet zwischen dem „äußeren Verlauf der Ereignisse“ (… modo casus eventusque rerum …) und „ihrem inneren ursächlichen Zusammenhang“ (… ratio etiam causaeque noscantur) (Hist. 1,4). Schon bei Herodot diente die Geschichtsschreibung nicht allein einer wiedergebenden Darstellung von Ereignissen, sondern der Aufdeckung der aitia, die zu einem bestimmten Geschichtsverlauf geführt hat (vgl. Herodot, Hist. Prol.) – hier mag im Übrigen ein signifikanter Unterschied zur Geschichtsbewältigung im Rahmen apokalyptischer Literatur im frühen Judentum und im frühen Christentum liegen, die sich weniger dem Prinzip aitiologischer Deutung als deterministisch begründeter Darstellung (von Offenbarungswissen) verpflichtet sieht (s. z. B.

37 38 39 40

Zum Begriff und Konzept „Ereignis“ vgl. Saur et al., „Ereignis.“ Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World, 9. Wörtl. „interval“, LSJ 413. Vgl. dazu auch ausführlicher: Becker, Birth, 114–29.

124  Eve-Marie Becker

4 Esr; syrBar; Apk). Josephus betont in der Vorrede zu seinem Bellum Judaicum, dass es ihm u. a. darum gehe, die Schuld bzw. Ursache (αἴτιος), die zum Unheil des jüdischen Volkes geführt habe, aufzudecken (B. J. 1,12). Im Proömium zu den Antiquitates legt Josephus dar, wie er mit seiner Darstellung darauf ziele, diejenigen zu widerlegen, die mit ihren Darstellungen (so etwa Justus von Tiberias) der Wahrheit Gewalt angetan hätten (Ant. 1,4). (7) In den Werken frühkaiserzeitlicher Historiographie sind die Zeitkonstruktion und die literarische Darstellung der Ereignisgeschichte (ἀφήγησις τῶν πραγμάτων: Josephus, Ant. 1,26) im Sinne einer konzeptionellen Kongruenz eng verwoben. Ich nenne drei Beispiele: (7.1) Der Themenstellung, die ein Historiker für sein geschichtsschreibendes Werk wählt, entspricht im Wesentlichen die Wahl des geschichtlichen Ansatzpunktes für die Erzählung: In seinem Bellum Judaicum macht Josephus – im Sinne einer historischen Monographie – den „Krieg der Juden gegen die Römer“, der sich „als der größte im Vergleich nicht nur mit den Kriegen unserer Zeit, sondern auch mit all denen, von denen wir Kunde überkommen haben …“ (B. J. 1,1) erweist,41 zum Thema seiner historiographischen Darstellung. Entsprechend beginnt Josephus seine eigentliche Geschichtsdarstellung mit der Erzählung über die στάσις, die „zwischen den Vornehmen der Juden zu der Zeit, als Antiochus, genannt Epiphanes, mit Ptolemäus VI. um das ganze Syrien stritt“, entstand (B. J. 1,31).42 Livius, der seiner römischen Geschichte den Titel Ab urbe condita gibt und seine Darstellung vom Gründungsmythos Roms her entwickelt, beginnt seine Erzählung entsprechend mit dem Hinweis auf die Eroberung Trojas und die Ankunft des Aeneas in Italien (1,1). In seinen Historien wählt Tacitus bewusst einen bestimmten, zeitlich genau definierten Berichtszeitraum für seine Darstellung: die Jahre 69–96 n. Chr., also die Zeit der Flavierherrschaft. So wie er eingangs ankündigt, mit dem Konsulatsjahr des Galba beginnen zu wollen (Hist. 1,1), nimmt er – nach der Einleitung in sein Werk (Hist. 1,1–11) – entsprechend mit Galba den eigentlichen Erzählfaden auf (Hist. 1,12). Auch im Markusevangelium ist diese Form konzeptioneller Kongruenz zu beobachten: Das selbst gewählte Thema des Buches, das in der Buchüberschrift erkennbar wird – Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ –, nimmt Markus in 1,4 mit dem Auftreten des Täufers in der Wüste auf. Hierin – also im Wirken des Johannes – sieht Markus faktisch den „Anfang der Evangeliumsverkündigung“ realisiert. (7.2) Der Textpragmatik und der historiographischen Einzelform entspricht der Umgang mit der Erzählzeit und der erzählten Zeit: Während Tacitus als Ver41 Übersetzung: Michel und Bauernfeind, Flavius Josephus, 3. 42 Übersetzung: Michel und Bauernfeind, Flavius Josephus, 11.

Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzepte in historiographischen Texten des 1. Jhs. n. Chr. 

125

fasser der Annalen dem annalistischen Schema entsprechend Ereignisse umfangreich (ursprünglich wohl in achtzehn Bänden) sammelt und darstellt, die auf den Tod des Augustus folgen („Ab excessu divi Augusti“), wählt er in den Historien einen vergleichsweise enger definierten Berichtszeitraum, der insgesamt wohl auch vom Umfang her betrachtet knapper angelegt war. Deutlicher noch wird diese Kongruenz von Textpragmatik und Erzählform zu Erzählzeit und erzählter Zeit greifbar im Bellum Judaicum des Josephus (im Unterschied zu den Antiquitates) oder auch im lukanischen Doppelwerk (im Vergleich zur markinischen Vorlage). (7.3) Schließlich: Dem literarischen Charakter der (historiographischen) Schrift entsprechen die Modi des Wissens um die Zeit. Ovid deutet die Zeit als ein Dichter, Seneca als Philosoph. Livius legt geschichtliche Zeit in epischer Breite, dabei teils in legendarischer Form – dem mythisch gewählten Anfangspunkt der Erzählung entsprechend – dar. Tacitus sammelt akribisch episodisches Wissen um Zeit- und Ereignisabläufe. Josephus betont den biographisch geprägten Hintergrund seiner monographischen Darstellung zum Ersten Jüdisch-Römischen Krieg. Im Unterschied zu Schriftstellern wie Ovid oder Seneca und Historikern wie Livius, Tacitus, Josephus oder auch „Lukas“ ist das Markusevangelium nicht als Autorenliteratur konzipiert, auch wenn es wohl der Feder eines Autors entstammt. Der „Anfangs“-Begriff in Mk 1,1 ist polyvalent: Der Begriff markiert einen möglichen Buchanfang, den Erzählbeginn oder den proklamativen Beginn der Evangeliumsverkündigung selbst. Dementsprechend ist hier kein auktorial handelnder Autor vorgesehen, der Aussagen zur Deutung der Zeit formuliert: Es sind vielmehr die Protagonisten in der Erzählung selbst, die Zeit deuten (zuerst: Mk 1,2–3.7–8.14–15.; vgl. z. B. auch Lk 16,16). So kann auch das Wissen um die Zeit der Leser und deren Zukunft nicht auktorial gestaltet, sondern allein im Modus einer eschatologischen Rede dargelegt werden (Mk 13).43 Lukas folgt hierin dem markinischen Evangelienkonzept (Lk 21,5–33). Doch lässt er die Vorgaben seiner markinischen Vorlage insofern hinter sich, als er in den Prologen zu beiden Büchern (Lk 1,1–4; Apg 1,1–2) explizit als auktorial sprechender – wenn auch namentlich nicht bekannter – Historiker hervortritt, der seinen historiographischen Anspruch und seine Methode der Geschichtsdeutung souverän begründet und seinen Umgang mit dem Wissen um Zeit selbstbewusst gestaltet (s. Apg als „zweites Projekt“).

43 Zu Mk 1,1 und Mk 13 vgl.: Becker, Der früheste Evangelist, 295–308.401–28.

126  Eve-Marie Becker

3 Funktionen der historiographischen Konstruktion und Deutung von „Zeit“ Die historiographische Form kommt ohne die Strukturierung und Deutung von Zeit nicht aus. Der Umgang mit Zeiträumen und Zeitabläufen, d. h. Ereignisfolgen, die im geschichtlichen und spatialen Raum vor sich gehen, ja an geschichtliche und spatiale Räume gebunden sind, ist der Darstellungsgegenstand schlechthin in der historiographischen Literatur. Historiographie ist so auch ein genuiner Ort von Zeit- und Geschichtsbewältigung. Zugleich aber liefert die historiographische Erzählform, so die These meines Beitrags, einen zusätzlichen Beitrag zum Thema der Beherrschung von Zeit oder dem Zeitmanagement, der time mastery in der antiken Welt, die philosophische, ethische oder religiös-kultische Texte kaum bieten (können). Ich fasse daher abschließend einige der oben angestellten Beobachtungen kurz und pointiert in fünf Thesen zusammen: (a) In der Geschichtsschreibung wird memoria programmatisch wider das Vergessen und die Flüchtigkeit der Zeit bewahrt und narrativ konstruiert. (b) Der Umgang mit vergangener Zeit und deren historiographische Darstellung im erzählenden Modus generiert Orientierungswissen und ermöglicht dabei besonders auch eine historisch „objektivierte“ moralische Auswertung von Handlungsträgern und Handlungsabläufen in ihren jeweiligen Zeiträumen (z. B. saeculum bei Tacitus, s. o.; vgl. auch Mk 1,1–3; Lk 16,16). (c) Die historiographische Betrachtung und Auswertung von Zeit und Geschichte schafft Vertrauen in die Fortdauer geschichtlicher Zeit, denn sie legt innere geschichtliche Kausalitäten offen (u. a. Lukas). Daraus wird eine Konzeption von Zeit im Sinne einer historia continua möglich. (d) Historiographisches Denken hilft beim Nachdenken über die „Zeit“, wie der Rückblick auf die eingangs angeführte Grundfrage des Augustinus zeigt: Was also ist die Zeit? Wenn niemand mich danach fragt, weiß ich es; wenn ich es einem Fragenden erklären will, weiß ich es nicht. Trotzdem behaupte ich fest, zu wissen, daß es keine vergangene Zeit gäbe, wenn nichts vorüberginge, keine zukünftige Zeit, wenn nichts herankäme, und keine gegenwärtige Zeit, wenn es nichts gäbe, das da ist (Augustinus, Conf. 11,17).44

Zeit also – so setzt auch Augustinus an – bemisst sich an Bewegungen im Raum und Ereignissen, die Veränderung schaffen. Historiographische Literatur hat die Darstellung von einschneidenden, d. h. Veränderung schaffenden Ereignis44 Übersetzung: Fischer, Aurelius Augustinus, 25.

Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzepte in historiographischen Texten des 1. Jhs. n. Chr. 

127

sen in Raum und Zeit zum Thema und leistet insofern einen wichtigen, vielleicht sogar den wichtigsten Beitrag zum Verstehen von „Zeit“. (e) Historiographisches Denken hilft zur Bewältigung von Zeiterfahrung. Der Ausgang des Ersten Jüdisch-Römischen Krieges und die Katastrophe des Jahres 70 n. Chr. führen fortan zu einem (längerfristigen) Verlust von Geschichte und Geschichtlichkeit (vgl. 4 Esr oder auch rabbinische Texte):45 Alle Dinge scheinen gleich nah und gleich weit weg, scheinen geschichts- und so auch zeitlos. Josephus wie die Evangelienschreiber – Markus und Lukas – steuern hier, wie mir scheint, bewusst konzeptionell entgegen: So ist die eschatologische Rede Jesu (Mk 13par.) in historiographische Erzählstrukturen eingebettet. Indem die Geschichtserzählung und Geschichtsdeutung des Markus, Lukas, Josephus mit ihrer jeweiligen Wahl eines „Anfangs“-Punktes darstellend und erklärend hinter die Katastrophe des Jahres 70 zurückführen, weisen sie zugleich einen Weg, darüber hinaus und weiter in die Zukunft zu denken.

Bibliographie Albrecht, Michael von. Ovid. Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: Reclam, 2003. Albrecht, Michael von. Seneca. Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: Reclam, 2018. Assmann, Jan, und Michael Theunissen, et al. „Zeit,“ Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 12: 1186–1262. Assmann, Jan. Steinzeit und Sternzeit. Altägyptische Zeitkonzepte. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 2011. Augustinus, Aurelius. Was ist Zeit? (Confessiones XI / Bekenntnisse 11). Edited and translated by Norbert Fischer. 2nd ed. Hamburg: Meiner, 2009. Beck, Hans, und Uwe Walter, eds. Die Frühen Römischen Historiker 1. Von Fabius Pictor bis Cn. Gellius. TzF 76. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2001. Becker, Eve-Marie. „Shaping Identity by Writing History: Earliest Christianity in its Making,“ Religion in the Roman Empire 2 (2016): 152–69. Becker, Eve-Marie. Der früheste Evangelist. Studien zum Markusevangelium (WUNT 380). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Becker, Eve-Marie. The Birth of Christian History. Memory and Time from Mark to Luke-Acts. (AYBRL). New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. Ben-Dov, Jonathan, and Lutz Doering, eds. The Construction of Time in Antiquity. Ritual, Art, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Berner, Christoph. Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen. Heptadische Geschichtskonzeptionen im Antiken Judentum. BZAW 363. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2006. Bickermann, Elias Joseph. Chronology of the Ancient World. 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson, 1980. 45 Vgl. zu 4 Esr den Beitrag von Oda Wischmeyer im vorliegenden Band. Zur rabbinischen Bewegung: Neusner, Between Time and Eternity.

128  Eve-Marie Becker

Bleicken, Jochen. Verfassungs- und Sozialgeschichte des Römischen Kaiserreiches. Bd. 1. 4th ed. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1995. Clarke, Katherine. Making Time for the Past. Local History and the Polis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Cornell, Tim J. The Beginnings of Rome. Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic War (c. 1000–264 BC). Routledge History of the Ancient World. London and New York: Routledge, 1995. De Jong, Irene J. F., ed. Time in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative. Vol. 2. Mnemosyne 291. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Demandt, Alexander. Zeit: Eine Kulturgeschichte. Berlin: Propyläen, 2015. Edwards, Catherine. „Absent Presence in Seneca’s Epistles: Philosophy and Friendship.“ Pages 41–53 in The Cambridge Companion to Seneca. Edited by Shadi Bartsch and Alessandro Schiesaro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Egelhaaf-Gaiser, Ulrike. „Im Schutz der Musen und des Bacchus. Die biographische Gottesnähe des Exildichters Ovid (trist. 4,10; 5,3).“ Pages 57–82 in Autoren in religiösen literarischen Texten der späthellenistischen und der frühkaiserzeitlichen Welt: Zwölf Fallstudien. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker und Jörg Rüpke. CRPG 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Erlemann, Kurt. „Zeit IV. Neues Testament,“ TRE 36: 523–33. Feeney, Denis. „Time.“ Pages 139–51 in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians. Edited by Andrew Feldherr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Feeney, Denis. Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Grethlein, Jonas. Experience and Teleology in Ancient Historiography: Futures Past from Herodotus to Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Goldberg, Sylvie Anne. Zeit und Zeitlichkeit im Judentum. Jüdische Religion, Geschichte und Kultur 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Holzberg, Niklas. Publius Ovidius Naso. Festkalender. 3rd ed. Düsseldorf: Artemis & Winkler, 2006. Kagan, Donald. Thucydides: The Reinvention of History. New York: Viking, 2009. Le Goff, Jacques. History and Memory. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. Maier, Johann. Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer Bd. II. Die Texte der Höhle 4. UTB 1863. München: Ernst Reinhardt, 1995. Michel, Otto, und Otto Bauernfeind. Flavius Josephus. De Bello Judaico. Bd. 1: Buch I–III. 3rd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982. Mohn, Jürgen, Klaus Koch, and Jörg Frey. „Time I.-II.,“ RPP 12: 715–17. Momigliano, Arnaldo. „Time in Ancient Historiography.“ Pages 1–23 in History and the Concept of Time. History and Theory. Studies in the Philosophy of History Beiheft 6. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press 1966. Neusner, Jacob. Between Time and Eternity: The Essentials of Judaism. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1975. Newsom, Carol A. „Pairing Research Questions and Theories of Genre: A Case Study of the Hodayot,“ DSD 17 (2010): 270–88. Rimell, Victoria. „Seneca and Neronian Rome: In the Mirror of Time.“ Pages 122–34 in The Cambridge Companion to Seneca. Edited by Shadi Bartsch and Alessandro Schiesaro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Zeit-Begriffe und -Konzepte in historiographischen Texten des 1. Jhs. n. Chr. 

129

Rosenbach, Manfred, ed. Seneca, L. Annaeus. Ad Lucilium. Epistulae Morales I–LXIX. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2011. Rosenbach, Manfred, ed. Seneca, L. Annaeus. De vita beata. De otio. De tranquillitate animae. De brevitate vitae. Ad Polybium consolatione. Ad Helviam matrem de consolatione. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2011. Saur, Markus et al. „Ereignis.“ LBH (2009/2013):141–46. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. „Zeit C. Altes und Neues Testament,“ Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 12.1207–9. Schofield, Malcolm. „Seneca on Monarchy and the Political Life. De Clementia, De Tranquillitate Animae, De Otio.“ Pages 68–81 in The Cambridge Companion to Seneca. Edited by Shadi Bartsch and Alessandro Schiesaro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Theunissen, Michael. „Zeit II. Antike,“ Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 12. 1190–96. Tzoref, Shani. „Pesher and Periodization,“ DSD 18 (2011): 129–54. Westermann, Hartmut. „Zeitkonzeptionen II. Klassische Antike,“ DNP 12/2. 710–17. Wieseman, T. Peter. „Velleius Mythistoricus.“ Pages 74–76 in Ancient Historiography and Its Contexts: Studies in Honour of A. J. Woodman. Edited by Christina S. Kraus et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Wilcox, Donald J. The Measure of Times Past. Pre-Newtonian Chronologies and the Rhetoric of Relative Time. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Williams, Michael Stuart. „Time and Authority in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus.“ Pages 280–97 in The Western Time of Ancient History. Historiographical Encounters with the Greek and Roman Past. Edited by Alexandra Lianeri. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Wilson, Emily. The Greatest Empire. A Life of Seneca. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Wischmeyer, Oda. „Konzepte von Zeit bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium.“ Pages 361–92 in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity. BZNW 198. Edited by Oda Wischmeyer, David C. Sim and Ian J. Elmer. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2014/2017. Wolter, Michael. The Gospel According to Luke. Vol. II (Luke 9:51–24). Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017.

Christfried Böttrich, Sabine Fahl, and Dieter Fahl

Biblische Zeit und christliche Historiographie Literarische Strategien in der Kratkaja Chronografičeskaja Paleja (KP) Abstract: The so-called Short Chronographic Paleya, compiled in the Novgorod area in the early 15th century, belongs to the Paleya literature, a genre long neglected because of a lack of text editions, and its complexity as well. This branch of the tradition links Old and New Testament history, para-biblical traditions and chronography from the creation of the world to the Byzantine emperor Romanos I. Lakapenos (10th century). For the first time, the Church Slavonic text of the Short Chronographic Paleya is now made accessible to scholars who are not Slavicists with a critical, parallel text edition (Church-Slavonic and German) with commentary and indexes, prepared by a Russian-German-Bulgarian team. The present article offers an overview of the contents from Jewish and Christian non-canonical, canonical and chronographic sources. An analysis of the methods of depicting time in the text shows that the compiler was an erudite computist who expected, along with his community, the end of the world within the coming decades. Keywords: Paleya literature, Church Slavonic literature, chronography, Short Chronographic Paleya, models of time.

1 Vorbemerkungen An der Wiege der christlichen Geschichtsschreibung steht das Modellbild der „biblischen Zeit“. Die Geschichte erhält Maß und Format durch das, was es im Buch der Bücher von der Erschaffung der Welt und des Menschen durch Gott, von der Urzeit, den Erzeltern und Patriarchen oder dem Werden und Ergehen des Volkes Israel zu erzählen gibt. Daran schließen die Historiographen ihre eigene Geschichte als unmittelbare Fortsetzung an und öffnen zugleich den Horizont auf ein Ziel hin, das in der Erlösung durch Jesus Christus und im Kommen Gottes am „jüngsten Tag“ besteht. Die biblischen Geschichtserzählungen werden somit als ein chronologisches Gerüst wahrgenommen, das die Einfügung https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-007

132  Christfried Böttrich, Sabine Fahl, and Dieter Fahl

immer neuer Ereignisse gestattet und das zu immer neuen Fortschreibungen einlädt. Die byzantinisch-slavische Paleja-Literatur, ein Zweig der Europäischen Historienbibeln,1 hat dieses Modell in eigenständiger Weise aufgenommen und weiterentwickelt. Ihr Proprium besteht darin, dass sie vor allem die alttestamentlich-jüdische Geschichte ergänzt, ausbaut, ausschmückt und fortschreibt – und damit das Material für typologische Geschichtsdeutungen erheblich verbreitert. Diese Fortschreibungen aber bewahren häufig auch alte Überlieferungen auf, die gelegentlich bis zu jüdischen Quellen zurückführen.2 Deshalb ist die byzantinisch-slavische Paleja auch eine der wichtigsten Fundgruben für alle, die sich mit der „Rewritten Bible“ und ihrem Fortleben in den Sprachen des Christlichen Orients befassen. Um die Paleja als Quelle für die Rezeptionsgeschichte biblischer Zeitvorstellungen studieren zu können, bedarf es jedoch eines neuen Zugangs zu ihrem Text. Die wenigen Editionen des 19. Jahrhunderts können den heutigen Standards schon lange nicht mehr genügen. Dem Ziel, die Textgrundlage wie auch die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Paleja neu zu erschließen, war deshalb unser Greifswalder DFG-Projekt (2013–2018) gewidmet, das inzwischen zum Abschluss gekommen ist. Als Ergebnis liegt nun eine kritische Edition der so genannten Kratkaja Chronografičeskaja Paleja (KP) vor.3 Die KP ist der jüngste Zweig der umfangreichen Paleja-Literatur und öffnet daher gleichsam einen Weg zurück durch die Geschichte dieses weitläufigen Literaturbereichs, den wir zunächst noch einmal kurz vorstellen möchten.

2 Die Kratkaja Chronografičeskaja Paleja (KP) als Teil der Paleja-Literatur Der Name „Paleja / палея“ leitet sich von der griechischen Wendung ἡ παλαιὰ διαθήκη (2Kor 3,14) ab. Er bezeichnet im byzantinisch-slavischen Kulturkreis entweder das Alte Testament im Ganzen bzw. in einzelnen Teilen, oder er steht generalisierend für „das Alte Testament betreffende Schriften“.4 Im 19. Jahrhundert avanciert er dann zum wissenschaftlichen Sammelbegriff für das Genre der

1 2 3 4

So erstmals Gaster, Ilchester Lectures, 147–208 (The Bible Historiale); vgl. Böttrich, „Genre“. Vgl. exemplarisch Flusser, „Palaea Historica;“ Santos Otero, „Pseudepigrapha“. KP 2019. Zum Sprachgebrauch vgl. Lampe, Lexicon, 998; Slavova, Tălkovnata Paleja, 38–40.

Biblische Zeit und christliche Historiographie 

133

byzantinisch-slavischen Historienbibeln, die eine Auswahl populärer Erzählstücke aus der alttestamentlichen Geschichte bieten. Grundsätzlich unterscheidet man dabei zwei verschiedene Korpora: zum einen die Palaea historica / Istoričeskaja Paleja, die griechisch und slavisch erhalten ist; zum anderen die Tolkovaja Paleja (TP), die ausschließlich slavisch vorliegt und deren Name sich vom russisch-kirchenslavischen „тълковати / erklären“ (= die erklärte / kommentierte / interpretierte Paleja) herleitet. Die TP wiederum existiert in drei Hauptrezensionen, die voneinander abhängig sind und die man folgendermaßen bezeichnet: 1. Tolkovaja Palea / Erklärte Paleja (TP) im engeren Sinne; sie stellt den ersten und ältesten Texttyp dar, der am Ausgangspunkt der folgenden Entwicklung steht und wahrscheinlich gegen Ende des 13. Jh.s kompiliert wurde. Sie ist als Dialog mit einem fiktiven jüdischen Gesprächspartner strukturiert, wobei das Quellenmaterial ausführlich typologisch ausgelegt wird. 2. Polnaja Chronografičeskaja Paleja / Vollständige Chronographische Paleja (PP); gegenüber der TP hat sich hier der Bestand an apokryphen Texten erweitert. Die PP bietet zudem eine chronographische Fortsetzung bis ins 10. Jh. (hauptsächlich aus der Chronik des Georgius Monachus schöpfend) und ist vermutlich im ausgehenden 14. Jh. geschrieben worden. Die Dialogstruktur wird weitgehend aufgegeben, Teile der Kommentare sind eliminiert. 3. Kratkaja Chronografičeskaja Paleja / Kurze Chronographische Paleja (KP): Ihre Entstehung im ersten Drittel des 15. Jh.s ging mit deutlichen Kürzungen des TP-Textes im Bereich der biblisch-apokryphen Geschichte einher; zugleich erfuhr sie jedoch eigene Erweiterungen sowie eine chronographische Fortsetzung, die weitgehend derjenigen in der PP gleicht. Von der Dialogstruktur der TP ist kaum noch etwas zu erkennen, fast alle TP-Kommentare fehlen. Die KP als dritter und jüngster Zweig ist der Gegenstand unserer kritischen Edition. Für ihre Bearbeitung war deshalb auch eine intensive Auseinandersetzung mit TP und PP unerlässlich – sowie mit allen Quellen, die der Paleja-Literatur im Ganzen zugrunde liegen. Diese fundamentale Erschließungsarbeit hat sich vor allem in dem Kommentarband unserer zweibändigen Ausgabe niedergeschlagen. Der kritisch edierte Text der KP basiert auf der verbesserten editio princeps von Evgenij G. Vodolazkin und Tat’jana R. Rudi5 nach allen sechs Handschriften. 5 Vodolazkin und Rudi, „Paleja (tekst)“.

134  Christfried Böttrich, Sabine Fahl, and Dieter Fahl

Ihr wichtigster Repräsentant ist die Hs Nr. 1434 der Sammlung Pogodin in der Russischen Nationalbibliothek zu St. Petersburg aus den frühen 40er Jahren des 15. Jh. s. Literaturgeschichtlich steht die KP an jenem Punkt, an dem die Historienbibel in das chronographische Genre hinüberwächst. Aus letzterem schlagen sich in der KP vor allem die byzantinischen Weltchroniken nieder (neben dem erwähnten Georgius Monachus bzw. Hamartolos v. a. Johannes Malalas, PseudoEustathius von Antiochia, Georgius Syncellus, Georgius Cedrenus), zudem altrussische Chronographen (chronografy), Annalen (letopisi) sowie verschiedene Kurzchroniken. Für ihre Kompilation benutzt die KP (oft abhängig von TP und PP) ausschließlich Quellen, die in kirchenslavischer Übersetzung bereits vorlagen. Dabei reduziert sie vor allem die typologische Exegese aus der Paleja-Tradition. Ihr ganzes Interesse gilt einer wohlgeordneten, überschaubaren Darstellung der Geschichte im Ganzen. Dieses geordnete Ganze lässt sich am besten durch einen Blick auf den Inhalt der KP nachvollziehen. Relativ kleinschrittig werden die Urgeschichte, die Erzelterngeschichte, Exodus, Landnahme sowie die Richter- und Königszeit erzählt; summarisch wird die Erzählung über die Zeit nach dem babylonischen Exil mit Persern, Makedoniern und den Diadochen; ein kompaktes Bild liefert schließlich der Komplex von Rom und Byzanz, wobei zum Ende hin die Geschichte der Märtyrer und die Geschichte der Konzilien ein ganz eigenständiges Gewicht erhält. Mit dem byzantinischen Kaiser Romanos Lakapenos (10. Jh.) endet der chronographische Teil. Der Bestand an apokryphen Überlieferungen, die in die alttestamentlichen Erzähltexte eingefügt sind, macht ein methodisches Problem sichtbar. Alles, was hier an möglichen jüdischen Traditionen aufbewahrt ist, trägt ein christliches Gewand. Der Anteil von jüdischer Tradition und christlicher Bearbeitung, Fortschreibung oder Ausschmückung lässt sich methodisch sicher jedenfalls nicht mehr voneinander unterscheiden. Nicht die Sprachgestalt, sondern allenfalls der literarische Plot kann hier als Kriterium herangezogen werden. Von besonderem Interesse sind jene Passagen, die sich auf die deuterokanonischen Schriften der Septuaginta beziehen. Das betrifft: 1/2 Makkabäer, Tobit, Judit, Zusätze zu Daniel und Jesus Sirach. Sie alle sind nicht komplett, sondern nur in kurzen Auszügen oder Zitaten aufgenommen. Vermutlich jüdische apokryphe Traditionen betreffen z. B. die folgenden Textpassagen, die sich noch inhaltlich identifizieren, aber nicht mehr formal abgrenzen lassen:6 6 Vermittelt wurden diese Überlieferungen häufig durch die byzantinische Chronographie. Die KP-Stellen sind hier und im Folgenden gemäß der in unserer Edition KP 2019 eingeführten

Biblische Zeit und christliche Historiographie 

135

1. 2,12

Neid ist die Ursache für den Angriff Satans auf den Menschen (Weish 2,24)

1. 3,2.13

Kain und Abel haben namentlich benannte Schwestern (Jub 4,9)

1. 3,18–19

Kain lernt vom Teufel, wie er Abel töten kann (Haggada)

1. 3,21–23

Adam und Eva bestatten Abel nach dem Vorbild von Vögeln (Tanḥ Ber § 10)

6. 2,2 – 6. 4,34

Apokalypse Abrahams (kurze Fassung)

6. 9,29

Loths Frau ist ihrem Mann ungehorsam (Haggada)

6. 11,20–24

Isaak ermutigt seinen Vater zum Vollzug des Opfers (Haggada)

7. 4,1 – 7. 5,1

Leiter Jakobs (äußerst reduzierte Fassung; dazu kurze Rückblende in 8. 5,4–6)

7. 6,1–10

Jakob tötet Esau und erlegt dessen Söhnen Tribut auf (Jub 37–38)

8. 5

Jakob segnet seine Söhne (Gen 49, vielleicht apokryphen Ursprungs)

8. 8,1 – 8. 10,12

TestXII in einer kurzen Fassung (ausführlicher zitiert werden nur in TestJos und in TestJud)

9. 2,1–24; 9. 3,4–5; Vita Mosis 9. 4,1–12; 10. 3,8–9; 10. 5,59–60 11. 10,7–14

Tod des Mose und Streit zwischen Satan und Michael (Jud 9)

20. 2,7–17

Satan hindert den Propheten Nathan daran, David zu warnen; Gott erlaubt ihm, David bloßzustellen (VitProph 17)

21. 2,8

Salomos legendärer Thron (Haggada)

21. 2,10–14

Rätselwettkampf zwischen der Königin von Saba und Salomo (Haggada)

22. 3,4

Martyrium des Propheten Jesaja (Vitae Prophetarum 1,1)

Gliederung nach Kapiteln, Abschnitten und Sätzen zitiert. Die Quellen, aus welchen die KP an den jeweiligen Stellen schöpfte, sind in derselben Edition, Bd. 2, im Kommentar angegeben.

136  Christfried Böttrich, Sabine Fahl, and Dieter Fahl

25. 1,3–39

Alexanders Begegnung mit dem jüdischen Hohenpriester (Josephus, Ant XI; darin 25. 1,9–32: Beschreibung des Priestergewands nach Ant III)

27,4

Entstehung der Septuaginta (Aristeasbrief; Josephus)

27,8–11

Verfolgung der Juden im hellenistischen Ägypten (3Makk)

29. 16

Eroberung Jerusalems durch Titus (Josephus)

Offensichtlich christliche apokryphe Traditionen finden sich verstreut über den gesamten Text, beschränken sich indessen meist auf kurze Anspielungen. Die folgenden Beispiele springen hier besonders ins Auge.7 1. 1,2

Gott erschafft zehn Engelsränge

1. 1,31–38

Fall des Satanael und seines zehnten Ranges

1. 3,1

„Afrurěi“, die Insel, als Adams and Evas erster Wohnort außerhalb von Eden (nach Petros von Alexandria)8

2. 1,3–5

Sethiten und Kainiten vor der Flut

2. 2,3

Noah erfindet das Semantron

6. 8,9–13

Wiedererweckung des gebratenen Kalbes bei Abrahams Gastmahl in Mamre

8. 7,15–18

Josefs Traum von zwölf Hirschen / zwölf Aposteln

10. 1,7–17

Geschichte vom Kreuzesholz

Diese Textsegmente der KP sind wie alle übrigen in ein differenziertes chronologisches Beziehungsgeflecht eingebettet. Damit stellt die KP für das Studium biblischer und chronographischer Zeitmodelle ein besonders dankbares und aufschlussreiches Objekt dar.

7 Zu den direkten Quellen und den jeweiligen Traditionen vgl. im Einzelnen die Kommentare in KP 2019, Bd. 2. 8 Vgl. Fahl und Fahl, „Adam“.

Biblische Zeit und christliche Historiographie 

137

3 Zur Arbeitsweise des Kompilators am Beispiel der Zeitstrukturen im KP-Text Sein Anliegen teilt der KP-Kompilator gleich in der Überschrift zu seinem Werk mit: „Wort aus der Paleja, welches sind die kostbarsten Stellen (wörtlich: die Augen), abgeschrieben in Kürze vom Anfang der Schöpfung an“.9 Er kündigt damit keine neuen Informationen und auch keine eigene kreative Leistung an, sondern eine Arbeit, die man heute vielleicht als Forschungsbericht bezeichnen würde, bestehend in der Auswahl und Zusammenstellung der „kostbarsten Stellen“ aus verschiedenen Schriften, die zunächst das Alte Testament betreffen und chronologisch von der Schöpfung einen Überblick über die Heilsgeschichte bieten. Dieses Versprechen an den Leser wird er erfüllen und anschließend noch in gleicher Manier fortfahren, um auch die frühchristliche und byzantinische Zeit in sein Werk einzubeziehen. Er benutzt eine Vielzahl von Quellen, jedoch, wie bereits erwähnt, ausschließlich Texte, die bereits ins Kirchenslavische übersetzt waren; die meisten dieser Übersetzungen sind südslavischen Ursprungs. Wie der Kompilator den Schwierigkeiten beim Extrahieren seines Materials aus diesen heterogenen Texten begegnete, soll nun an Beispielen demonstriert werden, die in erster Linie seinen Umgang mit Zeitstrukturen beleuchten. Die Grundlagen für unsere Untersuchung schuf Evgenij G. Vodolazkin mit seinen Forschungen zum besonderen Interesse der KP an absoluten Daten.10 Die KP entstand in den ersten Jahrzehnten des 15. Jahrhunderts, einer Zeit, zu der man guten Grund hatte, sich mit Fragen der Zeitberechnung auseinanderzusetzen: Das Jahr 1492 nach Christus entspricht dem Jahr 7000 nach der Erschaffung der Welt (byzantinische Zeit), und man rechnete damit, dass die Welt 7000 Jahre nach der Schöpfung untergehen werde. Die Frage, ob die Jahresrechnung des Kalenders, nach dem man lebte, stimmte oder nicht, war also keineswegs abstrakt-theoretisch, sondern hatte lebenswichtige Konsequenzen. Vor diesem Hintergrund leuchtet das hartnäckige Bemühen des KP-Kompilators um präzise Datierungen, das sein Werk von allen anderen kirchenslavischen chronografy unterscheidet, unmittelbar ein. Zum ersten Mal in Russland konzentrierte er sich auf – kontinuierliches Zählen und Nacherzählen der Zeit von der Schöpfung an – möglichst präzises Datieren der Hauptereignisse in der Heilsgeschichte – nicht allein nach dem Jahr, sondern auch nach Monat, Tag, Wochentag und sogar nach der Stunde. 9 KP 2019, Bd. 1, 2–3; zum Vorbild dieses Titels in der Istoričeskaja Paleja vgl. ebd., Bd. 2, 4–5 und 112. 10 Vodolazkin, „Chronologija“; im Überblick: ders., Vsemirnaja istorija, 125–61.

138  Christfried Böttrich, Sabine Fahl, and Dieter Fahl

Um eine Übersicht über die Weltgeschichte mit diesen Schwerpunkten zu schaffen, scheint der Kompilator die gesamte Bibliothek benutzt zu haben, die ihm zur Verfügung stand. Er war höchstwahrscheinlich ein Mönch und saß in einem wohlausgestatteten Kloster im Raum von Novgorod. – Alle KP-Handschriften zeigen mehr oder minder stark ausgeprägte Novgorodismen, unabhängig vom Ort ihrer Entstehung.11 – Seine Methode, sich der Quellen zu bedienen, meist ohne deren Wortlaut auch nur im Geringsten zu verändern, lässt sich am besten mit dem von Collingwood geprägten Begriff der Historiographie „mit Schere und Klebstoff“12 beschreiben, ein Verfahren, das in spätbyzantinischer Zeit und im Mittelalter durchaus üblich war. Freilich wäre das Bild in Bezug auf unseren Novgoroder Mönch unvollständig, würde man dem Klebstoff und der Schere nicht noch ein weiteres Hilfsmittel hinzufügen, nämlich eine Pinzette. Denn er kombinierte nicht einfach kürzere oder längere Textfragmente aus seinen Quellen, sondern extrahierte daraus einzelne Sätze, Wortgruppen oder selbst Einzelwörter, um sie in den Wortlaut seiner jeweiligen Hauptquelle – meist der TP oder der Hamartolus-Chronik – an genau passender Stelle einzusetzen. Beispielsweise finden wir bereits im ersten Satz über den ersten Schöpfungstag eine Verbindung von Zitaten aus Gen 1,1, aus dem Hexaemeron des bulgarischen Exarchen Ioann, aus der Christlichen Topographie des Cosmas Indicopleustes und aus einer übersetzten byzantinischen Kurzchronik. Diese Zitate sind jedoch nicht alle direkt den genannten Quellen entnommen, sondern größtenteils bereits über Kompilationen, nämlich über die TP und die PP, vermittelt. Hier das Textmaterial: Die TP bleibt in ihrem Schöpfungsbericht zunächst beim Buch Gen: „Im Anfang schuf Gott, steht geschrieben, Himmel und Erde.“13

Schon die PP setzt zwei weitere Fragmente hinzu. Das erste stammt von dem bulgarischen Exarchen Ioann, der in seinem Hexaemeron hier seinerseits Severian von Gabala zitiert: „Gott schuf den Himmel, die Erde, die Abgründe, die Winde, die Luft, die Wasser.“14

Die Wasser schaffen den Übergang zur nächsten Quelle, nämlich Logos 10.43 bei Cosmas Indicopleustes, der wiederum Epiphanius von Salamis zitiert, wo er

11 12 13 14 PG

Vgl. KP 2019, Bd. 2, 85–104. Vgl. Collingwood, Idea. TP 1892, 1, f 1b,11–13. Aitzetmüller, Hexaemeron, 89, f 12a,16–21 (vgl. In mundi creationem oratio I des Severian: 56, 433).

Biblische Zeit und christliche Historiographie 

139

berichtet, welche meteorologischen Erscheinungen mit den Wassern zusammenhängen: „die Wasser, aus denen sind Schnee, Eis, Hagel, Frost und Tau“.15 Danach kehrt die PP wieder zu dem Exarchen Ioann zurück, um aus seinen an die oben zitierte Stelle anschließenden ausführlichen Darlegungen weitere Phänomene zu entnehmen, die zu Himmel und Erde gehören und deshalb am ersten Tage geschaffen worden sein müssen. Insgesamt lautet der PP-Satz, durch Nummern geordnet, nun wie folgt: Gott schuf nämlich an jenem Tage den obersten Himmel, 2. die Erde, 3. die Abgründe, 4. die Winde, 5. die Luft, 6. das Wasser16 – woher sind Schnee, Eis, Frost, Tau, Hagel –, Kälte, Nebel, Finsternis, die Tiefe und alle Elemente und Teile der Erde.17

Der Kompilator der KP kannte offenbar sowohl die TP-Variante (an anderen Stellen zitiert er seitenweise aus der TP) als auch die Fassung der PP. Er entschied sich, beide zu kombinieren, die Zusätze der PP leicht zu kürzen18 und außerdem den TP-Anfang noch um den Wochentag für den ersten Schöpfungstag zu ergänzen, den er in einer Kurzchronik gefunden hatte19. Die von der PP eingeführte Nummerierung des Geschaffenen beginnt er konsequenterweise mit 1. Das Ergebnis in KP 1. 1,3 lautet: Es schuf Gott im Anfang [Gen / TP], am ersten Tage, am Sonntag [Kurzchronik], 1. den Himmel, 2. die Erde [Gen / TP / PP], 3. die Abgründe, 4. die Winde, 5. die Luft, 6. die Wasser, woher ist Schnee, Frost, Eis, Tau, Hagel, Nebel, Finsternis, Reif [PP].

Findet der KP-Kompilator in seinen Quellen unterschiedliche Datierungen für dasselbe Ereignis, so erkühnt er sich nicht zu entscheiden, welche davon die richtige sei. Er betont oder benennt nicht einmal die Widersprüche (wie es etwa

15 Schneider, Kosmas, 221 (vgl. De mesuris et ponderibus des Epiphanius: PG 43, 276). 16 Variante in Ms 1435 der Sammlung M. P. Pogodin, RNB zu St. Petersburg, f 2v,7: die Wasser. 17 PP 1892, f 2c,12–19. 18 Dass die Aufzählung der Phänomene nach „Hagel“ nicht mehr von den Wassern abhängt, lässt sich aus dem PP-Text nicht ablesen. – Die oben in unserer Übersetzung benutzte moderne Interpunktion kennen die Hss nicht. – Der KP-Kompilator, der die Quellen der PP hier kaum konsultiert haben dürfte, hat wohl die gesamte Kette auf die Wasser bezogen, sodass mindestens die „Finsternis“ bei ihm etwas deplatziert steht. Die nicht ausschließlich zum Wasser passenden Phänomene „Kälte“ und „Tiefe“ lässt er aus. 19 Zu ins Kirchenslavische übersetzten Kurzchroniken, die eine Reihe von Angaben zur KP beisteuerten, vgl. KP 2019, Bd. 2, 24–31. Die genaue Vorlage, die der Kompilator benutzte, ist nicht ermittelt. Unter anderem enthalten die Kurzchroniken, die den Pskover Annalen (Erste und Dritte Pskover Chronik) vorgeschaltet sind, Angaben zu den Wochentagen der Schöpfungsgeschichte.

140  Christfried Böttrich, Sabine Fahl, and Dieter Fahl

Georgius Syncellus tat), sondern referiert getreulich, was er vorfindet, und versucht, alle ihm bekannten Daten in seiner Darlegung unterzubringen. Auf diese Weise kommt z. B. die zentrale Gestalt des Noach bei ihm zu drei verschiedenen Geburtsjahren: Indem er die Lebensjahre aller Vorväter bis zur Geburt des jeweils ersten, die genealogische Linie fortsetzenden Sohnes addierte, kam der Kompilator auf das Jahr 1520 AM für Noachs Geburt (KP 1. 3,61). Die Sintflut wird in allen Quellen der KP einhellig auf das Jahr 2242 AM datiert (vgl. KP 2. 1,17; 2. 2,15; 31,4). Da aber Noach laut Gen 7,6 sowie laut TP beim Eintreten der Flut 600 Jahre alt war (so übernommen in KP 2. 1,16), ergibt sich als alternatives Geburtsjahr für Noach 1642 AM. Obwohl später bei den Daten zu Abraham mit dem Jahr 2242 AM für die Flut weitergerechnet wird, erscheint 1642 AM als Noachs Geburtsjahr zunächst nicht in der KP, wird aber in der chronologischen Übersicht am Ende des Textes genannt (KP 31,1). Stattdessen gibt der Kompilator, wohl nach einer uns unbekannten Kurzchronik, zu Beginn der Noach-Geschichte das Jahr 1468 AM als Geburtsjahr an (KP 1. 3,68) und legt dieses Datum auch der Berechnung von Noachs Todesjahr zugrunde (KP 2. 3,8–9). In ähnlicher Weise werden für Abraham sogar vier verschiedene Geburtsjahre teils genannt, teils durch andere Berechnungen vorausgesetzt.20 Solche widersprüchlichen Daten stehen einander jedoch nirgends direkt gegenüber. Von einem festen Punkt ausgehend, werden die biblisch verbürgten relativen Daten addiert, bis der Kompilator sich dem nächsten absoluten Datum nähert, das er aus einer Chronik kennt. In keinem Falle passt dieses zum Ergebnis seiner eigenen Rechnung, so dass erneut kreative Lösungen gefragt sind. So erhält z. B. jeder Richter Israels ein absolutes Jahr als Beginn seiner Amtszeit, und durch Addition der im Richterbuch / in der TP / in Chroniken enthaltenen Zahl seiner Herrschaftsjahre ergibt sich die nächste absolute Jahreszahl für den Amtsantritt seines Nachfolgers. Bis zum Richter Abdon (KP 19,123) kann dieses System durchgehalten werden. Der nächste Richter, Simson, müsste nun seine absolute Jahreszahl durch Addition der acht Amtsjahre des Abdon erhalten. Dies ist nicht möglich, weil die verbleibende Zeit bis zum ersten König, Saul, dann zu kurz wäre: Der Anfang von Sauls Königtum steht anhand einer Kurzchronik fest, er liegt 459 Jahre nach dem Exodus. Daher rechnet die KP nun rückwärts. Von dem absoluten Jahr für Sauls Salbung zum König werden 30 Jahre für Samuel und seine Söhne abgezogen, weitere 20 Jahre für den Priester Eli, weitere 40 richterlose Jahre sowie schließlich 20 Jahre für Simson, um dessen Amtsantritt mit einer absoluten Jahreszahl zu versehen.21 Wieder wird 20 Vgl. KP 2019, Bd. 2, 53–56. 21 Vgl. KP 2019, Bd. 2, 60–62. Zu den Quellen der KP an der Schnittstelle, von denen hier keine mit absoluten Daten operiert, vgl. ebd., 279–80.

Biblische Zeit und christliche Historiographie 

141

das Problem im KP-Text nicht benannt, obwohl Abdons Amtsantritt im Jahr 4166 AM (KP 19,123), seine acht Richterjahre (KP 19,126) und seine Ablösung durch Simson im Jahre 4171 AM (KP 19,130) unmittelbar aufeinander folgend mitgeteilt werden, so dass der Leser den „Fehler“ in der Rechnung kaum übersehen kann. Die Methode, von einer fixen Jahreszahl aus rückwärts zu rechnen, begegnet uns hier nach Noach bereits zum zweiten Male. Sie wird noch häufiger angewandt, so auch an Stellen, wo der Kompilator alttestamentliche Figuren wie Hiob und Daniel zeitlich einordnet. In ihren Fällen diente ihm die erste Redaktion des kirchenslavischen Synaxarions (übersetzt im 11. Jh. in der Eparchie von Ochrid) oder eine davon abhängige Kurzchronik als Quelle. Sie berichtet, wie viele Jahre vor Christi Geburt die als Propheten geltenden Personen des Alten Testaments wirkten. Diese Zahl subtrahiert der KP-Kompilator von 5500 AM, dem Jahr, das alle seine Quellen übereinstimmend als Geburtsjahr Jesu nennen, und weist das Ergebnis dem jeweiligen Propheten als Geburtsjahr zu.22 Eine weitere Verbindung zwischen der Zeit des Alten und des Neuen Testaments stellt ein besonderer Tag dar, der 25. März. Bekannt als der Tag der Verkündigung an die Gottesmutter Maria, findet sich dieser Tag in der KP bereits für die Erschaffung Adams (1. 1,52). Schon Ps.-Athanasius der Große und Anastasius von Antiochia (6. Jh.) kannten dieses typologisch bedeutsame Datum: Der Neue Adam wird just an dem Tage inkarniert, an welchem Gott den alten Adam schuf. Die KP weist dem 25. März noch ein weiteres Hauptereignis der Heilsgeschichte zu, nämlich den Beginn der Sintflut (KP 2. 1,17), die in der Tradition von Mt 24,37–39 als Präfiguration des Jüngsten Gerichtes gilt. Obgleich die KP das Ende der Welt nirgends erwähnt, lässt diese Datierung doch vermuten, dass ihr Kompilator damit rechnete, es werde nicht nur nach der Erfüllung von 7000 Jahren eintreten, sondern genau an einem 25. März.23 Zusätzlich zur kontinuierlichen Datierung nach dem Jahr und möglichst nach Monat und Tag verwendet die KP bereits biblisch vorgeprägte und auch in der Chronographie beliebte Zeitangaben nach Generationen.24 Weiterhin werden zu vielen absoluten Jahresangaben die Daten dreier zyklischer Datierungssysteme – Indiktion, Sonnen- und Mondzyklus – hinzugesetzt, 22 Vgl. KP 2019, Bd. 2, 62–64. 23 Übrigens wurde die Bedeutung dieses Tages auch in Westeuropa zwischen dem 13. und 16. Jh. lebhaft diskutiert; so assoziierte Philipp Melanchthon mit dem 25. März etliche biblische Ereignisse, darunter auch die Erschaffung Adams und das Eintreten Noachs in die Arche (vgl. KP 2019, Bd. 2, 49–51.) 24 Vgl. KP 2019, Bd. 2, 73–74. Zur Bedeutung dieser archaischen Form der Zeitbestimmung anhand genealogischer Abfolgen vgl. den Beitrag von Lucas Brum Teixeira im vorliegenden Band.

142  Christfried Böttrich, Sabine Fahl, and Dieter Fahl

was den KP-Kompilator als einen Komputisten ausweist, der mit diesen Systemen bei der Bestimmung des Ostertermins zu arbeiten gewohnt war. Die Abbildung zeigt das so genannte vrucělěto („Jahr-in-der-Hand“), eine Tabelle, wie er sie für die Bestimmung des Jahres im Sonnenzyklus benutzte.

Abb. 1: Vrucělěto mit Sonntagsbuchstaben nach Vodolazkin Vsemirnaja istorija, 160, ergänzt um die marginalen Jahrtausendangaben links, entspricht schematisiert einer Darstellung aus dem Jahr 1399 (vgl. Simonov, „Predstavlenie“)

Die Zählung beginnt mit der hervorgehobenen 1 auf dem Mittelfinger. Von links nach rechts wird zeilenweise von unten nach oben viermal bis 7 gezählt, um die 28 Jahre des Sonnenzyklus zu erhalten. Die Ziffern von 1 bis 7 bezeichnen den Wochentag, mit dem das Jahr beginnt: 1 für Sonntag, 2 für Montag … 7 für Sonnabend. Natürlich muss jede vierte Ziffer übersprungen werden wegen des Schaltjahres, das sich jedes Mal auf dem Zeigefinger findet. Links vom Zeigefinger gibt die Tabelle noch die vollen Tausender-Jahre an, die stets Schaltjahre sind und auf dem Zeigefinger stehen. Dass unser Kompilator eine solche Tabelle benutzt hat, erweist sich bei seinen Angaben zu den drei ersten vollen Tausen-

Biblische Zeit und christliche Historiographie 

143

dern, die stets die richtigen Angaben zum Sonnenzyklus enthalten (vgl. KP 1. 3,53; 1. 3,65; 5. 4,19)25, während ihm sonst seine eigenen Berechnungen des Sonnenzyklus mit fortschreitender Zahl der Weltjahre mehr und mehr entgleisen. Später fügte man in die vrucělěto-Tabellen die Nummer des jeweiligen Jahres im Sonnenzyklus oberhalb der Zahl für den Sonntagsbuchstaben hinzu, wie es das Schema in Abb. 2 zeigt.

Abb. 2: Vrucělěto mit Sonntagsbuchstaben und Sonnenzyklus, schematisiert nach einer Handschrift um 1600 bei Romanova, Istočniki, Abb. 4

Solche Hand-Tabellen (eine entsprechende für die rechte Hand mit dem Mondzyklus bildete ihr Pendant) gebrauchten in der Rus’ die Paschalisten. Es war üb25 Später gibt die KP keine vollen Tausender-Jahre mehr an. Vgl. ausführlicher KP 2019, Bd. 2, 79.

144  Christfried Böttrich, Sabine Fahl, and Dieter Fahl

rigens verboten, die Ostertafeln weiter als bis zum Jahr 7000 (1492 n. Chr.) zu führen. Erst nachdem die Welt in diesem Jahr nicht untergegangen war, erlaubte die Russische Kirche, die Paschalien weiterzuschreiben. Der KP-Kompilator lebte also auch als Komputist in der Erwartung, das Jüngste Gericht werde noch in seinem Jahrhundert kommen.26 Die zyklischen Daten dienten ihm in der KP zum Absichern der absoluten Jahreszahlen, die er zum größten Teil anhand relativer Daten selbst errechnete. Zweifellos war er sich ebenso wie andere Kollegen von der kirchenslavischen chronographischen Zunft dessen wohl bewusst, dass die Buchstabenzahlen die am stärksten verwundbare Stelle in der Chronographie darstellten. Wir lesen beispielsweise im so genannten slavischen Syncellus: Wann genau sich die 7000 Jahre der Welt erfüllen, lasse sich kaum errechnen, weil die Buchstabenzahlen beim Kopieren so oft verfälscht wurden: eine verrutschte Linie etwa macht schon das И (= 8) zum П (= 80), ein undeutlich geschriebener Hunderter Р ist im Handumdrehen mit dem Zehner I verwechselt usw.27 Mit ähnlichen Beispielen operiert eine altrussische Kurzchronik, um darzulegen, nicht die apostolischen Väter seien schuld an den häufigen Irrtümern bei der Jahreszählung, sondern Lesefehler.28 Aber die Zeit der Heilsgeschichte lässt sich mit Zahlen allein nicht fassen. Insbesondere die Zeit der frühen Christenheit kann nur unzureichend beschrieben werden, wenn ausschließlich die Herrschaftszeiten heidnischer Kaiser aus Chroniken zur Orientierung dienen. Deren Zeit ist nicht vergessen, unser Kompilator gibt sie auch an, aber in seiner theologischen Perspektive hat sie doch nur untergeordnete Bedeutung. Grundlegend ist in seinen Augen vielmehr die Wolke der Zeugen (Hebr 12,1), der Märtyrer und Heiligen, die eine gewisse Epoche bezeugten. Augustus galt schon Georgius Monachus nur darum als der größte Kaiser, weil unter seiner Herrschaft der König der Welt geboren wurde.29 Entsprechend kennzeichnete die Hamartolus-Chronik die Herrschaftszeit der römischen und byzantinischen Kaiser häufig durch eine kurze Aufzählung von zeitgenössischen Heiligen. Der Kompilator der KP übernahm diese Listen und ergänzte sie ausgiebig mit Hilfe einer chronologisch geordneten Liste von Heiligen, die auf dem slavischen Synaxarion beruhte. Sortiert war diese Liste nach den Namen der Herrscher, die in den Kurzviten der Heiligen im Synaxarion er26 Ausführlicher zu Sonnen- und Mondzyklus sowie zu den Indiktionsangaben der KP vgl. in KP 2019, Bd. 2, 75–85. 27 Totomanova, Georgi Sinkel, 137, f 458a,19–26. Ebd., 511–12, datiert die Autorin diesen Zusatz zum Chroniktext anhand der als Beispiele benutzten Zahlenschreibweisen auf das 14. / 15. Jh., also in eine der Entstehung der KP recht nahe liegende Zeit. 28 Vgl. Vodolazkin, „Chronologija“, Čast’ 1, 32. 29 Boor, Georgii Monachi Chronicon I, 294,20–23.

Biblische Zeit und christliche Historiographie



145

wähnt sind. Als eigenständiger Text ist diese Heiligenliste bislang nicht gefunden worden. Verschiedene russische chronografy, angefangen mit der PP, schöpften indes daraus. Die KP enthält die Liste in ihrer am wenigsten korrupten und fast vollständigen Fassung.30 Indem der Kompilator zu den Herrschern ab Tiberius alle jeweiligen Märtyrer- und Heiligennamen aus der Liste angibt, weist er den Amtszeiten der Kaiser ihren Platz in der Heilsgeschichte zu. In byzantinischer Zeit sind dann auch die absoluten Jahreszahlen für die Amtszeiten der Kaiser bereits aus der Kirchengeschichte gewonnen: Die Zeitmessung richtet sich hier an der Datierung der sieben Ökumenischen Konzilien aus. (Alle altrussischen Kurzchroniken enthalten die Anzahl der Jahre, die zwischen den Konzilien verstrichen sind.) Auch für deren Beschreibung lieferte neben der Hamartolus-Chronik v. a. das slavische Synxarion wichtiges Material.31 In unserem Forschungs- und Editionsprojekt zur KP konnten wir neben Kurzchroniken und dem slavischen Synaxarion einige weitere wichtige Quellen ermitteln, deren sich der Kompilator bediente.32 Aus allen extrahierte er die darin enthaltenen Zeitangaben, um sie in sein Werk einfließen zu lassen. Eine bestimmte Ära33 lässt sich dabei ebenso wenig feststellen wie ein durchgehaltenes System der Zeitbestimmung. Die Angaben zu Indiktion, Sonnen- und Mondzyklus brechen bald ab,34 und selbst die absoluten Jahreszahlen, auf welche die KP immer wieder zurückkommt und die der Kompilator auch durch umfangreiche eigene Berechnungen (aus relativen Zeitangaben seiner Quellen) ergänzt, erscheinen nicht für alle Perioden.35 Der „Forschungsbericht“ des demütigen 30 Die PP verkürzt die Liste radikal, und der Chronograf Ellinskij i Rimskij in seiner zweiten Redaktion (eine Kompilation, die eng mit der chronographischen Paleja verwandt ist) enthält eine an wenigen Stellen ausführlichere, aber durchweg mit mehr Fehlern behaftete Fassung der Heiligenliste als die KP. 31 Vgl. KP, Bd. 2, 32–35; ausführlicher: Fahl und Fahl, „Μνήμη αἰώνιος“. 32 Unter anderem gehört dazu die Chronik des Ps.-Eustathius von Antiochia, der wir die Vermittlung von Teilen des Jubiläenbuches und der Antiquitates des Josephus in die Slavia Orthodoxa verdanken. 33 Vgl. KP, Bd. 2, 84. 34 Vgl. KP, Bd. 2, 75–85. 35 Sie fehlen z. B. in den Abschnitten über die erste Eroberung Jerusalems (KP 22. 5, wo die aus den Quellen übernommenen relativen Jahreszahlen den Berechnungen des Kompilators sonst offenkundig widersprechen würden), über die Herrscher von Samarien und Babylonien (KP 23– 24), die Herrscher von Ägypten und die Zeit Israels unter den Seleukiden (KP 27–28). Die Zeitrechnung nach Olympiaden scheint unser Komputist und Kompilator entweder nicht gekannt oder ihr als einer heidnischen Erfindung misstraut zu haben. (Dass die Rechnung mit Indiktionen auf einem nicht minder heidnischen Steuersystem beruhte, fiel gewiss angesichts ihrer allgemeinen Üblichkeit in der Rus’ weniger ins Gewicht.) Aus der Chronik des Georgius Syncellus, der sich der Olympiadenzählung bedient, zitiert die KP nie direkt, sondern stets vermittelt über andere Quellen. Olympiaden kommen dabei nicht mehr vor.

146  Christfried Böttrich, Sabine Fahl, and Dieter Fahl

Kompilator-Mönchs gibt einem gelehrten Leser lediglich das Material an die Hand, womit er selbst weiterrechnen, Widersprüche aufdecken und eventuell klären und seine eigenen Schlüsse auf das genaue Jahr des nahen Weltendes ziehen kann.

Bibliographie Aitzetmüller, Rudolf. Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Johannes. Bd. I. Graz: Akademische Druckund Verlagsanstalt, 1958. Böttrich, Christfried. „Das literarische Genre ‚Historienbibel‘ – Konturen und Facetten.“ Pages 11–44 in Von der Historienbibel zur Weltchronik. Studien zur Paleja-Literatur. Edited by Christfried Böttrich, Dieter Fahl and Sabine Fahl. Greifswalder Theologische Forschungen 31. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2020. Böttrich, Christfried, und Evgenij Germanovič Vodolazkin, eds. Die Kurze Chronographische Paleja / Краткая Хронографическая Палея. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2019. - Band 1: Sabine Fahl, Dieter Fahl with assistance of Evgenij Vodolazkin and Tat’jana Rudi. Die Kurze Chronographische Paleja. Kritische Edition mit deutscher Übersetzung. (zitiert als KP 2019, Bd. 1). - Band 2: Dieter Fahl, Sabine Fahl, Christfried Böttrich with assitance of Michail Šibaev and Ivan Christov. Die Kurze Chronographische Paleja. Einführung, Kommentar, Indices. (zitiert als KP 2019, Bd. 2). Boor, Carolus de, ed. Georgii Monachi Chronicon. Editionem curavit Peter Wirth. Vol. I–II. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1978. Collingwood, Robin George. The Idea of History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946. Fahl, Sabine, and Dieter Fahl. „Adam, wo warst du? Der Name von Adams Insel in der kirchenslavischen Literatur“ in: Festschrift für Swetlana Mengel. Edited by Gabriela LehmannCarli and Tatjana Chelbaeva. Berlin: Frank und Timme, 2022 (in Vorbereitung). Fahl, Sabine, and Dieter Fahl. „Μνήμη αἰώνιος. Das Synaxarion im Zeitkonzept der Kurzen Chronographischen Paleja.“ Pages 447–513 in Im Wort gibt sich die Weisheit kund. Gedenkschrift für Gottfried Sturm. Edited by Sabine Fahl, Dieter Fahl with assistance of Philipp Ammon. Ost-West-Express. Kultur und Übersetzung 43. Berlin: Frank und Timme, 2021. Flusser, David. „Palaea Historica. An Unknown Source of Biblical Legends.“ Pages 48–79 in Studies in Aggadah and Folk-Literature. Edited by Joseph Heinemann and Dov Noy. ScrHie 22. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1971. Gaster, Moses. Ilchester Lectures on Greeko-Slavonic Literature and its Relation to the Folklore of Europe During the Middle Ages. London: Trübner, 1887. KP siehe unter Böttrich und Vodolazkin. Lampe, Geoffrey William Hugo. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. 12th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Novickij, P. P., ed. Tolkovaja Paleja 1477 goda. Vosproizvedenie Sinodal’noj rukopisi Nr. 210. Vyp. pervyj. Izdanija Imperatorskogo Obščestva ljubitelej drevnej pis’mennosti 93/1. Sanktpeterburg: Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 1892. (zitiert als PP 1892).

Biblische Zeit und christliche Historiographie 

147

Paleja Tolkovaja po spisku sdelannomu v g. Kolomne v 1406 g. Trud učenikov Nikolaja Savviča Tichonravova. T. 1. Moskva 1892 (zitiert als TP 1892); T. 2. Moskva 1896 (zitiert als TP 1896). PP siehe unter Novickij. Romanova, Anastasija Anatol’evna. Drevnerusskie kalendarno-chronologičeskie istočniki XV– XVII vv. Sankt-Peterburg: Bulanin, 2002. Santos Otero, Aurelio de. „Alttestamentliche Pseudepigrapha und die sogenannte ‚Tolkovaja Paleja‘ [TP].“ Pages 107–122 in Oecumenica et Patristica. Festschrift für Wilhelm Schneemelcher zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by Damaskinos Papandreou, Wolfgang A. Bienert and Knut Schäferdiek. Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1989. Schneider, Horst. Kosmas Indikopleustes. Christliche Topographie – Textkritische Analysen, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Indikoploistoi. Archaeologies of the Indian Ocean 7. Turnhout: Brepols 2010. Simonov, Rėm Aleksandrovič. „Predstavlenie o vremeni v dopetrovskoj Rusi na osnove novych dannych o paschal’nych rasčetach.“ Pages 355–365 in Filosofskie i bogoslovskie idei v pamjatnikach drevnerusskoj mysli. edited by Michail Nikolaevič Gromov, Vladimir Vladimirovič Mil’kov. Moskva: Nauka, 2000. Slavova, Tatjana. Tălkovnata Paleja v konteksta na starobălgarskata knižnina. Sofija: Universitetsko izdatelstvo „Sv. Kliment Ochridski“, 2002. Totomanova, Anna-Marija. Slavjanskata versija na chronikata na Georgi Sinkel. Sofija: Universitetsko izdatelstvo „Sv. Kliment Ochridski“, 2007. TP siehe unter Paleja Tolkovaja. Vodolazkin, Evgenij Germanovič. „Chronologija russkoj chronografii“. Čast’ 1: Pages 22–35 in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 49, Sankt-Peterburg: Bulanin, 1996; Čast’ 2: Pages 9–19 in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 51, Sankt-Peterburg: Bulanin, 1999; Čast’ 3: Pages 79–97 in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 52, Sankt-Peterburg: Bulanin, 2001. Vodolazkin, Evgenij Germanovič. Vsemirnaja istorija v literature Drevnej Rusi (na materiale chronografičeskogo i palejnogo povestvovanija XI–XV vekov). Sagners slavistische Sammlung 26. München: Sagner, 2000. Vodolazkin, Evgenij Germanovič, and (ab Vyp. 5) Tat’jana Robertovna Rudi. „Kratkaja Chronografičeskaja Paleja (tekst).“ Vyp. 1: Pages 891–915 in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 57, Sankt-Peterburg: Bulanin, 2006; Vyp. 2: Pages 534–556 in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 58, Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 2007; Vyp. 3: Pages 345–374 in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 61, Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 2010; Vyp. 4: Pages 238–261 in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 63, Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 2014; Vyp. 5: Pages 181–196 in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 65, Sankt-Peterburg: Rostok, 2017; Vyp. 6: Pages 60–75 in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 66, Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 2019; Vyp. 7: Pages 3–20 in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 67, SanktPeterburg: Nauka, 2020.

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen and Pierre Johan Jordaan

References to Jewish Festivals in the LXX Book of Judith Abstract: It is common for the Judith tale to be connected to the festival of Hanukkah. In this context, mostly, an acknowledgment is made that this connection between Judith and Hanukkah is of medieval Jewish provenance. Furthermore, it is quite clear that LXX Judith neither makes reference to Hanukkah nor alludes to that specific festival. However, despite being an obviously ludic text, LXX Judith makes pointed references to specific dates (albeit seemingly out of context) and certain agricultural activities that when viewed from a purely Jewish context strongly imply periods engaged with other Jewish festivals. Indeed, as an example, a knowledgeable reader following the explicit time line set out in LXX Judith would be in no doubt that the meeting between Judith and Holofernes occurred sometime in Av. The reader would also understand that the primary theme of the narrative is the ultimate protection of the Holy Temple. This is not a tale about rededication but rather halting an enemy, focused on destroying the Temple. Nowhere in the text is there even a hint that the Second Temple has been desecrated or made unclean. It is portrayed as intact and functioning correctly in Jewish society. The subtle references to the month of Av are clearly appropriate because they remind the reader of the worst-case scenario should the enemies of the Jews not be stopped. The fact that (in the tale) the Second Temple is saved during the month of Av helps to negate the destruction of the First Temple at the same time of year. If interpreted correctly it would appear that the Judith tale as espoused in LXX Judith was originally intended to be associated with Tish‘a B’Av and not Hanukkah. Keywords: LXX Judith, Umberto Eco’s semiotic theory, indices, Hanukkah, Tish‘a B’Av, Jerusalem Temple, historical fiction, didactic narrative.

1 Introduction As should be well-known, the Book of Judith presents the tale of Judith the widow—a larger-than-life Jewish heroine ostensibly living at some unspecified date early in the Second Temple period. Indeed, the text gives the impression that the Jewish community to which she belongs had only just recently returned https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-008

150  Nicholas Peter Legh Allen and Pierre Johan Jordaan

from the Babylonian captivity (Jdt 4:3).1 Furthermore, her community was in the early stages of re-establishing the centralized worship of their deity within the Second Temple in Jerusalem. The reader is also told that Joakim was the high priest in Jerusalem at the time.2 This idyllic situation is threatened from the outset by a fictional version of king Nebuchadnezzar3 who through the agency of his general Holofernes and his massive Assyrian army sets out to destroy, inter alia, the very fabric of Jewish tradition and culture (Jdt 2:1–3; 4:1–2). The best-known portion of this tale deals with Judith’s brilliant exploits which result with her both cleverly deceiving and ultimately beheading Holofernes (Jdt 10:1–23; 11:1–23; 12:1–20 and 13:1–10). With reference to Weitzman, Judith is portrayed as a devout Jewish woman,4 who solely, by the divine support of her deity gains the necessary strength and resourcefulness to exemplify Judaism’s foundation myth. Here, Judith is portrayed as being assisted and ministered to by her deity. Thus armed, she is able ultimately to ensure the cultural survival of Judaism and the safety of the Second Temple through her commitment to the preservation of Mosaic Law.5 The book of Judith is well-known for being a work of “historical fiction” that is filled with anachronisms.6 Esler even refers to the Book of Judith as “ludic” due to the obviously playful way the author deals with topics that must have been well known to his readers.7 For example, those Jewish readers who were living in Second Temple times would surely have known the following: – Nebuchadnezzar was Babylonian and not Assyrian; – Nebuchadnezzar was responsible for the destruction of the First Temple; – Nebuchadnezzar was responsible for the Babylonian captivity; – the Temple and associated worship were now re-established; – Nebuchadnezzar was now long dead; and – there is no town called Bethulia.

1 I. e., sometime immediately after 539 BCE. 2 Based solely on a reading of Antiquities 11.5.1 (121) and 11.5.5 (158) it is possible that this is a vague reference to Joacim or Joakim (a son of Jeshua) who may have aided in the rebuilding of the temple. 3 The “real” Nebuchadnezzar was Babylonian and reigned 605–562 BCE. 4 Cf. Weitzman, Surviving Sacrilege, 48–54. A Jewish woman would more normally have conformed to traditional conventions and concerned herself with more domestic matters. Here Judith’s role encroaches on the male domain. 5 Cf. Allen, “Judith: Embodying Holiness in a G-dless Space,” 17–41. 6 Cf. Johnson, Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity, 50. 7 Cf. Esler, “Ludic History in the Book of Judith,” 117, 121.

References to Jewish Festivals in the LXX Book of Judith



151

Gera added her voice to the consensus on Judith stating:8 Can we rely on the historical and chronological background supplied by the author? It quickly becomes apparent that the answer is no, for our story is fictitious, with an invented background, setting, plot, and characters. Fictitious though the story may be, it has a strong biblical tinge, for the author often uses situations, figures places and phrases taken from the Bible, adapting and combining these elements in order to lend his story verisimilitude and a biblical air. Virtually every scene and character in Judith has several biblical influences lurking in the background …

In short, the copious attention to dates (albeit disparate), geographical locations and historical characters and events serve primarily to give the story an historical texture (albeit fictitious). Johnson explains:9 … these texts offer tales of the past that are in themselves no more than legends or folktales while yet taking pains to evoke a concretely detailed, consistent, and at least superficially plausible historical setting. In each, however, closer examination reveals not only that these tales are not so historical as they are made to seem but that the historical coloration is itself flawed by errors and distortions readily apparent to the alert reader … Judith’s Nebuchadnezzar the Assyrian, would be apparent to any Jew who had even a nodding acquaintance with the historical traditions of the Bible. Whether subtle or blatant, however, the presence of historical impossibilities in an otherwise self-consciously evoked historical setting does not simply signal that the reader is stepping through the looking glass, from a world of history into one of fiction. Rather, it reflects the author’s deliberate manipulation of historical details to communicate a particular message.

Indeed, by virtue of these deliberately conflated details the author does seem to be sending out the message that his tale is to be chiefly read as a fiction. No doubt the narrative is also intended to be didactic and contains important messages but predominantly it is designed to be an entertaining (albeit inspiring) story. There is a never-ending quest to come to an understanding of the Book of Judith. In their 2010 publication, The Sword of Judith, Brine, Celetti and Lähnemann10 map the influence of this fabula over the past twelve hundred years. Judith, although in neither the Jewish nor Reformed canons, has nevertheless played an immense role in the religious and political history of the western world. Judith has been used variously for: – the justification of Hanukkah, – the basis for the Counter Reformation by the Catholics, 8 Gera, “The Jewish Textual Traditions,” 5. 9 Johnson, Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity, 49–50. 10 Almost immediately after the release of this seminal book, Géza Xeravitz edited another pivotal volume in 2012, titled A Pious Seductress: Studies in the book of Judith.

152  Nicholas Peter Legh Allen and Pierre Johan Jordaan

– – –

Quaker women claiming their right to preach the Gospel, the unification of Italy by Garibaldi, an impetus for anti-Semitism, anti-Islam and even pro-Semitism.

The reason for the usefulness of the book of Judith is the fact that being ludic in nature it was perhaps never meant to be taken up literally. In short, the tale was exploited for its more symbolic and allegorical qualities. Despite these diverse interpretations, whenever LXX Judith is discussed, almost always a reference is made to Judith’s connection to the festival of Hanukkah. Mostly, an acknowledgment is made that this connection between Judith and Hanukkah is of medieval Jewish provenance.11 Indeed as many as 13 midrashim are known that deal with some aspect of Judith and many of these are related specifically to the festival of Hanukkah.12 Of special significance, Gera has possibly identified the earliest non-LXX version of Judith to the eighth century CE.13 However, on occasion, this subtle distinction between LXX Judith and later, medieval Jewish midrashim is not made14 and in one extreme case, a scholar even claims that the LXX itself makes some elusive reference to that festival. In this regard, Bogaert incorrectly states: Le rattachement à la fête de Hanukka est commun à presque tous ces textes. Il était déjà présent dans la forme la plus ancienne que nous connaissions du récit, celle de la Septante. J. van Goudoever a bien vu que la chronologie, curieusement précise, du récit grec conduisait à le situer entre le 22eme jour du 1er mois (Jdt 2,1) et Hanukka d’une meme année. Ses ultimes hésitations seraient tombées s’il avait observé que les cent-vingt jours dont il est question en 1,16 sont à compter à rebours à partir de la date indiquée en 2,1 (22eme jour du 1er mois) et conduisent donc aussi à Hanukka (dans une année avec un seul Adar, ou mieux: dans une année sacerdotale de 364 jours). Ainsi Hanukka n’est pas seulement le terme du comput, mais son point de départ. The connection to Hanukkah is common to almost all these texts. It was already present in the oldest form we knew of the story, that of the Septuagint. J. van Goudoever saw clearly that the chronology, curiously precise, of the Greek narrative led him to situate it between the 22nd day of the 1st month (Jdt 2,1) and Hanukkah of the same year. Any hesitations he might have had would have been nullified, if he had observed that the hundred and twenty days referred to in 1.16 are counted backwards from the date indicated in 2.1 (2nd day of the 1st month) and therefore also place Hanukkah (in a year with a single

11 Cf. Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha, 43; de Silva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 107, and Gera, “The Jewish Textual Traditions,” 30–31. 12 Cf. Moore, Judith, 103, and Dubarle, Judith, 1.80–104, 105–9. 13 Gera states that “If the Hanukkah sheelta—a homily on Jewish law and ethics—ascribed to Rav Ahai (680–752 CE) is authentic … then the earliest extant Hebrew tale telling of Judith dates back to the eighth century.” Gera, “The Jewish Textual Traditions,” 30 n. 23. 14 Cf. Carter, “Judith,” 1.

References to Jewish Festivals in the LXX Book of Judith



153

Adar, or better: in a priestly year of 364 days). So Hanukkah is not just the time of calculation, but its point of departure.15

Unfortunately, this is all wishful thinking. The actual text of LXX Judith neither makes reference to Hanukkah nor alludes to the festival. Regardless, Gera reminds her reader that both Judah Maccabee (1 Macc) and Judith are portrayed as overtly righteous individuals who each in their own turn successfully dissipate the threat to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem by a foreign vindictive and conceited king. Again, in both instances, the character of the exceptionally pious Jew or Jewess manages to behead the enemy king’s chief military commander.16 Furthermore, in the narratives that feature Judah and Judith, the enemy king likens himself to a god—one that directly opposes the Jewish deity and simultaneously threatens the sanctity (if not the very existence) of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. As has been ascertained, everyone else refutes a historical authenticity of the book. In addition, we, like Gera, realize that based on the text of LXX Judith, there is no basis for linking it to the Hanukkah festival in any way. These viewpoints leave us with the following questions: What then, can be learnt from this eloquent book? Should everything just be dismissed together with the obvious inaccuracies like Nebuchadnezzar, the Assyrians and Bethulia? If the book of Judith has nothing to do with Hanukkah, might there be another time of year or event that is being referred to? These burning questions became all the more relevant when considering the theme of this conference: “Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature.” There is an abundance of references to days, years and seasons in the book of Judith. Should references to time (days, years and seasons) be taken more seriously? Also, given the supposedly ludic nature of the text, why would specific times even be mentioned? In order to scrutinize the aspect of time in Judith we had to find a method that would do justice to the book of LXX Judith when looking at it from a “time” point of view. Firstly, acknowledging that it is fictional but secondly also recognizing that certain information might still be conveyed within a fictional setting.

15 Bogaert, “Un emprunt au judaïsme,” 345–46. Our translation. 16 Cf. Gera, “The Jewish Textual Traditions,” 26.

154  Nicholas Peter Legh Allen and Pierre Johan Jordaan

2 Methodology The method we wish to propose for looking at notions of time in Judith is a specific semiotic method we have found very useful.17 This was originally employed by Umberto Eco.18 As a result of the limitations of space, we will only discuss certain aspects of his approach more broadly. From Eco’s perspective, all texts function as signs. In this context, Eco distinguished between icons, indices and symbols. A reader or listener (interpreter) requires these signs in order to interpret the text. As Eco states: “the sign is an instruction for interpretation.”19 An icon can refer to something, like a concept, deity or person, by employing a figure of speech. A good example of an icon is found in 1 Sam 4:4, with the reference to the “Ark of the Covenant.” Here, the sons of Samuel wrongfully think that the ark is the real presence of the Jewish deity on the battlefield and will even guarantee their victory. Here the issue is the employment of the icon. For example, a cross can represent Christianity symbolically but if someone forgets this and directly worships the cross in itself it becomes an icon. A symbol is a sign which is also a conventional or traditional representation of something, whether it is an object, function, or process. For example, in the Book of Jonah (1:17; 2:10), the fish that swallows Jonah is also a symbol. Here, the fish is both a biological creature that lives in the ocean as well as representing a dark underworld that is separate from the ordinary realm.20 Here, the hero of the narrative feels that he has been transported to a dimension where he believes that he has been banished from the sight of his God and abandoned. His eventual release from the gigantic fish symbolizes his restored faith in his deity. For the reader of this text, to arrive at this deep insight, they will require prior knowledge of the meaning of the symbol.21 Finally, an index could be viewed as the trace of the previous presence of some agency (e.g., a person, animal or event). These operate much like the tire tracks left behind by a car on a dirt road. They also point towards an activity or event by inference. A well-known example concerns the index “heart” (καρδία) in 2 Macc 1:3–4. Here, “heart” does not refer literally to the organ that that pumps blood. Furthermore, if the word “heart” is associated with an adjective, such as “strong” (μεγάλη) it is interpreted as “sincere commitment.”22 This asso17 Cf. Jordaan, “A Semiotic Approach to Analyzing the Widows and Orphans as an Index in 2 Maccabees 3:10,” 95–102. 18 Cf. Eco, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. 19 Eco, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, 26. 20 Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 83–100. 21 Cf. Jordaan and Hobyane, “Writing and Reading War,” 239. 22 Cf. Jordaan, “Body, Space and Narrative in 2 Macc 1:1–10a,” 97–98.

References to Jewish Festivals in the LXX Book of Judith



155

ciation will also assist in establishing a desired characteristic which may highlight both negative and positive behavior ascribed to various characters in the narrative. Textual evidence usually supports the reader’s interpretation of a sign. Here, we refer to intra-textual (within a book), inter-textual (within a corpus of books) and extra-textual evidence (influences including, personal beliefs, religious dogmas, politics and economics). The key to decoding the various signs is always in the hands of the reader. Moreover, this is not a random process. Indeed, the reading needs to be undertaken with as much textual support as possible. Obviously, when a modern reader is faced with an ancient text, such as the Book of Judith, many of the textual signs will often seem opaque. Even with a good working knowledge of the original language (Greek), many colloquialisms and idioms could well be overlooked. One very important factor needs to be carefully considered at this juncture. The original language of the book’s composition has considerable import on the notion that the author’s employment of, inter alia, quasi-historical references was premeditated. Indeed, most scholars favor a Hebrew Vorlage transcribed at a later date into Greek.23 In this regard, Gera makes an important point: had Hebrew been the language of the original LXX Judith, it would most likely have been composed in Judea.24 However, if it was always a Greek document, it might have been written in Alexandria.25 If the latter possibility was indeed the case—then the author might not have had first-hand knowledge of, inter alia, the Judean terrain. This factor, if true, would go some way toward explaining the geographical discrepancies in the book. However, if this book was originally written in Hebrew by an author well-versed in Judean geography, then the many incongruities must have been even more deliberate. Given the strong Hebraic undertone to this Greek text,26 we would also favor an original Hebrew Vorlage and thus we must accept that all inconsistencies in the text are quite calculated.

23 Cf. Steiner, “On the Dating of Hebrew Sound Changes,” 229–67; Joosten, “The Original Language,” 159–76; Gera, “The Jewish Textual Traditions,” 25. 24 Cf. Gera, “The Jewish Textual Traditions,” 25–26. 25 As seems to be favored by, inter alia, Schmitz, “Holofernes’s Canopy in the Septuagint,” 74–75. 26 Cf. Steiner, “On the Dating of Hebrew Sound Changes.”

156  Nicholas Peter Legh Allen and Pierre Johan Jordaan

3 References to Jewish Festivals? Despite this seemingly obvious fact the author also does something quite unusual—something that has not been identified before now. He makes reference to specific dates (albeit seemingly out of context) and certain agricultural activities that when viewed from a purely Jewish context strongly imply periods engaged with specific Jewish festivals. These textual signs are indices. Here, the text literally points to specific times of year and seasons. For example, in Jdt 2:1 we read that: καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ δευτέρᾳ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ πρώτου μηνὸς ἐγένετο λόγος ἐν οἴκῳ Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλέως Ἀσσυρίων ἐκδικῆσαι πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν καθὼς ἐλάλησεν In the eighteenth year, on the twenty-second day of the first month, there was a discussion in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians, about taking revenge on all the land, as he had threatened.

The text is normally translated to indicate that the character of Nebuchadnezzar commenced his conquest of the world in the 18th year of his reign on the 22nd day of the first month (Jdt 2:1). The 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is regularly calculated to 587 BCE.27 This means that the narrative commences with a clear reference (index) to the year of the destruction of the first Holy Temple.28 The accepted month for this devastation is Av (August). Arguably, at the time of writing, (apart from the atrocities of Antiochus IV Epiphanes29) this was considered to be the single most devastating moment in the entire history of Judaism. But the same verse also hints at divine deliverance and upliftment. Jdt 2:1 refers 27 William F. Albright dates the end of Zedekiah’s reign and the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE. but Edwin R. Thiele offers 587/586 BCE. The Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle (BM 21946), published in 1956, indicates that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem the first time putting an end to the reign of Jehoiachin, on 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BCE, in Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh year. Jer 52:28–29 gives the relative periods for the end of the two sieges as Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh and eighteenth years, respectively. The same periods are elsewhere described at 2 Kgs 24:12 and 2 Kgs 25:8 as Nebuchadnezzar’s eighth and nineteenth years, including his accession year. Identification of Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year for the end of the siege places the event in the summer of 587 BCE. Cf. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldean Kings, 73. See also Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. 28 Jerusalem was captured ten years previously in 597 BC by Nebuchadnezzar. Cf. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldean Kings, 3, 31–35, 38, 73. 29 Even if by some chance history was to ever prove Sylvie Honigman’s hypothesis (cf. Tales of High Priests and Taxes) to be totally correct, viz.: the oppression experienced by Judeans under Antiochus IV Epiphanes was not at all motivated by religious intolerance, it still does not negate the fact that the Judeans suffered indefinable repression at the time (167 to 164 BCE).

References to Jewish Festivals in the LXX Book of Judith



157

to the 22nd day of the first month of the Jewish year, which is the last day of Pesach in the month of Nissan (March-April). Pesach is one of only three Jewish festivals requiring pilgrimage to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. Here, the date index can only refer to Pesach, which in turn refers to the celebration of the Jewish deity’s deliverance of the Israelites—a time when they were at their lowest moment.30 In Jdt 4:3 it reads: ὅτι προσφάτως ἦσαν ἀναβεβηκότες ἐκ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας, καὶ νεωστὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς συνελέλεκτο τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας, καὶ τὰ σκεύη καὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ ὁ οἶκος ἐκ τῆς βεβηλώσεως ἡγιασμένα ἦν. Now, they had only recently returned from exile, and all the people of Judea were just now reunited, and the vessels, the altar, and the temple had been purified from profanation.

So, if taken literally, the text is referring to 587 BCE—indicating the very year that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the First Temple. The text (index) refers to the twenty-second day of the first month. This would make this the month of Nissan. However, according to Jewish tradition, the temple was destroyed on Tish‘a B’Av, the 9th day of Av—the saddest day on the Jewish calendar. This is the time when Jews fast, deprive themselves and pray. It is the culmination of the Three Weeks, a period of time during which modern day Jews mark the destruction of both the First as well as Second Temple in Jerusalem. Jdt 4:3 supplies another date that underpins the message of the narrative. The reader is informed that the Jewish nation has recently returned from exile. If the narrative was factual, the “actual” date of the narration would have been nearer 539 BCE. Here we have a tension between chapter two (which reminds the reader of the worst moment in Jewish history—i. e. 587 BCE) and chapter four (which refers to a time of greatest deliverance and renewal—i. e. 539 BCE). This association with divine deliverance and the importance of the Holy Temple is amplified by the inferred reference to Pesach. Esler points out that the deliberate mention in the text (Jdt 2:1) of the past date of the destruction of the First Temple when fictitiously juxtaposed with the present time of the Jews living with their newly built Second Temple creates a strong mental connection in the mind of the knowledgeable reader.31 Thus, in the book of Judith, the feared name of “Nebuchadnezzar”—the king who successfully destroyed the First Temple and sent the Jews into captivity—is

30 Pesach is celebrated from 15–22 Nissan. This would seem to indicate that Jdt 2:1 refers to the last day of Pesach. 31 Cf. Esler, “Ludic History in the Book of Judith,” 118–19.

158  Nicholas Peter Legh Allen and Pierre Johan Jordaan

strangely neutralized by the fact that his regnal date is now past history whilst the Second Temple (present reality) still survives; the Jews are not slaves in Babylonia but have long returned safely to their homeland. “The text seems determined to offer a rerun of an event in Israel’s past which, this time, will have a happy ending.”32 In Jdt 2:27 we read: καὶ κατέβη εἰς πεδίον Δαμασκοῦ ἐν ἡμέραις θερισμοῦ πυρῶν καὶ ἐνέπρησεν πάντας τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ποίμνια καὶ τὰ βουκόλια ἔδωκεν εἰς ἀφανισμὸν καὶ τὰς πόλεις αὐτῶν ἐσκύλευσεν καὶ τὰ πεδία αὐτῶν ἐξελίκμησεν καὶ ἐπάταξεν πάντας τοὺς νεανίσκους αὐτῶν ἐν στόματι ῥομφαίας. Descending to the plain of Damascus at the time of the wheat harvest, he set fire to all their fields, destroyed their flocks and herds, looted their cities, devastated their plains, and put all their young men to the sword.

If taken literally, this passage indicates that Holofernes and his army arrived in the vicinity of Damascus shortly before 6 Sivan (Shavuot) or the time of the wheat harvest (cf. Table 1). Here, “wheat harvest” is an index. We know it was a time “before” the festival of Shavuot because Holofernes set fire to what must have been yet-to-be-harvested fields of wheat. Had the fields been previously reaped, they could not have been burnt and/or burning the empty fields would have served no strategic purpose. In Jdt 3:5–8 we are informed that: καὶ παρεγένοντο οἱ ἄνδρες πρὸς Ολοφέρνην καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν αὐτῷ κατὰ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα. καὶ κατέβη ἐπὶ τὴν παραλίαν αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ δύναμις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐφρούρωσε τὰς πόλεις τὰς ὑψηλὰς καὶ ἔλαβεν ἐξ αὐτῶν εἰς συμμαχίαν ἄνδρας ἐπιλέκτους. καὶ ἐδέξαντο αὐτὸν αὐτοὶ καὶ πᾶσα ἡ περίχωρος αὐτῶν μετὰ στεφάνων καὶ χορῶν καὶ τυμπάνων. καὶ κατέσκαψεν πάντα τὰ ὅρια αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ἄλση αὐτῶν ἐξέκοψεν καὶ ἦν δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι πάντας τοὺς θεοὺς τῆς γῆς ὅπως αὐτῷ μόνῳ τῷ Ναβουχοδονοσορ λατρεύσωσι πάντα τὰ ἔθνη καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ γλῶσσαι καὶ αἱ φυλαὶ αὐτῶν ἐπικαλέσωνται αὐτὸν εἰς θεόν. After the spokesmen had reached Holofernes and given him this message, he went down with his forces to the seacoast, stationed garrisons in the fortified cities, and took selected men from them as auxiliaries. The people of these cities and all the inhabitants of the countryside received him with garlands and dancing to the sound of timbrels. But he devastated their whole territory and cut down their sacred groves, for he was allowed to destroy all the gods of the land, so that every nation might worship only Nebuchadnezzar, and all their tongues and tribes should invoke him as a god.

32 Esler, “Ludic History in the Book of Judith,” 118.

References to Jewish Festivals in the LXX Book of Judith



159

This wanton destruction of the coastal region occurred after Holofernes left the plain of Damascus. It is significant that even after the inhabitants of Sidon, Tyre, Sur, Ocina, Jamnia, Azotus and Ascalon had offered Holofernes peace, he laid waste to these cities’ fields and groves. In short, based on his proven conduct with the other nations, the Jews knew that, regardless of their ultimate response to Holofernes’ unwelcome arrival in their land, they would still be left devastated. In Jdt 4:1–5 we read: καὶ ἤκουσαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν τῇ Ιουδαίᾳ πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησεν Ολοφέρνης τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὁ ἀρχιστράτηγος Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλέως Ἀσσυρίων καὶ ὃν τρόπον ἐσκύλευσεν πάντα τὰ ἱερὰ αὐτῶν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὰ εἰς ἀφανισμόν. καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα σφόδρα ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ καὶ περὶ Ιερουσαλημ καὶ τοῦ ναοῦ κυρίου θεοῦ αὐτῶν ἐταράχθησαν. ὅτι προσφάτως ἦσαν ἀναβεβηκότες ἐκ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας καὶ νεωστὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς συνελέλεκτο τῆς Ιουδαίας καὶ τὰ σκεύη καὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ ὁ οἶκος ἐκ τῆς βεβηλώσεως ἡγιασμένα ἦν. καὶ ἀπέστειλαν εἰς πᾶν ὅριον Σαμαρείας καὶ Κωνα καὶ Βαιθωρων καὶ Βελμαιν καὶ Ιεριχω καὶ εἰς Χωβα καὶ Αισωρα καὶ τὸν αὐλῶνα Σαλημ. καὶ προκατελάβοντο πάσας τὰς κορυφὰς τῶν ὀρέων τῶν ὑψηλῶν καὶ ἐτείχισαν τὰς ἐν αὐτοῖς κώμας καὶ παρέθεντο εἰς ἐπισιτισμὸν εἰς παρασκευὴν πολέμου ὅτι προσφάτως ἦν τὰ πεδία αὐτῶν τεθερισμένα When the Israelites who lived in Judea heard of all that Holofernes, the ranking general of Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians, had done to the nations, and how he had looted all their shrines and utterly destroyed them, they were in very great fear of him, and greatly alarmed for Jerusalem and the temple of the Lord, their God. Now, they had only recently returned from exile, and all the people of Judea were just now reunited, and the vessels, the altar, and the temple had been purified from profanation. So they sent word to the whole region of Samaria, to Kona, Beth-horon, Belmain, and Jericho, to Choba and Aesora, and to the valley of Salem. The people there secured all the high hilltops, fortified the villages on them, and since their fields had recently been harvested, stored up provisions in preparation for war.

The Assyrian army finally arrives in the Holy Land (specifically the plain of Esdraelon lying between Galilee and Samaria) after having destroyed the crops of all the conquered cities to the North (including those along the coast and the plain of Damascus). It is evident by the context, that the Jews (unlike their more unfortunate northern neighbors) have now completed their wheat harvest and have managed to store food away. Here, “fields [that] had recently been harvested” is an index. It is now a period well after the festival of Shavuot. Also, based on the text, the Jews are now deeply concerned about the imminent danger to the Second Temple—a structure that has only just recently been rebuilt after its previous destruction. From chapter 8, the protagonist (Judith) is introduced and almost immediately her actions in the tale are fixed on a Jewish calendar:

160  Nicholas Peter Legh Allen and Pierre Johan Jordaan

Jdt 8:2–3: καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς Μανασσης τῆς φυλῆς αὐτῆς καὶ τῆς πατριᾶς αὐτῆς· καὶ ἀπέθανεν ἐν ἡμέραις θερισμοῦ κριθῶν· ἐπέστη γὰρ ἐπὶ τοὺς δεσμεύοντας τὰ δράγματα ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ, καὶ ὁ καύσων ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν ἐν Βαιτυλουα τῇ πόλει αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ τῷ ἀνὰ μέσον Δωθαιμ καὶ Βαλαμων. Her husband, Manasseh, of her own tribe and clan, had died at the time of the barley harvest. While he was supervising those who bound the sheaves in the field, he was overcome by the heat; and he collapsed on his bed and died in Bethulia, his native city. He was buried with his ancestors in the field between Dothan and Balamon [modern day Ibleam?].

If the reader takes this text at its word, then s/he must assume that Judith’s husband died shortly before 15 Nisan (Pesach) (which festival immediately follows the barley harvest). Here, “bound the sheaves in the field” is again an index. We also know that it was not yet Pesach because Manasseh was still engaged in binding sheaves of barley when he died (cf. Table 1). In Jdt 8:4 the reader is informed that: καὶ ἦν Ιουδιθ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτῆς χηρεύουσα ἔτη τρία καὶ μῆνας τέσσαρας. Judith was living as a widow in her home for three years and four months.

This index is very specific and advises the more astute reader that at the precise time Judith is being introduced to the reader, three years and four months have passed on a Jewish calendar since the time of Manasseh’s death. Therefore, if we accept the possibility that Judith’s husband died shortly before 15 Nisan it must now be shortly before 15 Av (i. e. four months later). This realization strongly implies that Judith commences her divine mission on or near Tish‘a B’Av, (i. e. the 9th day of the month of Av).

4 Judith’s Possible Association with Tish‘a B’Av Given the fact that all other details in the narrative are designed purely to give the tale a quasi-historical setting is it acceptable to make this type of deduction? In short, is this seemingly veiled reference to Tish‘a B’Av merely a coincidence? Or is there enough evidence in the LXX Book of Judith to support the possibility that Judith’s glorious defeat of an enemy intent on destroying the temple occurred at a very significant time on the Jewish calendar? Here the saddest time

References to Jewish Festivals in the LXX Book of Judith



161

of the Jewish calendar—founded on the destruction of the temple—seems to be consciously counteracted by a divine action that actually saves the temple. We have determined that Holofernes most likely arrived on the plain of Damascus around the time of Shavuot. We are introduced to Judith some two months later. If so, the narrative introduces Judith around the time of Tish‘a B’Av. One way to confirm this suspicion is to determine if Judith also met with Holofernes some two months after he entered the Damascus region (Jdt 2:27). Jdt 3:10 reads: καὶ κατεστρατοπέδευσεν ἀνὰ μέσον Γαβαὶ καὶ Σκυθῶν πόλεως, καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ μῆνα ἡμερῶν εἰς τὸ συλλέξαι πᾶσαν τὴν ἀπαρτίαν τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. And he [Holofernes] pitched between Geba and Scythopolis, and there he tarried a whole month, that he might gather together all the carriages of his army.

Jdt 3:10 informs us that before Holofernes met with Judith he spent 30 days camped between Geba and Scythopolis. Thus, one month is clearly indicated. How then do we justify the additional month? We need to do two things: 1. Allow for enough time for Holofernes’ military engagements whilst sacking all the cities adjoining the plain of Damascus and beyond. Here we need to allow sufficient time for his army to lay siege to these cities and destroy all of their fields; and 2. allocate ample time for Holofernes to travel from the plain of Damascus, via his campsite situated between Geba and Scythopolis, and on to the plain of Esdraelon. As an aside, the narrative at 2:21 informs us that: καὶ ἀπῆλθον ἐκ Νινευη ὁδὸν τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον τοῦ πεδίου Βεκτιλεθ καὶ ἐπεστρατοπέδευσαν ἀπὸ Βεκτιλεθ πλησίον τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ ἐπ’ ἀριστερᾷ τῆς ἄνω Κιλικίας. After a three-day march from Nineveh, they reached the plain of Bectileth, and camped opposite Bectileth near the mountains to the north of Upper Cilicia.

This information is somewhat unbelievable, because if accurate, Holofernes’ army would have had to have marched 161 kilometers a day! (Bectileth is some 484 kilometers from Nineveh). Regardless, realistically, we need to allocate enough time for Holofernes and his army to travel from Damascus to the plain of Esdraelon. Roughly 150 kilometers separate Damascus from the most southern point of the plain of Esdraelon. We know that a well-trained Roman soldier, laden with 45 kilograms of weight, was capable of marching some 35 kilometers in the equivalent of six

162  Nicholas Peter Legh Allen and Pierre Johan Jordaan

hours. Thus, even if Holofernes’ men were not as well-trained they should have been able to march some 150 kilometers in well under a week. It should be seen as reasonable to accept that 30 days is sufficient time for Holofernes to both sack the cities in the Damascus plain, destroy their fields, travel to his campsite between Geba and Scythopolis and then move on to the plain of Esdraelon. Thus, it is plausible to account for two months passing between the time of Holofernes’ arrival on the plain of Damascus (early Sivan) and his meeting with Judith on the plain of Esdraelon (early Av). Another reason to suspect that Judith commenced her mission during a Jewish festival is based on a close reading of Jdt 10:2: καὶ ἀνέστη ἀπὸ τῆς πτώσεως καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὴν ἅβραν αὐτῆς καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὸν οἶκον, ἐν ᾧ διέτριβεν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῶν σαββάτων καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς αὐτῆς, She rose from the ground. She called her maid and they went down into the house, which she used only on sabbaths and feast days.

One can interpret these indices in one of two ways: 1. Judith made an exception and went into her home on a non-feast day; or 2. it was either the Sabbath or a feast day and therefore Judith allowed herself to enter her house.33 Yet another clue that Judith set out during a festival is indicated by Jdt 10:5: καὶ ἔδωκεν τῇ ἅβρᾳ αὐτῆς ἀσκοπυτίνην οἴνου καὶ καψάκην ἐλαίου καὶ πήραν ἐπλήρωσεν ἀλφίτων καὶ παλάθης καὶ ἄρτων καθαρῶν καὶ περιεδίπλωσε πάντα τὰ ἀγγεῖα αὐτῆς καὶ ἐπέθηκεν αὐτῇ. She gave her maid a skin of wine and a jug of oil. She filled a bag with roasted grain, dried fig cakes, and pure bread. She wrapped all her dishes and gave them to the maid to carry.

It should be noted that on Tish‘a B’Av an observant Jew refrains from involvement in activity that would be considered “joyous,” such as eating meat, drinking wine, listening to music, and saying the shehecheyonu blessing, until Monday morning. In addition, Jews often eat a piece of bread dipped into ashes, during the pre-fast meal. The mention of wine being in Judith’s travelling bag may be explained away by the fact that Judith needed the wine for her planned emasculation of Holofernes.

33 Tish‘a B’Av is never observed on Shabbat. If the 9th of Av falls on that day, the fast is postponed until the 10th of Av.

References to Jewish Festivals in the LXX Book of Judith



163

Table 1: A Jewish Calendar #

Hebrew

Academy

Length

Feast Days

1

‫ִניָסן‬

Nisan

30 days

Pesach 15

2

‫ אייר‬/ ‫ִאָי ּר‬

Iyyar

29 days

Pesach Sheni Lag B’Omer

3

‫ סיוון‬/ ‫ִסיָון‬

Sivan

30 days

Shavuot 6–7

4

‫ַ ּתּמו ּז‬

Tammuz

29 days

Seventeenth of Tammuz

5

‫ָאב‬

Av

30 days

Tish’a B’Av 9 Tu B’Av 15

6

‫ֱאלו ּל‬

Elul

29 days

7

‫ִּתׁש ִרי‬

Tishri

30 days

Rosh Hashanah Yom Kippur Sukkot Shemini Atzeret Simchat Torah

8

‫ מרחשוון‬/ ‫ַמְרֶחְׁשָון‬

Marẖeshvan

29 or 30 days

9

‫ כסליו‬/ ‫ִּכְסֵלו‬

Kislev

29 or 30 days

Hanukkah

10

‫ֵטֵבת‬

Tevet

29 days

Tenth of Tevet

11

‫ְׁשָבט‬

Shvat

30 days

Tu Bishvat

12L

‫ֲאָדר א׳‬

Adar I

*

30 days

Leap Years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19 (Metonic)

12

‫ ֲאָדר ב׳‬/ ‫*ֲאָדר‬

Adar/Adar II

29 days

5 Judith’s Association with Hanukkah Gera confirms that from about the 11th century CE onward, versions of the story of Judith return as topics in Jewish literature.34 She states: “Judith disappeared from Jewish tradition for well over a thousand years and when she returned, she was in many instances, quite changed.”35 The following extract from

34 Cf. Gera, “The Jewish Textual Traditions,” 23, 31–32. In ca. 400 CE, when Jerome translated the LXX Judith into Latin, he informs his reader that the Jews consider the book to be apocryphal (so Jerome, Preface to Judith in: Weber and Gryson, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, 691). 35 Gera, “Shorter Medieval Hebrew Tales of Judith,” 81.

164  Nicholas Peter Legh Allen and Pierre Johan Jordaan

Megillat Yehudit36 is one such example of midrashim which dates from sometime before the fifteenth century. Then Judith said: “I am thirsty and have been humbling my soul with fasting.” So she said to her maid: “Cook me two pancakes so I can eat at your hands.” She made her the pancakes and salted them heavily and poured them into the pot with pieces of cheese. She took them and brought them to the room where Holophernes was. And Holophernes made a great banquet, the feast of Judith, and he ate the pancakes and the pieces of cheese. He drank too, and his heart was merry. He got drunk and he uncovered himself in his tent, and he lay down and slept.37

This passage concludes with Judith beheading Holofernes. Of importance to this paper, Judith is portrayed here as sharing salted pancakes and cheese with Holofernes. No doubt this action was intended to encourage him to drink wine and enable her to gain power over him. Since at least the medieval period, the consumption of cheese and pancakes has been synonymous with the festival of Hanukkah. The fact that so many versions of the Judith saga were created by Jewish authors from at least the fifteenth century onwards (Hebrew and Yiddish) in association with Hanukkah serves to confirm this point.38 Lastly, although she does not appear in the Talmud, later commentators do mention Judith in connection with Hanukkah.39 It is clear that the later, medieval versions of this tale were strongly associated with Hanukkah and the rededication of the Second Temple in Hasmonean times. By stark contrast, the text of the original LXX version, although possibly being an Hasmonean product, based on the various season and date indices seems to refer to Tish‘a B’Av and not Hanukkah.

6 Conclusions Based on the LXX text, a number of facts become evident: A Jewish reader, following the explicit time line set out in LXX Judith would be in no doubt that the 36 A single manuscript of Megillat Yehudit exists, dated to 1402. At the time the manuscript was copied by Moses Shmeil Dascola. It is housed in the Bodleian Library, Oxford (i. e. Neubauer Catalogue no. 2746 = Heb. e. 10, fol. 66v–72v). Below the title Megillat Yehudit is the instruction: “to be said on Hanukkah.” 37 English translation according to Varady (transcription) and Weingarten, The Open Siddur Project [online]. 38 Cf. Gera, “The Jewish Textual Traditions,” 37–39, for a more comprehensive list of extant medieval Hebrew Judith texts. 39 Gera, “The Jewish Textual Traditions,” 34–36.

References to Jewish Festivals in the LXX Book of Judith



165

meeting between Judith and Holofernes occurred sometime in Av. Here, we have to accept the importance of the textual signs as indices (references to specific times of year and seasons). The reader would also understand that the primary theme of the narrative is the ultimate protection of the Holy Temple. This is not a tale about rededication but rather halting an enemy who is focused on destroying the Temple. The employment of Nebuchadnezzar’s name and the reference to the specific time of the first destruction of the temple is quite deliberate in this context as is the reference to the fact that the Second Temple is intact and functioning normally. In short, nowhere in the text is there even a hint that the Second Temple has been desecrated or made unclean. It is portrayed as intact and functioning correctly in Jewish society. The subtle references to the month of Av are clearly appropriate because they remind the reader of the worst-case scenario, should the enemies of the Jews not be halted in their quest. The fact that (in the tale) the second temple is saved during the month of Av helps to negate the destruction of the First Temple at the same time of year. If these identified indices have been interpreted correctly it would appear that LXX Judith was originally intended to be associated with Tish‘a B’Av and not Hanukkah.

Bibliography Allen, Nicholas Peter Legh. “Judith: Embodying Holiness in a G-dless Space.” BN 168 (2016): 17–44. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Un emprunt au judaïsme dans la tradition médiévale de l’histoire de Judith en langue d’oïl.” RTL 31 (2000): 344–61. Brine, Kevin R., et al. The Sword of Judith: Judith Studies Across Disciplines. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2010. Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Carter, Meg. “Judith: Headhunting for Virtue.” Virtues & Vices (May 17, 2005): 1–16. Craven, Toni. “The Book of Judith in the Context of Twentieth-Century Studies of the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books.” CurBR 1 (2003): 187–227. De Bruyn, Joseph J., and Pierre J. Jordaan. “Constructing Realities. Bel and the Dragon: Identifying Some Research Lacunae.” OTE 27/3 (2014): 839–59. De Silva, David A. Introducing the Apocrypha, Message, Content and Significance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002. Dubarle, André M. Judith: Formes et sens des diverses traditions. 2 vols. AnBib 24. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966. Eco, Umberto. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986.

166  Nicholas Peter Legh Allen and Pierre Johan Jordaan

Esler, Philip F. “Ludic History in the Book of Judith: The Reinvention of Israelite Identity?” BibInt 10 (2002): 107–43. Gera, Deborah Levine. “The Jewish Textual Traditions.” Pages 23–40 in The Sword of Judith: Judith Studies Across the Disciplines. Edited by Kevin R. Brine et al. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2010. Gera, Deborah Levine. “Shorter Medieval Hebrew Tales of Judith.” Pages 81–96 in The Sword of Judith: Judith Studies Across the Disciplines. Edited by Kevin R. Brine et al. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2010. Harrington, Daniel J. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999. Honigman, Sylvie. Tales of High Priests and Taxes. The Books of the Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion against Antiochos IV. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2014. Johnson, Sara Raup. Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees in Its Cultural Context. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004. Joosten, Jan. “The Original language and Historical Milieu of the Book of Judith.” Pages 159–76 in Meghillot v-vi: A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant. Edited by Moshe Bar-Asher and Emanuel Tov. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and University of Haifa, 2007. Jordaan, Pierre J. “Body, Space and Narrative in 2 Macc 1:1–10a.” BN 168 (2016): 89–103. Jordaan, Pierre J. “A Semiotic Approach to Analyzing the Widows and Orphans as an Index in 2 Maccabees 3:10.” Pages 95–102 in XVI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Stellenbosch, 2016. Edited by Gideon R, Kotzé, Wolfgang Kraus and Michaël N. van der Meer. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2019. Jordaan Pierre J., and Risimati S. Hobyane. “Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender and Ethics in Judith.” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 91/20 (2009): 238–47. Moore, Carey A. Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 40. Garden City, MI, and New York: Doubleday, 1985. Schmitz, Barbara. “Holofernes’s Canopy in the Septuagint.” Pages 71–80 in The Sword of Judith: Judith Studies Across the Disciplines. Edited by Kevin R. Brine et al. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2010. Sparks, Kenton L. “Genre Criticism.” Pages 55–94 in Methods for Exodus. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Steiner, Richard C. “On the Dating of Hebrew Sound Changes (*Ḫ > Ḥ and *Ġ > ‘) and Greek Translations (2 Esdras and Judith).” JBL 124 (2005): 229–67. Thiele, Edwin. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan/Kregel, 1983. Varady, Aharon N. (transcription). The Open Siddur Project [online]. Available: https://opensid dur.org/readings-and-sourcetexts/torah-readings/hanukkah-readings/megillat-yehuditfor-hanukkah/ (Accessed: September 2021). Weber, Robert, and Gryson, Roger, eds. Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Weitzman, Steven. Surviving Sacrilege: Cultural Persistence in Jewish Antiquity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. Wills, Lawrence M. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. Wiseman, Donald J. Chronicles of Chaldean Kings in the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.

References to Jewish Festivals in the LXX Book of Judith



167

Xeravits, Géza G., ed. A Pious Seductress: Studies in the Book of Judith. DCLS 14. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2012.

Jeremy Corley

Ben Sira and the Sabbath Abstract: A distinctive feature in the Jewish concept of time is the observance of the Sabbath, a special day in the week dedicated to resting in honor of God (Gen 2:1–3; Exod 20:8–11; Deut 5:12–15). Yet despite saying so much about temple worship, Ben Sira never actually uses the noun Sabbath, either in the surviving Hebrew manuscripts or in the Greek or Syriac versions. Nevertheless, several traces of Sabbath motifs may be present within the book. Most clearly, the discussion of differences among days (Sir 33:7–9) presumes the Sabbath. In addition, the law mentioned within a creation context (Sir 17:11–14) may refer to the Sabbath. Moreover, the structure of Sirach 24 may presuppose a Sabbath pattern, while the motif of rest in the book’s third wisdom poem (Sir 6:18–37) may also include an echo of the Sabbath. This study will investigate these four possibilities, in order to shed light on this aspect of Ben Sira’s notion of time. Keywords: Ben Sira, creation, Decalogue, Jewish identity, Maccabees, Rabbi Akiva, Sabbath.

1 Introduction Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of the Jewish concept of time is the observance of the Sabbath, a special day in the week dedicated to resting in honor of God. This idea already occurs at the conclusion of the first creation story in Genesis (Gen 2:1–3), as well as in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:8–11; Deut 5:12–15). Yet despite saying so much about temple worship and the observance of feasts, Ben Sira never actually uses the noun Sabbath, either in the surviving Hebrew manuscripts or in the Greek or Syriac versions. To be sure, the term Sabbath is also absent from the MT’s three wisdom books (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes), as well as 4QInstruction, though the verb ‫“( שבת‬cease”) appears in most of these texts. Similarly, the equivalent Greek noun σάββατον is entirely absent from the five LXX wisdom books (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, Sirach).1 1 The Hebrew verb ‫“( שבת‬cease”) appears occasionally in the Hebrew wisdom writings except Qoheleth, including about a dozen times in the surviving Ben Sira MSS. I am grateful to Núria Calduch-Benages and Renate Egger-Wenzel for research advice, and to the Greifswald conferhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-009

170  Jeremy Corley

Some scholars have noted the absence of any explicit mention of the Sabbath in Ben Sira.2 Thus, Núria Calduch-Benages observes that even though Ben Sira’s great creation poem in Sir 42:15–43:33 makes “a clear reference to the creative activity of God as it is presented in the first chapter of Genesis, … at no stage does he allude to the creation in six days … or to the Sabbath on which God ceased from his labor.”3 Similarly, Heather McKay comments on Sir 33:7– 13: “Although Ben Sira … refers to the exalting and hallowing of certain (unspecified) days, he does not mention the Sabbath at all.”4 She also makes a statement that could apply to both Ben Sira and Tobit (Sir 7:29–31; 35:1–13; Tob 1:3–9): “Ben Sira speaks of sacrifices, offerings of first fruits, of tithes and of prayer, but there is no reference to the Sabbath.” It is particularly surprising that Ben Sira does not seem to mention the Sabbath, when he mentions circumcision (Sir 44:20) and has much to say about priesthood as well as sacrifice (e.g., Sir 45:6–22; 50:1–24). Within Judaism, the importance of the Sabbath is well-known, since it appears in both forms of the Decalogue. Thus, Exod 20:8 teaches: “Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it,” while Deut 5:12 commands: “Observe the Sabbath day to sanctify it.” The reason given in Deut 5:15 for allowing a time of rest for household servants is the remembrance of Israelite slavery in Egypt, whereas the reason for the Sabbath in Exod 20:8 (as in Exod 31:17) derives from the creation story in Gen 2:2–3. Some of the Qumran phylacteries (often fragmentary) include the Deuteronomic form of the Decalogue (4Q129, 134, 137, 139), while one mezuzah (4Q149) preserves part of the Exodus Decalogue (Exod 20:7–12), including the Sabbath command. In the Greco-Roman world, the Sabbath became a significant boundary marker defining Jewish identity against the surrounding Gentile culture.5 A few years after Ben Sira, the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes (167–164 BCE) sought to destroy Jewish identity within the Seleucid empire, by abolishing Israel’s holy places, times, personnel, and customs. Whereas Antiochus sought “to profane Sabbaths and festivals” (1 Macc 1:45), in the previous generation Ben Sira had referred briefly to feasts and Sabbaths (e.g., Sir 33:7–9; 43:6–7; 47:10). Although the Sabbath became a distinctive Jewish identity marker after the Maccabean crisis, Ben Sira does not emphasize it, because his pre-Maccabean ence participants for their comments. In this article, all biblical translations (including Ben Sira) are mine unless otherwise indicated. Where Ben Sira texts differ, an indication appears for the language: H (Hebrew), G (Greek), or S (Syriac). 2 Reiterer, “Alles,” 112 n. 42; Doering, Schabbat, 17. 3 Calduch-Benages, “Hymn,” 121. 4 McKay, Sabbath, 44 (both quotations). 5 Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 427; Ben-Dov, “Time,” 12–15.

Ben Sira and the Sabbath



171

adversaries were cultural rather than militarized Hellenizers.6 However, the Sabbath day receives more attention in texts written after the Maccabean Revolt. Whereas around 200 BCE Tobit and Ben Sira do not name the holy day, it is named in the Book of Judith and in First and Second Maccabees, all written after 164 BCE. Likewise, the Book of Jubilees, written in the mid-second century BCE, has a major focus on the Sabbath (Jub. 2:17–33; 50:1–13).7 Indeed, the Greek noun σάββατον occurs in only three of the seven main deuterocanonical books of the LXX—all composed after the Maccabean Revolt.8 Within the novella bearing her name, Judith fasted except on Sabbath eves and on Sabbaths (Jdt 8:6). Within Second Maccabees, a group of Jews are burned to death after refusing to take up arms for self-defense on the holy day (2 Macc 6:11), matching the view of the Sabbath law in Jubilees (Jub. 50:12–13). Similarly, in First Maccabees, some devout Jews die for the sake of the Sabbath (1 Macc 2:29–38), but in response Mattathias decides that it may be necessary to take up arms on the holy day for self-defense (1 Macc 2:41).9 However, later in Second Maccabees, Judas Maccabeus ends his pursuit of Nicanor’s defeated army because of the approach of the Sabbath (2 Macc 8:25–28), and subsequently he waits till after the Sabbath before burying those fallen in the battle against Gorgias (2 Macc 12:38–39). Even though Ben Sira’s book never names the Sabbath, it may be possible to see several traces of Sabbath motifs, often beneath the surface. Most clearly, the discussion of differences among days (Sir 33:7–15) presumes the existence of the Sabbath. In addition, André Wénin has proposed that the “eternal covenant” mentioned within the context of creation (Sir 17:12) refers to the Sabbath, while Crispin Fletcher-Louis and Ari Mermelstein have detected a Sabbath pattern in the great wisdom poem of Sirach 24.10 Finally, the motif of rest in one of the book’s wisdom poems (Sir 6:18–37) may also faintly echo the Sabbath. Noting parallels with other second-century BCE sources (the books of Maccabees, Jubilees, the Damascus Document, and Aristobulus), this study will investigate these four possible references, to shed light on this aspect of Ben Sira’s notion of time. 6 Oegema, “Revolt,” 105–18; Oegema, “Torah,” 334–35. 7 On Sabbath in Jubilees and the Qumran texts, see Doering, Schabbat, 43–282. To be sure, the list of Sabbath regulations in the Damascus Document (CD X. 14–XI. 18) and possibly the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400–4Q407) may predate the Maccabean Revolt. 8 Jdt 8:6; 10:2; 1 Macc 1:39, 43, 45; 2:32, 34, 38, 41; 6:49; 9:34, 43; 10:34; 2 Macc 5:25; 8:26, 27, 28; 12:38; 15:3. The pseudo-plural form σάββατα is probably an Aramaism. 9 Oegema, “Torah,” 335–36. 10 Wénin, “De la création”; Fletcher-Louis, “Cosmology,” 80–94; Mermelstein, Creation, 17– 20.

172  Jeremy Corley

2 Special and Ordinary Times and Persons (Sir 33:7–15) Within Ben Sira’s discussion of differences among days (Sir 33:7–15), we find his clearest reference to the Sabbath, although he avoids using the noun. Let us begin by looking at the difficult Genizah Hebrew (HE and HF), in comparison with the smoother Greek. Hebrew of Sir 33:7 (HF) and Sir 33:8–9 (HE)

Greek of Sir 33:7–9

7

7

Why is a day over (another) day, when they are complete? Does light differ despite the sun?

Why is a day superior to (another) day, and all light of a day in a year is from the sun?

8

But by the Lord’s wisdom they are regulated, 8By the Lord’s knowledge they have been sepaand from them there are appointed times. rated, and he has differentiated times and festivals. 9

[Some of them] he blessed, and they were made holy, and some of them he allocated to the numbered days.

9

Some of them he exalted and made holy, and some of them he set for the number of days.

In these verses, Ben Sira alludes to Gen 1:1–2:4a, the classic biblical text reflecting on differences in creation. Within this first Genesis creation narrative, God causes a binary separation of day from night, land from seas, and finally the Sabbath day from the other days of the week. Commenting on this etiological story for the Sabbath, Ben Sira asks the reason why Jewish tradition considers one day superior to another day, even though all the days receive light from the same sun. The exact wording of 33:7 differs in the textual traditions. According to the difficult text of 33:7 HF, the sage asks: “Why is a day over (another) day, when they are complete? Does light differ despite [or: above] the sun?”11 Another translation of 33:7 is possible: “Why is a day over (another) day? For each of it is different light (from) above the sun.” Or again: “Why is a day over (an11 Sirach 33:7 HF is hard to interpret; cf. Morla, Manuscritos, 412–13. As in Job 7:21, the interrogative particle (‫ )מה‬here (as in G and S) has the sense “why?” For ‫ כלו‬as a verb (“they are complete”; cf. Ps 102:4), see Mopsik, Sagesse, 197; Sauer, Sirach, 232. The verb ‫“( כלה‬complete”) occurs at the end of the creation story (Gen 2:1–2), and both Hebrew MSS end the first colon of 33:7 after the word ‫כלו‬. While the noun ‫ שנה‬means “year” (G and S), the verbal root means “differ” or “change” (HEF). The preposition usually rendered “above” or “upon” (‫ )על‬can have another possible meaning: “despite” (Job 10:7; 23:2; 34:6). The Syriac interprets the Hebrew noun “sun” (‫ )שמש‬in a verbal sense, “serve,” in its rendering of 33:7: “Why is there a day in the year that is distinguished from (another) day, because all the lights serve the days of the year?”

Ben Sira and the Sabbath 

173

other) day? For each one is light, differing in accordance with the sun.” The more straightforward Greek asks: “Why is a day superior to (another) day, and all light of a day in a year is from the sun?” Answering this rhetorical question, Sir 33:8 declares that God controls the days: “By the Lord’s wisdom they are regulated (‫)נשפטו‬.”12 In particular, God has differentiated “appointed times” (‫ )מועדים‬or “times and festivals” (καιροὺς καὶ ἑορτάς). Here the sage is presumably alluding to Gen 1:14, which speaks of the role of both moon and sun in determining the timing of festivals (‫“ = מועדים‬appointed times”). Interestingly, whereas Sir 43:7 speaks of the role of the moon in fixing festivals (‫)מועד‬, Ben Sira’s statement in 33:8 follows immediately on his mention of the sun (33:7). While Ben Sira opposes the 364-day solar calendar advocated by Jubilees and the Astronomical Book of 1 Enoch (Jub. 6:32; 1 En. 75:2; 82:4–7), he recognizes that both sun and moon play a part in calendrical arrangement. Commenting on Sir 33:7–15, Randal Argall declares: “Ben Sira draws an analogy between the days of the year and human beings. The analogy assumes a lunisolar calendar in which the ordinary days of the year are counted with reference to the sun, and months and special days are marked by the phases of the moon (Ps 104:19; Sir 43:6–8).”13 The Hebrew text of 33:8 uses the word ‫“( מועדים‬appointed times”), which can sometimes refer to the Sabbath (e.g., Lev 23:2; Ezek 45:17; 4Q512 33 4 1), though it usually denotes festivals (Lev 23:4, 37). A parallel to Ben Sira’s question applies to the Sabbath in a talmudic account of a discussion between Rabbi Akiva and Turnus Rufus (or Quintus Tineius Rufus), the Roman governor of Judea in the early second century CE (b. Sanh. 65b).14 The governor asks a question about the Sabbath, “What makes this day different from other days (‫מה יום‬ ‫ ”?)מיומים‬Rabbi Akiva replies by boldly questioning what makes the governor more distinguished than other persons. Turnus Rufus responds that he is more distinguished because his master the emperor wants it that way, whereupon Rabbi Akiva retorts that the Sabbath is also unique because his divine Master wants it that way, as he has sanctified that day. A similar kind of discussion already occurs in 2 Macc 15:1–5, which recounts the pagan general Nicanor’s plan (15:1) to attack the army of Judas Maccabeus “on the day of rest” (τῇ τῆς 12 Sirach 33:8–9 HE is damaged; cf. Morla, Manuscritos, 391–92. The sense “regulate” for the verb ‫“( שפט‬judge, govern”), along with the noun “judgment” in Sir 16:26 G, shows that there is no need to emend the verb; cf. Prato, Il problema, 17. Although the Greek wording of 33:8 resembles Greek Dan 2:21, the differentiating of festivals here does not have the same meaning as Antiochus Epiphanes’ changing of traditional Jewish feasts (Dan 7:25). 13 Argall, 1 Enoch, 139. 14 Translation based on Steinsaltz, Sanhedrin, available online through the William Davidson Talmud (www.Sefaria.org). Cf. Segal, Seper, 210.

174  Jeremy Corley

καταπαύσεως ἡμέρᾳ). Some Jews around Nicanor urged him: “Allot glory to the day especially honored with holiness by the all-seeing One” (15:2). When Nicanor asked if a heavenly Master had demanded observance of the Sabbath, they replied that as heavenly Master, the living Lord had commanded it. Unimpressed by the Jewish response, Nicanor declared: “On earth I also am a master, who orders you to take up weapons and complete the royal business” (2 Macc 15:5). Since the term ‫“( מועדים‬appointed times”) elsewhere mostly denotes festivals (Lev 23:4, 37), the statement of Sir 33:7–9 can apply to festivals such as the Passover, as is illustrated by the famous question at the Passover Haggadah (b. Pes. 116a; y. Pes. 10.4): “Why is this night different (‫ )נשתנה‬from all other nights?” Accordingly, besides the Sabbath, this passage may indeed allude to the sanctification of other feast days, as some commentators have noted.15 Yet though Sir 33:7–9 could refer to festivals, the primary meaning here concerns the Sabbath because of the series of echoes of the first Genesis creation story (day, bless, make holy, numbered days). Moreover, the mention of the sun in Sir 33:7 indicates that the main emphasis is on the Sabbath rather than other festivals.16 The wording of the sage’s next verse alludes especially to the sanctification of the Sabbath. The Greek text of 33:9, perhaps copying the verb “exalted” from v. 12, recognizes that some days are special: “Some of them he exalted and made holy.” The Hebrew has a closer echo of Genesis: “Some of them he blessed, and they were made holy (‫)והקדשו‬, and some of them he allocated to the numbered days” (Sir 33:9 HE). In the first creation story, the six weekdays are numbered (Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31), whereas Gen 2:3 declares of the Sabbath: “God blessed (‫ )ויברך‬the seventh day and made it holy (‫)ויקדש‬.” Similarly, Exod 20:11 refers to God’s repose on the seventh day after his act of creating the world: “And he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed (‫ )ברך‬the Sabbath day and made it holy (‫)ויקדשהו‬.” Sirach 33:9 employs the verb “bless” (‫ )ברך‬and the passive causative verb “be made holy” (hophal ‫)קדׁש‬, echoing Gen 2:3. Although the MT never uses the passive causative verb “be made holy” (hophal ‫)קדׁש‬, the hophal participle (-‫ )מוקדשי‬occurs in a fragmentary Qumran hymn (1Q38 4 2). Similar motifs appear in the Book of Jubilees: “The Creator of all, who created this day for a blessing and sanctification and glory, blessed it

15 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 400; Wicke-Reuter, Providenz, 237; Mopsik, Sagesse, 197; Segal, Seper, 211. The passage refers to festivals according to Smend, Weisheit, 297; Peters, Buch, 273; Sauer, Sirach, 233. 16 Gilbert, “Ben Sira,” 94; Prato, Il problema, 28; Zapff, Jesus Sirach 25–51, 213.

Ben Sira and the Sabbath



175

more than all days” (Jub. 2:32).17 Ben Sira then draws conclusions about the differences among human beings (Sir 33:10–13), using the language of blessing, making holy, and separating. Here the sage borrows the verb “separate” (‫)בדל‬ from Gen 1 in connection with his doctrine of opposites (33:11 HE). Just as from the standpoint of a scientific observer, all days seem the same, so all human beings come from the ground, having been created out of dust (Gen 2:7). According to the Greek of 33:10, “from the earth Adam (Αδαμ) was created.” The Greek understanding is that Ben Sira has moved from the people of Israel, whom God sanctified, to Adam. This understanding matches the comparison of Adam and Jacob (= Israel) in the Book of Jubilees: “The former is blessed and sanctified, and the latter also is blessed and sanctified. One was like the other with respect to sanctification and blessing” (Jub. 2:23).18 However, the Hebrew of 33:10 treats ‫ אדם‬as a collective: “from the dust humanity (‫)אדם‬ was fashioned,” because of the following plural references. “The wisdom of the Lord separates them (‫ … )תבדילם‬and he differentiated (‫ )וישנה‬their ways” (33:11 HE). On the one hand, some of them he blessed and indeed “some of them he made holy (‫)הקדיש‬,” but on the other hand, some of them he cursed and brought them low (33:12 HE). In 33:7–13 Ben Sira links God’s selection of special calendrical days with the divine election of the people of Israel, thereby hinting that the Sabbath makes the Jewish people distinctive. The indicative value of the Sabbath for the people of Israel is already evident in the Torah: “Between me and the children of Israel it is a sign for ever that in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, but on the seventh day he rested (‫ )שבת‬and was refreshed” (Exod 31:17). More explicitly, the Book of Jubilees connects the Sabbath and Israel’s divine election: “Behold, I shall separate for myself a people from among all the nations, and they will also keep the Sabbath … Just as I have sanctified and shall sanctify the Sabbath day for myself, thus shall I bless them. And they will be my people” (Jub. 2:19).19 Indeed, the Torah was understood as teaching that 17 Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 58. 18 Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 57; cf. Mermelstein, Covenant, 125. An echo of Sir 33:7–13 appears in 2 En. 43:2 (P recension): “One year is better than another year, and one day than another day, and one hour than another hour. Similarly, one person is better than another person” (Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 171). Addressing a Roman community including converts from Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds, Paul declares: “One person judges a day [better] in comparison with [another] day, but another person judges every day [to be the same]” (Rom 14:5). 19 Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 57; cf. Mermelstein, Covenant, 91–92; Brin, Concept, 319. Without mentioning the Sabbath, the Enochic Book of Similitudes also links the calendar with the divine differentiation between people. “The sun (makes) many revolutions for a blessing and a curse, and the course of the path of the moon is light to the righteous and darkness to sinners, in the name of the Lord, who made a separation between light and darkness, and divided the spirits

176  Jeremy Corley

Sabbath observance was a special responsibility entrusted to the people of Israel: “Surely you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you for your generations, in order that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you” (Exod 31:13). The author of Jubilees says of the Sabbath: “The Creator of all blessed it, but he did not sanctify any people or nations to keep the Sabbath thereon with the sole exception of Israel” (Jub. 2:31).20 Especially in a Diaspora society, the Sabbath became a boundary marker for the Jewish community, so that the calendrical distinction served to mark a difference of identity.21 To complete the discussion, here we can briefly compare Sir 33:7–9 and 43:6–8. Whereas Sir 33:7–9 could include a reference to festivals, the principal meaning concerns the Sabbath, Sir 43:6–8 primarily refers to the festivals, but with a possible secondary reference to the Sabbath. By way of contrast with 33:7–9 with its mention of the sun, 43:6–8 describes the moon, indicating a primary reference to the festivals such as Passover (Exod 12:1). Hebrew of Sir 43:6–8 (each first colon HM and each second colon HB):

Greek of Sir 43:6–8

6 And also the moon sets seasons journeying — the regulator of dates and an eternal sign.

6 And the moon stands for its right time, an indication of times and an eternal sign.

7 Belonging to it are appointed times, and from it are feasts; (its) pleasure is wandering in its cycle.22

7 From the moon (comes) the sign of a feast, a luminary waning toward completion.

8a

The new moon, like its name, renews itself; 8aThe new moon is in accordance with its how wonderful it is in its changing. name, waxing wonderfully in changing.

8c

An instrument of the army of the water bottles on high, it paves the firmament with its radiance.

8c

An instrument for the encampments on high, shining out in the firmament of heaven.

Here Ben Sira mentions the moon’s role in fixing the dates of festivals (‫)מועד‬, with an echo of Ps 104:19.23 He regards the moon as the “regulator” or “government” of dates (Sir 43:6 HB), using the term “government” (‫ )ממשלת‬from Gen of human beings” (1 En. 41:8); cf. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 57. Differences between humans evoked other reflections (e.g., m. Sanh. 4:5; 2 Tim 2:20–21). 20 Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 58. Cf. Mermelstein, Covenant, 92. 21 Barclay, Diaspora, 440–42. 22 Here I complete the reading of HBm to read ‫“( תעה‬wandering”; cf. 51:13), which roughly corresponds with G and S. 23 Prato, Il problema, 179. According to Ben-Dov (“Psalm 104:19,” 7–20), Sir 43:7 interpreted Ps 104:19 to teach that the moon is the exclusive marker of the cultic calendar; cf. Wischmeyer, Kultur, 114.

Ben Sira and the Sabbath



177

1:16. Accordingly, he says of the moon (Sir 43:7 HM): “Belonging to it are appointed times (‫)מועד‬, and from it are feasts (‫)חג‬.” However, the Genizah Hebrew text says of both the moon and the sun (Sir 43:7 HB): “From them are appointed times (‫ )מועד‬and statutory timings (‫)זמני חוק‬.”24 In biblical tradition, Israel’s festival calendar was based significantly on the lunar cycle of the month, as in the dating of the Passover and the new moon celebration (Exod 12:2; Num 28:11), as well as the Sabbath that broadly marked the four stages of the lunar month. But whereas Ben Sira affirms the role of the moon in fixing the dates of feasts (Sir 43:6–8), Jubilees and the Enochic Astronomical Book advocated a solar calendar (Jub. 6:32; 1 En. 75:2; 82:4–7). Because the fixing of the festivals was a disputed topic in second-century Judaism, Sir 43:6–8 was possibly a polemical response to the defenders of the solar calendar.25

3 God’s Just Ordering of the Cosmos (Sir 16:17– 18:14) While Sir 33:7–15 asserts God’s just arrangement of the cosmos, with diversity both of days and of human beings, some related themes appear also in Sir 16:17–18:14. A possible reference to the Sabbath, suggested by André Wénin, lies in mention of an “eternal covenant” (17:12).26 Moreover, while the context in 16:26–28 sets the scene of God’s arrangement of the cosmos, another potential hint of the Sabbath lies in the mention of the separation of the holy things from the profane in the Lucianic MSS of 18:3. Although the religious opponent claims that God neither sees nor cares about human activities (Sir 16:17–23), in fact God sees everything (Sir 17:19)— just as at the creation “he saw all that he had made” (Gen 1:31). Ben Sira asserts that God has not only arranged the universe, but also providentially given guidance to humanity in the form of the law of life (Sir 17:11). The sage declares that he will pour out his spirit [Greek: instruction] “by measure” (16:25)—thereby suggesting a concern for proper arrangement, as in Wis 11:20. Thereafter Sir 16:26–28 describes the creation of God’s heavenly works, best understood as referring to the luminaries controlled by the angels (cf. Jub. 2:2–3; Rev 9:1).27 Whereas the broken Hebrew of 16:26 speaks of God’s act of creation, the Greek 24 25 26 27

Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 489. Calduch-Benages, “Hymn,” 128–31; Wright, “Fear the Lord,” 204–8. Wénin, “De la création,” 158. Corley, “Tripartite,” 160–64; Kugel, Traditions, 49 n. 5.

178  Jeremy Corley

of 16:26 refers to the Lord’s “judgment” (κρίσει), but here Smend conjectures “creation” (κτίσει).28 Greek of Sir 16:26–28

Syriac of Sir 16:26–28

26

By the Lord’s judgment (conj.: creation) his works exist from the beginning, and from their making he separated their apportionments.

26

When God created his works from the beginning, he allotted their laws among their creatures.

27a He arranged his works for eternity, and their rulings for their generations.

27a And he set their works until the end, and their authority to all generations of the world.

27c

They neither hunger nor become weary, and they do not cease from their works.

27c

28

28

Each one does not oppress its neighbor, and until eternity they shall not disobey his utterance.

They do not hunger, and they do not thirst, and they do not become weary and they do not toil, and they are not lacking in their strength.

They do not hate one another, and until eternity they do not transgress his word.

When describing how God’s command governs the cosmos, the Greek of 16:26b (GA) uses the rare LXX verb for “separate” (διαστέλλω): “From their making he separated [or: defined] their apportionments [or: destinies]” (διέστειλεν μερίδας αὐτῶν).29 The Creator who has ordered the cosmos also directs the life of his people, and just as he “arranged his works for eternity (εἰς αἰῶνα),” so also “he established an eternal covenant (διαθήκην αἰῶνος) with them” (17:12).30 Because the reference to God’s works existing from the beginning recalls the first creation story in Genesis, the notion of separation (16:26 G) could include the separation of the holy Sabbath day from the ordinary days of the week. While the precise definition of God’s “works” in 16:26–28 is unspecified, it seems to refer mainly to the heavenly luminaries (Ps 8:4; 19:2; 102:26), because they do not grow hungry or weary.31 If Sir 16:26–28 refers to the angels control-

28 Unfortunately, only part of 16:26 HA survives: “When God created his works from the beginning, for their life …” Hence Smend (Weisheit, 153) conjectures κτίσει (“creation”), matching Hebrew and Syriac, where Greek reads κρίσει (“judgment”), followed by Latin. 29 This verb, used for God’s separation of the Levites as his servants (LXX Num 16:9; Deut 10:8), also occurs in the Lucianic MSS of 18:3 for the separation of holy from profane things. The same verb describes God’s arrangements of Jacob’s tribes in Sir 44:23 (GBS). By divine arrangement of the cosmos, God makes distinctions among his heavenly works (the luminaries) and his earthly works (human beings). 30 Mermelstein, Creation, 26. 31 Smend, Weisheit, 153; Prato, Il problema, 268–71; Gilbert, “God,” 125; Argall, 1 Enoch, 136– 38; Wicke-Reuter, Providenz, 148; Kugel, Traditions, 49 n. 5. In Deut 4:19 and Isa 40:26 the term “host” refers to the stars. Whereas modern readers differentiate between the inanimate stars

Ben Sira and the Sabbath 

179

ling the celestial bodies, the language may go back to Gen 2:1–2. According to 16:27 G, the Lord “arranged (ἐκόσμησεν) his works (τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ) for eternity,” echoing LXX Gen 2:1–2: “And the heaven and the earth and all their arrangement (κόσμος) were completed; and on the sixth day God completed his works (τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ) which he made.” Ben Sira presumes the ancient idea that angels controlled the heavenly luminaries determining the timing of feasts and Sabbaths (Sir 43:9–10). Speaking of God’s heavenly works, Sir 16:27 G declares that for his created works the Deity arranged “their rulings for their generations (εἰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν).” It is interesting that the phrase “for their generations” also occurs in the pentateuchal Sabbath law in Exod 31:16: “The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath; to do the Sabbath for their generations (εἰς τὰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν) is an eternal covenant.” Similarly, the fifth fragment of the second century BCE Jewish Hellenistic author Aristobulus connects the Sabbath with the divine ordering of the cosmos (Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 13.12.11–12).32 A few verses later, after shifting the focus from creation to the Sinai theophany, Sir 17:12 speaks of an “eternal covenant” (διαθήκην αἰῶνος), suggesting a reference to the Sabbath, as in Exod 31:16: “The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath; to do the Sabbath for their generations is an eternal covenant (διαθήκη αἰώνιος).” Greek of Sir 17:8–12

Syriac of Sir 17:8–12

8

He placed his eye (var.: fear of him) upon their hearts, to show them the greatness of his works.

8

To show them the great things of his works, so that they would understand his remarkable things,

10

And they will praise the name of sanctification, 9in order that they may recount the great things of his works.

9

In order that they would be recounting fear of him in the world, 10and they would be glorifying the name of his holiness.

11

He added to them understanding, and he gave them as a heritage the law of life.

11

He set before them a covenant, and the law of life he taught them.

12 He established an eternal covenant with them, and he showed them his judgments.

12 An eternal covenant he established with them, and his judgments he made known to them.

Sirach 17:8–12 comes after the sage’s discussion of the origin of the world (Sir 16:26–17:7), where he offers a sapiential perspective on the creation accounts of Genesis 1–3. When 17:8 speaks of humanity seeing “the greatness of his [God’s] and the angelic figures, the heavenly bodies were sometimes linked with angelic beings in Second Temple period writings (Job 38:6–7; Jub. 2:2–3; 1 En. 8:3; 72:1; Rev 9:1). 32 Yarbro Collins, “Aristobulus,” 841–42; Ben-Dov, “Time,” 18–19.

180  Jeremy Corley

works,” we can detect a distant echo of Gen 1:31 where God sees all his works and finds them very good.33 Thereafter 17:10 describes the response of human beings when they contemplate God’s works: “they will praise the name of sanctification” (cf. Sir 39:35 HB; 47:10 HB). Within the narrative development of the Genesis creation story, the wording recalls God’s sanctification of the Sabbath day (Gen 2:3), which is the special day for praising God, as in the Qumran Words of the Luminaries: “Praise. A song for the Sabbath. Give thanks … his holy name for ever” (4Q504 1–2 vii 4–5).34 Similarly, Jubilees teaches that the Sabbath rest-day enables humanity “to bless the Lord your God who gave to you the day of festival and the holy day” (Jub. 50:9).35 Ben Sira’s linkage of creation with the giving of the law is explained by André Wénin, who connects the “eternal covenant” mentioned in Sir 17:12 with the Sabbath commandment (cf. Exod 31:16): “God’s glory does not really shine out until he offers knowledge to humanity and invites them to the covenant by granting them a law of life. And if this becomes clear for Israel at Sinai, it is already present embryonically in the creation, when God gives humanity the example of the Sabbath.”36 Thus, if God’s “works” being praised are the divine works of creation (17:9–10), the motif of sanctification (17:10) hints at God’s sanctification of the Sabbath day at the conclusion of his creative activity (Gen 2:3). While the phrase “law of life” (17:11) denotes the Mosaic Law given on Mount Sinai (Lev 18:5; Deut 30:15–16; Sir 45:5), the Sinai theophany seems to be recalled in Sir 17:13 because of the echoes of other pentateuchal texts (Exod 24:15–17; Deut 5:21–24).37 Yet despite these allusions, the specifically Jewish aspect is not made explicit, and hence some scholars have understood an implied openness to all humanity in the gift of the law mentioned in 17:11–14, so that such a law-giving tends toward the fulfillment of God’s original purpose in creation.38 However, the specific law probably refers to the Sabbath, because this statute is most clearly embodied in creation. Wénin observes that a particular commandment, enunciated in the Decalogue (Exod 20:8–11) but revealed in the Genesis creation narrative (Gen 2:2–3), is the law of the Sabbath. Because of its connection with creation, this law is potentially available for all humanity.39 To be sure, Exod 31:17 says of the Sabbath: “Between me and the children of Israel 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Wénin, “De la création,” 155. García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Edition, 2.1017. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 142. Wénin, “De la création,” 158 (my translation). Marböck, “Bund,” 136–40; Goering, Wisdom’s Root, 92. Wénin, “De la création,” 147; Marböck, “Bund,” 137. Wénin, “De la création,” 156.

Ben Sira and the Sabbath 

181

it is a sign for ever that in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, but on the seventh day he rested (‫ )שבת‬and was refreshed.” Although several post-Maccabean writings echo Exod 31:17 in regarding the Sabbath as an identity marker distinguishing the Jews from other nations (Jub. 2:31; Philo, Somn. 2.123), various texts also noted the Sabbath’s origin in creation itself (Aristobulus, frag. 5; Philo, Opif. 89; Decal. 100–5).40 Fitting within the shift from creation to Sinai theophany, Sir 17:12 speaks of God’s everlasting covenant: “He established an eternal covenant (διαθήκην αἰῶνος) with them, and he showed them his judgments.”41 Seeking a universalistic interpretation of the “eternal covenant” (‫)ברית עולם‬, some scholars have argued that Sir 17:12 refers to the covenant with Noah or Abraham, rather than the Mosaic covenant.42 In support of Noah, Gen 9:16 (cf. Ps 105:10) employs the phrase “eternal covenant” (διαθήκην αἰώνιον), and the commands could include the Noachide laws (Gen 9:1–7).43 In favor of Abraham, the same phrase “eternal covenant” (διαθήκην αἰώνιον) refers more than once to the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:7, 13, 19), which includes the stipulation of circumcision (Gen 17:10–14; Sir 44:20 HB).44 However, there is widespread scholarly agreement that on the primary level of meaning, Sir 17:11 alludes to the giving of the Mosaic Law, because Sir 17:13 refers to the Sinai theophany. Hence it is better also to interpret Sir 17:12 with a primary reference to the Sinai covenant (Deut 5:2–3).45 Ben Sira’s transfer of focus from creation to the Sinai theophany is natural if we note that the phrase “eternal covenant” (‫ )ברית עולם‬appears in the Mosaic stipulation of the Sabbath (Exod 31:16).46 God commands Moses to instruct the Israelites: “You shall keep the Sabbath, because this is something holy to the Lord for you … It is an eternal covenant (διαθήκη αἰώνιος = ‫ )ברית עולם‬with me 40 Barclay, Jews, 440–42. 41 Whereas LXX Exod 31:16 employs an adjective in the phrase “eternal covenant” (διαθήκη αἰώνιος), Sir 17:12 uses a genitive construction, literally “a covenant of eternity” (διαθήκην αἰῶνος). Greek Sirach utilizes similar constructions elsewhere, such as “joy of eternity” (Sir 2:9), a “name of eternity” (Sir 15:6), and “glory of eternity” (Sir 49:12). While the term διαθήκη often represents ‫“( ברית‬covenant”; cf. Sir 45:15), it could also represent ‫“( חוק‬statute”; cf. Sir 45:7), as Marttila has observed (Nations, 76–78). However, the Syriac of Sir 17:12 has “covenant.” 42 Marböck, “Bund,” 139–40; Marttila, Nations, 228. 43 Crenshaw, Wisdom, 150. 44 Schreiner, Jesus Sirach 1–24, 96. 45 Marttila, Nations, 60–61. Thereafter Sir 17:13 alludes to the Sinai theophany (Exod 19:16–19; Deut 5:24), when the Israelites witnessed God’s glory: “Their eyes saw the glorious greatness, and their ear heard the glory of his voice.” Within Exodus, this theophany immediately precedes the giving of the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath law. 46 Wénin, “De la création,” 155. The phrase διαθήκην αἰώνιον also refers to the bread set out in the tabernacle every Sabbath (Lev 24:8).

182  Jeremy Corley

and the sons of Israel; it is an eternal sign with me, because in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, and on the seventh day he ceased and rested” (LXX Exod 31:14, 16–17). Moreover, when Sir 17:12 mentions God’s “judgments” (κρίματα = ‫)משפטים‬, some of the most important of these judgments concern Sabbath observance (Neh 10:30–32; CD X. 14). This interpretation of the “eternal covenant” as a reference to the Sabbath also makes sense of Sir 17:9–10 G, because the Sabbath was the day sanctified by God (Gen 2:3): “They will praise the name of sanctification, in order that they may recount the great things of his works.” Indeed, Psalm 92 views the Sabbath as the day par excellence for the praise of God’s name: “A musical composition, a song for the Sabbath day: It is good to give thanks to the Lord, and to make music to your name, O Most High” (Ps 92:1–2). A further possible allusion to the Sabbath appears in the mention of the separation of holy from profane things, found within an expansion in the Lucianic MSS for Sir 18:2b–3. The expanded text reads: “And there is no other besides him, steering the cosmos with the span of his hand, and all things are obedient to his will; for he is king of all things by his power, separating (διαστέλλων) among them holy things (ἅγια) from profane things (βεβήλων).”47 A contrast of holiness and profanation appears in the context of Sabbath observance in LXX Exod 31:14: “You shall keep the Sabbath, for this is a holy thing (ἅγιον) of your Lord; one who profanes (βεβηλῶν) it will surely be put to death.” Using similar language, First Maccabees reports that many Jews “profaned (ἐβεβήλωσαν) the Sabbath” (1 Macc 1:43), following the command of Antiochus Epiphanes “to profane (βεβηλῶσαι) Sabbaths and feasts” (1 Macc 1:45). The Damascus Document calls on all those who have entered the covenant “to separate (‫ )להבדיל‬unclean from clean and differentiate between the holy (‫ )הקודש‬and the common (‫ ;)חול‬to keep the Sabbath day according to its exact interpretation” (CD VI. 17–18).48 Similarly, the Mishnah speaks of trumpet blasts being sounded at the temple on the eve of Sabbath “to mark the break (‫ )להבדיל‬between the sacred (‫ )קדש‬and the profane (‫( ”)חל‬m. Sukkah 5.5).49 47 Bussino, Additions, 245–59. This motif of separating holy from profane things occurs in Lev 10:10 and Ezek 22:26, while the verb for “separate” (διαστέλλω) also describes the separation of the Levites from the other Israelites (Num 16:9; Deut 10:8); cf. Schmidt, Wisdom, 55 n. 86. The neuter plural form “holy things” (ἅγια) can also denote the “sanctuary” (2 Chr 29:21; 1 Macc 2:12; 3:51). 48 García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Edition, 1.559. However, whereas the Torah envisages execution for breach of the Sabbath law (Exod 31:14–15), the Damascus Document instead prescribes a custodial sentence for those profaning the Sabbath (CD XII. 3–6). 49 Translation from Danby, Mishnah, 180. Cf. Doering, “Beginning,” 213. The idiom echoes Lev 10:10; Ezek 42:20.

Ben Sira and the Sabbath 

183

4 Pattern of the Days of Creation (Sir 24:1–12) Several scholars have found allusions to the first Genesis creation story in the early part of Ben Sira’s central wisdom poem (Sir 24:1–34). For instance, the fact that wisdom came forth from the mouth of the Most High (24:3) recalls God’s creative utterances in Genesis 1.50 Moreover, the statement that wisdom “covered the earth like a thick cloud” (rather than “like a mist”; Sir 24:3) could perhaps allude to the darkness covering the earth in Gen 1:2.51 Wisdom’s declaration, “My throne was in a pillar of cloud” (Sir 24:4), could potentially suggest day and night, differentiated on the first day of creation (Gen 1:4–5), because of the pillar of cloud by day as opposed to the pillar of fire by night (Exod 13:22; Num 14:14).52 In addition, mention of “heaven, the abyss, earth” in Sir 24:5–6 recalls Gen 1:1–2 as well as Prov 8:27–29, while a further echo of Gen 1:1 appears in Sir 24:9: “Before the ages, from the beginning, he created me.” Finally, the transitive use of the verb in the declaration that “in the beloved city he caused me to rest (κατέπαυσεν, Sir 24:11)” echoes the intransitive use of the same verb in the statement that God “rested (κατέπαυσεν) on the seventh day from all the work that he had done” (Gen 2:2).53 As Ben Sira’s poem develops, wisdom is identified as “the book of the covenant of the Most High God,” and in a direct quotation from Deut 33:4, “the law that Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob” (Sir 24:23). Within the Torah, a major element is the Sabbath, described in Exod 31:16 (echoed in Sir 17:12) as an “eternal covenant.” Noting some of these parallels, Crispin Fletcher-Louis and Ari Mermelstein have claimed that this wisdom poem includes echoes of the pattern of the six days of creation followed by the Sabbath.54 For Fletcher-Louis, the Genesis structure of the seven days of creation exists across Sir 24:1–23, while Sir 24:25– 33 parallels the Garden of Eden story in Genesis 2.55 In my view, however, Sir

50 Gilbert, “Reader,” 93; Marttila, Nations, 103–4; Fletcher-Louis, “Cosmology,” 80. 51 The NRSV renders the Greek of Sir 24:3 with the term “mist” (ὁμίχλη), which might seem to echo Gen 2:6, where BDB renders ‫ אד‬as “mist,” even though LXX Gen 2:6 renders ‫ אד‬as πηγή (“spring”). Instead, the term ὁμίχλη in 24:3 more likely means “thick cloud,” as the Syriac here has “thick cloud,” using a cognate of the Hebrew term ‫( ערפל‬the equivalent of ὁμίχλη in LXX Job 38:9; Joel 2:2; Zech 1:15); cf. Segal, Seper, 147; Sheppard, Wisdom, 22–24. 52 Fletcher-Louis, “Cosmology,” 81–83. 53 Sheppard, Wisdom, 82; cf. Marttila, Nations, 103–6. The related noun “rest” (κατάπαυσις) refers to the Sabbath in 2 Macc 15:1. 54 Fletcher-Louis, “Cosmology,” 80–94; Mermelstein, Creation, 17–20. 55 As Fletcher-Louis (“Cosmology,” 79) says: “Sir 24:25–33 is to Sir 24:3–23 what Genesis 2 is to Genesis 1.”

184  Jeremy Corley

24:1–12 describes the days of creation that lead to rest (Gen 1:1–2:4a), whereas Sir 24:13–34 more closely echoes the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, where plentiful trees grow and abundant waters flow (Gen 2:4b–25; cf. Sir 24:13–17, 25–27). In the first twelve verses (Sir 24:1–12), the cosmic wisdom comes forth from God and, after circling the world, finds her rest in Jerusalem, just as the divine word emerged from God’s mouth to create the universe, before the Deity rested on the seventh day (Gen 1:1–2:3). Hence, the following table builds on these previous studies to suggest general parallels between Sir 24:1–12 and the seven days of creation in the Priestly opening to Genesis. However, the parallels are not always exact because Ben Sira also mixes echoes of other texts such as Exodus, Proverbs, and Job. Indeed, Mermelstein states that after the third day of the Genesis creation sequence, “wisdom bypasses the rest of creation and goes directly to the creation of humankind.”56 Days of Creation (LXX Genesis 1:1–2:3)

Wisdom’s Speech (Greek Sirach 24:3–11)

Day One: Utterance from God and Darkness Covering Earth In the beginning, God made the heaven (οὐρανὸν) and the earth (γῆν). The earth was unseen and unprepared, and darkness was over the abyss (ἀβύσσου) (Gen 1:1–2).

I myself came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and like a thick cloud, I covered the earth (γῆν). I myself dwelt in the heights, and my throne was in a pillar of cloud (Sir 24:3–4)

Day Two: Dome of Heaven and Waters of the Abyss (Gen 1:6, 8) Day Three: Contrast of Sea and Earth (Gen 1:9–10) Day Four: Ruling over Earth in the Dome of Heaven (Gen 1:16–18) Day Five: Waters of the Sea (Gen 1:20) Day Six: Ruling over All the Earth and Every People (Gen 1:26, 29)

Alone I encircled the circuit of heaven (οὐρανοῦ), and in the depths of the abysses (ἀβύσσων), I trod. Among waves of the sea (θαλάσσης) and in all the earth (ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ), … … and in every people and nation I have made an acquisition [MSS: I have ruled] (Sir 24:5–6).

Sabbath Day: Resting: And he rested (κατέThus in the beloved city he caused me to rest παυσεν) on the seventh day from all his works (κατέπαυσεν) (Sir 24:11). that he had done. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested (κατέπαυσεν) from all his works that God had begun to do (Gen 2:2–3).

While some parallels to the first Genesis creation narrative are clear, the Sabbath allusion to resting is less evident, because Ben Sira combines it with the

56 Mermelstein, Creation, 18.

Ben Sira and the Sabbath



185

notion of rest connected with the tabernacle or temple (Ps 132:14; 1 Chr 28:2; 2 Chr 6:41). After beginning with the creation (24:3–6), Ben Sira’s multi-layered poem moves straight to God’s tent-dwelling (24:7–8), a reference to the wilderness tabernacle made at Sinai (Exod 40:34) and the later temple (1 Kgs 8:10–13). This matches the shape of the Priestly redaction of Genesis-Exodus, where the completion of the desert tabernacle (Exod 40:33) matches the finishing of creation (Gen 2:2).57 Furthermore, when Sir 24:7 states that wisdom searched for “rest” or a “resting-place” (ἀνάπαυσιν), it employs the same noun as the law of the Sabbath uses in LXX Exod 31:15: “For six days you shall perform works, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath, a holy rest (ἀνάπαυσις) for the Lord.” Whereas the Sabbath is the holy day on which humanity is to rest, Sir 24:10–11 speaks of God’s wisdom finding rest in the beloved city and ministering in the holy tent. In this way, the temporal pattern of the Sabbath rest is replaced by a spatial pattern of resting in Ben Sira’s poem.

5 Repose as the Reward for the Seeker of Wisdom (Sir 6:28–31) Although the final passage considered here contains the most indirect of the Sabbath references, the 22-line wisdom poem (Sir 6:18–37) includes several faint Sabbath themes, including rest and delight, studying the Torah commandments, and wearing fine garments. Whereas in a pagan environment these motifs would not indicate the Sabbath, Ben Sira was writing for a biblically literate Jewish audience close to the Jerusalem temple. The first section of the poem (6:18–27) describes the efforts needed to gain wisdom. Here Ben Sira uses imagery of plowing and reaping (6:19 HA), weekday activities forbidden on the Sabbath (Exod 34:21), whereas the ensuing time of rest (6:28 HA) matches the Sabbath repose. Sirach 6:28–31 Hebrew (HA)

Sirach 6:28–31 Greek

28

28

For afterward you will find her (gift of) rest, and she [= HC] will be turned for you into delight.

For at last you will find her (gift of) rest, and she/it will be changed into joyfulness for you.

57 Thus, Exod 40:33 reports that “Moses finished the work,” just as Gen 2:2 narrates that “on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done.” Fletcher-Louis, “Cosmology,” 108.

186  Jeremy Corley Sirach 6:28–31 Hebrew (HA)

Sirach 6:28–31 Greek

29

And her net [or: acquisition of her] will become for you a strong structure, and her chain, golden garments.

29

And her fetters will become for you a strong shelter, and her collars a robe of glory.

30

Her yoke (will be) an adornment of gold, and her bonds, a blue/purple cord.58

30

For there is a golden adornment upon her, and her bonds are a blue/purple cord.

31 You will wear her (as) garments of honor, and put her on (as) a crown of splendor.

31 You will put her on like a robe of glory, and wrap her round like a garland of rejoicing.

The poem promises that the seeker of wisdom will find rest: “For afterward you will find her (gift of) rest (6:28 – ‫ מנוחתה‬HA).“ The cognate verb “rest” (‫ )נוח‬appears in the mention of God’s rest on the seventh day after the creation: “And he rested (‫ )וינח‬on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Exod 20:11). Moreover, the Deuteronomic form of the Decalogue sees the Sabbath’s purpose as allowing the possibility of human rest: “so that your male and female servant may rest (‫ )ינוח‬like you” (Deut 5:14; cf. Exod 23:12). Just as 6:28 promises that wisdom “will be turned for you into delight (‫)לתענוג‬,” an Isaianic text speaks of delight in the Sabbath: “If you call the Sabbath a delight (‫)ענג‬, and the Lord’s holy [day] honored, … then you will take delight (‫ )תתענג‬in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the earth’s high places” (Isa 58:13–14). The concluding verse of Ben Sira’s wisdom poem focuses on the divine statutes: “On his commandments you shall meditate always” (6:37 HA). Among these commands, the Sabbath law has an important place in the Decalogue (Exod 20:8–11; Deut 5:12–15). Mention of the commandments matches Ben Sira’s emphasis on the Torah study, which was particularly practised on the Sabbath in post-biblical Judaism (cf. Philo, Decal. 98).59 Indeed, Sir 6:30 alludes to the blue/purple cord prescribed as a reminder to keep the commandments (Num 15:37), among which Sabbath is prominent. Moreover, Sir 6:34 G recommends two forms of learning: being present in the public assembly and finding an individual teacher: “Stand in the multitude of elders. And who is wise? Stick firmly to him!” The standing among elders is reminiscent of the synagogue service, while the search for an individual teacher matches the Mishnah’s advice: “Get for yourself a teacher” (m. Abot 1:6). Finally, the mention of fine garments (Sir 6:29–31) may reflect dressing up for the Sabbath. To be sure, the depiction of the wise person as clothed in beautiful garments plays on descriptions of priestly robes (Sir 50:11). However, the 58 Where HA reads “yokes (‫ )עלי‬of gold,” I accept the conjecture: “an adornment (‫ )עדי‬of gold” (Smend, Weisheit, 60). 59 Barclay, Jews, 176.

Ben Sira and the Sabbath 

187

wearing of fine clothes in the context of resting (Sir 6:28–31) could be understood within a Jewish religious setting as calling to mind the Sabbath. For the devout Jew, who reflects on the God-given commands (Sir 6:37), the Sabbath is the day for resting and wearing one’s best clothes. For instance, the Damascus Document prescribes that clean clothes should be worn on the Sabbath: “No one is to wear dirty clothes or (clothes) which are in a chest, unless they have been washed with water or rubbed with incense” (CD XI. 3–4).60 In later tradition, the Talmud refers to white Sabbath garments (b. Shabb. 25b), while dressing up for Sabbath is justified by an allegorical interpretation of Ruth’s action when preparing to meet Boaz (b. Shabb. 113b). The rabbis stipulated that each person should have at least two sets of garments, one for weekdays and another for the Sabbath (y. Pe’ah 21b), thereby indicating that the Sabbath was different from the working weekdays. Admittedly, pagan readers would hardly see any reference to the Sabbath in Sir 6:18–37, but it is easily possible that Ben Sira’s educated audience would recognize Sabbath themes in the motifs of rest and delight, attending to the Torah commandments, and wearing fine garments.

6 Conclusion While there is no specific naming of the Sabbath within Ben Sira’s book, it is possible to detect traces of Sabbath thinking within the creation references in several passages. In the clearest of the sage’s references, the discussion of differences among days (Sir 33:7–9) presumes the Sabbath. In addition, the section on God’s just and providential ordering of the cosmos (Sir 16:17–18:14) seems to refer to the Sabbath, particularly in its mention of an eternal covenant (Sir 17:12). Moreover, the structure of Sirach 24:1–12 may presuppose an underlying Sabbath pattern of the six days of creation followed by the seventh day of rest. Finally, without making any direct reference to the Genesis creation stories, the motif of rest in the book’s third wisdom poem (Sir 6:18–37) may also include a faint echo of the Sabbath, because of its mention of Torah study and wearing fine clothes. Even though Ben Sira is reticent in speaking of the Sabbath, its observance (together with circumcision and dietary laws) was a major factor in preserving Jewish identity in the ancient world. These three elements of Jewish practice became vitally important following the violent attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy Jewish identity by outlawing Israel’s holy places, times, personnel, and 60 García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Edition, 1.569.

188  Jeremy Corley

customs (1 Macc 1:44–49). However, Ben Sira himself was doubtless living close to the temple (perhaps as an instructor of temple scribes), and so he did not need to emphasize these commonly-shared Jewish customs. Apart from the mention of rest in Sir 6:18–37, the other three texts pointing to the Sabbath all occur in a creation context. The gift of a sanctified day of the week is a result of divine providence (Sir 33:7–9). The mention of the eternal covenant (Sir 17:12), here understood as referring to the Sabbath, occurs within a creation setting emphasizing the finitude of human power and knowledge as well as the limited individual human lifespan (Sir 17:2; 18:4–10). Moreover, the revelation of divine wisdom occurred according to a predetermined week-like pattern, culminating in wisdom’s resting in Jerusalem (Sir 24:8–12). In our modern context of ecological crisis, the Sabbath reminds us of the finitude of our planet’s resources, as arranged by divine providence. Israel’s faithful witness to the Sabbath through all the centuries teaches us our human limits and our need to acknowledge a generous Creator who provides for us.

Bibliography Andersen, Francis I. “2 Enoch.” Pages 91–213 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Argall, Randal A. 1 Enoch and Sirach. SBLEJL 8. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “Psalm 104:19, Ben-Sirah and the history of calendars in ancient Israel.” JJS 62 (2011): 7–20. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “Time and Natural Law in Jewish-Hellenistic Writings.” Pages 9–30 in The Construction of Time in Antiquity: Ritual, Art, and Identity. Edited by Jonathan Ben-Dov and Lutz Doering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Brin, Gershon. The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 39. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Bussino, Severino. The Greek Additions in the Book of Ben Sira. AnBib 203. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2013. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “The Hymn to the Creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): A Polemic Text?” Pages 119–38 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. Corley, Jeremy. “Tripartite Creation in Sirach 16:26–17:4.” Studia Biblica Slovaca 7 (2015): 155–84. Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. Doering, Lutz. Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im Antiken Judentum und Urchristentum. TSAJ 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.

Ben Sira and the Sabbath



189

Doering, Lutz. “The Beginning of Sabbath and Festivals in Ancient Jewish Sources.” Pages 205–26 in The Construction of Time in Antiquity: Ritual, Art, and Identity. Edited by Jonathan Ben-Dov and Lutz Doering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the ancient world: attitudes and interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. “The Cosmology of P and Theological Anthropology in the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira.” Pages 69–113 in Of Scribes and Sages. Vol. 1. Edited by Craig A. Evans. LSTS 50. London: T&T Clark, 2004. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998. Gilbert, Maurice. “God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11–18:14.” Pages 118–35 in Ben Sira’s God. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Gilbert, Maurice. “Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis 1–11.” Pages 89–99 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. Goering, Greg Schmidt. Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. JSJSup 139. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 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. Marböck, Johannes. “Ein ewiger Bund für alle? Notizen zu Sir 17,11–14.” Pages 133–40 in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel. Edited by Christoph Dohmen and Christian Frevel. SBS 211. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007. Marttila, Marko. Foreign Nations in the Wisdom of Ben Sira: A Jewish Sage between Opposition and Assimilation. DCLS 13. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. McKay, Heather. Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism. RGRW 122. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Mermelstein, Ari, Creation, Covenant, and the Beginnings of Judaism: Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 168. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Mopsik, Charles. La sagesse de ben Sira. Lagrasse: Verdier, 2003. Morla, Víctor. Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira. ABE 59. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2012. Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam 1 Enoch: A New Translation Based on the Hermeneia Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. Oegema, Gerbern S. “The Sabbath: From Torah to Halakah.” Pages 334–50 in Wisdom Poured Out Like Water: Studies on Jewish and Christian Antiquity in Honor of Gabriele Boccaccini. Edited by J. Harold Ellens et al. DCLS 38. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018. Oegema, Gerbern S. “The Sabbath During and After the Maccabean Revolt: An Identity Marker in the Making.” Pages 105–18 in Constructing Religious Identities during the Second Temple Period. Construction des identités religieuses à l’époque du Second Temple. Festschrift for Jean Duhaime on the Occasion of his 68th Birthday. Edited by André Gagné et al. BTS 24. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Prato, Gian Luigi. Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. AnBib 65. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “‘Alles hat nämlich der Herr gemacht’—Das Telos der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira.” Pages 95–136 in Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity,

190  Jeremy Corley

FS Hans Klein. Edited by Tobias Nicklas and Korinna Zamfir. DCLS 6. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach/ Ben Sira. ATD Apokryphen 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Schmidt, A. Jordan. Wisdom, Cosmos, and Cultus in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 42. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Schreiner, Josef. Jesus Sirach 1–24. NEchtB 38. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2002. Segal, Moshe Z. Sēper ben-Sîrā’ haššālēm. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972. Sheppard, Gerald T. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct. 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. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Steinsaltz, Adin, Talmud Bavli: Sanhedrin. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Koren, 2017. [Online: www.Se faria.org]. Wénin, André. “De la création à l’alliance sinaïtique: la logique de Si 16,26–17,14.” Pages 147– 58 in Treasures of Wisdom: FS Maurice Gilbert. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen. BETL 143. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Wicke-Reuter, Ursel. Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der Frühen Stoa. BZAW 298. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Wintermute, Orval S. “Jubilees.” Pages 35–142 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Wischmeyer, Oda. Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach. BZNW 77. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Wright, Benjamin G. “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood.” Pages 189–222 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Yarbro Collins, Adela. “Aristobulus.” Pages 831–42 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Zapff, Burkard M. Jesus Sirach 25–51. NEchtB 39. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2010.

 Part II: Specific Constructions of Time in Deuterocanonical Literature

Christine Abart

Was tut Gott in der Nacht? Abstract: This article deals with two deuterocanonical texts (the Wisdom of Solomon and 1 Maccabees), in which the actions that God carries out at night are remarkable. The first divine act that will be examined is part of the reflection on the Passover night in the book of Wisdom. In Wisdom 17–19 the night is used in both real and metaphorical senses. The truth is that the night itself is powerless (17:13), for the whole world is shining with brilliant light (17:20). But the lawless are shackled by darkness and fettered by the long night (17:2). God’s rage is merciless, and the end of the godless, in concrete terms for the Egyptians, has been brought on by themselves (19:1). In contrast, God’s all-powerful logos leaps into the land of destruction to rescue his people (18:15). That happens at midnight (18:14), exactly at the point when night is turning into day. In accordance with tradition, God’s help may be expected at sunrise. In 1 Macc 13:22 Trypho’s cavalry is ready to conquer Jerusalem. But there is a heavy snowfall during the night so that his army cannot advance and is forced to leave. This natural wonder is presented as another indication of God’s nocturnal intervention. Keywords: the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Maccabees, night, darkness, light, snow, logos, the righteous, salvation.

‫( ִה ֵנ ּה לֹא־ָינו ּם ְולֹא ִייָׁשן ׁשֹוֵמר ִיְׂשָרֵאל‬Ps 121,4). „Siehe, nicht schlummert und nicht schläft der Hüter Israels“. Wenn Gott nicht schlummert und nicht schläft, was tut er dann des Nachts? Er ist ‫שוֵמר‬ ֹ ׁ . Er hütet, schützt und rettet. Was aber heißt das konkret und wirkt Gott vor allem in der Nacht? Die Nacht ist die Zeit der wilden Tiere (vgl. Ps 104,20–21). Für den Menschen dagegen ist die Nachtzeit Gelegenheit zum Schlafen und Regenerieren. Manchmal aber ist die Nacht eine Zeit des (mühevollen) Wachens, eine Zeit der Sorgen und Ängste.1 Negative Gefühle wirken in der Dunkelheit bedrohlicher als tagsüber.2 Biblische Rettungsgeschichten spielen wohl gerade deshalb erstaunlich oft in der Nacht. Im Buch Genesis erhalten viele Menschen Lösungen 1 In Jes 21,11 rufen beispielsweise die Leute aus Seir zweimal voller Angst: „Hüter, was ist mit der Nacht? Hüter, was ist mit der Nacht?“ (‫שֵמר ַמה־ִמ ֵ ּליל‬ ֹ ׁ ‫שֵמר ַמה־ִמ ַ ּלְיָלה‬ ֹ ׁ ). Vgl. auch Pss 6,7; 17,3; 77,3; 130,6. 2 Vgl. Ijob 10,20–22; Sir 40,5–6 u. a. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-010

194  Christine Abart

und Antworten für ihre Fragen des nachts im Traum, die Befreiung aus Ägyptens Knechtschaft geschieht nachts, über Nacht fällt mit dem Tau das Manna für Israel, Propheten wie Bileam und Elija machen nachts wichtige Gotteserfahrungen, Betende erhalten in der Nacht göttlichen Rat.3 Außerdem gilt für Israel zu jeder Zeit: „Herausgeführt hat dich der HERR, dein Gott, aus Ägypten (bei) Nacht“ (Dtn 16,1: ‫)ה ֹוִציֲאָך ְיהָוה ֱאלֶֹהיָך ִמִּמְצַרִים ָלְיָלה‬. Die Textauswahl für den vorliegenden Artikel beschränkt sich auf nächtliche Szenen in den deuterokanonischen Schriften. Texte, die den Begriff „Nacht“ (νύξ) enthalten, wurden auf ihre Relevanz für die Suche nach Gottes Wirken zur Nachtzeit befragt.4 In einigen Texten handeln Menschen selbst in der Nacht rettend für ihr Volk Israel und suchen und erfahren im Gebet göttliche Legitimation dazu. Ein solches Verhalten ist vor allem bei Judit (vgl. Jdt 8,33; 13,14) und bei Judas Makkabäus (vgl. 2 Makk 12,5–9; 13,9–17) zu beobachten. Noch deutlicher ist göttliches Auftreten in den folgenden beiden Texten zu sehen. In Weish 18,14 springt der Logos vom Himmel auf die Erde, um in der Pessachnacht an Ägypten vernichtend, für Israel aber rettend zu handeln. In 1 Makk 13,22 fällt über Nacht unerwartet Schnee. Der befürchtete Krieg findet nicht statt. Diese beiden Texte werden im Folgenden erläutert. Dabei nimmt der komplexe poetische Text aus dem Weisheitsbuch in seinem Kontext der Kapitel 17–19 den größeren Raum ein. Grundsätzlich sei dazu bemerkt, dass es im Folgenden um einige semantische Beobachtungen und Querverbindungen zur hebräischen Bibel geht und die philosophischen zeitgeschichtlichen Hintergründe weitgehend außen vor bleiben.

1 Die Entscheidung über Leben oder Tod in der Pessachnacht (Weish 17–19) Was geschieht um Mitternacht? Gibt es an der Wende zwischen Tag und Nacht eine Unterbrechung, vielleicht eine Pause, die etwa der zwischen Ausatmen und Einatmen entspricht? Weish 18,14 beschreibt die Mitte der Nacht als „tiefes Schweigen“ (ἡσύχου γὰρ σιγῆς), welches das All umfasst (περιέχω; Partizip). Mit dem Verb σιγάω (hebräisch ‫ )חרׁש‬wird in Ex 14,14 das Stillsein des Volkes be3 Vgl. Ps 16,7 u. a. 4 Die Arbeit könnte mit Texten, welche nächtliche Erfahrungen mit Dunkelheit und Finsternis umschreiben, fortgesetzt werden. Um den Rahmen dieses Aufsatzes nicht zu sprengen, werden solche Umschreibungen aber nur berücksichtigt, sofern sie innerhalb der genannten Textbeispiele vorkommen.

Was tut Gott in der Nacht?



195

zeichnet, während der HERR in der Nacht am Schilfmeer für es kämpft. Es handelt sich demnach um eine sehr angespannte Zeit des Wartens, Bangens und Hoffens. Die Stille wirkt wie eine Pause, eine Unterbrechung, in der sich Spannung aufbaut.5 Der Zeitraum, in dem „die Nacht in ihrem Lauf die Mitte erreicht hat“ (μεσάζω; Partizip; Weish 18,14), eignet sich daher besonders gut für markante Erzählungen. Die Texte vom Erschlagen der Erstgeborenen Ägyptens in Ex 11,4 und 12,29 „spielen“ in der Mitte der Nacht (μέσας νύκτας und μεσούσης τῆς νυκτός; ‫ ַ ּכֲחֹצת‬/‫) ַ ּבֲחִצי ַה ַ ּלְיָלה‬. Auch die in Seenot geratene Schiffsbesatzung, die Paulus nach Rom bringen soll, sieht gegen Mitternacht (κατὰ μέσον τῆς νυκτός) der vierzehnten Nacht endlich Land (vgl. Apg 27,27). Am folgenden Tag wird die gesamte Besatzung, wie Paulus es angekündigt hat, gerettet.6 Während die Nacht Angst einflößt und allenfalls von gespanntem Warten und Hoffen geprägt ist, erkennen Menschen am Morgen, bei Anbruch des Tages das rettende nächtliche Wirken Gottes.7 In Weish 17–19 geht es einerseits um die konkrete Nacht des Exodus analog zu Ex 12–14, andererseits um alle dunklen und sehr finsteren Erfahrungen der beiden ungleichen Völker Israel und Ägypten. Während es durch göttliches Wirken für Ägypten immer schwärzer wird und die Nacht gar nicht enden will, strahlt die restliche Welt von strahlendem Licht (vgl. Weish 17,19–20). Tag und Nacht bezeichnen nicht nur reale Tageszeiten, sondern ebenso die innere Verfasstheit der Betroffenen.

1.1 Nacht und Finsternis bei den Gesetzlosen (Weish 17) 1.1.1 Die lange Nacht Bereits in Weish 17,28 geht es um die Nacht, in der Ägypten die Konsequenzen seines Handelns an Israel zu spüren bekommt (vgl. Ex 12,12–13.29). Die Ägypter 5 Das ist neben der Literatur auch in musikalischen Werken gut zu beobachten. 6 Auch Simson in Ri 16,3, Boas in Rut 3,8, Judit in Jdt 12,5, Betende in Ps 119,62 und Apg 16,25, Jesus in Lk 11,5, Paulus in Apg 20,7 und Matrosen in Apg 27,27 erwarten um Mitternacht positive Veränderungen. 7 „Der Beter der Psalmen streckt sich deshalb nach dem Morgen aus, der in prononcierter Weise als die Zeit der Rettung gilt, denn die Morgenröte ist Teil des Schöpfungslichtes und damit Künderin der Nähe Gottes (Pss 5,4; 30,6; 46,6; 57,8–9 = 108,2 f.; 59,17; 88,14; 90,14; 130,6; 143,8)“, vgl. Spieckermann, „Gott,“ 442. Auch der „hinkende Jakob-Israel geht der aufgehenden Sonne, dem Licht entgegen“ (Spieckermann, „Gott,“ 437). 8 Die Verszählung folgt der Septuaginta Deutsch.

196  Christine Abart

werden in Weish 17,2 nicht namentlich genannt, sondern als „Gesetzlose“ (ἄνομοι), als Menschen ohne Gesetz (νόμος) und damit als Opposition zu Israel, dem die Torah alles bedeutet und das sie als für alle gültig eingeführt hat (vgl. Ex 12,49; 13,9), bezeichnet. Die Gesetzlosen meinten, das heilige Volk (ἔθνος ἅγιον) unterdrücken zu können (καταδυναστεύειν; Weish 17,2; vgl. Ex 1,13). Nun aber liegen sie da (κεῖμαι) als Gefangene der Dunkelheit (ἄνομοι δέσμιοι σκότους) und Gefesselte einer langen Nacht (μακρᾶς πεδῆται νυκτός). Die Finsternis, die in Ex 10,21–23 als neunte Plage in Ägypten einen relativ geringen Raum einnimmt, wird in Weish 17,1–18,4 breit ausgemalt.9 Der Begriff „Gefesselte“ (πεδῆται) steht zwischen dem Adjektiv „lang“ (μακρός) und dem Nomen „Nacht“ (νύξ). Sie sind also auch sprachlich von langer, unentrinnbarer Nacht umgeben. Außerdem wird die Nacht durch die im synonymen Parallelismus verwendete „Dunkelheit“ (σκότος) verstärkt. Diese lange Nacht dauert während der folgenden Verse an und wird auch dadurch in ihrer Länge entfaltet. Nach der Gegenüberstellung der Gesetzlosen mit den Heiligen, die sehr großes Licht und eine feuerflammende Säule als Wegbegleiterin hatten (18,1–3), folgt in 18,4 erneut eine zusammenfassende, den Text ab 17,2 inkludierende Aussage über die in Finsternis Gefangenen. Gott wird in diesem Zusammenhang nicht erwähnt, Weish 17,1 beginnt aber mit der Anrede Gottes: „Ja, groß sind deine Gerichtstaten und schwierig darzulegen; deshalb gingen unbelehrbare Seelen in die Irre“.10 Diesen „unbelehrbaren Seelen“ entsprechen die in v. 2 als „Gesetzlose“ vorgestellten Ägypter. Außerdem verweist das Vokabular in Weish 17,2 auf die in Ex 10,21–23 erwähnte Plage der Finsternis für die Ägypter. Diese ist sehr wohl von Gott initiiert. In Ex 10,21 spricht JHWH zu Mose (‫)ַוֹי ּאֶמר ְיהָוה ֶאל־ֹמ ֶ ׁשה‬. Mose folgt der Aufforderung JHWHs und streckt seine Hand gegen den Himmel aus. Da war tiefe Finsternis im ganzen Land Ägypten, drei Tage lang (‫ ;ַוְיִהי ֹח ֶ ׁשְך־ֲאֵפָלה ְּבָכל־ֶאֶרץ ִמְצַרִים ְׁשלֹ ֶ ׁשת ָיִמים‬v. 22). Weish 17,2 beschreibt diese Finsternis (σκότος; ‫ )ֹח ֶ ׁשְך‬als lange Nacht (μακρός νύξ) für die Gesetzlosen.11 Sie meinen, ihr Tun bleibt verborgen (λήθη; v. 3), ihre Sünde ist im Dunkeln nicht erkennbar (vgl. Weish 17,3).12 Lethe ist aber auch 9 Vgl. Nesselrath, „ΣΟΦΙΑ,“ 132 (Fußnote 345). 10 Die deutschen Übersetzungen sind, sofern nicht anders angegeben, der Septuaginta Deutsch entnommen. 11 Damit legt der Weisheitslehrer die Finsternis in ganz eigenständiger Weise aus. Philo erklärt das Zustandekommen einer solchen Finsternis in „Leben Mosis“ I 123–126 mit rationalen Hypothesen (vgl. Philo, Mos. 250–251). Rabbinische Midraschim erzählen über die Länge der Nacht und die Unmöglichkeit, sich darin zu bewegen. Für den Sprecher in Weish 17–19 ist die Finsternis dagegen ein Symbolbild für das Ergehen der Gesetzlosen, vgl. Engel, Buch der Weisheit, 260. 12 Vgl. Schmitt, Weisheit, 74.

Was tut Gott in der Nacht?



197

der Name eines Flusses der Totenwelt. Die Gesetzlosen bleiben tatsächlich verborgen, vergessen wie in der Totenwelt. Gott gedenkt ihrer nicht mehr (vgl. Ps 10,4.11; Jes 29,15).13 Letztlich besiegelt ihr eigenes Verhalten ihr Ende und treibt sie in den Untergang (vgl. Weish 19,1.4).

1.1.2 Die schreckliche Nacht Die Nacht, die Ägypten in Weish 17 erlebt, ist „schrecklich“ (στυγνός; v. 5). Kein „Feuer“ (πῦρ) und keinerlei „Kraft“ (βία) können diese Finsternis „erhellen“ (φωτίζω). Nicht einmal die „sehr starken Flammen der Sterne“ (ἄστρων ἔκλαμπροι φλόγες) durchdringen sie. Diese Nacht bleibt (ὑπομένω) entsetzlich (στυγνός). Ebenso wird das Volk Israel schrecklich (στυγνός/‫ )ׁש ֹוָבב‬genannt, wenn es seinen eigenen Wegen und nicht denen JHWHs folgt (vgl. Jes 57,17).14 Die „verhasste, traurige“ (στυγνός) Nacht in Weish 17,5 erinnert außerdem an den Styx, einen weiteren Fluss in der Totenwelt Ägyptens.15 Die Gesetzlosen sind in ihrem gemeinsamen Gefängnis der dichten Finsternis voneinander isoliert und haben schreckliche Halluzinationen (vgl. vv. 3–4). Philo beschreibt vergleichbar in „Über die Träume“ (Somn. II 133) den „lichtlosen Raum der Gottlosen, den tiefe Nacht, endlose Finsternis und ungezählte Scharen von Trugbildern, Gespenstern und Traumgestalten erfüllen“16. In Weish 17 umschreibt der Sprecher die „angsterzeugten und selbst wieder angstauslösenden subjektiven Einbildungen … in Anlehnung an Hadesbeschreibungen mit ganz seltenen Wörtern in auffälligen Satzstellungen“17. Das Feuer und der hinterste Winkel (vv. 4–5) erinnern außerdem an nächtliche Mysterienspiele in natürlichen und künstlichen Grotten. Auch sie dienen, so der Verfasser von Salomos Weisheit, der Vorausschau der Totenwelt.18 „Magie und Giftmischerei (φαρμακεία; 18,13) gehört zu den Topoi frühjüdischer Polemik gegen heidnische Religion“19. Den Gesetzlosen geht

13 Vgl. Engel, Buch der Weisheit, 260. 14 Der hebräische Begriff ‫ ׁש ֹוָבב‬wird außerdem für Israel verwendet, wenn es anderen Gottheiten vertraut (vgl. Jer 2,13.22; 31,22; 50,6), ein weiteres Mal für Ammon (vgl. Jer 49,4f). Das griechische Wort στυγνός kommt ein drittes Mal in Dan 2,12 vor und bezeichnet den immensen Zorn König Nebukadnezzars über Babels weise Berater. 15 Vgl. Septuaginta Deutsch, 1084. 16 Philo, „Träume II,“ 248; vgl. Nesselrath, „ΣΟΦΙΑ,“ 132 (Fußnote 347). 17 Engel, Buch der Weisheit, 261. 18 Vgl. Engel, Buch der Weisheit, 260–61. 19 Nesselrath, „ΣΟΦΙΑ,“ 132 (Fußnote 348).

198  Christine Abart

es wie den Magiern in Ex 9,11, die aus Furcht selbst erkranken. In dieser Nacht geht es um Tod oder Leben.20

1.1.3 Die selbst verschuldete Nacht Die Nacht an sich wäre wie die Unterwelt, aus der sie kommt, machtlos (τὴν ἀδύνατον ὄντως νύκτα καὶ ἐξ ἀδυνάτου ᾅδου μυχῶν ἐπελθοῦσαν; Weish 17,13). Gottes Gerichtsurteile aber sind groß und schwierig darzulegen (μεγάλαι γάρ σου αἱ κρίσεις καὶ δυσδιήγητοι; v. 1). Die in v. 11 Genannten sind „vernunftlos“ (Konstruktion mit λογισμός) und zählen offenbar zu den „unbelehrbaren Seelen“ (ἀπαίδευτοι ψυχαί), die Gottes Urteile nicht akzeptieren und daher in die Irre gehen (v. 1). Nun sind sie „alle durch eine Kette der Finsternis gefesselt“ (ἁλύσει σκότους πάντες ἐδέθησαν; v. 16). Die drei genannten Berufsgruppen, Bauer, Hirt und Schwerarbeiter in der Wüste, zeigen, dass die Finsternis im ganzen Land Ägypten herrscht, in den Dörfern und Städten genauso wie auf dem Land. Die darin Gebundenen sind die in v. 2 genannten Gefesselten der Finsternis und Gefangenen einer langen Nacht.21 Die natürlichen nächtlichen Geräusche von Wind und Wasser, Vögeln, herabfallenden Felsen, dem Laufen von Tieren und dem Brüllen von Raubtieren erschrecken sie zutiefst (vgl. vv. 17–18). Ihr Kerker ist einer von Furcht (v. 16), in die sie hineinsanken (v. 15b).22 Auf ihnen lastet die „schwere Nacht“ (βαρεῖα νύξ), ein Bild der Finsternis (εἰκὼν τοῦ σκότους; v. 20). Viel schwerer aber als unter der Dunkelheit leiden sie unter ihrer eigenen Finsternis (ἑαυτοῖς δὲ ἦσαν βαρύτεροι σκότους; v. 20), das heißt ihrem vernunftlosen (vgl. v. 1), schrecklichen Verhalten. Sie ließen alle hebräischen Knaben töten (vgl. Ex 1,16), im Gegenzug wurde eine Menge ihrer Kinder getötet, alle anderen im Wasser ertränkt (vgl. Weish 18,5). Die Aggressoren sind selbst für diese bildlich als Dunkelheit beschriebene Situation verantwortlich (vgl. 17,11– 12). Wie bei der zehnten Plage der Finsternis (vgl. Ex 10,23) heißt es daher auch in Weish 17,20, dass allein über jene diese Nacht gebreitet war (μόνοις δὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπετέτατο βαρεῖα νύξ), die übrige Welt aber Tag hatte. In Ex 10,23 bleiben die Israeliten von der über ganz Ägypten ausgebreiteten Finsternis verschont, in Weish 17,19 sind die Größenverhältnisse sogar umgekehrt. „Die ganze Welt 20 Die Hauptaufmerksamkeit des Buches liegt auf der Verehrung des einen wahren Gottes, der das Heil aller Menschen will. Die Menschen können sich aber auch für Genuss auf Kosten von Schwächeren, für Macht und Gewalttätigkeit entscheiden. Damit wählen sie selbst den Tod, in dem sie versinken (vgl. Engel, Gerechtigkeit, 179). 21 Vgl. Engel, Buch der Weisheit, 269. 22 Vgl. Georgi, Unterweisung, 463.

Was tut Gott in der Nacht?



199

nämlich wurde bestrahlt von strahlendem Licht“ (ὅλος γὰρ ὁ κόσμος λαμπρῷ κατελάμπετο φωτί) und ging ihrem Tagwerk nach. Nur in Ägypten herrschte Finsternis.23

1.2 Licht und Rettung für die Heiligen (Weish 18) 1.2.1 Großes Licht in finsterer Nacht Weish 18,1 nimmt die Aussage aus 17,20 nochmals auf und stellt fest: „Deine Heiligen aber hatten sehr großes Licht“ (τοῖς δὲ ὁσίοις σου μέγιστον ἦν φῶς). Im Anschluss an c. 17 wird auch diese Darstellung des Lichts rasch wieder in Abgrenzung zur Nacht geschildert. V. 3 spricht von der feuerflammenden Säule als Führerin, nicht aber von der Wolke, die tagsüber vorausgeht (vgl. Ex 13,21–22), und betont damit die Nacht, in der sich die Gottlosen befinden.24 Ob Menschen oder ganze Völker in Finsternis oder Licht leben, hängt aus biblischer Sicht davon ab, ob sie Gottes Gerichtsurteile darlegen können (vgl. 17,1). Dem Aufrichtigen, der JHWH fürchtet und seine Befehle liebt, geht jedenfalls in der Finsternis ein Licht auf (vgl. Ps 112,1.4). Trotz der überwiegend metaphorisch verstandenen Finsternis in Kapitel 17 geht es auch um die konkrete Nacht, die in Ex 12,8.12.31.42 und 14,20.21 als Zeit des Pessachs und des Aufbruchs Israels aus Ägypten genannt wird. Diese Nacht wurde Israels Vätern vorher angekündigt (vgl. Weish 18,6a). Israel durfte die Rettung der Gerechten und den Untergang der Feinde (σωτηρία μὲν δικαίων, ἐχθρῶν δὲ ἀπώλεια; v. 7) erwarten. JHWH galt bei ihm als einziger gerechter und rettender Gott (vgl. Jes 45,21).

1.2.2 Die Pessachnacht Die Loblieder, die Gottes Volk am Ende von Weish 18,9 anstimmen, sind wohl „eine Anspielung auf die Einrichtung des Passafestes durch Mose noch vor dem Auszug aus Ägypten“25 (vgl. Ex 12,1–28.43–50). Selbiges erwähnt Philo in De

23 Vgl. Nesselrath, „ΣΟΦΙΑ,“ 103. 24 Vgl. Georgi, Unterweisung, 464. 25 Nesselrath, „ΣΟΦΙΑ,“ 133 (Fußnote 366).

200  Christine Abart

sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Sacr. 63).26 In der Auslegungstradition galt die Nacht vom 14. auf den 15. Nisan längst als genuine Zeit göttlichen Handelns.27 Bis heute geht es am Sederabend darum, das Ende von Dunkelheit und Nacht wieder zu erleben. Daher werden gerne unterschiedlichste, die Nacht überwindende Texte verwendet. „Es war in der Mitte der Nacht“ ist eines der Lieder, die zwar in einem anderen Kontext entstanden, aber bei der Sederfeier beliebt und am Ende vieler Haggadot abgedruckt sind. Der Text des alphabetischen Liedes aus dem Mittelalter handelt von vielen Wundern, die genau um Mitternacht eintraten.28 Die Strophe, die mit dem Buchstaben ‫ ק‬beginnt, soll hier die Interpretation der zentralen Verse göttlichen Eingreifens in Weish 18,14–16 einleiten. ‫וְבֵכן ַוְיִהי ַ ּבֲחִצי ַה ַ ּלִיָלה‬ ‫ָקֵרב י ֗ום ֲא ֶ ׁשר הו ּא לֹא י ֗ום ְולֹא ַלְיָלה‬ ‫ָרם ה ֗וַדע ִּכי ְלָך ַהי ּ ֗ום ַאף ְלָך ַה ַ ּלְיָלה‬ ‫ׁש ֗וְמ ִרים ַהְפֵקד ְלִעיְרָך ָּכל ַהי ּ ֗ום ְוָכל ַה ַ ּלְיָלה‬ ‫ָּתִאיר ְּכא ֗ור י ֗ום ֶחְׁש ַ ּכת ַלְיָלה‬ Es war in der Mitte der Nacht. Lass nahen den Tag, der weder Tag ist noch Nacht; zeig, Erhabener, vor aller Augen, dass Dein der Tag ist und Dein auch die Nacht. Setze Wächter ein für deine Stadt (Jerusalem), während des Tages und der Nacht. Erhelle wie Tageslicht die Finsternis der Nacht.29

1.2.3 Der Logos springt mitten ins Geschehen Wie Gott sein Volk im konkreten Fall aus Ägyptens Unterdrückung rettet, wird in Weish 18,14–16 in höchst poetischer Weise geschildert.30 Diese Verse zeigen, 26 Vgl. Philo, „Geburt Abels,“ 240. 27 Vgl. Engel, Buch der Weisheit, 282. Im Buch der Denkwürdigkeiten (Targum Neofiti I zu Ex 12,42) sind zum Terminus „Nacht des Wachens“ in Ex 12,42 vier Nächte der Offenbarung des HERRN aufgeschrieben: Die erste Nacht ist die der Erschaffung des Lichts (vgl. Gen 1,2), die zweite ist die vor Abram (vgl. Gen 17,17), die dritte jene vor Ägypten (vgl. Ex 12,29), die vierte wird sein, wenn die Welt ihr Ende erreicht. „Das ist die Pascha-Nacht für den Namen des HERRN, eine aufbewahrte und festgesetzte Nacht ist es zur Befreiung ganz Israels in allen ihren Generationen“ (Engel, Buch der Weisheit, 283; vgl. Diez Macho, Neophyti 1, 76–77). 28 Vgl. Auf der Maur, Osterfeier, 68. 29 Javor, Haggada, 77–78. 30 Wie an anderen Stellen auch nimmt Weish hier auf einen Text des Alten Testaments Bezug und wandelt ihn für die Verwendung in einem neuen Kontext ab (vgl. Nesselrath, „Sprache,“ 146).

Was tut Gott in der Nacht?



201

beginnend mit „denn“ (γάρ),31 zugleich den Grund für das in v. 13b ausgesprochene Bekenntnis der Gesetzlosen zum Volk Israel als Gottes Sohn.32 Die in v. 14 aufgebaute Spannung (vgl. Kapitel 1,1), die Ruhe vor dem Sturm (vgl. Ps 76,9– 10), hebt Gottes Handeln um Mitternacht deutlich hervor. Die Rede „um Mitternacht“ ist weit mehr als eine bloße Zeitangabe (vgl. Ex 11,4; 12,29).33 In diesem spannungsvoll erwarteten Augenblick greift der Logos ins Geschehen ein: „Als nämlich tiefes Schweigen das All umfing und die Nacht in ihrem Lauf die Mitte erreicht hatte, sprang dein allmächtiges Wort vom Himmel, vom königlichen Thron, ein schroffer Krieger mitten in das verderbenbringende Land“ (Weish 18,14–15). Das Eingreifen des Logos ist von äußerster Wichtigkeit: Der Logos springt (ἅλλομαι; Aorist) mitten ins Geschehen. Mit dem im Weisheitsbuch beliebten Stilmittel eines Hyperbaton34 sprengt das einzige Verb des Satzes alle Wortstellungsgesetze und springt auch verbal ins verderbenbringende Land (εἰς μέσον τῆς ὀλεθρίας ἥλατο γῆς; Weish 18,15b).35 Diese energische Handlung steht im starken Kontrast zur vorangehenden nächtlichen Stille.36 Der agile, springende Logos könnte auch eine Deutungstradition für das schwer übersetzbare Wort ‫ פסח‬widerspiegeln. Was JHWH in Ex 12,13.23.27 selbst tat, ist hier die Wirkung seines Wortes.37 Der Logos ist „allmächtig“ (παντοδύναμος). So allmächtig und dynamisch sind auch der Geist, der die Weisheit umtreibt (vgl. Weish 7,23), sowie die Hand des Schöpfers (vgl. Weish 11,17). Durch Gottes Wort entstand das All (vgl. Weish 9,1), sein Werk (vgl. Sir 42,15), und durch sein Wort wurde Israel immer wieder 31 Mit dem in Weish häufig gewählten γάρ-Satz vermittelt der Schreiber den Eindruck einer Abfolge streng logischer und sich kausal auseinander ergebender Sätze (vgl. Nesselrath, „Sprache,“ 149). 32 Die Eltern der Ermordeten bekennen, was dem Pharao bereits in Ex 4,22 mitgeteilt wurde. 33 Vgl. Engel, Buch der Weisheit, 282. 34 Insgesamt finden sich in Weish 240 Hyperbata und damit weit mehr als in anderen Büchern der LXX (vgl. Nesselrath, „Sprache,“ 151). Das Hyperbaton war zunächst in der Lyrik und in der Tragödie typisch, in der Kaiserzeit tritt es verstärkt auch in der literarischen Prosa auf (vgl. Kepper, Bildung, 87). Hyperbata „belegen den gewählten, um größte Sorgfalt bemühten Stil des Weisen“ (Kepper, Bildung, 87). 35 An anderen Stellen kommt mit dem Begriff ἅλλομαι (hebräisch ‫ )צלח‬der Geist JHWHs über Menschen (vgl. Ri 14,6.19; 15,14; 1 Sam 10,10). Aufgrund von JHWHs Intervention springt (ἅλλομαι; hebräisch ‫ )דלג‬aber auch der Lahme wie ein Hirsch (vgl. Jes 35,6; ähnlich in Apg 3,8 und 14,10). In Joh 4,14 springt die Quelle, die im Menschen aus dem von Jesus gegebenen Wasser entsteht, dauerhaft (Partizip) ins ewige Leben. 36 Das erinnert an eine Nachtschilderung im dritten Buch der Argonauten des Apollonios Rhodios (vv. 744–751; vgl. Nesselrath, „Sprache,“ 154). Auch lässt die Szene „an homerische Götter denken, die ähnlich rasch vom Olymp auf die Erde gelangen“ (Nesselrath, „Sprache,“ 154). 37 Vgl. Engel, Buch der Weisheit, 283.

202  Christine Abart

gerettet (vgl. Pss 105,27.42–43; 107,20).38 „Weder Kraut noch Pflaster nämlich wirkte gesundmachend auf sie, sondern dein Wort, HERR, das alles heilt“ (Weish 16,12). Als Werkzeug Gottes wirkt der Logos auf die Welt ein und differenziert sich dabei, so die Vorstellung Philos, in weitere Kräfte (δυνάμεις). Metaphorisch bezeichnet Philo diese Kräfte als Strahlen, die vom göttlichen Licht ausgehen.39 Weish 18,14 lässt durch die Rede von Mitternacht, der Wende der Nacht zum Tag vergleichbar an aufstrahlendes (Sonnen-)Licht denken. Diese Lichtmetapher weist bereits auf die kommende Rettung hin, denn Licht ist „Quelle und Manifestation des Lebens“40.

1.2.4 Die Wirkkraft des Logos Gottes Wort kommt in Weish 18,15a „vom Himmel“ (ἀπ᾿ οὐρανῶν) und „vom königlichen Thron“ (ἐκ θρόνων βασιλείων). Der Logos ist daher mit der Weisheit vergleichbar, die bei Gottes Thron sitzt (τὴν τῶν σῶν θρόνων πάρεδρον σοφίαν; Weish 9,4), aus Gottes „heiligem Himmel“ (ἐξ ἁγίων οὐρανῶν) erbeten wird und „vom Thron seiner Herrlichkeit“ (ἀπὸ θρόνου δόξης σου) kommt (Weish 9,10). In Weish 9,1–12 bittet ein Mensch, ab v. 7 der König Israels, um Gottes Weisheit, damit sie ihm in Sorgen beisteht (συμπάρειμι) und er erkennt, was Gott wohlgefällig (εὐάρεστος) ist (v. 10). Mit weisheitlicher Führung, so seine Hoffnung (vgl. v. 11), wird er Gottes Volk gerecht regieren können (διακρινῶ τὸν λαόν σου δικαίως; v. 12).41 In Weish 18,15a erinnert die Rede vom königlichen Thron, von dem der Logos kommt, auch an Gottes Wirken als gerechter König. Dort, wo menschliche Gerichte versagen, kommt von Gottes Thron Hilfe für die Entrechteten.

38 „Der Charakter des Logos schwankt zwischen Personifikation und Hypostase“. Dahinter steht eine „Entwicklung von einem mehr metaphorischen Verständnis des Redens Gottes“ (vgl. Gen 1; Jes 55,10–11; Pss 33,6; 119) „bis hin zur Logosspekulation Philos“ (Schmitt, Buch, 135). 39 Vgl. Neher, Wesen, 158–59. 40 Janowski, Rettungsgewißheit, 29. 41 Wer die Weisheit ehrt, wird außerdem ewig regieren (vgl. Weish 6,21), und wer nach Gottes Wort verlangt, ist gut belehrt (παιδεύω; vgl. Weish 6,11). Wer aber böse handelt, wird von Gottes Atem wie durch einen Sturm weggerissen, die Throne der Mächtigen stürzen (vgl. Weish 5,23; Lk 1,52). Der „königliche Thron“ kann aber auch als Anspielung auf König Salomo verstanden werden (vgl. 1 Kön 3,9.12–13), der in Weish 6,22–11,1 als der Weise und reiche König erkennbar wird (vgl. Engel, „Sapientia,“ 142). Seine Weisheit hat er durch „das Bedenken der Erzählungen in den Büchern Genesis und Exodus gewonnen“ (Engel, „Sapientia,“ 142; vgl. Weish 10,15– 19,22).

Was tut Gott in der Nacht?



203

Konkret geht es in Weish 18 weiterhin um die zentrale Befreiungsgeschichte Israels, um die Rettung des Gottesvolkes aus den Fängen des Pharao. Weil der Pharao aber, wie in Ex 5–14 ausführlich beschrieben, nicht einlenkt, kommt Gottes Wort in Weish 18,15b um Mitternacht außerdem als „ein schroffer Krieger mitten in das verderbenbringende Land“. Als Krieger werden an vielen anderen Stellen menschliche Krieger bezeichnet, darunter David in 1 Sam 16,18. Gott oder Gottes Wort wird nur in Weish 18,15b πολεμιστὴς genannt, in der hebräischen Bibel wird im Lied nach der Rettung am Schilfmeer aber JHWH Kriegsmann (‫ )ִאיׁש ִמְלָחָמה‬genannt: „JHWH ist ein Kriegsmann. JHWH ist sein Name“ (‫ ;ְיהָוה ִאיׁש ִמְלָחָמה ְיהָוה ְׁשמ ֹו‬Ex 15,3). Die LXX verändert den Text und schreibt: „Der HERR beendet Kriege. HERR ist sein Name“ (κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους, κύριος ὄνομα αὐτῷ). Offenbar war den Übersetzern in seleukidischer Zeit nicht wohl bei der Formulierung „JHWH ist ein Kriegsmann“.42 In Ps 46,10 ist die veränderte Aussage sowohl in der hebräischen (‫ )ַמְׁשִּבית ִמְלָחמ ֹות‬als auch in der griechischen Fassung (ἀνταναιρῶν πολέμους) Teil des Gebets. Ebenso stellt Jdt 9,7 fest: Die „Assyrer … haben nicht erkannt, dass du der HERR bist, der Kriege zerschlägt“. In Jes 42,13 aber eifert der HERR wie ein Kriegsmann, er erhebt den Schlachtruf und ist den Feinden überlegen. Die LXX übersetzt den entsprechenden Satz mit der Aussage, dass der HERR einen Krieg beginnt (συντρίψει πόλεμον). Aus der Perspektive unterdrückter und um ihre Existenz bangender Völker ist das Gebet zu Gott als Kriegsmann durchaus verstehbar. In äußerster Bedrohung rufen Menschen zu Gott um den gewünschten Sieg. Realistisch gesehen bestand für Israel keine Chance, Kriege zu gewinnen. Mit dem Mut der Verzweifelten war aber doch der ein oder andere Aufstand erfolgreich. In Weish 18,15 ist vom Logos als Krieger die Rede. Vergleichbar hat der Logos in Jes 11,4 (LXX) die Aufgabe der Vernichtung der Gottlosen (vgl. PsSal 17,24.35–36).43 In Ägypten hat Thot, Gott des Mondes und Schreiber der Götter, eine ähnliche Funktion. Er wird vom Himmel geschickt, um den kranken Horus-Knaben zu heilen und die entstandene Finsternis zu vertreiben.44 Das „verderbenbringende Land“ (ἡ ὀλέθρια γῆ) steht in Weish 18,15b für Ägypten bzw. den Pharao und seine Kriegsmacht. Weder der Name des Landes noch seine Bewohner werden explizit genannt. Von einem Land, das Verderben bringt, ist auch nur an dieser Stelle die Rede. Andernfalls verderben Menschen gegenseitig oder bitten Gott um das Verderben der Feinde. In Ex 12,23 (vgl. Weish 18,25) ist aber der Verderber (‫ ;ַמְׁשִחית‬ὀλεθρεύων; Partizip) unterwegs, um 42 Die LXX legt Ex 15,3 (und Jes 42,13) geradezu antimilitärisch aus (vgl. Engel, Buch der Weisheit, 283). 43 Vgl. Mack, Logos, 99. 44 Vgl. Mack, Logos, 102–3.

204  Christine Abart

die Erstgeborenen Ägyptens zu schlagen. In die Häuser der Israeliten einzudringen, verbietet ihm der HERR dagegen. Nach Weish 18,15 und 25 reagiert der Logos auf die Ägypter ihrem Tun entsprechend verderbend.

1.2.5 Der Logos als Krieger In Weish 18,16 wird die Rede vom Logos als Kriegsmann (πολεμιστής; Weish 18,15b) und als Verderber (ὀλεθρεύων; Partizip; Weish 18,25) entfaltet. Zunächst geht es um Gottes Wort als „scharfes Schwert“ (ξίφος ὀξύ) und dessen Wirkweise (v. 16a). Vergleichbar ist der Mund des Gottesknechts in Jes 49,2 durch JHWHs Berufung ein scharfes Schwert. Hebr 4,12 hält Gottes Wort in seiner Lebendigkeit und Wirkkraft für schärfer als jedes zweischneidige Schwert.45 In Weish 18,16a handelt das Wort Gottes ebenfalls als scharfes Schwert und trägt Gottes „unbestechliche Anordnung“ (τὴν ἀνυπόκριτον ἐπιταγήν). In Weish 5,18 wird erklärt, dass Gott als Panzer Gerechtigkeit (δικαιοσύνη) anlegt und als Helm unbestechliches Gericht (κρίσις ἀνυπόκριτος) aufsetzt. Wer vergeblich auf das Einhalten der Ordnungen unter den Menschen wartet, darf demnach auf Gottes Unbestechlichkeit hoffen. Das Wissen darum ist nachts von besonderer Bedeutung und hilft bei Ängsten im Kriegsfall. In Hld 3,8 ist ausdrücklich von Kriegern die Rede, die gegen den Schrecken der Nächte Schwerter bei sich tragen. In Weish 18,16 folgt die singuläre Aussage, dass der Logos dasteht und das All mit Tod füllt (πληρόω; Aorist). Ähnlich plant Nebukadnezzar in Jdt 2,8 die Täler im Westen seines Reiches mit den Gefallenen zu füllen und in 6,4 die Felder mit den Toten Israels. In Ps 110,6 füllt Israels König das Land mit Leichen. In 2 Makk 12,16 greift Judas Makkabäus mit seinem Heer die sich überlegen fühlenden und prahlenden Bewohner von Kaspin an. Judas nimmt die Stadt ein und richtet ein solches Blutbad an, dass ein zwei Stadien breiter See neben der Stadt wie mit Blut gefüllt zu sein schien. Diese Texte zeichnen ein deutliches Bild eines mit Tod gefüllten Alls. Dass die in Weish 18,16 beschriebene Szene zudem in der Nacht „spielt“ (vgl. v. 14), lässt das Bild umso schauriger erscheinen. Vorbild für die hier gebotene Darstellung des Logos war sicher auch der Bote, den David mit dem gezücktem Schwert JHWHs, der Pest, nach seiner Volkszählung zwischen Erde und Himmel stehen sieht (vgl. 1 Chr 21,7–17). Zwischen Himmel und Erde befinden sich vergleichbar Wesen der griechischen Mythologie, so Eris in Homers Ilias und Fama in Vergils Aeneis, aber auch die Wolkensäule der Exoduserzählung bei Philo.46 45 Vgl. Eph 6,17; Offb 1,16; 2,16 und 19,11–15. 46 Vgl. Engel, Buch der Weisheit, 284.

Was tut Gott in der Nacht?



205

Das Handeln des Verderbers (ὀλεθρεύων) in Weish 18,25 wird als Probe großen Zorns beschrieben (ἡ πεῖρα τῆς ὀργῆς ἱκανή). Mit demselben Begriff entbrennt in Ex 4,14 der Zorn des HERRN gegen Mose, der sich gegen den Auftrag Gottes sträubt. In Ex 15,7 richtet sich Gottes Zorn gegen die Feinde Israels und verzehrt sie wie Stroh. In Ex 32,10–12 erzürnt JHWH über sein Volk, das ein Stierkalb an seiner Stelle verehrt. Viele Israeliten sterben schließlich aufgrund ihres Ungehorsams durch Gottes Zorn in der Wüste (vgl. Weish 18,20). Jedes Mal aber lässt sich der Zorn Gottes beschwichtigen, weitere Zerstörungen können verhindert werden. Vergleichbar hat der Auftrag, Ägypten zu verderben, Grenzen (vgl. Weish 18,25). Die Erstgeborenen werden ermordet, nicht alle neugeborenen Knaben wie die hebräischen auf Anordnung des Pharao (vgl. Ex 1,16).

1.2.6 Sicheres Geleit Um nächtliche Erfahrungen geht es in Weish 18 außerdem in den vv. 3 und 19. Auch diese führen einmal zum Tod, das andere Mal zum Weg in ein besseres Leben. In v. 19 wird deutlich, dass die Ägypter ebenfalls vorab um ihr Schicksal wussten. (Nächtliche) beunruhigende Träume (ὄνειροι θορυβήσαντες αὐτούς) ließen sie erkennen, warum sie so schlimm leiden würden. Die Träume geben, wie in anderen Bibeltexten auch,47 die Möglichkeit, Gottes Wege wahrzunehmen. Das kann sogar im verderbenbringenden Land geschehen, das Unheil lässt sich aber nicht mehr abwenden. Für Israel heißt es dagegen in v. 3, dass Gott ihm eine „flammende Feuersäule“ (πυριφλεγῆ στῦλον) als Führerin auf unbekanntem Weg geben wird. Diese Feuersäule wird in Ex 13,21–22 dezidiert als Hilfe für die Nacht genannt, während tagsüber eine Wolke den Weg weist. In diesem Zusammenhang wird also wiederum Gottes fürsorgendes Handeln an Israel zur Nachtzeit deutlich. Die Nacht gilt erneut als Metapher für eine Zeit der Katastrophen. Die Feuersäule aber wird in Weish 18,3b auch mit der freundlichen Sonne, die nicht schadet (ἥλιος ἀβλαβής), verglichen. Nach altorientalischem Verständnis entspricht der Sonnenaufgang der Epiphanie des Sonnengottes. Mit seinem Erscheinen wird alles Chaotische überwunden.48 Recht und Gerechtigkeit setzen sich durch. So ist der mesopotamische Sonnengott Schamasch „der Wahrer des Rechts, der alle Formen sozialen 47 Vgl. Jakob in Gen 28,10–22, Josef in Gen 40,8–13.16–18; 41,15–36, Salomo in 1 Kön 3,5–9, Daniel in Dan 2,27–45; 4,5–24 und 7,1–28 sowie Josef, den Mann Marias, in Mt 1,20–24; 2,12– 15.19–23. 48 Vgl. Janowski, „Sonnengott,“ 229.

206  Christine Abart

Unrechthandelns ahndet und deren Repräsentanten – wie den ungerechten Richter, den unehrlichen Kaufmann, den falschen Geldverleiher u. a. – bestraft“49. Auch sein ägyptisches Pendant, der Sonnengott Re, gilt als Garant der rechten Ordnung.50 Wenn der Sonnengott am Morgen erscheint, hält er Gericht.51 Für die Solarisierung JHWHs war die Verbindung von Licht und Recht zentral.52 Sie zeigt sich in unterschiedlichen Texten. Laut Zef 3,5 stellt JHWH Morgen für Morgen sein Rechtsurteil ins Licht, nach Hos 6,5 bricht es als Licht hervor. In Ijob 38,12–15 vertreibt das aufstrahlende Licht am Morgen die Frevler von der Erde.53 Konkret hatten die Könige Israels die Aufgabe, für Gerechtigkeit und damit für Licht und Leben besonders für die Armen und Schwachen zu sorgen. Als Staat und Königtum zusammenbrachen, gingen diese solaren Funktionen aber auf alle Gerechten und Gottesfürchtigen über (vgl. Ps 37,6; Jes 58,8 u. a.).54 Für ein entsprechendes Verhalten wirbt der abschließende Text in Weish 19.

1.3 Gott rettet sein Volk mit Hilfe der gesamten Schöpfung (Weish 19) In Weish 19 folgt ein weiterer Erklärungsversuch für die beschriebenen Qualen in Ägypten während der Pessachnacht auf der einen Seite und die Darstellung der Rettung Israels andererseits. Ein Geschehen wirkt an zwei Menschengruppen unterschiedlich. Die schwächere Gruppe, hier Ägypten, wird zuerst genannt.55 In ihrer „Verstandlosigkeit“ (ἄνοια; v. 3) fassen die Ägypter, noch während sie an den Gräbern ihrer Toten klagen, den Beschluss, diejenigen zu verfolgen, die sie soeben vertrieben haben (v. 3; vgl. Ex 12,31–33; 14,5–9). Darum erleiden sie die „noch ausstehende Strafe“ (προσαναπληρώσωσιν κόλασιν; v. 4). Das Volk Gottes erfährt daraufhin eine „unerwartete Reise“ (παράδοξον ὁδοιπορίαν), jene aber finden einen „fremdartigen Tod“ (ξένον θάνατον; v. 5). Die Reise (ὁδοιπορία; v. 5), die Israel nun machen soll, wird auch in 18,3 erwähnt und als „unbekannt“ (ἄγνωστος) bezeichnet. Geführt wird das Volk durch die „feuerflammende Säule“ (πυριφλεγῆ στῦλον), die ebenda als Gegensatz zur Finsternis in Ägypten beschrieben wird und Gottes rettendes Wirken in der 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Janowski, Rettungsgewißheit, 96. Vgl. Keel, „Sonnengottheit,“ 279. Vgl. Keel, „Sonnengottheit,“ 280. Vgl. Janowski, „Sonnengott,“ 228. Vgl. Janowski, Rettungsgewißheit, 27. Vgl. Janowski, „Sonnengott,“ 239–40. Vgl. Schmitt, Weisheit, 79.

Was tut Gott in der Nacht?



207

Nacht konkretisiert. In Weish 19,6 gehorcht die ganze Schöpfung Gottes Befehlen, damit Gottes Kinder unversehrt bewahrt werden. Ein solches Verhalten entspricht der Schöpfung von Anfang an, dazu kehrt sie nun zurück. Sie steht somit im herben Kontrast zu den gesetzlosen (ἄνομοι; 17,2) Ägyptern und wirbt bei den Lesenden, es ihr gleich zu tun. Vernunft (λογισμός) wäre die dabei nötige und hilfreiche Unterstützung (βοήθημα; 17,11). Die Schöpfung steht im Dienst des Hüters Israels (vgl. Ps 121,3.4.5.7.8 u. ä.). Sie bewahrt (φυλάσσω; im Hebräischen ‫ )ׁשמר‬Israel in Weish 19,6 auf seinem herausfordernden Weg. Von Gottes Hand behütet (σκεπάζω; Weish 19,8; ‫ ;סתר‬vgl. Pss 16,8; 26,5; 60,5; 63,3 LXX u. ä.), zieht Israel deshalb auf trockenem Weg durch das Rote Meer (vgl. Weish 19,7). In v. 9 weiden die Israeliten während ihrer Wanderung wie Rösser und hüpfende Lämmer. Sie loben den HERRN, ihren Retter (ῥυσάμενον; Partizip). Die Septuaginta verwendet das Verb ῥύομαι häufig für die Wortwurzel ‫יׁשע‬. Somit wird hier auch auf Ex 14,30 verwiesen: Es rettete JHWH an jenem Tag Israel aus der Hand Ägyptens (‫ַוֹי ּו ַ ׁשע ְיהָוה ַ ּבֹי ּום ַההו ּא ֶאת־ִיְׂשָרֵאל‬ ‫ ;ִמַי ּד ִמְצָרִים‬καὶ ἐρρύσατο κύριος τὸν Ισραηλ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἐκ χειρὸς τῶν Αἰγυπτίων). Diese Aussage steht am Ende der entscheidenden Nacht, in der durch JHWHs Wirken Ägypten im Meer versinkt, Israel aber seinen Weg ins verheißene Land aufnimmt. Der in Ex 14,30 erwähnte Tag beendet die dunkle Zeit des Gottesvolkes in Ägypten und wird zum eindrücklichen Beispiel für jegliches rettende Eingreifen Gottes in der Nacht.

2 „In jener Nacht fiel sehr viel Schnee“ (1 Makk 13,22) In 1 Makk 13,22 droht Krieg. Allerdings fällt in der Nacht vor der geplanten Belagerung so viel Schnee, dass der Krieg nicht stattfindet. Der Text spielt in der Zeit des Hohepriesters und Fürsten Simeon. Dieser hört in 1 Makk 13,1, dass der seleukidische König Diodotos Tryphon in Syrien eine mächtige Streitmacht zusammenzog, um in Judäa einzufallen und es zu vernichten. Simeon sieht sein Volk vor Furcht zittern und versammelt es in Jerusalem (v. 2). Er erinnert die Leute an die Taten seiner Brüder und verspricht, nun selbst als Rächer für sein Volk, für das Heiligtum und für die Frauen und Kinder aufzutreten (v. 6). Das Volk fasst wieder Mut (v. 7) und wählt Simeon zu seinem neuen Führer und Kämpfer (v. 8–9). Tryphon versucht, ins Land einzudringen, Simeon wehrt ihn mit seinem Heer aber überall ab (v. 20). Als die Besatzer Jerusalems zu Tryphon schicken

208  Christine Abart

und wegen Lebensmittelknappheit zur Eile drängen, plant der General dennoch den Durchbruch (v. 21f). Aber in jener Nacht fällt sehr viel Schnee (καὶ ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἐκείνῃ ἦν χιὼν πολλή; v. 22), es gibt kein Weiterkommen. Schnee macht die Wege in Judas Wüste unkenntlich und erschwert die Orientierung.56 Die Feinde ziehen nach Gilead ab (v. 22). Schließlich gibt Tryphon das Vorhaben auf (v. 24). Schnee ist eine Gabe Gottes (vgl. Ps 147,16).57 Das Verb ‫ׁשלג‬/χιονόομαι besagt in Ps 68,15, dass es schneite, als der Allmächtige Könige zerstreute. Vermutlich war wie in 1 Makk 13,22 der Schnee den geplanten Kampfhandlungen hinderlich. Umgekehrt gilt nun auch für die Erzählung aus der Makkabäerzeit, dass Gott zur rechten Zeit Schnee gegeben hat (vgl. Ijob 38,22–23). „Möglicherweise soll das in dem Land recht seltene Naturereignis hier indirekt den wunderbaren Beistand Gottes signalisieren“58. Vergleichbar verstärkt Hagel in Jos 10,11 die Verluste bei den Feinden. Letztlich sterben mehr feindliche Krieger durch den massiven Hagel als durch das Schwert der Söhne Israels. Gedeutet wird der Hagel im Text als große Steine, die JHWH vom Himmel auf sie wirft. Um Auswege aus Sackgassen wie die kriegerischer Auseinandersetzungen zu finden, braucht es Menschen, welche die Wirklichkeit im Sinne Gottes und seiner Lebenszusage zu deuten verstehen. Dass in 1 Makk 13,22 der Schnee, der die Fortsetzung des Krieges verhindert, über Nacht fällt, bleibt unkommentiert. Die Überraschung am Morgen muss in einer solchen Situation aber groß sein. Für die Feinde ist die Wegsuche völlig aussichtslos. Gottes Volk aber kann das Geschehen als neuerliche Aktualisierung der Pessachnacht verstehen.

Zusammenfassung Zusammenfassend muss gesagt werden, dass die beiden besprochenen Textstellen der deuterokanonischen Schriften freilich nur einen kleinen Ausschnitt göttlichen Wirkens zur Nacht zeigen. Weish 17–19 thematisiert aber die zentrale Ret56 Vgl. Tilly, 1 Makkabäer, 265. 57 Wie der Regen bedeutet er als Wasser vom Himmel Segen. Regen und Schnee tränken die Erde und machen sie fruchtbar (vgl. Jes 55,10). Gott sorgt dafür, dass viel Schnee aus seinen Speichern fällt (vgl. Ijob 37,6; 38,22) und der Schnee des Libanon nicht schmilzt (vgl. Jer 18,14). Selbstverständlich ist der Schnee keineswegs. Das Verb ‫ׁשלג‬/χιονόομαι wird nur einmal verwendet, das Nomen ‫ ֶ ׁשֶלג‬kommt in der hebräischen Bibel 20mal vor, davon 7mal als Vergleich für die Farbe Weiß und für Aussatz oder Reinheit. In der LXX gibt es insgesamt 29 Belege für das Nomen χιών. 58 Tilly, 1 Makkabäer, 265.

Was tut Gott in der Nacht?



209

tungserfahrung in Israels Geschichte während der Pessachnacht. Folgende Einsichten über Gottes rettendes Wirken in der Nacht sind daher dennoch möglich. Tag und Nacht bezeichnen nicht nur reale Tageszeiten, sondern ebenso die innere Verfasstheit der Betroffenen. Nacht und Finsternis werden in Weish 17– 19 konkret und metaphorisch verwendet. Die Erfahrung der Rettung durch Gott in der Pessachnacht wird zum Hoffnungsbild für alle weiteren dunklen Zeiten. Ob Menschen Gottes Rettung aus Nacht und Finsternis erleben, hängt von ihrem eigenen Tun ab. Die Nacht an sich wäre machtlos (vgl. Weish 17,13). Wer aber Gottes Rechtsurteilen nicht folgen will (vgl. 17,1–2), erleidet eine lange und schreckliche Nacht. Durch eine solche Unvernunft erlebt das verderbenbringende Land anhaltende Finsternis. Alle anderen dagegen leben in strahlendem Licht (vgl. Weish 17,19–18,1). Die metaphorische Redeweise hält sich nicht an den Wechsel von Tag und Nacht. Das Eingreifen von Gottes Wort in Weish 18,14 geschieht um Mitternacht, zu der Zeit, da sich die Nacht in Richtung Tag wendet. Diese Tatsache deutet bereits auf die kommende Rettung hin. Der Aufgang der Sonne ist traditionell die Zeit göttlicher Hilfe. Bei Bedarf agiert Gottes Wort sehr dynamisch. Es springt in der Mitte der Nacht vom Himmel mitten ins verderbenbringende Land (vgl. Weish 18,15), es tritt als Krieger auf (v. 15) und ist mit dem Verderber vergleichbar (v. 25). So rettet es Israel. Außerdem dient die ganze Schöpfung dem rettenden Eingreifen Gottes. In Weish 19,6–12 wirkt die Schöpfung im Dienst Gottes als Bewahrerin Israels auf dem Weg ins verheißene Land. Nachts geht eine flammende Feuersäule als Führerin voran. In 1 Makk 13,22 verhindert Schnee, der über Nacht die Landschaft verändert, den befürchteten Krieg. Gott schlummert und schläft nicht (vgl. Ps 121,4). Im Unterschied zu den Menschen braucht er keinen Schlaf, sondern schickt seine dynamischen Kräfte zu jeder Zeit dorthin, wo die Not am größten ist. Nach Weish 19,6–12 gilt die Rede vom Hüter Israels in Ps 121 auch dem Volk Gottes auf seinem Weg ins versprochene Land. Damit erfährt Gottes rettendes Handeln während der Pessachnacht seine Fortsetzung im Alltag.

Literatur Auf der Maur, Hansjörg. Die Osterfeier in der Alten Kirche. Münster: Lit Verlag, 2003. Diez Macho, Alejandro. Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. II Exodus. Madrid and Barcelona: Artes Gráficas Grijelmo, 1970. Engel, Helmut. Das Buch der Weisheit. NSK.AT 16. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. Engel, Helmut. „Die Sapientia Salominis als Buch. Die gedankliche Einheit im Buch der Weisheit.“ Pages 135–43 in Die Septuaginta – Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte. 3. Inter-

210  Christine Abart

nationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 22.–25. Juli 2019. WUNT 286. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser and Marcus Sigismund. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Engel, Helmut. „Gerechtigkeit lieben oder den Tod. Die Alternativen der Lebensentscheidung nach dem Buch der Weisheit“. Pages 173–93 in JBTh 19 (2004). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005. Georgi, Dieter. Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form. Weisheit Salomos. JSHRZ III. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1980. Janowski, Bernd. „JHWH und der Sonnengott. Aspekte der Solarisierung JHWHs in vorexilischer Zeit.“ Pages 214–41 in Pluralismus und Identität. VWGTh 8. Edited by Joachim Mehlhausen. Gütersloh: Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995. Janowski, Bernd. Rettungsgewißheit und Epiphanie des Heils. Das Motiv der Hilfe Gottes „am Morgen“ im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. Band I: Alter Orient. WMANT 59. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1989. Javor, Erwin, ed. Die Brauer Haggada. Wien: Amalthea Verlag, 2014. Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. „Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem.“ Pages 269–306 in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Kepper, Martina. Hellenistische Bildung im Buch der Weisheit. Studien zur Sprachgestalt und Theologie der Sapientia Salomonis. BZAW 280. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1999. Kraus, Wolfgang, and Martin Karrer, eds. Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009. Mack, Burton L. Logos und Sophia. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie im hellenistischen Judentum. StUNT 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Neher, Martin. Wesen und Wirken der Weisheit in der Sapientia Salomonis. BZAW 333. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2004. Nesselrath, Heinz-G. „ΣΟΦΙΑ ΣΑΛΩΜΩΝΟΣ.“ Pages 40–134 in Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Edited by Karl-W. Niebuhr. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Nesselrath, Heinz-G. „Zu Sprache und Stilistik der Sapientia Salomonis.“ Pages 137–54 in Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Edited by Karl-W. Niebuhr. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Philo von Alexandrien. „Über die Träume Buch II.“ Pages 225–77 in Philo von Alexandria. Die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung VI. Edited by Leopold Cohn et al. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962. Philo von Alexandrien. „Über das Leben Mosis Buch I.“ Pages 215–97 in Philo von Alexandria. Die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung I. Edited by Leopold Cohn et al. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962. Philo von Alexandrien. „Über die Geburt Abels und die Opfer, die er und sein Bruder Kain darbringen.“ Pages 207–64 in Philo von Alexandria. Die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung III. Edited by Leopold Cohn et al. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962. Schmitt, Armin. Das Buch der Weisheit. Ein Kommentar. Würzburg: Echter, 1986. Schmitt, Armin. Weisheit. NEB.AT 23. Würzburg: Echter, 1989. Spieckermann, Hermann. „Gott und die Nacht. Beobachtungen im Alten Testament.“ IKaZ Communio 36,5 (2007): 434–43. Tilly, Michael. 1 Makkabäer. HThKAT. Freiburg and Wien: Herder Verlag, 2015.

Michael W. Duggan

Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees Abstract: Second Maccabees is a literary collection that profiles Torah observance as the force which shapes Jewish history. The two introductory letters and the epitomist’s dramatic account of survival in the face of imperial tyranny beckon Jews from the diaspora to acknowledge the centrality of Jerusalem, its temple and the land of Israel to Jewish identity. Together these documents encourage Jews throughout Egypt to bond with their compatriots in Israel by joyously celebrating the eight-day festival of the temple cleansing in the month of Chislev and thereby renew their commitment to the ancestral traditions that define Judaism. Keywords: 2 Maccabees—Hanukkah—Jerusalem—temple—Hellenistic Judaism.

Second Maccabees is a package of three documents that the Jewish community in Jerusalem sent to the Jews of Egypt, in 124 BCE (2 Macc 1:10a). Each of the two introductory letters invites the Jewish diaspora in Egypt to observe the eight-day festival commemorating the cleansing of the Jerusalem temple, beginning on the twenty-fifth of Chislev (2 Macc 1:9–10a, 18; 2:16). The narrative that follows the letters is an abridgement of a five-volume work by Jason of Cyrene (2:19–15:39); it describes the actual purification of the temple that Judas Maccabeus and his associates accomplished on the twenty-fifth of Chislev in 164 BCE (10:1–8). The two letters assert that the festival of the temple cleansing (i. e., Hanukkah) serves to strengthen the bonds between the Jewish community in the ancestral homeland and their compatriots in Egypt. The narration of Judas and his companions wresting Jerusalem and the temple from Seleucid control suggests that the festival was intended to enhance Jewish identity within the Hellenistic world of the late second century BCE. The first letter, which was composed sometime before the month of Chislev in 124 BCE, invites all Jews in Egypt to join with their compatriots in Israel in celebrating Festival of Booths at that point in time (188 SE [= Seleucid Era]; 1:9a). The letter refers to an earlier missive which the Jews in Jerusalem had

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-011

212  Michael W. Duggan

sent to the Jewish community in Egypt prior to festival in the winter of 143 BCE (169 SE; 1:7).1 Narrative features in the second letter suggest that it may have been composed within the decade following 142 BCE, when Judea had achieved autonomy within the Seleucid empire (1 Macc 13:41).2 The letter depicts Judea as comparatively free of conflict and prepared to welcome Jews from the diaspora (2 Macc 2:15–19; cf. 3:1–15:37; 1 Macc 1:11–13:40). It portrays Judas as collecting documents after wartime, whereas historical evidence confirms that he died on the battlefield at Elasa in 160 BCE (2:14; cf. 1 Macc 9:18). Hence the opening address, with its mention of Judas, does not provide a reliable basis for dating the letter. Nevertheless, there is some validity in another portion of the address as indeed a Jewish priest named Aristobulus interpreted the law of Moses to Ptolemy VI Philometor who ruled Egypt from 180 to 145 BCE (1 Macc 11:18).3 This Egyptian ruler is mentioned in the epitome at the beginning and end of the portion on Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE; 4:21; 9:29). The epitome recounts the tensions between observant Jews in Judea and the Seleucid authorities throughout some fifteen years from the final years of Seleucus IV Philopator until Judas Maccabeus and his devout comrades attained their definitive victory over the Seleucid governor Nicanor and his army at Adasa (ca. 176–161 BCE; 2 Macc 3:1–15:37). The latest event in the narrative is the diplomatic mission that Eupolemus undertook to Rome, in the summer of 161 BCE, after Judas’s victory over Nicanor and before Judas’s death (2 Macc 4:11; cf. 15:28–36; 1 Macc 7:39–49; 8:17–18; 9:18–22).4 All indications suggest that Jason completed his composition by 150 BCE, within a decade of Judas’s death (160 BCE; 1 Macc 9:18–22). The heroic portrayal of Onias III suggests that the epitomist crafted his work some years before 142 BCE when Simon was endowed with unlimited power to govern Judea, thereby establishing the rule of

1 See Bickerman, “Jewish Festal Letter,” 414–17, 430. Bickerman views the reference to the communication almost twenty years earlier as confirming the authenticity of the letter dated to 124 BCE (1:7 143/142 BCE/169 SE). Schwartz (2 Maccabees, 521–25) argues that 1:7–8 provides the actual date of the first letter. In light of two manuscripts, he emends the date in 1:10a so that it refers to the year 164 BCE, when Judas purified the temple (2 Macc 1:10a as 148 SE, not 188 SE). 2 Wacholder (“The Letter,” 131–32) views the second letter as a composition done at the behest of Judas Maccabeus in the first half of 163 BCE, in response to the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Goldstein (II Maccabees, 162–64) proposes a date in late 103 BCE when the temple in Leontopolis was gaining popularity among Jews in Egypt. Bickerman, (“Jewish Festal Letter,” 409) dates it to ca. 60 BCE on the basis of the language in the greeting (1:10). 3 Holladay, “Aristobulus (OT Pseudepigrapha),” ABD 1:383–84. 4 See Doran, 2 Maccabees, 14–15, 103–4.

Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees 

213

the Hasmonean line of high priests (3:1–4:6; 4:30–38; 15:12–16; cf. 1 Macc 13:41–42; 14:12–49).5 Throughout 2 Maccabees, time functions to reinforce Jewish distinctiveness. I examine the temporal indications in the abridgement and then in the two letters. My examination of the abridgement consists of three parts: firstly, I describe the chronological and thematic features that shape the narrative; secondly, I analyze the epitomist’s representation of Jewish history in terms of divine wrath and mercy; thirdly, I focus on the narrative of the temple cleansing (2 Macc 10:1–8). Thereafter, I examine how each of the two letters draws out the implications of the temple cleansing festival for Jews of the diaspora. In conclusion, I suggest how the three documents combine to present the Festival of Booths in the month of Chislev as the occasion for all Jews to recognize Torah observance, the temple and Jerusalem as essential to Jewish identity in the Hellenistic world.

1 Chronology and themes in the abridgement The epitomist addresses his audience by speaking in the first-person plural in his preface and in the first person singular in the epilogue (2 Macc 2:19–32; 15:38–39). In both instances, he expresses a concern to craft the story in a manner that would hold the audience’s attention. In the introduction, he explains that his task of cutting back Jason of Cyrene’s five-volume publication to only a fraction of its size demanded that he omit a plethora of details (2:24–32). His success in reshaping the full story and rewriting significant portions of it in refined Hellenic style indicates that he merits recognition as the author of the resulting composition. His literary skills indicate that he was a scribe of the Jewish diaspora who may have resided in Alexandria.6 His authorial preface and epilogue along with his three commentaries provide the basis for my identifying his distinctive theological perspective (2:19–32; 4:16–17; 5:17–20; 6:12–17; 15:38–39).

5 Schwartz (2 Maccabees, 11–15, 525–29) asserts that the authors of the first letter were responsible for the whole of 2 Maccabees since they added to the abridgement both the narrative of the temple cleansing (2 Macc 10:1–8) and also the second letter, which explains how the sacrificial fire could have been ignited from rocks at the temple cleansing (10:3; cf. 1:31–36). Hence, Schwartz dates the epitome to 143/42 BCE, the timing of the first letter by his estimation (1:7). 6 See Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 45–56.

214  Michael W. Duggan

Jason of Cyrene structured his work chronologically. His mention of the four kings who succeed one another to the Seleucid throne provides a basic timeframe for the events: (1) Seleucus IV Philopator (187–175 BCE; 3:1–4:6); (2) Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE; 4:7–10:9); (3) Antiochus V Eupator (164–162 BCE; 10:10–13:26); and (4) Demetrius I Soter (161–150 BCE; 14:1–15:36). While the reference to Seleucus serves to supplement the profile of the priest Onias III (3:3), the introduction of each successive Seleucid ruler marks a new beginning in the narrative: (a) Antiochus IV Epiphanes assumes the throne following the death of Seleucus IV Philopator (4:7); (b) Antiochus V Eupator maintains his father’s antagonism toward the Jews (10:10); and (c) Demetrius I Soter seizes power by disposing of Antiochus V Eupator “three years” after that king had failed to defeat Judas and his troops at Beth-zur (14:1–2; 161 BCE; 151 SE).7 I suggest that the epitomist reinforced this chronological outline by supplying the summary notations that mark the respective endings of his material on Antiochus IV Epiphanes (10:9), Antiochus V Eupator (13:26) and Demetrius I Soter, who had commissioned Nicanor to capture Judas Maccabeus (15:37; cf. 14:27).8 The same hand announces the end of both the Heliodorus episode at the temple and also the martyrdoms of Eleazar, the seven sons and their mother (3:40; 7:42). The epitomist’s concluding notations at these points serve to distinguish these two narratives as self-contained units within the abridgement (3:1– 40; 6:18–7:42). The chronological format locates the events in Judea within the framework of the Seleucid regency. However, the abridgement reflects a more subtle presentation which endows the history with a distinctly Jewish flavor. The provocative element in the story derives from the fact that Jason of Cyrene did not mention God as a subject anywhere in the narration from Simon’s plot to undermine Onias through to the assassination of the Sabbath-observant Jews who hid in caves (4:1–15; 4:18–5:16; 5:21–6:11).9 Following the story of Heliodorus being driven from the temple (3:1–40), one may perceive a thematic structure in the 7 The incursion into Judea by the Seleucid army under the command of Antiochus V Eupator and Lysias is the sole narrated event that is dated according to the imperial calendar (13:1; 163 BCE/149 SE). Other such notations appear only in the diplomatic letters of the Seleucid and Roman administrations to the people of Judea (11:21, 33, 38; 164 BCE/148 SE). On these documents in relation to the prefatory letters (1:1–2:18), see Parker, “The Letters,” 388–90, 397–401. 8 The epitomist takes particular interest in Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Antiochus V Eupator whom the narrative portrays as a sinister father-son duo notorious for the harm they perpetrate upon Jews (2:20; cf. 10:10; 13:9). 9 The single mention of divinity is in the phrase “the laws of God,” as an apposition to “their ancestral laws” in 2 Macc 6:1. “Ancestral laws” (πάτριοι νόμοι) is a Greek expression for the traditional norms that were distinctive to local societies in the Hellenistic world. However, the martyrs insist that, in the unique case of Judaism, such laws originated with God (7:2,

Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees 

215

complete narrative due to its focus on particular segments of the Jewish populace and indications about the quality of divine activity that each sector experienced (4:1–15:37). The narrative concentrates on three distinct groups in succession: initially, the high priests, Jason and Menelaus (4:1–6:11), then the martyrs Eleazar, the seven brothers and their mother (6:18–7:42), and finally Judas Maccabeus and his troops (8:1–15:37). The three sections combine to reflect a contrast in divine activity, as the absence of God is a defining feature in the narratives about the high priests and the martyrs (4:1–6:11; 6:18–7:42), but God’s intervention is a predominant element in the accounts of Judas and his forces achieving success throughout the remainder of the story (8:1–15:37). Moreover, the location where the events unfold in the various segments is significant as the stories of the two high priests and the martyrs develop primarily in Jerusalem, and in proximity to the temple, whereas, with the exception of the temple cleansing, the operations of Judas and his troops take place on battlefields outside the city. Thus, these narratives reflect the irony that Jerusalem is characterized by God’s inaction in defending the Jewish populace whereas the battlefield is the locus of God’s action which culminates in the people’s regaining control of the city and the temple (4:1–6:11; 6:18–7:42; cf. 8:1–15:36). There is no mention of divine engagement in defense of the Jewish populace, Jerusalem and the temple in the interval between God’s operating through his heavenly agents to attack Heliodorus at the temple and God’s intervening as the ally of the Jewish forces in their first victory over Nicanor’s army (3:28, 38; 8:24). The three sectors of the Jewish populace represent three stances toward the Hellenization which Antiochus IV Epiphanes imposed upon Jerusalem and Judea: (a) active collaboration by the high priests, Jason and Menelaus (4:1– 6:11); (b) nonviolent defiance by the martyrs (6:18–7:42); and (c) guerilla warfare by Judas and his forces (8:1–15:37). These groups are defined by their outlooks on the ancestral traditions, as the high priests are notorious for their abandonment of the Mosaic law, whereas the martyrs and Judas’s forces are renowned for their willingness to die on account of their Torah observance (4:11–15; 5:15; cf. 7:2, 9; 7:37; 8:21; 13:14). The contrast between the high priests who compromise Jewish identity and the heroes who maintain it is evident in the periods of both loss and revival. Judas and his nine righteous companions are first mentioned when the temple is desecrated under Menelaus’s watch (5:27). The story of Antiochus V Eupator 37: cf. 7:9, 11, 23, 30). Antiochus’s failure to recognize this equivalency resulted in the violence he inflicted upon the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea. See Doran, “The Persecution,” 426–33.

216  Michael W. Duggan

deposing Menelaus from office and seeing to his execution precedes the narrative of the king guaranteeing Jews the rights to the temple in the wake of his inability to defeat Judas and his troops at Beth-Zur (13:3–8). Razis suffers martyrdom at the hands of Nicanor as a consequence of Alcimus inciting Demetrius I Soter to have the general do away with Judas (14:37–46; cf. 14:3–14, 26–33). The opening story of the heavenly rider and his companions banishing Heliodorus from the temple treasury is a self-contained episode that functions as a prelude which introduces themes that arise in the narrative that follows (3:1– 40; 4:1–15:37).10 The venerable Onias of the introductory lines appears again at the end of the story in a dream vision to Judas Maccabeus in order to empower him to victory in his final battle, through the agency of Jeremiah (15:12–16). His early adherence to the ancestral laws foreshadows the comportment of the martyrs as well as Judas and his companions (3:1; cf. 6:28; 7:2; 8:21). At the same time, the priest’s impeccable Torah observance makes him the counterpoint to Jason, Menelaus and Alcimus, all of whom are notoriously corrupt (3:1; cf. 4:11; 13:8; 14:3–4). Onias denies Heliodorus entrance to the temple treasury whereas Menelaus gives Antiochus IV Epiphanes free access (3:16–21; cf. 5:15–16). Heliodorus, for his part, functions as a prototype for Antiochus IV Epiphanes, being a Seleucid intruder into the temple treasury whose afflictions ultimately cause him to acknowledge the sovereignty of Israel’s God (5:15–16; 9:4b–5, 18, 28; cf. 3:26, 33–34). Nicanor and Lysias, the Seleucid commanders, follow suit as gentile foes who make similar statements (8:34–36; 11:13). The epiphany of the horse and rider repelling Heliodorus from the temple foreshadows the respective epiphanies of the five heavenly riders and then a single horseman empowering Judas and his troops to victory in battle (3:24–28; cf. 10:29–30; 11:8–11).11 The manifestation of the resplendent heavenly cavalry over Jerusalem represents a contrast as it indicates divine readiness but not engagement throughout the period when the Jewish populace were annihilated and martyred (5:2–4; cf. 4:1–7:42). The two categories of epiphanies reflect a narrative design in which the periods of divine activity frame the period of divine inertia (3:1–40; 8:1–15:37; cf. 4:1–7:42).

10 Bickerman’s analysis (“Heliodorus,” 432–64) remains an essential reference point for interpreting this episode. 11 Doran (Temple Propaganda, 47–52, 98–104) perceives that the Heliodorus episode exhibits the contours of Hellenistic narrations of deities defending their temples, while the other three epiphanies correspond with depictions of Greco-Roman deities protecting their cities or territories.

Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees 

217

2 The epitomist: divine discipline and mercy shape Judaism (2:19–15:38) The epitomist reinterprets the original descriptions of God’s interactions with the Jewish populace by employing the terminology of divine wrath and divine mercy in order to differentiate the period when the Jewish population suffer catastrophe under Antiochus IV Epiphanes from the subsequent period when they regain control of the city and temple due to the successes of Judas Maccabeus (4:1–7:42; cf. 8:1–15:37). In doing so, he recasts the dynamic of God’s relationship to the Jews in the period of Jerusalem’s desolation. Where Jason of Cyrene made no mention of God’s action in the narration of this period, the epitomist describes this as a time when God expresses divine wrath in order to discipline the Jewish populace (5:17–20). Whereas the manifestation of the heavenly cavalry stationed over Jerusalem for forty days had indicated God’s presence but inaction in the narrative of Jason of Cyrene, this epiphany suggests a type of divine presence that is educative for the Jewish citizens, in light of the epitomist’s comments (5:2–4; cf. 6:12–17). The terminology of divine wrath serves to eliminate the impression of unsurpassed dominance that Antiochus exercises when his forces occupy Jerusalem and desecrate the temple (5:11–6:11). The epitomist’s portrayal of divine wrath transforms the Seleucid power into a mere instrument of education that God employs to instruct the Jews in the discipline of Torah observance (ὀργῆ 5:17–18; παιδεία 6:12, 16). The epitomist thereby portrays God as exercising sovereignty over the Seleucid empire in the period of Jewish desolation, which the corrupt high priests initiated, just as in the period of Jewish resurgence, which Judas Maccabeus accomplished (4:1–7:42; cf. 8:1–15:37). By representing God’s wrath as paideia, the epitomist portrays the Jewish horror as educative and eventually empowering due to the martyrs’ persistence in Torah observance at the cost of their lives. Their sacrifice effected God’s reconciliation with the Jews, which ushers in the era of mercy when God’s agency enables Judas and his forces to overcome the imperial armies and regain Jerusalem and the temple on behalf of all Jews (καταλλαγή 5:20; cf. 7:33; 8:29). I describe the epitomist’s work in two steps: firstly, I discuss his perspective on Jason’s opus as he outlines it in his introduction; and secondly, I examine the vocabulary related to divine wrath and mercy in his editorial comments.

218  Michael W. Duggan

2.1 The epitomist’s introduction (2 Macc 2:19–32) In the opening statement of his preface, the epitomist indicates that he revised the work of Jason of Cyrene by giving priority to the achievements of Judas Maccabeus and his troops (2:19–23).12 The first words of the Greek text summarize the subject matter of the story, “The issues concerning Judas Maccabeus and his brothers” (2:19a).13 The phrase, “Judas Maccabeus and his brothers” is unique to the epitomist as it occurs nowhere else in 2 Maccabees. However, the form resembles the diplomatic protocol that the delegation of Eupolemus employed when addressing the senate in Rome, according to the Hasmonean author of 1 Maccabees (1 Macc 8:20; cf. 2 Macc 4:11). Moreover, “Judas and his brothers” (minus “Maccabeus”) is a phrase emblematic of 1 Maccabees but is not found in 2 Maccabees. While the epitome mentions Simon and Jonathan on occasion, the depictions of their associations with Judas lack the emphasis on the fraternal bonds that bespeak Hasmonean leadership in 1 Maccabees (2 Macc 8:22–23; 10:19; 14:17; cf. 1 Macc 2:2–5). In 1 Maccabees “Judas and his brothers” function as a sort of leadership council whereas the epitome portrays Judas as exercising his authority quite independently of his brothers.14 When narrating the military operations, Jason Cyrene frequently used “Maccabeus” as a synonym for Judas (2 Macc 8:1–15:37).15 It is vital to note that, in the epitomist’s introduction, the full name “Judas Maccabeus” points forward both to the first mention of the hero as he escapes to the wilderness with some ten companions prior to the defilement of the temple, and also to the first words in the account of Judas’s recruiting troops to defeat the imperial armies (5:27; 8:1).16 In his complex introductory sentence, the epitomist indicates his perspective by listing the primary focal points, which he selected from the composition by Jason of Cyrene (2:19–23). After naming the protagonist, he specifies six components of Judas’s accomplishments, which one may note in the narrative that follows: (a) the purification of the temple and dedication of the altar (10:1–8); (b) the wars against Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Antiochus V Eupator (8:8–36; 12 For an examination of the epitomist’s preface, in relation to current research on editorial strategies in Second Temple and Greco-Roman texts, see Borchardt, “Reading Aid,” 82–85. 13 Τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἰόυδαν τὸν Μακκαβαῖον καὶ τοὺς τούτου ἀδελφοὺς (2 Macc 2:19). 14 Cf. 1 Macc 3:25, 42; 4:36, 59; 5:10, 55, 61, 63, 65; 7:6, 10, 27; 9:19, 31; 13:8; 14:8. 15 Note the twenty occurrences of “Maccabeus” as a self-standing name in 2 Maccabees (8:5, 16; 10:1, 16, 19, 21, 25, 30, 33, 35; 11:6, 7, 15; 12:19, 20, 24, 27, 30; 15:7, 21) compared to its single occurrence in 1 Macc 5:34. 16 Note the similar wording for Judas’s earliest associates in both verses (σὺν τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτου 5:27; καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ 8:1). Elsewhere the name “Judas Maccabeus” occurs only in Alcimus’s description of him as the leader of the Hasideans (14:6).

Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees 

219

10:10–11:15; 12:1–13:26); (c) the epiphanies of divine warriors to support Judas on the battlefield (10:29–31; 11:8–11); (d) the Jewish reclamation of the temple and the liberation of Jerusalem (15:20–37; cf. 11:25); (e) the restoration of governance according to Jewish law (11:24–25, 30–31); and (f) the Lord becoming graciously merciful (8:5, 27). This list reinforces the epitomist’s focus on Judas as all of these episodes are found in the second half of the narrative, which describes the successes of the hero and his hand-picked troops (8:1–15:37). It suggests that the epitomist viewed Jason of Cyrene’s composition from back to front, so to speak, and that he read the first half of the story in light of the outcomes wrought by Judas Maccabeus (3:1–7:42; cf. 8:1–15:37). In this list of episodes, the only allusion to the first half of the narrative is the concluding description of the Lord having become merciful and acting with complete kindness toward Judas, his company, and by extension, the Jewish populace (2:22). In this first theological comment in the abridgement, the epitomist proposes that the successful outcomes of all Judas’s activities, which he had just listed, were due to the Lord’s mercy. The reflection here points forward to the seminal statement, which represents the turning point of the story, “…for the wrath of the Lord had turned to mercy” (8:5). I suggest that the epitomist inserted this remark to explain why Judas’s forces would prove to be invincible when engaging the Seleucid armies in all the battles throughout the remainder of the narrative. His editorial note makes explicit what he had implied in his introduction, namely, that Lord’s disposition toward the Jews changed once Judas took centre stage (2:22).

2.2 The epitomist’s editorial comments The epitomist employs the antonyms wrath and mercy as the binary descriptors of the Lord’s demeanor toward the Jews (8:5). They serve as the defining elements in his presentation of this fifteen-year portion of Jewish history as a dichotomy in which the era of divine wrath gives way to the era of divine mercy. He introduces the period of God’s mercy when Judas assembles his force of six thousand specialists in guerilla tactics (8:5–7, 16). The Lord’s mercy becomes manifest primarily in the theatre of warfare. The initial defeat of Nicanor’s army by Judas’s troops marks the actual “beginning of mercy” to them (8:27 ἀρχή ἐλέους). When engaging Lysias’s army near Jerusalem, Judas’s troops praise “the merciful Lord” in response to the epiphany of the heavenly horseman who empowered Judas’s troops to victory (11:9–10). In both of these engagements, the narrative depicts the Lord as the “ally” of Judas’s troops on the battlefield (8:24; 11:10 συμμάχος). During his campaigns in Idumea, Judas enters the battle-

220  Michael W. Duggan

field calling upon the Lord to engage in the battle alternatively as their “ally” or “ally and leader” (10:16 συμμάχος; 12:36 συμμάχος καὶ προοδηγός τοῦ πολέμου). The epitomist supplies the first mention of mercy in the last of three reflections, which he inserts into the first half of his narrative (4:16–17; 5:17–20; 6:12– 17). In reflecting on the reign of terror that Antiochus IV Epiphanes had perpetrated upon Jerusalem, which included the slaughter of Jews by the thousands, the desecration of the temple and the outlawing of Jewish practice in the city and outlying region, the epitomist addresses his audience with the assurance that the Lord, “… never withdraws mercy from us” (6:16). Within the surrounding context he describes the expression of such mercy as twofold: firstly, the Lord ensures that the Jewish people suffer immediate, rather than deferred, consequences for their wrongdoing; and secondly, on such occasions he never abandons them (6:12–13, 16). The epitomist’s focus on divine mercy in the final reflection contrasts with his concentration on divine wrath in his prior commentary on Antiochus’s raiding of the temple treasury (5:17–20). The emphasis on the Lord’s “wrath” provides the inclusio for the epitomist’s editorial (5:17, ἀπώργισται … ὁ δεσπότης; 5:20 ἐν τῇ τοῦ παντακράτορος ὀργῇ). Far from being demonstrations of imperial power, the monarch’s tyranny over Jerusalem and invasion of the temple precincts are the consequences of Jewish offenses against the Mosaic law. Furthermore, when introducing the theme, the epitomist emphasizes that the Lord’s anger is of a comparatively brief duration (5:17 βραχέως). The decimation of the city’s populace and desolation of the temple were the eventual effects of the Hellenization campaign, which the high priest Jason had instituted and which his replacement, Menelaus, enforced in connivance with Antiochus (4:11–15, 43–50; 5:15–16, 22–23). The epitomist confirms the connections by placing the first of his three comments immediately after the description of Jason’s initiating of his program by establishing a gymnasium to educate young Jews in Greek customs and neglecting temple rituals (4:16–17). His foretelling that the Jews, who forsook their ancestral traditions, would be the victims of their Hellenistic mentors introduces his emphasis on retributive justice as determining the contours of Jewish history.17 The forsaking of adherence to Jewish law accounts for the suffering of the Jewish citizenry and their loss of control over Jerusalem in the period of the Lord’s wrath (4:16–17; 5:17–20; 6:12– 17). However, observance of their ancestral traditions will empower the Jewish 17 The epitomist’s description of retribution complements the representations of consequences tailored to the wrongdoings at various points in the narrative. Beate Ego (“God’s justice,” 146–51) identifies such instances in 2 Macc 4:38; 9:28; 13:6–8; 15:31–33. She examines the explications of divine justice as applied to Antiochus IV Epiphanes in particular (9:5–10).

Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees 

221

populace to victory over their oppressors which will result in their taking control over Jerusalem and the temple, in the period of divine mercy (4:17; cf. 8:36; 11:13). The martyrs—particularly Eleazar, the seven brothers, and their mother—activate the transition from the era of divine wrath to the era of divine mercy. When addressing Antiochus, his imperial executioner, the seventh brother employs the first-person plural (“we” and “us”) and, thereby speaks on behalf of the whole Jewish populace.18 From a synchronic perspective this brother succinctly encapsulates language that the epitomist employs in both of his commentaries (7:32–33; cf. 5:17–20; 6:12–17). From a diachronic perspective, the epitomist seems to have drawn upon the vocabulary, which this brother uses, to describe the cause and the outcomes of martyrdom: (a) its cause, being “sins” on the part of Jews (ἁμαρτίαι 7:22, 32; cf. 5:17; 6:15); (b) the divine power operative being the Lord’s “anger” (ἐποργίζομαι 7:33; cf. ὀργή 5:20); (c) the “short” duration of this divine wrath (βραχέως 7:33, 36 [βραχύν]; cf. 5:17); (d) the divine purpose of the wrath, being a kind of “discipline” for Jews (παιδεία 7:33; cf. 6:12); and (e) the effect of the martyrs’ deaths being God’s reconciliation with the Jews (καταλλάσσω 7:33; cf. καταλλαγή 5:20; 8:29). The seventh brother’s words confirm that one may view the period of divine wrath as the season of divine discipline. In his final words, the seventh brother declares that suffering death for observance of the ancestral laws will usher in the impending era of divine mercy by putting an end to the period of divine wrath (7:37–38). His foresight adds substance to the epitomist’s comment that Lord does not withdraw mercy from the Jewish community (6:16). The narration of the last martyr’s promise of divine mercy leads directly into the introduction of Judas Maccabeus recruiting observant Jews into his force of six thousand. The prayers of Judas’s troops serve to frame the narrative of their initial victory over the Seleucid army under Nicanor’s command (8:1–29). They begin with a prayer that the Lord would exercise compassion toward the temple, “mercy” toward Jerusalem, and remembrance of the martyrs (8:3 ἐλέω). Following their defeat of the imperial forces, Judas’s troops implore the “merciful Lord” to be reconciled to the Jewish populace (8:29 τὸν ἐλεήμονα κύριον; cf. 11:9 τὸν ἐλεήμονα θεόν). Such mercy began with their initial victory and is demonstrated in subsequent defeats that Judas’s forces administer to their Seleucid oppressors in subsequent battles (11:10 ἐλέω; 13:12 τὸν ἐλεήμονα κύριον).

18 On the enunciations of divine justice that the seventh brother addresses to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, see Ego, “God’s justice,” 149, 152–53.

222  Michael W. Duggan

In retrospect, one may perceive that the discipline, which observant Jews experienced in the period of wrath, served as training for their survivors to act in consort with God’s initiatives in the season of mercy. While cleansing the temple, Judas and his companions ask only that, as a consequence of any future lack of adherence to Torah on their part, the Lord would discipline them “with favor” rather than allowing them to fall under the control of foreign nations (10:4 μετ᾽ ἐπιεικείας παιδείθεσθαι; cf. 6:12–16). This singular mention of acting “with favor” in the narrative recalls the epitomist culminating his introductory summary of Jewish successes by describing the Lord as becoming “merciful with all favor” toward Judas and his companions (μετὰ πάσης ἐπιεικείας ἳλεως γενομένου αὐτοῖς 2:22). In summary, the epitomist’s employment of the antonyms “wrath” and “mercy” to describe the alteration in the Lord’s dispositions toward the Jewish populace serves to partition the epitome into two major sections. The era of divine wrath begins with the plot to undermine Onias, the exemplary high priest, on the part of Simon, Menelaus’s brother, and ends with the death of the seven brothers and their mother (4:1–7:42). The era of mercy commences with Judas Maccabeus recruiting his 6,000 troops and concludes with their taking control of the temple and the city of Jerusalem following their final victory over the Seleucid army under the command of Nicanor (8:1–15:37). Structurally contraposing the two eras serves to emphasize that the quality of Torah observance on the part of the Jews determines the fate of the temple, Jerusalem and the Jewish homeland. Non-observance of the ancestral traditions is met with divine wrath whereas adherence to the tenets of Judaism ushers in the era of divine mercy. The martyrs’ exemplary consent to the discipline of divine wrath illustrates the allegiance to Jewish laws that results in the return of Jewish governance over the city and the temple.19 In the complete narrative, the stories of Onias and Judas, who secure the temple on account of their Torah observance, constitutes the framework around the era of divine wrath (3:1–40; 4:1–7:42; 8:1–15:37). The era of divine wrath consists of two parts, the second of which profiles the martyrs as the most heroic of all who observe Torah (6:12–7:42). Predominant focus on the systemic abandonment of the ancestral traditions in Jewish society is limited to the first segment of the wrathful era (4:1–6:11).

19 Disregard for the Jewish ancestral laws by the high priests Jason and Menelaus results in the desolation of Jerusalem and its citizens (2 Macc 4:11, 17; 5:8, 15; 6:1). The martyrs are executed because of their adherence to the laws of God (7:2, 9, 11, 23, 30, 37). Judas Maccabeus and his companions follow their example in being willing to die in defence of their laws (8:21; 13:14). Adherence to the laws of God accounts for their success in battle (8:36).

Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees 

223

3 The temple cleansing and its inaugural festival in the epitome (10:1–8) The festival of temple cleansing on the twenty-fifth of Chislev and the celebration of the victory over Nicanor on the thirteenth of Adar are enshrined as annual commemorations of Judas Maccabeus’s achievements. As such they constitute the high points of the abridgement. The full narrative culminates with the designation of the thirteenth of Adar as the day to commemorate annually the vanquishing of Nicanor and the Seleucid forces by Judas Maccabeus and his troops in 161 BCE (15:36; 151 SE). The establishment of this single festal day resonates with the earlier inauguration of the eight-day festival on the twenty-fifth of Chislev in 164 BCE to celebrate the Jewish reclamation of the temple by Judas and his troops (10:1–8, 148 SE). Actually, both festivals commemorate the retaking of the city and temple from foreign control as the original reclamation was provisional and had to be reconfirmed in view of the increased Seleucid enmity toward Judas subsequent to his initial successes (10:1; cf. 15:37). Both festivals are established by the will of the Jewish citizens. The practically identical language, which is emblematic of a constitutional edict authorized by popular vote, secures the bond between the festivals.20 However, an essential difference between the edicts pertains to the constituency who are to observe each festival. Nicanor Day is a celebration for the Jewish populace in Jerusalem and Judea. However, the festival of temple cleansing (i. e., Hanukkah) is a festival for “all Jewish people” (παντὶ τῷ Ἰουδαίων ἒθνει 10:8) and therefore is to be observed by Jews in the diaspora as well as in the homeland. According to the list of the hero’s accomplishments in the first lines of his preface, the epitomist views the temple purification as the foremost achievement of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers (2:19). Within the epitome, the noun “purification” recurs only in the narrative of Judas and his troops doing this work in the sacred precincts (καθαρισμός 2:19; 10:5). The repetition of the verb “to purify” defines the work that Judas and his cohort completed (καθαρίζω 10:3, 7). The significance of their achievement is subsequently evident in the priests’ response to Nicanor’s final threat (14:36). It is noteworthy that, in his preface, the epitomist refers to the “dedication” of the altar, but there is no mention of this ritual in the narrative of the temple cleansing (ὁ ἐγκαινισμός 2:19). The dedication of the altar of sacrifice is the focal point of the community 20 See Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 7–8, 279–80, 379. 2 Macc 10:8: ἐδογμάτισαν δε μετὰ κοινοῦ προστάγματος καὶ ψηφίσματος παντὶ τῷ Ἰουδαίων ἒθνει; 2 Macc 15:36: ἐδογμάτισαν δὲ πάντες μετὰ κοινοῦ ψηφίσματος

224  Michael W. Duggan

celebration according to the parallel narrative in 1 Maccabees (1 Macc 4:52–56). Prior to recounting the festivities, the Hasmonean historian demonstrates unparalleled attention to detail in describing the deliberations that went into the dismantling of the former altar and the construction of its replacement (4:44– 47). The abridgement, for its part, concentrates on the lighting of the sacrificial fire (2 Macc 10:4).21 The workers ignited the sacrificial offerings by a flame they took from rocks which they had heated to glowing red. The description indicates that this fire was original, unique and natural. It was unusual insofar as it did not derive either from elements of a preexisting fire or from flammable materials. How rocks could have produced the fire opens up the possibility of subtle divine agency or oversight. The suggestion of such agency is more accentuated in the notification that sacrificial offerings recommenced two years to the day after the temple had been desecrated according to a directive from Antiochus IV Epiphanes (βεβηλόω 10:5; 8:2 cf. μολύνω 6:2). The introductory phrase “it happened that” suggests that the timing is indicative of Lord’s demonstrating retributive justice by restoring the fortunes of the Jews in the era of mercy (συνέβη 10:5; cf. 3:2; 9:2, 7: 13:7). The narratives in both 1 and 2 Maccabees accentuate the premise that the temple cleansing had to be carried out by Torah-observant Jews. The Hasmonean historian describes Judas as assigning the task to priests who were distinguished by their impeccable adherence to the Mosaic law (1 Macc 4:42). They alone carry out the work of deconstructing the defiled altar of sacrifice, storing its stones, building the new altar, restoring the sanctuary and recommencing the incense offerings inside the temple (1 Macc 4:43–51). The epitome represents a startling contrast insofar as it makes no mention of priests exercising any role in the purification of the temple (2 Macc 10:1–8). Judas and his associates carry out the tasks that normally would have been reserved for priests, namely the recommencing of offerings at the altar of sacrifice and the altar of incense, the lighting of the oil lamps and the arranging of the showbreads (2 Macc 10:3; cf. 1 Macc 1:50–51, 53; Exod 30:1, 7–9; Lev 1:3–9; 24:2–9).22 The fact that priests did not assume these responsibilities implies that there were no observant priests remaining in the city. Their absence from the temple restoration reflects the

21 For a comparison between the respective emphases in the accounts of the temple cleaning in 1 and 2 Maccabees, see Duggan, “Hanukkah,” 184–88. 22 In contrast to 1 Maccabees, the epitome does not ascribe a priestly lineage to Judas and his brothers (cf. 1 Macc 2:1–5). The narrative of the temple cleansing gives no indication that the actions of Judas and his companions were symbolic of their arrogating to themselves a priestly identity or status.

Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees 

225

degradation of priestly service at the temple when Jason and Menelaus exercised the office of high priest (2 Macc 4:7–22, 23–25).23 Judas and his closely knit band of companions accomplished the work of purifying the temple on their own because the narrative profiles them as perhaps the only thoroughly observant Jews in the city. The event of temple cleansing marks the return of Judas and his entourage to take control of a defiled city and temple (10:1; cf. 8:33). They had departed from Jerusalem precisely in order to avoid the defilement that Seleucids were about to perpetrate upon the temple (μολυσμός 5:27; cf. μολύνω 6:2). In the account of their leave from the city, the narrative describes Judas as “about the tenth” among his companions (δέκατός που…σὺν τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτου 5:27), thereby indicating that he and his associates comprised a minyan of the righteous.24 The next mention of this cohort recounts them touring rural villages to expand their membership to six thousand individuals who had continued to practice Judaism (8:1–4). Their commitment to observing the ancestral laws accounted for their initial victory over Nicanor’s army (8:21, 36). The series of their triumphs over the forces of Timothy and Bacchides gave them access to Jerusalem (8:33). By its very nature the temple purification consists in erasing the vestiges of its defilement (καθαρισμός 10:5; it is the antonym of μολυσμός 5:27). Torah observance equips Judas and his associates to rectify the lawlessness that Jason, the temple priests and Menelaus had perpetrated (4:11, 14; 6:21; 8:4; 13:7). The epitomist’s vocabulary of divine retribution is most evident in the prayer of those who purified the sacred precincts. In the eventuality of future sin on their part, they pray that the Lord would discipline them with moderation (10:4). Sins of the Jewish populace accounted for the desolation of the Jerusalem and the deaths of martyrs (ἁμαρτάνω 7:18; 10:4; cf. ἁμαρτία 5:17; 6:14, 15; 7:32). In response to such egregious transgressions of the ancestral laws, the Lord administers his discipline (παιδεύω 6:16; 10:4; παιδεία 6:12; 7:33). The moderate quality of this discipline expresses the Lord’s kindness, which is emblematic of the era of mercy according to the epitomist’s preface (μετ᾽ ἐπιεικίας 10:4; cf. 2:22). Moreover, Judas’s companions conclude their prayer with the appeal that the Jews would not be handed over to “barbarian nations,” a term that echoes the epitomist’s early mention of “barbarian hordes” (βάρβαρος 10:4; cf. 2:21).

23 In spite of the fact that Alcimus also proved to be treacherous toward Judas, the priests at the temple give evidence of being faithful to their duties during his tenure (14:3–14, 26; cf. 14:31–36; 15:31). 24 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 267–68. The Rule of the Community describes the protocols for a minyan of ten leading men at Qumran (1QS 6:3–7a).

226  Michael W. Duggan

The narrative describes the initial celebration of the temple purification as following “the pattern of booths” (σκηνωμάτων τρόπος) in view of the fact that Judas and his companions had not been able to partake in the Festival of Booths due to their inhabiting outlying areas some two months earlier (10:6–7). Since Sukkot was one of the three annual pilgrimage festivals, Jerusalem was the required location for partaking in its festivities (Lev 23:40; Deut 16:15; 31:10).25 References to mountainous terrain and the cohort’s surviving like animals recalls the description of their originally quitting Jerusalem (10:6; cf. 5:27). Both texts accentuate an adherence to dietary laws on the part of Judas and his companions. Upon entering the wilderness, they avoid defilement by living on grassy foodstuffs, a description that recalls the divine dietary prescription at creation (τὴν χορτωδὴ τροφὴν σιτούμενοι διετέλουν 5:27; cf. LXX Gen 1:29–30). Their more recent foraging like wild animals again accentuates such eating habits (νέμω 10:6). Both texts serve to align the behavior of Judas’s cohort with the commitment of the martyrs, Eleazar, the seven brothers, and their mother who are put to death for refusing to eat what is forbidden by Mosaic Torah (cf. 6:19–20; 7:1). The mention of mountain caves confirms the solidarity between Judas’s company and Jews who had been martyred for observing Sabbath by hiding in such places near Jerusalem (10:6; cf. 6:11). Hence, the celebration of the temple purification includes a remembrance of the manner in which Judas and his companions lived in the wilderness and by association recalls the exemplary Torah observance of the Jewish martyrs. The temple cleansing ceremony mirrors the festival of Sukkot on two counts: its duration of eight days and its joyous tenor (10:7). The eight days are emblematic of the prescriptions for Sukkot in the Priestly and Holiness traditions (Num 29:12–38 [P]; Lev 23:33–36 [H]; 23:39–43 [H]). The focus on joy in the narrative reflects the mandate for celebrating the festival as the ingathering of the fruit tree produce in the Holiness Code (Lev 23:40; cf. Deut 16:14).26 Fronds of the palm tree play a role in both texts as the narrative describes people waving them in their celebratory procession, whereas in the Holiness Code they are listed among the components for constructing booths in commemoration of the Exodus (2 Macc 10:7; cf. Lev 23:40; Neh 8:15).27 25 Judas and his companions also journey to Jerusalem for the Festival of Weeks (2 Macc 12:31b). 26 Simkovich (“Greek Influence,” 298–303) perceives that, as an imitation of Greek holidays, a Jewish festival, which is concerned with renewing loyalty to “ancestral laws,” provides diaspora Jews with a festive alternative to celebrations in honor of Dionysius, for example (10:5–6; cf. 6:7). The timing of the joyous eight-day festival of the temple cleansing late in the month of Chislev makes it an alternative to a Dionysian celebration of the winter solstice. 27 Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot, 62–63.

Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees 

227

4 The Temple festival and time in the prefatory letters (1:1–10a; 1:10b–2:18) The two letters build upon the original declaration that the commemoration of the temple cleansing is a festival for all Jews (πᾶς τό τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἒθνος 10:8). Each letter from the Jewish community in the homeland elaborates upon the significance of this annual observance for their compatriots in Egypt. The second letter does so by connecting Judas’s achievement to the inaugurations of both the First and the Second Temple. The first letter recontextualizes the festival observance within God’s covenant with the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Both letters emphasize that Jewish identity is intimately connected to the land of Israel. Each letter asserts that celebrating the days of booths in the month of Chislev will inspire Jews in the diaspora to observe Torah with renewed vigor. It is preferable here to begin by examining the second letter since some of its ingredients resurface in the first letter.

4.1 The Second letter (1:10b–2:18) In their invitation for Jews in Egypt to celebrate the temple cleansing on the twenty-fifth of Chislev, the authors in Jerusalem express a particular concern to focus on the significance of Sukkot and the fire for the festival (1:18). They do so by tying both elements to Nehemiah’s achievements in reconstructing the temple and altar of sacrifice. Their letter contains an extensive account of his providing the fire to initiate sacrificial offerings at the Second Temple and then traces the origins of the fire to the dedication of the First Temple during the Festival of Sukkot (1:19–36; 2:9–12). Hence, this story offers alternative perspectives on items that are central to the portrayal of the temple cleansing in the epitome (10:1–8). In matters concerning time in 2 Maccabees, the letter contributes a unique eschatological perspective as it profiles the Jerusalem temple and the land of Israel as the destiny of all Jews.28 In the second letter, the theme of purification frames the full story of the Jerusalem temple (1:18–2:18) and also the account of Nehemiah’s activities at the temple (1:18–36). The narrative begins with the leaders in Jerusalem inviting their compatriots to celebrate the festival of purification and ends with an admonition that they would do so (καθαρισμός 1:18; 2:16). The letter concludes with the assertion that God “has purified” the temple, with the verb being the 28 For a more complete treatment of the second letter, see Duggan, “Rediscoveries,” 83–98.

228  Michael W. Duggan

final word in the letter (καθαρίζω 2:18). The account of Nehemiah’s supervising the igniting of the post-exilic sacrificial fire begins with a reference to the purification of the temple and ends with his translating the “nephthar” as “purification” (καθαρισμός 1:18, 36). Since the nephthar is the residue that bursts into flames to recommence the sacrificial offerings, the fire becomes synonymous with purification in the story. The letter highlights Nehemiah’s identity as a Jew from the Persian diaspora who uses his connections with the king of Persia to enshrine the place where the priests from Jerusalem had discovered the nephthar (1:20, 33–36).29 Nehemiah oversees every step in obtaining, handling and disposing of the nephthar. He commissions the priests to find the residue, instructs them in applying it to the firewood and sacrificial offerings, witnesses the sun igniting it, orders the remainder of it to be applied to the stones so as to be set alight, and reports the story to the King of Persia (1:20b–23, 31–35). Hence the narrative illustrates that Second Temple Judaism originated in the Persian diaspora and the recommencement of sacrificial offerings at the temple is the work of a diaspora Jew. Such a story is designed to portray the Second Temple as an enterprise of diaspora Judaism for the Jews in Egypt. The letter surpasses the epitome in accentuating the marvelous manner in which the sacrificial rites begin afresh. The description of Judas’s cohort transferring a flame from red hot stones pales by comparison to the depiction of the sun igniting the antiquated nephthar to set the wood and offerings ablaze in a manner that astonishes the attending officials (1:20b–23, 31–32; cf. 10:3). The nephthar is the means of continuity which connects the sacrifices at the Second Temple to those of the First Temple. Credit for preserving the fire substance throughout the exilic period goes to priests who are known for their devotion, the quality which is emblematic of Onias in the epitome (1:19; cf. 3:1). The fire, which bursts forth on the altar of sacrifice that Nehemiah had constructed, originated as the fire from heaven that had consumed the offerings that Solomon provided at the rites of dedication for the First Temple (2:9; cf. 2 Chr 7:1–2). The fire that ignited in response to Moses’ invocation at Mount Sinai provided the precedent for such a divinely sent fire (2 Macc 2:10; cf. Lev 9:23–24). The letter refers to the Festival of Booths when it describes Solomon as also keeping the eight days following the temple dedication (2 Macc 2:12; cf. 1:18). The phrasing refers to the Chronicler’s description of the eight day Festival of Booths which follows the seven days allotted to the dedication of the First Tem-

29 Nehemiah’s connections to the King of Persia may call to mind the access Aristobulus had to King Ptolemy (1:10).

Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees 

229

ple (2 Chr 7:8–9; cf. 2 Chr 7:1–3; Lev 23:36, 39).30 In light of the connections which the nephthar establishes from the first sacrificial rites at the First Temple to the commencement of sacrifices at the Second Temple, one must note that according to Ezra-Nehemiah, the Festival of Booths provided the occasion for initiating the sacrificial rites at the temple site (Ezra 3:1–6; cf. 2 Macc 1:20–24). By associating the eight days of the Festival of Booths with Solomon’s activities, the second letter interprets the observance as a temple festival (2:12). The celebration of Sukkot in the month of Chislev is a festival that profiles the temple cleansing by Judas and his colleagues as standing in continuity with the establishment of the Second Temple and the dedication of the First Temple by Solomon.31 By comparison, mention of the eight days of joy in the account of the inaugural celebration in the epitome tends to blur the distinction between Sukkot as a harvest festival on one hand and a commemoration of the temple cleansing on the other (10:6; cf. Lev 23:40; Deut 16:14–15). Moreover, the account in the epitome associates the Festival of Booths with the heroics of Judas and companions whereas the second letter profiles the festival as a celebration of the temple’s cohesive history, which extends from its Solomonic origins to its post-exilic reconstruction and subsequent purification (10:6; cf. 1:18–2:12). In the epitome, the Festival of Booths celebrates Judas and his cohort whereas in the second letter the festival is a celebration of the temple and the history of Israel. The significance of the temple purification for all Jews becomes accentuated in the three references to the eventual return of Jews from the diaspora to Israel in the letter (1:27–29; 2:7, 18). These statements are voiced by the priests in prayerful response to the igniting of the sacrificial offerings, by Jeremiah in his instruction regarding his hiding of the ark and the tent of meeting at Mount Nebo, and by the authors in the conclusion of their letter (1:24–29; 2:4–9, 16– 18). Common to all three declarations is the assertion that God “will gather” all Jews together in the land of Israel ([ἐπι]συνάγω 1:27; 2:7, 18). The priests employ the term “our diaspora” to identify the community whom God so engages (τὴν διασπορὰν ἡμῶν). They go on to address God with the request “Plant your people in your holy place,” an expression which refers to the exodus community settling in the land of Canaan (1:29; cf. Exod 15:17; Ps 44:3; 80:8–9). The authors of the letter follow suit by referring to God’s “holy place” to designate the land of 30 The Deuteronomistic historian describes the dedication of the temple lasting for seven days during the Festival of Booths (1 Kgs 8:2; cf. 8:65). See Duggan, “Hanukkah,” 177–79. 31 For a description of how Nehemiah serves as a prototype for Judas in the letter, see Duggan, “Rediscoveries,” 95–96. Bergren (“Nehemiah,” 255–63) offers a fine discussion of various attempts to account for Nehemiah’s role in the narrative. See also Bergren, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 357–59.

230  Michael W. Duggan

Israel as the ultimate destiny of Jews from everywhere in the diaspora (2:18). Throughout the concluding exhortation the authors employ language that makes no distinction between Jews in the homeland and their associates in the diaspora as they emphasize that God has saved “all his people,” has returned the inheritance “to all” and has rescued “us” (2:16–18).32 Jeremiah, for his part, indicates that Israel is the location where God will gather all his people and equates their return to the homeland with the restoration of divine glory to the temple (2:8). It is noteworthy that “mercy” is mentioned within the context of each of the three statements. Merciful is one of the divine attributes in the priests’ opening invocation (1:25). Jeremiah speaks of Jews returning from the diaspora to Israel as demonstrating the renewal of God’s mercy (2:8). Moreover, in the final sentence, the authors express their hope that God will soon show mercy to all Jews by reuniting them in the land of Israel (2:18). These statements indicate that the authors of the letter express mercy in eschatological terms which thereby reflects a distinction from the epitomist’s emphasis on mercy as the change in the divine disposition that accounts for the unmitigated success of Judas and his companions (8:5, 27).

4.2 The First letter From a temporal perspective, the first letter concentrates on the present by pointing out various dispositions that are essential for anyone to effectively celebrate the Festival of Booths during the month of Chislev in 124 BCE.33 In identifying the senders and recipients without reference to individual authorities or office holders, the praescriptio establishes the focus on the actual practice of Judaism: the Jews in Jerusalem and the region of Judea address the Jews across Egypt as their kindred (οἰ ἀδελφοὶ 1:1). Such allusion to Jewish distinctiveness links to the heroism of those whose practice of Judaism variously resulted in victory on the battlefield, in the case of Judas and his troops, or in martyrdom, in the case of Razis (Ἰουδαϊσμός 2:21; 8:1; 14:38). The first half of the letter takes the form of a prayer which the Jews in Jerusalem voice on behalf of the Jews in Egypt. The prayer consists of three wishes that fall under each of two general 32 Wheaton (“The Festival,” 248–52) argues that, by virtue of these words, Hanukkah anticipates the foreseeable restoration of all Jews to their ancestral land and the full liberation from imperial control that had begun with Judas’s seizing of the temple from the hands of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. 33 Bickerman (“A Festal Letter,” 419–22) and Schwartz (2 Maccabees, 132–33) view the first letter as a Greek translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original.

Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees 

231

categories, i. e., God’s beneficence and God’s provision of peace (1:2–5).34 The good that God would do consists of remembering the covenant with the patriarchs and stimulating the people’s determination to do God’s will and practice Torah observance (1:2–4a). The peace that God would provide derives from God’s relational actions toward the community in responding to their supplications, being reconciled to them, and not abandoning them in times of evil (1:4b–5). The sequence of eight verbs in the optative voice conveys an implied exhortation for the recipients to strengthen their Jewish practice. The specific wishes apply lessons, from the narratives in the second letter and the epitome, to the Jewish population in Egypt. The mention of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob serves to identify the land of Israel as the destiny of the Jews who currently live in Egypt (Gen 50:24; cf. 15:7–21; Exod 6:8). The Lord’s covenant with the patriarchs contains the promise that animates the vision of all Jews ultimately returning to Israel from the diaspora (2 Macc 1:27–29; 2:18). The three references to the heart recall admonitions for the people to adhere to the Deuteronomic precepts and to interiorize the law within the heart according to Jeremiah. Worshipping God from the heart vaguely resonates with Judas’s troops praying from their hearts to accomplish their victory over Nicanor’s army (15:27). Committing heart and soul to fulfilling God’s desires is practically synonymous with engaging these faculties to observe the Deuteronomic Code in a manner that makes the Jewish populace distinctive among all nations (1:3; cf. Deut 11:18; 26:16–19; 30:1–5). God’s acting to open the human heart to the law echoes Jeremiah’s language of God’s inscribing the law on the heart, which seems to provide the background for the prophet’s exhortation in the second letter (2 Macc 1:4; cf. 2:4; Jer 31:31–34). It is noteworthy that the references to Deuteronomy and Jeremiah describe the preconditions for the people to settle in their promised land. The epitome illustrates how observance of the law accounts for the inviolability of the temple and Jewish self-determination in the land (2 Macc 3:1; 8:36; 11:31). The invocation that God would hear the prayers of the Jews in Egypt points to a central thesis in the epitome, namely that in response to prayer, God defends the temple and makes Judas and his troops invincible on the battlefield (2 Macc 1:5; cf. 3:15, 22, 31; 8:2; 12:6, 15, 28, 36; 13:10; 15:21–22). The epitome further describes reconciliation with God as the effect of the martyrs dying on account of their adherence to the ancestral traditions (2 Macc 1:5; cf. 7:33; 8:29). The wish that God would not abandon the Jews in time of evil alludes to the violence and sacrilege that Menelaus and Antiochus IV Epiphanes had perpetrated in Jerusalem and Judea (κακία 4:47, 50; 6:3; 7:31). The “time of evil” is quite syn34 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 25.

232  Michael W. Duggan

onymous with the period that the epitomist describes as the era of wrath (1:5; cf. 5:17, 20). The epitomist’s account is true to the invocation in the letter insofar as he asserts that, even in such times, God does not abandon the Jewish populace (ἐγκαταλείπω 1:5; cf. 6:16). The community in Jerusalem reminds their fellow Jews in Egypt that those horrid times had provided the subject matter of the letter they had sent some twenty years earlier (2 Macc 1:7–8). Jason’s attack on the populace in Jerusalem in 168 BCE was resolved with the purification of the temple some four years later (5:5–10; 10:1–8). The letter attributes the change in Jewish fortunes to the Lord’s intervention in response to the prayer of the community, whereas the epitomist describes it as the effect of the reconciliation that the martyrs accomplished by observing Torah at the cost of their lives (7:33; 8:29). In any case, the citizens of Jerusalem and Judea assert that celebrating the Festival of Booths during the month of Chislev in 124 BCE affords all Jews the opportunity to recommit themselves to the quality of Torah observance that preserves the temple and certifies Israel as their “holy land” (1:7).

5 Conclusion Festive re-enactment of the past constitutes the primary experience of time in 2 Maccabees. Annual festivals in any liturgical calendar employ time as a function of memory. The commemoration serves to root the community in a defining moment from the past in order to shape the identity of the individual and the community in the present. The commemoration of the temple cleansing provides inspiration for the Jewish community, in Egypt as in Israel, to identify with the temple, to honor Jerusalem, to cherish the holy land, and especially to resist compromising their observance of Jewish ancestral laws by uncritically embracing Hellenistic culture. Moreover, annual festive commemorations aim to cultivate heroic virtues that distinguish a particular national or ethnic community from all others. The epitome profiles the high priest Onias, the martyrs, and Judas Maccabeus along with his companions as embodying exceptional courage, discipline and fidelity as the effects of observing the ancestral laws. The festive commemoration highlights the triumph of Torah observance over tyranny. When viewed in this context, celebrating Sukkot in the month of Chislev is a festive exercise in community memory that enhances Jewish sensitivities to the divine presence on the one hand and to the encroachments of empire, on the other.

Time and Jewish Identity in 2 Maccabees 

233

Whereas the epitome portrays the festival as a celebration of heroism on the part of Judas and his companions to regain control of Jerusalem and the temple, the second letter describes it as the occasion to contemplate the Jerusalem temple as encapsulating the history of Israel beginning with the exodus and extending in an unbroken line of tradition through the preexilic, exilic and postexilic eras. Against this horizon, the Jewish community in Egypt may recognize that their ultimate destiny consists in returning to Israel in the company of all their compatriots throughout the Jewish diaspora. The first letter confirms that this vision corresponds with the covenant that God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in promising this holy land to them and their descendants.

Bibliography Bergren, Theodore A. “Nehemiah in 2 Maccabees 1:10–2:18.” JSJ 28 (1997): 249–70. Bergren, Theodore A. “Ezra and Nehemiah Square off in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 340–66 in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. Edited by Michael E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergren. Harrisburg: Trinity, 1998. Bickerman, Elias J. “A Jewish Festal Letter of 124 B. C. E. (2 Macc 1:1–9).” Pages 408–31 in Studies in Jewish and Christian History Volume One: A New Edition in English including The God of the Maccabees. Edited by Amram Tropper. AGJU 9/1. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Bickerman, Elias J. “Heliodorus in the Temple in Jerusalem.” Pages 432–64 in Studies in Jewish and Christian History Volume One: A New Edition in English including The God of the Maccabees. Edited by Amram Tropper. AGJU 9/1. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Borchardt, Francis. “Reading Aid: 2 Maccabees and the History of Jason of Cyrene Reconsidered.” JSJ 47 (2016): 71–87. 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. Doran, Robert. “The Persecution of Judeans by Antiochus IV: The Significance of ‘Ancestral Laws’.” Pages 423–33 in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins. Edited by Daniel C. Harlow, Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff and Joel S. Kaminsky. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011. Duggan, Michael W. “Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading.” Pages 175– 201 in Intertextual Explorations in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Geoffrey David Miller. DCLS 31. New York and Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Duggan, Michael W. “Rediscoveries in Judaism: The Temple and the Return to Israel in 2 Macc 1:10–2:18.” Pages 83–99 in On the Wings of Prayer: Sources of Jewish Worship, Essays in Honor of Professor Stefan Reif on the Occasion of his Seventy-fifth Birthday. Edited by Nuria Calduch-Benages, Michael W. Duggan, and Dalia Marx. DCLS 44. New York and Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019.

234  Michael W. Duggan

Ego, Beate. “God’s Justice. The ‘Measure for Measure’ Principle in 2 Maccabees.” Pages 141– 54 in The Books of Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology: Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June 2005. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 118 Leiden: Brill, 2007. Fischer, Thomas. “Maccabees.” ABD 4.439–50. Goldstein, Jonathan. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 41A. New York: Doubleday, 1984. Hanhart, Robert, ed. Maccabaeorum liber II, copiis usus quas reliquit Werner Kappler. 2nd ed. Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum 9, 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Holladay, Carl R. “Aristobulus (OT Pseudepigrapha).” ABD 1.383–84. Parker, Victor. “The Letters in II Maccabees: Reflections on the book’s composition.” ZAW 119 (2007): 386–402. 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. Simkovich, Malka Zeiger. “Greek Influence on the Composition of 2 Maccabees.” JSJ 42 (2011): 293–310. VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Wacholder, Ben Zion. “The Letter from Judah Maccabee to Aristobulus. Is 2 Maccabees 1:10b– 2:18 Authentic?” HUCA 49 (1978): 89–133. Wheaton, Gerry. “The Festival of Hanukkah in 2 Maccabees: Its Meaning and Function.” CBQ 74 (2012): 247–62.

Friedrich V. Reiterer

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit Abstract: Time in the Book of Wisdom is a significant element of the structure of the cosmos, nature and life. The author deals with these areas because he is faced with the theses of the various philosophical schools of his time, which treated these areas. He deals with general aspects of time, particular points in time, and the course of times and periods. In addition to issues of natural philosophy, the author examines religious questions. The author asks about the meaning of dying at a young age. He sees the solution to this problem in eschatology and above all in immortality. For God is the lord beyond death and forever (eternity). In general, the author analyzes the arguments of his contemporaries, which in his opinion are repeatedly misleading, against the background of divine revelation, although he by no means strictly adheres to tradition. Rather, he always offers unexpected and new ideas. Keywords: time, the right time, duration, eternity, eschatology, chronology and its termination, Hellenism, education, providence, life after death, immortality, creation, eternal kingdom of God.

Wenn wir uns im folgenden Beitrag mit „Zeit“ und „Ewigkeit“ beschäftigen, möchten wir herausfinden, wie der Autor des Buches der Weisheit diese Dimensionen der Existenz verstanden hat bzw. in welchen Kontexten er diese Begriffe verwendet hat. Das Ergebnis wird hilfreich sein, das Weltbild des Autors des biblischen Buchs besser zu verstehen. Da er davon ausgeht, dass man seinem Werk folgen kann und er in einer Gruppe schreibt, die verhältnisgleich wie er denkt und spricht, ist das auch ein Beitrag dafür, wie „man“ zu jener Zeit „den Lauf der Welt“ gesehen und bewertet hat. Die Untersuchung geht folgende Schritte: 1. Definitionen in Nachschlagewerken; 2. Bedeutungen in philologischen Lexika; 3. Belege; 4. Einzeluntersuchungen und 5. Rückblick.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-012

236  Friedrich V. Reiterer

1 Definitionen Wer sich mit Dimensionen von „Zeit“, nämlich mit der Vorstellung bzw. Rede von „Zeit“ bzw. „Ewigkeit“ beschäftigt, betritt kein Neuland. Das gilt in mehrfacher Hinsicht. Ohne weiter darüber nachzudenken, erlebt jeder Mensch von Geburt an „Zeit.“ Er rechnet mit Vergangenem, Gegenwärtigem und Kommendem. Danach handelt und spricht er im Alltag. Sobald er reflektiert, verwendet er diese Dimensionen auch gezielt. Das setzt voraus, dass es ein Gefüge für alles Erleben und Wahrnehmen gibt, das Werden und Entwicklung umfasst. Man kann auch Vergehen einschließen, doch erfährt man selbst nur Reduktion, denn das abgeschlossene Ende der eigenen Existenz im absoluten Sinn, d. h. den erfolgten Tod, realisiert niemand persönlich, sondern stellt eine Beobachtung bei anderem bzw. anderen dar. Man kann intuitiv dem Heraklit (ca. 520–460 v. Chr.) zugeschriebenen Satz1 zustimmen, wenn man bereit ist, den Vergleich des Seins mit einem Fluss zu übernehmen: πάντα ῥεῖ. – Vielfach und in verschiedenen Disziplinen sind schon die Äußerungen zu diesen Bereichen anzutreffen. Weil schon viel geschrieben wurde, soll mit Zitaten aus Nachschlagewerken ein erster allgemeiner Befund vorgestellt werden, wie man in einerseits allgemeiner und andererseits theologischer Literatur unsere Themen beschreiben bzw. definieren kann.

1.1 Definitionen von Zeit Wie kann man Zeit in einem allgemeinen Nachschlagewerk beschreiben? „Zeit, für die gewöhnliche Auffassung ein kontinuierliches Fortschreiten, innerhalb dessen sich alle Veränderungen vollziehen. …“2 Oder: „Als philosophischer Zeitbegriff“ – theologische Aspekte kommen im Beitrag nicht in den Blick – „bedeutet die Z.[eit] die Form von Dauer, Beharren und Veränderung; sie ist formal bestimmt als das unumkehrbare Verhältnis des Nacheinander, durch das (ebenso wie durch die formale räumliche Ordnung im 1 Die Phrase wird erst beim Neuplatoniker Simplikios (ca. 490–560 n. Chr.) in diesem Wortlaut belegt. Schon früher hat nach Platons (428/427–348/347 v. Chr.) Dialog Kratylos Sokrates (ca. 469–399 v. Chr.) im Kontext der Diskussion mit Hermogenes über die Unsicherheiten bezüglich der Namen der Götter (Crat. 400d-e; 401a) auf Heraklits παλαί᾽ ἂττα σοφά, also alte Weisheit, verwiesen. Denn „alles bewegt sich fort und nichts bleibt“ (πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει), und Heraklit „vergleicht alles Seiende mit einem strömenden Fluss, und er sagt, man könne nicht zweimal in denselben Fluss steigen“ (Crat. 402a). Aristoteles (384–322 v. Chr.) äußert dem gegenüber, dass Gott als τρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον zu bestimmen sei (Metaph. 12.7 [1072a-f]). 2 „Zeit“, 92.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

237

Nebeneinander) Erfahrung allererst möglich wird. Dass die objektive Zeit nicht ohne ein reales Substrat verfließt, wurde in der antiken und mittelalterlichen Philosophie fast ausnahmslos angenommen. Dagegen sah I. Kant in ihr eine reine Anschauungsform, eine vor aller Erfahrung (a priori) liegende formale Bedingung aller Erscheinungen überhaupt, E. Husserl beschrieb das innere Zeitbewusstsein, dem der Raum einer objektiven Z. vorgegeben sei, und damit das Verhältnis von erlebter und objektiver Z. Auf dieser Grundlage sucht M. Heidegger Z. als ursprünglichen Horizont alles Seinsverständnisses und (später) alles Sich-Mitteilen des Seins zu deuten. H. Bergson hatte schon vorher die erlebte Z. als ursprünglich und schöpferisch erklärt, die objektive Z. dagegen als Konstruktion des Verstandes unter dem Gesichtspunkt des Raumes.“3 Die allgemeinen Aspekte sind im Kontext eines theologischen Nachschlagewerkes nicht sonderlich unterschiedlich zu den vorgegangenen Zitaten. Natürlich wird zudem der Befund der Bibel, der zuvor keine Rolle spielte, behandelt. Der abendländische Mensch stellt sich die Z. als eine in sich undifferenzierte gerade Linie vor, auf der alle Ereignisse in ihrem zeitlichen Abstand voneinander genau und objektiv fixiert werden können. Von seinem eigenen gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt aus (dem Jetzt oder Heute) nennt er Zukunft, was vor ihm, und Vergangenheit, was hinter ihm liegt. In beide Richtungen kann sich diese Linie unbegrenzt fortsetzen. … Während der abendländische Zeitbegriff quantitativ ist, überwiegt im hebräischen Denken der qualitative Aspekt. Die Israeliten bestimmten wie die Griechen die Z. mit Hilfe von Sonne und Mond. Aber die Griechen legten den Akzent auf deren gleichmäßige Bewegung …, die Israeliten dagegen auf ihre Lichtausstrahlung … Diese unterschiedliche Auffassung zeigt, dass die Z. für die Israeliten etwas sinnlich Erfahrbares, für die Griechen hingegen etwas mathematisch Ableitbares war. … Aus der konkreten Struktur des hebräischen Zeitbegriffs ergibt sich, dass eine Tat oder ein Ereignis nicht zu jeder Z. opportun oder überhaupt möglich ist, sondern seine eigene, d. h. geeignete Z. hat (vgl. Pred. 3,1 bis 8), eine Auffassung, die auch noch im abendländischen Sprachgebrauch lebendig ist.4

1.2 Definitionen von Ewigkeit Nach diesen Beispielen für Zeit wenden wir uns solchen für Ewigkeit zu. Es ist interessant, dass die Herleitungen nicht von der griechischen, sondern von der lateinischen Sprache her erfolgen, womit gezeigt wird, dass die Vorstellungen im Westen geprägt worden sind. „Ewigkeit, ein Zustand über der Zeit, ohne Anfang und Ende (aeternitats), der zu unterscheiden ist von einer unaufhörlichen Zeitdauer (sempiternitas). – In der christl. Dogmatik kommt dem Sein nach al3 „Zeit,“ 625. 4 Nelis, „Zeit“, 1922–23.

238  Friedrich V. Reiterer

lein Gott E.[wigkeit] zu, der in seinem unendlichen, unveränderlichen ‚Jetzt‘ alle Zeiten umspannt. Die menschliche Seele hingegen ist ewig im Sinne einer Dauer ohne Ende nach einem Anfang (Unsterblichkeit).“5 Man hat versucht, Ewigkeit als einen „Zeitbegriff“ einzuordnen. „Ewigkeit, Zeitbegriff; meint im eigentl. Sinn, entspr. lat. aeternitas, Nichtzeitlichkeit, ‚Zugleichheit‘, Stillstand, wobei E. die Zeitlichkeit nicht ausschließt, sondern in sich aufhebt; aber auch, entspr. lat. sempiternitas, Zeitlosigkeit, Unvergänglichkeit, unendliche Dauer.“6 Für einen an der Bibel orientierten Autor stellt sich die Situation anders dar: Das AT meint eine nach den jeweiligen Umständen maximale Zeit …; es kennt keinen philosophischen Begriff der Zeitlosigkeit. Die E. Gottes bedeutet seine Herrschaft und Verfügungsgewalt über alle Zeit … Im Judentum hat man auch menschliche Zeitlichkeit gegen göttliche E. ausgespielt (Sir 18,8). Allmählich wurde E. zum Synonym für Göttlichkeit (Bar 4,10–5,2), Attribut der jenseitigen Welt (1Hen 12,3; 4Esr 7,13).7

Bei allen Unterschieden ähnelt sich grundsätzlich auch die Darstellung von Ewigkeit im Neuen Testament: Auch im NT wird der Gedanke der E. nicht abstrakt entwickelt. Leben in E. ist Verbundenheit mit Gottes Sohn (J 6,51.58). Gottes ewiges Sein ist die Herrschaft des Schöpfers und Vollenders der Welt über alle Bereiche seiner Schöpfungswirklichkeit (R 16,26) und die bleibende Identität seiner Handlungsweise (Jk 1,17).8

Stärker als dem antik-philosophischen, und – unausgesprochen – neuzeitlich an dem der systematischen Theologie orientierten Kontext liest man: Seit Platon versteht man unter E. eine Seinsweise, die jede Veränderung absolut ausschließt und darum weder Anfang noch Ende kennt, im Gegensatz zu der Zeit, zu deren Wesen die Veränderung gehört und die durch ein Früher und Später gekennzeichnet ist. Das wirklich Ewige besitzt in einem beständigen, nicht verrinnenden ‚Jetzt‘ die totale und vollkommene Entfaltung seines Wesensreichtums. Es ist klar, dass diese Seinsweise ausschließliches Privileg Gottes ist; selbst die Engel unterliegen noch einer Veränderung und sind deshalb nicht im strengen Sinne ewig.9

Man hat das Thema Ewigkeit auch vom menschlichen Existential und der menschlichen Hoffnung her dargestellt:

5 6 7 8 9

„Ewigkeit“, 116. „Ewigkeit“, 288. Jenni, „Ewigkeit“, 457–58. Rissi, Ewigkeit, 458. Nelis, „Ewigkeit“, 451–52.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

239

Ewig zu sein begehrt (natürlicherweise) das unter seiner Verletzbarkeit, Begrenztheit und Vergänglichkeit leidende, seine Hinfälligkeit beklagende (Homer, Il. VI 146–14910; Jes. 40,8) vernünftige Lebewesen. Die in solchem Begehren postulierte E. ist in der Regel als ein bestimmte (alle?) Defizienzen aus sich ausschließender Kontrastbegriff konzipiert, vorzüglich als Gegensatz zur – den Wechsel von Werden und Vergehen ermöglichenden und deshalb als bedrohlich empfundenen – Zeit: ‚in cognitionem aeternitatis oportet nos venire per tempus‘ (‚zur Erkenntnis der E. kommen wir nur durch die Erkenntnis der Zeit‘ [Thomas von Aquin, Summa Theologiae 1 q. 10a. 1 c.]). E. wird v. a. als Dauer bestimmt, und zwar eigentlich als Dauer ohne Anfang und Ende, uneigentlich als eine Dauer, die ‚zwar einen Anfang hat; aber ohne Aufhören beständig‘ ist.11

2 Philologische Lexika Anschließend werden die Bedeutungsangaben in Wörterbüchern der antik griechischen Sprache vorgestellt, und zwar von καιρός, χρόνος und αἰών.

2.1 Καιρός Gemoll zählt unter καιρός12 folgende Bedeutungen auf: „1. Rechtes Maß. 2. Rechter Ort. 3. Rechte, günstige Zeit. 4. Vorteil, Nutzen. 5. Zeitumstände.“13 Im theologischen Wörterbuch von Bauer findet man: „καιρός … d. Zeit, sowohl d. Zeitpunkt wie d. Zeitabschnitt – 1. … willkommene Zeit … – 2. d. geeignete, rechte, günstige Zeit ἐν καιρῷ zur rechten Zeit – 3. d. bestimmte, festgesetzte Zeit. … 4. Ein Hauptausdruck der Eschatologie ist ὁ καιρός d. Endzeit.“14

2.2 Χρόνος Die Derivate χρονικός, χρόνιος, χρονισμός wie auch das in der LXX andernorts belegte χρονίζω und auch das im NT einmal belegte χρονοτριβέω werden im Buch 10 Das Zitat lautet: „Gleich wie die Blätter im Walde, so sind die Geschlechter der Menschen. Einige streut der Wind auf die Erde hin, andere wieder treibt der knospende Wald, erzeugt in des Frühlings Wärme: So der Menschen Geschlecht, dies wächst, und jenes verschwindet.“ 11 Jüngel, „Ewigkeit“, 1772. 12 Bei Sira findet man ἂκαιρος, im Neuen Testament ἀκαιρέομαι, dagegen ist ἀκαιρία im biblischen Schrifttum nicht bezeugt. 13 Gemoll, Schul-und Handwörterbuch, 400. 14 Bauer, Wörterbuch, 779–81.

240  Friedrich V. Reiterer

der Weisheit nie verwendet, sodass nur χρόνος Gegenstand dieser Untersuchung sein kann. Als Bedeutung für χρόνος bietet Gemoll: „ … Zeit, Zeitdauer, Weile; im bes. 1. Lebenszeit, Alter (Jugend, Greisenalter). 2. Zeitstufe, Zeitraum, …Vergangenheit, … Gegenwart, … Zukunft. 3. Zeitmaß der Silbe. 4. Zeitaufwand, Zeitverlust, Verzug.“15 Nach Bauer ist die Bedeutungsbreite enger: „χρόνος … d. Zeit, meist als d. Zeitraum, d. Zeitdauer.“16 Für πολυχρόνιος, das Bauer übersehen hat, schreibt Gemoll: „lange Zeit dauernd, dauerhaft.“17

2.3 Αἰών Während die Bedeutung von „ἀίω … αἰών, … A. 1. Zeit, Lebenszeit, Lebenslos, Leben, … 2. lange, unbegrenzte Zeit, Ewigkeit“18 breiter ist, bestimmt Gemoll kurz: „αἰώνιος … ewig.“19 Im Gegensatz dazu beschreibt Bauer αἰών breiter: 1. Lange Zeit; … a. v. d. vergangenen Zeit, d. Vergangenheit, die graue Vorzeit; … Ewigkeit; … v. d. zukünftigen Zeit, die, wenn sie kein Ende hat, gleichfalls d. Begriff d. Ewigkeit … gewinnt; … 2. e. Zeitabschnitt, d. Weltalter – a. ὁ αἰών οὗτος (‫ )ָהע ֹוָלם ַהֶז ּה‬d. gegenwärtige (seinem Ende nahe) W. … – b. ὁ αἰὼν μέλλων (‫ )ָהע ֹוָלם ַה ָּבה‬d. messianische Weltperiode, d. zukünftige Zeitalter … – 3. d. Welt als räuml. Begriff … – 4. d. Äon als Person … ich bin kein Ewigkeitswesen, sondern ein Mensch [u. weiß daher, dass, was geschieht, auch vergehen muss].20 Als Bedeutung von αἰώνιος liest man: „ … – 1. ohne Anfang …, ewig lang. … vor undenklicher Zeit … – 2. ohne Anfang u. Ende; v. Gott … 3. ohne Ende“.21

3 Belege im Buch der Weisheit Im Buch der Weisheit ist καιρός sechs Mal22 belegt. Neben χρόνος23 ist πολυχρόνιος zweimal24 zu finden. Am häufigsten, nämlich zehn Mal25, verwendet 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Gemoll, Schul-und Handwörterbuch, 809. Bauer, Wörterbuch, 1755. Gemoll, Schul-und Handwörterbuch, 621. Gemoll, Schul-und Handwörterbuch, 22–23. Gemoll, Schul-und Handwörterbuch, 23. Bauer, Wörterbuch, 53–55. Bauer, Wörterbuch, 56. Siehe Weish, 2,5; 3,7; 4,4; 7,18; 8,8; 19,22. Siehe Weish, 2,4; 4,13; 7,2.18; 8,8; 12,20; 14,16. Siehe Weish, 2,10; 4,8. Siehe Weish, 3,8; 4,2.19; 5,15; 6,21; 12,10; 13,9; 14,6.13; 18,4.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

241

der Autor αἰών, daneben drei Mal αἰώνιος26. Substantive, die mit αἰώνιος verbunden sind, sind μνήμη (Weish 8,13), δόξα (Weish 10,14) und πρόνοια (Weish 17,2). Die Vorkommen verteilen sich breit gestreut innerhalb des Buches: Weish 2,4 (χρόνος); Weish 2,5 (καιρός); Weish 2,10 (πολυχρόνιος); Weish 3,7 (καιρός); Weish 3,8 (αἰών); Weish 4,2 (αἰών); Weish 4,4 (καιρός); Weish 4,8 (πολυχρόνιος); Weish 4,13 (χρόνος); Weish 4,19 (αἰών); Weish 5,15 (αἰών); Weish 6,21 (αἰών); Weish 7,2 (χρόνος); Weish 7,18 (χρόνος und καιρός); Weish 8,8 (καιρός und χρόνος); Weish 8,13 (μνήμη αἰώνιος); Weish 10,14 (δόξα αἰώνιος); Weish 12,10 (αἰών); Weish 12,20 (χρόνος); Weish 13,9 (αἰών); Weish 14,6 (αἰών); Weish 14,13 (αἰών); Weish 14,16 (χρόνος); Weish 17,2 (αἰώνιος πρόνοια) Weish 18,4 (αἰών); Weish 19,22 (καιρός). In 14 von 19 Kapiteln des Buches der Weisheit ist jeweils mindestens ein Vorkommen anzutreffen, wobei von der Zahl her Kap. 14 und vor allem Kap. 4 Schwerpunkte bilden. Man kann die Frage stellen, ob die Reihenfolge bei Vorkommen der termini technici im gleichen Kontext einen Schluss auf die Gewichtung zulässt. Da jedoch in Weish 7,18 χρόνος an erster Position steht und καιρός an zweiter, während in Weish 8,8 καιρός an erster und χρόνος an zweiter Position steht, lässt sich von der Position her keine Vorrangstellung ableiten. Es ist zu notieren, dass die untersuchten Stichworte des Öfteren in Präpositionalverbindungen vorkommen, nämlich: εἰς mit αἰών in Weish 3,8; 5,15; 6,21; 12,10; 14,13; ἐν mit αἰών in Weish 4,2; mit καιρός in Weish 3,7; 19,22 und mit χρόνος in Weish 2,4; 14,16; διά mit αἰών in Weish 4,19 und πρός mit καιρός in Weish 4,4. Nach dieser formalen Registrierung folgt jetzt die inhaltliche Analyse.

26 Siehe Weish, 8,13; 10,14; 17,2.

242  Friedrich V. Reiterer

4 Einzeluntersuchungen Die folgende Untersuchung gliedert sich in zwei große Abschnitte. Da aus formalen Gründen καιρός und χρόνος nicht getrennt werden können, werden diese Stichworte in einem Block behandelt, während der folgende mit αἰών agiert.

4.1 Untersuchung von καιρός und χρόνος 4.1.1 Zeitverlauf, keine eschatologischen Implikationen ●

χρόνος in Weish 14,16 „12 Das Ersinnen von Götzenbildern war Anfang der Hurerei, ihre Erfindung führte zur Sittenverderbnis. 13 Weder waren sie von Anfang an da noch werden sie ewig bleiben. 14 Durch die eitle Ruhmsucht der Menschen sind sie in die Welt gekommen, darum ist ihnen auch ein jähes Ende zugedacht. 15 Bedrückt durch allzu frühe Trauer, ließ ein Vater von seinem Kind, das gar schnell hinweggerafft wurde, ein Bildnis machen; so ehrte er einen toten Menschen als Gott und führte bei seinen Untergebenen Geheimkulte und Riten ein. 16 Im Lauf der Zeit verfestigte sich der gottlose Brauch und wurde wie ein Gesetz befolgt, die Standbilder erhielten auf Anordnung der Herrscher göttliche Verehrung. 17 Konnten die Menschen einen König nicht unmittelbar ehren, weil er weit weg wohnte, dann bildeten sie das Aussehen des Fernen ab; sie machten von dem verehrten König ein Bildnis, das allen sichtbar war, um dem Abwesenden wie einem Anwesenden mit Eifer zu huldigen“ (Weish 14,12–17).27

Der Kontext (ab Weish 14,12) hat religiös-theologischen Charakter, geht es doch um die Herstellung von Götterbildern und deren Wirkung für das Leben und die kultische Praxis; Näheres und ausführlich bei αἰών in Weish 14,13. Die Klage darüber, dass der schützende Gott weit weg ist (Weish 14,17), atmet die gleiche Mentalität, wie man sie im ithyphallischen Hymnos des Hermokles von Kyzikos28 auf Demetrios I. Poliorketes (ca. 336–283 v. Chr.) antrifft, von dem berichtet wird, dass sogar jener Platz, an dem er vom Pferde stieg, als Temenos29 be27 Obwohl in Einzelfällen Abweichungen von der Übersetzung vorzunehmen sind, folgt die Untersuchung prinzipiell der Einheitsübersetzung 2016, die mit der Abkürzung nEÜ angegeben wird, im Gegensatz zur Einheitsübersetzung 1980, für die die Abkürzung EÜ verwendet wird. Besonders berücksichtigt wird die Übersetzung mit der Abkürzung Nesselrath, siehe Bibliographie. Weitere Abkürzungen von Übersetzungen sind: Luth (Lutherbibel 1984), nLuther (Lutherbibel 2017), ATd (Kraus and Karrer); NETS (Pietersma and Wright, A New English Translation), NAB (New American Bible); NRSV (New Revised Standard Version). 28 Vgl. Dubielzig, „Lyrik“, 426. 29 Schmitt, Herrscherkult, 249.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit



243

handelt wurde. Darin sah man eine Theophanie, in der für die auch infolge der philosophischen Infragestellungen30 religiös verunsicherten Bevölkerung echte greifbare Gottesnähe erfahren werden konnte: „Die anderen Götter sind ja weit entfernt oder haben kein Ohr oder existieren nicht, oder kümmern sich nicht im Geringsten um uns. Dich aber sehen wir anwesend, nicht aus Holz oder Stein, sondern in Wirklichkeit. Darum beten wir zu dir: Gib uns als erstes den Frieden, Liebster.“31 Solche Erwartungen projiziert man nun auf das Bildnis des Königs! – In Weish 14,15–16 trifft man auf einen anderen Akzent. Modell für ein Gottesbild ist ein totes Kind. Um den Toten präsent zu halten, ist wegen der Trauer eine Statue zur Erinnerung gemacht worden war. Standbilder von schon verstorbenen Menschen und deren göttliche Verehrung sind seit der hellenistischen Zeit in gehobenen Kreisen belegt.32 Im vorliegenden Beispiel ist nicht klar, zu welcher gesellschaftlichen Schicht jene Person gehört, dessen verstorbenes Kind Vorlage für das Standbild diente, doch ist der Vater der Toten offensichtlich wohlhabend. Der Autor des Buches der Weisheit hat den in hellenistischen Kreisen gepflegten Brauch vor Augen und lehnt ihn wegen der religiösen Implikationen ab. Bei der Bewertung ist hervorzuheben, dass die Vorlage für die Statue ein toter Mensch ist: „Den toten33 Menschen (νεκρὸν ἄνθρωπον) ehrten sie nun wie Gott“ (14,15c). Der trauernde Vater „hat seinen Untertanen Mysterien und Riten weitergegeben;“ (14,15d). Auf Grund dieser Praxis wurde die Verehrung dann sogar eine feste und bindende Regel: „Sodann wurde der im Laufe der

30 „Erste Ansätze zu dieser Entwicklung haben Kritik und Zweifel vonseiten der Atomisten und Sophisten seit dem 5. Jh. geleistet“; Scheer, „Religion“, 641. 31 Schmitt, Herrscherkult, 249. 32 Schon zu Lebzeiten hatten die Makedonier Philipp II. (ca. 382–336 v. Chr.; vgl. Diod. Sic. 17.17,2–3; Iust. Dial. 11.5,10–12; Arr. Al. anab. 1.12,6–8) und Alexander III., der Große (356–323 v. Chr.), Statuen von sich aufstellen lassen, welche neben den 12 traditionell verehrten Gottheiten die Regenten als göttliche Koregenten präsentierten; vgl. Reiterer, „Jerusalem“, 251. Für unsere Untersuchung entscheidend ist aber der Blick auf schon Verstorbene. „Ptolemaios II. (283–246 v. Chr.) ließ seinen Vater bei dem großen ‚Festtag‘ (274/5) als vergoldete Statue mitführen (vgl. Mittag, Antiochos, 288) und bildliche Darstellungen zeigen, dass er seiner verstorbenen Frau Arsinoe II., die mit einer Götterkartusche dargestellt wird, Opfergaben darbringt (vgl. Abb. 25 in Schuller, Frauen);“ Reiterer, „Jerusalem“, 252. „Ptolemaios II. ließ seine Eltern nach ihrem Tod als Θεοὶ Σωτῆρες vergotten; ebenso wurden in der Folge wohl alle nichtregierenden Toten der Dynastie apotheosiert;“ Schmitt, Herrscherkult, 250. 33 Die Übersetzungen verändern das Adjektiv νεκρός zu einem Substantiv (z. B. „und den Menschen, der einst nur ein Leichnam war, [hat der Vater] nun wie einen Gott zu ehren begonnen“ Weish 14,15 (Nesselrath 87), wodurch die Bezüge grundlegend verändert werden: Für den Autor ist und bleibt der Tote tot. Man verehrt nur fälschlicherweise dieses Schnitzwerk als Gott, wobei der Autor betonen will, dass dieser Gott ebenso tot ist.

244  Friedrich V. Reiterer

Zeit (ἐν χρόνῳ)34 verfestigte gottlose Brauch (τὸ ἀσεβὲς ἔθος) wie ein Gesetz (ὡς νόμος) beobachtet“ (Weish 14,16; ATd). Die Präposition ἐν verstärkt einen Rahmen, innerhalb dessen etwas geschieht: hier ist es „innerhalb der Zeit“ im Sinne vom Lauf der Zeit, wie ἐν χρόνῳ verdeutlichend in der EÜ bzw. nEÜ übersetzt wird. Χρόνος ist eine einfache Zeitangabe mit folgendem Schwerpunkt: die Zeit schreitet voran, wobei aber nachdrücklich eingeschlossen ist, dass die „so dahinfließende Zeit“ unbemerkt zu Änderungen der Einstellung führt. „Zeit“ ist ein Medium der schleichenden Nivellierung des Erlebten und der Einstellung. ●

Χρόνος in Weish 2,4 und καιρός in Weish 2,5

„4 Unser Name wird mit der Zeit vergessen, niemand erinnert sich unserer Werke. Unser Leben geht vorüber wie die Spur einer Wolke und löst sich auf wie ein Nebel, der von den Strahlen der Sonne verscheucht und von ihrer Wärme zu Boden gedrückt wird. 5 Unsere Zeit geht vorüber wie ein Schatten, es ist versiegelt und keiner kommt zurück“ (Weish 2,4–5).

Die Gegner des Autors des Buches der Weisheit35 sind gelangweilte und frustrierte Personen, die sich in einer tiefen Sinnkrise befinden. Obwohl sie zu den führenden Schichten der Gesellschaft gehören und auch mächtig sind, sehen sie um sich herum nur Aspekte der Hinfälligkeit und Beschränktheit. Das führt zu Aggressionen gegen solche, die – zwar arm, unscheinbar, aber anständig – ein erfülltes Leben führen, welches in der religiösen Überzeugung verwurzelt ist und einen sicheren Halt bietet. Der Autor des Buches der Weisheit beurteilt die Kontrahenten als irrende Denker, λογισάμενοι οὐκ ὀρθῶς (Weish 2,1). Jene beklagen ab 2,1 die Vergänglichkeit ihres Lebens. Nach deren Urteil, unter dem sie selbst leiden, verschwindet der Mensch so gründlich, dass er keine Spuren hinterlässt. Beispielhaft werden zur Erläuterung, dem griechischen Interesse an naturwissenschaftlichen Gegebenheiten folgend – allerdings könnten sich solche Vergleiche auch aus biblischen Konnotationen entwickelt haben –, Beobachtungen aus der Natur aufgezählt: „Unser Leben (ὁ βίος ἡμῶν) wird36 vorübergehen wie die Spur einer Wolke und löst sich auf wie ein Nebel, der von den Strahlen der Sonne verscheucht und von ihrer Wärme zu Boden gedrückt wird“ 34 Nesselrath 87: „mit der Zeit.“ 35 Es sind vermutlich die ἀσεβεῖς, die in Weish 1,16 genannt worden waren. Zur Vokabel ἀσεβής: Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, 255: „ungodly, unholy, profane, sacrilegious“; Gemoll, Schul- und Handwörterbuch, 129: „gottlos, ruchlos, frevelhaft“; Menge-Güthling, Hand- und Schulwörterbuch, 112: „gottlos, ruchlos, frevelhaft“; Bauer, Wörterbuch, 227: „gottlos“. Man sollte in der Übersetzung nicht so großes Gewicht auf die moralische Komponente legen, sondern die religiöse Konstitution deutlich machen: areligiös, gottfern. 36 Nesselrath 43; ATd, 1059; NETS, 700: „will pass away.“

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

245

(Weish 2,4c-f). Schon das Verb παρέρχομαι – „daneben od. zur Seite vorübergehen, … überlisten, täuschen“37 – ist klug gewählt und informativ, scheint doch neben dem flüchtigen Vorbeiziehen des Lebens, die innere Täuschung wesentlich zum Leben an sich zu gehören: das Futurum38 des Verbes verstärkt zusätzlich das Gewicht. Diesen interpretierenden Beispielen ist nun folgender Satz vorausgegangen: „Unser Name wird ἐν χρόνῳ, im Lauf der Zeit, vergessen, niemand erinnert sich unserer Werke“ Weish 2,4a-b. Nach dem Tod vergessen zu werden ist in der Bibel wie in der Umwelt Israels eine schreckliche Vorstellung. Der Autor des Buches der Weisheit schreibt auf dem Hintergrund seiner Tradition. Dort dominiert eine positive Grundhaltung, wie z. B. Ps 112,6, wonach man „ewig an den Gerechten denkt.“ Im Gegensatz zum „vermodernden Namen der Frevler“, bleibt das Andenken an den Gerechten (Spr 10,7). Zeichen sollen und können die Erinnerung an den Namen erhalten, wie von Abschalom nach 2Sam 18,18 berichtet wird: „Er sagte sich: Ich habe keinen Sohn, um die Erinnerung an meinen Namen wachzuhalten. Er benannte den Stein nach seinem Namen; deshalb heißt er bis zum heutigen Tag Hand [= Denkmal] Abschaloms.“ Hier geschieht Vergleichbares wie man schon in der Genesis liest. „Jakob errichtete ein Steinmal über ihrem [Rachels] Grab. Das ist bis heute das Grabmal Rahels“ (Gen 35,20). Biblische Autoren rechnen damit, dass Tote auch vergessen werden (vgl. Ps 31,13) und dass selbst der Herr der Toten nicht gedenkt (Ps 88,6). Kohelet stellt fest, dass die Menschen nach deren Tod rasch in Vergessenheit geraten: „Sie [die Toten] erhalten auch keinen Lohn mehr, denn die Erinnerung an sie wurde vergessen“ (Koh 9,5). Sowohl der negative wie der positive Aspekt treffen sich mit den Fragen, mit denen sich die Gegner des Autors des Buches der Weisheit abquälen. Der Kontext zeigt, dass der positive Akzent (vgl. Weish 2,16b) der Kyriosgläubigen, das ist der δίκαιος im Buch der Weisheit, die Kontrahenten zu erbitterten Feinden macht, der negative Akzent beschreibt die Eigenerfahrung und Selbstbeurteilung der Gegner. Grundlegend gilt, dass im Andenken an den Namen, die Präsenz eines Verstorbenen gewährleistet ist. „Im Laufe der Zeit“, ἐν χρόνῳ, vergessen39 zu werden, beschreibt einen längeren anhaltenden und schleichenden Vorgang. Das Ergebnis ist jedoch wie ein zweiter bzw. endgültiger Tod. In Weish 37 Gemoll, Schul-und Handwörterbuch, 580. 38 Die präsentische Formulierung (nEÜ, EÜ: geht vorüber; nLuth: fährt dahin) ist unrichtig und nimmt dem Text einen Teil der Pointe. 39 Winston, Wisdom, 118, verweist auf Mark Aurel 4.6 (121–180 n. Chr.): „Within a very short time both thou and he will be dead, and a little later not even your names will be left behind you“ 2.17: „All the life man’s body is a stream that flows, all the life of his mind, dream, and delirium; his existence a warfare and a sojourn in a strange land; his after-fame, oblivion.“ Das

246  Friedrich V. Reiterer

2,4 meint ἐν χρόνῳ den normalen Lauf der Zeit40, der dann jedoch zu grundlegenden Veränderungen führt bzw. zur Folge hat: das hat Winston41 schon in der Übersetzung ausgedrückt: „passage of time.“42 Im parallel geführten Spruch 2,5 kommt wieder die Zeit in den Blickpunkt: „Unsere Zeit (ὁ καιρὸς ἡμῶν) geht vorüber wie ein Schatten, unser Ende wiederholt sich nicht (ἀναποδισμὸς τῆς τελευτῆς ἡμῶν), es ist versiegelt und keiner kommt zurück.“43 Da man es mit einem Zitat der Frustrierten zu tun hat, muss man überlegen, welche Volksgruppe so wie zitiert spricht. Da es nicht ausgeschlossen ist, dass es sich um Apostaten des Judentums handelt, die nun vom Hellenismus geprägt sind, wird man damit rechnen, dass deren Worte auf der jüdischen Tradition basieren. Doch trifft eher zu, dass die Sprecher Hellenisten sind. Daher werden wir diese Worte auf dem zweifachen Hintergrund ansehen. Die Gesamtvorstellung von καιρός wird geprägt durch den „Schatten“ und οὐκ ἔστιν ἀναποδισμός (es gibt keine Rückabwicklung) des Endes (τῆς τελευτῆς ἡμῶν). Sowohl in der Bibel wie im griechischen Umfeld ist der Schatten ein beliebter Vergleich für die Vergänglichkeit des Lebens. (a) Man liest die allgemeine Klage über die menschliche Vergänglichkeit (Ijob 8,9). Diese Beobachtung öffnet die Augen dafür, dass man sich nicht an Bedeutungslosem abarbeiten sollte (Ps 39,7). Die Undurchschaubarkeit der Zukunft – möglicherweise die Phase nach dem Tod einbeziehend – beklagt Kohelet; vgl. u. a. Koh 1,11. (b) Die auf den ersten Blick resignativ erscheinenden Worte „wie ein Schatten sind unsere Tage auf Erden und ohne Hoffnung“ (1 Chr 29,15), erweisen sich im Kontext als Zeichen der Anerkennung Gottes, von dem Beispiel zeigt, dass sich die gebildete Schicht auch im 2. Jh. n. Chr. mit den gleichen Problemen beschäftigte. 40 Man mag auch die allgemein menschliche Erfahrung, die man mit der psychischen Präsenzzeit erklären kann, niedergeschrieben sehen. Denn die frischen Eindrücke sind viel stärker, als sie es bei zeitlichem Abstand sind, wie sich auch im Spruch Senecas niedergeschlagen hat: Iam tempus illi fecit aerumnas leves! („Schon hat die Zeit ihm den Kummer gelindert!“), der mit folgendem Wortlaut zum geflügelten Wort geworden ist: „Zeit heilt alle Wunden.“ 41 Winston, Wisdom, 111. 42 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 84, stellt die Frage, ob in Weish 2,4 „auf den durch die Sterne festgelegten Determinismus, der im hellenisierten Ägypten umlief und der ebenfalls die Unsterblichkeit der Seele ausschloss,“ Bezug genommen wird. 43 Die Göttin des Todes, Ereškigal, herrscht in der Unterwelt, die sowohl im Sumerischen (kur. nu.gi4.a) wie im Babylonischen (erṣet lā târi) „Land ohne Wiederkehr heißt“, so Dietrich, „Creaturae“, 9–11. Da die Himmelsgöttin Ištar „durch ihre Aktion die Behauptung widerlegen wollte, dass die Unterwelt ein ‚Land ohne Wiederkehr sei‘“ (Dietrich, „Creaturae“, 9), wagte sie sich zu weit in Ereškigals Gebiet vor und wurde durch Manipulationen zu Tode gebracht. Nur der Schöpfergott Ea fand einen Ausweg, sodass die verstorbene Ištar wieder zum Leben erweckt wurde. „Ištar konnte nun ihren Rückweg in die Oberwelt antreten und dafür sorgen, dass das Leben hier in den gewohnten Bahnen weiterging;“ Dietrich, „Creaturae“, 11.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

247

jede menschliche Kraft und alle Gaben stammen. Sie sind letztlich Zeichen des Staunens darüber, dass sich Gott – obwohl der Mensch ihm gegenüber so klein ist – um die Menschen kümmert; vgl. Ps 144,3–4. (c) Von Feinden verfolgt und armselig beklagt der Beter sein elendes Schicksal. Er sieht sich wie ein flüchtiger Schatten vergehen (Ps 109,23), vergleichbar dem vertrocknenden Gras; Ps 102,12. Die Sprecher in Weish 2,5 können von hier kaum beeinflusst sein, da sie machtvoll sind und man später davon liest, dass sie die Frommen foltern und töten wollen. Die zitierte Klage der Psalmen hat einen ganz anderen Hintergrund als den, dem man in Weish 2,5 begegnet. Sollte es sich bei den Gegnern im Buch der Weisheit um Apostaten handeln, ist es sehr unwahrscheinlich, dass sie in 2,5 von der tradierten Lehre geprägt sind. Auf die Worte der Gegner, die ja den hellenistischen Bildungsweg durchschritten haben, haben damals bedeutsame profane Quellen Einfluss ausgeübt: Pindar (ca. 522–446 v. Chr.) Pyth 8.133: „der Mensch ist der Traum eines Schattens“ (σκιᾶς ὄναρ ἄνθροπος). Sophokles (ca. 497–405 v. Chr.) lässt Odysseus sagen (Ai. 125–126): „Sehe ich doch, dass wir gar nichts anderes sind, soviel wir leben, als ein Schein und flüchtiger Schatten nur.“ Die Thematik der Vergänglichkeit wird weitergeführt im nächsten Satz, „und es gibt keine Rückabwicklung unseres Endes (ἀναποδισμὸς τῆς τελευτῆς).“44 Die Übersetzungen unterscheiden sich in kleinen, aber bedeutsamen Nuancen, welche die Schwierigkeiten mit dem Wort ἀναποδισμός45 aufzeigen. Das Ende ist als Lebensende (τελευτὴ τοῦ βίου) zu verstehen, denn βίος wurde im vorgehenden Vers ausdrücklich genannt. Darf man den Satz aber so wie nEÜ verstehen: „Unser Ende wiederholt sich nicht?“ Da ἀναποδισμός in der LXX ein hapax legomenon ist, blicke man auf das Verb ἀναποδίζω, das „rückgängig machen, … verbessern, wiederrufen“, vor allem im Koinegriechisch „zurückgehen“46 bedeutet. Hier hat sich „Bewegung“, die im Schlüsselwort πούς steckt, erhalten. Da die Präposition ἀνά in Zusammensetzungen „zurück“ bedeuten kann47, versteht man, warum Liddell and Scott für ἀναποδισμός „going back“ als Bedeutung angeben kann. Was ist gemeint: wenn das Lebensende erreicht ist, gibt es – um mit einem Terminus aus der Computertechnik zu sprechen – keine Resettaste. Es gibt keine Rückgängigmachung und keine Rückabwicklung des 44 Am nächsten kommt Nesselrath, „Weisheit“, 43, an dem gemeinten Sinne heran: „und nicht gibt es ein Zurück von unserem Ende,“ wobei das Substantiv ἀναποδισμός nur auf ἀνά, reduziert worden ist. 45 Bemerkenswert ist, dass das LXX-hapax legomenon ἀναποδισμός weder bei Menge and Güthling, Wörterbuch, noch bei Bauer, oder Gemoll, Schul- und Handwörterbuch, angeführt wird. 46 Siehe Gemoll, Schul- und Handwörterbuch, 59. Das Verb kommt in Sir 48,23 und 2 Makk 14,44 vor. 47 So Gemoll, Schul- und Handwörterbuch, 49.

248  Friedrich V. Reiterer

Todes: das Leben ist aus und vorbei. In diesem Kontext spricht καιρός von einem besonderen, unumkehrbaren und einmaligen Zeitpunkt. Man begegnet in Weish 2,5 zwei unterschiedlichen Dimensionen von „Zeit“: καιρός ist der besonders – wenn auch negativ – qualifizierte Zeitabschnitt, der sich als Lebensrahmen mit Abschluss präsentiert. Dem steht eine „Minuszeit“ in Form von ἀναποδισμὸς τῆς τελευτῆς gegenüber, wo es dann keine positive Zeitdimension mehr gibt. Auf dem Hintergrund der verschiedenen möglichen profanen gedanklichen Bezüge ist καιρός eine besondere, auf einen Abschluss ausgerichtete Zeit, sodass an dieser Stelle zwischen χρόνος als verlaufende Zeit und der spezifischen Zeit (καιρός) begrenzten Lebens zu unterscheiden ist. Daher wird man dem Satz zustimmen, dass hier „unter καιρός … die zeitlich begrenzte Lebensdauer zu verstehen ist.“48 Beiden Ebenen der Zeitvorstellung ist aber die Bewegung und Entwicklung gemeinsam. ●

Χρόνος in Weish 12,20

„18 Weil du über Stärke verfügst, richtest du in Milde und behandelst uns mit großer Schonung; denn die Macht steht dir zur Verfügung, wann immer du willst. 19 Durch solches Handeln hast du dein Volk gelehrt, dass der Gerechte menschenfreundlich sein muss, und hast deinen Söhnen und Töchtern die Hoffnung geschenkt, dass du den Sündern die Umkehr gewährst. 20 Du hast die Feinde deiner Kinder, auch wenn sie den Tod verdienten, sehr nachsichtig gestraft und sie gerettet, indem du ihnen Zeiten und Raum gabst, sich von ihrer Schlechtigkeit abzuwenden. 21 Aber wie viel umsichtiger noch hast du deine Söhne bestraft, deren Vätern du Gutes verheißen hast, als du mit ihnen unter Eid den Bund schlossest“ Weish 12,18–21.

Der Autor rechnet damit, dass die Menschen – alle Nichtisraeliten wie auch die Volksmitglieder – sündigen. Gott ist für alle zuständig. Weil Gott große Macht hat und er diese, wann immer er will, einsetzen kann, begegnet der den Fehlern der Menschen großzügig (vgl. Weish 12,18). Gott will mit seiner beispielhaften und menschenfreundlichen Nachsichtigkeit die Menschen zur Einsicht führen, dass sie sich aus Sympathie Gott zuwenden, auch wenn er auf die positiven Einstellungsänderungen lange warten muss. „Du hast die Feinde deiner Kinder, auch wenn sie den Tod verdienten, sehr nachsichtig gestraft und sie gerettet, indem du ihnen Zeiten und Raum gabst (δοὺς χρόνους καὶ τόπον), sich von ihrer Schlechtigkeit abzuwenden“ (Weish 12,20). Es fällt auf, dass der Autor den Plural χρόνους im Unterschied zu τόπον verwendet, was weitgehend von den Über-

48 Kepper, Bildung, 123.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

249

setzern49 wie von den Auslegern ignoriert wird. „Zeiten“ und „Raum“ ist hier eine Umschreibung für die normale Lebenswelt, welche dazu dient, dass sich die Menschen entwickeln. Der Ort hat aber für die erhoffte Veränderung vom bösen zum guten Menschen nicht die gleiche Bedeutung wie die Zeit: der Mensch braucht Zeit, er durchschreitet auch verschiedene Stufen der Entwicklung. Der Autor rechnet nicht mit einer schlagartigen Veränderung vom bösen zum guten Menschen, vor allem dann nicht, wenn er zu den Feinden zählt. Die „Zeiten“ weisen auch auf Gottes Langatmigkeit (siehe ‫ ;ֶאֶרְך ַא ַ ּפִים‬u. a. Ex 34,6; Num 14,18; Neh 9,17)50 und seine dehnbare Geduld mit dem Menschen hin.

4.1.2 Spezifische und besondere Zeiträume, keine eschatologischen Implikationen ●

Χρόνος in Weish 7,2: begrenzte Zeitphase „1Auch ich bin ein sterblicher Mensch wie alle anderen, Nachkomme des ersten, aus Erde gebildeten Menschen. Im Schoß der Mutter wurde ich zu Fleisch geformt, 2 in zehnmonatiger Zeit in Blut verfestigt aus dem Samen eines Mannes nach lustvollem Beischlaf“ (Weish 7,1–2).

In Weish 2,5 wurde für καιρός eine zeitlich klar eingegrenzte, aber länger dauernde Phase als Bedeutung erhoben. Diese Akzentsetzung kann auch für χρόνος nachgewiesen werden. Schwangerschaften umfassen von der Befruchtung angefangen bis zur Geburt eine berechenbare Dauer, sodass man in der Lage ist anzugeben, wann die Zeit der Schwangerschaft enden werde. Die normale Zeit der Schwangerschaft umfasst nach 7,2a eine „zehnmonatige Zeit“ (δεκαμηνιαῖος χρόνος), des Öfteren übersetzt mit „zehn Monate“.51 Der Autor wollte aber offensichtlich ausdrücklich die zeitliche Erstreckung der Schwangerschaft hervorkehren, da er ansonsten nur δεκαμηνιαῖος sagen hätte brauchen. Das LXX-hapax legomenon δεκαμηνιαῖος „zehn Monate dauernd“52 hat in hellenistischer Zeit die Rolle des klassischen δεκάμηνος übernommen, ein Hinweis darauf, dass der Autor Koinegriechisch verwendet. In diesem Kontext ist χρόνος als eine zeitlich 49 Eine rühmliche Ausnahme ist z. B. ATd, wobei der gleiche Übersetzer in nEÜ wieder den Singular gesetzt hat. 50 Die mehrfach belegte Phrase wird in der LXX konsequent mit μακρόθυμος übersetzt, sodass die zeitliche Dimension und die zeitliche Erstreckung nicht mehr gegeben sind. 51 Vgl. „In zehn Monaten“ Hübner, Weisheit, 92; so auch EÜ; nEÜ. 52 Gemoll, Schul- und Handwörterbuch, 186. Warum die Schwangerschaft mit zehn und nicht mit neun Monaten angegeben wird, hängt mit dem Unterschied zwischen der Zählung in Mondphasen und der Rechnung nach der Sonnenzeit zusammen.

250  Friedrich V. Reiterer

klar eingegrenzte Zeitangabe zu verstehen, die eine besondere, herausgehobene Zeitspanne umfasst, daher ist allen Übersetzungen zuzustimmen, die eine Phase53 benennen. Inhaltlich ist im Hinblick auf die Zeitspanne zu betonen, dass eine Entwicklung bzw. Entfaltung vom Embryo zum lebensfähigen Neugeborenen einen Zeitverlauf voraussetzt. ●

Χρόνος und πολυχρόνιος in Weish 4,8.13

„7 Der Gerechte aber, kommt auch sein Ende früh, geht in Gottes Ruhe ein. 8 Denn ehrenvolles Alter besteht nicht in Langzeitigkeit und wird nicht an der Zahl der Jahre gemessen. 9 Graues Haar bedeutet für die Menschen Klugheit und Greisenalter ein Leben ohne Tadel. 10 Er gefiel Gott und wurde von ihm geliebt; da er mitten unter Sündern lebte, wurde er entrückt. 11 Er wurde hinweggenommen, damit nicht Schlechtigkeit seine Einsicht verkehrte und Arglist seine Seele täuschte. 12 Denn der Reiz des Bösen verdunkelt das Gute und der Taumel der Begierde verdirbt den arglosen Sinn. 13 Früh vollendet, hat er ein langes Leben gehabt; 14 da seine Seele dem Herrn gefiel, enteilte sie aus der Mitte des Bösen. Die Leute sahen es, ohne es zu verstehen; sie nahmen es sich nicht zu Herzen, 15 dass Gnade und Erbarmen seinen Auserwählten zuteilwird, Belohnung seinen Heiligen“ (Weish 4,7–15).

Den Kontext von Weish 4,13 kann man mit Weish 4,7 charakterisieren: „Der Gerechte (δίκαιος) aber wird, wenn er früh stirbt (φθάσῃ τελευτῆσαι), in der Ruhe54 (ἐν ἀναπαύσει) sein“ (ATd). Es geht also um den frühen Tod. Wie soll man diesen interpretieren? Ein Blick in die israelitische Tradition zeigt keinen Schwerpunkt auf dem frühen Tod. Es ist ein Geschenk Gottes und Anerkennung durch ihn, wenn jemand in hohem Alter stirbt; vgl. Gen 15,15; 25,8 (Abraham); 37,3; 44,20 (Israel/Jakob); 1 Chr 29,28 (David).55 Wenn Gott einen neuen Himmel und eine neue Erde geschaffen und man die frühere Not hinter sich gelassen haben wird (Jes 65,15), wird sich als eschatologische Hoffnung die Lebenserwartung ausdehnen: langes Leben ist ein Kulminationspunkt einer geradezu paradiesischen Phase: „Es wird dort keinen Säugling mehr geben, der nur wenige Tage lebt, und keinen Greis, der seine Tage nicht erfüllt; wer als Hundertjähriger stirbt, gilt als junger Mann, und wer die hundert Jahre verfehlt, gilt als verflucht“ (Jes 65,20).

53 So ATd: „in zehnmonatiger Zeit“; Nesselrath: „während einer Zeit von zehn Monaten“; Winston, Wisdom: „during a ten-month’s space“; NRSV; NETS: „within the period of ten months“; NAB: „in a ten-months’ period.“ Wenn man Luth; nLuth: „zehn Monate lang“ hier dazu rechnet, dann wurde χρόνος mit „lang“ als zeitliche Erstreckung wiedergegeben. 54 Die EÜ; nEÜ ergänzen „Gottes“. 55 Man kann die Beispiele noch erweitern, wie z. B. mit Gideon (Ri 8,32).

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit



251

Paradigmatisch für die Hochschätzung eines langen Lebens und den erst spät erfolgten Tod mag man den letzten Vers56 des Buch Ijob nehmen: „Dann starb Ijob, hochbetagt (‫ ָזֵקן‬/πρεσβύτερος) und satt an Lebenstagen (‫ ו ְּׂשַבע ָיִמים‬/ καὶ πλήρης ἡμερῶν)“ (Ijob 42,17). Mit Bitten an Gott versucht der Beter sich gegen den frühen Tod zu wehren: „Er (JHWH) hat meine Kraft auf dem Weg gebrochen, er hat meine Tage verkürzt. Darum sage ich: Mein Gott, raff mich nicht weg in der Mitte meines Lebens, …“ (Ps 102,24–25). Ein früher Tod wird negativ beurteilt, mitunter als Unheil angesehen.57 Auf der Linie der Kontrastierung der Lebenszeit steht Spr 10,27: „Gottesfurcht bringt langes Leben (‫ ּת ֹוִסיף ָיִמים‬/ προστίθησιν ἡμέρας), doch die Jahre der Frevler sind verkürzt (‫ ו ְּׁשנ ֹות ְר ָ ׁשִעים ִּתְקֹצְרָנה‬/ ἔτη δὲ ἀσεβῶν ὀλιγωθήσεται).“ Solche Worte legen den Schluss nahe, dass jene Person, die früh verstorben ist, zu den Übeltätern zu zählen ist. Ausdrücklich hebt sich der Autor des Buches der Weisheit von der eben dargestellten biblischen Tradition ab und betont seine Werte, in dem er sagt (Weish 4,8): „Das ehrenhafte Alter ist weder das lange Zeit dauernde (τὸ πολυχρόνιον) noch wird es gemessen an der Zahl der Jahre (ἀριθμῷ ἐτῶν).“ Zaghaft war schon in Jes 57,1–2 angedeutet worden, dass der Gerechte – obgleich zu Tode gekommen – nicht vollständig gescheitert ist, sondern zum Frieden (‫ ָ ׁשל ֹום‬/ ἐν εἰρήνῃ) gelangen werde,58 wobei nicht näher ausgeführt wird, wie das zu verstehen sei. Der Autor des Buches der Weiseit pocht darauf, dass für die Beurteilung der Lebenszeit andere Beurteilungskriterien gelten: es geht um Erfüllung der Intention Gottes im Leben. Der Gerechte „früh vollendet, hat angefüllt lange Zeiten“ (ἐπλήρωσεν χρόνους μακρούς; Weish 4,13). Das „Vollmachen/πληρόω“ bezieht sich anders als Ijob 42,17 (πλήρης ἡμερῶν) nicht auf die individuell-persönliche Erfüllung, sondern darauf, wieweit der Gerechte der Intention Gottes entsprochen hat. Trifft das zu („Gefallen hat ja dem Herrn seine Seele“; Weish 4,14), dann kommt er nach dem kurzen Leben in die Ruhe Gottes. Derlei Vorstellungen geben eine Antwort auf aktuelle Fragen, die bald nach der Zeit des biblischen Autors auf einem Grabstein folgend anzutreffen ist. Engel zitiert aus einer Grabinschrift (Rom 1./2. Jh.), wonach der „Jüngling im zarten Alter … der hier ruht, ein Liebling der Götter gewesen ist,“59 wie ähnlich auch in Weish 4,14 steht. Im Rahmen der Trostliteratur schreibt Cicero (106–43 v. Chr.) über den frühen Tod, dass „keiner zu kurz gelebt hat, der die Pflicht 56 In der LXX folgt noch eine längere Erweiterung; vgl. zu Weish 5,15. 57 „Ich sprach: In der Mitte meiner Tage muss ich hinab zu den Pforten der Unterwelt, ich bin gefangen für den Rest meiner Jahre“ (Jes 38,10). 58 „Der Gerechte kommt um und niemand nimmt es sich zu Herzen. Die Treuen werden dahingerafft, ohne dass es jemand beachtet. Ja, von der Bosheit wird der Gerechte dahingerafft. Er gelangt zum Frieden, sie ruhen auf ihren Lagern, ein jeder, der seinen Weg geradeaus geht.“ 59 Engel, Buch, 100.

252  Friedrich V. Reiterer

vollkommener Tugend erfüllt hat“ (Tusc. 1.109). Seneca (ca. 1 v. Chr – 65 n. Chr.) – ein Zeitgenosse des Autors des Buches der Weisheit – hat sich mehrfach mit dem frühen Tod beschäftigt. Man liest z. B. in seiner Trostschrift, die er an Marcia richtet: „Es habe einen jungen, römischen Mann (puerum Romae) gegeben von außergewöhnlicher Gestalt, von Kraft strotzend; aber er verschied bald (cito decessit). Dass er bald einmal sterben werde, hat jeder Verständige ausgesprochen. … Es naht das Ende, wo das Wachstum aufgezehrt ist“ (Tusc. 1.23,5). Diese Entwicklung gilt aber nicht nur für die körperliche Reifung, sondern auch für die Entwicklung des Charakters. So konnte man an Marcia gerichtet lesen (Tusc. 1.23,3): „du sahst die Klugkeit des Alters an einem jungen Mann, die Seele über alle Genüsse (omnium voluptatum animum) siegreich, gebessert, befreit von Fehlern, Reichtum ohne Habsucht, Ehren ohne Ehrgeiz, Vergnügen ohne Genusssucht erstrebend, da meintest du, lange könne er dir unversehrt bleiben? Was immer zur Vollendung kommt, ist dem Ende nahe (ab exitu prope est).“ Die Themenstellung des Autors des Weisheitsbuches überschneidet sich kaum mit anderen alttestamentlichen Stellen, wohl aber mit Fragestellungen, die zur Zeit des Autors außerhalb – ausgenommen ist der vom gleichen Ambiente beeinflusse Philon60 – Israels hoch aktuell waren. Der Autor hat wahrscheinlich eine konkrete jung verstorbene Person vor Augen, von der ausgehend er argumentiert, wie die Verbformen (vgl. φθάσῃ τελευτῆσαι v.7; ἠγαπήθη … μετετέθη; v.10) zeigen. Henoch – er wird im Buch der Weisheit nie namentlich genannt – fungiert teilweise als biblische Vorlage, wie die Terminologie für Gottes Bewertung belegt; vgl. die gleiche Wortwurzel im Kontext von Henoch: εὐηρέστησεν in Gen 5,24 und Sir 44,16 und εὐάρεστος in Weish 4,10.61 Henoch ist jedoch mit seinen – nach Gen 5,23 – 365 Lebensjahren nicht jung verstorben. Er wurde „versetzt,“ ohne vorher verstorben zu sein und zudem ist er in den zitierten Verweisstellen kein Beispiel für Gerechtigkeit. „Das vorzeitige Ende des Gerechten kann … ein Zeichen besonderen Wohlwollens vonseiten Gottes werden, und für ein solches Ende ist eine bekannte Figur wie Henoch nur ein entferntes Zeichen. In dieser Art verwendet das Buch der Weisheit teilweise eine in seiner Zeit bekannte Figur, zeigt aber zugleich, dass es die apokalyptischen Spekulationen, mit der die Henochianer sie umgeben hatten, nicht übernimmt.“62 Der transponierte Gerechte ist zu seinem eigenen Schutz verstorben (vgl. Weish 4,10b.14b) und weil seine Seele dem Herrn gefiel (Weish 4,14a). Man erinnert

60 Philon hebt mehrfach hervor, dass nicht die Länge, sondern die Qualität des Lebens entscheidend ist; vgl. Abr. 271, 275; Fug. 146; Her. 290–292; Gai. 1.142; Immut. 120; Plant. 168; Präm. 112; QE 2.20. 61 Vgl. Witte, „Emotions,“ 165–66. 62 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 147.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

253

sich an Weish 3,1–3: „Die Seelen der Gerechten aber sind in Gottes Hand und keine Folter kann sie berühren. In den Augen der Toren schienen sie gestorben, ihr Heimgang galt als Unglück, ihr Scheiden von uns als Vernichtung; sie aber sind in Frieden.“ In 4,7 steht, dass der Gerechte in der Ruhe, wohl der Ruhe Gottes, sein wird (ἐν ἀναπαύσει ἔσται).63 Der Autor des Buches der Weisheit ringt um die Terminologie, wie er seine Botschaft von der Existenz über den Tod hinaus formulieren sollte. Es gab offensichtlich noch keine eingeführte theologische Ausdrucksweise im Kreis der Adressaten, auf die der Autor zurückgreifen konnte. Somit sehen wir ein Theologumenon in crescendo. Dieser Abschnitt kümmert sich um die Bewertung eines redlichen Menschen, der früh verstorben ist. Für den gilt, dass sich die Ehre eines solchen früh Verstorbenen nicht nach den überkommenen Bewertungskriterien bemessen lässt, wonach nur ein langes Leben zu großer Reife führt. Man muss vielmehr auf das entscheidende Kriterium schauen: wer gefällt Gott und entspricht somit seinem Plan, unabhängig von hohem Alter. Es gibt zu wenige Angaben – ausgenommen das negativ formulierte Gegenteil in Weish 4,12 – um die Lebensführung positiv zu beschreiben. Das Urteil Gottes zeigt aber, dass dessen Leben den Erwartungen Gottes entsprochen hat, und daher kann man für seine (kurze) Lebenszeit festhalten: ἐπλήρωσεν χρόνους μακρούς. Den Plural χρόνους wird man als Intensivplural bewerten, womit zum Ausdruck kommt, dass die Zeit als Lebenszeit (χρόνος) besonders konzentriert erlebt und gelebt wurde, sodass es um eine interne Vervielfältigung geht. Das Leben wurde von innen her vollgemacht (ἐπλήρωσεν).64 Auffallend ist die terminologische Berührung mit dem Abschlussvers des Ijobbuches. Hinsichtlich der Zeitdauer bis zur Vollendung tritt ein scharfer Gegensatz zutage: καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν Ιωβ πρεσβύτερος καὶ πλήρης ἡμερῶν (Ijob 42,17). Obwohl der Gedankenzusammenhang eschatologisch ist, übersteigen die Zeitvorstellungen die innerweltliche Dimension nicht: sowohl πολυχρόνιον wie χρόνοι bezeichnen Phasen während des normalen Lebens. Die Langzeitigkeit (τὸ πολυχρόνιον) des Lebens bzw. die (hohe) Anzahl der Jahre (ἀριθμὸς ἐτῶν) und auch die langdauernden Zeiten (χρόνοι μακροί65) ereignen sich im normalen, irdischen Leben, haben aber Aus-

63 Der Wert der inneren Ruhe wird auch bei Philon mehrfach erwähnt; vgl. Abr. 27–28; All. 3.77; Cher. 87. 64 Derlei Bewertungen führen bis in die Neuzeit dazu, dass man sich mit schon länger Verstorbenen beschäftigt, wie z. B. bei Sibylla Schwarz (1621–1638), die schon mit 17 Jahren verstarb, aber schon ein derart eindrückliches dichterisches Erbe hinterlassen hat, dass sie als „Pommersche Sappho“ bezeichnet wird. Siehe die Gedenktafeln im St. Nikolai Dom von Greifswald; vgl. für weiterführende Informationen Gassen, „Sibylle Schwarz“; Ziefle, Sibylle Schwarz. 65 Gemoll, Schul- und Handwörterbuch, 482, μακρός: „2. von der Zeit: lange dauernd“.

254  Friedrich V. Reiterer

wirkung auf die Phase nach dem Tod. Es gibt an dieser Stelle keinen Hinweis, wie man die Phase nach dem Tod „zeitlich“ dimensionieren kann!

4.1.3 Χρόνος und καιρός in Parallele ●

Χρόνος und καιρός in Weish 7,18 „17 Er [Gott; v.15] verlieh mir untrügliche Kenntnis der Dinge, den Aufbau der Welt und das Wirken der Elemente zu verstehen, 18 Anfang und Ende und Mitte der Zeiten, die Abfolge der Sonnenwenden und den Wandel der Jahreszeiten 19 den Kreislauf der Jahre und die Stellungen der Sterne, 20 die Natur der Tiere und die Wildheit der Raubtiere, die Gewalt der Geister und die Gedanken der Menschen, die Verschiedenheit der Pflanzen und die Kräfte der Wurzeln. 21 Alles Verborgene und alles Offenbare habe ich erkannt; denn es lehrte mich die Weisheit, die Werkmeisterin aller Dinge“ (Weish 7,17–21).

Noch deutlicher als in Weish 2,4 bricht sich das naturwissenschaftliche Interesse, das in gebildeten griechischen Kreisen vorhanden war, Bahn. Die Frage ist gestellt: wie ist der Kosmos innerlich strukturiert. Dass die Welt z. B. durch Maß, Zahl und Gewicht axiomatisch bestimmt ist (so Weish 11,20), wird schon seit langer Zeit diskutiert.66 Die Dynamik zur Einsicht in die innere Struktur der „Welt“ geht in Weish 7,17a von Gott aus und sein Instrument ist die Weisheit67: „Er verlieh mir untrügliche Kenntnis vom Seienden / τῶν ὄντων γνῶσιν“. Die Terminologie ist der damaligen Metaphysik entnommen. Es geht um „Kosmologie (7,17b), Astronomie (7,18–19), Botanik und Zoologie (7,20a), Meteorologie und Psychologie (7,20b) sowie Medizin (2,20c)“.68 Gott schenkt Einsicht in alles, „was das damalige hellenistische Bildungsideal (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία) umfasste.“69 Die Herrschaft über die Zeit und alle Existenz wird auch in der griechischen Welt mit religiösen Implikationen gesehen und im Kreis der Gebildeten diskutiert. Besonders für Zeus gilt, dass er „Anfang, Ende und Mitte alles Seienden ist“ (Pl. Leg. 715e–716a). Die Zeit entwickelt sich, hat einen Anfang, eine Mitte und einen Endpunkt. Der Formulierung im Buch der Weisheit wird jede göttliche Implikation entzo66 Pl. Rep. 602; Xen. Mem 1.1,9; Soph. Fragment 399/oder 432; vgl. im Judentum TestNaph 2,3; äthHen 43,2; 4 Ezra 4,36–37. 67 Die Weisheit „erscheint hier also … als Gott selbst, insofern er in Menschen wirkt;“ Engel, Buch, 131–32. Die Identifikation zwischen Gott und Weisheit ist an dieser Stelle nicht so klar wie in Weish 10, wo die Weisheit tatsächlich so wirkt, wie es traditionell von Gott gesagt worden ist; vgl. Reiterer, „Beobachrungen“, 191. 68 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 212. 69 Schmitt, Buch, 81.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

255

gen. Es handelt sich um ganz natürliche Abläufe, das gilt für alle Zeitspannen (χρόνων; 7,18a), sowie für die Sonnenwenden (τροπῶν ἀλλαγάς) und die Jahreszeiten (μεταβολὰς καιρῶν). Da sich die Jahreszeiten markant unterscheiden, wird dafür καιρός gewählt, jenes Wort, das häufiger als χρόνος bestimmte Zeitphasen bzw. Zeitpunkte markiert. Zu beachten ist, dass χρόνων und καιρῶν wie oben in Weish 4,13 im Intensivplural stehen. Das deutet auf immer wiederkehrende, lange andauernde Vorgänge hin. Alle Ebenen, die vor allem in der Orphik religiöse Relevanz hatten, sind profane, natürliche Vorgänge. Während auch die Stoa „in Gottes Werken den Beweis für seine Existenz und für seine weise Lenkung der Welt sieht“,70 wird der von Gott Beschenkte direkt in diese Kenntnis einbezogen. ●

καιρός und χρόνος in Weish 8,8

„4 Eingeweiht in das Wissen Gottes, bestimmte sie [die Weisheit] seine Werke. 5 Ist Reichtum begehrenswerter Besitz im Leben, was ist dann reicher als die Weisheit, die in allem wirkt? 6 Wenn Klugheit wirksam ist, wer von allem Seienden ist eine größere Werkmeisterin als sie? 7 Wenn jemand Gerechtigkeit liebt, in ihren Mühen findet er die Tugenden. Denn sie lehrt Maß und Klugheit, Gerechtigkeit und Tapferkeit. Nützlicheres als diese gibt es nicht im Leben der Menschen. 8 Wenn jemand nach reicher Erfahrung strebt: Sie kennt das Vergangene und errät das Kommende, sie versteht, die Worte schön zu formen und Rätsel zu lösen; sie weiß im Voraus Zeichen und Wunder und kennt den Ausgang von Perioden und Zeiten“ (Weish 8,4–8).

Die Weisheit ist in Weish 8,8 die Lehrerin, die umfassend unterrichtet. Man braucht sich nicht an die griechischen Lehrer, nicht an die Philosophen zu wenden, weil die Weisheit ohnedies umfassender informiert. Dazu gehört auch das Wissen um „den Ausgang von Perioden und Zeitenverlauf / ἐκβάσεις καιρῶν καὶ χρόνων“ (7,18c). Wenn jemand die Herrschaft anstrebt oder innehat, dann fühlt er sich wohler, wenn er weiß, wie sich die politische und gesellschaftliche Lage entwickeln wird.71 Da kann die Weisheit helfen. Solche Fragen waren ganz natürlich. Man vergleiche Dan 2,21, wo Daniel den Auftrag des Königs Nebukadnezzar erfüllen sollte, den Traum des Königs zu deuten: „Er betete: Der Name Gottes sei gepriesen von Ewigkeit zu Ewigkeit. Denn er hat die Weisheit und die Macht. Er bestimmt den Wechsel der Zeiten und Fristen (‫ְוהו ּא ְמַהְׁשֵנא ִעָּדַנָי ּא ְו ִזְמַנָי ּא‬ /αὐτὸς ἀλλοιοῖ καιροὺς καὶ χρόνους); er setzt Könige ab und setzt Könige ein“ (Dan 2,20.21a). Zu den Zeichen der Macht Gottes gehört, dass er über Könige, wie auch über den Kosmos herrscht, Letzteres mit dem Stilmittel der Synekdoche

70 Schmitt, Buch, 81. 71 Vgl. eindrücklich zum Thema des Machterhaltes Dan 4.

256  Friedrich V. Reiterer

formuliert. Daniel hat Kommendes zu interpretieren, doch ereignet sich das im normalen Regierungsbereich. Es ist für das Verständnis des Gesamtrahmens auf die damaligen Diskussionen über das Verhältnis von Wissen (ἐπιστήμη, Weish 8,4) und μαντεία72 als Gabe der Weissagung hinzuweisen, die als „Mantik“ im Stoizismus als Wissen (ἐπιστήμη) verstanden wurde.73 Auf diese Weise spielen zeitgeschichtliche Fragestellungen, die auch religiöse Implikationen haben, eine Rolle für die Formulierung. Nun liest man: „Wenn jemand nach reicher Erfahrung strebt“, dann soll er sich an die Weisheit wenden, denn sie kann Rätsel lösen und den Wechsel der Zeiten interpretieren: Die Weisheit „kennt das Vergangene und errät das Kommende, sie versteht, die Worte schön zu formen und Rätsel zu lösen; sie weiß im Voraus Zeichen und Wunder und kennt den Ausgang von Perioden und Zeiten“ (ἐκβάσεις καιρῶν καὶ χρόνων; Weish 8,8). Man könnte erwarten, dass man das Vergangene weiß, doch zeigt die Erfahrung, dass sich das Vergessen nur allzu schnell über das Gedächtnis breitet. Zum Verständnis von „Zeit“ gehört der Rückblick. Die Weisheit sorgt dafür, dass das Wissen um Vergangenes nicht verloren geht. Der Schwerpunkt von v. 8 liegt aber auf dem Kommenden. Ob damit einfache und unbestimmte Zukunft gemeint ist, ist fraglich. Es geht um die Implikationen des Kommenden und zwar in konzentrierter Form, wie die „Zeitangaben“ als Intensivplural und Hendiadyoin belegen, es geht um „alle Zeiten. Die Weisheit ist also auch im Blick auf die Zukunft allwissend. Als Weisheit Gottes partizipiert sie an dessen Allwissenheit“74 und kennt daher auch die innere Dynamik aller sich entwickelnden Zeiten. Zeit ist eine Bewegung auf ein Ziel hin. Sie hat ein Telos, das Gott kennt.

4.2 Untersuchung von αἰών 4.2.1 Αἰών als räumlicher Begriff in Weish 13,9 „1 Ohne Verstand waren von Natur aus alle Menschen, bei denen Nichterkenntnis Gottes war. Aus den sichtbaren Gütern vermochten sie nicht den Seienden zu erkennen. Beim Anblick der Werke erkannten sie den Meister nicht. … 7 Sie verweilen bei der Erforschung seiner Werke und lassen sich durch den Augenschein täuschen; denn schön ist, was sie schauen. 8 Doch auch sie sind unentschuldbar; 9 wenn sie durch ihren Verstand schon fähig waren, die Welt zu erforschen, warum fanden sie dann nicht eher den Gebieter von alldem?“ (Weish 13,1.7–9). 72 Vgl. zu μαντεία (μαντεῖον, μάντευμα) Gemoll, Schul- und Handwörterbuch, 484: „Weissagung, Gabe der Weissagung.“ 73 Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta II, 304 frg. 1018. 74 Hübner, Weisheit, 118.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit



257

Schon Aristoteles hatte in der nur auf dem Umweg der Stoiker zugänglichen Abhandlung περὶ φιλοσοφίας festgehalten, man könne die Existenz Gottes beweisen. Mit der gleichen Fragestellung beschäftigt sich auch Weish 13,1. Solche Menschen haben keinen Verstand, bei denen nur die Nichterkenntnis Gottes75 vorhanden ist (οἷς παρῆν θεοῦ ἀγνωσία). Die Wahl des in der LXX nur noch in Ijob 35,16 verwendeten Substantivs ἀγνωσία stellt nachdrücklicher als das in der LXX häufige ἄγνοια76 die γνῶσις (Erkenntnis, Einsicht, Wissen) in den Mittelpunkt.77 Hätte der Autor einfache Dummheit anprangern wollen, hätte er z. B. μωρία verwenden können. Es geht ihm aber nicht um einfache Dummheit oder Unkenntnis, sondern um das Fehlen der Kenntnis, wie die Wahl des Substantivs mit einem Alfa privativum zeigt. Das Gewicht dieses einleitenden Satzes beurteilt Engel78 folgendermaßen: „Das erste Kolon fasst das Ergebnis der in 13,3–9 folgenden Erörterung vorwegnehmend und beurteilend zusammen.“ Es stimmt, dass der Mensch zufolge seiner natürlichen Voraussetzung, φύσει (13,1), nicht in der Lage ist, über das „Dass“ (Faktum) hinausgehend das „Wer und Wie“ Gottes (Schöpfer und Retter) zu erfassen. Dazu bedarf es des λόγος und des νόμος im biblischen Sinne. Die philosophischen Versuche, „Dass d. h. die Existenz“ Gottes mit dem Verstand zu erfassen, sind in den Augen des Autors des Buches der Weisheit vielfältig, wie Weish 13,2 aufzählt. Die Menschen blieben in ihren Forschungen aber regelmäßig bei Naturgegebenheiten bzw. Gestirnen usw. stehen und hielten diese für Gottheiten, sodass es zu einem Panentheismus bzw. Polytheismus kam (13,10–18). Es fehlt die entscheidende Frage über die äußeren Gegebenheiten hinausgehend: „Um wieviel ist der mächtiger, der sie installiert hat?“ 13,4b; vgl. auch 13,3b. – Den Bereich bzw. die natürlichen Realitäten, welche die Menschen erforschen und welche zur Erkenntnis Gottes führen könnten, subsumiert 13,9 unter dem Stichwort αἰών: „Wenn sie durch ihren Verstand schon fähig waren, die Welt zu erforschen (στοχάσασθαι τὸν αἰῶνα)79, warum fanden sie dann nicht eher den Gebieter von alldem?“80 – Da es bei den naturwissenschaftlichen 75 So ATd; vgl. weiters: Nesselrath 81: „denen Gott unbekannt war;“ EÜ, nEÜ: „denen die Gotteserkenntnis fehlte;“ NETS: „who were ignorant of God.“ 76 Das gebräuchlichere ἄγνοια ist inklusive Psalmen Salomos 26mal in der LXX belegt. 77 Ohne auf die hier beobachtete Wortwahl einzugehen, bearbeitet Goering, „Election,“ 174– 76, die Thematik der Erkenntnis, die er zurecht als zentral darstellt. 78 Engel, Weisheit, 215. 79 „They could investigate the world,“ so NETS, NRSV und NAB. 80 ATd versucht die zeitliche Dimension von αἰών als ausschlaggebend zu retten und schreibt zur Übersetzung „Welt“, dass gemeint sei „die Zeit“ (und alles, was darin wahrnehmbar ist; z. St.: 1077). Dieses Verständnis deckt sich nicht mit der Denkweise des Autors, der αἰών nie mit Worten für Zeit kombinierte.

258  Friedrich V. Reiterer

Forschern keinen Fortschritt und keine vertiefte Einsicht gibt, sieht der Autor bei den Gelehrten ein schuldhaftes Versäumnis (13,8), da sie an der äußeren Seite der Welt (αἰών) hängen bleiben, ohne deren Existenzgrundlage zu suchen, sodass sie statt des Schöpfers die von diesem geschaffene Welt für Götter hielten.

4.2.2 Αἰών als räumliche und anthropologische Größe ●

Αἰών in Weish 18,4 „4 Jene [= Unerziehbaren/ ἀπαίδευτοι ψυχαί; 17,1] hingegen hatten es verdient, des Lichtes beraubt und in Finsternis gefangen zu sein, weil sie einst deine Söhne und Töchter eingeschlossen und gefangen hielten, durch die das unvergängliche Licht des Gesetzes der Welt gegeben werden sollte“ (Weish 18,4).

Vieles war über Spannungen und Feindschaften ab 17,1 zu lesen gewesen. Als Strafe dafür, dass die unerziehbaren Seelen zuvor das Volk Gottes gefangen und so über dieses Finsternis gebracht hatten, waren die Unterdrücker „des Lichtes beraubt und in Finsternis gefangen“ (Weish 18,4a). Aber jetzt bricht sich positive Hoffnung, sowohl für die Gegner wie auch für das Volk Gottes, Bahn: Durch Gottes Söhne und Töchter wird „das unvergängliche Licht des Gesetzes der Welt gegeben / τὸ ἄφθαρτον νόμου φῶς αἰῶνι δίδασθαι“ (Weish 18,4). – Die Rolle Gottes als Richter und die Stichworte νόμος81 und φῶς verbinden unsere Stelle mit Jes 2,3–5: „Viele Völker werden hingehen und sagen: Kommt, lasst uns hinaufgehen zum Berg des HERRN, zum Hause des Gottes Jakobs, dass er uns lehre seine Wege und wir wandeln auf seinen Steigen! Denn von Zion wird das Gesetz (νόμος) ausgehen und das Wort des HERRN (λόγος κυρίου) von Jerusalem. Und er wird richten unter den Nationen (κρινεῖ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ἐθνῶν) und zurechtweisen viel Volk (λαὸν πολύν). … Kommt nun, ihr vom Hause Jakob, lasst uns wandeln im Licht des HERRN (τῷ φωτὶ κυρίου)!“ Es geht also um Gottes νόμος und λόγος als Licht/φῶς. Dass das Wort Gottes Licht ist (Ps 119/118,105), ist in verschiedenen Varianten ein gebräuchlicher Topos, seltener ist das Gesetz Licht (Spr 6,23; Jes 51,4)82.

81 Mazzinghi, „Law,“ 42–45, arbeitet die Bedeutsamkeit des Stoizismus heraus und in diesem Kontext die Relation von νόμος und λόγος. 82 Spr 6,23 LXX: „Ein Leuchter ist das Gebot des Gesetzes (ἐντολὴ νόμου) und ein Licht (φῶς), und der Weg des Lebens Zurechtweisung und Erziehung“ (ATd); Jes 51,4 LXX: „Hört auf mich, hört, mein Volk und ihr Könige, wendet mir eure Ohren zu! Denn Gesetz (νόμος) wird von mir ausgehen, und mein Recht (ἡ κρίσις) [wird] zum Licht (φῶς) der Völkerschaften“ (ATd). Zur

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

259

Indem das Licht in Weish 18,4 als ἄφθαρτον bezeichnet wird, übernimmt der Autor eine Qualifikation aus der zeitgenössischen Philosophie: Die Epikureerer behaupten, „die ‚Unverderblichkeit‘ sei eine positive Eigenschaft, die die Götter vor dem Zerfall und der Auflösung ihrer materiell gedachten Körper in ewiger Glückseligkeit bewahrte und ihnen vorbehalten sei. Der Sprecher ordnet diese Eigenschaft ‚von Natur aus‘ dem wahren Gott zu, ohne die anderen Vorstellungen der Epikureer über die Götter mit zu übernehmen, …: Die ‚Unverderblichkeit‘ als physische und geistige Ganzheit und Teilhabe am Leben mit Gott, in der und auf die hin die Menschen anfangs geschaffen wurden, erhalten auch sie, jedoch nicht von Natur aus, sondern als Geschenk Gottes.“83 – Dieses Geschenk Gottes betrifft αἰών, womit ohne Einschränkung die Welt der Menschen84 gemeint ist. Die grenzenlose Universalität ist nachdrücklich hervorzuheben. Die Frage, ob sich die Menschen, die sich im Irrtum befinden oder gar Feinde waren, zu Gott gewendet hatten, ist nur indirekt beantwortet, indem sie die Finsternis verließen und im Lichte sind. ●

Αἰών in Weish 14,6

„5 Du willst, dass die Werke deiner Weisheit nicht ungenutzt bleiben. Darum vertrauen Menschen ihr Leben sogar einem winzigen Holz an, und welche die Flut auf einem Floß durchquerten, wurden gerettet. 6 Auch schon am Anfang nämlich, als die überheblichen Riesen zugrunde gingen, hinterließ die Hoffnung der Welt, die sich auf ein Floß geflüchtet hatte, der Nachwelt einen Samen zur Hervorbringung, gesteuert, von deiner Hand. 7 Denn Segen ruht auf dem Holz, durch das Gerechtigkeit geschieht“ (Weish 14,5–7).

Der Autor des Buches der Weisheit interpretiert immer wieder Erzählungen aus der biblischen Tradition auf ungewöhnliche Art. Zudem bezieht er bei seinen Formulierungen kontemporäre Vorstellungen und Anliegen mit ein. Im obigen Zitat leitet er – auf den ersten Blick harmlos – seine Argumentation mit dem Beispiel eines für die wirtschaftliche, politische und militärische Ebene alltäglichen und zugleich wichtigen Bereiches ein, nämlich die Überfahrten über das Meer. Dazu passt – schon Kritik andeutend – die Feststellung, dass „der Erwerbstrieb das Fahrzeug ersonnen hat“ (Weish 14,2). Die folgenden Überlegungen haben also immer das Meer im Hintergrund, denn „wer eine Seereise unternimmt, ruft im Augenblick der Abfahrt das Götterbild an, das oft gerade auf Tora Israels als Licht für die Welt vgl. Jes 2,15; 49,6; Mi 4,1–5; TestLevi 14,4; Philon, QuaestEx 2.42. 83 Engel, Buch, 274. 84 Mazzinghi, „Law,“ 41, sieht als Radius für αἰών „the whole world.“ Αἰών ist demnach etwas anderes als die personale, auch über die menschliche Welt hinausweisende Bedeutung des Wortes: „Ich bin kein Äon, sondern ein Mensch.“

260  Friedrich V. Reiterer

dem Bug des Schiffes befestigt war.“85 Die Vorsehung (πρόνοια; Weish 14,3a)86 Gottvaters schafft auch in aussichtsloser Situation einen sicheren Weg, wie unter Anspielung auf die Rettung am Meer geschrieben steht, wo nach biblischem Bericht in Ex 14,1–15,21 und Weish 14,3b.c kein Sturm getobt hat. Tosende Meereswogen (Weish 14,5) während einer Schifffahrt verursachen panische Angstgefühle, wie sie schon Homer, Il. 15.624–628 – dort bildlich zur Charakterisierung der Schrecken, die von den Griechen ausgehen – eindrücklich beschrieben hat: wer auf einem rüstigen Schiff (Il. 15.624) dem Sturm und Wasserschwall, der das Herz der Schiffer geradezu lähmt (Il. 15.627–628), entflieht, der vermeint, dass er aus dem Tod (ἐκ θανάτοιο; Il 15. 628) entkommt ist.87 Während in Weish 14,5c die Dramatik der Rettung infolge einer durch stürmische See erfolgten Meeresfahrt zu spüren ist, fällt die kontrastierende Beschreibung des „Meeresfahrzeuges“ auf: ein winziges Holz bzw. ein Floß. „Die Menschen vertrauen ihr Leben sogar einem winzigen Holz (ἐλαχίστῳ ξύλῳ) an, und welche die Flut auf einem Floß durchquerten (διελθόντες κλύδωνα σχεδίᾳ), wurden gerettet“ (Weish 14,5). Für den Autor handelt es sich offensichtlich um ein wichtiges Beispiel, doch liegt es nicht auf der Ebene des im vorigen Vers angedeuteten Meeresdurchzugs. Wie kommt denn der Autor auf die Idee, dass man mit kleinem Holz das Meer überquert (διελθόντες κλύδωνα) und zugleich gerettet wird (διεσώθησαν), was eine vorangehende Bedrohung in den Wogen (κλύδωνα) anzeigt. Das Werk der Weisheit schafft trotz des unscheinbaren Gefährts die Rettung. Bricault hat in einer umfangreichen Studie die Rolle der Isis Pelagia88, u. a. Patronin der Seefahrt und Steuerfrau, erörtert. Auf Münzen wird sie u. a. auf einem flachen Holzgefährt – mit einem modernen Surfbrett vergleichbar – dargestellt, sodass die Herkunft des eigenartig „kleinen Holzes“ als Meeresgefährt der Umwelt entnommen ist. Beim biblischen Autor stellt aber die Weisheit die Voraussetzungen für die Rettung her, ohne dass das Wie näher ausgeführt wird. Das Passiv „sie sind gerettet worden“ lässt danach fragen, wer denn das rettende Subjekt ist. Das Passiv ist ein passivum divinum und deutet an, dass jede überwundene Gefahr auf den rettenden Gott Israels hinweist. Wenn es um Rettung geht, dann war schon seit eh und je – so ist ἀρχή89 zu verstehen – Gottes Hand (14,6c) im Spiel. Der Autor verweist in der ihm üblich 85 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 364. 86 Vgl. Beentjes, Road. 87 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 364, zitiert Rahner, Symbole, 434, wonach „die antike Literatur gleichsam durchwoben ist von der Seefahrtsymbolik.“ 88 Vgl. Bricault, Isis Pelagia. Der Rolle der Göttin Isis hat Mazzinghi, „La barca“, 73–87, im Hinblick auf unsere Stelle eine Studie gewidmet. 89 Vgl. Luth, nLuth: „vor alters“; Nesselrath 87: „während der Anfangszeit.“ Zu ἀρχή, vgl. oben 7,18; 14,13.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit



261

verschlüsselnden Art auf den Untergang der überheblichen Giganten; Weish 14,6a. Das Stichwort „Gigant“ verbindet Weish 14,6a mit Gen 6,4. Dort findet sich auch eine zeitliche Einordnung der Giganten: sie waren ἀπ’ αἰῶνος, seit undenklicher Zeit, vorhanden. In dieser Bedeutung verwendet aber Weish 14,6 αἰών nicht. Die Giganten von Gen 6,4 sind nach der LXX-Version positiv beschrieben als οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί („die berühmten Menschen“) – „VIPs“ der Vorzeit –, während sie in Weish 14,6 hochmütig genannt werden. Die Giganten kamen um (Weish 14,6). Es ist nicht ausdrücklich ausgesprochen, aber inkludiert, dass der Untergang auf eine Katastrophe zurückgeht. Die Hoffnung des Kosmos (ἡ ἐλπὶς τοῦ κόσμου) floh auf einem Floß (14,6b). Ungewohnt und in einem seltsamen Gegensatz zu Weish 10,4 ist die Interpretation der Rettung, die entfernt an Noach erinnert, der nur als Einzelner ohne Gottes Eingriff und zudem mit einem Floß flieht. Er bereitet weder auf Gottes Geheiß hin das Rettungsgefährt vor, noch schickt ihn Gott auf das Floß. Kurz festgehalten wird nur, dass er der Nachwelt einen Samen zur Hervorbringung hinterlässt: ἀπέλιπεν αἰῶνι σπέρμα γενέσεως. Gegenüber den großen, in 14,5 beschriebenen Gefahren der Seefahrt steht in einer dramatischen Kleinheit das Floß (σχεδία), das sich jetzt auf die See macht: Nach menschlichem Ermessen muss ein solches Unterfangen scheitern! Aber siehe: Trotz der Katastrophe sind weder die allgemeine Zukunftsperspektive (ἡ ἐλπίς) noch die menschliche Nachkommenschaft (σπέρμα) existentiell bedroht, weil Gott direkt eingreift. Inhaltlich stehen sich hier κόσμος und αἰών sehr nahe, wobei es doch differenzierende Akzente gibt: während ἐλπὶς τοῦ κόσμου sehr allgemein ist und die gesamte Schöpfung umfasst, wird durch αἰῶνι σπέρμα γενέσεως der Akzent auf den Menschen gelegt. Αἰών90 spricht von des Menschen Welt, wobei – wie allenthalben im Buch der Weisheit – die Universalität zu betonen ist: Es geht um die gesamte Menschheit. Gelungen ist diese Aktion nur durch „deine Hand“, nämlich die Hand Gottes. Für Hellhörige betont die steuernde Hand (κυβερνηθεῖσα χειρί; 14,6) eine zweifache Botschaft: Im Blick auf die zeitgenössische Fragestellung ist festzuhalten, dass nur Israels Gott ein verlässlicher Steuermann ist (14,5). Er gewährleistet Zukunft, weil die menschliche Arbeit, die das rettende Floß herstellen ließ, gesegnet wird: „Gesegnet ist ja das Holz, durch das Gerechtigkeit entsteht“ (Weish 14,7).91 Während „Holz“ mit positiver Konnotation auf den Schiffsbau 90 „In 14,6c kann man αἰών als ‚Welt‘ verstehen, aber vielleicht besser als ‚die künftige Zeit‘, wie die nachfolgenden ‚Generationen‘. Das Thema der Nachkommenschaft, ausgedrückt im danebenstehenden Wort σπέρμα, betätigt diese Deutung“; Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 364. 91 Holz wird bearbeitet. Innerhalb des Buches der Weisheit setzt der Autor einen Kontrast zu jenen Arbeiten, mit denen Götterstatuen aus Holz hergestellt werden, so in Weish 13,13; 14,21.

262  Friedrich V. Reiterer

weist, wird die Fabrikation von hölzernen Schnitzwerken, die Götterstatuen darstellen (14,8.21), zurückgewiesen. Im Segen liegt eine Anspielung darauf, dass im Segen die Lebenskraft Gottes anwesend ist; vgl. Jes 65,8 in Kombination mit Dtn 28,8.

4.2.3 Αἰών als Dauer ohne (erkennbares) Ende ●

Αἰών in Weish 14,13 „12 Das Ersinnen von Götzenbildern war Grundlage der (religiösen) Hurerei92, ihre Erfindung führte zur Sittenverderbnis. 13 Weder waren sie von Anfang an da noch werden sie in Ewigkeit bleiben. 14 Durch die eitle Ruhmsucht der Menschen sind sie in die Welt gekommen, darum ist ihnen auch ein jähes Ende zugedacht“ (Weish 14,12–14).

Für das zeitliche wie für das materiale Ordnungsgefüge ist ἀρχή – der Gegenpol zu αἰών in 14,13 – ein gewichtiger Terminus, weswegen der Gebrauch von ἀρχή, im Buch der Weisheit genauer behandelt wird. In Weish 12,12–18 wird die Frage diskutiert, wer ein Anrecht oder die Möglichkeit haben sollte, Gott zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen, indem man ihn mit der Frage herausfordert: „Was hast du getan?“ (Weish 12,12). Im Weiteren wird argumentiert, dass es eine Grundlage für die Ausnahmestellung Gottes gibt, da er ja der einzige Gott ist (Weish 12,13). Er besitzt alle denkbare Macht und Stärke (vgl. δύναμις in 12,15; ἰσχύς 12,16.18), also die Vollendung der Stärke (δυνάμεως τελειότης; 12,17). Diese Machtfülle ist nun die Grundlage, der Ausgangspunkt93 (ἀρχή; Weish 12,16) für die Gerechtigkeit Gottes (Weish 12,16). Auch in Weish 14,13 geht es um einen spezifischen Ausgangspunkt, dessen Kulmination einige Verse später beschrieben wird. Denn der Dienst an den Götterbildern – also die konkret-aktive Verehrung – ist „aller Übel Grundlage (ἀρχή), Ursache (αἰτία) und Höhepunkt (πέρας)“ (Weish 14,27). Hier wird αἰτία – an

92 Philologisch ist die Angelegenheit einfach: πορνεία ist Hurerei; Gemoll, Schul- und Handwörterbuch, 623. Wenn die nEÜ mit „Untreue“ übersetzt, dann mag sie Rücksicht nehmen auf einen modernen, im deutschen Sprachraum häufig durch Reservanz gegenüber dem Alten Testament gekennzeichneten neuzeitlichen Leser bzw. Hörer. Es geht jedoch die vom Autor anvisierte Schärfe und Ernsthaftigkeit verloren. 93 EÜ; nEÜ; Winston, Wisdom, 237: source; Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 329, 334; ATd: „Ursprung“, vgl. dazu die Fußnote: „Ursprung: wörtlich Anfang;“ Luth; nLuth, wobei Ursprung wohl im Sinne von zeitlichem „Anfang“ (so Hübner, Weisheit, 162) zu verstehen ist.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

263

sich „Ursache, Anlass, Grund“94 – umrahmt von ἀρχή95 und πέρας. Da ἀρχή und πέρας als zeitliche Angabe fungieren, wird eine innere Verbindung hergestellt: Anfang und Höhepunkt (als zeitliche Angaben) inkludieren auch einen Aspekt der Verursachung. Für die Wortverwendung von ἀρχή im Buch der Weisheit ergibt sich, dass ἀρχή den sachlichen Ausgangspunkt wie auch den allerersten – zeitlichen – Anfang in ein Wort fasst. Für den Autor ist offensichtlich der sachliche Aspekt dominant, sieht er sich doch veranlasst, in der bedeutsamen Stelle Weish 6,22 den zeitlichen Aspekt neben ἀρχή, zusätzlich zu betonen: „Was aber Weisheit ist und wie sie wurde, will ich verkünden und euch kein Geheimnis verbergen. Ich will ihre Spur vom Anfang der Entstehung (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γενέσεως) an verfolgen, ihre Kenntnis will ich offenbar machen und nicht an der Wahrheit vorbeigehen“ (Weish 6,22). Es bleibt für unsere Untersuchung: ἀρχή ist mehrdeutig, inkludiert einen sachlichen Ausgangspunkt und einen zeitlichen Beginn. Die Götter, deren Standbilder und deren Rolle für das Leben sind Mittelpunkt in Weish 13–14: sie werden abgelehnt und gelten als Abfall vom Herrn. Wie in der traditionell prophetischen Wortwahl wird deren Verehrung als πορνεία bezeichnet; vgl. Hos 4,12: „Mein Volk befragt sein Holz, und sein Stab soll ihm antworten. Ja, der Geist der Hurerei (‫ רו ַּח ְזנו ּ ִנים‬/ πνεύματι πορνείας) hat sie verführt, dass sie von ihrem Gott weghurten (ּ ‫ַוִי ּ ְזנו‬/ἐξεπόρνευσαν).“96 Die Verurteilung der Götterbilderverehrung bleibt in der Folgezeit gleich, sodass Niebuhr schreiben kann: „In der frühjüdischen Paränese ist πορνεία als Topos eine feste Größe.“97 Es gilt nämlich, dass „die (religiöse) Hurerei Mutter aller Übel ist, von Gott trennt und zu Beliar führt.“98 „Ihre Erfindung ist Vernichtung des Lebens,“99 heißt es in diesem Geist in Weish 14,12 über die Götterstatuen. Wo kom94 Gemoll, Schul- und Handwörterbuch, 22. 95 Mit Blick auf die Übersetzung in 12,16 ist es unverständlich, dass EÜ; nEÜ, an dieser Stelle mit „Anfang“ übersetzen, so auch Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 371, der aber schreibt: „Der Satz ist feierlich formuliert und vermittelt deutlich den Gedanken, der der Verfasser ausdrücken will: Der Götzendienst ist die wahre Ursache von aller Bosheit“ (ebd. 379). 96 Siehe Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, 518: commit fornication … prostitute. Das adverbielle ἐκ im Kompositum hebt den Aspekt des „des außer Haus Gehens, des Fremdgehens“ hervor. Die nEÜ sagt anstelle von Hurerei Unzucht. 97 Niebuhr, „Anmerkungen“, 129. 98 So TestRub 4,6; vgl. TestSim 5,3; TestBenj 10,10; Sib 3,36–45; 5,166–67; slHen 10,4; 34,2; ApkAbr 24,5–8. 99 Nesselrath 87; vgl. ähnlich ATd: „ihre Erfindung aber [ist] Verderben von Leben“. Es ist keine Verbesserung, wenn in der nLuth das Substantiv εὕρεσις zum Verb geändert wird „und sie zu erfinden [εὕρεσις], richtet das Leben zugrunde.“ „Ihre Erfindung führte zur Sittenverderbnis“ (EÜ; nEÜ) deutet ζωή, als „Sitte“, womit eine zu weit gehende Interpretation und keine Übersetzung geboten wird.

264  Friedrich V. Reiterer

men diese verderblichen Götterbilder (εἴδωλα) her? Sie sind kein Element der Schöpfung und haben ihre Basis (ἀρχή; Weish 14,12) im menschlichen Verstand100 (ἐπίνοια; Weish 14,12). Sie sind sowohl Beweis für den menschlichen Hochmut (κενοδοξίᾳ; Weish 14,12) wie auch dessen Produkt101. Nach der Klärung der Basis (ἀρχή) der Existenz wird eine weitere Frage thematisiert: Wenn die Götterbilder einmal da sind, werden diese dann für immer ein Problem sein? Die Standbilder haben mit dem Blick auf den Beginn eine zeitlich begrenzte Existenz und im Blick auf die Zukunft eine zeitlich begrenzte Wirkung: „Weder waren sie von Anfang (ἀπ’ ἀρχή) an noch werden sie in Ewigkeit (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) sein“ (Weish 14,13). „Anfang“ ist hier im Sinne des zeitlichen Beginnes im Rahmen der schon zuvor bestehenden Schöpfung zu verstehen. Sie sind ein Störfaktor, wurde doch schon in 14,11 polemisiert, dass sich die εἰδωλα innerhalb der Schöpfung Gottes zum Ekeligen entwickelt haben (ἐν κτίσματι θεοῦ εἰς βδέλυγμα ἐγενήθησαν). Weish 14,13 geht demnach bis an den Beginn (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς)102 der Schöpfung. Die Götter und deren Standbilder werden auch nicht „bis in Ewigkeit sein.“103 Wie ἀρχή, vom allerersten Beginn der Zeit sprach, so ist αἰών als Pedant das andere Ende der Zeitschiene. Da es sich bei den Götterstatuen um menschliche Werkstücke handelt, bleibt die Argumentation innerhalb der menschlichen Zeitebenen, sodass αἰών keine eschatologische Größe darstellt. „Ewigkeit“ ist im unscharfen Sinn alltäglicher Verwendung zu verstehen: zeitlich ohne definierbares, aber doch zu erwartendes Ende. ●

Αἰών in Weish 12,10

„9 Obgleich du die Macht hattest, in einer Schlacht die Gottlosen den Gerechten in die Hand zu geben oder sie durch entsetzliche Tiere oder ein Wort mit einem Schlag auszurotten, 10 vollzogst du doch erst nach und nach die Strafe und gabst Raum zur Umkehr. Dabei wusstest du genau, dass ihr Ursprung böse und ihre Schlechtigkeit angeboren war und dass sich ihr Denken in Ewigkeit nicht ändern werde; 11 sie waren schon von Anfang an eine verfluchte Nachkommenschaft. Keine Furcht vor irgendjemand hat dich dazu bestimmt, sie für ihre Sünden ohne Strafe zu lassen“ (Weish 12,9–11).

100 „Die Hauptabsicht des Verfassers ist also herauszustellen, dass die Verantwortung für die Götzenverehrung ausschließlich bei Menschen liegt,“ Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 374. 101 Gemoll, Schul- und Handwörterbuch, 431: „eitle Ruhmsucht“; Nesselrath 87: „leere Wahnvorstellungen“. 102 Die Verwendung von ἀρχή, in unterschiedlicher Bedeutung in 14,12 und 14,13 ist ein Hinweis auf die poetische Fertigkeit des Schreibers und kein Beleg dafür, dass das Werk auf verschiedene Autoren zurückgeht. 103 So Nesselrath 87.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

265

Die Gottlosen haben sich zerstörerischer Sünden schuldig gemacht, da sie das Leben der Rechtschaffenen bedrohen. Unter diesen Umständen wäre es verständlich, wenn Gott diese Übeltäter bestraft hätte (Weish 12,11). Aber er wartet zu. Der Autor ist irritiert, denn seine Analyse ist die, dass die Schlechtigkeit der Gottlosen unveränderbar ist, weil diese genetisch (ἔμφυτος; 12,10) ist. Daher erscheint auch für alle kommende Zeit, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, eine Entwicklung zum Guten ausgeschlossen zu sein. So drängt sich die Frage auf, warum denn Gott das Leben bösartiger Menschen nicht mit einem Schlag und für immer beendet, denn es fehlen ihm ja nicht die Möglichkeiten (οὐκ ἀδυνατῶν; 12,9) zu einem solchen Eingriff. Zudem kann er ja Geschaffenes dafür aktivieren. In Weish 12,9 begegnet wie in Weish 3,8 die Vorstellung, dass die Gottlosen den Gerechten (δικαίοις) zum Gericht, allerdings nicht im eschatologischen Sinne, in die Hände gegeben werden. Nachdrücklicher als an anderen Stellen bezeichnet αἰών eine unabsehbare Dauer in die Zukunft hinein, denn es ist nicht abschätzbar, ob und wann Gott gegen die Bösartigen vorgehen will oder werde. ●

Αἰών in Weish 6,21

„18 Liebe [zur Weisheit] aber ist Halten ihrer Gesetze, Beachten der Gesetze sichert Unvergänglichkeit, 19 Unvergänglichkeit aber bringt in Gottes Nähe. 20 So führt das Verlangen nach Weisheit zur Herrschaft hinauf. 21 Ihr Gewalthaber der Völker, wenn ihr Gefallen an Thronen und Zeptern habt, dann ehrt die Weisheit, damit ihr ewig herrscht!“ (Weish 6,18– 21).

Die Weisheit umwirbt Regenten (in 6,1: Könige wie auch Richter der Enden der Erde): „An euch also, ihr Alleinherrscher104, richten sich meine Worte, damit ihr Weisheit lernt und euch nicht verfehlt“ (Weish 6,9). Die Könige haben ihre elitäre Position von Gott bekommen (6,3a.b) und sind ihm Rechenschaft schuldig.105 Er wird mit strengen Kriterien überprüfen, ob das Begehren („Liebe/ἀγάπη“ in 6,18) nach Weisheit bei ihnen prägend ist. Das zeigt sich im Halten der 104 So Nesselrath; nEÜ: „Gewalthaber“; nLuth: „Herrscher“. 105 „Der Gedanke in 6,3a, dass es Gott ist, der den Menschen die Macht verleiht, ist traditionell, vgl. 1 Chr 29,11; Dan 2,21.37; 4,14; 5,18; Spr 8,15–16; Sir 10,4–5; für das NT, Röm 13,1 und 1 Petr 2,14–15. Nur Gott ist der wahre König des Universums (Dan 4,17.25.32Th [4,14.22.29MT]; Sir 10,4–5). Auch außerhalb der Bibel wird diese Ansicht häufig vertreten und ist seit dem antiken Griechenland bekannt (vgl. Il. 2.197–198, 205); in Alexandria wird sie in stoischen Kreisen aufgenommen; vgl. Arist. 224: ‚Niemand ist König aus eigenem Vermögen; alle wollen ja an dieser Ehre teilhaben, aber sie können es nicht, denn sie ist eine Gabe Gottes‘. Diese Auffassung kehrt in besonderer Weise in den neupythagoreischen Abhandlungen über das Königtum wieder“ (Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 180–81); siehe dort den Verweis auf Sqilloni, „Il significato etico-politico dell’immagine“; Gilbert, „La vostra sovranità“, 125–27.

266  Friedrich V. Reiterer

„Gesetze der Weisheit“ (τήρησις νόμων αὐτῆς). Das positive Urteil führt zur Unvergänglichkeit (ἀφθαρσία), und diese „lässt nahe bei Gott sein“106. Wer hat Chancen in die Nähe Gottes zu kommen? Die Forschung treibt die Frage um, wer denn in dieser verschleiernden Redeweise gemeint ist. Die Antwort hängt wesentlich von den Adressaten des Buches der Weisheit ab. Gilbert107 sieht heidnische Herrscher angesprochen. Mazzinghi bekräftigt dagegen, „dass die Adressaten des Buches der Weisheit auf jeden Fall Juden sind.“108 Wie sollen aber Juden im damaligen Alexandria vom für sie erreichbaren Königtum gesprochen haben, ausgenommen im Sinne einer Chiffre im Sinne von „Champion.“109 Was hier abgehandelt wird, ist keine nebulose Spekulation über das Königtum, sondern eine konkrete Erwartung der Leserschaft: „Ehrt Weisheit, damit ihr auf ewig König seid/τιμήσατε σοφίαν ἵνα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα βασιλεύσητε!“110 Da es nicht bekannt ist, dass regierende Könige nach diesen Kriterien zu ihrer Position gekommen sind, kann die Antwort nicht im Bereich des politischen Königtums zu finden sein. In der Auslegung des Buches der Weisheit ist „König“ eine kaum beachtete Rolle während der Gymnasiums- und Epheben-Ausbildung. König bezeichnet eine führende Position in einer Jahrgangsgruppe, sie muss aber nicht mit dem organisatorischen Gruppenleiter (ἄρχων) identisch sein. König und Königtum sind Chiffren. Die Idee, wonach die Gesetzeseinhaltung ein Weg zu einer hervorragenden Position (Königtum) ist, wird – wie Gilbert gezeigt hat111 – auch in der stoischen Lehre vom Naturgesetz bzw. in den neupythagoreischen Abhandlungen über das Königtum ventiliert. Auch dort wirkt die Erfahrung in der Ausbildung weiter. Die höchste Stufe, die man aufgrund der Liebe zur Weisheit erreichen kann, garantiert die Unvergänglichkeit (ἀφθαρσίας) nahe (ἐγγὺς εἶναι) bei Gott, aber 106 Nesselrath 59. Das Stilmittel der stufenweise in sich weiter steigenden Argumente nennt man Sorites, ist z. B. bei Seneca (Ep. 85,2) belegt und zeigt die rhetorische Bildung des Autors. 107 Gilbert, „La vostra sovranità“, 125–27. 108 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 181. 109 Bei herausragenden Personen, neigen die Menschen bis zur Gegenwart dazu, mit Vergleichen aus der Welt der Könige deren elitäre Stellung zu beschreiben. Aufgrund seiner Erfolge in der Musik wird z. B. Michael Jackson im Wikipedia-Beitrag über ihn als „King of Pop“ bezeichnet. Es können weitere Beispiele angeführt werden, wie z. B. „Cassius Clay, alias Muhammad Ali – ‚the Greatest of All Time.‘“ Er errang dreimal die Krone des Schwergewichts und war „ewig“ Boxweltmeister aller Klassen und „wurde als König der Boxer gefeiert.“ 110 Nesselrath 59; ATd; nEÜ: „damit ihr ewig herrscht!“ Die altlat. Übersetzung fügt als 6,23 hinzu: „Liebt das Licht der Weisheit, ihr alle, die ihr den Völkern vorsteht“ und fügt einen universalen Gedanken ein, der aber wohl auch konkret und nicht als eschatologische Notiz zu verstehen ist. 111 Gilbert, „La vostra sovranità“, 125–27; weitere Hinweise bei Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 181.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit



267

nicht gemeinsam mit Gott112, wie z. B. über die Weisheit selbst gesagt wird. Dieses damals allgemein verbreitete Verständnis vom „Königtum“ – gleichsam ein allgemeines Königtum – wird jetzt auf jene übertragen, welche sich nach der Weisheit ausrichten: „Ehrt113 die Weisheit, damit ihr ewig herrscht.“ Die Phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ist für Menschen in deren normalen Leben gedacht und hält fest, dass es um einen langen Zeitraum geht, dessen Ende einst kommen wird, aber nicht abzusehen ist. Αἰῶν entspricht der „Ewigkeit“ in der Alltagssprache. Ich verstehe den Satz daher wie folgt: „Ehrt die Weisheit, damit ihr für lange Zeit an führender Position seid.“114 ●

Αἰών in Weish 8,13

„9 Daher habe ich beschlossen, sie zu einem gemeinsamen Leben heimzuführen, im Wissen, dass sie mir sein wird eine Ratgeberin zu guten Dingen und eine Ermutigerin in Sorgen und Trauer. 10 Ihretwegen werde ich Ansehen bei der Menge haben und Ehre bei den Älteren, ich, der noch junge.115 11 Ich werde als scharfsinniger Richter gelten und in den Augen der Mächtigen Staunen erregen. 12 Schweige ich, so warten sie, spreche ich, so merken sie auf, rede ich länger, so legen sie die Hand auf den Mund. 13 Ihretwegen werde ich Unsterblichkeit haben und ewiges Andenken nach mir hinterlassen“ (8,9–13).

Wenn nach dem Tod auch noch die Erinnerung an die Toten verschwindet, dann wird die Wirkung des Todes noch gesteigert. Das gilt für Gottlose (ἀσεβεῖς; Weish 4,16), da sie bis zu unbrauchbarem Brachland zerstört werden (χερσωθήσονται; Weish 4,19e). Zudem wird das „Gedächtnis an sie (ἡ μνήμη αὐτῶν) zugrunde gerichtet“ (Weish 4,19g), eine Aktion, die zeitlich unbegrenzt (δι’ 112 Hübner, Weisheit, 87, schreibt, dass das eine Herrschaft gemeinsam mit Gott besagt. Eine solche Auslegung überstrapaziert den Text. Unter seiner Prämisse ist auch der folgende Satz verständlich: „Wahrscheinlich blickt der Verf. der Sap hier auch über das eschatologische Datum hinaus,“ wobei Hübner nicht erklärt, was er mit dem „eschatologischen Datum“ meint. 113 Das in der nEÜ hier eingefügte „dann …“ nimmt der Gedankenführung die Nachdrücklichkeit. 114 Engel, Buch, 140, zitiert als Querverweis den Isis-Hymnus 3.7–11 des Isidoros (SEG 550): „Alle, die höchstglücklich leben, die hervorragendsten Männer, Szepter tragende Könige und alle, die Herrscher sind, diese regieren, wenn sie sich an dich halten, bis ins Alter und hinterlassen glänzenden und reichlichen großen Wohlstand Söhnen und Enkeln und den Männern danach.“ Sollte hier, wie Kloppenborg annimmt (vgl. „Isis,“ 75–86), in betonter Weise auf den Isis-Hymnus verwiesen werden, dann unterstützt das Zitat die Beobachtung, dass es sich bei „εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα“ um eine lange Phase, deren Ende nicht abzusehen ist, handelt. Es sind aber keine eschatologischen Implikationen gegeben wie u. a. Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 187, annimmt: „Wie in 6,20 ist das Königtum, an das der Verfasser hier denkt, nicht irdischer Art, es ist vielmehr eschatologische Teilhabe an dem von den Gerechten nach 3,8 und 5,15 schon vorweggenommenem Königtum.“ 115 Vv. 9–10 nach Nesselrath 65.

268  Friedrich V. Reiterer

αἰῶνος)116 wirken wird. So sieht Vernichtung total aus! Der Widerpart zum Gottlosen ist der Rechtschaffene (δίκαιος; 4,7) bzw. der Weise (σοφός; 4,17a), deren sich Gott „persönlich“ annimmt. – Konträr zu dieser Vernichtungsbeschreibung steht Weish 8,13. Weil die Weisheit die Partnerin fürs Leben ist, wird der Regent trotz seiner Jugend beim ganzen Volk und bei den angesehenen Alterfahrenen (παρὰ πρεσβυτέροις; 8,10b) Ehre (δόξα; 8,10a) und Ansehen (τιμή; 8,10b) genießen. Zu guter Letzt ist er sich sicher, dass er sagen kann, „ihretwegen werde ich Unsterblichkeit (ἀθανασίαν) haben und ewiges Andenken (μνήμην αἰώνιον) nach mir hinterlassen“ (Weish 8,13). Es geht also um Ehre, Ruhm und ein bleibendes Andenken. Wo kommen diese Werte als Zielvorstellungen her, denn im Alten Testament finden sich diese nicht in dieser Form? Es sei darauf hingewiesen, dass die Minorität der Juden von der prägenden Mehrheit der Hellenen massiv beeinflusst wurde. Da nun erinnert man sich, dass Bildung und Ausbildung Fragen der Identität der zuerst griechischen, dann der hellenistischen Welt sind. Die Bildung ist eine Voraussetzung für alle führenden Rollen in Gesellschaft, Volksvertretung, Handel, dem Abschluss von Verträgen und Militär usw., weswegen sich die Juden bemühten, sich nach hellenistischen Vorgaben auszubilden. Die im Studium einstellungs- und lebensprägenden Werte werden geformt von den großen Gestalten der ruhmreichen Vergangenheit: diese haben die Eleven ausgiebig studiert. Als Startpunkt zur ruhmreichen Vergangenheit blickt ein Hellenist auf das das Bewusstsein bestimmende Ereignis vor Troja zurück. Ein Akzent im Buch des Kampfes um Troja ist das Bestreben, immer der Beste zu sein und sich damit der eigenen Vorfahren würdig zu erweisen, die ja ihrerseits auch schon immer die besten waren. Das gilt für Glaukos, Sohn des gottgleichen (ἀντίθεος; Il. 6.199) Hippolochos, einem Helden, der für Troja kämpfte (Il. 6.208). Er hat von seinem Vater folgende Worte in den Krieg mitbekommen, „immer der Beste zu sein und anderen gegenüber herausragend zu bleiben, damit das Geschlecht der Väter, die allerbesten, nicht geschändet werde (αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔμμεναι ἄλλων μηδὲ γένος πατέρων αἰσχυνέμεν οἳ μέγ῾ἄριστοι)“ (Il 11.784). In einem weiteren Beispiel möchte der greise Nestor den vergrämten Achill wieder zum Krieg animieren und verweist in seiner Rede an dessen Vaters frühere Worte. „Peleus, der graue Held, ermahnte seinen Achill, immer der beste zu sein und überlegen gegenüber den anderen (αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔμμεναι ἄλλων)“ (Il. 9.784–785). Dieser Grundsatz ist 116 „Das ungewöhnliche δι’ αἰῶνος (wörtlich: ‚durch die Ewigkeit hindurch‘) kann in der Koine auch adverbial für den Zeitraum stehen, innerhalb dessen etwas geschieht (vgl. BDR 223 c),“ schreibt Niehbuhr, „Anmerkungen“, 116. Das Stichwort „Zeitraum“ gibt vor, dass es zu einem Ende kommen könnte, ein Gedanke, der der Intention des Autors zuwiderläuft.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

269

demnach den feindlichen Parteien – sowohl den Trojanern wie auch den Hellenen – gemeinsam. Er wird als altes Gut beschworen, das aber nicht nur in die Vergangenheit zurückschauen lässt. Die auf alter Tradition basierende Richtschnur ist wie von Anfang an intendiert die Triebfeder für das kommende Verhalten und wird von Generation zu Generation wegen des Vorbildcharakters weitergegeben. Infolge der in der Ilias aufgezählten vielfältigen Verflechtungen der involvierten Geschlechter prägen die zitierten Grundsätze Freund und Feind wie auch die ganze damalige Welt. Die eben zweimal zitierten ἀριστεύειν bzw. ἄριστος werden zu Schlüsselworten, deren Gewicht wohl kaum überschätzt werden kann. Für Achill wird dieses Ziel, das zum Ruhme führt, nicht nur zur Schicksalsfrage, sondern begründet die bewusste Entscheidung zum frühen,117 aber ruhmreichen Tod: „Wenn ich aber hier bleibe und die Stadt der Troer bekämpfe, wird mir dann die Heimkehr ruiniert, doch wird mir ewiger Nachruhm sein“ (ἀτὰρ κλέος ἄφθιτον118 ἔσται; Il. 9, 412–413), teilt Achill seiner fassungslosen Mutter Thetis mit. Das hier niedergeschriebene Streben nach Ehre und Macht, das gewichtiger ist als die Familienbande und das eigene Leben, bleibt maßgebend für die Einstellung der Hellenen. Sie wird im platonischen Gastmahl von der außergewöhnlich weisen Seherin Diotima (Διοτίμα) – die interpretierende Phantasiegestalt Platons heißt bezeichnender Weise „Göttliche Ehre“ – mit einem einzigen Wort zusammengefasst: φιλοτιμία (Liebe zur Ehre). „Die Menschen haben nämlich einen gewaltigen Trieb, berühmt zu werden und sich einen unsterblichen Ruhm (κλέος ἀθάνατον) auf ewige Zeiten“119 (Sym. 208c) zu erwerben. Unter Verweis u. a. auf Achill betont Diotima, dass das Streben nach unsterblichem Andenken (ἀθάνατος μνήμη) und berühmter Ehre (δόξα εὐκλεής) als Tugend (ἀρετή) angesehen wird (Sym. 208d). Das letzte Ziel, so wird nochmals zusammengefasst, ist unvergänglicher Ruhm und Andenken (ἀθάνατον κλέος καὶ μνήμην; Sym. 209d). Alle bedeutsamen Stichworte δόξα, τιμή, ἀθανασία (bzw. mehrfach ἀθάνατος), Langzeitigkeit (ἐς τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον, αἰώνιος) und vor allem μνήμη teilen sich die Ilias und das Buch der Weisheit. Während die große Gestalt im Gründungsepos der Griechen infolge der ausdrücklichen Nennung von Achill bei Plato feststeht, stellt sich die Frage, warum denn dieser Geist auch die Zeitge117 Ein kurzes Leben und der baldige Tod, wenn auch von den Göttern gesteuert, scheint in den Augen Homers geradezu eine Selbstverständlichkeit, wie man über Hektor liest: „Denn es waren ihm nur wenige Tage gewährt“ (Il. 15.212–213). 118 Gemoll, Schul- und Handwörterbuch, 145: „unsterblich, ewig.“ 119 Vgl. dagegen Sir 3,26: καρδία σκληρὰ κακωθήσεται ἐπ᾽ἐσχάτων καὶ ὁ ἀγαπῶν κίνδυνον ἐν αὐτῷ ἀπολεῖται.

270  Friedrich V. Reiterer

nossen des Autors des Buches der Weisheit prägt. Das hängt mit der Ausbildung der Hellenen zusammen. Denn dort spielt die Tradition und das alles überstrahlende Vorbild des Makedoniers Alexander, der einen bleibenden Eindruck des Schreckens in Israel hinterlassen hat (vgl. 1 Makk 1,1), eine unübertreffbare Rolle. Er hatte mit anderen Fürstenkindern in Mieza (Plut. Alex. 7.3) eine umfassende Ausbildung bekommen, in der die Ilias eine herausragende Rolle spielte.120 Zufolge Plutarchs „hatte er (auf seinen Feldzügen) neben seinem Schwert immer ein Exemplar (der Ilias) unter seinem Kopfkissen liegen“ (Plut. Alex. 8.2).121 Der Autor des Buches der Weisheit belegt nicht nur durch seinen elitären griechischen Wortschatz seine hervorragende Ausbildung, sondern verrät auch immer wieder – wie auch hier – die theologische Auseinandersetzung mit der hellenistischen Umwelt. Der biblische Autor interpretiert die Tugenden, sprich Werte, der Umwelt nach seiner Theologie: Der Regent wird trotz seiner Jugend (Weish 8,10) hohes Ansehen haben und Ehren genießen. Er entspricht demnach den höchsten Erwartungen der hellenistischen Ideale. Er wird Unsterblichkeit erreichen. Diese Formulierung spielt wohl darauf an, dass sowohl Achill wie auch Alexander früh verstorben sind. Da die Frage der Jugend zentral ist, wird man vorsichtig sein, den Regenten des Buches der Weisheit vorschnell mit König Salomo, der ja bekanntlich nach biblischem Bericht keineswegs122 in jungen Jahren starb, zu identifizieren. In diesem Kontext hat die Unsterblichkeit (ἀθανασία) die gleiche Bedeutung wie ἀθάνατος: Ruhm und Ehre (δόξα, τιμή; Weish 8,10) werden unsterblich, d. h. ohne Ende sein (Weish 8,13a)!123 Die Unsterblichkeit verstärkt ihr Gewicht dadurch, dass sie gepaart ist mit der beständigen Präsenz im Bewusstsein der kommenden Generationen. Das wird nach Weish 8,13b im μνήμην αἰώνιον der Fall sein. Das Adjektiv αἰώνιος spricht hier von einer Dauer, die kein erkennbares Ende hat, und bei den Nachfahren weiterwirkt. Trotz der vielfältigen Parallelen ist ein entscheidender Unterschied zwischen der griechischen und der weisheitlichen Überlieferung hervorzukehren: die griechischen Idealfiguren erreichen ihr Ziel mit eigener Kraft, teils unter Gefährdung des eigenen Lebens, der Regent in Weish 8,9–13 ist nicht 120 Vgl. Reiterer, „Gesellschaft“, 20–21. 121 Vgl. Reiterer, „Gesellschaft“, 30–31. 122 Vgl. 1 Kön 3,14: „Wenn du auf meinen Wegen gehst, meine Gesetze und Gebote bewahrst wie dein Vater David, dann schenke ich dir ein langes Leben.“ So ist es auch eingetroffen. In 1 Kön 11,42 steht summarisch: „Die Zeit, in der Salomo in Jerusalem über ganz Israel König war, betrug vierzig Jahre.“ 123 Vgl. so auch Georgi, Weisheit, 432; Engel, Buch, 144. Im Gegensatz dazu nimmt Blischke, Eschatologie, 179, an, dass an dieser Stelle „der Begriff der Unsterblichkeit … durchaus in einem umfassenden Sinne als lediglich in Hinblick auf ein Fortbestehen in der Erinnerung nachfolgender Generationen gebraucht wird.“

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

271

aus sich heraus erfolgreich, sondern weil ihn die Weisheit, die von Gott kommt, als Lebensgefährtin und Ratgeberin zum Erfolg (συμβίωσις und σύμβουλος ἀγαθῶν; 8,9a.b) führt.

4.2.4 Αἰών als eschatologische Dauer der Existenz nach dem Tode ●

Αἰών in Weish 5,15: eschatologische Teilhabe124 – ewig „14 Denn die Hoffnung des Gottlosen wird wie vom Wind dahin getragene Spreu und wie leichter vom Sturmwind verfolgter Raureif und wie Rauch von Wind zerstreut, wie die Erinnerung an einen nur eintägigen Gast zieht sie vorüber. 15 Die Gerechten aber leben in Ewigkeit, und im Herrn ist ihr Lohn, und die Sorge um sie beim Höchsten. 16 Deshalb werden sie die Königswürde der Pracht erhalten und das Diadem der Schönheit aus der Hand des Herrn, denn mit seiner Rechten wird er sie schützen und mit seinem Arm den Schild über sie halten“125 (Weish 5,14–16).

Überheblichkeit, Reichtum und Prahlerei blendeten die Gottlosen (Weish 5,8; vgl. ἀσεβεῖς in 4,16126), welche die Gerechten verfolgten. „All das geht aber vorbei wie ein Schatten, wie eine flüchtige Nachricht“ (Weish 5,9), stellen sie zu spät fest. Es gibt faktisch über den Tod hinaus keine guten Aussichten. In scharfem Gegensatz dazu wird die Existenz der Gerechten gegenübergestellt. Im Plural „die Gerechten“ sieht Mazzinghi einen Hinweis darauf, dass „sie nicht mehr nur ein einzelner Gerechter, sondern eine ganze Gruppe von Geretteten“127 sind. Die positive Beschreibung der Gerechten erfolgt in Weish 5,15 in drei Stufen: „Die Gerechten aber leben in Ewigkeit (a), und im Herrn ist ihr Lohn (b), und die Sorge um sie beim Höchsten (c).“ (a) Der Gerechten Existenz endet nicht mit dem Tod, sie leben (ζῶσιν) in Ewigkeit (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). Gemeint ist ein Leben in Fülle, wofür die Basis garantiert, auf der die weiteren Wohltaten aufruhen: Die Basis ist nämlich Gott selbst: κύριος und ὕψιστος. (b) In Gott erhalten die Gerechten den Lohn dafür, dass sie sich weder den Vergehen noch den falschen Denk- und Wertmustern angeschlossen hatten. Sie waren von Gott geprüft und wie wertvolles Gold bewertet worden; vgl. 3,5b.6. Die in der LXX nicht häufige, und im Buch der Weisheit nur einmal belegte Präpositionalverbindung ἐν κυρίῳ betont die besonders enge Verbindung mit Gott.128 (c) Der Höchste selbst über124 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 187, schlägt als gute Formulierung vor: „eschatologische Teilhabe.“ 125 Nesselrath 55. 126 Vgl. 4,14, dort allerdings noch die lebenden Gottlosen. 127 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 165. 128 Da die EÜ und nEÜ die Präpositionalausdrücke ἐν κυρίῳ und παρὰ ὑψίστῳ in Subjekte und zugleich die Subjekte ὁ μισθὸς und ἡ φροντίς in Verben umwandeln, lautet die Übersetzung:

272  Friedrich V. Reiterer

nimmt die Fürsorge und den Schutz der Gerechten. Die Wahl des Substantivs φροντίς (Fürsorge) inkludiert die Aufarbeitung des früheren Kummers, den die Gerechten wegen der Anfeindung durch die Gottlosen hatten erleiden müssen. Die Erläuterungen der göttlichen Fürsorge werden noch weiter entfaltet. „Sie werden aus der Hand des Herrn die Königswürde129 der Herrlichkeit empfangen und das Diadem130 der Schönheit. Denn er wird sie mit seiner Rechten behüten und mit seinem Arm beschützen“ (5,16). Die Nähe zu Jes 62,3, wo die Stichworte στέφανος κάλλους ἐν χειρὶ κυρίου und διάδημα βασιλείας ἐν χειρὶ θεοῦ σου vorkommen, wurde in der Literatur schon festgehalten. In Jes 62,3 geht es darum, dass Gott Jerusalem im nachexilischen Aufbau wieder herrlich machen werde. Ausgenommen der terminologischen Parallelitäten gibt es nicht viele Gemeinsamkeiten: es geht in Weish 5,14–16 um „die Gerechten“131, also um viele!, und deren Schutz bei Gott über das Leben hinaus und nicht um einen zeitbedingten Wiederaufbau. Das Stichwort „Königswürde“ (βασίλειον) bringt ein wie oben schon gezeigt besonders bedeutsames Element der hellenistischen Wertvorstellungen zur Sprache. Oben wurde im Kontext von Weish 6,22 gezeigt, dass es sich um einen Code für eine elitäre Position handelt und nicht um eine politische Größe. Diese Idealvorstellung aus der Umwelt – mehr oder weniger die Welt der ἀσεβεῖς – biegt der Autor nach seiner Konzeption um: Jeder Gerechte bekommt eine „Königswürde“, welche nicht in einer gesellschaftlichen Ehrenstellung besteht, sondern eine Auszeichnung für die Gerechten über den Tod hinaus ist. In jener Phase kann man auch vom Leben sprechen und die Gerechten leben εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα beim Herrn. In Weish 5,15 wird nicht geschrieben, wie man sich vorstellen soll, auf welche Weise die Gerechten zu diesem Leben in Ewigkeit kommen, eine drängende Frage, die auch zu einem Anhang im Buch Ijob geführt hat: „Es steht aber geschrieben, dass er wiederum auferstehen wird (ἀναστήσεσται) mit denen, die der Herr auferstehen lässt (ἀνίστησιν)“ (Ijob 42,17a), jedoch ohne αἰών als escha„der Herr belohnt sie, der Höchste sorgt für sie.“ Das Ergebnis ist eine Beschreibung, der die Innigkeit, welche der Autor hervorgekehrt hatte, verloren gegangen ist. 129 Nesselrath 55, übersetzt βασίλειον mit „Krone“. Das kann man als Interpretation ansehen, doch trifft sie nicht die Pointe des Autors. 130 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 170, weist darauf hin, dass das Diadem „keine Krone, sondern ein mit Edelsteinen besetzter Stoffbund ist, der von orientalischen Königen rund um die Königskrone gelegt getragen wurde.“ 131 Blischke, Eschatologie, 153, hat offensichtlich nicht konsequent berücksichtigt, dass δίκαιοι im Plural steht, da sie mit Verweis auf Dan 7,12.18 schreibt: „Die Sapientia spitzt die Motive, die sie mit dem Danielbuch gemeinsam hat, allerdings auf das Ergehen des Einzelnen nach dem Tode zu und nimmt ihnen damit die universale und kosmologische Ausrichtung.“

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

273

tologische Dauer der Existenz. In den mit dem Buch der Weisheit ungefähr zeitgleichen Werk der Psalmen Salomos liest man: „Die Gottesfürchtigen stehen zum ewigen Leben wieder auf und leben im Licht des Herrn (οἱ δὲ φοβούμενοι τὸν κύριον ἀναστήσονται εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ ἡ ζωὴ αὐτῶν ἐν φωτὶ κυρίου)“ (PsSal 3,12) und „das Leben der Gerechten reicht bis in die Ewigkeit (ἡ γὰρ ζωὴ τῶν δικαίων εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα)“ (PsSal 13,11). In diesen Belegen wird klar gesagt, dass die Gerechten auferstehen und über den Tod hinaus leben und dass dieses Leben nach göttlichen Dimensionen ohne Ende sein wird, was αἰών zum Ausdruck bringt. ●

Αἰών in Weish 4,2: eschatologisch – ewig

„1 Besser ist Kinderlosigkeit mit Tugend. Unsterblichkeit liegt ja in ihrem Andenken132; denn sie steht in Ehren bei Gott und bei den Menschen. 2 Ist sie zugegen, ahmt man sie nach; ist sie entschwunden, sehnt man sie herbei. In der Ewigkeit triumphiert sie, geschmückt mit dem Kranz, Siegerin im Wettstreit um einen edlen Preis. 3 Doch die große Kinderschar der Gottlosen bringt keinen Nutzen; unrechter Nachwuchs treibt keine Wurzeln in die Tiefe und fasst keinen sicheren Grund“ (Weish 4,1–3).

Ein Bündel von Themen, die für das Gesamtverständnis sehr bedeutsam sind, stehen in diesem kurzen Abschnitt, nämlich Tugend, Kinderlosigkeit, Unsterblichkeit in Verbindung mit Andenken, Ehre, Kranz und nicht zuletzt αἰών. Auf den ersten Blick erscheint die Feststellung, dass Kinderlosigkeit – mit und ohne Tugend – gut sei und Unsterblichkeit im Andenken gewährleisten kann, als ein Widerspruch in sich. Wer stirbt und an den sich keine Nachkommen erinnern, der ist bald durch und durch tot, denn der Verlust des Andenkens ist geradezu eine Steigerung des Todes (vgl. dazu ausführlich oben unter Weish 2,4). Der Kinderreichtum gilt als die Erfüllung der Zusagen Gottes (vgl. Gen 1,28) und ist nach altem Zeugnis hilfreich, um sich u. a. im sozialen Umfeld – vor allem im Falle von Streitigkeiten – durchsetzen zu können.133 Früher als das Buch der Weisheit hat aber schon Ben Sira das Thema der Kinderlosigkeit ventiliert. Die Einstellung zu den Kindern bemisst er nach deren ethisch wertvollem oder eben nicht wertvollem Leben. Ein zentrales Kriterium ist hierbei die Achtung vor Gott. Missratene Kinder können dermaßen viele Probleme machen, dass es besser ist, keine Kinder zu haben, als solche, die sich in

132 V. 4,1b nach Nesselrath 49. 133 Vgl. Ps 127,3–5: „Siehe, ein Erbteil vom HERRN sind Söhne, ein Lohn ist die Frucht des Leibes. Wie Pfeile in der Hand eines Kriegers, so sind Söhne aus den Jahren der Jugend. Selig der Mann, der mit ihnen den Köcher gefüllt hat! Sie werden nicht zuschanden, wenn sie mit ihren Feinden rechten im Tor“; vgl. Gen 12,2; 15,5; 33,5; Spr 17,6; Ps 128,3; 115,14; Ijob 5,4.

274  Friedrich V. Reiterer

ihrem Leben an keine Werte halten.134 „Die Bevorzugung der Kinderlosigkeit statt gottloser Nachkommen in [Sir] 16,3 f. wird in Weish 3,1–13 weitergeführt“135, doch gibt es gravierende Differenzen zwischen diesen Autoren: Sira argumentiert aus der Sorge heraus, dass sich die Kinder statt zu den traditionellen Werten zu jenen der Hellenisten wenden: also Kinderlosigkeit aus Furcht vor Enttäuschung. In Weish 4,2 ist Kinderlosigkeit ein Faktum, und wird unter der Voraussetzung des Vorhandenseins von Tugend als qualitativ hochwertig interpretiert: „Besser ist Kinderlosigkeit mit Tugend / κρείσσων ἀτεκνία μετὰ ἀρετῆς“ (4,1). „Die Wendung μετὰ ἀρετῆς erscheint auf den ersten Blick weniger biblisch,“136 und bleibt dies, trotz aller Versuche diese Gegebenheit zu überspielen: Der Rekurs auf ἀρετή, ist Einfluss aus der hellenistischen Umwelt. „Der Tugend gemäß zu leben, stellt bekanntlich einen der zentralen Gedanken der stoischen Ethik dar.“137 Generell gilt, dass die Tugenden – eine klassische Aufzählung von ἀρεταί findet sich in Weish 8,7 – zentrale Elemente der griechischen Wertvorstellungen bilden. Weish 4,2 stellt sich somit den Horizont zentraler Wertvorstellungen in der griechischen Welt. In Umkehrung der innerjüdisch traditionellen Wertordnung wird der Kinderlosigkeit sogar zugesichert, dass sie auch „in Ewigkeit (ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι) kranzgeschmückt (στεφανηφοροῦσα) einherschreitet.“138 Sowohl die Qualifikation mit Tugend wie die Bekränzung zeigen, dass der Autor Wertvorstellung aus der hellenistischen Umwelt übernimmt. Schon lange bevor Paulus mit dem Bild des Wettkampfes und des Siegespreises sowohl die Überwindung der Sünde wie die Erringung des ewigen Lebens bei Gott formulierte (1 Kor 9,24–25)139, steht derlei in Weish 4,2, wobei vor allem das Stichwort στέφανος an beiden Stellen einen prominenten Platz einnimmt.

134 „Wünsch dir nicht eine Menge nichtsnutziger Kinder und freu dich nicht über gottlose Söhne! Auch wenn sie zahlreich sind, freu dich nicht an ihnen, wenn die Furcht des Herrn nicht mit ihnen ist! Vertrau nicht auf ihr Leben und achte nicht auf ihre Menge! Denn du wirst stöhnen vor Leid zur Unzeit und plötzlich wirst du ihr Ende erkennen. Denn besser ist einer als tausend, besser kinderlos sterben, als gottlose Kinder haben“ (Sir 16,1–3). 135 Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 203. 136 Scarpat, Sapienza I, 252. 137 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 134–35. Leider lässt sich der Autor nicht in eine vertiefte Diskussion ein, sondern wechselt das Thema, indem er einzelne Tugenden anspricht. 138 Nesselrath 49. 139 „Wisst ihr nicht, dass die Läufer im Stadion zwar alle laufen, aber dass nur einer den Siegespreis gewinnt? Lauft so, dass ihr ihn gewinnt! Jeder Wettkämpfer lebt aber völlig enthaltsam; jene tun dies, um einen vergänglichen, wir aber, um einen unvergänglichen Siegeskranz zu gewinnen.“

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit



275

Der Kranz hatte in der griechischen wie in der hellenistischen Welt einen Wert, den man nicht überschätzen kann: für einen Kranz als Siegeszeichen in einem großen Wettkampf setzten Athleten unter dem Applaus der Zuseher sogar ihr Leben ein. Vom Pankratiasten Arrichion wird berichtet, dass er „siegend den Tod fand. Er erhält trotzdem den Kranz, mit dem ihn ein olympischer Richter bekränzte. … Denn obwohl es sicher etwas Großes ist, dass er bereits zweimal in Olympia gewonnen hat, so ist doch dies jetzt größer, dass er den Sieg mit dem Leben erkaufte.“140 Die Ehrung mit einem Kranz kann den Bereich der Lebenden übersteigen und noch in die Phase des Todes hineinwirken. Bezüglich der Qualifikation des Kranzes ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass das Leben einen geringeren Wert darstellte als die Ausdauer im Wettkampf und vor allem als der Sieg.141 Weiters halte man sich vor Augen, dass z. B. Theogenes von der Insel Thasos wegen der vielen Siege, vor allem aber nach Olympiasiegen im Pankration (476 v. Chr.) und im Boxen (480 v. Chr.) nach seinem Tod als Gottheit verehrt wurde und man ihm opferte. Wie Pausanias142, und Lucian143 bezeugen, schreiben ihm „sowohl Griechen aus anderen Städten als auch Nichtgriechen … magische Kräfte für das Heilen von Krankheiten zu.“144 Da zeigt sich, dass der den Tod gering achtende Mut und der Kampf bis zur Grenze des Lebens ein Tor zur Überwindung körperlicher Gebrechen ist. Der im Kampf immer wieder dem Tod in die Augen blickende Held konnte zu einem θεῖος ἀνήρ werden, welcher Heilkraft besitzt und Menschen physisch heilen kann. Die Erwähnung des Kranzes und der Heilung besitzen auf diesem Hintergrund religiösen Charakter. Die Erwartung, einen Kranz zu gewinnen, wirkt wie eine Droge. Philon schreibt dazu: „Ich weiß, dass Ringer und Pankratiasten oft aus Liebe zur Ehre und Siegesstreben (ὑπὸ φιλοτιμίας καὶ τῆς εἰς τὸ νικᾶν σπουδἠς), obwohl ihr Körper schon aufgibt und sie allein durch die Kraft der Seele weiteratmen und -kämpfen, die sie sich daran gewöhnt haben, die Furcht zu überwinden, bis zum Ende des Lebens (ἄχρι τῆς τοῦ βίου τελευτῆς), d. h. den Eintritt des Todes, 140 Philostratus, Imag. 2.6. 141 Vgl. Schöpflin und Reiterer, „Garland,“ 32; vgl. Reiterer, „Wir wollen“, 185. – Siehe neuzeitlich den Boxkampf zwischen Frazer und Ali bei Wikipedia. Cassius Clay: „Bei brütender Mittagshitze von über 40 Grad in Quezon City (der Kampf musste zur amerikanischen Primetime ausgetragen werden), bekämpften sich die beiden Veteranen am 1. Oktober 1975 über 14 lange Runden. Als Frazier vor der 15. Runde schwer gezeichnet aufgab, sackte auch Ali in der Ringecke zusammen, nur reine Willenskraft hatte die beiden Männer bis hierher durchhalten lassen.“ 142 Pausanias, Descr. 6.11.9. 143 Lucian, Deor. conc. 12. 144 Poliakoff, Kampfsport, 168.

276  Friedrich V. Reiterer

durchhalten. … Den Wettkämpfern gilt der Tod (ἡ τελευτή) für einen Ölbaumoder Selleriekranz als ehrenvoll.“ So zeigt sich, dass der Gewinn eines Kranzes im hellenistischen Bereich den Inbegriff des Erstrebenswerten145 darstellt, und die Wettkämpfe, bei denen das Erringen eines solchen möglich war, können „die heiligen Kranzspiele“ genannt werden. Der Autor des Buches Buch der Weisheit spielt demnach auf der Klaviatur der höchsten Erwartungen seiner Zeit. Die Zusagen über Unsterblichkeit in Form des Andenkens lassen in den Ohren zeitgenössischer Hörer eine Vielzahl von Assoziationen anklingen (vgl. oben zu Weish 8,13), die man kaum mit anderen Argumenten steigern könnte. In Weish 4,2 wird die Kinderlosigkeit glorifiziert. Festgehalten wird, dass die Ehrung, welche durch die mit Tugend verbundene Kinderlosigkeit erreicht wurde, in der Ewigkeit noch Bestand hat. Die zeitliche Dauer der Bedeutsamkeit der Kinderlosigkeit hat schon vorher ἀθανασία formuliert (4,1). Dieses Andenken kann nicht der Vergänglichkeit unterworfen werden und wird daher auch nicht enden.146 Es geht um die Ewigkeitsaussage als die Zeit übersteigende Unbegrenztheit. Der große Unterschied zu den fast mit den Ansichten der Umwelt identischen Vorstellungen besteht darin, dass alle notierten Werte bei und mit Gott (παρὰ θεῷ) über die Lebensgrenze hinaus Realität erhalten.

145 Wie allgegenwärtig die Rede vom Kranz in hellenistischer Zeit war, zeigt uns auch Ben Sira, wenngleich er diese Thematik vollständig seinem Programm unterwarf (Schöpflin und Reiterer, „Garland,“ 18): „As Ben Sira noticed how important the garland was in the Hellenistic world, he discusses it in the second thematically central section at the beginning of his book when he is explaining the term ‚φόβος κυρίου / fear of the Lord‘ (Sir 1,11–30). The first verse of the section reads: ‚Fear of the Lord (φόβος κυρίου) is reputation and boasting, and gladness and a garland of rejoicing (στέφανος ἀγαλλιάματος)‘ (Sir 1,11). A little later he connects the garland with Wisdom: ‚Wisdom’s garland (στέφανος σοφίας) [is] fear of the Lord (φόβος κυρίου), sprouting peace (εἰρήνην) and perfect health (ὑγίειαν ἰάσεως)‘ (Sir 1,18). Here, the fear of the Lord understood as Wisdom’s garland is joined with peace and – quite unexpectedly – with health. Some lines after this he includes another topic, namely education (παιδεία), which is important both with Ben Sira and with Hellenistic culture: ‚Wisdom (σοφία) and education (παιδεία) are the fear of the Lord (φόβος κυρίου), and his delight is fidelity and gentleness‘ (Sir 1,27). So Ben Sira observes a close connection between the following key-elements in his book: φόβος κυρίου (not φόβος θεοῦ, a word he never ever uses!), σοφία, παιδεία, εἰρήνη, different aspects of fame and honour (δόξα, καύχημα, ἀγαλλίαμα), ὑγίεια and ἴασις with στέφανος.“ 146 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 133, stellt zur Diskussion, ob die Phrase ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι neben der zeitlichen nicht auch eine räumliche Dimension mit einem transzendenten Akzent einschließt, „d. h. in der Welt Gottes.“ Diese Implikation ist nicht von der Hand zu weisen, berührt aber einen Nebenaspekt.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

277

4.2.5 Eschatologische Dauer des Wirkens und der Herrschaft Gottes Αἰών in Weish 3,8 „6 Wie Gold im Schmelzofen hat er sie [= δικαίων ψυχαί; 3,1] erprobt und wie ein Ganzopfer angenommen. 7 Zur Zeit ihrer Heimsuchung werden sie aufleuchten wie Funken, die durch ein Stoppelfeld sprühen. 8 Sie werden Völker richten und über Nationen herrschen und der Herr wird ihr König sein in Ewigkeit“ (Weish 3,6–8).

Nach dem Verscheiden sind die ψυχαί [τῶν δικαίων]147 in Gottes Hand (Weish 3,1) und nicht im Herrschaftsgebiet des Hades (vgl. ᾅδου βασίλειον; Weish 1,14), nicht im Tod148. Auch sie waren einer strengen Prüfung149 durch Gott unterworfen, wurden aber nach dem bestandenen Test wie ein (wohlgefälliges) Ganzopfer (ὡς ὁλοκάρπωμα θυσίας; 3,6) angenommen. Sie waren vom Vertrauen auf Unsterblichkeit (ἀθανασία) erfüllt. Jetzt bewährt sich diese Hoffnung (ἐλπίς; 3,4)150. Diesen wird wie den ‫ֲחִסיִדים‬/ὅσιοι in Ps 149,5–6151 die Macht zum Rechtsprechen (κρινοῦσιν) bzw. zum Herrschen (κρατήσουσιν) über die Völker (ἔθνη/λαῶν) übertragen (Weish 3,8a.b). Diese Regentenrolle ist aber nicht Selbstzweck152, son-

147 Vgl. nEÜ, nLuth: Seelen der Gerechten; Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 109: „Seele der Gerechten“; Nesselrath 47: „Der Gerechten Seelen“; NAB: „the souls of the just“; NRSV, NETS: „the souls of the righteous.“ 148 Weish 2,24: „Doch durch den Neid des Teufels kam der Tod in die Welt (θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον) und ihn erfahren alle, die ihm angehören.“ 149 „Wie Gold im Schmelzofen hat er sie erprobt“ (Weish 3,6). 150 Auch in 2 Makk bezeichnet ἐλπίς die Sicherheit, dass es nach dem Tode eine Weiterexistenz gibt; vgl. 2 Makk 7,14.20: ἐλπίς ist eine frühe Form, das individuelle Leben nach dem Tode zu beschreiben, wobei die Restituierung von körperlicher Integrität eingeschlossen ist. 151 Ps 149,6–9: „Hochgesänge auf Gott in ihrer Kehle, ein zweischneidiges Schwert in ihren Händen, um unter den Nationen Vergeltung zu üben, Strafgericht bei den Völkern, um ihre Könige mit Fesseln zu binden, ihre Fürsten mit eisernen Ketten, um Gericht über sie zu halten, wie geschrieben steht.“ 152 Unter diesem Umstand ist die Interpretation von Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 115, unzutreffend. Er diskutiert „einige nur schwer lösbare Probleme“ und bietet als Lösung: „Der Verfasser will möglicherweise ausdrücken, dass die menschliche Geschichte in eine neue Phase eintreten wird: die Königsherrschaft Gottes über die Welt, die mittels der Herrschaft der Gerechten ausgeübt wird, die in irgendeiner Weise am Königtum Gottes teilhaben. Das lässt vermuten, dass die ‚Heimsuchung‘, von der 3,7–9 spricht, nicht nur das individuelle Gericht bezeichnet, das Gott über die Menschen im jeweiligen Augenblick ihres Todes hält, sondern ein ausgedehnteres Geschehen, das der Vorstellung eines Endgerichts nahekommt.“ Der Plural hebt aber die Herrschaft Gottes über alle möglichen Dimensionen heraus und beschreibt Gott jenseits der einfachen Periode (αἰών), die für die Menschen zutreffen kann: die Herrschaft der Gerechten und die Herrschaft Gottes sind unterschiedlich, das zeigt sich schon an den mit Singular und Plural angezeigten zeitlichen Dimensionen.

278  Friedrich V. Reiterer

dern wird von einer übergeordneten Ausrichtung her begründet: Das eigentliche Ziel ist das Königreich Gottes, in das hinein das gute Schicksal und die Macht der Gerechten hineinverwoben sind. Nun gibt es auch eine Angabe über die kommende „Dauer“, die über die normal-menschliche Zeit hinausreicht: Gott herrscht εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, in die Ewigkeiten153 hinein. Das ist die einzige Stelle, an der αἰών im Buch der Weisheit im Plural vorkommt. Der Plural, ein Intensivplural, erklärt sich dadurch, dass die Herrschaft Gottes über alle denkbaren Dimensionen von Dauer betont wird: nur Gott herrscht bis in (alle) Ewigkeiten hinein (εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας). ●

Αἰών in Weish 17,2

„1 Groß und schwierig darzulegen sind deine Gerichtsentscheide; darum gingen unbelehrbare Seelen in die Irre. 2 Denn als die Gesetzlosen meinten, das heilige Volk zu unterdrücken, lagen sie selber da als Gefangene der Finsternis und Gefesselte einer langen Nacht, eingeschlossen unter ihren Dächern, Flüchtlinge vor der ewigen Vorsehung“ (17,1–2).

Seit eh und je gab es Menschen, welche die großen Entscheidungen Gottes (μεγάλαι γάρ σου αἱ κρίσεις; 17,1), seine Dekrete zurückweisen und die nicht erziehbar sind (ἀπαίδευτοι; 17,1).154 Die Unbelehrbaren haben mit negativen Reaktionen Gottes zu rechnen. So war es auch mit jenen „Gesetzlosen (ἄνομοι)155, die meinten, das heilige Volk zu unterdrücken, die (dann) selber dalagen als Gefangene der Finsternis und Gefesselte einer langen Nacht, eingeschlossen unter ihren Dächern, Flüchtlinge vor der ewigen Vorsehung / φυγάδες τῆς αἰωνίου προνοίας ἔκειντο.“ Die Inkriminierten sind ἄνομοι, also – unter Berücksichtigung des Alpha-privativums – ganz wörtlich „ohne Gesetz“. Es sind anders als die παράνομοι („außerhalb des Gesetzes“; 2 Makk 4,14), da diese „Gesetzlosen“, die ihre Vergehen heimlich (Weish 17,3a-b) begehen, sowohl weltliches wie religiöses Recht ignorieren bzw. brechen. Die Ereignisse in einer derart starken Finsternis, dass kein Feuer stark genug war sie zu erhellen (17,5a), werden in 17,5b– 15 geschildert.156 Die Gegner werden zu Flüchtlingen vor αἰώνιος πρόνοια, einer Metapher für den „ewigen Gott.“ Was bringt das Substantiv Vorsehung (πρόνοια) zum Ausdruck? Πρόνοια wird im Rahmen des Kontextes im wortwörtlichen Sinne verstanden: Vorherwissen (προνοέω). Das Vorherwissen kennt Sinn und Ziel des153 Die Übersetzungen berücksichtigen weitgehend den Plural nicht. 154 Vgl. zu diesem Abschnitt Mazzinghi, Notte, 5–64; Reiterer, „Emotionen“, 301–10, wo die kontemporären Beziehungen ausführlicher dargestellt werden. 155 So Nesselrath 99; ATd; vgl. anders nEÜ: Gottlosen; EÜ: Frevler; nLuth: Ungerechten; vgl. Näheres zur Bedeutung von νόμος oben zu Weish 18,4. 156 Vgl. Mazzinghi, „improviso“.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit



279

sen, was hier vor sich geht. Der Autor nimmt ein im Griechentum schon erörtertes Motiv auf. Die in der LXX selten und spät belegte157 πρόνοια spielt nach Plato bei der Schöpfung als Gottes Vorsehung (τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ … πρόνοιοαν) eine besondere Rolle (Pl. Tim. 30c; vgl. auch Pl., Tim. 44c; vgl. Xenophon, Mem. 1.4,18). Bei Plato schwingt „Fürsorge“ mit, denn Gott hat in Wahrheit (τῇ ἀληθείᾳ) die Welt als beseeltes Lebewesen (τὸν κόσμον ζῶον ἔμψυχον) konzipiert und damit im umfassenden Sinne funktionsfähig gemacht hat. Der biblische Autor ordnet derartige Gedanken seinem theologischen Konzept unter. Das Vorherwissen inkludiert offensichtlich das, was aus früherer Zeit berichtet wird. Gott wusste schon damals, dass der Angriff auf das Volk dem Angreifer Unglück bringen werde. Das Beispiel von anno dazumal sagt den Hörern zur Zeit des Autors, dass auch die konkreten Feinde Ähnliches erleiden werden: das hat Gott als die πρόνοια vorher gewusst, und dieses Wissen umfasst Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft: sie ist ewig, αἰώνιος. Das Adjektiv beschreibt die nach hinten und vorne endlose Dimension Gottes.

5 Rückblick Dieser Teil kann kurzgehalten werden, weil bei der jeweiligen Stelle die entscheidenden Inhalte notiert worden sind. Da man in der Zusammenfassung als Überblick unvermeidlich eine verallgemeinernde Abstrahierung vom einzelnen Kontext vornimmt, erfolgt ungewollt eine Vereinfachung bzw. eine Verkürzung. Wenn man das Buch der Weisheit zugrunde legt, dann könnte man weitgehend die Definitionen nicht verfassen, welche oben vorgestellt wurden (1.) und die einen guten Einblick in unser kontemporäres Zeitverständnis, bezüglich der vorliegenden Untersuchung „Vorverständnis“ beschreiben. Da die Rede über die und von der Zeit meistens abstrakt erfolgt, unterscheidet sich der Zugang zur Thematik grundlegend von den Belegen im Buch der Weisheit: es sind immer konkrete Kontexte und Anliegen, wo die Ausdrücke für Zeit vorkommen. Für χρόνος und καιρός, die sich nicht wesentlich unterscheiden, hat sich ergeben, dass beide Termini Entwicklungen und Abläufe einschließen und beschreiben. Die damit bezeichneten Zeitvorstellungen können allgemeiner Natur sein, markieren aber auch besondere, begrenzbare Zeitabschnitte bzw. Zeitpunkte. Die Zeit kann ein Ende haben, doch blickt der Autor an keiner Belegstelle über die Grenze des Todes hinaus. Dort, wo der Zeiten Ende erreicht wird wie in 2,5,

157 Vgl. 2 Makk 4,6; Weish 14,3; 17,2; Dan 6,19 (kein MT-Text); 3 Makk 4,21; 5,30; und 4 Makk 9,24; 13,19; 17,22.

280  Friedrich V. Reiterer

beschreibt der Autor das erreichte Endstadium in auffällig ungewohnter Art, die man versuchen könnte mit „Minuszeit“ in dem Sinn zu beschreiben, dass keine Dimension von Zeit zutrifft, und es von diesem Endpunkt kein Zurück gibt. – Besonders ist auf die in den Übersetzungen weitgehend nicht beachteten Pluralvorkommen hinzuweisen, die durchwegs als „verdichtete“ Zeitaussagen verstanden werden wollen. In der Literatur werden zwar immer wieder Notizen zu „Ewigkeit“ angebracht, doch fehlen systematische Ausführungen zu αἰών. Eine Ausnahme bildet Mazzinghi, der wesentliche Inhalte etwas verkürzend folgend zusammenfasst: „Das Substantiv αἰών hat im Buch der Weisheit eine räumliche (13,9), aber auch eine anthropologische Bedeutung (die Menschheit, vgl. 18,4) und einen zeitlichen Beiklang.“158 Aber auf der Basis der Belege wird man das Stichwort „zeitlich“ meiden, denn im Unterschied zu χρόνος und καιρός, die immer – mitunter lange andauernde – zeitliche Entwicklungen einschließen, spricht αἰών immer von langer Dauer, deren Ende nicht absehbar ist, das aber kommen kann oder wird. Das bedeutet aber nicht, dass damit immer auch im neuzeitlichen Sinne „Ewigkeit“ gemeint ist. Diese Dauer kann sich auf verschiedene konkrete oder abstrakte Bereiche beziehen wie z. B. auf Menschen – in einem banalen, aber auch in einem geprägtem Sinn als Ewigkeit, die Grenze des Todes überschreitend (Weish 4,2; 5,15) –, auf die Existenz von Götterstatuen, auf führende Rollen in der Gesellschaft. Αἰών bzw. αἰώνιος sind auch Gottes Dimension (Weish 3,8; 17,2), doch sind einschlägige Belege selten. Auffallend ist, dass vom Autor keine Kombinationen mit ἀφθαρσία oder ἀθανασία – beide Termini kommen in der LXX nur im Buch der Weisheit159 und in 4 Makk vor – vorgenommen werden.160 Offensichtlich gab es zur Zeit des Autors noch keinen gebräuchlichen Konnex dieser Bereiche.

Bibliographie Bauer, Walter. Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. 5th ed. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2019. Beentjes, Pancratius C. „You have given a Road in the Sea: What is Wisdom 14,3 Talking About?“ ETL 68 (1992): 137–41. 158 Mazzinghi, Weisheit, 364. 159 Vgl. ἀφθαρσία in 4 Makk 9,22; 17,12 und Weish 2,23; 6,18–19 bzw. ἀθανασία in 4 Makk 14,5; 16,13 und Weish 3,4; 4,1; 8,13.17; 15,3. 160 Es ist auffällig, dass Blischkes Untersuchung zur Eschatologie im Buch der Weisheit Stichworte wie ψυχή (Eschatologie, 65–67), ἀθανασία und ἀφθαρσία (Eschatologie, 109–14) eingehend untersucht, aber Ewigkeit nur streift und im Sachregister „Ewigkeit“ gar nicht anführt.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit 

281

Bibel. Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift. Gesamtausgabe. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelanstalt, 1980. Bibel. Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift. Gesamtausgabe. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelanstalt, 2016. Bibel. Revidierte Lutherbibel mit Apokryphen. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984. Bibel. Lutherbibel mit Apokryphen. Nach Marin Luthers Übersetzung, revidiert 2017. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2017. Bible. New Revised Standard Version. With the OT Apocryphal- Deutero-Canonical books. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Bible. The New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms, and with Roman Catholic Deutero-Canon. Washington: Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1991. Blischke, Mareike Verena. Die Eschatologie in der Sapientia Salomonis. FAT II.26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Bricault, Laurent. Isis Pelagia. Images, Names and Cults of a Goddess of the Seas. Translated from the French by Gil H. Renberg. RGRW 190. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2019. Dietrich, Manfried. „Creaturae ad casum ‚Geschöpfe für einen besonderen Fall‘. Temporärnumina in antiken syro-mesopotamischen Panthea.“ Pages 3–20 in Gott und Mensch im Dialog. Edited by Markus Witte. Festschrift Otto Kaiser. BZAW 345. I. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2004. Dubielzig, Uwe. „Lyrik.“ Kleines Lexikon Hellenismus. Studienausgabe. Edited by Hatto H. Schmitt and Ernst Vogt. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003.425–30. Engel, Helmut. Das Buch der Weisheit. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar. Altes Testament 16. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. Ewigkeit, in: Bertelsmann Universallexikon, Bd. 5. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1988.288. Ewigkeit, in: Der Neue Brockhaus, Bd. 2. Wiesbaden: F. A. Brockhaus 1974.116. Gassen, Kurt. „Sibylle Schwarz, eine pommersche Dichterin.“ Pommersche Jahrbücher 21 (1921): 1–108. Georgi, Dieter. Weisheit Salomos. JSHRZ III/4. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1980. Gemoll, Wilhelm, and Karl Vretska. Griechisch-Deutsches Schul- und Handwörterbuch. Durchges. und erw. von Karl Vretska. Mit einer Einf. in die Sprachgeschichte von Heinz Kronasser. 9th ed. München: Oldenbourg, 1991. Gilbert, Maurice. „La vostra sovranità viene dal Signore (Sap 6,3): ambivalenza del potere politico nella tradizione sapienziale.“ Pages 121–40 in La Sagesse de Salomon – The Wisdom of Salomon. Recueil d’études – Collected Essays. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. Rom: GBP, 2011. Goering, Greg Schmidt. „Election and Knowledge in Wisdom of Solomon.“ Pages 163–82 in Studies in the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 142. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010. Hübner, Hans. Die Weisheit Salomons. Liber Sapientiae Salomonis (ATD.Apokryphen 4). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Jenni, Ernst. „Ewigkeit.“ BHH 1.457–58. Jüngel, Eberhard. „Ewigkeit.“ RGG4 2.1772–74. Kepper, Martina. Hellenistische Bildung im Buch der Weisheit. Studien zur Sprachgestalt und Theologie der Sapientia Salomonis. BZAW 280. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1999. Kloppenborg, Verbin Johan S. „Isis and Sophia in the Book of Wisdom.“ HTR 75 (1982): 57–84. Kraus, Wolfgang, and Martin Karrer, eds. Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009.

282  Friedrich V. Reiterer

Leuenberger, Martin. „Das Problem des vorzeitigen Todes.“ Pages 151–76 in Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt. Theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonographische Aspekte. Edited by Angelika Berlejung and Bernd Janowski. FAT 64. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. With a Supplement 1968. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Marböck, Johannes. Jesus Sirach 1–23. HThKAT. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2010. Mazzinghi, Luca. „La barca della provvidenza: Sap 14,1–10 e la figura di Iside.“ VH 8 (1997. Ecco l’uomo. Studi in memoria di Mons. Valerio Mannucci): 61–90. Mazzinghi, Luca. „‚Un improvviso ed inatteso timore si era riversato su li loro‘. La paura dei malvagi in Sap 17.“ Parola Spirito e Vita 3 (1996): 81–92. Mazzinghi, Luca. „Law of Nature and Light of the Law in the Book of Wisdom (Wis 18:4c).“ Pages 37–59 in Studies in the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 142. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010. Mazzinghi, Luca. Notte di Paura e di Luce. Esegesi de Sap 17,1–18,4. AnBib 134. Rom: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1995. Mazzinghi, Luca. Weisheit. Internationaler Exegetischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2018. Mittag, Peter Franz. Antiochos IV. Epiphanes. Eine politische Biographie. Klio.Beihefte 11. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006. Nelis, Jan. „Ewigkeit.“ Bibel-Lexikon. Edited by Herbert Haag. Einsiedeln et al.: Benziger, 1968.451–53. Nelis, Jan. „Zeit.“ Bibel-Lexikon. Edited by Herbert Haag. Einsiedeln et al.: Benziger, 1968.1922–25. Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther. „ΣΟΦΙΑ ΣΑΛΩΜΩΝΟΣ / Die Weisheit Salomos.“ Pages 40–111 in Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm. „Anmerkungen.“ Pages 112–34 in Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm, ed. Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright. A new English translation of the Septuagint and the other Greek translations traditionally included under that title. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Rahner, Hugo. Symbole der Kirche: die Ekklesiologie der Väter. Salzburg: Müller, 1964. Reiterer, Friedrich V. „Beobachtungen zum äußeren und inneren Exodus im Buch der Weisheit. Eine Untersuchung von Weish 10,15–11,1.“ Pages 187–207 in Exodus. Rezeptionen in deuterokanonischer und frühjüdischer Literatur. Edited by Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2016. Reiterer, Friedrich V. „Emotionen, Gefühle und Affekte im Buch der Weisheit.“ Pages 281–315 in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2011. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2012. Reiterer, Friedrich V. „Gesellschaft und Religion – Eine ‚historische‘ Darlegung des alttestamentlichen Glaubens im hellenischen Ambiente.“ Pages 17–52 in Religion and Society – On the Present-Day Religious Situation. Edited by Chibueze Udeanie et al. Intercultural Theology and Study of Religion 5. Amsterdam and New York, NY: Rodopi, 2014.

Kairos, Chronos und Aion im Buch der Weisheit



283

Reiterer, Friedrich V. „Zwischen Jerusalem und Alexandria. Alttestamentlicher Glaube im Umfeld hellenistischer Politik und Bildung.“ Pages 245–84 in Alexandria. Edited by Tobias Geroges et al. COMES 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Reiterer, Friedrich V. „‚Wir wollen den armen Gerechten unterdrücken!‘ Zwei Gesellschaftsgruppen im Spannungsfeld von Macht und Religion nach dem Buch der Weisheit.“ Pages 161–89 in Gesellschaft und Religion in der deuterokanonischen und spätbiblischen Literatur. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer et al. DCLS 20. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2014. Rissi, Mathias. „Ewigkeit.“ BHH 1.458. Scarpat, Giuseppe. Il libro della Sapienza I–III. Brescia: Paideia, 1989–1999. Scheer, Tanja. „Religion.“ Kleines Lexikon Hellenismus. Studienausgabe. Edited by Hatto H. Schmitt and Ernst Vogt. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003.639–44. Schmitt, Armin. Das Buch der Weisheit. Ein Kommentar. Würzburg: Echter, 1986. Schmitt, Armin. Weisheit. NEchtB.AT 23. Würzburg: Echter, 1989. Schmitt, Hatto H. „Herrscherkult.“ Kleines Lexikon Hellenismus. Studienausgabe. Edited by Hatto H. Schmitt and Ernst Vogt. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003.243–53. Schöpflin, Karin, and Friedrich V. Reiterer. „The Garland – a Sign of Worship and Acknowledgement. A Hellenistic Symbol in Late Old Testament Books.“ Pages 17–40 in Various Aspects of Worship in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Géza Xeravits et al. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2016/17. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2017. Schuller, Wolfgang. Frauen in der griechischen Geschichte. Konstanzer Bibliothek 3. Konstanz: Universitäts-Verlag, 1985. Sqilloni, Antonella. „Il significato etico-politico dell’immagine re-legge animata. Il νόμος ἔμψυχος nei trattati neopitagorici Περὶ βασιλείας.“ CCICr 11 (1990): 75–94. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Salomon. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AncB 43. Garden City and New York: Doubleday 1979. Xeravits, Géza G., and József Zsengellér, eds. Studies in the Book of Wisdom. JSJSupp 142. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010. Witte, Markus. „Emotions in the Prayers of the Wisdom of Solomon.“ Pages 161–76 in Ancient Jewish Prayers and Emotions. Emotions associated with Jewish prayer in and around the Second Temple period. Edited by Stefan C. Reif and Renate Egger-Wenzel. DCLS 26. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2015. Zangenberg, Jürgen K. „Fragile Vielfalt – Beobachtungen zur Sozialgeschichte Alexandrias in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit.“ Pages 91–107 in Alexandria. Edited by Tobias Georges at al. COMES 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Ziefle, Helmut W. Sibylle Schwarz, Leben und Werk. Bonn: Bouvier, 1975. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Sapientia Salomonis. Septuaginta auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 12,1. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Zeit, in: Bertelsmann Universallexikon, Bd. 20.92. Zeit, in: Der Neue Brockhaus, Bd. 5.624–26.

Lucas Brum Teixeira

Ideas of Time in the Diaspora Tale of Tobit: Tobit’s Incipit (1:1–2) as Case Study Abstract: The diaspora tale of Tobit conveys, through different techniques and devices, various ideas of time. Tobit’s incipit (Tob 1:1–2) is a case in point of some of the codes used by its author to construe time and the ideas that through them he is able to communicate. The argument is considered from both narrative and rhetorical perspectives. After the composition and content of Tob 1:1–2 is briefly analyzed, the various modes of time construction in the sequence are assessed. Finally, the ideas of time that emerge from the temporal construction of Tob 1:1–2 are catalogued and commented on. The manner the narrator construes time and is able to convey conceptions about it in such a short sequence is an indication of the author’s narrative skillfulness throughout the book. Keywords: genealogy, Tobit’s incipit, chronology, geography, narrated time, narrating time.

1 Introduction From various viewpoints, the book of Tobit seems to partake of conventions, devices or, stated with certain reservations, “narrative techniques” in vogue at its time.1 Its author in fact uses them both to construct his story and to stress his ideas. It is noteworthy that such features emerge from Tobit’s very incipit or superscript (Tob 1:1–2), as some studies have highlighted.2 In this contribution I will consider Tobit’s incipit as a case study of the construction of time and the ideas its author seems to convey through his modes of encoding time in the composition.3 The base text for this study is the Göttingen edition of the long 1 Regarding Tobit’s narrative technique, cf. the unpublished pioneering study of Nowell, The Book of Tobit. Nowell’s study is, however, accessible via the Internet: http://search.proquest. com/docview/303135442/; see also Alonso Schökel, L’arte di raccontare la storia, 133–46. 2 See for instance: Perrin, “Capturing the Voices of Pseudepigraphic Personae,” 98–123. See also: Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra,” 379–419; Van der Bergh, “Unfocused Narrative Space in Tobit 1.1–2.14,” 214–25. 3 On time encoding in narratives, see the interesting study of Klein, “How Time is Encoded,” 39–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-013

286  Lucas Brum Teixeira

form of the story (or GII). However, the considerations that follow are applicable in general terms also to the incipit’s briefer form as transmitted by the shorter text (GI).4

2 Composition and Content of Tob 1:1–2 1:1 βίβλος λόγων Τωβὶθ τοῦ Τωβιὴλ τοῦ Ἁνανιὴλ τοῦ Ἀδουὴλ τοῦ Γαβαὴλ τοῦ Ῥαφαὴλ τοῦ Ραγουὴλ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ἀσιὴλ ἐκ φυλῆς Νεφθαλίμ, 1:2 ὃς ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἐνεμεσσάρου τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Ἀσσυρίων ἐκ Θίσβης, ἥ ἐστιν ἐκ δεξιῶν Κυδιὼς τῆς Νεφθαλεὶμ ἐν τῇ ἄνω Γαλιλαίᾳ ὑπεράνω Ἀσσηρ ὀπίσω ὁδοῦ δυσμῶν ἡλίου ἐξ ἀριστερῶν Φογώρ. In its modern presentation, Tobit’s incipit is composed of merely two verses. In GII those two verses amount to 271 characters without spaces (320 with spaces), forming 54 words that comprise three clauses.5 Such statistics may be set here as a quantitative premise for the evaluation of the incipit’s richness both in content and in its articulation of time. From a narrative perspective, such a premise may help us also appreciate better the author’s construction of both narrated and narrating time in Tob 1:1–2.6 Applying to Tobit’s incipit the seven qualifying categories of a good story from antiquity, Fitzmyer asserted that four of them are already answered in Tob 1:1–2—that is, quis, ubi, quomodo and quando.7 “The story still to be told will answer the quid, quibus auxiliis, and cur.”8 To that remark, however, we may add the observation that Tobit’s opening words, also answers, at least in general terms, the question quid (“what”). In fact, stated in a title-like form, Tobit’s first three words affirms the writing that follows to be, translating literally, a “book of the words of Tobit.”9 4 See Hanhart, Tobit, 59–60. 5 GI is composed instead of 213 characters without spaces (253 with spaces) forming 41 words (20 % shorter). GI for instance leads the reader in a swifter manner to Tobit’s “I” section (1:3– 3:6). 6 Besides Harris’ (“The Double Text of Tobit,” 641–54) particularly interesting study regarding statistics of our translated Tobit cf. also the study of Thomas, “The Greek Text of Tobit,” 463–71. 7 Preserved in Latin in the Ciceronian hexameter quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando, “Who, what, where, by what means, why, how and when?” See Cicero, Rhetoricorum seu De inventione rhetorica (quoted in Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia-IIae, q. 7, a. 3). 8 See: Fitzmyer, Tobit, 91; interesting notes on Tobit’s incipit are also found in Moore, Tobit, 99–104; Vílchez Líndez, Tobías y Judit, 56–58. 9 See Perrin, “Capturing the Voices of Pseudepigraphic Personae,” 107.

Ideas of Time in the Diaspora Tale of Tobit: Tobit’s Incipit (1:1–2) 

287

Verse 1 continues with a genitival construction in apposition in the form of a genealogy or genealogical list, ascending from Tobit up to and stopping with Jacob’s son Naphtali, via a certain Asiel, said to be from that patriarch’s tribe. Verse 2 then takes back the discourse through a subordinate relative clause introduced by ὅς, linking what follows to the name “Tobit.” Such clause, in the form of a chronological statement, answers the question “when,” and gives the reader some temporal information related to this character. The verse ends with a second relative clause introduced by the pronoun ἥ (v. 2b), which give or tries to give the precise geographical coordinates of Tobit’s hometown Thisbe. In its Semitizing diction, in fact, the phrase gives the location of Thisbe from the four cardinal points.10 Tobit’s incipit, therefore, is construed in four segments: (1) an opening titlelike statement, composed of three words, that answers the question “what” and “who or of whom,” completed with (2) a genealogical list of Tobit’s ancestors; (3) a chronological statement about Tobit’s time (thus answering the question “when”), and (4) a geographical reference of the location of Tobit’s hometown (answering the question “where”). We may notice that Tobit’s incipit has its center of gravity so to speak, in the Tobit character, whose “words” the writing that follows is expected to refer and about whom a genealogy and a specific chronological reference is given, and whose hometown appears to have some importance since the author tries to specify its precise location. From the point of view of the construction of time, two are codes or devices that emerge at surface level from the fourfold structure of Tobit’s incipit: a genealogy and a chronology.

3 Exploring Further the Incipit’s Codes for the Construction of Time 3.1 First Temporal Code: Tobit’s Genealogy The importance of genealogies in biblical tradition and in Jewish tradition in general goes without saying. Emblematic in that regard is, for instance, the literary and hermeneutic significance of genealogies in Genesis.11 Genealogies, in fact, play a major social role for the preservation of a tribe’s homogeneity, the 10 The geographical references of Tobit’s incipit continue to be a matter of debate. See Milik, “La patrie de Tobie,” 522–30; Zwickel, “Die Herkunft Tobits,” 107–10. 11 On the argument, see for instance Rosini, “Genealogy as a Measurement of Time,” 31–48.

288  Lucas Brum Teixeira

cohesion and integrity of a clan or the establishment of one’s own identity (thus to ratify one’s social status or justify one’s social function, as in the case, for example, of kings or priests).12 Our present Old Testament contains about 25 genealogies, taking different literary forms and lengths.13 They are attested primarily in texts that deal with Israel’s history or in the literature of post-exilic times (genealogies became important for instance, in determining a Babylonian returnee’s authentic connection to the Jewish people).14 As Wilson has noted, the narratives that deal with Israel’s history, “all suggest that kinship was a major organizational principle, and for this reason genealogies, which use the idiom of kinship, became an important means of expressing all sorts of social, political, and religious relationships.”15 Genealogies are also found in non-biblical Second Temple literature (we may recall in that regard, for instance, chapter XII of Genesis Apocryphon). Tobit’s genealogy in v. 1 is composed in a twofold manner. A first segment, through a chain of articular genitives of origin and relationship, with the typical omission in Greek of the nomen regens “son of,” draws a direct line from Tobit to a certain Raguel. “Linear genealogies are simply lists of names connecting an individual to an earlier ancestor by indicating the kinship relationships that tie all of the names together. Genealogies of this sort have only a vertical dimension and are normally of limited depth.”16 In our present Old Testament we encounter examples of genealogies with both descending (meaning from parent to child, like that of 1 Chr 9:39–44) and ascending order (from child to parent, like 1 Chr 9:14–16). The latter is also the case of Tobit’s. Furthermore, from Tobit to Raguel, a genealogy of seven generations is drawn. Fitzmyer suggests that the number seven in genealogies, given its schematic and artificial feature, perhaps also served a mnemonic function.17 According to Josephus (Ant., II.9.6), Moses was the seventh after Abraham (Moses, son of Amram, son of Qahat, son of Levi, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham). Similarly, in the New Testament Jude 14 presents Enoch as seventh after Adam (Gen 5:3–18).18 From Raguel, then, the author continues the genealogical line in a vague manner through two prepositional phrases with ἐκ + the nouns, “offspring or descendants” (σπέρμα) and “tribe” (φυλή). We immediately notice that these 12 See Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, 85–138, quoted in Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, 489. 13 Cf. Wilson, “Genealogy, Genealogies,” 930. 14 Recall 1 Chr 2–9; Neh 7:6–73; Ezra 10. 15 Wilson, “Genealogy, Genealogies,” 930. 16 Wilson, “Genealogy, Genealogies,” 930. 17 Cf. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, 491–504; cf. also idem, Tobit, 91–92. 18 Cf. Wilson “Genealogy, Genealogies,” 932.

Ideas of Time in the Diaspora Tale of Tobit: Tobit’s Incipit (1:1–2)



289

terms are not at the same level of meaning. Whereas the idea of “offspring” is directly connected to that of genealogy, the idea of “tribe,” of a different order, recalls ancient Israel’s social organization and may imply different nuances than “offspring.” It is not clear whether or not the Asiel of whose offspring Tobit would be via Raguel is to be understood as Naphtali’s first born Jahzeel (NJB) mentioned in Gen 46:24(25) (MT and Tg. Ps.-J.: ‫ ;יחצאל‬Vg: Jasiel; Syr [Tob]: ’š’yl).19 In any case, it is through such characters from Israel’s past that Tobit is connected to the patriarch Naphtali. Contrary to other venerable figures of Israel’s past, mentioned for instance, in the incipits of Aramaic pseudepigrapha, like Noah in 1QapGen or Amram (son of Qahat, son of Levi) in 4QVisions of Amram, the name Tobit like those of Tobiel, Aduel and Gabael are elsewhere unattested.20 As it appears, Tobit’s author devised a fictitious genealogy to validate his protagonist as a legitimate Israelite in the eyes of his Diaspora audience, linking him to the patriarch Naphtali. The name Naphtali, repeated once more in v. 2b, is important for the author’s articulation of Tobit’s major argument about the suffering of the righteous. Tobit 1 expresses the view that it is in fact due to Israel’s breaking away from Judah, appealing to a religious motif stressed in the biblical account, that the Assyrian exile was brought about because of the sinfulness of the Northern Kingdom.21 It is noteworthy that all six of Tobit’s forefathers bear a symbolictheophoric name in -el, except Tobit (at least not explicitly). The name “Tobit” is considered to be a hypocoristic form in Greek, of the name “Tobiah.” In that sense, perhaps the protagonist’s name choice together with that of his son also enables the author to build up his Jerusalem-centered appeal (through its theophoric element Yah-). Tobit’s ancestry, as Fitzmyer rightly stated, is construed “to accentuate the theocentric thrust of the story to be recounted.”22 Furthermore, Tobit’s genealogy, taking back the reader several centuries, in fact to the time of the patriarchs, also serves to evoke Israel’s past, its history and traditions. From a narrative point of view, it also serves to create narrating time that helps the reader better grasp the various ideas the author affirms through his mode of recounting.

19 Cf. Fitzmyer, Tobit, 94. 20 In that regard we may recall that 36 characters of Jesus’ genealogy in Luke are also to this day still completely unknown (Luke 3:23–38). 21 See Tob 1:3–9; 1 Kgs 12:19–20; 2 Kgs 17; 18:9–13. 22 Fitzmyer, Tobit, 92.

290  Lucas Brum Teixeira

3.2 Second Temporal Code: The Chronological Statement The second and more explicit device used by the author to construe time in the incipit is the chronological statement of v.2a. It is noteworthy that such a temporal statement relates Tobit immediately to the issue of his deportation and thus to the theme of the exile, at the very beginning of the book. From a grammatical point of view, the verbal form that follows in the relative clause, ᾐχμαλωτεύθη (aorist passive indicative), although not much exploration is possible regarding its Aktionsart considering its translative nature, in effect conveys by itself several ideas related to Tobit’s abduction. Tobit is said to “have been taken captive.” Having referred right before to the tribe of Naphtali and repeating again the patriarch’s name in the next sequence, the idea of being taken captive per se would presumably have evoked immediately in an Israelite deportee reader/listener’s mind the drama of Israel’s exile (727–722 BCE) and through it, the very problem of the exile (in the author’s time in late Hellenistic period, a large and flourishing Israelite diaspora was still in existence). Although in Greek the effect of an occurrence from the past in the present is normally conveyed through the perfect tense, in Tobit’s incipit that also appears the case with the aorist form employed by the translator. The aorist, in fact, is the preferred tense of LXX translators to render the Hebrew/Aramaic perfect. In any case, the statement that Tobit was taken captive implies various ideas that relate to time, such as the social-political process of the conquest, Tobit’s being seized and being led away to the land of his captivity. Thus, through a single verbal form (brief narrating time), the author is again able to convey a remarkably length of narrated time. Furthermore, such implied information is improved and narratively intensified by the temporal predicate that follows. By inserting “in the days of” meaning “during the reign of” Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians, the author gives a political setting to his story and also a place to his protagonist in Israel’s history.23 The inclusion of the proper name “Shalmaneser” (here to be thought Shalmaneser V) in fact, serves not only to implicitly specify Tobit’s (fictitious) time of abduction, but also to give temporal depth to the Tobit story that is beginning to unfold. Together with other names and circumstances that occur right after, in the I-Section (Tob 1:3–3:6), the author is able to connect narra-

23 The Greek form Enemessaros is normally identified as Shalmaneser (Fitzmyer, Tobit, 95). According to 2 Kgs 15:29, it was Shalmaneser’s father and predecessor, Tiglath-Pileser III (745– 727 BCE) who “came and took Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, all the territory of Naphtali, Gilead, and Galilee, deporting the inhabitants to Assyria” (NJB). Historically, these events took place around 732 BCE.

Ideas of Time in the Diaspora Tale of Tobit: Tobit’s Incipit (1:1–2)



291

tively Tobit’s present and through him Israel’s “present” (in the story) to its past, from the patriarchal age of Jacob’s sons to the time of the Assyrian exile, with all that is in between, thus creating an enormous span of narrated time— more or less from the thirteenth century to the eighth century BCE. As mentioned before, the chronological statement of Tobit’s incipit occurs between two attestations of the name “Naphtali.” The second is part of the geographical description of Tobit’s hometown, the incipit’s final sentence (v. 2b). The identification of Thisbe is still disputed or why the author tries to specify its location.24 It is interesting however, that in its second occurrence, the name Naphtali occurs together with that of Kedesh, thus, “Kedesh of Naphtali.”25 Whereas initially signifying the patriarch and his tribe, “Naphtali” in v. 2b conveys the idea of territory, thus serving to evoke the division of the land and in this way, the traditions of Joshua. According to the book of Joshua, Naphtali was one of the ten tribes that received land in Northern Israel (recall Josh 19:32–39). Kedesh was the hometown of Barak according to Judges 4:6. Following Kedesh, Tobit’s author seems to mention Hazor. Hazor was also located in the territory of Naphtali (see Josh 19:36–37) and according to Judg 4, the general of its Canaanite king Jabin, Sisera, fought against Barak and his men. The geographical annotations of Tob 1:2b, therefore, also serve to evoke biblical traditions concerning Joshua and the time of the Judges. Through such evocation, Tobit’s author links Tobit and his drama to that of the heroic figures of Israel’s past. With respect to time, Tob 1:2b completes the creation of narrated time and the link between Tobit’s present with Israel’s past, evoking past events by means of toponyms. To conclude this section, a few remarks are needed on the incipit’s first words. Examined more closely, the phrase “book of the words of Tobit” also implicitly condenses various ideas of time. The noun “book” implies the idea of writing and therefore, of process and consequently of a lengthy time span. It also raises the question about when it was written and how long it took to be completed. Likewise, the phrase “words of” imply time: time when those words were uttered, for how long were they uttered and in which circumstances of the protagonist’s life. The reader, in fact, receives the answer to those questions in 24 In 1 Kgs 17:1 while introducing Elijah to the reader, the narrator calls Elijah the Tishbite (NJB), meaning from Tishbe of Gilead which in the LXX becomes Θεσβείτης ἐκ Θεσβὼν τῆς Γαλαὰδ. Gilead was located in the territory of Manasseh, one of the Transjordanian tribes (together with Reuben and Gad). In specifying the location of his Thisbe, the author may be trying to avoid confusion with Elijah’s hometown and thus to emphasize Tobit’s Northern Israelite origin, making it important to highlight Tobit’s fidelity to Jerusalem in the I-Section of the book. 25 That same construction is found in 1 Macc 11:63, 73.

292  Lucas Brum Teixeira

various manners as the story unfolds. The climax of that process is Tob 12:20, the angel’s command to Tobit and Tobiah to “write down all these things that have happened to you.” From a narrative point of view, Tobit’s incipit precedes and thus serves as the introduction to the programmatic I-Section that follows. Through various inner connections the incipit is neatly connected to that section. The I-Section, in effect, begins to fill in narratively the book’s initial phrase: “book of the words of Tobit” (from 1:3 to 3:6), conveying that the Tobit character will speak at length about himself from various points of view. As already stated, Tobit’s incipit serves to prepare the reader’s mind to receive the information that Tobit himself offers him. The reader’s time is in the hands of the narrator, since he is the one leading the reader/listener through his work. “The shaping of time within the narrative is functional and not random or arbitrary, making a genuine contribution, in coordination and cooperation with the other elements, to the character, meaning and values of the entire narrative.”26

4 Ideas of Time in Tob 1:1–2: Synthesis and Conclusion In its fourfold structure, at first we detected two codes used in Tobit’s incipit for time construction: a genealogy and a chronological statement. Genealogies link present to past in the deepest manner, through the process of having children and doing so “within” one’s ancestral line; they represent the most profound link established between individuals: blood. Since having children implies intrinsically the idea of marriage that occurs within the same clan, in Tobit’s genealogy symbolically represented in a theological manner through the theophoric onomastic list, Tobit’s genealogy seems also to support the book’s teaching on endogamy. Strictly speaking, however, endogamy has to do with genealogies at a horizontal level, meaning, the relationship between siblings linked to a common ancestor. By evoking venerable figures from Israel’s past, Tobit’s genealogy also evokes that very past and its key related events. A genealogy also conveys the idea of connection to the beginning. The idea of tribe evokes the important moment of Israel’s past when the promised land was distributed among the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob. Such distribution marks the beginning of Israel as a nation in the promised land. In the background of the genealogy flows the idea that time is above all a linear real26 See Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 142.

Ideas of Time in the Diaspora Tale of Tobit: Tobit’s Incipit (1:1–2)



293

ity. Such linearity creates ancestry. Individuals are linked deeply through it. The succession of generations creates history and history conditions one’s present. In the case of Tobit, such reality becomes gradually more and more patent. Tobit in fact, ends his days in exile. Perhaps for that and other reasons, the incipit’s second code expressing the construction of time, the chronological statement that follows, offers some information about Tobit’s time from the point of view of his destiny and life status. Through a verbal form evoking the historical process of the exile, the author is able to convey various ideas of time regarding its process. The mention of the Assyrian king’s name, in whose time Tobit’s abduction takes place, adds additional depth to the author’s articulation of time recounted in the incipit. Finally, the geographical remarks with which the author concludes Tobit’s incipit, strategically placed in it, besides invoking various moments of Israel’s history through toponyms, work together to produce a skillful creation of both narrated and narrating time, preparing the reader for the discussion of two of Tobit’s main arguments: the suffering of the righteous and endogamy. The amount of information conveyed and the skillful manner with which Tobit’s brief incipit is construed enhances the opinion that the book is, in fact, constructed with a refined narrative technique that conveys its articulation of time.

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, Luis. L’arte di raccontare la storia. Storiografia e poetica narrativa nella Bibbia. Lectio 6. Cinisello Balsamo (MI): San Paolo Edizioni, 2013. Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989. Dimant, Devorah. “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 379–419 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Mulder and Harry Sysling. CRINT 2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel according to Luke. Volume II. AB 28A. Garden City and New York: Doubleday, 1985. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Hanhart, Robert, ed. Tobit. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum VIII/5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Harris, J. Rendel. “The Double Text of Tobit.” AmJT 3 (1899): 541–54. Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies. With Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies. SNTSMS 8. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1988. Klein, Wolfgang. “How Time is Encoded.” Pages 39–82 in The Expression of Time. Edited by Wolfgang Klein and Ping Li. The Expression of Cognitive Categories 3. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2009.

294  Lucas Brum Teixeira

Milik, Józef T. “La patrie de Tobie.” RB 73 (1966): 522–30. Moore, Carey A. Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 40A. New York: Yale University Press, 1996. Nowell, Irene. The Book of Tobit. Narrative Technique and Theology. Diss. Catholic University of America. Washington, DC: 1983. Perrin, Andrew B. “Capturing the Voices of Pseudepigraphic Personae: On the Form and Function of Incipits in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 20 (2013): 98–123. Rosini, Amanda. “Genealogy as a Measurement of Time: A Critical Analysis of Genesis 3 to 11.” ARC: The Journal of the School of Religious Studies, McGill University 44 (2016): 31–48. Thomas, James David. “The Greek Text of Tobit.” JBL 91/4 (1972): 463–71. Van der Bergh, Ronald. “Unfocused Narrative Space in Tobit 1.1–2.14.” Pages 214–25 in Constructions of Space V. Place, Space and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Edited by Gert T. M. Prinsloo and Christl M. Maier. LHBOTS 576. New York and London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Vílchez Líndez, José. Tobías y Judit. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2000. Wilson, Robert R. “Genealogy, Genealogies.” ABD 2.929–32. Zwickel, Wolfgang. “Die Herkunft Tobits.” BN 157 (2013): 107–10.

Francis M. Macatangay

The “Shape of Time” in the Book of Tobit Abstract: The concept of the “shape of time” refers to the various ways of explaining the relationship between the past and the present. The perception of the “shape of time” is relative to one’s historical situation and experiences. This paper aims to explore how the Book of Tobit views the “shape of time.” The essay posits that the Book of Tobit regards the Second Temple present not as a temporal rupture but as a period of continuing punishment. Historical time is thus reconfigured; the post-exilic present of the Jews in the Diaspora is perceived as an ongoing exile and not as a new beginning. Foreign rule, the loss of political independence, and despair in the narrative all point to God’s absence and the enduring facet of exile. The building of the Second Temple did not end this particular period. In other words, the time that precedes the definitive return of God continued into the Second Temple present. The time of exile persists until the chronos tōn kairōn or the “times of fulfillment” (Tob 14:5). The times of fulfillment, however, are dramatized as bubbling forth and being made present in Tobit’s experience of God’s presence. Keywords: Tobit, shape of time, ongoing exile, radical hope, marriage.

Introduction The shape of time is a concept that refers to the various ways of explaining the relationship between the past and the present. The perception of the “shape of time” depends relatively on one’s historical situation and experiences. Because time and history are reciprocally related, historical circumstances often determine not only how one regards the relationship between the past, the present, and the future but also how the shape of time confers meaning on historical events. In 538 BCE, Cyrus allowed the Jews to return home to the land, an event that can be viewed as the final landmark of the exilic period. It raised for some the hope of return to Israel’s magnificent past. The persistence of foreign control and a functioning but an unimposing Temple, however, seemed to have fueled the belief that God has yet to reconcile and restore his relationship with his people; indeed, that God remains absent. For some, the post-exilic period was a time of discontent and anxiety.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-014

296  Francis M. Macatangay

The perception that God has not fully reconciled with Israel arises from the sense of rupture or radical break in historical time that the experience of exile implies; exile punctures history and signals a radical start. If temporal discontinuity raises this bleak awareness, then creating a narrative that posits temporal continuity between past and present can counter this view. The Book of Tobit is an example of such a narrative. This study explores how the Book of Tobit, a Second Temple text, portrays the third century reality of dispersion as a continuation of the exilic past.1 By analyzing the narrative dynamics closely, this article attempts to respond to the following questions: what is the conception of the shape of time in the Book of Tobit? And how does the narrative’s perception of time affect the way it presents historical experiences?

1 Historical Incongruities in Tobit As a story, the Book of Tobit is set in the Assyrian conquest of Samaria and the exile of its residents in the late eighth century. Though the narrative presents Tobit’s deportation to Assyria as a historical event that has a singular influence on his life, Tobit nonetheless provides incorrect details of this history. Tobit, for instance, refers to the captivity of his northern tribe “in the days of Shalmaneser” (Tob 1:2), and yet, according to 2 Kings 15:29, it was Shalmaneser V’s father and predecessor Tiglath-Pileser III who conquered the tribe of Naphtali and deported the people to Assyria sometime in 732 BCE. It is also historically incongruous for Tobit to claim that when he was young, his tribe of Naphtali broke from Jerusalem and the house of David (Tob 1:4); the break-up of the united monarchy took place around 922 BCE. Since Tobit was likely exiled sometime around the end of the eighth century, that claim would make Tobit truly ancient.2 Finally, the story reflects the piety of Second Temple Judaism even though it is set in the eighth century before the Deuteronomic reforms.3 1 In his monograph Creation, Covenant, and the Beginnings of Judaism: Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period, Ari Mermelstein examines how Ben Sira, Jubilees, the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) and 4 Ezra responded to a perceived temporal discontinuity by rewriting history or reconfiguring time in a specific way. He notes that Tobit shares with these works a similar perspective on the Second Temple period as an ongoing exile (see esp. pp. 7– 10). 2 See Nowell, “Tobit,” 993. 3 See Collins, Hebrew Bible, 545.

The “Shape of Time” in the Book of Tobit 

297

Whether intended or not, these lapses suggest that this account set in the past is not primarily interested in the past as past or in narrating a straightforward history. Rather, the story seems concerned with the implication and meaning of that historical event for Second Temple realities.

2 Historical Anachronism in Tobit The anachronistic claim that Judeans were deported to Nineveh is equally suggestive. After his miraculous cure, Tobit states that there was great rejoicing among Judeans in Nineveh (GII Tob 11:18), which makes it seem as if the southern tribe of Judah was already in exile.4 As 2 Kings 18:11 notes, those who were deported to Nineveh were identified as “Israelites” or “children of Israel” and never “Jews” or “Judeans.”5 Like the anachronism that Caravaggio produced in his masterpiece The Calling of St Matthew, in which he utilized the contemporary fashion of the late sixteenth century to paint the dress of the figures not only to make them less distant but also to contemporize Matthew’s historic call, rendering it as true in his day as it was in Matthew’s time, the anachronism in Tobit allows the event of the Assyrian captivity to be at once historical and contemporary—the past and the present become temporal dimensions that are enfolded within a common historical frame. It is as if Tobit has carried up this event from the depths of time to the surface of the present. Likely written sometime in the second or third century BCE, the book employs this momentous moment in Israel’s history in order to present the realities of the original audience as continuous with, even similar to their past. In his hymn, in fact, Tobit steps outside of the narrative time frame and addresses the audience with the use of the second person plural “you.” The narrative has made time malleable so much so that the past reasserts itself into the present. The elasticity of time allows the retrojection of the present into the past and the injection of the past into the present, suggesting that the current reality of his audience remains an exilic struggle with the exilic past continuing into the present; it is a time marked by a delay in the display of God’s purpose; the period between the rebuilding of the temple and the time of the book’s audience remains a period in which history and the divine word remain split.

4 This article will focus mainly on the longer Greek text form of Tobit (GII). 5 Zimmermann, Book of Tobit, 16; Zapella, Tobit, 116.

298  Francis M. Macatangay

3 Social Time and the Shape of Time This essay assumes that time is a socially constructed phenomenon which has no meaning apart from or outside of the social and narrative understandings of the past, the present, the future, and the relationships among them.6 As Paul Ricoeur notes, “time becomes human to the extent that it is articulated through a narrative mode, and narrative attains its full meaning when it becomes a condition of temporal existence.”7 Narrative, as a report of events occurring over time, is the act of linking the past, the present, and the future into temporal shapes; narrative shows which particular events are significant within particular accounts of past, present and future, and second, and in addition, it shows the relations of these events in the crafting of coherent and “followable” stories. The temporal order and pattern imposed on events, which would have been discrete and dissociable otherwise, inscribe them with meaning and significance. As such, narrative configures time, actualizing it as a meaningful entity. In other words, the representation and construction of temporality are shown through and within narratives. In exploring the emergence of temporalities within narratives, there are two dimensions to note: first is the chronological or episodic dimension which captures the ranking, privileging or the sequencing of events in the story, and second is the configurational or emplotted dimension, which shows how the arrangement or plot transforms a series of significant and inter-linking events into a meaningful whole or a coherent, well-made story. As Ricoeur notes, “to understand the story is to understand how and why the successive episodes led to this conclusion, which, far from being foreseeable, must finally be accept-

6 Scientifically, time is understood as an objective and universal entity that possesses an ontological existence; it exists regardless of our perception, ideas, narratives and communal practices. In other words, time is completely independent of the social processes or subjective contexts of its construction. Conceived thus, time’s distinctive shape or form is like an arrow, moving in an uninterrupted, unalterable and linear directionality. Time flows sequentially comprising a series of quantifiable moments that move constantly and continuously from past to future. According to Sacha Stern (cf. Time and Process, 103, 124), this notion of time as “an entity in itself, a dimension of reality, a flowing continuum, or a useful commodity” is completely absent in the Hebrew Bible and in other ancient Jewish texts. Biblically, time is not a reality but only a “reified abstraction” (see Stern’s discussion in pp. 18–25). Reality instead is viewed in terms of process understood as “a structured or meaningful sequence of events” (p. 2). These two categories of time and process “are fundamentally different in kind: time is abstract, process is concrete; time is one, process is many; time is reified, process is real” (p. 3). See also Barr, Biblical Words, 82–162. 7 Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, 52.

The “Shape of Time” in the Book of Tobit



299

able, as congruent with the episodes brought together by the story.”8 History then is not simply about narrating dates and facts, or deciding which facts are true or false, but is also about determining which facts play a significant role in the story. Put differently, history is telling an alternative narrative about the past. The Book of Tobit is certainly not history but a story about a particular man whose family experiences horrible misfortunes and eventual triumph while in a foreign land. Still, Tobit as a narrative character enjoys a representational or symbolic function: he stands for the collective experience and embodies the hopes embedded in the history of his people. In Tobit, Israel’s history has become personal.9 In other words, Tobit individualizes and recapitulates that history; his story is Israel’s history writ-small. The marvelous reversals in Tobit’s life, therefore, enjoy an edifying value for the author’s original audience. As the book narrates Tobit’s personal story, it also insinuates an alternate story about how the exilic past connects to the present and the future of Tobit’s readers. The way the Book of Tobit narrates the story of personal loss in the context of national history that is marked by exile uncovers its view of the shape of time.

3.1 Temporal Discontinuity Historical time, broadly speaking, can be imagined in different ways, either as continuous or unconnected, as marked by rise and fall, gradual change or sudden breaks, or as a series of random swings and discrete events.10 In other words, the shape of time can be expressed generally in terms of temporal discontinuity, temporal linearity, and timelessness. Temporal discontinuity views the movement of time as disjunctive. The dynamic of time involves episodes of absolute historical break that separates qualitatively disjointed temporal moments. Discontinuous interpretations of the past, the present and the future identify novel intervals and deeply different moments in history that share little or nothing with one another; it emphasizes uniqueness, ruptures, and abrupt qualitative changes. It constructs narrative time in terms of three key features: “the first is a claim to relative stability, co8 Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, 67. 9 Bauckham, “Tobit as Parable,” 433–34, notes that “Tobit’s story functions in the wider national-historical framework of the book as a model for the past, present and future of Israel, a personal story with which the national story can be compared.” See also Anderson, “Righteous Sufferer,” 493–507, Macatangay, When I Die, 79–85 and Balla, “God’s Kingship,” 452–56. 10 See Corfield, Time and the Shape of History, xii. See also Graham, The Shape of the Past, 1– 13.

300  Francis M. Macatangay

herence or uniformity within a particular object at a specific historical juncture. The second is the occurrence of a significant, frequently novel, event that acts as a rupture or interval, both interrupting the previously stable configuration and bringing something else into being. And the third, finally, is a period of new stability or coherence following the interval: a period of new stability, importantly, that is, qualitatively and distinct from the original situation.”11 In this view, epochs or eras in history remain unprecedented and therefore unpredictable. In this temporal shape, exile is viewed as marking a radically new beginning with a future that cannot be predicted from the past. The exilic period has become a new time with expectations that differ from all previous experiences.12 The era of exile is a start of a unique time in which coherent configurations of the preceding period are destabilized. In this distinct interval, foreign rule, disappointment, despair and discontent are the new normal. What the qualitatively different future looks like remains unseen. Understandably, the view that exile marks a discontinuity in the shape of time provokes concern among Second Temple Jews for it implies that God has abandoned his people.

3.2 Tobit’s Reconfiguration of Historical Time The Book of Tobit counters the perceived discontinuity between the pre-exilic past and the post-exilic present by providing an alternative shape of time, one that is perceptibly linear. The book is a narrative of distress and despair of characters under captivity, giving off the acute sense that God has hidden his face. Tobit, in fact, views his sufferings as an experience of death in which the light of God is nowhere to be seen (cf. Tob 5:10). Such experiences of misfortunes echo, if not reflect, the anxiety of the post-exilic times.

3.2.1 Linear Temporality While such despair may be taken as symptomatic of a new beginning, the story projects otherwise. For Tobit, they indicate instead that the exilic distress did not end but endured beyond the historic return to the land. Political hegemony, demonic attacks, and Tobit’s loss of sight and other miseries are but signs of 11 Jarvis, Times of Terror, 36. 12 On the categories of experience and expectation as “appropriate for the treatment of historical time,” see Koselleck, Futures Past, 255–75, esp. 258, 270.

The “Shape of Time” in the Book of Tobit 

301

languishing in some enduring exile and bondage. Some of the prophets, of course, identified these as defining elements of the exilic experience (cf. Isa 13:21). The long sweep of narrative time that stretches from the Assyrian captivity in Tob 1:1–2, through the fall of Nineveh and the Babylonian exile and the burning of God’s temple in Jerusalem that Tobit predicts in Tob 14:4, all the way down to the return of the exiles and the rebuilding of the temple and up to the eschatological “time of fullness” (Tob 14:5; cf. 13:1–18) promised in the prophets, suggests the persistence of the exilic condition. In his farewell speech in Tob 14:4b, Tobit seems to think that Israel’s exile includes the deportation of both the northern and southern kingdoms; he predicts that “the entire land of Israel” (πάσα ή γη του Ισραήλ), both Samaria and Jerusalem, will be a desert. In short, the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles are reduced to a single event, with the destruction of Assyria and Nineveh and the captivity of Judah and the burning of the temple as the apex of the exilic process. For Tobit, these events remain a predicted reality. For the book’s audience, however, these events are past. This chronologically situates the author in the period when Israel has so far experienced merely partial restoration, awaiting the full ingathering of all the tribes of Israel at the appointed time. Moreover, Tobit’s constant and insistent use of διασκορπίζειν (“to disperse,” “scatter”; cf. 3:4, 6; 13:3–6; 14:4) in relating the experience of Assyrian captivity suggests that the Diaspora serves as both evidence and extension of the exilic struggle.13 In his farewell speech to Tobias and his sons, Tobit says that “all our brothers who are dwelling in the land of Israel will be scattered and exiled from the good land” (GII Tob 14:4b). The linking of the two verbs “to scatter” and “to exile” makes it seem as though they are continuous, if not similar, events. Since the story opens with the exile of the northern tribes, by the time of his leave-taking, Tobit is already living in the dispersion. In this way, the narrative plots the reality of the dispersion inside this event and sees this stretch of time since as a protracted exile. In other words, the dispersion is viewed from the lens of exile.14 The narrative time thus encompasses the author’s time and historic period as a phase in a long process of unfolding exilic hardships that reaches its end only when God restores all of Israel to fulfill his word at the chronos tōn kairōn (“times of fulfillment:” GII Tob 14:5). By mapping the Assyrian captivity to the reality of the dispersion of the post-exilic period, the Book of Tobit affirms that the Assyrian exilic period 13 The view that those in the Diaspora are exilic is likely a view from those in the land, from the inside looking out. On this point, see Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions, 283–86. 14 Otzen, Tobit and Judith, 43: “the author of the Book of Tobit sees, of course, the problem of the Diaspora behind the theme of exile.”

302  Francis M. Macatangay

spans centuries all the way down to the post-exilic period of the author. There is yet no period after this historic exile, only before. The exilic struggle is still in progress; it has not ceased. The period before God’s return continued and “simply passed, by a series of gradual, social and political changes into a condition of relatively permanent dispersion.”15 In other words, the exile ceases from being a historic event and has become instead both a metaphor for the period and an enduring circumstance that will be healed only by God’s historic intervention at the eschaton in the fullness of time.16 Tobit continues to live inside a story that is still searching and waiting for an ending that nonetheless is sure to come. In addition, Tobit’s ambivalent attitude towards the Second Temple serves as evidence that exile is an enduring condition. The narrative gives the impression that the rebuilt temple, though functioning, is a provisional structure. The text does admit that those restored to the land will re-erect the temple (Tob 14:5), which is a realized prediction for the third century audience. And yet, the presence of the passive form of oikodomeō hints at the possibility that it is God who will ultimately be the agent responsible for rebuilding a new and glorious temple (cf. Tob 13:16–17; 14:5).17 In this light, the rebuilt temple is an unimpressive and an imperfect one; in fact, Tobit’s prediction of a magnificent Jerusalem and a splendid temple in Tobit 13 remains a frustrated hope as these entities did not match the realities of the time. As an ex eventu prophecy, Tobit foretells that the second temple “will not be like the first one” (read: οὐχ ὡς τὸν πρῶτον) (GII Tob 14:5a). It is thus a cause of dissatisfaction and a signal that the exilic throes have not ended but instead remain a current reality. Tobit affirms that the words of the prophets will not fail and that all will come true at their appointed times (Tob 14:4), suggesting that God’s word through the prophets has yet to be fully accomplished. Indeed, the story insists that God’s mercy has already paved the way for a partial return, allowing some to be restored to the land. Later, all will join them at the “times of fulfillment” (Tob 14:5–7). The minimization of the return, apparent in the insistence that only some and not all had returned, implies that the exilic condition still exists and that the complete fulfillment of God’s promises remains unrealized. For the original audience, this part of the process had already been achieved. Still, the continued dispersion of Israel dispels the claim that the exilic struggle has ended with the return of some. In Tobit’s hymn, Israel’s restoration is depicted as a particular or single event: “he will have mercy on all of you (πάντας ὑμᾶς 15 Clements, Wisdom in Theology, 30. 16 See Macatangay, “Exile as Metaphor,” 177–92. 17 See Macatangay, “Apocalypticism and Narration,” 217.

The “Shape of Time” in the Book of Tobit



303

ἐλεήσει), from all the nations wherever you have been scattered among them” (GII Tob 13:5). Israel’s complete restoration is therefore the ultimate manifestation of God’s mercy. And because God has partially fulfilled his promises in the author’s present, the full restoration of Israel as a long-awaited future reality that puts an emphatic end to Israel’s exilic troubles can now be glimpsed with complete confidence. In other words, the continued scattering of Israel, which attests to the nation’s disintegration, may be a cause of despair but at the same time, the return of some to the land provides the hope that God has not completely abandoned his people but has instead remained faithful to his promises and will act accordingly at the right time. The dispersion may point to the lingering ghosts of the exilic past, but the partial return shows the providentially directed onward movement of history towards the appointed times. The Assyrian exilic and post-exilic eras are therefore unified periods that will close only when God activates his mercy, restoring all of Israel to the land. For Tobit and its readers, the full restoration and release from this ongoing exile remains a future expectation. History will manifest its climax only when the dispersed are all gathered and when the Gentiles and the nations, rather than exercising hegemony over Israel, will instead bring gifts and offer joyful worship in the Jerusalem temple, a reality that the third century author had not yet witnessed. The process of restoration will be complete only when all of Israel returns to the land and the Gentiles abandon their idols, turn to the Lord and fear God (14:6; 13:11). Until then, God’s people remain in the throes of exile, a reality that will be reversed only in the eschaton. Tobit’s explanation of the exilic struggle underscores linear temporality, the shape of time which relies on a structure around a chronology of causes and consequences. Sequence and causality help explain the changes and subsequent occurrences, thus providing coherence and continuity. This temporality becomes evident in Tobit’s view that the exilic condition is the result of sin; exile persists because it is a form of punishment (Tob 3). The Assyrian exile did not end. Instead, it inaugurated a time of chastisement that lasted into the present. As Tobit claims in his prayer, the disobedience of God’s commandments sent the Israelites to “plunder and exile and death,” scattered among the nations in whom Israel has become a byword (Tob 3:4). In his hymn, Tobit claims that the iniquities of the people are the basis of exile (13:5). This reflects the deuteronomistic pattern of sin—exile—restoration. Tobit’s prayer and hymn expose thus the awareness that he is living in the middle age of exile. Tobit therefore stands on solid ground when he points out the condition that will contribute to its end: the sons of Israel will be gathered together if they are “mindful of God in truth” (14:7). Such a future is contingent on Israel’s re-dedication to Torah observance, as Tobit’s own example shows. And so, with deuteronomic

304  Francis M. Macatangay

overtones, Tobit exhorts his compatriots to “turn back to him with all your heart and with all your soul, to do what is true before him, then he will turn back to you and will no longer hide his face from you” (Tob 13:6; cf. 14:7), implying that when Israel makes a spiritual return to God, God will return to Israel. While that remains unresolved, exile as a period of punishment continues. Finally, Tobit uses in his hymn the expressions βασιλέα τῶν αἰώνων (GII Tob 13:7; GI 13:10b) and κύριον τοῦ αἰῶνος (GII 13:13b) as titles of God. These designations of God, often translated as “king of the ages” and “lord of the ages,” respectively, do not mean that God is king of time. Rather, the meaning of the phrase is “king of history.”18 This meaning implies that God is the one who guarantees the coherent ordering of events from past through present to future. As sovereign of history, God provides an ordered and orderly dynamic to its movement. It is notable that Tobit employs this designation for God in his hymn, where he affirms as he starts his praise that nothing escapes God’s hand (Tob 13:2)—God’s kingship of history and God’s providence are thereby correlated. As the narrative indeed shows, God has a providential hand in Raphael’s directing the course of events to the fulfilment of the divine intentions in Tobit’s life, suggesting that God will be equally engaged in orchestrating the history of his people.19 God’s providence provides a linear unidirectionality to the shape of time, making it possible for seemingly random events to cohere so much so that history will unfold towards its telos of realizing God’s purposes.

3.2.2 Timelessness Along with temporal linearity, timelessness as a shape of time is also evinced in the Book of Tobit.20 This temporality involves a recurrent dynamic, emphasizing the persistence of repetition and return, sameness and equivalence, between chronologically distinct historical periods. In this view, there is really nothing that is completely unprecedented or radical. Transformation and change takes place “as a continuous and patterned circular dynamic, where one temporal cycle may be compared meaningfully with another.”21 In the case of Tobit, this can be observed in a number of ways: first, the setting of the story in the Assyrian exile in order to reflect on post-exilic realities suggests sameness: as time

18 See Stern, Time and Process, 106. 19 See Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 171; Lopez Navas, De la Oscuridad, 164–66. 20 The story reflects the notion of circular time with its references to the observance of festivals and liturgical time (cf. Tob 1:6; 2:1). 21 Jarvis, Times of Terror, 40. See also Graham, The Shape of the Past, 141–65.

The “Shape of Time” in the Book of Tobit



305

passes, things stay as they are: foreign control, dispersion, demons and misfortunes characterize both the historic past and the present reality of the author. As analogous events, the contemporary struggles of the Jews in the dispersion are like those of the Assyrian captives. In this way, the story recognizes the existence of equivalent experiences. Second, the recurrent pattern or dynamic of scourge—mercy / oppression— deliverance applies to both the lives of the individual characters and the collective history of Israel. Tobit views his hardships and ensuing triumph as the latest iteration and manifestation of this pattern—God scourged Tobit but God’s mercy ended his suffering. After his healing, Tobit blesses God who “has scourged him and now has shown him mercy” (GI Tob 11:15). Because of this experience, Tobit believes that God will apply the same dynamic to the history of Israel; the paradigm of scourging and mercy that obtains in his personal story can be expected to be reflected and repeated in Israel’s history. Since mercy happens again and again in the lives of these characters, it is reasonable to envision that mercy will also take hold in the history of Israel. In the midst of ongoing exile viewed as God’s punishment, the presence of this timeless pattern points to God’s abiding presence and intervention. Third, marriage and its fruitfulness as a life event looms large over historical events and persists across the vicissitudes of time. It is perhaps unsurprising that marriage is structurally the heart and center of the story.22 The narrative treats it with seriousness for it views marriage as a clear expression of God’s mercy. The prayer of Tobiah and Sarah on their wedding night asks the Lord for mercy so that they may grow old together (Tob 8:7). After Raguel discovers that all is well with the newly married, he breaks into prayer, thanking God that “it did not turn out as he expected” but unfolded “according to God’s mercy,” that God indeed has had “mercy on two only children” (Tob 8:16–17). God’s mercy made it possible for the marital union to take place despite what seemed to be an insurmountable obstacle in Asmodeus. Mercy is a recurring paradigm that has taken on different forms: healing for Tobit and marriage for Sarah and Tobias. It is worth noting how often reference to marriage appears in the narrative to the point of being insistent. During his time in the land, a relatively stable period in Tobit’s life when he could observe the commandments and offer sacrifices at the temple, Tobit notes that he “took a wife, one of our own family, and by her, I became a father of a son, and I called him Tobias” (Tob 1:9).23 During 22 See Engel, “Auf zuverlässigen Wegen und in Gerechtigkeit,” 89–92. 23 That Tobit gives his son the same name may suggest the recurrent pattern in history of claiming that God is my good, which is the literal meaning of the name. On the significance of names in the story, see Moore, Tobit, 99–104 and Fitzmyer, Tobit, 92–94.

306  Francis M. Macatangay

his captivity, Tobit claims that while fleeing for his life after violating the royal decree against burial of the dead, his properties were seized, and nothing was left to him that was not taken into the treasury, “except Hannah his wife and his son Tobias” (Tob 1:19); his marriage alone survives the king’s onslaught. And when another king came to the throne, the narrative mentions once again that his wife Hannah and son Tobias were restored to him (Tob 2:1). Through the historical upheavals that have negatively affected Tobit’s life, marriage is the timeless constant, the one institution that recurs and remains unchanged. In fact, as the story ends, the author cares to note that after the death of Tobit and Hannah, Tobias “went away with his wife and his sons to Ecbatana to Raguel his father-in-law” (Tob 14:12), repeating as the narrative ends the same action of his father at the beginning of the story. The narrative gesture toward marriage throughout its historical arc seems to function as a narrative zero point toward which all prior history was aimed and out of which all future history emerges. Everything else might cease and fade away, but marriage and family will always stay. In his instruction, Tobit exhorts Tobias to “take a wife from among the descendants of your ancestors,” reminding him that “Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all took wives from their kin” (Tob 4:12). Marriage, specifically endogamous marriage, cycles through the history of Israel’s ancestors. It is telling that Tobit links marriage to land possession, saying that these ancestors were “blessed in their children and their descendants will inherit the land” (Tob 4:12). It gives the impression that the repetition of this life event will eventually culminate in lasting tenure over the land. Of course, the marriage of Sarah to Tobias, even with the threat of Asmodeus, is the life event that untangles the narrative knots comprised of calamities. With this marriage, impoverished Tobit is doubly enriched and unlucky-in-love Sarah is freed from Asmodeus. Interestingly, the story links marriage with God’s decree from heaven; God has planned this marriage from the start. To support this claim with scripture, the narrative alludes to Gen 2:18 in Tob 8:6 to show that God’s universal intention expressed in the Genesis creation story is now concretized and realized in the marriage of Tobias and Sarah. There was an attempt to thwart this divine intention, but it turns out that the design God has shaped from the beginning of creation has prevailed in the lives of his faithful. That this divine intention from the beginning of time continues to occur despite historical and demonic hindrances points to the enduring validity of God’s commitment to his people. That the story begins with a genealogy betrays the conviction that God is determined to fulfill his blessing through the complex and chances of history. The historical maelstrom that is exile did not and could not forfeit this divine

The “Shape of Time” in the Book of Tobit 

307

intention and blessing. As long as this divine design remains fulfilled in history, it shows God’s faithfulness and the lasting truth of his word even when historical events and experiences seem to show otherwise. If God has been faithful to this creational intention and covenantal blessing of descendants, then God can be counted on to pursue his plan to reinstate the other blessings of the covenant for Israel. No wonder Tobit can confidently instruct Tobias in his discourse that the observance of marriage and the descendants produced from it leads to the inheritance of the land. Marriage then becomes Tobit’s statement of “radical hope” against the reality of exile.24 Marriage has become an indispensable means of overcoming the ongoing exilic condition.

Conclusion The mutual interaction between the linear and the circular bridges the gap between Tobit’s personal experiences and the expectations that lie on the distant horizon of history. The linear points to the continuity of time and history, with God directing its course, while the circular underscores the paradigm of God’s visitation within history and in individual lives. Against this perception, Tobit presents the institution of marriage as the divine blessing that becomes the current source of hope in the midst of exile. The interplay between the linear and circular shapes of time helps account for the eschatological tension in the narrative. Jill Hicks-Keeton notes that “eschatological tension emerges here as Israel’s future healing has broken into the present in the story of Tobit and his (extended) family.”25 These two shapes of time explain why it is possible for the eschaton, or the times of fulfillment, to bubble forth and become present in Tobit’s experience of God’s mercy. As history moves in a continuous and linear direction to a point when history is at one with the divine word, a point when God’s intentions are fully realized, the dynamic of mercy becomes a recurring pattern in the lives of those experiencing the unfolding of history. It is displayed in Tobit’s life in the form of his healing and in Sarah’s life in the form of marriage to Tobias. And so, this recurring pattern of salvation is expected to take hold in Israel’s collective experience and near future as history marches forward to a point in time when the 24 Hindy Najman, Losing the Temple, 1–25, argues that the writing and rewriting of scriptural traditions, forms of divine encounter that are attested in 4 Ezra, have become the source of “radical hope” after Israel’s experience of destruction. I wish to thank Prof. Benjamin Wright, III for his helpful comments and for pointing me to Najman’s monograph. 25 Hicks-Keeton, “Eschatological Tension,” 101.

308  Francis M. Macatangay

timeless pattern of mercy and the telos of history embrace to endure as one for all ages unending.

Bibliography Anderson, Gary A. “Tobit as Righteous Sufferer.” Pages 493–507 in A Teacher for all Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric Mason et al. JSJSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Balla, Ibolya. “Resurrection and God’s Kingship in Tobit 13. The Role of Tob 13:2 in Its Context.” BibAn 9 (2019): 447–62. Barr, James. Biblical Words for Time. SBT 33. London: SCM, 1962. Bauckham, Richard. “Tobit as Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel.” Pages 140–64 in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Edited by Mark Bredin. LSTS 55. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Clements, Ronald E. Wisdom in Theology: The Didsbury Lectures, 1989. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004. Corfield, Penelope J. Time and the Shape of History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. Engel, Helmut. “Auf zuverlässigen Wegen und in Gerechtigkeit. Religiöses Ethos in der Diaspora nach dem Buch Tobit.” Pages 83–100 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Für Norbert Lohfink SJ. Edited by Georg Baulik, Walter Groß and Sean McEvenue. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1993. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Graham, Gordon. The Shape of the Past: A Philosophical Approach to History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Hicks-Keeton, Jill. “Already/Not Yet: Eschatological Tension in the Book of Tobit.” JBL 132 (2013): 97–117. Jarvis, Lee. Times of Terror: Discourse, Temporality and the War on Terror. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Koselleck, Reinhart. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. Translated by Keith Tribe. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Macatangay, Francis M. The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit. DCLS 12. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Macatangay, Francis M. “Exile as Metaphor in the Book of Tobit.” RivB 62 (2014): 177–92. Macatangay, Francis M. “Apocalypticism and Narration in the Book of Tobit.” Pages 207–20 in Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits, József Zsengellér and Xavér Szabó. DCLS 22. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Macatangay, Francis M. When I Die, Bury Me Well: Death, Burial, Almsgiving, and Restoration in the Book of Tobit. Eugene: Pickwick, 2016. Mermelstein, Ari. Creation, Covenant, and the Beginnings of Judaism. Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 168. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Moore, Carey A. Tobit. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 40A. New York: Doubleday, 1996.

The “Shape of Time” in the Book of Tobit



309

Najman, Hindy. Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Nowell, Irene. “The Book of Tobit: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” NIB 3:973– 1071. Lopez Navas, Emilio. De la Oscuridad a Jerusalén. Estudio exegético-teológica de Tob 13. Asociacion Bíblica Española 66. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2016. Otzen, Benedikt. Tobit and Judith. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. London: T&T Clark, 2002. Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative Vol. 1. Translated by Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer. London: The University of Chicago Press, 1984. Schüngel-Straumann, Helen. Tobit. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2000. Stern, Sacha. Time and Process in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2003. Zapella, Marco. Tobit. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Nuova versione della bibbia dai testi antichi 30. Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo, 2010. Zimmermann, Frank. The Book of Tobit. An English Translation with Introduction and Commentary. JAL 5. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958.

József Zsengellér

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)? Time in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum Abstract: Predominantly, the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB) is not a theological text but a narrative rewriting of the biblical books from Genesis to 1 Samuel. Much of its literary, historical and theological characteristics have been discussed by scholars, but its concept of time never gained much prominence. This paper analyses the role of different aspects of time in the LAB and points out that the author’s notion of time determines the hermeneutical concepts he applies and his theological reasoning. The tensions in the plots and the emphasis on their theological message are created and intensified by using anteriority and posteriority in time. An example of this is creation which is reflected only in the story of the flood in 13:8 and explains theological consequences in the context of the flood. Concerning human existence, the LAB poses the question if it is time that governs life (39:4), but the answer is that God rules time (39:5). Concrete eschatological ideas are also offered in relation to the fulfillment of set times (3:10), to God’s revelation of the end of the world (19:4), to the time of God’s visitation of the earth (19:12), and to the immortal dwelling place that is not subject to time (3:10). In this respect, the LAB’s notion of time is similar to that of its contemporaries 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. Keywords: Pseudo-Philo; Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum; time; protology; eschatology; creation; chronology; genealogy; hermeneutic.

For Géza Vermes, one of the basic examples of his notion of Rewritten Bible was Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB) from the 1st century CE.1 The story runs from Adam to Saul’s death. The texts Vermes and his followers put into this literary category were characterized as special re-creations of texts that would later become the Hebrew Bible. Special re-creation means that a base text is altered, shortened, added to and even its original theological concept can also be modified. If we compare the notion of time in the Hebrew Bible with that of the LAB, there are some basic similarities but there are remarkable 1 Cf. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 95. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-015

312  József Zsengellér

differences as well. The basic expressions used to express the various notions, forms and parts of time are the same in the two works. Time, age, year, week, day are used similarly, but the combination and elaboration of stories and rethinking of definitions result in an altered notion of time. This paper is dedicated to the role of different aspects of time in the LAB and how these aspects were deployed by the author to express and differentiate his message.

1 The First Aeon: Protological Time Scholars who have discussed the eschatological ideas of the LAB considered a two ages/aeons concept which would closely connect this work to 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra.2 Despite the fact that one of the main theological ideas in the LAB—reward and punishment—is related to the two-aeons concept, the work has a more complicated notion of the world and time. It seems to me that scholars have overlooked the role of creation in the LAB which is a demarcation line between two aeons presented in 28:4. The topic of creation is mentioned in four passages of the LAB. The work starts with creation, but it omits the two long accounts of creation in Gen 1–2. LAB 1:1 only contains two words: Initio mundi / Initium mundi, which has different interpretations. James and Jacobson: The beginning of the world.3 Dietzfelbinger: Anfang der Welt.4 Harrington: In the beginning of the world.5

The text could be interpreted in various ways. First, as in the translations of James and Jacobson, and Dietzfelbinger, it can can serve as a title of a paragraph or of the whole work.6 However, this idea is easily rejected since the LAB does not use such short titles; furthermore, the book itself is not about creation. Consequently, the two words could not form a title. Second, according to Harrington’s translation, it can be interpreted as the beginning of the first sen-

2 Cf. Ferch, “Two Aeons,” 139–40. 3 James, The Biblical Antiquities, 75; Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, I.89. 4 Dietzfelbinger, “Pseudo-Philo,” 102. 5 Harrington, Pseudo-Philo, 304. In Sources Chrétiennes Harrington omits the whole expression. Cf. Feldman, “Prolegomenon,” xxxii. 6 James, The Biblical Antiquities, 75. n. 1, refers to the LXX where the title of Genesis is beginning of the cosmos (γένεσις κόσμου).

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)? 

313

tence.7 In this case, the whole sentence means that Adam’s children were born at the very beginning of the world.8 Therefore, Adam would have been created before the beginning of the world. Or alternatively, beginning could be a longer period which includes both the creation of the world and the creation of Adam. Though it stands to reason that the two words correspond to the Hebrew word ‫בראשית‬, the first word of the book of Genesis, the LAB does not contain any explicit reference to creation at the beginning of the book. Rather, much like the book of Chronicles, it starts with a detailed list of the first generations of mankind. Nevertheless, paying closer attention to the first two words reveals a certain interest in the beginning of the world as explained in the following. The second passage that mentions the creation is 28:4–9 from the story of Kenaz (chs. 25–28). Kenaz is a key figure in the LAB. In the Bible, he is the brother of Caleb and the father of Othniel, the first judge of Israel (Judg 3:9, 11). In the LAB, he is the son of Caleb and replaces Othniel as the first judge, and plays a prominent role in how the major theological theme of reward and punishment is treated in the LAB.9 In conclusion, Kenaz is an extraordinary figure who follows God’s words in both how he leads Israel and his own life. Therefore, it is very important that in his testamentary speech, creation is mentioned in a remarkable quote. Phinehas interrupts Kenaz’s testamentary speech by quoting his father, Eleazar who repeats God’s words:10 Sed memor ero temporis eius quod fuit ante secula in tempore quo non erat homo, et iniquitas non erat in eo, cum dixi ut fieret seculum et laudarent me qui venturi erant in eo. But I will recall that time that was before the creation of the world, the time when man did not exist and there was no wickedness in it, when I said that the world would be created and those who would come into it would praise me (28:4).

The situation laid out in the divine utterance above is about Israel’s unfaithfulness and God’s faithfulness. When Israel became corrupt, God remembered the time before the creation. He recalls his deeds and intention. This diverts atten-

7 See Ms A. Cf. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, 281. I.1. 8 Cf. Ben Sira 15:14: “It was he who created humankind in the beginning.” 9 Cf. Nickelsburg, “Good and Bad Leaders,” 54–55. 10 The translation of LAB will usually be from Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo.” See Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 131: “LAB 28:4 contains the largest complex of nested quotations in the Biblical Antiquities. It is structured as follows: Phinehas says that Eleazar said Phinehas should say to Israel that Eleazar said that the Lord said. What the Lord says refers to previous divine words, so there could even have been yet another layer of quotation. Such extensive quotation both makes the narrative more vivid and stresses its reliability.”

314  József Zsengellér

tion from the whole concept of the creation to the notion of time that lies behind it. In the passage discussed earlier we proposed the possibility that in the LAB, creation as a single moment in time is either a part of the timeline that starts with the creation of the world, or belongs to a separate, different timeline that takes place before the creation. The words of God in 28:4 make it clear that there was a time before the creation: temporis eius quod fuit ante secula. This time is different from that which starts by creation.11 In this time there was only God; there was no world, no man, no evil. In this time, only God’s intention existed to create the world.12 His intention was to create the world through his own word complete with creatures to praise him. The author of the LAB introduces a new aeon, a new ‘ôlām, a pre-creation kind of time: a protological time. God presented himself in this speech as a vineyard planter whose chosen plants did not yield him any fruit. After lamenting this situation with the elders and all the people, Kenaz was possessed by the holy spirit and started to prophesy. In his prophetic vision, Kenaz describes creation: now I see flames that do not burn, and I hear springs raised up out of a sleep for which there is no foundation, and I perceive neither the tops of the mountains nor the roof of the firmament, but everything has no appearance and is invisible and has no place whatsoever (28:7).

These things mentioned in verse 7 belong to the protological time. Jacobson noted that Midrash Bereshit (Genesis) Rabbah 1:2 mentions “a pre-existent fire that is darkness itself and does not illuminate,”13 and water in the upper regions without support (Gen. Rab. 4:2–4). All of these things exist only in relation to God. Other things are invisible and spatially undefinable. Since no action is named above, it can only refer to a situation before the creation, to pre-existent conditions. Kristine Ruffatto calls it a “pre-creation disorder and watery chaos,”14 which differs both from the biblical and from the Enochic material. This is the first example of a protological kind of time in Jewish literature. In 28:8, Kenaz’s vision describes how the lower and upper firmament became foundations from the flame and from the spring. Man came out from a light between these two firmaments, from an invisible place. This apocalyptic language presents a different scene of creation than that of biblical Genesis, but this 11 12 13 14

DesCamp, Metaphor and Ideology, 304, refers to the earlier aeon and the later aeon. Cf. 2 Macc 7:23. See also Wis 1:13–14. Gilbert, “The Origins,” 171–73. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, II.813. Ruffatto, Visionary Ascents, 183. n. 443.

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)?



315

scene also differs from that of the Enochic literature. Concerning our topic, its content becomes more interesting in the next sentence. A voice like that of Isa 40:6 speaks, a voice which could be called the voice of God, perhaps the bath qol of the later Jewish literature.15 The speech of the voice is the following: Hec erunt pro fundamento hominibus, et habitantibus in eis annis septem milia. These will be a foundation for men, and they will dwell in between them for 7,000 years.

The next verse, 28:9 describes how the moving of the upper firmament and the foaming of the lower firmament comprise part of the act of creation, while the goal of creation is articulated by the voice in 28:8. The upper and lower foundations will be heaven and earth, a habitat for humans. The spatial determination of man is completed by a temporal determination. Humanity can dwell on the earth for 7,000 years.16 At this point, before interpreting this number, we have to refer to the way Moses is represented in the LAB. He is highly revered by the author,17 and in various passages of the text primordial secrets are said to have been disclosed to Moses: the tree of life (11:15); the place of the sun and moon (invisible light;— 12:1); the place of creation (13:8); the paths to Paradise (13:9; 19:10); and the source of all waters (19:10).18 But the most important thing is what Moses asked from God, and how God answered him (19:14–15): Et dixit Moyses: Si adhuc potero petere de te Domine iuxta multitudinem misericordie tue non indigneris mihi, et ostende mihi quanta quantitas temporis transiit, et quanta remansit. Et dixit ad eum Dominus: ISTIC MEL, APEX MAGNUS, MOMENTI PLENITUDO, ET CIATI GUTTA, ET OMNIA complevit tempus. Quatuor enim semis transierunt, et duo semis supersunt. And Moses said, “If I can make another request of you, Lord; according to your great mercy be not angry with me, but show me what amount of time has passed and how much remains.” 15 It occurs also in 4 Ezra 6:17. Dietzfelbinger, “Pseudo-Philo,” 215, compares this voice to that of Matt 3:17 and 17:5, Luke 9:35, and Acts 21:3. On the bath qol see Lieberman, Hellenism, 194– 99. 16 Perrot, Pseudo-Philon, 163–64, interprets it as “four thousand years.” 17 On Moses in the LAB see Ruffatto, Visionary Ascents, and Zsengellér, “Between Angels,” 143–66. 18 Ruffatto, Visionary Ascents, 194, claimed that “the ascription to Moses of primordial knowledge has theological consequences, for now Moses is portrayed in apocalyptic terms as the recipient of protological disclosure, and creational secrets are inseparably linked to Sinai and covenant.”

316  József Zsengellér

And he said to him, “There is honey, the topmost peak, the fullness of a moment, and the drop of a cup; and time has fulfilled all things. For four and a half have passed, and two and a half remain.”

Moses asked a twofold question. First, he inquired about what amount of time has already passed from the beginning of time. Then he asked about what amount of time mankind still has left until the end of time.19 Therefore, God likewise gave a twofold answer that has a similar structure to that at the end of verse 15. But the first part of the verse is enigmatic, despite its message being quite important. The Latin manuscripts do not concur; therefore, there are conjectures about the meaning of the text. Jacobson: On the one side there is a large black cloud, the fullness of a cloud, on the other side a drop from a ladle. Harrington: There is honey, the topmost peak, the fullness of a moment, and the drop of a cup. James: An instant, the topmost part of a hand, the fullness of a moment, and the drop of a cup.

The divine summary is that omnia complevit (or: complebit) tempus—time fulfills all things. This sentence is in the middle of the answer from God, forming a bridge between the enigmatic first part and the last part of the verse. Tempus or time seems to be a key actor as the fate of everything in the world depends on it. This idea corresponds to the text of 4 Ezra 4:44–46: Et respondi et dixi: Si inveni gratiam ante oculos tuos, et si possibile est, et si idoneus sum, demonstra mihi et hoc, si plus quam praeteriti habet venire aut plura pertransierunt super nos, quoniam quod pertransivit scio, quid autem futuri sit ignoro. I answered and said, “If I have found favor in your sight, and if it is possible, and if I am worthy, show me this also: whether more time is to come than has passed, or whether for us the greater part has gone by. For I know what has gone by, but I do not know what is to come.”

Ezra also starts with a very cautious question, trying to be very polite like Moses. Then he also inquires about the two parts of time, although he admits that he knows how much time has already passed. The answer in Ezra’s case is a vision which corresponds to the enigmatic text of the LAB, about a flaming furnace from which only the smoke remained, and a storm cloud which rained out all its water until only a few drops were left. Consequently, most of the time 19 These two separate units of time are already present in Ben Sira 42:19: “He discloses what has been and what is to be.”

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)? 

317

already passed, but no more precise explanation of the vision is given here. However, Ezra receives a more concrete answer in 14:11–13: quoniam saeculum perdidit iuventutem suam et tempora adpropinquant senescere. Duodecim enim partibus divisum est saeculum, et transierunt eius decem iam et dimidium decimae partis, superant autem eius duae prae medium decimae partis. For the age has lost its youth, and the times begin to grow old. For the age is divided into twelve parts, and nine [Latin: ten] of its parts have already passed, as well as half of the tenth part; so two of its parts remain, besides half of the tenth part.

We are informed that time is divided into parts. According to 4 Ezra, it consists of 12 parts, most of which is already gone with 2.5 parts still remaining. According to the LAB, time is divided into 7 parts: 4.5 are gone, and similarly to 4 Ezra, 2.5 are still left. The only question left unanswered is how much time does a part actually represent. Now we can turn back to the LAB 28:8, to the vision God gave to Kenaz. In that text, humanity has annis septem milia, that is, seven thousand years allotted to them by God to be spent on earth. If we combine the 7,000 years in 28:8 with the 4.5 and 2.5 parts in 19:15, the most plausible solution is that one part of time is 1,000 years. This number recalls the well-known sentence of Psalm 90:4: “A thousand years in your sight are like a day.” In this context, seven thousand years would be seven days, that is a week. Consequently, the author of the LAB suggests a chronology of the world that is evenly divided into sections. Each section lasts 1,000 years, one millennium, thus the whole duration of the world consists of seven such sections, i. e. 7,000 years. This type of calculation is present in 2 En. 33:1–2 which could have influenced the LAB. Later Jewish and Christian texts attest the same calculation as well (Pesiq. Rab. 1.4a-b; Augustine, Civ. 22.30; Barn. 15:4–5; b. Sanh. 97a-b). The fractional number of the parts two and a half is mentioned in Dan 12:7 (7:25) “time and two times and half a time.” This fragmentation of time indicates that there are different notions of time in Early Judaism. This is especially the case in the LAB. There is time in singular, there are times in plural, and moreover there is fractional time like half time. In this sense, time is part of a chronology, it is a unit of time. The time about which God spoke to Moses and Kenaz is thus a specific period of time, the time of this world on Earth. This time period is measured by years and lasts 7,000 years. This time is also divided into periods of before and after, meaning the time that has passed and time that is still remaining. This time period started with beginning, with the creation and it will come to an end. But both creation and the moment when Moses died, when he posed his question concerning time, point to the fact that time is always seen from the viewpoint of the

318  József Zsengellér

individual. Creation is seen from the viewpoint of Adam, the first creature, and Moses’ death is seen from his own viewpoint. And only from these viewpoints can one say anything about before and after, about the past, present and the future. The question is who has the ability to know time. The LAB in 60:2–3 reinforces this when David sings a song to expel the evil spirit from Saul. Darkness and silence were before the world was made, and silence spoke a word and the darkness became light. Then your name was pronounced in the drawing together of what had been spread out, the upper of which was called heaven and the lower was called earth. And the upper part was commanded to bring down rain according to its season, and the lower part was commanded to produce food for all things that had been made. And after these was the tribe of your spirits made. And now do not be troublesome as one created on the second day.20

Creation is a turning point that created a time before, and times after. Heaven and earth perform different functions and became a reality on the first day. Then came the second day with the creation of the evil spirits. Before creation, there were no evil spirits, only afterwards.21 The expression of 19:15, omnia complevit (or: complebit) tempus—time fulfills all things—could be understood as a positive idea that every expectation will be fulfilled, even if the result is not necessarily positive. But it could also have a negative understanding that time brings every event, sad or happy, to an end. In this regard, time seems to go on independently from the world itself.22 Consequently, we can assume that for the author of the LAB, time includes an era (aeon/‘ôlām) before creation which could be called the protological time. The next era (aeon/‘ôlām) started almost simultaneously, which could be called the world with heaven and earth. But time goes on, and after 7,000 years, this era comes to an end and starts a new one that could be called eschatological time.

20 Italics are mine. 21 Evil spirits were created on the second day here, but Jub. 2:2 states that it happened on the first day. See Feldman, “Prolegomenon,” cxxxix. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, 1.252, remarks that Pseudo-Philo seems to have known elements from early Jewish mystical speculation about creation. 22 Cf. Wadsworth, “The Death of Moses,” 12–19.

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)?



319

2 The Third Aeon: Eschatological Time Apparently, this knowledge of time is reserved for God and for special human beings like Kenaz and Moses. Notwithstanding, the LAB itself reveals this knowledge to its readers and tells them the secret of time and times or eras. The notion of secret knowledge plays a prominent role in eschatological texts and their interpretation. The LAB is not a typical eschatological text as such, in the manner of 4 Ezra or 2 Baruch, the two most closely related, nearly contemporaneous early Jewish texts, but it has several insertions in the flow of the narrative that have an apocalyptic tone. By informing the reader about the events or circumstances of the eschaton, these passages give some indication as to when these events and procedures will take place or how long they will last. The secrets are told by God to prominent protagonists of Israel. In the LAB narrative, the first reference to the end of the time of the created world is connected to Noah. In 3:2, God restricts the lifetime of an individual man to 120 years, and he “sets a limit of the world.” The intention of God in Gen 6:1–8 is only to destroy and renew living creatures, but the LAB ascribes another intention to him: to establish an end to the time of the world. At this point, no further information is given since the flood takes the central place in the narrative. After the flood, however, as an answer to Noah’s offerings, God promises not to destroy his creatures by sending a flood, and he adds that because of the future sins of humanity, he will judge the earth (3:9). This predetermined judgment is again a supplement to the biblical story. The list of the coming punishments contains all the common horrible apocalyptic elements, such as famine, war, fire, pestilence or earthquakes. Though the genre of these elements is apocalyptic, the wrath still remains in the chronological frame of the time of the world. But the following sentences open another timeline: For all the days of the earth … will not cease day and night … until time is fulfilled. (3:9) But when the years of the world will be complete, light will cease and the darkness will be extinguished (3:10).

The earth has its own days and years, and these units of time will be fulfilled, that is, they will come to an end. The notion of completed time implies a preordained end.23 The text further gives details about the resurrection, the termination of the underworld, and the end of death. The elements of the LAB’s description are well known, and similar to 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.24 Nevertheless, this is 23 Cf. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 34. 24 Cf. Ferch, “Two Aeons,” 140–42. See Perrot et al., Pseudo-Philon, 89, for further parallels; Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, 323.

320  József Zsengellér

not a definitive end of time as such. This is the end of this world, the end of the created world.25 First, the time of the Last Judgment will come (“I judge between soul and flesh”), and then “There will be another earth and another heaven,26 an everlasting dwelling place (habitaculum sempiternum).” The passage in 3:10 describes a shift in time between two aeons, or ‘ôlāmîm. The worldly time is completed and a new one, an eternal time, starts. The deluge story of Noah provided a good opportunity for the author to introduce his theological conviction about the coming end of this earthly realm.27 In 9:3, before the birth of Moses, his father Amram delivers a speech to the elders of Israel as they are mourning because of the Pharaoh’s decree about their firstborn children: It will sooner happen that this age (seculum) will be ended forever (in victoria) or the world will sink into the immeasurable deep or the heart of the abyss will touch the stars than that the race of the sons of Israel will be ended (9:3).

Although Amram expresses some incredible possibilities, he also admits the inevitability of a cosmic catastrophe. The end of this age/world (seculum/mundus) is connected to the end of time. This end is a closed one since it is for eternity (in victoria) and it is immeasurable.28 The same conclusion is supported by chapter 32 where Deborah’s song is rewritten by incorporating the Akedah as an interpretative element of the text. Without entering into the hermeneutical complexity of the passage, I would pick up on a sentence that Isaac said to his father Abraham. When he realized that his father was going to sacrifice him, he asked Abraham: how then do you not say to me: “Come and inherit life without limit (securam vitam) and time without measure (immensurabile tempus)”? (32:3)

It seems to be convincing that Isaac speaks here about death and afterlife. With death, man leaves the worldly realm and time, and enters a new dimension. With this, time is also changed. Life becomes secure, as Feldman and Jacobson translate securam vitam, but at the same time, it is a life without limit, as Harrington understands the Latin expression. Normally, time limits life. If there is 25 Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 34, calls attention to the reverse process of creation in the text. 26 Cf. Isa 65:17; 66:22; 1 En. 45:4–5, 91:16; Jub. 1:29; T. Adam 3:9; Apoc. El. (C) 3:98; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1. 27 A more detailed discussion of the background of the passage is in Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, I. 326–28. 28 As Harrington, Pseudo-Philo, 315, n. c., noted the Latin in victoria reflects the Greek εἰς νῖκος and Hebrew ‫ לנצח‬and means “forever.” Cf. Isa 25:8; 1 Cor 15:54.

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)? 

321

no limit to it, that means endless time. The expression immensurabile tempus shows that in this dimension, in this era, in this aeon, in this ‘ôlām, time has no unit. Consequently, in the third aeon time does not have a role like it has in the worldly aeon. It is a well-known idea in early Jewish texts that in the coming world time cannot be measured.29 Another development in the conceptualization of time is found in Moses’ farewell speech. In chapter 19, God is the speaker, and he describes Moses’ death in 19:12. You will rest in it until I visit the world. I will raise you up … and you will … dwell in the immortal dwelling place that is not subject to time (19:12).

Like Isaac, Moses is also granted eternal life: living in the immortal dwelling place. While for Isaac, infinite life would come in the form of immeasurable time, Moses’ existence takes place not simply in endless time but without time: non tenetur in tempore. This is a very important expression since it implies that the end was determined by God, not by time. As this situation is articulated in the next verse: But this world will be before me like a fleeting cloud and passing like yesterday. And when the time draws near to visit the world, I will command the years and order the times and they will be shortened and the stars will hasten and the light of the sun will hurry to fall and the light of the moon will not remain; for I will hurry to raise up you who are sleeping in order that all who can live may dwell in the place of sanctification I showed you (19:13).

God has the power to rule and shorten time, or to manipulate heavenly bodies which signal the flow of time. Psalm 90:4 and Josh 10:12–14 provide a solid textual basis for this content.30 Having power over time, God is able to answer Moses’ question about the fulfillment of time, and about the coming of the eschaton discussed above (19:14–15). Summarizing the eschatological concept of time in the LAB, we can say that the author is very clear in expressing certain ideas perhaps for the first time in Judaism. The author presents a process of the coming end of the world using the apocalyptic genre, but he does this from the viewpoint of humanity’s concept of time. After this present world, a liminality is described, a time of waiting

29 Perrot et al., Pseudo-Philon, 171, notes that this idea is present in Pss. Sol. 14:10; 1 En. 40:9; Mark 10:17; 4 Ezra 7:96; 2 Bar. 44:13. See also Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 145. 30 Cf. 2 Pet 3:8.

322  József Zsengellér

for the final judgment, the visitation of the world by God31 when time is actually suspended.32 The new aeon, the new ‘ôlām is endless, but also timeless since it will be ruled by God, and not by time. But how and where people can take part in this eternal timeless existence depends on their earthly behavior (33:2–4). Thus, for the author of LAB time as a linear concept has three major parts/ aeons/‘ôlāmîm: a pre-creational / protological time, a worldly time and an eschatological time.

3 The Second Aeon: Worldly Time and Its Measurement As explicated in the previous paragraphs, numerical symbolism is a significant characteristic of apocalyptic genre, but it is not limited to it. Generally speaking, numerical symbolism—as noted by Yarbro Collins—“is part of the activity of discovering order in environment and experience.”33 The numerical symbolism present in the Hebrew Bible is also found in the LAB. Psalm 90:12 says “Teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom.” Measuring and recording time resulted in various important concepts being developed, such as chronology, symbolical numbers, and sacred times.

3.1 Chronology Using a calendar to measure time has a primarily theological importance in the Ancient Near East and for Judaism.34 Knowing set times helps to get in contact with and to communicate with God. If we compare how Genesis 1 and 2, which are so-called Priestly and Yahwistic texts, discuss the course of creation, there are different theological goals behind the systems of time they present. The Yahwist is aware of the moving of time, but the Priestly writer presents the divine origin of measuring time by stating that God created the lighting bodies “to sep31 At this time, nothing can be done, neither good, nor evil (33:2–4). Everything is sealed and everyone is waiting for the eschatological visitation (23:13; 28:10; 51:5). This is a period of waiting for the time of payment: “Samuel said to him: ‘Why have you disturbed me to raise me up? I thought that the time of the payment for my deeds had arrived’.” (64:7). 32 See 33:3: “the measure and the time and the years have returned their deposit.” 33 Collins, Cosmology, 56. 34 On the critical analysis of the early Jewish notion of measuring time see Stern, Time and Process, and Xeravits, Einführung, 174.

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)?



323

arate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years” (Gen 1:14). And creation as such is ordered according to the seven-day system. Hellenism complicated the previous system of chronology and calendar of Israel, with various new systems being introduced, which can be seen in the numerous works produced by disparate groups within Hellenistic and Roman Judaism.35 The LAB seems to be untouched by these new systems and follows the earlier chronology and calendar represented by the mainstream texts of early Judaism.

3.1.1 Time measurement In contrast to the last sentence, the LAB has two passages where time appears in different conditions when compared with early Jewish literature in general. Discussing the notion of time in ancient Judaism, Sacha Stern claimed that: The absence of the Greek concept of time from much of Jewish Hellenistic literature can be related to the absence […] of any notion of time as an entity in itself, a dimension of reality, a flowing continuum, or a useful commodity. This world-view was not specific, indeed […] it would appear to have been characteristic of ancient Judaism as a whole.36

He finds that LAB 19:14–15 refers to a general concept of time, though he does not rule out that “Graeco-Roman notions of time were introduced, perhaps quite inadvertently, by the Greek or Latin translators” of the LAB.37 We saw already that this passage has an important role in the whole concept of time in the LAB, which is somewhat different to the concept of time in other examples of contemporary Jewish literature. But it does not seem that the LAB would have adopted the Greek notion of time; rather that the author combined a general idea with a traditional biblical concept of time. Moses’ question about “what amount of time (quantitas temporiis) has passed (transiit) and how much remains” (19:14) clearly shows, first of all, that the passage of time can be explained. It is not clear from this formulation whether time in this view is divided up into units, but God’s answer does imply it. Nevertheless, this depiction of time has a beginning and an end, which therefore implies the passage of time. Secondly, this question posed and God’s answer (“four and a half have passed”) in 19:15c both

35 See Jub. 6:35, which warns one not to follow new and pagan religious traditions. Cf. Xeravits, Einführung, 174–83, points out that there are more than twenty compositions that primarily deal with the calendar. See also VanderKam, Calendars, 32–81. 36 Stern, Time and Process, 102. 37 Stern, Time and Process, 107.

324  József Zsengellér

make it clear that time is not immobile but rather flows along a continuum. Together with the second sentence of God in 19:15b (“Time will fulfill all things.”) the LAB seems to characterize time as an abstract entity as if it had its own, independent power like chronos.38 As a counterpart, the LAB makes another type of distinction which clarifies the nature of time. In the narration of Jephthah’s story, the author outlines a distinctive kind of theological reasoning (39:4–5). Jephthah’s brother unashamedly demanded that he rules Israel after he was previously expelled. It makes the situation all the more ironic that he is told it is the result of divine providence and intervention that through his exile he was not killed, and therefore was able to return and save Israel. To this Joseph-like analogy, Jephthah gave a well-formulated answer: Does love so return after hatred, or does time conquer all things (tempus omnia vincit), for you have driven me out of my land and from the house of my father and now you have come to me when you are in distress? (39:4)

The absurd impossibility of the request is expressed on two levels. On an emotional level, it is encapsulated in the change from hate to love, and on a speculative level, it is time that conquers all things. Jephthah argued that neither happened. But the brothers alluded to the unlimited generosity of God in forgiving sin and urged Jephthah to act as God did. Jephthah offers another sophisticated answer: God can be not mindful of our sins, for he has the time and place where he as God may restrain himself out of his long-suffering; but I, a mortal man and made from the ground into which I will return, where will I expel my wrath and the injury that you have done to me? (39:5)

The impossibility of comparing God to mortal beings is clear, nevertheless, this text claims that God can withdraw himself from time and space, which is a unique notion within Jewish tradition of the time.39 The question previously posed concerning the absolute rule of time over everything in the world (aut tempus omnia vincit?) receives a negative answer in this verse. God is even greater than time. He rules the temporal and spatial dimension of the universe; thus time and space both belong to him.

38 Stern, Time and Process, 106. n. 19, has called attention to the difference between this expression to that of time “being accomplished / fulfilled” (23:13; 28:9), where a designated time, a given period, is at stake as in other eschatological, apocalyptic texts. 39 Cf. Feldman, “Prolegomenon,” cxxii.

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)? 

325

We can summarize that according to Pseudo-Philo, time is a measurable entity, a continuum that flows, having outcomes for all things, but it is ultimately subordinate to God.

3.1.2 Units of Time In the LAB, smaller units of time—days, years and months—are generally used. However, these units could refer to more vast periods of time too, as in the case of the deluge story. God’s promise made after the deluge consists of two subsequent sentences describing undefinable time units: And in all the days of the earth (in omnibus diebus terre), seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, spring and fall will not cease day and night until I remember those who inhabit the earth, until the appointed times are fulfilled. But when the years of the world (anni seculi) will be complete, then the light will cease and the darkness will fade away (3:9–10).

The passage in LAB 3:9 more or less corresponds to Gen 8:22, except for its first and last reference to time. The last one has already been discussed above as an apocalyptic or eschatological element. “Days of the earth,” however, is the LAB’s way of referring to the existence of the world. Day in the expression in omnibus diebus terre could mean a normal day as humanity experiences it, as in the latter part of the sentence, or an enigmatic period of time in the era of the world. The passage in LAB 3:10 is a counterpart of 3:9. Both days of the earth and years of the world refer to the same era, but it is not clear whether the unit of time implied by dies terrae is the same amount of time suggested by an annus seculi.40 In the LAB, as well as in the Bible, a generation is also used to measure time. A generation is circa 25–50 years long (e.g. chapter 21).

3.1.3 Milestones of Chronology Murphy noted that chronology as such is not a characteristic of the LAB,41 even though there are several passages which deal with chronological issues. It is worth examining these passages, since most of them have different numbers 40 There are several parallel texts in the early Jewish apocalyptic literature. Cf. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, I.323. 41 Cf. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 33.

326  József Zsengellér

than the Bible or other early Jewish texts. The first chronological remark is about the deluge in 3:6. Now it was then the sixteen hundred and fifty-second year from the time when God made heaven and earth, in which the earth along with those inhabiting it was destroyed on account of the wickedness of their deeds.

Pseudo-Philo takes creation as the starting point of its chronology, and simply states a number without other points of reference. The number 1652 does not correspond to the sum of the number of the years given in LAB 1. Perrot, Harrington and, following them, Murphy claim that 3:6 is a scribal gloss,42 but it is unlikely, since the date 1652 is not identical but it is similar to other dates of the flood in the contemporary texts, such as 1656 in the MT, and 1662 in Josephus.43 More interesting is the fact that the LAB supplements the dry chronological data with the theological importance of the event it is describing, which is that the earth should have been destroyed because of the wicked deeds of its inhabitants. Concerning the flood, the LAB makes more chronological remarks: Seven days after Noah boarded the ark, it began to rain. It lasted for forty days and nights (3:5), then the flood continued for 150 days (3:7), and it stopped after 90 days (3:8). Altogether, the flood lasted 287 days. This number does not match the MT or the SP where the deluge lasted ten days longer than a year.44 LXX has exactly one year. Still in Noah’s lifetime, 340 years after the flood there was a census (5:3). If we add up the number of years in 3:6 and 5:3, the census was held in 1992 (anno mundi). Noah died ten years after, in the year 2002 (anno mundi). Consequently, in the LAB, the Urgeschichte lasted two millennia. With Abram, a new epoch starts in chapter 6. The next chronological topic is the slavery in Egypt. At the end of chapter 8, where the whole patriarchal story is summarized in 14 verses, 8:14 finishes the lists of Jacob’s family with these words: “They went down to Egypt and dwelled there for 210 years.” This date corresponds neither to the 400 years in Gen 15:13, nor to the 430 years in Exod 12:40, though it looks like a well-known and established date since 14:4 presents a census made by Moses in the wilderness where the length of the Egyptian slavery is stated again as 210 years.45 The

42 Cf. Perrot et al., Pseudo-Philon, 87–88, Harrington, Pseudo-Philo, 306. n. f.; Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 33–34. 43 Ant. 8.61–62. Cf. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, I.317. 44 Cf. Gen 7:11 and 8:14. 45 On the role of the number 210 in this text see Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, II. 531–32; Heinemann, “210 Years,” 23.

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)? 

327

LAB itself, however, does not seem to be consistent in this respect. In the story of the birth of Moses, 9:3 quotes the prophecy of Gen 15:13 with the 400 years of slavery. But then the texts go on as follows: And behold from the time when the word of God that he spoke to Abraham was spoken, there are 350 years; from the time when we became slaves in Egypt, there are 130 years.

The LAB apparently does not synchronize the 400 years in Gen 15:13 with the 430 in Exod 12:40; rather it simply pretends 430 was 400. The numbers mentioned here in 9:3 appear to be unknown and unrealistic, but the LAB follows existing patterns. LXX and SP read in Exod 12:40: “The time that the Israelites and their fathers stayed in the land of Canaan and in Egypt is 430 years.” These texts harmonize the two dates in Gen 15:13 and 16, the 400 years with the four generations of Egyptian slavery, by adding the four generations of the patriarchs. In the LAB, there are 350 years between God’s renewed covenant with Abraham and the birth of Moses, and the Israelites were already 130 years in Egypt when Moses was born. If we subtract 130 from 350, we get 220 years for the four generations of the patriarchs. This almost corresponds to the biblical numbers of Abraham (Gen 12:4), Isaac (Gen 21:5), Jacob (Gen 25:26) and Joseph (Gen 47:9), coming in at 217.46 These numbers gain another meaning when we recall God’s promise about Moses in 9:8: “his days will be 120 years.” Moses was in the wilderness for 40 years with Israel before his death, which means that he was 80 when he left Egypt. If we add up 80 and 350, we get 430, the duration of Egyptian slavery according to Exod 12:40. Thus it seems that the author coordinates his dates with Exod 12:40 (430 years), even though 400 is the number explicitly mentioned.47 But the 80 years of Moses and the 130 make 210, which is how long Egyptian slavery lasted in the LAB. It has to be said that the LAB does not speak in detail about the Exodus and God’s deliverance as a theological topos. Chapter 10 narrates the story of the Exodus but only one sentence mentions God saving Israel. The passage in LAB 10:7 remarks that God “guided (deduxit)48 his people 40 years in the wilderness,” which is the only reference to the duration of Exodus. LAB 11:1 states that Israel arrived into the wilderness of Sinai in the third month after their departure, while Exod 19:1 has the second month. I suppose that this alteration is 46 See Cogan, “Chronology, Hebrew Bible,” 1004. 47 Perrot et al., Pseudo-Philon, 103; Feldman, “Prolegomenon,” xci; Dietzfelbinger, “PseudoPhilo,” refers to rabbinic traditions of the harmonization between 400 and 430, but as Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, I.417–18, points out, there is no such attempt at harmonization in the LAB. 48 Cf. Ps 77:21; 78:15, 52.

328  József Zsengellér

connected to the relevance of the number three in chapter 11. In 11:1–4 the number 3 appears six times: save for the third month, all other references concern the third day. The last chronological hint worth mentioning is the date the temple was destroyed. In 12:4, when the tablets were smashed by Moses, God foretold Moses that a house will be built for God, but later it will be destroyed because of the sin of the people. In 19:7, the author made it clearer: I will show you the place where they will serve me for 740 years. And after this it will be turned over into the hands of their enemies, and they will destroy it, and foreigners will encircle it. And it will be on that day as it was on the day I smashed the tablets of the covenant that I drew up for you on Horeb; and when they sinned, what was written on them flew away. Now that day was the seventeenth day of the fourth month (19:7).

It is remarkable that the time of the temple’s construction is not narrated in the LAB, but the site of its construction is described in detail. The number 740 gives space for conjectures but it goes beyond a reference to the first temple.49 The tablets being smashed and the temple’s destruction are well-known traditions of mourning on Tammuz 17, but the LAB mentioned it first.50 These two elements could indicate a date of composition for the LAB after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE.51

3.1.4 Genealogy A special form of chronology is genealogy. Recording time in the form of ‫דור‬ ‫לדור‬, from generation to generation, produces an exceptional timeline of indi49 See Perrot et al., Pseudo-Philon, 131, and Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, II.624 for discussion of the 740 years and the details of the traditions about it. Jacobson preferred 440. Harrington, Text, 167–74, argues that the date is a reference to Antiochus’ action against the temple. 50 The passage in y. Ta’an. 4.6 has these two among the five tragic events that happened on Tammuz 17. Jerome also connects the two events to this date in his Commentary on Zechariah 8.19. Cf. Feldman, “Prolegomenon,” civ. 51 See also James, Pseudo-Philo, 29–31. Other commentators (Bogarert, Apocalypse syriaque de Baruch, 144; Harrington, Pseudo-Philo, 299; Murphy, Pseudo Philo, 6) do not agree with this time of composition and suggest a pre-70 CE date for the book. Otherwise why would it be interesting to give the exact date of the destruction of the temple as Tammuz 17 (which is not that of the first temple)? And if this is not the case, why should it be important to combine the loss of the substantial document of the covenant between God and his people with the destruction of the temple if it did not symbolize a crucial break in the history of the chosen people?

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)? 

329

viduals which is a characteristic of Ancient Near Eastern historiography. The LAB, as a rewriting of Israel’s history, reproduces biblical genealogy. It is a remarkable modification of the biblical genealogy that the LAB changed the succession of Genesis 4 and 5. The LAB starts with Adam and continues with Noah through the descendants of Seth, as it is presented in Genesis 5. Then the text follows Genesis 4 from Cain to Noah again. The reason for this change could have been a theological decision not to start the history of mankind with the genealogy of the first murderer, but with that of a pious man who “began to call on the name of God” (Gen 4:26).52 This assumption could be right since LAB 2:1 remarks that “Cain dwelt in the land of trembling, as God had determined for him after he killed Abel, his brother.” Furthermore, in LAB 2:8–10 several sins are connected to different descendants of Enoch. We have to discuss these genealogies in detail, since the LAB’s version differs from the biblical genealogies at certain points which results in differences when calculating the chronology of the world and Israel. Name

LAB

MT

first child

further first lifetime child

Adam

–

700

Seth

105

Enosh

190

Kenan Mahalalel

LXX further total first lifetime lifetime child

further total lifetime lifetime

130

800

930

230

700

807

105

807

912

205

707

912

715

90

815

905

190

715

905

170

740

70

840

910

170

740

910

165

730

65

830

895

165

730

895

Jared

162

800

162

800

962

162

800

962

Enoch

165

200

65

300

365

165

200

365

Methuselah

187

782

187

782

969

167

802

969

Lamech

182

595

182

595

777

188

565

753

Noah

300

650

500

950

500

930

950

It is evident from the table above that the LAB has no preference concerning the age of the antediluvian forefathers at the birth of their first child. In four cases it agrees with the MT (Seth, Jared, Methuselah and Lamech), but in six cases it agrees with LXX (Adam, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared and Enoch). In the case of Jared, the LAB agrees with both, but in the case of Noah, it does not agree with any of them, stating that Noah was 600 years old at the time of the flood. But the total of the forefathers’ lifetimes is the same in all three texts. 52 See also Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 30–32.

330  József Zsengellér

3.2 Symbolic Numbers Most of the biblical numbers are treated as having symbolic meaning, especially the antediluvian lifetimes discussed above. The LAB uses common symbolic numbers: 3 in 11:1–4 where there are three days for the preparation for the law; or 7 as in seven thousand years of the world, or seven days of fasting in the time of Deborah before the war, and the 70 days’ fast after Deborah’s death, after which the land was quiet for 7 days (33:6); the number 30 when Kenaz was mourned for 30 days (28:10); 40 days of rain during the flood, 40 days of wandering in the wilderness, or the 40 days and 40 nights Moses spent on Mount Sinai. The number 120 has a special role in the LAB. Though Gideon was said to have died at a “good old age” (36:4), the human lifespan was limited by God to 120 years as in Gen 6:3 before the flood. Before the birth of Moses, God said that he had Moses in mind “in the days of old,” limiting man’s life to 120 years (9:8). Moses himself confesses before his death that “I have indeed completed the time of my life, I have completed 120 years” (19:8). When Phinehas “passed the 120 years that have been established for every man,” he was separated from humankind in the desert on the mountain “until the appointed time arrives” and he would taste death only when God remembered the world (48:1). This means that Phinehas left the human realm at this age.53 Thus the 120th year is the time limit of human life.

3.3 Sacred Times The importance of the tabernacle, or rather that of the temple, is expressed in the narration of the law of the covenant (Exod 21–24). In chapter 13, after Moses came down from the mountain and prepared the tabernacle, he entered it and God revealed to him some of the laws and then the order of the festivals. Thus, sacred times were revealed in a sacred place. The cyclical nature of sacred times is clearly demonstrated in 13:4: Et erit cum obviaverint vobis tempora When the times come round for you (Jacobson). When the times appointed for you come around (Harrington).

53 This could mean that Phinehas ascended to God. See Spiro, “The Ascension of Phinehas.” Hayward, “Phinehas,” Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 184–85. Feldman, “The Portrayal of Phinehas.”

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)? 

331

The appointed times come every year at the same time. The order of the festivals follows the calendrical chronology starting with Nisan, but no exact time is assigned to any of them in the LAB. Only for the festival of trumpets does the LAB have an extra note: in initium annorum “at the beginning of the year,” but this remark starts a new thought about God’s deeds on the first day of the year. A special but somewhat enigmatic festival is mentioned in 23:14 after the allotment of the land by Joshua: And all the people had a great feast (fecerunt epulationem) that day and a renewal ceremony (innovationem diebus) for twenty-eight days.

There are no 28-days Jewish festivals. Jacobson supposes that if the original text had only eight days, it could have been either the consecration of the priests as in Leviticus 8–9, or a reference to the Temple dedication festival of the Maccabees. This latter idea is supported by the word innovationis (renewal/rededication) which could have had hanukkah (‫ )חנכה‬as the Hebrew original, as in, e. g., Neh 12:27.54

4 Time as a hermeneutical tool The narrative technique of Pseudo-Philo has been discussed extensively by scholars. He was thought to produce a rewritten Bible (Vermes),55 a paraphrastic biblical narrative (Jacobson),56 a corpus of Haggadic traditions prepared for the use of homilists (Perrot),57 a midrash (Bauckham),58 or a lengthy chronicle (Nickelsburg).59 Almost all commentators60 called attention to the fact that the LAB combines different techniques to reproduce an almost “biblical” text. Conflation, intertextuality and other nuances of inner-biblical exegesis61 recognized in biblical, in deuterocanonical and in cognate early Jewish literature, can all

54 Cf. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, II. 730. 55 Cf. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 95. 56 Cf. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, I.213. See also: “Such a rewritten, almost alternative, Bible has a few predecessors.” Jacboson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, I.211. 57 Cf. Perrot, Pseudo-Philon, 24–28. 58 Cf. Bauckham, “Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo.” 59 Cf. Nickelsburg, “Jewish Literature,” 265. 60 Cf. James, Antiquities, 42–60; Feldman, “Prolegomenon,” xxii-xxiv, or Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, I.224–41. 61 Cf. e.g., Tigay, “Conflation,” 54–55, 83–96; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 279–440, and see the studies in Bauks, Between Text and Text, 11–271.

332  József Zsengellér

be found in the LAB. Jacobson made a long eclectic list of these texts, goals and techniques. Bruce N. Fisk separated several categories of the narrative methods and hermeneutical connections between the near or distant stories which are dealt with by the LAB.62 Neither Jacobson nor Fisk paid any attention to the notion of time, though both of them observed the historical or existential interest of the author in Israel’s present and future. Time is not an organizing principle of the LAB. Though it starts with the reference to the beginning of the world, it does not finish with the end of the world.63 Time is described as being imbalanced in the LAB’s narrative. There are many more passages with a temporal content in the first part of the book (chapters 1–21) compared to the latter chapters. This is in line with the fact that in the first part of the book, there are more passages involving secondary scriptural material than in the latter half. These texts use different aspects of time that produce anteriority and posteriority at the same time. Be it an insertion into or the use of earlier or later biblical material in the LAB, the text gives the reader the impression that every part of the bible is related to each other in one way or another. Doing this, the LAB already accomplishes the later rabbinical saying that “there is no earlier and later in the Torah” in the 1st century CE.64 Apart from these basic narrative methods and phenomena, time is discussed by God in a vision or in direct speech with prominent protagonists like Noah, Moses, and Kenaz. Starting with the first real story in the LAB, the flood and Noah, time is directly addressed. Time is also discussed by famous heroes like Isaac, Amram, the father of Moses, Deborah, Jephthah, Hannah, and David.65 Chapters 1–21 deal with the promises of God about the seed of Abraham and its fulfillment by establishing Israel on his land. In these texts, events happen as the fulfillment of time, or the coming of the appointed times. The rest of the book in chapters 22–65 describe the cyclical unfaithfulness of Israel and God’s eternal favor and protection. In these texts the question arises whether “time rules everything?” (tempus omnia vincit 39:4), but it becomes clear that God is the ruler of time (39:5). He had his plans for all human beings before creation and possesses the timetable for the end of the world.

62 Cf. Fisk, Do You Not Remember, 264–313. 63 One can pose the question about the abrupt end of the book when Saul dies. If there was a later conclusion, it could have been concerned with the end of the world, but such speculation remains hypothetical. 64 Cf. Mek. Shirata 7; Sipre Bamidbar 64. 65 Cf. Nickelsburg, Good and Bad Leaders, 50–62, who observed that the LAB’s narrative is organized around great Israelite leaders.

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)?



333

The eschatological contents actualize the exegetical result the author derived from the biblical text.66 Even though the end of the world is close and nobody can escape it, it has not come yet. Therefore, this positive thought expressed by Amram seems to be the kerygmatic statement of the work: “Sooner will the time/world be destroyed forever or the universe sink into the immeasurable abyss or the heart of the deep will touch the stars than that the race of the sons of Israel will be destroyed” (9:3).67

5 Conclusion Unlike other contemporary Jewish works, time is a measurable entity according to Pseudo-Philo, a flowing continuum, which has fatal consequences, but it is subject to God’s will. In contrast to the general view taken in the LAB, it can be concluded that as a temporal frame of existence, time forms three aeons or ‘ôlāmîm in the composition: a protological time, the time of the world, and the eschatological time. In the protological aeon before the creation, only God and chaos exists. The human dimension of time is in the worldly aeon in heaven and earth. The eschatological aeon is eternal, but for the existence of humans, it depends on their behavior in the second aeon. The LAB interjects an intermediate period between the first and third aeons that ends with the Last Judgement. The measurability of time is restricted to the worldly aeon, otherwise time is endless and infinite. Time plays an important role on three different levels in the LAB: in the narrative flow, in the hermeneutical system and in its kerygma. In the narrative flow, time not only determines the chronology of the plot, but as an independent entity, it makes things happen, or causes the end of events and activities by completing itself. By combining different secondary scriptural texts with its own fragmented plot, time produces an anteriority and posteriority on the same level of the narrative in the LAB. This observation about the nature of time supplements Fisk’s earlier remark that in the LAB, “the many threads of biblical history belong to a single tapestry; citations, allusions, analogies and typological associations allow him to link together many of scripture’s central characters and to bring divergent episodes into new hermeneutical interrelation66 Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 50, notes the tendency of the LAB to draw connections between narrated events and particular previous events from Jewish history. He argues that this invites readers/hearers to make the same kind of connection between their present-day historical situation and the narrative. 67 Cf. Stefan Reif’s contribution in this volume: “Time Factors in Early Rabbinic Religiosity.”

334  József Zsengellér

ships.”68 Time seems to rule the earthy realm but the LAB observes that everything was planned, ordered or at least known by God in advance in the protological time. And time is subject to God alone. This message of the LAB offers consolation to the Jews of that era, who had lost their national independence and religious center, the temple of Jerusalem.

Bibliography Bauckham, Richard J. “The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels as ‘Midrash.’” Pages 33–76 in Gospel Perspectives, Volume 3: Studies in Midrash and Historiography. Edited by Richard T. France and David Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. Bauks, Michaela, Horowitz, Wayne, and Armin Lange, eds. Between Text and Text: The Hermeneutics of Intertextuality in Ancient Cultures and Their Afterlife in Medieval and Modern Times. JAJSup 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Bogaert, Pierre Maurice. Apocalypse syriaque de Baruch. Introduction, traduction du syriaque et commentaire. SChr 144–145. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1969. Cogan, Mordechai “Chronology, Hebrew Bible.” ABD 1.1002–11. DesCamp, Mary Therese. Metaphor and Ideology. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and Literary Methods through a Cognitive Lens. BibInt 87. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Dietzfelbinger, Christian. Pseudo-Philo: Antiquitates Biblicae. 2nd ed. JSHRZ II/2. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1979. Feldman, Louis H. “Prolegomenon.” Pages ix–clxix in The Biblical Antiquities of Philo. Edited by Montague R. James. New York: Ktav Pub. House, 1971. Feldman, Louis H. “The Portrayal of Phinehas by Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus.” JQR 92 (2002): 315–45. Ferch, Arthur. “The Two Aeons and the Messiah in Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch.” AUSS 15 (1977): 135–52. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Fisk, Bruce Norman. Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo. JSPSup 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Gilbert, Maurice. “The Origins According to the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 171–85 in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History. DCLY 2006. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2008. Harrington, Daniel J. “Pseudo-Philo.” Pages 297–337 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City, MI, and New York: Doubleday, 1983. Harrington, Daniel J. Text and Biblical Text in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969. Hayward, Robert. “Phinehas—The Same Is Elijah: The Origins of a Rabbinic Tradition.” JJS 29 (1978): 22–34.

68 Fisk, Do You Not Remember, 266.

Does Time Conquer All Things (“aut tempus omnia vincit”)? 

335

Heinemann, Joseph. “210 Years of Egyptian Exile: A Study in Midrashic Chronology.” JJS 22 (1971): 19–30. Jacobson, Howard. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation. AGJU 31. Leiden: Brill, 1996. James, Montague R. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo. New York: Ktav Pub. House, 1971. Lieberman, Saul. Greek in Jewish Palestine / Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary Press, 2012. Murphy, Frederick James. Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Good and Bad Leaders in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” Pages 49–66 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Edited by John J. Collins and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1980. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011. Perrot, Charles, Bogaert, Pierre Maurice, and Daniel J. Harrington, eds. Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquités Bibliques. SChr 230. Paris: Cerf, 1976. Ruffatto, Kristine. Visionary Ascents of Moses in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: Apocalyptic Motifs and the Growth of Visionary Moses Tradition. PhD Dissertation Marquette University. Milwaukee, 2010. (https://epublications.marquette.edu/disserta tions_mu/84). Spiro, Abram. “The Ascension of Phinehas.” PAAJR 22 (1953): 91–114. Stern, Sacha. Time and Process in Ancient Judaism. Oxford and Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2003. Tigay, Jeffrey H. “Conflation as a Redactional Technique.” Pages 53–96 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1985. VanderKam, James C. Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time. The Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. London and New York: Routledge, 1998. Vermes, Géza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. StPB 4. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Wadsworth, Michael. “The Death of Moses and the Riddle of the End of Time in Pseudo-Philo.” JJS 28 (1977): 12–19. Xeravits, Géza G., and Peter Porzig. Einführung in die Qumranliteratur. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2015. Yarbro Collins, Adela. Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism. JSJSup 50. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Zsengellér, József. “Between Angels. Moses in Making in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” Pages 143–66 in Mosebilder: Gedanken zur Rezeption einer literarischen Figur im Frühjudentum, Frühen Christentum und der römisch-hellenistischen Literatur. Edited by Michael Sommer, Erik Eynikel, Veronika Niederhofer and Elisabeth Hernitscheck. WUNT 390. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

 Part III: Terms of Time and Space in the Book of Ben Sira

Severino Bussino

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira Abstract: This paper is devoted to a survey of the concept of time in the Book of Ben Sira. In addition to a short review of the position of different scholars on this subject, this paper will examine the occurrences of the term “time” in Ben Sira. What situational changes does Ben Sira indicate when he uses the word “time?” The paper will focus on the function of this term in the thought of the sage Ben Sira. Keywords: Ben Sira, sapiential books, time, theological anthropology, education.

1 Introduction The concept of time is fundamental in order to understand the world in which we live and the meaning of reality. Through the perception of time, one can realize what is changing in every situation. This study is built around an investigation of the development of the situations that Ben Sira signals when he uses the word “time.”1 Many scholars have underlined the relevance of the concept of “time” in the work of the sage Ben Sira: “Nessun autore biblico ha mai utilizzato il termine ebraico ‫ עת‬piu’ di Qohelet e di Ben Sira.”2 The theological context in which the concept of time is used in Ben Sira was not only observed by Gilbert but was also discussed by Liesen,3 with reference to chapter 39, by von Rad,4 in the framework of his study concerning Wisdom in Israel, and by Prato,5 when he 1 As far as the book of Ben Sira is concerned, the Greek text (Sir) will be cited using the critical edition and numeration of Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, while, for the Hebrew, the text and the numeration will be that of the publication of the original manuscripts by Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. For the Syriac (Syr) the edition and the translation of CalduchBenages, Ferrer and Liesen, Wisdom of the Scribe, will be used. The English translation of all the biblical texts will be substantially based on the NRSV. 2 Gilbert, “Il concetto di tempo,” 69 (= Id., “Le concept du temps,” 315). See also Wilch, Time and Event, especially 138–43. 3 Liesen, Full of Praise. 4 Von Rad, Weisheit in Israel. 5 Prato, Il Problema della Teodicea in Ben Sira. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-016

340  Severino Bussino

analyzed the points of contrast in the work of Ben Sira. In this paper we will identify the dynamics that are intrinsic to the concept of “time” in Ben Sira and point out the many perspectives of his teaching. In order to perform this kind of functional analysis of the concept of “time” in Ben Sira, we begin by studying the occurrences in the work of Ben Sira of the words χρόνος, καιρός or ‫ עת‬and of other terms belonging to the same semantic field. The second step of research will be a classification of the situations in which Ben Sira uses the term “time,” from the point of view of the different literary contexts in which these terms are employed and of the content of each text. The third element of this investigation will be an attempt to identify what changes he describes in the situation. Particular attention will be devoted to articulating what the use of the term “time” adds to how Ben Sira reasons and to his teaching addressed to his students and his readers.

2 The occurrences of the word “time” in Ben Sira The three leading terms in our investigation are χρόνος and καιρός, which respectively are used 2x and 63x in the Greek version, and ‫עת‬, which occurs 44x in the extant Hebrew text.

2.1 The Greek Text The word χρόνος6 appears in both cases without preposition, one time in the accusative and the other in the genitive: Sir 29:5 ἕως οὗ λάβῃ, καταφιλήσει χεῖρας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χρημάτων τοῦ πλησίον ταπεινώσει φωνήν καὶ ἐν καιρῷ ἀποδόσεως παρελκύσει χρόνον καὶ ἀποδώσει λόγους ἀκηδίας καὶ τὸν καιρὸν αἰτιάσεται. One kisses another’s hands until he gets a loan, and is deferential in speaking of his neighbor’s money; but at the time for repayment he delays, and pays back with empty promises, and finds fault with the time. Sir 43:6 Καὶ ἡ σελήνη ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς καιρὸν αὐτῆς ἀνάδειξιν χρόνων καὶ σημεῖον αἰῶνος It is the moon that marks the changing seasons, governing the times, their everlasting sign.

6 Sir 29:5; 43:6.

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira



341

In the two texts the term καιρός also occurs and in Sir 43:6 ἀνάδειξιν χρόνων is in parallel with σημεῖον αἰῶνος. Table 1: The use of prepositions in the occurrences of the word καιρός in Ben Sira. Freq.

Preposition

Construction

Freq.

Sir

34x

ἐν

+ substantive

21x

2:2; 2:11; 3:31; 4:23; 5:7; 8:9; 10:26; 18:21; 18:25; 22:23; 29:2, 5; 30:32(33:24); 32(35):26(2x); 37:4; 39:28; 40,5, 7; 44:17; 51:10

absolute use with possessive

6x

6:8; 20:20; 39:16, 17, 31; 51:30

absolute use with adjective

4x

34:28(31:36) (αὐτάρκης); 22:6 (πᾶς); 26:4 (πᾶς); 29:3 (πᾶς)

11x + 2x (Pl.) accusative

6x

εἰς

absolute use

3x

19:9; 22:16; 39:34

absolute use

9x + 2x (Pl.)

4:20; 12:16; 17:2; 19:28; 20:6, 7; 27:12; 29:5; 36 (33):8 (Pl.); 33(36):10; 47:10 (Pl.)

+ substantive

2x

18:24(ἐκδίκησις), 25(λιμός)

absolute use

3x + 1x (Pl.)

10:4; 29:2; 40:23; 48:10 (Pl.)

absolute use with possessive

1x

43:6

+ substantive

1x

40:24 (θλῖψις)

3x

nominative

absolute use

3x

11:19; 18:26; 38:13

3x

πρό

absolute use

2x

30:24(26); 51:30

+ substantive

1x

46:19 (κοίμησις [αἰών])

3x

ἕως

absolute use

3x

1:23, 24; 20:7

1x

ἐκ

+ substantive

1x

51:12 (πονηρός)

More elaborate is the analysis of the term καιρός (63x7), because it is more frequent and is used in many different ways. A first set of indications comes from the prepositions with which καιρός is constructed, while further pieces of information can be obtained by looking at the substantive, in genitive form, that appears together with καιρός. 7 Sir 1:23, 24; 2:2, 11; 3:31; 4:20, 23; 5:7; 6:8; 8:9; 10:4, 26; 11:19; 12:16; 17:2; 18:21, 24, 25(2x), 26; 19:9, 28; 20:6, 7(2x), 20; 22:6, 16, 23; 26:4; 27:12; 29:2(2x), 3, 5(2x); 30:24; 31:28; 33:8, 24; 35:24 (2x); 36:7; 37:4; 38:13; 39:16(2x), 28, 31, 34; 40:5, 7, 23, 24; 43:6; 44:17; 46:19; 47:10; 48:10; 51:10, 11, 30(2x).

342  Severino Bussino

Table 1 records the frequency of the use of each preposition and indicates that the preposition ἐν is the most used, in order to identify a specific situation to which the text refers. The second piece of information, concerning the substantive, is summarized in Table 2. This analysis suggests that with greater frequency Ben Sira addresses a time of distress, a καιρὸς θλίψεως. The term καιρός appears also in an absolute form, i. e. without a preposition. In this case the most frequent use is in accusative,8 while the occurrences in nominative are only three.9 Table 2: The use of the substantive in the occurrences of the word καιρός in Ben Sira. Freq.

Substantive in genitive form

Preposition

Sir

5x

θλῖψις

ἐν

2:11; 22:23; 32(35):26; 37:4

εἰς

40:24

4x

χρεία

ἐν

4:23; 8:9; 29:2; 40:7

2x

ἐκδίκησις

accusative

18:24

ἐν

5:7

1x

ἁμάρτημα

ἐν

18:21

ἀβροχία

ἐν

32(35):26

ἀνάπαυσις

ἐν

40:5

ἀπόδοσις

ἐν

29:5

ἐπαγωγή

ἐν

2:2

κοίμησις (αἰών)

πρό

46:19

λιμός

accusative

18:25

ὀργή

ἐν

44:17

πλησμονή

ἐν

18:25

πονηρός

ἐκ

51:12

πτῶσις

ἐν

3:31

στενοχωρία

ἐν

10:26

συντέλεια

ἐν

39:28

τελευτή

ἐν

30:32(33:24)

ὑπερηφανία

ἐν

51:10

8 8x: Sir 4:20; 17:2; 20:7; 27:12; 29:5; 36(33):8 (pl.); 33(36):10; 47:10. 9 Sir 11:19; 18:26; 38:13.

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira



343

2.2 The Hebrew Text The terms used in the Hebrew text of Sirach to express the concept of time are not only ‫( עת‬44x10), but also ‫( עתה‬7x11), ‫( קץ‬5x12), ‫( מ ֹוֵעד‬7x13). In five passages,14 the two terms ‫ עתה‬and ‫ עת‬occur together. We cannot repeat here the same analysis performed for the Greek text, from which we began because it covers the entire work of the sage, but we can however underline some peculiarities. The most frequent use of ‫ עת‬is with the preposition ‫( ב‬18x), which explains many of the occurrences of ἐν in the Greek translation. The other prepositions used with ‫ עת‬are 4x ‫( ל‬Sir 10:4[C]; 39:30[B]; 44:17 [B]; 48:10[C]), 3x ‫( עד‬Sir 4:17–18[A]; 12:15[A]; 20:7[C]), 1x ‫( כ‬Sir 35:26[C]). In Sir 6:7(A) we find the construction ‫כפי עת‬. Table 3: The use of the substantive and of prepositions in the occurrences of the word ‫ עת‬in Ben Sira. Freq. 2x

2x

1x

Substantive

Preposition

Sir (H)

Greek version

[‫ ֹצ]ֶרְך‬/ ‫ ַצר‬/ ‫ָצָרה‬ ‫ ֹצֶרְך‬/ ‫ ַצר‬/ ‫ָצָרה‬

‫ב‬

8:9 (A)

χρεία

‫ב‬

12:4 (A)

absent in Greek (cf. Sir 12:5d)

‫ נו ּח ֹו‬/ ‫( נו ַּח‬verb)

temporal accusative

40:5 (B)

ἀνάπαυσις

‫( מו ּט‬verb)

or ‫ב‬15

46:17–18 (B) κοίμησις (αἰών)

‫ב‬

3:31 (A)

πτῶσις

‫( ָמֵלא‬verb)

‫עד‬

4:17–18 (A)

absent in Greek

‫ָהמ ֹון‬

object

4:20 (A)

in Greek it is absolute

‫( ׁשו ּב‬verb)

‫ב‬

4:31 (C)

ἐν τῷ ἀποδιδόναι

‫ָנָקם‬

‫ב‬

5:7 (C)

ἐκδίκησις

‫ָמֶות‬

subject

9:12 (A)

ἕως ᾅδου

[‫]ָאַמר‬

‫ב‬

11:17 (A)

ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν αὐτόν

10 Sir 3:31(A); 4:17(A), 20(A); 4:23(C), 31(C); 5:7(C); 6:7(A); 8:9(A); 9:2(A); 10:4(A); 11:19(A), 20 (A), 27(A); 12:4(A), 15(A), 16(A); 20:6(C), 7(C, 2x); 30:24(B), 28(B*); 33:24(E); 35:26(B); 32:4(B), 11ab(B), 11cd(B); 37:4(B, D); 38:13(B); 39:16(B), 21ab(B*), 21cd(B), 30(B), 33(B), 34(B); 40:5(B); 43:6(B,M); 44:17(B); 46:17–18(B), 19(B); 48:10(B); 51:30(B,11QPs). 11 Sir 11:19(A), 23(A); 39:35(B); 43:7(B); 45:25(B); 50:22(B); 51:30(B). 12 Sir 36:8(B); 41:4(M); 43:6(B); 43:27(B); 46:20(B). On this Hebrew term see the essay by Renate Egger-Wenzel in this volume. 13 Sir 10:26(A); 36:8(B); 31:19(B*); 33:8(E); 43:7(B, M); 50:6(B); 50:8(B). 14 Sir 11:19(A); 11:20(A), 23(A); 39:34(B), 35(B); 43:6(B,M), 7(B); 51:30 (B). 15 See Morla, Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira, 239, n. 1 and 309, n. 2.

344  Severino Bussino

Freq.

Substantive

Preposition

Sir (H)

Greek version

‫( ָרָעה‬adj.)

subject

11:27 (A)

κάκωσις (nomin.) ὥρας (gen.)

‫ָעַמד‬

‫עד‬

12:15 (A)

ὥραν μετὰ σοῦ

‫ִמְפָקד‬

‫ב‬

32:11ab (B)

ἐν ὥρᾳ ἐξεγείρου

‫ֻׁשְלָחן‬

‫ב‬

32:11cd (B)

absent in Greek

‫ִמְס ָּפר ִמְצָעד‬

‫ב‬

33:24 (E)

ἐν ἡμέρᾳ συντελείας

‫ָח ִזיז‬

‫כ‬

35:26 (B)

ὡς νεφέλαι ὑετοῦ

‫ַ ּב ֹ ּצֶרת‬

‫ב‬

35:26 (B)

ἀβροχία

‫צו ָּקה‬

‫ב‬

37:4 (B, D)

θλῖψις

‫ָּכָלה‬

‫ל‬

44:17 (B)

ὀργή

‫ ִקצ ּ ֹו‬/ ‫ֵקץ‬

‫עד‬

46:19 (B)

absent in Greek

The other terms, ‫קץ‬, ‫ עתה‬and ‫מ ֹוֵעד‬, occur almost always without a preposition.16 Here, as in the Greek version that comes from the Hebrew text, the manner in which these terms are used seems mainly static, indicating a situation, even if the use of ‫ ל‬and ‫ עד‬suggests a more dynamic perspective.

2.3 The Syriac Text Considerations of space do not allow this article to offer an in-depth discussion of how the Syriac version expresses the concept of time; we can only briefly analyze two passages. In Sir 4:23a, its different texts are: Sir 4:23a—Ms. A

‫אל חמנע דבר בעולם‬

Do not refuse to speak in its time

Sir 4:23a—Ms. C

‫אל חמנע דבר בעיתו‬

Never refuse to speak

Sir 4:23a

μὴ κωλύσῃς λόγον ἐν καιρῷ χρείας

Do not refrain from speaking at the proper moment

Syr 4:23a

l’ tkl’ ptgm’ b‘dnh

Do not hold back a saying in its time

The Hebrew word ‫עולם‬, attested in Ms. A, does not seem to fit the context, and the Syriac version confirms the reading of Ms. C, in accordance with the Greek version. As we discuss in the following section, the choice between ‫ עולם‬and ‫עת‬

16 The word ‫ עתה‬occurs only 1x with -‫מ‬, in Sir 51:30(B). This passage is not present in the Greek version.

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira 

345

is not neutral, because ‫ עת‬is used many times in order to identify a specific situation in the life of a person. Also in Sir 43:6 there is a sort of play between ‫ עולם‬and ‫עת‬: Sir 43:6a—Ms. B

‫וגם ירח ירח עתות שכות‬

Also the moon is a measure of the times

Sir 43:6a—Ms. M

‫וגם ]…[ רח יאריח עתות‬

Also the moon wanders from time to time

Sir 43:6b—Ms. B

‫משלת קץ ואות עולם‬

The govern of the limit and an eternal sign

Sir 43:6

Καὶ ἡ σελήνη ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς καιρὸν αὐτῆς ἀνάδειξιν χρόνων καὶ σημεῖον αἰῶνος

It is the moon that marks the changing seasons, governing the times, their everlasting sign

Syr 43:6

wshr’ q’m lzbnh tḥwyt’ dzbn’ w’t’ dmn ‘lm

And the moon rises for its time, a manifestation of the time and an eternal sign

The text of the first stich in the Ms. B is very difficult to understand and every translation assumes some modification of the text. The Syriac version is in accordance with Ms. M and the Greek version. In any case the verse juxtaposes the two words ‫ עולם‬and ‫עת‬, in the framework of the natural phenomena and of human activity.

3 Which “time” is used in Ben Sira? In the first section of this study we discussed terms employed by Ben Sira to express the concept of time and their grammatical forms. We will now take a further step, in order to state which concept of “time” is expressed by Ben Sira, by looking in particular for the syntactical use of relevant terminology in its immediate context.

3.1 Which subject? The easier way to classify those passages in which the word “time” occurs is to look at the subject of each sentence. We are more interested in the “logic” than in the “grammatical” subject, because we are studying the overall situation and not the grammatical peculiarities.

346  Severino Bussino

In twenty-three passages the logical subject is God, and these texts can be further classified by means of the context in which they appear, as it is shown in Table 4. Humanity is explicitly or logically the subject of each sentence in which the word “time” is used, almost double the passages in which the subject is God, occurring 43x. This means not only that people are specifically involved in the development of time, but also that time is something that helps define the human condition, as we will further discuss. The texts are collected in Table 5. We can quote here only two passages, as an example: ἀπὸ πρωίθεν ἕως ἑσπέρας μεταβάλλει καιρός καὶ πάντα ἐστὶν ταχινὰ ἔναντι κυρίου From morning to evening conditions change; all things move swiftly before the Lord. ἡμέρας ἀριθμοῦ καὶ καιρὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τῶν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς He gave them a fixed number of days, but granted them authority over everything on the earth.

Sir 18:26

Sir 17:2

Table 4: Classification of the texts of Ben Sira in which the word καιρός occurs and the logical subject is God. Subject matter Reference to nature

8x

Relationship with God

8x

Wrath of God 4x

Social

2x

Preposition or grammatical case

Text Sir

ἐν

5x

39:16, 17, 28, 31, 34

accusative

2x

36(33):8; 43:6

ἀπὸ. … ἕως

1x

18:26

ἐν

5x

2:11; 5:7; 32(35):26(2x); 51:10

ἐκ

1x

51:12

πρὸ … ἐν

1x

51:30(2x)

accusative

1x

17:2

accusative

2x

18:24; 33(36):10

ἐν

1x

44:17

εἰς

1x

48:10

εἰς

2x

10:4; 40:24

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira



347

It is interesting to note the difference between the perception of time by God and humanity. The temporal dimension of God is eternity, expressed by ‫ עולם‬as previously stated, and the development of time is always short for him. This is not the case for the human being, who from the changing of nature can learn how life also changes. Sir 17:2 expresses also the contrast between eternity and the limited time given to humanity. Table 5: Classification of the texts of Ben Sira where the word καιρός occurs and the logical subject is the human being. Subject matter (general) Social relationships

27x

Specific subject matter

Preposition or case

Text Sir

Broad

ἐν

7x

4:3; 8:9; 20:20; 22:6, 23; 29:3; 34:28(31:36)

ἕως

3x

1:23, 24; 20:7

accusative

2x

20:6; 47:10

εἰς

1x

3:31

Friendship

Existential

11x

13x

7x

ἐν

3x

6:8; 19:9; 37:4

accusative

2x

12:16; 19:28

εἰς … ἐν

1x

29:2

ἕως + ἐν +in- 1x fin.

29:5

Exis5x tential background

ἐν

3x

2:2; 10:26; 30:32(33:24)

πρό

1x

30:24(26)

accusative

1x

4:20

Man2x woman relations

ἐν

1x

26:4

εἰς

1x

40:23

Life 6x situations

ἐν

4x

22:16; 39:34; 40:5, 7

Death 4x and life

Illness

1x

accusative + 1x ἐν

18:25

accusative

1x

27:12

nominative

1x

11:19

ἐν

1x

18:21

ἀπὸ … ἕως

1x

18:26

πρό

1x

46:19

nominative

1x

38:13

348  Severino Bussino

Subject matter (general) Relation with God

Specific subject matter 3x

Preposition or case

Text Sir

ἐν

2x

51:10, 30

πρό

1x

51:30

Almost every text analyzed, when the subject is God and especially when the subject is the human being, suggests a dynamic perspective: even if the most frequently used preposition is ἐν, the text conveys a sense of time as something that evolves and changes. The person is within (ἐν/‫ )ב‬a specific situation but has the possibility to go further and experience a different condition.

3.2 Which situation? In Tables 4 and 5, the texts are arranged according to their subject matter and the use of the preposition is shown: through the use of the preposition, we can infer if the construction immediately denotes a process, that something changes over time. We can summarize here some aspects that emerge from the analysis of these passages: I. God as subject: – In this case the most frequent reference is to nature. God has complete control of time because he is the creator, and these texts remind the reader of the specific role of God as the creator. – The person must learn from nature how time moves forward and in which way God is the master of time because he is the Lord of nature. – A second group of texts is related to the relationship between God and humanity. This is also relevant, because the idea of time in reference to God has as a consequence instruction for the human being, a different and renewed perception of one’s reality, a teaching for the one who lives in time. – The third group is constituted by the texts that have a specific reference to the wrath of God and to the time of judgment. These passages are always cryptic, because the problem of the punishment of evil is a point of discussion within the teaching of Ben Sira. However, there is also a time for this, and in two cases, Sir 44:17 and 48:10, the reference is to the history of Israel.

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira 

II.

349

Human as subject: The most frequent set of texts is related to social relationships: the time, as it is perceived by humanity, is within the landscape of society, of friendship, of self-understanding and of the family. – The concept of time also helps the human being perceive one’s reality, in time of illness, in the definitive moment of death and, more recurrently, in any situation that leads to a deeper reflection about life. – We reported also a small group of texts that are strictly correlated with those that have God as subject, in order to stress again the topic of the relation between the person and God, not from the point of view of God but from the perspective of the human. – Also in these cases, different prepositions occurring with the word “time” are reported. As can be easily seen, Ben Sira uses a wide spectrum of expressions, and not only ἐν/‫ב‬, even if, as we stated before, the construction ἐν/‫ ב‬has sometimes a dynamic meaning. –

A complementary range of information can be obtained from Table 2 and Table 3, where the substantive found together with καιρός or ‫ עת‬are reported. The two sets of data can be analyzed together, underlying what is different when needed, because we are not interested in their grammatical aspects but rather in their content. In the Greek version the most recurrent terms related to καιρός are θλῖψις (5x) and χρεία (4x), which in this context suggests the need for attention to difficult moments in life. The “time” described by Ben Sira is also the “time” in which one must recognize one’s personal situation. This way of understanding the development of different conditions in one’s life is seen in relation to God. For example in Sir 2:11 or 32(35):26, and with respect to friends and neighbors, as in Sir 22:23 or 37:24. Also the use of the expression καιρὸς ἐκδικήσεως (2x) recalls the same idea and is especially related to the activity of God. What is surprising, looking at the other terms used only 1x in connection with καιρός, is that almost all are negative: ἁμάρτημα (sin), ἀβροχία (drought), ἐπαγωγή (calamity), λιμός (hunger), ὀργή (wrath), πονηρός (evil), πτῶσις (fall), στενοχωρία (trouble), συντέλεια (end), τελευτή (death), ὑπερηφανία (arrogance). In three other occurrences the terms are essentially neutral, but two times they are used in a negative context: ἀνάπαυσις (rest) in Sir 40:5 and ἀπόδοσις (restitution) in Sir 29:5. Only in Sir 18:25 is a term occurring with a positive meaning, πλησμονή (satiety), and a similar idea can be found also in Sir 3:31. These two texts clearly show a movement from one situation to its opposite, a change in the different conditions that one must face. The same idea of a reversal can be found also in texts where the word “time” appears with reference to the relationship between

350  Severino Bussino

God and humanity, for example in Sir 32(35):26; 39:28; 44:17 and especially in Sir 51:10, 11. The Greek version provides more evidence, because it covers the entire work of the sage: the Hebrew words used together with ‫ עת‬and collected in Table 3, show however a wider spectrum of terms. We can only annotate here the use of same rare word: Sir 35:26 (Ms. B)

‫בעת בצורת — ַ ּב ֹ ּצֶרת‬

only 2x in Hebrew here and in Jer 17:8

Greek: ἀβροχία

Sir 37:4 (Mss. B, D)

‫בעת צוקה — צו ָּקה‬

only 4x in Hebrew here and in Isa 8:22; 30:6; Prov 1:27

Greek: θλῖψις

Two constructions used by Ben Sira seem peculiar. The first one is in Sir 44:17 (B), where ‫לעת כלה‬, “the time of the destruction,” is an original construct of Ben Sira. The Greek reads ἐν καιρῷ ὀργῆς, “in time of wrath,” a construction that does not occur elsewhere in the LXX. The Syriac is closer to the context and has bzbn’ dṭwpn’, “in the time of the Flood,” with reference to the history of Noah. The second construction is ‫ עד עת קצו‬in Sir 46:19 (B), not attested in the other versions, but we find the same wording in Dan 11:35; 12:4, 9 which echoes also Ezek 21:30, 34; 35:5; Dan 8:17; 11:40. In general, we can state that a specific use of the word “time” in conditions of difficulty and with a dynamic meaning is a sign of hope, because it is an invitation to consider life in a broad perspective, without focusing only on the present situation. We will discuss this point further below.

4 Indications of “Change” when Ben Sira uses “Time” We move now to the third and last level of our investigation, before reaching some conclusions. In the previous two stages of the analysis we studied the use of the different terms that express the concept of time in the book of Ben Sira and the context in which the sage uses them: we focus now on the movement that is part of inside the broad, global perspective suggested by the context.

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira



351

4.1 Movement denoted by a preposition Our starting point is the list of the prepositions and substantives that occur together with the word καιρός, as shown in Table 2 and Table 3: In a first group of texts movement is clearly denoted by the use of the prepositions ἕως; πρό; ἐκ. The preposition ἕως appears 3x17 in Ben Sira in relation to time, and in all these occurrences the texts show a clear movement within the context of social relationships. The Hebrew text is only available for Sir 20:7, where the use of ‫ עד‬confirms the idea of movement. The same perspective is present also in Sir 30:24(26), one of the three texts in which καιρός is constructed with πρό: the second text is Sir 51:30 that will be discussed in detail later. The third passage is Sir 46:19, where the atmosphere is completely different, because there is a reference to death: it is not a matter of social relationships, but of the indication of time that has been reached at the end of Samuel’s life. The preposition ἐκ is used with καιρός only in Sir 51:12, where the Hebrew text of Ms. B has ‫ ביום צרה‬and the Syriac version is even more expressive, removing a sense of time and distinguishing the action of salvation from all distress: mn kl byš’. We can suppose that the original Hebrew text stressed the situation in which the sage found himself, with ‫ ביום צרה‬in Sir 51:12 which echoes the same expression in Sir 51:10, while the later versions focus on the action of salvation. Finally, the study of the occurrences of εἰς requires more care, because it is well known that it can be used with the same meaning of ἐν.18 We collect here the passages where εἰς occurs with καιρός, together with the Hebrew, when known, and the wording in the Syriac version: Sir 10:4

εἰς καιρόν

‫לעת‬

Sir 29:2

εἰς τὸν καιρόν

—

b’dnh

Sir 40:23

εἰς καιρόν

—

b’dnh

l’dnh

Sir 40:24

εἰς καιρὸν θλίψεως

—

b’dnh d’qt’

Sir 43:619

εἰς καιρὸν αὐτῆς

‫עתות‬

lzbnh

Sir 48:10

εἰς καιρούς

‫לעת‬

—

17 Sir 1:23, 24; 20:7. 18 See for example de la Potterie, “L’emploi dynamique,” and bibliography therein. 19 This text is difficult to understand, and the correction in the margin seems to fit better with the Greek version.

352  Severino Bussino

From these data we can state that in four cases the construction denotes change over time, in Sir 10:4; 43:6 and 48:10 denoted by the preposition εἰς/‫ל‬, while in Sir 29:2 it is expressed by the double occurrences in two lines: Sir 29:2

δάνεισον τῷ πλησίον ἐν καιρῷ χρείας αὐτοῦ καὶ πάλιν ἀπόδος τῷ πλησίον εἰς τὸν καιρόν (Ziegler: εἰς καιρόν) Lend to your neighbor in his time of need; repay your neighbor when a loan falls due (lit., at the time).

In this text the chronological movement is also suggested by the use of ἀποδίδωμι, indicating a change in the condition of the person, who can now pay back what was previously received as a loan. This observation induces us to move to the next paragraph, where we will study the idea of “change” in each passage as it is denoted by the use of different verbs or by the context.

4.2 Movement denoted by verbs or by context The second step in this latter part of our investigation will try to identify other passages where a chronological movement is denoted by the verb or by the situation which is described. We must deal with a lot of passages, so a specific methodology is required. First of all, we will study the text, different from the six examples discussed in section 4.1, where the subject is God, and then the passages where the subject is a human being, according to the classification stated in paragraph 3.1 and shown in Tables 4 and 5. For each group we will start looking at the verbs, and when this investigation is not sufficient to reach a conclusion, we will move to the context. In seven passages the verb is in the future tense, and this clearly shows a discontinuity; it conveys the idea that something will be different in the future: Sir 5:7 (ἐξολῇ), 39:16 (ἔσται), 39:16 (ζητηθήσεται), 39:28 (ἐκχεοῦσιν … κοπάσουσιν), 39:31 (παραβήσονται), 39:34 (εὐδοκιμηθήσεται), 51:30 (ἐργάζεσθε … δώσει). In four other texts it is the meaning of the verb itself that suggests movement, in a physical perspective, in 18:26 (μεταβάλλει), 36(33):8 (ἠλλοίωσεν), or in a mental sense, in Sir 18:24 (μνήσθητι), 33(36):7 (σπεῦσον καιρὸν καὶ μνήσθητι). In Sir 5:7 and 18:24 the indications suggested by the verb are confirmed by the construction of the whole sentence: μὴ ἀνάμενε ἐπιστρέψαι (Sir 5:7) and ἐν ἀποστροφῇ (18:24) describe in an almost visual way the movement conveyed by the full text. The use of the substantive ἀντάλλαγμα in Sir 44:17 has in itself the idea of an exchange, of a contraposition and so, in some way, also the idea of movement.

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira 

353

Four more texts,20 in which the word καιρός appears and the logical subject is God, must be analyzed. In two passages the distich contains both dynamic and static elements: Sir 2:11

διότι οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων ὁ κύριος καὶ ἀφίησιν ἁμαρτίας καὶ σῴζει ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως For the Lord is compassionate and merciful; he forgives sins and saves in time of distress.

Sir 32(35):26(2x) ὡραῖον ἔλεος ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως αὐτοῦ ὡς νεφέλαι ὑετοῦ ἐν καιρῷ ἀβροχίας His mercy is as welcome in time of distress as clouds of rain in time of drought. Ms. B ‫]…………[ן מצוקה‬ ‫כעת חזיזים בעת בצורת‬

Nouns like καιρὸς θλίψεως and καιρὸς ἀβροχίας suggest difficulty without end, without any possibility to find a solution, then a condition that is changed by the act of forgiving sins, ἀφίησιν ἁμαρτίας καὶ σῴζει, or as clouds of rain, ὡς νεφέλαι ὑετοῦ, that finally offer a way out. Finally, in two other cases, Sir 17:2 and 51:10, the situation suggested by the text describes a limited time or a moment in Ben Sira’s life; everything seems to be continuing without anything new, always in the same bad condition. This brief analysis suggests that in almost all cases collected in Table 4, with the exception of Sir 17:2 and 51:10, the grammatical elements that build the sentence, the preposition or the verb or the construction itself, point toward a movement, a sense of change, of which the term “time” is an element. We should here repeat briefly the same discussion for the texts that have the human being as a subject and that are presented in Table 5: some of them were discussed above, using the preposition as a starting point, and seven passages21 showed an internal movement. We begin here with a further classification, which employs the verb to denote a specific dynamic in the text. In six cases the movement, as conveyed by the wording of the sentence, is clearly denoted by the use of the future, in Sir 3:31 (εὑρήσει); 8:9 (μαθήσῃ); 11:19 (παρελεύσεται); 19:9 (μισήσει); 29:3 (εὑρήσεις); 39:34 (εὐδοκιμηθήσεται). The meaning of the verb itself testifies a similar movement in five other texts: Sir 6:8 20 Sir 2:11; 17:2; 32(35):26(2x); 51:10. In Sir 32(35):26, comparison with the Greek suggests that the initial word ‫ כעת‬is an error for ‫“( כעב‬like a cloud”). Cf. Morla, Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira, 197. 21 Sir 1:23, 24; 20:7; 29:2; 40:23; 46:19; 51:30.

354  Severino Bussino

(μὴ παραμείνῃ); 18:26 (μεταβάλλει); 40:5 (ἀλλοιοῖ); 40:7 (ἐξηγέρθη) and 20:6 (εἰδὼς καιρόν), where the ability to distinguish the right time denotes a difference, and thus a sort of movement, between the foolish and the wise. The hypothetical construction ἐὰν εὕρῃ καιρόν found in Sir 12:16 and 19:28 suggests in a visual way the danger of having a vindictive enemy or a false friend. Also in Sir 6:8 the verbal form (μὴ παραμείνῃ) is a vivid description of the insidious behavior of the false friend. In two passages in Sir 18 the construction clearly indicates a movement that is denoted by the wording of the full verse, with the use of a temporal sequence in Sir 18:21 (πρὶν ἀρρωστῆσαί … δεῖξον ἐπιστροφήν) and with the juxtaposition of two alternative situations, underscored by an exhortation to remember, in 18:25 (μνήσθητι καιρὸν λιμοῦ ἐν καιρῷ πλησμονῆς). Two more texts22 in which the word καιρός appears and the logical subject is the human must be analyzed: in one passage the distich contains both dynamic and static elements: Sir 2:2

εὔθυνον τὴν καρδίαν σου καὶ καρτέρησον καὶ μὴ σπεύσῃς ἐν καιρῷ ἐπαγωγῆς Set your heart right and be steadfast, and do not be impetuous in time of calamity.

The first line, with the two imperatives εὔθυνον and καρτέρησον clearly suggest a movement, a situation in which there has been some sort of change of circumstances for the worse, while the second line, with the negative exhortation μὴ σπεύσῃς, encourages one to be prudent during this situation. The second text is Sir 22:16, where the atmosphere is more static, because of the use of the negation οὐ in front of the verb, even if the image in the first part suggests an effective contrast between an earthquake and the stability of a building: Sir 22:16

22 Sir 2:2; 22:16.

ἱμάντωσις ξυλίνη ἐνδεδεμένη εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἐν συσσεισμῷ οὐ διαλυθήσεται οὕτως καρδία ἐστηριγμένη ἐπὶ διανοήματος βουλῆς ἐν καιρῷ οὐ δειλιάσει A wooden beam firmly bonded into a building is not loosened by an earthquake; so the mind firmly resolved after due reflection will not be afraid in a crisis.

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira



355

The changing situation described in the text is suggested 7x by the context or by the construction of the image: Sir 4:23 (μὴ κωλύσῃς λόγον ἐν καιρῷ χρείας); 20:20 (οὐ γὰρ μὴ εἴπῃ αὐτὴν ἐν καιρῷ αὐτῆς); 22:23 (ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως διάμενε αὐτῷ ἵνα …); 30:32(33:24) (καὶ ἐν καιρῷ τελευτῆς διάδος κληρονομίαν); 31:28 (οἶνος πινόμενος ἐν καιρῷ αὐτάρκης); 47:10 (καὶ ἐκόσμησεν καιροὺς μέχρι συντελείας); 37:4 (ἑταῖρος φίλου ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ ἥδεται καὶ ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως ἔσται ἀπέναντι). In seven other texts the situation that is described is related to a particular moment in human life. The suffering seems to be without an end or, in a more positive way, the sage exhorts the student to be wise and prudent in every situation: 4:20 (συντήρησον καιρὸν καὶ φύλαξαι ἀπὸ πονηροῦ); 10:26 (μὴ σοφίζου ποιῆσαι τὸ ἔργον σου καὶ μὴ δοξάζου ἐν καιρῷ στενοχωρίας σου); 22:6 (καὶ παιδεία ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ σοφίας); 26:4 (ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ πρόσωπον ἱλαρόν); 27:12 (εἰς μέσον ἀσυνέτων συντήρησον καιρόν, εἰς μέσον δὲ διανοουμένων ἐνδελέχιζε); 29:5 (καὶ ἐν καιρῷ ἀποδόσεως παρελκύσει χρόνον … καὶ τὸν καιρὸν αἰτιάσεται); 51:10 (μή με ἐγκαταλιπεῖν ἐν ἡμέραις θλίψεως ἐν καιρῷ ὑπερηφανιῶν ἀβοηθησίας). Finally, we can identify some passages, as in the case of the text with God as subject, where the two perspectives, the static and the dynamic, are bound together in order to suggest a more expressive image: Sir 29:3

στερέωσον λόγον καὶ πιστώθητι μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ εὑρήσεις τὴν χρείαν σου Keep your promise and be honest with him, and on every occasion you will find what you need.

Sir 40:5cd

καὶ ἐν καιρῷ ἀναπαύσεως ἐπὶ κοίτης ὕπνος νυκτὸς ἀλλοιοῖ γνῶσιν αὐτοῦ And when one rests upon his bed, his sleep at night confuses his mind. ‫ועת נו]…[ על משכבו‬ […]‫[ע‬.] ‫שינת לילה‬

Ms. B

Our attention has been primarily on the Greek text, because it is complete and can give us a whole understanding of the thought of the sage Ben Sira. Some observation on the differences between the original redaction and the Greek version can be done. We have already observed that in Sir 51:12 the versions offer a more dynamic interpretation (ἐκ in Greek and mn in Syriac) than the original text, which simply uses ‫ביום‬. Some further examples can be added. In Sir 8:9 the text conveys a sense of movement, because of the use of the preposition ‫מן‬/

356  Severino Bussino

παρά, in the first line and in Sir 37:4 the text clearly denotes a change, from friendship to hostility.23 From the previous discussion it arises clearly that in almost all situations in which Ben Sira refers to the concept of time, there is something that changes. This aspect is even more evident when the sage speaks about God, who takes into account the life and dynamic nature of humanity. For Ben Sira life is not dull but shows a development that is full of meaning. Of course, there are also situations in which no change seems possible, especially in moments of trouble and suffering, but he teaches his disciples to persevere and be faithful in God.

5 What is “Changing” When Ben Sira Uses the Word “Time”? 5.1 The trajectory of life After having stated when and in which way Ben Sira includes many indications of change in his teachings regarding the idea of time, we can underline some specific aspects, in order to understand better what is changing and what is not. In other words, we can try to move from the analytical stage, where we have classified the different texts and constructions, to the synthetic one, with the aim being to better organize the suggestions that come from the texts. The first group of situations, to which Ben Sira refers when he uses the concept of “time,” conveys change that is directly linked to the nature of life. This means that the contents of the teaching address a continuous evolution of a situation, a parabola or trajectory of human life, without the possibility of going back. The first example of this idea is suggested by a text that refers to death. In reference to the texts that have God as subject, the image of a forward moving development of time can be found only in three situations:

23 The text of Sir 37:4 in Ms. D is not fully intelligible. See Morla, Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira, 207, 382.

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira

Sir 5:7

μὴ ἀνάμενε ἐπιστρέψαι πρὸς κύριον καὶ μὴ ὑπερβάλλου ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας ἐξάπινα γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ὀργὴ κυρίου καὶ ἐν καιρῷ ἐκδικήσεως ἐξολῇ



357

Do not delay to turn back to the Lord, and do not postpone it from day to day; for suddenly the wrath of the Lord will come upon you, and at the time of punishment you will perish.

Sir 5:7—Ms. A

‫אל תאחר לשוב אליו‬ ‫ואל תתעבר מיום אל יום‬ ‫כי פתאום יצא זעמו‬ ‫וביום נקם תספה‬

Delay not your conversion to [the Lord], put it not off from day to day. For suddenly his wrath flames forth: in the day of vengeance you will be destroyed.

Sir 5:7—Ms. C

‫אל תאחר לשוב אליו‬ ‫ואל תתעבר מיום ליום‬ ‫כי פתאום יצא זעמו‬ ‫ובעת נקם תספה‬

Delay not your conversion to [the Lord], put it not off from day to day. For suddenly his wrath flames forth: at the time of vengeance you will be destroyed.

Sir 39:34

καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν τοῦτο τούτου πονηρότερον πάντα γὰρ ἐν καιρῷ εὐδοκιμηθήσεται

‫ אל לאמר זה רע מה זה‬No cause then to say: This is not as ‫ כי הכל בעתו יגביר‬good as that—each shows its worth at the proper time.

Sir 39:34—Ms. B

Sir 51:30

No one can say, “This is not as good as that,” for everything proves good in its appointed time.

ἐργάζεσθε τὸ ἔργον ὑμῶν πρὸ καιροῦ/ Do your work in good time, καὶ δώσει τὸν μισθὸν ὑμῶν ἐν καιρῷ and in his own time [God] will give αὐτοῦ you your reward.

Sir 51:30—Ms. B

‫ מעשיכם עשו בצדקה‬Work at your task in justice. ‫ והוא נותן לכם שכרכם בעתו‬and in his own time [God] will give you your reward.

God knows the proper time and will act accordingly, giving everybody the right reward and revealing the meaning of everything. In this case the movement is toward a better understanding of the value of creation and of work, which will eventually be properly understood. In a more modern way, even if this can be said only in terms of analogy, we should say that this is a way toward the disclosure of the meaning and the perception of the value of life. To this list four more texts can be added, Sir 39:16, 17, 28, 31.24 Texts in which the word “time” occurs that have the human being as the subject are quite detailed. The image of a forward moving change can be found 24 See Liesen, Full of Praise.

358  Severino Bussino

only in nine passages.25 Here we can only summarize the context which they refer to and the teachings they convey: Social Relationships: Friendship From Friendship to Hostility Sir 6:8 ἔστιν γὰρ φίλος ἐν καιρῷ αὐτοῦ For there are friends who are such when it suits them, Sir 12:16 καὶ ἐὰν εὕρῃ καιρόν, οὐκ ἐμπλησθήσεται ἀφ᾿ αἵματος but if he finds an opportunity he will never have enough of your blood. Sir 19:9 καὶ ἐν καιρῷ μισήσει σε and in time he will hate you. Sir 19:28 ἐὰν εὕρῃ καιρόν, κακοποιήσει he will nevertheless do evil when he finds the opportunity.

Social Relationships: Death From Life to Death Sir 30:32 (33:24)

καὶ ἐν καιρῷ τελευτῆς διάδος κληρονομίαν in the hour of death, distribute your inheritance.

Existential Perspective: Life and Death From Life to Death Sir 11:19 Sir 18:21

Sir 46:19

καὶ οὐκ οἶδεν τίς καιρὸς παρελεύσεται he does not know how long it will be πρὶν ἀρρωστῆσαί σε ταπεινώθητι καὶ ἐν καιρῷ ἁμαρτημάτων δεῖξον ἐπιστροφήν Before falling ill, humble yourself; and when you have sinned, repent. καὶ πρὸ καιροῦ κοιμήσεως αἰῶνος ἐπεμαρτύρατο Before the time of his eternal sleep, (Samuel) bore witness.

From Healthy Life to Premature Old Age Sir 30:24(26) καὶ πρὸ καιροῦ γῆρας ἄγει μέριμνα and anxiety brings on premature old age.

25 Sir 6:8; 11:19; 12:16; 18:21; 19:9, 28; 30:32(33:24); 46:19; 51:30. Sir 51:30 is inserted in this list, even if it was discussed also among the texts that have God as subject, because it concerns especially the relationships between humans and God.

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira



359

In conclusion, we can state that in the book of Ben Sira there is a primary movement, related to “time,” that refers to situations that are non-reversible and from which the person cannot come back. For this reason, it is important to perceive the value of time and its meaning, in the context of personal relationships, of the dialogue with God or with respect to more basic conditions of human life. We preferred to include the passages that describe the transformation of friendship into hostility in this group of non-reversible phenomena, because it seems that from this kind of change, at least in these texts,26 one cannot restore the previous friendly relationships.

5.2 The Development of Recurring Situations in Human Relationships A second group of texts concerning the teaching of Ben Sira in relation to time covers a wider spectrum and refers to situations that can recur in human life, for example poverty and richness, health and illness. During the “time” of the development of these situations, one can learn and experience how to live better. We analyze here the texts that have the human as subject, because they are really the majority of the passages that offer a sense of time that denotes recurring development. The texts that have God as a subject and propose a recurring concept of time are substantially related to nature and creation and will be briefly discussed in the next paragraph. In order to better organize the contents of the many relevant passages, we refer to the classifications shown in Table 5. We begin by discussing the texts that are related to social relationships. In this category we can collect fifteen texts: Social Relationships in a General Sense: From Silence to Speaking Sir 4:23 μὴ κωλύσῃς λόγον ἐν καιρῷ χρείας Do not refrain from speaking at the proper moment Sir 8:9 καὶ ἐν καιρῷ χρείας δοῦναι ἀπόκρισιν and to give an answer when the need arises. Sir 20:6 καὶ ἔστιν σιωπῶν εἰδὼς καιρόν while others keep silent because they know when to speak.

26 This is not, however, in the case of a revealed secret or a betrayal, Sir 22:21: ἐπὶ φίλον ἐὰν σπάσῃς ῥομφαίαν μὴ ἀφελπίσῃς, ἔστιν γὰρ ἐπάνοδος. “Even if you draw your sword against a friend, do not despair, for there is a way back.” This passage is not of direct interest, because it does not attest any word related to time.

360  Severino Bussino Sir 20:7 Sir 20:20

ἄνθρωπος σοφὸς σιγήσει ἕως καιροῦ The wise remain silent until the right moment, οὐ γὰρ μὴ εἴπῃ αὐτὴν ἐν καιρῷ αὐτῆς (here: an inopportune word) for he [the fool] does not tell it at the proper time.

From Enduring Difficulty to Its Resolution Sir 1:23 ἕως καιροῦ ἀνθέξεται μακρόθυμος Those who are patient stay calm until the right moment Sir 1:24 ἕως καιροῦ κρύψει τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ They hold back their words until the right moment Sir 3:31 καὶ ἐν καιρῷ πτώσεως αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει στήριγμα when they fall they will find support From Difficulty/Necessity to Prosperity/Satisfaction Sir 22:23 ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως διάμενε αὐτῶ Stand by him [a neighbor] in time of distress Sir 29:3 καὶ ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ εὑρήσεις τὴν χρείαν σου and on every occasion you will find what you need From Daily Life to Rejoicing/Feast-day Sir 31:28 οἶνος πινόμενος ἐν καιρῷ αὐτάρκης Wine drunk at the proper time Sir 47:10 καὶ ἐκόσμησεν καιροὺς μέχρι συντελείας and he arranged their times throughout the year

Social Relationships: Friendship and Relationships between Men and Women From Need to Prosperity Sir 29:2(2x) δάνεισον τῷ πλησίον ἐν καιρῷ χρείας αὐτοῦ καὶ πάλιν ἀπόδος τῷ πλησίον εἰς (τὸν) καιρόν Lend to your neighbor in his time of need; repay your neighbor when a loan falls due From Friendship in Happiness to Hostility Sir 37:4 καὶ ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως ἔσται ἀπέναντι but in time of trouble they are against him From Daily Life to Rejoicing/Feast-day Sir 40:23 φίλος καὶ ἑταῖρος εἰς καιρὸν ἀπαντῶντες A friend or companion is always welcome

To the second group, which express a concern with basic aspects of human life, we can ascribe four texts:

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira



361

Basic Conditions of Human Life From Quiet/Peace to Confusion/Distress and vice-versa Sir 40:5 καὶ ἐν καιρῷ ἀναπαύσεως ἐπὶ κοίτης And when one rests upon his bed Sir 40:7 ἐν καιρῷ χρείας αὐτοῦ ἐξηγέρθη At the moment he reaches safety he wakes up From Difficulty to Prosperity Sir 18:25(2x) μνήσθητι καιρὸν λιμοῦ ἐν καιρῷ πλησμονῆς In the time of plenty think of the time of hunger From Illness to Recovery Sir 38:13 ἔστιν καιρὸς ὅτε καὶ ἐν χερσὶν αὐτῶν εὐοδία There may come a time when recovery lies in their hands.

Once again, for Ben Sira life is not flat, without any modification; rather the inherent change of time denotes the dynamic nature of social relations which is important to understand properly. “Time” introduces change in human life and change is a basic aspect of the human condition. These modifications concern every sphere of human life, but especially social relations, such as development in social relationships, and the change from illness to recovery, or from poverty to wealth. The fact that these events are recurring can help one learn from experience what “time” teaches: that in a changing world one should adopt a behavior characterized by hope, trust in God, solidarity, moral righteousness, and self-control.

5.3 God’s Activity in “Time” In order to complete the analysis of the different situations in which Ben Sira uses the word “time,” we should discuss here the passages that refer to God and that convey recurring situations. We prefer to split this point into two paragraphs. We will briefly discuss in the following all the texts that show a link between nature and its development; we also will collect here other passages that have God as a subject and convey a recurring conception of time.

362  Severino Bussino

The Relationship between Humanity and God From distress to forgiveness and salvation Sir 2:11 καὶ ἀφίησιν ἁμαρτίας καὶ σῴζει ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως He forgives sins and saves in time of distress Sir 51:11 καὶ ἐξείλου με ἐκ καιροῦ πονηροῦ and you rescued me in time of trouble

Wrath of God From wrath to destruction or calm Sir 36:7 σπεῦσον καιρὸν καὶ μνήσθητι ὁρκισμοῦ Hasten the time, and remember the oath Sir 44:17 ἐν καιρῷ ὀργῆς ἐγένετο ἀντάλλαγμα in the time of wrath he was taken in exchange Sir 48:10 ὁ καταγραφεὶς ἐν ἐλεγμοῖς εἰς καιροὺς The one written in rebukes for the times,

Social Perspective From daily life to honor and vice-versa Sir 10:4 καὶ τὸν χρήσιμον ἐγερεῖ εἰς καιρὸν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς and over it he will raise up the right leader for the time Sir 40:24 ἀδελφοὶ καὶ βοήθεια εἰς καιρὸν θλίψεως Kindred and helpers are for a time of trouble

The development of time is also related to one’s relationship with God, who can help and save people from situations of distress and danger. God is present in the dynamic situation of human life not only with respect to the salvation of the individual, but also in a social perspective, because he raises up a good leader at the right time. God displays his strength also in the history of Israel, and ancestors such as Noah or Elijah play a role in calming the wrath of God. Also in these cases, as in the previous discussion concerning texts that have the human as subject, the development of time gives a structure or a shape to the presence and activity of God in history and social life.

5.4 Nature and Change We now discuss the texts in which a link or connection to nature and creation is explicit and which also refer to “time.” There are eight passages in this group,

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira 

363

as shown in Table 5.27 They all convey a sense of dynamism and indicate change. We have briefly analyzed Sir 39:34 and we have referred to the other four passages in Sir 39. The three remaining texts show a clear indication of situations that are recurring: Sir 36(33):8 ἐν γνώσει κυρίου διεχωρίσθησαν καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν καιροὺς καὶ ἑορτάς By the Lord’s wisdom they were distinguished, and he appointed the different seasons and festivals Sir 43:6 καὶ ἡ σελήνη ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς καιρὸν αὐτῆς ἀνάδειξιν χρόνων καὶ σημεῖον αἰῶνος It is the moon that marks the changing seasons governing the times, their everlasting sign. Sir 18:26 ἀπὸ πρωίθεν ἕως ἑσπέρας μεταβάλλει καιρός καὶ πάντα ἐστὶν ταχινὰ ἔναντι κυρίου From morning to evening conditions change all things move swiftly before the Lord.

It is relevant that these references to nature can be found only when God is subject or when a reference to God is explicitly present, as in Sir 18:26b or 43:6.28 This means that God is present as a creator in the progress of time, and the human must learn from creation not only about the power of God, but also how time, with its constant change, can produce meaning in human life. The inherent state of change in nature plays a pedagogical role, showing humanity that different situations in life can recur, and one must learn from them how to act. This perspective is really sapiential: from something real and concrete, students can learn new perspectives that can be useful in their life, even in complex situations. Sir 18:26 is also interesting because of its comparison between the sudden change of conditions in the first line, and a sort of eternity that characterizes God in the second. Also in Sir 43:6 we find a contrast between time and eternity: καιρός in the first line and αἰών in the second. We have already noted this correspondence of themes in section 3.1, where we also referred to Sir 18:26 and 17:2.

27 Sir 18:26; 36(33):8; 39:16, 17, 28, 31, 34; 43:6. 28 In Matt 16:1–5 we find an invitation to learn from nature, but the emphasis is on the knowledge of the human, who is able to rightly distinguish the signs of weather, and not on the act of creation of God and on His dominion.

364  Severino Bussino

6 Time and Development: The Teaching of Ben Sira The analysis conducted in the previous paragraphs has shown ways that the book of Ben Sira conveys conceptions of time and has clearly indicated that they differ according to different situations in life that the composition addresses, as we stated in paragraphs 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. We would like to summarize here some conclusions that can be extracted from all the data that has been presented above: I.

II.

III.

IV.

A clear sense of change relating to “time” The study of the structure of each text in which the word “time” occurs, i. e. with regard to prepositions, verbs, and context, has shown that in almost all the relevant passages the idea of “change” is present. The teaching of Ben Sira, clearly organized around the themes of personal and social relationships, and centered on the relation between the human being and God, stresses that one must recognize that change and development are inherent aspects of reality. Recurring and non-recurring situations Ben Sira distinguishes situations that are recurring from those that are non-reversible, such as death and serious illness, but also the betrayal of a friend, the movement from friendship to hostility, and sometimes the wrath of God. This can also underline that philosophical insight that one of these dimensions, taken by itself, offers only a partial description of reality. Change within well-defined contexts in the life of a human being The contexts in which the word “time” occurs are well defined and, with respect to human life, refer mainly to social relationships, specified in different situations, to a perception of basic aspects of human existence, and to the relationship between humanity and God. Also the texts that have God as subject are within a context that often involves human life. The nature of life as in a constant state of becoming is not something abstract, but it is concrete and effective: it is related to society, friendship, family, has an existential meaning and actively involves humanity’s relationship with God. All these aspects are specific to the condition of the human being as a creature. God and nature Many texts that refer to God also offer reflection on nature, on the role of God as creator, and on the dynamics that are intrinsic to creation itself.

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira



365

This offers a lesson about the reality of the human being within creation: God is the Lord of nature and one must learn from the development of creation what is relevant for one’s own development as a human who lives in accordance with the laws God has established, God is the Lord of nature and of time; he is the creator, while the human must understand and accept these aspects of life. V. The role of God The texts that have God as subject are also related with two specific points that we propose together because they are related to one another: – wrath of God – time and salvation The wrath of God is something definitive, something that it seems one cannot recover from, but also something that God can retreat from, as passages in the Praise of the Ancestors show.29 What seems interesting to us is to associate these passages with the invitation to hope and trust in God in times of distress and also in moments of sin, because he will save and forgive. There is “time” for this in the history of relationships between humanity and God, between God and his people “Israel.” VI. Learning from time This topic is directly related to the previous one and shows a pedagogical aspect of the reasoning of Ben Sira. The attention to the development of “time” suggests the deep meaning of this “change”; its great potential to teach the human how to live better and how to trust in God. The facts that many developments are recurrent suggests the necessity to learn from experience, and sometimes from the observation of nature itself, and from the activity of God. Ben Sira speaks about “time” also to help convey to the human what a human is. VII. Time and eternity Eternity is the dimension of God; time with its constant change is the dimension within which humanity lives. Human beings are asked to live and express themselves within this context and must perceive this substantial difference. But since God is not isolated in a dimension without time, the difference between the way in which God and the human perceive “time” and its development is not a contrast or a distance that cannot be reduced; rather it is an invitation to acknowledge being a creature and to act as such.

29 Cf. Sir 44:17; 48:10.

366  Severino Bussino

Sapiential thought, for example in Qoh 3:1–8, points out the role of time as an occasion for specific human activities.30 While there are some differences between the wider wisdom tradition and the peculiarities of Qoheleth, it can however be stated that the situation itself and the behavior of a person in that situation, from an ethical or existential point of view, are both required in different opportunities of life. What Ben Sira adds is a process, by means of which he can put together different pieces of the life of the human, because time moves forward, and one can move from wealth to poverty, from health to illness, from friendship to hostility, or vice-versa. By means of the notion of time, Ben Sira can build a system of teachings that urges his students to maintain a broad perspective towards reality, taking into account the wide spectrum of different aspects of life, even if they appear contradictory. This perspective of the role of time as suggesting a process arises clearly from our study, which also stated that God is present in the life of the human person,31 even if development is required, in any situation of life. A person can learn from this process and reach a better understanding of life and become wise and clever, if one pays attention to this dynamic. It is interesting to compare the first verse of the work of the sage Ben Sira with the last one, at least in the final redaction of the book: Sir 1:1

πᾶσα σοφία παρὰ κυρίου καὶ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

All wisdom comes from the Lord and is with him for ever

Sir 51:30

ἐργάζεσθε τὸ ἔργον ὑμῶν πρὸ καιροῦ καὶ δώσει τὸν μισθὸν ὑμῶν ἐν καιρῷ αὐτοῦ

Do your work before the appointed time, and in God’s time he will give you your reward.

Sir 51:30—Ms. B

‫ מעשיכם עשו בצדקה‬Do your work in justice ‫ והוא נותן לכם שכרכם בעתו‬and in his time he will give you your reward.

The book opens by stressing the eternity of God and Wisdom and ends with an invitation to the human to act carefully, so that in the time established by God one can receive one’s reward. The human can look and search for eternity but lives in time and within the “change” of time within which one develops one’s own personal story for which he is responsible. The teaching of Ben Sira from the first stich to the last one helps his students be aware of this dimension of development and to acknowledge that the human being exists within the di-

30 Gilbert, “Il concetto di tempo,” 86–87 (= Id., “Le concept du temps,” 325–26). 31 Gilbert, “Il concetto di tempo,” 89 (= Id., “Le concept du temps,” 333–34).

Time and Change in the Book of Ben Sira



367

mension of “time.” Eternity is specific to God; “evolving in time” is specific to the human.

7 Conclusion In this study we investigated the function of the concept of “time” within the teaching of Ben Sira. Starting with a close analysis of the text, we have shown that a sense of change is very much present in passages that attest a concept of “time.” For the sage Ben Sira life is not dull, without color or any dimension, or static; rather he perceives the movement of time that is always an explicit part of social life or friendship, and a context for one’s relationship with God. Even if many texts have as a reference point a negative starting point, such as suffering, illness, or poverty, the answer always stresses a future of hope. Ben Sira does not indulge in depression but teaches his disciples how to react: to trust in God and to learn from experience, from one’s history and from nature. The human is not characterized by eternity and must manage this difference, the sense of time as a form of development that requires social interaction, in all the dimensions we have investigated above, by means of a close relation with God and with wisdom. “Time” in Ben Sira “changes” within the landscape of social relationships, an impression of basic aspects of human existence, and the extraordinary value of the human’s relationship with God: this is an incisive and significant message also for us today.

Bibliography Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & A Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Ferrer, Joan, and Jan Liesen. La Sabiduría del Escriba. Edición diplomática de la Peshitta del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa / Wisdom of the Scribe. Diplomatic Edition of the Peshitta of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus, with Translations in Spanish and English. Biblioteca midrásica 26. 2nd ed. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2015. Gilbert, Maurice. “Il concetto di tempo (‫ )ֵעת‬in Qohelet e Ben Sira.” Pages 69–89 in Il libro del Qohelet. Tradizione, redazione, teologia. Edited by Giuseppe Bellia and Angelo Passaro. Milan: Paoline, 200.

368  Severino Bussino

Gilbert, Maurice. “Le concept du temps (‫ )ֵעת‬chez Qohelet and Ben Sira.” Pages 315–33 in L’antique sagesse d’Israël. Études sur Proverbs, Job, Qohelet et leurs prolongements. Pendé: Gabalda, 2015. Liesen, Jan. Full of Praise. An Exegetical Study of Sir 39,12–35. JSJSup 64. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Morla, Víctor. Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira. 2nd ed. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2015. Potterie, Ignace de la. “L’emploi dynamique de εἰς dans Saint Jean et ses incidences théologiques,” Bib 3 (1962): 367–87. Prato, Gian Luigi. Il Problema della Teodicea in Ben Sira. Composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini. AnBib 65. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975. Rad, Gerhard von. Weisheit in Israel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970. Wilch, John R. Time and Event. An Exegetical Study on the Use of ‫ עת‬in the Old Testament in Comparison to Other Temporal Expressions in Clarification of the Concept of Time, Leiden: Brill, 1969. Ziegler, Joseph. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 12/2. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.

Núria Calduch-Benages

The Notion of Time in Sir 18:19–26 Abstract: Time is a relevant question for Ben Sira. The terms ‫ עת‬and καιρός together with other time-related words and expressions are frequent in his teaching. My aim here is to survey Sir 18:19–26, a passage that has been little studied, if not to say almost ignored, by scholars. I concentrate on the double sense of the term καιρός in the passage, which exposes a notion of time that is quite other than univocal. Keywords: Time; the right time; the time of God; vows; foresight; death.

1 Introduction In the Old Testament, reflections on notions of time occur primarily in the socalled sapiential books.1 As Maurice Gilbert rightly notes, no biblical author has employed the Hebrew term ‫ עת‬more than Qoheleth and Ben Sira.2 Specifically within the book of Sirach, the noun καιρός (which usually translates ‫ )עת‬occurs around 60 times in the Greek version, whereas the noun ‫ עת‬occurs approximately 37 times in the Hebrew manuscripts which are available to us. Obviously, this information should be filled out by adding the occurrences of the other words and expressions that relate to time. Rather than surveying the primary passages about time in Sirach, I limit my focus to one of them, namely Sir 18:19–26, a text that has been little studied, if not to say almost ignored, by scholars. In fact, Petra Ritter-Müller has been the only scholar to provide a study specifically devoted to this text.3 Hence, I shall make frequent references to her work, which was published in 2013 in the Festschrift dedicated to Friedrich V. Reiterer on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday.4 Ritter-Müller’s study is predominantly linguistic in character (“Sprachwissenschaftliche Notizen”). She provides detailed analyses of all the lexemes in 1 Cf. Wilch, Time and Event, 117–28 and 138–43; von Rad, Weisheit in Israel, 182–88, 322–26, and 337–63; Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel, 140–41; Wicke-Reuter, Göttliche Providenz, 102–4, and Gilbert, “Concetto di tempo,” 69–89. 2 Cf. Gilbert, “Concetto di tempo,” 69. 3 Cf. Ritter-Müller, “Weisheit, Sünde und Kairos.” Note her inclusion of v. 27 (Sir 18:19–27). 4 Cf. Ritter-Müller, “Notizen.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-017

370  Núria Calduch-Benages

Sir 18:19–27 in order to illustrate the connections between wisdom, sin and time. For my part, I shall concentrate on the double sense of the term καιρός which is the basis for conceptualizing time in a manner that is not univocal. Moreover, the examination of Sir 18:15–19:17 by a group of scholars, which was published in the 2015 issue of Rivista Biblica Italiana has proven to be very useful for this enquiry.5

2 Text and Translation The Hebrew text of Sir 18:19–26 is not available. (From chapter 18 only vv. 31b– 33 have been preserved in Ms. C) Therefore my examination focuses on the Greek version (Gr) in the edition of Joseph Ziegler.6 In the textual notes, I shall also make use of the Syriac (Syr) and Latin (Lat) versions in the editions of Calduch et al. and Thiele,7 respectively. It is noteworthy that the Syr differs greatly from the Gr, especially in vv. 20–23. Here, as well as emphasising the role of prayer and conversion, there is an implicit reference to wisdom. 19 8Πρὶν ἢ λαλῆσαι μάνθανε9 καὶ πρὸ ἀρρωστίας θεραπεύου. 20 πρὸ κρίσεως ἐξέταζε σεαυτόν, καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς εὑρήσεις ἐξιλασμόν.10 21 πρὶν ἀρρωστῆσαί σε ταπεινώθητι καὶ ἐν καιρῷ ἁμαρτημάτων δεῖξον ἐπιστροφήν.11 22 μὴ ἐμποδισθῇς τοῦ ἀποδοῦναι εὐχὴν εὐκαίρως καὶ μὴ μείνῃς ἕως θανάτου δικαιωθῆναι.12 5 Cf. Bussino, De Zan, Gilbert and Priotto, “Sir 18,15–19,17.” 6 Cf. Ziegler, Sapientia, 208–9. 7 Cf. Calduch, Ferrer and Liesen, Wisdom, 142–44; Thiele, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), 522–27. 8 At the beginning of v. 19, Lat reads: Ante iudicium para iustitiam tibi (doublet of 20a). 9 Syr: “Before making efforts, seek for yourself a helper.” According to Smend, Gr does not fit with the general theme (Weisheit, 167). Box and Oesterley (“Sirach,” 831) and Duesberg and Fransen (Ecclesiastico, 170) prefer Syr. 10 Syr: “Before adversity reaches you, pray and in the time of adversity you will find her (wisdom) and she will answer you.” 11 Syr: “Before stumbling, pray and seek and before you sin, give alms.” Schreiner follows Syr only in 21a (Jesus Sirach, 103). 12 Syr: “Do not delay to have your debts removed and do not be negligent (in these) while you are not yet into trouble. Do not waste the time in returning from your sins, remember that death does not tarry.” Following Smend’s suggestion (Weisheit, 168), Skehan and Di Lella place the

The Notion of Time in Sir 18:19–26 

371

23 πρὶν εὔξασθαι ἑτοίμασον σεαυτóν13 καὶ μὴ γίνου ὡς ἄνθρωπος πειράζων τὸν κύριον.14 24 μνήσθητι θύμοῦ ἐν ἡμέραις τελευτῆς καὶ καιρὸν ἐκδικήσεως ἐν ἀποστροφῇ προσώπου.15 25 μνήσθητι καιρὸν λιμοῦ ἐν καιρῷ πλησμονῆς, πτωχείαν καὶ ἔνδειαν ἐν ἡμέραις πλούτου. 26 ἀπὸ πρωίθεν ἕως ἑσπήρας μεταβάλλει καιρός, καὶ πάντα ἐστὶν ταχινὰ ἔναντι κυρίου.16 19 Before speaking, learn, and before falling ill, take care of your health. 20 Before judgement,17 examine yourself, and in the hour of visitation18 you will find pardon. 21 Before falling ill, humble yourself, and at the time of committing sin,19 show repentance. 22 Do not delay in fulfilling a vow at the right time and do not wait until death to be absolved. 23 Before making a vow,20 prepare yourself,

distich of v. 22 in Syr between vv. 21 and 22 in Gr (Wisdom, 287). Lat adds: quoniam merces Dei maneat in aeternum. 13 According to Smend (Weisheit, 168), σεαυτόν is a correction of τὴν ψυχὴν σου (Lat: animam tuam) which, in its turn, is an error for τὴν εὐχὴν σου (cf. Sc and Aeth = Syr). Ziegler (Sapientia, 209) and Schreiner (Jesus Sirach, 103) are of the same opinion. 14 Syr: “Before you take a vow, prepare your vows and do not be as a man who tempts his lord. Do not commit more sins because you have not been acquitted of the earlier ones” (addition taken from Sir 7:8). 15 Syr: “He will not avert the face from you” i. e., he will not fail you. 16 Syr: “and all these are beautiful before God,” an erroneous correction according to Smend (Weisheit, 169). 17 Some understand the recipient of the instruction as the active subject of the action: “antes de juzgar” (Morla Asensio, Eclesiástico, 97), “before judging” (Palmisano, Siracide, 183). Others, more numerous, understand it as a passive subject: “antes de ser juzgado” (Alonso Schökel, Eclesiástico, 207), “before you are judged” (Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 287), “Ehe man dich richtet” (Kaiser, Weisheit, 44), to give only some examples. 18 Cf. Alonso Schökel, Eclesiástico, 207: “a la hora de la cuenta”; “at the time / in the hour of scrutiny” (Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 287; Wright, “Sirach,” 733); “in der / zur Stunde der Heimsuchung” (Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 148; Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 226); “in der Stunde / während der Prüfung” (Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 102; Kaiser, Weisheit, 44); “nell’ora in cui sarai interpellato” (Palmisano, Siracide, 183). 19 Lit.: “in the time of sins.” Lat: in tempore infirmitatum. 20 As Zappella rightly notes, “εὐχὰς εὔχεσθαι also means ‘to address prayers’” (“Sapienza di Sira,” 1032, note 127) (my translation).

372  Núria Calduch-Benages

and not be like one who puts the Lord to the test. 24 Remember (his) anger in the days of death, and the time of vengeance, when he will turn his face from you.21 25 Remember the time of famine in the time of plenty, poverty and want in the days of wealth. 26 From dawn to evening time changes and everything is fleeting before the Lord.

3 Demarcation of the Pericope Sir 18:19–26 is located within Sir 18:15–19:17,22 which is a clearly defined section that focuses on foresight and self-control, especially with regard to the use of the tongue. However, the scholars who recognize this section as a unit23 do not agree on what comprises it. Their suggestions vary between two,24 three,25 four26 or even seven components, as suggested by Di Lella in his commentary. According to him: “This section contains a series of [seven] mini-poems filled with exhortations and wise observations about various activities in the life of the Israelites. There is little connection between the poems.”27 Logically, the differences of opinion regarding the make-up of the entire section have had an influence on the demarcation of our pericope, an issue that also lacks agreement among scholars. Nevertheless, we can begin with one critical certainty: Sir 18:15 marks the beginning of a new exhortation of the fatherteacher to his son-pupil. This is confirmed by the invocatory term τέκνον (cf. 2:1; 3:17; 6:18, for example) after the concluding character of Sir 18:14, the last verse of a hymn to God, the just and merciful judge (Sir 18:1–14). Debate ensues over where the unit concludes. For some, this new exhortation—wholly focused on 21 Lit.: “in the distancing of his face.” 22 Verses 18–19 belong to GrII, cf. Bussino, Greek Additions, 285–96. 23 The section Sir 18:15–19:17 is recognized by Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 160; Skekan and Di Lella (Wisdom, 287: “Prudential Warnings”); Kaiser (Weisheit, 44: “Ermahnungen zu weisem Verhalten”); Marböck (Jesus Sirach, 225: “Das gute Wort, die rechte Zeit und Selbtbeherrschung”); and, recently, by Bussino, De Zan, Gilbert and Priotto (“Sir 18,15–19,17,” 117: “Preghiera, parola, passioni”). 24 Marböck: 18:15–29 / 18:30–19:17(19). 25 Kaiser: 18:15–29 / 18:30–19:12 / 19:13–19. 26 Palmisano, Bussino, De Zan, Gilbert and Priotto: 18:15–18 / 18:19–29 / 18:30–19:3 / 19:4–17 (19). 27 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 290. They propose the following division: 18:15–18 / 18:19–21 / 18:22–26 / 18:27–29 / 18:30–19:4(3) / 19:5–12 / 19:13–17.

The Notion of Time in Sir 18:19–26 

373

the theme of the word and gift—ends in verse 18. For others, however, it continues in the following verses, albeit with a different theme, namely, caution or foresight.28 However, in the commentaries, even those who defend the unity of Sir 18:15–29 treat vv. 15–18 as a sub-unit within the text. Worthy of mention in this respect is the recent proposal of Severino Bussino, Renato De Zan, Maurice Gilbert and Michelangelo Priotto. According to them, “Sir 18,15–18 costituisce una introduzione anche a tutto il brano, a motivo dell’uso del verbo δίδωμι, che preannuncia come il tema centrale verrà ulteriormente specificato nel seguito.”29 However, I view the connection between Sir 18:15–18 and the following verses as being of a purely formal character. While the discourse formulated in the second person in Sir 18:15–18 continues without interruption into Sir 18:19– 26, there is a marked change in the content of the exhortation. In Sir 18:15–18, there is not a single term referring to time; but such is not the case in Sir 18:19– 26. Here, in each verse, there are some words (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and conjunctions) which relate to time or to temporal expressions and phrases.30 This emphasis on time is found neither before nor after our passage. Scholars lack unanimity in establishing the end of the passage. For a few (this author included),31 it finishes in v. 26; for others,32 it finishes in v. 27; while the majority33 go for v. 29. I propose that Sir 18:27–29 be considered as a self-contained unit for two main reasons. Firstly, in these verses, Ben Sira shifts the focus to the action of the wise person as a conclusion for the entire passage, 18:15–29. Secondly, in contrast to the previous text, Sir 18:27–29 is formulated in the third person, thereby accentuating the concluding character of the verses. It could be objected that in Sir 18:27 there is a temporal expression referring to sins (ἐν ἡμέραις ἁμαρτιῶν) which refers back to v. 21 (ἐν καιρῷ ἁμαρτημάτων). However, I deem it 28 Cf. the title which Box and Oesterley give to Sir 18:15–29: “The need of foresight and preparation in view of many things which happen to men; this is true Wisdom” (“Sirach,” 380). 29 Bussino, De Zan, Gilbert and Priotto, “Sir 18,15–19,17,” 120–21. ET: “Sir 18:15–18 also forms an introduction to the whole passage (they are referring to Sir 18:15–19:17) on account of the use of the verb δίδωμι which anticipates how the central theme will be further specified in what follows.” 30 Cf. Ritter-Müller’s careful analysis in “Notizen.” 31 Cf. Ziegler, Sapientia, 208–9; Wright, “Sirach,” 733; Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 227. 32 Cf. Smend, Weisheit, xxxi; Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 159; Ritter-Müller, “Notizen.” 33 Cf. Peters (Buch, 151), Box and Oesterley (“Sirach,” 380), Duesberg and Fransen (Ecclesiastico, 170–2), Alonso Schökel (Eclesiástico, 206–7), Minissale (Siracide, 102–4), Morla Asensio (Eclesiástico, 97), Sauer (Jesus Sirach, 148–49), Schreiner (Jesus Sirach, 102–4), Kaiser (Weisheit, 44), Marböck (Jesus Sirach, 227), Palmisano (Siracide, 183), Bussino, De Zan, Gilbert and Priotto (“Sir 18,15–19,17,” 121–24).

374  Núria Calduch-Benages

inappropriate to separate v. 27 from the following verses because of the overriding correspondence in the series of terms belonging to the semantic field of wisdom, which are found only in Sir 18:27–29: ἄνθρωπος σοφός (27a), πᾶς συνετός (28a), σοφία (28a), συνετοί (29a) and ἐσοφίσαντο (29a).

4 Structure Sir 18:19–26 is a carefully structured formal and thematic unit characterized by vocabulary relating to time, in particular by the presence of the noun καιρός (5x) and the adverb εὐκαίρως (1x). One or the other term is present in five of the eight verses which make up the poem. Sir 18:19–26 is composed of vv. 19–23 (5 distichs) and vv. 24–26 (3 distichs). These two sub-units share not only the presence of the noun καιρός but also the use of imperatives (positive and negative in vv. 19–23, positive only in vv. 24– 25) and the mention of κύριος in the final stichs (23b and 26b). “The Lord” is the final word in the respective sentence that concludes each subunit. The principal element of cohesion in Sir 18:19–23 is the formula πρίν + infinitive which is found at the beginning of vv. 19, 21 and 23 (before speaking, before falling ill, before making a vow). Furthermore, as Bussino and his colleagues have recently shown, “Sir 18,19–23 è costruito con grande accuratezza, secondo uno schema che interseca parallelismo e chiasmo.”34 Here is the arrangement: A

Πρίν

v. 19b

B

καὶ πρό

v. 20a

B’

Πρό

v. 19a

v. 20b

C

καὶ ἐν

v. 21a

A’

Πρίν

v. 21b

C’

καὶ ἐν

v. 22a

D

Μή

v. 22b

E

καὶ μή

v. 23a

A”

Πρίν

v. 23b

E’

καὶ μή

34 Bussino, De Zan, Gilbert and Priotto, “Sir 18,19–26,” 123, note 13. ET: “Sir 18:19–23 is constructed with great care, according to a scheme which interweaves parallelism and chiasmus.”

The Notion of Time in Sir 18:19–26



375

One should also note the double repetition of σεαυτόν (in 20a and 23a, cf. σε in 21a) and of the root ἀρρωστ- (ἀρρωστίας in 19b and ἀρρωστῆσαί, in 21a) as well as the use of terms relating to vows/prayer (εὐχήν in 22a and εὔξασθαι, aor. mid. inf. from εὔχομαι in 23a). The most characteristic feature of Sir 18:24–26 is the occurrence of the noun καιρός in each verse (specifically in 24b, 25a[2x] and 26a). Moreover, vv. 24 and 25 are linked by the imperative μνήσθητι in the initial position and by the chiastic correspondence of the expression ἐν ἡμέραις in v. 24a (ἐν ἡμέραις τελευτῆς) and v. 25b (ἐν ἡμέραις πλούτου).35 This is the structure of Sir 18:19–26 as it appears from the previous analysis: A. 18:19–23 a. vv. 19–21 b. vv. 22–23 B. 18:24–26 a. vv. 24–25 b. v. 26

5 Time in Sir 18:19–23 At first glance, Sir 18:19–23 tackles themes that are apparently unconnected. Indeed, the sage offers advice on the use of language, on how to understand illness, and on the fulfilment of vows. However, all of these subjects share in common their connection with the notion of time. Right from the first verse, the formulas πρίν + infinitive and πρό + genitive (before …) draw the reader’s attention to the importance of prevention.36 It is something which must accompany the sage in all his actions. However, Ben Sira’s teaching is more than mere prudentialism,37 since, as we shall see later, it refers to the prospect of divine punishment on the day of judgement.

35 Cf. Bussino, De Zan, Gilbert and Priotto, “Sir 18,19–26,” 122. 36 Cf. Bussino, De Zan, Gilbert and Priotto, “Sir 18,19–26,” 122, note 13. 37 Cf. Morla Asensio, Eclesiástico, 97.

376  Núria Calduch-Benages

5.1 Sir 18:19–21 We now concentrate on the first three verses. Sir 18:19–21 mentions a series of real-life situations which are problematic in some way, in which Ben Sira advises recourse to natural remedies (learning, self-care) and more extensively to spiritual ones (self-examination, humility, repentance). The first piece of advice (18:19a), namely, not speaking without reflecting is typically sapiential.38 Earlier, in Sir 8:9, the sage admonished his disciple to learn the art of the suitable response. This complemented his exhortation to discern whether to speak or to remain silent at a particular moment: “Be ready to hear and slow to reply. If you are able, reply to your neighbour; otherwise, let your hand be upon your mouth” (Sir 5:11–12; cf. 11:8; 20:1, 5–7). In 18:19b, he emphasizes foresight as essential to maintaining health. Just as reflection serves to prevent an inappropriate response, prudence can prevent illness. In this case, prudence consists in “curing oneself” or, more practically—in the words of the Syriac translator—“visiting the doctor” (cf. Sir 38:1–15, especially v. 12). In Sir 18:20, Ben Sira advises self-examination “before judgement.” But what is the judgement in question? The formula πρὸ κρίσεως can refer both to the judgement that the student utters about another person (“before judging”) and also to the judgement the student receives from another person (“before being judged”).39 This second alternative allows for two different readings: the judgement could be communicated by another human being (cf. Sir 46:14) or alternatively by God himself (cf. 16:12; 32[35]:22, 25). We should note that most scholars interpret κρίσις as the divine judgement,40 probably in view of the expression ἐν ὥρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς in v. 20b. Along these lines, Norbert Peters even claims that κρίσις signifies divine punishments (die göttlichen Strafen).41 In my opinion, however, the internal logic of the verse does not favor this reading. The sage’s advice in 18:20a finds its justification in 18:20b. (Note that this stich contains the only verb in the future tense in the entire passage.) This relationship between the two stichs is broken if one sets in parallel the “divine judge38 According to Smend, “Was Gr. in a [18,19a] bietet, passt nicht zum Thema. Sein Missverständnis lässt sich aber kaum aufklären, deshalb ist auch die Ursprünglichkeit des vom Syr. Gebotenen fraglich” (Weisheit, 167). ET: “What Gr offers in a [18:19a] does not fit the subject. Its misunderstanding can scarcely be explained. Therefore, the originality of the Syriac contribution is questionable.” However, the reference to speaking in the Greek continues the preceding theme of 18:15–18. 39 For the differing scholarly opinions, cf. note 17. 40 Cf. Alonso Schökel, Eclesiástico, 207; Minissale, Siracide, 103; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 290; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 150; Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 103; Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 228. 41 Peters, Buch Jesus Sirach, 153.

The Notion of Time in Sir 18:19–26 

377

ment” (18:20a) with the “divine visitation” (18:20b). Hence it is preferable to view κρίσις not as a judgement by God but as a judgement between human beings.42 Here is my interpretation of the text: before judging others, one must examine oneself and one’s own conduct. The one who behaves in this way will receive pardon (ἐξιλασμόν) in the hour of visitation (ἐν ὥρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς), that is, in the final reckoning. These two expressions, pardon and the hour of visitation —both referring implicitly to the Lord—confer on the sage’s teaching a religious character which will become increasingly explicit. In 18:21a, Ben Sira takes up the theme of illness which had initially appeared in 18:19b,43 but in a different way. On this occasion, he presents illness as the consequence of sin and its remedy as the effect of conversion (38:9). In Israel, illness was considered a divine punishment, the product of God’s retributive justice. In other words, the person who was sick was regarded as a sinner and illness was the punishment for the sins committed.44 What could the faithful person do in such circumstances? He or she had no choice other than to accept his or her illness with humility, consider it as a privileged time for conversion and turn to the Lord. This was King Hezekiah’s response when he fell ill with a serious sickness which would have quickly led to his death; consequently, the Lord gave him a further fifteen years of life (Isa 38:1–5). On the other hand, King Asa, sick with gout, was blamed because “in his illness, he did not seek the Lord but rather placed his trust in the doctors” (2 Chr 16:12). As Víctor Morla Asensio rightly observes, “Ben Sira suaviza la doctrina al aconsejar, con un sabio toque humanista, la conveniencia de prevenir la enfermedad.”45 In Sir 18:21b, the sage exhorts his pupil to demonstrate repentance for the sins he has committed.46 Repentance/conversion (ἐπιστροφή) is an important theological theme in his teaching.47 Earlier, he recommends that the disciple not delay conversion (‫שוב‬, ἐπιστρέψαι) to the Lord by putting it off from day to 42 Cf. Sir 11:7: “Before you investigate” (‫חקר‬, ἐξετάζω), find no fault (‫סלף‬, μέμφομαι); examine/ reflect (‫בקר‬, νοέω) first, then criticize/rebuke (‫נזף‬, ἐπιτιμάω). 43 According to Smend, “Von Krankheit kann hier nach v. 19 kaum die Rede sein, wohl aber von dem Verderben, das das Gericht bringt” (Weisheit, 168). ET: “After v. 19, sickness can scarcely be the subject but probably the injury inflicted by the court.” 44 Cf. Ritter-Müller, “Notizen,” 258, note 21. 45 Morla Asensio, Eclesiástico, 98. ET: “Ben Sira softens the doctrine by advising, with a wise humanist touch, the benefit of preventing sickness.” 46 According to Smend, δεῖξον ἐπιστροφήν means: “lass sie öffentlich vor der Gottlosen sehen” (Weisheit, 169). ET: “Let it [the conversion] be public before the ungodly.” Cf. Zappella, “Sapienza di Sira,” 1032, note 126. 47 Cf. b. Shabb. 32a: “Sincere repentance and works of charity are the real intercessors before God’s throne”; b. Sanh. 43b: “Sincere repentance is the equivalent to the rebuilding of the

378  Núria Calduch-Benages

day, but instead bear in mind the divine justice which will not be postponed (Sir 5:7). He takes up the theme again in Sir 17:24–18:14, a passage which could be entitled “Call to conversion” (cf. NRSV). In Sir 17:25, the sage beckons his protégés to return (ἐπιστρέφω) to the Lord and to abandon sin. A few verses later, he justifies his advice in these words of praise: “How great is the mercy of the Lord and his pardon for those who return (ἐπιστρέφουσιν) to him!” (Sir 17:29).48 Finally, the expression ἐν καιρῷ ἁμαρτημάτων (Sir 18:21b) merits attention. Earlier in this article, I aimed for a literal translation of the Greek text, by rendering this expression as “at the time of committing sin.”49 In retrospect, this translation is somewhat forced. It would be preferable to use expressions such as, “when you sin,” “when you have sinned,” or even “if you sin.” Translations apart, ἐν καιρῷ ἁμαρτημάτων bears affinities to other temporal expressions in the passage such as ἐν ὥρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς, ἐν ἡμέραις τελευτῆς, ἐν καιρῷ πλησμονῆς or ἐν ἡμέραις πλούτου. According to Petra Ritter-Müller, “… ἐν καιρῷ ἁμαρτημάτων ist in der Bedeutung vergleichbar mit ἐν ἡμέραις ἁμαρτιῶν in 27b. Es geht um einen bestimmten, das menschliche Verhalten betreffenden Zeitpunkt, nämlich Zeiten der Sünde, also mit negativen Konnotationen.”50

5.2 Sir 18:22–23 Positioned as it is at the center of the reflection, Sir 18:22–23 highlights a theme that is purely religious, namely, vows and prayer in a broad sense.51 The importance of the topic is indicated by the fact that these verses reflect a marked contrast to Sir 18:19–21, insofar as almost all the advice is formulated in the negative. (The single exception is ἑτοίμασον σεαυτόν in 23a.) Again here, Ben Sira emphasizes the practice of foresight. In this case, attentiveness to the future consequences of present actions is associated not with

temple, the restoration of the altar and the offering of all sacrifices”; m. Yoma 8.8: “There is no atonement without repentance.” 48 In Sir 21:6, conversion is in relation to fear of the Lord: “the one who fears the Lord will be converted (ἐπιστρέψει) in his heart.” See also Sir 48:10; 49:2. 49 Cf. the translation of Benjamin G. Wright: “in a time of sinful actions” (“Sirach,” 733). 50 Ritter-Müller, “Notizen,” 263. ET: “From the point of view of meaning ἐν καιρῷ ἁμαρτημάτων can be compared to ἐν ἡμέραις ἁμαρτιῶν in 27b. It concerns a specific point of time relating to human behaviour, namely the times of sins, thus with negative connotations.” 51 De Zan, “Voto,” 1541: “Il voto, inoltre, prolunga lo schema della preghiera, spingendo la preghiera verso l’azione”. ET: “Moreover, the vow prolongs the pattern of the prayer, pressing it on to action.”

The Notion of Time in Sir 18:19–26



379

the use of the tongue or sickness but with one’s personal relationship with God, to underline the urgency of fulfilling one’s vows (cf. Num 30:3; Deut 23:22–24; Ps 56:13). A vow constitutes a promise by which the faithful person commits himself or herself to offering something to God in order to obtain his help (cf. Num 15:10; 1 Sam 1:20–28; Ps 61[60]:6; Jonah 2:3–9). In connection with this religious practice, Ben Sira does not share the cynical, but prudent, advice of Qoheleth:52 “It is better not to make vows than to make them and then not keep them” (Qoh 5:4). Rather, he advises against allowing obstacles to prevent the fulfilment of a vow (εὐχήν)53 at the right time (εὐκαίρως) (Sir 18:22a). The adverb εὐκαίρως, a hapax in the LXX, is noteworthy. It is usually translated “at the right time, at a convenient time, at an appropriate time or at the due time.” To this εὐκαιρ- root also belong εὔκαιρος (Ps 103[104]:27) and εὐκαιρία (Ps 144[145]:15) which translate the Hebrew ‫בעתו‬. In its other ten occurrences, ‫ בעתו‬is translated with a prepositional phrase with καιρός or with the adjective καίριος (Prov 15:23).54 Perhaps this is why, in his commentary, Rudolf Smend considers εὐκαίρως a translator’s addition.55 Putting aside discussions over the authenticity of this term, it is beyond question that the notion of the right time holds an important place in the teaching of Ben Sira. He often advises doing (or refraining from doing) various actions at the right time such as: repenting (Sir 18:21), speaking (8:9; 20:6–7; 22:6; 32:4), lending money (29:2), drinking wine (31:28) and behaviour in general (Sir 1:23; 4:20; 51:30).56 The subject matter of our text is vital because a vow reflects upon both the integrity of the person formulating it and also upon his or her personal relationship with God. Similar implications are at stake in acts of repentance. Consequently, one must avoid procrastination in fulfilling a vow lest one fall into circumstances that would prevent him or her from being able to fulfil the vow.57 The most extreme situation would be the day of death. Since Ben Sira does not believe in the afterlife or in post-mortem punishment, the moment of death constitutes a decisive moment (Sir 18:22b). “Before formulating a vow (πρὶν εὔξασθαι), prepare yourself,” the sage adds in what follows (Sir 18:23a). Vows are not to be made lightly; rather, they should 52 Cf. Morla Asensio, Eclesiástico, 98. 53 This is a hapax legomenon in Sirach. In the LXX, it translates the Hebrew ‫( ֶנֶדר‬Deut 23:22; Ps 64[65]:2; Qoh 5:3). 54 Cf. Wagner, Septuaginta-Hapaxlegomena, 211–12. 55 Cf. Smend, Weisheit, 168. 56 Cf. Schmidt, Wisdom, 119, note 132. He rightly observes that the concept of the “right time” also applies to the elements of creation (Sir 39:21; 43:6) and the action of God in the world (Sir 10:4; 39:16, 21, 30, 33). 57 Cf. Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 150.

380  Núria Calduch-Benages

be formulated only after serious reflection on one’s own situation, particularly on one’s own ability to fulfil them. Georg Sauer comments: “Auch hier ist es also nötig, bevor man redet, sich zu prüfen, ob das Wort, das man im Sinne eines Gelübdes tun möchte, auch erfüllt werden kann.”58 Such an attitude is compared to “tempting/testing the Lord” (Deut 6:16; Prov 20:25; Mal 1:14), something which is inappropriate for a wise person. As has already been observed by some commentators, the sage’s advice in Sir 18:23 seems to be echoing the episode of Jephthah’s vow (Jdg 11:30–40). In the words of Josef Schreiner, “Unbedachte Gelübde wie das Jiftachs können ins Verderben stürzen.”59

6 Time in Sir 18:24–26 While in Sir 18:24–26 the sage no longer speaks of foresight, he takes up a parallel which is integral to the notion of time, namely the time of God rather than human time. In addition to being prudent about what, in a certain sense, depends on ourselves, it is also necessary to think of possible disasters, changes of fortune and, above all, the reality of death and God’s judgement. Thus, with these verses, we encounter an eschatological perspective. According to Di Lella, they are “a reminder that the Lord holds men and women accountable for their religious and moral life.”60

6.1 Sir 18:24–25 While Ben Sira strongly recommends foresight, this aptitude does not guarantee success, health, or riches, let alone eternal life. Human beings are constantly tempted to rely excessively either on their own resources or on favourable circumstances of life. For this reason, the sage calls on his disciple to “remember” (μνήσθητι, 18:24a, 25a) the crucial moments in life which, according to von Rad, are “Zeiten der Not, denen der Mensch nicht ungerüstet begegnen darf.”61 58 Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 150. ET: “Here too it is necessary, before someone speaks, to ask himself or herself whether the word he or she would like to utter as a vow can also be fulfilled.” 59 Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 103. ET: “Inconsiderate/imprudent vows like the one taken by Jephtah can fall into ruin.” Cf. also Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 150; Palmisano, Siracide, 184. 60 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 291. 61 Von Rad, Weisheit, 323. ET: “Times of need which people must not encounter unprepared.” Cf. Ibidem, note 18, where he quotes the following texts: Sir 2:2 (the time of misfortune), 2:11;

The Notion of Time in Sir 18:19–26 

381

In 18:24a “anger” (θυμοῦ) obviously refers to the anger of God, which he will pour out on the ungodly on the day of death (ἐν ἡμέραις τελευτῆς). The day of death is the day of divine retribution, the day in which God will reward people according to their behavior (cf. 11:26). Thus, it is also the time of punishment/revenge (καιρὸν ἐκδικήσεως, cf. 5:7), when God will turn away his face (ἐν ἀποστροφῆ προσώπου, lit., “in the turning away of a face”)62 to demonstrate his rejection of the sinner (18:24b). The term ἀποστροφῆ resonates with ἐπιστροφήν in 18:21b. There is a verbal and thematic link between the conversion (ἐπιστροφή) of people and the aversion (ἀποστροφή) of God’s face in his dealings with the sinner. In other words, the person who repents of his or her sins does so in order to avoid the punitive intervention of God.63 The call to “think of death” is linked with the practical wisdom of one who, although rich, does not forget poverty (18:25). As the remembrance of death motivates one not to trust only in himself or herself particularly in the favorable circumstances of his or her life, so recalling times of famine (καιρὸν λιμοῦ), poverty (πτωχείαν) and need (ἔνδειαν) has a similar effect on a person who is surrounded by abundance (ἐν καιρῷ πλησμονῆς) and wealth (ἐν ἡμέραις πλούτου). Sir 18:25 seems to be inspired by 11:25 where the sage observes the continual alternation between misfortune and prosperity in human life, with each circumstance causing the forgetting of the preceding stage. “In the time of prosperity (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἀγαθῶν / ‫)טובת יום‬64, one forgets adversity (κακῶν / ‫)הרעה‬, and, in the time of adversity (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κακῶν / ‫)רעת יום‬, one does not remember prosperity (ἀγαθῶν / ‫)טובה‬.” In both texts, human fortune and misfortune are expressed through the category of time.65 In sum, attentiveness to the impermanent nature of particular times and situations is characteristic of the sage. Such was Joseph’s practice when he was governor of Egypt (cf. Gen 41). As Schreiner puts it in his commentary, “In 25 [Sir 18,25] wird wohl auf den weisen ägyptischen Josef angespielt, der die Zeit des Überflusses und des Hungers bedachte und die richtigen Folgerungen zog.”66

3:31 (the time of falling); 5:7 (the time of punishment); 10:26 (the time of difficulty); 22:23; 37:4; 40:24; 51:10 (the time/days of affliction); 51:12 (the time of evil). 62 Syr: “He will not avert (l’ nspk) the face from you.” Smend (Weisheit, 169) proposes two possible reconstructions of the Hebrew (‫ בהשיב פנים‬or ‫)בהסתיר פנים‬. Segal (Sefer, 111), however, goes for the second. 63 Cf. Deut 31:18; 32:20; Isa 54:8; 59:2; Jer 33:5; Mic 3:4; Pss 10:1; 13:2; 104:29, among others. 64 The Hebew text is available only in Ms. A. 65 Cf. Wicke-Reuter, Göttliche Providenz, 104. 66 Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 103. ET: “Sir 18:25 is probably alluding to the wise Egyptian Joseph who considered the time of abundance and famine and drew the right consequences.”

382  Núria Calduch-Benages

6.2 Sir 18:26 Sir 18:26 provides the rationale for what has just been affirmed.67 From a formal perspective, this verse is very different from 18:19–25. By contrast with the previous verses, there is no imperative here, as the two verbs are in the present indicative (μεταβάλλει, ἐστίν). According to Ritter-Müller, “Durch die Zeitform der Gegenwart gewinnt diese Aussage [Sir 18,26] eine hohe Überzeugungskraft. Über sie kann nicht mehr diskutiert werden.”68 The chain of advice is interrupted in v. 26, where the sage concludes his instruction with a universal sentence, or, if we wish to use Reiterer’s expression, with “eine allgemeine Norm.”69 The first stich reads: “From dawn to evening (ἀπὸ πρωίθεν ἕως ἑσπήρας)70 time changes (μεταβάλλει καιρός).”71 At first glance, this seems to refer only to a datum of experience, namely to variations in the weather throughout the course of a day. However, the noun καιρός points to a broader significance in that it is linked to a human life. As Johannes Marböck asserts, it also designates a “überraschende[n] Wechsel günstiger und ungünstiger Situationen und Stunden.”72 In a day, everything can change because everything about human existence is subject to continual change. In the morning, people do not know what will happen in the evening. It is, therefore, necessary to accept changes that are unforeseeable and unforeseen. The ephemeral condition of human life is reiterated in the second stich: “Everything is fast/fleeting before the Lord” (καὶ πάντα ἐστὶν ταχινὰ73 ἔναντι κυρίου74). Here, the adjective πάντα confers on the καιρός of the previous phrase, an

67 Cf. Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 229. For a slightly different view, cf. Bussino, De Zan, Gilbert and Priotto, “Sir 18,15–19,30,” 124.131. For them, the motivation is not limited to 18:26 but embraces 18:24–26 (“fundamental reasons”). 68 Ritter-Müller, “Notizen,” 271. ET: “Through the present tense, this statement [Sir 18:26] gains greater persuasiveness. There can be no more discussion about it.” 69 Reiterer, “Das Verhältnis Ijobs,” 351: italics in the original. 70 The expression is also found in Job 4:20. Cf., in this connection, Reiterer, “Das Verhältnis Ijobs,” 351. 71 On this expression, cf. Ritter-Müller, “Notizen,” 264. 72 Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 229. ET: “The surprising change of favorable and unfavorable situations and times.” 73 Cf. Sir 11:22, the only passage (in addition to 18:26) where the adjective ταχινός is connected with the Lord: “The blessing of the Lord is the reward of the faithful; in a moment (ἐν ὥρᾳ ταχινῇ), he will cause his blessing to flourish.” In Hebrew (Ms. A): “The blessing of the Lord is the lot of the just, and, at the opportune time (‫)בעתו‬, his hope bears fruit.” 74 The only complement of place in the whole passage. Cf. Ritter-Müller, “Notizen,” 262.

The Notion of Time in Sir 18:19–26



383

all-inclusive character (etwas allumfassendes).75 All the moments, all the situations, all the realities of human life have a beginning and an end. Everything passes inexorably; only God is immutable (cf. Pss 90:2, 3–6; 102:27–28). “Das Glück vergeht,—says Smend—aber der Richter bleibt.”76 Ritter-Müller makes an astute observation in this connection: “Doch die allgemeine, allumfassende Feststellung, dass alles, auch die Zeit, schnell (flatterhaft) vor dem Herrn ist, also unter seiner Aufsicht und mit seiner Billigung existiert, ist letztlich eine theologische Aussage, nämlich dass Gott sozusagen die Schöpfung im Blick hat.”77 Even if Sir 18:26 does not speak explicitly of God as Creator (in any case, this is not the theme of our passage) the thoughtful reader perceives behind the lines its thematic affinity with Sir 39:12–35, a hymn of praise to God the Creator. Wicke-Reuter thinks along these lines: “Das Gesetz der sich wandelnden Zeit ist Teil des Werkes der Vorsehung Gottes und dient dem Menschen zugleich zu seiner Erschließung.”78

7 Conclusion From the foregoing analysis, it is clear that the key concept of Sir 18:19–26 is foresight (farsightedness, prudence), which is the habit of a person who judiciously and in a timely way prepares to confront possible harm and inconvenience.79 These verses contain Ben Sira’s admonition for his student to cultivate the discipline required to act as a far-sighted and prudent person. Such practice enables one to anticipate an unfortunate response, a sickness, a mistaken judgement, the non-fulfilment of a vow made to the Lord or even punishment at the hour of death (cf. vv. 19–23). But that is not all. Foresight is closely linked with time. Time is for foresight an indispensable condition (eine unverzichtbare Bedingung).80 Foresightedness 75 Ritter-Müller, “Notizen,” 264. 76 Smend, Weisheit, 169. ET: “Happiness passes but the judge remains.” Cf. Peters, Buch, 154; Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 103; Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 229. 77 Ritter-Müller, “Notizen,” 264–65. ET: “The general, all-embracing statement that everything, including time, is quick (fleeting) before the Lord, and so exists under his control and with his permission, is, ultimately, a theological statement, namely, that God has the creation under supervision.” 78 Wicke-Reuter, Göttliche Providenz, 104. ET: “The law of the changing time is part of the work of God’s providence and at the same time serves human development.” 79 For Ritter-Müller, foresight—even if she prefers the term prudence (Besonnenheit)—is the basis on which human freedom of decision rests (“Notizen,” 272). 80 Ritter-Müller, “Notizen,” 272.

384  Núria Calduch-Benages

is a capacity to anticipate the future, to prepare in time so that everything happens for the best. Nevertheless, such farsightedness does not endow people with power over time. They cannot stop it, hasten it, or change it. Regardless of people’s dispositions and actions the ingredients of life are times of happiness and disaster, times of plenty and of famine. Sir 18:19–26 offers a noteworthy perspective on time because of the double sense which it gives to the term καιρός.81 This term designates both a condition for the good outcome of human action and a description of the way in which God establishes order in the world. In the first case, καιρός is employed to affirm that human actions must be undertaken at the appropriate moment if they are to achieve a positive result. For example, there is a right moment to speak, to care for one’s health, to judge, to repent or to fulfil a vow (cf. vv. 19–23). According to Wicke-Reuter, Ben Sira conveys “ein Bewußtsein um die rechte Zeit als ein die Wirklichkeit in all ihren Vollzügen ordnendes Moment.”82 In the second case, καιρός refers to the time which God has fixed for all his work and for each event;83 foremost among these is the decisive one, that is, the judgement which every person will have to undergo on the day of death (cf. vv. 24–26). In conclusion, Sir 18:19–26 provides a fine illustration of Ben Sira’s conception of time. In these verses, the sage takes into consideration the human dimension of time, that is, the appropriate time to perform an action, as well as the theological dimension,84 that is, the time established by God who rules nature, events and people’s lives.

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, Luis. Proverbios y Eclesiástico. Los Libros Sagrados 8/1. Madrid: Cristiandad, 1968. Box, George H., and William O. E. Oesterley. “The Book of Sirach.” Pages 268–517 in APOT 1. Edited by Robert H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Bussino, Severino. The Greek Additions in the Book of Ben Sira. Translated from the Italian by Michael Tait. AnBib 203. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2013. Bussino, Severino, Renato De Zan, Maurice Gilbert, and Michelangelo Priotto. “Sir 18,15– 19,17: preghiera, passioni e parola.” RivB 63 (2015): 117–35.

81 Cf. Schmidt, Wisdom, 99, note 81. 82 Wicke-Reuter, Göttliche Providenz, 104. ET: “An awareness of the right time as a moment that orders reality in all its realizations.” 83 Cf. Sir 10:4; 39:16, 21, 30, 33; 48:10; 51:30. 84 Cf. von Rad, Weisheit, 323; Gilbert, “Concetto di tempo,” 88.

The Notion of Time in Sir 18:19–26



385

Calduch, Nuria, Joan Ferrer and Jan Liesen, eds. La Sabiduría del Escriba. Wisdom of the Scribe. Edición diplomática de la Peshitta del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano con traducción española e inglesa. Diplomatic Edition of the Peshitta of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus, with Translations in Spanish and English. 2nd rev. ed. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2015. De Zan, Renato. “Voto.” Pages 1539–42 in Temi teologici della Bibbia. Edited by Romano Penna, Giacomo Perego, and Gianfranco Ravasi. Dizionari San Paolo. Cinisello Balsamo (Milan): Edizioni San Paolo, 2010. Duesberg, Hilaire, and Irénée Fransen, eds. Ecclesiastico. La Sacra Bibbia volgata latina e traduzione italiana dai testi originali illustrate con note critiche e commentate a cura di Mons. Salvatore Garofalo. Antico Testamento sotto la direzione di P. Giovanni Rinaldi C. R. S. Turin and Rome: Marietti, 1966. Gilbert, Maurice. “Il concetto di tempo (‫ )עת‬in Qohelet e Ben Sira.” Pages 69–89 in Il libro del Qohelet. Tradizione, redazione, teologia. Edited by Giuseppe Bellia and Angelo Passaro. Cammini nello Spirito. Biblica 44. Milan: Paoline, 2001. Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. AnBib 30. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1967. Kaiser, Otto. Weisheit für das Leben. Das Buch Jesus Sirach. Übersetzt und eingeleitet. Stuttgart: Radius, 2005. Marböck, Johannes. Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1971 (= Mit Nachwort und Bibliographie zur Neuauflage. BZAW 272. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999). Minissale, Antonino. Siracide (Ecclesiastico). Nuovissima versione della Bibbia dai testi originali 23. Rome Paoline, 1980. Morla Asensio, Víctor. Eclesiástico. Texto y Comentario. El Mensaje del Antiguo Testamento 20. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1992. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. Siracide. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Nuova versione della Bibbia dai testi antichi 34. Cinisello Balsamo (Milan): San Paolo, 2016. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Übersetzt und erklärt. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Rad, Gerhard von. Weisheit in Israel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Das Verhältnis Ijobs und Ben Siras.” Pages 345–75 in “Alle Weisheit stammt vom Herrn …” Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 347. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Ritter-Müller, Petra. “Weisheit, Sünde und Kairos: Sprachwissenschaftliche Notizen zu Sir 18,19–27.” Pages 249–74 in Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage. Festschrift für Friedrich V. Reiterer zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel, Karin Schöpflin and Johannes Friedrich Diehl. DCLS 15. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2013. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira. ATD Apokryphen Band 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Schmidt, A. Jordan. Wisdom, Cosmos and Cultus in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 42. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Schreiner, Josef. Jesus Sirach 1–24. NEB 38. Würzburg: Echter, 2002. Segal, Moshe Zvi. Sefer ben Sira ha-shalem. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906.

386  Núria Calduch-Benages

Thiele, Walter, ed. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 11/ 2; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1987–2005. Wagner, Christian. Die Septuaginta-Hapaxlegomena im Buch Jesus Sirach. BZAW 282. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1999. Wicke-Reuter, Ursel. Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der Frühen Stoa. BZAW 298. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Wilch, John R. Time and Event. An Exegetical Study of the Use of ‫ עת‬in the Old Testament in Comparison to Other Temporal Expressions in Clarification of the Concept of Time. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Wright, Benjamin G. “Sirach.” Pages 715–62 in New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Zappella, Marco. “Sapienza di Sira.” Pages 954–1165 in vol. 3 of La Bibbia dei Settanta: Libri poetici. Edited by Corrado Martone. Antico e Nuovo Testamento 16. Brescia: Morcelliana, 2013. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta. 2nd ed. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 12/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Aspects of Time in the Book of Ben Sira: ‫אחרית‬ Abstract: Rendering ‫ אחרית‬not as “end,” but as “that which comes after,” has the advantage that all shades of meaning are kept open, with the effect that every reader of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira is able to make up her/his mind about which meaning should fit: “the near future,” “the distant future,” “the end of one’s life,” “posterity/descendants,” “finally,” or even “consequence.” Keywords: Ben Sira, ‫אחרית‬, time, end, future, death, posterity/descendants.

1 Introduction It goes without saying that the concept of time in the Bible is a much-discussed subject that reached its culmination in the second half of the twentieth century. Scholars who were prominent in the debate include: Oscar Cullmann, Gerhard Delling, Hans Conzelmann, James Barr, John Wilch, and James Muilenburg.1 Cullmann, Delling, and Conzelmann worked almost exclusively on the New Testament, while James Barr, John Wilch, and James Muilenburg contributed substantially to a better understanding of the concept of time in the Old Testament.2 I refrain from recapitulating their points of view, since there are sufficient excellent overviews of how scholars over the past decades have discussed the concept of time in the Bible.3 And quite recently, some publications picked up the thread.4 I was quite surprised, however, that the renowned Anchor Bible Dictionary has no lemma “time,” not even cross references to lemma(ta) elsewhere in the six volumes (e.g., “eternity”; “end”). The concept of time in the book of Ben Sira is complex and fascinating. It is complex primarily because we do not have a full Hebrew text, but only incom1 Cullmann, Christus; Delling, Zeitverständnis; Delling, Zeit; Conzelmann, Die Mitte; Barr, Biblical Words; Wilch, Time; Muilenburg, Biblical View. See also Kaiser, Erfahrung. 2 Whereas Wilch’s focus is only on ‫עת‬, Barr’s attends to several aspects of time, especially with regard to the terms ‫עת‬, ‫עולם‬, αἰών, καιρός, and χρόνος. 3 E.g., Barr, Biblical Words, 170–84 (“Postscript and Retrospect”); Wilch, Time, 2–17. 4 E.g., Katjako-Reeb, Schorch, Thon, and Ziemer, Nichts Neues; Bundvad, “Defending the Concept”; Leroy/Staszak, Perceptions, was not available to me. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-018

388  Pancratius C. Beentjes

plete manuscripts and fragments.5 As a consequence, sometimes the Greek and Syriac translations have to be included, which, however, give rise to further textual, methodological and translational questions relating to these versions. On the other hand, the concept of time in the book of Ben Sira is fascinating because the gap of time between the Hebrew text of the grandfather and the Greek translation of his grandson might sometimes bring out different views with respect of their respective concepts of time. In the book of Ben Sira, several nouns, collocations, and adverbial constructions are used to express aspects of time: e.g., ‫( עת‬46 x), mostly rendered καιρός; ‫( אחרית‬12x), with four different renderings in Greek; ‫( עולם‬37x), with at least five different renderings in Greek; ‫( מראש‬5x), always rendered ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς; ‫( לעד‬6x), always translated as εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα; ‫( לנצח‬Sir 40:14b; 51:20b), and ‫קדם‬ (16:7a; 36:16b). Gershon Brin provides detailed treatment of nouns such as ‫רגע‬, ‫מועד‬, ‫יום‬, and ‫קץ‬.6 John Wilch and Maurice Gilbert have paid due attention to the uses and meaning of ‫“( עת‬time”) in the book of Ben Sira.7 Apart from ‫ עת‬and ‫אחרית‬, ‫ עולם‬is one of the most central nouns referring to “time” in this deuterocanonical book but it has received only partial and fragmented attention until now.8

2 ‫אחרית‬ The following chart, lists all occurrences of ‫ אחרית‬as found in the hitherto discovered Hebrew Ben Sira manuscripts as well as their rendering in both his grandson’s Greek translation and also in Syriac.9

5 For detailed information about all Hebrew Ben Sira manuscripts, see Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira, 13–19. In this essay, I have incorporated recent discoveries of Hebrew Ben Sira fragments: Elizur, “Two New Leaves”; Elizur and Rand, “A New Fragment”; Rey, “Un nouveau bifeuillet”; see also Rey, “Nouvelle edition.” 6 Brin, Concepts of Time. 7 Wilch, Time, 138–43; Gilbert, “Il concetto di tempo.” 8 E.g., Seebass, ‫אחרית‬, only mentions Sir 38:20 (p. 208), Sir 16:3 (p. 209), and Sir 11:25 (p. 210) 9 For the Greek, see Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu; for the Syriac, see Calduch-Benages, Wisdom.

Aspects of Time in the Book of Ben Sira: ‫אחרית‬

No.10

Sir

Ms(s)

Hebrew

Greek11

Syriac12

1.

3:26a

A

‫אחריתו‬

ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων

ḥrth



389

2.

7:36a

A, D

‫אחרית‬

τὰ ἔσχατα

ḥrt’

3.

11:25b (27b)

A

‫אחרית‬

Συντέλεια

wḥrth

4.

11:28b

A

‫באחריתו‬

ἐν τέκνοις

bḥrth

5.

12:11e

A

‫אחרית‬

εἰς τέλος

ḥrt’

6.

16:3c

A, B

‫אחרית‬

—————————

ḥrt’ (16:3b)

7.

16:3g

A, B

‫מאחרית‬

τέκνα (16:3f)

?

8.

25:7c

C

‫באחריתו‬

ἐπι τέκνοις

b’ḥryth

9.

31:22d

B

‫ובאחרית‬

ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων (34:26b)

wlḥrt’ (31:26b)

10.

32:21b

B, E, F

‫ובאחריתך‬

ἀπο τῶν τέκνων (35:22)

wb’wrytk (35:22)

11.

38:20b

B

‫אחרית‬

τὰ ἔσχατα

——————

12.

48:24a

B

‫אחרית‬

τὰ ἔσχατα

’ḥryt’

2.1 ‫זכור אחרית‬ In Hebrew Ben Sira, the collocation ‫ זכור אחרית‬is found twice (Sir 7:36 [Ms A.]; 38:20 [Ms B.]). In my view, both occurrences should not be rendered as “remember the end” or “think of the end,” which, in both cases, is the tenor of the Greek.13 Within the Hebrew collocation, such a translation would neglect some contextual details. (a) Sir 7:36 might be of special interest, since both ‫ אחרית‬and ‫ עולם‬occur here remarkably, in a chiastic parallelism: ‫בכל מעשיך זכור אחרית ולעולם לא תשחת‬. Undoubtably, the key question about this statement concerns the exact meaning of the noun ‫אחרית‬. The most extreme point of view is the one suggested by Tadeusz Penar who contends that Sir 7:36 should be rendered: “In all your deeds think of the afterlife, and you shall not be pitied by the Eternal.”14 10 Numbers 3, 4, 6, and 9 are not included in Fang Che-Yong, “Sir 7,36.” 11 In Greek Sirach, the adjectival noun ἔσχατος is found twelve times with no Hebrew parent text available: Sir 1:13; 2:3; 12:12; 13:7; 14:7; 21:10; 24:28; 28:6; 30:1, 10; 36:16; 51:14. 12 According to Winter, Concordance, 12–13, the noun ’ḥrt’ (“the end”) occurs no less than 37 times in Syriac Ben Sira. 13 μιμνῄσκου τα ἔσχατα (Sir 7:36a); μνησθεὶς τὰ ἔσχατα (Sir 38:20b). Sir 28:6a has μνήσθητι τὰ ἔσχατα, but the Hebrew text is missing. “L’expression τὰ ἔσχατα qui se retrouve plusieurs fois chez Ben Sira est difficile à traduire.” Fang Che-Yong, “Ben Sira,” 21 n. 3 quoting Bible de Jérusalem. 14 Penar, Northwest Semitic, 24.

390  Pancratius C. Beentjes

In a fine essay, Adam Stokes convincingly proved that there is a major distinction between the way the Hebrew Ben Sira and the Greek Sirach (specifically, the so-called “second Greek”) deals with the subject of human existence: “In the Hebrew version of Ben Sira, humans are described as mortal and as receiving reward or punishment from God solely in the present life. Ben Sira […] adamantly rejects any notion of the body or soul existing after death.”15 Penar’s translation “afterlife,” therefore, does not seem to be the most appropriate rendering of ‫אחרית‬. To my mind, however, even the translation “end” should be put on trial. Fang Che-Yong, who in two publications paid special attention to Sir 7:36, argues that ‫ אחרית‬here should not be translated as “end,” but something like “curam habe de futuro.”16 I interpret this maxim as referring to the period from the present until the end of a person’s life. The rendering “henceforth” is a term that seems to cover the overtones, but it is difficult to combine with the verb “to think of.”17 Therefore, my preference is for “consequences”: “In all your deeds think of the consequences [lit. ‘end’] and forever you will not be corrupt.”18 (b) The collocation ‫ זכור אחרית‬also occurs in Sir 38:20: ‫אל תשיב אליו לב עוד פרע‬ ‫—זכרו וזכור אחרית‬Within a passage explicitly dealing with mourning for the dead, almost all commentators render ‫( אחרית‬v. 20b) as “end.”19 For it is quite obvious that one is immediately inclined to think of the end of one’s life, when ‫ אחרית‬is found within a context that mentions “fate” (v. 22a), “no hope” (v. 21a), and “once his soul has left” (v. 23b). However, a closer look at the position and function of ‫ אחרית‬in 38:20b, calls into question the term “end” as the most appropriate rendering of ‫אחרית‬. It is advisable to render ‫ אחרית‬as neutrally as possible: “that which comes after.”20 For Sir 38:20–23 explicitly deals with the way in which the deceased’s next of kin should reorient their lives after a certain period of mourning.

15 Stokes, “Life,” 90. 16 “‫ זכור אחרית‬significat potius: curam habe de futuro”; Che-Yong, “Ben Sira,” 21. In a note, he refers to Bible de Jérusalem: “songe à l’avenir” (21, n. 3). 17 In my view, the German word “Folgezeit” (HAL3, 36) is spot on. 18 Syriac has: “In all your works keep in mind the end and do not ever sin.” Calduch-Benages, Wisdom, 94. 19 Smend, Weisheit: Hebräisch und Deutsch, 66; Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 314; Eberharter, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 127; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 597; Sauer, Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira, 263; Schrader, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 291; Kaiser, “Der Tod als Schicksal,” 81; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 439; Snaith, Ecclesiasticus, 186; MacKenzie, Sirach, 144. 20 Seebass, ‫אחרית‬, 207. His translation of Sir 38:20 runs: “Do not give your heart to it (i. e., death); drive it away, remembering that which comes after” (ibid., 208).

Aspects of Time in the Book of Ben Sira: ‫אחרית‬



391

When viewed in this perspective, v. 20b does not refer to the distant future, i. e., to the end of the life of these survivors, but to the near future, i. e., to the moment the survivors will pick up the course of life. Rendering ‫ אחרית‬as “that which comes after,” in any case has the advantage that all shades of meaning are kept open, to the effect that every reader of the Hebrew text is able to make up her or his mind about the most fitting meaning: “tomorrow,” “the near future,” “the distant future,” or “the end of one’s life.” Therefore, my translation of Sir 38:20 runs: “Set your heart on him no longer; cease the memory of him and think of that which comes after.”21

2.2 ‫“—אחרית‬Consequence” The discussion of Sir 7:36 above, makes a reasonable case for rendering ‫ אחרית‬as “consequence.” This translation might also apply for ‫ אחרית‬in Sir 12:11d [Ms A.] —‫“—ודע אחרית קנאה‬and do know the consequence of envy will still be there.”22 Lutz Schrader has investigated this colon as well as its context in great detail; I refrain from further comment on this colon since, in this particular question, I endorse his point.23

2.3 ‫“—אחרית‬End” or “Posterity”? Sometimes in the book of Ben Sira, it is not quite clear whether ‫ אחרית‬should be rendered “end” or “posterity,” i. e., “children.” (a) Sir 11:28 The Greek of Sir 11:28 raises the question: πρὸ τελευτῆς μὴ μακαρίζε μηδένα, καὶ ἐν τέκνοις αὐτοῦ γνωσθήσεται ἀνήρ—“Before death call no one happy, and in his children a man will be known” (NETS). The Hebrew parent text of this verse, only to be found in Ms. A, is given in two different forms: (1) ‫“—בטרם תחקר אדם אל תאשרתו כי באחריתו יאושר אדם‬Before you examine a man, do not call him blessed, for in his end / in his children a man is blessed.” It is

21 The Syriac reads: “Do not give your heart to (swearing) oaths, remember the grief and remove sins.” Calduch-Benages, Wisdom, 220. 22 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 243: “and be sure that in the end envy will still be there.” 23 Schrader, Unzuverlässige Freundschaft, 39–54, specifically, 50–54. His German translation of 12:11d: “… und mach dir klar, was Neid für Folgen hat” (54).

392  Pancratius C. Beentjes

generally accepted that this text form is be considered the later one which was the basis for the Syriac.24 (2) ‫“—לפני מות אל תאשר גבר כי באחריתו ינכר איש‬Before (his) death do not call a fellow blessed, for in his end / in his children a man is recognized.” This text form is to be considered the earlier one and is reflected in the Greek and the Latin.25 The majority of commentators do not follow the rendering “in his posterity,” as in the Greek and Latin, but prefer “in his end.”26 And there is a very good reason for that option, indeed, since the broader context—specifically Sir 11:19 (“he leaves his possessions to others and dies”) and Sir 11:27b/11:25b (“the end of a man tells about him”)—unequivocally refer to a person’s death, whereas contextual clues relating to posterity are scarce or even absent. (b) Sir 16:3 Summing up the results of the rather complex text critical situation of Ms. A and Ms. B relating to Sir 16:3, the following Hebrew text should be considered the older one: ‫אל תאמין בחיים ואל תבטח בעקבותם כי טוב אחד עושה רצון אל מאלף ומות ערירי מאחרית זדון‬ “Do not be sure of their lives and do not trust in their footsteps, for one person who does the will of God (is better) than a thousand and to die childless (is better) than an insolent posterity.”27 The noun ‫ אחרית‬is found another time in Sir 16:3, both in Ms. A and in Ms. B: ‫“—כי לא תהיה להם אחרית טובה‬For they will not have a good end.” Scholars agree, however, that this colon is obviously an addition.28 (c) Sir 25:7 At an auction in 2007, Gifford Combs from Los Angeles bought several Genizah fragments from a private collector. Among them were two leaves which

24 See e.g., Rüger, Text, 17. Syriac: “Until you have not tested a man, do not praise him, because (only) at his end a person is to be praised.” Calduch-Benages, Wisdom, 108. 25 See Rüger, Text, 17. See also Lévi, Notes, 15. 26 “An seinem Ende”: Smend, Weisheit: Hebräisch und Deutsch, 20; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 534; Sauer, Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira, 112; Peters, Das Buch, 101. “Par sa fin”: Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique II. 81. “In his latter end”: Oesterley, Wisdom, 39. 27 A circumstantial text critical analysis of Sir 16:3 is offered by Di Lella, Text, 134–42, and Rüger, Text, 82–84. See also Rossetti, “Le Aggiunte,” 610–22. 28 See Di Lella, Text, 137–38.

Aspects of Time in the Book of Ben Sira: ‫אחרית‬



393

without a shadow of doubt belong to the anthological Hebrew Ben Sira Ms. C.29 The final line of the second leaf runs ‫ חי וראה בשבר צריו‬/ ‫ אשרי איש שמח באחריתו‬and is to be identified as Sir 25:7 (Greek 25:7cd). However, the line raises an interesting question: how should ‫ אחרית‬be rendered here? Jean-Sebastien Rey offers the following translation: “Heureux, l’homme qui se réjouit dans ses descendants / vivant, il verra la ruine de ses ennemis.” [“Happy the man who rejoices in his descendants, during his life he will see the downfall of his enemies.”]30 This tenor is found in the Syriac, the Greek, and the Latin versions. Elizur, on the contrary, renders: “Happy is the man who rejoices in his end / One who lives to see the fall of his enemies.”31 No doubt the rendering “descendants” is preferable here. First, since the next verse, with the help of an identical introduction, refers to “a sensible wife”– ‫אשרי בעל אשה משכלת‬, thus creating a parallel which belongs to the same semantic field. Second, earlier in the book of Ben Sira, viz., in 16:1b (Ms A) quite the opposite of Sir 25:7a is found: ‫“—ואל תשמח בבני עולה‬and do not rejoice in wicked sons”32—applying the identical verb ‫“( שמח‬to rejoice”). And third, the rendering “in his end” in Sir 25:7a in fact is inconsistent with the context of 25:7b (“during his life” / “one who lives”). (d) Sir 32(25):21–22 The question whether ‫ אחרית‬should be rendered “end” or “children” also presents itself in Sir 32(35):21–22.33 The Hebrew text is handed down in Manuscripts B, E, and F. The text of Mss. E and F is identical: Ms. E 32(35):21–22 ‫]…[דרך רשעים ובאחרתיך היה זהיר‬ Ms. F 32(35):21–22 ‫אל תתחר בדרך רשעים ובאחריתך היה זהיר‬ “Do not feel vexed with the way of sinners / but be cautious for your end.” Ms. B, on the contrary, has a twofold textual form: (1) ‫אל תבטח בדרך מחתף ובאחריתך השמר‬ (2) ‫אל תבטח בדרך רשעים ובארחתיך הזהר‬

29 See Elizur, “Two New Leaves”; Rey, “Un Nouveau Bifeuillet.” Elizur, “Two New Leaves,” 19, notes: “The second leaf is even more important, because none of its verses is known from any other Hebrew Ben Sira manuscript.” 30 Rey, “Un Nouveau Bifeuillet,” 412. 31 Elizur, “Two New Leaves,” 29. 32 Ms B has ‫אל בני‬. 33 See Beentjes, “A Closer Look.”

394  Pancratius C. Beentjes (1) “Do not trust the road for bandits and be careful of your children.”34 (2) “Do not trust the way of the wicked and be warned on your paths.”35 Sir 32(35):21–22 according to Ms. B is obviously a doublet. Although the Greek translation is apparently reflecting a Hebrew bicolon (1), we should take into account the highly theological context of the entire passage (Sir 32[35]:14–33 [36]:6)36 in which specifically the notion ‫“( חתף‬robber”) would completely be out of place. In bicolon (2), however, both the characterization ‫“( רשעים‬sinners”) and the parallel word-pair ‫בדרך‬/‫בארח‬, being part of a chiastic pattern, play a very organic part. Therefore, Hebrew bicolon (2) is to be considered the original one. I disagree with Di Lella who without any argument states “the original bicolon is found in a and d.”37 While in Ms. E and Ms. F the first colon of 32(35):21 is about the reader’s feelings, in Ms. B the author’s warning is about his pupil’s conduct and its outcome, which constitutes the essence of the entire pericope. Bicolon (2) of Sir 32 (35):21 according to Ms. B then could even be considered as an elaboration of the preceding line—“Do not go on a way that is set with snares, and do not stumble twice at an obstacle” (32[35]:20). An additional argument to favor Ms. B (2) would be that the opening words ‫ אל תבטח‬fits the context much better than ‫( אל תתחר‬Ms. F). For the verb ‫ בטח‬is used again in 32(35):24b (‫)ובוטח בייי‬, being exactly the opposite of ‫ אל תבטח‬in 32 (35):21a: “Do not trust the way of sinners …. Whoever trusts (in) the LORD.” Both phrases might be considered an inclusio representing the central issue of the entire pericope.38

34 Penar’s rendering—“Do not rely on the future of robbers, and take heed for your afterlife”– is rather unconvincing. Penar, Northwest Semitic, 54. 35 This is also the purport of Sir 32:25cd–26 in Syriac: “Do not rely on the path of evil-doers / and on your paths be prudent.” Calduch-Benages, Wisdom, 198. 36 Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 219–27, 262–68. 37 Di Lella, “Newly Discovered,” 236. 38 The reading ‫( אל תתחר‬32[35]:21 Ms. F) could be very well brought about by a copyist who, having noticed Ben Sira’s predilection for the book of Proverbs, was acquainted with the combination of ‫ רשעים‬and ‫ אחרית‬in Prov 24:19, and thereupon in his manuscript harmonized the opening colon of 32(35):21 with the biblical statement.

Aspects of Time in the Book of Ben Sira: ‫ אחרית‬

395

2.4 ‫“—אחרית‬Finally” The summons in Sir 31(34):22 opening with “Listen, my son” has been handed down in Ms. B in a twofold way: (1) [‫—שמע בני ואל תבוז לי ובאחרית תשיג אמ]רי‬ “Listen, my son, and do not despise me; / finally you will accept my words.” This text form is at the basis of the Greek translation (34:26). (2) ‫—שמע בני וקח מוסרי ואל תלעיג עלי ובאחרית תמצא דברי‬ “Listen, my son, and receive my instruction / and do not mock me; / finally you will understand my words.” This text form was the basis of the Syriac (31:26). At least two arguments are in favor of bicolon (1). First, the text as found in (2) is overloaded and is actually to be considered a tricolon, which, however, is very rare in Hebrew Ben Sira.39 Second, the collocation ‫ תשיג אמרי‬of bicolon (1) is also found in Sir 12:12e and, moreover, is preceded by an identical temporal apposition: ‫ולאחור תשיג אמרי‬.40 Lutz Schrader contends that the usual translation “at the end” ignores the intention of the phrase. Rather ‫ ובאחרית‬should mean “and by its result.”41

2.5 ‫“—אחרית‬End” (a) Sir 3:26 (Ms A): ‫לב כבד תבאש אחריתו ואוהב טובות ינהג בהם‬. The first colon is somewhat odd. From a strict grammatical point of view, only the feminine noun ‫ אחריתו‬is to be considered the subject of ‫תבאש‬, since ‫ לב‬is a masculine noun.42 And nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is ‫לבב‬/‫ לב‬followed by a feminine verbal form. However, since Ben Sira commentaries do not pay any

39 See Rickenbacher, Weisheitsperikopen, 130–31. His conclusion: “Tristichen gibt es sehr wahrscheinlich im Sirachbuch nicht” (131). “… [T]rois stiches, ce qui est contraire aux usages de l’auteur.” Lévi, “Notes,” 14. 40 In Hebrew Ben Sira, ‫ לאחור‬is found two more times. In Sir 6:28a (Ms. A, Ms. C) as a temporal apposition: “Thus from now on you will find rest in her [= Wisdom]”; in 49:5a (Ms. B) about the kings of Judah: “And he gave their horn to another.” In the latter case, it is best to read ‫לאחר‬ (“to another”). 41 “Ein weiterer Beleg ist wohl 31(34):22 (HB), wo die übliche Übersetzung von ‫ ובאחרית‬mit ‘und am Ende’ an der Intention vorbeigehen dürfte; der Ausdruck bedeutet hier eher ‘und durch das Ergebnis’. Gemeint ist offensichtlich: durch das Ergebnis der Mißachtung der Ermahnung wird der Schüler einsehen, daß sie richtig war.” Schrader, Unzuverlässige Freundschaft, 52 n. 124. 42 The collocation ‫ לב כבד‬does not occur in the Hebrew Bible.

396  Pancratius C. Beentjes

attention to this phenomenon, this first colon is to be rendered: “A stubborn heart, its end will stink.”43 Moreover, the question must be answered whether the remainder of this verse (3:26b) has a positive or a negative meaning. Opinions differ on the matter. A majority of Ben Sira scholars prefer a positive content: – “Ein trotziges Herz, sein Ende ist übel, / aber wer das Gute liebt, beschäftigt sich damit.” 44 – “Dem trotzigen Herzen ergeht es zuletzt übel, / wer aber das Gute liebt, dem begegnet es.” 45 – “Ein verhärtetes Herz wird an seinem Ende zuschanden werden, / der, der Gutes liebt, wird durch es geleitet werden.” 46 – “A stubborn heart suffereth evil at its latter end, / But he that loveth the things that are good shall be brought unto them.”47 – “A stubborn heart suffers evil at its end, / and he who loves what is good is guided by it.”48 Lévi, on the contrary, advocates a negative content of the second colon: – “Un esprit présomptueux aura une mauvaise fin, / et qui aime le danger y succombera.”49 In my view, it should be negative, indeed, since Sir 3:26–27; 25:28 as a whole build a negative section (‫ )לב כבד‬as opposed to Sir 3:29–31 opening with ‫לב חכם‬.50 The translation of 3:26b, therefore, should run: “And he who loves riches will be diverted by it.”51 (b) Sir 11:25b (1) ‫טובת יום תשכח הרעה ורעת ]יום [תשכח טובה ואחרית אדם תהיה עליו‬ (2) ‫עת רעה תשכח תענוג וסוף אדם יגיד עליו‬ 43 Some scholars advocate ‫ באש‬in its Aramaic sense: “übel sein” [“to be bad”]: Smend, Weisheit, 32; Peters, Das Buch, 32; Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, II. 9. 44 Peters, Das Buch, 32. 45 Smend, Weisheit. Hebräisch und Deutsch, 6. 46 Sauer, Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira, 65. 47 Oesterley, Wisdom, 20. 48 Van Peursen, Verbal System, 104–5. 49 Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, II. 8. He numbers this verse as 3:24. The motif of “danger” reflects the Greek here. 50 In Ms. A, v. 25 is found between v. 27 and 28; the same sequence is reflected in the Syriac. The Greek text of 3:25 is only to be found in the so-called Greek II. For a circumstantial analysis of 3:25 (Gr II), see Bussino, Greek Additions, 88–96. 51 The verbal form ‫ ינהג‬most probably is a niph‘al.

Aspects of Time in the Book of Ben Sira: ‫אחרית‬



397

(1) “The prosperity of a day makes [one] forget mischief and mischief of a day makes [one] forget prosperity and the end of a human being is upon him.” (2) “Bad time makes [one] forget pleasure and the end of a human being will be announced to him.” Since Sir 11:25b in Ms A has been handed down in a twofold textual form, the meaning of ‫ אחרית‬in (1) is quite certain. However, scholars hold different views about the question which of the two bicola should be considered the (most) original one. Whereas Smend prefers the one with ‫אחרית‬, Peters, Lévi, and Rüger opt for ‫סוף‬.52 But whatever option is chosen, it is certain that the term pertains to the end of a human being. This is in complete accordance with the use of ‫ אחרית‬in 11:28 as described above and belonging to the same passage. The fact that (1) is a tristich might also favor option (2).53

2.6 ‫“—אחרית‬Future” Sir 48:24–25 24 25

‫ברוח גבורה חזה אחרית וינחם אבלי ציון‬ ‫עד עולם הגיד נהיות ונסתרות לפני בואן‬

“By a powerful spirit he saw the future and consoled the mourners of Zion; for evermore he foretold the things to come and hidden things before they came to pass.” At first glance, one might think that 48:24a is about a prophecy of Isaiah that the return from exile is at hand. However, as I have discussed elsewhere, in the book of Ben Sira the Babylonian exile is nowhere mentioned.54 It seems that in verse 24 Ben Sira has stuffed a number of references to the book of Isaiah as a whole. The collocation ‫“( ברוח גבורה‬by a powerful spirit”) is a kind of an inverted quotation from Isa 11:2 (‫)רוח עצה וגבורה‬,55 whereas the verb ‫חזה‬ (“he saw”) is reminiscent of ‫“( חזון‬vision”), the very first word in the book of Isaiah (1:1). And, finally, the collocation ‫ נחם אבלי חיון‬is a clear reference to Isa 61:2– 3.56

52 Smend, Weisheit, 110; Peters, Das Buch, 101; Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, II. 79; Rüger, Text, 16. 53 “Es ist wirklich gar kein Rigorismus und kein Apriorismus, wenn wir sagen: Tristichen gab es sehr wahrscheinlich im Sirachbuch nicht.” Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 130–31. 54 Beentjes, “Hezekiah,” 155–57. 55 Beentjes, “Inverted Quotations.” 56 I thank Dr. Jeremy Corley for his comment on this matter.

398  Pancratius C. Beentjes

According to my colleague Arie van der Kooij, “… the composition of 48:24– 25 as a whole suggests that the expression ‫ חזה אחרית‬in v. 24 conveys the same notion as the two (parallel) phrases in v. 25.”57 V. 25 with its remarkable chiastic structure exhibits a highly typical pair of words (‫נהיות‬/‫)נסתרות‬, a combination that occurs nowhere in the Tanak. Yet exactly the same combination of words was used elsewhere in the book of Ben Sira (42:19): ‫ ומגלה חקר נסתרות‬/ ‫מחוה חליפות נהיות‬: “He makes known the changes of past events, and reveals the searching of hidden things.” Whereas the author in 42:19 underlines the fact that it is the Most High who reveals the past, the future, and the deepest secrets, it cannot be accidental that in 48:25 he typifies the activity of the prophet Isaiah by using exactly the same vocabulary.58

Conclusion In the book of Ben Sira, the noun ‫ אחרית‬should not presumptively be rendered “end” or “future.” It would be better to start with a more neutral rendering in the sense of “what comes after,” and subsequently let the context establish a more precise meaning. One must remain cognizant of the fact that there are several options to render this Hebrew word: “end,” “future,” “consequence,” “finally,” and “posterity”/“descendants.”59

Bibliography Barr, James. Biblical Words for Time. 2nd rev. ed. SBT 1/33. Naperville, IL: A. R. Allenson, 1969. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “A Closer Look at the Newly Discovered Sixth Hebrew Manuscript (Ms. F.) of Ben Sira.” EstBib 51 (1993): 171–86 [= Beentjes, Pancratius C. Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom (Sir 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Louvain: Peeters, 2006, 361–74]. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Hezekiah and Isaiah. A Study on Ben Sira xlviii, 15–25.” Pages 77–88 in New Avenues in the Study of Old Testament. Edited by Adam S. van der Woude. OTS XXV. Leiden: Brill 1989 [= Beentjes, Pancratius C. Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom (Sir 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Louvain: Peeters, 2006, 145–58].

57 Van der Kooij, “Coming Things,” 136. 58 More details in Beentjes, “Hezekiah,” 155–57. 59 I thank Prof. Michael Duggan, St. Mary’s University, Calgary, for his generous help to correct and improve my English.

Aspects of Time in the Book of Ben Sira: ‫ אחרית‬

399

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. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Inverted Quotations in the Bible. A Neglected Stylistic Pattern.” Bib 63 (1982): 506–23 [= “Discovering a New Path of Intertextuality. Inverted Quotations and their Dynamics.” Pages 269–89 in Beentjes, Pancratius C. With All Your Soul Fear the Lord (Sir 7,27). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira II. CBET 87. Louvain: Peeters, 2017]. Brin, Gershon. The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 39. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Bundvad, Mette. “Defending the Concept of Time in the Hebrew Bible.” SJOT 28 (2014): 280– 97. Bussino, Severino. The Greek Additions in the Book of Ben Sira. AnBib 203. Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2013. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer and Jan Liesen. Wisdom of the Scribe. Diplomatic Edition of the Syriac Version of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus with Translations in Spanish and English. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2003. Conzelmann, Hans. Die Mitte der Zeit. BHT 17. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1954. Cullmann, Oscar. Christus und die Zeit: die urchristliche Zeit- und Geschichtsauffassung. Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1946 (English: Christ and Time. London: SCM Press 1951). Delling, Gerhard, Das Zeitverständnis des Neuen Testaments. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1940. Delling, Gerhard. Zeit und Endzeit. BibS 58. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. Di Lella, Alexander A. The Hebrew Text of Sirach. A Text-critical and Historical Study. Studies in Classical Literature 1. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1966. Di Lella, Alexander. “The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of the Ben Sira from the Geniza.” Bib 69 (1988): 226–38. Eberharter, Andreas. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. HSAT VI/5. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1925. Edersheim, Alfred. “Ecclesiasticus.” Pages 1–239 in The Holy Bible. Apocrypha. Vol. 2. Edited by Henry Wace. London: J. Murray, 1888. Elizur, Shulamit, “Two New Leaves of the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira.” DSD 17 (2010): 13–29. Elizur, Shulamit, and Michael Rand. “A New Fragment of the Book of Ben Sira.” DSD 18 (2011): 200–5. Fang Che-Yong, Marcus. “Ben Sira de novissimis hominis.” VD 41 (1963): 21–38. Fang Che-Yong, Marcus. “Sir 7,36 (Vulg 7,40) iuxta hebraicam veritatem.” VD 40 (1962): 18– 26. Gilbert, Maurice. “Il concetto di tempo (‫ )עת‬in Qohelet e Ben Sira.”, Pages 69–89 in Il libro del Qohelet. Tradizione, redazione, teologia. Edited by Guiseppe Bellia and Angelo Passaro. Cammini nello Spirito, Biblica 44. Milan: Città Nuova, 2001. Hamp, Vinzenz. “Zukunft und Jenseits im Buche Sirach.” Pages 86–97 in Alttestamentliche Studien. Festschrift Friedrich Nötscher. BBB 1. Bonn: Hanstein, 1950. Hasel, Gerhard F. “‘Remnant’ as a Meaning of ’aharît.” Pages 511–24 in The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies Presented to Siegfried H. Horn. Edited by Lawrence T. Geraty and Larry G. Herr. Berrien Springs, MI.: Andrews University Press, 1986.

400  Pancratius C. Beentjes

Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. AnBib 30. Rome: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967. Kaiser, Otto. “Der Tod als Schicksal und Aufgabe bei Ben Sira.” Pages 75–89 in Engel und Dämonen. Theologische Anthropologie und religionsgeschichtliche Aspekte des Guten und Bösen. Edited by Gregor Ahn. FARG 29. Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 1997. Kaiser, Otto. “Die Erfahrung der Zeit im Alten Testament.” Pages 161–93 in Vom offenbaren und verborgenen Gott. Studien zur spätbiblischen Weisheit und Hermeneutik. Edited by Otto Kaiser. BZAW 392. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Katjako-Reeb, Jens, Stefan Schorch, Johannes Thon, and Benjamin Ziemer, eds. Nichts Neues unter der Sonne? Zeitvorstellungen im Alten Testament. Festschrift für Ernst-Joachim Waschke zum 65. Geburtstag. BZAW 450. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Kooij, Arie van der. “‘Coming’ Things and ‘Last’ Things. Isaianic Terminology as understood in the Wisdom of Ben Sira and in the Septuagint of Isaiah.” Pages 135–40 in The New Things. Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy. Festschrift for Henk Leene. Edited by Ferenc Postma et al. ACEBTSup 3. Maastricht: Shaker Publishing, 2002. Leroy, Marc, and Martin Staszak, eds. Perceptions du Temps dans la Bible. EB NS 77. Louvain: Peeters, 2018. Lévi, Israel. L’Ecclésiastique. Deuxième Partie. BEHE.R 10,2. Paris: Leroux, 1901. Lévi, Israel. “Notes sur les Ch. VII.29–XII.1 de Ben Sira édités par M. Elkan N. Adler.” JQR 13 (1900): 1–17. MacKenzie, Roderick A. F. Sirach. OTM 19. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1983. Muilenburg, James. “The Biblical View of Time.” HTR 54 (1961): 225–52. Oesterley, William O. E. The Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus). Translations of Early Documents, Series 1: Palestinian Jewish Texts (Pre-Rabbinic), nr 2. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1916. Penar, Tadeusz. Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira. BibOr 28. Biblical Institute Press: Rome, 1975. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Rey, Jean-Sébastien. “Un nouveau bifeuillet du manuscrit C de la genizah du Caire.” Pages 387–416 in Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Hans Ausloos, Bénédicte Lemmelijn and Marc Vervenne. BETL 224. Louvain: Peeters, 2008. Rey, Jean-Sébastien. “Si 10,12–12,1: Nouvelle Édition du Fragment Adler (ENA 2536–2).” RevQ 25 (2012): 575–603 Rickenbacher, Otto. Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira. OBO 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Rossetti, Marco. “Le Aggiunte Ebraiche e Greche a Sir 16,1–16.” Salesianum 64 (2002): 607– 648. Rüger, Hans Peter. Text und Textform im Hebräischen Sirach. Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza. BZAW 112. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach. JSHRZ III/5. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira. ATDA I. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Schrader, Lutz. Leiden und Gerechtigkeit: Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches. BET 27. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1994.

Aspects of Time in the Book of Ben Sira: ‫אחרית‬



401

Schrader, Lutz. “Unzuverlässige Freundschaft und verläßliche Feindschaft.” Pages 19–59 in Freundschaft bei Ben Sira. Beiträge des Symposions zu Ben Sira Salzburg 1995. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer. BZAW 244. Berlin: de Gruyter 1996. Seebass, Horst. ‫ אחרית‬/ ’acharîth. Pages 207–12 in TDOT I. Edited by Johannes G. Bottterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Hebräisch und Deutsch. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906. Snaith, John G. Ecclesiasticus. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Stokes, Adam. “Life and Afterlife in the Book of Ben Sira.” Koinonia 18 (2006): 73–92. Van Peursen, Wido. The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira. SSLL 41. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Wilch, John R. Time and Event. An Exegetical Study of the Use of ‫ עת‬in the Old Testament in Comparison to Other Temporal Expressions in Clarification of the Concept of Time. Leiden: Brill, 1969.

Renate Egger-Wenzel

Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira Abstract: The terms ‫ קץ‬and ‫ קצה‬have time and space implications in the book of Ben Sira. They are used at three different levels: in connection with humans, with non-spiritual beings and with the divine. Unlike God, humans are limited by time and space, but they do eventually alter their ontological existence: depending on their level of Torah obedience they will either be consigned to Sheol or will achieve a kind of closeness to God. But Ben Sira does not spell out his concept of afterlife. He uses the term ‫ קץ‬to describe his notion of eschatology and adds some apocalyptic remarks, but he does not mention directly the historic events of his time. Through the creation of celestial bodies, God constructs a calendar. In this way, humans move within a structured timeline that is theologically grounded. Keywords: astronomy, eschatology, calendar, space, segregation of time.

Bei der Vorbereitung auf diese Tagung hier in Greifswald mit dem Thema „Notions of Time“ ging mir durch den Kopf, dass wir eigentlich durch die „Cosmos and Creation“ Konferenz in Cambridge 2017, auf die heurige Thematik bestens hingeführt wurden. Die Schöpfungsthematik hat einen Anfang gesetzt. Was aber einen Anfang hat, wird auch ein „Ende“ haben und etwas dazwischen. Die gängige Übersetzung von ‫ קץ‬mit „Ende“, machte mich neugierig. Bezeichnender Weise finden sich die meisten der 67 Belege der Biblia Hebraica1 in der apokalyptischen Literatur und hier explizit im Buch Daniel mit 15 Vorkommnissen, gefolgt vom Buch Ezechiel (9x). Im Folgenden werde ich kurz die linguistische Seite der in Frage kommenden Belege im Buch Ben Sira sichten und ihren Kontext mit Fokus auf zusätzlichen zeitlichen Aspekten sowie deren theologische Bedeutung behandeln. ‫קץ‬ bzw. ‫ קצה‬mit den diversen Bedeutungsvarianten sowie die Übertragung ins Griechische sollen ebenfalls zur Sprache kommen.

1 Gen 4,3; 6,13; 8,6; 16,3; 41,1; Ex 12,41; Num 13,25; Dtn 9,11; 15,1; 31,10; Ri 11,39; 2 Sam 14,26; 15,7; 1 Kön 2,39; 17,7; 2 Kön 19,23; Jes 9,6; 23,15.17; 37,24; Jer 13,6; 34,14; 42,7; 50,26; 51,13; Ez 7,2–3.6; 21,30.34; 29,13; 35,5; Am 8,2; Hab 2,3; Pss 39,5; 119,96; Ijob 6,11; 16,3; 22,5; 28,3; Koh 4,8.16; 12,12; Klgl 4,18; Est 2,12; Dan 8,17.19; 9,26; 11,6.13.27.35.40.45; 12,4.6.9.13; Neh 13,6; 2 Chr 8,1; 18,2; 21,19. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-019

404  Renate Egger-Wenzel

1 Eine Bestandaufnahme Eigentlich sollte man annehmen, dass ein Ende oder eine Grenze von etwas zweifelsfrei und eindeutig ist. Weit gefehlt! Im Buch Ben Sira finden sich sieben Belege, fünf des Nomens ‫( ֵקץ‬s., m.) und zwei der Nebenformen ‫( ָקָצה‬s., f.) sowie respektive ‫( ָקֶצה‬s., m.). Die Übersetzung dieser Begriffe ins Griechische erfolgt in 16,17d (‫ )ָקָצה‬mit ἀμέτρητος, in 36,10a mit καιρός, in 41,4a mit κρίμα, in 43,6b mit χρόνος (ἀνάδειξιν χρόνων), in 43,24a (‫ )ָקֶצה‬mit κίνδυνος, in 43,27b mit συντέλεια. 46,19f+ hat keine griechische Entsprechung. Offensichtlich hat der Enkel Ben Siras die Übertragung dieser sieben Belege auf je unterschiedliche Weise vorgenommen. Das deutet auf ein breit gefächertes Bedeutungsspektrum der Wurzel ‫ קץ‬hin.

2 Was sagen die Wörterbücher? Nach Talmon ist qeṣ „Derivat des gemeinsemit. Stammes → qṣṣ ‚abschneiden, abhauen, zerstückeln‘.2 Von der Nebenform qṣh sind die Nomina qāṣæh (95mal), qeṣæh (5mal) und qāṣāh (37mal) in der Bedeutung ‚Ende‘ (zeitlich und räumlich), ‚Rand/Ränder‘ (der Erde [4mal] oder des Himmels [Jer 49,36]) abgeleitet. … Die Grundbedeutung von qeṣ ist ‚Abschnitt‘, was 1. begrifflich …, 2. räumlich und 3. zeitlich verstanden werden kann“3. Koehler und Baumgartner präferieren die Bedeutung: „mhe. Ende, Endzeit, ‫ ִּקָצ ּה‬bestimmte Zeit … 1. a) Ende eines Menschen u. coll. von Menschen … b) einer Sache … 2. Grenze … 3. Ziel … 4. Ende … 5. ‫ ֵקץ ַה ָיִּמים‬Ende der Tage … 6. ‫ ֵאין־ֵקץ‬ohne Ende … 7. ‫ֵעת ֵקץ‬ … = ‫ … מ ֹוֵעד ֵקץ‬Endzeit …“4. Da Ben Sira eine Position einnimmt zwischen biblischem Hebräisch und den Qumrantexten, ist Naphtali Wieders Interpretation von ‫ קץ‬als „period“ bzw. „simply time“5 ein wichtiger Hinweis für Ben Siras Verständnis dieses Terminus. Hinzu kommt, dass Jan Joostens These davon ausgeht, dass ‫ קץ‬dem klassischen

2 Wagner, „‫ֵקץ‬,“ 659, verweist auf das Ugaritische, wo qṣ als „Ende, Zipfel“ z. B. eines Gewandes belegt ist und unterstreicht v. a. die „apokalyptische Verwendung“ im Buch Daniel „als festen terminus technicus. Die Endzeit, welche sowohl die letzte Notzeit als auch die anbrechende Heilszeit umschließt“ (662). 3 Talmon, „‫ֵקץ‬,“ 85–86. 4 Koehler and Baumgartner, Lexikon, 1045. 5 Wieder, „Term ‫קץ‬,“ 22.

Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira 

405

Bibelhebräisch angehört, der Parallelbegriff ‫( ס ֹוף‬MS A Sir 8,18; 11,27; MS 11Q5 XXI, 12 [cf. Sir 51,14b])6 aber dem „Late Biblical Hebrew“ zuzurechnen ist.7 Durch diese kurze Darstellung sind insbesondere zwei Bedeutungsrichtungen vorgegeben: Eine zeitliche, aber auch eine räumliche. Wir werden sehen, wie Ben Sira diesen Begriff verwendet und welche Übertragung sein Enkel wählt. Wenden wir uns nun den einzelnen Belegen in Ben Sira zu.

3 Sir 16,17 (MS A) Der Abschnitt 15,11–16,23 spricht von Gottes Schöpfung (vgl. 42,15–43,33), die dem Menschen die Freiheit der Selbstbestimmung bzw. Wahlfreiheit zwischen zwei polaren Lebenskonzepten lässt. Er kann ein Sünder (‫ חטא‬15,20; 16,21), ja Übeltäter (‫ רשע‬16,6.11)8 oder ein Gerechter (‫ צדיק‬16,13) werden, aber er muss sich entscheiden. Er kann zwischen Feuer und Wasser (15,16), Leben und Tod (v. 17) wählen. Je nach seinen Taten wird ihn der Zorn Gottes treffen (‫ אף‬16,11c und ‫ֹרֶגז‬ v. 11d) oder sein Erbarmen (‫ רחמים‬15,10; 16,11–12.16) groß sein. Doch gibt es auf sich selbst fokussierte, uneinsichtige, törichte Menschen (‫חסדי לב יבינו אלה וגבור‬ ‫ פ] [תה יחשב זאת‬16,23), die glauben, sie könnten der Aufmerksamkeit Gottes entgehen, indem sie sich in der Masse verstecken. Ben Sira entfaltet diese Thematik in 16,17 und 16,20–22, indem er warnt: ‫ובמרום מי יזכרני׃‬

‫ אל תאמר מאל נסתרתי‬v. 17a-b

‫ומה נפשי בקצות רוחות כל בני אדם׃‬

‫ בעם כבד לא אודע‬v. 17c-d

„Sag nicht: Vor Gott bin ich verborgen, und in der Höhe: Wer denkt an mich? In einem (ge-)wichtigen Volk kennt man mich nicht und was bin ich in den Mengen der Wesen aller Menschen?“ Μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι Ἀπὸ κυρίου κρυβήσομαι, καὶ ἐξ ὕψους τίς μου μνησθήσεται;

6 Vgl. die spätbiblischen Belege in Joel 2,20; Koh 3,11; 7,2; 12,13; 2 Chr 20,16; Dan 4,8.19; 6,27; 7,26.28. 7 Joosten, „Hebrew,“ 323. – ‫„( ס ֹוף‬Ende“) wird nicht in diese Untersuchung einbezogen, da dies den Rahmen sprengen würde. 8 Vgl. darüber hinaus weitere negative Qualifizierungen: 16,9 ‫ ;בעונם‬16,10 ‫ ;בזדון לבם‬16,11 ‫מקשה‬ ‫ע רף‬.

406  Renate Egger-Wenzel

ἐν λαῷ πλείονι οὐ μὴ γνωσθῶ, τίς γὰρ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν ἀμετρήτῳ κτίσει; „Sag nicht: Ich werde mich vor dem Herrn verbergen, und wer wird dort oben meiner gedenken? In einer großen Volksmenge wird man mich nicht erkennen. Wer bin ich schon in einer unermesslichen Schöpfung?“

Da die Wurzel ‫( קצה‬v. 17d ‫ )קצות רוחות‬eine Art „Begrenzung“ umschreibt, ist es auffällig, dass 16,17 eingerahmt ist von Gegebenheiten, beginnend mit einem Begriff, der räumliche Ausdehnung erst ermöglicht, nämlich die von Gott gesetzte Schöpfung (v. 16a+ ‫ ;כל בריותיו‬πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει). In 17b ist dann die Rede von der Höhe (‫ ;מרום‬ὕψος), folgerichtig spricht 18a von den „Himmeln und den Himmel der Himmel“ (‫ ;השמים ושמי השמים‬ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ). 18b setzt fort mit den jeweiligen Gegenpolen „der Tiefe und der Erde“ (‫;תהום וארץ‬ ἄβυσσος καὶ γῆ). 18c und 19a führen in logischer Ausfaltung die irdischen Gegebenheiten weiter an: die Säulen (‫)ֹעְמוִדים‬,9 auf denen – nach antikem Weltbild – die Erdscheibe ruht, die Fundamente der Berge und die Grundfesten der Welt (‫ ;קצבי הרים ויסודי תבל‬ὄρη καὶ τὰ θεμέλια τῆς γῆς). Innerhalb dieser räumlichen Konstellation kann sich die gesamte Menschheit (‫ )כל בני אדם‬mit der unermesslichen Anzahl an Lebewesen10 bzw. die unermessliche Schöpfung (‫ ;קצות רוחות‬ἀμετρήτῳ κτίσει) ausfalten. Im hebräischen Text wirkt das Kolon 17d überlang (17a: 4, 17b: 3; 17c: 4, 17d: 7 Worte), als ob der Autor die übergroße Anzahl an Lebewesen mit der Menge an Worten zusätzlich unterstreichen möchte. Dieser Fülle an Existenzen wird ‫ מה נפשי‬gegenübergestellt. Der Fragende sagt nicht etwa ‫מי נפשי‬. Er will sich klein machen, unentdeckt bleiben, sich vor seinem Schöpfer verstecken, wie es schon 16,17a ausdrückt: ‫ מאל נסתרתי‬oder 17b ‫מי יזכרני‬. In einem so großen Volk wird er doch nicht erkannt: ‫לא אודע‬. Dieses skeptische Anzweifeln von der Wahrnehmungsfähigkeit Gottes wie auch der Mitmenschen und der eigenen Relevanz wird in 16,20–21 weiter verstärkt: ‫ובדרכי מי יתבונן׃‬

‫ גם עלי לא ישים לב‬20a-b

‫או אם אכזב בכל סתר מי יודע׃‬

‫ אם חטאתי לא תראני עין‬21a-b

9 Die Vokalisation findet sich so in MS A. 10 Liegt hier eine Anspielung auf himmlische Wesen vor, ähnlich wie in 2 En. 32,1; 49,1; 51,5; 58,1; 65,1 u. ö.?

Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira 

407

„Auch legt er nicht das Herz auf mich / und wer wird schon über meine Wege nachdenken? Wenn ich sündige, wird mich kein Auge sehen / oder wenn ich lüge ganz im Verborgenen, wer wird es wissen?“

In Parallelität zu 16,17d finden sich in 21b wiederum sieben Worte (vgl. jeweils ‫)כל‬, was einer vermuteten Glosse in 17d widerspricht, zumal der Text von MS A keinen Hinweis darauf bietet.11 Gott wird mit ‫ לא ישים לב‬und ‫ מי יתבונן‬geradezu die intellektuelle Fähigkeit abgesprochen, einen einzelnen Menschen in der Masse der Lebewesen zu sehen (‫)לא תראני עין‬, zu erkennen (‫)מי יודע‬, welchen Lebensweg er einschlägt (‫)בדרכי מי יתבונן‬, ob er sündigt (‫ )חטאתי‬oder im Verborgenen lügt (‫)אכזב בכל סתר‬. Ben Sira argumentiert fast sarkastisch: Nur ein Dummkopf oder einfältiger Held kann so etwas denken (‫ ;גבור פותה יחשב זאת‬ἀνὴρ ἄφρων καὶ πλανώμενος διανοεῖται μωρά 16,23), denn er wähnt sich sicher in der großen Menge der Lebenden und glaubt sich unerkannt verbergen zu können. ‫ ָקֶצה‬im Plural umfasst hier eine begrenzte Ansammlung, insofern es sich um alle geistbegabten Lebewesen (‫ )קצות רוחות‬zwischen Himmel und Erde handelt „als Teilkomponente einer umfassenden Größe“12 in Abgrenzung zu einem großsprecherischen Einfaltspinsel, der Gottes Allwissenheit in Frage stellt.13 Doch Gott nimmt jedes einzelne Individuum wahr und ernst (vgl. Ps 139,7–18). Interessant ist, dass das Hebräische die menschliche Ebene, das Individuum betont, wohingegen der Grieche durch ἐν ἀμετρήτῳ κτίσει den Bezug auf die ganze Schöpfung ausweitet.

4 Sir 36,10a (MS B) Das eindringliche Gebet um die Rettung vor Israels Feinden in Sir 36,1–2214 verwendet vier Zeitangaben, die von der „jetzigen Notzeit“ des Autors rückwärts 11 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 270: „MS A and Syr add ‘of all humankind,’ a gloss based on Num 27:16. Saadia quotes the line without the gloss which is lacking also in GII.“ 12 Talmon „‫ֵקץ‬,“ 86. 13 Das widerspricht der Darstellung von Sir 42,15–20, wo Gott für seine Allwissenheit gepriesen wird (vgl. Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 87). 14 Siehe die detaillierte Auslegung in Marböck, „Gebet,“ 93–115, der die sirazidische Verfasserschaft positiv entscheidet; in diesem Sinne auch neuere Untersuchung von Palmisano, Dio, wo die Autorin die Verfasserschaft ausführlich diskutiert. Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 110–11, hingegen argumentiert historisch, verweisend auf Josephus’ Darstellung (Ant. 12.129–53) und spricht von „authenticity disputed“ mit Hinweis auf Middendorp, Stellung, 125–32, gegen Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 422.

408  Renate Egger-Wenzel

schreiten: ‫ קץ‬in Kombination mit ‫( מועד‬Bm ‫ )מצער‬in v. 10a, dann eine Referenz auf die Zeit der Landnahme mit ‫ ימי קדם‬in v. 13b15 und schließlich bis zu den Anfängen der Schöpfung mit ‫ למראש‬in v. 20a16. Das Gebet appelliert an „Gott des Alls/ von Allem“17, seinen Schrecken auf alle Fremdvölker (‫ כל הגוים‬v. 2) zu legen, damit sie erkennen, dass „es keinen Gott gibt außer dir“ (‫ אין אלהים זולתך‬v. 5b; vgl. Jes 45,5), ein „Wunsch nach universaler und ausschließlicher Anerkennung des Gottes Israels als Gott der Welt.“18 So formuliert auch David nach der Verheißung Natans, dass sein Haus ewigen Bestand haben wird, in 2 Sam 7,22 (// 1 Chr 17,20). Darüber hinaus steht dieses Gottesbekenntnis auch in Jes 45,21, im Kontext des radikal ausformulierten Monotheismus in v. 7; eine Anspielung, die angesichts der griechischen Götterwelt und der beginnenden Vergöttlichung Alexanders des Großen sowie der seleukidischen Herrscher19 zur Zeit Ben Siras brisant ist. Der Text qualifiziert weiters das gegnerische „fremde Volk“ (‫ עם נכר‬Sir 36,3a) als Feind ([‫צ]ר‬, ‫ אויב‬v. 9). Es soll Gottes Macht (‫ הניף יד‬v. 3a Bm; ‫האדר יד ואמץ‬ ‫ זרוע וימין‬v. 7/ ‫ האריך יד וזריז ימים‬v. 7 Bm) erfahren und steht in Opposition zu „deinen Knechten“ (‫ עבדיך‬v. 22a), zu „deinem Volk“ (τὸν λαόν σου v. 11b und ‫ עמך‬v. 22b), das auf die Erhörung seines Gebets und Gottes Wohlwollen hofft. Inmitten dieser Rahmung „fremdes Volk“ (3a) und „Volk Gottes“ (22b) wird der Anführer dieser Israel feindlich gegenüberstehenden Macht hervorgehoben, den Gott vernichten soll: ‫ ראש פאתי מואב‬/ κεφαλὰς ἀρχόντων ἐχθρῶν (v. 12a). Dieser Fürst Moabs präsentiert sich, ähnlich wie Nebukadnezzar, im Buch Judit (Jdt 6,2.4; 11,1)20 mit dem Anspruch „es gibt keinen außer mir“ (‫ אין זולתי‬/ Οὐκ ἔστιν πλὴν ἡμῶν Sir 36,12b) und steht damit in Opposition zu Gottes Machtanspruch in v. 5b. Nebukadnezzar wie Moab stehen als Chiffre21 für einen Feind Israels, der zur Zeit der Abfassung der jeweiligen Texte relevant war, und dem man Vernichtung wünscht (‫ הניף יד על‬v. 3a Bm; ‫ העיר אף ושפוך חמה‬v. 8; ‫ והכניע‬v. 9; v. 10 ἐν ὀργῇ πυρὸς καταβρωθήτω; ‫ השבת‬v. 12a). Ja, das Ende der Feinde soll schnell kommen und zu

15 Vgl. 2 Kön 19,25; Pss 44,2; 77,6; 143,5; Jes 23,7; 37,26; 51,9; Jer 46,26; Klgl 1,7; 2,17; 5,21; Mi 5,1; 4Q386 frag. 1 II, 1. 16 Vgl. Jes 40,21; 41,4.26; 48,16; Spr 8,23; Koh 3,11. 17 ‫ – אלהי הכל‬eine universale Anrede, die dem internationalen Kontext der konkurrierenden Diadochenreiche zur Zeit der Abfassung entspricht; vgl. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 421. 18 Marböck, „Gebet,“103. 19 Vgl. Mittag, Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, 128–39; Reiterer, „Jerusalem,“ 249–53. 20 Vgl. Marböck, „Gebet,“ 108, der v. a. den Bezug zu Jdt 9 betont. 21 Vgl. Marböck, „Gebet,“ 108: „eine Chiffre für eine heidnische Macht, die sich selbst an Gottes Stelle setzt.“ Die Kombination von Moab mit Jakobs Stämmen erinnert an das Bileamsorakel in Num 24,17 (ebd., 105).

Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira 

409

einem festgesetzten Zeitpunkt: ‫( החיש קץ ופקוד מועד‬v. 10a).22 Hier scheint der eschatologische Charakter des eindringlichen Gebetes durch.23 Alexander Di Lella identifiziert als Machthaber Antiochus III. den Großen (223–187 v. Chr.), der seit der Schlacht von Paneas (200 v. Chr.) Juda beherrschte.24 Nach den variierenden Aufforderungen an Gott zur Vertilgung der Seleukiden und mit der Bitte um die Vernichtung ihres Anführers (den Fürsten von Moab), der Gottes Alleinanspruch herausfordert, ist der Wendepunkt in diesem Gebet erreicht. Ben Sira fokussiert nun ab 36,13.16b auf die zu versammelnden Stämme Jakobs (‫)כל שבטי יעקב‬, die in den Tagen der Vorzeit (‫)כימי קדם‬25, also zur Zeit Josuas – ohne ihn explizit zu erwähnen –, ihr Erbe in Besitz nehmen konnten (‫ ;ויתנחלו‬vgl. ‫ ולהנחיל את ישראל‬46,1b B; vgl. Sir 24,23 κληρονομίαν συναγωγαῖς Ιακωβ). Die Darstellung Elias im Väterlob verknüpft die Aufrichtung der Stämme Israels/Jakobs (‫ ש]בטי ישרא[ל‬/ φυλὰς Ιακωβ) mit der Endzeit (48,10). Es handelt sich wohl um eine Aufforderung an Gott, nachdem das Land von der seleukidischen Fremdherrschaft befreit ist, die ursprünglichen Besitzverhältnisse wie zur Zeit der Landvergabe unter Josua wiederherzustellen.26 Sodann ruft der Autor das Erbarmen Gottes über sein auserwähltes Volk Israel (vgl. Sir 17,17; 24,8–12; Ps 44,2–9; 2 Makk 1,24–29)27 herab, das die Rolle des Erstgeborenen (‫ ישראל בכור‬v. 17b) zugewiesen bekommen hat. Diese Bezeichnung eines Erstgeborenen trägt in der Regel Leas Sohn Ruben.28 Aber in diesem Fall ist die engste Parallele in Ex 4,22 zu finden mit Gottes Anweisung an Mose, vor den Pharao hinzutreten und von ihm zu fordern, dass sein Erstgeborener Israel die Erlaubnis bekommt, Ägypten zu verlassen: ‫ ֹּכה ָאַמר ְיהָוה ְּב ִני ְבֹכ ִרי ִיְׂשָרֵאל‬, um vor der Unterdrückung ins verheißene Land zu fliehen. Dazu waren machtvolle Zeichen und Wunder (‫ )אות … מופת‬nötig, welche Gott in der gegenwärtigen

22 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 110, führt die Kombination von ‫ קץ‬und ‫ מועד‬auf Hab 2,3 zurück, was auch die Belege (s. u.) im Buch Daniel beeinflusst haben wird. 23 Vgl. Marböck, „Gebet,“ 106–7. 24 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 422: oder – weniger wahrscheinlich – Seleukus IV. Philopator (187–175 v. Chr.). Palmisano, Dio, 305–14, sieht Bezüge zu 2 Makk 3, legt sich auf die prämakkabäische Periode fest und erwägt als Notsituation die Aktion Heliodors gegen Jerusalem unter Onias III. (310–11); Marböck, „Gebet,“ 106, wird beizupflichten sein, wenn er meint, dass das Gebet eine Zeit erhöhten politischen Drucks durch die Seleukiden widerspiegelt. 25 ‫ קדם‬im Sinne von „vorher/Vorzeit“ ist 42x belegt, aber nur in den späten Büchern Daniel (2,6.9–11.15.18.24.25.27.36; 3,13.32; 4,3–5; 5,13.15.17.19.23–24; 6,2.11–14.19.23.27; 7,7–8.10.13.20) und Esra (4,18.23; 7,14–19). 26 Vgl. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 422. 27 Vgl. Marböck, „Gebet,“ 96; Palmisano, „Dio,“ 135. 28 Vgl. Ex 6,14; Num 1,20; 26,5; 1 Chr 5,1.3.

410  Renate Egger-Wenzel

Not wiederholen soll (Sir 36,6–7).29 Damit geht der Text einen weiteren Schritt in der Geschichte zurück zum Exodus-Geschehen. Sodann soll sich Gottes Erbarmen auf Jerusalem erstrecken, die heilige Stadt, den Ort seiner Wohnstatt (v. 18). Im synonymen Parallelismus angeführt, soll Zion mit Gottes Pracht erfüllt werden und der Tempel mit seiner Herrlichkeit (v. 19). Diese Fokussierung auf die Stadt und in deren Zentrum auf das Heiligtum, wo Gott seinen Wohnsitz nehmen soll, wird eingerahmt von ‫ בשמך‬in 17a und 20b. Gott möge gegenwärtig sein in seinem Namen. Er soll Zeugnis geben für seine Taten des Anfangs (‫ עדות למראש מעשיך‬/ μαρτύριον τοῖς ἐν ἀρχῇ κτίσμασίν σου v. 20a).30 Damit ist Ben Sira in seiner Argumentation am Beginn der Zeiten angelangt, von der die Schöpfung ihren Ausgang nahm. „In Kurzform wird darin zusammengefaßt, daß die Mitglieder des Volkes Israels Schöpfungswerke sind, die von Gott den qualifizierten Anfang herleiten. Schöpfung wird dadurch zur Basis des Beistandes.“31 Die auf Gott hoffen, sollen belohnt werden. Das in Gottes Namen gesprochene Wort möge sich erfüllen (v. 20b). Hier mag durchaus eine Verknüpfung zu Sir 36,5b vorliegen, wo die Wortwahl auch auf die Natansweissagung in 2 Sam 7 anspielt und damit die Rolle Davids für den Tempelbau (v. 5), die Errichtung einer Dynastie (vv. 8.12–14) mit Landzuweisung (v. 10) und an die Vernichtung seiner Feinde durch Gott (vv. 9.11–12) erinnert. „Die Geschichtsmächtigkeit des Wortes der Verheißung bei Ben Sira sollte man demnach nicht bezweifeln.“32 Diese Spotlights in die biblische Geschichte sind angesichts der seleukidischen Fremdherrschaft und Gefährdung der heiligen Stadt Jerusalem mit dem Tempel als religiöses Zentrum zur Zeit Ben Siras nicht zu übersehen. Der Zeitgenosse Ben Siras, Antiochus III., schreckte nach den für ihn desaströsen Reparationsforderungen von Apameia von Seiten der Römer, resultierend aus der verlorenen Schlacht von Magnesia 190 v. Chr., nicht vor der Plünderung der Tempel in seinem Herrschaftsgebiet zurück. Nach Sir 36,21a–22b mögen die Propheten Gottes und damit auch Natans Weissagung verlässlich sein, das Gebet der Gottesknechte erhört und das von Gott auserkorene Volk Wohlgefallen finden. Wenn Israel wiederhergestellt würde, dann würde die ganze Erde bis in die entferntesten Winkel hinein, auch Israels hochmütige Feinde, Gott anerkennen (‫ כי אתה אל עולם‬/ σὺ εἶ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν αἰώνων v. 22d).

29 30 31 32

Vgl. Ex 7,13; Dtn 4,34; 6,22; 7,19; 26,8; Jer 32,20–21; Ps 78,43 u. ö. Vgl. in Jes 41,4; Koh 3,11 die Kombination von ‫ מראש‬und ‫ עשה‬mit Schöpfungsbezug. Reiterer, „Ebenen,“ 194. Marböck, „Gebet,“ 101.

Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira 

411

Ben Siras Argumentationskette schreitet also ab dem von Gott erbetenen definitiven Ende (‫ החיש קץ ופקוד מועד‬/ καιρός) der seleukidischen Feinde in der Geschichte zurück zur Landvergabe unter Josua in den Tagen der Vorzeit (‫ ימי קדם‬/ καθὼς ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς), zur Erwählung Israel als Erstgeborener zur Zeit des Exodus (v. 17b) bis hin zur Erschaffung der Welt am Anfang der Zeit (‫ למראש מעשיך‬/ τοῖς ἐν ἀρχῇ κτίσμασίν σου). In diesem Kontext jedenfalls beschreibt ‫ קץ‬in Verbindung mit ‫ מועד‬einen bestimmten Zeitpunkt, der den von Gott erbetenen Wendepunkt in einer politisch wie theologisch hoch brisanten Zeit in der Geschichte des von Gott erwählten Volkes darstellt und der möglichst schnell eintreten soll. Gott möge zu Lebzeiten Ben Siras an einem historisch signifikanten Zeitpunkt der Geschichte als rettende Macht eingreifen, so wie er es zu früheren kritischen Zeiten getan hat wie z. B. in Ägypten oder zur Zeit der Landnahme. Man könnte fast sagen, Gott soll den Reset-Knopf drücken, damit das auserwählte Volk an den ursprünglich heilen Anfang zur Zeit der Schöpfung zurückkehren kann.

4.1 Kombination von ‫ קץ‬mit ‫מועד‬ Noch ein Wort zur Kombination von ‫ קץ‬mit ‫מועד‬: Beide Termini sind in lediglich zwei Büchern der hebräischen Bibel zu finden, nämlich in Habakuk (2,3) und in Daniel (8,19; 11,27.35), wobei nur Dan 11 dieselbe Reihenfolge wie Ben Sira aufweist.33 Hab 2,3 ist Teil von Gottes Antwort auf des Propheten zweite Klage über das Gericht an Israel, welches sich in Unterdrückung durch nicht näher definierte Feinde (2,13)34 äußert. Der Prophet erhält die Anweisung, seine Vision auf Tafeln aufzuschreiben, denn das Geschaute wird erst zu einer bestimmten Zeit (‫ ;ָחז ֹון ַלּמ ֹוֵעד‬vgl. Sir 36,20b) eintreffen. Dennoch drängt das Geschehen zu einem Ende (‫ ְוָיֵפַח ַל ֵ ּקץ‬v. 3; vgl. Sir 36,10a ‫)החיש קץ‬. Der Text spricht also von einer beschleunigten sicheren Endzeiterwartung, bei der der Geradlinige (‫ )ָי ָ ׁשר‬und Gerechte (‫ ;ַצִּדיק‬v. 4) ihr Leben retten werden, nicht aber der Hochmütige (‫)ֶג ֶּבר ָיִהיר‬ und Gierige (‫ ;ִהְרִחיב ִּכְׁשא ֹול ַנְפׁש ֹו ְוהו ּא ַכ ָּמֶות ְולֹא ִיְׂש ָּבע‬v. 5). 33 Vgl. zudem 1QS IV,18; X,5; 1QpHab VII,6; XI,6; 1QM I,8; X,15; 1QHa VII,16; IX,26; XVI,32; XVII,24; XX,9.8; 4Q256 19,3; 4Q258 9,2; 4Q260 2,5; 4Q286 frag. 7 I, 4; 4Q299 frag. 5,3; 4Q369 frag. 1 I, 4; 4Q427 frag. 8 I, 8; frag. 8 II,12; 4Q511 frag. 35,8; 4Q522 frag. 9 II, 2. 34 Vgl. die vermutlich sekundäre babylonische Zuordnung in Hab 1,6 mit „Chaldäer“. Entweder handelt es sich um eine Chiffre für einen nicht näher bestimmbaren Feind, was eine Verortung in einem bestimmten historischen Hintergrund fast unmöglich macht, oder die Nennung der „Chaldäer“ weißt auf eine mögliche Datierung durch die als Bedrohung wahrnehmbaren Babylonier im 7./6. Jh. v. Chr. hin.

412  Renate Egger-Wenzel

Auch im Buch Daniel (Dan 8 und 11) sind die in Frage kommenden Belege jeweils in Visionen eingebettet. Das Geschehen von Kap. 8 wird fiktiv verortet im dritten Jahr des Königs Belschazzar. Gabriel als angelus interpres soll Daniel die Vision vom Widder und Ziegenbock (8,3–12) erklären. Ein kurzer geschichtlicher Abriss (8,20–25) beschreibt die Übernahme des Meder- und Perserreiches durch Alexander den Großen sowie seine Ablösung durch die Diadochen. Den Höhepunkt stellt die „Verwüstung“ des Heiligtums (Dan 8,13), während der Schreckensherrschaft des Antiochus’ IV. Epiphanes, dar. Dies ist die Zeit, in der sich die Prophezeiung erfüllen wird (‫ ְלֶעת־ֵקץ ֶהָחז ֹון‬/ εἰς ὥραν καιροῦ τοῦτο τὸ ὅραμα; v. 17), die des letzten Zorns (‫ ְבּאֲַח ִרית ַה ָזַּעם‬/ ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῆς ὀργῆς), in der all dies bis zu einem definitiven Ende (‫ ְלמ ֹוֵעד ֵקץ‬/ εἰς ὥρας καιροῦ συντελείας μενεῖ; v. 19) im Sinne ultimativer Erfüllung geschehen wird. Daniel hat laut den Kap. 11–12 entsprechend der fingierten Verortung im dritten Jahr des König Kyros weitere Offenbarungen. Er bemüht sich, diese zu verstehen und fastet drei Wochen. Am Tigris stehend, sieht Daniel eine Erscheinung, nicht aber seine Begleiter. Diese befällt ein großer Schrecken (‫ֲחָרָדה ְגֹדָלה‬ 10,7; vgl. Sir 36,2 ‫)פחדך‬. Eine Ohren betäubende (10,6) und schmerzhafte (10,16) Theophanie mit einer Vision ereignet sich, die erklären soll, was Daniels Volk in den letzten Tagen zustoßen wird (‫ ְּבַאֲח ִרית ַהָי ִּמים‬/ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν; ‫ ָחז ֹון ַלָי ִּמים‬/ ὅρασις εἰς ἡμέρας; v.14). Er wird die Wahrheit (‫ ֱאֶמת‬/ ἀλήθεια; 10,21) hören bzw. einen ausführlicheren Geschichtsabriss als in Dan 8 geboten bekommen. Dan 11 verortet Daniels Vision in der Perserzeit unter König Dareios mit einer historisch gekürzten Vorausschau35, die besagt, dass nach ihm der vierte König, Dareios III., mit Alexander dem Großen kämpfen wird. Dessen Reich wiederum wird nach kurzer Zeit zerfallen (Dan 11,4). Des Weiteren werden die Auseinandersetzungen um die Vorherrschaft zwischen Ptolemäern und Seleukiden mitsamt den Syrischen Kriegen detailreich wiedergegeben (Dan 11,4–30).36 Ohne Namensnennung konzentriert sich der Autor ab 11,21 auf Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, der 170 v. Chr. seinen ersten Ägyptenfeldzug befehligt (11,25). Bei den Verhandlungen mit seinem Gegner Ptolemaios VI. täuschen und betrügen beide, ohne zu einem Ergebnis zu gelangen, denn die Zeit ist noch nicht reif oder hat sich noch nicht vollfüllt: ‫ ִּכי־ע ֹוד ֵקץ ַלּמ ֹוֵעד‬/ οὐκ εὐοδωθήσονται· ἔτι γὰρ συντέλεια εἰς καιρόν (11,27). Durch den Feldzug gegen Ägypten in Geldnöten und vermutlich frustriert über den Ausgang seiner Aktion, plündert Antiochus IV. auf dem Rückzug den Jerusalemer Tempelschatz (‫ ְלָבב ֹו ַעל־ְּב ִרית ֹקֶדׁש‬/ ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν διαθήκην τοῦ ἁγίου·; 11,28).

35 Vgl. Bauer, Buch Daniel, 199. 36 Siehe im Detail Bauer, Buch Daniel, 199–209.

Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira 

413

Bereits ein Jahr später unternimmt er seinen zweiten Ägypten-Feldzug, wird aber von den eigene Interessen verfolgenden herbei geeilten Römern zum Rückzug genötigt, worauf er seine Aggression gegen Jerusalem richtet (‫ְוָזַעם ַעל־‬ ‫ ;ְּב ִרית־ק ֹוֶדׁש‬v. 30), dort die Stadtmauern einreißen lässt, eine Garnison stationiert und mit einem Gräuel, einer Zeus Olympios Statue, den Tempel entweiht sowie die Opfer verbietet (Dan 11,31; vgl. 2 Makk 6,2). Die pro-seleukidischen Parteigänger erfahren seine Unterstützung, sofern sie sich vom heiligen Bund der Väter abwenden (‫ ;ְוָיֵבן ַעל־ֹע ְזֵבי ְּב ִרית ֹקֶדׁש‬Dan 11,30). Ohne im Text explizit benannt zu werden, hilft der Hohepriester Menelaus den Seleukiden mit verführerischen Worten, vom Bund abzufallen (‫ ;ו ַּמְרִׁשיֵעי ְב ִרית ַיֲח ִניף‬Dan 11,32). In Wahrheit wird mittels eines Religionsedikts, das die Religionsausübung für Juden verbietet, die Zwangshellenisierung durchgeführt. Die Verständigen im Volk (‫ ַמְׂשִּכיֵלי ָעם‬/ ἐννοούμενοι τοῦ ἔθνους) versuchen den Angefochtenen die schlimmen Zustände, die einige Zeit andauern werden (‫ ;ָיִמים‬11,33), überstehen zu helfen. Vermutlich bezeichnet der Autor den Makkabäer-Aufstand mit seinen wechselnden Allianzen als „kleine Hilfe“ (11,34), was seine Skepsis zum Ausdruck bringt. Einige der Verständigen straucheln (ּ ‫ ;ו ִּמן־ַה ַ ּמְׂשִּכיִלים ִי ָּכְׁשלו‬ἐκ τῶν συνιέντων). Sie sollen geprüft, geläutert und gereinigt werden bis zur Zeit des Endes, bis sich die Vision erfüllt hat (‫ ַעד־ֵעת ֵקץ‬/ ἕως καιροῦ συντελείας). Das Ende der Not wird bestimmt kommen, aber es dauert noch etwas bis zu dieser bestimmten Zeit (‫ ע ֹוד ַלּמ ֹוֵעד‬/ καιρὸς εἰς ὥρας; 11,35). Tröstlich ist, dass auch der Zorn (Gottes oder die Aggression des Antiochus) ein Ende finden wird (‫ ;ַעד־ ָּכָלה ַזַעם‬v. 36; vgl. Dan 8,19). In seiner Hybris setzt Antiochus seinen eigenen Willen über den der Götter (‫)ַעל־ ָּכל־ֵאל‬, ja sogar über den des höchsten Gottes (‫ ;ַעל ֵאל ֵאִלים‬Dan 11,36; vgl. Sir 36,12b) und die Götter seiner Väter (‫)ַעל־ֱאלֵֹהי ֲאֹבָתיו‬, den Liebling der Frauen (eventuell Tammuz; vgl. Ez 8,14) über all ihre Götter (Dan 11,37). Stattdessen verehrt er einen Gott der Festungen (‫ ;ֱאלֹ ַ ּה ָמֻע ִּזים‬11,38), einen fremden Gott (‫ֱאל ֹו ַ ּה‬ ‫ ;ֵנָכר‬11,39), was sich wohl auf Zeus Olympios bezieht.37 Zudem ist er der erste Seleukide, der Münzen mit dem Zusatz ΘEOΥ EΠIΦANOYΣ prägen lässt.38 Aber auch Antiochus’ Zeit neigt sich dem Ende zu (‫ ְּבֵעת ֵקץ‬/ καθ᾿ ὥραν συντελείας; v. 40) und zum Schluss stirbt er allein (‫ ַעד־ִקצ ּ ֹו‬/ ὥρα τῆς συντελείας αὐτοῦ; v. 45). Die prophetische Vision erreicht ihre Klimax. Es geht um ihre theologische Erfüllung. In den Büchern Habakuk und Daniel ist im Kontext von Visionen die Rede von der Zuspitzung einer geschichtlich fixierbaren extremen Notzeit, einer Zeit 37 Siehe Bauer, Buch Daniel, 207, der auf archäologische Belege verweist, laut derer Antiochus den Dynastie-Gott Apoll gegen Zeus ausgewechselt hat. 38 Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 301.

414  Renate Egger-Wenzel

des Zorns und der Unterdrückung. Diese Ära oder dieses Zeitsegment geht einher mit der Existenzgefährdung des jüdischen Volkes bis hin zur Gefahr der völligen Auslöschung der Religion, der Kultur und damit der eigenen Identität. Mit Hilfe der eschatologischen Phrase ‫ע ֹוד ֵקץ ַלּמ ֹוֵעד‬, auch in variabler Reihenfolge, wird, wenn die Zeit reif ist, Gottes Eingreifen erhofft, das zu einem bestimmten Moment den Wendepunkt bringen soll. Der Autor der Daniel-Visionen sieht bereits Anzeichen für Gottes Eingreifen als gegeben. Das Ende ist schon dabei sich zu entwickeln, wohingegen das sirazidische Gebet noch bei der drängenden Aufforderung an Gott, die Feinde zu vernichten, stehen bleibt und Habakuk den Auftrag zur Niederschrift erhält.

5 Sir 41,4 (MSS B, Mas) Eingebettet zwischen dem Rat, nicht wie ein Bettler bei Fremden zu leben (40,28–30), und einer Klage über gottlose Kinder, die keinen Bestand haben (41,5–13), liegt das kunstvoll gestaltete Gedicht über den Tod39. Vier Kola thematisieren, wie bitter der Gedanke an den Tod ([‫ ;מה ]מר זכרך‬Mas) ist, wenn der Mensch seinen Besitz sorglos genießen kann, er in allem Erfolg hat und sich noch seiner physischen Lebenskraft erfreut (41,1a-d). Weitere vier Cola in paralleler Gestaltung sprechen davon, wie gut die Unausweichlichkeit des Todes ([‫ ;מה טוב ]חקך‬Mas) ist, wenn die Physis schwächer wird und damit die Kraft/Macht schwindet, sodass der Mensch stolpert und überall anstößt40 wegen verminderter Sehkraft, sodass die Hoffnung (auf bessere Zeiten) verloren geht (41,2a-d).41 In der Altersschwäche kann der Tod durchaus ersehnt werden. In sechs weiteren Kola will Ben Sira mittels Fakten zur Thematik „Tod“ dem Zuhörer / der Zuhörerin die Angst nehmen, aber auch warnen: „Fürchte dich nicht vor der Gesetzmäßigkeit des Todes (‫ ממות חקך‬Mas) und denke daran, dass Vorfahren und Nachfahren (MS Mas ‫ ;קדמון ואחרון‬MS B ‫ ראשנים ואחרנים‬/ προτέρων σου καὶ ἐσχάτων; v. 3; vgl. Jes 41,4; Dan 11,29) mit dir sind!“ Spielt Ben Sira hier auf ein Weiterleben nach dem Tod an? Oder soll sich der sterbende Mensch in einer Solidargemeinschaft von „Seelen/Wesen“ jenseits dieser Welt wissen? 39 Vgl. die ausführliche Analyse bei Reiterer, „Deutung,“ 307–43 und „Vorstellung,“ 167–204, ausgehend von Gk.; neuerdings in Piwowar, „La vergogna,“ 188–92. 40 Reiterer, „Deutung,“ 328, deutet hier „ein alter, insbesondere zuvor agiler Mensch, der physisch gebrechlich geworden ist, überall aneckt, seiner Umwelt durch typische, altersbedingte Sturheit …“ zur Last wird. 41 Vgl. zu Sir 41,1–2 den ausführlichen Artikel von Mizrahi, „Transmission,“ 331–58.

Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira



415

Oder meint er einfach, dass der Tod jeden trifft?42 Im Text wird dann festgestellt: :[‫ומה תמאס בתורת עליו]ן‬

‫ זה קץ כל ]בשר מאל[ה‬4aMas–bB

‫איש* תוכחות ב]שאול[ חיים׃‬ *‫אין‬

‫ לעשר מאה ואלף שנים‬4cMas–dB

4a-b

τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα παρὰ κυρίου πάσῃ σαρκί,

καὶ τί ἀπαναίνῃ ἐν εὐδοκίᾳ ὑψίστου;

4c-d

εἴτε δέκα εἴτε ἑκατὸν εἴτε χίλια ἔτη,

οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ᾅδου ἐλεγμὸς ζωῆς.

„Dies ist das Ende43 allen Fleisches vor Gott. Was verweigerst du dich der Weisung des Höchsten?“ MS B umgeht die Mehrdeutigkeit des Wortes ‫ קץ‬und wählt in euphemistischer Weise das Wort ‫„( חלק‬Anteil/Erbe“)44; ähnlich verfährt Gk., indem mit κρίμα („Urteil[spruch]“) übersetzt wird. So teilen die Menschen ein gemeinsames Schicksal. V. 4c fährt fort: [Gleichgültig,] ob man „zehn, hundert oder tausend Jahre45 [gelebt hat], / ein Mann der Anklagen (marg. keine Anklagen), das ist das Leben in der Scheol.“46 Sir 41,4d ist nur in MS B erhalten und bleibt für diverse Interpretationen offen. Man hat den Eindruck, dass die Wortstellung durcheinander geraten ist, wobei der Schreiber wohl gezielt mit Hilfe der Stilfigur des Hyperbaton ‫ חיים‬an das Ende gestellt hat,47 um – von zweiter Hand sichtbar in MS B eingefügt – eine inclusio zu erzielen. Damit sind erstes und letztes Wort dieser poetischen Einheit identisch, obwohl MS B marg. zur Interjektion ‫ הוי‬korrigiert. Gleichgültig wie kurz oder lang man gelebt hat, entweder besteht das Leben in der Unterwelt aus ständigen Anklagen (‫ )תוכחות‬oder es gibt nicht einmal diese Art der Zurechtweisungen, sondern lediglich ein trostloses Dahinvegetieren48 (vgl. Sir 14,12 MS 42 Letztere Interpretation präferiert Reiterer, „Deutung,“ 329, und als phänomenologische Tatsache bevorzugt diese ebenso Piwowar, „La vergogna,“ 189. 43 Piwowars Interpretation von ‫ קץ‬als „Ziel“, „ad un qualcosa che deve inevitabilmente avvenire,“ geht in die richtige Richtung („La vergogna,“ 190). 44 Nach Reiterer, „Deutung,“ 330, kann „‫ חלק‬ein Geschenk … oder ein von Gott zugeteiltes Schicksal bezeichnen, wobei diese Bereiche fließend ineinander übergehen.“ 45 MS B hat umgekehrte Reihenfolge. 46 Reiterer, „Deutung,“ 332, übersetzt v. 4d: „es gibt keine Maßnahme für das Leben in der Unterwelt.“ Er versteht ‫ תוכחות‬als „Züchtigung“ bzw. „Erziehungsmaßnahme“. 47 Diese Korrektur in MS wird von Gk. gestützt. 48 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 474, beschreiben es so: „dark, dismal, shadowy existence devoid of any real life of joy“; Riede, „Jenseitsvorstellungen,“ 2.1, charakterisiert die Unterwelt als „lebensfeindlichen Bereich … Staub … Stille … Finsternis.“

416  Renate Egger-Wenzel

A ‫)לא בשאול תענוג‬. Betrachtet man v. 4 im Umkehrschluss, kann man folgern, dass der Mensch, der sich an Gottes Torah hält, der tristen Existenz in der Scheol, wie sie v. 4d beschreibt, entgehen würde49. Im letzten Abschnitt (41,3–4) dieses kunstvoll gegliederten Gedichts finden sich drei Passagen, die zeitliche Aussagen beinhalten: Vers 3b spricht von den „Früheren und Späteren“ Menschen, die mit den im Jetzt Lebenden verbunden sind (‫)עמך‬. V. 4a Mas stellt klar, dass es ein unwiderrufliches „Ende/Schicksal allen Fleisches“ (‫ )קץ‬gibt. Colon 4c präsentiert eine Zahlenfolge von Jahren (10– 100–1000), je nach Handschrift in unterschiedlicher Reihenfolge, die auf eine zu relativierende Lebensdauer anspielen. ‫( קץ‬vgl. Sir 11,27 A ‫ )סוף אדם‬ist in diesem Kontext eine scharfe Grenze zwischen dem diesseitigen, physisch gebundenen Leben (41,1b-d.2b-d) und der jenseitigen Existenz, die davor oder danach stattfindet. Je nachdem, ob sich der Mensch an die Torah Gottes hält oder nicht, kann dies zu einer miserablen Daseinsform in der Scheol führen. Deshalb kann man mit Piwowar folgern: „‫ קץ‬in questo stico viene usato in senso temporale“ analog zur Beschreibung von Samuels Tod in Sir 46,19.50

6 Sir 43,6b (MSS Mas, B) Der kurze Text über den Mond ist Teil der sirazidischen Beschreibung von Gottes Schöpfungswerken in 42,15–43,3351, der sie durch sein Wort ins Dasein gerufen hat (‫ באמר אדני מעשיו‬Mas, ‫ באומר אלהים ר]צונ[ו‬B, marg. ‫ מעשיו‬/ ἐν λόγοις κυρίου τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ; v. 15). Der allwissende Schöpfer überblickt alles, was in fernsten Zeiten kommen wird (‫ אתיות עולם‬Mas; εἰς σημεῖον αἰῶνος; v. 18). 42,19 Gk. legt zusätzlich den Fokus auf Vergangenes und Zukünftiges (τὰ παρεληλυθότα καὶ τὰ ἐσόμενα), das verborgen war, aber von Gott schließlich enthüllt wird. Den Großtaten seiner Weisheit gibt er allein von Ewigkeit her (‫ )מעולם‬eine Ordnung (‫תכן‬/ἐκόσμησεν; v. 21). Der Grieche präzisiert: Er (Gott) ist vor der Zeit und für die Ewigkeit (εἶς ἐστιν πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) und all seine Werke existieren auf Dauer (‫ חי ]ועומד[ לעד‬Mas / ζῇ καὶ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα; v. 23). Aber durch Gottes 49 Nach Reiterer, „Deutung,“ 333, wäre es ohnehin zu spät für solche Zurechtweisungen in der Unterwelt. 50 Piwowar, „La vergogna,“ 189. 51 Vgl. u. a. Prato, Il problema, 116–208; Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 135–64; Calduch-Benages, „God,“ 79–100, and „Hymn,“ 119–38, mit weiteren bibliographischen Daten zur Thematik; Reiterer, „Herr,“ 121–32, für die griechische Tradition; neuerdings auch ausführlich Schmidt, Wisdom, 140–207.

Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira 

417

gestalterisches Wirken ist der Schöpfung mit den einzelnen Werken ein zeitliches „Koordinatensystem“ mitgegeben. Gott strukturiert den Tag mit Hilfe der Sonne. Bei ihrem Aufgang (‫בצאתו‬/ ἐν ὀπτασίᾳ; 43,2), d. h. am Morgen, erleuchtet sie alles, was verborgen war. Während des Tages (‫בהצהירו‬/ ἐν μεσημβρίᾳ αὐτοῦ; v. 3) bringt sie Hitze. Ihre Glut kann sogar das Ende (‫ ;ת]ג[מור‬v. 4) für die Bewohner der Erde bringen.52 Da der jüdischen Kalender lunar strukturiert ist und sich von ihm der Schabbat, die religiösen Feiertage ableiten, wird dem Mond mit 43,6–8 mehr Text zugeordnet als der Sonne, wobei MS B besser erhalten ist. Ben-Dov bemerkt zurecht, dass „(t)he association of natural law with the calendar exposes a distinctive trait of Second Temple Judaism, namely the aim to define the calendar as a mark of Jewish identity.“53 Calduch-Benages notiert zurecht: „It is a very important question because it is linked to the different religious groups that were in conflict with one another. To control the calendar means, in a certain way, to control the feasts and religious observances.“54 MS Mas ‫מ]משלת קץ ואות עולם[׃‬ ‫]וחפץ עתה בתקופתו[׃‬

‫ לו ]מועד[ וממנו חג‬v. 7

[‫מה נורא בהשתנותו‬

‫ ]חד[ש כשמו הוא מ]תחדש‬v. 8

‫מ]רצף רקיע מזהירתו[׃‬

v. 6 v. 7 v. 8

‫ וגם ]יר[ח יאריח עתות‬v. 6

‫כלי צבא נבלי מרום‬

Auch der Mond wandert durch seine Zyklen. / Er beherrscht die Zeit und ist ein immerwährendes Zeichen. Zu ihm gehören eine bestimmte Zeit und von ihm kommt der Feiertag, / und auch das Gefallen an seiner Rotation/seinem Kreislauf. Der Neumond ist wie sein Name, er erneuert sich. / Wie Ehrfurcht gebietend/eindrücklich ist er in seinem Wechsel. Die himmlischen Erscheinungen sind Gefäße der Höhen, / das Firmament erstrahlt von seinem Glanz.

52 Vgl. Talmon, „‫ֵקץ‬,“ 89, der in der spätbiblischen Literatur die parallele Verwendung von qeṣ und gmr feststellt. 53 Ben-Dov, „Time,“ 10. 54 Calduch-Benages, „Hymn,“ 129.

418  Renate Egger-Wenzel

MS B ‫ממשלת קץ ואות עולם׃‬

v. 7 v. 8

‫ וגם ירח ָיֵרח עתות⸱ שכות‬v. 6 ‫ עת עת עד עת‬marg.

‫וחפץ עתה בתקופתו׃‬

‫ בם⸱ מועד וזמני חוק‬v. 7 ‫ בו מו׳ וממנו‬marg.

⸱‫מה נורא בהשתנותו‬ ‫בתשובתו‬

‫ חדש בחדשו הוא⸱ מתחדש‬v. 8 ‫ כשמו והוא‬marg.

‫מרצף⸱ רקיע מזהירתו׃‬ ‫מע ר ץ‬

v. 6

55

‫כלי צבא נבלי מרום‬ marg.

Auch der Mond zieht durch seine sichtbaren (‫)שׂכה‬/wiederkehrenden (‫)ׁשוב‬ Phasen, / er beherrscht die Zeit (‫)קץ‬56 und ist ein immerwährendes Zeichen. In ihnen gibt es eine bestimmte Zeit und eine festgesetzte Zeit (zum Feiern), / und auch das Gefallen an seiner Rotation/seinem Kreislauf. Jeder Neumond in seiner Erneuerung erneuert sich. / Wie Ehrfurcht gebietend ist er in seinem Wechsel. Die himmlischen Erscheinungen sind Gefäße der Höhen, / das Firmament erstrahlt von seinem Glanz.

Ben Sira spricht zunächst von den Mondzyklen (Mas ‫ ]יר[ח יאריח עתות‬/ B ‫ירח‬ ‫ עתות שכות‬57(‫ ירח )שבות‬/ εἰς καιρὸν αὐτῆς). MS B hat im Vergleich zu MS Mas ein zusätzliches Wort in v. 6a, das ev. eine Glosse sein könnte. Zudem wird ‫ ירח‬wiederholt, was auf den ersten Blick keinen Sinn ergibt. Vergleicht man die beiden MSS, so liegt der Schluss nahe, dass es sich um eine Defektivschreibung der Wurzel ‫„( ארח‬reisen, wandern, ziehen“) handelt (vgl. ‫ יאריח‬in MS Mas). In 43,6b schließt sich die Feststellung an, dass der Mond die „Zeit“ – oder ist es nach Argall die „Jahreszeit“58 – bestimmt und ein immerwährendes Zeichen ist (Mas/B ‫ ממשלת קץ ואות עולם‬/ χρόνων καὶ σημεῖον αἰῶνος). Diese Aussage verwundert nicht, 55 Segal, ‫ספר‬, 288, schlägt vor statt ‫ שכות שבות‬zu lesen, was die ansonsten schwierige Lesart klären würde. Der Schreiber von MS B gestaltet in der Regel seine kaphs mit zwei Strichen, zuerst die obere Linie von links nach rechts, setzt neu an, um dann den Rest des Buchstabens mit einer Rundung unten rechts zu vollenden. Das ‫ ב‬schreibt er zumeist mit drei separaten Linien: die obere Querlinie, ein Strich nach unten und von links nach rechts die Basislinie. In Sir 43,6a MS B ist diese Schreibweise erkennbar, auch wenn die Basislinie nicht über die vertikale Linie nach rechts hinausgezogen ist. 56 Segal, ‫ספר‬, 295, versucht die ungewohnte Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬als „Zeit“ damit aufzulösen, indem er den Text verändernd ‫ עד‬einfügt. 57 Vgl. die textkritische Besprechung in Fußnote 55. 58 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 147: „The moon marks the passing of ‚times‘ (‫עתות‬, 43:6a) and each ‚season‘ (‫קץ‬, 43:6b) as an enduring sign“; Calduch-Benages, „Hymn,“ 122.

Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira



419

da sowohl in der Antike als auch im Judentum der lunare Kalender vorherrschte und die Angleichung an die 364 Tage des Sonnenjahres (vgl. u. a. 4Q320–330; 1 Hen. 72; 82,4.7; Jub. 2,9; 6,36) erst im 4. Jh. n. Chr. durch komplizierte Berechnungen gelöst wurde.59 Des Weiteren strukturiert der Mond die Zeit, da an seiner Rotation (‫ )בתקופתו‬bestimmte Zeiträume und Feiertage60 (Mas/B /‫מועד וזמני חג‬ ‫ חוק‬/ ἀπὸ σελήνης σημεῖον ἑορτῆς) laut v. 7 festgemacht werden. Sodann beschreibt Ben Sira den sich selbst erneuernden Neumond (... ‫חדש בחדשו הוא⸱ מתחדש‬ ‫ בהשתנותו‬/ αὐξανόμενος θαυμαστῶς ἐν ἀλλοιώσει), der durch seine wechselnde Gestalt Ehrfurcht gebietend ist, mit Argall Wetterphänomene wie z. B. Regen auslöst (v. 8c)61 und das Firmament mit all den himmlischen Erscheinungen überstrahlt (v. 8). Diese werden in der Folge angeführt. ‫ קץ‬bedeutet in diesem Fall nicht „Ende“, sondern meint einfach „Zeit“, die der Mond mit seinen Phasen bzw. seiner Rotation strukturiert. Gk. hat diese Bedeutung analog erfasst, indem hier χρόνος verwendet wird.

7 Sir 43,24b (MSS B, Mas) ‫ויט בתהום איים׃‬ ‫אוצר‬

‫[בה‬.] ‫ מחשבתו תשיק‬v. 23a.b ‫ משובתו‬marg.

‫לשמע אזננו נשתומם׃‬

‫ יורדי הים יספרו קצהו‬v. 24a.b

‫מין כל חי וגבורות רבה׃‬

‫ שם פלאות תמהי מעשהו‬v. 25a.b ‫ מעשיו‬marg.

‫ובדבריו יפעל רצון׃‬

‫ למענו יצלח מלאך‬v. 26a.b ‫ למענהו למען‬marg.

v. 23 Seinem Denken lässt er überfließen die Fülle, / und er bringt hervor Inseln in der Urflut.

59 Albani, „Kalender (AT)“: „Erst im 4. Jh. n. Chr. wurde unter Hillel II. ein berechenbarer konstanter Lunisolarkalender für das rabbinische Judentum eingeführt, den man nach dem 19-Jahres-Zyklus (Meton-Zyklus) schaltete, so dass der Kalenderrat des Synedrions aufgelöst werden konnte.“ 60 Vgl. Ps 104,19. 61 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 147: „Thus, the moon signals ‚the host of water-skins on high,‘ or an army of clouds, to pour down rain. The idea is related to the hellenistic notion that the moon can be watched for signs of impending rains (cf. 1 En 80:4–5).“

420  Renate Egger-Wenzel

v. 24 Die zum Meer hinabziehen, erzählen von seiner Ausdehnung, / von dem, was unsere Ohren hören, sind wir erstaunt. v. 25 Dort gibt es Wunder, wunderbar ist seine Schöpfung: / alle Arten von Lebewesen und eine überwältigende Vielfalt. v. 26 Wegen ihm ist der Bote erfolgreich, / und in Übereinstimmung mit seinen Worten tut er (seinen) Willen. In der weiteren Darstellung von Gottes Schöpfung werden meteorologische Phänomene angeführt, bis das Meer an der Reihe ist (vgl. Sir 42,18a). Ben Sira spricht von Gottes Denken (‫מחשבתו‬/ λογισμῷ αὐτοῦ), das eine Überfülle (‫)רבה‬62 hervor- und aus der Urflut Inseln emporbringt. Diejenigen, die zum Meer hinabziehen, die Seefahrer (οἱ πλέοντες τὴν θάλασσαν), erstaunen uns, wenn sie von dessen Ausdehnung (‫)קצהו‬63 berichten. Der Grieche verändert hier den Text zu „Gefahren“ (τὸν κίνδυνον αὐτῆς; v. 24), was bei der Mythenbildung in der Antike und den noch unerforschten Meeresbewohnern verständlich ist. Da kann der Mensch nur staunen. Im Anschluss fasst der Autor zusammen, indem er die Wunder der Meere und die überwältigende Vielfalt der Lebewesen preist (v. 25). All dies vollbringt der Bote nach Gottes Willen und in Übereinstimmung mit seinen Worten (‫ ובדבריו יפעל רצון‬/ ἐν λόγῳ αὐτοῦ σύγκειται τὰ πάντα; v. 26).64 ‫ קצה‬in diesem Kontext meint die enorme räumliche Ausdehnung des Meeres, die einer ungeheuer großen Artenvielfalt von geschaffenen Lebewesen entspricht.

8 Sir 43,27b (MS B) Diese Textpassage schließt an die vorhergehende an, beendet die Darstellung (‫ ;עוד כאלה לא נוסף‬v. 27a) der durch Gottes Wort (43,5b.10a.26b.29b) so wunderbar geschaffenen unergründlichen Schöpfungswerke und mündet schließlich in eine Aufforderung zum Lobpreis auf ihren Schöpfer. V. 27b ist analog zum Versbeginn von Koh 12,13 (‫)ס ֹוף ָּדָבר ַה ֹּכל ִנְׁשָמע‬65 und formuliert ein letztes Wort (‫)וקץ דבר‬: „Er ist alles“ (‫ הוא הכל‬/ Τὸ πᾶν ἐστιν αὐτός). Man könnte diese Phrase 62 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 88, schlägt vor ‫ רבה‬in Sir 43,23a und 25b mit „Rahab, a traditional sea-monster“ zu emendieren (vgl. die auch die Übersetzung bei Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 486); dagegen argumentiert Schmidt, Wisdom, 186. 63 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 151, spricht von „edge“. 64 Calduch-Benages, „God,“ 86, verweist auf den problematischen Charakter des Verses aufgrund der unvermittelten Einführung eines „messenger or angel“; ähnlich Schmidt, Wisdom, 188–89. 65 ‫ קץ‬ist durch ‫ ס ֹוף‬ausgetauscht. Koh 12,13 „Wenn man das Ende der ganzen Sache gehört hat, fürchte Gott und halte seine Gebote, denn dies ist (die Bestimmung) eines jeden Menschen!“

Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira 

421

stoisch beeinflußt pantheistisch verstehen, aber Di Lella merkt an: „such meaning would be contrary to all of Ben Sira’s thought, esp. in the present poem, which celebrates the uniqueness of God and his creative activity.“66 Zusammen mit ‫ הוא הכל‬in 27b bieten die vv. 28b.29b.30b und 33a eine Beschreibung Gottes: ‫וקץ דבר הוא הכל׃‬

v. 27b

‫והוא גדול מכל מעשיו׃‬

v. 28b

‫ונפלאות דבריו ׃‬ *‫גבורתו‬

v. 29b

‫בכל תוכלו כי יש עוד׃‬

v. 30b - - ]‫ את הכל‬v. 33a πάντα γὰρ ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος

v. 27b und das letzte Wort / das Ende der Rede: Er (Gott) ist alles. v. 28b und er ist größer als all seine Werke. v. 29b und wunderbar ist seine Macht. v. 30b … denn er ist mehr! v. 33a Denn das alles hat der Herr geschaffen, … ‫ קץ דבר‬in v. 27b setzt v. 27a (‫ )לא נוסף‬fort und beendet einerseits eine Aufzählung der Schöpfungswerke, drückt aber gleichzeitig in dieser Gottesbeschreibung sozusagen die Quintessenz seines Wesens aus; Calduch-Benages nennt es „The Concept of Totality“67. Gott ist das alles, er ist größer als seine Werke, er ist noch mehr und der Schöpfer von allem.68 Ben Siras Enkel hat das auch so empfunden, wenn er mit συντέλεια λόγων übersetzt. Es gibt nichts mehr zu sagen (v. 27): Der Mensch kann Gott nicht erforschen (v. 28a), nicht ergründen (v. 30d) und wer ihn gesehen hätte, wäre nicht in der Lage, die Gottesbegegnung zu beschreiben (v. 31a). Ben Sira hat nur einen kleinen Ausschnitt seiner unermesslichen Schöpfung gesehen (v. 32). Deshalb gibt es keinen Gott adäquaten Lobpreis von menschlicher Seite. Wer könnte ihn preisen, „so wie er ist“ (καθώς ἐστιν; v. 31b)?

66 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 495; Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 89, 226: „logically incompatible with the transcendence of God, which Sirach otherwise maintains,“ was sich schon im Text selbst in Sir 43,28b und v. 30b ausdrückt; vgl. die Darstellung bei Calduch-Benages, „God,“ 90–91. 67 Calduch-Benages, „God,“ 89–91. 68 Inclusio durch ‫ כל‬in den vv. 27b und 33a, sowie darüber hinaus das Leitwort in vv. 28b.30b; vgl. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 152.

422  Renate Egger-Wenzel

9 Sir 46,19f+ (MS B) Im Väterlob wird der Prophet und letzte Richter Samuel mit acht Versen behandelt. Für unseren Kontext relevant ist insbesondere der Abschnitt über seinen Tod in den vv. 19–20. Zur Zeit seiner Ruhe auf seinem (Toten-)Bett (‫עת נוחו על‬ ‫ משכבו‬/ πρὸ καιροῦ κοιμήσεως αἰῶνος; v. 19a) hat er vor dem Herrn und seinem Gesalbten bezeugt, dass er kein Bestechungs- oder Schweigegeld genommen hat. Er stellt herausfordernd die rhetorische Frage, von wem er solches bekommen hätte. Bis zum Zeitpunkt seines Endes (‫ ;עד עת קצו‬v. 19f+) ist er in den Augen des Herrn und aller Lebenden als klug/verständig befunden worden. König Saul befragte Samuel sogar nach dessen Tod (‫ אחרי מותו‬/ μετὰ τὸ ὑπνῶσαι αὐτόν; v. 20a) wegen seines weiteren Schicksals, sodass der Prophet aus der Erde (‫מארץ‬/ ἐκ γῆς; v. 20c) seine Stimme erhob um zu prophezeien. ‫ עת נוחו‬in 19a spricht von einem längeren Zeitraum, indem sich Samuel, auf dem Kranken- bzw. Totenbett liegend, gegenüber Gott und den Menschen rechtfertigt, was auch der Grieche mit „vor der Zeit des ewigen Schlafes“ wiedergibt. Im Gegensatz dazu zeigt ‫ עת קצו‬den Zeitpunkt von Samuels Tod an. Die Zeit nach seinem Tod (‫ )אחרי מותו‬beschreibt Ben Siras Enkel wiederum euphemistisch mit „nachdem er eingeschlafen war“. In beiden Überlieferungstraditionen wird Samuels Existenz nach seinem Lebensende verortet mit „aus der Erde“ (vgl. 1 Sam 28,8–19). „Lokalisiert ist die Unterwelt unterhalb der Erde …, deshalb steigt der Tote zu ihr hinab (Jes 38,18; Ez 32,18 ff.) … Im dreigliedrig (Himmel – Erde – Unterwelt, vgl. Ex 20,4) gedachten Kosmos ist sie der tiefstgelegene Ort (Hi 11,8).“69

10 Zusammenfassung Die Verwendung von ‫ קץ‬und ‫ קצה‬im Buch Ben Sira lässt sich in drei Kategorien unterteilen: In die menschliche Ebene, die der nicht-geistbegabten Schöpfungswerke und in die göttliche.

1) Die menschliche Ebene Der Mensch ist, als Teil eines begrenzten größeren Ganzen der geistbegabten Lebewesen (Constructus-Verbindung ‫)קצות רוחות‬, eingebunden in ein Raum-Zeit69 Riede, „Jenseitsvorstellungen,“ 2.1.

Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira



423

gefüge zwischen Himmel und Erde. Seine diesseitige physische Existenz (‫;נפש‬ Sir 16,17d) ist an einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt endlich, was dem gemeinmenschlichen Schicksal entspricht. Er ist räumlich und zeitlich gebunden. Doch befindet er sich in einer Art Solidargemeinschaft mit den Vor- und Nachfahren (‫ ראשנים ואחרנים עמך‬Sir 41,3b B). Beachtet der Mensch Gottes Torah nicht, ist er zu einer tristen Existenz in der Scheol ohne Genuss bestimmt (41,4d; vgl. 11,27; 14,16 ‫)כי אין בשאול לבקש תענוג‬. Setzt Ben Sira Samuels Prophezeiung „aus der Erde“ (46,20c) mit einem Akt gleich, der aus der Unterwelt erfolgt? Oder spielt ‫ מארץ‬einfach nur auf das Ende der physischen Existenz an, ohne ein wie immer geartetes Weiterbestehen auszuschließen? Man wird Berlejung zustimmen können, wenn sie sagt: „Der Betroffene wechselte die Daseinsform (‚ontologische Veränderung‘), betrat einen neuen ‚Lebens‘raum und einen neuen ‚Lebens‘abschnitt (d. h. Wechsel von Raum und Zeit) und gehörte nun der Totengemeinschaft, dem ‚Volk der Unterwelt‘ (Ez 26,20), an (‚Versammlung zu den Vätern‘; ‚gesellschaftliche Veränderung‘).“70 „In spätnachexilischer Zeit kommt in weisheitlichen Texten eine weitere Perspektive hinzu, wonach es eine dauerhafte Gemeinschaft mit Gott gibt, die auch durch den Tod nicht zerstört werden kann (vgl. Ps 16,10f, Ps 73,23ff).“71 Aber Ben Sira geht noch nicht soweit, explizit von der Auferstehung der Toten zu sprechen wie Dan 12,1–3 („der Verständigen“ ‫ )ַה ַ ּמְׂשִּכִלים‬oder 2 Makk 7 („Kinder des Himmels“ ἐπὶ τοὺς οὐρανίους παῖδας; v. 34), auch wenn er Elijas Handeln so beschreibt: „Einen Verstorbenen hast du aufstehen lassen vom Tod und von der Scheol gemäß dem Willen des Herrn“ (‫המקים‬ ‫ ;גוע ממות ומשאול‬Sir 48,5). D. h. aber auch, dass nur Gott diesen Übergang von einer Daseinsform in eine andere kontrolliert. Insofern als der Mensch ein soziales Wesen ist, ein homo historicus72, unterliegt er auch dem Wechselspiel der Geschichte, die biblisch gesehen Heil und Unheil bietet. In der konkreten Situation der seleukidischen Machtübernahme in Judäa formuliert Ben Sira oder einer seiner Schüler mit ‫קץ‬, das durch ‫מועד‬ spezifiziert wird, die Bitte um ein beschleunigtes Ende der Feinde (vgl. Dan 11). Diese als apokalyptisch empfundene Endzeit wird argumentativ rückwärtsschreitend dem heilen Anfang der Schöpfung gegenübergestellt. Der Fromme wirft seine Hoffnung auf Gott, denn nur er kann das Heil wiederherstellen.

70 Berlejung, „Tod,“ 487. 71 Riede, „Jenseitsvorstellungen,“ 2.3. 72 Vgl. Charle, Homo Historicus.

424  Renate Egger-Wenzel

2) Die Ebene der nicht-geistbegabten Schöpfungswerke Die Erschaffung der Sonne73, aber v. a. die des Mondes, dieser astronomischen Größen, strukturiert die Zeit, macht sie für den Menschen messbar und ermöglicht anhand der Mondphasen die Erstellung eines Kalenders. Diese Systematisierung ist im Judentum, aber nicht nur dort, integraler Bestandteil der Religion mit deren Feiertagen und Festen, ihrer damit verbundenen Riten, die das menschliche Leben bestimmen. Sie wirken identitätsstiftend. Beim Meer mit seinen vom Mond abhängigen Gezeiten beschreibt Ben Sira mittels ‫ קצה‬die ungeheure räumliche Ausdehnung, wobei er auf die Erfahrung von Seefahrern zurückgreift.

3) Die göttliche Ebene Die Constructus-Verbindung ‫ קץ דבר‬umschreibt das Ende einer Aufzählung oder vielmehr die Quintessenz von Gottes Wesen. Das von Gott Sagbare ist limitiert durch die menschlich-geschöpfliche Begrenztheit der Wahrnehmung. Damit kann ‫ קץ‬und ‫ קצה‬den Übergang von einer Existenzform in eine andere meinen und eine eschatologische Endzeit ansprechen. Die Verwendung dieser Begriffe erzeugt zudem eine theologisch begründete, für den Menschen strukturierbare Zeitlinie und zeigt dem menschlichen Reden über Gott eine Grenze auf. Hinzu kommt, dass dieser Zeitbegriff auf geschöpflicher Ebene auch einer räumlichen Verortung bedarf.

Bibliographie Albani, Matthias. „Kalender (AT).“ In https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/23076/ (September 2021). Argall, Randal A. 1 Enoch and Sirach. A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment. SBLEJL 8. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Bauer, Dieter. Das Buch Daniel. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 22. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. „Time and Natural Law in Jewish-Hellenistic Writings.“ Pages 9–30 in The Construction of Time in Antiquity. Ritual, Art, and Identity. Edited by Jonathan Ben-Dov and Lutz Doering. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017.

73 Kulturen, für die die Sonne Basis ihres Kalenders ist: z. B. Maya, Azteken, Inka.

Die Bedeutung von ‫ קץ‬im Buch Ben Sira 

425

Berlejung, Angelika. „Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Israeliten. Ein ausgewählter Aspekt zu einer Metapher im Spannungsfeld von Leben und Tod.“ Pages 465–502 in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Beate Ego. FAT 32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Calduch-Benages, Núria. „God, Creator of All (Sir 43,27–33).“ Pages 79–100 in Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference: Durham – Ushaw College 2001. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Calduch-Benages, Núria. „The Hymn to the Creation (Sir 42:15–43:33).“ Pages 119–38 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. Charle, Christophe. Homo Historicus. Réflexions sur l’histoire, les historiens et les sciences sociales. Paris: Colin, 2013. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel. AB 23. New York: Doubleday, 1978. Joosten, Jan. „The Hebrew of the Ben Sira Manuscripts from the Genizah.“ Pages 319–29 in Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting. Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 Years. Edited by James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2018. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Vol. II. Repr. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Marböck, Johannes. „Das Gebet um die Rettung Zions. Sir 36,1–22 (G: 33,1–13a; 36,16b–22) im Zusammenhang der Geschichtsschau Ben Siras.“ Pages 93–115 in Memoria Jerusalem. Festschrift Franz Sauer. Edited by Johannes B. Bauer and Johannes Marböck. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1977. Middendorp, Theophil. Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Leiden: Brill 1973. Mittag, Peter F. Antiochus IV. Epiphanes. Eine politische Biographie. Klio Beihefte 11. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006. Mizrahi, Noam. „Transmission and Transformation of Ben Sira’s Poetic Language: The Case of Sir 41:1–2.“ Pages 331–58 in Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting: Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 Years. Edited by James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel, and Stefan C. Reif. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2018. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. „‚Salvaci, Dio dell’universo!‘ Studio dell’eucologia di Sir 36H,1– 17.“ Pages 129–35 in Thinking Towards New Horizons. Edited by Matthias Augustin and Hermann M. Niemann. BEATAJ 55. Frankfurt: Lang, 2009. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. „Salvaci, Dio dell’universo!“ Studio dell’eucologia di Sir 36H,1–17. AnBib 163. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006. Piwowar, Andrzej. „La vergogna come criterio dela fama perpetua. Studio esegetico-teologico di Sir 40,1–42,14.“ Ph. D. diss. Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Katowice, 2006. Prato, Gian L. Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. Composizioni dei contrari e richiamo alle origine. AnBib 65. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975. Reiterer, Friedrich V. „Deutung und Wertung des Todes durch Ben Sira.“ Pages 185–227 in „Alle Weisheit stammt vom Herrn …“. Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 375. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007.

426  Renate Egger-Wenzel

Reiterer, Friedrich V. „Die immateriellen Ebenen der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira.“ Pages 307–43 in „Alle Weisheit stammt vom Herrn …“. Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 375. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Reiterer, Friedrich V. „‚Alles hat nämlich der Herr gemacht‘ – Das Telos der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira.“ Pages 95–136 in Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. Edited by Tobias Nicklas and Korinna Zamfir. DCLS 6. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Reiterer, Friedrich V. „Zwischen Jerusalem und Alexandria: Alttestamentlicher Glaube im Umfeld hellenistischer Politik und Bildung.“ Pages 245–84 in Alexandria. Edited by Tobias Georges, Felix Albrecht and Reinhard Feldmeier. Civitatum Orbis Mediterranei Studia 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Reiterer, Friedrich V. „Die Vorstellung vom Tod und den Toten in Ben Sira.“ Pages 167–204 in The Human Body in Death and Resurrection. Edited by Tobias Nicklas et al. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2009. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Riede, Peter. „Jenseitsvorstellungen (AT).“ https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/ 33830/ (September 2021). Schmidt, Jordan A. Wisdom, Cosmos, and Cultus in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 42. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Segal, Moshe Zwi. ‫השלם בן סירא ספר‬. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1972. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Talmon, Shemaryahu. „‫ ֵקץ‬qeṣ.“ ThWAT VII.84–92. Wagner, Max. „‫ ֵקץ‬qeṣ Ende.“ THAT II.659–63. Wieder, Naphtali. „The Term ‫ ֵקץ‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Hebrew Liturgical Poetry.“ JJS 5 (1954): 22–31.

 Part IV: The Construction of Apocalyptic Time

Matthew Goff

Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age Abstract: It is widely understood that the core myth of the descent of the angels in the Enochic Book of the Watchers is the product of engagement with Genesis 6. I address an underlying issue—why the producers of the Book of the Watchers were interested in Genesis 6. It reflects an abiding interest in the antediluvian past. The Hellenistic Age is characterized by a marked interest in the distant past. Intellectuals from various cultures sought to articulate their origins in a by-gone age and the etiologies of various forms of knowledge. Mesopotamian myths locate the origins of forms of knowledge critical for human civilization, such as writing and astronomy, within the cultural context of Mesopotamia, and Egyptian myths likewise promoted the view that these types of knowledge first originated in Egypt. A type of anxiety developed among ancient cultures in the Near East that were taken over by a people perceived as much younger, the Greeks. This cultural context helps explain a desire by intellectuals in various Near Eastern cultures, including the producers of 1 Enoch 6–11, to turn to the distant past, configured as a blank canvas upon which one could write a version of history in which their own culture and textual traditions are valorized. The Hellenistic context can also explain a key element of the exegesis that is evident in the Book of the Watchers—that the sons of the angels which receive minimal description in Genesis 6:4 are presented as monstrous, destructive giants. Berossus likewise presents versions of Mesopotamian myths that, when compared to older articulations of them, heightens the monstrous. In short, during the Hellenistic age the primordial past can become more monstrous. In this paper I suggest that this ‘monsterizing’ Tendenz can be understood as a consequence of the cultural anxiety of the Hellenistic age. Keywords: Book of the Watchers, Hellenistic Age, Berossus, Pergamon, giants, monsters, the antediluvian age.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-020

430  Matthew Goff

1 Introduction1 The point of departure for this essay is a well-known fact in biblical studies— that the watchers myth of the Enochic Book of the Watchers should be understood as interpreting Genesis 6:1–4. The details are commonly known, and when this passage of Genesis is compared to 1 Enoch 6–11, it is clear that there is some sort of relationship between them. However, we should not investigate the Book of the Watchers and its affinities with Genesis as one would with later midrash—where one has a clearly defined base text that can be distinguished from secondary text, which is exposition of the base text. Rather we should, taking the “archival turn,” understand both Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch 6–11 not simply as fixed texts but rather as part of a body of traditional lore where “readers and writers are permitted to dwell amongst documentary remains, crafting new narratives and new genres.”2 This approach accords with the pluriform and creative conception of scripture that is evident in late Second Temple literature. One way to take the archival turn can be informed by the wonderful scholarship of Annette Reed. Here the issue is not to problematize or define the concept of scripture but rather move away from it. Has a scriptural-centric approach to the Book of Watchers occluded our vision and prevented us from appreciating other issues that are critical for understanding the production of the watchers myth? This article is shaped by this question. By starting from the position that the Book of the Watchers is interpreting Genesis, it becomes easy to understand the whole issue with a circular kind of reasoning, namely, that Watchers is an example of scriptural interpretation and thus core evidence for the issue that scriptural interpretation is a major preoccupation in the late Second Temple period. While there are all sorts of valid reasons to have a perspective of this sort, it then becomes easy to think that the Book of the Watchers engages Genesis 6 simply because scripture was an important topic in late Second Temple Judaism. This perspective prevents us from appreciating why Watchers was interested in Genesis 6.3 Moreover, in contrast to the Qumran pesharim or the later midrash of Genesis Rabbah, the Book of the 1 This article has benefited from discussions with several of my colleagues, including Elizabeth Cecil and François Dupuigrenet-Desroussilles, along with the feedback I received at the Greifswald conference. I also thank Florence Egbeyale and Tommy Woodward for their assistance with this essay. 2 Reed, “Writing Jewish Astronomy,” 25; Eichhorn, “Archival Genres,” 8. See also the compelling new study, Johnston, The Story of Myth. 3 Note the minority position, advocated by Milik, The Books of Enoch, 30–31, that Genesis 6 should be understood as an abbreviated account of Enochic watchers myth. The extent of late Second Temple texts that engage or reformulate material in Genesis (Jubilees, Genesis Apoc-

Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age 

431

Watchers does not present itself as interpreting a text, scriptural or otherwise. Rather the watchers myth is framed as what ‘really’ happened before the flood. Watchers, with its focus on antediluvian events, betrays an abiding and pervasive interest in the deep, deep past. Asserting that the composition turns to Genesis because scripture is important does not adequately explain that. Watchers turns to Genesis because of its fascination with the deep past. This is what I focus on in this essay—why Watchers has such extensive antediluvian concerns. Following the recent scholarship of Reed, to do so involves interpreting the book as a product of the third century BCE, shaped and informed by modes of discourse that were widespread among scribes and scholars in the Hellenistic age.4 I argue in this essay that to understand not just how but why the Book of Watchers shows a pronounced interest in traditions found in Genesis 6 requires understanding the former composition, with its prominent interest in the flood and Enoch, against the cultural backdrop of Hellenistic discourse about the deep past and the origins of human civilization. Appreciating this issue can help us better understand why the portrayal in Watchers of the events leading up to the flood is much more monstrous, with destructive giants killing and even eating human beings, than anything in the book of Genesis. By comparing the Book of the Watchers to the account of the primordial past by Berossus and also the visual depiction of the gigantomachy in the second century BCE Pergamon altar (which famously now resides in Berlin), the articulation of the deep past as an era of dangerous and violent monsters becomes intelligible against the backdrop of cultural and political anxieties that characterized the Hellenistic age.

1 The Deep Past as a Hellenistic Issue It is essential to begin with an often observed but nevertheless important point— the malleability of the past. We often think of the present moment as in flux whereas the past, a realm in which choices have been made and events already transpired, is fixed. The past is actually highly inchoate, with an overwhelming amount of specific details about the activities of people and states, as opposed to the past that we remember, as a legacy that helps us shape our identity. A famous nineteenth century British historian, Thomas Babington Macaulay, made this point by observing that the entirety of all the events which happen in ryphon, etc.) vitiates against this interpretative option. See also Davies, “Women, Men, Gods, Sex and Power.” 4 My thinking on this topic is also informed by Roark, “A Crisis of Wisdom.”

432  Matthew Goff

a single week, if they were written down, would produce more records than could fit in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, observing that “[w]hat is told in the fullest and most accurate annals bears an infinitely small proportion to what is suppressed.”5 The voluminous scholarship on cultural memory seeks to stress this point—that the past is “curated,” managed and shaped by concerns in the present.6 The burgeoning study of “cultural” memory emphasizes that memory, while a neurological activity that transpires in an individual’s brain which can be addressed from the standpoint of cognitive psychology, occurs in a social context, shaped by norms and processes within a given society. The sociologist Barbara Misztal terms this emphasis an “intersubjectivist” approach to memory.7 As she stresses, acknowledging the interplay between the individual remembering subject and the cultural context in which remembrance occurs raises the issue of who is remembering and thus the pervasive issue of different or even conflicting constructions of the past. I illustrate this point with an example that is not from antiquity: a sign on a building in London (in the Marylebone neighborhood) that commemorates it as the residence from 1796 until his death in 1801 of the “American Patriot” Benedict Arnold.8 This description will strike anyone who has gone through the American school system as very strange, since a key component of the canonical story we are told about the American Revolution is that Benedict Arnold was a traitor who betrayed the cause and conspired with the British. How Benedict Arnold is remembered, whether he was a traitor or a patriot, very much depends on who is doing the remembering. The past, often conceptualized as a firm bedrock out of which the present unfolds, is malleable and determined by the context in which it is remembered. The past can be difficult to predict. I now turn with these reflections to antiquity. One dominant mode of inquiry, shaped by the excellent book Apocalypse against Empire by Anathea Portier-Young, is to understand the Book of the Watchers in its Hellenistic context as a response to state-sanctioned violence. So understood, apocalyptic literature is primarily understood as a kind of “resistance literature.” This perspective fits better for the Maccabean era apocalypses, Daniel and the Animal Apocalypse, than the early Enoch apocalypses. A leading explanation for the disturbing violence perpetrated by the giants in the Book of the Watchers is that their rampages signify the wars of the diodochi, whose armies fought one an-

5 6 7 8

Cregan-Reid, Discovering Gilgamesh, 129. Cf. Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons, 55. Cf. Misztal, Theories of Social Remembering, 5–6. Cf. Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country—Revisited, 548.

Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age



433

other after the death of Alexander the Great.9 While this interpretation is possible, it does not offer a compelling way to understand why the book situates this violence in an antediluvian setting. This suggests, as Reed has urged, that scholarship on the early Enoch apocalypses, as products of the third century BCE, should go beyond the issue of political violence and pursue other cultural contexts in which these texts can be understood.10 Aside from political violence there was a crisis of knowledge in the Hellenistic period. This generated a strong interest in the primordial past, which became a source of prestige and for that reason also a site of cultural contestation. Two important factors help define the Hellenistic period—the expansion of the known world and what can be called an “antiquity gap.” While there were numerous local networks of power and forms of identity which the macro-label “Hellenistic” can obscure, the Hellenistic age is defined by a pronounced expansion of boundaries of the known world.11 Coins minted by Alexander express this point by visualizing and commemorating his military excursions into India. This is clear from a coin likely produced by Alexander which depicts him attacking the Indian king Porus who is riding an elephant (cf. Arrian, Anab. 5.18.4– 6).12 A coin of Ptolemy I from 321 BCE depicts Alexander as an “Elephant Man,” wearing an elephant scalp upon his head, signifying his military campaigns in India.13 Scholars have often stressed the expansion of the known world in this period by observing that ideas and norms—including but not restricted to Greek traditions—spread in the Hellenistic period throughout a vast area, from the Nile to the Indus Rivers. An example of how traditions in this period could travel widely are the Delphic maxims, a collection of 147 sayings that were inscribed at the oracle at Delphi and attributed by the fifth century CE scholar Stobaeus to the Seven Sages, a grouping of venerable wise men including Thales and Solon. The most famous Delphic saying is arguably “know thyself.” The final sayings of this collection (nos. 143–147) are extant in a third century BCE Greek inscription from Ai-Khanoum, a city in Bactria, in what is now northern Afghanistan (cf. Strabo 11.11.1–2).14 As Dillery observes, several of the maxims attested in the Delphic oracles appear elsewhere in the third century BCE, in a 9 Cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 170. 10 Cf. Reed, “Reading Jewish Wisdom,” 6. 11 Cf. Stavrianopoulou, Shifting Social Imaginaries; Whitmarsh, Local Knowledge and Microidentities; Lavan, Payne, and Weisweiler, Cosmopolitanism and Empire. 12 Cf. Dahmen, The Legend of Alexander the Great, 110–11; Romm, Ghost on the Throne, 233; Holt, Alexander the Great. See also Thapar, Early India, 156–64. 13 Cf. Romm, Ghost on the Throne, 281; Dahmen, The Legend of Alexander the Great, 48, 112; Stewart, Faces of Power. 14 Cf. Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East, 57–101, 184; Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons, xxvii–xxviii.

434  Matthew Goff

text far removed from Bactria—on an ostracon from Deir el-Bahri, a cluster of mortuary temples and tombs in Luxor (Egypt).15 Whereas the Bactrian Delphic sayings are presented as the “utterance of famous men, in holy Pytho (another term for Delphi),” making their origin from Greece explicit, the Delphic maxims from Luxor are presented as “the sayings of Amenotes.” The Amon theophoric makes clear that the Greek sayings are recast as Egyptian wisdom. The Delphic maxims from Bactria and Egypt attest not only to the spread of Greek ideas but also the issue of local scribes and scholars confronting and explaining knowledge from new horizons in different ways. As these Delphic examples illustrate, the Hellenistic period is characterized by an expansion of geographical boundaries, of what constitutes the known world. One could adduce many other examples of this point. The expansive geographical descriptions in Jubilees 8–9 covers a wide range of areas, such as “the mountains of Qelt” (Celt), likely a reference to the Alps, the Don River in Russia, and perhaps even a reference to the Hydaspes River in northern India (8:25, 28; 9:32). Strabo, who wrote at the turn of the common era, likewise felt compelled to gather together into a single geographical description a rich web of details from far flung regions including Ireland, central Asia and Thule, the northernmost point of the world in ancient cartography (e.g., 4.4–5).16 Urbanism and the founding of cities following the wake of Alexander’s conquests created new networks of trade and opened up new potential for the transmission of knowledge. The world was larger than it had been before and this resulted in a confrontation with new knowledge—peoples, ethnicities, customs, traditions— which could be accepted, modified or rejected in various ways. Not unlike the early modern European intellectuals, whose conceptions of the world and the past were informed by the biblical and classical traditions was challenged by the discovery of the “New World” and its wealth of new knowledge, so too Hellenistic intellectuals were challenged by a vast new expanse of knowledge.17 Coupled with this trope of new vistas of knowledge is a type of antiquity gap. A large geographical area, the Hellenistic Near East, was populated by a range of ancient peoples—including the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Iranians, the Babylonians, and the Jews—who were conquered by a group that were considered even by themselves to be by comparison much younger, the Macedonians or, to speak more broadly, the Greeks. This difference is pointedly illus-

15 Cf. Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons, xxviii. 16 Thule has been equated with various locales, including Ireland, the Orkney Islands, Iceland, and Greenland (which as a result now has a town by the name of Thule). See MundDopchie, Ultima Thulé. 17 Cf. Greenblatt, Marvelous Possessions; Fitzmaurice, Humanism and America.

Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age



435

trated by an account in Herodotus about Hecateaus of Miletus and his visit to Thebes (2.142–43). He brags about his own lineage to the priests at Thebes, claiming that his genealogy can be traced a full sixteen generations. The priests in response show him a hall lined with 345 giant wooden statues and point out that each represents one generation of their priestly lineage.18 According to a famous story in the Timaeus (22b) attributed to one of the Seven Sages (Solon), he was told in Egypt by a priest that “you Greeks are always children” and that they are young in their minds because they have no ancient traditions. This conception of relative antiquity, that the Greeks are much younger than other peoples in the region, coupled in the Hellenistic period with the political dominance of the Greeks, created a cultural climate in which these subject peoples had a new and clear rationale to stress their own antiquity.19 John Dillery discusses priests and scribes in the Hellenistic Near East as “carriers of a defeated culture.”20 Scholars have understood this issue in terms of a loss of native rule but this political consideration should be nuanced.21 The Hellenistic empires came to rule over many areas that were previously under the domain of the Persian empire. Many peoples of the region did not have a great deal of political independence or power when Macedonian generals seized control. Rather, for cultures that placed great prestige in antiquity, the fact that a younger people had dominance over them could produce a sense of Unbehagen, an uneasy impression that things are out of balance, generating a degree of cultural anxiety. While there already had been extensive speculation about the distant past in earlier eras (such as rich speculation about the flood in Mesopotamia), the deep past took on renewed relevance in the Hellenistic period. It became valued real estate, a site of cultural competition where custodians of various ethnic traditions could stake a claim and articulate the origins of human civilization in a way that gave pride of place to their own traditions. There was extensive speculation in the Hellenistic period about the origins of civilization, regarding who was the first figure to acquire various types of knowledge that are important for human culture, such as writing or agriculture.22 A generative factor for this discourse is not only the dominion of ancient peoples by a younger one but also the expansion of horizons of the known world, the realization that various forms of knowledge—agriculture, astronomy, writing—are present throughout 18 Cf. Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 1; Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons, 119–22. There is some dissonance in Herodotus as to whether the statues represent 341 or 345 generations of priests. 19 See also my “Aramaic as a Language of Antediluvian Wisdom.” 20 Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons, xxvi. See also Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 135. 21 Cf. Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons, 32. See also Collins, “Jewish Apocalypticism against Its Hellenistic Near Eastern Environment.” 22 For scholarship on this issue, consult, for example, McCants, Founding Gods.

436  Matthew Goff

many peoples. It was common to conclude that knowledge that was dispersed over a wide area should be traced to one source from which it was disseminated. Berossus, a priest of Marduk who wrote in Greek about Mesopotamian traditions in the third century BCE, whose work survives in later Christian sources such as Eusebius and Syncellus, is a key example of this phenomenon.23 He states that a large sea creature with fish and human features by the name of Oannes came out of the sea and gave humankind revelation regarding various types of knowledge, such as how to build cities and the invention of both agriculture and writing (frg. 1).24 This draws on the Mesopotamian mythic figure of Adapa (U-Anum), conflated with the apkallus, legendary antediluvian sage figures often depicted as ichthyomorphic.25 Berossus gives a Babylon-centric etiology for human civilization. The writings attributed to Berossus fit with a broader and robust “Mesopotamian” program of antiquarianism that was taking place at the time, intended to highlight the region’s legendary deep past. It started earlier and culminated in the Hellenistic period. A key example of this process is the construction of Bīt Rēš temple in the city of Uruk, an effort which began in the Persian period that was completed in the Hellenistic era.26 It is one of the largest cultic structures in the region from the Hellenistic period. The temple was devoted to the patron deity of Uruk, the sky god Anu.27 The Kephalon dedicatory inscription (201 BCE) found there asserts that the founder of the Bīt Rēš temple is none other than Adapa.28 The temple strove to create a link between the present and the deep past. The Uruk List of Kings and Sages (W 20 030, 7), with a colophon that dates it to the year 147 of the Seleucid era (165/64 BCE), was discovered in the Bīt Rēš temple in 1959.29 It pairs a list of antediluvian kings and apkallus with post-diluvian kings and ummanus (“scholars”), creating continuity between kings, scribes, and the distant past. The scribe who wrote out the tablet, Anu-belšunu, 23 Cf. Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons, 220–300; Haubold et al., The World of Berossos; Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 108–22. 24 Cf. Verbrugghe/Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho, 44. See also Kvanvig, Primeval History, 113; Lang, “Book Two,” 49. 25 Berossus may be drawing on cuneiform scholarship that is close to the Uruk Apkallu list, as discussed below. See Sanders, From Adapa to Enoch, 38–70 (esp. 60); Kvanvig, Primeval History, 107–58. 26 Cf. Beaulieu, “Antiquarian Theology”; Sanders, From Adapa to Enoch, 48–49. See also Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 113, 189–90. 27 Cf. Sanders, From Adapa to Enoch, 58; Krul, The Revival of the Anu Cult. 28 Cf. Lenzi, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages,” 157, 160. 29 Cf. Lenzi, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages,” 138, 159; Kvanvig, Primeval History, 91; Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 118–23.

Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age 

437

emphasizes this point in the colophon by asserting that he is an ancestor of Sinleqi-unnini. He is mentioned earlier in the list as an ummanu who lived during the reign of the legendary king Gilgamesh.30 This Urukean text illustrates that Mesopotamian scribalism in the Hellenistic period had an antiquarian dimension—an impulse to highlight a connection between the present and the distant past, as articulated in indigenous lore.31 Hellenistic discourse about the distant past was not limited to “Mesopotamia”. In Egypt Hermes, who had become combined with the native deity Thoth, the god of writing, played a major role in Egypt-centered articulation of the origins of human culture. Texts attributed to Nechepso (a legendary king of Egypt) and the priest Petosiris compiled in the second century BCE, for example, proclaim that astronomical knowledge was first possessed by Hermes (who is connected with Thoth in Egypt).32 Reflecting knowledge of and unease with etiologies of knowledge that privilege Babylon, the Egyptian philosopher lampooned the Oannes myth, claiming that the tale actually involves a man in a fish suit—and that the man inside was in fact the son of Hermes.33 Writing around the end of the first century CE, Philo of Byblos whose work, like that of Berossus, is only preserved in later sources, writes in Greek a Phoenician-centric account of human civilization, which he purports to relay from an ancient sage from before the Trojan War named Sanchuniathon of Beirut (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 1.9.19–22). According to this archaic source, Taautos, an adaptation of the Egyptian figure of Thoth, was the first person (a euhemeristic interpretation) to invent writing and thus also to provide a foundation for human learning—and that the first city to be founded was Byblos (1.9.24; 1.10.20).34 It is helpful to understand the flourishing of interest in Enoch and the antediluvian age in Jewish writings from the late Second Temple period in the context of the Hellenistic antiquarianism and the discourse about the origins of civilization that I have been delineating. The famous praise of Enoch in Jubilees 4 asserts that he was the originator of writing and astronomical knowledge—both common topics in Hellenistic discourse about the earliest stage of human culture (vv. 16–18). The writing of Pseudo-Eupolemus, a text dated to ca 200 BCE preserved in Eusebius (Praep. ev. 9.17.2–9; 9.18.2), claims that astronomical knowledge first developed with Enoch and that Abraham taught people in Phoenicia and then Egypt astronomical knowledge during his journey from 30 Cf. 121. 31 Cf. 32 Cf. 33 Cf. 34 Cf.

Lenzi, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages,” 142–43; Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, Sanders, From Adapa to Enoch, 67–70; Beaulieu, “Antiquarian Theology,” 68–69. Goff, “A Blessed Rage for Order.” Van der Horst, Chaeremon, 11 (frg. 2), 27 (frg. 16D). Attridge and Oden, Philo of Byblos, 28–29, 50–51.

438  Matthew Goff

Mesopotamia to Egypt (Gen 12), thus delineating a westward arc to the spread of knowledge. This text not only privileges the figure of Enoch but also co-opts the trope that Mesopotamia is where this knowledge was first discovered, reconfiguring it into a Judeo-centric account of the origins of civilization. It is beneficial to understand the production of the early Enoch apocalypses, both the Book of the Watchers and the Aramaic Astronomical Book, as shaped by the cultural politics of the early Hellenistic period that I have been describing. This explains why some Jewish scribes and textual scholars in the third century BCE exhibit an intense interest in Enoch, valorized as a learned scribe from the antediluvian age. It also provides a context as to why Watchers shows such a pronounced interest in the flood. The composition reflects an abiding concern in articulating the nature of the deep past as delineated in lore we encounter in the book of Genesis. A broader interest in Genesis itself begins in this period, evident in a range of Jewish texts from the Second Temple period, including Genesis Apocryphon or Jubilees, and continuing in early Christian and rabbinic sources. By comparison, earlier texts from the Hebrew Bible exhibit some knowledge of traditions found in Genesis 1–11, such as the reference to Adam in Ezekiel 28 or the one to Jacob wrestling with God in Hosea 12, but do not show a sustained interest in the primordial period. The cultural politics of the Hellenistic age can also explain why both the Aramaic Astronomical Book and Watchers thematize astronomical knowledge as authentic revelation disclosed to Enoch. Astronomy was an important issue in the Hellenistic period since it was esteemed not simply as a “scientific issue” explaining the motion of heavenly bodies; it had also become a byword for antiquity.35 Delineating the origins of astronomical knowledge was a way to assert which people’s heritage is the oldest. Interpreting the early Enochic literature in this context also helps explain why it exhibits, as numerous scholars have observed, extensive appropriations of Mesopotamian tradition. There are striking parallels, for example, between the Astronomical Book and a Mesopotamian text called the Enuma Anu Enlil (EAE).36 The trope of a flood itself is a Jewish adaptation of Mesopotamian lore. It is normal to understand this as an example of “ancient Near Eastern influence.” This perspective typically envisions the influence of the ancient Near East as being exerted on the Hebrew Bible, which in turn influences the composition of late Second Temple literature. But, as I have tried to show, the whole issue of showing an interest in Mesopotamian lore as an archive of prestige antiquity is helpfully understood in terms of the cultural dynamics of the Hellenistic period. These factors generated forms of antiquari35 Cf. Reed, “Abraham as Chaldean Scientist”; eadem, “Writing Jewish Astronomy.” 36 Cf. Goff and Duke, “The Astronomy of the Qumran Fragments 4Q208 and 4Q209.”

Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age



439

anism throughout the entire region.37 This helps explain, I would suggest, why there are more direct parallels to Mesopotamian tradition regarding Enoch and Enochic traditions in the Hellenistic early Enoch literature than there are in Genesis 1–11.38 It is also helpful to envision Mesopotamian lore not as a static body of texts, a “source” for Jewish scribes. Both Jewish and Mesopotamian scribes, as evident in the Book of the Watchers and the Uruk List of Kings and Sages, engaged in contemporary and similar programs of antiquarianism, forging scribal links to the primordial past. This helps explain why Jewish textual scholars from the period had an interest in Mesopotamian tradition. Parallels between both corpora are not simply an issue of direct influence but can also be explained through appeal to compatible cultural developments taking place in each locale.

2 The Deep Past as a Site of Monstrosity My last topic of reflection addresses another aspect of the watchers myth that is often understood primarily in terms of exegesis of Genesis 6—Watchers’ strange account of “giants” drinking blood, and consuming human beings and even each other (1 Enoch 7). This can, as is often the case, be understood as an elaboration of the vague and brief account of the sons of the watchers in Gen 6:4, the product of the sexual encounters between the angels from heaven and women on earth. Oddly these children are given a description that, while brief, is reasonably construed as positive; they are “men of renown.”39 This does not square at all with the clear assertion in Gen 6:5 that evil rose in the earth; it is implied that this rise is somehow connected to the illicit sexuality of the angels. This textual problem is smoothed out if one, as 1 Enoch 7 does, reconfigures the “men of renown” into unambiguously evil creatures. It thus becomes easier to construe the offspring and their violence as a horrifying consequence of an unsanctioned sexuality that ruptured the separation between heaven and earth. This is a plausible and coherent conclusion. But it is also reductionistic. It only explains the issue in terms of the exegesis of scripture. Understanding Watchers 37 A longer study on this topic would examine forms of antiquarianism evident in other cultures from the Near East in addition to the ones covered here. Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 211–19, for example, examines programs of antiquarianism in Hellenistic Armenia. 38 For a helpful discussion of the relevant evidence, see VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. 39 Very similar phrases in the Hebrew Bible signify one’s good reputation—e.g., Num 16:2; 2 Sam 14:7; 1 Chron 5:24; 12:31 (cf. Bar 3:26).

440  Matthew Goff

as explicating Genesis does not explain why the gibbōrîm are reconfigured as monsters or the particular details of 1 Enoch 7 that allow us to characterize them as monsters. According to the Greek and most Ethiopic witnesses, the sons are 3,000 cubits tall, well over a mile. Appeal to Genesis 6 cannot adequately explain that. It also does not explain why their violent crimes against humanity are attributed to their insatiable appetites.40 Here again I suggest that we look at Jewish textuality in the early Hellenistic period not simply by comparing texts but by contextualizing them in terms of cultural dynamics that were pervasive at the time. First, the idea that creatures in the far, far distant past were of a larger scale was widespread, in the Hellenistic era and earlier. The Gilgamesh epic depicts the legendary warrior king Gilgamesh as of incredibly large stature.41 Greek tradition also attests the idea that long ago human-like creatures walked the earth who were of a much larger stature. As Adrienne Mayor has shown, the discovery of dinosaur bones in antiquity was often thought to confirm the existence of large, powerful, and primordial figures known from Greek mythology, such as the gigantes (giants), titanes or heroes like Hercules.42 The discovered bones were at times deposited in shrines dedicated to the veneration of a hero, regarded as material confirmation of the stature and power of such legendary figures. This issue reflects a widespread telluric theory—that earlier in the history of the earth, closer to the moment of its creation, the world had more vitality. This in turn affected the size of its inhabitants. The idea is attested often in reverse, expressed as a senescent theory of human history. We are becoming, according to this view, increasingly weaker and smaller over time. This perspective is evident in Homer. In Il. 5.304 the Trojan warrior Diomedes picks up a rock to hurl at Aeneas; the size of the stone is such “that not two men could bear, such as mortals now are.” Pliny the Elder in the first century CE expresses this view as a general principle: “But it is almost a matter of observation that with the entire human race the stature on the whole is becoming smaller daily, and that few men are taller than their fathers, as the conflagration that is the crisis towards which the age is now verging is exhausting the fertility of the semen (consumente ubertatem seminum)” (Nat. His. 7.16.73; cf. Pausanias 8.29.4).43 The 40 Cf. Goff, “Monstrous Appetites.” 41 The Standard Babylonian version of the epic highlights the span of Gilgamesh’s stride, emphasizing his large stature: “A triple cubit was his foot, half a rod his leg. Six cubits was [his] stride” (I.56–57). His battle with Humbaba is combat between two incredibly large opponents, since their fighting formed the Rift Valley of Lebanon (V.133–34). See further Goff, “Gilgamesh the Giant.” 42 Cf. Mayor, The First Fossil Hunters. 43 Beagon, The Elder Pliny on the Human Animal, 73, 254.

Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age



441

roughly contemporary text 2 Esdras attests a similar idea.44 The present age and its impending collapse is conceptualized as a consequence of creation itself becoming old, resulting in a loss of vitality and, in humans, stature. The cross-cultural perspective that gigantic, colossal creatures roamed the earth long ago fits fully with this perspective. It reflects not simply an understanding of humankind but also the earth itself, that in the distant past it had more vitality and potency, and thus could produce larger and more powerful creatures. This perspective probably also explains why the account of pre-conquest Canaan in the Hebrew Bible includes both incredibly large people (the Anaqim) and massive produce from the earth (giant grapes; Num 13:23–24, 32–33). The idea that the primordial past was qualitatively different from the present, and that this distant period had more raw force and power than the world today, provides a clear opening for monstrosity—the articulation of radical difference from accustomed norms by describing the physical body and its urges, including eating, in grotesque, expansive, and transgressive ways.45 This is clear in how ethnic and epistemological boundaries are demarcated in the Hellenistic age. The Attalid kings of Hellenistic Pergamon depicted their victory over a “barbarian” Celtic group (the Galatians) in the third century BCE with a rich and massive representation of the myth of the Olympian gods defeating the giants (the gigantomachy), thus likening the Galatians to the gigantes (more on this below). Strabo, in his ethnographic accounts of peoples at the furthest reaches of the known world, describes them not simply as uncouth barbarians but also as violent cannibals, not unlike the Enochic giants, who are also anthropophagi.46 The geographer asserts that the natives of Ierne (Ἰέρνη), his term for Ireland, are cannibals and that they engage in various disturbing practices: Besides some small islands round about Britain, there is also a large island, Ierne, which stretches parallel to Britain on the north, its breadth being greater than its length. Concerning this island I have nothing certain to tell, except that its inhabitants are more savage than the Britons, since they are man-eaters as well as heavy eaters, and since, further, they count it an honorable thing, when their fathers die, to devour them, and openly to have intercourse, not only with the other women, but also with their mothers and sisters; but I am saying this only with the understanding that I have no trustworthy witnesses for it; and yet, as for the matter of man-eating, that is said to be a custom of the Scythians

44 “Therefore you also should consider that you and your contemporaries are smaller in stature than those who were before you, and those who come after you will be smaller than you, as born of a creation that already is aging and passing the strength of youth” (2 Esd 5:54– 55; cf. v. 50; 14:10, 16; 2 Bar. 85:10). 45 Cf. Cohen, “Monster Culture.” See also Goff, “Monsters, Giants and Cannibals.” 46 Cf. Dueck, The Routledge Companion to Strabo.

442  Matthew Goff

also, and, in cases of necessity forced by sieges, the Celti, the Iberians, and several other peoples are said to have practiced it (4.4).

Monstrous, transgressive behavior helps define epistemological boundaries of the known world by showing the horrors that lay beyond them.47 Delineating such barbaric customs as happening on the western-most edge of the world (Ireland) led Strabo to go immediately to its eastern fringes, to Central Asia, where, he reasons, similar horrors take place.48 I would argue that what we see in the Book of the Watchers is a temporal equivalent to the geographical point Strabo asserts—that describing the fringes, whether they are the outreaches of the world or an early era of history, as radically different lends itself to describing these distant realms as sites of monstrosity. It is by no means widespread, but the phenomenon found in Watchers, the description of the deep past in highly monstrous terms, is attested elsewhere in the early Hellenistic period. This is evident in Berossus’ account of the period before the establishment of the normative order, as preserved in Syncellus. This account was known long before the discovery of cuneiform Enuma Elish in the nineteenth century. When comparison of the two became available, it was apparent that the Berossan account contains authentic Mesopotamian lore. While there are accounts of the monstrous spawn of Tiamat in the Enuma Elish, the monstrosity is vivid and more extensive in Berossus.49 The monsters in the standard text of the Mesopotamian cosmogony are clearly identified as the offspring of Tiamat, and they include hybrid creatures such as a scorpion man (girtablilu; e.g., 2.24–30).50 In the Berossan version a mingling of characteristics of various animals is presented as a general characteristic of the created order before Thalassa (Greek “sea”; Tiamat) was split in half: “There was a time,” he (Oannes) says, “in which all was darkness and water, and during this time, fantastic beings, having peculiar forms, came to life. Men were born with two wings, and some with four wings, and two faces. And they had one body, but two heads, male and female, and double genitalia, male and female. And other men had the legs and horns of goats, others had the feet of horses, and others the hind part of horses, and the foreparts of men, who were hippocentaurs in form. And bulls were born having the heads of men, and four-bodied dogs, having the tails of a fish from their hind parts, and dogheaded horses and humans and other creatures having heads and bodies of horses, but tails of fish, and other creatures having the forms of all kinds of wild animals. In addition to these were fish and reptiles and snakes and many other creatures, marvelous and hav-

47 48 49 50

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

Van Duzer, “Hic sunt dracones.” Romm, The Edges of the Earth. Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons, 227–28. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 240.

Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age 

443

ing appearances differing one from the other, votive images of which are found in the temple of Bel (Marduk). Over all these ruled a woman by the name of Homoroka, in Chaldean it is Thalatth, but in Greek it is translated as Thalassa or Selene according to numerical value. And when everything had coalesced in this way, Bel rose up and cut the woman in two, and he made one half of her body the earth and other half heaven and destroyed the creatures in her.”51

The passage, attributed to the primordial culture-hero Oannes, does not accentuate the violence of the monsters, as Watchers does with the giants, but rather their hybridity. Beaulieu has observed that the material attributed to Berossus often accords with Hellenistic cuneiform sources.52 Syncellus accuses Berossus of plagiarizing material from Genesis 1 and improperly mixing them with incredulous lies.53 But Beaulieu’s observation allows for the possibility that Berossus fashioned his own summary of the creation myth based on the study of cuneiform tablets, including some version(s) of the Enuma Elish (a text known in Babylon at the time because of its central role in the Akitu festival), and that what he produced had more hybridity and more monsters than anything in his literary sources.54 The Berossan passage mentions that the creatures are visible at the temple of Bel, Esagila. No cuneiform list of monsters, to the best of my knowledge, accords with Berossus’ description. It has been reasonably posited that his account relies on a combination of textual and visual sources.55 If this is correct, he likely understood contemporary votive images in Esaglia as preserving a direct link to the primordial past and that transformed his presentation of this period. Incorporating these descriptions into his account of the primordial period made Berossus’ account of this era more monstrous than cuneiform versions of the Enuma Elish. Another Hellenistic example of depicting the deep past with increased monstrosity is the Pergamon altar.56 As mentioned above, the famous gigantomachy frieze on the Great Altar on the acropolis of Pergamon was constructed in the 51 Verbrugge and Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho, 45 (frg. 1); Adler and Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkellos, 39. 52 Cf. Beaulieu, “Berossus on Late Babylonian History,” 143. He stresses, for example, correspondences between the Uruk king list and book 2 of the Babyloniaca. See also Lang, “Book Two,” 47. 53 Cf. Adler and Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkellos, 41. 54 Cf. Dalley, “First Millennium BC Variation,” 170–72. See also Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 172. 55 Cf. Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons, 229; Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 231, 464. 56 Cf. Picón and Hemingway, Pergamon and the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the Ancient World; Thimme, “The Masters of the Pergamon Gigantomachy.” See also Coarelli, “Il ‘Grande Altare’ di Pergamo”; consult the volume in which this article appears for the broader phenomenon of

444  Matthew Goff

second century BCE to commemorate the defeat by the local rulers, the Attalids, over the Galatians, an assemblage of Celtic tribes who had moved into Asia Minor in the early third century and were invading Greek cities.57 The political ideology motivating the gigantological art of Pergamon is at one level straightforward. The Olympian gods’ defeat over the gigantes long ago, a myth given classic formulation in Apollodorus (1.6.1–2), was deployed as a paradigm by which to understand the Attalid victory over the Galatians. This public art homologizes the Attalids with the Olympian gods, boosting their legitimacy to wield power. The Galatians as gigantes motif frames the Celtic tribes as physically powerful but destined to be defeated. It also implies that the incursions of the Galatians were motivated by hubris. According to Pasuanias (1.25.2), Attalus I Soter (r. 241–197), an important ruler of the Pergamene dynasty, dedicated a representation of four different conflicts on the south wall of the acropolis at Athens, including the gigantomachy and the defeat of the Gauls at Mysia (northwest Asia Minor).58 So understood, the construction of the extensive gigantomachy at Pergamon can be interpreted as an attempt to valorize the city as a second Athens.59 The gigantes on the frieze have wings and snakes for legs. As in the Berossan text, the distant past is depicted as a time in which creatures transgressed the normative zoological categories that define our own day. The humanoid giants combine characteristics of distinct types of animals, birds and snakes, not unlike the primordial hybrid creatures recounted by Berossus. As in his Babyloniaca and the Enochic Book of the Watchers, the overthrow of dangerous, transgressive creatures ushers in the beginning of the world according to a new normative order, in which such strange and violent creatures are no longer possible. The visual construal of the Pergamene gigantes as having anguipede legs accords with the description of them in (Pseudo-)Apollodorus, in his compilation of myth from the first or second century CE. The earlier account of the gigantes in Hesiod (eighth century BCE), however, gives no impression whatsoever that they are monstrous. In his account of their birth from Gaia, while they gigantological art in antiquity: Massa-Pairault, Géants et gigantomachies entre Orient et Occident. 57 Cf. Whitaker, “Art and Ideology,” 164; Kästner, “Pergamon and the Attalids”; Papini, “Commemorations of Victory”; Freeman, The Philosopher and the Druids, 39–51. Queyrel, “Les Galates comme nouveaux Géants?,” emphasizes that in Hellenistic art the Galatians are often imagined as replacing the Persians as the main enemy of the Greeks. 58 The other two depict Athenians fighting Amazons and the defeat of the Persians at Marathon. See Moore, “The Central Group”; Vian, La guerre des géants, 116; Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 89. 59 Cf. Whitaker, “Art and Ideology,” 165.

Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age



445

are paired with fantastic creatures, the Erinyes (the Furies) and the Nymphs, the giants are envisioned as human-like soldiers, as hoplites: “she bore […] the great giants, shining in their armor, holding long spears in their hands” (Theog. 185–86; cf. 50). This discrepancy between how the gigantes were later envisaged and their depiction in earlier texts is also evident in a scholia to Homer (Od. 7.59).60 It states that the bard did not know that the giants were monstrous and snake-footed. Major early public gigantomachies, such as the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi or the Megarian Treasury at Olympia (both late sixth century BCE), depict the gigantes as hoplites, anthropomorphic warriors, a depiction in line with that of Hesiod, rather than the later representation of them in Apollodorus.61 There are several striking depictions in this early period not of the gigantes as monsters but Typhon as a monster with wings and anguipede legs battling Zeus, as in a sixth century Chalcidian hydria.62 Over time the gigantes became increasingly similar to the monstrous Typhon, as is fully the case in Apollodorus; the giants also became mingled in the Hellenistic period with the titans, who are a different set of offspring in Hesiod. There is also an early tradition of depicting the gigantes not as hoplites but rather as “savages,” that is, anthropomorphic but reflecting an earlier (non-civilized) stage of development, with them wearing not armor but animals skins and carrying primitive weapons such as torches or rocks.63 The earliest extant visual depiction of an anguipede giant, according to Vian, is on a lekythos (a vessel for storing oil) from the early fourth century which is now housed in Berlin, although there are earlier Etruscan antecedents.64 Post-Pergamene gigantomachies depict the gigantes as snake-footed. Take, for example, the presentation of them on the frieze of Hecate at Lagina (in Caria, western Asia Minor; second century BCE) or at Leptis

60 There are a few references to the gigantes in the Odyssey, none of which depicts them in explicitly monstrous form. The gigantomachy is not in Homeric epics but they are described as insolent creatures who were destroyed long ago (Ody. 7.56–60; cf. 206). Book 10 describes the Laestrygonians as very strong, of great stature, and as cannibals who are “not like men but like the giants” (ll. 105–24, esp. 118–20). See Gantz, Early Greek Myth, 446; Vian, La guerre des géants, 17, 170. 61 Cf. Watrous, “The Sculptural Program”; Vian, Répertoire des gigantomachies, 13, 15 (#17, 21). 62 This is held at the Staatliche Antikensammlungen in Munich. See Vian, Répertoire des gigantomachies, #4 (cf. #6). 63 See, for example, #389, 393–395 in Vian, Répertoire des gigantomachies. The giants hurling rocks is an established trope in literary accounts of the gigantes (e.g., Apollodorus [1.6.1]; Nonnus, Dionysiaca [48.15–86; cf. Homer, Od. 10.116–24]). 64 Cf. Vian, La guerre des géants, 125; idem, Répertoire des gigantomachies, #400.

446  Matthew Goff

Magna (Libya; second century CE).65 While the tradition develops differently in different places, there is a clear shift in the Hellenistic period in which the gigantes are depicted increasingly less anthropomorphically and more monstrously.66

3 Conclusions: Monstrous, Primordial Time and the Cultural Politics of Knowledge The early Enoch literature and its infatuation with the deep past should not only be interpreted in the context of the well documented and extensive engagement of late Second Temple literature with the book of Genesis. As this article has attempted to show, an interest in the deep past is a broader phenomenon of the Hellenistic period. The expansion of the horizons of the known world, from Rome to India, produced a need for intellectuals to explain why various forms of knowledge, such as astronomy or writing, was spread across such a vast area. Ancient peoples were under the dominion of the upstart Greeks and this produced a type of cultural anxiety among disparate peoples who equated antiquity with value. These cultural dynamics help explain why in the Hellenistic period there was a robust discourse about the origins of forms of knowledge critical to human civilization. The deep past became a site of cultural competition to which custodians of the lore of various peoples laid claim, offering etiologies of various types of knowledge that benefit all humankind in such a way that gave pride of place to their own traditions. Peoples throughout the Near East, and in particular the learned custodians of their lore, had a strong rationale to articulate the deep antiquity of their traditions. Situating Jewish scribalism within the cultural politics of the early Hellenistic period, the abiding interest of the early Enoch literature in the antediluvian period becomes intelligible. In this context the emergence of Enoch as a figure of interest itself also can be explained, as one mode of articulating the deep past in a way that privileges Jewish scriptural traditions. Cultural discourse about the deep past in

65 Cf. Baumeister, Der Fries des Hekateions von Lagina; Vian, Répertoire des gigantomachies, #43, #55. 66 Pausanias, for example, in the second century CE dismisses the idea that giants have snake feet, calling it an “absurd tale” (8.29.3). This would suggest, as Dodd, “Morphing Monsters,” argues, that the tradition of anthropomorphic giants was still prominent at the time in the mainland of Greece, even though the tradition of depicting them as anguipede had already become prominent elsewhere, as in Asia Minor.

Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age



447

the Hellenistic period also explains why astronomy displays a pervasive interest in linking astronomical knowledge to Enoch. The historian David Lowenthal remarks that “up to the nineteenth century the historical past was generally thought much like the present.”67 This is why medieval paintings of biblical personages typically depict them as wearing medieval clothing. While it was recognized that there are wars and upheavals, a realization that radical change can be discerned in history, an undergirding idea was that human nature is essentially constant. The conception of the past as fundamentally compatible with the present bolsters the axiomatic idea that history is valuable because it contains models of conduct that can be profitably emulated in the present. Hellenistic discourse about the archaic origins of knowledge critical for human civilization presumes that learning which developed in the past retains value in the present. While Lowenthal’s observations strike me as generally valid, this essay has highlighted a countervailing conception of the deep past that existed in the Hellenistic age—that the normative order was established in the aftermath of the defeat of some sort of monstrous, violent entity. The establishment of the created order, with its fixed zoological categories that define the normative parameters of the human being and its conduct, was formed through the conquest of other beings who existed when the world and its inhabitants were very different. This is evident in the anthropophagic, incomprehensibly tall giants of the Book of the Watchers who walked the earth before the flood, the radically hybrid creatures of Berossus that characterized life before Tiamat’s body was split in half, and the winged, anguipede gigantes who challenged the Olympian gods. They are all monstrous, violent creatures who signify radical difference; their earlier existence demonstrates that the world in which these beings lived was very different—and much more dangerous—than our own. Depicting the primordial period as monstrously different legitimates the sovereignty of the god(s) who rule in the present. Beings such as the Enochic giants, while existing in the present as evil spirits (1 Enoch 15), no longer threaten humankind on the scale they did when they had their physical bodies. The defeat of this threat illustrates the power of the ruling gods and morally justifies their dominion. One other explanation, as monster theory has emphasized, is that forms of monstrosity, both in terms of transgressing zoological categories (as the Enochic giants do) and social norms (as exemplified by cannibalism), help demarcate epistemological boundaries. As Jeffrey Cohen observes, “the monster polices the borders of the possible.”68 They enforce and 67 Lowenthal, The Past is Foreign Country—Revisited, 4. 68 Cohen, “Monster Culture,” 12.

448  Matthew Goff

justify the norms and codes that define the known world by showing the shocking and disturbing creatures that exist in a world without them. As we have discussed, Strabo and other historiographers told lurid and fantastic tales about tribes that lived at the fringes of the known world, in places such as Ireland or Central Asia. A similar logic applies to the temporal boundary demarcated in different ways by the texts under analysis—the primordial period represents the earliest known era of the world and this sense of existing on the fringes of what is known about the distant past likewise lends itself to stories about monsters. All three of the Hellenistic cases under consideration characterize the deep past as an era of heightened monstrosity. This is evident when the account of the antediluvian period of 1 Enoch 6–11 is compared to Genesis 6, and there is a similar intensification of monstrous details when the Berossan account of primordial times is compared to the Enuma Elish, and when the winged, snakefooted gigantes of the Pergamene gigantomachy are compared to older visual depictions of the gigantomachy (such as the one at Delphi), which envisions them as hoplites. I would not characterize the phenomenon of increased monstrosity as widespread in the Hellenistic age but it is nevertheless attested. One should not necessarily explain this by positing a scenario of transmission in which, for example, the Jewish scribes who produced the Book of the Watchers would have been exposed to Berossan texts or traditions. Rather we should acknowledge that the similar themes regarding monstrous creatures in these disparate texts were a product of cultural dynamics that were operative throughout the Hellenistic period. The dominion of the Greeks, a people considered young, triggered a degree of cultural anxiety among the subject peoples considered older which renewed interest in the deep past. The expansion of the boundaries of the known world, exemplified by Alexander’s conquests and excursions into Central Asia and India, encouraged scribes and custodians of traditions of particular peoples to reorient their understanding of the world and their place in it. Such broad factors may help explain for example why Watchers offers a detailed account of the geography of the entire world, including a reference to unusual creatures on the eastern edge of the world (“I saw there great beasts and they differed each from the other”; 1 En. 33:1) while affirming that Jerusalem is at the center (26:1). In any case, moments characterized by anxiety or some form of crisis or distress lend themselves to the production of monstrous tales and provide a rationale for understanding their popularity. Explaining that a monster is a “harbinger of category crisis,” Cohen writes: “full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster (i. e., where it might dwell or be imagined) is an imperiling expanse,

Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age



449

and therefore always a contested cultural space.”69 Anxiety producing and unsettling aspects of the present not only provided an incentive for scribes and scholars of the Hellenistic Near East to delineate the deep past but also to do so in a way that intensified their descriptions of disturbing and violent creatures who roamed the earth long ago.

Bibliography Adler, William, and Paul Tuffin. The Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Attridge, Harold W., and Robert A. Oden, Jr. Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History. CBQMS 9. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. Baumeister, Peter. Der Fries des Hekateions von Lagina. Neue Untersuchungen zu Monument und Kontext. Istanbul: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Istanbul, 2007. Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. “Antiquarian Theology in Seleucid Uruk.” ASJ 14 (1992): 47–75. Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. “Berossus on Late Babylonian History.” Pages 116–49 in Special Issue of Oriental Studies. A Collection of Papers on Ancient Civilizations of Western Asia, Asia Minor and North Africa. Oriental Studies 2006. Edited by Yushu Gong and Yiyi Chen. Beijing: Jing Ji Ri Bao Chu Ban She, 2007. Beagon, Mary. The Elder Pliny on the Human Animal: Natural History, Book 7. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005. Coarelli, Filippo. “Il ‘Grande Altare’ di Pergamo: cronologia e contesto.” Pages 193–201 in Géants et gigantomachies entre Orient et Occident. Acts du Colloque, Naples, 14–15 Novembre 2013. Edited by Françoise-Hélène Massa-Pairault. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard, 2017. Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” Pages 3–25 in Monster Theory: Reading Culture. Edited by Jeffery Jerome Cohen. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Collins, John J. “Jewish Apocalypticism against its Hellenistic Near Eastern Environment.” Pages 59–75 in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Cregan-Reid, Vybarr. Discovering Gilgamesh: Geology, Narrative and the Historical Sublime in Victorian Culture. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2013. Dahmen, Karsten. The Legend of Alexander the Great on Greek and Roman Coins. London: Routledge, 2007. Dalley, Stephanie. “First Millennium BC Variation in Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, the Flood Story and the Epic of Creation: What was Available to Berossos?” Pages 165–76 in The World of Berossos: Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on »The Ancient Near East between Classical and Ancient Oriental Traditions«, Hatfield College, Durham 7th-9th July 2010. Edited by Johannes Haubold et al. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz Verlag, 2013. Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

69 Cohen, “Monster Culture,” 6–7.

450  Matthew Goff

Davies, Philip R. “Women, Men, Gods, Sex and Power: The Birth of a Biblical Myth.” Pages 194–201 in A Feminist Companion to Genesis. Edited by Athayla Brenner-Idan. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1993. Dillery, John D. Clio’s Other Sons: Berossus and Manetho. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015. Dodd, Rachel. “Morphing Monsters: The Evolution of Anguipede Giants.” Sunoikisis Undergraduate Research E-Journal 2 (2014). Dueck, Daniela, ed. The Routledge Companion to Strabo. London: Routledge, 2017. Duzer, Chet van. “Hic sunt dracones: The Geography and Cartography of Monsters.” Pages 387–438 in The Ashgate Research Companion to Monsters and the Monstrous. Edited by Asa Simon Mittman and Peter J. Dendle. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2012. Eichhorn, Kate. “Archival Genres: Gathering Texts and Reading Spaces.” Invisible Culture 12 (2008): 1–10. Fitzmaurice, Andrew. Humanism and America: An Intellectual History of English Colonisation, 1500–1625. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Freeman, Philip. The Philosopher and the Druids: A Journey among the Ancient Celts. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008. Gantz, Timothy. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1993. Goff, Matthew. “Aramaic as a Language of Antediluvian Wisdom: The Early Enoch Apocalypses, Astronomy and the Deep Past in the Hellenistic Near East” in Reimagining Apocalypticism: Apocalypses, Apocalyptic Literature, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Matthew Goff and Lorenzo DiTommaso. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, forthcoming. Goff, Matthew. “Gilgamesh the Giant: The Qumran Book of Giants’ Appropriation of Gilgamesh Motifs.” DSD 16 (2009): 221–53. Goff, Matthew. “Monsters, Giants and Cannibals in the Book of the Watchers” in Sacred Animals and Monsters. Edited by Sian Lewis and Samantha Newington. London: Routledge, forthcoming. Goff, Matthew. “Monstrous Appetites: Giants, Cannibalism and Insatiable Eating in Enochic Literature.” JAJ 1 (2010): 19–42. Goff, Matthew. “A Blessed Rage for Order: Apocalypticism, Esoteric Revelation, and the Cultural Politics of Knowledge in the Hellenistic Age.” HeBAI 5 (2016): 193–211. Goff, Matthew, and Dennis Duke. “The Astronomy of the Qumran Fragments 4Q208 and 4Q209.” DSD 21 (2014): 176–210. Greenblatt, Stephen. Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. Haubold, Johannes, et al., eds. The World of Berossos: Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on »The Ancient Near East between Classical and Ancient Oriental Traditions«, Hatfield College, Durham 7th-9th July 2010. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz Verlag, 2013. Holt, Frank L. Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Horst, Pieter van der. Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Johnston, Sarah Iles. The Story of Myth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2019. Kästner, Volker. “Pergamon and the Attalids.” Pages 40–43 in Pergamon and the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the Ancient World. Edited by Carlos A. Picón and Seán Hemingway. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2016.

Deep Time, the Monstrous, and the Book of the Watchers in the Hellenistic Age



451

Kosmin, Paul J. Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire. Cambridge, MA, and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2018. Krul, Julia. The Revival of the Anu Cult and the Nocturnal Fire Ceremony at Late Babylonian Uruk. CHANE 95. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Kvanvig, Helge S. Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic. An Intertextual Reading. JSJSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Creation Myths. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Lang, Martin. “Book Two: Mesopotamian Early History and the Flood Story.” Pages 47–60 in The World of Berossos: Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on »The Ancient Near East between Classical and Ancient Oriental Traditions«, Hatfield College, Durham 7th-9th July 2010. Edited by Johannes Haubold et al. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz Verlag, 2013. Lavan, Myles, Payne, Richard E., and John Weisweiler, eds. Cosmopolitanism and Empire: Universal Rulers, Local Elites, and Cultural Integration in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Lenzi, Alan. “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship.” JANER 9 (2008): 137–69. Lowenthal, David. The Past is a Foreign Country—Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Mairs, Rachel. The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia. Oakland: University of California Press, 2014. Massa-Pairault, Françoise-Hélène, ed. Géants et gigantomachies entre Orient et Occident. Acts du Colloque, Naples, 14–15 Novembre 2013. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard, 2017. Mayor, Adrienne. The First Fossil Hunters: Dinosaurs, Mammoths, and Myth in Greek and Roman Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. McCants, William F. Founding Gods, Inventing Nations: Conquest and Culture Myths from Antiquity to Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Milik, Józef T., ed. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Misztal, Barbara. Theories of Social Remembering. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003. Moore, Mary B. “The Central Group in the Gigantomachy of the Old Athena Temple on the Acropolis.” AJA 99 (1995): 633–39. Mroczek, Eva. The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Mund-Dopchie, Monique. Ultima Thulé: Histoire d’un lieu et genèse d’un mythe. Histoire des idées et critique littéraire 449. Geneva: Libraire Droz S. A., 2009. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36, 81– 108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Papini, Massimiliano. “Commemorations of Victory: Attalid Monuments to the Defeat of the Galatians.” Pages 44–53 in Pergamon and the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the Ancient World. Edited by Carlos A. Picón and Seán Hemingway. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2016. Picón, Carlos A., and Seán Hemingway, eds. Pergamon and the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the Ancient World. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2016. Portier-Young, Anathea. Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Queyrel, François. “Les Galates comme nouveaux Géants? De la métaphore au glissement interprétatif.” Pages 203–15 in Géants et gigantomachies entre Orient et Occident. Acts

452  Matthew Goff

du Colloque, Naples, 14–15 Novembre 2013. Edited by Françoise-Hélène Massa-Pairault. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard, 2017. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. “Abraham as Chaldean Scientist and Father of the Jews: Josephus, Ant. 1.154–168, and the Greco-Roman Discourse about Astronomy/Astrology.” JSJ 35 (2004): 119–58. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. “Writing Jewish Astronomy in the Early Hellenistic Age: The Enochic Astronomical Book as Aramaic Wisdom and Archival Impulse.” DSD 24 (2017): 1–37. Roark, Kyle. “A Crisis of Wisdom: The Early Enoch Apocalypses and the Cultural Politics of Knowledge in the Hellenistic Age.” Ph. D. dissertation. Florida State University, 2018. Romm, James. The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration, and Fiction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Romm, James. Ghost on the Throne: The Death of Alexander the Great and the War for Crown and Empire. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011. Sanders, Seth L. From Adapa to Enoch: Scribal Culture and Religious Vision in Judea and Babylon. TSAJ 167. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Stavrianopoulou, Eftychia, ed. Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices, and Images. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Stewart, Andrew. Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Thapar, Romila. Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Thimme, Diether. “The Masters of the Pergamon Gigantomachy.” AJA 50 (1946): 345–57. VanderKam, James C. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. CBQMS 16. Washington, D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984. Verbrugghe, Gerald P., and John M. Wickersham. Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Vian, Francis. La guerre des géants. Le mythe avant l’époque hellénistique. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1952. Vian, Francis. Répertoire des gigantomachies figurées dans l’art grec et romain. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1951. Watrous, Livingston Vance. “The Sculptural Program of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi.” AJA 86 (1982): 159–72. Whitaker, Richard. “Art and Ideology: The Case of the Pergamon Gigantomachy.” Acta Classica 48 (2005): 163–74. Whitmarsh, Tim, ed. Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Stefan Beyerle

Concepts of Time in the Visions of Daniel Abstract: The visions in the book of Daniel (chapters 7–12) conceptualize “time” on different levels. Regarding a concept of time as a linear progression, the visions of Daniel refer first of all to the writers’ present perspective, the years of Antiochus IV (cf. Dan 8). Furthermore, the memory of the past comes into view, especially within the concept of a sequence of empires (cf. Dan 7 with chapter 2). Lastly, the future is also conceptualized, including judgment and salvation (cf. 12:1–3). Beyond a linear depiction of time, Daniel’s visions refer to a rather “qualitative” differentiation between the writers’ present and the hope for a future salvation. This concept of “qualitative time” can only be detected by a discussion of aspects of time and space. Keywords: apocalypticism, Book of Daniel, time and space, Antiochus IV and religious crisis, Seleucids.

1 Concepts of Time—A Context for Daniel Attitudes and ideologies from the ancient world give evidence to different concepts of time, and this holds true irrespective of culture, social contexts, or religion. In general, all three basic constructions of time—or hermeneutics of time— are involved in ancient sources: concepts of cyclical, linear, and static time (“punctuation”).1 If one tries to point to an ancient terminology as an equivalent for these conceptions of time, Greek terms like αἰών, as it is related to the temporal adverb αἰεί (“again and again”), χρόνος, and καιρός come to the fore. All three key terms are reflective of an iterative, linear, and punctual aspect of time evident already in the Greek literature before Plato, e.g., in Homer, Hesiod, or the Pindaric Odes.2 With respect to ancient sources from Mesopotamia, written between the third century BCE and the first century CE in Sumerian and Akkadian lan1 Cf., e.g., the reviewed positions in recent scholarship on ancient and medieval Jewish traditions in Gribetz and Kay, “Temporal Turn,” 346–47. All three aspects of time, as mentioned above, can be related to a bi-polar distinction of “time”: durational time as “historicality” and periodic time as “calendricality” (cf., very recently, Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 12). 2 Cf. the discussion of those and related Greek terms in Theunissen, “Zeitbegriffe,” 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-021

454  Stefan Beyerle

guages, a rather different pattern of framing time comes into view.3 In Mesopotamia, the different strata of “time” can be distinguished by referring, again, to specific terminology—the Akkadian terms pāna, pānû[m], or pānānu[m], all of which are related to the semantic field of “front” or “face,”4 designate something that is placed ahead of someone. Strangely enough, this semantic field does not point to the future, but it describes the past. Consequently, the Akkadian words [w]arka, [w]arkû[m], [w]arkānu[m], and [w]arkītu[m], all of which are related to the semantic field of “reverse, behind,”5 associate future time periods.6 To a certain extent, the Mesopotamian cultures and religions obviously conceptualized their future by looking “behind,” which means that all existence starts in the past. Furthermore, the Mesopotamian pattern of time is based on another threefold distinction: “the status of time which-is-already-going-by (the usual status, the sequence itself, the one-after-another); the status of time which-is-not-time-yet (the before, the origins, the time before time); and the status of time which-has-already-ended (the after, the end of time).”7 The differences between both patterns of framing time, i. e., concepts of a cyclical, linear, and static time on the one hand and the idea of a time sequence as related to the beginning and the end of time on the other hand, are not considered to be inherent to a culture’s conceptuality of time itself but rather graduated. While in the Mesopotamian model the terms “beginning” and “end” are associated with a static understanding of time or punctuation, the interpretation of sources like the royal inscriptions or myths (cf. Enūma eliš) point to a rather iterative concept of time. If, e.g., Sargon (Šarru-kīn) II—king of Assyria in the late eighth century BCE—modeled himself after Sargon of Akkad—a renowned and famous king of the third millennium BCE8—, he emphasizes that his future reign will be characterized and based on an ideology of an idealized beginning of Assyrian kingship. Later, the last Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus in the sixth century BCE also referred to Sargon of Akkad.9 In other words: in the end the beginning is paramount, or at least significant. What is more, every new ruler refers back to a blueprint associated with the olden days, and this 3 On the Mesopotamian terms for “time” cf. Maul, “Walking Backwards,” 15–22; Menargues Rajadell, “Mesopotamian Idea of Time,” 212–28. 4 Cf. CAD P (Vol. 12), 76–88, 91, 93–95. 5 Cf. CAD A/II (Vol. 1), 274–83, 286–90. 6 Cf. Maul, “Walking Backwards,” 15; Menargues Rajadell, “Mesopotamian Idea of Time,” 220; Janowski, Anthropologie, 322 with n. 16. 7 Menargues Rajadell, “Mesopotamian Idea of Time,” 212 (italics in the original); cf. also Maul, “Walking Backwards,” 15–16, 20–22. 8 Cf. Elayi, Sargon II, 1, 4–6, 14, 23. 9 Cf. Maul, “Walking Backwards,” 18–19.

Concepts of Time in the Visions of Daniel 

455

recursive ideology lends an iterative character to the processes of “becoming a king” in general. We can thus state that pānû[m]—or the “beginning”—and [w]arkû[m]—or the “end”—allude to both static and iterative hermeneutics of time. If one takes into account myths like Enūma eliš or Atra-ḫasīs, a linear concept of time also can be detected in these ancient Mesopotamian sources.10 Recent discussions about time in ancient and medieval Jewish sources, and especially apocalyptic literature, evaluate the linear concept in relation to static dimensions of time. Most recently, Jonathan Ben-Dov has convincingly argued that in the visions of Daniel, as in the literature of the Yaḥad, among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the static and the linear perceptions of time interact with each other. Ben-Dov comes to the conclusion that time was experienced both as kairos and as chronos, and was expressed in elaborate literary and scholarly media. Eschatology revolves around a very powerful kairos, the moment of redemption. In turn this kairos concludes a very long chronos that precedes it. The now derives its meaning from the continuous past, as the two form a lively dialectic. This dialectic yielded in apocalyptic circles a ‘thick’ present.11

Ben-Dov’s reference to a “‘thick’ present” is of special interest and importance, because it adds a third dimension of perceptions of time to the concepts consisting of linear and circular, or durational and periodic, aspects. The latter dualism of linearity and circularity dominates most cultures, and also in antiquity. Consequently, the separation of the linear concept from the circular, as it was emphasized in former scholarly contributions, that included a—pagan Greek— mythic model with reference to the circular timeframe and a—Jewish and Christian—linear model should belong to the past.12 The same applies to ancient Jewish apocalyptic literature.13 However, most of the more recent examinations of time in ancient Israel and Judaism treat the static or punctual aspect of time superficially, if at all. There are several reasons for this. First of all, the antagonism of a linear perception of time in Judaism and Christianity and a circular concept in ancient Near Eastern and also in Greek myths dominated the schol10 Cf. Menargues Rajadell, “Mesopotamian Idea of Time,” 216–18. Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 25, states: “This [i. e., the start of the Seleucid Era: SB] was not the ‘discovery’ of the linear time, for understandings of ordered and irreversible temporal succession had long existed.” For the important role that the Babylonian myth Enūma eliš and the akītu festival played for the construction of an idealized beginning of the Seleucid Era (1 Nisannu 311 BCE), cf. ibid., 30–35. 11 Ben-Dov, “Apocalyptic Temporality,” 303 (italics in the original). 12 Cf., most recently, Janowski, Anthropologie, 361–403, esp. 363–64, 388–90. 13 Cf. Beyerle, “Towards a Matrix,” 8–14.

456  Stefan Beyerle

arly debate for decades. Secondly, the idealized concept of “salvation history” (Heilsgeschichte) helped to construe these two concepts as “thesis” and “antithesis.”14 Thirdly, it is important to consider the Septuagint and its at least subliminal or latent influence, wherein a clear distinction between χρόνος—“duration, period”—and καιρός—“a static point in time, chronological mark”—is apparent.15 Beyond a lexical analysis, the following examinations on the visions in the book of Daniel will stress time concepts within a model that consists of three aspects: static, linear, and iterative.16 In his highly esteemed book The Sabbath, Abraham Joshua Heschel pointed out, Judaism is a religion of time aiming at the sanctification of time. Unlike the space-minded man to whom time is unvaried, iterative, homogenous, to whom all hours are alike, qualitiless, empty shells, the Bible senses the diversified character of time. There are no two hours alike. Every hour is unique and the only one given at the moment, exclusive and endlessly precious.17

Heschel’s quotation adds another dimension to the concepts of time discussed so far, a quality-oriented hermeneutics.18 In his essay, Heschel refers to a Jewish festival, the Sabbath, but he could have explored also other festivals and terms or explanations of time in the Tanach and beyond.19 E.g., in Eccl 3:11–15 the ‘ôlām is designated as something that pertains to the divine sphere only.20 Here, Qoheleth distinguishes human, universal, and divine times. Therefore, the text introduces a separation oriented at and motivated by a qualitative sense of 14 Cf. von Rad, “Problem,” esp. 137–38, 146–47, and idem, “Aspekte,” esp. 316, 320–21 (cf. also Janowski, Anthropologie, 388–89). 15 Cf. the debate between, among others, Barr, Words, 20–46, and Eynikel and Hauspie, “Use,” 369–85 (cf. also Ben-Dov, “Apocalyptic Temporality,” 291 n. 6). Eynikel and Hauspie, “Use,” 374, speak of “critical time” with a view to καιρός, and they emphasize that χρόνος “by contrast always has in view an ‘indefinite period of time’” (ibid., 385). For further semantic denotations of the Greek word in the Septuagint cf. ibid., 376–83. 16 For further “time maps” in the “Bible” see Nicklas, “Zeit, Zeitmodelle und Zeitdeutung,” 356–77. 17 Heschel, The Sabbath, 8 (italics in the original; cf. also Gribetz and Kay, “Temporal Turn,” 333–34). 18 See also the contribution by Michael Duggan in this volume. 19 E.g., on the importance of the “time” of transition from weekdays to Sabbath or festival, cf. the discussion in Doering, “Beginning of Sabbath,” 206–24. For different views from the rabbinic sources cf. Stern, Time and Process, 66–69: on “sacred” time, and the contribution by Stefan Reif in this volume: on the absence of “time” (cf. also Stern, Time and Process, 30–34, who explores that the spatial dimension of an “almighty” and “omnipresent” God excludes speculations about “time” from human perspectives). 20 See also the contribution of Martina Kepper in this volume.

Concepts of Time in the Visions of Daniel



457

time.21 The latter aspect, the “quality” of time, finds further evidence in the context of calendrical systems and their contributions to religious and cultural identities.22 For the following analyses of the visions in the book of Daniel, Heschel’s emphasis on a qualitative sense of time and Ben-Dov’s “‘thick’ present” deserve special attention, without neglecting a view of time from the “end.” And at this point the following examination will go beyond Heschel’s antagonism of time and space, an amalgamation of χρόνος and τόπος.23

2 Time and Time: Making History of the “‘Thick’ Present” Almost every scholarly examination of “time” starts with a discussion of terminologies and lexicography.24 However, most scholars are aware of the limited methodological rigor and application and, consequently, the limited aid for deciphering concepts of time in ancient writings offered by a purely lexicographical approach. As this examination, nevertheless, also starts in reference to Greek terms for time, it is interesting to recognize that all basic terms, like αἰών, χρόνος, and καιρός, are attested in the Old Greek versions of the visions of the book of Daniel.25 The noun αἰών is used in Dan 2:28 in the Old Greek version attested in Papyrus 967 and some related manuscripts (see below: note 27). In general, scholars suspect this ‫ מועד‬passage in Dan 2 was later influenced by the 21 Cf. also Vonach, “Vom Ergreifen des ‘kairos’,” 335–36. 22 Cf., e.g., Ben-Dov, “Time and Natural Law,” 12–15. In general, “time” and perceptions of “time” reflect important issues for concepts of “identity:” cf. the contribution by Benjamin Wright in this volume. 23 This amalgamation of “time” and “space” is not restricted to classical or later (koinē) Greek terms. E.g., a late Hebrew noun like ‫ ס ֹוף‬and its synonyms can refer to the end of time and to the end of a (geographic) place—or also to the end of texts, speeches, etc. Cf. Hurvitz, Concise Lexicon, 188–90. 24 Cf., e.g., Barr, Words, 82–128 (esp. 116–28), and with a view to the book of Daniel, Verhoef, “Die aanduiding van tyd,” 225–32, who first of all differentiates between “time entities” (day, week, month, year) and Hebrew (‫עד‬, ‫עולם‬,‫מועד‬, ‫קץ‬, ‫ )עת‬and Aramaic (‫עלם‬, ‫זמן‬, ‫עדן‬, ‫ )ׁשעה‬keywords for time in the book of Daniel (ibid., 231). Nevertheless, he emphasizes: “Die vertaling kan nie volstaan met ’n blote leksikografiese weergawe van die betekenis van die afsonderlike woorde nie, maar moet steeds fyn onderskei tussen die verskillende nuanses van betekenis in die betrokke kontekste.” 25 The results of an overview of the Greek terminology (Ms. 88; Pap. 967; Pseudo-Theodotion) in the visions of the book of Daniel are: καιρός is attested in 2:8–9, 21; 7:12, 22, 25; 8:17, 19; 9:27; 11:13–14, 27, 29, 35; 12:4, 7–8. The term αἰών is attested in 2:4, 20, 28, 44; 7:18; 8:11; 12:3, 7 (for αἰώνιος cf. 7:14, 27; 9:24; 12:2). The term χρόνος is attested in 2:16, 21, 44; 7:12.

458  Stefan Beyerle

apocalyptic setting of chapter 7.26 In this regard, it is conspicuous to see that the Aramaic text and Pseudo-Theodotion did not read αἰών or an Aramaic equivalent (such as ‫ָעַלם‬, ‫ ;ָעְלַמ ָיּא‬cf. Dan 7:18). Consequently, the phrase βασιλεῦ, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ζῆθι, “king (Nebuchadnezzar, you may) live forever,” is part of the Old Greek tradition in Dan 2 only.27 It is also included in Daniel’s speech to the Babylonian king, located between the king’s dream and Daniel’s interpretation, and functions as an interjection that equates the king to the god of heaven who will reveal mysteries. Furthermore, only the Old Greek version of Papyrus 967 and Ms. 88 in Dan 8:11 mentions αἰών.28 According to Dan 7:18 and 12:3, 7 the Greek versions of Pseudo-Theodotion, Ms. 88, and Papyrus 967 vary when they refer to the verbose expression “forever and forever and ever” (MT: ‫ַעד־ָעְלָמא ְוַעד ָעַלם‬ ‫)ָעְלַמָי ּא‬.29 According to the different concepts of time, phrases in Dan 8:11 and 12:7 are of special interest, because of their context. Chapter 12 in the Hebrew—and Aramaic—book of Daniel concludes the composition of four visions in Dan 7–12 and introduces the “transcendence of death,” i. e., a retribution after death, right at the beginning of the visionary setting. Accordingly, this passage stresses an apocalyptic worldview. In Dan 8 we hear of the goat that overcomes a ram and destroys the daily offerings. In v. 11 the vision of Dan 8 reaches its peak: Dan 8:11 (MT) And against the prince of the host, he grew pretentiously; and from him he removed the daily offering; and it overthrew the place of his sanctuary. Dan 8:11 (Old Greek: Pap. 967; Ms. 88)30 Until the commander-in-chief

‫ְוַעד ַשׂר־ַה ָּצָבא ִהְגִּדיל‬ ‫ו ִּמֶּמנ ּו ּ ֵה ִרים ַה ָּתִמיד‬ ‫ְוֻהְׁשַלְך ְמכ ֹון ִמְקָּדׁש ֹו׃‬

ἕως ὁ ἀρχιστράτηγος

26 Cf. Kratz, “Visions,” esp. 92, 98. 27 Cf. also the Syrohexapla, the Lucian version and, albeit preserved in a possible reconstruction only, the Dead Sea Scrolls in Ms. 4QDana; in Ms. 88 the whole passage, including the first half of v. 29, is omitted due to homoioteleuton (ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν): cf. Koch and Rösel, Polyglottensynopse, 40–41; Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco, 250–51. 28 Cf. Geissen, Septuaginta-Text, 126–27; Koch and Rösel, Polyglottensynopse, 224–25; Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco, 350–51. 29 For the details see Koch and Rösel, Polyglottensynopse, 204–5, 304–5, 308–9; Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco, 340–41, 390–93; Geissen, Septuaginta-Text, 112–13, 262–63. 30 Also Pseudo-Theodotion deviates from the Hebrew text: καὶ ἕως οὗ ὁ ἀρχιστράτηγος ῥύσηται τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν, καὶ δι᾿ αὐτὸν θυσία ἐρράχθη, καὶ ἐγενήθη καὶ κατευοδώθη αὐτῷ, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον ἐρημωθήσεται· [“And it is until the commander-in-chief shall have delivered the captivity, and

Concepts of Time in the Visions of Daniel 

shall have delivered the captivity. And by him the mountains of eternity have been stricken, [taken away,] and their place and sacrifice were and he put it down on the ground, on the earth. And he prospered and developed, and the sanctuary will be made desolate.

459

ῥύσεται τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν, καὶ δι᾿ αὐτὸν τὰ ὄρη τὰ ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος ἐρράχθη, καὶ ἐξήρθη ὁ τόπος αὐτῶν καὶ θυσία, καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὴν ἕως χαμαὶ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ εὐωδώθη καὶ ἐγενήθη, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον ἐρημωθήσεται·

Because of the striking deviations between the Hebrew and the Greek texts, many scholars opt for an augmentation and interpretation of the—earlier—Hebrew text in the Greek versions.31 The startling use of the active or passive causative of ‫ רום‬obviously animates the Greek tradition to read a reference to the “mountains of eternity” (‫)הרי עלם‬.32 The mountains are closely related to the daily offering (‫)תמיד‬, since they are considered places for the sacrifices. These sacrifices associate an iterative concept of time that presupposes the aspect of repeatability. Furthermore, the so-called interpretation of the ram-vision (vv. 15–26), which in fact includes another vision,33 highlights the temporal setting of the whole vision in the “appointed time of the end” (vv. 17, 19).34 Here, with reference to the καιρός in all Greek versions, the punctual aspect of time comes into view. Overall, Dan 8:11 (Old Greek) shows that two different aspects of time, the punctual and the iterative, could be combined even in close proximity. In Dan 12:7 a quite similar combination of notions and concepts of time becomes apparent. The scenery in vv. 6–7 is located at two shores (cf. v. 5) of the river, where the visionary Daniel asks, “How long until the end of the wonderous events?” (v. 6b: ‫)ַעד־ָמַתי ֵקץ ַהְּפָלא ֹות‬. It follows that one of the angels, dressed because of him an offering has been stricken, and he developed and prospered, and the holy place will be made desolate.”] 31 Cf. the text-critical notes in Collins, Daniel, 326. 32 In the Hebrew language, different word combinations and expressions are possible: e.g., the plural ‫ הררי‬or a combination with ‫עד‬. In Hab 3:6 the hymnic theophany reads: ‫ַוִי ְּת ֹ ּפְצצו ּ ַהְרֵרי־ַעד‬, “and the eternal mountains were shattered.” In the so-called Blessing of Jacob (Gen 49:26; cf. also ‫ ַה ְר ֵרי־ֶקֶדם‬in Dtn 33:15), one reads about the ‫ִּגְבֹעת ע ֹוָלם‬, “everlasting heights.” Jub. 1:28 (cf. 4Q216 [4QJuba] frag. 4 10: reconstr.) points to Mount Zion as God’s dwelling place “for eternity.” 33 Cf. Collins, Daniel, 328. Newsom and Breed, Daniel, 258–59, lay emphasis on the visionary character of the encounter with Gabriel also in vv. 15–19 and identify the passages including the interpretation in vv. 20–25 only. 34 While the Hebrew has: ‫( ְלֶעת־ֵקץ ֶהָחז ֹון‬v. 17) and ‫( ְלמ ֹוֵעד ֵקץ‬v. 19), the Greek translation refers to: εἰς ὥραν καιροῦ (v. 17) / εἰς ὥρας καιροῦ συντελείας (v. 19: Pap. 967, Ms. 88) and εἰς καιροῦ πέρας (v. 17 and 19: Pseudo-Theodotion): cf. Koch and Rösel, Polyglottensynopse, 228–29; Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco, 352–53; Geissen, Septuaginta-Text, 130, 132.

460  Stefan Beyerle

in linen, answers the question by swearing by the “one who lives forever” (MT, cf. also Pseudo-Theodotion: ‫ )ְּבֵחי ָהע ֹוָלם‬or by the “god who lives in eternity” (Ms. 88:35 τὸν ζῶντα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα θεὸν). Comparable to the combination of ideas in Dan 8, also in Dan 12 αἰών points to a cosmic and iterative concept of time that entails a certain “quality.” The question concerning the “end of the wonderous events” connects the cosmic aspect of αἰών with a certain moment in time, the punctual aspect (‫)קץ‬. Thus, αἰών and ‫ עולם‬do not simply refer to a cosmic power of a bygone age or prehistory. They rather embrace the whole of a cosmic understanding of time. A closer look at Dan 12:6–7 reveals another combination of chronological aspects: Dan 12:6 (MT) And he spoke to the man clothed in linen, who was (standing) above the waters of the river: “How long until the end of the wonderous events?” Dan 12:7 (MT) And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was (standing) above the waters of the river. And he raised his right and his left (hand) to the heavens and swore by the one who lives forever (Ms. 88: τὸν ζῶντα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα θεὸν) It would be for a time, times, and half a time, (Ms. 88: εἰς καιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ) and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people is completed, all these (things) are completed.

‫ַוֹי ּאֶמר ָלִאיׁש ְלבו ּׁש ַה ַ ּבִּדים‬ ‫ֲא ֶ ׁשר ִמ ַ ּמַעל ְלֵמיֵמי ַהְיֹאר‬ ‫ַעד־ָמַתי ֵקץ ַהְּפָלא ֹות׃‬

‫ָוֶא ְ ׁשַמע ֶאת־ָהִאיׁש ְלבו ּׁש ַה ַ ּבִּדים‬ ‫ֲא ֶ ׁשר ִמ ַ ּמַעל ְלֵמיֵמי ַהְיֹאר‬ ‫ַוָי ֶּרם ְיִמינ ֹו ו ְּׂשֹמאל ֹו ֶאל־ַה ָּ ׁשַמִים‬ ‫ַוִי ּ ָּׁשַבע ְּבֵחי ָהע ֹוָלם‬ ‫ִּכי ְלמ ֹוֵעד מ ֹוֲעִדים ָוֵחִצי‬

‫ו ְּכַכּל ֹות ַנ ֵ ּפץ ַיד־ַעם־ֹקֶדׁש ִּתְכֶליָנה ָכל־ֵאֶּלה׃‬

The phrase “a time, times, and half a time” yields a period of time that embraces both “quality time,” in terms of a transcendent end-time to overcome the “shattering,” and the “historical” end of “all these (things),” a phrase that is generally understood as a reference to the religious persecutions that took place under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The latter king believed that he himself could alter time.36 This can be interpreted as blasphemy, a hubris to acquire power 35 In Pap. 967 Dan 12:7 is not preserved: cf. Geissen, Septuaginta-Text, 262–63. 36 This is also the background in Dan 8 and can be interpreted as an experience of trauma: cf. Portier-Young, Apocalypse, 173–74, 178–85. Cf. also Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 153.

Concepts of Time in the Visions of Daniel 

461

over the establishment of time, a power that originates in the divine sphere.37 A comparable phraseology is also attested in the vision of the “One Like a Son of Man” in Dan 7:25, where one reads: Dan 7:25 (MT) And words will he speak against the Most High, and the holy ones of the Most High he will beset. He will intend to change time and law, and they will be given into his power for a time, times, and half a time (Ms. 88, Pseudo-Theodotion: ἕως καιροῦ καὶ καιρῶν αὶ ἕως ἡμίσους καιροῦ).38

‫ו ִּמִּלין ְלַצד ִע ָּלָיא ְיַמִּלל‬ ‫ו ְּלַקִּדי ֵ ׁשי ֶעְלי ֹו ִנין ְיַב ֵ ּלא‬ ‫ְוִיְס ַ ּבר ְלַהְׁשָנָיה ִזְמ ִנין ְוָדת‬ ‫ְוִיְתַיֲהבו ּן ִּביֵדּה‬ ‫ַעד־ִעָּדן ְוִעָּד ִנין ו ְּפַלג ִעָּדן׃‬

In Dan 12 and 7, καιρός indicates a precise period (or periods) of time. The range of its Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents, ‫ מ ֹוֵעד‬and ‫ִעָּדן‬, encompasses a time span of three and a half. Obviously, the heptadic system of time is presupposed (cf. Dan 9:24–27). It provides a pesher-like interpretation of the exilic period that lasted seventy years (cf. Jer 25:11–12; 29:10). Dan 9 expands this heptadic period into a time span of seventy weeks of years. Thus, the expression “a time, times, and half a time” could be understood as referring to half a week of years, i. e. three (and a half) years, which alludes to the period of time in which Antiochus IV Epiphanes had desecrated Jerusalem and its temple (1 Macc 4:52–54).39 In sum, Antiochus’ reign (175–164 BCE) is assumed to be reflected in the span of one week of years in Dan 9:26–27, albeit this specification of seven years does not really cover Antiochus’ exact ruling years.40 However, Dan 12 and 7 are based on digits or figures and their chronological representations, which were further elaborated in Dan 9 on the basis of prophecies from the book of Jeremiah.41 Included in these chronological hermeneutics is a “Sabbatical structure” that is apparent not only, though predominantly, in apocalyptic Jewish writings. In this context “time” becomes 37 For this interpretation, cf. Newsom and Breed, Daniel, 241. 38 The text of Pap. 967 is not completely preserved and may had omitted parts of the phrase due to haplography: cf. Geissen, Septuaginta-Text, 118–19. 39 Cf. Collins, Daniel, 322, 352–57 (cf. also Venter, “Concept of ‘Time’,” 675; Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 127–28). 1 Macc 4:54 also used the Greek term καιρός to refer to the month of the reinvention of the Jerusalem temple: cf. Tilly, 1 Makkabäer, 135, 137. 40 Cf. Dimant, “Seventy Weeks Chronology,” 62. 41 E.g., Dimant, “Seventy Weeks Chronology,” 61, emphasizes: “Since the Seventy Weeks of Years’ period will initiate the eschatological era, this period is not a neutral, isolated segment of time, but an era of specific character and place in the course of history.”

462  Stefan Beyerle

“history.”42 For the most prominent Jewish texts that yield a “Sabbatical structure,” one should refer, among others, to the Enochic “Apocalypse of Weeks,” the Qumranic text Pesher on the Periods (4Q181 frg. 2 3),43 the book of Jubilees or the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q390) from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many scholars (e.g., Klaus Koch or Devorah Dimant) argue that the structure of weeks of years symbolizes a cosmic unity in a wholistic context.44 For example, the “Apocalypse of Weeks” highlights a “numeric value which accords best with all the data provided by the ApocWe […] which allows each Week a span of ten jubilees of 49 years, namely of 490 years or seventy sabbatical circles (or ‘weeks’).”45 Furthermore, the “quality” aspect of time, as it is included in this understanding of weeks of years, becomes already apparent in key terminology. For example the Aramaic fragments of the “Apocalypse of Weeks” attest the term ‫ָעַלם‬, as also does, for example, Dan 7:18. Of special interest is the outlook to a new heaven in the tenth week (4QEng ar [4Q212] iv 23–25; cf. 1 En. 91:16):46 And the first heaven, in it (i. e., the tenth week) it will pass away, and a [new] heav[en will appear, and all powers] of heaven will shin[e for]th and will rise throughout all eternit[y, seven times

‫ קדמין‬24 ‫[ושמין‬ ‫בה יעברון ושׄמ]ין חדתין‬ 25

‫יתחזון וכול שלטני[ שמיא‬ ‫ׄצ]הר[ין ודנחין‬ ‫לכול עלמי]ן שבעה פעמין‬

As “all powers of heaven will shine forth and will rise throughout all eternity, seven times,” ‫( ָעַלם‬plural) and ‫ ִׁשְבָעה‬are closely connected. What is more, the new heaven as the goal one hopes for will last ‫ָעַלם‬, and so it provides a certain quality, in terms of a different sphere and a new order of time that will last “for42 For the political and hermeneutical dimensions of “history” in apocalypses, cf. Collins, “Temporality and Politics,” 129–41. 43 Against other positions, 4Q180 and 4Q181 represent two different texts (cf. Dimant, “Pesher on Periods,” 403–4; eadem, “On Righteous and Sinners,” 420–21), which may relate to a third manuscript, and 4Q181 frg. 2 3 is the only preserved line that explicitly mentions the “seventy weeks”: cf. the discussion in Berner, Jahre, 351–65; Dimant, “Pesher on the Periods,” 385–404; eadem, “On Righteous and Sinners,” 405–21, esp. 406–9. Nevertheless, also 4Q180 thematizes the determined periods of time, already in its superscription (4Q180 frg. 1 1): ‫פשר על הקצים‬ (“Pesher/Interpretation of the periods,” cf. Dimant, “Pesher on Periods,” 387, 399–400). Different from 4Q180, 4Q181 does not mention a sequence of periods, and the seventy weeks of year in 4Q181 frg. 2 3: ‫בשבעים שבוע‬, rather point to the times of iniquity (cf. Dimant, “On Righteous and Sinners,” 418–19). 44 Cf., e.g., Koch, “Sabbatstruktur und Geschichte,” 71–74. 45 Dimant, “Seventy Weeks Chronology,” 66 (italics in the original). 46 For the text and its reconstruction, cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 266; cf. also García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Study Edition, 444.

Concepts of Time in the Visions of Daniel



463

ever,” in contrast to the “first heaven.” Beyond that, the symbolic function of figures, in this case the number “seven,” encompasses also cultic settings. To draw a preliminary conclusion, it can be stated that the visions of Daniel used different terms for time that appear rather indifferent towards certain semantic ranges. What counts are the contexts and connotations. Consider, for example, that only the Old Greek tradition of Dan 8:11 refers to the “mountains of eternity” that allude to a cultic as well as to a cosmic setting.47 In Dan 12:7 the “one who lives forever” refers to the “eternal god,” who dwells above all. Much more interesting are the conjunctions of other terms in Dan 12 that come across through co-texts and cross-references. Especially the Aramaic term ‫ ִעָּדן‬in Dan 7 (v. 25), represented by Hebrew ‫ מ ֹוֵעד‬and Greek καιρός, signals and symbolizes an apocalyptic period which is very prominent in Second Temple literature. Within a heptadic system, time is qualified by referring to the distant future with hope for a dramatic and positive ending. Furthermore, ‫מ ֹוֵעד‬, ‫ ִעָּדן‬and καιρός are sequencing a this-worldly pursuit of religiously determined “accidents,” the years of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the ravages in Jerusalem initiated by the Seleucid king. Just as the reference to Antiochus’ years of repression in “time, times, and half a time” (Dan 7:25; 12:7) presupposes the heptadic chronological system and its allusion to other-worldly realities48 that lead to a final redemptive era, the references to the latter final period, crosswise, were in need of the historical or, as Jonathan Ben-Dov called it, the “thick present” that was characterized by a crisis (cf. Dan 9:24–27).

3 Crisis—What Crisis? How we understand “time” in apocalyptic texts like the Visions of Daniel is undoubtedly influenced by our cultural environment that dictates our perceptions and ideas of “time.” This is the case not only in terms of how ancient sources conceptualized “time” in their terminology, traditions, and scriptures, but also with a view to an appropriate modern perception of “time,” as included within the process of reading ancient sources from the Mediterranean world, scholars lay claim to focus on a historical “present.”49 One aspect of this “‘thick’ present” in the apocalypse of Daniel is indeed its historical background dating 47 Cf. Clifford, Cosmic Mountain, esp. 182–89. 48 This is also alluded to in the notions of the tenth week, especially in Aram. ‫ָעַלם‬, in the “Apocalypse of Weeks,” wherein the final period (cf. 1 En. 91:17) falls beyond history (cf. Dimant, “Seventy Weeks Chronology,” 67). 49 Cf. Venter, “Concept of ‘Time’,” 671–72, who refers to Bruce Malina.

464  Stefan Beyerle

from the middle of the second century BCE, in the context of what is often called the “Antiochean crisis.” In the final vision of the book of Daniel, chapters 10–12, the visionary “sees” or “hears” the battles and conflicts of the Hellenistic history dating between Alexander the Great and Antiochus IV, situated in a heavenly setting, as Dan 10 introduces the composition, and it is revealed in an angelic discourse to the visionary. In Dan 11:21–45, the verses focus on the contemporary history of the tradition. In Dan 11:29–31 one reads:50 Dan 11:29 (MT) At the appointed time, he will again move towards the south. Pap. 96751, Ms. 88: εἰς καιρόν … εἰς Αἴγυπτον And it will not be like the former or the later times.52 Pap. 967, Ms. 88: καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὡς ἡ πρώτη καὶ ἡ ἐσχάτη Dan 11:30 (MT) For Kittim (war)ships shall sail against him and he shall be disheartened. He shall return and behave indignantly against the holy covenant. And he shall do so, return and understand those who forsake the holy covenant. Dan 11:31 (MT) Armies from him shall stand up and profane the sanctuary and the fortress. And they shall abolish the daily offering and they shall install the desolating abomination (Pap. 967, Ms. 88: βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως).

‫ַלּמ ֹוֵעד ָיׁשו ּב ו ָּבא ַבֶנ ֶּגב‬

‫שָנה ְוָכַאֲחֹרָנה׃‬ ֹ ׁ ‫ְולֹא־ִתְהֶיה ָכ ִרא‬

‫ו ָּבאו ּ ב ֹו ִצִי ּים ִּכִּתים ְו ִנְכָאה‬ Pap. 967, Ms. 88: καὶ ἥξουσι Ῥωμαῖοι ‫ְו ָ ׁשב ְוָזַעם ַעל־ְּב ִרית־ק ֹוֶדׁש‬ ‫ְוָעָשׂה ְו ָ ׁשב ְוָיֵבן ַעל־ֹעְזֵבי ְּב ִרית ֹקֶדׁש׃‬

ּ ‫ו ְּזֹרִעים ִמֶּמנ ּו ּ ַיֲעֹמדו‬ ‫ְוִחְּללו ּ ַהִּמְקָּדׁש ַה ָּמע ֹוז‬ ‫ְוֵהִסירו ּ ַה ָּתִמיד‬ ‫ְוָנְתנו ּ ַה ִּ ׁשּקו ּץ ְמׁש ֹוֵמם׃‬

50 For the texts, cf. Koch and Rösel, Polyglottensynopse, 294–95. 51 This part of the book of Daniel is preserved in the Barcelona version of Pap. 967: cf. Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco, 10–12, and for the text: 384. 52 Most interpretations translate: “but this latter occasion will not be like the first” (cf. Collins, Daniel, 367; Newsom and Breed, Daniel, 323, who understands the phrase as pointing to the climactic period of history). This reading or understanding is possible, but, with a view to the context (‫—ַלּמ ֹוֵעד‬εἰς καιρόν), a certain point in time comes into view, and it is qualified as being incomparable to the future and the past events. Furthermore, the philology of a double usage of the particle ‫ כ‬points to a semantics like “as … as,” or “neither … nor” (cf. Jenni, Präposition Kaph, 53–54).

Concepts of Time in the Visions of Daniel 

465

The passage in the vision associates the profanation of the temple with a military operation in the south. Most commentaries and historical approaches relate the Daniel text to Antiochus’ second invasion of Egypt in 168 BCE.53 The “south” and the “Kittim ships” in the MT were interpreted as Egypt and the Romans, as it is also stated in the Old Greek translation. After Antiochus had been humbled (v. 30 Pseudo-Theodotion: ταπεινωθήσεται) or rebuked (v. 30 Pap. 967, Ms. 88: ἐμβριμήσονται),54 he withdrew, desecrated the sanctuary, and forbade the daily offering and installed the “desolating abomination.” Even though the text of Dan 11 makes no mention of Judea or the Jerusalem temple, the text doubtlessly refers to both. It is striking to note that terms for “Judea” and “Jerusalem” are completely lacking in the vision of Dan 7, 8 and 10–12.55 The king’s activities wreaked havoc among some groups in Judea. Based on the information from Dan 11, the Judean rebellious reaction becomes immediately apparent, albeit the “desolating abomination” is still a matter of dispute. However, it remains unclear why the Seleucids attacked the sanctuary, the Tamid, and the Jewish god. To interpret Antiochus’ IV invasion and desecration “as a furious response to this Roman compulsion (11:31),”56 is nonetheless a sophisticated guess. Since the days of Porphyry, a neo-Platonic philosopher of the third century CE, almost all interpretations of Dan 11:21–45 assume a historical narrative in the background of this vision.57 In the modern world of scholarship a combination of different ancient sources, especially from Josephus (cf. Ant. 12) or 1 and 2 Macc (cf. 1 Macc 1; 2 Macc 5–6), was used, and still is used, to reconstruct a coalesced and more or less harmonized picture of the history of the Sixth Syrian War (169–168 BCE) and its aftermath. In particular inner-Jewish conflicts between the High-priests Jason, an Oniad, and Menelaos, a Tobiad (cf. Josephus Ant. 12.240; 2 Macc 5:5) are mentioned in this context. Conflicts that lead to civil war-like conditions in Jerusalem, based on the false rumor that Antiochus had died during his second campaign to Egypt.58 Obviously the vision in the book of Daniel did not know anything about these “facts.” 53 Cf. Collins, Daniel, 384–85; Newsom and Breed, Daniel, 349–52; Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 159. 54 The Niph‘al of ‫ כאה‬in the MT is, when compared to the Greek verbs, less forceful (cf. Ps 109:16). 55 In general, ‫ ְיהו ּד‬is mentioned in Dan 2:25; 5:13; 6:14, and ‫ ְיהו ָּדה‬in 1:1, 2, 6; 9:7 only (cf. ‫ ְיהו ָּדי‬in Dan 3:8, 12). Furthermore, attestations for the noun ‫ ְירו ּ ָ ׁש ִ ַלם‬in the book of Daniel are also very rare. Besides Dan 1:1, ‫ ְירו ּ ָ ׁש ִ ַלם‬is attested in chapter 9 only (vv. 2, 7, 12, 16, 25; for ‫ ְירו ְּׁשֶלם‬cf. also 5:2–3; 6:11). 56 So, most recently, Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 159. 57 Cf., most recently, Grüninger, Die Engel und der Krieg, 25–26; Bernhardt, Jüdische Revolution, 37–40. 58 Cf., e.g., Bernhardt, Jüdische Revolution, 217–22.

466  Stefan Beyerle

As a consequence, scholarly reconstructions of the 160s BCE tend to diverge tremendously in their details. What came first, Jewish revolt or Seleucid persecution? Additionally, was the conflict a Jewish-Greek-Seleucid one or rather an inner-Jewish one?59 On the basis of these—and more—unanswered questions, many of the recent scholarly hypotheses cast serious doubts on an Antiochean religious persecution. Sylvie Honigman, for example, argued that the accounts in the books 1 and 2 Macc and in Dan (cf. 11:29–39)60 are religiously motivated and simply invented narrations of a Seleucid persecution with the aim to glorify the Hasmoneans. The rebellion under Antiochus IV “was in essence caused by economic distress and political destabilization.”61 However, many scholars have recently challenged this claim, criticizing Honigman for underestimating the nature of Antiochus’ repressive measures.62 In any case, a focus on economic turbulences does not do justice to the religious contexts and factors that were implied in the political strategy of the Seleucids. The question of whether those religious implementations were part of a Seleucid strategy of suppression may remain unanswered. However, several inscriptions and archaeological remains point unambiguously to the religious contexts of the Seleucid policy.63 If Honigman’s approach with a focus on economic reasons for the Judean revolt is much too biased and if, furthermore, religious reasons—or at least reasons of religiously perceived Seleucid deeds—should be recognized, then another aspect comes to the fore which is of great importance for both the Seleucid hegemony and Judean “apocalyptic” groups—the aspect of time. To return once again to Dan 11, let us consider v. 29, which states, “At the appointed time, he will again move towards the south.” At a first glance, Hebrew ‫ ַלּמ ֹוֵעד‬and Greek εἰς καιρόν allude to a certain point in the present of the this-worldly writers—the time of Antiochus’ IV second campaign to Egypt in 168 BCE. But a closer look reveals further attestations of the Hebrew ‫ ַלּמ ֹוֵעד‬in Dan 11:27, 35, here in combination with ‫ֵקץ‬. In Dan 11:27 two kings—Ptolemy VI of the south and Antiochus IV of the north during his first campaign—bend their minds toward 59 For an overview and review of the most prominent positions, cf. Bernhardt, Jüdische Revolution, 485–514, and, much more to the point, the brief discussion by Collins, “Temple or Taxes?,” 189. 60 Cf. the commentary on this passage in Honigman, Tales of High Priests and Taxes, 237–42. 61 Honigman, Tales of High Priests and Taxes, 404. One of the major sources for Honigman’s theses is the recently published, and fragmentary, Heliodorus (Olympiodorus) inscription from Mareshah in Idumea. In this document Seleucus IV appointed a certain Olympiodorus, a syntrophos or foster-brother of Seleucus IV, to become high priest of the satrapy. Consequently, the inscription can be read as a source for an increase of temple taxes (cf. also 2 Macc 3) within the context of a “temple reform” (cf. Honigman, ibid, 29–30, 321–22, 343–44). 62 Cf. Collins, “Temple or Taxes?,” 199–200. 63 Cf. Beyerle, “Hellenistic Attitudes,” 250–63.

Concepts of Time in the Visions of Daniel 

467

evil and sit at a table to exchange their lies, but without success, because ‫ִּכי־ע ֹוד‬ ‫( ֵקץ ַלּמ ֹוֵעד‬v. 27, at the end of the verse).64 In Dan 11:35 the “wise” will fall, so that they may be purified until the time of the end (‫)ַעד־ֵעת ֵקץ‬, because ‫ִּכי־ע ֹוד ַלּמ ֹוֵעד‬. Above all, both Hebrew terms, ‫ ֵקץ‬and ‫מ ֹוֵעד‬, determine a specific point in time, they refer to the punctual aspect of time. But context and the semantic fields of both words require more detailed insights. First of all, the preposition lamed in combination with ‫ מ ֹוֵעד‬designates a chronological interval.65 Secondly, this interval is also associated with a dimension of space, since the appointment refers to the divine determination of time and space. Furthermore, the “prologue in heaven,” the involvement of angelic beings in Dan 10–12, clearly connects the chronological to a spatial interval. Thirdly, contrary to its meaning in Dan 11:35 (‫ )ַעד־ֵעת ֵקץ‬and elsewhere, ‫ ֵקץ‬in v. 27 refers to the interval that is concluded by the “appointed time.” Thus, the reference to Antiochus’ first Egyptian campaign should be translated (Dan 11:27) as follows: And the two kings, their heart/mind [yearns] for evil, and at one table [prevails the] lie, they speak, but it remains unsuccessful, because there remains some time until the appointed time.

‫ו ְּׁשֵניֶהם ַהְּמָלִכים ְלָבָבם ְלֵמָרע‬ ּ ‫ְוַעל־ֻׁשְלָחן ֶאָחד ָּכָזב ְיַד ֵ ּברו‬ ‫ְולֹא ִתְצָלח ִּכי־ע ֹוד ֵקץ ַלּמ ֹוֵעד׃‬

As a consequence, the use of “at the appointed time” (‫ )ַלּמ ֹוֵעד‬in Dan 11:29 is characterized by its semantic ambiguity. In terms of the history of events, ‫ַלּמ ֹוֵעד‬ points to the second campaign of Antiochus IV against Egypt, and in terms of “quality time,” ‫ ַלּמ ֹוֵעד‬refers to the divine plans of a structured time table, wherein the assigned interval also includes spatial, or “transcendent,” overtones (cf. also Dan 10 and 12: see above). These allusions continue up until Dan 11:36–12:3, which contains a “report” of a third campaign of Antiochus to Egypt that historically never happened.66 Instead, the Danielic traditions rely on ancient mythical materials like a cosmic conflict with the Most-High, the rebellion in heaven, and the king’s downfall.67

64 For the terminology on time, cf. Collins, Daniel, 337–38, and for the “historical” background, cf. Newsom and Breed, Daniel, 348–49. 65 Cf. Jenni, Die Präposition Lamed, 272–73. 66 Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 158, speaks of “an unfulfilled prediction that, by its inaccuracies, provides the dating for the book’s final composition.” 67 Cf. Clifford, “History and Myth,” 23–26.

468  Stefan Beyerle

In the well-known Dead Sea Scrolls fragment “Historical Text A,” which is written in a formal Herodian script, Antiochus’ second campaign is also remembered (4Q248 5–9):68 5 And **** causes [his] spirit to pass through their yards, and [ ] 6 [and] he will go [down] to Egypt and sell its soil and 7 to the city of the sanctuary, and he will take it with[ ] 8 and he will turn to the lands of the people and return to Egyp[t] 9 [and] in former times with

[ ]‫] [ ]וה[עביר **** רוח]ו ב[][חצרותיהם ו‬

‫]ו[בא למצרים ומכר את עפרה ואת‬ [ ]‫אל עיר המקדש ותפשה עם כ‬ [ ‫והפך בארצות גוים ושב למצרי]ם‬ ‫]ו[בבציר עם הק‬

Even though this fragment was, and still is, mostly a source for historical reconstructions,69 it first of all provides a divine legitimation for the king’s conflict with Egypt and the Jerusalem temple. All actions of the Greek king are subsumed under the divine spirit (4Q248 5). In this third section I questioned how the visions in the book of Daniel refer to “time” as a means to conceptualize the historical present of its narrators. Again, it became apparent that the terminology changes its semantics due to the contexts wherein the terms for “time” were used. Most strikingly, however, the strong link between the historical reality or historical present and the divine sphere, the combination of temporal and spatial, in terms of a (celestial) “sphere,” aspects, as in ‫מ ֹוֵעד‬, and the references to this-worldly and otherworldly concepts lead to the construction of a chronological frame that brings present and future together by avoiding an amalgamation of both.70 Stated differently, the events connected with Antiochus IV and the Judean rebellion in the sixties of the second century BCE will inevitably lead to judgment and salvation, but in between those events and the “end” there is still an interval remaining.

68 For the reconstruction of the text, cf. Broshi and Eshel, “4QHistorical Text A,” 192–200; cf. also García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Study Edition, 494. 69 Cf., e.g., Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 14–16. 70 Very recently, DiTommaso, “Time and History,” 57, emphasizes that every apocalyptic text constructed “history” from the earthly and from the heavenly perspective (see also ibid., 67– 68).

Concepts of Time in the Visions of Daniel 

469

4 Conclusions In his masterfully composed and excellently written book on notions of time in the Seleucid era Paul Kosmin points to the double birth, within the Seleucid empire, of both state-institutionalized era-time and apocalyptic total history. Crucially, my argument reverses their standard ordering in accounts of modernity: not empty, transcendent time liberating itself from a premodern, apocalyptic, enclosed worldview; but rather apocalyptic time as a secondary, insurgent response to the Seleucid temporal regime, like Jacob grasping Esau’s heel.71

Kosmin broadly analyzed inscriptions, coins, architecture, and other artefacts of the Seleucid empire. He argues that the Seleucids implemented a new temporal regime that they invented and promoted. This regime—or system—was characterized by linearization, absolutization or totalization, and, therefore, the Seleucid kings employed and encouraged the dating of world events. The Seleucid “era-time” became part of a universal historical process, and the birth point was marked by the New Year.72 Against this linearized and “era”-oriented perception of time, that was also an expression of power and constituted a specific worldview, the apocalyptic perception of time, and especially the visions in the book of Daniel, constructed “an anti-Seleucid eschatological total history.”73 On the one hand “time” as an institutionalized temporality, legitimized by the Seleucid king, on the other hand “time” as divine history that embraces space and temporality and tends to inaugurate a totality—to a certain extent, ancient Jewish apocalypticism referred in its “totality” to the same chronological system, the Seleucid system, those “apocalypticists” harshly fought and rejected.74

Bibliography Barr, James. Biblical Words for Time. SBT 33. London: SCM Press, 1962 (2nd rev. ed., 1969). Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “Apocalyptic Temporality. The Force of the Here and Now.” HBAI 5 (2016): 289–303.

71 Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 13. 72 Cf. Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 44, 75–76, 101. 73 So Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries, 139, and for the book and the visions of Daniel cf. ibid., 139–62. 74 Matthew Goff in the discussion at Greifswald pointed out that the chronological system in 1 Macc and 2 Macc also follows the Seleucid system.

470  Stefan Beyerle

Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “Time and Natural Law in Jewish-Hellenistic Writings.” Pages 9–30 in The Construction of Time in Antiquity. Ritual, Art, and Identity. Edited by Jonathan Ben-Dov and Lutz Doering. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Berner, Christoph. Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen. Heptadische Geschichtskonzeptionen im Antiken Judentum. BZAW 363. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2006. Bernhardt, Johannes Christian. Die Jüdische Revolution. Untersuchungen zu Ursachen, Verlauf und Folgen der hasmonäischen Erhebung. Klio.Beihefte 22. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2017. Beyerle, Stefan. “‘If You Preserve Carefully Faith…’. Hellenistic Attitudes towards Religion in Pre-Maccabean Times.” ZAW 118 (2006): 250–63. Beyerle, Stefan. “‘Many of Those Who Sleep in the Land of Dust Shall Awake!’ (Dan 12:2). Towards a Matrix of Apocalyptic Eschatology in Ancient Judaism.” Pages 3–20 in Game Over? Reconsidering Eschatology. Edited by Christophe Chalamet et al. Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 180. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2017. Broshi, Magen, and Esther Eshel, eds. “4QHistorical Text A.” Pages 192–200 in Qumran Cave 4, Vol. 26: Cryptic Texts, Miscellanea: Part 1. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Clifford, Richard J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. HSM 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Clifford, Richard J. “History and Myth in Daniel 10–12.” BASOR 220 (1975): 23–26. Collins, John J. Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993. Collins, John J. “Temporality and Politics in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” 129–41 in Encounters with Biblical Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004. Collins, John J. “Temple or Taxes? What Sparked the Maccabean Revolt?” Pages 189–201 in Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East: In the Crucible of Empire. Edited by John J. Collins and Joseph G. Manning. CHANE 85. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Dimant, Devorah. “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9,24–27) in the Light of New Qumranic Texts.” Pages 57–76 in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. Edited by Adam Simon van der Woude. BETL 106. Leuven: University Press and Peeters, 1993. Dimant, Devorah. “The Pesher on the Periods (4Q180) and 4Q181.” Pages 385–404 in History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies. FAT 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Dimant, Devorah. “On Righteous and Sinners: 4Q181 Reconsidered.” Pages 405–21 in History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies. FAT 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “Time and History in Ancient Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Writings.” Pages 53–87 in Dreams, Visions, Imaginations. Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Views of the World to Come. Edited by Jens Schröter et al. BZNW 247. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2021. Doering, Lutz. “The Beginning of Sabbath and Festivals in Ancient Jewish Sources.” Pages 205–26 in The Construction of Time in Antiquity. Ritual, Art, and Identity. Edited by Jonathan Ben-Dov and Lutz Doering. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Elayi, Josette. Sargon II, King of Assyria. ABS 22. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2017. Eshel, Hanan. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI, and Jerusalem: William B. Eerdmans and Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2008.

Concepts of Time in the Visions of Daniel 

471

Eynikel, Erik, and Katrin Hauspie. “The Use of ΚΑΙΡΟΣ and ΧΡΟΝΟΣ in the Septuagint.” ETL 83 (1997): 369–85. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Volume 1: 1Q1–4Q273. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Geissen, Angelo, ed. Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel. Kap. 5–12, zusammen mit Susanna, Bel et Draco sowie Esther Kap. 1, 1a–2,15. Nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 5. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1968. Gribetz, Sarit Kattan, and Lynn Kaye. “The Temporal Turn in Ancient Judaism and Jewish Studies.” CurBR 17 (2019): 332–95. Grüninger, Ann-Christin. Die Engel und der Krieg. Ein angelologisches Motiv bei Daniel und im 2. Makkabäerbuch und seine traditionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 60. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2018. Heschel, Abraham Joshua. The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1951. Honigman, Sylvie. Tales of High Priests and Taxes: The Books of the Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion against Antiochos IV. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2014. Hurvitz, Avi. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period. VTSup 160. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Janowski, Bernd. Anthropologie des Alten Testaments. Grundfragen—Kontexte—Themenfelder. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Jenni, Ernst. Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 2: Die Präposition Kaph. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1994. Jenni, Ernst. Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2000. Koch, Klaus. “Sabbatstruktur und Geschichte.” Pages 45–76 in Vor der Wende der Zeiten. Beiträge zur apokalyptischen Literatur. Gesammelte Aufsätze Band 3. Edited by Uwe Gleßmer and Martin Krause. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996. Koch, Klaus, and Martin Rösel, eds. Polyglottensynopse zum Buch Daniel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. Kosmin, Paul J. Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire. Cambridge, MA, and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2018. Kratz, Reinhard G. “The Visions of Daniel.” Pages 91–113 in The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception. Volume 1. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83,1. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Maul, Stefan M. “Walking Backwards into the Future. The Conception of Time in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 15–24 in Given World and Time: Temporalities in Context. Edited by Tyrus Miller. Budapest and New York: CEU Press, 2008. Menargues Rajadell, Àngel. “Mesopotamian Idea of Time through Modern Eyes (Disruption and Continuity).” Pages 211–28 in Time and History in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona, 26–30 July 2010. Edited by Lluís Feliu et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Milik, Józef T., ed. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. Newsom, Carol A., with Brennan W. Breed. Daniel: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014.

472  Stefan Beyerle

Nicklas, Tobias. “Zeit, Zeitmodelle und Zeitdeutung im Alten und Neuen Testament.” Pages 352–77 in Das Testament der Zeit. Die Apokalyptik und ihre gegenwärtige Rezeption. Edited by Kurt Appel and Erwin Dirscherl. QD 278. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2016. Portier-Young, Anathea. Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans, 2011. Rad, Gerhard von. “Aspekte alttestamentlichen Weltverständnisses.” Pages 311–31 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TB 8. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971. Rad, Gerhard von. “Das theologische Problem des alttestamentlichen Schöpfungsglaubens.” Pages 136–47 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TB 8. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971. Stern, Sacha. Time and Process in Ancient Judaism. Oxford and Portland, OR: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2003. Theunissen, Michael. “Griechische Zeitbegriffe vor Platon.” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 44 (2002): 7–23. Tilly, Michael. 1 Makkabäer. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2015. Venter, Pieter M. “Understanding the Concept of ‘Time’ in Daniel.” Skrif en Kerk 21 (2000): 666–81. Verhoef, Pieter A. “Die aanduiding van tyd in die boek Daniël.” IDS 28 (1994): 223–33. Vonach, Andreas. “Vom Ergreifen des ‘kairos’ und dem Ausharren bis zum bitteren Ende. Zeitdimensionen im Grenzbereich von Frühjudentum und Frühchristentum und was wir davon lernen können.” Pages 331–51 in Das Testament der Zeit. Die Apokalyptik und ihre gegenwärtige Rezeption. Edited by Kurt Appel and Erwin Dirscherl. QD 278. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2016. Ziegler, Joseph, and Olivier Munnich, eds. Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco. Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum XVI,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.

Oda Wischmeyer

Zeitkonstruktion im 4. Esrabuch. Eine Skizze Abstract: The fourth Book of Ezra is one of the most skillful and ambitious writings of ancient Judaism on the subject of time, especially with respect to the future. 4 Ezra is at the same time the most profound text of that special group of apocalyptic writings that were written at the turn of the 1st century CE which react to the religious policy of the Roman Empire towards Jerusalem and the early Christians: 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Revelation of John, the 4th and 5th books of the Sibylline Oracles, as well as certain historiographical passages in the work of Josephus. The experience of the extension of time which exceeds one’s own short life (4:33; 8:5) poses a crucial problem for the author. The intellectual solution is found in 5:42–43, in the idea of the final judgement as a circle. Overall, time can be thought of in terms of its temporal extension or its fundamental momentary presence (“thick presence”): as a line (linear concept), as a sequence of partial lines (sequential concept), or as the center of a circle (central concept). Keywords: time, future, apocalyptic writings, apocalypse, apocalypticism, 4 Ezra, concept of time.

1 Einleitung Viele Traditionen und Texte standen dem Verfasser des 4. Esrabuches zur Verfügung, als er sein Werk über seine Ansprache an den Höchsten und über die sich daraus entwickelnden Dialoge (1–3) und Visionen (4–7) konzipierte (3,3 „Ich begann zum Höchsten angsterfüllte Worte zu sprechen“). Israel hatte sich vielfältig mit der Zeit auseinandergesetzt: in seiner Geschichtsschreibung, in der Prophetie, in den Psalmen und in den Weisheitsschriften. Die deuterokanonischen und pseudepigraphen Schriften des antiken Judentums, wie auch der große Historiograph Josephus sind ebenfalls umfangreich mit dem Thema der Zeit befasst, sowohl was die Vorzeit und die Geschichte Israels als auch die Gegenwart der Autoren und die Zukunft angeht. Die Zukunft als eine der drei Erscheinungs- bzw. Denk-, Vorstellungs- und Erlebnisformen von Zeit steht besonders im Mittelpunkt der zahlreichen nichthttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-022

474  Oda Wischmeyer

kanonischen Schriften des antiken Judentums, die im Gefolge der Henoch- und Danielliteratur entstanden1 und die der Tübinger Alttestamentler Paul Volz (1871–1941) in seinem grundlegenden und nicht überholten Werk zur antiken jüdischen Eschatologie ausgewertet hat.2 Volz’ Textbasis sind die Apokalypsen, aber auch Josephus, die sibyllinischen Orakel (Bücher 3,4,5), das 2. und 4. Makkabäerbuch, die Weisheit Salomos und Philo. Volz nimmt auch stark christlich überarbeitete Apokalypsen und rabbinische Zeugnisse hinzu. Damit ist eine sehr breite Textbasis geschaffen. Eine entscheidende Rolle spielt die Zukunft in der literarischen Gattung der Apokalypsen. Die Apokalyptikforschung wurde in den letzten Jahrzehnten besonders vorangetrieben.3 John J. Collins konzentriert in seinem Artikel „Apocalypse“ in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (EDEJ)4 die Textbreite auf folgende Bücher: Daniel (auch in Qumran), Äthiopischer Henoch (1–36 Wächterbuch, 72–82 Astronomisches Buch, 93+91 Wochenapokalypse), Jubiläenbuch, Testament Levi 2–5, Bilderreden des Henoch (Äthiopischer Henoch 37–71: nicht in Qumran), kleine Texte aus Qumran, 4 Esra und Syrischer Baruch (2 Baruch), Apokalypse Abrahams, Griechischer Baruch (3 Baruch), Slavischer Henoch, Testament Abrahams.5 Wenn auch der Kreis der Schriften, die zu den antiken jüdischen Apokalypsen gerechnet werden können, an den Rändern offen bleibt, so ist doch unbestritten, dass das 4. Esrabuch zu den qualifiziertesten und ambitioniertesten Schriften des antiken Judentums zum Thema der Zeit, vor allem im Modus der Zukunft, gehört. Die folgenden Ausführungen sind daher auf das 4. Esrabuch konzentriert (Vulgata 4 Esra 3–14, Englisch: 2 Esdras 3–14).6 Das 4. Esrabuch ist zugleich der gewichtigste Text jener besonderen Gruppe apokalyptischer Schriften, die um die Wende des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. entstanden und auf die Religionspolitik des Römischen Reiches gegenüber Jerusalem und den frühen Chris-

1 Das Wächterbuch ist unter Umständen vor dem Buch Daniel entstanden. 2 Volz, Eschatologie. 3 Führend: Hellholm, Apocalypticism; Collins and Charlesworth, Mysteries. 4 Collins, „Apocalypse,“ 341–45. 5 Weitere Apokalypsen finden sich in: Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I und in der Übersetzungsreihe Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. 6 Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, Stuttgart 41994. Vgl. einführend Hogan, „Ezra, Fourth Book of,“ 623–26. Übersetzung ins Deutsche mit textkritischen Anmerkungen: Schreiner, Das 4. Buch Esra. Dort zu „Text und Übersetzungen“ 292–97. Standardkommentar: Stone, Fourth Ezra; vgl. auch Longenecker, Second Esdras. – Zitiert wird im vorliegenden Beitrag nach der deutschen Übersetzung von Schreiner, Das 4. Buch Esra. Vgl. auch: Klijn, Die Esra-Apokalypse.

Zeitkonstruktion im 4. Esrabuch. Eine Skizze



475

ten reagieren7: 4 Esra, 2 Bar.8, Offenbarung des Johannes, 4. und 5. Buch der Sibyllinen9, sowie bestimmte historiographische Textpassagen im Werk des Josephus, in denen er mit apokalyptischen Erklärungsmodellen arbeitet.10 Die lateinische Fassung des 4 Esra fand ihren Weg in den Appendix der Vulgata.11 Die Überlieferungs- und Rezeptionsgeschichte des Buches ist ausschließlich christlich. In der Vulgata wird der jüdische Text durch zwei christliche Apokalypsen (4 Esra 1 und 2 [= 5 Esra] sowie 15 und 16 [= 6 Esra]) gerahmt. 4 Esra 8,20–36, die oratio Esdrae, wurde ins römische Brevier aufgenommen.12 Die Affinität der altkirchlichen Schriftsteller zur jüdischen apokalyptischen Literatur ist hoch und die Durchlässigkeit von der jüdischen zur christlichen Literatur (nicht umgekehrt) groß. Die Kommentare gehen überwiegend von der Einheitlichkeit des 4 Esra aus und verstehen die Apokalypse als theologischen Beitrag zur Auseinandersetzung des Verfassers mit dem Schicksal Jerusalems nach 70 n. Chr. Dabei setzen die Exegeten unterschiedliche Akzente. Besonders nachhaltig hat die Einleitung in das 4. Esrabuch von Hermann Gunkel gewirkt.13 Gunkels konsequentes Verständnis der Apokalypse als eines einheitlich konzipierten Autorenwerkes: „So zweifle ich nicht, daß der Verfasser des IV Esra ein selbständiger Denker ist, der seine Gedanken nicht aus einer tief unter ihm stehenden Schrift [sc. 2 Bar.] zu borgen braucht“14, hat sich weitgehend gegenüber älteren quellenkritischen Analysen durchgesetzt.15 Im psychologischen und autor-fokussierten Stil der religionsgeschichtlichen Schule beschreibt Gunkel den Verfasser als einen „tiefen, aufrichtigen, wahrhaft frommen“ Menschen, dem es aber an gedanklicher Energie und an struktureller Klarheit gefehlt habe.16 Dagegen haben die Analysen von Wolfgang Harnisch17, Egon Brandenburger18, Michael Stone und Bruce Longenecker verschiedene Beobachtungen zur literarischen und gedanklich-ar7 Dazu jetzt Schnelle, Die getrennten Wege. 8 Der Slavische Henoch wird von Böttrich mit guten Gründen in die Zeit vor 70 n. Chr. datiert: Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 812–13. 9 Siehe die Einleitung von Merkel, Sibyllinen, 1064–68. 10 Dazu im Vergleich mit Mk 13: Becker, Das Markus-Evangelium. 11 Vgl. zu den Handschriften Schreiner, Das 4. Buch Esra, 292–97; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 1–9. 12 Vgl. die Übersetzung bei Ostmeyer, Gebete. 13 Kautzsch, Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, 331–52. Vgl. Stone, Fourth Ezra, 32: „We hold that Gunkel’s basic insight must be followed, though the book must be analyzed in quite different ways from those followed by Gunkel.“ 14 Kautzsch, Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, 351. 15 Besonders Kabisch, Das vierte Buch Esra.Vgl. dazu Stone, Fourth Ezra, 11–13. 16 Kautzsch, Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, 342. 17 Harnisch, Verhängnis. 18 Brandenburger, Die Verborgenheit Gottes.

476  Oda Wischmeyer

gumentativen Struktur der Apokalypse vorgelegt, die diese Einschätzung Gunkels relativieren. Michael Stone kann Kapitel 10 als Ausdruck eines grundsätzlichen gedanklichen Fortschritts oder einer argumentativen Wende auf der Grundlage einer religiösen Erfahrung plausibel machen und kommt damit über Gunkels Urteil hinaus. Sein Vorschlag, in 10,25–33 eine Wendung der gesamten Argumentation zu finden, ist überzeugend. Er schreibt: „At this very point (10:25–27) Ezra undergoes a powerful religious experience … The experience described is unique not just in 4Ezra but in the whole of Jewish apocalyptic literature … it resembles the major reorientation of personality usually connected with religious conversion.“19 Die Textpassage lautet in der Übersetzung Stones: 25 And it came to pass, while I was talking to her, behold, her face suddenly shone exceedingly, and her countenance flashed like lightening, so that I was too afraid to approach her, and my heart was terrified. While I was wondering what this meant, 26 behold, she suddenly uttered a loud and fearful cry so that the earth shook at her voice. 27 And 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. Then I was afraid, and cried with a loud voice and said, 28 Where is the angel Uriel, who came to me at first? For it was he who brought me into this overpowering bewilderment; my end has become corruption, and my prayer a reproach.

Der Verfasser ist also – trotz einer häufig mäandrierenden und repetitiven Darstellung – nach Stone durchaus im Stande, im Verlaufe der sieben Visionen eine klare Konzeption von Gottes Handeln an Israel und der Menschheit in Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft zu entwerfen. Seinem Werk unterliegt ein teleologisches Zeitkonzept, das Zeit als auf die Zukunft Israels und der Gerechten hin ausgerichtet versteht. Der Verfasser wandelt dies apokalyptische Konzept in einer originellen Weise ab. Die Darstellungsmittel des Verfassers sind dabei – das hat Gunkel klar gesehen – weniger die Mittel begrifflicher Analyse und Entwicklung als vielmehr die eines hochentwickelten literarischen Stils. Gunkel spricht im Stil seiner Zeit von „poetischen tiefen gemütvollen Ergüssen“20 oder „poetischem Schwung“21 und verweist auf die hebräische Kurzzeildichtung. Dieses Thema bedürfte einer eigenen detaillierten Untersuchung. Im Folgenden werde ich die Vorstellungen von Zeit, wie sie der Verfasser des 4 Esra in häufig poetischer Sprache und in einem literarisch komplexen Gefüge von schöpfungsgeschichtlichen und historischen Rückblicken, Zeitansa-

19 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 31. 326–27, schlägt vor, den religionsgeschichtlich weniger eindeutigen Ausdruck „intensification“ zu verwenden. 20 Kautzsch, Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, 342. 21 Kautzsch, Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, 349.

Zeitkonstruktion im 4. Esrabuch. Eine Skizze



477

gen, Gebeten22 und Visionen entwickelt hat, skizzenartig nachzeichnen. Dabei gehe ich davon aus, dass das 4. Esrabuch als hochqualifizierte religiöse Gedankendichtung, nicht als „eschatologische Lehre“ zu verstehen ist.23 Um dem Werk gerecht zu werden, reichen daher traditions-, motiv- und gattungs- bzw. literaturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen und vergleichende religionsgeschichtliche und theologische Analysen der Argumentation nicht aus. Stones religionspsychologisches Erklärungsmodell ist eine Hilfe, weil es die individuelle Stimme des Autors und die Singularität seines Unternehmens – in der Unterscheidung von zahlreichen ähnlichen Unternehmungen – akzentuiert. Darüber hinaus aber ist es die Verbindung von dichterischer Sprache und visionärer Darstellung mit religiösen und theologischen Grundfragen Israels, die die Besonderheit des 4 Esra ausmacht.

2 Texte und Themen 4 Esra verbindet die zeitlichen Bereiche von Schöpfungsgeschichte, Geschichte Israels, die überwiegend als Heilsgeschichte verstanden werden, und Zeitgeschichte Jerusalems mit der Zukunft des Römischen Reiches, der Zukunft der Menschen und der Neuschöpfung zu einem dichten Netz zeitlicher Vor- und Rückblicke, aktueller Situationsansagen, umfassender zeitlicher Strukturen wie Äonen und individueller, fiktional übermalter zeitlicher Selbstaussagen durch das Ich des literarischen Autors. Dabei gilt grundsätzlich, dass die unterschiedlichen Aspekte des gesamten Gefüges der Zeiten aufeinander bezogen sind und der Apokalyptiker über die Zukunft nur im Horizont der Schöpfungszeit und der Geschichte Israels und umgekehrt sprechen kann. Die Figur des literarischen Autors ist die Nabe oder das Zentrum, um die herum die Zeiten angeordnet sind. Seine Imagination reicht in die Urzeit zurück und in die Endzeit voraus.24 Dabei schöpft er aus der hebräischen Bibel und aus der apokalyptischen Literatur seit Henoch (1 En. 1–36: Buch der Wächter) und Daniel. Schöpfungsgeschichte und Geschichte Israels sind dem Verfasser stets als Ganzes präsent. Die ältere Forschung hat daher zurecht von der universalen Perspektive oder

22 Ostmeyer, Gebete. 23 Vergleichsbeispiele aus der europäischen Literatur wären Dantes Göttliche Komödie, Miltons Paradise Lost und Klopstocks Messias. 24 Auf die Verbindung dieser beiden Zeitepochen hat vor allem Hermann Gunkel hingewiesen: Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos.

478  Oda Wischmeyer

dem intellektuellen universalen Zugriff der Apokalyptik gesprochen.25 Was entsteht, ist eine herausragende intellektuelle Interpretation von Zeit, die aber nicht begrifflich, sondern in der literarischen Gestalt eines apokalyptischen Narratives um drei temporale Achsen herum entfaltet wird. Die erste Achse ist die Jetztzeit des literarischen Autors, die sich aber durch die beiden sich ineinander spiegelnden Zeiten Esras und des historischen Autors verdoppelt und faktisch aus zwei Achsen besteht. Um diese Achsen herum entwickelt sich fortschreitend die Kette der autobiographischen Visionsberichte und der Offenbarungsinhalte, die in die Zukunft hinein bis zu der Menschensohnvision in Kapitel 13 reichen. Hier finden wir das teleologische Konzept. Zugleich springt der Verfasser drittens in seinen fragenden, bittenden und anklagenden Gesprächen mit dem Engel immer wieder zwischen Schöpfung, Geschichte Israels und Gegenwart hin und her. Der wichtigste Faktor beim Aufbau dieses Netzes aus Zeitebenen ist nach dem Selbstverständnis des Verfassers sein religiöses Erleben, mag es auch noch so sehr mit den motivischen Topoi apokalyptischer Traditionen und in den Strukturen visionärer Berichte expliziert sein. Allerdings werden wir im Unterschied zu Gunkel den Verfasser als historisches Individuum selbst nicht im Text antreffen. Der Autor inszeniert sich in verwirrender Weise als Salathiel, Vater Serubbabels26, „der auch Esra genannt wird“ (3,1)27 und fügt die fiktive historische Zeitangabe hinzu: „im dreizehnten Jahr nach der Zerstörung unserer Stadt“, eine Angabe, die gleichermaßen auf die Zerstörung Jerusalems im Jahre 597 v. Chr. wie auf die Zerstörung im Jahre 70 n.Chr. anspielt.28 Hinter dieser doppelten literarischen Verfremdung, die zudem historisch ungenau ist, verbirgt sich aber ein Autor, den Stone folgendermaßen beschreibt: „We imply that the religious experiences described in 4Ezra were real religious experiences, and it is our view that they were the actual experiences of the author“.29 Was wir im 4 Esra lesen, ist also das Ergebnis der Verbindung eines Prozesses klassischer theologischer Fragen der Apokalyptik Israels mit visionären Einsichten des Verfassers, Verfasserliteratur und Traditionsliteratur in Einem. Diese visionären Einsichten bilden auch das innere Zentrum des Zeitverständnisses des 25 Vgl. exemplarisch Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums. Bousset gliedert die Literatur nach „universale(n) Tendenzen und nationale(r) Gebundenheit“, die er auch als „Partikularismus“ bezeichnet (xi). Auch wenn diese schlagwortartige antithetische Begrifflichkeit gegenwärtig zurecht kritisch gesehen wird, bleibt die universale Perspektive der Apokalyptik davon unbenommen. 26 Esra 3,2.8; 5,2; Neh 12,1. 27 Vgl. dazu Stone, Fourth Ezra, 55–56. 28 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 55, verweist auf Ez 1,1: es handelt sich um ein literarisches Motiv. 29 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 33. Vgl. auch Anm. 232 ebd.

Zeitkonstruktion im 4. Esrabuch. Eine Skizze



479

Verfassers. Die Zeitvorstellungen lassen sich anhand der einzelnen Parameter von (1) Schöpfung, (2) Zukunft, (3) Vergangenheit/Geschichte Israels, (4) Zeitgeschichte, (5) Zeit des Autors darstellen.

2.1 Gleich zu Anfang taucht der Autor in den Beginn der Zeit, in die Schöpfungszeit ein, die er von vornherein religiös qualifiziert, wenn er Gott anspricht: „Herr, Herrscher, du hast doch am Anfang, als du ganz allein die Erde gebildet hast, gesprochen und hast dem Staub befohlen, daß er Adam als leblosen Körper hergebe“ (3,4–5). Auch der längere Schöpfungsmidrasch in 6,38–56 ist durch die Anrede an Gott religiös eingebettet.30 Diesmal zielt der schöpfungshistorische Appell auf das gegenwärtige Schicksal Israels hin. Der Verfasser deutet Gottes Schöpfungshandeln israelzentriert: Israel stammt von Adam ab – wie auch die Völker, die aber nichts vor Gott gelten (Jes 40,17). Vielmehr habe Gott „unseretwegen die erste Welt geschaffen“ (6,55), gegenwärtig aber werde Israel von den Völkern „zertreten“ (6,57). So stellt der Verfasser eine zwingende Verbindung zwischen Gottes Schöpfungshandeln und seinem Heilshandeln an Israel her. In der Schöpfungsgeschichte ist schon die Geschichte Israels, und zwar als Heilsgeschichte impliziert. Zugleich aber schränkt der Verfasser die Bedeutung und überzeitliche Dauer der Schöpfung ein. In 5,50–55 entwirft er die Theorie von dem Altern der Schöpfung. Die Schöpfung wird als Lebewesen verstanden, das altert.31 Daraus folgt, dass der Verfasser über die Schöpfungszeit hinausdenken kann. Denn „der Höchste (hat) nicht eine Welt (saeculum) geschaffen, sondern zwei“ (7,50). Damit tritt eine Wende in der Argumentation ein: Der Verfasser muss Gott nicht mehr an seine mit der Schöpfung verbundene Verpflichtung gegenüber Israel erinnern, die innerhalb der Schöpfungszeit erfüllt werden müsste.

2.2 Zukunft Die Visionen eröffnen den Blick in eine Zukunft, die nicht mehr Teil der Schöpfungszeit ist und als solche zur bekannten literarischen Tradition und zum ima30 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 179, weist auf die Parallele zwischen 6,38 und 3,4 hin. 31 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 153 Anm. 65, weist auf Momigliano hin: The Origins of Universal History, 533–60. Momigliano betont, dass der Gedanke des Alterns der Schöpfung in Analogie zu einem Menschen in der paganen Literatur nicht begegnet.

480  Oda Wischmeyer

ginierten Weltbild Israels gehört, sondern als Teil des individuellen religiösen Offenbarungswissens des Verfassers mitgeteilt wird, das allerdings seit Daniel ebenfalls traditionell vorstrukturiert ist. Diese Zeit wird in Kategorien beschrieben, die analog zur Schöpfungszeit sind: Nach 6,1–28 besteht Gottes Plan vom Anfang der Welt an, und auch das Ende geschieht durch ihn. Zwischen den beiden Äonen (separatio temporum 6,7) befindet sich kein Zwischenraum. In 5,1–15 findet sich eine apokalyptische Vorausschau auf „jene Tage“. Esra entfaltet seine Zukunftsvorstellungen dann in vier Visionen. Die erste Endvision stellt das Ende des Bösen im Zusammenhang eines Zerstörungs- und Gerichtsszenarios dar (6,11–28). In der zweiten Zukunftsvision, der Messiasvision von 7,26–31, entwirft der Verfasser ein erstes Endzeitszenario: Der Messias herrscht 400 Jahre (7,28) und stirbt dann. Nach sieben Tagen Schweigen (7,31) folgen das Ende und das Gericht. In der dritten, der Adlervision (11,1–12,34), wird Daniels Zukunftspanorama updatet (12,10–11).32 Durch den Rückgriff auf Daniel wird zugleich Esras eigenes Panorama autorisiert. Es folgt viertens die MenschensohnTraumvision in Kapitel 13 mit einer besonderen zeitlichen Bestimmung der zukünftigen Heilsgeschichte: Der Menschensohn ist „lange Zeit aufbewahrt“ zur Erlösung der Schöpfung und zur Ordnung der Übriggebliebenen (13,26).

2.3 Vergangenheit/Geschichte Israels Der Verfasser gibt bereits in 3,4–27 einen ersten Rückblick auf die Geschichte Gottes mit den Menschen seit Adam, aufgeführt werden Noah – Abraham – Isaak – Jakob – (Mose fehlt) – David – die Zerstörung Jerusalems/Zions. Hier wird eine israelzentrierte Universalgeschichte vorausgesetzt und in nuce dargestellt. In 9,28–37 wird eine kleine Geschichte Israels seit dem Exodus gegeben33, verbunden mit der Behauptung der Ewigkeit des Gesetzes.34 Die Geschichte Zions wird in 10,45–48 zu einem Kondensat gepresst, in dem die Geschichte ihre zeitliche Ausdehnung verliert und eigentlich annulliert wird, gleichzeitig aber in die direkte traurige Gegenwart fortgeführt ist.

32 „Der Adler, den du vom Meer aufsteigen sahst, das ist das vierte Reich, da in einem Gesicht deinem Bruder Daniel erschienen ist“. Daniel hat also schon auf das vierte Reich hingewiesen, es wurde ihm aber nicht gedeutet. Die konkrete Deutung der Vision auf die römische Kaisergeschichte ist schwierig: Schreiner, Das 4. Buch Esra, 389, Anm. 10a. 33 Mose fehlt wieder, siehe aber unten. 34 Vgl. 1 Kor 13,13.

Zeitkonstruktion im 4. Esrabuch. Eine Skizze 

481

2.4 Gegenwart/Zeitgeschichte Die Leser lernen den Verfasser in 3,1 in der schon genannten fiktionalen Einkleidung kennen, also in der fiktionalen Gegenwart. Die historisch-literarische Verfremdung lässt zugleich eine realhistorische Datierung durchscheinen: 100 n. Chr. (30 Jahre nach der Zerstörung Jerusalems). In 4,23–24 folgt eine erste vorweggenommene Gegenwartsanalyse: die Vernichtung Zion-Israels hat stattgefunden. In 10,7 noch metaphorisch, dann explizit in 10,20–24 wird die gegenwärtige Situation Zions in einer Kette von Kurzbestimmungen in hochemotionaler Weise angeleuchtet.

2.5 Verfasser Damit sind wir beim Verfasser und erkennen, dass er das Zentrum ist, das die Zeit organisiert. Er sagt in 4,46: „Denn was vorübergegangen ist, weiß ich. Aber was die Zukunft bringt, kenne ich nicht“. Auf den ersten Blick stoßen wir hier auf den inneren Antrieb des Apokalyptikers: die Zukunft als Erkenntnis-Anliegen des Verfassers. 7,16 lässt uns aber genauer hinblicken: „Warum hast du dir nicht das Künftige zu Herzen genommen, sondern die Gegenwart?“, fragt der Engel den Verfasser. Gunkel hat die Scharnierfunktion dieses Satzes erkannt: Der Verfasser selbst sieht klar, dass er eigentlich nach der Gegenwart fragt. Aber er verweist sich selbst an die Zukunft. Das ist die apokalyptische Wende, die der Verfasser vollzieht – unter Umständen aufgrund einer religiösen Erfahrung. 7,16 macht deutlich, wie Gegenwart und Zukunft im 4 Esra zusammenhängen. Der Verfasser leidet an der Gegenwart und ringt um das Verständnis der Situation Zions. Dann wird ihm klar, dass die Lösung von Zions Schicksal in der Zukunft liegt, aber noch verborgen bleibt. Mit Kap. 14 integriert der Verfasser abschließend die Zeitperspektiven. Das Gesetz und die Geschichte Israels werden von ihm neu aufgezeichnet, zugleich besitzt er die umfassende Kenntnis der zukünftigen Ereignisse, die in den 70 Büchern niedergeschrieben, aber verborgen wird. Der Verfasser in der Rolle des Esra stellt sich selbst als neuer Mose vor, der die Tora neu diktiert, dazu aber 70 geheime Bücher schreibt.

482  Oda Wischmeyer

3 Beschreibungs- und Deutungsmuster Der Verfasser arbeitet weder mit klar definierten Begriffen noch mit theoretischen Konzepten von Zeit wie Platon und Aristoteles, sondern mit einem Set traditioneller und innovativer Vorstellungen, Beschreibungs- und Deutungsmuster, die im Folgenden skizziert werden. (1) Zeit ist Einteilung, und der Zeitverlauf ist eingeteilt: in Epochen, in Äonen, in einzelne Zeitabschnitte wie die 3000 Jahre, die 7 Tage, die 400 Jahre, die 9 1/2 Teilzeiten. (2) Zeit ist Ordnung, und die Abfolge der Zeiten funktioniert nach Zahlen und unterliegt der strikten Ordnung der necessitas temporum. (3) Zeit ist Verlauf, die Zeit läuft ab, und der Lauf der Zeit ist ausgedehnt. (4) Zeit ist Begrenzung, sie hat Anfang und Ende. Gegenwärtig ist nur noch der kleinere Teil der Zeit übrig. (4) Zeit ist Maß, sie ist nicht unendlich, sondern endlich, und Gott misst ihr ihr Maß zu. Auch dies funktioniert nach Zahlen. (5) Zeit ist Zeit, sie ist nicht „zeitlos“ oder „überzeitlich“, sondern „zeitlich“, ein Verlaufsprozess und zwischen Entstehen, Wachsen, Abnehmen und Vergehen, dichterisch gesprochen: zwischen Jugend und Alter, zwischen Stärke und Schwäche ausgespannt. (6) Zeit ist Gabe und Verpflichtung, nicht leer oder neutral. Als Gottes Schöpfungszeit ist ihre ethische Bestimmung, den Menschen das Tun des Gerechten zu ermöglichen. Letztlich tun die Menschen aber nicht das Gerechte, und daher kommt die Schöpfungszeit an ihr Ende und wird vom Gericht abgeschlossen. Das Gericht fungiert als Scharnier zwischen den beiden Äonen. Danach beginnt der neue Äon, dem aber nicht das eigentliche Interesse des Verfassers gilt. Sein Interesse gilt vielmehr dem Schicksal und der Bedeutung seines Werkes.

4 Das Zeit-Konzept Zwar hat der Verfasser des 4 Esra kein theoretisches Zeitkonzept, wohl aber thematisiert und entwickelt die religiöse Dichtung, die wir als 4 Esra kennen, das Thema der Zeit im Zusammenhang der jüdischen Tradition und der aktuellen Gegenwart Israels am Ende des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. in verschiedene Richtungen. 4 Esra 4,26–37 enthält die traditionelle Zeitansage: „Die Weltzeit geht schnell vorüber“ – Gott wartet noch auf die Gerechten. Die klassische Frage „Wie lange noch“? in 4,35 findet ihre klassische Antwort in 4,36: „Bis die Zahl [der Gerechten] voll ist“. Eile ist unangebracht: „Eile nicht mehr als der Höchs-

Zeitkonstruktion im 4. Esrabuch. Eine Skizze 

483

te“ (4,34). Gott hat die Zeit in Epochen geteilt und ihr ein bestimmtes Maß an Dauer zugemessen. Beschleunigung oder Abkürzung sind ausgeschlossen. Diese Erfahrung der Ausdehnung der Zeit, die das eigene kurze Leben übersteigt (4,33; 8,5), stellt für den Verfasser ein entscheidendes Problem dar. Die intellektuelle Lösung findet sich in 5,42–43, in der Vorstellung von dem Gericht als Kreis: „Einem Kreis will ich mein Gericht vergleichen. Wie für die Letzten keine Verzögerung, so gibt es für die Früheren keine Verfrühung“. Der Verfasser wählt eine existentielle oder individuelle Lösung: Jeder ist gleich nahe am Gericht. Nur der Menge der Menschen wegen bleibt die Ausdehnung der Zeit erhalten. Die Existenz des Einzelnen ist damit die Überwindung der linearen, nicht aber der teleologischen Zeitkonzeption. Denn aus Platzgründen kann es keine völlige Gleichzeitigkeit der individuellen Schicksale geben. Die Zeit in ihrer Abfolge ist für die Geschöpfe weiterhin eine conditio sine qua non. Die Schöpfung kann nicht eilen (vgl. 7,74). Die Zeit kann daher von ihrer zeitlichen Ausdehnung oder von ihrer grundsätzlichen jeweils momentanen Präsenz „thick presence“ (Ben-Dov35) her gedacht werden: als Linie (lineares Konzept), als Abfolge von Teillinien (Sequenzkonzept), als Mittelpunkt eines Kreises (Zentralkonzept) – gleichsam als „Schwarzes Loch“. Der Apokalyptiker ist hier nicht weit von den Rabbinen und ihrem letzten Endes ahistorischen Zeitverständnis entfernt.36 Ihm geht es weder um die Geschichte Israels noch um die „Weltgeschichte“, sondern um die Gegenwart Israels, dessen Heil er in der Zukunft findet. Der Kreis schließt sich in 14,3–6. Mose wurden bereits am Sinai „die Geheimnisse der Zeiten und das Ende der Zeiten“ gezeigt, und er sollte bestimmte Inhalte dieser Visionen aufschreiben. Esra steht in seiner Nachfolge. Was unser Autor sagt, ist: Israel hat immer schon das Problem der Verlaufszeit mit ihren Ungerechtigkeiten gegen das Volk und gegen Zion in seiner eigenen religiösen Literatur und seinem eigenen Wissen besiegt.

Bibliographie Becker, Eve-Marie. Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie. WUNT 194. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. „Apocalyptic Temporality. The Force of the Here and Now,“ HBAI 5 (2016): 289–303.

35 Ben-Dov, „Apocalyptic Temporality,“ 289–303. 36 Die Zeit als Akkordeon!

484  Oda Wischmeyer

Bousset, Wilhelm, and Hugo Gressmann, eds. Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter. 4th ed. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1966. Böttrich, Christfried. Das slavische Henochbuch. JSHRZ V/7. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995. Brandenburger, Egon. Die Verborgenheit Gottes im Weltgeschehen. Das literarische und theologische Problem des 4. Esrabuches. AThANT 68. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981. Collins John J., and James H. Charlesworth, eds. Mysteries and Revelations. Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Colloquium. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Collins John J., and Harlow, Daniel C., eds. „Apocalypse“. Pages 341–45 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (EDEJ). Grand Rapids, Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Gunkel, Hermann. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895. Harnisch, Wolfgang. Verhängnis und Verheißung der Geschichte. Untersuchungen zum Zeitund Geschichtsverständnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse. FRLANT 97. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Hellholm, David, ed. Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Kabisch, Richard. Das vierte Buch Esra auf seine Quellen untersucht. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1889. Kautzsch, Ernst, ed. Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments. Band 2. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1900. Klijn, Albertus F., ed. Die Esra-Apokalypse (IV. Esra). Nach dem lateinischen Text unter Benutzung der anderen Versionen übersetzt. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1992. Longenecker, Bruce. Second Esdras. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Merkel, Helmut. Sibyllinen. JSHRZ V/8. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998. Momigliano, Arnaldo. The Origins of Universal History. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Pisa: Scuola Normale superiore, 1982. Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich. Jüdische Gebete aus der Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. Ein Studienbuch. Biblical Tools and Studies 37. Leuven: Peeters, 2019. Schnelle, Udo. Die getrennten Wege von Römern, Juden und Christen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Schreiner, Josef. Das 4. Buch Esra. JSHRZ V/4. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1981. Stone, Michael Edward. Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Volz, Paul. Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter. Nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und apokryphen Literatur. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1934. Weber, Robert, and Roger Gryson, eds. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.

Contributors Abart, Christine, is a Pastoral Advisor for Biblical Studies at “Haus St. Rupert in Traunstein”, Erzdiözese München und Freising (Germany). She acquired her doctorate with a study on the book of Psalms. She also teaches as an academic advisor at different universities in Austria. Allen, Nicholas Peter Legh, is Professor and Institutional Director of “International Liaison” at North-West University, Potchefstroom (South Africa). Becker, Eve-Marie, is Professor of New Testament at Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster (Germany). Beentjes, Pancratius C., is Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Exegesis and Hebrew at the School of Catholic Theology, Tilburg University (the Netherlands) and was co-founder of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL). Beyerle, Stefan, is Professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Greifswald (Germany). Böttrich, Christfried, is Professor of New Testament at the University of Greifswald (Germany). Brum Teixeira, Lucas, S. S. D., is currently research associate of the “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” at the Ruhr Universität Bochum (Germany). Bussino, Severino, is a religious brother of the Order of St. Augustine. He studied Sacred Scripture at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome where, in 2011, he acquired his doctorate with a study on the book of Ben Sira. Calduch-Benages, Núria, is Professor of Old Testament at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome (Italy). She is a Vice-President of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL) and Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-023

486  Contributors

Corley, Jeremy, is Lecturer in Sacred Scripture at St Patrick’s College, Maynooth (Ireland), and a Vice-President of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL). Duggan, Michael W., is Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at St. Mary’s University in Calgary, Alberta (Canada). Egger-Wenzel, Renate, is Professor of Old Testament at the Paris Lodron University, Salzburg (Austria) and President of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL). Fahl, Sabine, and Dieter Fahl, are research associates at the University of Greifswald (Germany). Goff, Matthew, is Professor of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Religion at Florida State University in Tallahassee, FL (USA). Jordaan, Pierre Johan, is Professor in Greek at North-West University, Potchefstroom (South Africa). Kepper, Martina, is Senior Lecturer in Old Testament Studies and Biblical Hebrew at Phillips-Universität Marburg (Germany). Macatangay, Francis M., is an Adjunct Professor of Scripture at the University of St. Thomas School of Theology in Houston, TX (USA). Reif, Stefan C., is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Hebrew and Fellow of St John’s College in the University of Cambridge. He also holds senior research posts at the Universities of Haifa and Tel Aviv. He was the Founding Director of the Genizah Research Unit at Cambridge University Library (1973–2006). Reiterer, Friedrich V., is Emeritus Professor of Old Testament at the Paris Lodron University, Salzburg (Austria) and Honorary President of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL). Strobach, Niko, is Professor of Logic and the Philosophy of Language at Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster (Germany).

Contributors



487

Wischmeyer, Oda, is Emerita Professor of New Testament at Friedrich-Alexander Universität, Nürnberg-Erlangen (Germany). Wright, Benjamin G., III, is the University Distinguished Professor of Religion Studies, Bible, Early Judaism and Christianity at the Department of Religion at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA (USA). Zsengellér, József, is Professor of Biblical Theology and Religious History at Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church, Budapest (Hungary).

Index of Sources According to The SBL Handbook of Style. Second Edition, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Gen 1 Gen 1–2 Gen 1–3 Gen 1–11 Gen 1:1 Gen 1:1–2 Gen 1:1–2:3 Gen 1:1–2:3 LXX Gen 1:1–2:4a Gen 1:2 Gen 1:3–5 Gen 1:4–5 Gen 1:5 Gen 1:6–8 Gen 1:8 Gen 1:9–10 Gen 1:13 Gen 1:14 Gen 1:14–19 Gen 1:16 Gen 1:16–18 Gen 1:19 Gen 1:20 Gen 1:23 Gen 1:26 Gen 1:26 LXX Gen 1:27 LXX Gen 1:28 Gen 1:29 Gen 1:29–30 LXX Gen 1:31 Gen 2 Gen 2:1–2 Gen 2:1–2 LXX Gen 2:1–3 Gen 2:2 Gen 2:2–3 Gen 2:3

5, 170, 174–75, 183, 202, 443 67, 69, 312, 322 179 438–39 69, 138, 183, 313 183–84 5, 184 184 172, 184 183, 200 69 183 174 184 174 184 174 173, 323 69 176–77 184 174 184 174 184 79 79–80 273 184 226 174, 177, 180 183 172 179 169–70 183, 185 170, 180, 184 69, 174, 180, 182

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-024

Gen 2:4b–25 Gen 2:6 Gen 2:7 Gen 2:7 LXX Gen 2:8 LXX Gen 2:15 LXX Gen 2:18 Gen 2:19 LXX Gen 4–5 Gen 4:3 Gen 4:26 Gen 5 Gen 5:3 LXX Gen 5:3–18 Gen 5:23 Gen 5:24 LXX Gen 6 Gen 6:1–4 Gen 6:1–8 Gen 6:3 Gen 6:4 Gen 6:4 LXX Gen 6:5 Gen 6:13 Gen 7–8 Gen 7:6 Gen 7:11 Gen 8 Gen 8:6 Gen 8:14 Gen 8:22 Gen 9:1–7 Gen 9:6 LXX Gen 9:12 Gen 9:16 Gen 10 Gen 12 Gen 12:2 Gen 12:4 Gen 12:10–20

184 183 4, 175 79–80 79 79 306 79 329 403 329 72 79 288 252 252 11, 439–40, 448 11, 429–31 329 330 439 261 439 403 71 140 326 79 403 326 69, 325 181 79 73 181 79 438 273 327 52

490  Index of Sources

Gen 15 Gen 15:2 Gen 15:3 Gen 15:5 Gen 15:7–21 Gen 15:13 Gen 15:16 Gen 15:15 Gen 16:3 Gen 17:7 Gen 17:10–14 Gen 17:13 Gen 17:17 Gen 17:19 Gen 19 Gen 20 Gen 21:5 Gen 25–35 Gen 25–50 Gen 25:8 Gen 25:26 Gen 26 Gen 27:2 LXX Gen 29:25 Gen 25–50 Gen 28:10–22 Gen 30:5–8 Gen 33:5 Gen 34 Gen 35:20 Gen 35:22 Gen 37–50 Gen 37:3 Gen 39 Gen 39:6 Gen 40:8–13 Gen 40:16–18 Gen 41 Gen 41:1 Gen 41:15–36 Gen 44:20 Gen 45:3–4 Gen 47:9 Gen 46:24(25) Gen 49:4 Gen 49:26

79 46 326 273 231 326–27 327 250 403 181 181 181 200 181 79 52 327 43 46 250 327 52 81 45 43–44, 46 205 35 273 25 245 45 3, 44 250 47 46 205 205 381 403 205 250 47 327 289 45 459

Gen 50:24

79, 231

Exod 1:13 Exod 1:16 Exod 4:14 Exod 4:22 Exod 5–14 Exod 6:8 Exod 6:14 Exod 7:13 Exod 9:11 Exod 10:21 Exod 10:21–23 Exod 10:23 Exod 11:4 Exod 11:18 Exod 12–14 Exod 12:1–28 Exod 12:2 Exod 12:8 Exod 12:12 Exod 12:12–13:29 Exod 12:13 Exod 12:23 Exod 12:23 LXX Exod 12:27 Exod 12:29 Exod 12:31 Exod 12:31–33 Exod 12:37 Exod 12:40 Exod 12:41 Exod 12:42 Exod 12:43–50 Exod 12:49 Exod 13:9 Exod 13:21–22 Exod 13:22 Exod 13:23 Exod 14:1–15:21 Exod 14:5–9 Exod 14:14 Exod 14:20 Exod 14:21 Exod 14:30 Exod 15

196 198, 205 205 201, 409 203 231 409 410 198 196 196 198 195, 201 231 195 199 71, 177 199 199 195 201 201, 203 203 201 195, 200–1 199 206 29 326–27 403 199–200 199 196 196 199, 205 183 203 260 206 194 199 199 207 2, 24, 26–27

Index of Sources 

Exod 15:1 Exod 15:3 Exod 15:3 LXX Exod 15:6 Exod 15:7 Exod 15:13 Exod 15:17 Exod 19:1 Exod 20:4 Exod 20:7–12 Exod 20:8 Exod 20:8–11 Exod 20:11 Exod 21–24 Exod 23:12 Exod 24:3–4 Exod 24:15–17 Exod 25 Exod 26:16–19 Exod 28 Exod 28:9 Exod 30:1 Exod 30:1–5 Exod 30:7–9 Exod 31:13 Exod 31:14 LXX Exod 31:15 Exod 31:16 Exod 31:16–17 LXX Exod 31:17 Exod 32:10–12 Exod 34:6 Exod 34:21 Exod 36:13 Exod 40:33 Exod 40:34 Exod 49:26

24 24 203 24 205 203 229 327 422 170 170 169, 180, 186 174, 186 330 186 31 180 29 231 29 79 224 231 224 176 182 185 5, 179–81, 183 182 170, 175, 180 205 249 185 79 185 185 459

Lev 1:3–9 Lev 8–9 Lev 9:23–24 Lev 10:10 Lev 18:5 Lev 22:4 Lev 22:7 Lev 23:2

224 331 228 182 180 98 98 173

Lev 23:4 Lev 23.33–36 Lev 23:36 Lev 23:37 Lev 23:39–43 Lev 23:39 Lev 23:40 Lev 24:2–9 Lev 24:8

173–74 226 229 173–74 226 229 226, 229 224 181

Num 1:20 Num 11:21 Num 13:23–24 Num 13:25 Num 13:32–33 Num 14:18 Num 15.10 Num 15:38 Num 15:37 Num 15:41 Num 14:14 Num 14:18 Num 16:2 Num 16:9 LXX Num 23:4 Num 23:37 Num 24:17 Num 26:5 Num 27:16 Num 27:17 Num 27:21 Num 29:12–38 Num 28:11 Num 30:3 Num 32:11

409 29 441 403 441 249 379 99 186 105 183 249 439 178 173 173 408 409 407 82 82 226 177 379 79

Deut 4:1–2 Deut 4:16 Deut 4:19 Deut 4:34 Deut 5:2–3 Deut 5:12 Deut 5:12–15 Deut 5:14 Deut 5:15 Deut 5:21–24

31 79 178 410 181 170 169, 186 186 170 180

491

492  Index of Sources

Deut 5:24 Deut 6:16 Deut 6:7 Deut 6:22 Deut 7:19 Deut 9:5 Deut 9:11 Deut 9:15 Deut 10:8 LXX Deut 10:8 Deut 11:18 Deut 15:1 Deut 16:1 Deut 16:14 Deut 16:14–15 Deut 16:15 Deut 17:16 LXX Deut 23:22 Deut 23:22–24 Deut 26:8 Deut 26:16–19 Deut 28:8 Deut 30:1–5 Deut 30:15–16 Deut 31:2 Deut 31:10 Deut 31:12 Deut 31:18 Deut 32:20 Deut 33:4 Deut 33:15

181 380 100 410 410 79 403 79 178 182 231 403 194 226 229 226 30 379 379 410 231 262 231 180 82 226, 403 82 381 381 183 459

Josh 1:1 Josh 10:11 Josh 10:12–14 Josh 14:11 Josh 19:32–39 Josh 19:36–37

81 208 321 82 291 291

Judg 1:1 Judg 3:9 Judg 3:11 Judg 4 Judg 4:6 Judg 5 Judg 5:22

81 313 313 291 291 2, 24 24

Judg 5:26 Judg 8:32 Judg 11:30–40 Judg 11:39 Judg 14:6 Judg 14:19 Judg 15:14 Judg 16:3

24 250 380 403 201 201 201 195

1 Sam 1:20–28 1 Sam 4:4 1 Sam 10:10 1 Sam 16:18 1 Sam 28:9–18 1 Sam 29:6

379 154 201 203 422 82

2 Sam 7:5 2 Sam 7:8 2 Sam 7:12–14 2 Sam 7:9 2 Sam 7:10 2 Sam 7:11–12 2 Sam 7:22 2 Sam 14:7 2 Sam 14:26 2 Sam 15:7 2 Sam 18:18 2 Sam 21:11 2 Sam 21:22 2 Sam 23:5

410 410 410 410 410 410 408 439 403 403 245 80 80 73

1 Kgs / 3 Kgdms 3–11 1 Kgs 2:39 1 Kgs 3 1 Kgs 3:5–9 1 Kgs 3:7 1 Kgs 3:9 1 Kgs 3:12–13 1 Kgs 3:14 1 Kgs 8:2 1 Kgs 8:10–13 1 Kgs 8:65 1 Kgs 11:42 1 Kgs 12:19–20

81 403 82 205 81 81–82, 202 202 270 229 185 229 270 289

Index of Sources

1 Kgs 17:1 1 Kgs 17:7

289 403

2 Kgs 13:23 2 Kgs 15:29 2 Kgs 17 2 Kgs 18:9–13 2 Kgs 18:11 2 Kgs 19:23 2 Kgs 19:25 2 Kgs 24:12 2 Kgs 25:8 2 Kgs 35:6

79 290, 296 289 289 297 403 408 156 156 201

Isa 1:1 Isa 2:3–5 Isa 2:15 Isa 8:22 Isa 9:6 Isa 11:2 Isa 11:4 LXX Isa 13:21 Isa 21:11 Isa 23:7 Isa 23:15 Isa 23:17 Isa 25:8 Isa 26:4 Isa 29:15 Isa 30:6 Isa 35:6 Isa 37:24 Isa 37:26 Isa 38:1–5 Isa 38:18 Isa 38:10 Isa 40:6 Isa 40:8 Isa 40:17 Isa 40:21 Isa 40:28 (LXX) Isa 40:26 Isa 41:4 Isa 41:26 Isa 42:13 LXX Isa 44:9–10

397 258 259 350 403 397 203 301 193 408 403 403 320 73 197 350 201 403 408 377 422 251 315 239 479 408 72–73 178 408, 410, 414 408 203 79



Isa 45:5 Isa 45:21 Isa 46:7 Isa 46:9 Isa 46:10 Isa 48:16 Isa 49:2 Isa 49:6 Isa 51:4 LXX Isa 51:9 Isa 54:8 Isa 55:10–11 Isa 55:10 Isa 57:1–2 Isa 57:17 Isa 58:8 Isa 58:13–14 Isa 59:2 Isa 61:2–3 Isa 62:3 LXX Isa 65:8 Isa 65:15 Isa 65:17 Isa 65:20 Isa 66:22

408 199, 408 71 70 70 408 204 259 258 408 381 202 208 251 197 206 186 381 397 272 262 250 320 250 320

Jer 2:13 Jer 2:22 Jer 13:6 Jer 17:8 Jer 18:14 Jer 25:11–12 Jer 27:11–12 Jer 29:10 Jer 31:22 Jer 31:31–34 Jer 32:20–21 Jer 33:5 Jer 34:11–12 LXX Jer 34:14 Jer 39:20 LXX Jer 42:7 Jer 46:26 Jer 49:4–5 Jer 49:36 Jer 50:6

197 197 403 350 208 461 33 461 197 231 410 381 33 403 80 403 408 197 404 197

493

494  Index of Sources

Jer 50:26 Jer 52:28–29 Jer 51:13

403 156 403

Ezek 1:1 Ezek 7:2–3:6 Ezek 8:14 Ezek 21:30 Ezek 21:34 Ezek 22:26 Ezek 26:20 Ezek 28 Ezek 29:13 Ezek 32:18 Ezek 35:5 Ezek 42:20 Ezek 45:17

478 403 413 350, 403 350, 403 182 423 438 403 422 350, 403 182 173

Hos 4:12 Hos 6:5 Hos 12

263 206 438

Joel 2:20 LXX Joel 2:20

183 405

Amos 8:2

403

Jonah 1:17 Jonah 2:10 Jonah 2:3–9

154 154 379

Mic 3:4 Mic 4:1–5 Mic 5:1

381 259 408

Hab 1:6 Hab 2:3 Hab 2:18 Hab 3:6

411 404, 409, 411 79 459

Zeph 3:5

206

Zech 1:15 LXX

183

Mal 1:14

380

Ps 5:4 Ps 6:7 Ps 8:4 Ps 10:1 Ps 10:4 Ps 10:11 Ps 13:2 Ps 16:10–11 Ps 16:7 Ps 16:8 LXX Ps 17:3 Ps 19:2 Ps 26:5 LXX Ps 30:6 Ps 31:13 Ps 33:6 Ps 37:6 Ps 39:5 Ps 39:7 Ps 44:2–9 Ps 44:2 Ps 44:3 Ps 46:6 Ps 46:10 Ps 48:3 Ps 56:13 Ps 57:8–9 Ps 59:17 Ps 60:5 LXX Ps 61:6 Ps 63:3 LXX Ps 64:2 LXX Ps 68:15 Ps 73:23–25 Ps 76:9–10 Ps 77:3 Ps 77:6 Ps 77:21 Ps 78:15 Ps 78:43 Ps 78:52 Ps 88:6 Ps 80:8–9 Ps 88:14 Ps 90:2 Ps 90:3–6

195 193 178 381 197 197 381 423 194 207 193 178 207 195 245 202 206 403 246 409 408 229 195 203 80 379 195 195 207 379 207 379 207 423 201 193 408 327 327 410 327 245 229 195 383 383

Index of Sources

Ps 90:4 Ps 90:12 Ps 90:14 Ps 92:1–2 Ps 102:4 Ps 102:12 Ps 102:24–25 Ps 102:26 Ps 103:27 LXX Ps 102:27–28 Ps 104:10 Ps 104:19 Ps 104:20–21 Ps 104:29 Ps 105:10 Ps 105:27 Ps 105:42–43 Ps 107:20 Ps 108:2–3 Ps 109:16 Ps 109:23 Ps 110:6 Ps 112:1 Ps 112:4 Ps 112:6 Ps 118:105 LXX Ps 119:105 Ps 119:62 Ps 119:73 Ps 119:96 Ps 119 Ps 121:3 Ps 121:4 Ps 121:5 Ps 121:7 Ps 121:8 Ps 121:4 Ps 127:3–5 Ps 128:3 Ps 130:6 Ps 132:14 Ps 139:7–18 Ps 143:5 Ps 143:8 Ps 144:3–4 Ps 144:45 LXX

317, 321 322 195 182 172 247 251 178 379 383 73 173, 176, 419 193 381 181 202 202 202 195 465 247 204 199 199 245 258 258 195 79 403 202 207 193, 207, 209 207 207 207 193 273 273 193, 195 185 407 408 195 247 379



Ps 147:16 Ps 149:5–6 Ps 149:6–9

208 277 277

Job 4:20 LXX Job 5:4 Job 6:11 Job 7:21 Job 8:9 Job 10:7 Job 10:10 Job 10:20–22 Job 11:18 Job 16:3 Job 22:5 Job 22:16 Job 23:2 Job 28:3 Job 34:6 Job 35:16 LXX Job 37:6 Job 38:9 LXX Job 38:6–7 Job 38:12–15 Job 38:22–23 Job 38:22 Job 42:17 LXX

382 273 403 172 246 172 79 193 422 403 403 74 172 403 172 257 208 183 179 206 208 208 251, 253, 272

Prov 1–9 Prov 1:27 Prov 2:18 Prov 6:23 LXX Prov 8:15–16 Prov 8:23 Prov 8:27–29 Prov 8:35 Prov 9:18 Prov 10:7 Prov 10:27 (LXX) Prov 15:23 Prov 17:6 Prov 20:25 Prov 24:19

83 350 80 258 265 408 183 82 80 245 251 379 273 380 394

Ruth 3:8

195

495

496  Index of Sources

Song 3:8

204

Eccl 1:11 Eccl 3:1–8 Eccl 3:11 LXX Eccl 3:11–15 Eccl 3:11 Eccl 4:8 Eccl 4:16 Eccl 5:3 Eccl 5:4 Eccl 5:15 Eccl 7:2 Eccl 9:5 Eccl 9:12 Eccl 12:12 Eccl 12:13

246 366 85 456 405, 408, 410 403 403 379 379 81 405 245 81 403 405, 420

Lam 1:7 Lam 2:17 Lam 4:18 Lam 5:21

408 408 403 408

Esth 2:12

403

Dan 1:1 Dan 1:2 Dan 1:6 Dan 2 Dan 2:4 OG Dan 2:6 Dan 2:8–9 OG Dan 2:9–11 Dan 2:12 Dan 2:15 Dan 2:16 OG Dan 2:18 Dan 2.20 Dan 2:20 OG Dan 2:21 Dan 2:21 OG Dan 2:24 Dan 2:25 Dan 2:27–45 Dan 2:27 Dan 2:28

465 465 465 453, 457–58 457 409 457 409 197 409 457 409 255 457 85, 255, 265 173, 457 409 409, 465 205 409 457

Dan 2:36 Dan 2:37 Dan 2:44 Dan 2:44 OG Dan 3:8 Dan 3:12 Dan 3:13 Dan 3:32 Dan 4 Dan 4:3–5 Dan 4:5–24 Dan 4:8 Dan 4:14 Dan 4:19 Dan 4:22 Dan 4:29 Dan 4:37 Dan 5:2–3 Dan 5:13 Dan 5:15 Dan 5:17 Dan 5:18 Dan 5:19 Dan 5:23–24 Dan 6:2 Dan 6:11–14 Dan 6:11 Dan 6:14 Dan 6:19 Dan 6:23 Dan 6:27 Dan 7 Dan 7–12 Dan 7:1–28 Dan 7:7–8 Dan 7:10 Dan 7:12 Dan 7:12 OG Dan 7:13 Dan 7:14 OG Dan 7:18 Dan 7:18 OG Dan 7:20 Dan 7:22 OG

409 265 85 457 465 465 409 409 255 409 205 405 265 405 265 265 85 465 409, 465 409 409 265 409 409 409 409 465 465 279, 409 409 405, 409 453, 461, 463, 465 458 205 409 409 272 457 409 457 272 457–58 409 457

Index of Sources 

Dan 7:25 Dan 7:25 OG Dan 7:26 Dan 7:27 OG Dan 7:28 Dan 8 Dan 8:3–12 Dan 8:11 Dan 8:11 MT/OG Dan 8:13 Dan 8:15–26 MT/OG Dan 8:17 Dan 8:17 MT/OG Dan 8:19 Dan 8:19 MT/OG Dan 8:20–25 Dan 9 Dan 9:2 Dan 9:7 Dan 9:12 Dan 9:16 Dan 9:24–27 Dan 9:24 OG Dan 9:25 Dan 9:26–27 Dan 9:26 Dan 9:27 OG Dan 10–12 Dan 10:6–7 Dan 10:14 Dan 10:16 Dan 10:21 Dan 11 Dan 11–12 Dan 11:4–30 Dan 11:4 Dan 11:6 Dan 11:13–14 OG Dan 11:13 Dan 11:21–45 Dan 11:21 Dan 11:25 Dan 11:27

12, 173, 317, 461, 463 457 405 457 405 412, 453, 458, 460, 465 412 463 457–58 412 459 350, 403, 412 457, 459 403, 411, 413 457, 459 412 32, 461 465 465 465 465 461, 463 457 465 12, 461 403 457 12, 465, 467 412 412 412 412 411–12, 423, 465 412 412 412 403 457 403 12, 464–65 412 412 12, 403, 411–12, 414, 466–67

Dan 11:27 OG Dan 11:28 Dan 11:29–31 MT/OG Dan 11:29–39 Dan 11:29 Dan 11:29 OG Dan 11:30–40 Dan 11:35

497

Dan 12:1–3 Dan 12:2 OG Dan 12:3 Dan 12:3 OG Dan 12:4 Dan 12:4 OG Dan 12:6–7 MT/OG Dan 12:6 Dan 12:7–8 OG Dan 12:7 Dan 12:9 Dan 12:13

457 412 464–65 466 414, 466–67 457 413 350, 403, 411, 466–67 457 467 350, 403 403, 413 458, 461, 463, 467 75, 423, 453 457 458 457 350, 403 457 459–60 403 457 12, 317, 458, 463 350, 403 403

Ezra 3:1–6 Ezra 3:2 Ezra 3:8 Ezra 4:15 Ezra 4:18 Ezra 4:23 Ezra 7:14–19 Ezra 10

229 478 478 85 409 409 409 288

Neh 7:6–72[73] Neh 8:15 Neh 9:17 Neh 10:30–32 Neh 10:35 Neh 12:1 Neh 12:27 Neh 13:6 Neh 13:31

288 226 249 182 85 478 331 403 85

Dan 11:35 OG Dan 11:36–12:3 Dan 11:40 Dan 11:45 Dan 12

498  Index of Sources

1 Chr 2–9 1 Chr 5:1 1 Chr 5:3 1 Chr 5:24 1 Chr 9:14–16 1 Chr 9:39–44 1 Chr 12:31 1 Chr 17:20 1 Chr 20:6 1 Chr 21:7–17 1 Chr 24:7–19 1 Chr 28:2 1 Chr 29:11 1 Chr 29:15 1 Chr 29:28

288 409 409 439 288 288 439 408 80 204 71 185 265 246 250

2 Chr 3:7 2 Chr 6:41 2 Chr 7:1–2 2 Chr 7:1–3 2 Chr 7:8–9 2 Chr 8:1 2 Chr 16:2 2 Chr 18:2 2 Chr 20:16 2 Chr 21:19 2 Chr 29:21

79 185 228 229 229 403 377 403 405 403 182

New Testament Matt 1:20–24 Matt 2:12–15 Matt 2:19–23 Matt 3:17 Matt 16:1–5 Matt 17:5 Matt 24:37–39

205 205 205 315 363 315 141

Mark 1:1 Mark 1:1–3 Mark 1:2–3 Mark 1:7–8 Mark 1:14–15 Mark 10:17 Mark 13 Mark 13:5–23

125 126 125 125 117, 125 321 117, 125, 127 118

Mark 13:24–27 Mark 13:32 Mark 13:33

117 117–118 118

Luke 1:1–4 Luke 1:52 Luke 3:23–38 Luke 9:35 Luke 11:15 Luke 16:16 Luke 21:5–33

125 202 289 315 195 117, 125–26 125

John 4:14

201

Acts 1:1–2 Acts 3:8 Acts 5:7 Acts 16:25 Acts 20:7 Acts 21:3 Acts 27:27

125 201 123 195 195 315 195

Rom 13:1 Rom 14:5

265 175

1 Cor 13:13 1 Cor 9:24–25 1 Cor 15:41 1 Cor 15:54

480 274 51 320

2 Cor 3:14

132

Gal 4:3 Gal 4:4 Gal 4:9

83 116 83

Eph 6:17

204

Phil 1–3 Phil 2:6–11

116 117

Col 2:8 Col 2:20

83 83

Index of Sources

1 Thess 4–5

117

2 Tim 2:20–21

176

Heb 4:12 Heb 12:1

204 144

1 Pet 2:14–15

265

2 Pet 3:8 2 Pet 3:13

321 320

Jude 9

135

Rev 1:16 Rev 2:16 Rev 9:1 Rev 19:11–15 Rev 21:1

204 204 177, 179 204 320

Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint Tob 1:1–2 Tob 1:1 Tob 1:2 Tob 1:3–3:6 Tob 1:3–9 Tob 1:3 Tob 1:4 Tob 1:6 Tob 1:9 Tob 1:19 Tob 2:1 Tob 3 Tob 3:4 Tob 3:6 Tob 5:10 Tob 8:7 Tob 8:16–17 Tob 11:15 GI Tob 11:18 GII Tob 12:20 Tob 13:1–18 Tob 13:2

7–8, 285–87, 292, 301 288 289–91, 296 286, 290 170, 289 292 296 304 305 306 304, 306 303 201, 303 292 300 305 305 305 297 292 301 304



Tob 13:3–6 Tob 13:5 GII Tob 13:6 Tob 13:7 GII Tob 13:10 GI Tob 13:11 Tob 13:13 GII Tob 13:16–17 Tob 14:4 Tob 14:4 GII Tob 14:5–7 Tob 14:5 Tob 14:5 GII Tob 14:6 Tob 14:7 Tob 14:12

301 303 301, 304 304 304 303 304 302 301–2 301 302 295, 301–2 301 303 303–4 306

Jdt 1:1 Jdt 2:1–3 Jdt 2:1 Jdt 2:8 Jdt 2:21 Jdt 2:27 Jdt 3:5–8 Jdt 3:10 Jdt 4:1–2 Jdt 4:1–5 Jdt 4:3 Jdt 5 Jdt 5:6 Jdt 5:20–21 Jdt 6:2 Jdt 6:4 Jdt 7 Jdt 7:25–28 Jdt 8 Jdt 8:2–3 Jdt 8:4 Jdt 8:6 Jdt 8:8 Jdt 8:11 Jdt 8:12–13 Jdt 8:24 Jdt 8:33 Jdt 9 Jdt 9:5

22 150 152, 156–57 204 161 158, 161 158 161 150 159 150, 157 22, 24 80 24–25 408 204, 408 26 26 26 160 160 171 24 26 26 26 194 25–26, 408 26

499

500  Index of Sources

Jdt 9:7–8 Jdt 9:7 Jdt 9:7–10 Jdt 10:1–23 Jdt 10:2 Jdt 10:5 Jdt 11 Jdt 11:1–23 Jdt 11:1 Jdt 12 Jdt 12:1–20 Jdt 12:5 Jdt 13 Jdt 13:1–10 Jdt 13:14 Jdt 14 Jdt 14:10 Jdt 16 Jdt 16:1–17 Jdt 16:3 Jdt 16:5 Jdt 16:6 Jdt 16:13–17 Jdt 16:16

24 203 2, 24 150 162, 171 162 26 150 408 26 150 195 27 150 194 25, 27 25 24 2, 24 24 24, 27 24 27 24

Wis 1–5 Wis 1–6 Wis 1:1 Wis 1:1–5:23 Wis 1:12–16 Wis 1:13–14 Wis 1:14 Wis 1:15 Wis 1:16 Wis 2 Wis 2:1 Wis 2:3 Wis 2:4–5 Wis 2:4

2, 35–37 7 201 35 36 314 83, 277 38 36, 244 36 244 37, 79 7 86, 240–41, 244– 46, 273 240–41, 244, 246–49 83, 240–41 37 37 245

Wis 2:5 Wis 2:10 Wis 2:11 Wis 2:12 Wis 2:16

Wis 2:17 Wis 2:22 Wis 2:23–24 Wis 2:24 Wis 3 Wis 3:1 Wis 3:1–3 Wis 3:4 Wis 3:5 Wis 3:6–8 Wis 3:6 Wis 3:7–9 Wis 3:7 Wis 3:8 Wis 3:13–14 Wis 4 Wis 4:1 Wis 4:1–3 Wis 4:2 Wis 4:4 Wis 4:7–15 Wis 4:7 Wis 4:8 Wis 4:10 Wis 4:12 Wis 4:13 Wis 4:14 Wis 4:15 Wis 4:16 Wis 4:17 Wis 4:19 Wis 5 Wis 5:8 Wis 5:10 Wis 5:11 Wis 5:13 Wis 5:14–16 Wis 5:15–16 Wis 5:15 Wis 5:16 Wis 5:18 Wis 5:23

37 83 36 135, 277 37 277 37, 253, 274 83, 280 37, 271 7, 277 271, 277 277 240–241 240, 241, 267–77, 280 37 37, 241 83, 280 7, 273 240–41, 273–74, 276, 280 240–241 250 250, 253, 268 240–41, 250–51 252 253 86, 240–41, 250– 51, 255 37, 251 37 37, 267, 271 268 37, 240–41, 267 38 271 38 38 38 271–72 38 240–41, 251, 267, 271, 280 272 204 202

Index of Sources

Wis 6:1 Wis 6:3 Wis 6:9 Wis 6:11 Wis 6:18 Wis 6:18–21 Wis 6:20 Wis 6:21 Wis 6:22–10:21 Wis 6:22–11:1 Wis 6:22 Wis 6:23 Wis 7 Wis 7:1 Wis 7:1–2 Wis 7:2 Wis 7:6 Wis 7:17–21 Wis 7:17 Wis 7:18–19 Wis 7:18 Wis 7:20 Wis 7:23 Wis 8:4 Wis 8:4–8 Wis 8:7 Wis 8:8 Wis 8:9 Wis 8:10 Wis 8:13 Wis 8:17 Wis 8:18 Wis 9:1 Wis 9:1–12 Wis 9:4 Wis 9:7 Wis 9:10 Wis 9:11 Wis 9:12 Wis 10:1 Wis 10:14 Wis 10:15–19:22

265 265 265 202 265 265 267 35, 202, 240–41, 265 35 202 263, 272 266 3–4, 67, 78, 81, 83 4, 78, 80 249 86, 240–41, 249, 280 81–82 254 83, 254 84, 254 240–41, 254–55 254 201 256 255 274 240–41, 255–56 271 268, 270 83, 241, 267–68, 270, 276, 280 280 83 201 202 202 202 202 202 202 80 241 202

Wis 11–19 Wis 11:17 Wis 11:20 Wis 12 Wis 12:6 Wis 12:9–11 Wis 12:9 Wis 12:10 Wis 12:11 Wis 12:12–18 Wis 12:18–21 Wis 12:18 Wis 12:20 Wis 13:1 Wis 13:2 Wis 13:3–9 Wis 13:3 Wis 13:4 Wis 13:7–9 Wis 13:8 Wis 13:9 Wis 13:10–18 Wis 13:13 Wis 13:17 Wis 14 Wis 14:2 Wis 14.3 Wis 14:5–7 Wis 14:5 Wis 14:6 Wis 14:7 Wis 14:8 Wis 14:11 Wis 14:12–14 Wis 14:12–17 Wis 14:12 Wis 14:13 Wis 14:15–16 Wis 14:15 Wis 14:16 Wis 14:17 Wis 14:21 Wis 15:3 Wis 15:5



501

35 201 177, 254 7 263 264 265 240–41, 264–65 265 262 7, 248 248 86, 240–41, 248 256–57 257 257 257 257 256 258 7, 240–41, 256– 57, 280 257 79, 261 257 241 259, 264 260, 279 259 260–261 7, 240–41, 259– 61 261 262 264 262 242 263 240–42, 262, 264 241–44 79, 243 86 242 261–62 280 79

502  Index of Sources

Wis 15:13 Wis 15:14–16 Wis 16:12 Wis 17 Wis 17–19 Wis 17:1–18:4 Wis 17:1–2 Wis 17:1 Wis 17:2 Wis 17:3 Wis 17:4–5 Wis 17:5–15 Wis 17:5 Wis 17:11–12 Wis 17:11 Wis 17:13 Wis 17:15–20 Wis 17:19–18:1 Wis 17:19–20 Wis 17:20 Wis 18 Wis 18:1 Wis 18:1–3 Wis 18:3 Wis 18:4 Wis 18:5 Wis 18:6–7 Wis 18:9 Wis 18:13 Wis 18:14–15 Wis 18:14–16 Wis 18:14 Wis 18:15 Wis 18:16 Wis 18:19–20 Wis 18:25 Wis 19 Wis 19:1 Wis 19:3 Wis 19:4 Wis 19:5

83 7 202 195–99 6, 193–209 196 209 196, 198–99, 258, 278 6, 193, 195–96, 207, 241, 278 196, 278 197 278 197, 278 198 198, 207 193, 198, 209 198 209 195 193, 198–99 199–206 199 196 199, 205–6 7, 196, 240–41, 258–59, 280 198, 204 199 199 197, 201 201 200 193–95, 201–2, 209 6, 193, 201–4, 209 204 205 204–5, 209 206–7, 241 193, 197 206 197 206

Wis 19:6–12 Wis 19:6–8 Wis 19:22

209 207 240–41

Sir 1:1 Sir 1:11–30 Sir 1:13 Sir 1:18 Sir 1:23

366 276 389 276 341, 347, 351, 353, 360, 379 341, 347, 351, 353, 360 276 372 341–42, 347, 354, 380 389 181 341–42, 346, 349, 353, 362, 380 372 396 10, 269, 389, 396 389, 395 389 396 341–42, 347, 349, 353, 360, 381 343 347 343 341–42, 347, 355, 379 343 9, 341–42, 344, 355, 359 343–44 343–44 344 343 341–42, 346, 352, 357, 378, 381 343, 357 343, 357 376

Sir 1:24 Sir 1:27 Sir 2:1 Sir 2:2 Sir 2:3 Sir 2:9 Sir 2:11 Sir 3:17 Sir 3:26–27 Sir 3:26 Sir 3:26 HA Sir 3:26 Syr Sir 3:29–31 Sir 3:31 Sir 3:31 HA Sir 4:3 Sir 4:17–18 HA Sir 4:20 Sir 4:20 HA Sir 4:23 Sir 4:23 HA Sir 4:23 HC Sir 4:23 Syr Sir 4:31 HC Sir 5:7 Sir 5:7 HA Sir 5:7 HC Sir 5:11–12

Index of Sources 

Sir 6:8 Sir 6:18 Sir 6:18–37 Sir 6:19 HA Sir 6:19 HC Sir 6:28–31 Sir 6:28–31 HA Sir 6:28 Sir 6:28 HA Sir 6:28 HC Sir 6:30 Sir 6:34 Sir 6:37 Sir 6:37 HA Sir 7:29–31 Sir 7:36 Sir 7:36 HA Sir 7:36 HD Sir 7:36 Syr Sir 8:9 Sir 8:9 HA Sir 8:18 HA Sir 9:12 HA Sir 10:4 Sir 10:4 H Sir 10:4 HC Sir 10:4 Syr Sir 10:4–5 Sir 10:26 Sir 10:26 HA Sir 11:7 Sir 11:8 Sir 11:17 HA Sir 11:19 Sir 11:19 HA Sir 11:20 HA Sir 11:22 Sir 11:23 HA Sir 11:25

341, 347, 353–54, 358 372 169, 171, 185, 187–88 185 185 5, 185–87 185–86 186 185, 395 395 186 186 187 186 170 10, 389–91 389 389 389 341–42, 347, 353, 355, 359, 376, 379 343 405 343 341, 346, 351–52, 362, 379, 384 351 343 351 265 341–42, 347, 355, 381 343 377 376 343 341–42, 347, 353, 358, 392 343 343 382 343 10, 381, 388–89, 392

Sir 11:25 HA Sir 11:25 Syr Sir 11:26 Sir 11:27 Sir 11:27 HA Sir 11:28 Sir 11:28 HA Sir 11:28 Syr Sir 12:4 HA Sir 12:11 Sir 12:11 HA Sir 12:11 Syr Sir 12:12 Sir 12:12 H Sir 12:15 HA Sir 12:16 Sir 13:7 Sir 14:2 HA Sir 14:7 Sir 14:16 Sir 15:6 Sir 15:10 Sir 15:11–16:23 Sir 15:16 Sir 15:17 Sir 15:20 Sir 16:1–3 Sir 16:3–44 Sir 16:3 Sir 16:3 HA Sir 16:3 HB Sir 16:3 Syr Sir 16:6 HA Sir 16:7 Sir 16.11–12 HA Sir 16:12 Sir 16:16 HA Sir 16:17–23 Sir 16:17–18:14 Sir 16:17 Sir 16:17 HA Sir 16:18 HA Sir 16:19 HA Sir 16:21 HA Sir 16:23

503

389, 396–97 389 381 392, 423 344, 416 10, 389, 391 389, 397 389 343 389 389, 391 389 389 395 343–44 341, 347, 354, 358 389 415–16 389 423 181 405 405 405 405 405 274 274 10, 274, 388–89, 392 389 389 389 405 388 405 376 405–6 177 177–82,187 404, 423 405–7 406 406 405–6 406

504  Index of Sources

Sir 16:25 Sir 16:26–17:7 Sir 16:26–28 Sir 16:26–28 Syr Sir 16:26 Sir 16:26 HA Sir 16:27 Sir 17:2 Sir 17:8–12 Sir 17:8–12 Syr Sir 17:9–10 Sir 17:11–14 Sir 17:11 Sir 17:12 Sir 17:13 Sir 17:17 Sir 17:19 Sir 17:24–18:14 Sir 17:25 Sir 17:31 Sir 18 Sir 18:1–14 Sir 18:2–3 Sir 18:3 Sir 18:8 Sir 18:4–10 Sir 18:15–19:17 Sir 18:15–18 Sir 18:15–29 Sir 18:15 Sir 18:19–21 Sir 18:19–23 Sir 18:19–25 Sir 18:19–26 Sir 18:19–27 Sir 18:19 Sir 18:20–23 Sir 18:20 Sir 18:21 Sir 18:22–23 Sir 18:22–26 Sir 18:22 Sir 18:23

177 179 5, 177–78 178 173, 177–78 178 179 188, 341–42, 346–47, 353, 363 179 179 180, 182 169, 180 177, 180–81 5, 171, 177–83, 187–88 180–81 409 177 378 378 341 9 372 182 177 238 187 370, 372–73 372–73 9, 372 372 372, 376–78 9, 374–80, 384 382 9, 369–384 369–370 376–77 370 376–77 341–42, 347, 354, 358, 377–79, 381 378–380 372 374–75, 379 374–75, 379–80

Sir 18:24–25 Sir 18:24–26 Sir 18:24 Sir 18:25

Sir 18:26

Sir 18:27–29 Sir 18:27 Sir 18:28 Sir 18:29 Sir 19:9 Sir 19:19 Sir 19:28 Sir 20:1 Sir 20:5–7 Sir 20:6–7 Sir 20:6 Sir 20:6 HC Sir 20:7 Sir 20:7 HC Sir 20:20 Sir 21:10 Sir 22:6 Sir 22:16 Sir 22:23 Sir 24:1–12 Sir 24:1–23 Sir 24:1–34 Sir 24:3–6 Sir 24:3–11 Sir 24:3–23 Sir 24:3 Sir 24:4–11 Sir 24:4 Sir 24:5–6 Sir 24:8–12 Sir 24:9 Sir 24:10–11 Sir 24:11

374, 380–81 9, 374–75, 380– 83 341–42, 346, 352, 375, 380–81 341–42, 346, 349, 352, 354, 363, 375, 381 341–42, 347, 349, 354, 361, 373, 375, 381 372–73 373–74 374 373–74 341, 347, 353, 358 341 341, 347, 354, 358 376 376 379 341, 347, 354, 359 343 341–42, 347, 351, 353, 360 343 341, 347, 355, 360 389 341, 347, 355, 379 341, 347, 354 341–42, 349, 355, 360, 381 184–85, 187 183 183 185 184 183 183 5 183 183 188, 409 85, 183 185 183

Index of Sources

Sir 24:13–17 Sir 24:13–34 Sir 24:23 Sir 24:25–27 Sir 24:25–33 Sir 24:28 Sir 25:7 Sir 25:7 HC Sir 25:7 Syr Sir 25:28 Sir 26:4 Sir 27:12 Sir 28:6 Sir 29:2 Sir 29:2 Syr Sir 29:3 Sir 29:5 Sir 30:1 Sir 30:10 Sir 30:24(26) Sir 30:24 Sir 30:24 HB Sir 30:32 Sir 30:32 (33:24) Sir 31:19 HB* Sir 31:22 HB Sir 31:22 Syr Sir 31(34):22 Sir 31:26 Syr Sir 31:28 Sir 32(35):14–33 Sir 32(35):21–22 Sir 32(35):22 Sir 32(35):24 Sir 32(35):25 Sir 32(35):26 Sir 32:4 Sir 32:4 HB Sir 32:11 HB Sir 32:21 Sir 32:21 HB

184 184 183, 409 184 183 389 10, 389, 392–93 389 389 396 341, 347, 355 341–42, 347, 355 389 341–42, 347, 351– 53, 360, 379 351 341, 347, 353, 355, 360 340–42, 347, 349, 355 389 389 347 341, 351, 358 343 358 341–42, 347, 355, 358 343 389, 395 389 10, 389 395 341, 355, 360, 379 394 10, 393–94 376 394 376 341–42, 346, 349–50, 353 379 343 344 389 389

Sir 32:21 HE Sir 32:21 HF Sir 32:21 Syr Sir 32:21 Syr Sir 32:21 Syr Sir 32:26 HB Sir 33:7–9 Sir 33:7–13 Sir 33:7–15 Sir 33:7 Sir 33:7 HF Sir 33:8–9 HE Sir 33:8 HE Sir 33:9 HE Sir 33:10–13 Sir 33(36):10 Sir 33:10 Sir 33:11 HE Sir 33:12 HE Sir 33:24 Sir 33:24 HE Sir 34:28(31:36) Sir 35:1–13 Sir 35:26 HB Sir 35:26 HC Sir 36:2 Sir 36:3 Sir 36:5 Sir 36:6–7 Sir 36:7 Sir 36(33):8 Sir 36:8 Hb Sir 36:9 Sir 36:10 Sir 36:10 HB Sir 36:12 Sir 36:13 Sir 36:16 Sir 36:17 Sir 36:18 Sir 36:20 Sir 36:21–22 Sir 36:22 Sir 37:4



505

389 389 389 389 389 353 5, 169–70, 172– 76, 187–88 170, 175 171–77 172–74 172 172–73 5, 173, 343 174 175 341–42, 346 175 175 175 341 343–44 341, 347 170 343–44, 350 343 412 408 408, 410 410 341, 362 346, 352, 363 343, 408 408 408 407–8, 411 408 409 388–89, 409 410–11 410 408, 410–11 410 408, 410 341–42, 344, 347, 355–56, 360, 381

506  Index of Sources

Sir 37:4 HB D Sir 37:24 Sir 38:1–15 Sir 38:9 Sir 38:12 Sir 38:13 Sir 38:13 HB Sir 38:20–23 Sir 38:20 Sir 38:20 HB Sir 39 Sir 39:12–35 Sir 39:16

Sir 39:16 HB Sir 39:17 Sir 39:21 Sir 39:28 Sir 39:30 Sir 39:30 HB Sir 39:31 Sir 39:33 Sir 39:34 Sir 39:34 HB Sir 39:35 HB Sir 40:5–6 Sir 40:5 Sir 40:5 HB Sir 40:7 Sir 40:14 Sir 40:23 Sir 40:23 Syr Sir 40:24 Sir 40:24 Syr Sir 40:28–30 Sir 41:1–2 Sir 41:1 Sir 41:2

343–344, 350 349 376 379 376 341–42, 347, 361 343 390 10, 388–91 389 339, 363 383 341, 346, 352, 357, 363, 379, 384 343 346, 357, 363 379 341–42, 346, 350, 352, 357, 363 379 343 346, 352, 357, 363 379 341, 346, 352–53, 357, 363 343, 357 180, 343 193 341–42, 347, 349, 354–55, 361 343 341–42, 347, 349, 354–55, 361 388 341, 347, 351, 353, 360 351 341–42, 346, 351, 362, 381 351 414 414, 416 414 414

Sir 41:3–4 Sir 41:3 Sir 41:3 HB Sir 41:4 Sir 41:4 HB M Sir 41:5–13 Sir 42:15–43:33 Sir 42:15–20 Sir 42:15 Sir 42:15 HB M Sir 42:18 Sir 42:18 HM Sir 42:19 Sir 42:19 H Sir 42:21 Sir 42:21 H Sir 42:23 Sir 42:23 HM Sir 43:2–4 Sir 43:5 Sir 43:6–7 Sir 43:6–8 Sir 43:6–8 HB Sir 43:6–8 HM Sir 43:6

Sir 43:6 H Sir 43:6 HB Sir 43:6 HB M Sir 43:6 Syr Sir 43:7 Sir 43:7 HB Sir 43:7 HM Sir 43:9–10 Sir 43:10 HB Sir 43:23 HB M Sir 43:24 Sir 43:24 HB M Sir 43:26 HB Sir 43:27 Sir 43:27 HB Sir 43:28 HB Sir 43:29 HB Sir 43:30 HB Sir 43:31

416 414 423 404, 423 414–16 414 170, 405, 416 407 201, 416 416 416, 420 416 316, 416 398 416 416 416 416 417 420 170 173, 176–77 176–77 176–77, 417 9, 340–41, 345– 46, 351–52, 363, 379, 404, 416–18 351 176 343, 345, 416–19 345, 351 173, 176 177, 343 177, 343 179 420 419 404 419–20 420 404, 441 420–21 421 420–21 421 421

Index of Sources

Sir 43:32 Sir 43:33 Sir 44:16 Sir 44:17

Sir 44:17 HB Sir 44:20 Sir 44:20 HB Sir 44:21 Sir 44:23 GBS Sir 45:5 Sir 45:6–22 Sir 45:7 Sir 45:15 Sir 46:1 Sir 46:14 Sir 46:17–18 HB Sir 46:19–20 Sir 46:19 Sir 46:19 HB Sir 46:20 Sir 47:10 Sir 47:10 HB Sir 48:5 H Sir 48:10

Sir 48:10 H Sir 48:10 HB Sir 48:23 Sir 48:24–25 H Sir 48:24 Sir 48:24 HB Sir 48:24 Syr Sir 48:25 Sir 49:5 HB Sir 49:12 Sir 50:1–24 Sir 50:6 HB Sir 50:8 HB Sir 50:11

421 421 252 341–342, 346, 348, 350, 352, 362, 365 343–44 170 181 342 178 180 170 181 181 409 376 343 404 341–42, 347, 351, 353, 358, 416 344, 350, 404, 422 422–23 170, 341–42, 347, 355360 180 423 341, 346, 348, 351–52, 362, 365, 378, 409 351 343 247 10, 397–98 389 389, 397 389 398 395 181 170 343 343 186

Sir 51:10



507

Sir 51:30 HB (11QPs)

341–42, 346, 348, 350–51, 353, 355, 381 350, 362 341–42, 346, 351, 355, 381 389 405 388 341, 346, 348, 351–53, 357–58, 366, 379, 384 343–44, 357, 366

Bar 1:1–1:14 Bar 1:2 Bar 1:8 Bar 1:10 Bar 1:13 Bar 1:14 Bar 1:15–20 Bar 1:15–3:8 Bar 1:15 Bar 1:18 Bar 1:19 Bar 1:20 Bar 2:24 Bar 2:26 Bar 2:27–35 Bar 2:30 Bar 2:34 Bar 2:35 Bar 3:9–4:4 Bar 3:26 Bar 4:1–4 Bar 4:5–5:9 Bar 4:8 Bar 4:10–5:2 Bar 4:10 Bar 4:14 Bar 4:20 Bar 4:22 Bar 4:24 Bar 4:34 Bar 5:2

31 31 33 33 32 32 34 2, 31–35 32 32 32 32 33 33–34 34 34 34 34 31, 34 439 34 31 73 238 73 73 73 73 73 73 73

Sir 51:11 Sir 51:12 Sir 51:14 Sir 51:14b (11Q5) Sir 51:20 Sir 51:30

508  Index of Sources

1 Macc 1 1 Macc 1:1 1 Macc 1:11–13:40 1 Macc 1:39 1 Macc 1:43 1 Macc 1:44–49 1 Macc 1:45 1 Macc 1:50–51 1 Macc 1:53 1 Macc 2:1–5 1 Macc 2:2–5 1 Macc 2:12 1 Macc 2:29–38 1 Macc 2:32 1 Macc 2:34 1 Macc 2:38 1 Macc 2:41 1 Macc 2:54 1 Macc 3:25 1 Macc 3:42 1 Macc 3:51 1 Macc 4:36 1 Macc 4:42 1 Macc 4.43–51 1 Macc 4:52–54 1 Macc 4:52–56 1 Macc 4:54 1 Macc 4:59 1 Macc 5:10 1 Macc 5:34 1 Macc 5:55 1 Macc 5:61 1 Macc 5:63 1 Macc 5:65 1 Macc 6:43–46 1 Macc 6:49 1 Macc 7:6 1 Macc 7:10 1 Macc 7:27 1 Macc 7:39–49 1 Macc 8:17–18 1 Macc 8:20 1 Macc 9:18–22 1 Macc 9:18 1 Macc 9:19 1 Macc 9:31

465 270 7, 212 171 171, 182 188 170–71, 182 224 224 224 218 182 171 171 171 171 171 73 218 218 182 218 224 224 461 224 461 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 74 171 218 218 218 212 212 218 212 212 218 218

1 Macc 9:34 1 Macc 9:43 1 Macc 10:34 1 Macc 11:18 1 Macc 11:63 1 Macc 11:73 1 Macc 13:1 1 Macc 13:2 1 Macc 13:6–7 1 Macc 13:8–9 1 Macc 13:8 1 Macc 13:20 1 Macc 13:21–22 1 Macc 13:22 1 Macc 13:24 1 Macc 13:41–42 1 Macc 13:41 1 Macc 14:8 1 Macc 14:12–49

171 171 171 212 291 291 207 207 207 207 218 207 208 6, 194, 207–9 208 213 212 218 213

2 Macc 1:1 2 Macc 1:1–9 2 Macc 1:1–2:18 2 Macc 1:1–10 2 Macc 1:2–5 2 Macc 1:3–4 2 Macc 1:3 2 Macc 1:4 2 Macc 1:5 2 Macc 1:7–8 2 Macc 1:7 2 Macc 1:9–10 2 Macc 1:9 2 Macc 1:10–2:18 2 Macc 1:10 2 Macc 1:18–2:18 2 Macc 1:18–2:12 2 Macc 1:18–36 2 Macc 1:18 2 Macc 1:19–36 2 Macc 1:19 2 Macc 1:20–24 2 Macc 1:20–23 2 Macc 1:20 2 Macc 1:24–29 2 Macc 1:25

230 6 214 154, 227–30 231 154 231 231 231–32 212, 232 212–13, 232 211 211 6, 227–230 211–12 227 229 227 211, 227–28 227 228 229 228 228 229, 409 230

Index of Sources

2 Macc 1:27–29 2 Macc 1:27 2 Macc 1:29 2 Macc 1:31–36 2 Macc 1:31–35 2 Macc 1:31–32 2 Macc 1:33–36 2 Macc 1:36 2 Macc 2 2 Macc 2:4–9 2 Macc 2:4 2 Macc 2:7 2 Macc 2:8 2 Macc 2:9–12 2 Macc 2:9 2 Macc 2:10 2 Macc 2:12 2 Macc 2:14 2 Macc 2:15–19 2 Macc 2:16–18 2 Macc 2:16 2 Macc 2:18 2 Macc 2:19–15:39 2 Macc 2:19–15:38 2 Macc 2:19–32 2 Macc 2:19–23 2 Macc 2:19 2 Macc 2:20 2 Macc 2:21 2 Macc 2:22 2 Macc 2:24–32 2 Macc 3 2 Macc 3:1–15:37 2 Macc 3:1–7:42 2 Macc 3:1–4:6 2 Macc 3:1–40 2 Macc 3:1 2 Macc 3:2 2 Macc 3:3 2 Macc 3:15 2 Macc 3:16–21 2 Macc 3:22 2 Macc 3:24–28 2 Macc 3:26 2 Macc 3:28 2 Macc 3:31

229, 231 229 229 213 228 228 228 228 68 229 231 229 230 227 228 228 228–29 212 7, 212 229–30 211, 227 228–31 211 217–22 213 218 218, 223 214 225, 230 219, 222, 225 213 409, 466 7, 212 219 213–14 214, 216, 222 216, 228, 231 224 214 231 216 231 216 216 215 231

2 Macc 3:33–34 2 Macc 3:38 2 Macc 3:40 2 Macc 4:1–15:37 2 Macc 4:1–7:42 2 Macc 4:1–6:11 2 Macc 4:1–15 2 Macc 4:6 2 Macc 4:7–10:9 2 Macc 4:7–22 2 Macc 4:7 2 Macc 4:11–15 2 Macc 4:11 2 Macc 4:14 2 Macc 4:16–17 2 Macc 4:17 2 Macc 4:18–5:16 2 Macc 4:21 2 Macc 4:23–25 2 Macc 4:30–38 2 Macc 4:38 2 Macc 4:43–50 2 Macc 4:47 2 Macc 4:50 2 Macc 5–6 2 Macc 5:2–4 2 Macc 5:5–10 2 Macc 5:5 2 Macc 5:8 2 Macc 5:11–6:11 2 Macc 5:15–16 2 Macc 5:15 2 Macc 5:17–20 2 Macc 5:17–18 2 Macc 5:17 2 Macc 5:20 2 Macc 5:21–6:11 2 Macc 5:22–23 2 Macc 5:25 2 Macc 5:27 2 Macc 6:1 2 Macc 6:2 2 Macc 6:3 2 Macc 6:7



509

216 215 214 215–16 216–17, 222 215, 222 214 279 214 225 214 215, 220 212, 216, 218, 222, 225 225, 278 213, 220 221–22 214 212 225 213 220 220 231 231 465 216–17 232 465 222 217 216, 220 215, 222 213, 217, 220–21 217 220–221, 225, 232 217, 221, 232 214 220 171 215, 218, 225–26 214, 222 224–25, 413 231 226

510  Index of Sources

2 Macc 6:11 2 Macc 6:12–7:42 2 Macc 6:12–17 2 Macc 6.12–16 2 Macc 6:12–13 2 Macc 6:12 2 Macc 6:14 2 Macc 6:15 2 Macc 6:16 2 Macc 6:18–7:42 2 Macc 6:19–20 2 Macc 6:21 2 Macc 6:28 2 Macc 7 2 Macc 7:1 2 Macc 7:2 2 Macc 7:9 2 Macc 7:11 2 Macc 7:14 2 Macc 7:18 2 Macc 7:20 2 Macc 7:22 2 Macc 7:23 2 Macc 7:30 2 Macc 7:31 2 Macc 7:32–33 2 Macc 7:32 2 Macc 7:33 2 Macc 7:34 2 Macc 7:36 2 Macc 7:37 2 Macc 7:37–38 2 Macc 7:42 2 Macc 8:1–15:37 2 Macc 8:1–29 2 Macc 8:1–4 2 Macc 8:1 2 Macc 8:2 2 Macc 8:3 2 Macc 8:4 2 Macc 8:5–7 2 Macc 8:5 2 Macc 8:8–36

171, 226 222 213, 217, 220–21 222 220 217, 221, 225 225 221, 225 217, 220–21, 225, 232 214–15 226 85, 225 216 74–75 226 214–16, 222 215, 222 215, 222 277 225 277 221 74, 215, 221–22, 314 215, 222 231 221 221, 225 217, 221, 225, 231–32 424 221 215, 222 221 214 215–19, 222 221 225 218, 230 224, 231 221 225 219 6, 218–19, 230 218

2 Macc 8:16 2 Macc 8:21 2 Macc 8:22–23 2 Macc 8:24 2 Macc 8:25–28 2 Macc 8:26 2 Macc 8:27 2 Macc 8:28 2 Macc 8:29 2 Macc 8:33 2 Macc 8:34–36 2 Macc 8:36 2 Macc 9:2 2 Macc 9:4–5 2 Macc 9:5–10 2 Macc 9:7 2 Macc 9:18 2 Macc 9:28 2 Macc 9:29 2 Macc 10:1–8 2 Macc 10:1 2 Macc 10:3 2 Macc 10:4 2 Macc 10:5–6 2 Macc 10:5 2 Macc 10:6–7 2 Macc 10:6 2 Macc 10:7 2 Macc 10:8 2 Macc 10:9 2 Macc 10:10–13:26 2 Macc 10:10–11:15 2 Macc 10:10 2 Macc 10:16 2 Macc 10:19 2 Macc 10:21 2 Macc 10:25 2 Macc 10:29–31 2 Macc 10:29–30 2 Macc 10:30 2 Macc 10:33 2 Macc 10:35 2 Macc 11:6 2 Macc 11:7 2 Macc 11:8–11

218–19 215–16, 222, 225 218 215, 219 171 171 171, 219, 230 171 217, 221, 231–32 225 216 221–22, 225, 231 224 216 220 224 216 216, 220 212 211, 213, 218, 223–27, 232 218, 223, 225 213, 223–24, 228 222, 224–25 226 223–25 226 226, 229 223, 226 223, 227 214 214 219 214 218, 220 218 218 218 219 216 218 218 218 218 218 216, 219

Index of Sources

2 Macc 11:9–10 2 Macc 11:9 2 Macc 11:10 2 Macc 11:13 2 Macc 11:15 2 Macc 11:21 2 Macc 11:24–25 2 Macc 11:25 2 Macc 11:30–31 2 Macc 11:31 2 Macc 11:33 2 Macc 11:38 2 Macc 12:1–13:26 2 Macc 12:5–9 2 Macc 12:6 2 Macc 12:15 2 Macc 12:16 2 Macc 12:19 2 Macc 12:20 2 Macc 12:24 2 Macc 12:27 2 Macc 12:28 2 Macc 12:30 2 Macc 12:31 2 Macc 12:36 2 Macc 12:38–39 2 Macc 12:38 2 Macc 13:1 2 Macc 13:3–8 2 Macc 13:6–8 2 Macc 13:7 2 Macc 13:8 2 Macc 13:9–17 2 Macc 13:9 2 Macc 13:10 2 Macc 13:12 2 Macc 13:14 2 Macc 13:26 2 Macc 14:1–15:36 2 Macc 14:1–2 2 Macc 14:3–14 2 Macc 14:3–4 2 Macc 14:3 2 Macc 14:4 2 Macc 14:17 2 Macc 14:26–33

219 221 219, 221 216, 221 218 214 219 219 219 231 214 214 219 194 231 85, 231 204 218 218 218 218 231 218 226 220, 231 171 171 214 216 220 224–25 216 194 214 231 221 215, 222 214 214 214 216, 225 216 85 85 218 216



2 Macc 14:26 2 Macc 14:27 2 Macc 14:31–36 2 Macc 14:36 2 Macc 14:37–46 2 Macc 14:38 2 Macc 14:44 2 Macc 15:1–5 2 Macc 15:1 2 Macc 15:2 2 Macc 15:3 2 Macc 15:5 2 Macc 15:7 2 Macc 15:12–16 2 Macc 15:20–37 2 Macc 15:21–22 2 Macc 15:21 2 Macc 15:27 2 Macc 15:28–36 2 Macc 15:31–33 2 Macc 15:31 2 Macc 15:36 2 Macc 15:37 2 Macc 15:38–39

225 214 225 85, 223 216 230 247 173 173, 183 174 171 174 218 213, 216 219 231 218 231 212 220 225 223 214, 223 213

1 Esd 1:22 1 Esd 1:40 1 Esd 2:10 1 Esd 2:12 1 Esd 8:73

85 85 80 85 85

3 Macc 4:17 3 Macc 4:21 3 Macc 5:30 3 Macc 7:19

123 279 279 85

2 Esd 3–14 2 Esd 5:54–55 2 Esd 5:50 2 Esd 14:10 2 Esd 14:16

474 441 441 441 441

4 Macc 9:22 4 Macc 9:24 4 Macc 13:19 4 Macc 13:21

280 279 279 85

511

512  Index of Sources

4 Macc 14:5 4 Macc 16:13 4 Macc 17:22 4 Macc 17:12 4 Macc 18:1

280 280 279 280 80

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Ahiqar 2:22–31

74

Apoc. Ab. 24:5–8 Apoc. El. (C) 3:98 Apoc. Sedr. 4:4

263 320 80

Aristob. Frag 5

181

2 Bar. 44:13 2 Bar. 85:10

321 441

1 En. 1–36

11, 429–449,474, 477 11, 429–30, 448 439–40 179 238 447 22, 75 448 448 474 321 176 254 320 419 474 179 173, 177 419 419 173, 177 419 296 474 320

1 En. 6–11 1 En. 7 1 En. 8:3 1 En. 12:3 1 En. 15 1 En. 22 1 En. 26:1 1 En. 33:1 1 En. 37–71 1 En. 40:9 1 En. 41:8 1 En. 43:2 1 En. 45:4–5 1 En. 72 1 En. 72–82 1 En. 72:1 1 En. 75:2 1 En. 80:4–5 1 En. 82:4 1 En. 82:4–7 1 En. 82:7 1 En. 85–90 1 En. 91 1 En. 91:16

1 En. 91:16 (4QEng ar) 1 En. 91:17 1 En. 93 Enastrabcd ar

462 463 474 438

2 En. 10:4 2 En. 32:1 2 En. 33:1–2 2 En. 34:2 2 En. 43:2 2 En. 49:1 2 En. 51:5 2 En. 58:1 2 En. 65:1

263 406 317 263 175 406 406 406 406

4 Ezra 1 4 Ezra 2 4 Ezra 1–3 4 Ezra 3–14 4 Ezra 3:1 4 Ezra 3:3 4 Ezra 3:4–5 4 Ezra 3:4–27 4 Ezra 3:4 4 Ezra 4–7 4 Ezra 4:23–24 4 Ezra 4:26–37 4 Ezra 4:33 4 Ezra 4:34 4 Ezra 4:35 4 Ezra 4:36–37 4 Ezra 4:36 4 Ezra 4:44–46 4 Ezra 4:46 4 Ezra 5:1–15 4 Ezra 5:42–43 4 Ezra 5:50–55 4 Ezra 6:1–28 4 Ezra 6:7 4 Ezra 6:11–28 4 Ezra 6:17 4 Ezra 6:38 4 Ezra 6:38–56 4 Ezra 6:55 4 Ezra 6:57 4 Ezra 7:13

475 475 473 474 478, 481 473 479 480 479 473 481 482 473, 483 482–83 482 254 482 316 481 480 473, 483 479 480 480 480 315 479 479 479 479 238

Index of Sources 

4 Ezra 7:16 4 Ezra 7:26–31 4 Ezra 7:28 4 Ezra 7:31 4 Ezra 7:50 4 Ezra 7:74 4 Ezra 7:96 4 Ezra 8:5 4 Ezra 8:20–36 4 Ezra 9:28–37 4 Ezra 10 4 Ezra 10:20–24 4 Ezra 10:25–27 4 Ezra 10:25–33 4 Ezra 10:45–48 4 Ezra 11:1–12:34 4 Ezra 12:10–11 4 Ezra 13 4 Ezra 13:26 4 Ezra 14 4 Ezra 14:3–6 4 Ezra 15 4 Ezra 16

13, 481 480 480 480 479 483 321 473, 483 475 480 476 481 476 476 480 480 480 480 480 481 483 475 475

Jub. 1:28 (4QJuba) Jub. 1:29 Jub. 2:2–3 Jub. 2:2 Jub. 2:9 Jub. 2:17–33 Jub. 2:19 Jub. 2:31 Jub. 2:32 Jub. 4:9 Jub. 6:32 Jub. 6:35 Jub. 6:36 Jub. 8–9 Jub. 8:25 Jub. 8:28 Jub. 9:32 Jub. 37–38 Jub. 50:1–13 Jub. 50:9 Jub. 50:12–13

459 320 177, 180 318 419 171 5, 175 5, 176, 181 175 135 173, 177 323 419 434 434 434 434 135 171 180 171

LAB 1–21 LAB 1:1 LAB 2:1 LAB 2:8–10 LAB 3:2 LAB 3:5 LAB 3:6 LAB 3:7 LAB 3:8 LAB 3:9–10 LAB 3:9 LAB 3:10 LAB 5:3 LAB 8 LAB 8:14 LAB 9:3 LAB 9:8 LAB 10 LAB 10:7 LAB 11 LAB 11:1–4 LAB 11:1 LAB 11:15 LAB 12:1 LAB 12:4 LAB 13:4 LAB 13:8 LAB 13:9 LAB 14:4 LAB 14:11–13 LAB 19 LAB 19:4 LAB 19:7 LAB 19:8 LAB 19:10 LAB 19:12 LAB 19:13 LAB 19:14–15 LAB 19:14 LAB 19:15 LAB 19:15 LAB 21 LAB 22–65 LAB 23:13 LAB 23:14

513

332 312 329 329 319 326 326 326 326 325 319, 325 311, 319–20, 325 326 326 326 320, 327, 333 327 327 327 328 328, 330 327 315 315 328 330 311, 315 315 326 317 321 311 328 330 315 311, 321 321 8, 315–17, 321, 323 323 317–18 323–24 325 332 322, 324 331

514  Index of Sources

LAB 25–28 LAB 28:4 LAB 28:4–9 LAB 28:7 LAB 28:8 LAB 28:9 LAB 28:10 LAB 32 LAB 32:3 LAB 33:2–4 LAB 33:3 LAB 33:6 LAB 36:4 LAB 39:4–5 LAB 39:4 LAB 39:5 LAB 48:1 LAB 51:5 LAB 60:2–3 LAB 64:7

313 8, 313–14 313 8, 314 314–15, 317 315, 324 322, 330 320 320 322 322 330 330 8, 324 311, 324, 332 311, 324, 332 330 322 318 322

Let. Aris. §15 Let. Aris. §16 Let. Aris. §51–82 Let. Aris. §121 Let. Aris. §144 Let. Aris. §224 Let. Aris. §228 Let. Aris. §308–316

29 29 29 30 29 265 30 31

Pss. Sol. 3:12 Pss. Sol. 13:11 Pss. Sol. 14:10 Pss. Sol. 17:24 Pss. Sol. 17:35–36

273 273 321 203 203

Sib. Or. 3–5 Sib. Or. 3:36–45 Sib. Or. 5:166–167

474 263 263

T. Benj. 10:10 T. Jos. T. Jud. T. Levi 2–5 T. Levi 14:4 T. Naph. 2:3

263 135 135 474 259 254

T. Reu. 4:6 T. Sim. 5:3

263 263

T. Ab. B 9:8 T. Ab. B 11:9 T. Ab. B 11:10 T. Ab. B 11:11 T. Ab. B 13:3, 5 T. Ab. B 13:35

86 80 80 80 80 80

T. Adam 3:9

320

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts 1Q38 4 2 1QapGen 1QHa VII, 16 1QHa IX, 26 1QHa XVI, 32 1QHa XVII, 24 1QHa XX, 9.8 1QpHab VII, 6 1QpHab XI, 6 1QM I,8 1QM X, 15 1QS VI, 3–7a 1QS IV, 18 1QS X, 5

174 289 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 225 411 411

4Q129 4Q134 4Q137 4Q139 4Q149 4Q180

170 170 170 170 170 4, 115–16, 118, 462 115 462 75 438 462 459 468 71 411 411

4Q181 4Q181 frag. 2, 3 4Q186 4Q208–211 4Q212 IV, 23–25 4Q216 frag. 4, 10 4Q248 4Q252 II, 3 4Q256 frag. 19,3 4Q258 frag. 9, 2

Index of Sources

4Q260 frag. 2, 5 4Q286 7 I, 4 4Q299 frag. 5, 4 4Q319 VI, 9–10 4Q320–330 4Q320 4Q329a 4Q369 1 I, 4 4Q386 1 II, 1 4Q390 4Q396 (4QMMTC) 4Q400–407 4Q427 8 I, 8 4Q427 8 II, 12 4Q464 4Q504 1–2 VII, 4–5 4Q511 frag. 35,8 4Q512 4Q522 9 II, 2 4QInstruction 4QVisions of Amram

411 411 411 71 419 71 71 411 408 462 68 171 411 411 115–16 180 411 173 411 169 289

11Q5 XXI, 12 CD VI, 17–18 CD XI, 3–4 CD X, 14–XI.18 CD X, 14 CD XI, 3–4 CD XII, 3–6

Decal. 98 Decal. 100–105

186 181

Deus 120

252

Fug. 146 Her. 126 Her. 290–292

252 85 252

Leg. 3.77

253

Legat. 1.142

252

Mos. 1.123–126 Mos. 2.41

196 72

Opif. 41 Opif. 89

85 181

Plant. 168

252

405

Praem. 112

252

182 5 171 182 187 182

Prob. 88–91

74

Sacr. 63

199–200

Somn. 2.123 Somn. 2.133

181 197

Spec. 2.10–36

72

QE 1.1 QE 2.20 QE 2.42 QE 2.46

72 252 259 80

QG 1.32

80

Philo Abr. 27–28 Abr. 271 Abr. 275 Aet. 25 Aet. 29 Aet. 47



253 252 252 83 83 77

Cher. 87 Cher. 127

253 83

Contempl. 3–4 Contempl. 25

83 68

Josephus A.J. 1.4 A.J. 1.26 A.J. 2.9.6

124 124 288

515

516  Index of Sources

A.J. 8.61–62 A.J. 3 A.J. 11 A.J. 11.5.1 A.J. 11.5.5 A.J. 12 A.J. 12.129–153 A.J. 12.240

326 136 136 150 150 465 407 465

B.J. 1.1 B.J. 1.12 B.J. 1.31

124 124 124

C. Ap. 1.129

72

y. Kil. 1.4 (27a) y. Pe’ah 21b y. Pesaḥ. 10.4

96 187 174

Targumic Texts Gen 46:24(25) Tr. Ps.-J.

289

Other Rabbinic Works Gen. Rab. Gen. Rab. 1:2 Gen. Rab. 4:2–4

430 8, 314 8, 314

Megillat Yehudit

164

Pesiq Rab. 1.4a–b

317

Mishna, Talmud, and Related Literature m. ’Abot 1 m. ’Abot 1.6 m. Ber. 1.1 m. Ber. 1.2 m. Ber. 1.3 m. Ber. 4.1 m. Ber. 5.2 m. Sanh. 4.5 m. Sukkah 5.5 m. Ta’an. 1.1 m. Yoma 8.8

97 186 98 99 100 101 102 176 182 102 378

b. Ḥag. 12b b. Menaḥ. 29b b. Pesaḥ. 72b b. Pesaḥ. 108a b. Pesaḥ. 116a b. Šabb. 25b b. Šabb. 32a b. Šabb. 46a b. Šabb. 81b b. Šabb. 113b b. Sanh. 43b b. Sanh. 65b b. Sanh. 97a–b

105 97 98 96 174 187 377 99 99 187 377–78 173 317

Apostolic Fathers Barn. 15:4–5

317

Classical and Ancient Christian Writings Aeschylus, Suppl. 250

80

Arrian, Anab. 5.18.4–6

433

Apollodorus Arist., Eth. eud. 1227b 5 Arist., Metaphy. 12.7 Arist., Phys. 209b 13–15 Arist., Phys. 219a–b Arist., Phys. 223a

445 86 236 76 77 77

Aug., Conf. XI.14 Aug., Conf. XI.17 Aug., Civ. 22.30

67 111, 126 317

Cicero, Tusc. 1.23,3 Cicero, Tusc.1.23,5 Cicero, Tusc.1.109

252 252 251–52

Index of Sources

Dion. of Hal., Ant. rom. 1.74.2 122 Euripedes, Phoen. 931

80

Eus., Praep. ev. 1.9.19–22 437 Eus., Praep. ev. 1.9.24 437 Eus., Praep. ev. 1.10.20 437 Eus., Praep. ev. 9.17.2–9 437 Eus., Praep. ev. 9.18.2 437 Eus., Praep. ev. 13.12, 11–12 179 Herodotus, Hist. 2.142–143

435

Hesiod, Theog. 185–186

445

Homer, Il. 2.197–198 Homer, Il. 5.304 Homer, Il. 6.146–149 Homer, Il. 6.199 Homer, Il. 6.208 Homer, Il. 9.412–413 Homer, Il. 9.784–785 Homer, Il. 10.105–124 Homer, Il. 10.118–120 Homer, Il. 11.784 Homer, Il. 15.212–213 Homer, Il. 15.624–628 Homer, Il. 15.624 Homer, Il. 15.627–628 Homer, Il. 15.628 Homer, Od. 7.56–60 Homer, Od. 7.59 Homer, Od. 10.116–124

265 440 239 268 268 269 268 445 445 268 269 260 260 260 260 445 445 445



Pausanias, Descr. 6.11.9 275 Pausanias, Descr. 8.29.3 446 Pausanias, Descr. 8.29.4 440 Pindar, Pyth. 8.133

247

Plato, Apol. 28a–30b Plato, Crat. 400d–e Plato, Crat. 401a Plato, Crat. 402a Plato, Leg. 645b Plato, Leg. 715e–716a Plato, Phaedr. 245d Plato, Phileb.14a Plato, Resp. 602 Plato, Resp. 621b Plato, Symp. 208c Plato, Symp. 208d Plato, Symp. Plato, Theaet.164d Plato, Theaet. 201e Plato, Tim. 22b Plato, Tim. 30c Plato, Tim. 32c Plato, Tim. 38b–c Plato, Tim. 44c Plato, Tim. 48b

74 236 236 236 84 254 70 84 254 84 269 269 209d 84 83 435 279 83 76 279 83

Pliny the Elder, Nat. 7.16.73

440

Plutarch, Alex. 7.3 Plutarch, Alex. 8.2

270 270

Livius, Ab urb. cond. Prol. 122 Livius, Ab urb. cond. 1,1 124

Polybius, Hist. 1.3 Polybius, Hist. 4.28 Polybius, Hist. 9.1.1

121 121 123

Nonnus, Dion. 48.15–86

445

Pseud.–Arist., De mundo 401 84

Orph. frag. 31 Orph. frag. 378.35–36

84 84

Ovid, Ars. Ovid, Fast. 1:1–2 Ovid, Fast. 1:27–28

115 114 114

Sen., De brev. vit. 10.2–4 Sen., De brev. vit. 10,6 Sen., De brev. vit. 13.8 Sen., De brev. vit. 16.1 Sen., De otio Sen., Ep. 1

113 113 114 113 114 113

517

518  Index of Sources

Sen., Ep. 1.2 Sen., Ep. 1.3 Sen., Ep. 85.2 Sen., Ep. 101.5 Sen., Nat. 3.29–30

113 113 266 113 74

Soph., Aj. 125–126

247

Strabo, Geogr. 4.4–5 Strabo, Geogr. 11.11.1–2

434 433

SVF II, 304 SVF II, 331 SVF II, 503 SVF II, 613 SVF II, 627

256 77 77 77 77

Tacitus, Agr. 1,1 Tacitus, Ann. 6,22 Tacitus, Hist. 1,1 Tacitus, Hist. 1,1–11 Tacitus, Hist. 1,3 Tacitus, Hist. 1,4 Tacitus, Hist. 1,12

122 122 124 124 122 122–23 124

Thucydides, Hist. I.101

80

Vell. Paterc., Hist. rom. 1,1 121–22 Vell. Paterc., Hist. rom. 1,3–4 121–22 Xenophon, Mem. 1.1,9 Xenophon, Mem. 1.4,18

254 279

Zenon, Diog. laert. 9.26–28

74

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Atrahasis

455

Enuma Anu Enlil

438

Enuma Elish

442–43, 448, 454–55

Gilgamesh, I.56–57 Gilgamesh, I.133–134

440 440

Uruk List of Kings and Sages, W 20 030, 7 436 Kratkaja Chronografičeskaja Paleja (KP) KP 1. 1:2 KP 1. 1:3 KP 1. 1:31–38 KP 1. 1:52 KP 1. 2:12 KP 1. 3:1 KP 1. 3:2, 13 KP 1. 3:18–19 KP 1. 3:21–23 KP 1. 3:53 KP 1. 3:61 KP 1. 3:65 KP 1. 3:68 KP 2. 1:3–5 KP 2. 1:16 KP 2. 1:17 KP 2. 2:3 KP 2. 2:15 KP 2. 3:8–9 KP 2. 19:123 KP 2. 19:126 KP 2. 19:130 KP 2. 31:1 KP 2. 31:4 KP 5. 4.19 KP 6. 2:2–4:34 KP 6. 8:9–13 KP 6. 9:29 KP 6. 11:20–24 KP 7. 4:1–5:1 KP 7. 6:1–10 KP 8. 5 KP 8. 8:1–10:12 KP 9. 2:1–24 KP 9. 3:4–5 KP 9. 4:1–12 KP 10. 1:7–17 KP 10. 3:8–9

136 139 136 141 135 136 135 135 135 143 140 143 140 136 140 140–41 136 140 140 140 141 141 140 140 143 135 136 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 136 135

Index of Sources

KP 10. 5:59–60 KP 11. 10:7–14 KP 22. 5 KP 23–24 KP 25. 1:3–39 KP 25. 1:9–32 KP 27–28 KP 27. 4 KP 27. 8–11 KP 29. 16

135 135 145 145 136 136 145 136 136 136

Joseph und seine Brüder (JB) (Mann, Thomas. Joseph und seine Brüder. Edited by Jan Assmann et. al. Frankfurt: S. Fischer, 22018.) JB I, IX JB I, IX–LVIII JB I, LVIII JB I, 9 JB I, 21–33 JB I, 31–32 JB I, 31–33 JB I, 70 JB I, 71–72 JB I, 72–77 JB I, 72 JB I, 77 JB I, 78 JB I, 79 JB I, 174–247 JB I, 204 JB I, 248–99 JB I, 269–75 JB I, 330 JB I, 345–60 JB I, 346 JB I, 360 JB I, 371–82 JB I, 388–89 JB I, 396 JB I, 397

45 45 44, 51 46 45 45 45 46, 51 56 52 49, 57 52, 57, 63 56 56 45 50 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 45 56 56

JB I, 449–63 JB I, 459 JB I, 461 JB I, 477–78 JB I, 482 JB I, 539–44 JB I, 539 JB I, 544–52 JB I, 550 JB I, 553 JB I, 557–58 JB I, 574–83 JB I, 582 JB I, 586 JB I, 587–605 JB I, 597 JB I, 599 JB I, 603 JB I, 605 JB I, 606 JB I, 614 JB I, 614–56 JB II, 679 JB II, 680 JB II, 680–82 JB II, 688 JB II, 707 JB II, 1424–27 JB II, 1498–1500 JB II, 1514 JB II, 1515 JB II, 1522 JB II, 1528 JB II, 1762 JB II, 1772 JB II, 1772–74



46 45 46 45 46 46 46 46 44, 46 46, 61 46 46 61 46 46 46 61 46 61 46 45 46 62 62 61 62 46–47 55 62 47, 62 47 47 47 47 47 63

Others Aquin., Summa Ia–IIae, q. 7, a. 3 286 Vitae Prophetarum 1:1 135

519

Index of Modern Authors Abart, Christine 6, 20, 193 Adams, Sean A. 73, 88 Adler, William 443, 449 Aitzetmüller, Rudolf 138, 146 Albani,, Matthias 419, 424 Albeck, Hanoch 98–102, 108 Albrecht, Michael von 113, 115, 127 Albright, William F. 156 Allen, Nicholas P.L. 5, 20, 149, 150, 165 Alonso Schökel, Luis 285, 293, 371, 373, 376, 384 Andersen, Francis I. 188 Anderson, Gary A. 299, 308 Argall, Randall 173, 188, 416, 418–21, 424 Arnim, Hans von 88 Assmann, Jan 1, 3, 14, 43–44, 49, 53, 59–60, 64, 74, 111, 127 Attridge, Harold W. 437, 449 Auf der Maur, Hansjörg 200, 209 Avemarie, Friedrich 74, 88 Baer, Seligmann 106, 108 Baird, Jennifer 88 Balla, Ibolya 299, 308 Barbu, Daniel Oliver 28, 39 Barclay, John M.G. 176, 181, 186, 188 Bar-Efrat, Shimon 292–93 Barr, James 88, 298, 308, 387, 398, 456–57, 469 Bauckham, Richard 299, 308, 331, 334 Bauer, Dieter 412–13, 424 Bauer, Walter 239–40, 244, 247, 280 Bauernfeind, Otto 124, 128 Bauks, Mcihaela 331, 334 Baumeister, Peter 446, 449 Baumgartner, Walter 404, 426 Beagon, Mary 440, 449 Beaulieu, Paul-Alain 436–37, 443, 449 Beck, Hans 127 Becker, Eve-Marie 4, 111–12, 119–21, 123, 125, 127, 475, 483 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 3, 10, 13, 260, 280, 339, 367, 388, 393, 397–98 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-025

Bella, Robert 1 Ben-Dov, Jonathan 1, 12–14, 21, 39, 94–95, 108, 111, 127, 176, 179, 188, 417, 424, 455–457, 469–70, 483 Berlejung, Angelika 423, 425 Bernabé, Alberto 88 Berner, Christoph 116, 127, 462, 470 Bernhardt, Johannes Christian 465–66, 470 Bergren, Theodore A. 229, 233 Bergson, Henri 237 Betz, Hans Dieter 88 Beyerle, Stefan 1, 3–4, 12, 14, 20, 453, 455, 466, 470 Bickerman, Elias Joseph 123, 127, 212, 216, 230, 233 Blank, Debra Reed 104, 107–8 Bleicken, Jochen 112, 128 Blischke, Mareike Verena 270, 272, 281 Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice 152–53, 165, 334 Boor, Carolus de 144, 146 Borchardt, Francis 218, 233 Böttrich, Christfried 4, 131–32, 146, 484 Bousset, Wilhelm 478, 484 Box, George H. 370, 372–73, 384 Brandenburger, Egon 475, 484 Brayford, Susan A. 89 Breed, Brennan W. 459, 461, 464–65, 467 Bricault, Laurent 260, 281 Brin, Gershon 175, 188, 388, 399 Brine, Kevin R. 151, 165 Broshi, Magen 468, 470 Brum Teixeira, José Lucas 3, 7, 141, 285 Bundvad, Mette 387, 399 Bussino, Severino 9, 182, 188, 339, 370, 372–75, 382, 384, 396, 399 Calduch-Benages, Núria 9, 169–70, 177, 188, 339, 367, 369–70, 385, 388, 390–92, 394, 399, 416–18, 420–21, 425 Campbell, Joseph 154, 165 Caponigro, Mark Stephen 23, 39 Carter, Meg 152, 165 Charle, Christophe 423, 425

522  Index of Modern Authors

Charlesworth, James H. 474, 481 Ciletti, Elena 151 Clarke, Katherine 119, 122, 128 Clements, Ronald E. 302, 308 Clifford, Richard J. 463, 467, 470 Coarelli, Filippo 443, 449 Cogan, Mordechai 327, 334 Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome 441, 447, 449 Cohen, Shaye J.D. 6, 14, 21, 39, 93 Collingwood, Robin George 138, 146 Collins, John J. 7, 14, 22, 35, 39, 296, 308, 322, 407, 409, 420–21, 425, 435, 449, 459, 461–62, 464–67, 470, 474, 484 Conzelmann, Hans 387, 399 Coope, Ursula 89 Corfield, Penelope J. 299, 308 Corley, Jeremy 4–5, 20, 169, 177, 188, 397 Cornell, Tim J. 122, 128 Craven, Toni 165 Cregan-Reid, Vybarr 432, 449 Crenshaw, James L. 181, 188 Cullmann, Oscar 387, 399 Dahmen, Karsten 433, 449 Dalley, Stephanie 442–43, 449 Danby, Herbert 98–102, 108, 182, 188 Davies, Philip R. 431, 450 De Bruyn, Joseph J. 165 De Jong, Irene J.F. 120, 128 De Silva, David A. 152, 165 De Zan, Renato 370, 372–75, 378, 382, 385 Delling, Gerhard 387, 399 Demandt, Alexander 111, 128 DesCamp, Mary Therese 314, 334 Dietrich, Manfried 246, 281 Dietzfelbinger, Christian 312, 315, 327, 334 Diez Macho, Alejandro 200, 209 Di Lella, Alexander A. 174, 177, 370–72, 376, 380, 385, 390–92, 394, 399, 407–9, 413, 415, 420–21, 426 Dillery, John D. 432–36, 442–43, 450 Dimant, Devorah 285, 293, 461–63, 470 DiTommaso, Lorenzo 10–11, 14, 468, 470 Dodd, Rachel 446, 450 Dodson, Joseph R. 36, 39

Doering, Lutz 1, 94–95, 96, 108, 111, 170–71, 182, 188, 456, 470 Doran, Robert 212, 215–16, 231, 233 Dubarle, André M. 152, 165 Dubielzig, Uwe 242, 281 Dueck, Daniela 441, 450 Duesberg, Hilaire 370, 373, 385 Duggan, Michael 1, 6, 211, 224, 227, 229, 233, 398, 456 Duke, Dennis 438 Duzer, Chet van 442, 450 Eberharter, Andreas 390, 399 Eco, Umberto 154, 165 Edersheim, Alfred 399 Edwards, Catharine 114, 128 Egelhaaf-Gaiser, Ulrike 114, 128 Egger-Wenzel, Renate 10, 169, 189, 343, 403 Ego, Beate 220–21, 234 Eichhorn, Kate 430, 450 Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 1 Ehrlich, Uri 104, 106, 108 Elayi, Josette 454, 470 Elizur, Shulamit 388, 393, 399 Elbogen, Ismar 104–5, 108 Elliger, Karl 73, 89 Engel, Helmut 5, 78, 89, 196–98, 200–4, 209–10, 251, 254, 257, 259, 267, 270, 281, 305, 308 Erlemann, Kurt 112, 128 Eshel, Hanan 468, 470 Esler, Philip Francis 150, 157–58, 166 Eynikel, Erik 456, 471 Fahl, Dieter 4, 131, 136, 146 Fahl, Sabine 4, 131, 136, 146 Fang Che-Yong, Marcus 389–90, 399 Feeney, Denis 119, 121, 128 Feldman, Louis H. 170, 189, 312, 318, 324, 327–28, 330–31, 334 Ferch, Arthur 312, 319, 334 Ferrer, Joan 339, 370, 385 Fichtes, Johann Gottlieb 57 Finkelman, Eliezer 99, 108 Finkelstein, Louis 106, 108 Fischer, Norbert 111, 126

Index of Modern Authors 

Fischer, Thomas 234 Fishbane, Michael 331, 334 Fisk, Bruce Norman 332, 334 Fitzmaurice, Andrew 434, 450 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 286, 288–90, 293, 305, 308 Fletcher-Louis, Crispin 171, 183, 185, 189 Floyd, Michael H. 31–33, 39 Flusser, David 132, 146 Fransen, Irénée 370, 373, 385 Freeman, Philip 444, 450 Frey, Jörg 112 Fröhlich, Ida 89 Gafni, Isaiah M. 93, 97, 108 Gantz, Timothy 445, 450 Gassen, Kurt 281 García Martínez, Florentine 180, 182, 187, 189, 462, 468, 471 Gaster, Moses 132, 146 Geissen, Angelo 458–61, 471 Gemoll, Wilhelm 239–40, 244–45, 247, 249, 253, 256, 262–64, 269, 281 Georgi, Dieter 198–99, 210, 270, 281 Gera, Deborah Levine 22–25, 39, 151–53, 155, 163–64, 166 Gilbert, Maurice 174, 183, 189, 265–66, 281, 314, 334, 339, 366–70, 372–75, 382, 385, 399 Gleßmer, Uwe 71, 89 Goering, Greg Schmidt 180, 189, 257, 281 Goff, Matthew 1–2, 11, 14, 20, 429, 435, 437–38, 440–41, 450, 469 Goldberg, Sylvie Anne 21, 39, 111, 116, 128 Goldstein, Jonathan A. 32, 39, 212, 234 Goodenough, Erwin R. 74, 89 Goudoever, J. van 152 Grabbe, Lester L. 36, 39 Graham, Gordon 299, 304, 308 Greenblatt, Stephen 434, 450 Grethlein, Jonas 119, 128 Gressmann, Hugo 484 Gribetz, Sarit Kattan 13, 14, 19–21, 39, 453, 471 Gruen, Erich S. 22, 39 Grüninger, Ann-Christin 465, 471

523

Gryson, Roger 166 Gunkel, Hermann 12, 477, 484 Güthling, Otto 244, 247 Habemas, Jürgen 1 Hacham, Noah 28, 39 Hachlili, Rachel 74, 89 Hall, John R. 10, 14 Hamidović, David 21, 39 Hamp, Vinzenz 399 Hanhart, Robert 234, 286, 293 Harnisch, Wolfgang 475, 484 Harrington, Daniel J. 152, 166, 312–13, 320, 326–28, 334 Harris, J. Rendel 286, 293 Hartman, Louis F. 413, 425 Hasel, Gerhard F. 399 Haspecker, Josef 372–73, 385, 394, 397, 400 Haubold, Johannes 436, 450 Hauspie, Katrin 456, 471 Hayward, Robert 96, 108, 334 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 57 Heidegger, Martin 237 Heinemann, Joseph 326, 335 Hellholm, David 474, 484 Hemingway, Seán 443 Hengel, Martin 234 Henten, Jan Willem van 74, 89 Henze, Matthias 21, 39 Heschel, Abraham Joshua 456, 471 Hicks-Keeton, Jill 307–08 Hobyane, Risimati S. 154 Hogeterp, Albert L.A. 10, 14 Holladay, Carl R. 212, 234 Holt, Frank L. 433, 450 Holzberg, Niklas 114–15, 128 Honigman, Sylvie 28, 39, 156, 166, 466, 471 Horky, Philipp Sydney 89 Horowitz, Wayne 21 Horst, Pieter Willem van der 70, 450 Hübner, Hans 249, 256, 262, 267, 281 Hurvitz, Avi 457, 471 Husserl, Edmund 237 Hutter, Alex 44, 64

524  Index of Modern Authors

Instone-Brewer, David 98–101, 108 Inwagen, Peter van 51, 64 Jacobson, Howard 312–14, 318–20, 325–28, 331, 335 James, Montague R. 312, 328, 331, 335 Janowski, Bernd 69–70, 74, 89, 202, 205–6, 210, 454–56, 471 Jarvis, Lee 300, 304, 308 Jaspers, Karl 1, 14 Javor, Erwin 210 Jenni, Ernst 73, 238, 281, 464, 467, 471 Johnson, Marshall D. 288, 293 Johnson, Sarah Raup 150–51, 166 Johnston, Sarah Iles 75, 89, 430, 450 Jones, Alexander 89 Joosten, Jan 155, 166, 404, 425 Jordaan, Pierre 5, 20, 149, 154, 165–66 Jüngel, Eberhard 239, 281 Kabisch, Richard 475, 484 Kagan, Donald 128 Kant, Immanuel 237 Kaiser, Otto 371–73, 385, 387, 390, 400 Karrer, Martin 210, 242, 281 Kaspar, Rudolf F. 68, 89 Kästner, Volker 444, 450 Katjako-Reeb, Jens 387, 400 Kautzsch, Ernst 475–76, 484 Kaye, Lynn 13, 20–21, 453 Keel, Othmar 206, 210 Kehati, Pinhas 98–102, 108 Kepper, Martina 3–4, 7, 20, 67, 69, 89, 201, 210, 248, 281, 456 Klein, Wolfgang 285, 293 Klijn, Albertus F. 474, 484 Kloppenborg, Verbin Johan S. 267, 281 Knauf, Ernst Axel 89 Knibb, Michael 8, 14 Koch, Klaus 112, 458–59, 462, 464, 471 Koehler, Ludwig 404, 425 Kolarcik, Michael 7, 14, 36, 39 Kosmin, Paul J. 1, 3, 14, 73, 87, 89, 435–37, 439, 443–444,, 451, 453, 455, 460–61, 465, 467, 469, 471 Koselleck, Reinhart 300, 308

Kraus, Wolfgang 210, 242, 281 Kratz, Reinhard G. 458, 471 Krul, Julia 436, 451 Kugel, James L. 177, 189 Kvanvig, Helge S. 436, 451 Laato, Antti 89 Lähnemann, Henrike 151 Lambert, W.G. 443, 451 Lampe, Geoffrey William Hugo 132, 146 Lang, Martin 436, 443, 451 Lange, Armin 68, 89 Langer, Ruth 97, 103, 108 Lavan, Myles 433, 451 Lear, Jonathan 35 Le Goff, Jacques 119, 128 Leicht, Reimund 3, 14 Lenzi, Alan 436–37, 451 Leroy, Marc 387, 400 Leuenberger, Martin 282 Lewis, David 55, 64 Lewisohn, Ludwig 43 Lévi, Israel 392, 395–97 400 Liddell, Henry George 244, 247, 263, 282 Liebermann, Saul 315, 335 Liesen, Jan 339, 357, 368, 370, 385 Locke, John 4 Longenecker, Bruce 474, 484 Lopez Navas, Emilio 304, 309 Lowenthal, David 432, 447, 451 Macatangay, Francis M. 1, 8, 295, 299, 301– 2, 308 Mach, Ernst 3, 57, 64 Mack, Burton L. 203, 210 MacKenzie, Roderick A.F. 390, 400 Maier, Johann 115, 128 Mairs, Rachel 433, 451 Malina, Bruce 463 Mann, Thomas 3, 43–44, 50, 54, 60, 63–64 Marböck, Johannes 180–81, 189, 274, 282, 369, 372–73, 376, 382–83, 385, 407– 10, 425 Marcus, Ralph 89 Marincola, John 23–25, 27, 39 Marttila, Marko 181, 183, 189

Index of Modern Authors 

Mason, Steve 22, 39 Massa-Pairault, Francoise-Héléne 444, 451 Mathys, Hans-Peter 89 Maul, Stefan M. 454, 471 Mayor, Adrienne 440, 451 Mazzinghi, Luca 246, 252, 254, 258–67, 271–72, 274, 276–78, 280, 282 McCants, William F. 435, 451 McKay, Heather 170, 189 Melanchthon, Philipp 141 Menargues Rajadell, Ángel 454–55, 471 Menge, Hermann 244, 247 Merkel, Helmut 475, 484 Mermelstein, Ari 171, 175–76, 183–84, 189, 296, 308 Merwe, Jan van der 70 Michel, Otto 124, 128 Middendorp, Theophil 407, 425 Milik, Jósef T. 287, 294, 430, 451, 462, 471 Minissale, Antonino 373, 376, 385 Misztal, Barbara 432, 451 Mittag, Peter Franz 282, 408, 425 Mizrahi, Noam 414, 425 Mohn, Jürgen 112, 128 Momigliano, Arnaldo 4, 14, 96–97, 108, 119– 20, 128, 479, 484 Moor, Johannes C. de 89 Moore, Carey A. 152, 166, 286, 294, 305, 308 Moore, Mary B. 444, 451 Mopsik, Charles 172, 174, 189 Morla, Víctor 172–73, 189, 343, 353, 356, 368, 371, 373, 375, 377, 379, 385 Mroczek, Eva 451 Muilenburg, James 387, 400 Mund-Dopchie, Monique 434, 451 Munnich, Olivier 458–59, 464 Muraoka, Takamitsu 80, 89 Murphy, Frederick James 313, 319–21, 325– 26, 328–30, 333–35 Müller, Hans-Peter 69, 89 Najman, Hindy 29–30, 33–35, 39, 307, 309 Neher, Martin 201, 210 Nelis, Jan 237, 238, 282

525

Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther 196–97, 199–201, 210, 242–44, 247, 250, 260, 263–67, 271–74, 278, 282 Neusner, Jacob 96, 108, 127–28 Newman, Judith H. 22, 25, 35, 39 Newsom, Carol A. 21–22, 39, 115, 128, 459, 461, 464–65, 467, 471 Nickelsburg, George W.E. 75, 90, 176, 189, 313, 331–32, 335, 433, 451 Nicklas, Tobias 456, 472 Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm 78, 83, 90, 263, 268, 282 Nilsson, Martin P. 74, 9 Novickij, P.P. 128 Nowell, Irene 285, 294, 296, 309 Oden, Robert A. 437 Oegama, Gerbern S. 171, 189 Osterley, William O.E. 370, 372–73, 392, 396, 400 Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich 475, 477, 484 Ophir, Adir 21–22, 39 Oswald, Wolfgang 69 Otzen, Benedikt 301, 309 Palmisano, Maria Carmela 371–73, 385, 407, 409, 425 Papini, Massimiliano 444, 451 Parfit, Derek 3, 43–44, 57–59, 65 Parker, Victor 234 Parry, Donald W. 71, 90 Payne, Richard E. 433 Penar, Tadeusz 389, 394, 400 Perrin, Andrew B. 285–86, 294 Perrot, Charles 315, 319–21, 326–28, 331, 335 Peters, Norbert 189, 373, 376, 383, 385, 390, 392, 396–97, 400 Picón, Carlos A. 443, 451 Pietersma, Albert 22, 39, 242, 282 Piwowar, Andrzej 414–16, 425 Pogodin, Michail Petrovi 139 Poliakoff, Michael B. 275 Popović, Mladen 3, 14, 75, 90 Portier-Young, Anathea 451, 460, 472 Porzig, Peter 68, 71, 91

526  Index of Modern Authors

Potterie, Ignace de la 351, 368 Prato, Gian Luigi 174, 176, 189, 339, 368, 416, 425 Priotto, Michelangelo 370, 372–75, 382 Queyrel, Francois 444, 451 Quine, Willard V.O. 44, 56, 65 Rad, Gerhard von 339, 368–69, 380, 384– 85, 456 Rahner, Hugo 282 Rand, Michael 388 Reed, Annette Yoshiko 430, 433, 438, 452 Reif, Stefan C. 4, 13, 93, 96, 98, 101, 103, 106, 108–9, 333, 456 Reiterer, Friedrich V. 4, 7, 20, 170, 189, 235, 243, 254, 270, 275–76, 282–83, 382, 385, 408, 410, 414–16, 425–26 Rey, Jean-Sébastien 388, 393, 400 Ricoeur, Paul 8, 298–99, 309 Rickenbacher, Otto 395 400 Riede, Peter 423, 426 Riedweg, Christoph 75, 90 Rimell, Victoria 114, 128 Rissi, Mathias 238, 283 Ritter-Müller, Petra 369, 373, 377–78, 382– 83, 385 Roark, Kyle 431, 452 Romanova, Anstasija Anatol’evna 143, 147 Romm, James 433, 442, 452 Rosenbach, Manfred 113, 129 Rosen-Zvi, Ishay 21–22, 39 Rösel, Martin 70, 458–59, 464 Rosini, Amanda 287, 294 Rossetti, Marco 392, 400 Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. 226, 234 Rudi, Tat’jana R. 133 Rüger, Hans Peter 392, 397, 400 Ruffatto, Kristine 314–15, 335 Rüpke, Jörg 75–76, 90 Sacks, Jonathan 105–6, 109 Sanders, Seth L. 436–37, 452 Santos Otero, Aurelio de 132, 147 Sarason, Richard S. 97, 103, 108 Saur, Markus 123, 129

Sauer, Georg 172, 190, 371, 373, 376, 379– 80, 385, 390, 392, 396, 400 Scarpat, Giuseppe 274, 283 Schaper, Joachim 70 Scheer, Tanja 243, 283 Schmidt, Alfred 68, 89 Schmidt, A. Jordan 182, 190, 379, 384–85, 416, 420, 426 Schmitt, Armin 196, 202, 206, 210, 283 Schmitt, Hans-Christoph 112, 129 Schmitt, Hatto H. 242–43, 254–55, 283 Schmitz, Barbara 5, 14, 22–24, 39, 155, 166 Schneider, Horst 139, 147 Schnelle, Udo 475, 484 Schofield, Malcolm 70, 90, 114, 129 Schöpflin, Karin 275–76, 283 Schorch, Stefan 387 Schrader, Lutz 390–91, 395, 400–1 Schreiner, Josef 181, 190, 370–71, 373, 376, 380–381, 383, 385, 474–75, 480, 484 Schuller, Wolfgang 283 Schüngel-Straumann, Helen 304, 309 Schwartz, Daniel R. 96, 109, 212–13, 223, 225, 230, 234 Schwarz, Sibylle 253 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger 69 Scott, Robert 244, 247, 263, 282 Seebass, Horst 388, 390, 401 Segal, Moshe Z. 173–74, 183, 190, 385, 418, 426 Sheppard, Gerald T. 183, 190 Shmidman, Avi 106, 109 Siegert, Folker 68, 90 Simkovich, Malka Zeiger 226, 234 Simon, Marcel 81, 90 Simonov, Rėm Aleksandrovič 142, 147 Skehan, Patrick W. 174, 177, 190, 370–72, 376, 380, 385, 390–91, 401, 407–9, 415, 420–21, 426 Slavova, Tatjana 132, 147 Smend, Rudolf 174, 178, 186, 190, 370–71, 373, 376–77, 379, 381, 383, 385, 390, 392, 396–97, 401 Snaith, John G. 390 401 Sparks, Kenton L. 166 Speyer, Wolfgang 75, 90

Index of Modern Authors 

Spieckermann, Hermann 195, 210 Spiro, Abram 335 Steinsaltz, Adin 173, 190 Sqilloni, Antonella 283 Staszak, Martin 387 Stavrianopoulou, Eftychia 433, 452 Steele, John M. 21 Steiner, Richard C. 155, 166 Stemberger, Günther 90 Stern, Sacha 1, 14, 39, 94–95, 107, 109, 298, 304, 309, 322–24, 335, 456, 472 Steudel, Annette 10, 14 Stewart, Andrew 433, 452 Stone, Michael 12, 474–76, 478–79, 484 Stokes, Adam 390, 401 Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel 96, 109 Strobach, Niko 3, 43 Talmon, Shemaryahu 404, 407, 417, 426 Tarski, Alfred 55, 65 Ta-Shma, Israel M. 102, 109 Thapar, Romila 433, 452 Theunissen, Michael 111–12, 127, 129, 472 Thiele, Edward R. 156, 166 Thiele, Walter 370, 386 Thimme, Diether 452 Thom, Johan C. 84, 90 Thon, Johannes 387 Thomas, James David 286, 294 Tigay, Jeffrey H. 331, 335 Tigchelaar, Eibert 180, 182, 187, 462, 468 Tilly, Michael 208, 210, 461, 472 Totomanova, Anna-Marija 144, 147 Tov, Emanuel 71 Tuffin, Paul 443 Tzoref, Shani 21, 39, 116, 129 Uehlinger, Christoph 210 Ulrich, Eugene 68, 90 Urbach, Ephraim E. 109 VanderBergh, Ronald 285, 294 VanderHorst, Pieter 437 VanderKam, James C. 69, 90, 176, 234, 323, 335, 439, 452 VanderKooij, Arie 398, 400

527

VanPeursen, Wido 396, 401 Varady, Aharon N. 164, 166 Venter, Pieter M. 461, 463, 472 Verbrugghe, Gerald P. 436, 443, 452, 472 Vermes, Géza 311, 331, 335 Vian, Francis 444–46, 452 Vilchez Líndez, José 286, 294 Vodolazkin, Evgenij G. 133, 137, 143–44, 147 Voegelin, Eric 1 Volz, Paul 474, 484 Vonach, Andreas 457, 472 Wacholder, Ben Zion 212, 234 Wadsworth, Michael 318, 335 Wagner, Christian 379, 386 Wagner, Max 404, 426 Walter, Uwe 127 Wassén, Cecilia 71, 90 Watrous, Livingston Vance 445, 452 Weber, Robert 166, 484 Weingarten, Susan 164 Weiss, Zeev 90 Weisweiler, John 433 Weitzman, Steven 150, 166 Wénin, André 171, 177, 180–81, 190 Werline, Rodney 32–33, 39 Westermann, Hartmut 112, 129 Wheaton, Gerry 230, 234 Whitaker, Richard 444, 452 Whitmarsh, Tim 433, 452 Wickersham, John M. 436, 443 Wicke-Reuter, Ursel 174, 178, 190, 369, 381, 383–84, 386 Wieder, Naphtali 404, 426 Wilch, John R. 339, 368–69, 386–88, 401 Wilcox, Donald J. 119, 121, 129 Williams, Michael Stuart 122, 129 Wills, Lawrence M. 166 Wilson, Emily 114, 129 Wilson, Robert R. 288, 294 Winston, David 37, 39, 245–46, 250, 262, 28 Wintermute, Orval S. 175–76, 180, 190 Winwood, Steve 21 Wischmeyer, Oda 12, 117, 127, 129, 175, 190, 473 Wiseman, Donald J. 156, 166

528  Index of Modern Authors

Wisemen, T. Peter 122, 129 Witte, Markus 68, 90, 252, 283 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 48, 65 Wolter, Michael 117, 129 Wright, Benjamin G. 1–2, 7, 19, 22, 27–30, 39, 177, 190, 242, 282, 307, 373, 378, 386, 457 Xeravits, Géza G. VII–IX, 68, 71, 91, 151, 167, 283, 322–23, 335 Yarbro Collins, Adela 179, 190, 335 Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim 96, 109

Zangenberg, Jürgen K. 283 Zapella, Marco 297, 309, 371, 377, 386 Zapff, Burkhard M. 174, 190 Ziefle, Helmut W. 253, 283 Ziegler, Joseph 283, 339, 368, 370–71, 373, 386, 388, 458–59, 464, 472 Ziemer, Benjamin 387 Zimmermann, Frank 297, 309 Zsengellér, József IX, 3, 8, 283, 311, 315, 335 Zurawski, Jason M. 36, 39 Zwickel, Wolfgang 287, 294

Index of Subjects Abraham 78, 227, 231, 233, 288, 306, 320, 326–27, 332, 437 Achior 24–26 Adam 72, 80, 87, 288, 311–13, 318, 329, 438 Alcimus 216 Alexander the Great see Hellenistic Kings/ Rulers Alexandria 28, 30, 213 ’Amidah prayer 98, 101, 104, 107 Antiquarianism 436–39 Aristeas 27 Aristobulus 212 Asmodeus 305–6 see also Demons Assyrians 25, 288, 290, 293, 296, 297, 303– 6 Apocalypse/Apocalyptic 7, 20, 123–24, 127, 314, 319, 325, 423, 432, 458, 461, 463, 466, 475, 481 – Genre 321–22, 455 Aristotle 77 Astrology 72, 84, 416–19 Astronomy 11, 429, 435, 437, 446–47 The “Axial Age” 1, 13 Babylon 71, 434, 437, 443, 454, 458 Baruch 31, 33 Berossus 429, 431, 436, 442–44, 447–48 Benedict Arnold 432 Calendars 93–95, 103, 107, 157, 159–61, 163, 175, 322–23, 331, 403, 417–19, 424 – Liturgical 96, 232 – Lunar 71 – Solar 71–72, 173, 177 see also Calendrical; Dating Systems; Liturgy Calendrical – Literature 71 – Systems 457 see also Calendars Canaan 24, 441

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110705454-026

Cannibalism 431, 439, 441 see also Giants Chislev 211, 223, 227, 229, 230, 232 Chronology 3, 7, 8, 13, 123, 152, 235, 285, 287, 303, 311, 317, 322, 323, 326, 328– 29, 331, 333 see also Time, chronological Creation 8, 12–13, 37, 67, 69, 71, 80, 95, 105, 131, 137–40, 169–72, 177–81, 183–88, 209, 235, 306, 311–15, 317–18, 322, 333, 357, 359, 362, 364–65, 405–7, 410–11, 420–21, 441, 477–79 Crisis 11–12, 127, 207, 208, 412–14, 433, 440, 448, 463–68, 475, 478 Ctesias 23 Cyrus 73, 295 David 296, 318, 332 Dating systems 111, 121–22, 177, 236, 254– 55, 259, 453–57, 478 see also Calendars; Chronology; Time, chronological Dead Sea Scrolls 9, 20, 115–16, 455, 462 Death 81, 114, 197, 204, 221, 245–46, 250– 54, 267, 271–73, 320–21, 358, 364, 381, 414–16, 422 see also (Im)mortality Deluge see Flood Demetrius of Phalerum 27 Demons 300, 305, 447 Diaspora 5, 7, 88, 95, 176, 211–14, 223, 227– 31, 233, 287, 289–90, 295, 301–3, 305 Dinah 25 Egypt 24, 211–12, 227, 230–32, 326–27, 429, 434, 437–38, 465–68 Endogamy 29 Enoch 72, 252–53, 288, 315, 329, 331, 437– 39, 446–47 Eons/Aeons 8, 312, 319–20, 322, 333, 482 see also Eternity

530  Index of Subjects

Eternity 7, 36, 73, 178, 179, 181, 235, 320, 347, 363, 365–67, 387, 459–60, 462– 63 see also Eon; Time Eschatology 2–4, 8, 10, 75, 86, 88, 106, 221, 227, 230–32, 235, 253, 261, 271–79, 301, 307, 311, 318–22, 325, 333, 403, 409, 411, 416, 423–24, 455, 460, 468– 69, 473–74, 476 Eupolemus 212, 218 Exile 31–33, 73, 290, 293, 295, 297, 300, 301, 303–4, 306–7, 324, 461 – Trauma of 34, 301 Exegesis 72, 78, 80, 439, 461 Fallen Angels 429, 439 Festivals 1, 5–6, 13, 71, 94–95, 107, 149, 156–57, 170, 172–74, 176–77, 223, 226– 30, 232, 330–31, 363, 456 Flood 71, 140–41, 319–20, 325–26, 330, 431, 438 Friendship 347, 349, 356, 358–60, 364, 366–67 Genealogy 3, 7, 80, 285, 287–89, 292, 306, 311, 328–29, 435 Gentiles 28, 30–31, 225, 303 Geography 291, 434, 442, 448 Giants 11, 431, 439–41, 444–48 see also Cannibalism Gilgamesh 437, 440 Gospels 111, 116–18, 125–26 Hanukkah 149, 151–53, 163–65 Hasmonean Dynasty 213, 218, 224, 466 see also Restoration Hecateaus of Miletus 435 Heliodorus 216 Hellenism/Hellenistic Period 22, 74, 84, 213, 215, 220, 247–48, 254–55, 260, 266, 268–71, 275–76, 279, 323, 408–10, 412–14, 429, 433–38, 440–41, 443, 446–49 – Culture 31, 78–80, 232, 431–32, 446

Hellenistic Kings/Rulers 432 – Alexander the Great 433–34, 448, 464 – Antiochus III the Great 409–10 – Antiochus IV Epiphanes 12, 124, 156, 170, 182, 187, 212, 214–18, 220–21, 224, 231, 328, 412–13, 453–54, 460–61, 463–68 – Antiochus V Eupator 214–15, 218 – Demetrius I Soter 214 – Nicanor 212, 215–16, 223, 231 – Ptolemy I 29, 433 – Ptolemy II Philadelphus 27, 29 – Ptolemy VI Philopater 212, 466 – Seleucus IV Philopater 212, 214 see also Seleucid Empire Henoch see Enoch Herodotus 23, 435 Historiography/Chronography 14, 23, 27, 118–27, 131–46, 329, 448, 477–80, 482 see also Chronology; Time History 28, 72, 80, 85, 96, 213–14, 232, 293, 295–97, 299, 303, 307, 440–41, 462, 464–65, 467, 469 – Jewish 219, 288, 299, 305, 329 – “King of” 304 Identity 1–5, 13–14, 21–22, 43, 48–50, 53– 60, 176, 181, 232, 431, 433, 457 – Construction of 19–20, 28, 30, 288 – Group 71 – Jewish 19, 31, 38–39, 169–70, 187, 211, 213, 215, 227–28, 417 – and relationships 50–51 Idolatry 70–71, 78, 242–44, 262–64 (Im)mortality 36–38, 75, 83, 235, 244–48, 265–67, 269–73, 277–79 see also Eternity Illness 94, 347, 349, 359, 361, 364, 366–67, 375–77 Isaac 79, 227, 231–33, 306, 320, 327, 332 Jacob 79, 227, 231, 233, 287, 292, 306, 326– 27, 438 Jason (High Priest) 215–17, 220, 225, 465 Jason of Cyrene 212–14, 217–19 Jephthah 324

Index of Subjects

Jeremiah 31, 230, 231 Joseph/Osarsiph/Usarsiph 3, 46–47, 60–63 Joseph Story 45–47 Judaism – Alexandrian 25, 30 – Early 20, 317, 321, 331 – Law 27, 218, 220, 224 – Medieval 455 – Rabbinic 20, 332, 438 see also Hellenistic Period; Second Temple Period; Torah Judas Maccabeus 211, 214–17, 219, 221, 223, 225–26, 228, 230–33 Judgment 8, 32, 38, 178–79, 181–82, 319– 20, 322, 333, 348, 375–77, 380, 384, 453, 468, 473, 482 Kenaz 312, 317, 319, 330, 332 Lexicography 239–40, 404–5, 457 Light 69, 71, 98, 99, 101, 105, 172–73, 193, 196, 199–206, 258–59, 315, 318–19, 321 Liturgy 94, 96–97, 106–7 see also Calendars, liturgical Marriage 305–7 Martyrdom 74, 216, 221, 230 see also Martyrs Martyrs 75, 215, 220, 225–26, 232 see also Martyrdom Memory 59, 111, 120, 126, 232, 266, 432, 453 Menelaus 215–16, 220–21, 225, 231 Mesopotamia 438–39, 442, 453–55 Midrash 43–45, 331, 430 Moses 29–30, 315, 317, 319–21, 328, 330, 332 – Authority of 29–31 Discourses on 29 Myth 3, 114–16, 118, 204, 420, 429, 440–41, 444, 455, 467 see also Time, mythic Naphtali 288, 290–91, 296 Nebuchadnezzar 458 Nehemiah 227–28



531

Night and day 193–94, 209 Nineveh 297, 301 Noah 77, 306, 319, 326, 329, 332 Oannes 436, 442–43 Onias III 212, 214, 216, 222, 228, 232 Ontology 3, 43–44, 48–50, 53–60 Paideia 87, 217 Passover/Pesaḥ 6, 103, 157, 160, 163, 174, 176–77, 194–95, 199–202 Paul 111, 116–18, 195, 274 Pergamon altar 443–44 Poverty 359, 361, 366–67, 372, 381 Presence, (thick) 12–13, 455, 457–63, 483 Prophecy 301, 327 – Ex Eventu 302 Prophetic Literature 70 Protology 3–4, 8 see also Time, protological Qumran 20, 71, 75, 430, 462 Raguel 288–89, 305 Restoration 297, 302–3, 331 – Temple Cult 32–33, 218, 230, see also Temple Resurrection 74–75, 319, 423 Rhetoric, – Epideictic 35 – Protreptic 35 The Rolling Stones 19, 39 Sabbath 5–6, 95, 101, 107, 162, 169–88, 214, 226, 417, 456 Sacrifice 223, 228, 305, 320, 458 Seleucid Empire 73, 87, 170, 211–12, 214, 216–17, 219, 221–23, 466, 469 see also Hellenistic Kings/Rulers Shavuot 158–59, 161 Shema’ prayer 98–101, 105, 107 Simon Maccabeus 212 Simeon 25 Slavery 29, 170, 326, 327 Solomon 78, 80–83, 228, 229

532  Index of Subjects

Space/spatiality 8, 82, 85, 123, 126, 237, 248–49, 280, 405–6, 420, 422–23, 457 – Conceptions of 73, 81, 324, 453, 467 Stoics 113–14, 252, 256–57 Sukkot 6, 102–3, 163, 226–27, 229, 232 Sun(-god) 205–6, 417 Temple 5–6, 12, 29, 31–34, 71, 79, 94, 98, 149–50, 153, 156–61, 164–65, 182, 185, 188, 211, 213–33, 295, 297, 301–3, 305, 328, 330–31, 334, 468 – Desecration of 220, 224, 461, 465 see also Restoration Temporality 2, 13, 20–22, 39, 111, 298 – Approaches to 35, – Concepts of 19, 73, 230, 300, 303–4, 324, 333, 469 Temporal Language 25–26, 76, 81–82, 84, 104, 213, 220–21, 225–26, 291, 295, 298–300, 308, 311, 314–15, 317, 323, 325, 332, 431, 433, 442, 448, 453–57, 460–63 The “Temporal Turn” 13, 20 Tiamat 442, 447 Time 3, 8, 20, 72, 77, 83, 93, 213, 316, 320, 322–25, 332, 370, 375, 380–81, 383– 84, 454, 457, 461, 463 – Apocalyptic 10–11 – Chronological 213–14, 287, 290, 292, 319, 325, 327, 467 – Concepts of 1, 4, 6, 9, 13, 19, 70, 76–77, 79, 86, 222, 291, 293, 297, 301, 303, 319, 321, 339–40, 345, 349–50, 356, 359, 364, 366, 369, 387–88, 431–32, 436, 441, 442, 446–49, 453, 459–60, 462, 466–68 – Construction of 39, 231–32, 286–87, 289, 295–96, 328, 432, 439 – Cyclical 12, 74, 304, 307, 330, 455

– – – – – –

Definitions of 236–39 Durative 19, 39, 455 Exilic 2, 19, 32 Fragmentation of 317 Historiographical 2, 19, 22 Linear 12, 74, 77, 81, 85, 292–93, 304, 307, 322, 453, 455, 469 – Manipulation of 19, 39, 321 – Master of 69–70, 78 – Measures of 325 – Mythic 2, 28, 31, 79–80, 83 – Narrated 291 – Protological 318, 322, 333–34 – Ruptures of 33, 296, 299–300 – Thanatological 2, 19, 35 – Translational 2, 19, 28, 31 see also Chronology; Eschatology; Eternity; Protology; The “Temporal Turn;” Temporality Tish’a B’Av 149, 157, 160–63, 165 Torah 6, 29, 69, 71–72, 97, 106, 175, 183, 185–87, 196, 226, 332 – Ancestral Laws 75, 86, 222, 225, 232, 330 – Holiness Code 226 – Obedience to 34–35, 39, 74, 211, 213, 215– 17, 220–22, 224–25, 227, 231–32, 303, 403, 416, 423 – Pentateuch 28, 30 see also Judaism, law Visions 12–13, 216, 314, 316–17, 332, 397, 411–14, 453–69, 473, 476–80 Wealth 361, 366, 372, 381 Zeus 29, 84–85, 254, 413, 445 Zodiac 3, 72, 74–75 Zombies 38 Zoroastrianism 75