Raised from the Dead According to Scripture ; The Role of Israel’s Scripture in the Early Christian Interpretations of Jesus’ Resurrection 0567413705, 9780567413703

The New Testament writings allow only limited access to the interpretative traditions that lie beneath the claim that Je

614 49 4MB

English Pages 292 Year 2014

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture ; The Role of Israel’s Scripture in the Early Christian Interpretations of Jesus’ Resurrection
 0567413705, 9780567413703

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Preface: Resurrection Beliefs in Antiquity and ‘Shared Judaism’ • James H. Charlesworth
Introduction
1 Scriptural Interpretation in Early Jewish Literature and the New Testament
2 Resurrection Hope in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Jewish Literature
3 Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles
4 Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels
5 Resurrection and Scripture in Acts
Summary of Conclusions
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Authors

Citation preview

Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and related studies series

Executive Editor James H. Charlesworth Editorial Board of Advisors Motti Aviam, Michael Davis, Casey Elledge, Loren Johns, Amy-Jill Levine, Lee McDonald, Lidija Novakovic, Gerbern Oegema, Henry Rietz, Brent Strawn

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

The Role of Israel’s Scripture in the Early Christian Interpretations of Jesus’ Resurrection

Lidija Novakovic

LON DON • N E W DE L H I • N E W YOR K • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com Bloomsbury is a registered trade mark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2012 Paperback edition first published 2014 © Lidija Novakovic, 2012 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Lidija Novakovic has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. Visit www.bloomsbury.com to find out more about our authors and their books You will find extracts, author interviews, author events and you can sign up for newsletters to be the first to hear about our latest releases and special offers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this books is available from the British Library. eISBN: 978-0-5674-8085-9 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record of this book is available from the Library of Congress

Contents Acknowledgements

vii

Abbreviations

ix

Preface Introduction Chapter 1: Scriptural Interpretation in Early Jewish Literature and the New Testament 1. Distinction between Scripture and Scriptural Interpretation 2. Scriptural Interpretation in Early Jewish Literature 3. Interpretation of Israel’s Scripture in the New Testament 4. Conclusion

xix 1 7 7 13 53 66

Chapter 2: Resurrection Hope in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Jewish Literature 1. The Concept of Resurrection 2. Resurrection Hope in the Hebrew Scriptures 3. Resurrection Hope in Early Jewish Literature 4. Conclusion

68 68 71 82 112

Chapter 3: Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles 1. Introduction 2. The Third-Day Motif 3. The Enthroned Davidic Messiah 4. The Cosmic Lord 5. The First Fruits 6. The Last Adam 7. Conclusion

114 114 116 133 147 150 161 169

Chapter 4: Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels 1. Introduction 2. The Sign of Jonah 3. The Temple Built in Three Days 4. Conclusion

172 172 175 184 196

vi

Contents

Chapter 5: Resurrection and Scripture in Acts 1. Introduction 2. Lord and Messiah 3. The Fulfilled Promises to David 4. Conclusion Summary of Conclusions

197 197 198 208 214

Bibliography

221

Index of References

253

Index of Authors

265

216

Acknowledgements I wish to express my gratitude to the Sabbatical Committee of the College of Arts and Sciences at Baylor University for awarding me a summer sabbatical and a fall research leave in 2011, which allowed me to complete this project. I am also grateful to my colleagues in the Department of Religion, especially my departmental chair, Bill Bellinger, and my colleagues in New Testament, Charles Talbert, Mikeal Parsons, and Bruce Longenecker, for their friendship and continuous support. I am particularly indebted to the group of gifted doctoral students who participated in the 2010–11 Colloquium on Jewish hermeneutics in the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods. These include David Beary, Tim Brookins, Brian Gamel, Heather Gorman, Justin King, Peter Rice, Josh Stout, Lindsey Trozzo, Mike Whitenton, and Nick Zola. Their insightful papers and stimulating discussions contributed to my understanding of scriptural interpretation in early Jewish literature. I would also like to thank my former teacher and mentor, James Charlesworth, for writing the preface for this book. Special thanks are due to my graduate assistant, David Beary, for his painstaking editorial work and sincere engagement with the contents of the manuscript. I owe my deepest gratitude to my husband, Ivo, whose love and encouragement enabled me to finish this project.

­

Abbreviations General bce

Before the Common Era Common Era LXX Septuagint MT Masoretic Text NT New Testament OT Old Testament

ce

Modern Publications AB Anchor Bible ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AnBib Analecta biblica ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries ANYAS Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences ArBib The Aramaic Bible ASNU Acta seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis ASORSS American Schools of Oriental Research Special Volume Series AThANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments AYB Anchor Yale Bible BA Biblical Archaeologist BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Bib Biblica BibInt Biblical Interpretation BibLeb Bibel und Leben

x BibOr BIOSCS

Abbreviations

Biblica et orientalia Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BIS Biblical Interpretation Series BJS Brown Judaic Studies BLS The Bible & Liberation Series BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries BRS Biblical Resource Series BS Bellarmine Series BSac Bibliotheca sacra BThS Biblisch-theologische Studien BTL Benjamins Translation Library BW The Biblical World BZ Biblische Zeitschrift CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CCWJCW Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World ConBNT Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series CQS Companion to the Qumran Scrolls CRHPR Cahiers de la Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DLADRWC Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the Worldto-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Part 4 of Judaism in Late Antiquity. Edited by Alan J. AveryPeck and Jacob Neusner. HO I/49. Leiden: Brill, 2000 DSD Dead Sea Discoveries DSSHAGET The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. EDSS Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000 EKK Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament EncMidr Encyclopedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005 ErIsr Eretz-Israel EtB Études bibliques EvT Evangelische Theologie

Abbreviations

xi

ExpTim Expository Times FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FBBS Facet Books, Biblical Series FF Foundations and Facets FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments FSC Faith and Scholarship Colloquies GAP Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha GNC Good News Commentaries GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion Hermeneia Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament HO Handbuch der Orientalistik HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HTS Harvard Theological Studies HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual HUT Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie HvTSt Hervormde teologiese studies IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching ICC International Critical Commentary Int Interpretation IVPNTCS The IVP New Testament Commentary Series JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JCT Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JPSLJC The Jewish Publication Society Library of Jewish Classics JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSHJ Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series

xii JSPSup

Raised from theAbbreviations Dead According to Scripture

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTI Journal of Theological Interpretation JTS Journal of Theological Studies KLJS The Kogod Library of Judaic Studies LCBI Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation LCL Loeb Classical Library LHB/OTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies (formerly JSOTSup) LNTS Library of New Testament Studies LSTS Library of Second Temple Studies MidrRab Midrash Rabbah. Edited by H. Freedman and Maurice Simon. 3rd ed. 10 vols. New York: The Soncino Press, 1983 NCB New Century Bible NCCS New Covenant Commentary Series NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements NTL New Testament Library NTS New Testament Studies OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OTL Old Testament Library OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–5 OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën PBM Paternoster Biblical Monographs Paideia Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament PhA Philosophia Antiqua PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies PThMS Princeton Theological Monograph Series PTSDSSP Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project QD Quaestiones disputatae RechSR Recherches de Science Religieuse RevQ Revue de Qumran RNT Resurrection in the New Testament. Edited by Reimund Bieringer, Veronica Koperski, and Bianca Lataire. BETL 165. Leuven: Peeters, 2002 RTR Reformed Theological Review SAC Studies in Antiquity and Christianity SANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments

Abbreviations

xiii

SB Sources Bibliques SBEC Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLSBL Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Literature SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SDSSRL Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature SFSHJ South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary SJ Studia judaica SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SJSHRZ Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistischrömischer Zeit SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SP Sacra pagina SPhilo Studia philonica ST Studia theologica STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah StPB Studia post-biblica SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica TBei Theologische Beiträge TBT The Bible Today TC Theological Collections TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–76 TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum TSJTSA Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America TSR Texts and Studies in Religion

xiv

Abbreviations

TW Theologie und Wirklichkeit TynBul Tyndale Bulletin VCS Variorum Collected Studies VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary WD Wort und Dienst WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament YJS Yale Judaica Series ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Hebrew Bible Gen Genesis Exod Exodus Lev Leviticus Num Numbers Deut Deuteronomy Josh Joshua Judg Judges 1–2 Sam 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kgs 1–2 Kings 1–2 Chr 1–2 Chronicles Ezra Ezra Neh Nehemiah Esth Esther Job Job Ps/Pss Psalms Prov Proverbs Eccl Ecclesiastes Isa Isaiah Jer Jeremiah Ezek Ezekiel Dan Daniel Hos Hosea Joel Joel Amos Amos Jonah Jonah Nah Nahum

Abbreviations Hab Habakkuk Zech Zechariah

New Testament Matt Matthew Mark Mark Luke Luke John John Acts Acts Rom Romans 1–2 Cor 1–2 Corinthians Gal Galatians Eph Ephesians Phil Philippians Col Colossians 1–2 Thess 1–2 Thessalonians 1–2 Tim 1–2 Timothy Heb Hebrews 1–2 Pet 1–2 Peter Jude Jude Rev Revelation

Apocrypha 1 Macc 1 Maccabees 2 Macc 2 Maccabees Sir Sirach/Ecclesiasticus

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1 En. 1 Enoch 4 Ezra 4 Ezra 2 Bar. 2 Baruch L.A.B. Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 3 Macc 3 Maccabees Jub. Jubilees Liv. Pro. Lives of the Prophets Ps.-Phoc. Pseudo-Phocylides Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles T. Benj. Testament of Benjamin

­xv

Abbreviations

xvi T. Gad T. Job T. Jud. T. Levi T. Sim. T. Zeb.

Testament of Gad Testament of Job Testament of Judah Testament of Levi Testament of Simeon Testament of Zebulun

Dead Sea Scrolls CD Damascus Document 1QapGen Genesis Apocryphon 1QIsaiaha 1QIsaa 1QHa Hodayot 1QpHab Habakkuk Pesher 1QpMic 1QMicah Pesher (1Q14) 1QpPs 1QPsalms Pesher (1Q16) 1QpZeph 1QZephaniah Pesher (1Q15) 1QS Rule of the Community 1QSa Rule of the Congregation 3QpIsa 3QIsaiah Pesher (3Q4) 4QDeuth 4QDeuteronomyh (4Q35) n 4QDeuteronomyn (4Q41) 4QDeut q 4QDeut 4QDeuteronomyq (4Q44) b 4QExodusb (4Q13) 4QExod 4QExod-Levf 4QExodus-Leviticusf (4Q17) 4QGen-Exoda 4QGenesis-Exodusa (4Q1) 4QJerb 4QJeremiahb (4Q71) d 4QJer 4QJeremiahd (4Q72a) d 4QLeviticusd (4Q26) 4QLev a 4QLev-Num 4QLeviticus-Numbersa (4Q23) 4QMMT Miqṣat Maʿaśê ha-Torah (4Q394–4Q399) 4QNumbersb (4Q27) 4QNumb m 4QpaleoExod 4QpaleoExodusm (4Q22) 4QpaleoGenExodl 4QpaleoGenesis-Exodusl (4Q11) a–b 4QHosea Peshera–b (4Q166–4Q167) 4QpHos 4QPhyl G 4QPhylactery G (4Q134) 4QpIsaa–e 4QIsaiah Peshera–e (4Q161–4Q165) 4QpMic 4QMicah Pesher (4Q168) 4QpNah 4QNahum Pesher (4Q169) 4QPsalms Peshera, b (4Q171, 4Q173) 4QpPsa, b b 4QPs 4QPsalmsb (4Q84) f 4QPs 4QPsalmsf (4Q88) 4QpZeph 4QZephaniah Pesher (4Q170)

Abbreviations 4QtgJob 4QtgLev 11QapocrPs 11QPsa 11QPsb 11QTa 11QtgJob

4QTargum of Job (4Q157) 4QTargum of Leviticus (4Q156) 11Qapocryphal Psalms (11Q11) 11QPsalmsa (11Q5) 11QPsalmsb (11Q6) 11QTemplea (11Q19) 11QTargum of Job (11Q10)

Philo Abr. Cher. Conf. Fug. Her. Leg. Migr. Mos. Mut. Opif. Plant. QG Sacr. Somn. Spec.

On the Life of Abraham On the Cherubim On the Confusion of Tongues On Flight and Finding Who Is the Heir? Allegorical Interpretation On the Migration of Abraham On the Life of Moses On the Change of Names On the Creation of the World On Planting Questions and Answers on Genesis On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel On Dreams On the Special Laws

Josephus Ag. Ap. Ant. J.W.

Against Apion Jewish Antiquities Jewish War

Rabbinic Works b. y. m. t. ’Abot R. Nat. Ber. ‘Erub. Esth. Rab.

tractate of the Babylonian Talmud tractate of the Jerusalem Talmud tractate of the Mishnah tractate of the Tosefta ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan Berakot ‘Erubin Esther Rabbah

­xvii­

Abbreviations

xviii Gen. Rab. Lev. Rab. Midr. Jonah Midr. Pss. Midr. Song Ned. Num. Rab. Pirqe R. El. Pesaḥ. Roš Haš. Sanh. Ta‘an.

Genesis Rabbah Leviticus Rabbah Midrash Jonah Midrash Psalms Midrash Song of Songs Nedarim Numbers Rabbah Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer Pesaḥim Roš Haššanah Sanhedrin Ta‘anit

Targumic Texts Tg. Isa. Tg. Ps.-J.

Targum Isaiah Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

Greek and Latin Works 1 Apol. Justin, First Apology Adv. Jud. Tertullian, Against the Jews Antr. nymph. Porphyry, De antro nympharum Haer. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Haer. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Hist. Eccl. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Marc. Tertullian, Against Marcion Resp. Cicero, De republica Res. Tertullian, The Resurrection of the Flesh

­

Preface Resurrection Beliefs in Antiquity and ‘Shared Judaism’ James H. Charlesworth As I began to prepare this preface for Professor Lidija Novakovic’s erudite and thoughtful study of the concept of resurrection, a tsunami of attention was directed to a tomb explored by a robotic arm in Talpiot, the southeastern section of Jerusalem. The tomb is called ‘the Patio Tomb’ or ‘Talpiot II’. I sight read an image that appeared on a screen considerably above the sealed tomb below. The reading appeared in a feature on Discovery. I read the four-line inscription to mean: ‘Divine Yahweh, who lifts up (or raised up), from (the tomb or death?).’ I remain uncertain about the last line and the reading ‘from’ and what is implied. The inscription was on the side of an ossuary (a stone box for disarticulated bones). This tomb and the ossuaries date from c. 20 bce (when the stone industry could produce such artistic works) to 66 ce (when the Land of Israel erupted in a horrific revolt against Rome). What type of Jew would have made this inscription? A resurrection belief was shared by many types of Jews. As I showed in Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine, resurrection belief means that someone who lived has died and will be raised by God to an eternal existence with God. The belief in a resurrection may be found in some Psalms, but the first datable reference to it appears, perhaps around 200 bce, in the Books of Enoch (1 Enoch). Then chronologically, the concept appears in Daniel 12. At Qumran, in a document probably not composed at Qumran, the belief clearly appears in On Resurrection (4Q521) and in Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385–388). In many works of Early Judaism the belief in a resurrection is evident, including Josephus’ tomes, the Psalms of Solomon, the Life of Adam and Eve, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 2 Enoch, the History of the Rechabites, the Lives of the Prophets, 1–4 Maccabees, Pseudo-Philo, the Apocryphon of Ezekiel, Pseudo-Phocylides, Sibylline Oracles, the Testament of Abraham, the Testament of Job, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Apocryphon of Ezekiel, and the Odes of Solomon. The belief in the resurrection is also found in the Didache, the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, and the Amidah or Eighteen Benedictions. According to Hippolytus (but not Josephus), the Essenes believed in the resurrection of the flesh (Haer. 9.27).The Samaritans believe that God

xx

Preface

will summon ‘his creatures’ so that all of them will ‘arise in one moment before him’ (Memar Markah 4.12; cf. also Yom ad-Din 26). Moreover, the concept of a bodily resurrection created and defined the Palestinian Jesus Movement; according to Paul, if Jesus was not raised by God then ‘our proclamation is in vain and your faith is in vain’ (1 Cor 15:14). Without any doubt, the concept of resurrection (far more than a belief in a coming Messiah) brings into perspective the commonality within Early Judaism. We should contemplate then the concept of Shared Judaism. Most thinking Jews believed that the future must be better than the past or present. This belief was not so much an aspect of general sociology and the need to live with hope. It was generated by the study of TANAKH. God had seen his creation and judged it to be ‘good’, indeed ‘very good’. That means that God could see into the future, announcing that despite the Fall, the Tower of Babel, and the continuous unfaithfulness of those with whom God was in covenant, all would be better, someday, at the ‘end of time’. Thus, God’s edict in Genesis revealed a beatific future for God’s chosen. This exegesis was supported by reflections on the martyrs who were dying; surely that was not the end of a righteous life. Thus stimulated by a promising eschatology, resurrection beliefs become more dominant within Early Judaism, and Josephus is convinced that God has promised a renewed existence, ‘the gift of a better life’ (Ag. Ap. 2.218). The early Greek concept of the ‘Isle of the Blessed’ appears in the History of the Rechabites. Under Persian influence, the concept of Paradise appears; the righteous will be raised and taken there. The Paradise motif mixes with earlier concepts, like the Garden of Eden and God’s eternal planting or vineyard (Isaiah 5), so that these dreams and expectations evolve into the self-understanding of the Righteous Teacher who believed that God had put ‘Spring Rain’ in his mouth so that he is the ‘Overflowing Spring’ in parched land and the Irrigator of the Eternal Planting (1QH 16). Resurrection claims and hopes evolve out of the beliefs that Enoch did not die, that Elijah was taken to heaven in a chariot, that Moses may not have passed on, and that God is active again on earth in the miracles of healing that characterized Honi, Hanina ben Dosa, and Jesus. Within the Shared Judaism that characterizes Early Judaism, a special claim is made. The followers of Jesus, without hope or expectation, claim to be confronted by the resurrected Jesus. As Pope Benedict XVI brilliantly perceives in Jesus of Nazareth, the encounter is historical but entails ‘an ontological leap’. He points out that ‘His [Jesus’] presence is entirely physical, yet he is not bound by physical laws, by the laws of space and time’. But then, if many early Jews were confronted by ‘an ontological leap’, should we slip back into Newtonian physics and encapsulate our theological reflections within a presupposition that the universe is defined by a closed system of laws? Jesus’ followers, including Saul (=Paul) who energetically resisted and tried to destroy those who

Preface

xxi

believed that the Crucified One had been resurrected, claimed that Jesus suddenly appeared and disappeared. In contrast to the Passion Narrative, the Resurrection Narratives are indeed clumsily presented. One should ponder the wisdom in the Pope’s perception that ‘the Resurrection . . . has its origin within history and up to a certain point still belongs there. Perhaps we could put it this way: Jesus’ Resurrection points beyond history but has left a footprint within history.’ Lidija Novakovic’s masterful study appears during a period when scholars seem fascinated with the concept of the afterlife and resurrection, as placarded, for example, by the following recent books: N. T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God, Alan F. Segal’s Life after Death, the contributions to a symposium on Resurrection, and Daniel A. Smith’s Revisiting the Empty Tomb. What are the antecedents for the first-century claim that Jesus would rise from the dead in three days ‘according to the Scriptures’, found in 1 Cor 15:4, Luke 18:31-33, Luke 24:46, and Matt 12:40? Novakovic focuses on this question and offers perspectives for further discussion, adding significantly to the debates and research found in secondary literature. Are there no Scriptures that predict that the Messiah or the Coming One will be resurrected on the third day? What has Novakovic discovered? Is ‘the third day’ a topos for a short time, or a belief that the third day is the time of God’s salvation (Gen. Rab. 91.7 and Midr. Pss. 22.5)? Is it an allusion to Hos 6:2 (‘on the third day he will raise us up’; cf. Targum to Hosea), to Gen 22:4 (‘On the third day, Abraham looked up’), or to Esth 5:1 (‘on the third day, Esther put on her royal apparel’)? None of these options should surprise any scholar who has studied early Jewish exegesis and hermeneutics as in the pesharim, Gen. Rab. 56.1, Esth. Rab. 9.2 (‘And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights [Jonah 2.1]. The dead also will come to life only after three days’), and Pirqe R. El. 51, attributed to Rabbi Gamaliel (‘on the third day, He will renew them all and revive the dead’). But, can such later midrashim lead us to first-century hermeneutics? Are they not possibly shaped by regnant Christian proclamations and hermeneutics? Finally, to what extent is the conviction of the earliest believers in Jesus’ resurrection a major source of hermeneutics? Novakovic argues that the primary function of the third-day motif in early Christian exegesis was to establish a link between Jesus’ resurrection and the general resurrection of the dead. She explores the development of this thematic trajectory in the Adam-Christ typology in the letters of Paul. She identifies a second exegetical trajectory in the use of Scripture in the passages that relate Jesus’ resurrection to his messianic identity. Novakovic rightly stresses that the earliest confession preserved within the New Testament makes it impossible to contemplate Jesus’ resurrection without simultaneously speaking about God. God is

xxii

Preface

the One who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 4:24; 8:11; 2 Cor 4:14; Gal 1:1; Col 2:12). The Greek passives reflect the activity of the Creator; thus the translation of Mark 16:6 in the RSV (‘He has risen’) is corrected in the NRSV: ‘He has been raised.’ Jesus did not raise himself. He was raised by God. Likewise, Jesus’ suffering and resurrection were predicted and a fulfilment of Scripture (1 Cor 15:4; Luke 24:46; Acts 17:2-3; and John 20:9). The scandalous nature of this early Jewish confession should be examined within two perspectives. First, it evolves out of a wide-spread belief in resurrection within Second Temple Judaism. Second, some Jews claimed to have experienced the new activity of the Creating Creator, the Author of Life. This God, the only God, raised Jesus from the tomb. Rather than a preposterous belief that permanently denotes ‘the parting of the ways’ between Jews and Christians, the belief in a resurrection is part of our Shared Judaism. While Christians confess each Sunday ‘the resurrection of the dead’ by God, Jews, during the weekday Amidah (Eighteen Benedictions) confess ‘Blessed art thou, O Lord, who revives the dead’. The divide that some think separates Jews and Christians today should be reassessed: resurrection belief was an aspect of our Shared Judaism. Indeed, some Christians reject the concept of Jesus’ resurrection; but some Jews affirm it.

Introduction The centrality of the resurrection of Jesus in early Christian preaching is incontestable. For the Apostle Paul, Christian faith stands or falls with Jesus’ resurrection: ‘If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. . . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied’ (1 Cor 15:14, 17-19).1 Similar sentiments are frequently found in the secondary literature. ‘[T]here would be no gospel, not one account, no letter in the New Testament, no faith, no Church, no worship, no prayer in Christendom to this day without the message of the resurrection of Christ’, contends Günther Bornkamm.2 C. F. Evans emphasises that ‘Christianity – at least the Christianity of the New Testament – is a religion of resurrection; and it is this to a greater extent than is any other religion.’3 Indeed, one of the most distinctive aspects of early Christianity is the confession that God has raised Jesus from the dead. This theological pronouncement typically appears in one of two forms: succinct confessions that God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:15) or participial descriptions of God that identify him as the one who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 4:24; 8:11; 2 Cor 4:14; Gal 1:1; Col 2:12). This declaration is not only the most coherent but also the most primitive feature of various resurrection trajectories. In addition, the New Testament authors link Jesus’ resurrection to declarations of his divine sonship in power (Rom 1:4), his elevation to the right hand of God (Acts 2:34-35; Heb 1:3), his exalted status and lordship (Phil 2:9-11), and his eschatological return (1 Cor 15:22-28). These confessional motifs can also be detected in several gospel narratives. In Matthew, the most immediate response of both of the groups to whom Jesus appeared, the women in Jerusalem and the eleven disciples in Galilee, was to worship him (28:9, 17). According to John 20:28, Thomas the Twin responded to the appearance of the risen Jesus by confessing, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Despite the fragmentary nature

1. Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations throughout follow the wording (but not necessarily the orthography) of NRSV. 2.  Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson; New York: Harper, 1960), 181. 3.  C. F. Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament (SBT II/12; London: SCM, 1970), 1.

2

Introduction

of these references, they reveal the basic conviction that it is impossible to speak of Jesus’ resurrection without also speaking of the God who raised him from the dead. A closer look at early expressions of the theological significance of Jesus’ resurrection reveals another important conviction: the resurrection of Jesus took place according to Scripture. The earliest formulation of this claim appears in 1 Cor 15:4, where Paul quotes the early Christian confession that Christ ‘was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures’. Luke 24:46 contains a similar assertion by the risen Jesus: ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day.’ According to Acts 17:2-3, Paul spent three Sabbaths with the local Jewish population in Thessalonica and ‘argued with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead’. An analogous statement appears in the Johannine corpus. In John 20:9, the author explains that Peter and the beloved disciple ‘as yet . . . did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead’. Each of these texts emphasises the necessity of understanding the resurrection of Jesus in the light of Scripture. The recurrence of this motif, found in three different resurrection trajectories – pre-Pauline, Lukan, and Johannine – is not incidental. It indicates that for the early church, ‘conversation with the Sacred Scriptures was the primary mode of theological reflection’, as Donald Juel has convincingly argued.4 From the very beginning, Israel’s Scripture provided the most fundamental conceptual categories for understanding Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Through dialogue with the sacred texts early Christian interpreters were able to express the meaning and significance of Jesus’ person and ministry. This conclusion is neither new nor surprising. Jesus’ followers, like their Jewish contemporaries, believed that Scripture embodied the will of God and that interpretation of the sacred texts was necessary for its application to contemporary circumstances. Gary Porton alleges that ‘interpretation of Scripture . . . was not only a literary enterprise; more than that, it was a theological endeavor. Each Jewish group legitimated itself by “proving” that it was the Israel referred to in Scripture and by showing that its particular way of life was demanded by the biblical text.’5 Belief in resurrection is a 4. Donald H. Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 8. This idea goes back to C. H. Dodd, who argued that references to the prophecies of the Old Testament played a fundamental role in the articulation of the significance of the kerygma, which was in turn the starting point for theology (According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology [New York: Scribner, 1953], 13), and Barnabas Lindars, who claimed that ‘the Old Testament is the greatest single influence in the formation of New Testament theology’ (‘The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology: Prolegomena’, NTS 23 [1976]: 60). 5.  Gary G. Porton, ‘Midrash, Definitions of’, in Encyclopedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism (2 vols; ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 1:521.

Introduction

­3

case in point. Josephus reports that a major point of contention between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was the question of whether the idea of resurrection was grounded in Scripture. According to the Sadducees, who accepted only the authority of the Torah, resurrection had no scriptural support (Ant. 18.16–17). For the authors of the Mishnah, however, those who deny that resurrection is taught in the Law have no place in the world to come (m. Sanh. 10:1). In both of these cases, the validity of the idea of resurrection and, by implication, the legitimacy of the group that affirms or denies it are evaluated on the basis of whether this belief has scriptural support. Christian desire to understand the resurrection of Jesus in the light of Scripture was therefore not only the most natural but also the most pressing endeavour. Yet, as soon as an interpreter attempts to unpack the claim that Jesus’ resurrection took place according to Scripture and determine which specific scriptural passages provide the basis for this assertion, she encounters multiple difficulties. First, the only uncontested evidence of belief in the resurrection of the dead in the Hebrew Scriptures is Dan 12:1-3, composed sometime during the Maccabean revolt (167–164 bce). The beginning of the resurrection is signalled by the arrival of the archangel Michael, who will spare all the righteous whose names are found written in the heavenly book (12:1). This introduction is followed by the prophecy of a future resurrection of the dead: ‘Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever’ (12:2-3). The resurrection of the dead envisioned in this text is not a universal one, but a partial resurrection of some of the righteous and some of the unrighteous. Second, although resurrection hope appears to have been the dominant form of belief in the afterlife in Second Temple Judaism, it is documented in such texts as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, 2 Maccabees, Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521), Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385–388, 4Q391), Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Psalms of Solomon, the writings of Josephus, the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Sibylline Oracles, and Pseudo-Phocylides, none of which were considered Scripture by early Christian interpreters.6 As much as the study of these documents illuminates our understanding of the origin and development of the resurrection hope and the relationship between resurrection language and the experiences that generated that language, none of them could explain 6. The only possible exception here is 1 Enoch, which is quoted in Jude 14-15; however, the status of this text is debatable. Richard J. Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter [WBC 50; Waco: Word, 1983], 96) contends that this quotation does not have to imply that the author regards 1 Enoch as Scripture. The citation itself (1 En. 1.9) refers to the eschatological judgment, but not to the resurrection of the dead. First Enoch may be quoted as ‘Scripture’ in Barn. 16.5; cf. 4.3.

4

Introduction

what the New Testament writers meant when they declared that Jesus was raised from the dead according to Scripture. Third, almost all New Testament passages claiming that Jesus was raised from the dead according to Scripture speak of this event as the resurrection of the Messiah. In 1 Cor 15:3-4, the Messiah is the subject of the clause, ‘he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures’. In Luke 24:46, the risen Jesus explains to his disciples that it is written ‘that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day’. In Acts 17:3, Paul argues ‘that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead’. However, there is no pre-Christian evidence for expectation of the resurrection of an individual ahead of the general resurrection, and there are no traditions about the resurrection of the Messiah. N. T. Wright astutely remarks that ‘most Jews of this period hoped for resurrection, many Jews of this period hoped for a Messiah, but nobody put those two hopes together until the early Christians did so’.7 The only connection, made in some circles, between an expected messianic figure and resurrection was that the resurrection of the righteous would take place during or at the conclusion of the messianic age. 4Q521, for example, describes the wonders that God will perform during the messianic time and claims that, as one of the end-time marvels, the Lord ‘will give life to the dead’ (4Q521 frg. 2 2.12). Fourth Ezra envisages a temporary messianic kingdom that will last for four hundred years, at the end of which the Messiah and all human beings will die (4 Ezra 7.26–30). Fourth Ezra 7.31–32 then continues: ‘After seven days the world that is not yet awake shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish. The earth shall give up those who are asleep in it, and the dust those who rest there in silence; and the chambers shall give up the souls that have been committed to them.’8 While these and similar references associate resurrection with the appearance of the Messiah, none of them envisions the resurrection of the Messiah. Fourth, none of the texts that declare that Jesus was raised from the dead according to Scripture (1 Cor 15:4; Luke 24:46; Acts 17:2-3; John 20:9) offers any explicit scriptural citation in support of this claim. The phrase ‘on the third day’, which appears in 1 Cor 15:4 and Luke 24:46, may be an allusion to, or even a partial citation of, a specific scriptural text. However, if this is the case, precisely which one is in view remains uncertain. Moreover, even when some New Testament authors associate specific scriptural texts with the resurrection of Jesus, the original meaning of these citations appears to have little, if anything at all, to do with the resurrection hope. For example, Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:14-36 mentions two scriptural texts as part of an elaborate argument for Jesus’

7. N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 205. 8.  OTP 1:537–8 (Metzger).

Introduction

­5

resurrection: Ps 16:8-11 [15:8-11 LXX]9 (quoted in vv.25-28), in which the author expresses his hope that God will not abandon his soul to Hades nor let God’s Holy One see corruption, and Ps 110:1 [109:1 LXX] (quoted in vv.34-35), in which the speaker envisions the Lord inviting someone else also called ‘Lord’ to sit at his right hand until all his enemies are made a stool for his feet. Psalm 16:10 [15:10 LXX] is quoted again in Acts 13:35 as part of Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:16-41, which also mentions Ps 2:7 (quoted in v.33), where God declares that the enthroned king is God’s son and that God has begotten him ‘today’, and Isa 55:3 (quoted in v.34), which speaks of God’s holy promises to David. In 1 Cor 15:45 Paul contrasts the risen Jesus as ‘a life-giving spirit’ with the first Adam, who became ‘a living being’, by quoting Gen 2:7. As different as these scriptural texts seem to be, they share one dominant feature: in their original literary and historical contexts they appear to have little, if anything, to do with the resurrection hope. Since the claim that Jesus has been raised from the dead according to Scripture does not have any clear antecedents in the extant Jewish literature, its rationale must be explained. This is the issue that this book seeks to clarify. It offers an analysis of major New Testament passages that use Israel’s Scripture – either through direct quotations or clear allusions – to clarify the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection. The study includes, among other things, a reconstruction of the unstated interpretative moves that govern the selection and combination of scriptural texts and make their claims intelligible. Such a task is by its very nature ‘an imaginative exercise’.10 The New Testament writings allow only limited access to the interpretative traditions that lie beneath the claim that Jesus’ resurrection took place according to Scripture. In some cases we have only fragments of scriptural arguments that are not explicated elsewhere, while in other cases we have strings of texts within composite scriptural arguments, though the principles governing their selection and combination remain elusive. At the same time, however, our knowledge of exegetical techniques documented in both early Jewish and early Christian writings makes such a reconstructive endeavour a viable undertaking. As recognized by a number of scholars today, Christian interpreters did not use hermeneutical methods that differed from those of their Jewish contemporaries but interpreted Scripture from a different standpoint. The analysis requires careful reconstruction of all available interpretative traditions, both Jewish and Christian, in order to determine whether a particular reading continues a trend already documented elsewhere or represents christological innovation. This approach will allow us to identify major thematic trajectories that provide the conceptual framework for Christian interpretation of the resurrection in light of Scripture. 9.  Chapters and verses in the LXX are indicated only when they differ from the MT. 10.  Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 2.

6

Introduction

The book consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 addresses methodological issues related to the interpretation of Scripture in early Judaism and Christianity. Chapter 2 discusses the concept of resurrection in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish literature that precedes or is roughly contemporaneous with the rise of early Christianity. Chapter 3 investigates the resurrection in light of Scripture in the Pauline writings. Special attention is given to the scriptural background of the claim that Jesus was raised on the third day, the concept of messianic enthronement, the portrayal of Jesus as the cosmocrator, metaphorical description of Jesus’ resurrection as ‘first fruits’, and the Adam-Christ typology. Chapter 4 investigates the resurrection in light of Scripture in the Gospels. It includes an analysis of the scriptural backgrounds of the sign of Jonah and Jesus’ building of the temple in three days. Chapter 5 investigates the role of Scripture in the interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection in the speeches in Acts. The closing chapter offers a summary of the results of this study and an assessment of its significance for the understanding of early Christian interpretation of Israel’s Scripture.

Chapter 1 Scriptural Interpretation in Early Jewish Literature and the New Testament 1. Distinction between Scripture and Scriptural Interpretation It is becoming increasing clear, particularly in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the usual differentiation between Scripture and scriptural interpretation, i.e. between the writings that were considered sacred and uniquely authoritative for the beliefs and practices of a particular religious community and the interpretative compositions that were intended to explain and apply sacred texts, is not entirely applicable to Second Temple Jewish literature. On the one hand, there is compelling evidence that the Torah, the Prophets, and some of the Writings were generally considered authoritative.1 On the other hand, there is also compelling evidence that the text of Scripture was fluid, in terms of both its contents and its wording. The degree of scribal intervention in the sacred texts varied, ranging from the addition of minor explanatory comments to the creation of entirely new compositions. In some settings, these new works exercised a level of authority that was comparable to that of their base texts. Where, then, should we draw the line between Scripture and scriptural interpretation? And how should we account for the localized authority of some of the new compositions? George J. Brooke believes that these questions cannot be satisfactorily answered: ‘For the modern scholar there should be no longer a clear distinction between biblical and non-biblical in the Second Temple period; rather there is a spectrum of literary compositions related to most of what is emerging as of primary authority in the period.’2 He further explains 1. The Prologue to the Greek translation of Sirach mentions ‘the Law and the Prophets and the other books’. According to 1QS 1.1–3, the instructor’s task is to teach the members of the community to ‘seek God with [all the heart and soul] doing what is good and right before him, as he commanded through Moses and through all his servants the prophets’ (trans. Qimron and Charlesworth, PTSDSSP 1:7). There is also a so-called ‘canon note’ from 4QMMT C 9–10 : ‘[And also] we [have written] to you that you might gain insight into the book of Moses [and] into the book[s of the p]rophets and into Davi[d]’ (trans. Qimron et al., PTSDSSP 3:247). 2.  George J. Brooke, ‘New Perspectives on the Bible and Its Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran (ed. Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz; FAT II/35; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 21.

8

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

that ‘in the transmission of authoritative tradition, particularly in the Second Temple period, text and interpretation should be understood as closely interrelated in an integrated way. Each fresh written presentation of the tradition is interpretative.’3 Few would disagree with Brooke’s second claim. Indeed, it is arguable that every reproduction of a text, even a mere copying, is a hermeneutical act. But only some would follow Brooke’s call to abandon a distinction between biblical and non-biblical compositions. A growing number of scholars believe that greater precision may be achieved though more accurate terminology. Since there was no closed canon of Jewish Scripture before the second century ce, the terms ‘Scripture’ and ‘scriptural’ seem to be more appropriate for the Second Temple period than the terms ‘Bible’ and ‘biblical’.4 Finding a more suitable terminology for writings that were considered sacred and authoritative, however, does not yet solve the conceptual difficulty of distinguishing between scriptural and non-scriptural compositions. One way of dealing with this problem is to establish specific criteria that must be met, in whole or in part, to identify a work as Scripture. Scholars generally agree that the scriptural status of a book should be acknowledged: (1) if there are formal indications of its scriptural status in other works, such as the phrases, ‘as God promised’ or ‘as it is written’; (2) if other compositions refer to it as an authoritative text or provide commentary on it; (3) if the book itself makes special claims to authority;5 (4) if it bears a Davidic superscription; or (5) if it is represented by a large number of copies.6 Before the Qumran discoveries, criteria such as these had only limited value. The collection of more than 200 scriptural manuscripts, commonly labeled ‘biblical’,7 as well as other compositions, such as the pesharim and other related documents, have greatly enhanced our understanding both 3. Ibid., 27. 4. Peter W. Flint, ‘The Shape of the “Bible” at Qumran’, in The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls: World View, Comparing Judaism (part 5, vol. 2 of Judaism in Late Antiquity; ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, and Bruce D. Chilton; HO 57; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 56–8; idem, ‘Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Evidence from Qumran’, in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. Shalom M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94: Leiden: Brill, 2003), 272; Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 6, 9. 5. Flint (‘The Shape of the “Bible” at Qumran’, 76) notes that this is not a very reliable criterion, because claims to special authority are frequent in pseudepigraphical writings. 6.  James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 150; Flint, ‘The Shape of the “Bible” at Qumran’, 73–81; idem, ‘Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, 293–300; Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 8–9. 7. The division of the Dead Sea Scrolls into ‘biblical’ and ‘non-biblical’ is made for the purpose of facilitating different types of scholarly research. It therefore reflects an etic, not an emic, perspective. As indicated above, some scholars are becoming increasing uncomfortable with the label ‘biblical’ because it presupposes a closure of the Hebrew canon, which did not take place before the second century ce.

Scriptural Interpretation

­9

of the scriptural status of many Jewish compositions and of the process by which the sacred texts were transmitted. The Qumran library has confirmed that many of the books that were eventually included in the Hebrew Bible were already regarded as Scripture in the late Second Temple period.8 The pentateuchal books not only are frequently quoted in the Damascus Document and other Qumran writings, such as 4Commentary on Genesis (Q252–254) and 4QTestimonia (4Q175), but also are the subject of implicit exegesis in various compositions classified as rewritten Scripture, such as Reworked Pentateuch, Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and the Genesis Apocryphon. The prophetic books and the Psalms are explicitly quoted and commented upon in the continuous and thematic pesharim. All of these derivative compositions reinforce the scriptural authority of their literary antecedents. Moreover, the Qumran collection includes multiple copies of each of the five pentateuchal books (20 copies of Genesis, 17 of Exodus, 14 of Leviticus, 8 of Numbers, and 30 of Deuteronomy) and four scrolls that combine two of them together.9 The prophetic books are also well represented: Joshua (two copies), Judges (three copies), Samuel (four copies), Kings (three copies), Isaiah (21 copies), Jeremiah (six copies), Ezekiel (five copies), the Book of the Twelve (eight copies from Qumran and two from Naḥal Ḥever and Murabba‘at), and Daniel (eight copies).10 The Psalms seem to have been the most popular books among the Writings: 37 copies of the Psalms were found at Qumran, two at Masada, and one at Naḥal Ḥever.11 Other books that later formed the third division of the Hebrew Bible are represented much less fully.12 Since no copies of Esther were found, we should probably conclude that this book did not have scriptural status at 8. For a discussion of the overall shape and contents of the Scriptures at Qumran, see Flint, ‘The Shape of the “Bible” at Qumran’, 45–86. The ‘Appendix’ on pp.87–103 contains a helpful index of scriptural passages in the biblical, apocryphal, and pseudepigraphical scrolls. 9.  4QGen-Exoda and 4QpaleoGen-Exodl combine portions of Genesis and Exodus, 4QExod-Levf combines portions of Exodus and Leviticus, and 4QLev-Numa combines portions of Leviticus and Numbers. 10.  4Q174 2.3 indicates that Daniel was regarded as a prophet at Qumran; see also 11Q13 2.18. 11. The Psalms discovered at Qumran, however, frequently differ from those found in the Hebrew Bible. Some of the Psalms scrolls (4QPsb and 11QPsa) have an arrangement that is different from the MT. Certain canonical psalms are not represented (e.g. 3–4, 20– 21, 32, 41, 46, 55, etc.). Four manuscripts (11QPsa, 4QPsf, 11QPsb, 11QapocrPs) contain various ‘apocryphal psalms’, six of which were previously unknown to scholars (Psalms 151A, 151B, 154, 155, David’s Last Words [= 2 Sam 23:1-7], Sir 51:13-30). 12. Such a meager emphasis on the Former Prophets and the Writings in comparison with the Torah and the Latter Prophets indicates that at the end of the first century ce the collection of scriptural books was still bipartite; see Eugene C. Ulrich, ‘Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century Judaism’, in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (ed. Maxine L. Grossman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 150.

10

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

Qumran. At the same time, however, the Qumran community apparently ascribed scriptural authority to some of the writings that did not become part of the later Jewish canon, such as Jubilees,13 1 Enoch, the Temple Scroll, and the Apocryphon of Joshua.14 Qumran biblical manuscripts have also enhanced our knowledge of the transmission of Scripture in Second Temple Judaism. Before the Qumran discoveries, many scholars believed that the Masoretic Text had already become a dominant text-form in the Second Temple period, against which all other text-forms should be judged. This assumption led to an initial categorization of various textual disagreements of the Qumran biblical manuscripts with the Masoretic Text as ‘sectarian’ or ‘vulgar’.15 Further research, however, has shown that such textual variants were not specific to Qumran or any particular group within Judaism.16 The Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX, the New Testament scriptural quotations, and Josephus demonstrate that textual pluriformity was a common feature of the Second Temple period, not a characteristic peculiar to the Qumran community.17 Acceptance of a particular book as Scripture did not prevent its circulation in several textual forms. Likewise, there is no evidence among the Qumran documents that the presence of textual variants was seen as a problem or that the group favoured a particular textual tradition.18 It was the book, and not its textual form, that was considered authoritative.19 The study of various text forms of scriptural manuscripts has also led to the recognition of several different text-types based on features shared 13.  CD 16.3 mentions ‘the Book of the Divisions of the Times’. English translations of all citations from the Damascus Document follow Baumgarten and Schwartz, PTSDSSP 2:12–57. 14.  4Q175 lines 21–30 quotes a passage from the Apocryphon of Joshua following citations from Exodus in the pre-Samaritan tradition (lines 1–8), Numbers (lines 9–13), and Deuteronomy (lines 14–20). 15.  Cf. Harry M. Orlinsky, ‘Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, IV’, JQR 43 (1953): 340, who described 1QIsaa as ‘worthless reading’. 16. Eugene C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 9. 17. Shemaryahu Talmon (‘The Textual Study of the Bible – A New Outlook’, in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text [ed. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975], 325) notes that ‘the extant text-types must be viewed as the remains of a yet more variegated transmission of the Bible text in the preceding centuries’. 18.  4Q175, for example, contains a quotation from Exodus in the pre-Samaritan tradition and a quotation from Deuteronomy in the tradition of the Septuagint and 4QDeuth. It seems that for the scribe responsible for this document both text-types were equally authoritative. See James H. Charlesworth, Lidija Novakovic, and Henry W. Rietz, ‘4Q175 Compared with the Samaritan Pentateuch, MT, LXX, and 4Q379’, in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (vol. 6B of DSSHAGET; PTSDSSP 6B; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 320–27. Ulrich (‘Methodological Reflections’, 156) contends that scribal choice of a particular variant ‘is less likely to have been in terms of “pre-Samaritan versus proto-MT” and more likely “the newer, fuller edition versus the earlier, shorter edition”’. 19. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 93; idem, ‘Methodological Reflections’, 149.

Scriptural Interpretation

11

by some manuscripts. Frank Moore Cross distinguishes three textual families based on geographic provenance: the Masoretic Text from Babylonia, the Samaritan Pentateuch from Palestine, and the Septuagint from Egypt.20 Emanuel Tov, in contrast, divides all scriptural texts into five categories based on their textual characteristics: proto-Masoretic texts, pre-Samaritan (or harmonizing) texts, texts close to the presumed Hebrew source of the Septuagint, texts written in the Qumran practice, and non-aligned texts.21 As emic categories, terms such as ‘pre-Samaritan’ and ‘proto-Masoretic’ are anachronistic, as Eugene Ulrich notes.22 As etic categories, however, these terms are helpful tools for distinguishing early textual traditions from those that were later adopted by the Samaritans and the rabbis, respectively. The pre-Samaritan text-type enjoyed broad circulation in Palestine during the Second Temple period. Qumran documents demonstrate that harmonizing texts of the Pentateuch, none of which reflect a specifically Samaritan ideology, were in circulation in Palestine in the last two centuries bce.23 The most complete forms of this textual type are found in 4QpaleoExodm, 4QNumb, 4QDeutn, the Nash Papyrus, and 4QPhyl G.24 The most distinctive characteristic of this textual tradition is harmonization, entailing the importation of elements from other passages, typically from Deuteronomy, to parallel texts in Exodus and Numbers. In this way, various versions of the same incident are ‘harmonized’. Harmonization reflects the theological conviction that the different parts of Scripture are in perfect agreement with one another. This conviction is demonstrated through the production of harmonized, expanded, and sometimes highly repetitive texts. The proto-Masoretic (or proto-rabbinic) group of texts includes precursors of the rabbinic textus receptus. The classification of these texts is not based on a specific set of common textual features. What unites them is merely the fact that they comprise textual antecedents of the versions that were eventually accepted as canonical in the rabbinic period.25 There is no conclusive evidence that the proto-Masoretic textual

20. Frank Moore Cross, ‘The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert’, in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (ed. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975), 193–5. 21. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 114–17. 22. Ulrich, ‘Methodological Reflections’, 157. 23.  James D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (HSM 2; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968), 69–87. 24. For illustrations of harmonizing tendencies in these documents, see Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 23–35. 25. Tov, Textual Criticism, 115.

12

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

tradition was originally preserved by priests in the Jerusalem temple26 or that it represented a standardized text in pre-70 Judaism.27 There is also no evidence that the rabbis ‘stabilized’ textual pluriformity by critically evaluating available variants and consciously selecting versions of scriptural books that would thereafter be recognized as canonical. It seems that their choices were limited to texts written in Hebrew rather than in Greek (since Greek texts were preferred by the early Christians) and in ‘square’ rather than in Paleo-Hebrew script (since the latter was favoured by the Samaritans).28 It is therefore more accurate to conclude that ‘the text was more “frozen” than “stabilized”.’29 Yet, even in the rabbinic works, which presuppose an exclusive textus receptus, one occasionally finds references to variant readings.30 It is well known that the translators of the LXX used diverse Hebrew (or Aramaic) text-types as their Vorlage. Some Greek translations are based on the proto-Masoretic texts, while others reflect the influence of other Hebrew text-types. The classification of texts close to the Septuagint as one text-group therefore creates, as Ulrich remarks, an anomalous situation for those scriptural books whose LXX and MT versions significantly overlap.31 Tov admits that even the texts that display features distinctive of the LXX ‘do not form a closely-knit textual family . . . nor were they produced by a scribal school’.32 As much as a distinction between major textual trajectories, such as pre-Samaritan, proto-Masoretic, and those close to the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX, facilitates our understanding of scribal practices in early Judaism, the textual history of each individual book is distinct and must 26. Adam S. van der Woude’s view that ‘one textual tradition held sway in the Temple of Jerusalem, a tradition which was later revised on a limited scale by priests and Scribes and which formed the basis of the text as we have it today’ (‘Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament’, in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude [ed. Jan N. Bremmer and Florentino García Martínez; CBET 5; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992], 167) has not won many supporters. 27. See Ulrich, ‘Methodological Reflections’, 155–6. For a defence of the preeminence of the proto-Masoretic text in the late Second Temple period, see Emanuel Tov, ‘The Writing of Early Scrolls: Implications for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture’, in L’Écrit et l’Ésprit: Études d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique en homage à Adrian Schenker (ed. Dieter Böhler, Innocent Himbaza, and Philippe Hugo; OBO 214; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 355–72, esp. 370. 28. Eugene C. Ulrich, ‘The Notion and Definition of Canon’, in The Canon Debate (ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 31, n.34. 29. Ibid. 30.  Cf. Shemaryahu Talmon, ‘Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in Light of Qumran Manuscripts’, in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 85–107. 31. Ulrich, ‘Methodological Reflections’, 157. 32. Tov, Textual Criticism, 116.

Scriptural Interpretation

­13

be studied on its own.33 Multiple versions of the same scriptural book discovered at Qumran indicate that new editions were not meant to replace previous versions of the same work. The simultaneous existence of different textual variants of the sacred texts within the bounds of a single religious community, such as Qumran, brings us back to our initial question: even if we allow in principle for a differentiation between scriptural and non-scriptural compositions, can we really make a clear distinction between Scripture and scriptural interpretation? For the precanonical period, such a neat differentiation is nearly impossible. Each scribal intervention in the received text represents an interpretative endeavour, regardless of its scope. At the same time, however, division of literary compositions into those that transmitted the traditions that were accepted as sacred and authoritative by most Jewish groups and those that provided innovative renderings of sacred texts, regardless of whether they achieved authoritative or even quasi-authoritative status on the local level, seems to be a helpful procedure and will be adopted for the purpose of this study.

2. Scriptural Interpretation in Early Jewish Literature Broadly speaking, the main purpose of scriptural interpretation is to make the text of Scripture intelligible and relevant to its readers. Gary G. Porton points out that interaction with Scripture lies at the heart of Jewish selfunderstanding: Each group of Jews in antiquity sought to ground itself in the biblical text, and each segment of the Jewish community viewed Scripture though the lens of its unique theology and distinctive worldview. Separate Jewish communities portrayed their own history as the subject of the Bible’s mythologies of election, covenant, punishment, exile, and redemption. Each saw the history of its community as the focal point of the biblical text. Each Jewish assemblage developed its own rituals, its own ethical and legal agenda, and its own set of cultural priorities based on the biblical documents. Although every Jewish group looked back upon the same scriptural books, especially the Torah, each read them in its own ways, interpreting them in its own style and using its own methods.34

Indeed, plurality of meaning is a dominant characteristic of Jewish exegetical literature. This does not mean that each community embraced multiple interpretations of a single text. In some cases, such as the Qumran pesharim, only one meaning of a given text is offered. In other cases, such as the rabbinic midrashim, several different interpretations 33. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 113–15. 34. Porton, ‘Midrash, Definitions of’, 520.

14

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

of a single text are given. But across the spectrum, Jewish exegetical writings demonstrate that ‘authoritative scriptural traditions are capable of multiple interpretative developments and significances’.35 This further means that conflicting interpretations should be assessed within their own interpretative boundaries, because ‘what passes for “correct” in one circle of a culture may be condemned as “wrong” in another’.36 This is especially the case with sectarian communities, whose interpretative boundaries are very rigorously defined. With regard to the goals of exegesis, differentiation between pure and applied exegesis, introduced by Geza Vermes, is a helpful analytical tool, although for most ancient interpreters, both types of exegesis were probably inseparable.37 Pure exegesis seeks to solve problems related to a given text, such as unclear vocabulary, lack of details, apparent contradiction, or an otherwise unacceptable meaning. Its purpose is ‘to render every word and verse of Scripture intelligible, the whole of it coherent, and its message acceptable and meaningful to the interpreter’s contemporaries’.38 Applied exegesis seeks to provide scriptural justification for problems that are external to the text itself, such as questions arising from everyday life or contemporary customs and practices. With regard to form, exegetical texts can be divided into two major categories: those that employ implicit exegesis by intertwining text and interpretation and those that employ explicit exegesis by formally separating scriptural quotations from interpretative comments. Devorah Dimant calls the former use of Scripture ‘compositional’, because ‘biblical elements are interwoven into the work without external formal markers’, and the latter ‘expositional’, because it typically involves ‘a fixed terminology and special syntactical patterns, in order to separate the biblical elements from their exposition’.39 Moshe Bernstein and Shlomo Koyfman call implicit exegesis ‘internal interpretation’ and explicit exegesis ‘external interpretation’.40 Since works that use implicit exegesis do not explicate the exegetical reasoning of their authors, readers are given greater freedom to reconstruct 35.  Brooke, ‘New Perspectives on the Bible’, 31. 36. Ithamar Gruenwald, ‘Midrash and the “Midrashic Condition”: Preliminary Considerations’, in The Midrashic Imagination: Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and History (ed. Michael A. Fishbane; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 13. 37.  Geza Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (SJLA 8; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 59–91. 38. Ibid., 80. 39. Devorah Dimant, ‘Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha’, in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling; CRINT 2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 382. Dimant adds that apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works are typically compositional in contrast to the rabbinic midrashim, the Qumran pesharim, and Philo’s commentaries, all of which tend to be expositional. 40.  Moshe J. Bernstein and Shlomo A. Koyfman, ‘The Interpretation of Biblical Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Forms and Methods’, in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. Matthias Henze; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 66.

Scriptural Interpretation

­15

the motivations that may have prompted specific exegetical decisions. The emergence of explicit exegesis is sometimes linked to the canonization of Scripture because differentiation between text and commentary seems to presume the fixedness of the former. The notion of a linear shift from implicit interpretation in the pre-canonical period to explicit interpretation in the canonical era, however, cannot be sustained in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran library contains both documents that employ implicit exegesis, such as the rewritten Scripture texts, and documents that employ explicit exegesis, such as the Damascus Document and the pesharim. 4QCommentary on Genesis A (4Q252) even combines implicit and explicit exegesis within the same composition.41 The coexistence of both types of exegesis can therefore be regarded as a distinct feature of the late Second Temple period. The hermeneutical assumptions that guide Jewish scriptural interpretation depend on many factors, such as the view of Scripture, the purpose of exegesis, the social setting of the interpretative community, and the character of the target audience. James Kugel, however, contends that despite the great variety of genres and interpretative methods, it is possible to detect a set of four common assumptions that characterize all scriptural interpretation in Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism. The first is that Scripture is ‘a fundamentally cryptic document. That is, all interpreters are fond of maintaining that although Scripture may appear to be saying X, what it really means is Y, or that while Y is not openly said by Scripture, it is somehow implied or hinted at in X.’42 The second assumption is ‘that Scripture constitutes one great Book of Instruction, and as such is a fundamentally relevant text’.43 The third assumption is ‘that Scripture is perfect and perfectly harmonious’.44 The fourth is ‘that all of Scripture is somehow divinely sanctioned, of divine provenance, or divinely inspired’.45 A more nuanced approach is exemplified by David Instone Brewer, who differentiates between scribal exegesis, which was practised by the pre-70 scribes whom the later rabbis regarded as their predecessors, non-scribal exegesis, which includes Josephus, the Qumran literature, and Philo, and rabbinic exegesis, which was practised by post-70 rabbis. He argues 41.  Moshe J. Bernstein (‘4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary’, JJS 45 [1994]: 1–27) regards 4Q252 as a unique document among early Jewish writings because it falls somewhere between rewritten Bible and full-fledged biblical commentary. Crawford (Rewriting Scripture, 130) emphasises that 4Q252 demonstrates ‘the transition taking place in the last centuries of the Second Temple Period between the implicit exegesis of Rewritten Scripture and the explicit exegesis of the “citation plus comment” form that became dominant in later Jewish and Christian commentary’. 42.  James L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 18. 43. Ibid., 19 (emphasis original). 44. Ibid., 20. 45. Ibid., 21–2.

16

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

that the main characteristic of pre-70 scribal exegesis is its nomological approach, which presumes that Scripture is a legal document written by God that must be interpreted with all possible intellectual rigour and honesty.46 This view relies on the following five assumptions: (1) Scripture is totally self-consistent; (2) every detail in Scripture is significant; (3) Scripture is understood according to its context; (4) Scripture does not have any secondary meaning(s); (5) there is only one valid text-form of Scripture.47 Non-scribal traditions are characterized by an inspirational approach, which regards the whole of Scripture as prophecy. The inspirational attitude shares with the nomological view the assumptions that Scripture is totally self-consistent and that every detail in Scripture is significant. Unlike the nomological view, however, the inspirational approach presumes that Scripture may be interpreted without regard to its context, that it may have secondary meaning(s) more important than its plain meaning, and that variant texts and translations are valid forms of Scripture.48 Rabbinic exegesis also affirms the first two assumptions of pre70 scribal exegesis, namely, that Scripture is completely self-consistent and that every detail in the text is significant. Unlike their scribal predecessors, however, the rabbis used texts out of context, derived multiple meanings from a single verse, and occasionally used textual variants despite their belief that there was only one valid text of Scripture.49 Generalizations such as these can be helpful, but only to a certain degree. Claiming that Josephus, the Qumran community, and Philo hold a common view of Scripture is an oversimplification that conceals significant differences among them, which arise from their different social locations, theological/ideological outlooks, and exegetical aims, among other things. Each group of writings must be studied on its own in order to reveal the specific interpretative strategies and hermeneutical assumptions that led to a particular exegetical outcome. The following discussion offers a brief review of major types of Jewish exegetical literature in the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods. Broadly speaking, every Jewish text of a religious nature interacts with Scripture in one way or another. Carol Newsom alleges that ‘echoes of the biblical text haunt virtually all of the new literary compositions of this period. . . . This is not to say that the literary production of Second Temple Judaism was not creative but to note that authors were always glancing over their shoulders at the speech of scripture.’50 Some literary 46. David Instone Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE (TSAJ 30; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992), 163–5. 47. Ibid., 165–71. 48. Ibid., 212–15. 49. Ibid., 172–4. 50.  Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (STDJ 52; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 6. See also Moshe J. Bernstein, ‘“Rewritten Bible”: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived Its Usefulness?’, Textus

Scriptural Interpretation

­17

compositions have a closer relationship to their scriptural antecedents, while others merely use a specific scriptural passage, character, or motif to create an entirely new composition. The late Second Temple literature is commonly classified into the following categories: rewritten Scripture, parabiblical texts, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, and new pseudepigrapha.51 Attempting to cover the vast amount of literature that belongs to these categories, however, is counterproductive.52 I will limit my discussion here to translations, rewritten Scripture, and scriptural commentaries. 2.1. Translations Translations are, by their very nature, derivative compositions, regardless of whether they eventually achieve independent status or remain subservient to their source texts. Translational literature is thus fundamentally different from compositional literature.53 Cameron Boyd-Taylor points out that ‘a translated text never represents a straightforward instance of performance in the target language. Translations deviate from the conventions governing well-formed texts and this fact has both linguistic and social cultural implications.’54 Ancient Jewish authors were well aware that every translation involves interpretation. In the Prologue to the Greek translation of Sirach, the grandson of Ben Sira emphasises the difference between the meaning of a text in its original language and that of its translation: ‘For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this book, but even the Law itself, the Prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little when 22 (2005): 195. Bernstein alleges that if interaction with scriptural tradition is the main criterion for a definition of rewritten Scripture, almost the entire literary corpus of the Second Temple period could be described as belonging to that category. 51. For a critique of this terminology, see Jonathan G. Campbell, ‘“Rewritten Bible” and “Parabiblical Texts”: A Terminological and Ideological Critique’, in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003 (ed. Jonathan G. Campbell, William John Lyons, and Lloyd K. Pietersen; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 48–59. Campbell offers ‘scripture’ and ‘parascripture’ as an alternative set of terminology that is, in his view, more accurate historically and more neutral ideologically (ibid., 65–8). 52. For scriptural interpretation in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, see James H. Charlesworth, ‘The Interpretation of the Tanak in the Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha’, in The Ancient Period (vol. 1 of A History of Biblical Interpretation; ed. Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 253–78. 53.  Gideon Toury, ‘The Meaning of Translation-Specific Lexical Items and Its Representation in the Dictionary’, in Translation and Lexicography: Papers Read at the EURALEX Colloquium Held at Innsbruck 2–5 July 1987 (ed. Mary Snell-Hornby and Esther Pöhl; Philadephia: John Benjamins, 1989), 45–53. 54.  Cameron Boyd-Taylor, ‘In a Mirror, Dimly – Reading the Septuagint as a Document of Its Times’, in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden: SBLSCS 53; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 16–17.

18

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

read in the original.’ In the second volume of On the Life of Moses, Philo poses a rhetorical question that emphasises that every translation entails choice among various rhetorical possibilities in the recipient language: ‘Yet who does not know that every language, and Greek especially, abounds in terms, and that the same thought can be put in many shapes by changing single words and whole phrases and suiting the expression to the occasion?’55 A saying in t. Meg. 3.41, attributed to mid-second-century ce Rabbi Judah bar El’ai, expresses the standard dilemma of translators modern and ancient alike: ‘He who translates a verse just as it is presented in Scripture – lo, such a one is a deceiver, but the one who adds to what is written, lo, this person is a blasphemer.’56 In his letter to Pammachius (Epist. 57.5), Jerome distinguishes two main types of translation that were prevalent in antiquity: those that render ‘word for word’ (verbum e verbo) and those that render ‘sense for sense’ (sensum de sensu). The former follows the original slavishly, even when this results in non-idiomatic, and sometimes awkward, translation. The latter renders the meaning, rather than the individual words, of the original text and pays attention to the natural order and syntax of the recipient language.57 Philip Alexander argues that literal, ‘word for word’ renderings were typical for ancient translations of sacred texts.58 Even so, two major translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint and the Targums, differ significantly with regard to origin, purpose, translational philosophy, and authoritative status. 2.1.1. The Septuagint Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek made the sacred texts accessible to Greek-speaking communities.59 The initial project included only the translation of the Pentateuch, which is sometimes called the ‘Old Greek’ or ‘Septuagint proper’. The term ‘Septuagint (LXX)’, which is derived from the traditional account of seventy(-two) original translators, was eventually used to denote not merely the Greek translations of 55. Philo, Mos. 2.38 (Colson, LCL). 56. Trans. Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction (2 vols; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 1:653. 57. Sebastian P. Brock, ‘Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity’, GRBS 20 (1979): 69–87. 58. Philip S. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, in Congress Volume: Salamanca, 1983 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 36; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 15. 59. For a bibliography on the Septuagint through 1993, see Cécile Dogniez, Bibliography of the Septuagint = Bibliographie de la Septante (1970–1993) (VTSup 60; Leiden: Brill, 1997). Recent publications include Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (trans. Mark E. Biddle; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002); Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden, eds, Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (SBLSCS 53; Leiden: Brill, 2006).

Scriptural Interpretation

­19

those books that now comprise the Hebrew Scriptures, but also Greek translations of several additional writings, and a number of original Greek compositions. Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament show that by the first century ce, the Septuagint was considered authoritative Scripture in Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity. What is less clear, however, is whether the translators of the LXX wanted to produce a work that was from its inception independent of its Hebrew Vorlage. A positive answer to this question presumes that the Greek translation was conceived from the outset as a free-standing text, i.e. an autonomous expression of HellenisticJewish faith. A negative answer to this question presumes that the Greek translation was intended to be assessed constantly in comparison with its parent text(s). The first option was championed by Henry St John Thackeray, who argued that the Septuagint was produced for liturgical purposes because Jews in Alexandria lost the ability to use Hebrew.60 Sebastian P. Brock proposed the classroom as the primary context for the production of the LXX because his analysis of the textual-linguistic nature of the Greek translation led him to conclude that it tried to bring the reader back to the original rather than to bring the original to the reader.61 He nonetheless rejected an educational context as the original setting of the Septuagint because he believed that the Greek translation was meant to be a freestanding composition and not a text that required constant comparison with the Hebrew original.62 The second option is endorsed by the editors of the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) project. While it is obvious that the so-called Septuagint in time achieved its independence from its Semitic parent, and that it at some stage in its reception history shed its subservience to its source, it is equally true that it was, at its stage or production, a Greek translation of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original. That is to say, the Greek had a dependent and subservient linguistic relationship to its Semitic parent. . . . More particularly, for the vast majority of books the linguistic relationship of the Greek to its Semitic parent can best be conceptualized as a Greek interlinear translation of a Hebrew original within a Hebrew-Greek diglot. . . . NETS is presupposing a Greek translation which aimed at bringing the Greek reader to the Hebrew original rather than bringing the Hebrew original to the Greek reader. Consequently, the Greek’s subservience to the Hebrew may be seen as indicative of its aim.63 60. Henry St John Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: Humphrey Milford, 1921). 61. Sebastian P. Brock, ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’, OtSt 17 (1972): 11–36. 62.  Cf. Albert Pietersma, ‘A New Paradigm for Addressing Old Questions: The Relevance of the Interlinear Model for the Study of the Septuagint’, in Bible and Computer: The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference (ed. Johann Cook; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 346. 63. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, ‘To the Reader of NETS’, in A New English Translation of the Septuagint, and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally

20

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

Albert Pietersma explains that the Septuagint’s dependent role vis-à-vis its Hebrew Vorlage does not mean ‘that every linguistic item in Greek can only be understood by reference to the parent text, or that the translation has an isomorphic relationship to its source, but that the Greek text qua text has a dimension of unintelligibility’.64 For many scholars, the question of the Septuagint’s relationship to its Hebrew Vorlage cannot be addressed properly without considering the Letter of Aristeas, a Hellenistic composition written pseudonymously and dated to the second century bce,65 which provides the traditional account of the origin of the Septuagint. According to this work, the translation of the Torah from Hebrew to Greek was accomplished by seventy-two Jewish scholars, six elders from each tribe,66 who came from Jerusalem to Alexandria at the invitation of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The author emphasises the accuracy both of the Hebrew scrolls that were brought from Jerusalem and of the ensuing Greek translation, which was completed in seventy-two days. After Demetrius of Phalerum, the royal librarian, read the translation to the assembled Jewish community in Alexandria, they enthusiastically approved it and acquired a copy for their own needs. The underlying assumption of this account is that the Septuagint was intended to be a free-standing composition from the outset. Although the accuracy of the account in the Letter of Aristeas, dated more than a century after the events it purports to describe, was questioned as early as the sixteenth century,67 its historical core probably includes accurate information about the original scope of the project (the five books of the Torah), its date (early third century bce), and its Alexandrian provenance. Most scholars regard the story as a piece of Jewish propaganda, but they hold different opinions about the specific purpose of the work. Paul E. Kahle, for example, argues that this purpose should be sought in the time of the composition of the Letter of Aristeas, rather than in the time of the original translation, because ‘nobody makes propaganda for something a hundred or more years old. Propaganda is made for Included under That Title (ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), xiv (emphasis original). This view of the Septuagint is based on the work of Gideon Toury, who argues that ‘translations are facts of target cultures: on occasions facts of a special status, sometimes even constituting identifiable subsystems of their own, but of the target culture in any event’ (Gideon Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [BTL 4; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995], 29). 64. Pietersma, ‘A New Paradigm’, 350. 65.  Cf. Sidney Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 48. 66.  Josephus’ version of this story in Ant. 12.11–118 also mentions seventy-two translators (Ant. 12.39, 46, 56), but in Ant. 12.57, 86 Josephus changes this number to seventy. Since he does not use ‘seventy’ as a name for the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, it is difficult to know whether this change was accidental or deliberate. 67. The earliest critical evaluation of the Letter of Aristeas was published in 1522 by Ludovicus de Vives in his commentary on Augustine’s City of God; see Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, 31.

Scriptural Interpretation

21

something contemporary. We can be sure that the translation had just been made when the letter of propaganda was written.’68 Kahle suggests that the purpose of the account was to promote a recent revision of the Greek translation that had been produced by Egyptian Jews who wanted to have a standardized text and to replace various competing translations that had been transmitted carelessly.69 Albertus Klijn envisions just the opposite scenario. Like Kahle, he presupposes the appearance of a new revision in the time of the writing of the Letter of Aristeas. However, he believes that the purpose of Aristeas’s account was to establish confidence in the original Greek translation against this revision.70 A recent proposal of Benjamin G. Wright takes its point of departure in the methodological distinction, operative in the reconstructions of Kahle and Klijn, between the context in which the original Greek translation was produced and the context in which the Letter of Aristeas was composed. He argues that the Septuagint initially had a dependent or subservient position vis-à-vis its Hebrew Vorlage. Over time, however, the function of the Greek translation shifted from dependence to independence. Wright believes that by the time of the writing of the Letter of Aristeas, the LXX already functioned as a free-standing replacement of the Hebrew. ‘But somewhere along the line someone had to offer a justification for regarding the Septuagint in this way. The Letter of Aristeas provides precisely that kind of justification.’71 Wright concludes that, rather than providing an accurate description of the origin of the Septuagint, it is ‘more probable that the Letter of Aristeas presents us with a foundational myth of origins for the Septuagint’s transformed position/function as an independent, scriptural authority’.72 The plausibility of Wright’s reconstruction lies not only in its overall concurrence with the linguistic character of the Septuagint but also in its ability to explain a discrepancy between the standard scholarly explanation of the origin of the Septuagint, which relates it to the needs of the Jewish community in Alexandria, and the document’s own explanation of the origin of the Septuagint, which relates it to the need of a royal library at the Ptolemaic court. ‘One thing such a claim accomplishes is to distinguish the translation from its Hebrew parent text from its very inception.’73 Aristeas’s emphasis on the accuracy of the translation, which led to the decision that no one was permitted to

68. Paul E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (2nd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1959), 211. 69. Ibid., 209–14. Most scholars have rejected Kahle’s explanation as unconvincing. 70. Albertus F. J. Klijn, ‘The Letter of Aristeas and the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch in Egypt’, NTS 11 (1964–5): 154–8. 71.  Benjamin G. Wright, ‘Translation as Scripture: The Septuagint in Aristeas and Philo’, in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; SBLSCS 53; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 54. 72. Ibid. 73. Ibid., 54–5 (emphasis original).

22

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

add or subtract anything from it (310–311), has the purpose ‘to accord the Septuagint version of the Torah the same sanctity and authority long held by the Hebrew original’.74 Since such a reverent attitude seems doubtful at the time of the Septuagint’s formation, it is more likely that this story reflects the authoritative status of the LXX at the time of the letter’s composition. The versions of Aristeas’s story that are preserved by Philo (Mos. 2.25–44) and Josephus (Ant. 12.11–118) give further support to the hypothesis of a gradual shift from the Septuagint’s subservient position to its complete independence. While Josephus repeats the main components of Aristeas’s narrative, including its emphasis on the accuracy of the translation and the mandate that nothing should be altered (Ant. 12.104, 108–109), Philo’s adaptation contains several important additions that go beyond a mere defence of the scriptural status of the Septuagint. Philo emphasises that the task of the translators was to ‘keep the original form and shape’75 of the Hebrew source. He describes the actual process of translation as an inspired, prophetic experience that resulted in a perfectly harmonious translation. The translators ‘became as it were possessed, and, under inspiration, wrote, not each several scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter’.76 For Philo, the Septuagint is not only an authoritative text but also one that perfectly matches its Hebrew source in both content and form. Although he appeals to the testimony of bilingual readers that the Greek translation and the Hebrew original are ‘one and the same, both in matter and words’,77 he himself does not consult the Hebrew text in his exegetical commentaries but bases his conclusions exclusively on the Greek translation. Philo’s comments clearly show that by the first century ce, the LXX had gained complete independence from its parent text and was read as an autonomous composition without recourse to the Hebrew original. Despite Philo’s claim of a perfect correspondence between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text, even a cursory comparison of the two reveals that there is considerable variation in the quality and style of the Greek translations it contains. Some of the translators closely followed their Hebrew source, while others took various interpretative liberties, including paraphrasing or spiritualizing religiously objectionable concepts, such as anthropomorphic or anthropopathic expressions. These divergent approaches indicate, as Leonard Greenspoon notes, that ‘there was apparently no overarching “philosophy” of translation that united those

74. Harry M. Orlinsky, ‘The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators’, HUCA 46 (1975): 94. 75. Philo, Mos. 2.34 (Colson, LCL). 76. Philo, Mos. 2.37 (Colson, LCL). 77. Philo, Mos. 2.40 (Colson, LCL).

Scriptural Interpretation

­23

responsible for the Septuagint’.78 Its translational units could all be placed on a continuum between what Pietersma terms ‘hermeneutical minimalism’ and ‘hermeneutical maximalism’.79 Hermeneutical minimalism presumes that the translator acts ‘as a mere medium (a conduit) of the source text. Such a translator, prototypically, does not add to nor subtract from the text being transmitted, nor are alterations made to it.’80 Hermeneutical maximalism presumes that ‘the Greek translator is effectively elevated to the status of an author, whose work becomes a substitute or replacement for the source text’.81 In addition to different translation styles, the books that comprise the Septuagint are characterized by the diversity of their Hebrew (or Aramaic) sources. While some translations are based on the proto-Masoretic texttype, others differ from it so significantly82 that they appear to presume a distinctive Hebrew Vorlage.83 This alternative text-type, whose existence was only conjectured before the Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries, is now confirmed by several Qumran manuscripts, such as 4QJerb,d, 4QLevd, 4QExodb, and 4QDeutq, which Tov classifies as texts close to the presumed Hebrew source of the Septuagint.84 Along with the change of the textual landscape of the Hebrew Scriptures, especially the emergence of the Masoretic Text as the dominant text-type, older translations were continually revised as readers detected discrepancies between the presumed Hebrew original and the Greek translation.85 Tov notes that revisions of the ‘Old Greek’ were at first sporadic and unsystematic but that they

78. Leonard J. Greenspoon, ‘Septuagint’, in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1218. Melvin K. H. Peters (‘Septuagint’, ABD 5:1101) rightly warns against ‘the widespread practice in scholarship of making comparisons between words found in different books of LXX (or in critical and diplomatic editions) on the unexamined assumption that translators were acquainted with each other’s work’. 79. Albert Pietersma, ‘Exegesis in the Septuagint: Possibilities and Limits (The Psalter as a Case in Point)’, in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; SBLSCS 53; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 35–6. 80. Ibid., 35. 81. Ibid., 36. 82. For example, Jeremiah, Joshua, Ezekiel, and 1 Samuel 16–18 depart dramatically from the MT in length and/or arrangement. 83. In several cases, the reconstructed Hebrew Vorlage is close to the pre-Samaritan text-type; see Siegfried Kreuzer, ‘Zur Priorität und Auslegungsgeschichte von Exodus 12,40 MT: Die chronologische Interpretation des Ägyptenaufenthalts in der judäischen, samaritanischen und alexandrinischen Exegese’, ZAW 103 (1991): 252–8. 84. Tov, Textual Criticism, 115–16. 85. Siegfried Kreuzer, ‘From ‘Old Greek’ to the Recensions: Who and What Caused the Change of the Hebrew Reference Text of the Septuagint?’, in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; SBLSCS 53; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 225–37.

24

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

eventually became more extensive and consistent.86 The three best-known revisions are the translations produced by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, dated between the first century bce and the third century ce. These and other revisions of the Septuagint indicate that Greek translations continued to be measured against their parent texts even after they gained independence in Hellenistic Judaism. These two opposite movements – away from and towards the parent text – point to a complex relationship between the LXX and its Semitic Vorlage. 2.1.2. Targums Targums are usually defined as interpretative Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. They reflect the synagogal practice of providing oral translations of portions of the Torah and the Prophets into Aramaic through translators called meturgemanim. The origin of this practice is debatable. The account of Ezra’s reading of the Torah to the post-exilic community in Jerusalem, which was accompanied by a simultaneous translation into Aramaic by the Levites (Neh 7:72b–8:8), does not indicate whether Aramaic translation of Scripture became a regular practice in Second Temple Judaism. None of the descriptions of public readings of the Torah or the Prophets in pre-70 synagogues provided by Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.175), Philo (Somn. 2.127), and the New Testament (Luke 4:16-30; Acts 13:14-15; 15:21) mention the practice of supplementary rendering into Aramaic. Some scholars are nonetheless eager to situate the development of Targum as a phenomenon in the Second Temple period.87 The discovery of fragments of Aramaic translations of Leviticus (4QtgLev=4Q156) and Job (11QtgJob=11Q10 and 4QtgJob=4Q157) among the Dead Sea Scrolls did much to promote this theory. The Qumran fragments, however, only testify to a developing practice of translating Scripture into Aramaic; they provide no information about the actual use of the Targums. The Mishnah and other early rabbinic writings provide the earliest evidence for the liturgical use of the Targums. Their main purpose was 86. Tov, Textual Criticism, 144. 87. This view was especially popular between the 1930s and the 1980s. See A. Diez Macho, ‘The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with the Other Targums’, in Congress Volume: Oxford, 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960), 222–45; Daniel Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine (SBLDS 22; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975), 50–52; Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966); idem, Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972). In his revised edition, Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 78–80, McNamara reiterates his original view that the synagogal practice of rendering the Hebrew Scriptures orally into Aramaic began in Second Temple Judaism. His only support for this position, however, comes from the Mishnah and other rabbinic sources, which he uncritically reads back into the pre-70 period.

Scriptural Interpretation

­25

to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into the Aramaic vernacular for unsophisticated audiences who, even if partially bilingual, needed help in comprehending Scripture.88 The public reading of each verse from the Torah and up to three verses from the Prophets was to be followed by an oral rendering of the Hebrew text into Aramaic (m. Meg. 4:4). These oral translations, which were eventually written down, were probably stored in synagogues. There are, however, several indicators that the distinction between the Targums and the sacred texts was always preserved. In liturgical settings, only the scriptural text was read directly from the scroll, while the Aramaic rendering had to be delivered orally, even after the Targums had been written down. The reader of the Hebrew Scriptures could not also act as the Aramaic translator: these two functions had to be performed by two different persons. Translation into Aramaic was an activity accompanying the reading of Scripture, never a replacement for it.89 In scholastic settings, in which some of the written Targums may have been used, these translations served as the supplementary rather than primary material for scriptural study.90 Even though the written Targums shared some of Scripture’s sanctity, they never achieved a scriptural status comparable to that of the Septuagint in Hellenistic Judaism. Targumic activity frequently extended beyond mere translation to include various halakhic (legal) and haggadic (narrative) expansions, which supplied explanations for more difficult or obscure passages, applied rules and regulations from the sacred texts to contemporary circumstances, and used the scriptural text as a pretext to convey homiletical lessons, traditional sayings, and legendary material. These peculiar features distinguish the Targums from all other translations of Jewish texts, including the Septuagint. Alexander notes that ‘the meturgeman has acted (to borrow Latin terminology) both as interpres and as expositor: he has combined in one flowing, seamless text both literal translation and explanatory glossing. This combination of fida interpretatio and expositio in one and the same document makes the targumim typologically unique.’91 88. For a discussion of Targum as popular interpretation of Scripture, see Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, 58–62. 89. Philip S. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules’, 23–8; Steven D. Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third–Sixth Centuries’, in Galilee in Late Antiquity (ed. Lee I. Levine; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 253–86. 90. A. D. York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’, JSJ 10 (1979): 74– 86; Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules’, 22–3; Steven D. Fraade, ‘Locating Targum in the Textual Polysystem of Rabbinic Pedagogy’, BIOSCS 39 (2006): 69–91. 91. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules’, 15. Alexander concludes that ‘Targum may be sui generis as translation, but it was intended as translation nonetheless, and the meturgemanim went to great lengths to preserve its translational appearance’ (ibid.). For a different view, see Alexander Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis (TSAJ 27; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992), 159. Samely argues that the term ‘translation’ does not

26

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

It could be said that the Targums combine two conflicting activities. On the one hand, they blend text and interpretation, while on the other hand, they take pains to differentiate text from interpretation. The former is accomplished through the literal form of the Targums. The latter is accomplished through linguistic and liturgical distinctions between the Hebrew Scriptures written on the scrolls and their oral Aramaic renderings. Alexander also specifies two contrary aims of the Targums: the first is to thrust Targum and Scripture apart, to demarcate rigorously between them and preserve their independence; the second is to bring them as closely as possible together, so that Targum can illuminate Scripture and form a means of passing over to it. Again and again we are brought back to this basic fact: it was not envisaged that Targum should be studied as an end it itself but that Scripture should be studied with the aid of the Targum.92

One of the unique features of targumic scriptural interpretation is its implicit use of secondary scriptural texts to explain the primary text under consideration. Using Scripture to explain Scripture is a common interpretative strategy in Jewish exegetical literature, which is based on the assumption of the unity of Scripture. Invoking secondary scriptural material could be done in three principal ways: (1) an interpreter could import a portion of one text into another in order to harmonize two related passages; (2) an interpreter could link two or more explicit scriptural quotations and supply them with additional comments in order to create an exegetical argument; and (3) an interpreter could incorporate some of the aspects of the secondary text(s) into the explanatory amplifications of the primary text without explicitly quoting the former. The first method is common in rewritten Scripture. The second is common in the thematic pesharim, Philo’s exegetical commentaries, and the rabbinic midrashim. The third method is common in the Targums. Daniel Patte argues that targumic interpretation of Scripture by Scripture is based on a synthetic conception of history that reduces the sacred story to a series of selected events, all of which can be related to one another regardless of their chronological sequence.93 Patte calls this view of the text ‘the closed “fence” of Scripture’ and concludes that in the Targums ‘Scripture refers exclusively either to the sacred history contained therein or to the eschatological time which is far in the future. . . . To put it bluntly, it is as if for the targumist God acted (in the past), will act (in the eschatological future), but is not acting in between.’94 This does not mean that Scripture is unrelated to the current experiences of the accurately express the character of targumic texts, and proposes instead the label ‘Aramaic paraphrase’. 92. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules’, 24. 93. Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, 67–74. 94. Ibid., 72.

Scriptural Interpretation

­27

audiences. The Targums continually apply the sacred texts to the present, but the actualization of Scripture is not conceived in terms of the sacred history but in terms of ethics. Characters in the scriptural narratives are frequently presented as prototypes of specific virtues and vices that mirror the theological concerns and value system of the meturgemanim and their audiences.95 This characteristic of the Targums, which Patte calls ‘a moral typology’,96 reflects their liturgical setting and homiletical aims. The earliest written Targums from rabbinic times are dated not before the third century ce. There are considerable differences among them with regard to the correspondence of the Hebrew text and the Aramaic translation, as well as the scope of the accompanying expansions. Targum Onqelos to the Pentateuch and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets follow the Hebrew text fairly closely, even if they comprise many nonliteral translations. Two Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch, Targum Neofiti and especially Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, are more paraphrastic and contain numerous expansions.97 The written Targums contain two types of exegetical material: (1) interpretative traditions found in all Targums, which could be described as ‘common property’ that was ‘shared by all the meturgemanim whose words are roughly preserved in the extant targumic texts’;98 and (2) interpretative traditions reflected in only one targumic text. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, which contains numerous haggadic expansions not found in other Targums, is the best representative of the second type of targumic text. Although the Targums share some similarities with other genres of Jewish exegetical literature, they represent a distinct group of texts with their own characteristics. They are primarily concerned with conveying the meaning of the Hebrew base text, which they follow closely, in new linguistic and cultural settings. Unlike the rewritten Scripture texts, they are not new compositions and make no claims to special authority,99 although they often employ similar exegetical techniques and address similar interpretative difficulties.100 Unlike the pesharim, they do not use 95. Ibid., 76–81. 96. Ibid., 80. 97. For a comprehensive introduction to all extant Targums, including their origins, publication histories, and respective places in targumic research, see McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 253–329. 98. Avigdor Shinan, ‘The ‘Palestinian’ Targums – Repetitions, Internal Unity, Contradictions’, JJS 36 (1985): 73. 99.  Geza Vermes (Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies [StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961], 95) originally regarded expansive Palestinian Targums as examples of rewritten Scripture. Moshe Bernstein, however, notes that by this criterion ‘almost any translation which is not hyperliteral’ could be classified as rewritten Scripture (‘“Rewritten Bible”: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived Its Usefulness?’, 175). 100. See Molly M. Zahn, ‘Rewritten Scripture’, in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 327. One notable difference between the Targums and rewritten Scripture texts is

28

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

technical terms to distinguish scriptural citations from commentary. Unlike the midrashim, they never cite rabbinic authorities by name, provide multiple interpretations of individual scriptural passages, or explain the exegetical logic by which interpretative conclusions have been reached, and they make every effort to smooth the transition between translation of the base text and explanatory comments.101 2.2. Rewritten Scripture Rewritten Scripture, broadly defined as ‘the interaction with and reconfiguration of earlier scriptural texts’,102 is a prime example of implicit exegesis, which clarifies the text from within by blending text and interpretation. The most common exegetical techniques include harmonization (smoothing out perceived differences between two parallel texts by importing elements from one text to another), content-editing (modifying the details in one text in order to bring it into agreement with another), conflation (linking different passages with a common theme), rearrangement (reordering the sequence of individual elements to resolve potential difficulties), omission (deleting objectionable or irrelevant content), addition of details that are implicit in the text (explicating certain aspects of the base text by inference or anticipation), and addition of new material (introducing new content for the purpose of filling perceived gaps in the text, clarifying ambiguities, or justifying certain beliefs and practices).103 The specific exegetical strategies used in a particular composition should be distinguished conceptually from the actual exegetical issues they attempt to solve, which are, by the very nature of implicit exegesis, not explicated in the rewritten texts. So, for example, the problem of objectionable behaviour on the part of a patriarch, such as Abraham’s request to Sarah to lie about their marital relationship during their sojourn in Egypt (Gen 12:10-20), might be resolved in two different ways: by omitting it altogether (Jub. 13.10–13) or by adding an exonerating explanation (1QapGen 19.10–21).104 The recognition of this type of exegetical literature is usually credited to Vermes, who in 1961 coined the label ‘rewritten Bible’105 to designate a group of writings that are characterized, as he explained in another publication, ‘by a close attachment, in narrative and themes, to some that the latter make use of omission as a way of dealing with difficult verses or complicated exegetical problems. The meturgeman did not have this option. Every problem that appeared in the scriptural text had to be resolved, and the only way to do this was through expansive elaboration. 101. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules’, 16. 102.  Zahn, ‘Rewritten Scripture’, 331. 103. For alternative names of these techniques, see Moshe J. Bernstein, ‘Interpretation of Scriptures’, in EDSS 1:376–83; Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 144–6. 104.  Cf. Zahn, ‘Rewritten Scripture’, 332–3. 105.  Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 67–126.

Scriptural Interpretation

­29

book contained in the present Jewish canon of Scripture, and some type of reworking, whether through rearrangement, conflation, or supplementation, of the present canonical biblical text’.106 This exegetical tradition is comparable to the interpretative rewriting of the books of Exodus and Numbers by the book of Deuteronomy or the rewriting of the Deuteronomistic History by the Chronicler, which Michael A. Fishbane called ‘inner biblical exegesis’.107 In more recent scholarship, which is increasingly aware of the anachronistic connotations of the term ‘Bible’ within a Second Temple context, the term ‘rewritten Scripture’ is steadily replacing Vermes’s original label ‘rewritten Bible’.108 There is less agreement, however, over the question of whether this category refers to a textual strategy or to a literary genre.109 Vermes himself used it in both senses – as a designation of an ‘exegetical process’ by which ‘the midrashist inserts haggadic development into the biblical narrative’ and as a designation of a distinct literary genre that included, according to Vermes’s original list, the Palestinian Targum, Josephus’ Antiquities, the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo, Jubilees, and the Genesis Apocryphon.110 If the term ‘rewritten Scripture’ refers to a specific textual strategy, then it can also be used to explain similar techniques of modifying the text of Scripture that appear in different literary genres and not merely in those compositions that engage the scriptural text in a sequential and systematic fashion. George W. E. Nickelsburg, for example, understands this designation as an interpretative strategy of expanding and paraphrasing the sacred text that can be detected across various genres, including ‘running paraphrases of longer and shorter parts of the Bible’, ‘narrative blocks in a non-narrative genre’, ‘a narrative roughly shaped by a non-narrative genre’, and ‘poetic presentations of biblical stories in epic and dramatic form’.111 If the term ‘rewritten Scripture’ designates a 106.  Geza Vermes, ‘Bible Interpretation at Qumran’, ErIsr 20 (1980): 185. 107.  Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985); idem, ‘Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel’, in Midrash and Literature (ed. Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budick (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 19–37. 108.  James C. VanderKam, ‘The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works’, in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov; London: British Library, 2002), 41– 56; Campbell, ‘“Rewritten Bible” and “Parabiblical Texts”’, 48–50; Anders Klostergaard Petersen, ‘Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon – Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism?’, in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar; JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 287; Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 12. 109. Petersen, ‘Rewritten Bible’, 292–306. 110.  Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 95. 111.  George W. E. Nickelsburg, ‘The Bible Rewritten and Expanded’, in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. Michael E. Stone; CRINT 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984),

30

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

specific genre, it can be used to distinguish the group of texts that share certain formal features and seek to accomplish similar compositional goals. Alexander, for example, applies this designation to narratives that follow a sequential order, replicate the form of their scriptural Vorlage, are not intended to replace the Bible, cover a substantial portion of Scripture, follow their scriptural source serially but selectively, intend to offer an interpretative reading of Scripture, impose only a single interpretation on the biblical text, do not explicate their exegetical reasoning, and make use of non-biblical traditions.112 Bernstein wants both to broaden the genre of rewritten Scripture to include legal texts and to narrow it to exclude scriptural translations such as the Palestinian Targums.113 Sidnie White Crawford limits the label to ‘texts which are characterized by close adherence to a recognizable and already authoritative base text (narrative or legal) and a recognizable degree of scribal intervention into that base text for the purpose of exegesis’.114 In assessing the current debate, Anders Klostergaard Petersen notes that many scholars understand the concept of literary genre from an emic perspective, that is, from the perspective of whether the ancient scribes themselves perceived their compositions as rewritten scriptural works.115 If this is the main criterion for classification, it is indeed difficult to avoid the conclusion that ‘from a late Second Temple perspective, there was no genre incorporating all the works regularly denoted “Rewritten Bible” or, more recently, “Rewritten Scripture” by scholars’.116 If, however, the term ‘rewritten Scripture’ functions as a heuristic category that helps us define the concept from an etic perspective, we can identify the group of texts with certain common features and study them in a disciplined fashion. It seems that at its most basic level, rewritten Scripture as a generic category is constituted, to use Petersen’s formulation, ‘by the taxonomic interest

89–90. See also Daniel J. Harrington, ‘The Bible Rewritten (Narratives)’, in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 239–47; Daniel K. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (LSTS 63; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 16. 112. Philip S. Alexander, ‘Retelling the Old Testament’, in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (ed. Donald A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 99–121. 113.  Bernstein, ‘Rewritten Bible’, 193–5. Other scholars have also argued for expansion of the category of rewritten Scripture to include legal texts; see Dwight D. Swanson, The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT (STDJ 14; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 227; Devorah Dimant, ‘The Scrolls and the Study of Early Judaism’, in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings (ed. Robert A. Kugler and Eileen M. Schuller; SBLEJL 15; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 50; Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 84–104. 114.  Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 13. 115. Petersen, ‘Rewritten Bible’, 298. 116.  Campbell, ‘“Rewritten Bible” and “Parabiblical Texts”’, 50.

Scriptural Interpretation

­31

in scriptural intertextuality’.117 However, as soon as one moves beyond the basic idea that works classified as rewritten Scripture have scriptural antecedents and takes into consideration other characteristics, such as the extent of scribal modifications of the base texts, modes of embellishment, claims to authority, and the apparent purpose of the new compositions, questions abound. At what point does a scriptural text cease to be a scriptural writing and become an interpretative composition? Why do some works make claims to authority comparable to the authority of Scripture if they do not intend to replace their base texts? What are the boundaries between Scripture and scriptural interpretation if ‘one group’s “rewritten Bible” could very well be another’s biblical text’?118 One way of dealing with these questions is to place rewritten Scripture texts within a spectrum of works indicating degrees of rewriting.119 This essentially quantitative approach presumes that at some point a rewritten text becomes so different from its base text that an audience would no longer consider it a copy of the same work. Among the Qumran documents classified as rewritten Scripture,120 the one closest to its base text is the group of manuscripts known as Reworked Pentateuch (4Q364, 4Q365, 4Q366, 4Q367, and 4Q158), which is characterized by harmonistic editing and various scribal insertions of outside material into the text of the Pentateuch.121 With the exception of three longer insertions in 4Q364 117. Petersen, ‘Rewritten Bible’, 306. 118.  Bernstein, ‘Rewritten Bible’, 175. 119.  Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 13–14. 120. Outside the Qumran corpus, the two texts most commonly identified as rewritten Scripture are Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities 1–11, a Hellenized version of Jewish history until the death of Alexander the Great, and the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo, a revised scriptural narrative from the creation of the world to the death of Saul. Both works follow the general order of the scriptural narratives they retell and employ various exegetical techniques that are typical for implied exegesis, such as additions, conflations, omissions, correlation of scriptural episodes, and paraphrase. A major difference between the two, according to Bruce N. Fisk (Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo [JSPSup 37; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], 14–15), is that Josephus ‘does not make extensive use of secondary Scripture, and he tends not to preserve biblical cross-references in his biblical precursor’, while the author of L.A.B. ‘routinely deploys Scripture from other, sometimes distant, contexts into the biblical (or traditional) story, in the form of explicit citations (perhaps with fulfillment formulae), unmarked allusions, narrative flashbacks and biblical echoes’. These distinctive features of L.A.B. have led some scholars, like Louis H. Feldman, to conclude that this work represents ‘one of the most significant links between early haggadah and rabbinic Midrash’ because of ‘its propensity to quote verses from other portions of the Bible while expounding and expanding on a given passage’ (‘Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities’, in Studies in Hellenistic Judaism [AGJU 30; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 60). For an analysis of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities as a distinctive type of rewritten Scripture because of its self-presentation as history, see Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR 7; Missoula, Mont.; Scholars Press, 1976). 121. For an analysis of this group of manuscripts and specific examples of scribal

32

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

and 4Q365,122 scribal interventions are relatively minor and, for the most part, confined to harmonizing interpolations. Since, however, major harmonistic changes are not identical to those found in the pre-Samaritan text-type, it seems more accurate to conclude with Crawford that both Reworked Pentateuch and the pre-Samaritan text-type come from a common exegetical tradition123 than to claim that the former used the latter as its base text.124 Whether this work exercised the same authority as the Torah125 or was merely used as an authoritative commentary on the text of the Pentateuch126 is difficult to decide. Other rewritten compositions, however, contain more extensive scribal modifications of their base texts. The book of Jubilees127 retells the narrative of Genesis 1 through Exodus 14, drawing on several other sources, such as the books of Enoch and the Aramaic Levi Document, in order to defend certain contested views regarding the solar calendar, the antiquity of Jewish festivals, the righteousness of Israel’s ancestors, the Levitical priestly line, and eschatology.128 The primary purpose of this work is not to explain the text of Scripture (pure exegesis) but to provide scriptural justification for certain beliefs and practices (applied exegesis). It claims divine authority by presenting itself as the direct revelation of an ‘angel of the presence’ to Moses on Mount Sinai. In addition, the Damascus

interventions, see Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 39–59; Falk, The Parabiblical Texts, 107–19. 122. These are: (a) a dialogue between Isaac and Rebekah in 4Q364 frg. 3 2.1–6; (b) the song of Miriam in 4Q365 frgs. 6a-c 2.1–7; and (c) prescriptions for a festival of fresh oil and wood offerings in 4Q365 frg. 23 lines 4–11. 123.  Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 41. 124. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts, 110. 125. So Eugene C. Ulrich, ‘The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text’, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20– 25, 1997 (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 51–9; Michael Segal, ‘4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?’, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 391–9; Emanuel Tov, ‘From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch (?)’, in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popović; JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 90–91. 126. So Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 57. 127. The following fragments of Jubilees were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls: 1Q17–18; 2Q19–20; 3Q5; 4Q176a,b; 4Q216–224. Three fragments have been labeled ‘pseudo-Jubilees’: 4Q217; 4Q225–227. 128.  Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 67–80. James C. VanderKam (The Book of Jubilees [GAP; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], 135) compares the book of Jubilees to 1–2 Chronicles, which revise and expand an earlier authoritative text (1–2 Kings) in order to glorify its heroes and smooth over its offensive parts.

Scriptural Interpretation

­33

Document129 and 4Q228130 quote Jubilees as an authoritative text. Its title is also found in 4Q384 frg. 9 line 2. This evidence strongly suggests that Jubilees enjoyed scriptural status within the Qumran community as a work that was intended to supplement rather than supplant Genesis and Exodus. The Temple Scroll, which Lawrence Schiffman and Andrew Gross describe as ‘probably the most important halakhic composition known from the Second Temple Period’,131 contains a rewritten version of various pentateuchal laws pertaining to the temple, festivals, purity, and other legal matters. The author presents an idealized version of Jewish life, which he nonetheless sees as normative. The work claims divine authority by presenting itself as God’s revelation to Moses at Sinai. It is clear that the author wanted to portray this new rewritten Torah as the ultimate revelation of God’s will, but it is uncertain whether he intended it to be used alongside the original Torah132 or to supersede it.133 The Genesis Apocryphon lies at the far end of the spectrum of rewritten Scripture texts with regard to closeness to the base text and inherent claim(s) to authority. This Aramaic composition retells the stories of Noah, the flood, and Abraham by expanding the traditions of Genesis with equally authoritative traditions from 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the so-called ‘Book of the Words of Noah’. The author generally follows the sequence of the scriptural narrative, but some sections are very loosely related to the text of Genesis.134 Some modifications are made for the purpose of clarifying the Genesis narrative (pure exegesis), while other changes betray a definite theological agenda pertaining, for example, to the origin of evil, proper chronology, the character of the patriarchs, sacrifices, or sexual purity (applied exegesis).

129.  CD 16.2–4: ‘And the explication of their times, when Israel was blind to all these; behold, it is specified in the Book of the Divisions of the Times in their Jubilees and in their Weeks.’ 130.  4Q228 frg. 1 1.10: ‘for thus is it written in the divisions. . . .’ (trans. Attridge, DJD 13:180). 131. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Andrew D. Gross, and James H. Charlesworth, ‘Temple Scroll: Introduction’, in Temple Scroll and Related Documents (vol. 7 of DSSHAGET; PTSDSSP 7; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 1. 132. So Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 102; Timothy H. Lim, ‘Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 317. 133. So Schiffman, Gross, and Charlesworth, ‘Temple Scroll: Introduction’, 6; Molly M. Zahn, ‘New Voices, Ancient Words: The Temple Scroll’s Reuse of the Bible’, in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. John Day; LHB/OTS 422; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 452–3. 134. For a discussion of the genre of the Genesis Apocryphon, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary (3rd ed.; BibOr 18B; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 2004), 16–25.

34

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

Rewritten Scripture texts testify to a dynamic process of transmitting authoritative traditions that have not yet achieved a fixed textual form. In most cases, the goal of rewriting was ‘not to replace, but rather to accompany traditions already regarded as authoritative, and thus to provide those traditions with their proper interpretive context’.135 At the same time, however, ‘there was nothing to preclude a rewritten text from itself gaining the status of scripture and being included in the canon – which is exactly what happened in the case of Chronicles’.136 The book of Jubilees was considered Scripture at Qumran and is still part of the canon of the Abyssinian (Ethiopic) Orthodox Church. The authoritative status of rewritten compositions was directly related to that of their base texts. Florentino García Martínez contends ‘that the intertext is used to authorize the new text, and that the new composition reinforces the authority of the existing text’.137 When we try to assess the authoritative status of individual rewritten works, we should also keep in mind a distinction between physical and functional replacement of scriptural books. Even if in most cases the new compositions did not physically replace their base texts, they may have enjoyed functional authority by offering the alternative or ‘true’ meaning of the scriptural texts.138 2.3. Scriptural Commentaries 2.3.1. Pesharim The Qumran sectarian commentaries on the text of Scripture, which employ the term r#p (‘interpretation’) to separate scriptural quotations (lemma) from interpretative comments,139 are the earliest exemplars of the commentary form in Jewish literature. Bilhah Nitzan calls pesher ‘the most distinctive exegetical genre found in the scrolls’.140 Following Jean Carmignac,141 the pesharim are commonly divided into ‘continuous pesharim’, running commentaries on selected prophetic books and the 135. Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 44 (emphasis original). 136.  Zahn, ‘Rewritten Scripture’, 330. 137. Florentino García Martínez, ‘Rethinking the Bible: Sixty Years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research and Beyond’, in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popović; JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 29. 138.  Zahn, ‘Rewritten Scripture’, 331; Brent A. Strawn, ‘Authority: Textual, Traditional, or Foundational? A Response to C. D. Elledge’, in Jewish and Christian Scriptures: The Function of ‘Canonical’ and ‘Non-Canonical’ Religious Texts (ed. James H. Charlesworth and Lee Martin McDonald; JCT 7; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 106–8. 139. For commentary formulae containing the word r#p, see Casey D. Elledge, ‘Appendix: A Graphic Index of Citation and Commentary Formulae in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (vol. 6B of DSSHAGET; PTSDSSP 6B; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 372–4. 140.  Bilhah Nitzan, ‘The Continuity of Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls and Rabbinic Literature’, in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 338. 141.  Jean Carmignac, ‘Le Document de Qumrân sur Melkisédeq’, RevQ 7 (1970): 360–62.

Scriptural Interpretation

­35

Psalms,142 and ‘thematic pesharim’, which juxtapose scriptural quotations and interpretations pertaining to a certain theme.143 The ‘citation plus comment’ form indicates that the authors of these compositions wanted to differentiate their interpretative comments from the authoritative base text. Such a reverent attitude towards Scripture, however, did not prevent them from occasionally modifying scriptural citations to suit their interpretative needs.144 The pesherists also used different textual variants, which is not surprising given the textual pluriformity of the scriptural manuscripts from Qumran. It is, however, not always easy to determine whether the pesherist used a pre-existing variant or deliberately altered the text for the sake of interpretation.145 Even when we are fairly certain that the pesherist used an available textual version, it can be difficult to determine whether a particular variant prompted a specific interpretation or a specific interpretation led to the choice of a particular variant.146 The continuous pesharim, which offer verse-by-verse commentary on various prophetic books and the Psalms – because the Qumranites believed that David had composed the latter ‘through prophecy given to him by the Most High’ (11Q5 27.11) – interpret the past, present, and future of the Qumran community as fulfilled prophecy.147 This hermeneutical move is 142. There are six commentaries on Isaiah (3QpIsa=3Q4, 4QpIsaa=4Q161, 4QpIsab=4Q162, 4QpIsac=4Q163, 4QpIsad=4Q164, 4QpIsae=4Q165), two on Hosea (4QpHosa=4Q166, 4QpHosb=4Q167), two on Micah (1QpMic=1Q14, 4QpMic=4Q168), one on Nahum (4QpNah=4Q169), one on Habakkuk (1QpHab), two on Zephaniah (1QpZeph=1Q15, 4QpZeph=4Q170), and three on the Psalms (1QpPs=1Q16, 4QpPsa=4Q171, 4QpPsb=4Q173). Fifteen compositions (1QpHab, 1Q14, 1Q15, 1Q16, 4Q161, 4Q162, 4Q163, 4Q164, 4Q165, 4Q166, 4Q167, 4Q169, 4Q170, 4Q171, and 4Q173) have traditionally been identified as continuous pesharim; see Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979). Two additional compositions (3Q4 and 4Q168) have been added to this list in the latest critical edition of the pesharim in James H. Charlesworth et al., eds, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (vol. 6B of DSSHAGET; PTSDSSP 6B; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 1–193. English translations of the pesharim are taken from this volume. 143. The best-known manuscripts in this group are 11QMelchizedek (11Q13), 4QFlorilegium (4Q174), 4QCatenaa (4Q177), and 4QCatenab (4Q182). Some scholars also add a third group called ‘isolated pesharim’, which use pesher methods and (sometimes) pesher terminology but appear in texts of different literary genres; see Devorah Dimant, ‘Pesharim, Qumran’, ABD 5:245, 248. 144. Timothy H. Lim, ‘Eschatological Orientation and the Alteration of Scripture in the Habakkuk Pesher’, JNES 49 (1990): 185–94; idem, Pesharim (CQS 3; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 54–63. 145. For a discussion of how to distinguish between exegetical and textual variants in the pesharim, see Lim, Pesharim, 54–63. Lim argues that ‘the only sure way of knowing that a reading has been exegetically created is when the ancient commentator cites the same verse twice in two different ways’ (ibid., 61). 146. Talmon, ‘Aspects of the Textual Transmission’, 107–16. 147. The pesharim have frequently been used to reconstruct the history of the Qumran Community; see, for example, James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and

36

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

based on four principal assumptions: (1) the ancient prophets wrote about the end-time events; (2) the end-time has already begun; (3) the emergence of the Qumran community and its own history belong to the end-time scenario; and (4) God revealed the secret meaning of the prophetic texts only to the sect’s founder, the Righteous Teacher.148 These assumptions belong to the core beliefs of the members of the Qumran community and contribute to their distinctive self-understanding. They are most clearly expressed in 1QpHab 7.1–5, which offers an emic perspective on the concept of pesher: and God told Habakkuk to write down the things that are going to come upon the last generation, but the fulfillment of the period he did not make known to him. And when it says, ‘so that he can run who reads it,’ its interpretation concerns the Righteous Teacher, to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets.

In subsequent commentary on Hab 2:3a and 2:3b, the pesherist first explains that ‘the last period will be prolonged’ (1QpHab 7.7) and then reassures the readers that ‘all of God’s periods will come according to their fixed order, as he decreed them in the mysteries of his prudence’ (1QpHab 7.13–14). Yet, his main purpose is not merely to assert that the end-time has already begun, despite its apparent delay,149 but to explain that those living in this extended end-time are ‘the men of truth, those who observe Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 17–118. Historical reconstructions are complicated by numerous difficulties. The use of various sobriquets, such as the Righteous Teacher, the Man of the Lie, the Wicked Priest, the House of Absalom, the Kittim, the Seekers-After-Smooth-Things, Ephraim, and Manasseh, hampers identification of the persons and events to which the pesharim allude. The events they mention are not narrated in chronological order but sporadically. In some cases, the length of time between the actual events and their mention in the pesharim is almost a century. Some passages may reflect more than one stage in the transmission process. The pesharim do not contain an objective presentation of history but describe the actual events as the members of the Qumran community perceived them. Thus the pesharim provide information not only about the events that occurred but also about the group that interpreted them; see Jutta Jokiranta, ‘Pesharim: A Mirror of Self-Understanding’, in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations (ed. Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange; SBLSymS 30; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 23–34. 148. The first two assumptions represent the classical formulation of the hermeneutical principles of the pesharim as formulated by Karl Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer (BHT 15; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1953), 150: ‘Prophetische Verkündigung hat zum Inhalt das Ende, und Die Gegenwart ist die Endzeit.’ 149.  4Q521 frg. 2 2.10, which claims that ‘the fru[it of a] good [wor]k will not be delayed for anyone’ (my translation), might provide another indication that the Qumranites needed reassurance in the face of an apparent delay of the end-time; see Lidija Novakovic, ‘4Q521: The Works of the Messiah or the Signs of the Messianic Time?’, in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions (ed. Michael T. Davis and Brent A. Strawn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 2007), 229–30.

Scriptural Interpretation

­37

the Torah, whose hands do not grow slack in the service of the truth’ (1QpHab 7.10–12), i.e. the Qumranites. In other words, his main purpose is not to give his readers a lesson in history but to help them develop a unique sense of eschatological identity.150 The pesharim relate scriptural quotations of various lengths to specific commentary through a series of identifications, which link individual words or short phrases in scriptural citations to the contemporary experience of the Qumran community on the basis of their linguistic features or metaphorical potential. Those portions of the base text that are not perceived to be relevant for the present are frequently ignored. Maurya Horgan distinguishes four categories of interpretation: (1) those that adhere closely to the content of the lemma, ‘developing a similar description in a different context’; (2) those that grow out of one or more key words, roots, or ideas; (3) those that consist of metaphorical identifications of figures or entities mentioned in the lemma; and (4) those that are only loosely related to the lemma.151 The most common exegetical techniques include atomization of the scriptural text, use of synonyms for individual words in citations, use of words with the same root as those appearing in the lemma, and various types of word-play, such as paronomasia, polyvalence, reordering of consonants, and alternate vocalization.152

150.  Qumran eschatological terminology includes the following phrases: Mymyh tyrx) (‘the end of days’, ‘the latter days’), Cqh tyrx) (‘the last period’), and Nwrx) Cq (‘last period’); see Annette Steudel, ‘Mymyh tyrx) in the Texts from Qumran’, RevQ 16 (1993): 225–46. Shani L. Berrin (‘Qumran Pesharim’, in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran [ed. Matthias Henze; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 117) notes that ‘with the sense of the “end of days” as encompassing past, present, and future, the “eschatological” valence may be seen as more theological than strictly chronological. Past events, even longpast events, may still be understood as relevant to, and part of, the approach of the end time.’ 151. Horgan, Pesharim, 244–5. 152. The above classification is based on Horgan, Pesharim, 245. Numerous classifications of the exegetical procedures employed in the pesharim have been proposed. William H. Brownlee (‘Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, BA 14 [1951]: 54–76) identified thirteen exegetical techniques, such as attribution of veiled meaning to prophetic words, division of one word into two or more parts, allegory, analogy, double meaning, and implicit allusion to biblical verses. Frederick F. Bruce (Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1956], 77; Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959], 7–17) identified four principal devices: simple change of temporal focus, atomization of statements, use of variant readings, and allegorization. Michael A. Fishbane (‘The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics’, in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies I [ed. Shinan Avigdor; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977]: 97–114) identified six techniques: citation and atomization, multiple interpretation, paronomasia, symbols, notarikon, and gematria.

38

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

The main difference between the exegetical techniques of the continuous and the thematic pesharim is the use in the latter of secondary, explicit scriptural quotations to bolster the interpretation of the primary text. These secondary texts are frequently introduced with technical formulas, such as bwtk r#)k (‘as it is written’).153 For example, in 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) 1.1–13, 2 Sam 7:10-14 is interpreted as a prophecy of the eschatological temple with the help of secondary citations of Exod 15:1718 and Amos 9:11. In 4Q174 1.14–19, the citation of Ps 1:1 is related to the chosen ones of Israel in the latter days with the help of secondary citations of Isa 8:11, Ezek 37:23, and Ps 2:1-2. This exegetical technique of starting with a primary text followed by supporting quotations is similar to rabbinic midrash, in which the argument is construed through a string of related scriptural texts. On the basis of these similarities, some scholars have classified pesher as a type of midrash.154 George Brooke, for example, regards the Qumranic pesher as a subgenre of midrash, a ‘Qumranic midrash’.155 Support for this view can certainly be found in 4Q174 1.14, which uses the term #rdm to introduce a string of prooftexts that are typical of the thematic pesharim. Moreover, in 1QS 8.15 the phrase hrwth #rdm is applied to the withdrawal of the members of the yaḥad to the wilderness in fulfilment of Isa 40:3. Alexander, however, has rightly cautioned that the application of the term ‘midrash’ to the Qumranic pesher ‘can create problems if it encourages scholars to homogenize this tradition and to ignore important differences between rabbinic and Qumranic styles of exegesis’.156 What is lacking in the Qumran writings ‘is a conscious, developed discipline of expounding Scripture operating with a standardized terminology comparable to rabbinic midrash’.157 Such confusion can be avoided if the term ‘midrash’ in the Qumran literature is understood as referring to communal study of the Torah or the results of such study, as Timothy Lim proposes,158 rather than as a designation for pesher as a distinct literary genre.

153.  4Q174 1.2, 12; 4Q177 frg. 11 line 1; 11Q13 2.9, 23. 154.  Gary G. Porton, ‘Defining Midrash’, in Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur (vol. 1 of The Study of Ancient Judaism; ed. Jacob Neusner; SFSHJ 49; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 75–7. 155.  George J. Brooke, ‘Qumran Pesher: Towards the Redefinition of a Genre’, RevQ 10 (1981): 483–503. 156. Philip S. Alexander, ‘The Bible in Qumran and Early Judaism’, in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (ed. A. D. H. Mayes; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 37. Lim (Pesharim, 48–50) argues that the term hrwth #rdm, which appears in 1QS 8.15, refers either to communal study (1QS 6.24; 8.26) or to the actual written compositions resulting from the community’s study of the Torah. 157. Reimund Bieringer et al., ‘Introduction’, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. Reimund Bieringer et al.; JSJSup 136; Leiden: Brill, 2010), xviii. 158. Lim, Pesharim, 48–50.

Scriptural Interpretation

­39

The pesherists frequently single out individual words or short phrases in order to apply them to contemporary events on the basis of their linguistic features or allegorical potential. In some cases, the new application corresponds to the original context of the lemma. Often, however, various components of the biblical passages are applied to a new situation without regard to their original literary and historical contexts.159 Karl Elliger calls this hermeneutical procedure ‘atomization’.160 In the Habakkuk Pesher, for example, the prophetic critique of the Chaldeans, the antagonists of ancient Judah, which charges that they ‘have plundered many nations’ (Hab 2:8a, quoted in 1QpHab 9.3–4), is in the commentary applied to ‘the last priests of Jerusalem, who amass wealth and profit from the plunder of the peoples’ (1QpHab 9.4–5). ‘The one who builds a city with blood and founds a town on iniquity’ in Hab 2:12 is identified as ‘the Spouter of the Lie, who caused many to err, building a city of emptiness with bloodshed and establishing a congregation with falsehood’ (1QpHab 10.9–10). Individual words or phrases that appear in the lemma sometimes have different referents in the commentary. For example, in 4QpNah frgs. 3–4, col. 1, ‘the lion’ from Nah 2:12b, which is quoted in the first line, is in the next line identified as ‘Demetrius, King of Greece, who sought to enter Jerusalem on the advice of the Seekers-After-Smooth-Things’, while ‘the lion’ from Nah 2:13a, which is quoted in line 4, is identified in line 5 with ‘the Lion of Wrath’ – a sobriquet that probably denotes Alexander Jannaeus. However, even in cases of polysemy of individual components of the lemma, only one interpretation of the scriptural passage is given. It is certainly true, as John Collins notes, that ‘a text may be interpreted in more than one way, and words and phrases do not necessarily carry the same meaning whenever they occur’,161 but in each specific case, a text is actually interpreted in only one way. The basic explicatory form, ‘this means that’, leaves no room for alternative explanations or potential ambiguities. The commentary reduces the hermeneutical potential of the base text to only one interpretative option. We can only surmise that such a perfect correspondence between the scriptural text and Qumran experience must have appeared strained and arbitrary to an outsider. What we can say with greater certainty is that this kind of interpretation must have been plausible and trustworthy to insiders. Its authority was based on the authority of the sect’s founder, the Righteous Teacher, and the shared belief that he possessed unique insights into the meaning of Scripture. Regarded as the only authorized interpreter of the text, he provided his followers with scriptural explanations that not only included the experiences of their community in the sacred story but also interpreted those experiences as the final stage of God’s dealings with Israel and the world. 159. Horgan, Pesharim, 244–7; John J. Collins, ‘Prophecy and Fulfillment in the Qumran Scrolls’, JETS 30 (1987): 268; Lim, Pesharim, 27–39. 160. Elliger, Habakuk-Kommentar, 139–42. 161.  Collins, ‘Prophecy and Fulfillment in the Qumran Scrolls’, 274.

40

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

One of the most remarkable features of the pesharim is their presumption that the text of Scripture is a mysterious entity that can be understood properly only through special revelation by a uniquely gifted interpreter. The closest analogy to this kind of interpretation outside of Qumran is found in the Aramaic section of the Book of Daniel, where a dream or a vision remains a mystery to its recipient until an interpreter comes to decipher its meaning (Dan 5:11-12, 16-17, 26; 7:16).162 In the Qumran pesharim, the mysterious content is supplied not by a dream or a vision, but by a scriptural text. Also, the prophet is not an interpreter but a recipient of the mysterious content. But the basic structure of the hermeneutical process remains the same. As in Daniel, interpretation involves two persons: the prophet, who reports a mysterious ‘dream’ (i.e. text), and the interpreter, who deciphers it. Moreover, the meaning of the text cannot be perceived by ordinary means, such as the use of reason, but only through special divine revelation to a chosen individual.163 This type of exegesis is frequently called ‘revelatory and inspired’164 because it presumes that only some persons are rendered capable of understanding it. Both Daniel and the pesharim indicate that revelatory interpretation was germane to sectarian communities, who had experienced separation and alienation from a larger group, because it helped them justify their existence and their sectarian worldview. 2.3.2. Philo’s Exegetical Commentaries Philo’s scriptural commentaries comprise two distinct commentary series, Allegorical Commentary, which, consisting of nineteen tractates, represents the largest segment of his literary opus, and Questions and Answers on Genesis and Questions and Answers on Exodus, a smaller collection of his verse-by-verse commentaries. The tractates in these two 162. Frederick F. Bruce, ‘Biblical Exposition at Qumran’, in Studies in Midrash and Historiography (vol. 3 of Gospel Perspectives; ed. R. T. France and David Wenham; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 77–8; Lou H. Silberman, ‘Unriddling the Riddle: A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab)’, RevQ 3 (1961): 326–7; Horgan, Pesharim, 230–37; Berrin, ‘Qumran Pesharim’, 123–5. 163. This does not mean that scriptural interpretation in the pesharim should be described as irrational. The use of various exegetical techniques, such as the ones mentioned above, points to a disciplined and reflective engagement with the text. What the comparison with Daniel indicates, however, especially in light of 1QpHab 7.1–5, is the revelatory theological framework within which exegetical reflection takes place. Daniel is indeed a man endowed with ‘enlightenment, understanding, and excellent wisdom’ (Dan 5:14), but his success in interpreting dreams is attributed to the power of God, who ‘gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. He reveals deep and hidden things’ (Dan 2:21-22). The most significant aspect of dream interpretation in Daniel is ‘that the prophecy is regarded as a mystery that must be decoded, like the writing on the wall in Daniel 5, and that a new revelation is necessary for its interpretation’ (Collins, ‘Prophecy and Fulfillment in the Qumran Scrolls’, 271). 164. Lim, Pesharim, 35; Elliger, Habakuk-Kommentar, 163; Berrin, ‘Qumran Pesharim’, 125–6.

Scriptural Interpretation

41

series are characterized by a clear distinction between the text of Scripture and interpretative comments and thus represent, in addition to the Qumran pesharim, the only other pre-70 collections of texts written in the commentary form that would later became dominant in rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. Unlike the pesharim, however, Philo’s commentaries are based not on the Hebrew text of Scripture but on the Septuagint, which Philo regarded as equally inspired as its Hebrew Vorlage. Another major difference is the scriptural books that are chosen for commentary. While the pesharim provide sectarian interpretations of selected prophetic books and the Psalms, Philo wrote his commentaries exclusively on the books of the Pentateuch. This seems to have been the result of his deliberate decision, because his occasional quotations from the prophetic books show that he was familiar with the prophetic literature and held the prophets in high esteem.165 A third major difference between the pesharim and Philo’s commentaries is in their theological outlook. While eschatology supplies the primary religious categories for Qumran scriptural interpretation, it plays a relatively minor role in Philo’s worldview. In addition to his commentary series, Philo also wrote various paraphrases of the Pentateuch, such as On the Life of Moses and the Exposition of the Law,166 which expand scriptural narratives and legal sections with imaginative novelistic elaborations and extensive explanatory comments. Since these writings blend text and interpretation, they are sometimes regarded as exemplars of rewritten Scripture.167 The main difference between Philo’s treatises and other writings typically categorized as rewritten Scripture is that Philo is explicit about his philosophical and theological aims, while other works in the rewritten Scripture category do not explicate their hermeneutical assumptions and theological ends.168 Philo’s expositions of Scripture, composed in the first half of the first century ce, offer us a glimpse of the exegetical traditions employed by Jews living in Alexandria during that time. Philo’s occasional references to his contemporaries (Cher. 48; Spec. 1.8; 1.214) point to a vibrant interpretative community that shared ideas and cultivated an allegorical approach to the written text.169 Philo, an educated Alexandrian Jew who 165.  Cher. 49; Plant. 38; Conf. 44; Fug. 197; Mut. 139, 169; Somn. 2.172. 166. The Exposition of the Law is a series of Philo’s commentaries on the Pentateuch that includes On the Creation of the World, On the Life of Abraham, On the Life of Joseph, On the Decalogue, On the Special Laws, On the Virtues, and On Rewards and Punishments, as well as two lost tractates, On the Life of Isaac and On the Life of Jacob. 167. Harrington, ‘The Bible Rewritten (Narratives)’, 239; Peder Borgen, ‘Rewritten Bible?’, in Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 63–79; George W. E. Nickelsburg, ‘Philo among Greeks, Jews and Christians’, in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen (ed. Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr; WUNT 172; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 64. 168.  Borgen, ‘Rewritten Bible?’, 78–9. 169. Two near-contemporaries of Philo who practised allegorical interpretation at Alexandria are Aristobulus and an author who wrote under the pseudonym of Aristeas.

42

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

was thoroughly familiar with two different worlds, that of Judaism and that of Hellenism, wanted to show the correspondence between the Torah and Greek philosophy.170 In order to accomplish this goal, Philo used Greek philosophical ideas as exegetical tools to interpret Jewish Scriptures because he believed that philosophy, used rightly, leads philosophers to the same truth that is expressed in the sacred texts.171 According to David Runia, Philo’s primary motivation for this endeavour was apologetic. Philo wanted ‘to show that Jewish people did not need to be ashamed of their cultural and religious heritage, that in fact the highest wisdom attainable by man is to be found in the Law of the great Hebrew prophet Moses’.172 As a defender of Judaism, Philo was first and foremost an exegete of Jewish Scripture. For him, Greek philosophy was primarily a means to an end – to demonstrate the wisdom and supremacy of the Jewish Law. As a ‘philosophically oriented exegete’ rather than an ‘exegetical philosopher’,173 Philo adopted a view of Scripture that enabled him to express its meaning in philosophical terms. He insisted that Scripture had a twofold meaning, literal and allegorical. Only the latter, however, reveals the true sense of the sacred texts, which is hidden below the surface. Allegorical exegesis is therefore not just one among several equally valid interpretative options, but the singular means of accessing ‘truth related to the timeless world of ideas’.174 While the literalist remains See Adam Kamesar, ‘Biblical Interpretation in Philo’, in The Cambridge Companion to Philo (ed. Adam Kamesar; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 65–6; David Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 74–82. 170. Philo’s primary philosophical influence – whether Stoic, Platonic, or Pythagorean – has long been a matter of debate. In the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, many scholars regarded Philo as an ‘eclectic’ philosopher. In current scholarship, the existence of multiple philosophical streams in Philo notwithstanding, ‘the scales are consistently . . . tipped in favor of Platonic rather than other doctrines’ (David T. Runia, ‘Was Philo a Middle Platonist? A Difficult Question Revisited’, SPhilo 5 [1993]: 132). Even so, the debate over whether to classify Philo as a thorough-going Middle-Platonist or a Platonizing expositor of Scripture is still unresolved. 171. David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (PhA 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 540. Gregory E. Sterling (‘Platonizing Moses: Philo and Middle Platonism’, SPhilo 5 [1993]: 111) claims that for Philo ‘Plato and Moses are intellectually one’, because Philo believed that both philosophy and the Law lead their adherents, the Greeks and the Jews respectively, to knowledge of the one true God (ibid., 102–3). 172. David T. Runia, Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of Alexandria (VCS 332; Aldershot: Variorum, 1990), 4–5. Najman (Seconding Sinai, 70) emphasises that ‘Philo’s challenge was different from the challenge confronting the authors of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll. They had to authorize, to an exclusively Jewish audience, what they took to be authentic Judaism, in the face of rival practices and interpretations. Philo had to authorize Judaism itself to both Jews and non-Jews, within the relatively new context of the Hellenistic competition of cultures.’ 173. Runia, ‘Was Philo a Middle Platonist?’, 121. 174. Ronald Williamson, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo (CCWJCW 1.2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 164.

Scriptural Interpretation

­43

trapped in the world of sense perception, the allegorist operates in the world of ideas. In this way, Philo was able not only to ‘translate’ the plain meaning of Scripture into Greek philosophical categories but also to avoid anthropomorphic descriptions of God.175 This, however, does not mean that he ignored the literal meaning of the text. Philo criticized literalists not because they interpreted the text literally but because they rejected allegorical interpretation (Fug. 179; Conf. 190). He himself often provided literal and allegorical interpretations side by side as, for example, in his Questions and Answers on Genesis and Questions and Answers on Exodus. He also believed that the halakhic requirements of the Torah should be literally observed and not allegorized away (Migr. 89–93). The allegorical meaning, which is available only to the initiated, can be discovered by paying close attention to the smallest details in the text, such as grammar and spelling. Philo frequently introduces his allegorical interpretations by referring to the ‘rules of allegory’ (Abr. 68; Spec. 1.287; Somn. 1.73, 102), but he never explains what they are. On the basis of the Philonic corpus, Carl Siegfried has compiled a list of 23 rules that indicate when an interpreter should engage in allegorical interpretation.176 They include doubling of a word or phrase, superfluous words or facts, synonymous words or phrases, word-play, unusual words or spelling, the presence of particles or adverbs, inseparable prepositions, slight modifications in a word that convey different meaning, the gender of a noun, unusual statements, numbers, objects, and names that can be interpreted symbolically, etc. These rules, however, only explain when but not how to interpret the text allegorically. Philo’s actual exegetical conclusions depend, for the most part, on his theological and philosophical assumptions, especially his basic conviction regarding absolute compatibility between Greek philosophy and the Jewish Law. Not surprisingly, then, he regularly relates the contents of the Jewish Scriptures to the philosophical concerns of the Stoic, Middle Platonist, and Pythagorean schools.177 There is no doubt that Philo’s exceptional knowledge of Greek philosophy, mythology, and literature greatly assisted him in his task of allegorical interpretation. He was also familiar with the traditions of his Jewish contemporaries (Mos. 1.4), which may have included local Jewish tradition as well as Palestinian haggadah. Philo sometimes even speaks of having ecstatic experiences that 175. Williamson argues that, in addition to Philo’s desire to reconcile Middle Platonism and Hebrew Scripture, his rejection of anthropomorphisms was ‘the most powerful of the reasons which led Philo to adopt the allegorical method of exegesis’ (Jews in the Hellenistic World, 172). 176.  Carl G. A. Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten Testaments, an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss betrachtet: Nebst Untersuchungen über die Graecitaet Philo’s (Jena: Hermann Dufft, 1875), 165–8. 177. Harry A. Wolfson, for example, argues that On the Creation of the World retells the story of creation ‘in terms of Plato’s Timaeus as Philo understood it’ (Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam [2 vols; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962], 1:307).

44

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

yield astounding insights into the meaning of the sacred texts (Migr. 34– 35; Her. 264–65; Cher. 27). Philo’s extraordinary attentiveness to details in the text of Scripture is counterbalanced by his attention to the larger scriptural context. While allegorical interpretation leads Philo to atomize the sacred text, his belief in the perfect consistency of Scripture leads him to relate the passages he discusses to other scriptural texts, so that for him the entire Pentateuch becomes a ‘complex network of meaning’.178 In this way, Philo creates a web of exceptionally complex and highly sophisticated scriptural interpretations that combine his minute insights with his understanding of the text as a whole. Scholars regularly note that Philo viewed not only Scripture – both the Hebrew original and its Greek translation – but also his own scriptural interpretation as inspired prophecy.179 Peder Borgen, for example, states that Philo’s ‘allegorical interpretation shows affinities with the hermeneutical concept of prophecy and fulfillment. He spells out abstract principles which he sees in the biblical text, and these in turn can be applied to individuals and the Jewish community, serving to interpret specific events.’180 This concept of prophetic fulfilment, however, does not reflect an apocalyptic mindset and is therefore different from the concept of prophetic fulfilment displayed in the Qumran pesharim. 2.3.3. Rabbinic Midrash Over the years, the term ‘midrash’ has been used by scholars as a broad term to describe, as Alexander Samely laments, ‘just about everything that has a vague connexion with the interpretation of Bible’,181 or, to use Richard B. Hays’s formulation, ‘as a convenient cover for a multitude of exegetical sins’.182 Research on midrash in the past three decades, however, has greatly advanced our understanding of this category and contributed to a more nuanced definition of the term. The word “midrash” (#rdm) comes from the Hebrew verb #rd (‘resort to’, ‘seek’, ‘search out’, ‘inquire’).183 It appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible (2 Chr 13:22; 24:27) and a just a few times in the Qumran writings.184 Only in the rabbinic literature, however, 178. David T. Runia, ‘The Theme of Flight and Exile in the Allegorical ThoughtWorld of Philo of Alexandria’, SPhilo 21 (2009): 6. 179. Williamson, Jews in the Hellenistic World, 169; Instone Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions, 208–9. 180. Peder Borgen, ‘Philo of Alexandria’, ABD 5:338. 181. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech, 158. 182. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 13. 183. The root #rd appears over 150 times in the Hebrew Bible; see S. Wagner, ‘dārash’, TDOT 3:293–307. However, only in Ezra 7:10 is a verbal form of #rd linked to the study of the Torah. 184.  CD 20.6; 1QS 6.24; 8.15, 26; 4Q174 1.14; 4Q249 frg. 1 verso; 4Q256 9.1; 4Q258 1.1; 7.1; 4Q259 3.6; 4Q266 frg. 11 line 20; 4Q270 frg. 7 2.15. Moshe Idel,

Scriptural Interpretation

­45

does midrash function as a technical term for scriptural interpretation or for collections of scriptural interpretations. More specifically, it is used to ‘designate the process by which one interprets, explains, corrects, or expounds the text as well as the interpretation, explanation, or exposition itself’.185 As a specifically rabbinic phenomenon, midrash can be used to designate either a type of literature or an interpretative procedure.186 As a type of literature, midrash refers to oral or written work ‘composed by the rabbis that has its starting point in a fixed, canonical biblical text. In midrash, this original text, considered the revealed word of God by the midrashist and his audience, is explicitly cited or clearly alluded to.’187 This definition presumes that midrash is essentially a religious endeavour, because both the midrashist and his audience view not only the Scripture but also the midrashic activity as sacred. Unlike other types of Jewish scriptural commentaries, midrashim are not the product of a single author but collections of interpretations generated by many individuals. A distinctive feature of rabbinic midrashim is the presence of multiple interpretations of a single verse, typically introduced with the phrase ‘another interpretation’ (rx) rbd), most of which are ascribed to named sages. Several synonymous, complementary, or even contradictory remarks frequently appear next to one another in relation to a single scriptural unit, without any indication of their accuracy or validity.188 Another unique feature of midrashic literature is that its interpretative efforts are not limited to explicatory commentaries on biblical verses, but include other exegetical forms as well, such as short stories, dialogues among several sages, or extended monologues.189 The standard division of midrashic literature into midrash halakhah (interpretation pertaining to

‘Midrashic Versus Other Forms of Jewish Hermeneutics: Some Comparative Reflections’, in The Midrashic Imagination: Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and History (ed. Michael A. Fishbane; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 46, emphasises that ‘the midrashic approach is fundamentally different from that found in the Qumran scrolls, which is much more historically (viz. eschatologically) oriented’. 185. Porton, ‘Defining Midrash’, 58. 186.  Jacob Neusner (Introduction to Rabbinic Literature [ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994], 223–4) includes three categories in his definition of midrash: ‘(1) a distinctive process of interpretation of a particular text, thus, the hermeneutic, (2) a particular compilation of the results of that process, thus, a book that is the composite of a set of exegesis, or (3) a concrete unit of the working of that process of scriptural exegesis, thus the write-up of the process of interpretation as it applies to a single verse, the exegetical composition on a particular verse (or group of verses)’ (emphasis original). 187. Porton, ‘Midrash, Definitions of’, 520. 188. Rivka Kern-Ulmer (‘Theological Foundations of Rabbinic Exegesis’, EncMidr 2:945) remarks that one of the inadequacies of the middot ‘is a near total absence of evaluative procedures. There are no reductions to standards of logical reasoning, because the middot are abstractions of intellectual behavior and of thought processes involving Scripture.’ 189. Porton, ‘Midrash, Definitions of’, 532.

46

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

Jewish law) and midrash haggadah (non-juristic interpretation),190 though it remains generally useful, is not always helpful because of significant overlap between the two categories. Many haggadic passages are based on legal principles or have practical application.191 An alternative division is proposed by Porton, who distinguishes expositional midrashim, which provide running commentary on a given biblical book, from homiletical midrashim, which focus on only a few verses of a given book or conjoin several nonconsecutive biblical verses around a major theme.192 As an interpretative procedure, midrash refers to a creative explication of Scripture with the help of certain interpretative mechanisms, such as etymology, word-play, use of catchwords, analogy, and logical inference. The occasion for midrash can be an unusual word or spelling, an apparent redundancy, an unexpected turn in the narrative, or even an apparent contradiction between two scriptural passages. Midrashic exegetical techniques frequently focus on minute details in the text, such as individual words or even the shapes of the letters. Rivka Kern-Ulmer calls this ‘an atomistic approach to Scripture’ and explains that ‘one lemma in midrash may consist of one single graphic sign, a letter, a trope, a sentence or a verse, but rarely beyond that, usually without regard to the surrounding text and thus without taking notice of the overall sense’.193 Midrashic interpretations are frequently guided by specific hermeneutical principles, or middot, which developed over time. The first list of seven principles is attributed to Hillel, followed by a list of thirteen principles attributed to Ishmael. A list of thirty-two middot is attributed to Eliezer ben Yose ha-Gelili.194 Hillel apparently introduced his hermeneutical 190. Leopold Zunz, who is usually credited with this division, classified the Mekilta of Rabbi Ishmael to Exodus, the Mekilta of Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai to Exodus, Sifra to Leviticus, and Sifré to Numbers and Deuteronomy as midrash halakhah, and the rest of the midrashic collections as midrash haggadah (Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt: Ein Beitrag zur Alterthumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte [Berlin: A. Asher, 1832], 44). 191. Porton, ‘Defining Midrash’, 77–8. 192. Ibid., 77–9; idem, ‘Midrash, Definitions of’, 533. Porton regards Sifra, Sifré, Mekilta, and Genesis Rabbah as major examples of expositional midrashim, and the Pesiqṭot and Leviticus Rabbah as major examples of homiletical midrashim. For a similar division of midrashic compositions, see Jacob Neusner, Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture: Introduction to the Rabbinic Midrash (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 15–17. Neusner distinguishes three types of rabbinic midrash: (1) ‘verse-by-verse exegesis of a given scriptural book’, exemplified in Sifré, Mekilta, Sifra, and Genesis Rabbah; (2) ‘propositional compositions formed from groups of diverse verses and their exegesis’, exemplified in Leviticus Rabbah, some parts of Genesis Rabbah, and Pesiqta deRab Kahana; and (3) ‘the repetition of the same point, again and again, in sequential exegesis of a given book of Scripture’, exemplified in Song of Songs Rabbah. 193.  Kern-Ulmer, ‘Theological Foundations of Rabbinic Exegesis’, 962. 194. Fur a succinct description of each of the seven middot of Hillel, the thirteen middot of Ishmael, and the thirty-two middot of Eliezer, see Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuhl; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 16–30.

Scriptural Interpretation

­47

principles in a debate with the elders of Bethyra about whether Passover overrides the Sabbath. The account of the dispute is found in t. Pesaḥ. 6.1, 33a and 4.13, while the list of principles appears in two versions, one in t. Sanh. 7.11 and ’Abot R. Nat. A 37.7, and one in the introduction to Sifra. A comparison of these two lists reveals several inconsistencies. The numbers that appear in the lists’ superscriptions do not correspond to the numbers of the middot described in the lists themselves.195 Hillel himself employs only two of the seven middot attributed to him (gezerah shawah and qal wahomer) and uses one technique (heqqesh) which does not appear on his list.196 For the most part, the thirteen middot attributed to Ishmael are an expanded version of the seven middot attributed to Hillel. The list itself, found at the beginning of Sifra, is a composite of several sources. The traditions about Ishmael himself do not portray him as employing many of the principles attributed to him.197 Like the traditions about Hillel, most of the stories about Ishmael describe him using only qal wahomer and gezerah shawah.198 The list attributed to Eliezer ben Yose ha-Gelili appears only in late anthologies.199 These observations indicate that all three lists of middot are secondary literary constructions created by the editors of rabbinic works for the purpose of demonstrating the rational and systematic character of the rabbinic hermeneutical endeavour. Qal wahomer and gezerah shawah are the two exegetical techniques that are used most frequently not only by Hillel and Ishmael but also by other rabbis in the midrashic collections.200 Qal wahomer is an inference from the ‘lighter’ (less significant) to the ‘weightier’ (more significant) or vice versa. This method is not necessarily an exegetical technique. Its constitutive devices, the arguments a minore ad maius and a maiore ad minus, are rhetorical techniques that are common in both Greco-Roman rhetoric and non-exegetical rabbinic collections. Gezerah shawah is a method of relating two different texts on the basis of a shared word or phrase, regardless of whether they deal with similar subjects. This technique enables an interpreter to explain or expand one text in light 195. The list in the Tosefta and ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan contains eight items, while the list in Sifra contains only six items; see Gary G. Porton, ‘Hermeneutics, A Critical Approach’, EncMidr 1:252–3. 196. Porton, ‘Hermeneutics, A Critical Approach’, 252–6. Porton adds that ‘the technical terminology is directly associated with Hillel only in the lists and in the story about Passover. In addition, the traditions attributed to Hillel in the Rabbinic corpus do not picture him using the methods even without the specific terminology’ (ibid., 256; emphasis original). 197.  Michael Chernick, ‘The Use of Ribbuyim and Mi’utim in the Halakic Midrash of R. Ishmael’, JQR 70 (1980): 96–116; Gary G. Porton, The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael (SJLA 19; 4 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1976–82), 4:160–211. 198. Ibid., 257–60. 199. Hyman G. Enelow, ed., The Mishnah of Rabbi Eliezer or the Midrash of ThirtyTwo Hermeneutic Rules (New York: Bloch, 1933; repr. 1970). 200. Porton, ‘Hermeneutics, A Critical Approach’, 260.

48

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

of another. The method employed by Hillel, called heqqesh, is similar to gezerah shawah because it allows the linking of different texts by means of a common subject rather than a common word or phrase. Several scholars have examined the influence of Hellenistic rhetoric on rabbinic exegetical principles.201 David Daube compared the seven middot of Hillel to various Greco-Roman rhetorical strategies and concluded that their similarities are not accidental but generic. ‘We have before us a science the beginning of which may be traced back to Plato, Aristotle, and their contemporaries. . . . Philosophical instruction was very similar in outline, whether given at Rome, Jerusalem, or Alexandria.’202 A different conclusion is reached by Saul Lieberman, who compared the thirteen middot of Rabbi Ishmael to two of the principles of Hermogenes and concluded that their similarities are accidental.203 In his view, the rabbis did not borrow any specifically Hellenistic methodology but used logical devices that were common in antiquity. Lieberman acknowledges rabbinic familiarity with Greco-Roman rhetorical strategies204 but insists that borrowing was limited to terminology, which in his view took place at a relatively late date. Regardless of how one reconstructs the relationship between the rabbinic middot and Hellenistic rhetorical devices, it is clear, as W. Sibley Towner notes, that the rabbinic struggle to define reliable hermeneutical methods ‘was carried on in a world in which others were engaged in the same hermeneutical quest, all within the remarkably international, interdependent environment of the Roman Empire’.205 Ascription of the development of coherent methods of scriptural interpretation to prominent rabbinic figures such as Hillel and Ishmael may have been motivated by a desire to disentangle them from the Hellenistic world and thus ‘rabbinize’ them.206 201. David Daube, ‘Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric’, HUCA 22 (1949): 239–64; idem, ‘Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the Rabbis’, in Festschrift Hans Lewald (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenbahn, 1953), 27–44; Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E. – IV Century C.E. (2nd ed.; TSJTSA 18; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962), 56–68; Louis Jacobs, Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology (London: Vallentine Mitchell, 1961), 3–8; W. Sibley Towner, The Rabbinic ‘Enumeration of Scriptural Examples’: A Study of a Rabbinic Pattern of Discourse with Special Reference to Mekhilta d’R. Ishmael (StPB 22; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 49–50, 103–4; idem, ‘Hermeneutical Systems of Hillel and the Tannaim: A Fresh Look’, HUCA 53 (1982): 107–9. 202. Daube, ‘Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation’, 257. 203. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 56–68. 204.  ‘The inhabitants of Palestine listened to the speeches of the rhetors, and the art of rhetoric had a practical value’ (Saul Lieberman, ‘How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine’, in Biblical and Other Studies [ed. Alexander Altmann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963], 134). 205. Towner, ‘Hermeneutical Systems of Hillel and the Tannaim’, 109. 206. So Porton, ‘Hermeneutics, A Critical Approach’, 267. Elsewhere Porton argues that ‘the point of the lists and of the references to the terms in the Rabbinic corpus is

Scriptural Interpretation

­49

It is sometimes pointed out that the primary purpose of midrash is not to determine the plain meaning of the text, which is called peshat (‘simple’), but to seek knowledge that can be gained through logical inference, analogy, combination of different passages, and the like.207 Ithamar Gruenwald uses this distinction to explore the cognitive potential of midrash and claims that its goal ‘is not the mere act of understanding texts, but the creation of the meaning that is attached to them’.208 Since ‘Midrash is chiefly concerned with the creation of meaning – not with exegesis . . . meaning is not discovered in the text, but attributed to it’.209 Such an assessment is certainly not limited to rabbinic literature. All interpreters, ancient and modern alike, read the text from their own particular perspectives and frequently attribute to it a meaning that differs from the one intended by its author. But if Vermes’s distinction between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ exegesis serves as a guide, not all interpreters deliberately seek to read into the text new ideas or find justification for new practices. Some readers are primarily interested in solving the exegetical problems they encounter in the text and making Scripture comprehensible to their audience. In contrast, the primary purpose of midrash is not explicatory but augmentary. This means that, in principle, ‘the word of Scripture can be stretched in almost every direction and to almost any length’.210 Yet these possibilities are not endless. Midrashic imagination is limited by certain interpretative boundaries, which Gruenwald calls ‘the midrashic conditions’. These include ‘formal principles of scriptural exegesis (the Middot used in the interpretation of the Torah), social needs, new ideological and political positions, historical requirements, [and] any current disposition of the community’.211 We have seen that midrashic exegesis presumes the existence of a closed, revealed text. The sacred text conveys God’s own words through a closed system of language. Midrash thus presupposes that revelation to show that the rabbis invented the rational exposition of written texts’ (‘Midrash, Definitions of’, 527; emphasis original). 207. On the distinction between midrash and peshat, see Israel Frankel, Peshaṭ (Plain Exegesis) in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature (Toronto: La Salle, 1956), 68, 80; Saul Horovitz, ‘Midrash’, in The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times (ed. Isidore Singer; 12 vols; New York: Ktav, 1901–1906), 8:548. For a critique of this distinction, see Porton, ‘Defining Midrash’, 59. 208.  Gruenwald, ‘Midrash and the “Midrashic Condition”: Preliminary Considerations’, 7. 209. Ibid., 9 (emphasis removed). 210. Ibid., 11. 211. Ibid., 12. Michael A. Fishbane (The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and Theology [Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1998], 20–21) speaks of the following three limitations of the midrashic endeavour: those imposed by the spiritual or intellectual capacity of interpreters, those of mean-spirited and potentially anarchic readings, and those imposed by human sinfulness.

50

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

has a decidedly linguistic character. As an independent entity that is holy and fixed for all time,212 Scripture can be called upon to answer all kinds of religious questions. Fishbane claims that the ‘identification of God’s utterance and Torah is the hermeneutical core of Judaism. Midrash works out the details.’213 He regards the closure of the scriptural canon as a transformative event because ‘there can be no new addition or supplementations to the biblical text. . . . Everything must be found in it.’214 The self-sufficiency of Scripture also entails its self-referentiality. Midrash presumes that Scripture is the exclusive source of divine knowledge and that no external corroboration is needed to support the biblical truths.215 Midrash thus creatively combines two contrasting principles: the fixedness of the text216 and the plurality of its meanings. With the help of midrash, the closed canon of Scripture is actualized through an (almost) endless combinations of individual elements.217 ‘Indeed, each letter has (virtual) anagrammatical significance; each word may encode numerous plays and possibilities; and each phrase has any number of potential correlations within Scripture.’218 Moshe Idel believes that this openness of the text to diverse interpretations is facilitated through the absence of a systematic theology: Free from systematic theological constraints the midrashists were able to respond to the same verse in different ways. A theology inclined to emphasizing the divine will – that is, as an ever-changing power that cannot be easily formulated in itself, but whose manifestations are marked in a written document – produced a much more open attitude to the text.219

212. Porton notes that ‘the world might change, but the Torah, like God, was eternally the same’ (‘Midrash, Definitions of’, 524). 213. Fishbane, The Exegetical Imagination, 9. 214. Ibid., 12. 215.  Kern-Ulmer, ‘Theological Foundations of Rabbinic Exegesis’, 961. 216. The concept of a fixed text did not prevent the rabbis from using textual variants to support a particular interpretation. The most common technique of textual emendation is called al tiqre (‘do not read’). 217. Fishbane compares the distinction between the closed canon of Scripture and midrash to Ferdinand de Saussure’s distinction between langue (‘language’) and parole (‘speech’) and argues that ‘the speech or parole of Scripture becomes the language (langue) of each and every midrashic statement (parole). In other words, Scripture becomes a closed and unified system of language with particular possibilities for linking words and phrases. Midrash is the name for the speech-acts that arise from this system’ (The Exegetical Imagination, 12). Using another analogy from linguistics, Kern-Ulmer (‘Theological Foundations of Rabbinic Exegesis’, 945–6) explains that ‘the creators of midrash conceived of Scripture as a semiotic field that can be quarried for meanings. The rabbis of the midrash saw the graphic signs in this semiotic field, recognized them as linguistic signs, and interpreted the linguistic signs constructed from the semiotic field.’ 218. Fishbane, The Exegetical Imagination, 12. 219. Idel, ‘Midrashic Versus Other Forms of Jewish Hermeneutics’, 53.

Scriptural Interpretation

­51

A different view is held by Jacob Neusner, who has become the most cogent modern defender of a systematic theological framework of midrash.220 Neusner argues that all midrashic compilations ‘share a structure of category-formations and participate in common in a single theological system’.221 Despite apparent differences, the theological ideas that inform rabbinic interpretation form a coherent system of various generalizations about God and God’s self-manifestation in Scripture. With the help of midrash, the facts of Scripture are transformed into a coherent theological system, which Neusner summarises as follows: ‘God saved Israel at the Sea by doing certain things; when God saves Israel at the end of days, he will do those same things. The initial fact or act of salvation then is generalized into the exemplification, the procedure of salvation. Precisely what God did at the Sea he will do in the end of days.’222 This synopsis is based on Neusner’s thesis that midrash transforms the historical accounts of Scripture into exemplary patterns that govern the present life and the life to come.223 By replacing historical with paradigmatic thinking, which ‘treats the case not as a one-time event but as an example’,224 the rabbis were able to impose order upon the world they encountered and make the teachings of Scripture relevant to their own time. ‘Here we deal with not the spiritualization of Scripture, but with the acutely contemporary and immediate realization of Scripture, once again, as then; Scripture in the present day, the present day in Scripture.’225 The purpose of midrash is not easy to determine. Early midrashic collections, such as Sifra and Sifré, attach various legal portions of the Mishnah to the biblical texts. It seems, then, that one of the purposes of midrash was to provide scriptural justification for various mishnaic regulations. Vermes deems this endeavour a prime example of applied exegesis and traces it back to the pre-70 context in which the leaders of the Pharisaic movement were ‘unable to claim authority by reason of hereditary status or professional training as the older priestly and Levitical scribes had done’, so that ‘wherever their doctrine departed from the accepted norm they were obliged to defend it with argument solidly backed by Scripture’.226 Porton contends that relating the new concepts and practices to Scripture did not have the purpose of making them acceptable to the community, because the authority of the mishnaic rules was derived from the Oral Torah, not

220. For the first modern attempt to systematize rabbinic theology, see Kaufmann Kohler, Grundriss einer systematischen Theologie des Judentums auf geschichtlicher Grundlage (Leipzig: Fock, 1910). 221.  Jacob Neusner, ‘Theology of Rabbinic Midrash’, EncMidr 2:964. 222. Neusner, ‘Theology of Rabbinic Midrash’, 965 (emphasis original). 223. Neusner, Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture, 1–14. 224. Ibid., 6. 225. Ibid., 11. 226.  Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies, 80–81.

52

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

the Written Torah.227 In his view, ‘it is more likely that Midrash reconnects the two elements of revelation, the Oral and the Written Torahs, in an attempt to make obvious to everyone what was implicit in those statements composed with clear reference to the biblical texts’.228 Many scholars believe that the main purpose of midrash was to make the Torah relevant to the time and context in which the rabbis lived.229 Those who hold this view typically see the origin of midrash in rabbinic synagogue sermons.230 There is, however, little evidence about the rabbis’ participation in synagogue worship.231 It is more likely that midrash originated in rabbinic schoolhouses. Many midrashim have been created solely for academic purposes and can be viewed as ‘a result of holy men dealing with a holy text for their own edification and pleasure’.232 Since the primary task of rabbinic schoolhouses was the training of rabbis, midrashic arguments were probably not composed to convince outsiders.233 This does not mean, however, that the argumentative structure of midrash did not have wide appeal. Neusner explains: If the theological passage is to address the insider, the philological kind (in mind of the insider at least) speaks to the world at large. This other, general mode of discourse about Scripture serves to persuade the insider that outsiders, reasonable and informed people, may well accept what the exegete has to say. A 227. Porton makes a clear distinction between the Mishnah, which presumes ‘that a rational being can produce the outlines of the realities of Jewish life independently of direct reference to the text of the Written Torah’, and midrash, which presumes ‘that the human mind unaided by recourse to specific verses from the Hebrew Bible cannot discover Truth’ (‘Midrash, Definitions of’, 522). 228. Ibid., 526. 229. Addison G. Wright, The Literary Genre Midrash (New York: Alba House, 1967), 64; Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 228–9; Joseph Heinemann, Public Sermons in the Talmudic Period (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1970), 8 [Hebrew]. 230. This interpretation goes back to Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, and Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau: J. Hainauer, 1857). 231.  Jacob Neusner, From Shapur I to Shapur II (vol. 3 of A History of the Jews of Babylonia; StPB; Leiden: Brill, 1968), 234–8; idem, The Age of Shapur II (vol. 4 of A History of the Jews of Babylonia; StPB; Leiden: Brill, 1969), 149–51. For a discussion of the relationship between midrash and rabbinic sermons, see Porton, ‘Midrash, Definitions of’, 527–30. 232. Porton, ‘Defining Midrash’, 80–81. 233. Porton has repeatedly stressed the non-apologetic character of midrash. In his view, the rabbis were realists. ‘While they dreamed that the whole Jewish world would be rabbis, they knew that this was not going to happen in the near future. The best they could do was to train sages who could go into the markets and courts to make sure that the public life of the Jewish community conformed to Rabbinic standards. These standards of action could be observed, regulated, controlled, and altered. The rabbis might have to justify their decisions at times, but for the most part, the people would have listened to them because they were holy men, able to curse those who disobeyed them and bless those who listened to them’ (‘Midrash, Definitions of’, 530–31).

Scriptural Interpretation

­53

powerful apologetic – addressed, self-evidently to the believer – thereby emerges. What we say about Scripture’s meaning is reasonable and demonstrable, not merely to be believed by a private act of faith. It is to be critically examined, assented to by shared reason. So the claim of the exegete to provide mere facts supplies the most powerful apologetic. Transforming convictions into (mere) facts serves to reinforce the faith of the believer, beyond all arguments from revelation, let alone historical confirmation.234

By believing ‘that any reasonable and informed person must read things in this way and not in some other’,235 the rabbis displayed remarkable confidence in reason and logic to disclose the truths of Scripture. The concept of exegesis as a rational enterprise can also be discerned in Philo’s exegetical commentaries, though it is virtually absent from the pesharim, which presume the revelatory character and singularity of scriptural interpretation.

3. Interpretation of Israel’s Scripture in the New Testament Formally, the New Testament writings are quite different from scriptural translations, rewritten Scripture, the pesharim, Philo’s allegorical commentaries, and midrashic literature. They do not provide paraphrastic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. They do not rewrite sacred texts with the help of implicit exegesis. They do not offer continuous or thematic commentary on scriptural books. They do not interpret the Scriptures following rules of allegory. Nor do they offer several interpretations of a single verse listed one after another. Behind these formal differences, however, lie striking similarities. Although the New Testament authors regularly quote the LXX, they sometimes provide their own translations of the Hebrew Scriptures (Matt 8:17). They sometimes revise scriptural narratives to make them more readily applicable to the career of Jesus or to the life of the church (Acts 7:2-34). They frequently claim that certain events in Jesus’ life directly fulfil ancient prophecies (Matt 1:22-23; 2:15, 1718, 23; 12:17-21). They sometimes interpret the sacred texts allegorically (Gal 4:22-31). And, in some cases, they develop sophisticated scriptural arguments (Acts 2:25-36; 13:32-37). The utilization of various types of implicit and explicit exegesis in the New Testament documents situates these writings firmly in the late Second Temple and early rabbinic period. It is thus not surprising that many scholars continue to regard Jewish exegetical practices as the most important backdrop for understanding the methods of scriptural interpretation in early Christian literature.236 234.  Jacob Neusner, Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 122–3 (emphasis original). 235. Ibid., 123. 236. For studies of the Jewish context of early Christianity, see Jacob Neusner,

54

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

An alternative approach is to analyse the use of Scripture in the New Testament as a predominantly literary phenomenon. Over the past two decades or so, there has been a growing interest among New Testament scholars in the phenomenon of intertextuality that was developed in modern literary theory.237 This trend in biblical scholarship has been bolstered significantly by the publication of Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul by Richard Hays. In this book, Hays utilizes work of Julia Kristeva and Roland Barthes, who have shown that the intelligibility of a given discourse is dependent upon its relation to previous discourses.238 Drawing upon the work of other literary critics, such as John Hollander239 and Robert Alter,240 Hays examines various intertextual echoes of Israel’s

Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Alan F. Segal, Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986); Daniel R. Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (WUNT 60; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992); Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2002). 237.  Cf. Sipke Draisma, ed., Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1989); Danna N. Fewell, ed., Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992); Gail R. O’Day, ‘Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31: A Study in Intertextuality’, JBL 109 (1990): 259–67; Timothy W. Berkley, From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29 (SBLDS 175; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000). Thomas R. Hatina (‘Introduction’, in The Gospel of Matthew [vol. 2 of Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels; ed. Thomas R. Hatina; LNTS 310; London: T&T Clark, 2008], 13) laments that use of the term ‘intertextuality’ among historical critics has escalated. In an earlier article, Hatina shows that ‘intertextuality, as it is commonly understood in the poststructuralist context, is inimical to current historical-critical inquiry’ (‘Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is There a Relationship?’, BibInt 7 [1999]: 29). Hatina argues that the concept of intertextuality is inseparable from the ideology of poststructuralism, which is opposed to any notion of absolute meaning or an ultimate referent, such as authorial intent or a specific historicalcultural context. Many biblical interpreters use this term as a convenient and quite fashionable label for describing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments without realizing its ideological implications. Hatina concludes that ‘at the present time “intertextuality” clearly belongs to the poststructuralist side. Although a consensus among literary theorists on the semantic and pragmatic characteristics of intertextuality is far from settled, it is clear that the term “intertextuality” cannot simply be bandied about as a synonym for allusion without regard for its origin, its integrated theory of text, and its relationship to influence’ (ibid., 42). 238.  Julia Kristeva, Séméiotiké: Recherches pour une sémanalyse (Paris: Seuil, 1969); idem, La Révolution du langage poétique (Paris: Seuil, 1974); Roland Barthes, S/Z (Paris: Seuil, 1970); idem, ‘Theory of the Text’, in Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981), 31–47. 239.  John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981). 240. Robert Alter, ‘The Decline and Fall of Literary Criticism’, Commentary 77 (1984): 50–56.

Scriptural Interpretation

­55

Scripture in the letters of Paul, which he calls the ‘internal resonance of the biblical text’.241 He explains that his ‘design is to produce late twentiethcentury readings of Paul informed by intelligent historical understanding: to undertake a fresh imaginative encounter with the text, disciplined and stimulated by historical exegesis’.242 While Hays acknowledges that claims about intertextual echoes are strongest when they can be plausibly ascribed to the intention of the author, they are not limited by the constraints imposed by the original context. In some cases, a modern reader might hear echoes of Scripture in the letters that were neither intended by Paul nor heard by his original readers.243 As much as such a reading of the New Testament documents can be enriching and personally satisfying, it does not shed much light on the hermeneutical assumptions and exegetical strategies employed by early Christian interpreters in their first-century milieu. Hays’s original critique was that the label midrash tends to bring the interpretative process to a halt, as though it had explained something, when in fact we should keep pressing for clarity: what poetic linkages of sound or imagery make this sort of imaginative leap possible, what effects are produced in the argument by it, and what sort of response does it invite from the sympathetic reader’s imagination?244

Indeed, to the extent that identifying something as midrash or pesher means the end of the interpretative endeavour, Hays’s critique is welltaken. But such an identification does not have to bring about the end of inquiry. In fact, recognizing similar interpretative strategies employed by the New Testament authors and their Jewish contemporaries is only the first step in the analysis. It shows how something was done, but it does not explain why. Nor does it identify the theological convictions that guided the hermeneutical process, the end result of that process, or the purpose for which it was conducted. Addressing questions like these can advance our understanding of hermeneutical processes in the New Testament in terms not only of exegetical methodology but also of theological significance and the rhetorical impact of the exegetical outcomes. The basic assumption of this study is that the main difference between early Christian interpreters and their Jewish contemporaries should be sought not in methodology but in perspective. Christian exegetes were convinced that God’s purpose for the entire creation, as revealed in Scripture, finds its ultimate fulfilment in Jesus the Messiah. While the second claim – that Christian exegetes read Scripture christologically – is commonplace in New Testament scholarship, the first claim – that 241. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 21. 242. Ibid., 27. 243. Ibid., 28, 33. 244. Ibid., 14.

56

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

Christian interpreters employed the same or similar exegetical methods as their Jewish colleagues – may make some readers uncomfortable. Scholars sometimes want to defend the legitimacy of Christian exegetical practices by differentiating them from Jewish hermeneutical methods, which are deemed ‘inconsequential’245 or ‘arbitrary’.246 Walter Kaiser, for example, insists that the New Testament authors used the Old Testament ‘in a manner consistent with the single truth-intention of the original author’.247 He alleges that ‘whereas both Jewish and Christian believers often would trifle with the Scriptures for devotional and meditative purposes, one would be hard-pressed to find any apologetic value in appealing to such procedures as midrash, pesher, allegory, or the like to validate the claims of what was regarded as an intrusion of an outside force’.248 And while C. H. Dodd acknowledges that ‘the actual meaning discovered in a given passage will seldom, in the nature of things, coincide precisely with that which it had in its original context’,249 he nevertheless believes that only the meaning which is an ‘organic outgrowth or ripening of the original thought’ has theological value. His conclusion is that ‘the doctrines associated with these passages by New Testament writers gain in depth and significance when we have regard to the original, historical intention’ of the texts they quote.250 Comments such as these reveal theological bias on the part of Christian scholars. Moreover, the idea that the meaning of the text of Scripture should be limited to its original intent is a modern concept that was foreign to ancient readers. We should beware of imposing our modern standards on their hermeneutical endeavours.

245. Frederic Gardiner, The Old and New Testaments in Their Mutual Relations (New York: James Pott, 1885), 317–18. 246. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 133; I. Howard Marshall, ‘An Assessment of Recent Developments’, in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 14. 247. Walter C. Kaiser Jr, The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody, 1985), 14. 248. Ibid. See also Darrell L. Bock, ‘Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New’, BSac 142 (1985): 209–23, 306–19. 249. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 130. 250. Ibid., 133. Even Hays, who is not so much interested in the original intention of scriptural passages, eventually concludes that ‘Paul’s great struggle is not a struggle to assert his own authority over Scripture; it is, rather, a dialectical struggle to maintain the integrity of his proclamation in relation to Scripture and the integrity of Scripture in relation to that proclamation, to justify his startling claim about what the God of Israel had elected to do in Jesus Christ’ (Echoes of Scripture, 158–9). According to William Scott Green (‘Doing the Text’s Work for It: Richard Hays on Paul’s Use of Scripture’, in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel [ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; JSNTSup 83; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 63), Hays’s ‘slip into literalism and objectivity results from the minimalist notion of intertextuality. . . . The old theological claim of Paul’s continuity with Scripture – with new subtlety, to be sure – re-emerges here as a matter of literary fact, rather than of doctrine or faith.’

Scriptural Interpretation

­57

An emic perspective on the similarities and differences between Christian and Jewish hermeneutics can be found in 2 Cor 3:12-18. In this passage, Paul claims that Jews are unable to understand Scripture correctly because ‘whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed’ (vv.15-16). Paul’s own argument, however, demonstrates that the problem with Jewish scriptural interpretation is not a wrong method but a wrong perspective. Paul interprets Exod 34:36, which provides the scriptural basis for his argument, with the help of the same interpretative techniques that are found in Jewish exegetical literature: he adapts the wording of the quotation to suit his purpose, he leaves out the end of the verse because it is of no use to his argument, and he understands the text as a whole typologically.251 If, then, Paul uses the same methodology as his Jewish contemporaries, his ‘reproach can hardly be leveled at Jewish hermeneutics, but must refer to the results of the synagogal haggadah’.252 Early Christian interpreters, like their Jewish contemporaries, held the Pentateuch, the prophetic books, and various books of the Writings, especially the Psalms, in high regard. The pair ‘the law’ and ‘the prophets’ is frequently mentioned in the New Testament (Matt 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16, 29, 31; 24:27, 44; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23), and on one occasion the author of Luke-Acts also adds the Psalms: Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you – that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.’ (Luke 24:44-47)

This singular ‘canon note’ in the New Testament is remarkably similar to the ‘canon note’ in 4QMMT C 10, which mentions the book of Moses, the books of the Prophets, and (the writings of) David. Yet, while the senders of 4QMMT appeal to the entire authoritative tradition as a common ground between them and their addressees, the Lukan Jesus focuses only on those portions of Scripture that are written about him (pa/nta ta\ gegramme/na e)n tw|~ no/mw| Mwu+se/wj kai\ toi=j profh/taij kai\ yalmoi=j peri\ e)mou= – Luke 24:44).253

251. For a detailed analysis of Paul’s exegetical methodology in 2 Cor 3:12-18, see Jan Willem Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), 97–9. 252. Ibid., 99. 253.  George J. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 56–7.

58

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

Luke 24:44-47 provides a good illustration of what can be said about the Christian exegetical enterprise as a whole. The conviction that the entire Scripture testifies about Jesus not only provided a Christocentric lens for understanding the sacred texts but also led to what Brooke calls ‘a minimalist approach’ to Scripture. While scriptural texts themselves set the agenda for Jewish exegetical compositions, Christian exegetes focused only on those passages that were consistent with ‘the early Christian experience kerygmatically formulated’.254 An older version of this view can be found in Dodd’s seminal work, According to the Scriptures, in which he argued that Christian interpreters focused on three major textual ‘fields’ in the Old Testament: (1) apocalyptic-eschatological Scriptures, which include Joel 3–4 (2–3 LXX), Zechariah 9–14, and parts of Daniel; (2) Scriptures of the new Israel, which include certain prophecies of Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah; and (3) Scriptures of the Servant of the Lord and the Righteous Sufferer, which include certain passage from DeuteroIsaiah and some selected Psalms describing the experience of dire distress followed by God’s deliverance.255 Even if Dodd’s concept of exegetical fields did not withstand critical scrutiny,256 there is no doubt that Christian interpreters were quite selective and focused only on those parts of Israel’s Scripture that bore witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Brooke contends that ‘once identified on the basis of the content of the early kerygma, scriptural passages could be interpreted in manners similar to the handling of texts in Judaism more broadly’.257 Ever since the discovery of the Habakkuk Pesher in 1947, the pesharim have been regarded as the category of Jewish exegetical literature that is closest to the New Testament. Beginning with Krister Stendahl, who classified Matthew’s fulfilment citations as a type of midrash pesher,258 and E. Earle Ellis, who described Paul’s use of Scripture as ‘a “quotationexposition,” a Midrash pesher’,259 scholars have compared the two bodies of literature and examined their similarities and differences.260 254. Ibid., 57. Similarly, Richard N. Longenecker (Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period [2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], xxvii) emphasises that ‘rather than beginning with a biblical text and then seeking to contemporize it, they [the New Testament writers] began from outside the text and used those texts principally to support their extrabiblical stance’. 255. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 61–110. 256.  Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 19–22. 257.  Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, 57. 258.  Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (ASNU 20; Uppsala: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1954). 259. E. Earle Ellis, St. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 146. Cf. idem, ‘Midrash Pesher in Pauline Hermeneutics’, in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays (WUNT 18; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1978), 173–81. 260.  Krister Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament (New York: Harper, 1957); Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, ed., Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament

Scriptural Interpretation

­59

The similarities between them are not incidental. Both early Christian communities and the Qumranites had a distinctive eschatological outlook and saw their own history as the culmination of God’s dealings with Israel and the world. Like the authors of the pesharim, Christian interpreters claim that scriptural prophecies have been fulfilled in the life of Jesus and in the emergence of the early church. The New Testament authors also frequently employ exegetical techniques resembling those found in the pesharim, such as the atomistic identification of selected scriptural components with certain aspects of the community’s experience: ‘This means that.’ Like the pesherists, Christian interpreters use different textual variants and occasionally make minor textual adjustments in order to facilitate correspondence between scriptural quotations and scriptural interpretations.261 The main difference between the pesharim and the New Testament is that in the former, as Brooke emphasises, ‘the text of Scripture acts as a control on the content of the commentary’.262 This is visible not only in the fact that the New Testament does not contain any continuous pesharim but also in the way isolated, and sometimes thematic, peshertype units are structured: ‘in the pesher the primary or base scriptural text always precedes the interpretation; in the New Testament, such as in Matthew’s infancy narrative or in the use of the Psalms in the passion narratives, the scriptural text, in the way the narrative is presented, follows after the event.’263 The relevance of rabbinic midrashim for the understanding of early Christian exegetical practices is generally recognized but remains insufficiently explored.264 The main reasons for this are the relative lateness Exegesis (Chicago: Priory, 1968); Matthew Black, ed., The Scrolls and Christianity: Historical and Theological Significance (TC 11; London: SPCK, 1969); James H. Charlesworth, ed., John and Qumran (London: Chapman, 1972); Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament; James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Scrolls and Christian Origins (vol. 3 of The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006); Florentino García Martínez, ed., Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (STDJ 85; Leiden: Brill, 2009); Elizabeth W. Mburu, Qumran and the Origins of Johannine Language and Symbolism (JCT 8; London: T&T Clark, 2010). 261. Scriptural adaptations are especially evident in Paul. For a study of Paul’s interpretative renderings of Scripture, see Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 65–264. 262.  Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, 60. 263. Ibid. 264. For recent studies of the relationship between rabbinic midrash and the New Testament, see Jan Joosten and Menahem Kister, ‘The New Testament and Rabbinic Hebrew’, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. Reimund Bieringer et al.; JSJSup 136; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 335–50; Menahem Kister, ‘“First Adam” and “Second Adam” in 1 Cor 15:45–49 in the Light of Midrashic Exegesis and Hebrew Usage’, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. Reimund Bieringer et al.; JSJSup 136; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 351–65; Miguel Pérez Fernández, ‘Midrash and the New Testament:

60

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

and multilayered character of the rabbinic writings.265 Rabbinic literature, however, often preserves early interpretative traditions that may well have been current during the time in which the New Testament documents were written. In her seminal article, ‘Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature’, Renée Bloch argues that haggadah ‘is much less subject to fluctuation, to adaptation to ever-changing circumstances, than is the halakah, whose nature is essentially practical. Thus the aggadah has a much more stable nature, one more apt to conserve extremely ancient traditions.’266 Bloch proposes a comparative method for isolating early layers of tradition and determining their antiquity and development. This method consists of an external comparison, on the one hand, ‘between the Palestinian rabbinic, especially midrashic, writings which, along with the traditions they transmit, are not dated, and the texts external to Palestinian rabbinic Judaism which have at least an approximate date and in which the same traditions are found’,267 and an internal comparison, on the other, which ‘traces a single tradition through the various stages represented by the different documents’.268 Bloch’s methodology is helpful for reconstructing and tracing the development of various interpretative traditions associated with specific scriptural passages. By mapping the traditional themes that the New Testament authors are likely to have been familiar with, we are in a better position to grasp the full significance of their particular interpretative moves. One further question related to Jewish exegetical procedures needs to be addressed. Dodd’s contention that early Christian interpreters regularly paid attention to the original context of the scriptural passages they quoted or alluded to has been widely influential in New Testament studies. Dodd argued that the New Testament writers ‘often quoted a single phrase or sentence not merely for its own sake, but as a pointer to a whole context. . . . The reader is invited to study the context as a whole, and to reflect upon the “plot” there unfolded.’269 Dodd defended his view by claiming that such A Methodology for the Study of Gospel Midrash’, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. Reimund Bieringer et al.; JSJSup 136; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 367–84. 265. Lou H. Silberman, ‘Once Again: The Use of Rabbinical Material’, NTS 42 (1996): 153–5; Jacob Neusner, Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament: What We Cannot Show, We Do Not Know (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994); William Horbury, ‘The New Testament and Rabbinic Study – An Historical Sketch’, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. Reimund Bieringer et al.; JSJSup 136; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 1–40. 266. Renée Bloch, ‘Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature’, in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice (ed. William Scott Green; BJS 1; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 54 (emphasis original). 267. Ibid., 56. 268. Ibid., 60. 269.  C. H. Dodd, The Old Testament in the New (FBBS 3; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963), 20. This conclusion is based on Dodd’s concept of textual ‘fields’. He argued elsewhere that the Old Testament selections that constituted these fields ‘were understood

Scriptural Interpretation

­61

practices were ‘by no means uncommon among contemporary Jewish teachers, as they are reported in the rabbinic literature’.270 This assessment of the available evidence,271 however, is not entirely accurate. Neglecting the context and focusing on isolated textual components is a dominant characteristic of Jewish scriptural commentaries. In his critique of Dodd’s proposal, Donald Juel rejoins that ‘Christian interpreters, like their Jewish contemporaries, were capable of abstracting a verse or a sentence from its literary context to make a point or to discover a new truth in it’.272 This certainly does not mean that every quotation or allusion in the New Testament is detached from its context. References to well-known characters like Abraham, Jacob, and Moses clearly presume the audience’s familiarity with the scriptural narratives recounting God’s promises to the patriarchs, the election of Israel, and the exodus. Scriptural texts are sometimes linked through a lexematic association that resembles gezerah shawah,273 but the common word that provides the basis for correlation may not be explicit in the citation. Texts can also be linked through a common theme, though not necessarily through a common word. In all as wholes, and particular verses or sentences were quoted from them rather as pointers to the whole context than as constituting testimonies in and for themselves. At the same time, detached sentences from other parts of the Old Testament could be adduced to illustrate or elucidate the meaning of the main section under consideration. But in the fundamental passages it is the total context that is in view, and is the basis of the argument’ (According to the Scriptures, 126; emphasis original). 270. Dodd, The Old Testament in the New, 20. 271. Dodd’s lectures, which provided the basis for his book, were delivered prior to the publication of the Habakkuk Pesher. 272.  Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 19. See also Henry J. Cadbury, ‘The Titles of Jesus in Acts’, in Additional Notes to the Commentary (vol. 5 of The Acts of the Apostles; ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake; The Beginnings of Christianity 1; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House , 1979), 369–70; Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics, 95–6; Lidija Novakovic, ‘Matthew’s Atomistic Use of Scripture: Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 53.4 in Matthew 8.17’, in The Gospel of Matthew (vol. 2 of Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels; ed. Thomas R. Hatina; LNTS 310; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 147–62. 273. See Friedrich Avemarie, ‘Interpreting Scripture through Scripture: Exegesis Based on Lexematic Association in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pauline Epistles’, in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (ed. Florentino García Martínez; STDJ 85; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 83–102. Avemarie contends that combinations of scriptural quotations in the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls on the basis of lexematic overlap should not be called gezerah shawah because they serve different purposes. Whereas the rabbis use gezerah shawah to ‘fill the informational lacunae they perceived in the wording of a given passage by recourse to other, sufficiently explicit biblical formulations’ (86), the combination of texts based on lexematic association in Qumran literature and the New Testament can be used to accumulate scriptural evidence, support a particular hermeneutical approach, contrast divergent biblical messages, illustrate complementary sides of a given topic, explore implicit meaning by inference from a related biblical verse, etc. Avemarie concludes that despite these differences, ‘what seems to be common to all of these exegetical approaches is the conviction that the writings of Moses and the prophets form a coherent whole, held together by the authority of the one God, who had revealed these writings to his chosen people’ (102).

62

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

such cases we can be fairly certain ‘that the interpreter was . . . aware of the context from which any particular citation was taken and . . . [that] that context was treated with respect’.274 In other cases, however, when a text is only partially quoted or alluded to, or when only one particular aspect of a quotation is related to its New Testament interpretation, we should not automatically assume that the wider context of a scriptural citation is in view. The reader must assess each text on its own, rather than simply presume the presence or absence of contextual considerations. I started this section with several brief observations about the variety of uses of Scripture in the New Testament, but this question requires a more methodical treatment. Unlike studies of Jewish hermeneutics, which employ a fairly standard terminology, publications on scriptural interpretation in the New Testament exhibit a vast array of terms.275 The most common categories are direct quotation, allusion, echo, scriptural summary, typology, and type-scene. Each of these terms, however, must be defined carefully in order to avoid confusion and to enable the comparison and discussion of various categories.276 For many scholars, direct quotation is the primary mode of the use of Scripture in the New Testament. In view of the emergence and expansion of scriptural commentaries in late Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism, it is not surprising to see that early Christian interpreters frequently employed explicit citations in their works. Identifying these quotations, however, is sometimes difficult. New Testament authors do not always cite their base text verbatim or provide clear textual markers to separate quotations from interpretative comments. They sometimes ascribe a quotation to the wrong scriptural book or create a composite citation from two scriptural passages. There is also the problem of the multiple textual variants that were available before the Hebrew text was standardized. Most scriptural quotations in the New Testament follow the LXX, but it is not always clear which Greek recension was used. In some cases, early Christian interpreters provided their own translations of the Hebrew text. Sometimes the passage quoted departs from all known versions of a given text. Some quotations are paraphrased. Some scriptural renderings are influenced by targumic traditions, while others incorporate deliberate modifications for interpretative purposes. How then, can a citation be recognized? Identification of a direct quotation

274.  Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, 66. 275. Stanley E. Porter (‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology’, in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals [ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; JSNTSup 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], 80) lists the following terms that have been used with some regularity: citation, direct quotation, formal quotation, indirect quotation, allusive quotation, allusion, paraphrase, exegesis, midrash, typology, reminiscence, echo, and tradition. 276. For a critique of the lack of terminological clarity in this area, see Porter, ‘The Use of the Old Testament’, 79–96.

Scriptural Interpretation

63

is typically based on verbal correspondence with the text of Scripture. But how many identical words qualify as a quotation? Do they have to be introduced with an explicit citation formula, such as ‘as it is written’ or ‘in order that the word spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled’? In this study, I have adopted a fairly broad definition of quotation. I will apply this designation to ‘any series of several words that reproduces with a reasonable degree of faithfulness the general word order and at least some of the actual language (whether original or in translation) of an identifiable passage from an outside text’.277 Since many scriptural quotations in the New Testament appear with no formulaic introduction, I will not regard the latter as a criterion for identification.278 Some authors use the terms ‘allusions’ and ‘echoes’ as though they were synonyms, but this only adds to the confusion. In this study, allusion is understood as ‘the nonformal invocation by an author of a text (or person, event, etc.) that the author could reasonably have been expected to know’.279 Echoes, in contrast, are not necessarily conscious authorial acts, but refer to the resonances of various scriptural texts that the readers – both ancient and modern – might hear in the New Testament.280 Hays, who has devised seven tests for identifying scriptural echoes in the letters of Paul,281 claims that ‘later readers will rightly grasp meanings of the figures that may have been veiled from Paul himself’.282 Since this study is not audience-oriented, echoes of Scripture in passages mentioning Jesus’ resurrection will not be examined. Scriptural summaries typically appear in the form of surveys of Israel’s history (Acts 7:2-50; 13:16-22; 1 Cor 10:1-5). They resemble works of rewritten Scripture, but they retell scriptural narratives in a much reduced form. Because of their brevity, they are highly selective and focus only 277. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 36. 278. Stanley restricts the term ‘citation’ to texts ‘that offer a clear indication to the reader that a quotation is indeed present’. He uses three criteria to identify citations: (1) introduction of the quotation by an explicit quotation formula; (2) an interpretative gloss accompanying the quotation; and (3) syntactical tension between the quotation and its context in Paul. He admits, however, that by these criteria many passages, which are usually considered direct quotations, must be excluded (Paul and the Language of Scripture, 37). 279. Porter, ‘The Use of the Old Testament’, 95. Hays (Echoes of Scripture, 29) explains that ‘the concept of allusion depends both on the notion of authorial intention and on the assumption that the reader will share with the author the requisite “portable library” to recognize the source of allusion’. One of the most thorough discussions of the concept of allusion can be found in Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1 – 15.13 (JSNTSup 59; Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1991), 28–36. Thompson takes his definition of allusion from literary criticism and asserts that it involves ‘(1) the use of a sign or marker that (2) calls to the reader’s mind another known text (3) for a specific purpose’ (ibid., 29). 280. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 29. 281. Ibid., 29–32. These tests are: availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of interpretation, and satisfaction. 282. Ibid., 33.

64

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

on key events from Israel’s past. Since their goal is to show the relevance and purposiveness of Israel’s history, they include only those events that support the conclusions that the speaker/writer wants his readers to draw regarding, for example, the superfluity of the Jerusalem Temple in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:2-50) or the fact of Jesus’ messiahship (Acts 13:16-22). Leonhard Goppelt regarded typological interpretation as a major form of the appropriation of Israel’s Scripture in the New Testament.283 Typology establishes a parallel or correspondence between an event or a person in Scripture (the type) and another event or person in the New Testament (the antitype). Gerhard von Rad noted that ‘there is an element of supersession [in typology], since the prediction differs somewhat from the fulfillment and the type is less important than the antitype to which it points’.284 There is thus both continuity and discontinuity between a type and its antitype. In 1 Cor 10:1-13, which portrays the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness as a type of the current Christian experience, Paul presents his own understanding of the relationship between type and antitype. He declares that ‘these things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come’ (1 Cor 10:11). Paul’s statement seems to indicate that the only function of the type is to point toward the antitype.285 While typology focuses on unique events of the past that correspond to unique events in the present, type-scenes involve recurrent events from the past that correspond to similar events in the present. They are usually defined as ‘a form of repetition in biblical narrative, an episode composed of a fixed sequence of motifs, often associated with recurrent themes’.286 Attention is given to typical elements in certain recurrent types of stories, such as birth-announcements of important persons or betrothals by wells. Since type-scenes presuppose the audience’s familiarity with the conventional elements of such stories, every departure from the typical course of events is loaded with meaning.287 The last issue that I wish to address in this section is the purpose of 283. Leonhard Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (trans. Donald H. Madvig; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). 284.  Gerhard von Rad, The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions (vol. 2 of Old Testament Theology; trans. D. M. G. Stalker; London: SCM, 1965), 329. Goppelt explains that ‘NT typology is not trying to find the meaning of some OT story or institution. It compares Jesus and the salvation which he has brought with the OT parallels in order to discover what can be learned from this about the new and then perhaps, what can be learned also about the old’ (Typos, 201). 285.  Cf. 1 Cor 9:9, where Paul interprets the commandment about not muzzling an ox by declaring that God is not concerned for oxen but for us for whose sake this instruction was written. 286. Richard B. Hays and Joel B. Green, ‘The Use of the Old Testament by New Testament Writers’, in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (2nd ed.; ed. Joel B. Green; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 127. 287. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 96–7.

Scriptural Interpretation

65

early Christian exegetical endeavours. In his classic study of early Christian use of Scripture, New Testament Apologetic, Barnabas Lindars claims that the primary goal of scriptural exegesis in the early church was apologetic – to answer Jewish objections to the proclamation of Jesus’ messiahship.288 In his view, the earliest scriptural arguments were devised to defend the resurrection of Jesus. This was followed by the application of Scripture to Jesus’ passion. Only subsequently was Scripture applied to the events of Jesus’ life and origin. Lindars’s thesis regarding the earliest use of Scripture for apologetic purpose has received mixed review. So, for example, although Howard Marshall believes that ‘the apologetic use of Scripture by the early church is clearly documented’, he notes that Lindars’s claim about the apologetic character of the earliest use of Scripture ‘is assumed rather than argued’.289 Juel not only criticizes Lindars’s approach but also proposes an alternative to it. He contends that ‘what came first was not apologetic argument but scriptural reflection whose goal was to understand the gospel and its implications’.290 What stands at the beginning of the Christian hermeneutical endeavor is belief in Jesus’ messiahship: ‘convinced that Jesus was the promised Messiah, Christians undertook the task of reflecting on the gospel of his death and resurrection in light of the Scriptures’.291 This means that ‘the confession of Jesus as Christ . . . is not the result of scriptural interpretation but its presupposition’.292 In this study, I wish to test Juel’s suggestion that early Christian exegesis presumes rather than leads to the confession of Jesus’ messiahship, especially with regard to his claim that ‘Christian interpretation of Scripture arose from the recognition that Jesus was the expected Messiah and that he did not fit the picture’.293 The resurrection of Jesus is certainly a good 288. Lindars states that Old Testament quotations ‘are constantly introduced to show how the Church’s faith is rooted in the Old Testament revelation, and very frequently there is clearly an apologetic purpose. They are adduced to prove the Church’s claims, when the unbelieving Jews contest them. They are thus testimonies to the truth of Christianity’ (New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961], 13). 289.  Marshall, ‘An Assessment of Recent Developments’, 8. See also the objections by Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (NovTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 159–63. 290.  Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 60. 291. Ibid. Juel acknowledges his indebtedness to Nils Alstrup Dahl, who repeatedly argued that the confession of Jesus as the Messiah can be derived neither from Jesus himself nor from Jewish conceptions of messiahship, but from the historical fact that he was executed as a messianic pretender – King of the Jews. Cf. Nils Alstrup Dahl, ‘The Crucified Messiah’, in The Crucified Messiah and Other Essays (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), 10–36. 292. Donald H. Juel, ‘Interpreting Israel’s Scriptures in the New Testament’, in The Ancient Period (vol. 1 of A History of Biblical Interpretation; ed. Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 296. 293.  Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 26 (emphasis original).

66

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

candidate for such an analysis. It represents the foundational event of the early church and reflections about its significance in light of Scripture are found not only in the earliest layers of the tradition but also throughout the New Testament. What makes this project especially interesting is the fact that there are no obvious, straightforward scriptural antecedents for the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead according to Scripture. And yet, from the very beginning, early Christian interpreters declared not only that Scripture testified about Jesus’ resurrection but also that the latter was inseparable from his messianic identity.

4. Conclusion Interpretation of Israel’s Scripture in the New Testament did not take place in a vacuum. Early Christian interpreters read the same Scriptures as their Jewish contemporaries and adopted similar exegetical techniques for understanding the sacred texts and applying them to their own particular circumstances. Familiarity with Jewish scribal practices, interpretative techniques, and exegetical traditions is therefore essential for biblical scholars. The first section of this chapter began with the question of how to distinguish Scripture and scriptural interpretation in Second Temple Judaism. I adopted a fairly standard set of criteria for identifying scriptural texts, such as formal indications of their scriptural status, quotations of or allusions to these texts in other compositions, and number of extant copies. I have also addressed various questions pertaining to the transmission of scriptural manuscripts. Special attention was given to the fluidity of Scripture and several text-types that were in circulation in the pre-rabbinic period. Following Ulrich, I emphasised that it was the book, rather than its textual form, that was considered authoritative. The second section, which dealt with scriptural interpretation in early Jewish literature, included a discussion of scriptural translations (the Septuagint and the Targums), rewritten Scripture, and scriptural commentaries (the pesharim, Philo’s exegetical commentaries, and rabbinic midrash). In each case, I considered the relationship between Scripture and interpretation, the specific exegetical techniques that were employed, the theological/ideological commitments that guided interpretative endeavours, the purpose of interpretation, and the social setting of the various interpretative communities. Many writings from late Second Temple times employ implicit exegesis, but this period is also characterized by the emergence of explicit exegesis in the form of scriptural commentaries that later became prevalent in the rabbinic literature. While rewritten Scripture texts, by their very nature, pay attention to the plot of the narratives they are rewriting, the dominant characteristic of Jewish exegetical commentaries is attention to isolated

Scriptural Interpretation

­67

details in the base text, which is frequently interpreted with little or no consideration of its historical or literary context. The pesharim presume that scriptural prophecies are cryptic documents that refer exclusively to the current experiences of the Qumran community. Philo interprets the Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture allegorically in order to express its meaning in philosophical terms. Rabbinic midrashim actualize the closed, fixed text of Scripture through creative combination of its individual elements. The third section explored the significance of Jewish exegetical practices for the use of Israel’s Scripture in the New Testament. My working hypothesis is that the main difference between early Christian interpreters and their Jewish contemporaries should be sought not in methodology but in perspective. Early Christian interpreters read the Jewish Scriptures christologically – as sacred texts that ultimately point to Jesus Christ. This conviction led them to focus only on those portions of Scripture that were consistent with Christian proclamation, which they then interpreted with the help of methods similar to those found in Jewish exegetical literature. Given similarities between the eschatological outlook of the Qumranites and that of the early Christians, I believe that a comparison of the New Testament with the pesharim can be especially illuminating. However, this should not be done at the expense of comparisons with other genres of Jewish exegetical literature, such as the Targums, rewritten Scripture, Philo’s commentaries, and rabbinic midrashim. The significance of these writings lies not in their direct influence, which can be established only rarely, but in their preservation of Jewish interpretative traditions that may have been familiar to the New Testament writers through synagogue homilies and other means of oral communication.

Chapter 2 Resurrection Hope in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Jewish Literature 1. The Concept of Resurrection In order to understand the scope and character of early Christian efforts to demonstrate that the resurrection of Jesus took place according to Scripture we must be cognizant of the passages in Scripture and early Jewish documents that contain evidence of resurrection hope. The purpose of this chapter is not to offer an in-depth analysis of these texts or to investigate the origin of resurrection belief in Judaism. Several excellent studies are available to those interested in this topic.1 Rather, this chapter offers a review of the relevant texts in order to establish the hermeneutical framework within which Christian exegetical endeavours took place. Convinced that Jesus had been raised from the dead, his followers turned to Scripture to articulate the significance of this extraordinary event. 1. Robert Martin-Achard, From Death to Life: A Study of the Development of the Doctrine of the Resurrection in the Old Testament (trans. John Penney Smith; Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1960); Kurt Schubert, ‘Die Entwicklung der Auferstehungslehre von der nachexilischen bis zur frührabbinischen Zeit’, BZ 6 (1962): 177–214; Leonard J. Greenspoon, ‘The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection’, in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (ed. Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 247–321; Émile Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le Judaïsme ancien (EtB 21–22; 2 vols; Paris: Gabalda, 1993); John Day, ‘The Development of Belief in Life after Death in Ancient Israel’, in After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason (ed. John Barton and David J. Reimer; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1996), 231–57; Avery-Peck and Neusner, eds, Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity; Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 85–206; Claudia Setzer, Resurrection of the Body in Early Judaism and Early Christianity: Doctrine, Community, and Self-Definition (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Alan F. Segal, Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 248–396; James H. Charlesworth et al., Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine (FSC; London: T&T Clark, 2006); George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity (expanded ed.; HTS 56; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006); Geza Vermes, The Resurrection (New York: Doubleday, 2008); Franz Zeilinger, Der biblische Auferstehungsglaube: Religionsgeschichtliche Entstehung – heilsgeschichtliche Entfaltung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008).

Resurrection Hope

69­

Before we examine the specific texts they employed, we must be aware of the ideas and vocabulary that appear in those portions of Scripture that corroborate resurrection hope most directly. This chapter also offers a survey of passages in early Jewish literature that document belief in resurrection prior to and concurrent with the rise of Christianity. These texts are important not only for a diachronic study of resurrection hope but also for a synchronic study of the ideas about resurrection that were available to Christian interpreters as they looked for concepts and language to convey the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection. The emphasis of this chapter will be on the synchronic study of these texts, but attention will also be given to the way their authors interact with other texts that were at their disposal. What must be clarified at the outset is the definition of resurrection and the criteria for identifying texts that describe this type of afterlife. Many different definitions have been put forward. Ulrich Wilckens succinctly defines resurrection as ‘a miraculous restoration of dead persons to life’.2 Geza Vermes explains that resurrection ‘entails the corporeal revival of the dead, the reunification of the spiritual soul and the material body of a deceased person’.3 Alan Segal makes a sharp distinction between resurrection, which involves postmortem bodily existence at the end of time, and immortality of the soul, which refers to personal, conscious survival of death.4 N. T. Wright emphasises that resurrection refers to bodily ‘life after “life after death”’ – a two-step process that involves an interim period of ‘death-as-a-state’ followed by a ‘fresh living embodiment’. He adds that ‘resurrection involves a definite content (some sort of re-embodiment) and a definite narrative shape (a two-step story, not a single-step one)’.5 Wright also stresses the future character of resurrection: it refers to ‘what will happen to people who are at present dead, not what has already happened to them’.6 James H. Charlesworth contends that ‘resurrection denotes the concept of God’s raising the body and soul after death (meant literally) to a new and eternal life (not a return to mortal existence)’ and stresses that ‘this belief should not be confused with the Hellenistic concept of the immortality of the soul’.7 On the basis of Daniel 12, Charlesworth posits 2. Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation (trans. A. M. Stewart; Atlanta: John Knox, 1978), 84. 3.  Vermes, The Resurrection, xvi. 4. Segal, Life After Death, 5, 386, 395. 5. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 31 (emphasis original). 6. Ibid., 109 (emphasis original). 7.  James H. Charlesworth, ‘Where Does the Concept of Resurrection Appear and How Do We Know That?’, in Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine (James H. Charlesworth et al.; FSC; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 2. Charlesworth identifies 16 categories of ‘resurrection’: (1) resurrection of the nation, (2) raising of a group from disenfranchisement, (3) raising of the individual from social disenfranchisement, (4) raising of the individual from personal embarrassment, (5) raising of the individual from

70

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

three criteria for identifying a reference to resurrection: (1) ‘a clarification that those to be raised are literally dead’, (2) ‘a mention of resurrection’, and (3) ‘a resurrection of these people not to mortality but to everlasting life’.8 It seems, then, that a working definition of resurrection should include the following components: (1) reference to literal death, (2) revival of the dead after an interim period of lifelessness, (3) new life of a bodily nature, (4) new life of endless duration, (5) an eschatological context, and (6) preservation of individual identity through a means other than immortality of the soul. This, however, does not mean that a passage will qualify as a resurrection text only if we can detect all six of these components. Only the first three are necessary for identifying a given instance of belief in afterlife as resurrection hope. Yet a number of texts that describe resurrection also provide some information about the other three components. The primary value of the preceding list lies in its ability to enhance the precision of our analysis and thereby facilitate our comparison of various texts. With regard to terminology, the concept of resurrection does not depend on one particular word, but on ‘a cluster of words in a particular context’, as Charlesworth aptly notes.9 For example, the semantic field of the Hebrew verb Mwq includes ‘rising up in dignity (Isa 49:6), standing in battle (Ps 89:44), setting up stones (Josh 4:9), coming on the scene (CD V, 18), and rising up by God of judges, shepherds, a plant, a king, a prophet, and a priest’,10 among other things. Only in some texts does this verb denote rising from the dead. Leonard J. Greenspoon explains that ‘one must first determine that a passage is dealing with resurrection before its vocabulary can be introduced into the discussion. At the same time, however, it is very much a matter of vocabulary and its interpretation that enables one to decide that a passage indeed refer[s] to resurrection.’11

the sickbed to health, (6) raising of the individual from inactivity to do God’s will, (7) raising of the individual from despondency due to consciousness of sin, (8) raising of the individual from ignorance to divinely revealed knowledge, (9) raising of the individual from meaninglessness in this world to a realized eschatology, (10) collapsing a distinction between the present age and the future age, (11) raising of Christ from Sheol, (12) raising an apocalyptist into heaven, (13) a spiritual rising up or awakening of an individual, (14) raising of the individual from death to mortal life, (15) raising of the individual from death to eternal life, and (16) intentionally ambiguous presentations of the future (ibid., 2–17). It is clear, however, that only category 15 corresponds to Charlesworth’s definition of the resurrection. 8. Ibid., 12–13. 9. Ibid., 1; James H. Charlesworth, ‘Prolegomenous Reflections Towards a Taxonomy of Resurrection Texts (1QHa, 1 En, 4Q521, Paul, Luke, the Fourth Gospel, and Psalm 30)’, in The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (ed. Ian H. Henderson and Gerbern S. Oegema; SJSHRZ 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006), 238. 10.  Charlesworth, ‘Prolegomenous Reflections’, 260. 11.  Greenspoon, ‘The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection’, 253.

Resurrection Hope

­71

In his study of Hebrew words for the resurrection of the dead, John F. A. Sawyer identifies five semantic fields usually associated with the resurrection of the dead that are represented by the following verbs: hyx ‘to live’, Mwq ‘to stand up’, Cyqh ‘to wake up’, bw# ‘to come back’, and Cyc ‘to sprout forth’. These and other related terms do not convey the idea of resurrection in and of themselves but only if they appear in literary and historical contexts that articulate resurrection hope.12

2. Resurrection Hope in the Hebrew Scriptures Although the books that comprise the Hebrew Scriptures are not completely silent on the subject of afterlife, they are nonetheless significantly muffled. This lack of apparent interest in life after death is quite enigmatic given the prominence of belief in afterlife among Israel’s neighbours, as expressed, for example, in the Egyptian cult of the dead and the Mesopotamian cult of ancestral veneration.13 Although there are some indications that ancient Israelites held certain ideas about afterlife, including belief in Sheol as the abode of the shades of the departed,14 these are sparse and indeterminate. Moreover, there are clear indications that in some circles the notion of afterlife was completely rejected (Job 14:12-14; Sir 17:28; 41:4; Eccl 9:510). The available evidence is both diverse and ambiguous, so much so that it would be erroneous to conclude that there was a linear progression from some form of belief in afterlife to a complete rejection of it and then to a sudden, full-blown resurrection hope, as documented in Dan 12:1-3. The fact that the latter is often regarded as ‘the only clear attestation of a belief in resurrection in the Hebrew Bible’15 does not mean that there were no conceptual and linguistic antecedents to this belief.

12.  John F. A. Sawyer, ‘Hebrew Words for the Resurrection of the Dead’, VT 23 (1973): 218–34. Greenspoon (‘The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection’, 254) suggests that of these five terms, Cyqh ‘best sums up what is especially characteristic of Biblical resurrection’, because it can be translated in certain contexts ‘to be (again) in a waking (=living) state’. 13. Richard E. Friedman and Shawna Dolansky Overton, ‘Death and Afterlife: The Biblical Silence’, in DLADRWC, 35; Segal, Life After Death, 248–9; Evans, Resurrection, 11. 14. The evidence includes archaeological data (tomb inscriptions and storage jars, jewelry, amulets, etc.) and various textual references, such as Deut 26:14; Isa 14:9; 26:14; Pss 88:11; 106:28; Prov 2:18; 9:18; 21:16; Job 26:5-6. For a review and analysis of the available evidence, see Friedman and Overton, ‘Death and Afterlife’, 36–56. 15.  John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ed. Frank Moore Cross; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 394; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 23–42; Hans C. C. Cavallin, Life After Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor 15, Part I: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background (ConBNT 7; Lund: Gleerup, 1974), 23–31.

72

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

John J. Collins identifies two strands of thought that were conducive to the development of resurrection hope. The first is the desire, found in such Psalms as 16:9-10 and 73:23-26, to remain continuously in God’s presence. Although some scholars recognize here a desire for ‘beatific vision’ after death, it is more likely that the primary concern of the psalmists is God’s uninterrupted presence in this life.16 The second strand of thought is the employment of resurrection imagery in the context of the restoration of Israel, as in Ezek 37:1-14, Hos 6:2, and Isa 26:19.17 Since this chapter focuses on beliefs about resurrection and not on other forms of afterlife expectations, only the second strand of thought suggested by Collins will be examined here. 2.1. Ezekiel 37 Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezek 37:1-10) provides the most graphic description of the revival of the dead in the Hebrew Scriptures. It vividly describes the process by which bones are joined together, sinews and skin are restored, and human beings are revived. The hand of the Lord came upon me, and he brought me out by the spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. He led me all around them; there were very many lying in the valley, and they were very dry. He said to me, ‘Mortal, can these bones live?’ I answered, ‘O Lord God, you know.’ Then he said to me, ‘Prophesy to these bones, and say to them: O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. I will lay sinews on you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.’ So I prophesied as I had been commanded; and as I prophesied, suddenly there was a noise, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. I looked, and there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them; but there was no breath in them. Then he said to me, ‘Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, mortal, and say to the breath: Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.’ I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood on their feet, a vast multitude.

16. See John Goldingay, ‘Death and Afterlife in the Psalms’, in DLADRWC, 61–85. Goldingay concludes that ‘the implicit bold determination of faith of the Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, as well as Ecclesiastes, is to affirm an understanding of life and death that makes no appeal to encourage hopes for which there is no evidence’ (83–4). 17.  Collins, Daniel, 394–5.

Resurrection Hope

­73

In spite of its vividness, however, this vision is not to be taken literally. The commentary that follows (Ezek 37:11-14) makes it clear that this description of resurrection functions merely as a metaphor for national restoration: Then he said to me, ‘Mortal, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, “Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are cut off completely.” Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord God: I am going to open your graves, and bring you up from your graves, O my people; and I will bring you back to the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and bring you up from your graves, O my people. I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you on your own soil; then you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken and will act, says the Lord.’

This explanation makes it perfectly clear that Ezekiel’s vision does not refer to physically dead individuals who subsequently come back to life, but to a disheartened group of exiles – ‘the whole house of Israel’ – who are promised political revival and return to their homeland.18 What should nevertheless be noted, however, is that despite its clear metaphorical sense, this vision ‘can certainly furnish a new vocabulary of images of resurrection directly into Israelite thought and thus provide the language for belief in life after death in future generations’.19 That this development has indeed taken place can be seen from the history of interpretation of this text. Ezekiel 37:1-10 is understood as a prediction of literal resurrection in 4QPseudo-Ezekiela (4Q385), the Ezekiel Targum, rabbinic literature (Gen. Rab. 14.5; Lev. Rab. 14.9), the paintings at Dura-Europos, and the writings of the church fathers (Justin, 1 Apol. 52; Irenaeus, Haer. 5.15.1; Tertullian, Res. 29–30). 2.2. Hosea 6 Like Ezek 37:1-14, Hos 6:1-3 uses resurrection language in the context of national restoration. Come, let us return to the Lord; for it is he who has torn, and he will heal us; he has struck down, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. Let us know, let us press on to know the Lord; his appearing is as sure as the dawn; he will come to us like the showers, like the spring rains that water the earth. 18.  Martin-Achard, From Death to Life, 93–102; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (trans. Ronald E. Clements and James D. Martin; ed. Frank Moore Cross, Klaus Baltzer, and Paul D. Hanson; Hermeneia; 2 vols; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979–83), 2:253–66; Andrew Chester, ‘Resurrection and Transformation’, in Auferstehung – Resurrection (ed. Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger; WUNT 135; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 48–54. 19. Segal, Life After Death, 257.

74

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

Even though the specific context and meaning of this passage are debatable,20 its basic purpose is clear: to call the nation to repentance after a period of crisis in the northern kingdom. The employment of resurrection imagery in this text is obviously metaphorical.21 The images of healing and resurrection are used to promote hope for the revival and restoration of Israel in a situation of deep crisis and despair.22 The temporal references ‘after two days’ and ‘on the third day’ communicate urgent expectation of God’s prompt intervention on Israel’s behalf.23 2.3. Isaiah 24–27 The authorship and historical context of Isaiah 24–27 – the so-called Isaianic Apocalypse – are controversial.24 While some scholars date this unit to the postexilic period,25 others ascribe it to the eighth-century prophet Isaiah.26 The dating of this section may influence one’s understanding of the meaning of two passages that seem to describe life after death, with a later date being more consistent with a literal interpretation of their prophetic descriptions of the destiny of the dead. In the first passage, Isa 25:8-9, the prophet envisions a perfected future in which death is completely wiped out: 20. For a discussion of different interpretations of this text, see A. A. Macintosh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 216–19. 21. Some scholars contend that the concept of resurrection here, though admittedly metaphorical, presupposes belief in resurrection of the dead; see Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), 420–21; Martin-Achard, From Death to Life, 86; Greenspoon, ‘The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection’, 309. 22. It is sometimes argued that Hos 6:1-3 refers merely to illness and healing. See James Luther Mays, Hosea: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 95; M. L. Barré, ‘New Light on the Interpretation of Hosea VI 2’, VT 28 (1978): 140; Graham I. Davies, Hosea: Based on the Revised Standard Version (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 161. For a defence of the concept of resurrection in Hosea 5–6 as a symbol of restoration from exile, see Day, ‘The Development of Belief’, 246–7. 23.  Greenspoon (‘The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection’, 309) argues that the temporal reference is ‘an example of “impressionistic” parallelism, a poetic device whereby an author creates an impression or mood through the use of successive numbers or other related phenomena. . . . The overall impression we gain here is of a people who demand immediate satisfaction from God.’ The rest of Hosea 6 shows that this expectation is illfounded because God finds Israel’s repentance superficial. 24. For a survey of the discussion regarding the date and nature of Isaiah 24–27, see William R. Millar, Isaiah 24–27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic (HSM 11; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976), 1–22. 25. Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39 (trans. R. A. Wilson; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 173–233; Jože Krašovec, Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views (VTSup 78; Leiden: Brill 1999), 508. 26.  George W. Anderson, ‘Isaiah XXIV–XXVII Reconsidered’, in Congress Volume, Bonn 1962 (VTSup 9; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 118–26.

Resurrection Hope

­75

He will swallow up death forever. Then the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces, and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken. It will be said on that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, so that he might save us. This is the Lord for whom we have waited; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.

The Canaanite motif of Baal’s victory over Mot is used here to describe God’s ultimate defeat of death. However, unlike Baal’s victory, which had to be renewed periodically, Yahweh’s victory over death will be final. Death as a primordial enemy will not only be defeated but devoured.27 This vision of the blessed future has the purpose of encouraging the faithful to endure in the present. Yet the text says nothing about the fate of those who have already died and mentions no resurrection. It merely describes the joy of those who will witness this astonishing reversal of the current human conditions. The second passage, Isa 26:19, has frequently been understood as an early resurrection prophecy: ‘Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a radiant dew, and the earth will give birth to those long dead.’ Taken by itself, this verse seems to uphold the expectation of bodily resurrection of the dead. The meaning of this verse in its immediate literary context, however, is less clear. The preceding verses (vv.16-18) describe people in distress who have tried to return to the Lord but without success. They are likened to a pregnant woman who is about to give birth: ‘we were with child, we writhed, but we gave birth only to wind’ (v.18a). Figurative language employed throughout this section may suggest that Isa 26:19 should also be taken figuratively. Those who adopt this view often interpret the vision of the raising of the dead from the dust along the lines of Ezek 37:1-14, that is, as a promise of national and political restoration.28 If the text conveys a literal resurrection, however, as many scholars have argued,29 27. Dan G. Johnson, From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27 (JSOTSup 61; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 65. 28. Edmund F. Sutcliffe, The Old Testament and the Future Life (BS 8; London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1946), 128–30; Anderson, ‘Isaiah XXIV–XXVII Reconsidered’, 126; Cavallin, Life After Death, 106; Day, ‘The Development of Belief’, 243–4; Johnson, From Chaos to Restoration, 80–81; Segal, Life After Death, 260–61; Chester, ‘Resurrection and Transformation’, 55–7; Donald C. Polaski, Authorizing an End: The Isaiah Apocalypse and Intertextuality (BIS 50; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 238–41; James L. Crenshaw, ‘Love Is Stronger Than Death: Intimations of Life beyond the Grave’, in Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine (James H. Charlesworth et al.; FSC; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 64–5. 29. Harald Riesenfeld, The Resurrection in Ezekiel XXXVII and in the Dura-Europos Paintings (Uppsala Universitetsårskrift 1948:11; Uppsala: Lundequist, 1948), 3–4; Hans Walter Wolff, Jesaja 53 im Urchristentum (3rd ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1952), 40; Gerhard F. Hasel, ‘Resurrection in the Theology of Old Testament Apocalyptic’, ZAW 92 (1980): 272–82; Greenspoon, ‘The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection’, 285–6; Puech, La croyance, 1:71; Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 117; Nickelsburg,

76

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

its tone seems rather subdued. The primary subject of the victory song in ch. 26 seems not to be the expectation of resurrection but the promise that Yahweh will ‘punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity’ because ‘the earth . . . will no longer cover its slain’ (Isa 26:21).30 Segal notes that even if Ezekiel 37 and Isaiah 26 ‘are taken as references to literal resurrection, they hardly affect the general tenor of Israelite religion, which emphasized life on this earth and behavior in the world’.31 Claudia Setzer, however, contends that ‘metaphors cannot communicate if they have nothing to do with the way people think and live. These images in Ezekiel and Isaiah likely are metaphorical, and not literal, but would be meaningless in a context where afterlife is seen as an absurdity.’32 In any case, regardless of the actual impact of these texts in their own times, they supplied powerful imagery and resourceful language that later readers used to describe bodily resurrection. 2.4. Daniel 12 While the passages in Ezekiel and Isaiah are controversial, the prophetic vision in Daniel 12 is not. Scholars generally agree that Dan 12:1-3 contains a literal reference to the resurrection of the dead. At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

The beginning of the resurrection is signalled by the arrival of the archangel Michael and a period of unprecedented suffering. Deliverance is promised to ‘everyone who is found written in the book’ (Dan 12:1). Yet this standard – and for many scholars solitary – reference to resurrection in the Hebrew Scriptures has some remarkable features. Daniel 12:2 envisages the resurrection of both good persons and bad, but this is not a universal resurrection. ‘Many’ (Mybr), but not all, ‘of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.’ The preposition Nm in the phrase rp( tmd) yn#ym Mybrw functions as a partitive Resurrection, 31. Nickelsburg argues that the contrast between Isa 26:14 and 26:19 conveys the contrast between the fate of the wicked who remain dead and the fate of slain Israelites, who are raised from the dead. He concludes that ‘resurrection is not a means by which all parties involved are brought to judgment, but an appropriate vindication of the righteous’ (32). 30.  Crenshaw, ‘Love Is Stronger Than Death’, 65. For Crenshaw, the tension between Isa 26:19, which affirms the raising of the dead, and Isa 26:14, which denies it, indicates ‘either a conflicted author or a gloss on an earlier text’. 31. Segal, Life After Death, 261. 32. Setzer, Resurrection of the Body, 8.

Resurrection Hope

­77

marker.33 Since some of the dead are raised ‘to everlasting life’ and some ‘to shame and everlasting contempt’, the resurrection has a two-fold purpose: to bring about the reward of the former and the punishment of the latter. Since not everyone will be raised, the text presumes the existence of a group of ordinary people who have simply died and who will experience no resurrection, whether for the better or for the worse. Only a distinct minority at either end of the ethical spectrum – the exceptionally good and the exceptionally bad – will be raised. The idea that resurrection is reserved not for all of the righteous but only for the extraordinarily virtuous and the extraordinarily wicked is unique in the Hebrew Scriptures. The passages on resurrection in Ezekiel, Hosea, and Isaiah, regardless of whether they are understood literally or metaphorically, refer to Israel as a whole. The unusual character of the resurrection hope in Dan 12:1-3 is most likely the result of the exceptional historical and religious circumstances in which the text was written. The book of Daniel is usually dated to the Maccabean period (167–164 bce), when the persecution of pious Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes34 generated an unprecedented theological dilemma: if the righteous suffer not because they neglect the Torah but precisely because they keep it, how can God’s promises, such as those in Deut 28:1-14, be trusted? The solution to this dilemma came in the idea that those who had suffered for the sake of God’s law would be raised to everlasting life, while wrongdoers who had committed grave injustices against the pious would be punished.35 This vision of God’s reward of those who had been martyred for faithfully keeping the Torah and vengeance against those who persecuted them undoubtedly offered consolation to suffering members of the Jewish community and encouraged them to endure, even unto death. Daniel 12:3 focuses on ‘those who are wise’ (Mylk#mh) and ‘those who lead many to righteousness’ (Mybrh yqydcm). The parallelismus membrorum of this verse seems to indicate that these two descriptions refer to the same group, which is singled out for its extraordinary leadership in attaining righteousness.36 The wise who lead many to righteousness may be a subgroup of those who are to be raised to everlasting life – their religious elite – but the evidence is inconclusive. The identity of the maśkilîm can be discerned with the help of Dan 11:32-35:

33.  Collins, Daniel, 392. 34. For direct references to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, see Dan 7:8 and 8:9. 35. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 32. 36. Adam S. van der Woude, ‘Prophetic Prediction, Political Prognostication, and Firm Belief: Reflections on Daniel 11:40–12:3’, in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon; BIS 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 70–71.

78

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture He shall seduce with intrigue those who violate the covenant; but the people who are loyal to their God shall stand firm and take action. The wise among the people shall give understanding to many; for some days, however, they shall fall by sword and flame, and suffer captivity and plunder. When they fall victim, they shall receive a little help, and many shall join them insincerely. Some of the wise shall fall, so that they may be refined, purified, and cleansed, until the time of the end, for there is still an interval until the time appointed.

The author first distinguishes between ‘those who violate the covenant’ and ‘the people who are loyal to their God’. Within the historical framework of the book of Daniel, the first group refers to Jews who have complied with the policies of Antiochus Epiphanes, while the second group refers to those who have resisted them. Daniel 11:33 then singles out ‘the wise among the people’ (M( ylyk#m) who ‘give understanding to many’ (Mybrl wnyby). This is most likely a reference to the leaders of the faithful who encouraged them to persevere in the time of crisis. The author especially emphasises their edifying endeavours to increase the understanding of many. Collins suggests that the latter group, the ‘many’ (Mybr), constitute a third category within Israel: those ‘who are not accused of violating the covenant, but lack the understanding to qualify as maskîlîm’.37 In light of Dan 11:32-35, the message of Dan 12:1-3 appears to be that only those who remain loyal to God and faithfully keep God’s commandments, even unto martyrdom, will be raised from the dead to receive their deserved reward – everlasting life. The distinction of the maśkilîm lies not only in their willingness to suffer the supreme penalty for loyalty to God’s law but also in their instruction of others. The book of Daniel was most likely produced by this party of the faithful. Their elitist understanding of the resurrection probably indicates that ‘they had a sectarian organization and identity’.38 Many scholars, following the lead of Harold L. Ginsberg,39 interpret the maśkilîm in Daniel 12 in terms of Isaiah 53.40 The argument for 37.  John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 168. 38. Segal, Life After Death, 291. Building on the idea of Otto Plöger (Theocracy and Eschatology [trans. S. Rudman; Richmond: John Knox, 1968], 19) that membership in the group that produced the book of Daniel depended on the acknowledgement of certain dogmas, especially an eschatological interpretation of history, Segal concludes that this group ‘cannot be the Maccabees but it may be something like the group of people called the Hasidim (“pious ones,” Hasideans in Greek) in 1 Maccabees 2’ (Life After Death, 294). Nickelsburg (Resurrection, 32) also associates the composition of the book of Daniel with the Hasidic community. 39. Harold L. Ginsberg, ‘The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant’, VT 3 (1953): 400–404. 40.  Mathias Delcor, Le livre de Daniel (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1971), 256; André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (trans. David Pellauer; Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), 243; Collins, Daniel, 393; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 493; Michael A. Knibb, ‘“You Are Indeed Wiser Than Daniel”: Reflections on the Character of the Book

Resurrection Hope

­79

literary dependence is usually based on similar descriptions of the wise who lead many to righteousness (Dan 12:3) and the servant who makes many righteous (Isa 53:11), as well as verbal similarity between Mylk#m in Dan 12:3 and the verb lk# in the clause ‘my servant shall prosper’ (ydb( lyk#y) in Isa 52:13. Ginsberg argued that the author of Daniel identified the servant of Isa 52:13–53:12 with the maśkilîm of his own time. On this reading, the maśkilîm are martyrs who have led many to righteousness through their own suffering. In his critique of Ginsberg’s proposal, Adam S. van der Woude notes that ‘the Mylik# @i m ;& a of the book of Daniel are never described as martyrs whose martyrdom would be propitiatory. On the contrary, they are only presented as teachers of the [email protected] i .a ’41 In a similar vein, Collins remarks that the notion of the wise who make many righteous (Dan 12:3) is closely related, if not equivalent, to the notion of the wise who give understanding to many (Dan 11:33). Although Collins does not completely reject the idea of propitiatory martyrdom in Daniel, he nevertheless concludes that ‘the maśkîlîm make the common people righteous by instructing them . . . so that instruction rather than martyrdom is the means of justification’.42 While the resurrection of wrongdoers functions as a means of divine retribution, nothing is said about their fate except that they will be raised ‘to shame and everlasting contempt’ (Dan 12:2). The author is more interested in the special reward reserved for the leaders who have suffered martyrdom. It is, however, uncertain what kind of postmortem existence is envisioned by shining ‘like the brightness of the sky’ and ‘like the stars forever and ever’ (Dan 12:3). If these expressions refer to some sort of bodily life, they do so in a very vague way. Some scholars understand these statements as references to astral immortality, which was popular in the Hellenistic world.43 The author of this text, however, does not say that the wise will become stars but that they will shine like stars. In light of

of Daniel’, in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed. Adam S. van der Woude; BETL 106; Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 406; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 39–41; Day, ‘The Development of Belief’, 242–3; Chester, ‘Resurrection and Transformation’, 62. 41. Woude, ‘Prophetic Prediction’, 71–2. 42.  Collins, Daniel, 393. Nickelsburg sees the connection between Daniel 12 and Isaiah 53 not in the idea of propitiatory martyrdom but in the concept of vindication of an innocent sufferer. ‘In identifying the maśkilîm with the servant, Daniel implies that these teachers will be vindicated. Although they were condemned before men, God will acquit them’ (Resurrection, 41). 43. Aristophanes, Pax 832–34; Cicero, Resp. 6.13–17; Porphyry, Antr. nymph. 8. Cf. Franz V. M. Cumont, Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans (New York: Dover Publications, 1960), 96–110; idem, Lux Perpetua (Paris: Geuthner, 1949), 142–288; Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. John Bowden; 2 vols; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 1:196–7; Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 244–5; Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 118; Setzer, Resurrection of the Body, 9.

80

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

a widespread Jewish tradition of identifying stars with angelic beings,44 the statements in Dan 12:3 probably mean that those who have suffered martyrdom for the sake of the Torah will become like angels.45 Segal relates the idea of becoming like angels to the exaltation of the ‘Son of Man’ in Dan 7:13-14 and concludes that ‘these passages demonstrate that the leaders will gain the heavenly reward of divine enthronement as angels and stars have’.46 The author of Dan 12:1-3 creatively uses earlier traditions that employ resurrection imagery, especially from Isaiah and Ezekiel. Some of the terms are taken directly from Isa 26:19, which the writer understands literally. The ‘dwellers in the dust’ (rp( ynk#) from Isa 26:19 become ‘those who sleep in the dust of the earth’ (rp( tmd) yn#y) in Dan 12:2. The author also uses the metaphor of awakening from sleep (wcyqh in Isa 26:29 and wcyqy in Dan 12:2) to describe the dead coming back to life. Some scholars suggest that Daniel’s use of Isa 26:19 also includes the idea that the corpses of the dead shall rise (Nwmwqy ytlbn) and conclude from this that Daniel envisages bodily resurrection.47 However, neither the verb Mwq nor the noun hlbn appear in Dan 12:1-3. No information is given about the resurrected state except that the maśkilîm will shine like stars. The main difference between Dan 12:2 and Isa 26:19, however, lies in their different theological perspectives. While in Isa 26:19 ‘the resurrection of the righteous is in itself vindication for the righteous’, in Dan 12:2 ‘resurrection is a means by which both the righteous and the wicked dead are enabled to receive their respective vindication or condemnation’.48

44. See, e.g. Judg 5:20; Job 38:7; Dan 8:10; 1 En. 90.21; 104.2–6. 45.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 27; Segal, Life After Death, 265; Collins, Daniel, 393; Chester, ‘Resurrection and Transformation’, 61. For the idea that the resurrected righteous will be like angels, see 1 En. 39.5; 2 Bar. 51.1–5, 10; Matt 22:30. Segal (Life After Death, 358) believes that the mystical transformation of Enoch into the Son of Man described 1 En. 71.11 offers ‘a plausible explanation of how the sectarians that produced the visions in Daniel expected to be transformed into stars. First Enoch 71 gives us not just the fulfilment of the prophecy in Daniel 12 but a first-person, confessional report of the very experience of undergoing the astral transformation, albeit in the name of a pseudepigraphical hero.’ A different interpretation of Dan 12:3 is proposed by Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 112–13. Wright argues that kings are spoken of as stars and celestial beings and then concludes that ‘the righteous, the wise, will not so much be transformed into beings of light, as set in authority over the world’ (ibid., 113). But the evidence Wright provides is unconvincing. The future ruler is compared to a star only in Num 24:17. In other cases (1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17, 20), David is compared to an angel, while in Isa 9:6 the future Davidic ruler is called ‘Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’. None of these passages demonstrate that kings were conventionally referred to as shining stars. 46. Segal, Life After Death, 266. 47. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 38; Cavallin, Life After Death, 27. 48. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 33 (emphasis original).

Resurrection Hope

­81

Isaiah 66:24 (‘And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh’) and Dan 12:2 are the only texts in the Hebrew Scriptures that use the term ‘abhorrence’ (Nw)rd). This unusual term shared by these two texts corroborates Daniel’s use of Isaiah 66. While in Isaiah 66, however, the sinners remain dead, in Daniel 12 they are restored to life. George W. E. Nickelsburg contends that this innovation represents Daniel’s solution to the discrepancy between the prophecies of Isaiah 66 and the actual experience of observant Jews during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. ‘Yet, if the promises of God were to come true, those who had abstained from abomination and adhered to the Torah would live a long life in Jerusalem, and the wicked would burn in Gehenna in the sight of the righteous. But this could happen only if the dead were to come to life.’49 Nickelsburg alleges that the notion of a double resurrection was a conclusion drawn from the study of Scripture and confidence in God’s faithfulness.50 Segal emphasises Daniel’s creative combination of Isa 66:14 (‘your bones shall blossom like grass’51) with Ezekiel’s vision of the resuscitation of dry bones. He insists, however, that this ‘is not exegesis; it is a visionary revelation, as the Daniel text explicitly says. It is a vision that the seer has received after avid study of the text.’52 Daniel’s combination of texts is indeed based on a visionary revelation, but it is exegesis nonetheless. Association of different scriptural passages on the basis of common words or themes is a customary technique in Jewish exegetical literature.53 But Segal is certainly right that the author of Daniel did not develop his concept of resurrection merely by reading the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel. Apart from the visionary experience that helped him relate earlier prophecies to his particular historical situation he probably would not have arrived at the same exegetical conclusions. Of the six components of the working definition of resurrection proposed in the introductory section of this chapter, only four are clearly recognizable in Dan 12:1-3: reference to a literal death, revival of the dead after an interim period of lifelessness, endless duration of new life, and an eschatological context. What remains uncertain is whether the

49. Ibid., 36. 50. Ibid. 51.  My translation. 52. Segal, Life After Death, 264. 53. Segal’s contention that ‘no exegete would have mixed all the motifs of all these passages without seeking a methodological justification or calling attention to the way in which the passages should be combined’ (Life After Death, 264) cannot be substantiated. Ancient interpreters only rarely provided justification for their exegetical decisions. The absence of explicit exegetical reasoning is a common feature of implicit exegesis, which is employed throughout Daniel.

82

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

resurrection takes bodily form. The mode and manner of resurrection in Daniel are notably obscure, as Martin Hengel notes.54 The resurrected state of the maśkilîm seems to be close to angelomorphism, but the evidence is inconclusive. If the maśkilîm represent a subgroup of the resurrected faithful, it is possible that those among them who do not qualify for this distinction continue to live on earth, but there is no indication that this was actually expected.55 Neither does the text clarify whether the identity of resurrected individuals is preserved through the transformation of their deceased bodies or through some other means. Ambiguities such as these are to be expected. Daniel 12:1-3 is, after all, ‘a highly contextual vision’, and not ‘a fully coherent or consistent theological statement’.56 Its purpose is not to provide a comprehensive treatment of the postmortem fate of humanity, but to encourage the faithful to persevere in their faithfulness, even unto martyrdom, by reassuring them that their suffering will be rewarded and that evildoers will be punished.

3. Resurrection Hope in Early Jewish Literature 3.1. The Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36) The Book of the Watchers, which is usually dated to the third or early second century bce, gives us insights into traditions about afterlife that are older than Dan 12:1-3. In ch. 22, the narrator describes Enoch’s vision of ‘the spirits of the souls of the dead’ (1 En. 22.3),57 which are kept in different compartments until the day of judgment. Unlike the traditional portrayal of Sheol as the final abode of the dead, the repositories described in 1 Enoch 22 are merely a waiting place, an intermediate state.58 Nickelsburg alleges that 1 Enoch 22 and 24.2–27.2 ‘constitute the earliest detailed treatment of the fate of the dead’ in Judaism, which ‘was probably taken for granted by the author of Daniel 12:2’.59 Although the spirits of the dead are removed from their mortal bodies, they retain certain functions that are appropriate to the human body, such as memory 54. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:196–7. 55. It is certainly true, as Chester notes, that ‘there is no suggestion that those resurrected cannot remain in continuity with their own community, even if they do take on a transformed perspective’ (‘Resurrection and Transformation’, 63), but there is also no suggestion to the contrary. 56.  Chester, ‘Resurrection and Transformation’, 61 (emphasis original). 57. English translations of this and other citations from 1 Enoch are taken from George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation: Based on the Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). In 1 Enoch 22, the terms ‘spirits’ and ‘souls’ are used interchangeably. 58. Pierre Grelot, ‘L’eschatologie des Esséniens et le livre d’Hénoch’, RevQ 1 (1958): 118; Cavallin, Life After Death, 41. 59.  George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (ed. Klaus Baltzer; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 304.

Resurrection Hope

­83

and sensitivity to light, thirst, and pain (1 En. 22.9-11). The spirits of the righteous (22.9) are separated from the spirits of the wicked, who are further subdivided into those who have escaped punishment during their lifetime and are still awaiting retribution (22.10-11) and those who have already been recompensed during their pre-mortem existence and suffer no further punishment (22.13).60 While the spirits of the latter ‘will not rise from there’ (22.13), the spirits of the former will eventually be transferred to a place of final punishment. If the author understands this transferal as a kind of ‘resurrection’, as Nickelsburg suggests,61 there are no indications that it is imagined in bodily form. Hans C. C. Cavallin tries to achieve some degree of interpretative precision by introducing the rather odd notion of the ‘resurrection of the spirit or soul’.62 This tradition about two groups of evildoers probably underlies Daniel’s division of the wicked into those who will be raised from the dead to receive eternal punishment and those who will remain dead forever.63 The final destiny of the righteous is clarified in 1 En. 24.1–25.7, which envisions their reception of fruit from the tree of life. The author does not describe the actual restoration to life of the righteous but rather focuses on their final state. ‘Then they will rejoice greatly and be glad, and they will enter into the sanctuary. Its fragrances in their bones, and they will live a long life on the earth, such as your fathers lived also in their days’ (25.6). The text uses Urzeit-Endzeit typology to describe the future of the righteous as amazingly long, but not necessarily everlasting, life on earth. Even though ‘it is possible that the author is thinking of a resurrection of the body’,64 he does not use a typical resurrection vocabulary. Yet, the last component of our working definition of the resurrection – the question of how the identity of a deceased person is carried into the postmortem state – is in these passages especially elaborated. Segal insists that the Enochic vision of souls/spirits in an intermediary state should be distinguished from the Platonic concept of the immortal soul. The soul is the equivalent of ghost or spirit, as it is throughout Hebrew culture. In other words, there is, in this passage, no explicit new, philosophical speculation of the identity of the person, other than it means that the person will be resurrected. This passage seems to reflect the ancient Hebrew notion of ‘soul’ as a person, which can be alive or dead in the Bible. Quite clearly here, they are the ‘shades,’ a person who continues to live in the intermediary state. 60. There is also a fourth compartment (the third in the sequence of the text), which is described in 1 En. 22.12. The identity of its inhabitants is debatable. Nickelsburg suggests that ‘they are innocent victims like Abel. But their unjustified violent deaths need not imply that they were “righteous”’ (1 Enoch 1, 308). 61. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 169. 62.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 42. Cavallin adds that the resurrection in this text does not refer to any reunion of the body and soul. 63. Segal, Life After Death, 279. 64. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 315.

84

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture It is but an unsubstantial state, which retains the identity of the person until the resurrection for the just alone.65

The author of this text is especially interested in a person’s moral identity. Only if the righteous and wicked deeds that individuals committed during their earthly lives are linked to their specific identities can they receive rewards and punishments in the afterlife.66 3.2. The Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) The Animal Apocalypse, which is usually dated in its present form to ca.163 67 bce., is an allegorical presentation of Israel’s history from the creation of Adam to the Hellenistic period. In this allegory, animals symbolize human beings or nations: sheep represent Israel, predatory animals the nations, and white bulls Adam and the antediluvian patriarchs. Its final scene includes the following vision: And all that had been destroyed and dispersed all the wild beast and all the birds of heaven were gathered in that house. And the Lord of the sheep rejoiced greatly because they were all good and had returned to that house. . . . And I saw how a white bull was born, and its horns were large. And all the wild beasts and all the birds of heaven were afraid of it and made petition to it continually. And I saw until all their species were changed, and they all became white cattle. (1 En. 90.33, 37–38a)

Some scholars suggest that the gathering of those who had been destroyed and scattered refers to a literal resurrection of the dead.68 The transformation of the sheep into snow-white cows is usually understood as a transformation of Israel into the pristine Adamic state. 3.3. The Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 91–105) The last chapters of 1 Enoch, which are usually dated to the reign of Alexander Janneus (104–78 bce),69 describe two contrasting groups, the righteous and the sinners, who are in conflict over the nature of obedience to the Torah. The text presumes that the righteous are oppressed by the sinners, but the cause for their suffering is not their devotion to the Torah but the exploitation of the righteous poor by the rich and powerful. Vindication of the righteous at the end of history is presented in two 65. Segal, Life After Death, 279–80. 66. Ibid., 280. 67. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 361. 68.  John J. Collins, ‘The Afterlife in Apocalyptic Literature’, in DLADRWC, 123; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 405–6. 69.  Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (trans. S. Applebaum; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959), 492 n.36; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 143.

Resurrection Hope

­85

different ways. According to 1 En. 91.10, ‘the righteous will arise from his sleep, and wisdom will arise and be given to them’.70 Both the language and the context of this statement seem to suggest bodily resurrection, but the evidence is inconclusive.71 The metaphor of arising from sleep probably indicates the author’s familiarity with Isaiah 26 and Daniel 12.72 A different scenario is envisioned in 1 En. 102.4–104.8: Fear not, souls of the righteous; take courage, you pious who have died. And do not grieve because your souls have descended into Sheol with grief, and your body of flesh did not fare in your life according to your piety . . . (1 En. 102.4–5) . . . that good things and joy and honour have been prepared and written down for the souls of the pious who have died; and much good will be given to you in the place of your labours, and your lot will exceed the lot of the living. The souls of the pious who have died will come to life, and they will rejoice and be glad; and their spirits will not perish, nor their memory from the presence of the Great One for all the generations of eternity. (1 En. 103.3–4) Take courage, then; for formerly you were worn out by evils and tribulations, but now you will shine like the luminaries of heaven; you will shine and appear, and the portals of heaven will be opened for you. (1 En. 104.2)

The spirits of the righteous will be raised from Sheol to heaven to enjoy eternal life like angels. Nowhere does the author say that the bodies of the righteous will live again.73 He merely describes the descent of their spirits to Sheol at death and the ascent of their spirits to heaven at the judgment. Collins explains that ‘this is not the Greek idea of immortality of the soul, but neither is it the resurrection of the body. Rather it is the resurrection,

70. Nickelsburg and VanderKam (1 Enoch, 138) note that his verse is textually problematic, because it ‘appears to have been created to provide a transition when vv 11–17 were moved here’ from their original location after 93.10. A similar statement is also found 1 En. 92.3. For the collective interpretation of ‘the righteous one’, see R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 224; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 432. 71.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 42–3. Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 432) concedes that ‘[t]o “rise from sleep” could be a metaphor for the resurrection’, but eventually concludes that ‘it is more likely that the author speaks here of an awakening to wisdom and the righteous life that flows from it’. 72. Segal, Life After Death, 360. 73.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 43–4. Wright’s claim that ‘the wider context from chapter 91 onwards, particularly chapter 102, suggests that after their period of waiting they will indeed rise again to a newly embodied life’ (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 157) is unsubstantiated.

86

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

or exaltation, of the spirit from Sheol to heaven.’74 The contrast between death and coming to life is in 1 En. 103.4 applied not to the corpses of the righteous but to their spirits. Since the author does not say that the spirits of sinners will be raised from Sheol for judgment, the ‘resurrection’ of their spirits is probably not envisioned.75 It seems rather that for them, Sheol itself becomes the place of judgment, in which ‘they will be in great distress, and in darkness and in a snare and in a flaming fire’ (1 En. 103.7). Segal notes that ‘having been emptied of the righteous, Sheol has now been fully refurbished as Hell, the place of punishment for sinners’.76 The description of the righteous who ‘shall shine like the lights of heaven’ (1 En. 104.2) is similar to Dan 12:3. The author was probably familiar with the Danielic text and used its motifs to portray the final destiny of the righteous.77 Yet the resurrection of the righteous in 1 Enoch is broader in both scope and function than in Daniel. While Daniel envisions the heavenly exaltation of the religious elite, 1 Enoch promises exaltation to all of the righteous. And while in Daniel the resurrection vindicates the suffering and death of the righteous for their obedience to the Torah, in 1 Enoch it vindicates the unjust suffering of the righteous who have been oppressed, but not necessarily murdered, by sinners.78 3.4. The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) The Similitudes of Enoch, usually dated to the first century ce, is the only section in 1 Enoch that contains a clearly formulated expectation of bodily resurrection.79 ‘In those days, the earth will restore what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will restore what it has received, and destruction will restore what it owes’ (1 En. 51.1). If these three statements are synonymous parallels, as it is usually assumed, the mention of the earth in the first clause points to ‘a resurrection of the body conceived in a very

74.  Collins, ‘The Afterlife in Apocalyptic Literature’, 124. See also Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 154–5; Segal, Life After Death, 361. 75. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 155. 76. Segal, Life After Death, 361. Segal argues that rather than seeing Greek influence on the concept of the spirit in this vision, ‘it is more likely to be a kind of natural variation on a Hebrew notion, a variant on the native Israelite notion of the nefesh, the personality of the believer. One needs to have a carrier of identity so that a sinner is sentenced to special punishments’ (ibid.). 77. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 153; idem, 1 Enoch 1, 528; Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 156; Segal, Life After Death, 362. 78. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 156; idem, 1 Enoch 1, 529; Cavallin, Life After Death, 43. 79.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 44; Otto Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage (Mk 12,18–27 parr): Eine exegetisch-theologische Studie zur Auferstehungserwartung (BBB 66; Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum, 1987), 188–9; Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 155.

Resurrection Hope

­87

concrete way’.80 First Enoch 51.5 further clarifies that the resurrected righteous will continue to live on earth: ‘and the earth will rejoice; and the righteous will dwell on it and the chosen will go upon it’. In light of 1 En. 50.1, which indicates that conditions of life will be fundamentally changed in those days, the post-resurrection existence should probably be described, as Cavallin suggests, as ‘a transformed life on a transformed earth’.81 In ch. 39, however, the author describes a vision of the dwelling places of the righteous in heaven among the angels: ‘And in those days a whirlwind snatched me up from the face of the earth and set me down within the confines of the heavens. And there I saw another vision – the dwellings of the holy ones, and the resting places of the righteous. There my eyes saw their dwellings with his righteous angels, and their resting places with the holy ones’ (1 En. 39.3-5). Several passages describe the transformed character of the new life (1 En. 39.7; 58.3; 62.15-16; 71.11). First Enoch 62.15, for example, declares that the ‘righteous and the chosen will have arisen from the earth, and have ceased to cast down their faces, and have put on the garment of glory’. These diverse descriptions of afterlife cannot be harmonized into a coherent doctrine of resurrection. It is clear that the author imagines the new life as a transformed existence, but he shows no interest in providing consistent descriptions of the blessed future. 3.5. Jubilees The book of Jubilees, a second-century bce composition that rewrites the narratives of Genesis and Exodus from creation until the time of Moses, contains an extended discussion of the end-time (Jub. 23.16–31) as a period of increased health, absence of aging, and prolonged human life-span.82 The author envisions the future as a return to the Garden of Eden, thus identifying Urzeit and Endzeit. Segal describes the projection of the primeval time into the eschaton as ‘an exegetical exercise about how to read the beginning of the Bible as the key to the end of history, without relying on anything else’.83 At the end of this account appears the following description of the final destiny of the righteous: And then the Lord will heal his servants, and they will rise up and see great peace. And they will drive out their enemies, and the righteous ones will see and

80.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 45. See also Günter Stemberger, Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologie und Eschatologie des palästinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (ca. 170 v. Chr–100 n. Chr) (AnBib 56; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972), 46–8. 81.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 45. 82. On the composition date for Jubilees, see James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (GAP; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 17–21. For a discussion of the date of Jub. 23.16–31 in particular, see Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 65–6. 83. Segal, Life After Death, 355.

88

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture give praise, and rejoice forever and ever with joy; and they will see all of their judgments and all of their curses among their enemies. And their bones will rest in the earth, and their spirits will increase joy, and they will know that the Lord is an executor of judgment; but he will show mercy to hundreds and thousands, to all who love him. (Jub. 23.30–31)84

This passage is also partially preserved in one of the fragments of Jubilees discovered at Qumran (4Q176 frg. 21). The text is sometimes understood as a reference to non-bodily resurrection, because the author says that God’s servants ‘will rise up’,85 yet he also asserts that the bones of the righteous will remain in the earth, while their spirits86 will be joyful, presumably in heaven.87 What kind of afterlife is described in this passage is not easy to discern. The only thing that seems clear is that it does not refer to bodily resurrection.88 The author, however, does not clarify whether the spirits of the righteous will pass to heaven at the time of their death or at some future period. Only the latter would qualify as a ‘resurrection’, but not in the proper sense because it does not have bodily character. It is also not clear whether God’s servants and the righteous ones represent the same group. If they do,89 then the clause ‘they will rise up’ in v.30 could be taken as a reference to the ‘resurrection’ of their spirits, similar to the exaltation of the spirits of the righteous from Sheol to heaven that is described in 1 En. 103.3–4.90 If they do not,91 then the reference to rising up could be taken as a metaphorical description of elevation from humility or victory over enemies.92

84. Trans. Wintermute, OTP 2:102. 85. This portion of the text is not extant in 4Q176 frg. 21. 86.  Mhytwxwrw (4Q176 frg. 21 line 3). 87. Segal (Life After Death, 355) claims that in Jubilees ‘a sort of resurrection is blended with a sort of immortality of the soul, though neither one of them is a typical example of that belief’. Casey D. Elledge (‘Resurrection of the Dead: Exploring Our Earliest Evidence Today’, in Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine [James H. Charlesworth et al.; FSC; London: T&T Clark, 2006], 40), on the other hand, contends that this text describes ‘immortality without explicitly subscribing to the resurrection hope’. 88. Differently Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 144), who contends that the clause ‘they will rise up’ in Jub. 23.30 refers to bodily resurrection, while the statement ‘their bones will rest in the earth, and their spirits will increase joy’ in Jub. 23.31 refers to the time between death and resurrection. On this reading, the author of Jub. 23.30–31 describes the end-time events in reversed chronological sequence. 89. Schubert, ‘Die Entwicklung der Auferstehungslehre’, 193–5. 90.  Collins, ‘The Afterlife in Apocalyptic Literature’, 124. 91. Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1934), 29; Cavallin, Life After Death, 38. 92. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 48; Cavallin, Life After Death, 38.

Resurrection Hope

­89

3.6. Second Maccabees Second Maccabees is a Jewish writing, composed in Greek, that is usually dated before 63 bce.93 The resurrection hope is mentioned several times throughout the book,94 but the most remarkable references to resurrection are found in the story of seven brothers and their mother, narrated in ch. 7. This chapter is a part of a larger literary unit that describes the unspeakable suffering and horrendous tortures endured by the Jewish martyrs who refused to comply with the Hellenizing policies of Antiochus Epiphanes.95 Unlike the old Eleazar, who accepted a martyr’s death with the simple assertion that no one will escape God’s punishment, neither before nor after death (6:26), the young martyrs accepted torture and death by declaring that they would receive their destroyed bodies back again – each organ and each limb – in the resurrection. The second brother expressed his hope for resurrection in general terms: ‘You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up (a)nasth/sei) to an everlasting renewal of life (ei)j ai)w/nion a)nabi/wsin zwh=j), because we have died for his laws’ (2 Macc 7:9). The declaration of the third brother, however, is much more specific. He ‘quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands, and said nobly, “I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again”’ (2 Macc 7:10-11). The fourth brother maintained that resurrection is reserved only for the righteous: ‘One cannot but choose to die at the 93. Robert Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees (CBQMS 12; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 110–13; George W. E. Nickelsburg, ‘Judgment, Life-After-Death, and Resurrection in the Apocrypha and the Non-Apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha’, in DLADRWC, 148. 94. In 2 Macc 12:43-45, the narrator provides the following explanation of Judas’s collection on behalf of the dead: ‘He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honourably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.’ According to 2 Macc 14:46, the dying Razis ‘tore out his entrails, took them with both hands and hurled them at the crowd, calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to give them back to him again’. Resurrection hope in 2 Maccabees stands in sharp contrast to 1 Maccabees, which does not envision resurrection, or any other form of afterlife, as a means of dealing with injustices in this world. 95. Segal (Life After Death, 268) calls 2 Maccabees 6–7 ‘the master narrative of martyrdom before the term arose in later Christianity’. He further explains that ‘the purpose of this writing is to celebrate the “martyr” as a brave sacrifice for the truth and authenticity of the religion. Martyrdom is a complex social process in which the death of an innocent victim is taken as a proof of the truth of the religion by the audience, be it literary or actual’ (ibid.). For studies of Jewish martyrology, see the papers published in J. W. van Henten, ed., Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie (StPB 38; Leiden: Brill, 1989).

90

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

hands of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives of being raised (a)nasth/sesqai) again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life (a)na/stasij ei)j zwh/n)!’ (2 Macc 7:14). Each of these speeches is remarkable because the young men not only affirm their hope for resurrection but also formulate it in the most physical terms. ‘The resurrection will be bodily, in fact, very bodily’, Segal remarks.96 Through the resurrection God will restore young bodies that have been prematurely destroyed and guarantee the martyrs the pleasure of the bodily existence that has been denied to them because of their faithfulness to the Torah. Resurrection vindicates their faithful adherence to God’s commandments. ‘Vindication is quid pro quo. Because they lost their physical limbs, theirs must be a bodily resurrection; what has been destroyed must be restored.’97 Nickelsburg calls attention to an internal tension, a paradox even, between the Deuterononomic understanding of history that permeates 2 Maccabees and the death of certain righteous individuals that is caused by their obedience to the Torah. This tension is noticeable even within the structure of 2 Maccabees 7. While the speeches of the first five brothers and their mother emphasise their innocence (7:5b-17, 22-23, 27-29), the sixth and, to some degree, the seventh brother accept suffering in solidarity with the sins of the nation (7:18-19, 32-33, 37-38).98 Within this theological framework, the resurrection of martyrs serves as a means of establishing divine justice on a grand scale. It declares, on the one hand, that the decrees of the foreign king are illegitimate. It proclaims, on the other hand, that loyalty to the Torah is the only source of righteousness that counts in God’s eyes. Segal suggests that, regardless of its origin, resurrection became ‘a quintessentially Jewish idea’ which encouraged pious Jews to stay faithful to their tradition and enabled them to cope with the cruelties of foreign domination.99 The idea of resurrection in 2 Maccabees 7 includes another remarkable facet. The mother encouraged her sons by reminding them of God’s creative power. Even as God created their bodies in her womb, he will recreate them in the future. I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of humankind

96. Segal, Life After Death, 268–9. Elledge (‘Resurrection of the Dead’, 30) claims that 2 Maccabees 7 provides ‘the most graphically physical portrayal of the resurrection that we have in all of ancient literature’. 97. Nickelsburg, ‘Judgment, Life-After-Death, and Resurrection’, 149. 98. Ibid., 148–9. 99. Segal, Life After Death, 269.

Resurrection Hope

­91

and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws. (2 Macc 7:22-23) I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being. Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again along with your brothers. (2 Macc 7:28-29)

The declaration that ‘God did not make them out of things that existed’ (ou)k e)c o)n/ twn e)poi/hsen au)ta\ o( qeo/j) (2 Macc 7:28) is usually considered the first clear formulation of the idea of creatio ex nihilo, God’s creation of the world out of nothing.100 This concept is here directly related to the idea of resurrection. Segal nicely explains the significance of this theological innovation: In the previous examples where resurrection was discussed, some bodily residuum remains: The dry bones knit together in Ezekiel, the corpses of those who rest in the dust become the basis of the awakened and resurrected saints in Daniel. Here, the text is impelled to stress that God creates from nothing. The martyrs will be resurrected from nothing – even if the bodies of the martyrs are burned and their dust scattered – just as all humans come originally from nothing and the universe itself was created from nothing. . . . [T]his passage shows that the motivation for developing a notion of creatio ex nihilo is actually the necessity of clarifying what bodily resurrection means. God needs to not just to preserve the souls of the righteous alive. Now, God needs to be praised for the power to create their bodies again. Previously, the creation testified to God’s power and the Sabbath was the ritual celebration of His power. Now, the creation is also the demonstration of God’s power to resurrect. That was a total innovation in Jewish thought.101

The link between the ideas of creatio ex nihilo and resurrection pertains to the manner in which the identity of resurrected individuals is preserved. If God is to recreate the bodies of the martyrs from nothing, then the personal identity of those martyrs will not be preserved by any kind of continuity between their mortal and resurrected bodies, but by God alone. The pneu=ma, mentioned in 2 Macc 7:22-23 and 14:46, refers to ‘the principle of physical life given by God’,102 and not to an inherent attribute of humanity. 100.  Gerhard von Rad, The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions (vol. 1 of Old Testament Theology; trans. D. M. G. Stalker; London: SCM, 1965), 142 n.10; Jonathan Goldstein, ‘The Origins of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo’, JJS 35 (1984): 127–35. 101. Segal, Life After Death, 270–71. 102.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 113.

92

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

Similar to Dan 12:1-3, the author of 2 Maccabees links belief in resurrection with the crisis caused by forced Hellenization during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Both documents – their different literary genres, languages, and social settings notwithstanding – understand resurrection as the divine vindication of faithful Jews who have persevered in Torah obedience, even unto death. Both documents also envision resurrection as a future event, even though its eschatological character is more clearly pronounced in Daniel.103 And both documents present the new life as everlasting. Yet some aspects of the resurrection hope in these two writings are markedly different. While Daniel clearly speaks of a double resurrection, i.e. a resurrection of the very righteous and the very wicked, 2 Maccabees focuses almost exclusively on the resurrection of the righteous.104 While Daniel is ambiguous with regard to the corporeal aspect of the resurrection, 2 Maccabees strongly emphasises its bodily – even fleshly – character. Finally, while Daniel presupposes a certain measure of continuity between pre- and post-mortem existence, 2 Maccabees declares that no such continuity is needed in view of God’s power to recreate new lives from nothing. 3.7. Qumran Literature Before the publications of the manuscripts from Cave 4 and other Qumran texts, which began in 1992, many scholars denied the existence of resurrection hope at Qumran.105 This view has been challenged by Émile 103. Nickelsburg (‘Judgment, Life-After-Death, and Resurrection’, 149) suggests that 2 Macc 7:36 ‘may indicate that the dead brothers are already participating in eternal life’. Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 152) rightly objects that the resurrection that the brothers expect ‘is not the same as the “everflowing life” they have already drunk’. There is no doubt that the resurrection is a future event, but its date is not specified; cf. Cavallin, Life After Death, 113. 104. Even God’s punishment of the righteous, which seems implicit in the reference to the sin offering that Judas collected in the expectation of the resurrection of those who had fallen in battle (2 Macc 12:43-45), is an example of God’s faithfulness: God is remaining true to the consequences of obedience and disobedience set out for his elect people in the Torah. 105.  Jacob Licht, The Thanksgiving Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea: Text, Introduction, Commentary and Glossary (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1957), 119, 163; Robert B. Laurin, ‘The Question of Immortality in the Qumran “Hodayot”’, JSS 3 (1958): 344–55; Alfred Mertens, Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer (Würzburg: Echter, 1971), 154–8. Even now that the entire Qumran corpus has become available, some scholars continue to find the extant evidence unconvincing. Philip R. Davies, for example, argues that in the sectarian documents, such as the Rule of the Community, the Damascus Document, and the War Scroll, ‘there is no statement of a doctrine of resurrection and no consensus about the precise nature of the final state of the righteous’ (‘Death, Resurrection, and Life after Death in the Qumran Scrolls’, in DLADRWC, 210. Hermann Lichtenberger (‘Auferstehung in den Qumranfunden’, in Auferstehung – Resurrection: The Fourth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium, ‘Resurrection, Transfiguration and Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity’

Resurrection Hope

93­

Puech, who in his massive study of future belief in the Dead Sea Scrolls, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future, argued that the expectation of the resurrection was a major belief held by the Qumranites. Indeed, the Scrolls contain many allusions to afterlife, such as the promise of ‘glory everlasting and peace eternal’ (4Q418 frg. 126 2.8),106 the assurance of ‘eternal salvation and everlasting peace’ (1QHa 7.29),107 the expectation that ‘those who lie in the dust raise up a standard, and the worms of the dead lift up a banner’ (1QHa 14.37),108 and the claim that purification of a person leads to union with ‘your holy ones, so that a corpse infesting maggot might be raised up from the dust’ (1QHa 19.15).109 The existing evidence is nevertheless inconclusive because references to death and afterlife can also be understood as poetic descriptions of spiritual experiences among members of the community.110 Despite Puech’s contention to the contrary, explicit references to the resurrection of the dead in the Qumran writings are relatively rare. Moreover, they are found in documents that may not have been composed by the members of the yaḥad. The most explicit reference to the resurrection of the dead in the Qumran literature is found in 4Q521, which was probably composed in the second half of first century bce and is now known as the Messianic Apocalypse or On Resurrection.111 The second column of frg. 2 offers the following description of the future: 10 And the fru[it of a] good [wor]k will not be delayed for anyone, 11 and the glorious things that have not taken place the Lord will do as he s[aid],

(Tübingen, September, 1999) [ed. Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger; WUNT 135; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001], 91) alleges that the Qumranites believed in afterlife but did not associate it with bodily resurrection. 106. Trans. Strugnell and Harrington, DJD 34:352. 107. Trans. Newsom, DJD 40:106. 108. Trans. Newsom, DJD 40:197. 109. Trans. Newsom, DJD 40:248. 110.  John J. Collins (‘The Essenes and the Afterlife’, in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech [ed. Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar; STDJ 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006], 49–50) argues that ‘the phrase “worm of the dead” in the Hodayot may indicate metaphorically the abject state of unaided human nature. Just as the hymnist claims to be lifted from Sheol or the Netherworld, he claims that the dead are raised from the dust to become members of the community and so enter into fellowship with the holy ones. It is not necessary to suppose that the author has actual corpses in mind. This is poetry, and its imagery should not be pressed for doctrinal teaching.’ Collins concludes that ‘there are no unambiguous references to resurrection in the Hodayot, and even possible references are rare. The main eschatological focus of these hymns is on life with the angels, which is experienced as a present reality’ (ibid., 50–51). 111. Puech, La croyance, 2:664–9. 4Q521 is paleographically dated to the early first century bce.

94

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture 12 for he will heal the wounded and give life to the dead (hyxy Mytmw), he will preach good news to the poor ones 13 and [sat]isfy the [weak] ones, he will lead those who have been cast out and enrich the hungry ones . . .112

There is little doubt that giving life to the dead in line 12 refers to a literal resurrection.113 What is controversial, however, is whether God is expected to raise the dead directly or through the agency of the Messiah mentioned in line 1 of this column.114 The grammar and internal logic of the text indicate that the wonderful events described in this passage should be related to the messianic figure only indirectly. Even if the agency of the Messiah is assumed, the author of this text is more interested in the events that will indicate the arrival of the messianic time than he is in the identity or the role of God’s anointed.115 The resurrection of the dead belongs to the glorious events that will one day be experienced by the righteous. In this context, the resurrection probably refers to the restoration of their earthly lives.116 Since the text presumes that devout Israelites were not rewarded for their good works during their lifetimes, the resurrection functions ‘as an act of divine justice’.117 The hope of resurrection offers a solution to the perceived discrepancy between scriptural promises and the actual experiences of the righteous, while at the same time encouraging them to endure in faithfulness to the Torah. Since only the resurrection of the pious is mentioned, the author probably did not expect the resurrection of the wicked.118

112.  My translation. For a complete English translation of the second column of frg. 2 (along with fragment 4) of 4Q521, see Lidija Novakovic, Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT II/170; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 170–71. 113. The Q material preserved in Matt 11:2-6 and Luke 7:18-23 is the closest known parallel to 4Q521. Both texts go beyond their common scriptural basis in Isa 61:1 by inserting a reference to resurrection of the dead before the reference to preaching good news to the poor. 114.  John J. Collins, ‘The Works of the Messiah’, DSD 1 (1994): 98–112; idem, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 117–23; idem, ‘A Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61:1–3 and Its Actualization in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon; BIS 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 225–40; Michael Becker, ‘4Q521 und die Gesalbten’, RevQ 18 (1997): 73–96; Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, ‘Die Werke des eschatologischen Freudenboten: 4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung’, in The Scriptures in the Gospels (ed. Christopher M. Tuckett; BETL 131; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 637–46. 115. Lidija Novakovic, ‘4Q521: The Works of the Messiah or the Signs of the Messianic Time?’, in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions (ed. Michael T. Davis and Brent A. Strawn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 208–31. 116. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 187. 117. Elledge, ‘Resurrection of the Dead’, 33. 118. Ibid.

Resurrection Hope

­95

The writing known as Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385–4Q388, 4Q391), a second-century bce composition whose copies are paleographically dated to the mid-first century bce, includes the earliest interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones as a literal resurrection of the righteous dead. The best preserved copy of this passage is 4Q385 frg. 2 lines 2–9:119 2 [And I said, ‘O Lord!] I have seen many (men) from Israel who have loved your Name and have walked 3 in the ways of [your heart. And th]ese things when will they come to be and how will they be recompensed for their piety?’ And the Lord said 4 to me, ‘I will make (it) manifest[ ]to the children of Israel and they shall know that I am the Lord.’ 5 [And he said,] ‘Son of man, prophesy over the bones and let them be j[oi]ned bone to its bone and joint 6 [to its joint.’ And it wa]s so. And He said a second time, ‘Prophesy and let arteries come upon them and let skin cover them 7 [from above.’ And it was so.] And He said, ‘Prophesy once again over the four winds of heaven and let them blow breath 8 [into the slain.’ And it was so,] and a large crowd of people came [to li]fe and blessed the Lord Sebaoth wh[o] 9 [had given them life. . . . and] I said, ‘O Lord! When shall these things come to be?’ And the Lord said to m[e, ‘Until . . .]120

The author of Pseudo-Ezekiel turns Ezekiel’s prophecy of the national restoration of Israel as a whole into a prophecy of the resurrection of the righteous of Israel alone. He accomplishes this task with the help of four interpretative strategies that are commonly used in Jewish writings employing implicit exegesis: addition, abbreviation, alteration, and omission. He adds an introductory dialogue between Ezekiel and God, which clarifies that the prophecy is applicable to individual Israelites who, like the pious in 4Q521, ‘walk on the paths of righteousness’ but are not rewarded for their righteous living. The author significantly abbreviates the scriptural account of the dry bones, which indicates that he ‘operates with a well-known text and a familiar exegetical tradition’.121 He replaces the descriptions of various stages of revivification of dry bones with a simple fulfilment formula, ‘And it was so’, which links the resurrection of the dead to the creation account of Genesis 1. The author also deletes the commentary from Ezekiel that applies the vision to the displaced people of Israel who are promised a return from exile. Instead, he adds another question about the time of the fulfilment of these prophecies.122 In this way, Ezekiel’s vision is placed into a clear eschatological context and 119. This text is also found in 4Q386 frg. 1 1.1–10 and 4Q388 frg. 7 lines 2–7. 120. Trans. Dimant, DJD 30:24. 121. Dimant, DJD 30:33. 122. Frg. 3 of 4Q385 extends the vision of the resurrected crowd mentioned in frg. 2 lines 8–9 with another explicative non-scriptural addition.

96

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

narrowed down from the entire people of Israel to individual Israelites who expect a reward for their personal piety. Since there are no indications that the risen bodies of the righteous will be transformed, the author probably associates the resurrected life with the same kind of physicality that characterizes mortal existence.123 Even if Messianic Apocalypse and Pseudo-Ezekiel are not considered sectarian writings,124 they were copied and studied by members of the Qumran community. Hence they may be viewed as ‘adopted texts’.125 Moreover, the book of Daniel and the books of Enoch were held in high esteem at Qumran. Since there is no evidence that the Qumranites denied the resurrection of the dead, it seems safe to conclude that resurrection hope, although not a dominant belief of the community, belonged to the spectrum of its various conceptions of afterlife.126 3.8. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Most scholars agree that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, though originally Jewish, has undergone significant editing by a later Christian scribe.127 Separating the original composition, which is usually dated to the second century bce, from the later Christian interpolations and modifications is not an easy task. It is nevertheless possible to isolate with 123. Elledge, ‘Resurrection of the Dead’, 35. Collins’s contention that ‘it is uncertain whether the passage should be understood, like Ezekiel 37, as metaphorical for the restoration of the Jewish people, or whether it refers to the resurrection of individuals’ (Daniel, 397) is unsupported, as has been demonstrated by Dimant, DJD 30:34. 124. In his ‘Introduction to the Expanded Edition’, Nickelsburg concedes that 4Q521 and Pseudo-Ezekiel attest a belief in resurrection, but he insists that ‘in neither case . . . do we have what is demonstrably a Qumran sectarian text’ (Resurrection, 12). 125. Albert L. A. Hogeterp, ‘Belief in Resurrection and Its Religious Settings in Qumran and the New Testament’, in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (ed. Florentino García Martínez; STDJ 85; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 300. 126.  George J. Brooke, ‘The Structure of 1QHa XII 5–XIII 4 and the Meaning of Resurrection’, in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech (ed. Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar; STDJ 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 18. 127. For the history of research on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see H. Dixon Slingerland, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research (SBLMS 21; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977). The view that this is a Jewish document with Christian interpolations has been advocated in various publications by Robert H. Charles and is known as the ‘Charles consensus’. Most scholars have rejected the view of Marinus de Jonge (The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of Their Text, Composition and Origin [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953]) that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is a Christian writing from ca. 200 ce. Scholars have also rejected the opposite view, proposed by Marc Philonenko (Les interpolations chrétiennes des Testaments des Douze Patriarches et les Manuscrits de Qoumrân [CRHPR 35; Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1960), that this collection is free from Christian interpolations. In some cases, later Christian additions can be easily recognized because they betray a distinctly Christian (i.e. Christocentric) theology. In other cases, it is much more difficult to separate the Jewish original from its Christian redaction.

Resurrection Hope

­97

relative certainty the basic contours of the pre-Christian content of the four passages in the Testaments that mention the resurrection of the dead.128 Then I shall arise in gladness and I shall bless the Most High for his marvels. (T. Sim. 6.7)129 And after this Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be resurrected to life and I and my brothers will be chiefs (wielding) our sceptre in Israel: Levi, the first; I, second; Joseph, third; Benjamin, fourth; Simeon, fifth; Issachar, sixth; and all the rest in their order. . . . And those who died in sorrow shall be raised in joy; and those who died in poverty for the Lord’s sake shall be made rich; those who died on account of the Lord shall be wakened to life. (T. Jud. 25.1, 4)130 And now, my children, do not grieve because I am dying, nor be depressed because I am leaving you. I shall rise again in your midst as a leader among your sons, and I shall be glad in the midst of my tribe – as many as keep the Law of the Lord and the commandments of Zebulon, their father. But the Lord shall bring down fire on the impious and will destroy them to all generations. I am now hurrying to my rest, like my fathers. (T. Zeb. 10.1–4)131 And then you will see Enoch and Seth and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob being raised up at the right hand in great joy. Then shall we also be raised, each of us over our tribe, and we shall prostrate ourselves before the heavenly king. Then all shall be changed, some destined for glory, others for dishonor, for the Lord first judges Israel for the wrong she has committed and then he shall do the same for all the nations. Then he shall judge Israel by the chosen gentiles as he tested Esau by the Midianites who loved their brothers. You, therefore, my children, may your lot come to be with those who fear the Lord. (T. Benj. 10.6–10)132

Two major motifs appear in all four passages. In each case, a dying patriarch expresses hope that he will rise again, and in each case this hope is linked with joy. Both motifs are appropriate to the solemn setting of the genre of testamental literature. Isaiah 26:19, which also connects the raising of corpses with joy, may have served as the scriptural basis for these formulations. The three longer passages contain several additional 128. According to Jürgen Becker (Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen [AGJU 8; Leiden: Brill, 1970], 325–6), these passages are later additions to the Jewish original, but they are decidedly Jewish and they do not postdate the first century ce. I have not included T. Levi 18.13–14 in this survey, because it does not explicitly mention death and resurrection. 129. Trans. Kee, OTP 1:787. 130. Ibid., 801–2. 131. Ibid., 807. 132. Ibid., 828.

98

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

motifs. The Testament of Judah and the Testament of Benjamin mention the resurrection of other prominent figures from Israel’s past: Enoch and Seth (T. Benj.), Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (T. Jud. and T. Benj.), and the brothers of a dying patriarch (T. Jud. and T. Benj.). The sequence in which these individuals are to be raised is noteworthy. It typically follows the chronological order in which they lived. Thus, in the Testament of Benjamin, the resurrection of the patriarchal trio Abraham-Isaac-Jacob is preceded by the resurrection of Enoch and Seth and followed by the resurrection of Jacob’s twelve sons. Similarly, the Testament of Judah begins with the resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and only subsequently mentions the resurrection of Judah and his brothers. This text also establishes a hierarchy among the brothers, which is probably influenced by Deut 27:12: Levi is first, Judah second, the sons of Rachel (Joseph and Benjamin) third, and the rest of the brothers last.133 The resurrection of the righteous is mentioned in T. Jud. 25.4 and T. Benj. 10.8. In the Testament of Judah, the righteous are described as those who died in sorrow, in poverty, or for the sake of the Lord. For each of these subgroups, the resurrection brings about a reversal of fortunes – sorrow becomes joy, poverty wealth, and violent death life. Since the righteous were not rewarded during their lifetimes, the promise of resurrection guarantees the realization of divine justice. On the one hand, ‘God gives to these people what they lacked in life.’134 On the other, the resurrection vindicates those who have suffered persecution because of their righteous behaviour. In the Testament of Benjamin, the righteous are probably those who are destined for glory. This text also mentions those who will be raised for dishonour (T. Benj. 10.8). This is therefore the only passage in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs that envisions a double resurrection. In both of these texts, the resurrection of the people, whether partial or general, is preceded by the resurrection of the patriarchs. Although these passages presume bodily resurrection, they provide no specific information about the character of the resurrected body. Neither do they clarify whether risen individuals will continue to live on earth or instead assume heavenly existence. According to T. Jud. 25.1 and T. Benj. 10.7, the resurrected sons of Jacob will become leaders of the restored tribes of Israel, while T. Zeb. 10.2 has Zebulun make a similar prediction about himself from his deathbed. Some scholars understand these statements as references to the earthly setting, even the political character, of the postresurrection existence.135 Cavallin, however, contends that the term ‘tribe’ 133. Harm W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 230. 134. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 51 n.123. 135. Stemberger, Der Leib der Auferstehung, 66; Casey D. Elledge, ‘The Resurrection Passages in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Hope for Israel in Early Judaism and Christianity’, in Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine (James H. Charlesworth et al.; FSC; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 83–5, 88, 90–92. Elledge

Resurrection Hope

­99

‘may just as well refer to all of the generations of the tribe of Zebulun, who will be with their patriarch on the day of resurrection’.136 He also emphasises that the exaltation of the patriarchs to the right hand of God, mentioned in T. Benj. 10.6, ‘expresses the heavenly and transcendent character of the resurrection’.137 Indeed, in T. Benj. 10.6–7, the reference to the authority of the risen patriarchs over their respective tribes is preceded by a reference to the exaltation of Enoch, Seth, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ‘at the right hand in great joy’ and followed by a reference to the worship of ‘the heavenly king’ by all of the patriarchs. Such a mixture of mundane and transcendent categories hinders any definite conclusion about the character of the resurrected life in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 3.9. Psalms of Solomon This collection of eighteen hymns, composed sometime between 65 and 30 bce,138 contains the following reference to the resurrection of the dead: They sin repeatedly in their life: They fall, and are seriously hurt, they will never get up again. The destruction of sinners is forever, and they will not be remembered when God looks after the righteous. This is the fate of sinners forever; but those who fear the Lord shall rise up to eternal life (a)nasth/sontai ei)j zwh\n ai)wn/ ion), and their life shall be in the Lord’s light and it shall never end. (Pss. Sol. 3.10–12)139

The combination of the verb a)ni/sthmi and the phrase ei)j zwh\n ai)wn/ ion indicates that the author envisions bodily resurrection along the lines of Dan 12:2, rather than a metaphorical rising again after a falling into sin140 or a rising up of the soul.141 Resurrection to eternal life is promised only to the righteous. Their fate is contrasted with the fate of sinners, who will be destroyed and permanently erased from memory.142 Since the text concludes that in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, ‘a national, political restoration accompanies personal hope in the resurrection’ (ibid., 90). 136.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 53. 137. Ibid. 138. Robert B. Wright, ed., The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (JCT 1; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 6–7. Although the psalms in this collection were most likely composed by several different authors, they reflect similar religious views. 139. Trans. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 81. 140. Stemberger, Der Leib der Auferstehung, 56–9. 141. Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 52. 142. See also Pss. Sol. 13.11; 14.6–9; 15.10–13. Nickelsburg emphasises that in the Psalms of Solomon, ‘judgment is enacted principally – though not exclusively – in terms of resurrection and eternal life or eternal destruction’ (‘Judgment, Life-After-Death, and Resurrection in the Apocrypha and the Non-Apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha’, in Death, Life-

100

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

does not indicate that the righteous were deprived of their reward while living or that they suffered persecution or other hardships, the purpose of the resurrection is not to provide compensation for injustices suffered in life. It simply rewards right conduct regardless of one’s particular life situation.143 The text does not supply any specific information about the time of the resurrection or the character of the resurrected body, except to say that it is associated with the divine light, which refers, according to Nickelsburg, to the ‘theophanic glory’ and not to the ‘angel-like splendour’ of the righteous.144 3.10. Josephus Two passages in Josephus’ works provide evidence of his own beliefs about afterlife. The first is a speech that Josephus apparently delivered on the occasion of the fall of Jotapata, in which he argues against his companions’ suggestion to commit suicide rather than surrender to the Romans. Why set asunder such fond companions as soul and body? . . . All of us, it is true, have mortal bodies, composed of perishable matter, but the soul lives for ever, immortal: it is a portion of the Deity housed in our bodies. . . . Know you not that they who depart this life in accordance with the law of nature and repay the loan which they received from God, when He who lent is pleased to reclaim it, win eternal renown; that their houses and families are secure; that their souls, remaining spotless and obedient, are allotted the most holy place in heaven, whence, in the revolution of the ages, they return to find in chaste bodies a new habitation? But as for those who have laid mad hands upon themselves, the darker regions of the nether world receive their souls, and God, their father, visits upon their posterity the outrageous acts of the parents. (J.W. 3.362, 372, 374–375 [Thackeray, LCL])

The second passage is found in Against Apion: No; each individual, relying on the witness of his own conscience and the lawgiver’s prophecy, confirmed by the sure testimony of God, is firmly persuaded that to those who observe the laws and, if they must needs die for them, willingly meet death, God has granted a renewed existence and in the revolution of the ages the gift of a better life. (Ag. Ap. 2.218 [Thackeray, LCL])

After-Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity [part 4 of Judaism in Late Antiquity; ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner; HO I/49; Leiden: Brill, 2000], 156). 143. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 164. 144. Ibid.

Resurrection Hope

­101

In his Jotapata speech,145 Josephus contrasts the immortality of the soul (yuxh\ de\ a)qa/natoj a)ei/)146 with the perishability of the body. He describes death as a separation of the body from the soul. The souls of the righteous and the wicked (who are limited here only to those who commit suicide) are rewarded according to their deeds. The souls of the former are claimed back by God while those of the latter depart to ‘the darker regions of the nether world’. Yet, even though the souls of those who live according to God’s laws ‘are allotted the most holy place in heaven’, heaven is not their final destiny. Rather, ‘in the revolution of the ages’ (e)k peritroph=j ai)wn/ wn), these souls find new habitation in ‘chaste bodies’ (a(gnoi=j sw/masin). The former probably refers to the age to come147 and the latter to re-embodiment of souls through resurrection.148 Both components – ‘the revolution of the ages’ (e)k peritroph=j) and ‘a renewed existence’ (gene/sqai pa/lin) – are also found in Ag. Ap. 2.218. Collins notes that Josephus’ formulation of belief in bodily resurrection ‘is different from what we typically find in Jewish apocalypses, but it is unmistakable nonetheless’.149 Josephus translates Jewish beliefs into philosophical concepts that would be intelligible to his educated Roman audience. Since his readers would have found the idea of bodily resurrection repulsive, he adopted the concepts of immortality of the soul and metempsychosis, which enabled him to preserve the continuity between mortal and resurrected bodies.150 Josephus’ attempts to translate Jewish beliefs into the Greco-Roman concepts that would be familiar to his readers is especially evident in his descriptions of the three major Jewish sects – the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes.151 The Sadducees he associates with the Epicureans, the 145. Lester L. Grabbe (‘Eschatology in Philo and Josephus’, in DLADRWC, 175) argues that this speech, which is most likely Josephus’ invention, serves a rhetorical purpose. 146.  J.W. 3.372. 147.  Collins notes that ‘while the typical Jewish apocalyptic hope was for resurrection at the end of the ages, Josephus gives this a Stoic overtone by speaking of the revolution of the ages, or the periodic renewal of all things’ (‘The Essenes and the Afterlife’, 43). Wright, however, alleges that Josephus uses this designation to refer not ‘to the Stoic doctrine of the world being consumed by fire and everything beginning all over again, but to “age to come” in the normal rabbinic sense’ (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 176). Although Josephus uses Greek philosophical ideas to convey Jewish beliefs to his educated Roman audience, his use of Stoic terminology should not be taken as an indication of his acceptance of Stoic doctrine. 148.  Grabbe (‘Eschatology in Philo and Josephus’, 176) alleges that Josephus’ expression indicates his belief in the transmigration of souls, i.e. metempsychosis. Josephus, however, does not speak of reincarnation ‘into a new body’ in a general sense, as Grabbe claims, but of reincarnation into a ‘chaste’ (pure, holy) body, i.e. a body with special qualities. See also the lengthy footnote in Feldman’s LCL translation of Ant. 18.14, in which he criticizes Thackeray’s view that J.W. 3.74 contains metempsychosis. 149.  Collins, ‘The Essenes and the Afterlife’, 43. 150. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 177. 151.  Josephus also mentions a ‘fourth philosophy’, i.e. the revolutionaries whom he

102

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

Pharisees with the Stoics, and the Essenes with the Pythagoreans. Josephus claims that unlike the Sadducees, who denied life after death (J.W. 2.165), the Pharisees and the Essenes held such beliefs. Josephus’ own view of the afterlife is similar to one he ascribes to the Pharisees.152 Every soul, they maintain, is imperishable, but the soul of the good alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment. (J.W. 2.163 [Thackeray, LCL]) They believe that souls have power to survive death and that there are rewards and punishments under the earth for those who have led lives of virtue or vice; eternal imprisonment is the lot of evil souls, while the good souls receive an easy passage to a new life. (Ant. 18.14 [Feldman, LCL])

The Pharisees, Josephus claims, affirm the immortality of the souls of all human beings. They believe, however, that only the souls of the righteous will be rewarded with transference ‘into another body’ (ei)j e(t / eron sw~ma) (J.W. 2.163) or ‘an easy passage to a new life’ (r(as | tw/nhn tou= a)nabiou=n) (Ant. 18.14). Most scholars understand these expressions as references to bodily resurrection. As in his Jotapata speech, Josephus does not describe resurrection as a return of the soul into the same body, which concept his Roman audience would have found absurd, but into a new one. He thus conceptualizes the afterlife as a two-stage process: immortality of the soul immediately after death and resurrection of the body at the turn of the ages.153 Given Josephus’ hermeneutical constraints, however, his statements should not be used to reconstruct the pharisaic view of the relationship between mortal bodies and resurrected bodies. His descriptions merely indicate that the new bodies of the righteous will be different from the perishable bodies they now possess.154 It is true, as Cavallin notes, that ‘no continuity between the earthly body and the new post-resurrection body is indicated’,155 but this does not mean that no continuity is presumed. It would be unwarranted to conclude that Josephus believed that the Pharisees expected mortal bodies to remain in graves when the souls of the righteous united with new bodies. But it would be equally unwarranted to conclude that he believed that the Phrarisees expected a transformation of blames for the war with the Romans and its disastrous aftermath. 152.  Grabbe’s claim that Josephus’ views are similar to those of both the Pharisees and the Essenes (‘Eschatology in Philo and Josephus’, 176–7) ignores the differences in Josephus’ presentations of the beliefs of these two groups regarding the afterlife. 153. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 178. 154. Segal suggests that ‘Josephus probably meant that the Pharisees believed that righteous persons will receive a new, incorruptible body. This is exactly what Paul says in 1 Corinthians. Since Paul was an ex-Pharisee (as well as a Christian), Josephus may have been accurate in his own way’ (Life After Death, 381). 155.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 143.

Resurrection Hope

­103

mortal bodies into a different kind of body. Josephus describes the beliefs of the Essenes in two passages of unequal length. For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the body is corruptible and its constituent matter impermanent, but that the soul is immortal and imperishable. Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become entangled, as it were, in the prison-house of the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort of natural spell; but when once they are released from the bonds of the flesh, then, as though liberated from a long servitude, they rejoice and are borne aloft. Sharing the belief of the sons of Greece, they maintain that for virtuous souls there is reserved an abode beyond the ocean, a place which is not oppressed by rain or snow or heat, but is refreshed by the ever gentle breath of the west wind coming in from ocean; while they relegate base souls to a murky and tempestuous dungeon, big with never-ending punishments. (J.W. 2.154–155 [Thackeray, LCL]) They regard the soul as immortal and believe that they ought to strive especially to draw near to righteousness. (Ant. 18.18 [Feldman, LCL])

Josephus’ assertion that the Essenes believe in the immortality of the soul, found in both accounts, is not surprising, given the thoroughly Greek character of his report. He ascribes this belief also to himself and to the Pharisees. The motif of the body as a prison-house from which the soul is liberated at death is also found in his Jotapata speech.156 What is different here, however, is the absence of any idea of re-embodiment that would indicate belief in bodily resurrection.157 Nickelsburg emphasises that ‘although Josephus describes the eschatology of both Essenes and Pharisees in Hellenistic vocabulary, he does not attribute to the Essenes what he does attribute to the Pharisees, [namely] a belief in a new bodily

156. See also J.W. 1.84; 7.343–346. 157. The parallel account of the Essenes by Hippolytus in Haer. 9.27 claims just the opposite, i.e. that the Essenes affirmed the resurrection of the flesh and expected a judgment and a conflagration of the universe. The difficulties that Josephus’ account posits for Qumran scholars are well known. The relative paucity of references to bodily resurrection in the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially in the sectarian writings, has led many interpreters to deny the existence of this belief at Qumran. For a discussion of the Qumran evidence, see section 3.7 of this chapter. For analysis of the accounts of Josephus and Hippolytus, see Morton Smith, ‘The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena’, HUCA 29 (1958): 273–93; Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1961), 187–91; Puech, La croyance, 2:703–87; Collins, ‘The Essenes and the Afterlife’, 35–41.

104

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

existence’.158 It is reasonable to suppose that, had Josephus found in his sources a reference to the Essenes’ belief in the resurrection, he would have Hellenized it somehow, as he had done in his accounts of the Pharisees.159 A discrepancy between these reports and the evidence from the Qumran documents themselves indicates that ‘neither Josephus nor his sources is likely to have had an extensive knowledge of the sectarian literature’.160 Thus Josephus’ descriptions of the various beliefs concerning the afterlife, or the lack thereof, held by different Jewish groups in Palestine are at best incomplete. 3.11. Pseudo-Philo Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, a rewritten scriptural narrative that covers the period from the creation of the world to the death of Saul, offers a glimpse into the concept of resurrection held by some Palestinian Jews in the late-first century ce. Although L.A.B. belongs to the genre of rewritten Scripture, it has many affinities with two apocalypses, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. All three works were composed in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce, all three were originally written in Hebrew, and all three are of Palestinian provenance.161 Despite the fact that references to afterlife are scattered throughout this extended narrative, they evince a more or less coherent notion of life after death.

158. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 208 (emphasis original). Segal’s contention that Josephus’ description of Essenic immortality of the soul represents his translation of the concept of the resurrection (Life After Death, 298) lacks precision. A Jewish idea of bodily resurrection is conveyed in Josephus’ works through the concept of re-embodiment of the soul, not solely through the concept of the immortality of the soul. 159.  Collins, ‘The Essenes and the Afterlife’, 43–4. It is possible, however, that Josephus’ description of the martyrdom of the Essenes hints at some form of resurrection hope: ‘Smiling in their agonies and mildly deriding their tormentors, they cheerfully resigned their souls, confident that they would receive them back again’ (J.W. 2.153 [Thackeray, LCL]). Segal (Life After Death, 383) alleges that in this passage, ‘Josephus used the term “soul” when he meant resurrection of the body, the doctrine most closely associated with martyrdom in Jewish culture.’ See also Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 183–4. 160.  Collins, ‘The Essenes and the Afterlife’, 47. Collins suggests that Josephus’ account may have derived from something like the Instruction on the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community (1QS 4.6–8, 11–14). ‘If his source was based on some form of that Rule, we can easily enough imagine how the hope for eternal life without resurrection would have been formulated for Greek readers as immortality of the soul’ (ibid.). 161.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 75; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 265–94; idem, ‘Judgment, Life-After-Death, and Resurrection’, 157; Daniel J. Harrington, ‘Afterlife Expectations in Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, and Their Implications for the New Testament’, in RNT, 23–4.

Resurrection Hope

­105

Pseudo-Philo presumes that at death the soul is separated from the body. Yet already at this point the wicked realize that the punishments they are to suffer constitute just retribution for their evil deeds: ‘And when the soul is separated from the body, then they will say, “Let us not mourn over these things that we suffer; but because whatever we ourselves have devised, these will we receive”’ (L.A.B. 44.10).162 Daniel J. Harrington calls the verdict that takes place immediately after death ‘the particular judgment’, because it is to be distinguished from the final judgment that occurs after the resurrection.163 Thus, in Pseudo-Philo’s account of her farewell speech, Deborah explains that souls in the intermediate state can neither repent of the sins committed during their lifetime nor continue sinning: ‘For even if you seek to do evil in hell after your death, you cannot, because the desire for sinning will cease and the evil impulse will lose its power’ (33.3).164 The souls of the righteous, however, are stored in peace as they await the resurrection (23.13).165 The fullest description of the resurrection in Pseudo-Philo is found in God’s speech to Noah after the flood in 3.10: But when the years appointed for the world have been fulfilled, then the light will cease and the darkness will fade away. And I will bring the dead to life and raise up those who are sleeping from the earth. And hell will pay back its debt, and the place of perdition will return its deposit so that I may render to each according to his works and according to the fruits of his own devices, until I judge between soul and flesh. And the world will cease, and death will be abolished, and hell will shut its mouth. And the earth will not be without progeny or sterile for those inhabiting it; and no one who has been pardoned by me will be tainted. And there will be another earth and another heaven, an everlasting dwelling place.166

In this account of the eschatological scenario, universal resurrection is presented as a necessary step for the implementation of the last judgment, the purpose of which is to ‘render to each according to his works and according to the fruits of his own devices’. The author uses a fairly standard vocabulary to describe the resurrection. Bringing the dead to life is synonymous with raising up those who are sleeping. The resurrection most likely presumes a reunion of soul and body, but this is nowhere explicated. After the last judgment, living conditions on earth will be 162. Trans. Harrington, OTP 2:359. According to L.A.B. 16.3, the dwelling place of the souls of the wicked ‘will be in darkness and the place of destruction; and they will not die but melt away until I remember the world and renew the earth. And then they will die and not live, and their life will be taken away from the number of all men’ (trans. Harrington, OTP 2:324). 163. Harrington, ‘Afterlife Expectations’, 25. 164. Trans. Harrington, OTP 2:347. 165. See also L.A.B. 32.13, which mentions the chambers of the souls of the fathers. 166. Trans. Harrington, OTP 2:307.

106

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

dramatically transformed, so much so that the author concludes that ‘there will be another earth and another heaven, an everlasting dwelling place’ from which death will be abolished. While the righteous will be rewarded with eternal life (23.13), the wicked will be either annihilated (16.3) or punished ‘in the inextinguishable fire forever’ (63.4).167 Another description of the resurrection is found in God’s speech to Moses before his death (19.12–13): And all the angels will mourn over you, and the heavenly hosts will be saddened. But neither angel nor man will know your tomb in which you are to be buried until I visit the world. And I will raise up you and your fathers from the land of Egypt in which you sleep and you will come together and dwell in the immortal dwelling place that is not subject to time. . . . 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.168

Harrington contends that this passage describes two resurrections, the first from the land of Egypt to the immortal dwelling place, and the second at the end-time.169 However, analogous time references that appear in both accounts (‘until I visit the world’ [19.12] and ‘when the time draws near to visit the world’ [19.13]) indicate that these are two descriptions of the same eschatological event. Moreover, both descriptions of the postresurrection habitation – ‘the immortal dwelling place that is not subject to time’ (19.12) and ‘the place of sanctification’ (19.13) – seem to refer to the same locale, which Cavallin understands as a reference to the land of Israel, transformed and glorified.170 3.12. Fourth Ezra This late first-century ce apocalyptic writing contains several elaborate passages that discuss life after death. In one of them, an angelic interpreter explains to Ezra that when a person dies, as the spirit leaves the body to return again to him who gave it, first of all it adores the glory of the Most High. And if it is one of those who have shown scorn and have not kept the way of the Most High, and who have despised his Law, and who have hated those who fear God – such spirits shall not enter into

167. Ibid., 376. 168. Ibid., 328. 169. Harrington, ‘Afterlife Expectations’, 29–30. 170.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 77. Cavallin concludes that ‘the contents of the different statements are not meant to be information about facts, but instead are meant to be motifs for exhortations, reassurances of final rewards’ (ibid., 78).

Resurrection Hope

­107

habitations, but shall immediately wander about in torments, ever grieving and sad, in seven ways. (4 Ezra 7.78–80)

The souls of the righteous, however, ‘shall see with great joy the glory of him who receives them, for they shall have rest in seven orders’ (7.91).171 After seven days, they will be ‘gathered in their habitations’ (7.101). They will remain in this intermediate state until the number of the righteous is completed (4.36). The interpreting angel compares the chambers of the souls, which are eager ‘to give back those things that were committed to them’ (4.42), to a pregnant woman who hastens to deliver when her birth pangs begin (4.40–42). The resurrection and the last judgment will be preceded by a temporary messianic kingdom that will last four hundred years.172 At the end of this period, the Messiah and ‘all who draw human breath’ will die (7.28–29). This will be followed by seven days of primeval silence (7.30). Thereafter, ‘the earth shall give up those who are asleep in it; and the chambers shall give up the souls which have been committed to them’ (7.32). The resurrection envisioned here probably entails a reunion of body and soul, although this reunification is never explicitly described in 4 Ezra.173 This combination of the messianic and resurrection hopes is not only peculiar but also contrived. The Messiah has no real function in this scenario. Moreover, the death of the Messiah is unparalleled in the extant Jewish literature. Even more strangely, the text does not indicate whether the Messiah will be among those who will be raised from the dead. After his death, he simply disappears from the eschatological drama described in this text. The fact that all nations will appear at the last judgment suggests that the author envisions a general resurrection. On that occasion, ‘the Most High shall be revealed upon the seat of judgment, and compassion shall pass away, and patience shall be withdrawn’ (7.33). God will reward righteous deeds and punish unrighteous deeds. ‘Then the Most High will say to the nations that have been raised from the dead, “Look now and understand whom you have denied, whom you have not served, whose commandments you have despised! Look on this side and on that; here are delight and rest, and there are fire and torments!”’ (7.37–38).174 Following 171. Trans. Metzger, OTP 1:539–40. 172.  Cavallin contends that the companions of the Messiah mentioned in 4 Ezra 7.28 (‘For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him’) are ‘the patriarchs and other heroes of sacred history’ who are raised from the dead. Cavallin calls this presumed occurrence ‘a first resurrection’ (Life After Death, 83). This reconstruction is, as Cavallin himself admits, highly speculative. The text mentions no resurrection but the one that follows the death of the Messiah. 173. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 174. 174. Trans. Metzger, OTP 1:537–8. Nickelsburg notes that in this text, ‘the judgment

108

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

the last judgment, life in the post-resurrection world will be unlike life before death. It will no longer be marred by illness, corruption, and death (8.52–54). Thus the text appears to presume a changed character of resurrected bodies, though this transformation is nowhere explicated. 3.13. Second Baruch The writing known as 2 Baruch is usually dated after 4 Ezra, because many of its theological notions, including its conception of the afterlife, seem more developed. Unlike 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch explicitly addresses the question of why there must be life after death. For if only this life exists which everyone possesses here, nothing could be more bitter than this. For of what help is strength which changes into weakness, or food in abundance which changes into famine, or beauty which changes into ugliness? For the nature of men is always changeable. . . . For if an end of all things had not been prepared, their beginning would have been senseless. (2 Bar. 21.13–15, 17)175

Similar to 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch presumes that between death and resurrection the souls of the deceased exist in an intermediate state. This condition is described as ‘the realm of death’ and the ‘treasuries of the souls’ (21.23; cf. 11.6–7). The resurrection begins with the fulfilment of the time of the appearance of the Messiah. And it will happen after these things when the time of the appearance of the Anointed One has been fulfilled and he returns with glory, that then all who sleep in hope of him will rise. And it will happen at that time that those treasuries will be opened in which the number of the souls of the righteous were kept, and they will go out and the multitudes of souls will appear together, in one assemblage, of one mind. And the first ones will enjoy themselves and the last ones will not be sad. For they know that the time has come of which it is said that it is the end of times. But the souls of the wicked will the more waste away, when they shall see all these things. For they know that their torment has come and that their perditions have arrived. (2 Bar. 30.1–5)176

Cavallin argues that, in this context, the reference to the Messiah’s return ‘with glory’ (30.1) indicates his return to heaven.177 On this reading, 2 Bar. is not related to the persecution of the righteous or suffering of the Jewish people in general. The wicked and the righteous are not judged on the way they have treated other people, or the way they themselves have been treated. They receive reward or punishment for their obedience or disobedience to God’s law’ (Resurrection, 173). 175. Trans. Klijn, OTP 1:628. The mutability of human existence for the worse is also addressed in 2 Bar. 83.10–21. 176. Trans. Klijn, OTP 1:631. 177.  Cavallin, Life After Death, 86.

Resurrection Hope

­109

30.1 corrects 4 Ezra 7.29: ‘Instead of dying, the Messiah returns to heaven in glory.’178 The author uses the traditional metaphor of arising from sleep to describe the resurrection. He also adds the imagery of the opening of the treasuries in which the souls of the righteous are kept, which is consistent with the concept of the intermediate state. Another passage explains that ‘dust will be called, and told, “Give back that which does not belong to you and raise up all that you have kept until its own time”’ (42.8).179 As in 4 Ezra, the reunion of body and soul at the resurrection is most likely presumed, though it is not actually described. The text envisions a general resurrection, followed by a final judgment, which the righteous approach with delight and the wicked with fear. Second Baruch provides a unique, and quite intriguing, description of the resurrected body. When Baruch asks how the shapes of those who will be raised are to be changed (49.2–3), he is told that the earth will give back the dead in the same form as it received them because ‘it will be necessary to show those who live that the dead are living again, and that those who went away have come back’ (50.3). Thus the dead will receive a body of the same form that they had before death in order that they might be recognized by others. However, once the resurrection has been acknowledged and that recognition has been achieved, their resurrected bodies will be gradually transformed. The shapes of the wicked will be changed ‘into startling visions and horrible shapes’ (51.5), while the splendour of the righteous ‘will then be glorified by transformations, and the shape of their face will be changed into the light of their beauty so that they may acquire and receive the undying world which is promised to them’ (51.3). They will eventually be changed ‘into the splendour of angels’ (51.5). They will not age (51.9) and ‘will be like the angels and be equal to the stars. And they will be changed into any shape which they wished, from beauty to loveliness, and from light to the splendour of glory’ (51.10).180 The idea that the resurrected righteous will become like angels and be equal to the stars betrays the influence of Dan 12:2.181 Second Baruch offers a concept of resurrection that takes into account the implications of the ideas of bodily resurrection and angelic transformation. The author promotes, on the one hand, the idea that the body will be restored to its state before death, but only for the purpose of recognition.182 On the other hand, he also subscribes to the idea of gradual transformation of the resurrected body, which enables him to envision its ultimate appearance as luminous and angelic. Cavallin again notes that ‘this is the most explicit 178. Ibid. (emphasis original) 179. Trans. Klijn, OTP 1:634. 180. Ibid., 637–8. 181.  Collins, ‘The Afterlife in Apocalyptic Literature’, 131. 182.  Cavallin notes that ‘this is one of the most extreme expressions of literal faith in the resurrection of the body’ (Life After Death, 88).

110

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

expression concerning a spiritually resurrected body which can be found in the Jewish literature’ of the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods.183 3.14. Sibylline Oracles Book 4 of the Sibylline Oracles, a Hellenized Jewish writing that is usually dated to the late-first century ce, contains the following description of the resurrection: But when everything is already dusty ashes, and God puts to sleep the unspeakable fire, even as he kindled it, God himself will again fashion the bones and ashes of men and he will raise up mortals again as they were before. And then there will be a judgment over which God himself will preside, judging the world again. As many as sinned by impiety, these will a mound of earth cover, and broad Tartarus and the repulsive recesses of Gehenna. But as many as are pious, they will live on earth again when God gives spirit and life and favour to these pious ones. Then they will all see themselves beholding the delightful and pleasant light of the sun. (Sib. Or. 4.179–191)184

As in 4 Ezra 7, the resurrection is preceded by a universal destruction of all life.185 Unlike in 4 Ezra 7, however, the resurrection in this passage does not involve a reunion of body and soul. Rather, it is presented as a creative act of God, similar to the formation of the first human being in Genesis 2. The author emphasises the similarity of the resurrected and mortal bodies (‘God . . . will raise up mortals again as they were before’). It is clear that the text envisions the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, but it is less clear whether this involves a universal resurrection or only the resurrection of the last generation, which is to be destroyed by fire.186 183. Ibid. Wright’s contention that ‘this passage hardly indicates that the shift in question is from a material existence to a non-material one’ (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 162) may be somewhat contrived, but it underscores the difference between the angel-like transformation anticipated in apocalyptic literature and similar descriptions in Hellenistic writings. Philo, for example, compares the souls of the righteous dead to angels, but he emphasises their incorporeality: ‘when Abraham left this mortal life, “he is added to the people of God” (Gen. xxv.8), in that he inherited incorruption and became equal to the angels, for angels – those unbodied and blessed souls – are the host and people of God’ (Philo, Sacr. 5 [Colson, LCL]). Segal (Life After Death, 374) comments that in this text ‘Philo was giving us his own interpretation of by-now familiar apocalyptic traditions. But he styled them not in terms of resurrection (they are unincarnate souls) but in terms of incorporeal intelligences.’ 184. Trans. Collins, OTP 1:389. 185. Nickelsburg (Resurrection, 174–5) alleges that the similarities between 4 Ezra 7 and Sibylline Oracles 4 betray a common tradition. 186. For the former view, see Friedrich Nötscher, Altorientalischer und alttestamentlicher Auferstehungsglauben (Würzburg: C. J. Becker, 1926), 273; for the latter, see Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie des jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und apokryphen Literatur dargestellt (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1934), 243–4.

Resurrection Hope

111

The wicked will be punished in Gehenna, while the righteous will continue living on earth and enjoying the sunlight.187 3.15. Pseudo-Phocylides This Jewish poem of Alexandrian provenance, written pseudonymously around the turn of the era under the name of an ancient Greek poet,188 juxtaposes belief in the resurrection of the body with belief in the immortality of the soul. Do not dig up the grave of the deceased, nor expose to the sun what may not be seen, lest you stir up the divine anger. It is not good to dissolve the human frame; for we hope that the remains of the departed will soon come to the light (again) out of the earth; and afterward they will become gods. For the souls remain unharmed among the deceased. For the spirit is a loan of God to mortals, and (his) image. For we have a body out of earth, and when afterward we are resolved again into earth we are but dust; and then the air has received our spirit. . . . Hades is (our) common eternal home and fatherland, a common place for all, poor and kings. We humans live not a long time but for a season. But (our) soul is immortal and lives ageless forever. (Ps.-Phoc. 100–108, 112–115)189

In lines 102–104, the author warns against dissecting or in any way disturbing the dead because their remains are destined for bodily resurrection. He even declares that the souls of the deceased remain among them. In the remainder of this passage, however, he not only affirms the immortality of the soul, but also appears to deny any hope of resurrection.190 The author makes no attempt to harmonize these divergent notions of afterlife. Pieter W. van der Horst notes that ‘inconsistencies in theories of the afterlife are very common with philosophically untrained people. But in this matter our author seems to go to the extreme.’191 Moreover, he makes no distinction between the righteous and the wicked and does not mention any judgment or retribution after death. These features make this text quite unique among the Jewish writings discussed in this chapter.

187. Nickelsburg suggests that ‘the author may be contrasting the latter with the darkness of the underworld’ (Resurrection, 175). 188. Pieter W. van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (SVTP 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 59–63. 189. Trans. van der Horst, OTP 2:577–8. 190. According to Cavallin, Life After Death, 152, the author expresses at least three different concepts of afterlife: (1) ‘the old Hades-Sheol notion of totally dark equality between all dead’, (2) ‘a very literalistic doctrine of the resurrection’, and (3) ‘belief in the immortality of the soul as an inherent quality’. 191. Pieter W. van der Horst, ‘Pseudo-Phocylides’, in OTP 2:571.

112

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

4. Conclusion The writings surveyed in this chapter indicate that resurrection hope was a major form of belief in the afterlife among Jews in the late Second Temple and early rabbinic periods.192 This conclusion is corroborated by the second benediction of the Amidah (Eighteen Benedictions), a rabbinic synagogal prayer that praises God for resurrecting the dead.193 This liturgical invocation, which most likely antedates 70 ce, expresses belief in God’s power to raise the dead. At the same time, however, the available literature demonstrates that expectation of the resurrection of the dead was by no means uniform. Ezekiel 37:1-10, Isa 26:19, and Dan 12:1-3 offer major scriptural support for this expectation, regardless of the meaning of these passages in their original literary and historical settings. Yet the concept of resurrection in Dan 12:1-3, which is usually regarded as the clearest expression of resurrection hope in the Hebrew Scriptures, is scarcely a standard formulation of this belief. It envisions the resurrection only of the exceptionally righteous and the exceptionally wicked. Moreover, it compares the resurrected state of the maśkilîm to the stars, which borders on angelomorphism. Unlike Daniel, other Jewish writings describe either a universal resurrection (Testament of Benjamin, L.A.B., 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Sibylline Oracles 4, Pseudo-Phocylides) or a resurrection of the righteous (the Enochic literature, 2 Maccabees, 4Q521, Pseudo-Ezekiel, Testament of Judah, Psalms of Solomon, Josephus’ descriptions of the Pharisees). The bodily character of the resurrection is clearly articulated in only some writings, such as the Similitudes of Enoch, 2 Maccabees, 4Q521, PseudoEzekiel, L.A.B., 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and Sibylline Oracles 4. Yet even in these texts, the continuity between earthly and resurrected bodies is not always emphasised. Second Maccabees, which contains one of the most physical concepts of the resurrected body, declares that mortal bodies are not really needed because God can recreate them ex nihilo. The author of Jubilees even asserts that the bones of the righteous will remain in the earth. Other texts, such as the Animal Apocalypse, 4 Ezra, and especially 2 Baruch, presume that earthly bodies will undergo some kind of transformation. According to 2 Bar. 51.10, the resurrected righteous will eventually become like the angels and the stars. Several passages envision the post-resurrection existence on earth (1 En. 24.1–25.7; 51.5; 4Q521; Pseudo-Ezekiel), while others locate it in the heavenly realm (1 En. 39.3–5; 102.4–104.8; T. Benj. 10.6). The identity of resurrected individuals is generally preserved through some form of physical continuity 192.  Pace Vermes, The Resurrection, 55. 193. For the earliest version of the Amidah, see Solomon Schechter, ‘Genizah Specimens’, JQR (1898): 197–206, 654–9. For an English translation, see Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (SJ 9; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), 26–7.

Resurrection Hope

113

between their earthly and resurrected bodies, but in some writings, such as the Book of the Watchers, Josephus’ works, L.A.B., 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, this is accomplished through appeal to an intermediate state. In all of these texts, the resurrection is presented as a future, usually eschatological, event. It regularly precedes the last judgment, at which the righteous will be rewarded and the wicked punished. In only three passages is the resurrection associated with the appearance of the Messiah. 4Q521 mentions the Messiah in connection with God’s giving of life to the dead, which allows for the possibility that this and other end-time wonders might be executed through his agency. In 4 Ezra 7, the resurrection is preceded by a four-hundred-year messianic kingdom at the end of which everyone, including the Messiah, will die. In 2 Baruch 30, the messianic kingdom also takes place before the resurrection, but it ends with the Messiah’s return to heaven. Thus, even though both of these texts envision the resurrection as a sequel to the messianic reign, they remove the Messiah from the stage before the actual resurrection begins. In all of these texts, there is not a single passage that anticipates the resurrection of the Messiah himself. And yet the New Testament authors not only claim that this event has indeed taken place but are unanimous that it is foretold in Scripture.

Chapter 3 Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles 1. Introduction ‘Paul knows for certain that God who raised Christ from the dead will raise him with Christ and bring him, together with other risen Christians, into Christ’s and God’s presence’, writes Jan Lambrecht.1 Indeed, the resurrection of Jesus and its implications for those who are in Christ are among the key concepts of Paul’s theology. Paul’s letters are replete with resurrection terminology, which enables him to express his central theological convictions about God, Jesus Christ, and believers.2 For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus is not only a christological event that uniquely defines Jesus’ identity, but also a theological event that shapes our understanding of the nature of God and a soteriological event that informs Christian living and guarantees the future salvation of believers. Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ resurrection is firmly rooted in Judaism. While, however, other Jews who cherished the resurrection hope expected it to take place in the future, Paul believed that the resurrection had already occurred, though only with respect to one individual – Jesus Christ. In this way, the ‘age to come’ had already broken into the present, though only proleptically, with the ultimate completion still lying in the future. The resurrection of Jesus had thus set the future in motion, causing an overlap of the ages. It is therefore unsurprising that resurrection terminology is so pervasive in the Pauline correspondence. For N. T. Wright, this is one of the most striking differences between Paul and his Jewish contemporaries: ‘Even among those Jewish writings which speak of, and indeed celebrate, resurrection, at no point do we find this belief woven into the fabric of anyone’s thought, informing and undergirding one topic after another, in the way it is in Paul.’3 1.  Jan Lambrecht, Second Corinthians (SP 8; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999), 78. 2. For a survey of the occurrences of suffering/death/resurrection terms in the undisputed letters of Paul, see Veronica Koperski, ‘Resurrection Terminology in Paul’, in RNT, 265–81. Koperski concludes that ‘[t]he suffering/death/resurrection terminology in the letters as a whole consistently demonstrates two principal elements of Paul’s gospel: the unique relation between Jesus and God and the fact that since the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, human beings are no longer under the slavery of the world, sin and death but are invited to share in this relationship insofar as they are in Christ’. 3. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 274.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­115

Given ‘the sheer volume and frequent recurrence of resurrection in Paul’s thought’, as Wright puts it,4 as well as Paul’s indebtedness to contemporary Jewish beliefs about resurrection, one would expect to find a heavy reliance on Scripture in Paul’s references to resurrection. This expectation is only partially fulfilled. On the one hand, the Pauline corpus comprises some of the earliest Christian endeavours to articulate the significance of Jesus’ resurrection through conversation with Israel’s Scripture. Moreover, Paul himself explicitly uses Scripture in his major discussion of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. On the other hand, we are hard-pressed to locate scriptural allusions in most of Paul’s references to the resurrection. Paul’s resurrection language is certainly scripturally informed, but in many cases it is difficult to demonstrate whether Paul himself alludes to specific scriptural passages or we are merely hearing scriptural echoes he may never have intended. I have adopted the following criteria for the selection of relevant texts: (1) a passage must contain a recognizable reference to the resurrection of Jesus, and (2) it must include a clear reference to Israel’s Scripture, either by using such technical terms as grafh/, ta\ gegramme/na, or ge/graptai, or by quoting or clearly alluding to specific scriptural texts. As I explained in Chapter 1 of this study, I will regard as a quotation ‘any series of several words that reproduces with a reasonable degree of faithfulness the general word order and at least some of the actual language (whether original or in translation) of an identifiable passage from an outside text’,5 regardless of whether it is marked or unmarked within the text itself. By allusion I mean ‘the nonformal invocation by an author of a text (or person, event, etc.) that the author could reasonably have been expected to know’.6 Some subjectivity in the application of these criteria is unavoidable. In each case, however, the presence of resurrection language and the use of Scripture must be clearly demonstrable. I have arranged the texts selected into five thematic blocks: (1) the third-day motif, (2) the enthroned Davidic Messiah, (3) the Cosmic Lord, (4) the first fruits, and (5) the last Adam. A neat distinction among these thematic groups is, however, unattainable. There is a significant overlap of theological concepts and specific scriptural passages not only among thematic clusters within the Pauline corpus but also among those that can be recognized in other New Testament writings. The main objective of the following analysis is to identify the dominant themes and complementary subthemes in these thematic blocks in order to reconstruct the conceptual framework within which the Christian exegetical endeavour took place.

4. Ibid. 5. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 36. 6. Porter, ‘The Use of the Old Testament,’ 95.

116

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

2. The Third-Day Motif The claim that Jesus ‘was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures’ (1 Cor 15:4) belongs to the earliest Christian attempts to interpret the resurrection of Jesus in the light of Scripture.7 Yet the formulation is so terse and enigmatic that a consensus has yet to emerge concerning its origin, scriptural reference, and underlying theology. This declaration is part of a pre-Pauline confession, preserved in 1 Cor 15:3b4, which exhibits the following structure: o(/ti Xristo\j a)pe/qanen u(pe\r tw~n a(martiw~n h(mw~n kata\ ta\j grafa\j kai\ o(/ti e)ta/fh kai\ o(/ti e)gh/gertai th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th| kata\ ta\j grafa/j that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures

Each of the three lines starts with a reference to an event in the life of Jesus – his death, burial, and resurrection. In addition, the first line explains that Jesus died ‘for our sins’, while the third line supplies the information that the resurrection took place ‘on the third day’. Both of these lines end with the phrase ‘in accordance with the Scriptures’. The parallel structure of these lines, however, does not necessarily entail the parallel function of their individual elements. While the phrase u(pe\r tw~n a(martiw~n h(mw~n in the first line has an obvious soteriological function, the phrase th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th| in the third line appears to be some kind of chronological designation. While the phrase kata\ ta\j grafa/j at the end of the first line refers to the entire preceding statement, thus signalling that Scripture provides testimony for the soteriological significance of Jesus’ death, the referential domain of the phrase kata\ ta\j grafa/j in the third line is uncertain. The testimony of Scripture can refer either to Jesus’ resurrection alone or to the entire claim that he was raised on the third day. Each of these issues will be discussed in greater detail below. 2.1. The Origin of the Third-Day Motif The origin of the phrase th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th| is controversial. A similar designation appears in three passion and resurrection predictions in the Synoptic Gospels:

7.  Joseph A. Fitzmyer (First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 32; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 543) maintains that this passage preserves ‘the oldest record of the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth’.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­117

Mark 8:31 Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again (meta\ trei=j h(me/raj a)nasth=nai).

Matt 16:21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised (th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| e)gerqh=nai).

Luke 9:22 The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised (th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| e)gerqh=nai).

Mark 9:31b The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again (meta\ trei=j h(me/raj a)nasth/setai).

Matt 17:22b-23 The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised (th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| e)gerqh=setai).

Luke 9:44 Let these words sink into your ears: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into human hands.

Mark 10:33-34 See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again (meta\ trei=j h(me/raj a)nasth/setai).

Matt 20:18-19 See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified; and on the third day he will be raised (th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| e)gerqh=setai).

Luke 18:31b-33 See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon. After they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again (th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th| a)nasth/setai).

118

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

The time references and verbs that appear in these predictions exhibit some variation. Mark consistently uses the phrase meta\ trei=j h(me/raj (‘after three days’) in combination with the verb a)ni/sthmi. Matthew consistently combines the phrase th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| (‘on the third day’) with the verb e)gei/rw. Luke, however, uses the phrase th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| in combination with the verb e)gei/rw in the first prediction, excludes a time reference altogether in the second prediction, and combines the phrase th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th| with the verb a)ni/sthmi in the third prediction. Matthew’s Gospel contains four additional references to three days. The expression trei=j h(me/raj kai\ trei=j nu/ktaj (‘three days and three nights’) appears in the analogy between the length of Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the sea monster and the length of the Son of Man’s sojourn in the heart of the earth (Matt 12:40). A peculiar combination of the phrases meta\ trei=j h(me/raj (‘after three days’) and e(w / j th=j tri/thj h(me/raj (‘until the third day’) appears in the resurrection narrative. Matthew reports that, after Jesus’ burial, the chief priests and the Pharisees made the following request to Pilate: Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise again (meta\ trei=j h(me/raj e)gei/romai).’ Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day (e(/wj th=j tri/thj h(me/raj); otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead’, and the last deception would be worse than the first. (Matt 27:63-64)

Three additional references to three days appear in Luke-Acts. The first two are found in the Lukan resurrection narrative. Two angels, whom the women meet at the empty tomb, remind them of Jesus’ prediction of his resurrection: ‘Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again (th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| a)nasth=nai)’ (Luke 24:6-7). The angelic discourse combines the expression th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| that appears in the first passion prediction (Luke 9:22) with the verb a)ni/sthmi that appears in the third passion prediction (Luke 18:33). The second reference is found in the speech of the risen Jesus, who explains to his disciples, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day’ (a)nasth=nai e)k nekrw~n th|= tri/th| h(me/ra|) (Luke 24:46). Apart from a different word order and the addition of the phrase e)k nekrw~n, the combination of th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| with the verb a)ni/sthmi is identical to the one found in the angelic speech earlier in ch. 24. The third reference appears in Acts 10:40. After mentioning Jesus’ death in Jerusalem, Peter emphatically declares that ‘God raised him on the third day’ (tou=ton o( qeo\j h)/geiren e)n th|= tri/th| h(me/ra|). Like the first passion prediction, and unlike any other

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­119

reference to the third day in Luke’s gospel, this formulation combines the phrase th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| with the verb e)gei/rw.8 These references evince a widespread tradition about the resurrection on the third day.9 Various attempts have been made to reconstruct their relationship and the development of the third-day tradition. Some scholars postulate two different trajectories – one that refers to Jesus’ resurrection taking place ‘after three days’ and one that relates it to ‘the third day’,10 while others treat these phrases as virtual synonyms.11 Regardless of how one explains the genesis of the Markan tradition, editorial changes in Matthew and Luke show a clear tendency to adapt Mark’s wording to the traditional formula preserved in 1 Cor 15:4.12

8. The gospel narratives contain another cluster of references to three days. The Markan account of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin includes the false witnesses’ accusation that Jesus threatened to destroy ‘this temple that is made with hands, and in three days (dia\ triw~n h(merw~n) . . . build another, not made with hands’ (Mark 14:58). In Matt 26:51, a similar accusation, this time referring to the same temple, is made by two reliable witnesses: ‘This fellow said, “I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days (dia\ triw~n h(merw~n).”’ Later in both gospels, as Jesus hangs on the cross, passers-by mock him as the one who said he would destroy the temple and build it in three days (e)n trisi\n h(me/raij) (Mark 15:29; Matt 27:40). In the Fourth Gospel, this claim is presented as a genuine prophecy: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days (e)n trisi\n h(me/raij) I will raise it up’ (John 2:19). These passages will be discussed in Chapter 4 of this study. 9.  Given the prominence of the third-day motif in the New Testament, it is somewhat surprising that the earliest use of this expression in extra-canonical Christian literature appears in the Apology of Aristides 2, and in Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 51, 76, 97, 100, 107. 10. Ray McKinnis, ‘An Analysis of Mark X 32–34’, NovT 18 (1976): 96; Hans F. Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection: The Provenance, Meaning and Correlation of the Synoptic Predictions (WUNT II/20; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1986), 210–11; Heinz Eduard Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Dorothea M. Barton; NTL; London: SCM, 1965), 185–6; Craig A. Evans, ‘Did Jesus Predict His Death and Resurrection?’, in Resurrection (ed. Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs; JSNTSup 186; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 86, 94–7; Mark Proctor, ‘“After Three Days” in Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34: Subordinating Jesus’ Resurrection in the Second Gospel,’ PRSt 30 (2003): 399–424. 11. Edward Lynn Bode, The First Easter Morning: The Gospel Accounts of the Women’s Visit to the Tomb of Jesus (AnBib 45; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 109–10. Various formulations of the third-day phrase in Matthew (trei=j h(me/raj kai\ trei=j nu/ktaj in 12:40, th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| in 16:21, and meta\ trei=j h(me/raj in 27:63) indicate that the author did not see any significant difference among them. For the equivalence elsewhere of the phrases meq’ h(me/raj trei=j/meta\ trei=j h(me/raj and th|= tri/th| tw~n h(merw~n, see Josephus, Ant. 7.280–281 and 8.214, 218. 12.  Karl Lehmann, Auferweckt am dritten Tag nach der Schrift: Früheste Christologie, Bekenntnisbildung und Schriftauslegung im Lichte von 1 Kor. 15,3–5 (QD 38; Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 166; Tödt, The Son of Man, 184; Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (ed. Harold W. Attridge; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 405.

120

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

A more difficult task is explaining the origin of the three-day motif.13 Some authors link the confession of Jesus’ resurrection on the third day to the tradition about the discovery of the empty tomb on ‘the first day of the week’ (th|= mia|= tw~n sabba/twn [Mark 16:2]; ei)j mi/an sabba/twn [Matt 28:1]; th|= de\ mia|= tw~n sabba/twn [Luke 24:1; John 20:1]).14 Given the customary Jewish time reckoning, which counts a part of a day as a whole day,15 it is not difficult to show that both time references – the third day (after the crucifixion) and the first day of the week – are consistent with each other.16 The concurrence of two traditions, however, does not 13. For various attempts to relate the third-day motif to the mystery religions, see William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (2nd ed.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957), 397; Friedrich Nötscher, ‘Zur Auferstehung nach drei Tagen’, Bib 35 (1954): 317–18; Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos (3rd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), 24–5; Selby Vernon McCasland, ‘The Scripture Basis of “On the Third Day”’, JBL 48 (1929): 135–6. All such explanations are unconvincing given the short interval in which the third-day motif emerged. Equally unconvincing are attempts, such as those of Wilhelm Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (ed. Hugo Gressmann; HNT 21; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1926), 297, and Maurice Goguel, La foi à la résurrection de Jésus dans le christianisme primitif: Étude d’histoire et de psychologie religieuses (Paris: Leroux, 1933),157–71, to relate the idea of the resurrection on the third day to the popular notion that the soul of a deceased person lingered around that individual’s grave for three days. Jesus’ resurrection was not perceived as a resuscitation of his corpse but as an eschatological event. Bode aptly notes that had such a notion played any role in the perception of Jesus’ resurrection, ‘then the resurrection would have had to wait until the fourth day to show the reality of a complete death without the possibility of the soul living once again in a decomposing body’ (The First Easter Morning, 113). See also Gerhard Delling, ‘trei=j, tri/j, tri/toj’, TDNT 8:219; idem, ‘h(me/ra’, TDNT 2:949. 14. Wolfgang Nauck, ‘Die Bedeutung des leeren Grabes für den Glauben an den Auferstandenen’, ZNW 47 (1956): 264; Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen, Der Ablauf der Osterereignisse und das leere Grab (2nd ed.; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1958), 11–12; Jacob Kremer, Das älteste Zeugnis von der Auferstehung Christi (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966), 4; Gerhard Koch, Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi (2nd ed.; BHT 27; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1965), 118; Gerhard Lohfink, ‘Die Auferstehung Jesu und die historische Kritik’, BibLeb 9 (1968): 45; Ronald J. Sider, ‘St Paul’s Understanding of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians XV 1–19’, NovT 19 (1977): 139; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 726; William Lane Craig, ‘The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus’, NTS 31 (1985): 42–9; Martin Hengel, ‘Das Begräbnis Jesu bei Paulus und die leibliche Auferstehung aus dem Grabe’, in Auferstehung – Resurrection (ed. Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger; WUNT 135; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 132–3; Birger Gerhardsson, ‘Evidence for Christ’s Resurrection according to Paul: 1 Cor 15:1–11’, in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen (ed. David E. Aune, Torrey Seland, and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen; NovTSup 106; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 83. 15. Delling, TDNT 2:949–50. 16. Proctor emphasises the discrepancy between the Markan designation ‘after three days’ and the discovery of the empty tomb on the first day of the week. He argues that ‘Mark’s use of meta\ trei=j h(me/raj in 8:31, 9:31, and 10:34 constitutes his deliberate attempt to de-prioritize traditional teaching about the resurrection by (a) robbing Jesus’ passion predictions of their numerical precision as a means of (b) subordinating the resurrection motif to the impending account of Jesus’ tragic death’ (‘After Three Days’, 401).

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­121

mean that one tradition derives from the other. The empty tomb tradition may have developed very early,17 and this tradition is certainly consistent with the tradition of Jesus’ resurrection on the third day,18 but the empty tomb reports do not supply the language that so consistently appears in the third-day trajectory.19 Likewise, the fact that early Christians accepted Sunday as the day for gathering and worship, evidenced in Acts 20:7 (e)n de\ th|= mia|= tw~n sabba/twn), 1 Cor 16:2 (kata\ mi/an sabba/tou), and Rev 1:10 (e)n th|= kuriakh|= h(me/ra|), does not adequately explain the origin of the third-day tradition.20 Other scholars relate the third-day motif to the appearances of Jesus.21 However, the report of Jesus’ appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-7 contains only vague time references, such as ei}ta (‘then’, ‘next’) and e)/peita (‘then’, ‘thereupon’). Given the geographic distance between Jerusalem and Galilee, only the traditions about Jesus’ appearances in Jerusalem are relevant for the notion of his resurrection on the third day. Yet the gospel narratives of these encounters either contain no specific time references (Matt 28:9-10; Luke 24:34, 36-49; John 20:11-18) or relate Jesus’ appearances to the discovery of the empty tomb: e)n au)th|= th|= h(mera|= (‘on that same day’ [Luke 24:13]); ou)/shj ou}n o)yi/aj th|= h(me/ra| e)kei/nh| th|= mia|= sabba/twn (‘when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week’ [John 20:19]); meq’ h(me/raj o)ktw/ (‘a week later’ [John 20:26]). A third possibility is to derive the third-day motif from the resurrection predictions of Jesus himself. Barnabas Lindars championed this explanation of the origin of the tradition. He argued that Jesus spoke of his forthcoming vindication by using the third-day phrase from Hos 6:2 in the sense of ‘a little while’.22 Jesus’ followers, however, understood his 17. For a defence of the antiquity and basic trustworthiness of the empty tomb tradition, see Bode, The First Easter Morning, 151–75. 18.  McCasland (‘The Scripture Basis of “On the Third Day”’, 136–7) emphasises both the independence of these traditions and their mutual compatibility. 19.  Bode notes that ‘it would seem more likely that if the tomb tradition were the source of the three-day motif, it would make use of the three-day phrasing. But the only mention of the motif is in the redactional work of Luke’ (The First Easter Morning, 118). To speak of the discovery of the empty tomb on the third day (David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], 686; Sider, ‘St Paul’s Understanding’, 138) is imprecise because the third-day motif is not associated with the tradition of the discovery of the empty tomb in the earliest Christian writings. 20. Lehmann, Auferweckt am dritten Tag, 190–91. Lehmann argues that the development of the tradition was just the opposite, that is, that the third-day tradition had a formative influence on the development of Sunday ‘im Sinne eines wöchentlichen Aufestehungsgedankens’ (emphasis original). 21.  Gerhardsson, ‘Evidence for Christ’s Resurrection’, 83. 22. A recent version of this reconstruction was proposed by Israel Knohl following the publication of the editio princeps of the Hebrew inscription on an ancient limestone stele named Hazon Gabriel, or The Gabriel Revelation, by Ada Yardeni and Binyamin Elizur, ‘A Prophetic Text on Stone from the First Century BCE: First Publication’ (in Hebrew), Cathedra 123 (2007): 155–6. In several publications, Knohl argued that line 80 of this in-

122

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

resurrection on the third day as a literal fulfilment not only of Hos 6:2 but also of Jesus’ own prediction of his vindication.23 Lindars concluded that ‘the Resurrection itself was a literal fulfilment of a prophecy that need not have been taken to be anything but metaphor. It is still more striking in that it includes the literal fulfilment of the mysterious third day.’24 This reconstruction, however, is unable to explain the origin of the belief that the resurrection did take place on the third day. Even if Jesus expected a speedy vindication of his impending death,25 it still remains unclear how the church came to the conclusion that this indeed occurred on the third day. Lindars believed ‘that it was the actual appearance of our Lord on the third day which caused the literal interpretation of the phrase’.26 This is certainly possible, but if this is the case, one wonders why the third-day motif has left no mark on the appearance tradition.

scription should be read: hy)x Nymy t#wl#l (‘By three days, live!’). In his view, this line represents an angelic command to a slain Messiah to live, i.e. be resurrected, on the third day. Knohl concluded that ‘Jesus of Nazareth identified with the figure of the tortured and slain messiah that he had learned of from traditions in the vein of The Gabriel Revelation’ (Messiahs and Resurrection in ‘The Gabriel Revelation’ [KLJS 6; London: Continuum, 2009], 87). Although Knohl acknowledged that the current versions of the passion and resurrection predictions are products of the post-resurrection period, he nevertheless maintained that ‘the more simple and general version of the prediction, such as “The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise” (Mark 9:31), might very well reflect Jesus’ original words’ (ibid.). Knohl’s reconstruction of the text was met with sharp criticism. Moshe Bar-Asher (‘On the Language of “The Vision of Gabriel”’, RevQ 23 [2008]: 501) demonstrated that the word hy)x (‘live’) has no grammatical basis. The alternative reconstruction, tw)h (‘the sign’), proposed by Ronald Hendel (‘The Messiah Son of Joseph: Simply “Sign”’, BAR 35.1 [2009]: 8), has been accepted by Elisha Qimron and Alexey (Eliyahu) Yuditsky (‘Notes on the So-Called Gabriel Vision Inscription’, in Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation [ed. Matthias Henze; SBLEJL 29; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011], 37) and now even by Knohl himself (‘The Apocalyptic and Messianic Dimensions of the Gabriel Revelation in Their Historical Context’, in Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation [ed. Matthias Henze; SBLEJL 29; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011], 43 n.12). 23. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 61–4. Authors assuming the historicity of Jesus’ predictions of his own resurrection as an event that would soon occur include Joachim Jeremias, ‘Die Drei-Tage Worte der Evangelisten’, in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn (ed. Gert Jeremias, HeinzWolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 221–9; Lehmann, Auferweckt am dritten Tag, 185; Evans, ‘Did Jesus Predict’, 95–6; Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Grand Rapids: IVP Academic, 2010), 295–6. 24. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 63–4. 25. It should be noted, however, that the hypothesis that Jesus applied Hos 6:2 to himself is, as Lehmann correctly observes, ‘praktisch unbeweisbar’ (Auferweckt am dritten Tag, 184). 26. Ibid., 63.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­123

An adequate explanation of the third-day motif must take into account the fact that each of its various formulations appears in combination with either e)gei/rw or a)ni/sthmi. In this way, the third-day motif is firmly associated with the resurrection itself, but not with the discovery of the empty tomb or with the first appearances.27 This time designation is quite peculiar because it refers to an event for which there were no eyewitnesses and which the early Christian tradition did not describe. The earliest Christian account that describes the resurrection itself is the Gospel of Peter (35–42), which is usually dated to the first half of the second century ce. C. F. Evans remarks that ‘since the resurrection is represented as the hidden act of God himself, no date could be assigned to it, and no one could tell “when” it took place’.28 If no one knew exactly when God raised Jesus from the dead,29 how can we explain such a rapid development of the conviction that the resurrection took place on the third day? Evans proposes ‘that “on the third day” is not intended as a chronological but as a theological statement. It offers an interpretation of the resurrection’ by asserting that it took place ‘according to the divine purposes’.30 This understanding of the thirdday motif is supported by the parallel structures of the declaration that Jesus died for our sins ‘in accordance with the Scriptures’ and the claim that he was raised on the third day ‘in accordance with the Scriptures’ (1 Cor 15:3b-4). In each clause, the phrase kata\ ta\j grafa/j refers to the entire preceding statement.31 This means that 1 Cor 15:4 declares not 27. Harvey K. McArthur, ‘On the Third Day’, NTS 18 (1971): 82. 28. Evans, Resurrection, 48. Reginald H. Fuller (The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives [New York: Macmillan, 1971], 23–4) notes that ‘since the resurrection was itself, from the human perspective, an inference from the empty tomb and/or the first appearance, the chronology was similarly an inference, but there is no a priori reason why the raising should not have been thought to have “occurred” at any specific point of time after the entombment, if indeed the early Christians would have thought of an eschatological event as datable’. Lehmann (Auferweckt am dritten Tag, 162) emphasises that ‘das Ereignis der Auferweckung Jesu ohne Zeugen geblieben ist und wir nur (durch die Entdeckung des leeren Grabes und vor allem) durch die Erscheinunge Kunde von einem Ereignis haben, das in der absoluten Verborgenheit Gottes geschah’ (emphasis original). For a different view, see Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 322. Wright insists that the resurrection was ‘a dateable event’ and that ‘the early church knew from the first that something dramatic had happened on the third day’. 29.  McCasland argues that Matt 27:52-53 contains the traces of two different traditions regarding the timing of Jesus’ resurrection. In his view, the story about the resurrection of the saints on the day of the crucifixion and their exit from the tombs on the day of the resurrection ‘shows the confusion caused by the union of the one-day tradition with that of the third day, so that the saints who were raised were compelled to remain unsheltered in or about the tomb from Friday until Sunday before Jesus rose from the dead, that they might go with him into the city’ (‘The Scripture Basis of “On the Third Day”’, 126). 30. Evans, Resurrection, 48. 31.  Pace Bruce M. Metzger, ‘A Suggestion concerning the Meaning of 1 Cor 15:4b’, JTS 8 (1957): 118–23. Metzger proposes that the phrase kata\ ta\j grafa/j applies only to the declaration that Jesus has been raised and not to the third-day motif. Metzger finds

124

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

only that Jesus was raised according to Scripture but also that Scripture justifies the assertion that the resurrection took place on the third day. This inference opens the possibility that the phrase ‘on the third day’ derives from Scripture,32 which is even more likely if one considers the essentially theological nature of the claim that Jesus was raised on the third day. Such an interpretation of the origin of the third-day motif does not undermine the historicity of the reports of Jesus’ appearances or of the discovery of the empty tomb. It merely alleges that the Scriptures supplied linguistic and conceptual categories that enabled the church to express the meaning of its foundational experience in theological terms. 2.2. The Third-Day Motif and Scripture Attempts to reconstruct the nature of scriptural testimony for Jesus’ resurrection on the third day should not be hindered by the observation that there are no obvious scriptural passages that speak about the resurrection on the third day. Harvey K. McArthur fittingly notes that ‘[t]he question is not whether any passage appears to modern scholars to refer to a resurrection on the third day; the question is, rather, whether there is any passage in those Scriptures which first-century interpreters understood to refer to a resurrection on the third day’.33 In addition to 1 Cor 15:4, only three passages in the New Testament explicitly link the resurrection of Jesus on the third day with the testimony of Scripture: Luke 18:31-33, Luke 24:46, and Matt 12:40. Jesus’ passion predictions in the Synoptic Gospels speak of the necessity of his suffering and resurrection, but only Luke 18:31 specifies that ‘everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets (pa/nta ta\ gegramme/na dia\ tw~n profhtw~n tw|~ ui(w|~ tou= a)nqrw/pou) will be accomplished’. Likewise, the risen Jesus emphasises in Luke 24:46, ‘Thus it is written (ou(/twj ge/graptai), that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day.’ support for his proposition in 1 Macc 7:16-17, which mentions ‘one day, in accordance with the word that was written’, even though the citation of Ps 79:2-3 that follows contains no reference to time. However, 1 Macc 7:16-17 shows only the possibility of such a construction and not that this is actually the case in 1 Cor 15:4b. For other proposals that link the phrase kata\ ta\j grafa/j only to the declaration of Jesus’ resurrection, see Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 24; Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (IBC; Louisville; John Knox, 1997), 256. Once the third-day motif is excluded from the domain of kata\ ta\j grafa/j, any scriptural quotation that is explicitly linked to the resurrection of Jesus elsewhere in the New Testament, especially in the speeches in Acts, could be a good candidate. Hays, for example, proposes that ‘the Scriptures that point to the resurrection are probably those Psalms that praise God for deliverance of the righteous sufferer; for a clearer example of this sort of exegesis in the early tradition, see the reading of Psalm 16 in Acts 2:24-32. . . . This is the primary context in which the references to the Scriptures in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 should be understood’ (First Corinthians, 256). 32.  McArthur (‘On the Third Day’, 82) remarks that ‘[t]his is a possible but not a necessary consequence’ (emphasis original). 33. Ibid. See also Lehmann, Auferweckt am dritten Tag, 224.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

125

Matthew 12:40 is the only passage that relates Jesus’ resurrection to a specific text in Israel’s Scripture, namely, the story of Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights (Jonah 2:1). However, in view of the relative lateness of this scriptural association,34 this passage is of no help for our analysis of the meaning of the phrase kata\ ta\j grafa/j in 1 Cor 15:4. It should also be noted that the time designation trei=j h(me/raj kai\ trei=j nu/ktaj differs from the phrase th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th|, which implies only two nights. This allows for two possibilities: (1) the earliest Christian confession of Jesus’ resurrection on the third day has no specific scriptural passage in view but rather declares that Scripture as a whole testifies about Jesus; or, (2) the third-day motif derives from a specific scriptural passage. Those who follow the first line of interpretation35 sometimes contend that the purpose of the declaration kata\ ta\j grafa/j is not to provide an exact scriptural proof of the resurrection on the third day but merely to establish its overall conformity with Scripture.36 One wonders, however, whether such a general claim about the scriptural validation of Jesus’ resurrection on the third day would have been truly satisfying for Christian interpreters and functionally effective in their disputes with their Jewish contemporaries.37 It is more likely that the declaration that Jesus’ resurrection on the third day took place according to Scripture served as a programmatic statement that was also corroborated with specific scriptural texts. In turn, individual scriptural texts may also have represented Scripture as a whole.38 Interpreters who do not think that a specific scriptural passage is referred to in 1 Cor 15:4 but still want to provide concrete scriptural evidence frequently emphasise that the phrase ‘on the third day’ appears in various texts, such as Gen 1:13; 22:4; 31:22; 34:25; 40:20; 42:18; Exod 19:11, 15, 16; Lev 7:17, 18; 19:6, 7; Num 7:24; 19:12, 19; 29:20; Josh 3:2; 9:17; Judg 20:30; 1 Sam 20:12; 30:1; 2 Sam 1:2; 1 Kgs 3:18; 12:12; 2 Kgs 20:5, 8; 2 Chr 10:12; Ezra 6:15; Esth 5:1; Hos 6:2; and Jonah 2:1. This recurring expression is typically used to indicate a short 34. See the discussion of this passage in the next chapter. 35.  J. B. Bauer, ‘Drei Tage’, Bib 39 (1958), 354–8; Alfred Suhl, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn, 1965), 37–9, 157–61; Delling, TDNT 8:217; Samuel Hooke, The Resurrection of Christ as History and Experience (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1967), 129; Bode, The First Easter Morning, 119–26; Fee, First Corinthians, 727–8; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1195; McCasland, ‘The Scripture Basis of “On the Third Day”’, 135; Michael Russell, ‘On the Third Day, According to the Scriptures’, RTR 67 (2008): 5–11; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 548. 36. Suhl, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate, 37–9. 37. Lehmann (Auferweckt am dritten Tag, 258) alleges that this hypothesis underestimates the creative theological potential of early Christian interpreters. 38. Lehmann, Auferweckt am dritten Tag, 258.

126

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

period of time or that something will happen after a very brief delay.39 In this interpretation, the reference to the third day in 1 Cor 15:4 conveys the idea that the resurrection of Jesus took place a short time after his death.40 Edward Bode, however, notes that ‘[i]t would be strange that tradition would be so quick to insist so strongly on such a detail that would mean only a vague period of time’.41 Bode believes that a rabbinic interpretation of this general scriptural notion of a short period of time offers a better explanation of the origin of the idea that Jesus was raised on the third day: Rather the source of the resurrection on the third day according to the scriptures is to be explained through the general Old Testament motif, which is enforced by midrash and targum, that the third day is the day of divine salvation, deliverance, and manifestation. . . . It would be natural for the earliest Christians, imbued as they were with a sense of the fulfillment of scripture, to see in the resurrection the salvation, deliverance and manifestation of Jesus as the Lord and thus to designate it in accordance with the recognized scriptural motif as taking place on the third day after the apparent defeat of death and burial. God certainly did not leave the just one in distress past the third day, the day of deliverance and manifestation.42

Those who seek to find a specific scriptural passage behind the thirdday motif usually propose Hos 6:2: ‘After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him’ (wynpl hyxnw wnmqy y#yl#h Mwyb Mymym wnyxy; LXX: u(gia/sei h(ma=j meta\ du/o h(me/raj e)n th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th| a)nasthso/meqa kai\ zhso/meqa e)nw/pion au)tou=).43 Formally, 1 Cor 15:4 and Hos 6:2 LXX share only 39. See also Acts 25:1; 28:7, 12, 17; Josephus, Ant. 8.408; L.A.B. 56.7; T. Job 31.4. 40. Dale C. Allison Jr (Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters [London: T&T Clark, 2005], 232) asserts that ‘the most we can infer with any confidence is that Christians found three-day language appropriate because they believed that very little time elapsed between Jesus’ crucifixion and God’s vindication of him’. 41.  Bode, The First Easter Morning, 112. 42. Ibid., 125 (emphasis original). For a critique of this interpretation, see Sider, ‘St Paul’s Understanding’, 138: ‘Bode certainly demonstrates that this indeed is an O.T. motif but it is far from certain that this motif in itself would have led to the inclusion of “on the third day” in this concise formula.’ For an explanation of the third-day motif that is similar to Bode’s, but considers Hos 6:2 as one of the primary scriptural references and examines rabbinic and targumic evidence in greater detail, see Lehmann, Auferweckt am dritten Tag, 205–72. 43.  Jacques Dupont, ‘Résusscité “le troisième jour”’, Bib 40 (1959): 756; Nötscher, ‘Zur Auferstehung nach drei Tagen’, 319; Kremer, Das älteste Zeugnis, 50; Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 60–66; Evans, Resurrection, 48–9; Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 77, 103; Delling, TDNT 2:949; idem, TDNT 8:220; Lehmann, Auferweckt am dritten Tag, 205–41; McArthur, ‘On the Third Day’, 82–6; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (trans. James W. Leitch; ed. George W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 256; John S. Kloppenborg, ‘An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula 1 Cor 15:3b-5 in Light of Some Recent Literature’, CBQ 40 (1978):

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­127

the phrase th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th. However, the verbs e)gei/rw and a)ni/sthmi are frequently used interchangeably, in both the LXX and the New Testament, as the Matthean and Lukan redactions of Mark’s passion predictions demonstrate. In fact, the formulation th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th| a)nasth/setai in Luke 18:33 is very close to the words e)n th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th| a)nasthso/meqa from Hos 6:2. Luke also combines the phrase th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| and a)nasth=nai in 24:7, 46. The verbal correspondence between these passages, however, is insufficient to demonstrate the literary dependence of the third-day tradition on Hos 6:2. As we have seen in Chapter 2, Hos 6:2 uses resurrection language to convey hope of God’s quick intervention on behalf of Israel. If this were the only possible interpretation of this verse, there would be no reason to single it out among other scriptural passages that use the third-day motif. What makes Hos 6:2 unique, however, is its interpretation in rabbinic Judaism. In y. Ber. 5.2, an association between the resurrection from the dead that brings life without end and the descent of rain that should also bring life without end is defended with the quotation of Hos 6:2-3. Hosea 6:2 is here clearly interpreted as a reference to the resurrection, while Hos 6:3 (‘Let us know, let us press on to know the Lord; his appearing is as sure as the dawn; he will come to us like the showers, like the spring rains that water the earth’) is apparently understood as a reference to rain. In y. Sanh. 11.6, the reference to the resurrection of the dead is supported by the citation of Hos 6:2. Two passages in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanh. 97a and b. Roš Haš. 31a) apply Hos 6:2 to the end of the present age as part of an argument concerning the length of the period that will follow the first six thousand years of the world’s existence. Genesis Rabbah 56.1 offers the following string of scriptural passages as a commentary on Gen 22:4 (‘On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place far away’): On the third day, etc. (xxii, 4). It is written, After two days He will revive us, on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His presence (Hos. vi, 2). E.g. on the third day of the tribal ancestors: And Joseph said unto them the third day: This do, and live (Gen. xlii, 18); on the third day of Revelation: And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning (Ex. xix, 16); on the third day of the spies: And hide yourselves there three days (Josh. ii, 16); on the third day of Jonah: And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights (Jonah ii, 1); on the third day of those returning from the Exile: And we abode there three days (Ezra viii, 32); on the third day of

363–4; Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 322; Cavallin, Life After Death, 189; Tödt, The Son of Man, 185; Andreas Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief (HNT 9/I; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 331–2; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 687; Proctor, ‘After Three Days’, 410.

128

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

resurrection: ‘After two days He will revive us, on the third day He will raise us up’; on the third day of Esther: Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel (Est. v, 1) . . .44

Deuteronomy Rabbah 7.6 provides the following commentary on Deut 28:12 (‘The Lord will open for you his rich storehouse, the heavens, to give the rain of your land in its season and to bless all your undertakings’): The Rabbis say: Great is the rainfall, for it is counted as equivalent to the Revival of the Dead. Whence this? For it says, And he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter rain that watereth the earth (Hos. vi, 3). What does Scripture say immediately before this? After two days will He revive us (ib. 2). Therefore the Rabbis have inserted [the prayer for rain in the benediction of] the Revival of the Dead, because it is equal in importance to it.45

Esther Rabbah 9.2 contains the following commentary on Esth 5:1a (‘On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, opposite the king’s hall’): Now it came to pass on the third day; Israel are never left in dire distress more than three days. For so of Abraham it is written, On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off (ib. xxii, 4). Of Jacob’s sons we read, And he put them all together into ward three days (ib. xlii, 17). Of Jonah it says, And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights (Jonah ii, i). The dead also will come to life only after three days, as it says, On the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His presence (Hos. vi, 2).46

Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 51 (73b–74a) mentions a saying attributed to Rabbi Gamaliel: ‘All its inhabitants shall taste the taste of death for two days, when there will be no soul of man or beast upon the earth . . . On the third day He will renew them all and revive the dead, and He will establish it before Him, as it is said, “On the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live before him” [Hos. vi. 2].’47 These references indicate that the rabbinic writings routinely interpret Hos 6:2 as a prophecy of the resurrection of the dead at the turn of the ages. The language of this scriptural text, especially the verbs hyx and Mwq, is conductive to interpretations entailing bodily resurrection. The same understanding of Hos 6:2 is documented in the Targum of Jonathan, which replaces ‘after two days’ with ‘in the days of consolation that will come’, and ‘on the third day’ with ‘on the day of the resurrection of the dead’: 44. Trans. H. Freedman, MidrRab 1:491. 45. Trans. J. Rabbinowitz, MidrRab 7:137. 46. Trans. Maurice Simon, MidrRab 9:112. 47. Trans. Gerald Friedlander, Pirḳê de Rabbi Eliezer (The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great) (2nd ed.; New York: Hermon, 1965), 411.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­129

yhwmdq yxynw )nnymyqy )ytym twyx) Mwyb ytyml Nydyt(d )tmxn ymwyl )nnyyxy (‘He will give us life in the days of consolation that will come; and on the day of the resurrection of the dead he will raise us up and we shall live before him’).48 Gerhard Delling believes that the text was intentionally changed in order ‘to undermine the Christian reference of Hos. 6:2 to the resurrection of the Messiah’.49 Such a motivation for the change of wording seems unlikely given the paraphrastic character of the targumic rendering and its basic agreement with the interpretative tradition documented in the rabbinic writings.50 Exegetical examples from rabbinic literature also show that Hos 6:2 is frequently linked to other scriptural texts containing the phrases ‘on the third day’, ‘three days’, and ‘three days and three nights’ by means of the gezerah shawah technique.51 These combinations are sometimes used to support the thesis that God does not leave Israel (or the righteous one) in distress more than three days. In addition to Esth. Rab. 9.2, quoted above, this notion is especially evident in Gen. Rab. 91.7 (‘And he put them together into ward three days. The Holy One, blessed be He, never leaves the righteous in distress more than three days. And Joseph said unto them the third day, etc. [xlii, 18]. Thus it is written, After two days He will revive us, on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His presence [Hosea vi, 2]: on the third day of the tribal ancestors’)52 and Midr. Pss. 22.5 (commenting on Esth 4:16, which mentions a threeday fast: ‘And why only a three-day fast? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not leave the children of Israel in distress for more than three days.’ This is followed by citations of Gen 22:4; 42:17; Exod 15:22; 2 Kgs 20:5; Josh 2:16; Jonah 2:1, 11; and Hos 6:2).53 On the basis of scriptural references quoted in rabbinic arguments mentioning the third day, especially those associated with the idea that God does not leave the righteous in distress for more than three days, Karl Lehmann argues that the third day is the day of salvation.54 In his 48. Trans. Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (ArBib; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier; 1989), 41. 49. Delling, TDNT 2:949. 50.  Martin McNamara (Targum and Testament Revisited, 207) surmises that ‘[t]he understanding of “on the third day” of the resurrection and salvation must have been helped by the occurrence of the terms “showers,” and of “spring rain” in the following verse, terms which recall “dew,” understood in rabbinic tradition as an indication of the resurrection (see Isaiah 26:19), and also by rabbinic reflection on the various occurrences of “third day” in the Bible, all of which are seen to have been salvific’. 51. This ‘demonstrates that for Jewish thought “on the third day” and “after three days” could be treated as functional if not identical equivalents’ (McArthur, ‘On the Third Day’, 85). 52. Trans. H. Freedman, MidrRab 2:843. 53. Trans. William G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms (2 vols; YJS 13; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), 1:301–2. 54.  ‘So bekommt der Ausdruck “am dritten Tag” den Sinn, “Rettungstag” zu sein’ (Lehmann, Auferweckt am dritten Tag, 267).

130

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

view, this concept provides the primary scriptural background for the traditional formula in 1 Cor 15:4.55 Lehmann even speaks of the ‘theology of the third day’ and contends that this interpretation is more probable than the one that relies on Hos 6:2 alone.56 He concludes that the thirdday pattern of God’s salvific intervention on behalf of the righteous, found in the rabbinic literature, is realized through the concrete salvific event of the resurrection of Christ.57 Jens Christensen, however, rightly asks whether this explanation ‘really has adequate theological weight to form the basis of St. Paul’s assertion’ that Jesus was raised on the third day according to Scripture, ‘especially when one compares it with the theological importance in the context of the substitute sacrificial death’ in 1 Cor 15:3.58 Moreover, the link between the scriptural passages containing the third-day motif and the idea of salvation on the third day is found only in rabbinic writings that significantly postdate the New Testament. It is, of course, possible to infer that the third day is the day of salvation from the recurrence of the third-day motif throughout Scripture, especially the phrase th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th| in the LXX, but an explicit exegetical conclusion to that effect is found only in later rabbinic literature. A possible early dating of the targumic interpretative tradition does not directly support Lehmann’s thesis, because the Targum of Jonathan on Hosea interprets the third day as the day of the resurrection of the dead and not as a day of salvation in general. The interpretation of the third day in Hos 6:2 as the day of the resurrection of the dead is documented not only in the Targum to Hosea but also in a large number and wide variety of rabbinic writings. These multiple references point to a common interpretative tradition of Hos 6:2, which may already have been current in the first century ce.59 If Christian 55. Lehmann, Auferweckt am dritten Tag, 262–77. 56. Ibid., 277. 57. Ibid., 280. 58.  Jens Christensen, ‘And That He Rose on the Third Day according to the Scriptures’, SJOT 2 (1990): 106. Christensen believes that the third day of creation (Gen 1:1113) constitutes a more satisfactory scriptural background for the third-day motif in 1 Cor 15:4. He argues that Second Temple literature both before and after the rise of Christianity interprets the third day of creation as the day in which the Garden of Eden was created, along with the tree of life. He concludes that the third day of creation illuminates the concept of resurrection on the third day as the new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). However, the evidence Christensen presents – Jub. 2.7 and two unspecified passages from rabbinic literature – in support of his thesis that ‘during St. Paul’s time there was a clearly formulated theology about the third day of Creation associated with the concept of the Garden of Eden and the tree of life’ (ibid., 108) is unconvincing. It is certainly true, as Christensen emphasises, that Paul explores the contrast between Adam and Christ, but he does not appear to do so by reflecting upon the imagery of the Garden of Eden or the tree of life. Neither Paul nor, for that matter, any other New Testament author ever speaks of ‘the tree of resurrection’. 59.  McArthur (‘On the Third Day’, 86) rightly insists that ‘it is possible to say with certainty only that the resurrection interpretation of Hos. vi. 2 was prevalent at least by the

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­131

interpreters were familiar with this tradition, then the application of Hos 6:2 to Jesus would have allowed them to express their principal conviction that with Jesus’ resurrection the general resurrection of the dead had already begun.60 Thus, by declaring that Jesus was raised on the third day, they would have proclaimed that the day of the resurrection of the dead had arrived.61 According to this understanding, Jesus’ resurrection would have been seen as triggering an anticipated chain of eschatological events and inaugurating the new age. This reconstruction is corroborated by several New Testament passages. Matthew 27:52-53 describes the resurrection of the saints that was instigated by Jesus’ resurrection: ‘The tombs also were opened (kai\ ta\ mnhmei=a a)new|/xqhsan), and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised (kai\ polla\ sw/mata tw~n kekoimhme/nwn a(gi/wn h)ge/rqhsan). After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.’ The function of this peculiar episode is to demonstrate that the resurrection of the righteous, expected in the future, has already been set in motion with Jesus’ resurrection. The text uses the imagery of the opening of graves from Ezek 37:12 (LXX: e)gw\ a)noi/gw u(mw~n ta\ mnh/mata) and of the raising of the dead from Isa 26:19 (LXX: a)nasth/sontai oi( nekroi\ kai\ e)gerqh/sontai oi( e)n toi=j mnhmei/oij) and Dan 12:2 (LXX: kai\ polloi\ tw~n kaqeudo/ntwn e)n tw|~ pla/tei th=j gh=j a)nasth/sontai) to convey the message that the resurrection of the righteous, hoped for by many Jews in the first century ce, has already begun. A similar idea is recognizable in the early Christian confession, preserved in Rom 1:4, which asserts that Jesus ‘was appointed Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness’ e)c a)nasta/sewj nekrw~n. The NRSV translates this prepositional phrase ‘by resurrection from the dead’, but a better translation would be ‘since the resurrection of the dead’.62 Even though the traditional formula singles out Jesus’ resurrection as a distinctive event at which he ‘was appointed Son of God in power’, it nevertheless regards it as an inauguration of the general resurrection. The strongest support for a link between Hos 6:2 and the third-day phrase in the sense of the general resurrection comes, in my view, from Paul’s own arguments in 1 Corinthians 15. As soon as he completes his third century. Yet it is likely that this was true even in the first century in view of the prevalence of the interpretation at a later period and the absence of significant contrary evidence from the early period.’ Scholars favouring the early dating of this interpretative tradition also include Matthew Black, ‘The “Son of Man” Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition’, ZNW 60 (1969): 1–8; Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions, 207; McCasland, ‘The Scripture Basis of “On the Third Day”’, 132; Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 26–7; Evans, ‘Did Jesus Predict’, 96. 60.  Pace Gerhardsson, ‘Evidence for Christ’s Resurrection’, 83. 61.  Goguel, La foi à la résurrection de Jésus, 169–70; Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 26–7. 62. See the discussion in the next section.

132

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

account of the appearances of the risen Christ, he turns to the question of the relationship between the general resurrection and the resurrection of Jesus. In 1 Cor 15:12-19, he argues that these two events are logically and theologically inseparable. A person cannot affirm the resurrection of Christ without simultaneously affirming the general resurrection of the dead, and vice versa, a person who denies the general resurrection of the dead also denies the resurrection of Jesus. Paul reveals his familiarity with the link between the traditional confession of Jesus’ resurrection on the third day and Hos 6:2 by insisting that Jesus’ resurrection cannot be understood properly without being associated with the general resurrection. This link is further explored in the next section, which begins with Paul’s triumphant declaration that Christ is ‘the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep’ (1 Cor 15:20). Virtually every scholar dealing with the question of the scriptural background of 1 Cor 15:4 points out that the main weakness of the hypothesis that the third-day phrase is derived from Hos 6:2 is the absence of any explicit quotation of Hos 6:2 in the New Testament.63 Several explanations have been offered to counter this objection. Bode considers the possibility that Christian use of Hos 6:2 may receive indirect confirmation from the Targum to Hosea, assuming that the targumist altered the wording of his base text to undermine the Christian application of this verse to Jesus, but he eventually rejects this explanation as ‘a rather perilous type of argumentation’.64 Jacques Dupont points to an analogous use of Isaiah 53, which is frequently alluded to but rarely quoted in the New Testament.65 Lindars believes that Hos 6:2 is not quoted because of a shift of interest to the resurrection predictions themselves.66 Evans also presumes that an early interest in Hos 6:2 was eventually replaced by ‘the prophecies which Jesus himself was believed to have made of the divine necessity of his resurrection after three days . . . [thus] rendering appeal to the Old Testament superfluous’.67 McArthur suggests that ‘the bearers of the tradition may have been more interested in the general principle of the three days . . . than in the Hosea passage even though it was the latter which specifically related the resurrection and the “three day” motif’.68 Dennis Duling conjectures that a shift of the application of Hos 6:2 to Jesus alone may have contributed to the absence of explicit quotations of this text in early Christian sources.69 63. The first explicit application of Hos 6:2 to Jesus’ resurrection in Christian literature is found in Tertullian, Marc. 4.43 and Adv. Jud. 13.23. 64.  Bode, The First Easter Morning, 114–15. See also Delling, TDNT 2:949. 65. Dupont, ‘Réssuscité le troisième jour’, 758–9. 66. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 64–6. 67. Evans, Resurrection, 49 (both quotations). 68.  McArthur, ‘On the Third Day’, 85–6. 69. Dennis C. Duling, ‘The Promises to David and Their Entrance into Christianity – Nailing Down a Likely Hypothesis’, NTS 20 (1973): 75.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­133

It is clear that whatever early interest in Hos 6:2 there might have been it did not leave a significant impact on the tradition. It is certainly conceivable that with time Jesus’ own predictions of his passion and resurrection grew in importance. But another reason why Hos 6:2 was not used as an explicit scriptural proof of Jesus’ resurrection is probably to be found in its primary function of establishing a link between Jesus’ resurrection and the general resurrection.70 Once this association had been made, Christian interpreters turned to other scriptural texts that enabled them to reflect on the implications of the idea that Jesus’ resurrection marked the beginning of the general resurrection. There were, it seems, at least two reasons for this development. To begin with, it was clear that the general resurrection had not yet taken place.71 Moreover, even if the risen Jesus could be described as ‘the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep’ (1 Cor 15:20), ‘a human being’ through whom ‘the resurrection of the dead has also come’ (1 Cor 15:21), and ‘the first to rise from the dead’ (Acts 26:23), his resurrection was from the very beginning perceived as a distinctive event that uniquely disclosed his identity. Thus, even though Jesus’ resurrection marks the beginning of the general resurrection, the former is both categorically and chronologically distinguished from the latter.72 Romans 1:3-4 gives us a glimpse into an early scriptural argument that articulates the significance of Jesus’ resurrection for his messiahship. Two sections of 1 Corinthians 15, vv.20-28 and vv.42-50, present Paul’s scriptural arguments articulating the significance of Jesus’ resurrection for those who belong to Christ. In these passages, Jesus’ resurrection is presented as the first of many that will follow at the general resurrection of the dead. Each of these texts will be examined below.

3. The Enthroned Davidic Messiah In the opening formula to the Letter to the Romans, Paul quotes an early Christian confession73 that juxtaposes Jesus’ Davidic origin with 70.  Cf. Heb 6:1-2, which lists ‘resurrection of the dead’ (a)na/stasij nekrw~n) as one of the elementary doctrine of Christ (o( th=j a)rxh=j tou= Xristou= lo/goj). 71. Dale C. Allison Jr notes that ‘[t]he association of Jesus’ resurrection with the general resurrection of the dead is more likely to have originated earlier rather than later, for the more time between Jesus’ resurrection and history’s end, the less natural it would have been to link the two’ (Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010], 58). 72. Fuller notes that ‘Christ’s resurrection also differed from the later resurrections which were to occur in the general resurrection in that it had an exclusive, christologicalsoteriological significance’ (The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 21–2). 73. So most scholars. For different interpretations, see Vern S. Poythress, ‘Is Romans 1:3–4 a Pauline Confession after All?’, ExpTim 87 (1976): 180–83; James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of UIOQESIA in the Pauline Corpus (WUNT II/48; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992), 221–44.

134

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

his status as the Son of God with power by virtue of his resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:3-4): peri\ tou= ui(ou= au)tou= tou= genome/nou e)k spe/rmatoj Daui\d kata\ sa/rka, tou= o(risqe/ntoj ui(ou= qeou= e)n duna/mei kata\ pneu=ma a(giwsu/nhj e)c a)nasta/sewj nekrw~n, 'Ihsou= Xristou= tou= kuri/ou h(mw~n concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, (and) who was appointed Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness since the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ, our Lord74

Scholars still like to repeat the claim Martin Hengel made in the 1970s that ‘more has been written [about Rom 1:3-4] than about any other New Testament text’.75 This may no longer be true, but Rom 1:3-4 continues to generate considerable scholarly interest. There is no need to review the various interpretative options here. Suffice it to say that scholars generally adopt one of two approaches: they either start from a hypothetical pre-Pauline formula and then investigate Pauline additions and the meaning of the text in its current literary context, or they start from the text in its current context and then explore its pre-Pauline form and function. In this study, I will follow the former procedure. I also join those interpreters who ascribe Paul’s use of traditional material to his desire to establish a common ground of shared beliefs with his Roman audience. Attempts to determine the exact wording of the original pre-Pauline form of this confession can only be tentative. Most interpreters agree that both the introductory prepositional phrase, peri\ tou= ui(ou= au)tou=, and the closing formulation, 'Ihsou= Xristou= tou= kuri/ou h(mw~n, are Pauline additions. Uncharacteristically-Pauline expressions in two participial clauses, such as the expressions e)k sper/matoj Daui/d (which is not found in the undisputed letters of Paul), gene/sqai e)k (which appears only in Gal 4:4), pneu=ma a(giwsu/nhj (which is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament), o(ri/zein (which is not found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus), the kata\ sa/rka/kata\ pneu=ma contrast (which Paul never applies to Jesus Christ), and a)na/stasij nekrw~n (which is used nowhere else in the New Testament as a description of Jesus’ resurrection), and uncharacteristically-Pauline style (participial constructions, parallelisms, and absence of articles for most nouns), allow the following preliminary reconstruction of the pre-Pauline confession: 74.  My translation. All references to Rom 1:3-4 in this chapter are based on this translation. 75.  Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 59. One of the most recent quotes of this statement can be found in Joshua W. Jipp, ‘Ancient, Modern, and Future Interpretations of Romans 1:3–4: Reception History and Biblical Interpretation’, JTI 3 (2009): 241.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­135

tou= genome/nou e)k spe/rmatoj Daui\d kata\ sa/rka, tou= o(risqe/ntoj ui(ou= qeou= kata\ pneu=ma a(giwsu/nhj e)c a)nasta/sewj nekrw~n who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God according to the spirit of holiness since the resurrection of the dead76

In modern scholarship, these two lines have usually been understood as an expression of a two-stage Christology – a juxtaposition of Jesus’ earthly career as a Davidic Messiah with his heavenly reign as Son of God.77 In this interpretation, Jesus’ resurrection is seen as a dividing marker between two consecutive stages of his existence – his earthly life of humiliation and his resurrected state of exaltation. The preposition e)k in the phrase e)c a)nasta/sewj nekrw~n is typically understood as temporal rather than causal, because, as C. E. B. Cranfield notes, ‘Christ’s resurrection was scarcely the ground of His exaltation; but it was the event which was the beginning of His exalted life.’78 This is the only New Testament passage in which the designation for the general resurrection, a)na/stasij nekrw~n (‘resurrection of the dead’), stands for Jesus’ resurrection.79 It seems that this phrase, which most likely derives from the conviction that Jesus’ resurrection represents the beginning of 76. The structure of this confession is frequently compared to 1 Tim 3:16: o(\j e)fanerw/qh e)n sarki/, e)dikaiw/qh e)n pneu/mati (‘who was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in spirit’ [my translation]) and 1 Pet 3:18: qanatwqei\j me\n sarki\ zw|opoihqei\j de\ pneu/mati (‘having been put to death in the flesh, but having been made alive in the spirit’ [my translation]); see Eduard Schweizer, ‘Röm. 1,3f. und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und Geist vor und bei Paulus’, in Neotestamentica: Deutsche und englische Aufsätze, 1951–1963 (Zürich: Zwingli, 1963), 180–81; Charles H. Talbert, Romans (SHBC; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 32; James D. G. Dunn, ‘Jesus – Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans I. 3–4’, JTS 24 (1973): 43. In terms of content, the closest formulation appears in 2 Tim 2:8 (in reverse order): mnhmo/neue 'Ihsou=n Xristo\n e)ghgerme/non e)k nekrw~n, e)k spe/rmatoj Daui/d (‘Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, of the seed of David’ [my translation]). This confession, however, does not include the title ‘Son of God’. 77.  Most ancient interpreters use Rom 1:3-4 to support the doctrine of the two natures of Christ. For a review of interpretations of this text in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Tertullian, Origen, John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Apollinaris of Laodicea, see Jipp, ‘Ancient, Modern, and Future Interpretations’, 248–54. For a modern interpretation of Rom 1:3-4 as a reference to Jesus’ human and divine natures, see C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–9), 1:60. For a critique of this position, see James D. G. Dunn, Romans (WBC 38; 2 vols; Dallas: Word, 1988), 1:15. 78.  Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:62. 79. In Acts 26:23, which also associates Jesus’ resurrection with the general resurrection, the word prw~toj is inserted before the prepositional phrase e)c a)nasta/sewj nekrw~n to avoid possible confusion: Christ is prw~toj e)c a)nasta/sewj nekrw~n (lit. ‘first from the resurrection of the dead’; most English translations: ‘the first to rise from the dead’). Similarly, in Rev 1:5, Jesus Christ is called ‘the firstborn of the dead’ (o( prwto/tokoj tw~n nekrw~n).

136

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

the general resurrection,80 was quickly replaced with a clearer expression, a)na/stasij ek) nekrw~n (‘the resurrection from the dead’).81 In this way, Jesus’ resurrection is singled out as a unique event that inaugurated the beginning of the eschaton. If the pair kata\ sa/rka/kata\ pneu=ma a(giwsu/nhj derives from the pre-Pauline tradition, it probably does not carry the typically Pauline opposition between sa/rc and pneu=ma. Both expressions are commonly understood as designations of the realms or modes of existence. The phrase kata\ sa/rka is variously interpreted as ‘the natural sphere’,82 ‘this-worldly, natural origins of Jesus’,83 ‘Jesus’ earthly existence in the sphere of the flesh’,84 or ‘natural descent’,85 and the expression kata\ pneu=ma a(giwsu/nhj as ‘the sphere of the Holy Spirit’,86 ‘the realm of the Spirit’,87 ‘the heavenly sphere’,88 or ‘the effect of the Holy Spirit on Jesus’.89 Nevertheless, their formal juxtaposition suggests a contrast between the humiliation that characterized Jesus’ earthly existence (kata\ sa/rka) and the exaltation that characterizes his resurrection existence (kata\ pneu=ma a(giwsu/nhj). 80. The genitive nekrw~n is frequently interpreted as a generalizing plural; see Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:62; Frederick F. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary (2nd ed.; TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 69; Paul Beasley-Murray, ‘Romans 1:3f: An Early Confession of Faith in the Lordship of Jesus’, TynBul 31 (1980): 153. Some scholars, however, believe that this formulation refers to the general resurrection. Ernst Käsemann (Commentary on Romans [trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 12) claims that ‘[t]he hymnic tradition does not isolate Christ’s resurrection, but views it in its cosmic function as the beginning of general resurrection’. Dunn insists that the phrase e)c a)nasta/sewj nekrw~n ‘is not to be taken as an abbreviated form of the fuller formula, but as a deliberate reference to the general resurrection of the dead expected at the end of the age’ (‘Jesus – Flesh and Spirit’, 56). Craig S. Keener points out that this phrase implies ‘that Jesus’ resurrection is the first installment of the future promise of resurrection for the righteous’ (Romans: A New Covenant Commentary [NCCS; Eugene, Ore.: Cascade, 2009], 21). Wright, (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 243) emphatically declares that ‘[t]his was not an isolated, freak occurrence. This was, in embryo, “the resurrection of the dead”, of all the dead’ (emphasis original). 81.  Cf. 1 Pet 1:3. In most of the New Testament references to Jesus’ resurrection, the prepositional phrase ek) nekrw~n is combined with the verbs a)ni/sthmi (Mark 9:9-10; Luke 24:46; John 20:9; Acts 10:41; 13:34; 17:3, 31) or e)gei/rw (Matt 17:9; John 2:22; 21:14; Acts 3:15; 4:10; 13:30; Rom 4:24; 6:4, 9; 7:4; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Cor 15:12, 20; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; 2 Tim 2:8; 1 Pet 1:21). 82.  Beasley-Murray, ‘Romans 1:3f’, 151. 83.  Brendan J. Byrne, Romans (SP 6; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996), 44. 84. Dunn, ‘Jesus – Flesh and Spirit’, 43. 85.  Bruce, Romans, 68. 86.  Beasley-Murray, ‘Romans 1:3f’, 151. 87. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 50. 88. Dunn, ‘Jesus – Flesh and Spirit’, 43–4. 89.  Ben Witherington III with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A SocioRhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 32–3.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­137

The expression e)k spe/rmatoj Daui/d, which stresses Jesus’ Davidic lineage, is usually attributed to Jewish-Christian communities that upheld the messianic credentials of Jesus’ earthly ministry and that regarded Jesus as the Davidic Messiah who fulfilled Jewish nationalistic hopes.90 Some interpreters even insist that the first stage – Davidic messianism – was undervalued in the Hellenistic churches that had no interest in Jewish nationalistic hopes.91 Most scholars believe that the emphasis in the formula falls on the second stage, that is, on Jesus’ status as the Son of God since the resurrection from the dead. Eduard Schweizer speaks for many when he declares that ‘the earthly existence of the Son of David has clearly been regarded as the lowly first stage which was fulfilled only by exaltation to the Sonship of God’.92 On the basis of other occurrences of the verb o(ri/zein in the New Testament,93 the passive participle o(risqe/ntoj is usually translated ‘appointed’ or ‘installed’,94 because ‘Jesus was not just declared to be the Son of God: he was actually instituted Son of God’.95 If the original formula did not contain the phrase e)n duna/mei,96 it declared that ‘Jesus’ divine sonship stemmed from his resurrection’.97 If the phrase e)n duna/mei belonged to the pre-Pauline confession,98 it asserted that ‘Jesus’ divine sonship in power stemmed from his resurrection’.99 James Dunn concludes that, either way, ‘the resurrection of Jesus was 90. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. Kendrick Grobel; 2 vols; New York: Scribner, 1951–5), 1:49–50, 237; Werner R. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God (trans. Brian Hardy; SBT 50; London: SCM, 1966), 111. 91. Robert Jewett, ‘The Redaction and Use of an Early Christian Confession in Romans 1:3–4’, in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (ed. Dennis E. Groh and Robert Jewett; Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985), 104; Georg Strecker, Theology of the New Testament (ed. Friedrich Wilhelm Horn; trans. M. Eugene Boring; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 69. 92. Eduard Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship (SBT 28; London: SCM, 1960), 59. 93. Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 10:42; 11:29; 17:26, 31; Heb 4:7. 94.  James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of Incarnation (2nd ed.; London: SCM, 1989), 34; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:61; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 234–5; Byrne, Romans, 44; Moo, Romans, 47–8. 95.  Beasley-Murray, ‘Romans 1:3f’, 151–2. 96. So most scholars. The prepositional phrase e)n duna/mei is usually regarded as a qualification of the noun (ui(ou= qeou= e)n duna/mei) rather than of the verb (tou= o(risqe/ntoj e)n duna/mei). 97. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 34 (emphasis removed). 98. So Ferdinand Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity (trans. Harold Knight and George Ogg; London: Lutterworth, 1969), 247; Evald Lövestam, Son and Saviour: A Study of Acts 13,32–37. With an Appendix: ‘Son of God’ in the Synoptic Gospels (trans. Michael J. Petry; ConBNT 18; Lund: Gleerup, 1961), 47; Dunn, ‘Jesus – Flesh and Spirit’, 60–61; Beasley-Murray, ‘Romans 1:3f’, 148; Marinus de Jonge, ‘Jesus, Son of David and Son of God’, in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. Sipke Draisma; Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1989), 102–3. 99. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 34 (emphasis original).

138

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

regarded as of central significance in determining his divine sonship, either as his installation to a status and prerogatives not enjoyed before, or as a major enhancement of a sonship already enjoyed’.100 This interpretation of the pre-Pauline confession as an expression of a two-stage Christology that juxtaposes Jesus’ statuses as the Son of David and the Son of God should be reassessed in the light of the text’s relationship to Israel’s Scripture. Paul himself lends support to such an approach in that the relative clause in Rom 1:2-3a, ‘which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning his son’,101 with which he introduces this traditional material, clearly shows that he understands it as a declaration that is rooted in Scripture. The confession itself, however, does not contain an explicit scriptural quotation. Most interpreters nonetheless agree that the first part of the formula refers to God’s promise to David in 2 Sam 7:12, which provides the main scriptural support for expectation of a Davidic Messiah in Second Temple Judaism,102 while the second part alludes to Ps 2:7, which describes the divine adoption of a newly installed king in an enthronement ceremony.103 In this text, God recognizes the new status of the king by declaring, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you’ (Kytdly Mwyh yn) ht) ynb; LXX: ui(o/j mou ei} su e)gw_ sh/meron gege/nnhka/ se). Sigmund Mowinckel explains that ‘[i]t is the election, the anointing and the installation which are viewed as an adoption’.104 Leslie Allen argues that not only the designation ui(o\j qeou= but also the accompanying verb o(risqe/ntoj derives from Ps 2:7 because it renders the idea of qx (‘decree’) from the introductory clause: ‘I will tell of the decree of the Lord.’105

100. Ibid., 35 (emphasis removed). Dunn adds that ‘sonship is seen in eschatological terms: the divine sonship of which the original formula speaks is a sonship which begins from the resurrection; something of tremendous significance for Jesus (the subject of divine decree or appointment), something of eschatological import (the beginning of the resurrection of the dead), took place in the resurrection of Jesus and it is characterized in terms of Jesus’ divine sonship’ (emphasis original). 101.  My translation. 102. References to the promise of a Davidic offspring include Pss 18:51 (17:51 LXX); 89:5, 30-33, 37-38 (88:5, 30-33, 37-38 LXX); 132:11-12 (131:11-12 LXX); Isa 11:1-5, 10; Jer 23:5; 33:14-26; Zech 6:12; Pss. Sol. 17.4, 21–49; 4Q252 5.1–4; 4Q174 1.1–13; 4 Ezra 12.31–34. 103. Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen (4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), 5; Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; 2 vols; Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), 1:61–5. For a comparison between Judah’s coronation rites and parallel rites in other ancient Near Eastern monarchial tradition, see Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh; New York: MacGraw-Hill, 1961), 102–7. 104.  Mowinckel, The Psalms, 65. 105. Leslie C. Allen, ‘The Old Testament Background of (pro)o(ri/zein in the New Testament’, NTS 17 (1970): 104–8.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­139

If Ps 2:7 furnishes the scriptural pattern for Rom 1:4,106 then the designation ‘Son of God’ functions as a messianic title. Although there is not much evidence in extant pre-Christian Jewish sources for a messianic interpretation of Ps 2:7,107 early Christian interpreters consistently read this verse as a messianic text.108 However, the two-stage christological framework within which the confession in Rom 1:3-4 is typically read tends to separate the two parts of the formula, i.e. the reference to spe/rma Daui/d and the reference to ui(o\j qeou=. Such a division is problematic because these two designations allude to two of the three principal elements of God’s promise to David in 2 Sam 7:12-16: that God will raise up his seed (K(rz; LXX: to\ spe/rma sou) after him (v.12), and that this seed will be a son to God (Nbl yl hyhy )whw; LXX: au)to\j e)/stai moi ei)j ui(o/n) (v.14). The third element is the perpetuity of the Davidic dynasty: ‘Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever’ (2 Sam 7:16).109 The first element of the promise – Davidic descent – is frequently mentioned in other scriptural passages and eventually became a major component in expectations of 106.  John H. Hayes, ‘The Resurrection as Enthronement and the Earliest Church Christology’, Int 22 (1968): 337, 340; Dunn, Christology in the Making, 34; Christopher G. Whitsett, ‘Son of God, Seed of David: Paul’s Messianic Exegesis in Romans 1:3–4’, JBL 119 (2000): 676–8; Lövestam, Son and Saviour, 47. 107. Second Temple literature shows that certain parts of Psalm 2 were interpreted messianically. For example, Ps 2:1-2 is quoted in 4Q174 1.18–19 within a thematic pesher that follows the messianic interpretation of 2 Sam 7:1-14. However, the messianic reading of Ps 2:1-2 is thereby not ascertained. In fact, the expression ‘his anointed’ (wxy#m) from Ps 2:2 is in line 19 interpreted not as a reference to a messianic figure but to ‘the chosen ones of Israel’ (l)r#y yryxb), that is, to the community itself; see Eric F. Mason, ‘Interpretation of Psalm 2 in 4QFlorilegium and in the New Testament’, in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (ed. Florentino García Martínez; STDJ 85; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 73–82. In Pss. Sol. 17.23–25, Ps 2:8-9 is used to describe the activities of the expected Davidic Messiah. There is an allusion to Ps 2:2 in 1 En. 48.10. None of these passages, however, interpret Ps 2:7 messianically. The only evidence for a potentially messianic reading of Ps 2:7 in Second Temple Judaism comes from a poorly preserved and highly controversial reading of the last word in 1QSa 2.11, which Dominique Barthélemy originally read as dylwy, yielding the translation ‘when God begets the Messiah’ in lines 11–12. Józef T. Milik’s emendation of the controversial word to Kylwy yields the reading ‘when God leads forth the Messiah’; see DJD 1:117. John J. Collins (‘The Interpretation of Psalm 2’, in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament [ed. Florentino García Martínez; STDJ 85; Leiden: Brill, 2009], 62) argues that the designation ‘my son the Messiah’ in 4 Ezra 7.28 also reflects a messianic reading of Ps 2:7. Michael E. Stone (Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990], 207–13), however, alleges that the Hebrew original was ‘servant’ (Greek pai=j) rather than ‘son’ (Greek ui(o/j). The earliest uncontested evidence for a messianic interpretation of Ps 2:7 in non-Christian sources appears in the rabbinic literature: Midr. Pss. 2.9 (on Ps 2:7) and b. Sukkah 52a. 108. See Heb 1:5; 5:5; Acts 13:33. 109. For a study of these three elements of the Davidic promise in the Hebrew Scriptures, early Jewish literature, and the New Testament writings, see Novakovic, Messiah, the Healer of the Sick, 12–34.

140

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

the Davidic Messiah. The second element – the father-son relationship between the Davidic king and God – is also referred to in Scripture. Psalm 89:27-28 (88:27-28 LXX)110 describes the relationship between God and David in a way that is very similar to 2 Sam 7:14. In this passage, the king first confesses that God is his father – ‘You are my Father, my God’ (yl) ht) yb); LXX: path/r mou ei} su/, qeo/j mou) – and then God responds by saying, ‘I will make him the firstborn’ (whnt) rwkb yn) P); LXX: ka)gw_ prwto/tokon qh/somai au)to/n). In 1 Chr 17:13, the promise that God will be a father to David’s seed in 2 Sam 7:14 is repeated verbatim: ‘I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me’ (Nbl yl hyhy )whw b)l wl hyh) yn); LXX: e)gw_ e)/somai au)tw|~ ei)j pate/ ra kai\ au)to\j e)/stai moi ei)j ui(o/n). Psalm 2:7 belongs to this group of texts. It describes the enthronement of a royal figure called ‘his [God’s] anointed’ (wxy#m; LXX: tou= xristou= au)tou=) (v.2), who is installed to a position of divine sonship through an act of adoption. Although this aspect of the Davidic tradition was largely ignored in Second Temple literature, it was not entirely forgotten. In 4Q174 1.10–11, the author combines quotations from 2 Sam 7:12, which mentions David’s offspring (hk(rz; ‘your seed’), 2 Sam 7:13b, which refers to the endless duration of the Davidic throne, and 2 Sam 7:14, which expresses God’s promise to adopt David’s descendant (Nbl yl hyhy )whw b)l )wl hyh) yn); ‘I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me’).111 The commentary that follows, which declares that this person is ‘the Shoot of David’ (dywd xmc), who will be accompanied by ‘the interpreter of the Torah’ shows that the author applied all three elements of the Davidic promise to the expected messianic figure. It seems that in this interpretative tradition, the divine adoption of the king is inseparable from his Davidic ancestry. Davidic origin merely establishes one’s messianic credentials; in and of itself it does not authenticate one’s messianic claim. In view of the link between Rom 1:3-4 and 2 Sam 7:12-14,112 it is inadequate to interpret only the first line as a reference to the Davidic Messiah. The first part of the formula does not ascribe to Jesus the messianic title ‘Son of David’ as scholars routinely assume,113 but only 110. Ps 89:26-27 Eng. 111. That the author of 4Q174 did not correct his Vorlage suggests that he was quite comfortable with the father-son language in describing the relationship between God and the Messiah. This was not so in the targumic tradition. The Targums on 2 Sam 7:14 and 1 Chr 17:13 replace the terms b)l and Nbl in the MT with ())b)k (‘like a father’) and ())rbk (‘like a son’). The targumist apparently understands this relationship either symbolically or as a figure of speech. 112.  Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, 108–10; Otto Betz, What Do We Know about Jesus? (trans. Margaret Kohl; London: SCM, 1968), 95; Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 81; Byrne, Romans, 44–5; Whitsett, ‘Son of God, Seed of David’, 675–6. 113. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 35; idem, Romans, 1:12; Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship, 59; Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology, 247–8; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:60; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 11; Leander E. Keck, Romans (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 43; Talbert, Romans, 32.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

141­

the designation ‘seed of David’. There is, however, no evidence that spe/rma Daui/d was ever used as a messianic title in Second Temple Judaism. This expression merely functions as a genealogical marker specifying the condition that any claimant to the Davidic throne must fulfil.114 The ‘seed of David’ is ‘a way of speaking about the descendants of David with strong emphasis on the descent itself’.115 Eta Linnemann rightly notes that the expressions geno/menoj e)k spe/rmatoj Daui/d and o( ui(o\j Daui/d are not equivalent.116 It is therefore more accurate to interpret the phrase kata\ sa/rka as a reference to Jesus’ origin than as a reference to his messianic status.117 What should be kept in mind, however, is that ‘Jewish kings were not born but made’.118 Within the framework of the promise tradition,119 a Davidide becomes a king – the Davidic Messiah – at his enthronement as the rightful Davidic heir.120 For this reason, it is the second, not the first, line of Rom 1:3-4 that establishes Jesus’ messianic identity.121 For the earliest Christian interpreters, Jesus’ resurrection was the moment at which he was installed to the position of the Son of God and thereby became the Messiah. The phrase kata\ pneu=ma a(giwsu/nhj could therefore be 114.  Klaus Haacker, ‘Exegetische Probleme des Römerbriefs’, NovT 20 (1978): 13; Michael Theobald, Studien zum Römerbrief (WUNT 136; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 109; Eta Linnemann, ‘Tradition und Interpretation in Röm. 1,3f.’, EvT 31 (1971): 267. 115. Duling, ‘The Promises to David’, 59. 116. Linnemann, ‘Tradition und Interpretation’, 267. 117. The closest parallel to kata\ sa/rka in Rom 1:3 can be found in Rom 9:5: ‘to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah’. Theobald (Studien zum Römerbrief, 105) rightly notes that ‘[g]emeint ist nicht “der Christus, insoweit (er) im Irdischen (weilte)”, sondern “der Christus hinsichtlich seiner irdischen Herkunft”’. For similar uses of kata\ sa/rka, see Rom 4:1; 9:3. 118. Allison, Constructing Jesus, 289. 119. For a study of the development of the promise tradition in the Hebrew Scriptures and early Jewish literature, see Duling, ‘The Promises to David’, 55–69. Duling argues that ‘there is a fairly consistent, compact, yet expanding and developing promise tradition which is founded on the promises to David (and his descendants) in the Hebrew Scriptures’ (55). Even though Duling concludes that ‘[o]f the three main elements of the original promises, descent from the seed of David and eternal reign on the throne continue to dominate while, with the exception of 4QFlor, the father-son relationship appears to have moved to the background’ (68), the enthronement of a Davidide is clearly implied in all versions of the promise tradition. 120.  Jipp (‘Ancient, Modern, and Future Interpretations’, 258) rightly notes that ‘it is the resurrection that marks out (one might say “coronates” or “enthrones”) Jesus as Israel’s royal Messiah’. See also Beasley-Murray, ‘Romans 1:3f’, 151. 121. Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 242) expresses this point well: ‘Many were descended from David’s seed according to the flesh. . . . But only one Davidic descendant had been raised from the dead. This, Paul declares, marks him out as the “son” of Israel’s God: that is, the Messiah.’ See also Linnemann, ‘Tradition und Interpretation’, 268: ‘Zwischen Davidssohnschaft und Gottessohnschaft besteht kein Sphärenunterschied, sondern eine Zeitdifferenz. Davidide ist Jesus von Geburt – oder er wäre es nicht. Seine Einsetzung zum Messias erfolgt dagegen nicht schon mit seiner Geburt, sondern erst mit seiner Auferstehung von den Toten.’

142

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

interpreted either as a reference to the activity of the Sprit through which Jesus’ enthronement took place or as an indicator of the eschatological character of his messianic reign.122 In an influential article, Duling argues that the resurrection, ‘viewed as exaltation in the manner of the enthronement of the king’, was the most likely point of entry of the promise tradition into Christianity.123 The crux of Duling’s argument is that early Christian interpreters made ‘a word play on the “rising up” = resurrection/exaltation/enthronement’ and associated it with the non-titular material of the promise tradition.124 Duling argues that this is especially visible in Rom 1:3-4, which not only applies the promises of the Davidic descent and the divine adoption of the Davidic heir to Jesus, but also contains a verbal link between the verb a)nasth/sw in 2 Sam 7:12 and the prepositional phrase e)c a)nasta/sewj in Rom 1:4.125 Duling alleges that in the promise tradition the idea of Davidic descent is expressed through a variety of metaphors that communicate the ‘coming forth’ of David’s offspring, such as a ‘shoot from the stump of Jesse’ (Isa 11:1; 4Q161 frgs. 8–10 line 15), a ‘branch out of his roots’ (Isa 11:1; 4Q161 frgs. 8–10 line 15), a ‘righteous branch for David’ (Jer 23:5), the ‘Branch’ (Zech 6:12), the ‘Branch of David’ (4Q252 5.3–4; 4Q174 1.11), the ‘seed’ (of David) (Ps 89:5, 30, 37), the ‘sprouting horn’ (Ps 132:17; Ezek 29:21), a ‘star [coming] out of Jacob’ (Num 24:17), and a ‘scepter [rising] out of Israel’ (Num 24:17).126 He also calls attention to a number of Jewish texts that speak of the ‘rising up’ of a Davidic descendant, such as 2 Sam 7:12 (‘I will raise up [ytmyqh/ a)nasth/sw] your seed after you’),127 Num 24:17 (‘A star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise [Mq/a)nasth/setai] out of Israel’), Jer 23:5 (‘The days are surely coming, say the Lord, when I will raise up [ytmqh/ a)nasth/sw] for David a righteous Branch’), Jer 30:9 (37:9 LXX) (‘But they shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up [Myq)/a)nasth/sw] for them’), Amos 9:11 (‘On that day I will raise up [Myq)/a)nasth/sw] the booth of David that is fallen’), T. Jud. 24.1 (‘And after this there shall arise [a)natelei=] for you a Star from Jacob in peace: And a man shall arise [a)nasth/setai] from my posterity like the Sun of righteousness’),128 4Q174 1.11 (‘He [is] the Shoot of

122. Theobald, Studien zum Römerbrief, 105–7. For an exclusively instrumental interpretation, see Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 12–13. 123. Duling, ‘The Promises to David’, 70. 124. Ibid., 71. 125. Ibid., 73. 126. Ibid., 55–69. 127.  My translation. 128. Trans. Kee, OTP 1:801.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

143­

David who will arise [dmw(h] with the interpreter of the Torah’),129 and Pss. Sol. 17.21 (‘Look, O Lord, and raise up [a)na/sthson] for them their king, a son of David’).130 It is quite clear that in these passages, the ‘rising up’ terminology functions metaphorically. If, however, early Christian interpreters were familiar with the tradition of interpreting Hos 6:2 as a reference to the general resurrection, as has been suggested above, they could easily have assigned the same meaning to other passages that employ the Mwq/a)nasth=nai terminology. The exegetical technique of associating different biblical passages on the basis of shared words or themes is quite common across the spectrum of Jewish exegetical literature and reflects the basic assumption that Scripture interprets Scripture. Although the verb a)nasth=nai does not appear in Rom 1:3-4, its cognate a)na/stasij does. Even if the preceding reconstruction of the exegetical rationale of the early Christian interpreters is conjectural, there are good reasons to suppose that ‘the pre-Pauline formula in Rom. i. 3–4 provides what is most probably the earliest point of entry of the promise tradition into early Christianity’.131 Two major elements of the promise tradition – Davidic descent and divine adoption of a Davidic king – are clearly recognizable. As in the Jewish sources, the idea of the ‘coming forth’ of the Davidic offspring is related to a claimant’s – in this case, Jesus’ – origin. The innovative, and distinctly Christian, aspect of the appropriation of this tradition here is a new understanding of the ‘raising up’ of the Davidic descendant, which is ‘shifted away from its “coming forth” connotations in the earthly sense to the Christian view of Jesus’ resurrection’.132 This reconstruction illuminates the otherwise puzzling phenomenon of ascribing to Jesus the title of Messiah shortly after the resurrection. It is difficult to explain on the basis of 1 Cor 15:3-4 alone how Jesus’ resurrection on the third day can be understood as the resurrection of the Messiah. Such an explanation – the earliest that is available in the New Testament – can be found in Rom 1:3-4. This early confession relates the promises to David, which were progressively eschatologized in Second Temple literature, to Jesus through an interpretation of 2 Sam 7:12-14 that is both traditional and innovative. Jesus’ Davidic descent is affirmed through a non-titular, metaphorical acknowledgement of his origin: he ‘was born of the seed of David according to the flesh’. Jesus’ messianic status is expressed through a conflation of 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2:7, which were probably linked through their lexematic and thematic association: 129. Trans. Jacob Milgrom, ‘Florilegium: A Midrash on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1–2’, in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (vol. 6B of DSSHAGET; PTSDSSP 6B; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 253. 130. Trans. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 187. 131. Duling, ‘The Promises to David’, 77. 132. Ibid., 74.

144

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

in both texts the oracular voice of God – the divine ‘I’ (yn)/e0gw&) – calls the Davidic king his ‘son’ (Nb/ui(o/j).133 What is unique about Christian messianic exegesis of these texts is its association of them with Jesus’ resurrection. This is accomplished through an understanding of the latter as a royal enthronement. The idea of exaltation, although not explicitly mentioned in the confession, probably played an important role in this process. It is also very likely that Christian exegetes interpreted the language of the ‘rising up’ of a Davidic offspring in the sense of raising him up from the dead. The practice of reading texts that were intended to be understood metaphorically as though they were meant to be taken literally was not uncommon in Jewish literature, as is documented in various interpretations of Ezek 37:1-10 as a prediction of literal resurrection134 or in interpretations of Hos 6:2 to the same effect in rabbinic literature.135 The mere hermeneutical potential of a text, however, is insufficient to explain the actual reading adopted by an interpretative community. In this case, the experience of the risen Jesus, who was put to death as a messianic claimant, provided a distinct hermeneutical lens through which early Christian exegetes read Scripture. Wright astutely notes that [t]he event precipitated the exegesis: once early Christians had glimpsed the idea that a would-be Messiah, a descendant of David, had been put to death as a messianic pretender but had been raised from the dead, it was not long before the Septuagintal language about Israel’s God ‘raising up’ David’s seed after him, to sit on his throne, would come into its own.136

It is therefore questionable whether the label ‘two-stage Christology’ adequately captures the messianic sense of the pre-Pauline formula in Rom 1:3-4. Given its markedly chronological framework, it is certainly

133.  Brooke (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, 74–7) argues that conflation of 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 represents a common exegetical tradition in Second Temple Judaism. Brooke finds support for his thesis in 4Q174, which contains an interpretation of 2 Sam 7:10-14 followed by an interpretation of Psalms 1–2. This conclusion is contested by Annete Steudel (‘Psalm 2 im antiken Judentum’, in Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität [ed. Dieter Sänger; BThS 67; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2004], 189–97), who believes that the coexistence of both passages in 4Q174 is coincidental. Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins (King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 205), however, rejoin that despite the fact that no interpretation of Ps 2:7 is preserved, ‘it is difficult to avoid the impression that this psalm was juxtaposed to 2 Samuel 7 here because of the common reference to the king as son of God’. 134.  Cf. 4QPseudo-Ezekiela (4Q385), Ezekiel Targum, Gen. Rab. 14.5; Lev. Rab. 14.9. 135. See section 2.2 above. 136. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 244.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­145

appropriate to speak about the two ‘stages’ of Jesus’ life, one that started with his birth and one that began with his resurrection. But in this formula, these two stages are not conceived of as two independent phases in Jesus’ career, one as a Jewish Messiah and one as the Son of God, but as two closely related facets of his messianic identity. More specifically, it is the second stage – Jesus’ enthronement and divine adoption at the resurrection – that establishes his messianic status. In Romans, this early confession appears in a specific literary and theological framework that could give us a glimpse into its earliest reception history, at least as far as Paul was concerned. In fact, a removal of the two participial clauses we have been discussing would not in the least interrupt the flow of Paul’s introductory remarks in Rom 1:1-4: Pau=loj dou=loj Xristou= 'Ihsou=, klhto\j a)po/stoloj a)fwrisme/noj ei)j eu)agge/lion qeou=, o(\ proephggei/lato dia\ tw~n profhtw~n au)tou= e)n grafai=j a(gi/aij peri\ tou= ui(ou= au)tou=, 'Ihsou= Xristou= tou= kuri/ou h(mw~n. Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning his son, Jesus Christ our Lord.137

The phrase ‘concerning his son’, which in the current text of Rom 1:3 prefaces the traditional formula, most likely serves to soften its adoptionist edge.138 For Paul, Jesus Christ was God’s son not only from the time of his resurrection from the dead but also during his entire earthly existence – and most likely even earlier than that (Rom 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32; 1 Cor 1:9; 15:28; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 1:16; 2:20; 4:4; 1 Thess 1:10). Within the Pauline framework, the prepositional phrase e)n duna/mei functions as a qualifier that distinguishes the character of Jesus’ divine sonship before and after the resurrection. The claim that he became the Son of God in power at the resurrection suggests that previously he was the Son of God in weakness. Not surprisingly, then, many scholars regard the phrase e)n duna/mei as a Pauline addition whose purpose is to decrease the incongruity between the apostle’s own understanding of Jesus’ divine sonship and that in the formula. Another aspect of the Pauline framework is its obvious linking of Jesus’ divine sonship with scriptural prophecies. In this way, Paul ‘contextualizes’ the traditional formula by explicitly relating it to Israel’s Scripture. Since the pre-Pauline confession, as argued above, employs scriptural categories from the promise tradition based on 2 Sam 7:1214, Paul’s introduction only makes overt what is already there. Yet, by 137.  My translation. 138.  Beasley-Murray, ‘Romans 1:3f’, 148; Dunn, ‘Jesus – Flesh and Spirit’, 41; Witherington with Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 33; Keck, Romans, 44. Bultmann (Theology of the New Testament, 1:49), however, ascribes the introductory reference to the Son of God to the pre-Pauline formula.

146

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

asserting that scriptural prophecies were given ‘concerning his son’, Paul decisively tips the scale in favour of Jesus’ divine sonship. As a result, a conflation of 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2:7 gains in prominence, which is further reinforced by the addition of the prepositional phrase e)n duna/mei to the title ‘Son of God’ in Rom 1:4.139 Simultaneously with the increasing importance of the divine sonship of the Messiah over against his Davidic descent, another shift can be noticed. By claiming that Jesus was God’s son from the very beginning, Paul redefines Jesus’ divine sonship in broader categories and dissociates it from the resurrection as a determining moment in Jesus’ messianic identity. These conclusions are in essential agreement with Dunn’s contention that ‘it must be judged highly probable that for Paul kata_ sa&rka in Rom. i. 3 carries its normal note of depreciation’.140 Dunn suggests that Paul’s somewhat derogatory view of Jesus’ Davidic descent reflects the mindset of Hellenistic communities in which ‘the identification of Jesus as Son of David seems to have been more of an embarrassment and hindrance than a glad and central affirmation’.141 In his view, the traditional two-stage scheme does not adequately describe Paul’s Christology because ‘at both stages Jesus is Son of God, and at both stages his sonship is determined by the Spirit and by Jesus’ response to the Spirit’.142 Dunn puts special emphasis on Paul’s retention of the expression e0c a)nasta&sewj nekrw~n in the traditional formula, which conveys the idea that Jesus’ resurrection signifies the beginning of the general resurrection. The tension between the two poles, the resurrection of Jesus that has already occurred and the resurrection of believers that has yet to come, parallels the experience of those who belong to Christ. ‘[A]s Jesus’ resurrection is the forerunner of the final resurrection, so Jesus in the flesh is the forerunner of the Christian caught between the ages.’143 This analogy between Jesus and the believer, which might only have been hinted at in Rom 1:3-4, is fully explored in 1 Cor 15:20-28, 45-49.144 Before turning to these texts, however, I will briefly consider another pre-Pauline passage (Phil 2:9-11) that relates Scripture to the exalted status of the risen Jesus.

139. Lövestam, Son and Saviour, 47. 140. Dunn, ‘Jesus – Flesh and Spirit’, 49 (emphasis removed). 141. Ibid., 50. 142. Ibid., 57 (emphasis original). 143. Ibid., 56. 144. In Dunn’s view, ‘we have in Rom. i. 3f. a reference to Christ parallel to the reference to Christians in 1 Cor xv. 49’ (ibid.).

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

147

4. The Cosmic Lord The christological hymn145 in Phil 2:6-11, which is generally regarded as an earlier composition adapted by Paul, has been called ‘one of the most disputed passages in the history of New Testament interpretation’.146 It is neither possible nor necessary to address the various interpretative issues that have been raised in this debate. My interest here lies only in the second half of the hymn, which uses Isa 45:23 to describe the exalted Christ (vv.9-11). In this section, the as-yet unnamed active subject from the first half of the hymn (vv.6-8) becomes the passive recipient of God’s action. The author of this hymn does not mention the resurrection as such but instead uses the verb u(peru/ywsen (‘he highly exalted’). This is sometimes taken as an indication that ‘what is certainly the oldest view held by the church made no distinction between the resurrection of Christ and his elevation to the right hand of the Father’.147 Evans, however, rightly objects that ‘the very idea of resurrection contained within itself the idea of exaltation, and the passages referred to [John 3:14; 12:32, 34; Acts 2:33; 5:30-31; Phil 2:9; Heb 1:3-13; 8:1] may be understood as reflecting developed theologies of the writers concerned rather than survivals of an original conception’.148 The Philippian hymn belongs to the group of texts that ‘virtually ignore resurrection and pass straight to an exaltation to God or to his right hand as the most adequate expression of what has to be said’.149 Jesus’ resurrection, which is ‘tacitly assumed’, is ‘passed over in favour of a full emphasis upon the victory of Christ and His installation in the seat of power in might’.150 The verb u(peru/ywsen probably refers to God’s exaltation of Jesus to a position of dignity that he had not held previously. In addition, v.9 145. Or encomium according to some recent proposals; cf. John Reumann, ‘Resurrection in Philippi and Paul’s Letter(s) to the Philippians’, in RNT, 410–11. 146. L. D. Hurst, ‘Re-Enter the Pre-Existent Christ in Philippians 2.5–11?’, NTS 32 (1986): 449. 147.  Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson; New York: Harper, 1960), 183. 148. Evans, Resurrection, 76. 149. Ibid., 135. These texts include Mark 14:62; John 12:32; Phil 2:9; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 14:3. In Rom 1:3-4, the resurrection is mentioned without an explicit reference to exaltation. In many passages, however, the concepts of exaltation and resurrection are closely interrelated: Acts 2:31-36; 3:13-15; 5:30-31; 1 Cor 15:20-28; Eph 1:20-22; 1 Pet 1:21. 150. Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians ii.5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (SNTSMS 4; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 239. Markus N. A. Bockmuehl (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians [BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1997], 141) remarks that ‘Paul stresses only the fact, not the process of this exaltation, which elsewhere might involve resurrection, ascension and sitting on the right hand of God’. For a different view, see Reumann, ‘Resurrection in Philippi’, 410–13, 418–22. Reumann stresses the absence of resurrection terminology and attributes this to deficient theology on the part of the Philippians (apotheosis or hero-deification), whom he credits with composing the hymn.

148

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

declares that God freely gave him ‘the name that is above every name’ (to\ o)/noma to\ u(pe\r pa~n o)/noma). Although the text does not explicate the content of the name bestowed upon Jesus, it is generally assumed that this could have been nothing else than God’s own ineffable name, rendered in the Hebrew Scriptures with the Tetragrammaton (hwhy) and translated in the LXX as ku/rioj. This conclusion is corroborated by v.11, which declares that ‘every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord’ (ku/rioj 'Ihsou=j Xristo/j). This confession, which echoes the traditional acclamation formula ‘Jesus is Lord’ (ku/rioj 'Ihsou=j) in 1 Cor 12:3 and Rom 10:9, appears here within a cosmic framework. The application of the title kyrios to Jesus is well-documented in both pre-Pauline and Pauline Christianity.151 What is surprising here, however, is that the kyrios-title is linked to Isa 45:23, a well-known monotheistic text. While in Isaiah it is to God that everyone will bow, Phil 2:10-11 claims that this honour will be given to Jesus Christ. Even a cursory comparison of these two passages reveals that the author of this hymn substitutes e)moi/ from Isa 45:23, which refers to God, with e)n tw|~ o)no/mati 'Ihsou==. This is all the more astonishing in light of the fact that in Rom 14:11, Paul quotes Isa 45:23 in a context that upholds its exclusive application to God. What is the rationale for such a bold transfer of textual referents in Phil 2:10-11? Moreover, given that Isa 45:23 LXX mentions only the designation qeo/j, how can this text support the application of the title ku/rioj to Jesus? These questions are usually either not addressed or addressed inadequately. Most interpreters are content merely to note that in Phil 2:10-11 the declaration of God’s universal rule in Isa 45:23 is transferred to Jesus.152 With regard to the second question, Ralph P. Martin asserts that the kyrios-title derives from Isa 45:23, but then adds that ‘this Old Testament citation is introduced incidentally to declare that Christ has now taken over the Rulership of the world’.153 Conversely, Klaus Wengst argues that the kyrios-acclamation in v.11 does not derive from

151. On the christological use of kyrios among early Christians, see Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 108–26. Hurtado emphasises that ‘the connections between Jewish use of “Lord” and the christological use of kyrios in Pauline Christianity are mediated through the prior practice of referring to Jesus as “Lord” in Greek-speaking and also Aramaic-speaking Jewish circles in the earliest years of the Christian movement’ (110). 152.  Martin, Carmen Christi, 256; Bockmuehl, Philippians, 145; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 112; Gordon D. Fee, Philippians (IVPNTCS 11; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999), 100; John Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 33B; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 373. 153.  Martin, Carmen Christi, 243. Martin argues that ‘[t]he influence of Isaiah in the Philippians-psalm is unconscious and is not shown as an acknowledged quotation’ (256).

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

149

Isa 45:23. In his view, this passage is used only because it provides the appropriate language, pa~n go/nu and pa~sa glw~ssa.154 The most substantial treatment of these issues is offered by Takeshi Nagata, who suggests that ‘[t]he use of the LXX Isa 45:23 in vv.10-11 is neither a mere allusion nor a direct quotation. Rather, the use of Isa 45:23 in vv.10-11 is midrashic.’155 To begin with, he suggests, the expression ‘every knee’ (pa~n go/nu) from Isa 45:23 is elaborated in Phil 2:10-11 with the triadic phrase ‘in heaven and on earth and under the earth’ (e)pourani/wn kai\ e)pigei/wn kai\ kataxqoni/wn). In this way, the universal homage of all nations is retained and expanded vertically to include all spiritual powers in the universe. On the basis of the prerogatives that belong to God’s ineffable name, Isa 45:23 is reinterpreted in cosmic terms, which allows Jesus to be portrayed as the cosmocrator. But, in Nagata’s view, ‘the most important aspect of the use of Isa 45:23 lies in this midrashic connection between Isa 45:23 and the kyrios-acclamation’.156 The author of the hymn probably exploits an apparent discrepancy between the personal pronoun e)moi/ and the noun tw|~ qew|~ in Isa 45:18, 23 LXX, which reads: ou(/twj le/gei ku/rioj . . . e)moi\ ka/myei pa~n go/nu kai\ e)comologh/setai pa~sa glw~ssa tw|~ qew|~.157 This formulation opens the possibility for distinguishing between the introductory designation ku/rioj (antecedent of the first-person pronoun e)moi/) and the term qeo/j at the end of the clause.158 In the Philippian hymn, the former is probably used as the basis for an application to Jesus, who is presented as bearer of the divine name ku/rioj, while the latter appears to have been expanded into the concluding phrase, ei)j do/can qeou= patro/j.159 Although this interpretation is conjectural, it offers a plausible explanation of the link between the kyrios-acclamation in Phil 2:11 and Isa 45:23 LXX, a text which is used nowhere else in the New Testament in support of the exaltation of the risen Jesus. The standard text used for this purpose is, as we will see below, Ps 110:1.

154.  Klaus Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums [SNT 7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1973], 151–2. 155. Takeshi Nagata, ‘Philippians 2:5–11: A Case Study in the Contextual Shaping of Early Christology’ (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981), 282. 156. Ibid., 283. 157.  Cf. Rom 14:11, in which Paul introduces a citation of Isa 45:23 with zw~ e)gw/, le/gei ku/rioj. Such a discrepancy does not appear in the Hebrew text of Isa 45:23, which contains no reference to God at the end of the clause: Nw#l lk (b#t Krb lk (rkt yl yk. 158. Nagata, ‘Philippians 2:5–11’, 283. 159. The application of Isa 45:23 to Jesus raises the question of whether Jesus is presented here as a divine being equal to God who shares his dominion over the universe. The ending of the hymn indicates that the application of the title ku/rioj to Jesus was not felt to contradict the notion of the unity of God. Cf. 1 Cor 15:24-28, which shows that Paul did not understand Christ’s dominion over the universe to endanger God’s supreme rule.

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

150

5. The First Fruits In 1 Cor 15:20-28, Paul continues his discourse on the relationship between the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead, which he started in v.12 with a question, ‘Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?’. However, while in vv.12–19 Paul seeks to show the logical necessity of the general resurrection based on the premise that Christ has been raised from the dead, even to the point of emphatically declaring that a denial of the former leads to a denial of the latter and, with this, to a destruction of the very basis of Christian faith, his argument in vv.20-28 is entirely scriptural. Thematically, this passage can be divided into two related textual units: vv.20-22, in which Paul uses an AdamChrist analogy to demonstrate the link between Jesus’ resurrection and the general resurrection, and vv.23-28, in which he uses a conflation of Ps 110:1 and Ps 8:7 to demonstrate the inevitability of the ultimate destruction of death. With regard to the structure of its scriptural arguments, however, this passage can be divided into three sections: (1) vv.20-22, (2) vv.23-27a, and (3) vv.27b-28. In each of the first two parts, Paul first makes an assertion and then supports it with scriptural evidence mixed with additional interpretative comments. This pattern is reversed in the third part, which begins with a portion of Scripture and then provides the interpretative comments. In the first two sections, scriptural statements are not introduced with explicit quotation formulas but with the conjunction ga/r, which indicates their corroboratory or explanatory role in the argument.160 The third section, however, starts with the repetition of a portion of Scripture that has already been quoted, which is introduced with the formulaic clause ‘but when it says’ (o(/tan de\ ei)/ph|).161 This structure can be seen clearly in the following outline, which presents the scriptural testimony in italics. 20

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has come also through a human being;

160.  Martinus C. de Boer (‘Paul’s Use of a Resurrection Tradition in 1 Cor 15,20–28’, in The Corinthian Correspondence [ed. Reimund Bieringer; BETL 125; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996], 640) suggests that Paul did not use an introductory formula here because he was ‘citing or at least using material with which the Corinthians were familiar’. A similar explanation is offered by John Paul Heil, The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians (SBLSBL 15; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 206. 161.  Most scholars presume that the subject of ei)/ph is Scripture. Jan Lambrecht’s proposal (‘Paul’s Christological Use of Scripture in 1 Cor 15:20–28’, NTS 28 [1982]: 510) that the subject is Christ (‘When Christ shall have said: all things are subjected [to me]’) is implausible.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­151

22

for as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: the first fruits Christ, then those who belong to Christ at his coming. 24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For all things he has subjected under his feet. But when it says, All things have been subjected, it is clear that this does not include the one who subjected all things to him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then also the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all.162

Paul’s use of Scripture in this passage is varied. In vv.21-22, he uses scriptural typology. Adam, through whom death came into the world, is the type and Christ, through whom the resurrection of the dead has come, is the antitype.163 In v.25, Paul paraphrases Ps 110:1b (109:1 LXX), while in v.27 he paraphrases Ps 8:7 (8:6 Eng.), although the wording of the latter is closer to its scriptural Vorlage than that of the former. Both psalms are linked through their lexematic association, a common interpretative technique that resembles rabbinic gezerah shawah.164 In v.27b, he repeats a portion of Ps 8:7 in order to clear up a possible misunderstanding of its wording. His interpretative comments throughout, as already noted, either precede or follow the assertions derived from Scripture. First Corinthians 15:20-28 can therefore be described as a combination of implicit and explicit exegesis. Paul’s paraphrastic way of reproducing the wording of Scripture along with explicative comments here resembles the combination of rewritten Scripture and explicit commentary in 4QCommentary on Genesis A (4Q252). The formulaic introduction ‘but when it says’, followed by the repetition of a portion of a text already quoted, recalls the manner of quoting Scripture in the pesharim. In the Habakkuk Pesher, for example, a portion of Hab 2:2, which is quoted in 6.14–16, is repeated in 7.3; a portion of Hab 2:8, which is quoted in 8.15, is repeated in 9.3–4; and a portion of Hab 2:17, which is quoted in 12.1, is repeated in 12.6–7. Unlike the principal quotations, which are not preceded by introductory formulas, reiterated citations are introduced with the formulaic clause 162.  My translation. All references to 1 Cor 15:20-28 in this chapter are based on this translation. 163.  Cf. Rom 5:14, where Paul refers to ‘Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come’ ('Ada\m o(/j e)stin tu/poj tou= me/llontoj). 164. For a critique of the use of this technical term with respect to pre-rabbinic writings, see Avemarie, ‘Interpreting Scripture through Scripture’, 83–102.

152

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

‘and when it says’ (rm) r#)w) (1QpHab 7.3; 9.2–3; 12.6). The main difference between the Qumran scriptural commentaries and 1 Cor 15:20-28 is that in the former, scriptural texts set the interpretative agenda while in the latter, Paul’s theological claims generate the thematic framework within which a dialogue with Scripture takes place. The passage begins with Paul’s resolute affirmation of the reality of Christ’s resurrection (v.20). This claim represents the basic conviction that he shares with his Corinthian audience. Since the bulk of the argument deals with the implications of the imagery of Christ as the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep, which Paul introduces immediately after his affirmation of Jesus’ resurrection, most interpreters focus on its argumentative role within the rhetorical situation of Paul’s audience. Indeed, the metaphor of the first fruits, which is rooted in Israel’s custom of consecrating the first sheaf of the grain harvest,165 serves as a guarantee that the full harvest, i.e. the general resurrection, will follow. Such an argument is, it seems, primarily intended to convince an audience that denies the future resurrection of the dead. What is seldom taken into account is the significance that the resurrection of a single individual would have had within the worldview of a Jew who believed in the resurrection of the dead. It is unlikely that such a person would have needed assurance that the resurrection of the dead was inevitable. But such a person would probably have needed to clarify the unexpected division of a single eschatological event into two separate occurrences, the resurrection of an individual that had already occurred and the resurrection of others that was still in the future. Paul’s arguments in 1 Cor 15:20-28 reflect the two different conceptual frameworks within which he formulates his thoughts. In particular, he uses ideas that were developed to conceptualize Jesus’ resurrection in a specifically Jewish context in the service of an argument addressing a problem that had arisen in a specifically Hellenistic milieu. Even though Paul uses the term ‘first fruits’ (a)parxh/) several times in his letters (Rom 8:23; 11:16; 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15), he applies it to Jesus’ resurrection only in 1 Cor 15:20, 23. Related ideas appear in Rom 8:29, which presents Jesus as ‘the firstborn within a large family’ (prwto/tokon e)n polloi=j a)delfoi=j), Col 1:18, which portrays him as ‘the firstborn from the dead’ (prwto/tokoj e)k tw~n nekrw~n),166 Acts 26:23, which describes him as ‘the first to rise from the dead’ (prw~toj e)c a)nasta/sewj nekrw~n), and Rev 1:5, which calls him ‘the firstborn of the dead’ (o( prwto/tokoj tw~n nekrw~n).167 In these passages, Jesus is consistently portrayed as the ‘firstborn’ (prwto/tokoj) or simply the ‘first’ (prw~toj) to rise from the 165.  Cf. Exod 22:28; 23:19; 34:26; Lev 23:9-14; Num 15:18-21; Deut 18:4. 166.  Cf. Col 1:15, which describes Jesus as ‘the firstborn of all creation’ (prwto/tokoj pa/shj kti/sewj). 167.  Cf. also Heb 1:6 (‘when he brings the firstborn [prwto/tokon] into the world’).

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­153

dead. This concept of ‘firstness’ is preserved in the metaphor of the first fruits, but it is augmented with certainty that the rest will follow. Joseph Fitzmyer rightly emphasizes that ‘Christ was not only the “first” to be raised from the dead, but likewise the “pledge” or “guarantee” of the resurrection of all the Christian dead’.168 Paul supports the application of this imagery to Jesus (v.20) with parallel statements juxtaposing Adam, the type, with Christ, the antitype, through whom two radically different conditions – death and the resurrection of the dead – affect humanity (vv.21-22). Each statement highlights one point of similarity and one point of dissimilarity between Adam and Christ. The point of similarity in the first statement is that each was a human being through whom a basic condition of humanity entered the world. The point of dissimilarity is the character of this condition: through Adam came death, while through Christ came the resurrection of the dead. Here, however, the emphasis falls not on the simple contrast between these two states, which could easily have been achieved through the bare juxtaposition of life and death, but on the reversibility of death through the resurrection of the dead. Paul thus proclaims the eschatological reversal of the human predicament by simultaneously acknowledging the finitude that continues to characterize human existence. In the second statement, Paul declares that both Adam and Christ affect all human beings who are related to them by means of the prepositional phrases ‘in Adam’ (e)n tw|~ 'Ada/m) and ‘in Christ’ (e)n tw|~ Xristw|~). He does not explain the nature of this relationship. Nevertheless, in view of his claim in v.23 that the participants in the future resurrection of the dead will be ‘those who belong to Christ’, it is likely that the same idea underlies his assertion here.169 If so, the expressions ‘in Adam’ and ‘in Christ’ probably both have an incorporative sense, whereby the ancestor-descendant relationship is transferred to Christ and believers.170 This view is consonant with Jewish traditions envisaging the resurrection of the righteous, which were integral to Paul’s pharisaic worldview. Not surprisingly, then, the verbs ‘they will die’ (a)poqnh|/skousin) and ‘they will be made alive’ (zw|opoihqh/sontai) do not express a simple contrast 168. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 569. 169.  Pace Marlis Gielen, ‘Universale Totenauferweckung und universals Heil? 1 Kor 15,20–28 im Kontext paulinischer Theologie’, BZ 47 (2003): 86–104. Gielen argues that ‘[d]en Menschen, die ausnahmslos in Adam vom Tod betroffen sind, wird also ebenso ausnahmslos in Christus die künftige Auferweckung von den Toten zugesagt’ (90). She finds support for this idea of universal resurrection in L.A.B., 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. This reconstruction is problematic, however, because these three works were written in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce. 170. On the notion of corporate personality in the late Second Temple period, see Menahem Kister, ‘“In Adam”: 1 Cor 15:21-22; 12:27 in Their Jewish Setting’, in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar; JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 685–90.

154

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

between death and life but point to the reversibility of human mortality. While all people, including Christ himself, have to die by virtue of their descent from Adam, only those who are ‘in Christ’ will be made alive. The passive construction of the verb indicates that the restoration of life is an act of God (passivum divinum). It should be noted that 1 Cor 15:21-22 contains the earliest instance of Adam-Christ typology in Paul’s extant letters. The primary function of this typology here is to persuade the audience that the resurrection of Christ entails the resurrection of the dead. The analogy between Adam and Christ is probably derived from a presumed correspondence between Urzeit and Endzeit, but their comparison is at this point quite undeveloped. Paul neither discusses the relationship between sin and death nor relates resurrection to creation. He merely provides a scriptural analogy – a scriptural pattern that links the first human being to the rest of humanity – for the earliest understanding of Jesus’ resurrection as the beginning of the general resurrection. In 1 Cor 15:23-27a, Paul offers an outline of the future that has been put in motion with the resurrection of Jesus. He demarcates three principal events that will take place in an orderly fashion. The first is Jesus’ resurrection, which he denotes with the metaphor of the first fruits introduced in v.20. The second event is the resurrection of those who belong to Christ, which will take place at his coming. The third event is the end, when Christ ‘hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed all rule and all authority and power’. In v.26, Paul explains that ‘the last enemy to be destroyed is death’. Despite certain ambiguities in his formulations,171 the destruction of death most likely refers to the resurrection of the dead at Christ’s parousia. Accordingly, Paul appears to focus here on the period between the resurrection of Jesus and that of believers. His description of this interim period, including the testimony of Scripture he invokes, is replete with royal categories. Paul portrays Jesus, who is in this passage consistently called Xristo/j (vv. 20, 23),172 as the ruler of the temporary messianic kingdom (th\n basilei/an) who must reign (basileu/ein) until he destroys all his enemies.173 This description of Christ’s royal status is based on the assumption that at 171. The end, mentioned at the beginning of v.24, is followed by two o(/tan clauses suggesting that Christ will hand over the kingdom to God the Father and destroy all rule and all authority and power. However, the rest of Paul’s argument indicates that ‘these two items logically occur in reverse order’ (Fee, First Corinthians, 752). 172. The only exception is the absolute o( ui(o/j in v.28. The term Xristo/j appears also in vv.3 and 12-19. 173.  Fourth Ezra 7.26–28 and 2 Bar. 29.1–8 describe an intermediate messianic kingdom, which will be followed by a universal resurrection and the last judgment. Whether Paul was familiar with this type of apocalyptic is difficult to say. Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, 270) presumes that he was and suggests that Paul ‘takes over from the schema the notion that death is not annihilated until the end of the messianic kingdom. But he transposes this kingdom into the present.’

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­155

his resurrection Jesus became the messianic king who has since been reigning in his kingdom.174 The innovative aspect of Paul’s interpretation is his association of the portrayal of Jesus in Davidic terms with the presentation of Jesus as the antitype of Adam. As an appointed king, Christ is expected not only to destroy all his enemies but also to destroy death. In order to show that the latter also belongs to the list of Jesus’ messianic duties, Paul appeals to two scriptural texts, which he combines through their lexematic association. The first passage is Ps 110:1 (109:1 LXX). This is the ‘only scriptural text which explicitly speaks of someone enthroned beside God’.175 In its original literary context, this verse functions as the opening declaration of a pre-exilic royal psalm that legitimates a Davidic king in Jerusalem.176 Psalm 110:1 is infrequently mentioned in pre-Christian Jewish sources.177 When Jewish authors quote or allude to this text, which is not always easy to establish, they apply it to diverse figures, such as ‘one like a human being’ (Dan 7:13), who may have received one of the heavenly thrones mentioned in Dan 7:9, the ‘elect one’ or the ‘son of man’ who is seated on his own throne, regularly called ‘the throne of glory’, to judge nations and angels (1 En. 45.3; 51.3; 55.4; 61.8; 69.29), a vindicated righteous sufferer like Job (T. Job 33.3), David (b. Sanh. 38b), Abraham (b. Ned. 32b), or the Messiah (Midr. Pss. 18.29). These passages indicate that there was no prevalent, much less normative, interpretative tradition of Ps 110:1.178 Mark 12:35-37, however, seems to presume the ubiquity of messianic exegesis of Ps 110:1 in first-century Judaism.179 Although there is no direct evidence to corroborate this claim, David Hay suggests that messianic exegesis of this psalm in rabbinic literature ‘may attest messianic interpretation at a considerably earlier date’.180

174.  Pace David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 61–2. C. E. Hill (‘Paul’s Understanding of Christ’s Kingdom in I Corinthians 15:20–28’, NovT 30 [1988]: 317) rightly points out that ‘Paul understands the kingdom of Christ in I Cor. 15:24–28 to be Christ’s present, cosmic lordship which he exercises from heaven. It does not await the parousia for its inauguration, it is not a kingdom of this world comparable to those anticipated in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, but began with the resurrection . . . and the accession of God’s throne in heaven by the greater son of David.’ 175. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 26. 176. So most scholars. For a possible post-exilic origin of this psalm, see Bernhard Duhm, Die Psalmen: Erklärt (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1922), 398, 400. 177. For a survey and discussion of the available evidence, see Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 21–33. 178.  Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 139. 179. Even though the pervasiveness of the messianic exegesis of Ps 110:1 in nonChristian Judaism is not explicitly asserted in this passage, ‘the argument of Jesus about David’s son is most easily understood if a messianic interpretation prevailed’ (Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 30). 180. Ibid.

156

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

Early Christian authors not only frequently quote or allude to this psalm, but also consistently understand it as a messianic text. The number of explicit quotations of Ps 110:1 in the New Testament is relatively small: Mark 12:36 (par. Matt 22:44; Luke 20:42-43), Acts 2:34-35, and Heb 1:13 (without the opening clause, ei]pen o( ku/rioj tw|~ kuri/w| mou). The wording of each of these quotations agrees with that of Ps 109:1 LXX, with the exception of the article before the first ku/rioj, which is consistently omitted, and the substitution of u(poka/tw for u(popo/dion in Mark 12:36 and Matt 22:44. The latter variation is probably due to conflation of Ps 109:1 LXX with Ps 8:7, which appears in several New Testament passages, including 1 Cor 15:25-27.181 Allusions to Psalm 110:1 are much more frequent: Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69; Acts 2:33; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 3:21. These allusions exhibit considerable freedom in phrasing, but they regularly refer to Christ at the right hand of God. Some of these formulations agree with the LXX expression e)k deciw~n (Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69; Acts 7:5556), while others use the construction e)n decia|= (Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22) or th|= decia|= (Acts 2:33; 5:31).182 In 1 Cor 15:25, Paul rewrites rather than quotes Ps 109:1 LXX; yet he does so in such a way that the scriptural Vorlage remains easily recognizable.183 A comparison of the wording of these texts is instructive. Ps 109:1 LXX ei]pen o( ku/rioj tw|~ kuri/w| mou ka/qou e)k deciw~n mou e(/wj a2n qw~ tou\j e)xqrou/j sou u(popo/dion tw~n podw~n sou. 1 Cor 15:25 dei= ga\r au)to\n basileu/ein a)/xri ou[ qh|= pa/ntaj tou\j e)xqrou\j u(po\ tou\j po/daj au)tou=.

Paul omits the entire opening statement, ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand”’, and replaces it with the clause, ‘he must reign’. This terse assertion adequately captures the essential meaning of Christian application of Ps 110:1 to the risen Jesus. Juel notes that ‘the primary 181. Ibid., 35. Cf. Eph 1:20-22; Heb 1:13–2:8; 1 Pet 3:22. 182. Hay (Glory at the Right Hand, 35) suggests that ‘[t]hese divergences might have arisen because (1) the authors of the allusions utilized Greek versions which differed at this point, (2) they used the MT and translated en dexia, (3) they depended not directly on the psalm but on early Christian liturgical material which expressed the SESSION with dexia’. The first and second explanations are doubtful so far as the authors of Luke-Acts and Hebrews are concerned because these writers demonstrate familiarity with the wording of Ps 109:1 LXX when they quote from this verse in Acts 2:34-35 and Heb 1:13 respectively. It is more likely that ‘the source of many allusions is traditional material in which the language of Ps 110 has been fixed in distinctive ways’ (Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 136). 183. In his study, Paul and the Language of Scripture, Stanley does not consider 1 Cor 15:25 because it lacks an introductory formula and offers no other indication that Paul is quoting Scripture.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­157

importance of the verse lay in the imagery it provided: Jesus is enthroned at God’s right hand. The verse was also significant because it provided language with which to speak about the exalted Jesus. He is “lord,” the one addressed as such by the Lord God’.184 In 1 Cor 15:23-27a, however, Paul is interested neither in the idea of Christ’s exaltation at God’s right hand185 nor in the application of the title ‘Lord’ to Jesus but only in the inference that Christ now reigns. Paul uses the verb basileu/ein to link this text of Scripture to his previous claim that at the end Christ will hand over the kingdom (th\n basilei/an) to God the Father. He probably replaces e(/wj a!n with a)/xri ou[ to express more pointedly the chronological difference between Christ’s royal inauguration and the final defeat of his enemies.186 Paul seeks to show ‘that there must be an interval, a space of time, between the event of his [Christ’s] enthronement and the final completion of this task’,187 which in his argument refers to a time gap between the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of those who belong to Christ.188 Some changes (qw~ to qh|= and sou to au)tou=) are necessitated by the conversion of the original first-person address to the third person. The addition of pa/ntaj before tou\j e)xqrou/j and the alteration of the substantival construction u(popo/dion tw~n podw~n to the prepositional phrase u(po\ tou\j po/daj provide verbal links with the adaptation of Ps 8:7 in v.27. Paul’s use of Ps 8:7 is crucial to his argument in this passage, because his goal is not only to demonstrate that the chronological gap between Jesus’ resurrection and the resurrection of believers is based on Scripture but also to show that Christ’s defeat of his enemies is not limited to pa~san a)rxh\n kai\ pa~san e)cousi/an kai\ du/namin189 but includes the destruction of death. Without this component, which is derived from the all-inclusive pa/nta of Ps 8:7, the reference to putting all of the Messiah’s enemies under his feet could not have been applied to the general resurrection. 184.  Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 136. 185. Romans 8:34 is the only clear allusion to the risen Jesus at the right hand of God (Ps 110:1a) in the undisputed letters of Paul. 186. According to Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev. Gordon M. Messing; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), §2383, e(/wj denotes ‘time usually the same as that of the principal verb’, while a)/xri ou[ denotes ‘time subsequent to that of the principal verb’ (emphasis original). 187. N. T. Wright, ‘Adam in Pauline Christology’,’ in SBL Seminar Papers, 1983 (ed. Kent Harold Richards; SBLSP 22; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 366. 188.  Cf. Heb 10:12-13, which also emphasises the interval between Christ’s enthronement at the right hand of God and the making of his enemies into a footstool for his feet, but for different theological purposes. 189. Fitzmyer (First Corinthians, 572) suggests that these ‘are abstract terms for some sort of governing entities, probably supraterrestrial or even mythological, two of which are mentioned in Rom 8:38 along with angeloi, “angels”’. Hays (First Corinthians, 265) alleges that they are ‘cosmic spheres or forces arrayed in opposition to God (cf. Rom. 8:38; Col. 1:16, 2:10-15; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12), but they also have concrete political implications’.

158

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

In 1 Cor 15:27, Paul paraphrases Ps 8:7, but the wording of the text is so close to its scriptural Vorlage that most scholars regard it as an actual quotation. This can be seen clearly from a comparison of these texts. Ps 8:7 LXX 1 Cor 15:27

pa/nta u(pe/tacaj u(poka/tw tw~n podw~n au)tou= pa/nta ga\r u(pe/tacen u(po\ tou\j po/daj au)tou=

Paul makes only two alterations to Ps 8:7 LXX. He changes the secondperson u(pe/tacaj to the third-person singular verb u(pe/tacen to adapt the quotation to the literary context of 1 Corinthians 15,190 and he replaces the preposition u(poka/tw with u(po/ to create the identical phrase that appears in his paraphrase of Ps 110:1, thus facilitating the lexematic association of these texts.191 Paul’s paraphrastic use of Scripture here certainly confirms Ulrich’s thesis that in Second Temple Judaism it was the book, rather than its textual form, that was considered authoritative.192 The meaning of Ps 8:7 in 1 Corinthians 15 differs from its sense in the Jewish Scriptures in two significant ways. First, within the immediate literary context of Psalm 8, which celebrates God’s creative power, v.7 expresses the exalted status of humanity within the created order, while in its Pauline context it refers to the exalted status of the risen Jesus who is portrayed as the ruler of the temporary messianic kingdom. The transfer of the referent from humanity in toto to the royal Messiah is achieved through an association with Ps 110:1. Paul’s conflation of these two scriptural passages is based on the assumption that Scripture interprets Scripture; but in his argument Ps 8:7 is used to interpret Ps 110:1 rather than vice versa.193 Second, in the immediate literary context of Psalm 8, the scope of the things subjected to humanity is limited to such creatures of God as sheep and oxen, the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and fish of the sea (Ps 8:8-9). In its Pauline setting, however, the scope of pa/nta is expanded to include everything in the universe except God himself.

190. Despite Paul’s retention of the aorist tense, many scholars contend that u(pe/tacen refers to the future; see, for example, Lambrecht, ‘Paul’s Christological Use of Scripture’, 510; Fee, First Corinthians, 757–9. For a different view, see Boer, ‘Paul’s Use of a Resurrection Tradition’, 650–1. Boer explains the tension between the different tenses of u(pota/ssw in vv.27-28 as ‘a tension produced by Paul’s own argumentation between christological claim (Christ himself has already been raised from the dead and thus all things, including Death, have been placed under his feet) and its necessary soteriological implication (the [bodily] resurrection of the [physically] dead, signifying the destruction of Death on their behalf)’ (651; emphasis removed). 191. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 206–7. Stanley suggests that Paul preferred u(po/ in both quotations because this preposition is quite common in his letters. 192. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 93. 193.  Pace Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 37, who claims that ‘the two psalm texts interpret one another’.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­159

Paul’s interpretative statement in v.26, ‘the last enemy to be destroyed is death’, which he inserts between his adaptations of Ps 110:1 and Ps 8:7, is essential to a proper understanding of these verses. This insertion explains that personified death is to be counted among the enemies mentioned in Ps 110:1. Paul’s addition of the adjective pa/ntaj before tou\j e)xqrou/j expands the hermeneutical potential of this verse and enables him to identify death as one of the Messiah’s enemies. His paraphrastic quotation of Ps 8:7, with the emphatic pa/nta at the beginning of the clause, justifies his addition of the same term to his rewritten version of Ps 110:1. Indeed, if all of the Messiah’s enemies are subjected under his feet, then death must be included. Moreover, the addition of pa/ntaj after the temporal construction a)/xri ou[ qh|=, which directs attention to the end of Christ’s royal reign, corroborates Paul’s claim that death is not just one of the enemies to be destroyed, but the last one. These conclusions are supported by a comparison with other New Testament conflations of Ps 110:1 and Ps 8:7, none of which employ the interpretative technique described above. In Eph 1:20-22, the author conflates his allusion to Ps 110:1 (‘having seated [him] at his right hand’ [kaqi/saj e)n decia|= au)tou=])194 with a paraphrastic citation of Ps 8:7 whose wording is identical to 1 Cor 15:27. The author, however, neither mentions death nor posits any temporal limit to Christ’s rule, which is in keeping with his exclusive focus on the first part of Ps 110:1. He is not interested in relating Jesus’ resurrection to the general resurrection but only in asserting Christ’s universal authority above all powers in the universe. Hay notes that ‘[t]he reign of Christ thus designated with the psalm allusion is apparently conceived as inaugurated with, or immediately following, his resurrection, and nothing indicates that the future will bring any increment or termination to his rule’.195 The author of Hebrews cites Ps 109:1b LXX in 1:13 and Ps 8:7b LXX in 2:8, both times verbatim. Although these two quotations appear in relative proximity, they are separated by no less than eight verses discussing Jesus’ superiority to angels. In this context, the quotation of Ps 8:7 retains its original reference to humanity, while the author simultaneously applies the polyvalent ui(o\j a)nqrw/pou of Ps 8:5 to Jesus. In 1 Pet 3:22, the author conflates allusions to Ps 110:1 (‘at the right hand of God’ [e)n decia|~ tou= qeou=]) and to Ps 8:7 (‘made subject to him’ [u(potage/ntwn au)tw|~]), as a means of portraying the risen Jesus at the right hand of God, to whom all other authorities and powers, including the angels, are subjected. On the basis of the verbal and conceptual similarities between 1 Cor 15:2527, Eph 1:20-22, Heb 1:13–2:8, and 1 Pet 3:22 Martinus de Boer argues that ‘Paul is adapting and reinterpreting a christological tradition known

194.  My translation. 195. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 64.

160

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

to the Corinthians, not “Scripture” as such (except indirectly)’.196 This formulation is misleading, because Paul’s conflation of Ps 110:1 and Ps 8:7 differs significantly from those that appear in these other New Testament passages. Ephesians 1:20-22 is most likely dependent on 1 Cor 15:25-27.197 Both Heb 1:13 and 1 Pet 3:22 focus on Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand of God and not on the ‘until’ clause as Paul does. In all three passages, the conflation of Ps 110:1 and Ps 8:7 serves the purpose of emphasising Jesus’ supreme authority in the universe, but none of them relates the resurrection of Jesus to the general resurrection or the ultimate destruction of death. It is therefore more accurate to say that Paul shows familiarity with the interpretative tradition in which Ps 110:1 and Ps 8:7 are conflated, but that he adapts these scriptural texts independently for his own theological ends. Paul’s modification of Pss 110:1 and 8:7 in 1 Cor 15:23-27a creates a certain ambiguity regarding the agent who performs the subjection of Christ’s enemies/all things under his feet. While the original formulations of these texts – a divine oracle in Ps 110:1 and an expression of praise in Ps 8:7 – clearly distinguish God, who subdues the enemies/all things, from the beneficiaries of his action, this distinction disappears when these speeches are converted into third-person declarative statements. The most natural reading of 1 Cor 15:25 is to regard Christ as the implied subject of qh|=, because he is clearly the subject of the infinitival clause, ‘For he must reign’ (dei= ga\r au)to\n basileu/ein), as well as of the preceding statement, ‘after he has destroyed all rule and all authority and power’ (v.24).198 The implied subject of the verb u(pe/tacen in 1 Cor 15:27, however, is controversial. Some interpreters contend that the coherence of Paul’s argument requires Christ to be the subject.199 There are, however, two major reasons for supposing that the implied subject of this verb is God. First, it seems that in v.26 the passive voice of the verb katargei=tai signals a change of agency (passivum divinum). Even more pointedly, not only Paul’s Jewish worldview but also his understanding of Jesus’ resurrection indicates that, for him, God is the one who gives life to the dead. Christ may be the subjugator of all his enemies, but the ultimate defeater of death can only be God. Second, 1 Cor 15:27b-28 begins with a repetition of Ps 8:7b, now rephrased in the 196.  Boer, ‘Paul’s Use of a Resurrection Tradition’, 646. 197. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 206; Lambrecht, ‘Paul’s Christological Use of Scripture’, 508; Andrew T. Lincoln, ‘The Use of the OT in Ephesians’, JSNT 14 (1982): 41–2. 198. So most scholars. For the view that God is the subject of 1 Cor 15:25b, see Uta Heil, ‘Theo-logische Interpretation von 1 Kor 15,23-28’, ZNW 84 (1993): 27–35; Andreas Lindemann, ‘Parusie Christi und Herrschaft Gottes: Zur Exegese von 1 Kor 15,23–28’, WD 19 (1987): 87–107; Heil, The Rhetorical Role, 208, 210; Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief, 347. 199. A christocentric interpretation of 1 Cor 15:27 is vigorously argued by Lambrecht, ‘Paul’s Christological Use of Scripture’, 510–11.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­161

passive (pa/nta u(pote/taktai), and continues with the explanation that ‘the one who subjected all things to him’ is not included in the scope of pa/nta. The final statement in v.28 conclusively demonstrates that God is the one who will ultimately subject all things to Christ and that, in the end, Christ himself – here uniquely referred to as ‘the Son’ – will be subjected to God.200 Paul’s interpretative comments, which start with the ambiguous scriptural term pa/nta and finish with the reverberating theological claim i(/na h|} o( qeo\j ta\ pa/nta e)n pa~sin (‘so that God may be all in all’), provide a theocentric conclusion to an argument that began by articulating the tripartite division of the future that has been set in motion with Jesus’ resurrection.

6. The Last Adam In 1 Cor 15:44b-49 Paul returns to his Adam-Christ typology within a discussion of the nature of the resurrected body, which begins in v.35 with the questions, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?’. My objective here is not to explore this analogy in full but only to examine Paul’s use of Scripture with reference to the resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s concern in the second half of 1 Corinthians 15 is admittedly not christological but anthropological and soteriological. Even so, ‘it is widely and correctly recognized that his picture of the Christian resurrection body is modelled closely on what he thinks was and is true of Jesus’.201 This is the only section in the Pauline corpus in which Paul uses the terms sw~ma yuxiko/n (‘natural body’)202 and sw~ma pneumatiko/n (‘spiritual body’).203 Both designations are introduced in v.44 as the final set of a series of contrasting pairs set forth to illustrate the difference between earthly bodies (‘what is sown’) and post-resurrected bodies (‘what is raised’): perishable – imperishable, in dishonour – in glory, in weakness – in power, and natural body – spiritual body (vv.42-44). While Paul provides no justification for the other pairs, he does do so for the last one. His validation is based on ‘the principle that an opposite

200. For a similar coordination of messianic and divine activity, see Pss. Sol. 17.22– 46. The psalmist describes a series of actions that will be accomplished by the Davidic Messiah, who is called ‘their [Israel’s] king’ (17.21, 32). Yet, in the middle of his description of the Messiah’s deeds, the author declares that ‘the Lord himself is his king’ (17.34). Eventually he concludes that ‘the Lord himself is our king forevermore’ (17.46). 201. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 348. 202. NRSV: ‘physical body’. 203. Paul has already used the adjectives yuxiko/j and pneumatiko/j in 1 Cor 2:13-15 and 3:1 to distinguish those who are not able to receive the gifts of God’s Spirit and those who are open to the Spirit’s influence, respectively. However, only in 1 Corinthians 15 are these adjectives attached to the noun sw~ma.

162

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

presupposes its counterpart’,204 which is formulated as a first-class conditional clause, ‘If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.’205 Paul corroborates this conclusion with scriptural testimony introduced with the formulaic clause, ou(/twj kai\ ge/graptai.206 What follows is a combination of a direct quotation of Gen 2:7c, several scriptural allusions, and Paul’s own interpretive comments. The origin and the meaning of the expressions sw~ma yuxiko/n and sw~ma pneumatiko/n are controversial.207 Most interpreters, however, agree that both terms are related to the scriptural evidence that Paul provides in v.45. Indeed, the introductory clause, ou(/twj kai\ ge/graptai, indicates that scriptural testimony confirms the claim that if there is a sw~ma yuxiko/n there must also be a sw~ma pneumatiko/n.208 Of the two scriptural statements that Paul introduces to support this assertion, however, only the first is an actual quotation (e)ge/neto o( prw~toj a)/nqrwpoj 'Ada\m ei)j yuxh\n zw~san). Thus it is only the sw~ma yuxiko/n, whose existence is presupposed in the protasis of the conditional clause in v.44b, that receives direct scriptural justification. The second entity, sw~ma pneumatiko/n, whose existence Paul is seeking to demonstrate, is linked to a statement which, according to him, also comes from Scripture but which as such is nowhere to be found (o( e)/sxatoj 'Ada\m ei)j pneu=ma zw|opoiou=n). Reconstructing the text to which Paul alludes and the rationale for his subsequent claim that the spiritual does not precede but follows the natural is a daunting task. And yet, this very

204.  Garland, 1 Corinthians, 734. 205. Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 354) paraphrases Paul’s argument as follows: ‘If there is a soma psychikon, he declares – to which the answer is, of course there is; that is the normal sort of human soma, a body animated by the ordinary breath of life – then there is also a soma pneumatikon, a body animated by the Spirit of the living God, even though only one example of such a body has so far appeared.’ 206. Lindemann (Der Erste Korintherbrief, 360) notes that this formulation ‘ist als Zitateinleitung ganz ungewöhnlich’. Paul typically combines ge/graptai with either kaqw/j (Rom 1:17; 2:24; 3:4, 10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13, 33; 10:15; 11:8, 26; 15:3, 9, 21; 1 Cor 1:31; 2:9; 2 Cor 8:15; 9:9) or ga/r (Rom 12:19; 14:11; 1 Cor 1:19; 3:19; 9:9; Gal 3:10; 4:22, 27). 207. The main difficulty is defining sw~ma pneumatiko/n, because it ‘seems to attribute to soma a meaning that is diametrically opposed to “body”,’ as Fitzmyer (First Corinthians, 596) explains. This notion has been variously defined as a ‘Spirit-ruled sōma’ (Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:201), ‘a physical body renovated by the Spirit of God’ (Robert H. Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology [SNTSMS 29; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976], 165–6), ‘a human body as transformed by God through Christ for a new mode of existence, under the influence of Pneuma (Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 596), ‘a body animated by, enlivened by, the Spirit of the true God’ (Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 354), and ‘a body composed only of pneuma with sarx and psyche having been sloughed off along the way’ (Martin, The Corinthian Body, 126). 208.  Pace James D. G. Dunn, ‘1 Corinthians 15:45 – Last Adam, Life-Giving Spirit’, in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (ed. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 130.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­163

statement – that the last Adam became a life-giving spirit – not only lies at the heart of Paul’s argument but also provides christological validation for his discussion of the nature of the resurrected body. Although Paul quotes Gen 2:7c LXX verbatim in v.45, he supplements the text of this verse with two words, prw~toj and 'Ada/m. While the former term is most likely Paul’s own addition to the text, his insertion of the latter is probably dependent on a Greek version attested in Theodotion and Symmachus, both of whom read o( 'Ada\m a)n/ qrwpoj.209 The augmented wording of the quotation (e)ge/neto o( prw~toj a)n/ qrwpoj 'Ada\m ei)j yuxh\n zw~san) allows Paul to introduce ‘the last Adam’ (o( e)s / xatoj 'Ada/m) as the subject of the second clause in v.45, as well as to create the contrasting pair o( prw~toj a)n/ qrwpoj – o( deu/teroj a)n/ qrwpoj in v.47. The second statement in v.45 ([e)ge/neto] o( e)/sxatoj 'Ada\m ei)j pneu=ma zw|opoiou=n) is usually regarded as Paul’s free rendering based on Gen 2:7b LXX: kai\ e)nefu/shsen ei)j to\ pro/swpon au)tou= pnoh\n zwh=j. On this reading, Paul replaces pnoh/ with pneu=ma and zwh= with an adjectival participle of zw|opoie/w. This explanation, however, raises both terminological and conceptual questions. Why does Paul change pnoh\n zwh=j to pneu=ma zwopoiou=n? And if Paul understands the last Adam as the breath of God that gave life to the lifeless body of the first man, how can he say in the next verse that to\ pneumatiko/n, which is presumably a reference to the sw~ma pneumatiko/n, does not precede but follows to\ yuxiko/n? Satisfactory answers to these questions do not depend on our ability to reconstruct the most likely cause of Paul’s apparently polemical tone. We should be able to explain Paul’s hermeneutical reasoning regardless of whether he tried to repudiate, for example, Philo’s teaching of the creation of two men210 or to correct an inadequate understanding of Gen 2:7 on the part of the Corinthians.211 There is no doubt that Paul’s understanding of the chronological succession of the two types of bodies presumes that Christ as the last Adam appeared in human history after the first Adam. But how can this conclusion be warranted exegetically? 209. Stanley (Paul and the Language of Scripture, 208) suggests that ‘the ambiguous sense of the Hebrew Mdf)f (either a generic term or a proper name) lies behind the dual rendering in both texts’. 210.  C. K. Barrett, From First Adam to Last: A Study in Pauline Theology (New York: Scribner, 1962), 75; Birger A. Pearson, The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism (SBLDS 12; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1973), 15–26; Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief, 362; Richard A. Horsley, ‘Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status among the Corinthians’, HTR 69 (1976): 269–88; Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1284; Hays, First Corinthians, 273. 211.  Kister (‘“First Adam” and “Second Adam”’, 364) contends that 1 Cor 15:46 is ‘an exegetical comment on Gen 2:7: although in the biblical text “spirit” precedes “soul,” the “living soul” in the verse refers to the first Adam while the “life-giving spirit” refers to the last Adam’ (emphasis original).

164

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

It seems to me that no satisfactory explanation can be given as long as our attention is focused exclusively on the Genesis account. Paul’s exegetical activity makes sense only if we locate it within the stream of Jewish tradition that understands the resurrection of the dead as a new creation. The correlation of Urzeit and Endzeit is a common tenet of Jewish eschatological hope, but the conceptualization of the resurrection of the dead in terms of the creation accounts in Genesis is most prominent in 2 Macc 7:22-23; 14:46 and 4QPseudo-Ezekiela (4Q385).212 The mother in 2 Maccabees 7 encourages her dying sons by claiming that ‘the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of humankind and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again’ (kai\ to\ pneu=ma kai\ th\n zwh\n u(mi=n pa/lin a)podi/dwsin) (v.23). Likewise, the dying Razis in 2 Maccabees 14 calls upon ‘the Lord of life and spirit to give them [his entrails] back to him again’ (to\n despo/zonta th=j zwh=j kai\ tou= pneu/matoj tau=ta [ta\ e)/ntera] au)tw|~ pa/lin a)podou=nai) (v.46). The author of 4Q385 interprets Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones as referring to the resurrection of individual Israelites by explicitly linking it to Genesis 1 through the fulfilment formula, ‘And it was so’ (4Q385 frg. 2 lines 6–8). To these texts, which predate Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 15, we can add two passages from rabbinic literature, which incorporate the same exegetical tradition despite their significantly later date. In Gen. Rab. 14.5, the rabbis interpret Gen 2:7 as a passage that speaks about ‘two formations, one in this world and one in the future world’.213 They draw this conclusion on the basis of the two yods that appear in the spelling of the verb rcyyw (‘and he formed’) at the beginning of this verse and not in the spelling of the same verb in v.19, where it describes God’s formation of animals and birds. The rabbinic discussion is presented as a dispute between the schools of Shammai and Hillel about the character of the resurrected body. The school of Shammai argues that a man’s ‘formation in the next world will not be like that of this world’, while the school of Hillel argues that ‘[j]ust as he is formed in this world, so will he be formed in the next world’.214 Within this interpretative framework, the rabbis invoke Ezek 37:8 as a proof-text for the resurrection of the dead. A similar discussion is found in Lev. Rab. 14.9, but here in the context of the rabbinic interpretation of Lev 12:2. Ezekiel 37:8 is again invoked as a scriptural text that speaks of the resurrection of the dead. These passages from Jewish exegetical literature are relevant to 1 Cor 15:45b because the verb zw|opoie/w refers not to the creation of life, as in Gen 2:7, but to the restoration of life that has been terminated by death. In John 5:21, for example, this verb appears in close proximity to a

212. See Chapter 2 of this study. 213. Trans. H. Freedman, MidrRab 1:113. 214. Ibid.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­165

reference to the resurrection of the dead: ‘Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life (e)gei/rei tou\j nekrou\j kai\ zw|opoiei=), so also the Son gives life (zw|opoiei=) to whomever he wishes.’215 Paul’s usage is similar. In Rom 4:17 he portrays Abraham as the one who believed in God ‘who gives life to the dead’ (tou= zw|opoiou=ntoj tou\j nekrou/j), while in Rom 8:11 he declares that ‘he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also (zw|opoh/sei kai\ ta\ qnhta\ sw/mata u(mw~n) through his Spirit that dwells in you’. The confessional statement preserved in 1 Pet 3:18 (qanatwqei\j me\n sarki\ zw|opoihqei\j de\ pneu/mati) applies this verb directly to Jesus’ resurrection. The most relevant reference for our investigation, however, comes from 1 Cor 15:21-22, where Paul uses Adam-Christ typology. In this passage, ‘the resurrection of the dead’ (a)na/stasij nekrw~n) is equivalent to the claim that ‘all will be made alive’ (pa/ntej zw|opoihqh/sontai). In view of these considerations, Paul’s declaration that Christ as the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (pneu=ma zw|opoiou=n) should probably be understood as a creative explication of Gen 2:7 in light of the idea that the resurrection represents a new creation. Paul creates a midrash reasoning a minori ad maius, which replicates the structure of Gen 2:7c but uses different terms for its constitutive elements: the first Adam becomes the last Adam, yuxh/ becomes pneu=ma, and zw~san becomes zw|opoiou=n.216 Given the prominence of Ezekiel’s dry bones vision in the stream of Jewish tradition that understands the resurrection of the dead as new creation, which provides the conceptual framework for Paul’s interpretation, it is conceivable that he derived the term pneu=ma from Ezek 37:5-14, which describes the reviving of the dead by means of the pneu=ma (vv.5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 14) rather than the pnoh/ (Gen 2:7) of God. In fact, Gen. Rab. 14.8 ascribes precisely this reasoning to rabbinic interpretation of the clause, ‘and [he] breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’ (Gen 2:7b): ‘Because in this world [he was endowed with life] by breathing [therefore he is mortal]; but in the time to come he shall receive it as a gift, as it is written, And I will put My spirit into you, and ye shall live (Ezek. xxxvii, 14).’217 It is, of course, impossible 215.  Cf. also T. Gad 4.6, which speaks of dead persons who are called to life. 216. Robin Scroggs (The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966], 86) suggests that ‘Paul may conceivably be giving the Corinthians a transformed version of a rabbinic discussion about Gen. 2:7 found in Gen. R. XIV’. A similar explanation of Paul’s exegesis has recently been offered by Stephen J. Hultgren, ‘The Origin of Paul’s Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1 Corinthians 15.45–49’, JSNT 25 (2003): 359–66. In addition to Gen. Rab. 14.5, Hultgren also considers Gen. Rab. 8.1, which identifies the spirit of Adam as the Spirit from Gen 1:2 by which God created the world, and Midr. Pss. 139.6, which asserts that God fashioned man both for this world and the world to come, so that ‘God will not need to fashion man anew at the Resurrection because at the beginning of time He prepared man by two fashionings’ (trans. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 2:346–7). 217. Trans. H. Freedman, MidrRab 1:116.

166

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

to prove Paul’s familiarity with such an interpretation, but his contrast of yuxh\n zw~san and pneu=ma zw|opoiou=n, which corresponds to that of the mortal body and the resurrected body, bears a striking resemblance to the rabbinic discussion. Paul’s exegesis, it should be added, presumes that with the resurrection of Jesus the (eschatological) resurrection of the dead has begun. Christ as the last Adam became pneu=ma zw|opoiou=n because through him those who have died will be brought back to life.218 Such a reading of Scripture allows Paul to assert that to\ yuxiko/n precedes to\ pneumatiko/n chronologically. The adjectives yuxiko/n and pneumatiko/n, which Paul derives from the nouns yuxh/ and pneu=ma, enable him to express the difference between the mortal body and the resurrected body using the language of Scripture. In the discussion that follows (1 Cor 15:47-49), Paul continues to use the language of Genesis 1–2 to articulate the difference between Adam and Christ (who are here never referred to by their proper names), this time with regard to their respective origins. Each statement in this section consists of a claim about Adam that is derived from Scripture, and a counterclaim about Christ that is constructed on the basis of the principle a minori ad maius. In v.47, Paul uses the assertion o( prw~toj a)/nqrwpoj e)k gh=j xoi+ko/j, which is derived from Gen 2:7, to formulate a corresponding assertion, o( deu/teroj a)/nqrwpoj e)c ou)ranou=, which refers to the post-resurrection abode from which Jesus was expected to return at his parousia.219 In v.49, Paul uses an ei)kw/n-metaphor derived from Gen 1:26-27 to describe the resurrection of believers as the bearing of the ei)kw/n of the man of heaven. Paul’s main objective here, as elsewhere, is to express the impact Adam and Christ have on others. Many scholars believe that Paul’s portrayal of Christ as the last Adam was influenced by Philo’s interpretation of Genesis 1–2, even if only indirectly through reception of the latter by the Corinthian church.220 218. Dunn’s claim that ‘in 1 Cor. 15:45 pneu=ma zw|opoiou=n can only refer to the early believers’ experience of new life’ (‘1 Corinthians 15:45’, 132) is unwarranted by the context: 1 Corinthians 15 addresses the future resurrection of the dead rather than the Corinthians’ present experience of Jesus as Spirit. 219.  Cf. 1 Thess 1:10; 4:16-17; Phil 3:20-21. 220. One of the champions of this view is Richard Horsley, who claims that in Philo’s writings ‘we have paralleled all of the basic language of 1 Cor 15:44–54 except the pneumatikos-psychikos terminology’ (‘Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos’, 277). Horsley concludes that ‘the Corinthians used pneumatikos-psychikos along with the rest of these terms to make the same basic contrast between people of different levels of spiritual ability and attainment, different religious types of people, for whom the heavenly anthrōpos and the earthly anthrōpos were paradigmatic symbols in Philo’ (280). The most recent version of the view that Paul interacts with Philo’s teaching is offered by Stefan Nordgaard, ‘Paul’s Appropriation of Philo’s Theory of “Two Men” in 1 Corinthians 15.45–49’, NTS 57 (2011): 348–65. Nordgaard argues that Paul does not dismiss Philo’s theory but uses it ‘positively in his own exposition of how the doctrine of the resurrection should be rightly perceived’ (349). He concludes that ‘in the second half of 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is at work trying to convince his critics that even though Philo never speaks explicitly about a somatic

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

167­

The extent to which Philonic teaching had affected the believers at Corinth, if it had done so at all, is a question that lies beyond the scope of this project. A comparison with Philo, however, is an important step in locating Paul’s exegetical procedure within its Second Temple milieu, especially given the likelihood that Philo’s views reflect interpretative traditions that were not exclusively his own.221 Philo uses several terms that are similar to Paul’s: ‘the first man’ (o( prw~toj a)/nqrwpoj) (Opif. 136, 138, 140, 142, 145, 148, 151), ‘the second man’ (o( deu/teroj a)/nqrwpoj) (Leg. 2.5), ‘the heavenly man’ (o( ou)ra/nioj a)/nqrwpoj) (Leg. 1.31), and ‘the earthly man’ (o( gh/i+noj a)/nqrwpoj) (Leg. 1.31). His explanations of these terms, however, are not always consistent.222 In his treatise On the Creation of the World, Philo distinguishes between the man formed from clay, whose creation is narrated in Gen 2:7, and ‘the man that came into existence earlier (pro/teron) after the image of God’, whose creation is narrated in Gen 1:26-27 (Opif. 134).223 He describes the man from clay, who is in this treatise consistently called o( prw~toj a)/nqrwpoj,224 as ‘consisting of body and soul (e)k sw/matoj kai\ yuxh=j sunestw/j), man or woman, by nature mortal (fu/sei qnhto/j)’, and the man after God’s image as ‘an idea (i)de/a tij) or type (ge/noj) or seal (sfragi/j), an object of thought (only), incorporeal (a)sw/matoj), neither male nor female, by nature incorruptible (a)/fqartoj)’ (Opif. 134). Philo emphasises that the man portrayed in Gen 2:7 consists ‘of earthly substance’ (e)/k te gew/douj ou)si/aj) and of ‘divine spirit’ (pneu/matoj qei/ou).225 He further explains transformation in the context of his theory of the two men, he would nevertheless have agreed that virtuous people’s final and irrevocable conversion into ou)ra/nioi a)/nqrwpoi may take place through a pneumatic transformation of the flesh’ (364). For a critique of Paul’s presumed dependence on Philo, see Scroggs, The Last Adam, 87; Wright, ‘Adam in Pauline Christology’, 368; Hultgren, ‘The Origin’, 344–57; Fee, First Corinthians, 791; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 736; Berndt Schaller, ‘Adam und Christus bei Paulus: Oder: Über Brauch und Fehlbrauch von Philo in der neutestamentlichen Forschung’, in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen (ed. Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr; WUNT 172; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 143–53. 221. The clearest evidence that a notion of two different types of humankind ‘had become a standard concept in his [Philo’s] religions tradition’ (Horsley, ‘Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos’, 276) comes from QG 1.8, where Philo distinguishes between the opinions of other exegetes and his own view: ‘(Gen. ii.8) Why does He place the moulded man in Paradise, but not the man who was made in His image? Some, believing Paradise to be a garden, have said that since the moulded man is sense-perceptible, he therefore rightly goes to a sense-perceptible place. But the man made in His image is intelligible and invisible, and is in the class of incorporeal species. But I would say that Paradise should be thought a symbol of wisdom’ (trans. Marcus [LCL]). 222. For inconsistencies in Philo’s interpretations of Genesis 1–2, see Hultgren, ‘The Origin’, 345–54. 223. Unless indicated otherwise, all translations of Philo’s works in this section follow Colson (LCL). 224. Although in Leg. 2.5 Philo calls the earthly man o( deu/teroj a)/nqrwpoj, he never calls the heavenly man o( prw~toj a)/nqrwpoj. 225.  My translation. Colson has ‘Divine breath’.

168

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

that this divine spirit in the human being is the ‘the soul’ (yu/xh) that is invisible and as such immortal (Opif. 135), and concludes that man ‘was created at once mortal and immortal, mortal in respect of the body, but in respect of the mind immortal’ (Opif. 135). Philo treats the same topic in Allegorical Interpretation 1 and 2. Here he claims, again on the basis of his interpretation of Gen 2:7, that there are two races of men (ditta\ a)nqrw/pwn ge/nh): the heavenly man (o( ou)ra/nioj), who is made after the image of God and ‘altogether without part or lot in corruptible and terrestrial substance’, and the earthly man (o( gh/i+noj), who ‘was compacted out of the matter scattered here and there’ (Leg. 1.31). Here, however, Philo does not speak of a divine spirit but of ‘a power of real life’ (du/namin a)lhqinh=j zwh=j) that turns a man of clay into a soul (ei)j yuxh/n) (Leg. 1.32). Moreover, he explains that Gen 2:7 does not use the term ‘spirit’ (pneu=ma) but rather ‘breath’ (pnoh/) when describing the act of divine inbreathing because ‘the mind that was made out of matter must be said to partake of the light and less substantial air, as of some exhalation’, unlike the mind that was made after God’s image, which ‘might be said to partake of spirit, for its reasoning faculty possesses robustness’ (Leg. 1.42). This is why ‘the latter, even without urging, possesses virtue instinctively; but the former, independently of instruction, could have no part in wisdom’ (Leg. 1.92). Here Philo conceives of the heavenly and earthly men as the representatives of two types of human beings. This is even clearer in Leg. 2.4–5, which also speaks of ‘two races of men (du/o a)nqrw/pwn ge/nh), the one made after the (Divine) Image, and the one moulded out of the earth’. On the basis of these and other differences among Philo’s interpretations of Genesis 1–2 Hultgren rightly concludes that ‘the distinction between the heavenly and the earthly man in Legum allegoriae is no longer the ontological distinction of Op. Mund. 134 but, as it were, an ethical distinction’.226 Even this cursory review of Philo’s teaching reveals several key differences between his interpretation of Genesis 1–2 and Paul’s. Unlike Philo, who understands Gen 1:26-27 and 2:7 as creation accounts of two different men, one heavenly and the other earthly, Paul reads them as a coherent narrative about the creation of a single human being. He derives neither o( e)/sxatoj 'Ada/m (1 Cor 15:45) nor o( deu/teroj a)/nqrwpoj (1 Cor 15:47) from Genesis 1–2 but rather from his understanding of the resurrection as a new creation that surpasses the original one. The creation accounts thus provide for Paul only imperfect analogies for God’s new creative activity. While Philo distinguishes between the mortal body and the immortal soul, Paul distinguishes between the mortal sw~ma yuxiko/n and the immortal sw~ma pneumatiko/n. Whereas Philo’s tendency 226.  Cf. Hultgren, ‘The Origin’, 349–50. However, in view of Philo’s remark in Opif. 134 that the man after the God’s image ‘came into existence earlier (pro/teron)’ it would be erroneous to say that he shows no interest in the temporal sequence of the two men.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­169

to call the earthly man both ‘the first man’ (Opif. 136, 138, 140, 142, 145, 148, 151) and ‘the second man’ (Leg. 2.5) probably indicates his relative lack of interest in the temporal relationship between the man of clay and the heavenly man,227 the chronological sequence of two Adams is very important for Paul. At the same time, however, Philo clearly stresses the ethical, if not ontological, superiority of the heavenly man over the earthly man. Paul also emphasises the superiority of the heavenly man, but this superiority is not derived from the stuff of which he is made (i.e. his not partaking in corruptible and terrestrial substance) but from the fact that through him the resurrection of the dead has become available to all. Paul’s discussion is thus much closer to Jewish exegetical traditions that read Genesis 1–2 as a paradigm for the new creation through the resurrection of the dead than to the Philonic tradition of the creation of two men. This conclusion does not exclude the possibility that Paul was combating an influx of Philonic teaching into the Corinthian church, but we must be cognizant that any such reconstruction will always be tentative. Hay’s balanced judgment on this subject is worth quoting at some length: There seems to be no way to show conclusively that Paul had Philonic ideas in mind when he wrote about Christ as ‘the last Adam’ in 1 Cor 15. Clearly the apostle has a different agenda and orientation than his great Alexandrian contemporary. Above all he writes within a framework of eschatological faith that the resurrection of Jesus is the basis for confidence in, and interpretation of, the future resurrection of believers. . . . Yet Philo was a prominent figure in the Alexandrian Jewish community, and one can hardly prove that Paul or Christians in Corinth could not have known his writings . . . At the very least, Philo’s treatises suggest some problems the apostle and his congregations may have encountered in trying to interpret the human condition, and especially the conditions of believers, in a way that preserved continuity with the Jewish scriptures and was sensitive to questions of the Greco-Roman world.228

7. Conclusion Our earliest evidence, though sparse and fragmentary, indicates that conversation with Scripture played an important role in expressing the significance of the resurrection of Jesus. This chapter has identified several

227. Hultgren, ‘The Origin’, 350. 228. David M. Hay, ‘Philo’s Anthropology, the Spiritual Regimen of the Therapeutae, and a Possible Connection with Corinth’, in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen (ed. Roland Deines und Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr; WUNT 172; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 141–2.

170

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

thematic blocks that emerged from scripturally-informed theological reflection in early Christian communities. The first of these is the pervasive third-day motif, which appears in the pre-Pauline confessional material preserved in 1 Cor 15:3b-4, as well as in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. I have argued that the conviction that Jesus was raised on the third day cannot be derived from traditions of the discovery of the empty tomb or of appearances of the risen Jesus, but only from reflection on Israel’s Scripture. The available evidence points to Hos 6:2 as the principal scriptural text that informed early Christian understandings of the resurrection of Jesus in the light of Scripture. There are good reasons to suppose that the exegetical tradition of interpreting this verse as a reference to the resurrection of the dead, which is documented in the Targum to Hosea and the rabbinic writings, was already current in the first century ce. By declaring that Jesus was raised on the third day, early Christian interpreters expressed their fundamental conviction that the resurrection of Jesus marked the beginning of the general resurrection. This belief, however, had to be qualified in the light of two significant insights, one based on experience and the other resulting from theological reflection. On the one hand, early Christians, though convinced that the general resurrection had indeed begun with the resurrection of Jesus, were becoming increasingly aware that the completion of this event, marked by the resurrection of those who had believed in Jesus, had been postponed for an undisclosed period of time. While Paul still believed that this event would happen during his own lifetime, he nevertheless had to reckon with an ever-increasing time gap between the resurrection of Jesus and that of believers. On the other hand, although the resurrection of Jesus provided the model for imagining that of Christians, the former was nevertheless perceived as a singular event that uniquely disclosed Jesus’ identity. Two other pre-Pauline declarations examined in this chapter, Rom 1:3-4 and Phil 2:9-11, expound the implications of Jesus’ resurrection for early Christian perceptions of his identity. In both passages, the risen Jesus is portrayed as one upon whom was bestowed a status of unsurpassed dignity. Their scriptural antecedents and the images to which they give rise, however, are quite different. In Rom 1:3-4, which is based on a conflation of 2 Sam 7:12-14 and Ps 2:7, the risen Christ is presented as the enthroned Davidic Messiah who is adopted as the Son of God in power. A distinctly Christian appropriation of the promise tradition is discernible in this text’s literal understanding of the ‘rising up’ of the Davidic descendant, as well as in its interpretation of the resurrection as the exaltation/enthronement of the royal Messiah. In Phil 2:9-11, the exalted Jesus is portrayed as the recipient of God’s own ineffable name, rendered ku/rioj in Greek, which ascribes to him the position of cosmocrator. Through a midrashic interpretation of Isa 45:23 LXX, the author of this hymn distinguishes between the speaker (ku/rioj) and God

Resurrection and Scripture in the Pauline Epistles

­171

(qeo/j), who is mentioned at the end of the verse, which enables him to assert, without compromising the unity of God, that the entire universe will one day acknowledge the lordship of Jesus Christ. A distinctly Pauline interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection in the light of Scripture is found in 1 Cor 15:20-28, 44b-49. In both passages, Paul advances an Adam-Christ typology, which enables him to explore the link between Jesus’ resurrection and the resurrection of believers. In 1 Cor 15:20-28, the primary purpose of this typology is to support Paul’s portrayal of Christ as the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep, which is the dominant imagery of the section. The bulk of the passage is devoted to a description of the tripartite division of the future that has been set in motion with the resurrection of Jesus. The thrust of Paul’s argument lies in the inevitability of the ultimate destruction of death, which he supports by conflating Ps 110:1 and Ps 8:7. In 1 Cor 15:44b49, Paul portrays Jesus as the last Adam who became a life-giving spirit. I have argued that Paul corroborates this conclusion not only through a christological interpretation of Gen 2:7 but also through a creative employment of the language of Ezek 37:5-14, in which he, like most of his contemporaries, probably saw a literal description of the resurrection of the dead. It is certainly remarkable that Paul uses Scripture with regard to the resurrection of Jesus primarily in the service of elaborating its implications for believers. This is visible even in the christologicallyfocused discussion in 1 Cor 15:23-28. By depicting the risen Christ as one who ‘must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet’ (v.26), Paul seeks to demonstrate through the language of Scripture that the Messiah’s defeat of his adversaries will include even death. Paul incorporates the traditional portrayal of the risen Jesus whose messianic reign had begun with his resurrection, but he combines it with a depiction of Jesus as the antitype of Adam to show that Christ’s mission will be accomplished only with the ultimate destruction of death, that is, with the resurrection of those who belong to him.

Chapter 4 Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels 1. Introduction N. T. Wright claims that ‘[t]he first surprise when we read the resurrection stories in the canonical gospels ought to be that they are told with virtually no embroidery from biblical tradition’.1 In his view, this is remarkable for two reasons. First, while the gospel passion narratives are embellished with scriptural quotations, allusions, and echoes, ‘the resurrection narratives convey the naked feeling of a solo flute piping a new melody after the orchestra has fallen silent’.2 Second, since from the very beginning Jesus’ resurrection was understood to have taken place ‘in accordance with the Scriptures’ (1 Cor 15:4), it would have been easy ‘to have the story told in the elevated and dignified language of the fulfillment of prophecy’, along the lines of 1 Macc 14:4-15.3 Wright’s lament about something that could easily have been done but was never realized is only partially justified. It is certainly true that none of the canonical Easter narratives are ‘in themselves works of midrash or exegesis’, but they nevertheless contain several references to Scripture, as Wright himself acknowledges.4 Mark’s Gospel is the only gospel that contains no recognizable scriptural allusion. Matthew’s account, despite containing none of his famous fulfilment quotations, includes a curious episode about the resurrection of saints who come out from the tombs on the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Matt 27:52-53). This report uses the imagery of the opening of graves from Ezek 37:12 and of the rising of the dead from Isa 26:19 and Dan 12:2 to show that Jesus’ resurrection signals the beginning of the resurrection of the righteous. Moreover, the only appearance of the risen Jesus to the eleven disciples reported in Matthew, in which he declares, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me’ (Matt 28:28), is an allusion to Dan 7:14. In Luke’s Gospel, the resurrected Jesus explains to the two confused disciples on the Emmaus road that it was necessary for the Messiah to ‘suffer these things and then enter his glory’ by interpreting for them ‘the 1. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 599. 2. Ibid., 600. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid., 601.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels

­173

things about himself in all the Scriptures’ (Luke 24:26-27). Likewise, when Jesus appears to the gathered disciples, he explains to them that ‘it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day’ (Luke 24:46). It is true that no specific text is indicated, but the appearance of the third-day motif betrays not only the influence of 1 Cor 15:4 but also of Hos 6:2, as I have argued in the previous chapter. In addition, Wright suggests that the opening of the eyes of Cleopas and his companion (most likely his wife) after breaking bread with Jesus echoes the opening of the eyes of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden after their consumption of the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:7). While the result of the latter is ‘new and unwelcome knowledge’ of the first couple’s own nakedness, the result of the former is ‘new and deeply welcome knowledge’ attained in the recognition of Jesus, which signals ‘the start of the new creation’.5 In the Fourth Gospel, after narrating how the beloved disciple entered the empty tomb and believed, the evangelist adds the following remark: ‘for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead’ (John 20:9). If e)pi/steusen in John 20:8 refers to ‘a full blown belief in the risen Jesus, not to an inadequate belief that is too much dependent on the visible’, as Maarten J. J. Menken and many other interpreters assume,6 then the narrator’s comment about Peter and the beloved disciple not yet understanding the Scripture remains puzzling. Menken’s own proposal that ‘20,9 cannot possibly say that the beloved disciple still did not understand Scripture as bearing witness to Jesus’ resurrection’, and that therefore ‘[t]his verse can only depict a situation that had ceased to exist at the moment he believed in the risen Jesus’,7 is implausible if the conjunction ga/r retains its usual explanatory force. Rather, under the assumption that the beloved disciple acquired resurrection faith, ‘this verse may be claiming that although the beloved disciple’s faith is a paradigm, it is still signs-faith, faith based on seeing (20:8), not the ultimate level of faith (cf. 2:23; 6:30)’, as Craig Keener proposes.8 Similarly, Craig R. Koester argues that ‘[t]he Beloved Disciple may have seen and believed, but it was not a faith that entailed much 5. Ibid., 652. 6.  Maarten J. J. Menken, ‘Interpretation of the Old Testament and the Resurrection of Jesus in John’s Gospel’, in RNT, 202. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray; Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 684; Robert Mahoney, Two Disciples at the Tomb: The Background and Message of John 20.1–10 (TW 6; Bern: H. Lang, 1974), 263–4; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 561; Charles H. Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles (rev. ed.; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 259; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003), 2:1184. 7.  Menken, ‘Interpretation of the Old Testament’, 203. 8.  Keener, The Gospel of John, 2:1184.

174

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

comprehension or resulted in the announcement of resurrection’.9 The most natural reading of 20:9, however, is that it supplies the reason why neither Peter nor the beloved disciple came to resurrection faith merely by seeing that the tomb was empty.10 In view of the earlier remark in John 2:22 that after Jesus’ resurrection his disciples ‘believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken’, John 20:9 seems to refer to a situation not yet characterized by a proper understanding of Scripture on the part of the disciples. As Johannes Beutler fittingly notes, ‘[t]he two disciples at the tomb had not yet understood the message of scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead, and so they could not interpret the empty tomb in the right way’.11 Although the evangelist does not provide any hints about which specific passage(s) he has in mind when he asserts that Scripture testifies that Jesus ‘must rise from the dead’ (20:9), he plainly declares that belief in Jesus’ resurrection is the only perspective from which Scripture can be understood correctly. In addition to the explicit reference to Scripture in John 20:9, John Painter detects an echo of the creation motif of Gen 2:7 in John 20:22, because both verses share the verb e)nefu/shsen. He argues that Jesus’ bestowing of the life-giving Spirit on his disciples ‘announces a new development in which human life is elevated to a new level. . . . The intertextual resonance between Gen 2:7 and John 20:22 unveils a progressive theme, from old to new creation or, better still from incomplete creation towards the fulfillment of creation’.12 The Fourth Gospel thus differs little from the Synoptic Gospels with respect to the role of Scripture in the resurrection narratives.13 In each of these works, the accounts of the empty tomb and the appearance stories are told with minimal use of scriptural imagery. Nevertheless, all four 9.  Craig R. Koester, ‘Jesus’ Resurrection, the Signs, and the Dynamics of Faith in the Gospel of John’, in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John (ed. Craig R. Koester and Reimund Bieringer; WUNT 222; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 69. 10. The most persuasive argument for this interpretation is offered by James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995), 77–118, who insists that ‘[t]he prima facie meaning of this verse is that the Beloved Disciple and Peter did not believe in Jesus’ resurrection at that point in the narrative, because they were ignorant of the scriptural proof of Jesus’ resurrection. Thus 20:9 cannot be ignored, removed, or attributed to a foolish redactor. If one intends to observe the contextual force of this verse, then one cannot exegetically conclude that resurrection faith was advocated by the Beloved Disciple who merely did not know the appropriate scriptural proof text’ (77). 11.  Johannes Beutler, ‘The Use of “Scripture” in the Gospel of John’, in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (ed. R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 152. 12.  John Painter, ‘“The Light Shines in the Darkness . . .”: Creation, Incarnation, and Resurrection in John’, in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John (ed. Craig R. Koester and Reimund Bieringer; WUNT 222; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 45. 13.  Pace Menken, ‘Interpretation of the Old Testament’, 198–205, who downplays the significance of Jesus’ resurrection in John’s Christology.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels

­175

emphasise that Scripture as a whole bears witness to Jesus’ resurrection, though this is presumed rather than explained. Paradoxically, the explicit use of Scripture in relation to Jesus’ resurrection is more prominent in the narratives that lead up to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. All three Synoptic Gospels contain predictions of both the passion and the resurrection that incorporate the third-day motif that derives from Hos 6:2. Regardless of whether one agrees with Rudolf Bultmann that ‘the idea of a suffering, dying, rising Messiah or Son of Man’ originated not with Jesus himself but with his followers ‘ex eventu’14 or with Craig A. Evans that ‘Jesus in all probability spoke of suffering and the possibility of death . . . reassuring his disciples that his vindication would take place in short order’,15 the formulations of these predictions throughout the New Testament betray a post-Easter perspective that has been influenced by the confession of Jesus’ resurrection on the third day, preserved in 1 Cor 15:4. Since this material has already been included in the preceding analysis of the thirdday motif, there is no need to review it here. There are, however, two thematic clusters employing the third-day motif that merit independent investigation. The first entails the notion that the Son of Man is to remain in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, which is in Matt 12:38-42 linked to the sign of Jonah. The second involves Jesus’ claim that he will destroy the temple and build it (or another) in three days (Mark 14:58; Matt 26:61; John 2:19).

2. The Sign of Jonah The mysterious ‘sign of Jonah’ (to\ shmei=on 'Iwna~) is mentioned twice in Matthew (12:39; 16:4) and once in Luke (11:29). In each instance, it is preceded by a demand for a sign, which Jesus refuses to give. A similar account is preserved in Mark 8:11-12, but in this passage Jesus’ refusal is absolute. Jesus resolutely rejects the request to produce ‘a sign from heaven’, declaring, ‘Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation’ (Mark 8:12).16 In Matthew and Luke, however, Jesus first refuses to produce a sign (‘no sign will be given to it’; Matt 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29) but then adds the exception clause, ‘except the sign of Jonah’ (ei) mh\ to\ shmei=on 'Iwna~ [Matt 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29]). 14.  Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:31. 15. Evans, ‘Did Jesus Predict’, 97. 16.  John S. Kloppenborg (The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections [SAC; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], 129) argues that Mark ‘abbreviated an originally longer tradition concerning the Sign of Jonah, leaving only the flat refusal of a sign. It is also conceivable that Mark . . . omitted it either because of his aversion to public disclosures, or because he found the phrase unintelligible.’ For a different view, see Burton L. Mack, ‘Q and the Gospel of Mark: Revising Christian Origins’, Semeia 55 (1991): 30.

176

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

Moreover, Matthew (in the longer version of the logion) and Luke supply explanations of the content of the sign. Matthew compares the sojourn of Jonah in the belly of the sea monster with that of the Son of Man in the heart of the earth (12:40), while Luke compares Jonah himself as ‘a sign to the people of Nineveh’ with the Son of Man as a sign ‘to this generation’ (11:30). The respective structures of Matt 12:38-40 and Luke 11:16, 29-30 are thus very similar: (1) a demand for a sign, (2) a refusal, (3) an exception clause, and (4) an explanation. Both passages also add two sayings (in reverse order) about the people of Nineveh and the queen of the South who will ‘rise (up) at the judgment’ and condemn ‘this generation’ (Matt 12:41-42, Luke 11:31-32), but these are less important for the present study. Below is a parallel presentation of all four relevant passages. Mark 8:11-12

Matt 12:38-40

Matt 16:1, 4

Luke 11:16, 29-30

11

38

1

16

The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, asking him for a sign from heaven, to test him. 12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, ‘Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.’

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, ‘Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.’ 39 But he answered them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.’

The Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test Jesus they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. . . . 4 ‘An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.’

Others, to test him, kept demanding from him a sign from heaven. . . . 29 When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, ‘This generation is an evil generation; it asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. 30 For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to this generation.’

Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels

­177

In all four versions, the point of the demand is that Jesus should do or cause something to happen that will prove beyond doubt both his authority and the validity of his claims. This is especially evident in the strikingly similar literary contexts of Matt 12:38-40 and Luke 11:16, 29-30. Both Matthew and Luke place the saying directly after the questioning of Jesus’ authority in the Beelzebul controversy. Yet the referent of the sign of Jonah itself, which Jesus announces as the only sign that will be given to ‘an evil [and adulterous] generation’, is difficult to determine, especially in Luke 11:29-30, which is generally regarded as more primitive and closer to Q. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf emphasises that ‘shmei=on takes on the significance of a very general framework which, when the demand for it is raised, must be filled in a way which corresponds to the existing situation if the desired goal is to be reached’.17 The announced occurrence must be comprehensible to the audience in order to function as a sign in the technical sense of the term. Yet, even if the intelligibility of the sign of Jonah is presumed for the characters in Luke’s narrative as well as for his implied audience, the number and diversity of modern proposals concerning its meaning suggests that this is no longer retrievable.18 While it is possible to interpret the sign of Jonah in Luke 11:30 as a reference to Jesus’ resurrection,19 the association of the former with the latter seems to be presumed in Matt 12:40. Admittedly, the actual comparison in Matthew does not include an explicit reference to Jonah’s deliverance, but the limitation of Jesus’ sojourn ‘in the heart 17.  Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, ‘shmei=on, ktl’, TDNT 7:235. 18. The sign of Jonah has been interpreted variously as the sign of John the Baptist (Benjamin W. Bacon, ‘What Was the Sign of Jonah?’, BW 20 [1902]: 99–112; J. H. Michael, ‘The Sign of Jonah’, JTS 21 [1920]: 146–59), the sign of the dove, namely Israel (John Howton, ‘The Sign of Jonah’, SJT 15 [1962]: 288–304), the miraculous rescue of Jonah from the belly of the fish (Joachim Jeremias, 'Iwna~j’, TDNT 3:409), ‘Jonah himself . . . in the singularity of his historical manifestation’ (Rengstorf, TDNT 7:233), the preaching of repentance (T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus: As Recorded in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke [London: SCM, 1949], 90–91; R. B. Y. Scott, ‘The Sign of Jonah: An Interpretation’, Int 19 [1965]: 18; Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 132–3; Richard Alan Edwards, The Sign of Jonah in the Theology of the Evangelists and Q [SBT 18; London: SCM, 1971], 94–5), the preaching of judgment (John Nolland, Luke [WBC 35; 3 vols; Dallas: Word, 1989–93], 2:652–3), or the coming of the Son of Man as the eschatological judge (Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition [trans. John Marsh; New York: Harper and Row, 1963], 117–18). 19.  Jeremias, for example, argues that in Luke 11:30, ‘the tertium comparationis is that Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, obviously as one who had been delivered from the belly of the fish, and that Jesus will be displayed to this generation as the One who is raised up from the dead’ (TDNT 3:409). See also Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 433; James Swetnam, ‘No Sign of Jonah’, Bib 66 (1985): 126, 129. For a critique of this interpretation, see George M. Landes, ‘Jonah in Luke: The Hebrew Bible Background to the Interpretation of the “Sign of Jonah” Pericope in Luke 11.29–32’, in A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr; JSOTSup 225; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 137–9.

178

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

of the earth’, which most likely refers to his burial,20 to three days and three nights suggests the idea of resurrection.21 This rendering of the sign of Jonah, which is of special interest for the current study, will be explored in greater detail below. Matthew’s interpretation is generally regarded as a secondary development of the sign of Jonah tradition.22 Matthew introduces the incident by ascribing the demand for a sign to some of the scribes and Pharisees (12:38).23 Unlike all other versions of this request, which specify that Jesus is asked to produce ‘a sign from heaven’ (shmei=on a)po\ tou= ou)ranou= [Mark 8:11]; shmei=on e)k tou= ou)ranou= [Matt 16:1]; shmei=on e)c ou)ranou= [Luke 11:16]), Jesus’ adversaries in Matt 12:38 want to see merely ‘a sign from you’ (a)po\ sou= shmei=on). Moreover, Matthew adds to the Q material, which most likely underlies his and Luke’s versions of this incident, the designation tou= profh/tou after 'Iwna~ (v.39). The Matthean exception clause thus asserts that the only sign that will be given to an evil and adulterous generation is ‘the sign of the prophet Jonah’. Both alterations suggest that the Matthean Jesus is not asked to produce a miraculous sign, but a prophetic one that will validate his prophetic claim.24 In his analysis of the role of signs in the prophetic tradition, Wolfgang J. Bittner distinguishes between the announcement of a sign and its realization. The former is a context-creating act that unequivocally transforms a certain event into a sign. The ‘sign’ that validates a prophetic claim may be miraculous, but does not have to be so. What matters is that the prediction of an event is followed by its actual occurrence. The miraculous element consists in the miraculous nature not of the sign itself but of the knowledge of its materialization.25 The instructions about false prophets in Deut 13:1-5 confirm that the sequence announcement20. Ulrich Luz (Matthew 8–20: A Commentary [trans. James E. Crouch; ed. Helmut Koester; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001], 217 n.41) contends that ‘we cannot, as many ancient interpreters did, understand e0n th|= kardi/a| th=j gh=j to refer to the descent into hell because the grave is on the earth’s surface. This would misunderstand the symbolic character of the expression.’ 21. Edwards speaks for many when he asserts, ‘But, of course, the three days and nights also signify that there will be an end to the “death” and that the Son of Man will return to life just as Jonah returned. The Sign of Jonah, then is his return to life after a short time of death’ (The Sign of Jonah, 98; emphasis original). 22. In his redaction-critical study, Edwards claims that ‘Matthew represents the latest stage in the development of the Sign of Jonah’ (The Sign of Jonah, 96). 23.  Cf. Matt 16:1, which ascribes the demand for a sign to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Luke 11:16 speaks simply of ‘others’ who demanded a sign from heaven ‘to test him’. 24. Olof Linton, ‘The Demand for a Sign from Heaven (Mark 8,11–12 and Parallels)’, ST 19 (1965): 112–29. 25. Wolfgang J. Bittner, Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium: Die Messias-Erkenntnis im Johannesevangelium vor ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund (WUNT II/26; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987), 17–87.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels

­179

realization is inherent in the nature of a sign. The possibility of a prophet or diviner who announces a ‘sign or wonder’ (tpwm w) tw); shmei=on h2 te/raj [LXX]) leading people astray is taken to be a real danger because the text presumes that the announcement of a sign followed by its materialization might be taken as an authentication of the prophetic claim.26 In Matthew 12, the demand for a sign is preceded by Jesus’ healing of a blind and mute demoniac (v.22), which provokes speculation about his Davidic messiahship (v.23) and the subsequent Beelzebul controversy (vv.24-37). Since Jesus has just performed a miracle, he is not asked to do more miracles, but to perform another kind of act that would have the character of a sign. In response, Jesus announces the sign of the prophet Jonah by quoting Jonah 2:1b LXX (1:17b Eng.) verbatim. This quotation replaces the somewhat ambiguous statement that ‘Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh’ in an earlier version of the logion (Q 11:30). Richard Alan Edwards appropriately remarks that ‘Matthew has chosen to concentrate on the fish incident in the Jonah saga and not on the Ninevite experience’.27 In Matt 12:40, Jonah, who spent three days in the belly of the sea monster, functions as the type, while the Son of Man, who will spend an equal number of days and nights in the grave, is the antitype.28 Edwards calls this form of comparison ‘eschatological correlative’. He alleges that unlike the standard correlative form, ‘As is the case with A, so it is with B’, which is quite common in Koine Greek, the eschatological correlative contains the present or past tense in the principal clause and the future tense in the comparative clause.29 However, in none of the New Testament examples of the eschatological correlative that Edwards identifies30 is the 26. This structure (announcement-realization) can be found in various scriptural passages, such as Exod 10:1-2; Deut 34:10-11; Isa 7:10-16. Cf. Sir 45:3; L.A.B. 9.7, 10; Josephus, Ant. 18.85–87; 20.97–99, 169–172; b. Sanh. 98a. 27. Edwards, The Sign of Jonah, 98. 28.  Pace Jonathan L. Reed, ‘The Sign of Jonah (Q 11:29–32) and Other Epic Traditions in Q’, in Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack (ed. Elizabeth A. Castelli and Hal Taussig; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1996), 131, who asserts that the quotation of Jonah 2:1 in Matt 12:40 ‘allegorically interprets the meaning of the sign as Jesus’ own prediction of his resurrection’. 29. Edwards, The Sign of Jonah, 49. Edwards calls the principal and comparative clauses ‘protasis’ and ‘apodosis’ respectively, but these terms are more appropriate for conditional clauses. Daryl Schmidt (‘The LXX Gattung “Prophetic Correlative”’, JBL 96 [1977]: 517–22) labels this construction the ‘prophetic correlative’ and argues that it is common in the LXX. Kloppenborg (The Formation of Q, 130 n.127) also finds this form in two Qumran documents: 1Q27 1.6 and 4Q246 2.1–2. 30. Edwards (The Sign of Jonah, 49–52) recognizes the eschatological correlative form (kaqw/j [w3sper, w(j] – verb in a past or present tense = ou(/twj [kata\ ta\ au)ta/] – e1stai – o( ui(o\j tou= a)nqrw&pou) four times in Q (Luke 11:30//Matt 12:40; Luke 17:24//Matt 24:27; Luke 17:26//Matt 24:37; Luke 17:28, 30//Matt 24:38-39), once in the Synoptics outside of Q (Matt 13:40-41), and three times in the letters of Paul (Rom 5:19; 1 Cor 15:22, 49).

180

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

leading clause formulated as a direct scriptural citation except in Matt 12:40. As a result, the wording of the quotation governs the comparison because Matthew insists that the length of Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the sea monster is equal to the length of time between Jesus’ death and resurrection not only with regard to the number of days but also with regard to the number of nights.31 For some interpreters, however, this correspondence creates no small problem. R. B. Scott, for example, declares that ‘[o]nly by the most tortuous and improbable exegesis can the period of time between the eve of the Sabbath and the first day of the week be equated with “three days and three nights.” The phrase is not equivalent in meaning to “on the third day” in any language.’32 Matthew 27:63-64, however, indicates that the evangelist uses a variety of three- and third-day formulations as virtual synonyms. In this passage, the chief priests and the Pharisees ask Pilate to secure the tomb into which Jesus’ corpse had been laid because he had claimed that ‘after three days’ (meta\ trei=j h(me/raj) he would rise again (v.63). In Matthew’s narrative, this allegation is directly related to Jesus’ explanation of the sign of Jonah in 12:40 in that his dialogue partners in this conversation are the Pharisees. Each of Jesus’ predictions of his resurrection in the presence of his disciples employs the phrase th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| (16:21; 17:23; 20:19). Matthew 27:63 thus confirms that Jesus’ adversaries understand the citation of Jonah 2:1 as a prediction of his resurrection. What is strange, however, is that they request that the tomb be secured ‘until the third day’ (e(/wj th=j tri/thj h(me/raj) in order to prevent the disciples from stealing Jesus’ body and deceitfully proclaiming his resurrection (v.64). While we might expect, given Jesus’ 31. The suggestion of George M. Landes (‘Matthew 12:40 as an Interpretation of “The Sign of Jonah” against Its Biblical Background’, in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth [ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; ASORSS 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983], 669) that Matthew may ‘have understood another inference as more important in this context, an inference based not upon the three-days, three-nights motif, but upon the locative expressions, the interest being in what happened “in the belly of the sea monster” and “in the heart of the earth” while Jonah and the Son of Man were in these places’ (emphasis original) has no basis in the text. 32. Scott, ‘The Sign of Jonah’, 18. Evan Fales (‘Taming the Tehom: The Sign of Jonah in Matthew’, in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave [ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery J. Lowder; Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005], 322) insists that three days and three nights cannot be reconciled with Matthew’s chronology, which presumes that Jesus spent in the grave ‘two nights, a full day, and a bit (3 hours) of a second day – or, very nearly, half of a period of three days and three nights’. This incongruity was also a problem for the earliest interpreters. For example, Didascalia Apostolorum 21.14 asserts that the hours during which Jesus was crucified count as one day, the hours of darkness that began at noon on Friday as one night, the rest of Friday afternoon as another day, the night between Friday and the day of the Sabbath as a second night, the day of the Sabbath as a third day, and the night following the Sabbath as a third night. For other examples of early Christian attempts to solve the ‘three days and three nights’ problem, see A. K. M. Adam, ‘The Sign of Jonah: A Fish-Eye View’, Semeia 51 (1990): 182–3.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels

­181

claim that he would rise after three days, that the tomb would have been secured until the fourth day, Matthew appears to understand the phrases meta\ trei=j h(me/raj and e(/wj th=j tri/thj h(me/raj as synonymous. It seems that Matthew intends each of his three-day formulations to have the same function, namely, to specify the day of Jesus’ resurrection. It is therefore hardly surprising that he sees in the account of Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the sea monster an analogy with Jesus’ stay in the tomb, even if this entails a bit of poetic licence.33 The phrase ‘three nights’ derives from Jonah 2:1 and ‘does not contain any theological or exegetical mysteries’.34 Matthew’s explanation of the sign of Jonah in the light of the prophet’s implied rescue is understandable given the popularity of the account of Jonah’s deliverance from the belly of the fish among first-century Jews. Jonah’s miraculous deliverance is the most common motif in various interpretations of the book of Jonah in Jewish literature, which suggests that ‘the rescue of Jonah from the belly of the sea monster must be considered as the miracle that happened to Jonah’.35 In fact, none of the available sources dealing with this subject ignore this aspect of the Jonah story. Jonah is mentioned in 3 Maccabees, a first-century bce writing of Alexandrian provenance: ‘When Jonah was pining away unpitied in the belly of the monster of the deep, you, Father, restored him uninjured to all his household’ (3 Macc 6:8).36 Chapter 10 of The Lives of the Prophets, a first-century ce document most likely composed in Palestine, is devoted to Jonah. After informing his readers that Jonah was from the district of Kariathmos, the author immediately turns to the fish episode: ‘And when he had been cast forth by the sea monster and had gone away to Nineveh and had returned, he did not remain in his district . . .’ (Liv. Pro. 10.2).37 The remainder of the chapter is a patchwork of traditions about Jonah, including one that he was the son of the widow of Zarephath whom Elijah had raised from the dead.38 Josephus’ account of Jonah in Ant. 9.205–214 provides a detailed retelling of the first part of the 33. See W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (ICC; 3 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988– 97), 2:356. Luz (Matthew 8–20, 218) argues that Matthew ‘has little interest in the exact interval, so important is it for him that Jonah, “the prophet,” typologically prefigures in his fate the event of Jesus’ death and resurrection’ (emphasis original). 34.  Gerhard Delling, ‘nu/c’, TDNT 4:1124. 35. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 217 (emphasis original). 36. Trans. Anderson, OTP 2:526. 37. Trans. Hare, OTP 2:392. 38. According to Liv. Pro. 10.10, Jonah ‘gave a portent (te/raj) concerning Jerusalem and the whole land, that whenever they should see a stone crying out piteously the end was at hand’ (trans. Hare, OTP 2:393). Davies and Allison (Matthew, 2:355) note that ‘[t]his would seem to provide the closest parallel in ancient Jewish sources to the synoptics’ “sign of Jonah”. . . . It is, however, very difficult to imagine that a crying stone can have had anything to do with Jesus’ reference to the sign of Jonah.’

182

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

book of Jonah, including the sea monster’s swallowing of the prophet and the miraculous rescue of the latter after ‘three days and as many nights’ (trei=j h(me/raj kai\ tosau/taj nu/ktaj [9.213]). The second half of the book of Jonah is only briefly summarized. Jonah’s preaching of judgment is mentioned but not the repentance of the Ninevites. Josephus’ ending of the narrative presumes the collapse of Nineveh and the loss of its dominion over Asia. In De Jona, an Armenian translation of a Jewish homily composed in Greek sometime between the first century bce and the second century ce, the swallowing of the prophet by the fish is presented as God’s healing action. Jonah’s rescue from its belly, which symbolizes death, is seen as a ‘sign’ of rebirth (De Jona 95).39 In the rabbinic corpus, one of the most significant references to Jonah appears in Pirqe R. El. 10,40 which asserts that ‘[t]he sailors saw all the signs (twtw)), the miracles, and the great wonders which the Holy One, blessed be He, did unto Jonah’.41 Although the notion that Jonah’s deliverance from the belly of the fish functions as a sign provides the closest conceptual parallel to the sign of Jonah in the Gospels, the late date of this document (eighth century ce) eliminates it as a likely source of the Christian tradition.42 What this text nevertheless demonstrates is the prominence of Jonah’s miraculous rescue, which all ancient Jewish texts treating the Jonah account understand as a manifestation of God’s power.43 Rabbinic references to Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the fish also appear in scriptural catenae linked through the third-day motif.44 In Gen. Rab. 56.1, which offers commentary on Gen 22:4, a quotation of Jonah 2:1 is preceded by citations of Hos 6:2; Gen 42:18; Exod 19:16; and Josh 2:16 and followed by citations of Ezra 8:32; Hos 6:2 (again); and Esth 5:1. In Esth. Rab. 9.2, the rabbis support the claim that Israel is never left in distress for more than three days with citations of Gen 22:4; 42:17; Jonah 2:1; and Hos 6:2. In Midr. Pss. 22.5, the same claim is supported by citations of Gen 22:4; 42:17; Exod 15:22; 2 Kgs 20:5; Josh 2:16; Jonah 2:1, 11; and Hos 6:2. Despite the late date of these sources, they probably incorporate some early traditions, as has been argued in the previous chapter. It is certainly interesting that the phrase 39. For an analysis of this text, see Simon Chow, The Sign of Jonah Reconsidered: A Study of Its Meaning in the Gospel Traditions (ConBNT 27; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995), 34–7. 40. Other rabbinic references to Jonah include m. Ta‘an. 2:4; b. ‘Erub. 19a; Midr. Pss. 26.7; Gen. Rab. 98.11. 41. Trans. Friedlander, Pirḳê de Rabbi Eliezer, 72. 42. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:355. 43.  Chow, The Sign of Jonah Reconsidered, 43. 44. For various rabbinic speculations about the character of Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the fish and the reasons for his deliverance, see Pirqe R. El. 10, Midr. Jonah 98–99. See also Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (trans. Henrietta Szold and Paul Radin; 7 vols; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 4:249–50.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels

­183

‘three nights’ plays no role in the rabbinic arguments, and that the rabbis seem to understand the expressions ‘three days’ and ‘on the third day’ as virtual equivalents. It is these two components of the Jonah tradition, namely Jonah’s miraculous deliverance and the limitation of his sojourn in the belly of the fish to three days, that appear to have induced Matthew to quote Jonah 2:1 as a pattern for Jesus’ death and resurrection. Matthew’s choice of this quotation betrays his familiarity with Jewish interpretative traditions, all of which regard Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the fish as the most important aspect of the story. But Matthew’s choice of Jonah 2:1 as an explanation of the mysterious sign of Jonah also indicates that the third-day motif had been accepted generally in early Christianity as a pointer to Jesus’ resurrection and subsequently acquired a life of its own. Edwards astutely asks, ‘If his [Matthew’s] point were that both Jonah and Jesus were dead, why stress the three days and why repeat it in the statement about Jesus? It was only when the three-day tradition had become an integral part of the passion tradition that such a quotation could have been chosen.’45 It is also important to note that Matthew’s interpretation of Jonah’s miraculous deliverance from the belly of the fish as an analogy of Jesus’ resurrection, although a secondary development of both the sign of Jonah and the third-day motif, incorporates an aspect of early Christian exegesis that surfaces in the earliest traditions, namely the link between Jesus’ resurrection and his messiahship. In Matthew 12, the demand for a sign appears in a context that is dominated by the question of Jesus’ messianic identity. The controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees begins when the latter deny that Jesus is the Son of David by accusing him of casting out demons with the help of Beelzebul (vv.22-24). Jesus’ reply in vv.25-37, which is uninterrupted by his adversaries, constitutes an exhaustive answer to the initial question, ‘Can this be the Son of David?’ (v.23). The second part of the dialogue begins in v.38, where some of the scribes and Pharisees continue their polemic against Jesus’ messianic identity by demanding of him a sign. By stating that the sign of Jonah will be the only one given to this generation, Jesus in fact declares that his resurrection will be the sole authentication of his messianic identity.46 Paradoxically, v.41 suggests that this sign will defy its apparent purpose because this generation will be condemned by the people of Nineveh for failing to recognize it.47 The negative reaction of Jesus’ adversaries is also accentuated in the plot of the narrative. Matthew is the only gospel 45. Edwards, The Sign of Jonah, 99. 46. According to Lehman (Auferweckt am dritten Tag, 169), Matt 12:40 shows ‘daß die Auferstehung aus dem Tode die wirkliche Beglaubigung der Messianität Jesu darstellt’. 47. The same accusation is repeated in v.42 with regard to the queen of the South and Solomon. Only the indictment by the people of Nineveh, however, is related thematically to the sign of Jonah.

184

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

that offers any information about the reaction of Jesus’ opponents to the report of his resurrection from the dead. In 28:11-15, Matthew narrates that ‘some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened’ (v.11). The chief priests and the elders, however, bribed the soldiers to spread lies about the theft of Jesus’ body. Matthew closes this conspiracy account with the comment, ‘And this story is still told among the Jews to this day’ (v.15). This statement expresses Matthew’s conviction that ‘this generation’ has indeed received the sign of Jonah but has deliberately refused to acknowledge it as such.48

3. The Temple Built in Three Days The claim that Jesus would destroy the temple a build it (or another) in three days is found in three of the Gospels – Mark, Matthew, and John. In Mark and Matthew, this claim appears in two different settings: during the trial of Jesus, on the lips of his accusers (Mark 14:56-58; Matt 26:5961), and during the crucifixion of Jesus, on the lips of his mockers (Mark 15:29-30; Matt 27:39-40). It is not reported in Luke.49 In the Fourth Gospel, this logion is presented as Jesus’ own words during the cleansing of the temple (John 2:18-22). The reference to three days appears in these passages in two different versions: dia\ triw~n h(merw~n (Mark 14:58; Matt 26:61) and e)n trisi\n h(me/raij (Mark 15:29; Matt 27:40; John 2:19). Although these formulations differ from the references to the third day/ three days in 1 Cor 15:4 (th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th|), the resurrection predictions in the Gospels (meta\ trei=j h(me/raj [Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34]; th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| [Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22]; th|= h(me/ra| th|= tri/th| [Luke

48. For a reconstruction of the historical circumstances that prompted Matthew to include this episode in his gospel, see Wim J. C. Weren, ‘‘His Disciples Stole Him Away’ (Mt 28,13): A Rival Interpretation of Jesus’ Resurrection’, in RNT, 147–63. Weren concludes that ‘around the year 80 ad, Matthew and his communities were confronted with Jews arguing against the Christian belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead. With this story, Matthew aimed to confute the arguments of this counteroffensive’ (162). 49. For an explanation of Luke’s omission both of the charge leveled against Jesus during his trial before the Sanhedrin (22:66-71) and the mockery of the passers-by in the account of the crucifixion (23:33-43), see Frank Connolly-Weinert, ‘Assessing Omissions as Redaction: Luke’s Handling of the Charge against Jesus as Detractor of the Temple’, in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer (ed. Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski; New York: Crossroad, 1989), 358–68. Connolly-Weinert ascribes these omissions to Luke’s desire to ascertain Jesus’ ‘reputation and authority as a matter of widespread public recognition’, to demonstrate ‘that Jesus’ behavior is upright, blameless, and innocent of any impiety or wrongdoing’, and to present Jesus’ messiahship ‘as a form of royalty that is basically religious and prophetic’ (367).

Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels

185

18:33]), and other related passages (meta\ trei=j h(me/raj [Matt 27:63]; th|= tri/th| h(me/ra| [Luke 24:7, 46; Acts 10:40]), most scholars nevertheless recognize them as references to Jesus’ resurrection.50 These passages have been the subject of intense scholarly scrutiny because they differ with regard to what Jesus said not only about the destruction of the temple but also about its rebuilding. Since this part of the logion probably refers to the messianic rebuilding of the temple, the scriptural basis for which is found in 2 Sam 7:13a, its various formulations and their relationship to the resurrection of Jesus are of particular interest to this study. Moreover, the Johannine version of the saying is followed by an explicit though unspecified reference to Scripture: ‘After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken’ (John 2:22). In what follows, I will review the major interpretative issues pertaining to each version of the logion before investigating its scriptural antecedents. The Markan versions of Jesus’ pronouncement against the temple are fraught with interpretative difficulties. During Jesus’ trial, some witnesses accuse Jesus of saying, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands’ (Mark 14:58). The saying speaks of two temples, one ‘made with hands’ (xeiropoi/hton) and ‘another’ (a)l / lon) ‘not made with hands’ (a)xeiropoi/hton). The main difficulty lies in the fact that this charge is presented as false testimony. The level of complexity is not apparent at first because the falsity of the charge is easy to demonstrate on the narratival level. Indeed, in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus never claims that he will destroy the temple. Nor does he ever declare that he will build another temple not made with hands.51 And yet, as Juel perceptively notes, [t]he last chapters in Mark provide convincing evidence that the charge at Jesus’ trial in 14:58 is more than a statement Mark wishes to discredit. In 11:17, the theme of the rejection of the Jewish religious leaders is linked with the impending destruction of the temple by the reference to Jer 7:11. In 12:1– 12, Jesus tells a parable according to which the Jewish religious leaders, the tenants, will be destroyed and their ‘vineyard’ given to others. The reference to Ps 118:22 that concludes the parable links this rejection with the coming rejection of Jesus by these ‘builders,’ as well as with his vindication at the resurrection. In 12:32–34, negative statements are made about sacrifice. In 13:1–2, Jesus explicitly predicts the destruction of the temple complex. And

50. The threat that Jesus would destroy the temple is also mentioned in Acts 6:14 as one of the accusations raised against Stephen, whose opponents claim to have heard him saying that ‘this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses handed on to us’. This version of the logion, however, contains no reference to the rebuilding of the temple in three days. 51.  Collins, Mark, 701.

186

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

in 15:38, at the moment of Jesus’ death, the temple veil is torn from top to bottom. There can be little doubt that Mark intends the charge at the trial to be viewed as true in some sense.52

The second version of Jesus’ saying about the temple appears in the crucifixion scene. Unlike Mark 14:58, however, which presumes a distinction between the temple ‘made with hands’ and ‘another not made with hands’, the passers-by in Mark 15:29 presume that Jesus had spoken of only one temple, which he would first destroy and then rebuild in three days. This version of the logion is closer to those found in Matthew and John, neither of which differentiate between two temples. Juel again helpfully remarks that the differences between the charge and its repetition might indicate how the statement can be both true and false. The version in 15:29 might indicate that the statement has been interpreted by Jesus’ opponents as implying that Jesus is a magician, that he has made an impossible threat against the temple. The version of the charge in 14:58, however, might be intended to indicate the sense in which the charge is true. . . . Jesus’ opponents are being made unwitting confessors to a truth beyond their level of understanding. They can be both ‘false witnesses’ and prophets.53

My interest here lies in the second part of the charge – Jesus’ claim that in three days he will build another temple not made with hands. The phrasing of the reference to three days (dia\ triw~n h(merw~n) may derive from a different stream of Christian tradition, but within Mark’s narrative it clearly points to Jesus’ resurrection.54 Much more difficult 52. Donald H. Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 31; Missoula, Mont.: Missoula, Mont.; Scholars Press, 1977), 138. Collins (Mark, 703) suggests that ‘calling the testimony “false” creates or recognizes some distance between the traditional saying behind the testimony and the views of the author and the audiences of Mark’. 53.  Juel, Messiah and Temple, 124. 54. Lindars (New Testament Apologetic, 67) argues that the church associated the temple charge with the resurrection ‘in order to meet the challenge of an unfulfilled prophecy of the destruction of the temple’. Edwards (The Sign of Jonah, 99–100) believes that the formulation of the temple charge in Mark presumes a ‘close connection . . . in the early church between the statement about the building of the temple and the resurrection’, which indicates that ‘[t]he three-day imagery has taken on a kind of inclusive meaning which becomes a stable factor in the passion tradition’. Juel suggests that ‘the use of dia\ triw~n h(merw~n in 14:58 would fit well with Mark’s use of irony. Jesus’ opponents take the reference to “three days” to mean “in a short time.” The Christian reader understands that the reference is to the resurrection’ (Messiah and Temple, 144). See also Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK 2; 2 vols; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978–9), 2:280; John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SP 2; Collegeville, Minn.; Liturgical Press, 2002), 421–2. Collins (Mark, 702 n.37), however, argues that linguistic differences between the references to three days in 14:58 and 15:29 and the references to three days in the passion predictions ‘make it unlikely that the implied

Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels

187

is determining the meaning of the term a)xeiropoi/htoj. It is usually assumed that the contrast between xeiropoi/htoj and a)xeiropoi/htoj points to a contrast between an entity that is of human origin and one that is of divine origin.55 Such an interpretation is compatible with Jewish exegetical traditions contrasting a human-made temple with a temple made by God. The Midrash on Psalms, for example, provides the following commentary on Ps 90:17: Let the grace of the Lord our God be upon us. The Holy One, blessed be He, replied: Of yore, the Temple, having been built by the hands of mortals, was destroyed and is desolate because I removed My grace from the midst thereof, but in the time-to-come I Myself shall build it and cause My grace to dwell in the midst thereof, and it will never again be destroyed.56

The idea of a God-made sanctuary derives from Exod 15:17, which speaks of ‘the sanctuary, O Lord, that your hands have established’.57 This notion is in Jewish exegetical literature frequently applied to the eschatological temple, which God himself will build. The clearest example is found in the Mekilta of Rabbi Ishmael on Exod 15:17 (Shirata §10): ‘. . . when He came to build the Temple He did it, as it were, with both His hands, as it is said, “The sanctuary, O Lord, which Thy hands have established.”’58 This interpretative tradition is also found in Second Temple literature. In 4Q174 1.1–3, the citation of 2 Sam 7:10b-11a is followed by a commentary that includes the quotation of Exod 15:17: ‘This is the house which [he will build] for [him] in the latter days, as it is written in the book of [Moses, “The sanctuary,] O Yahweh, which your hands have fashioned. Yahweh will reign for ever and ever.”’59 Expectations of a future temple built by God are also found in other Second Temple writings, even when they do not explicitly quote Exod 15:17. In Jub. 1.17, God promises, ‘And I shall build my sanctuary in reader is supposed to interpret v. 58 in light of the passion predictions and to conclude that the temple not made with hands is the resurrected body of Jesus (as in John 2:21) or the community of his followers (as in 1 Cor 3:16)’. Yet in view of the fact that aside from the passion predictions there are no other references to three days in relation to Jesus in Mark’s narrative (‘three days’ in 8:2 refers to the crowd), it is doubtful that the basic similarity of these formulations is meant to go unnoticed. 55. Eduard Lohse, for example, explains that ‘[i]n the NT xeiropoi/htoj in every passage in which it is used sets forth the antithesis of what is made with men’s hands to the work of God’ (‘xei/r, ktl’, TDNT 9:436). 56. Trans. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 2:99. 57.  Judah Goldin (Song at the Sea: Being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971], 50–51) argues that in its original setting this text reflects a polemic against the temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem. 58. Trans. Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (JPSJLC; 3 vols; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976), 2:79. 59. Trans. Milgrom, PTSDSSP 6B:251.

188

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

their midst, and I shall dwell with them.’ The author also mentions ‘the sanctuary of the Lord . . . created in Jerusalem upon Mount Zion’ (Jub. 1.29).60 In 11QTa (11Q19) 29.8–10, God declares, ‘And I shall sanctify my [S]anctuary with my glory, which I shall allow to dwell upon it – my glory – until the day of creation (upon) which I myself will create my Sanctuary in order to establish it for myself all the days according to the covenant which I cut with Jacob in Bethel.’61 The Animal Apocalypse contains a vision of the Lord of the sheep who ‘brought a new house, larger and higher than the first one, and he erected it on the site of the first one that had been rolled up. And all its pillars were new, and its beams were new, and its ornaments were new and larger than (those of) the first one, the old one that he had removed’ (1 En. 90.29).62 In view of these traditions regarding the divine origin of the final temple in the age to come, which are documented in pre- and post-70 ce Jewish literature, some scholars understand the temple ‘not made with hands’ in Mark 14:58 as a reference to the eschatological temple that will be built by God.63 It is questionable, however, whether the concept of the divine origin of the sanctuary is really helpful for interpreting the term a)xeiropoi/htoj in Mark 14:58. The main difference between Jewish interpretative traditions based on Exod 15:17 and Mark 14:58 is that in the former the builder of the new temple is God while in the latter it is Jesus. This dissimilarity is especially visible in 4Q174 1.10–11, which omits the reference to the building of the temple by the Davidic offspring (2 Sam 7:13a) from its quotation of 2 Sam 7:11-14, which is here applied to the ‘Shoot of David (dywd xmc) who will arise with the interpreter of the Torah who [. . .] in Zi[on in the] latter days’ (lines 11– 12).64 4Q174 even shows that the use of Exod 15:17 can be used to rule out the possibility of a messianic rebuilding of the temple.65 Stephen’s declaration that ‘the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands (xeiropoi/htoij)’ in Acts 7:48 is also of no help because Stephen’s argument is that God does not dwell in any building at all, including (but not necessarily limited to) those not made with human hands. It is therefore more likely that a)xeiropoi/htoj in Mark 14:58 refers to a replacement of the current temple with a reality of a different order rather than with a different building created by God, as Juel 60. Trans. Wintermute, OTP 2:53–4. 61. Trans. Charlesworth with Milgrom, PTSDSSP 7:79. 62. Trans. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 135. 63. Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium II. Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 8,27–16,20 (4th ed.; HTK 2.2; Freiburg: Herder, 1991), 435; Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 899–900; Craig A. Evans, Mark (WBC 34; 2 vols; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 2:445–6; Collins, Mark, 701–3. 64. Trans. Milgrom, PTSDSSP 6B:253. 65.  Juel, Messiah and Temple, 153; Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (ABRL; 2 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 1:442.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels

­189

convincingly argues from the use of xeiropoi/htoj and a)xeiropoi/htoj with reference to circumcision in Eph 2:11 and Col 2:11 respectively.66 Juel himself believes that the temple ‘not made with hands’ in Mark 14:58 refers to the Christian community.67 Other scholars interpret this formulation as a reference to Jesus’ risen and glorified body.68 While the latter interpretation cannot be ruled out, especially in view of the reference to ‘three days’, which, as argued above, clearly alludes to Jesus’ resurrection, the idea of the self-rising of Jesus is difficult to justify in Mark’s narrative.69 The replacement of oi)kodomh/sw with a)nasth/sw, which appears in some manuscripts,70 testifies to an early interpretation of Mark 14:58 as a reference to resurrection in some Christian circles, but its Wirkungsgeschichte does not necessarily reflect the view of the author of Mark’s Gospel and his audience. Raymond Brown notes that ‘[t]o some extent the plausibility of all interpretations depends on how strictly the “I will build” demands action traceable to Jesus’.71 The text remains ambiguous, perhaps intentionally, not least because it is presented as a false testimony that appears nevertheless to express deeper truth about Jesus. Some of this ambiguity disappears in the Matthean version of the trial. Matthew also mentions false witnesses who are summoned to testify against Jesus, but he omits Mark’s statement that their testimony did not agree (26:59-60a). The temple charge is eventually raised by two witnesses who provide consistent72 and legally-viable73 testimony against Jesus (26:60b-61). Whereas in Mark the testimony of the witnesses is inconsistent and therefore carries no legal weight, in Matthew it is both unanimous and binding. Moreover, the charge itself is reformulated, 66.  Juel, Messiah and Temple, 154–5. 67. Ibid., 139, 143–5, 157, 169. Other interpreters who hold this view include Otto Michel, ‘nao/j’, TDNT 4:883; Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (London: Macmillan, 1963), 566; Eduard Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark (trans. Donald H. Madvig; Richmond: John Knox, 1970), 329; Anton Vögtle, ‘Das markinische Verständnis der Tempelworte’, in Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie (ed. Ulrich Luz and Hans Weder; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 368–78. 68.  Bertil E. Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament (SNTSMS 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 105–22; Lloyd Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (NovTSup 23; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 242–3; P. Lamarche, ‘Le “blasphème” de Jésus devant le sanhédrin’, RechSR 50 (1962): 74–85. 69.  Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1:443. 70. D and most Old Latin witnesses. 71.  Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1:443. 72.  Matthew omits Mark’s comment after the temple charge that ‘even on this point their testimony did not agree’ (Mark 14:59). 73. According to the Jewish law, a charge in court could be sustained only on the evidence of two or three witnesses (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15); cf. 11Q19 61.6–7.

190

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

such that in Matthew Jesus is accused of saying, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God (du/namai katalu=sai to\n nao\n tou= qeou=) and to build it in three days (dia\ triw~n h(merw~n oi)kodomh=sai)’ (26:61). Thus, while the Markan Jesus speaks of two temples, one xeiropoi/hton and another a)xeiropoi/hton, the Matthean Jesus speaks of one only. Moreover, he declares not that he will, but only that he is able, to destroy this temple. This is why many scholars regard the temple charge in Matthew as true testimony rather than false allegation.74 In the words of Robert Gundry, while ‘Mark says that the Sanhedrin sought true testimony and found false, Matthew that they sought false testimony and found true’.75 The reader will search in vain, however, for such a claim in the Matthean narrative of Jesus’ ministry.76 In this regard, Matthew agrees with Mark – Jesus never speaks of his ability to destroy the existing temple or to build another in three days. Yet the mocking of the passers-by in Matthew’s crucifixion scene (27:40) presumes widespread knowledge of such an assertion, as in Mark’s Gospel. Matthew’s narrative thus reflects an ambiguity similar to that which characterizes Mark’s. Even though the charge as such is false,77 it conveys a deeper truth about Jesus that only the reader can grasp.78 Indeed, as one who can appeal to his Father to send him more than twelve legions of angels (26:53) and who will be ‘seated at the right hand of Power’ (26:64), Jesus is perfectly capable of destroying the temple. Given that Matthew’s version of the second half of the charge omits the qualification a)xeiropoi/hton, it can no longer be applied plausibly to the community of believers79 or the eschatological temple. Since Jesus 74. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 542–3; Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1:435–6; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:525; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew (WBC 33; 2 vols; Dallas: Word Books, 1993–5), 2:798; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 1126; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28: A Commentary (trans. James E. Crouch; ed. Helmut Koester; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 427. 75.  Gundry, Matthew, 542. 76. Davies and Allison (Matthew, 3:525 n.27) mention Matt 24:2 as evidence that the Matthean Jesus did in fact say what these two witnesses claim. But this verse merely shows that Jesus predicted the temple’s destruction, not that he spoke of his own ability to bring this about. 77. Scholars who regard the temple charge in Matthew as false include Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 87; Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (BLS; Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000), 516; Charles H. Talbert, Matthew (PCNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 295; Gerd Häfner, ‘Ein übereinstimmendes Falschzeugnis – zur Auslegung von Mt 26,61’, ZNW 101 (2010): 294–9. 78.  Carter (Matthew and the Margins, 516) sees this charge as an instance of irony. 79. Davies and Allison (Matthew, 2:628) argue that ‘Mk 14.58, interpreted of the church, might be thought to put its founding in the post-Easter period (“after three days”), which would create tension with Mt 16.18, which places the church’s birth before the resurrection’.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels

­191

speaks of only one temple, the reference to three days may indicate that the logion should be applied to Jesus himself.80 On this assumption, the saying can be interpreted metaphorically as a passion prediction, with the first part conveying the voluntary nature of Jesus’ death and the second part referring to his resurrection from the dead in three days.81 While this interpretation of the temple logion in Matt 26:61 remains tentative, it becomes quite plausible in John 2:18-22. In this passage, which is generally thought to be independent of the synoptic tradition,82 the Jews ask Jesus to perform a sign to justify his actions in the temple. He responds to this demand by declaring: ‘Destroy this temple (lu/sate to\n nao\n tou=ton), and in three days I will raise it up (kai\ e)n trisi\n h(me/raij e)gerw~ au)to/n)’ (v.19). Unlike the synoptic formulations of the temple charge, all of which appear on the lips of Jesus’ adversaries, the first part of the Johannine saying speaks of the destruction of the temple not by Jesus himself but by the Jewish authorities. By ‘inviting’ his opponents to ‘destroy this temple’, i.e. to kill him, Jesus uses the same type of ironic imperative that is common in the prophetic tradition.83 Moreover, in contrast to the synoptic accounts, which consistently employ the verb oi)kodome/w, the second part of the Johannine logion uses e)gei/rw. These features clearly indicate that Jesus here refers to his death and resurrection. The narrator’s explicit comment that Jesus ‘was speaking of the temple of his body’ (v.21) confirms that this is the correct interpretation. In this way, Jesus’ resurrection becomes ‘the ultimate sign that demonstrates both his right to do what he has done and the meaning he gives to it’.84 Yet the author simultaneously distances the reader from the characters in the narrative who do not understand Jesus’ statement correctly. The Jews, on the one hand, misunderstand it as applying to the Jerusalem temple. Their question, ‘This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?’ 80. The comparison between Jesus and the temple in Matt 12:6 (‘something greater than the temple is here’) exemplifies Matthew’s tendency to apply temple imagery to Jesus. Matthew also portrays Jesus as performing such temple-related functions as communicating the divine presence (1:23; 18:20; 28:20) and forgiving sins (9:1-8; 26:28). 81.  Gundry, Matthew, 543; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:526; Hagner, Matthew 2:798-99. Differently Luz (Matthew 21–28, 427), who argues that ‘Jesus speaks here only of the temple in Jerusalem’. This is certainly possible, but in this case the reference to three days remains unexplained. On this reading, Jesus speaks of something that he can, but will not actually, do. 82. For an argument that the synoptic versions of the second half of the temple charge (Mark 14:58//Matt 26:61; Mark 15:29//Matt 27:40) represent a distorted, i.e. misunderstood, version of John 2:19, which was known to Mark through a source hostile to Jesus, see Gonzalo Rojas-Flores, ‘From John 2.19 to Mark 15.29: The History of a Misunderstanding’, NTS 56 (2009): 22–43. 83.  Cf. 1 Kgs 18:27; Isa 6:9; 8:10; 29:9; Jer 23:28; 44:25; Amos 4:4-5. Cf. J. Ramsey Michaels, John (GNC; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 36; Keener, The Gospel of John, 1:529. 84. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 441.

192

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

(v.20) vividly demonstrates the absurdity of Jesus’ claim in their eyes. For them, the resurrection never becomes the legitimating sign. The disciples, on the other hand, while not actively misinterpreting the saying, do not truly understand it either. The narrator explains that only o(t / e . . . h)ge/rqh e)k nekrw~n, that is, from a post-Easter perspective, did they believe th|= grafh|= kai\ tw|~ lo/gw| o4n ei]pen o( 'Ihsou=j (v.22).85 The reference to Scripture in this verse is somewhat puzzling. As elsewhere in John,86 Scripture is regarded as having authority equal to the word of Jesus,87 but there is no indication whether a specific text is in view, and, if so, what it might be. It is also not clear whether the author intends to provide here a commentary on the temple logion (v.19) or on the citation of Ps 69:10 in v.17. Some interpreters assume the latter because this is the only scriptural quotation in the pericope (vv.14-22).88 However, given the proximity of this comment to the explanation of the temple logion and the remark that Jesus’ disciples understood it only after the resurrection (vv.21-22a), it is more likely that the reference to Scripture pertains to the disciples’ correct understanding of Jesus’ words as a prediction of the resurrection. Although in the Fourth Gospel 85.  Cf. John 7:39; 12:16; 13:7, 19. On the significance of the post-resurrection perspective in the Fourth Gospel, see R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (FF; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 27–32; Jean Zumstein, Kreative Erinnerung: Relecture und Auslegung im Johannesevangelim (2nd ed.; AthANT 84; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004), 47–63. 86.  Cf. John 3:34; 6:63, 68; 14:10, 24; 17:8; 18:9. 87.  Margaret Daly-Denton (David in the Fourth Gospel: The Johannine Reception of the Psalms [AGJU 47; Leiden: Brill, 2000], 121) notes that ‘[j]ust as Jesus’ speech is, in some sense, Scripture, so Scripture is, in a very real sense, his speech’. See also Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1:290, 599; Adele Reinhartz, ‘Jesus as Prophet: Predictive Prolepses in the Fourth Gospel’, JSNT 36 (1989): 3–16; John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 312–17. 88. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John (trans. Kevin Smyth et al.; 3 vols; London: Burns and Oates, 1980–82), 1:353; Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 121; Menken, ‘Interpretation of the Old Testament’, 191. Lindars argues that the quotation of Ps 69:10 in John 2:17 provides the key for understanding the comment in John 2:22 not because the latter directly refers to the former but because he believes that ‘[w]hen the psalm as a whole is applied to the Passion, it is natural to apply the final verses, which speak of the rebuilding of Zion and the cities of Judah, to the Resurrection and the spread of the Church’ (New Testament Apologetic, 67). What Lindars calls ‘natural’ is in fact much less common than he assumes, given what we know about Jewish exegetical techniques and early Christian hermeneutics. For a critique of the usual assumption that early Christian interpreters typically paid attention to the context of the scriptural passages they quoted, see Chapter 1, section 3 of this study. In this particular case, Lindars’s suggestion fails to convince because Ps 69:36 (68:36 LXX; 69:35 Eng.), which he believes is alluded to in John 2:22, does not speak about the rebuilding of Zion, as he claims, but about the saving of Zion and the rebuilding of the cities of Judah. Yet even if the rebuilding of Zion is in view, the fact that God himself is its builder creates the same type of interpretative problems as the Second Temple traditions about the divine origin of the eschatological temple.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels

­193

‘understanding comes through faith, not prior to faith’,89 the proper understanding of Scripture is prerequisite to the proper interpretation of experience. John 2:22 is thus consonant with John 20:9 in emphasising the significance of the post-resurrection perspective for an accurate – that is, christological – understanding of Scripture. Since neither of these verses mentions specific scriptural passages, they probably refer to the whole of Scripture. Beutler suggests that this indicates that Johannine Christianity ‘has reached a kind of “meta-level,” where the individual proof text no longer counts, but rather, the whole of scripture is at stake’.90 Such an explanation would be more convincing if it could be demonstrated that the author of the Fourth Gospel shows little interest in supplementing his account of Jesus’ ministry with scriptural proof texts. Since this is not the case,91 however, it is perhaps better to say that he betrays familiarity with the central Christian conviction that Jesus was raised in accordance with Scripture, attested in both early and late traditions, though he was not conversant with the specific exegetical practices that some Christian circles developed to demonstrate this belief. The role of Scripture in the synoptic versions of the temple charge is less obvious. They neither quote a particular text nor refer to Scripture in general. And yet, in both the Markan (14:55-64) and the Matthean (26:59-66) versions of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin, the testimony of the false (Mark)/reliable (Matthew) witnesses is followed first by Jesus’ silence and then by the question of the high priest whether Jesus is o( xristo/j. Juel, commenting on Mark, notes that this ‘question seems completely unmotivated, unless the statement about the temple implies a messianic claim’.92 The existence of such a connection is even more plausible in Matthew, because the testimony of two witnesses carries legal weight. This is accentuated by the solemnity of the high priest’s question, ‘I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God’ (26:63). It seems, then, that the logic of the trial presumes that the building of the temple is a messianic task. Since there is no evidence of an expectation of the messianic destruction of the temple,93 only the second half of the charge is relevant to the question at hand. The scriptural basis for the idea of messianic temple-building can be found in 2 Sam 7:13a and Zech 6:12c. The first passage is a part of Nathan’s oracle (2 Sam 89.  Koester, ‘Jesus’ Resurrection’, 68. 90.  Beutler, ‘The Use of “Scripture”’, 158. Beutler adds that ‘the Johannine belief in Jesus is in a sense circular: The individual “proof texts” lead to Jesus, but they can only be understood as a whole when the belief to which they should lead is already presupposed’ (ibid.). 91.  Cf. John 1:23; 2:17; 6:31, 45; 7:37-38, 42; 10:34; 12:13-15, 38-40; 13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24, 28-29, 36-37. 92.  Juel, Messiah and Temple, 170. 93.  Cf. Pss. Sol. 17.30, which speaks of the messianic purification of Jerusalem.

194

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

7:5-16), which provides the main scriptural support for expectation of a Davidic Messiah in Second Temple Judaism. It is sandwiched between the promise of David’s seed and the two other major elements of the promise tradition – the perpetuity of the Davidic dynasty and the divine adoption of the Davidic heir. God promises to David that his offspring ‘shall build a house for my name’ (oi)kodomh/sei moi oi]kon tw|~ o)no/mati/ mou [2 Sam 7:13a LXX]). A similar formulation is found in Zech 6:12c LXX, which speaks of ‘a man whose name is Branch’ who ‘shall build the temple of the Lord’ (oi)kodomh/sei to\n oi]kon kuri/ou). The verb oi)kodome/w, which appears in both texts, is also used in Mark 14:58 and Matt 26:61. Moreover, the referent of both expressions, oi]kon tw|~ o)no/mati/ mou (2 Sam 7:13a) and oi]kon kuri/ou (Zech 6:12c), is clearly the temple, just as it is of the term to\n nao/n in Mark 14:58 and Matt 26:61. The synoptic formulations can therefore be regarded as scriptural allusions to 2 Sam 7:13a and Zech 6:12c. This conclusion must now be assessed in light of the fact that there are no pre-Christian texts that speak of the Messiah as builder of the temple. The most telling example is 4Q174 1.10–11, which omits 2 Sam 7:13a from its quotation of 2 Sam 7:11-14. The author of this document, which contains one of the earliest messianic interpretations of Nathan’s oracle, could easily have used 2 Sam 7:13a to develop the idea of the messianic building of the temple, but he did not do so. Juel suggests that the omission of this clause is the result of the interpreter’s decision to read the first ‘house’ (tyb in 2 Sam 7:11) as ‘temple’ rather than as a reference to the Davidic dynasty. ‘If the term is read in this way, the verse promises what is also promised in Exod 15:17: God will build a “house” at the end of days (“sanctuary” in Exodus).’94 The earliest evidence for the messianic building of the temple appears in the Targums. The Targum to Zechariah translates the term xmc in Zech 6:12 as )xy#m. The resulting text thus declares that the Messiah will build the temple of God. In addition, the Targum to Isaiah inserts into the text of Isa 53:5 a reference to the rebuilding of the temple by the Messiah:95 ‘and he will build the sanctuary’ ()#dqm tyb ynby )whw),96 which is not derived from the scriptural text. The fact that the targumic rendering presumes that the temple is already destroyed indicates that this interpretative tradition derives from the post-70 ce period.97 The expectation that the Messiah 94. Ibid., 177. 95.  Cf. Tg. Isa. 52.13, which identifies the subject of Isa 52:13–53:12 as ‘my servant, the Messiah’ ()xy#m ydb(). 96. Trans. Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (ArBib 11; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987), 103–4. 97. Eta Linnemann, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte (FRLANT 102; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 126. Chilton (The Isaiah Targum, 105) suggests that ‘[t]he actual rebuilding of the Temple was a reward promised to Israel along with the Messiah and the defeat of Rome during the Tannaitic period’.

Resurrection and Scripture in the Gospels

195­

will build the temple is also documented elsewhere in rabbinic literature, for example in Lev. Rab. 9.6, Num. Rab. 13.2, and Midr. Song 4.16, but these references are even later than the Targums. Since the tradition about the messianic building of the temple is not corroborated in Second Temple literature, most scholars do not regard it as a viable parallel to the synoptic formulation of the temple charge. However, this does not mean that Mark and Matthew do not interpret 2 Sam 7:13a and Zech 6:12c messianically. Both texts were already considered messianic in Second Temple Judaism.98 The lack of contemporary Jewish parallels for the messianic building of the temple only shows that the full hermeneutical potential of these scriptural passages had not yet been realized. Given the significance of Nathan’s oracle in early Christian exegesis,99 it seems reasonable to suggest that Christian interpreters may have used the idea of the erection of the temple by David’s offspring to interpret Jesus’ words about its rebuilding. Juel claims that the only conceptual possibilities that were available to Christian interpreters of this phrase were the rebuilding of the temple by God and the rebuilding of the temple by the Messiah. Since it seems very unlikely that the temple charge in Mark ascribes divine qualities to Jesus, it probably identifies him as the Messiah.100 What should be noted, however, is that, regardless of the origin of the temple logion and its meaning in each Gospel text, it is always associated with the three-day motif. Jesus’ resurrection thus becomes ‘messianic’ not because it was conceived as such in a particular pre-Christian interpretative tradition but because Christian interpreters presented it as an integral aspect of Jesus’ messianic identity.

98.  Cf. 4Q252 5.3–4, which identifies ‘the righteous Messiah’ (qdch xy#m) as ‘the Branch of David’ (dywd xmc). The commentary that follows, which recounts God’s promises to David in 2 Sam 7:12-16, clarifies that ‘the Branch of David’ is in fact ‘his seed’ (w(rz) to whom ‘has been given the covenant of the kingdom (over) his people for everlasting generations’ (trans. Trafton, PTSDSSP 6B: 217). The text thus creates a chain of identification: ‘the righteous Messiah’ = ‘the Branch of David’ = ‘David’s seed’. A similar interpretation is found in 4Q174 1.10–11. David’s offspring (hk(rz [‘your seed’]), which is mentioned in the quotation of 2 Sam 7:12b in line 10, is in the next line identified as ‘the Branch Of David’ (dywd xmc). Both Qumran documents, 4Q252 and 4Q174, demonstrate the importance of God’s promises to David not only for the rise of messianic hope in Second Temple Judaism but also for the messianic interpretation of the designation ‘Branch’ (xmc) that appears in Zech 6:12 and Jer 23:5. 99.  Cf. Acts 13:23; Rom 1:3-4; Heb 1:5. 100.  Juel, Messiah and Temple, 208.

196

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

4. Conclusion Scriptural references in the resurrection narratives of the canonical gospels are indeed rare, but they are not completely absent. In addition to several general remarks about Scripture, which appear in Luke (24:2627, 46-47) and John (20:9), it is possible to detect occasional scriptural allusions, such as to Ezek 37:12, Isa 26:19, and Dan 12:2 in Matt 27:5253 and to Genesis 2–3 in Luke 24:30-31 and John 20:22. On the whole, however, it is difficult to deny that the resurrection narratives are told with a minimum of scriptural resonances. Whether the evangelists could have embellished them with scriptural imagery but refused to do so, as Wright claims,101 is an entirely different question, though I myself am less inclined to ascribe the paucity of scriptural references to the deliberate decisions of the gospel authors than to the lack of scriptural precedent for the discovery of the empty tomb and Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. The evangelists’ exegetical endeavours appear to be, for the most part, more focused on providing scriptural justification for Jesus’ resurrection as an eschatological event that uniquely discloses his identity than they are on finding scriptural analogies for the accompanying accounts that relate the experiences of his followers. Two thematic blocks relating Scripture to Jesus’ resurrection that have been analysed in this chapter provide additional support for this conclusion. The Matthean explanation of the sign of Jonah compares the length of Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the sea monster to the length of Jesus’ sojourn in the grave. Placed within a context dominated by the question of Jesus’ messiahship, the sign of Jonah identifies the resurrection as the sole authentication of Jesus’ messianic identity. The temple logion, which is found in Mark, Matthew, and John, is in each of these gospels linked to the three-day motif and, with it, to Jesus’ resurrection. In Mark and Matthew, the portrayal of Jesus as builder of the future temple, regardless of the specific meaning of this description in each account, appears to identify him as the Messiah. The resurrection thus becomes the specific moment at which the messianic building of the temple begins. In John, the messianic implications of the temple logion are less pronounced, at least on the surface of the narrative. At the same time, however, the fourth evangelist is the most articulate of the three in relating the temple logion to Jesus’ resurrection and in affirming its connection with Scripture.

101. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 600.

Chapter 5 Resurrection and Scripture in Acts 1. Introduction The summary statement in Acts 4:33 nicely articulates the centrality of Jesus’ resurrection in the apostolic preaching: ‘With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.’ Indeed, the resurrection of Jesus is not only a recurring theme in the speeches in Acts; it is its central message. From the very beginning, when Peter insists that the replacement for Judas must be a person who will ‘become a witness with us to his resurrection’ (1:22), Luke emphasises through the utterances of various characters in the narrative – such as Peter’s testimony in Jerusalem (‘this Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses’ [2:32]) and Paul’s emphatic declarations at Pisidian Antioch (‘But God raised him from the dead’ [13:30]) and during his trial before Felix (‘It is about the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today’ [24:21]) – that the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection stands at the very heart of the Christian message of salvation. Although the speeches in Acts incorporate early Christian tradition, in their present form they are Luke’s own compositions. The fact that they exhibit a similar structure, make use of similar scriptural passages, and employ a similar type of argumentation suggests that Luke crafted them to achieve clearly defined theological and rhetorical goals. In the words of Marion Soards, The speeches in Acts are more than a literary device, or a historiographic convention, or a theological vehicle – though they are all of these; they achieve the unification of the otherwise diverse and incoherent elements comprised by Acts. Through the regular introduction of formally repetitive speeches, Luke unified his narrative; and, more important, he unified the image of an otherwise personally, ethnically, and geographically diverse early Christianity.1

1.  Marion L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 12.

198

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

A dominant characteristic of these speeches is the use of Scripture for rhetorical purposes. For example, Acts 17:2-3 informs the reader that it was Paul’s custom to argue with his Jewish contemporaries ‘from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead’. Luke demonstrates how this was done in two programmatic speeches by Peter and Paul (Acts 2:14-36; 13:16-41), both of which present complex scriptural arguments for the resurrection of Jesus. Although both topics – the use of Scripture and Jesus’ resurrection – also appear in other speeches,2 in none of them are they combined so directly as in Acts 2 and 13. These two speeches are thus of special interest to our study and will be analysed in greater detail below.

2. Lord and Messiah It is customary to divide Peter’s speech in Acts 2:14-36 into two parts: a ‘Pentecost speech’ (vv.14-21) and a ‘resurrection speech’ (vv.22-36). This division is corroborated not only by the different subjects of these sections (the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and Jesus’ resurrection, respectively) but also by several intratextual markers. Peter’s speech commences in v.14 with the address a)/ndrej 'Ioudai=oi kai\ oi( katoikou=ntej 'Ierousalh\m pa/ntej. In v.22, he addresses his hearers again: a)/ndrej 'Israhli=tai, a)kou/sate tou\j lo/gouj tou/touj. A similar address in v.29 (a)/ndrej a)delfoi/), however, merely indicates the beginning of a new subunit, i.e. the interpretation of Ps 16:8-11 that is quoted in vv.25-28. Both points are expressed well by Lindars: The first thing to notice is that we can distinguish altogether between the first and second parts of the speech. In Acts 2.22 there is a new start. It is an appeal to the hearers, superficially similar to that made in v. 29. But in fact it bears no relation to the preceding quotation from Joel, whereas v. 29 begins the exposition of Ps. 16. This clean break is accompanied by a real difference of subject matter.3

Lindars’s contention that the second part of the speech ‘bears no relation to the preceding quotation from Joel’, however, is questionable. The citation of Joel 3:1-5 (2:28-32 Eng.) ends in Acts 2:21 with the promise that ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved’. The rest of Joel 3:5 is not quoted because only the first part of the verse 2. So, e.g. Ps 69:26 (68:26 LXX) and Ps 109:8 (108:8 LXX) are quoted in Acts 1:20 to interpret Judas’s fate; Deut 18:15-19 and Lev 23:29 are quoted in Acts 3:22-23 to disclose Jesus’ prophetic identity; and Ps 2:1-2 is quoted in Acts 4:25-26 to interpret the opposition in Jerusalem against Jesus and his followers. 3. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 36.

Resurrection and Scripture in Acts

­199

expresses the idea that Peter wants to impress on his audience, namely that salvation can be obtained by calling upon ‘the name of the Lord’ (to\ o)/noma kuri/ou). What remains unclear is the identity of ku/rioj. In its original literary context, this title refers to God. What Peter wants to show, however, is that it refers to Jesus of Nazareth, so that he can answer the question ‘Brothers, what should we do?’ (Acts 2:37), which his hearers ask at the conclusion of his speech, by summoning them to repent and be baptized ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ (e)pi\ tw|~ o)no/mati 'Ihsou= Xristou= [v.38a]). In order to make such an appeal, however, Peter must first show that ku/rioj from Joel 3:5a LXX applies to Jesus. He achieves this goal by presenting a sophisticated scriptural argument to show that by raising Jesus from the dead ‘God has made him both Lord and Messiah’ (kai\ ku/rion au)to\n kai\ xristo\n e)poi/hsen o( qeo/j [v. 36]). The resurrection speech is thus essential to Peter’s overall argument and should not be divorced entirely from the Pentecost speech. Even so, it constitutes a self-contained unit that can be analysed on its own terms. The resurrection speech contains two scriptural quotations: Ps 16:811a (15:8-11a LXX), quoted in vv.25-28, and Ps 110:1 (109:1 LXX), quoted in vv.34b-35. Because both citations follow the LXX almost verbatim, there is no need to comment on their textual form. Much more significant is the determination of their function in Peter’s argument, which is from beginning to end focused on Jesus’ resurrection. The role of the citation of Ps 16:8-11a is especially intriguing given the fact that this psalm is quoted elsewhere in the New Testament only in Acts 13:35 (which restricts its quotation to v.10). It is not clear, however, why Peter quotes this psalm at all if his goal is to clarify the identity of ku/rioj from Joel 3:5a. It seems that he could have achieved the same result much more straightforwardly simply by quoting Ps 110:1 and explaining that Jesus is the second ku/rioj mentioned in this verse. Peter introduces Jesus of Nazareth to the audience by providing a short synopsis of his life (‘a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you’ [v.22]), death (‘this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law’ [v.23]), and resurrection (‘But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power’ [v.24]). However, it is only the last declaration – that death was unable to hold Jesus in its power – that is commented upon and explained with the help of scriptural quotations in the rest of the speech.4

4. Lindars (ibid., 38) argues that ‘v. 24 contains more than a statement of the Resurrection . . . This is an interpretation of it in terms of the following quotation of Ps. 16.8–11, especially of the key-verse “Neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption”’ (emphasis original).

200

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

The citation of Ps 15:8-11 LXX that follows is introduced with the remark that David himself is the speaker. Peter also adds that the person about whom David speaks is Jesus of Nazareth.5 Who the speaker is and who is being spoken of in the psalm are crucial for Peter’s argument. Later in the speech he mentions that David was a prophet (profh/thj ou]n u(pa/rxwn [v.30]), a fact that the audience, both Peter’s Jewish hearers in Jerusalem and Luke’s Christian readers, most likely also believed.6 That the person about whom David speaks is Jesus, however, is not a shared assumption but one that must be proven. The most remarkable aspect of Peter’s speech is that it presumes that everyone who knows Israel’s Scripture and acknowledges its authority ought to be persuaded that the person spoken of in the psalm is Jesus. Before we move to this portion of the argument, however, a few comments about the quotation itself are in order. In the Hebrew text of Ps 16:8-11, the psalmist expresses confidence that his prayer for healing will be answered and his death averted. He speaks of neither resurrection nor eternal life but of God’s saving intervention in life-threating circumstances experienced in the present.7 The future that he imagines is ‘life in God’s presence. The language of the psalm presses toward an unbroken relation between Lord and life.’8 The Greek translation of this psalm, however, uses several expressions, such as h( glw~ssa/ mou (for ydwbk), e)p’ e)lpi/di (for x+bl), ei0j a(/|dhn (for lw)#l), diafqora/n (for tx#), and o(dou\j zwh=j (for Myyx xr)), which could be interpreted as references to resurrection, regardless of whether they were intended as such by the translators.9 This is, in fact, how Peter 5. The antecedent of au)to/n in v. 25 is clearly 'Ihsou=n to\n Nazwrai=on, introduced in v.22. 6. For portrayals of David as a prophet, see 11QPsa (11Q5) 27.11; Josephus, Ant. 6.166. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ‘David, “Being Therefore a Prophet . . .” (Acts 2:30)’, CBQ 34 (1972): 332–9. 7. So most modern scholars beginning with Gunkel (Die Psalmen, 51) and Samuel R. Driver (‘The Method of Studying the Psalter: Psalm XVI’, Expositor 11 [1910]: 33–5). 8.  James Luther Mays, Psalms (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1994), 88. 9. Some scholars argue that these expressions in the LXX are mistranslations; so Driver, ‘The Method’, 36–7; Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (trans. Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn; Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 181–2; Hendrikus Boers, ‘Psalm 16 and the Historical Origin of the Christian Faith’, ZNW 60 (1969): 106. For the proposal that the Septuagint translators imposed their own belief in resurrection on the text, whether consciously or unconsciously, see Gert J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum (CBET 12; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995), 106–8. For the view that the Greek translation of Psalm 16 does not depart from the meaning of the Hebrew Vorlage because the latter already contains the idea of resurrection, see Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (JSNTSup 12; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 171–81. For a critique of this interpretation, see William H. Bellinger Jr, ‘The Psalms and Acts: Reading and Rereading’, in With Steadfast Purpose: Essays on Acts in Honor of Henry Jackson Flanders, Jr. (ed. Naymond H. Keathley; Waco: Baylor University Press, 1990), 132–4.

Resurrection and Scripture in Acts

­201

interprets the text. In Acts 2:31, he paraphrases Ps 15:9-10 LXX in a way that suggests that death and resurrection are in view. A comparison of the quotation with its paraphrase shows that Peter accomplishes this goal by dissociating the term ‘flesh’ (h( sa/rc) from the idea of living in hope (kataskhnw/sei e0p’ e0lpi/di) and linking it directly to the term ‘corruption’ (diafqora/n). The resulting imagery about flesh experiencing corruption (h( sa/rc . . . ei]den diafqora/n ) is highly suggestive of death, so that its opposite (ou!te h( sa/rc . . . ei]den diafqora/n) could refer only to resurrection. Acts 2:26b-27 (quoting Ps 15:9-10 LXX)

Acts 2:31 (paraphrasing Ps 15:9-10 LXX)

e)/ti de\ kai\ h( sa/rc mou kataskhnw/sei e0p’ e0lpi/di, o(/ti ou)k e0gkatalei/yeij th\n yuxh/n mou ei0j a#|dhn ou)de\ dw/seij to\n o#sio/n sou i)dei=n diafqora/n.

ou!te e0gkatelei/fqh ei0j a#|dhn ou!te h( sa\rc au)tou= ei]den diafqora/n.

moreover my flesh will live in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One experience corruption.

He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption.

This interpretation of Ps 16:8-11 is consonant with the practice, exhibited elsewhere in Second Temple Judaism, of reading metaphorical language literally as a means of supporting resurrection hope from Scripture. The fact that this aspect of the interpretation of the psalm receives so little attention in the argument seems to indicate that both Peter and his audience agree that the psalm refers to resurrection. The central question that Peter discusses is the identity of the person described in the psalm. However, it is very important to note that the goal of the first part of Peter’s argument, which ends in v.31, is not to show that Ps 16:811 speaks of Jesus but that it speaks of the Messiah. Only after he has established that David prophesied ‘of the resurrection of the Messiah’ (peri\ th=j a)nasta/sewj tou= xristou= [v. 31]) does Peter mention Jesus (v.32) to demonstrate that, since his resurrection fulfils the words of the psalm, he must be the Messiah.10 The argument thus consists of two steps: (1) vv.29-31 and (2) vv.32-36. The first step does not depend on the Christian conviction of the interpreter but merely on the acceptance 10. Henry J. Cadbury (‘The Speeches in Acts’, in Additional Notes to the Commentary [vol. 5 of The Acts of the Apostles; ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake; The Beginnings of Christianity 1; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979], 408) argues that the logical steps in the speeches in Acts are as follows: ‘A. Scripture says thus and so. B. This must apply either to the speaker or to another. C. It can be proved not to apply to the speaker. D. Therefore since it was fulfilled in Jesus, it may be applied to him.’ The argument in Acts 2:25-32 includes A, C, and D, but B is not explicitly stated.

202

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

of Israel’s Scripture as an authoritative text and a common set of exegetical principles.11 Only in the second step is the confessional aspect introduced to take over the thrust of the argument. Peter begins the first part of the argument (vv.29-31) with the declaration that David could not have spoken of himself because ‘he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day’ (v.29).12 The public knowledge of David’s tomb13 functions as proof that he cannot be God’s ‘Holy One’ (o( o(/sioj) who will not experience corruption.14 This person must be someone else. In the next verse, Peter declares that the individual of whom David prophesied in the psalm is one of his descendants whom ‘God had sworn with an oath’ (o(/rkw| w!mosen au)tw|~ o( qeo/j) to put ‘on his throne’ (e0pi\ to\n qro/non au)tou=). This statement alludes to Ps 132:11 (131:11 LXX), which declares that ‘the Lord swore to David’ (w!mosen ku/rioj tw~| Dauid) that he will set one of his descendants ‘on your [David’s] throne’ (e0pi\ to\n qro/non sou). Peter’s identification of the promised Davidic offspring (e0k karpou= th=j o)sfu/oj au)tou= [v.30]) as the Messiah (tou= xristou= [v.31]) corresponds to the significance of Nathan’s oracle, to which Ps 132:11 clearly refers, for expectations of a Davidic Messiah in early Jewish literature. But this is only a building block in Peter’s argument. His main claim is that the promised Messiah is in fact God’s ‘Holy One’ (o( o(/sioj), whose resurrection David envisioned in Ps 15:10 LXX. The rationale for this interpretative move is not easy to determine. Most scholars are content merely to acknowledge what Peter has done without trying to explain his logic.15 Reconstructing an unstated hermeneutical principle is indeed difficult and attempts to do so will always remain conjectural. Nevertheless, there is one interesting, and quite remarkable, aspect of Luke’s scriptural exegesis that may indicate where the solution should be sought. Luke has a habit of omitting from

11. Longenecker notes that ‘[t]he exegetical conventions of Early Judaism were, it seems, the common “tools of the trade,” which could be used for many purposes and in support of various theological edifices’ (Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, xxviii). 12.  Cf. the analogous question of the Ethiopian eunuch: ‘About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?’ (Acts 8:34). 13.  Cf. Neh 3:16; Josephus, J.W. 1.61; Ant. 7.393; 13.249; 16.179–183. 14. Later, rabbis argued that Ps 16:9-10 should nevertheless be applied literally to David: ‘My flesh also dwelleth in safety (Ps. 16:9) – dwells in safety even after death. R. Isaac said: This verse proves that neither corruption nor worms had power over David’s flesh. For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to the nether-world (Ps. 16:10): In the grave his flesh will not dissolve like dust’ (Midr. Pss. 16.10–11; trans. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 1:201. 15. Lindars, for example, suggests that Peter’s comment that the psalm cannot refer to David ‘brings out the only alternative interpretation by adducing the messianic promise made to David. . . . The psalm necessarily speaks of the coming Messiah (tou= Xristou=)’ (New Testament Apologetic, 41). However, he never explains why a messianic understanding is ‘the only alternative interpretation’.

Resurrection and Scripture in Acts

­203

his scriptural quotations a portion of text that continues nevertheless to play an important role in his argument – either by appearing elsewhere in his narrative, or by providing an unexplained lexematic link between two scriptural passages. For example, in Acts 2:21, when Luke quotes the statement ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved’ from Joel 3:5 (2:32 Eng.), he omits the ending of this text. In Acts 2:39, however, some of the omitted words suddenly appear, in conflation with words from Isa 57:19. An even more interesting example is the ending of Ps 16:11 (15:11 LXX) – terpno/thtej e)n th|= decia|~ sou ei0j te/loj (‘in your right hand are pleasures forevermore’) – which is excluded from the quotation of this verse in Acts 2:28. Yet the omitted portion of Ps 16:11, which speaks of God’s right hand, provides the unstated lexematic link between the quotations of Ps 16:8-11 and Ps 110:1 later in Peter’s speech. It is thus conceivable that the reason for Luke’s identification of God’s ‘Holy One’ from Ps 15:10 LXX with the Messiah might be found in some unstated scriptural principle(s) that provide(s) the link between these two terms. One such possibility is Ps 132:10 (131:10 LXX), which precedes the verse alluded to in Acts 2:30. It contains not only the term ‘anointed one’ (tou= xristou=), which appears in Acts 2:31, but also the designation ‘David your servant’ (Dauid tou= dou/lou sou), which may have prompted the conclusion ‘that the Messiah can be called God’s servant’, as Juel explains.16 Juel also suggests that Ps 86:2 (85:2 LXX) may have been of particular interest for a Christian exegete such as Luke because the speaker identifies himself as both God’s servant (to\n dou=lon sou) and holy (o(/sioj).17 This identification may have provided the necessary justification for the main conclusion that the Lukan Peter makes in his interpretation in Ps 16:10, namely that this text speaks peri\ th=j a)nasta/sewj tou= xristou=. Such a ‘chain of inferences may seem overly ingenious’, as Juel rightly notes.18 Nevertheless, a similar association of Ps 16:10 and Ps 86:2 in Midr. Pss. 16.11, though late, shows that such an inference could be made. Evidence that is possibly even more relevant to Acts 2 is found in 4Q252 5.3–4 and 4Q174 1.10–11, both of which construe a chain of identifications of the Davidic Messiah.19 Despite the fact that these Qumran documents do not include 16.  Juel, ‘Social Dimensions of Exegesis’, 548. Juel proposes a reconstruction based on Ps 89:39-52 (88:39-52 LXX). In this psalm, the speaker, who calls himself both o( xristo/j sou and o( dou=lo/j sou (88:39-40 LXX), pleads with God for help based on God’s promises to David. Although different from mine, Juel’s proposal is compatible with it in that it shows that the link between the designations xristo/j and dou/loj is common in royal psalms that recall Davidic promises. 17.  Juel, ‘Social Dimensions of Exegesis’, 548–9. 18. Ibid., 549. 19. See Chapter 4, n.98 of this study. For a defence of the investigation of Qumran messianism on the basis of various correlated terms appearing in the Qumran corpus, see John J. Collins, ‘Messiahs in Context: Method in the Study of Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls’,

204

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

messianic titles corresponding to the designations dou=loj and o(/sioj, they show an interest in corelating different terms that could be applied to a Davidic Messiah. Luke’s exegesis follows a similar logic. Although messianic interpretation of Ps 16:8-11 is undocumented in pre-Christian Judaism, Peter’s conclusion is based on the common exegetical technique of associating different scriptural passages on the basis of their linguistic and thematic overlap, which is in rabbinic literature called gezerah shawah. Thus, even if he arrives at an interpretation unfamiliar to his Jewish audience – namely that Ps 16:8-11 predicts the resurrection of the Messiah – the Lukan Peter seems confident that his hearers will find it persuasive. The second part of Peter’s argument (vv.32-36) begins with the declaration, ‘This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses’ (v.32). Lindars rightly emphasises that this is an argument from literal fulfilment.20 The understanding of Jesus’ resurrection that is presumed here has two conspicuous features. On the one hand, the argument assumes that Jesus’ body did not remain in the grave long enough to decompose, which reflects the early Christian conviction that Jesus was raised on the third day. It should be noted that this aspect of Jesus’ resurrection was not expected to apply to the resurrection of believers. The latter is neither mentioned nor alluded to here, because Peter’s speech does not address the question of the resurrection of Jesus as the beginning of the general resurrection. On the other hand, Luke’s ‘exegesis presumes resurrection of the flesh and is therefore not a residue of the primitive Christian message’.21 It is also noteworthy that Peter in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (ed. Michael O. Wise et al.; ANYAS 722; New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), 213–27. 20. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 37. However, Lindars’s contention that this is also a primitive argument seems implausible, since the speeches in Acts do not represent an early stage in the Christian exegetical tradition, but ‘a rather developed stage of sophisticated scriptural argumentation’, as Juel maintains (Messianic Exegesis, 140). Moreover, there is no evidence that Psalm 16 was ever used in arguments for Jesus’ resurrection outside of Luke’s interpretative milieu. Juel argues that ‘messianic’ interpretation of Psalm 16 is ‘the end-product of a complex interpretative process and indicative of an approach to exegesis typical of Luke-Acts and later Christian writings, shared probably by no other NT authors’ (‘Social Dimensions of Exegesis’, 546). See also William S. Kurz, ‘Hellenistic Rhetoric in the Christological Proof of Luke-Acts’, CBQ 42 (1980): 171–95. Kurz alleges that unlike most New Testament texts, which simply assert that Jesus fulfilled a particular scriptural prediction, ‘only Luke-Acts has the explicit argument from premise(s) to conclusion’. In his view, the best explanation of this characteristic of the Lukan speeches is ‘that they are a Christian adaptation of the Aristotelian enthymeme’ (171–2). 21. Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (ed. Harold W. Attridge; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 80. Wright fails to notice this nuance when he says that ‘Luke at least believed, and the early sources he drew on seem to have believed, that the resurrection of Jesus involved not the corruption of his physical body in the tomb . . . but its incorruption’ (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 455).

Resurrection and Scripture in Acts

­205

supports the claim that Jesus has been raised from the dead merely by referring to the testimony of believers (pa/ntej h(mei=j e0smen ma/rturej). He apparently expects his audience to accept the statements of multiple witnesses as trustworthy. What occupies all his attention is the argument from Scripture for Jesus’ messianic identity. Peter argues that since Jesus has been raised in the manner described in Ps 16:8-11, which has just been shown to speak of the resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus must be the Messiah. Peter makes this conclusion explicitly, not immediately after v.32, where it logically belongs, but at the end of his speech, when he declares that ‘God has made him . . . Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified’ (v.36). Between these two points – the final piece of evidence in the argument for Jesus’ messiahship and the logical conclusion of that argument – Peter inserts another scriptural argument based on Ps 110:1, which allows him to add the designation ku/rioj to his closing statement about the identity of the crucified and risen Jesus and thus finally to explain the identity of ku/rioj from the Joel quotation at the end of the Pentecost speech. As is regularly noted by commentators, the citation of Ps 110:1 is linked to the citation of Ps 16:8-11 through an exegetical technique resembling the rabbinic gezerah shawah,22 which I prefer to call ‘lexematic association’ following the suggestion of Friedrich Avemarie.23 The key phrase e)k deciw~n mou from Ps 109:1 LXX, quoted in vv.34b-35, appears not only in the citation of Ps 15:8 LXX in v.25, where it refers to David’s right hand, but also, in a slightly different form (e)n th|= decia|~ sou), in the unquoted portion of Ps 15:11 LXX, where it refers to the right hand of God. It seems that the latter played a more important role in the association of these two scriptural passages than the purely verbal, yet thematically distinct, overlap of Ps 109:1 LXX and Ps 15:8 LXX, since Peter introduces his scriptural argument based on Ps 110:1 with the participial clause th|= decia|~ . . . tou= qeou= u(ywqei/j (v. 33).24 This reconstruction offers a better explanation of Luke’s use of the expression th|= decia|~ in his paraphrase of Ps 110:1 than the proposal that he merely uses traditional material.25 Alternatively, he may have preferred the

22. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 81. 23. Avemarie, ‘Interpreting Scripture through Scripture’, 83–102. 24. Lindars (New Testament Apologetic, 42) regards Peter’s assertion about the promise of the Holy Spirit that the exalted Jesus received from the Father as an elaboration of the reference to pleasures at God’s right hand from the omitted ending of Ps 15:11 LXX. See also Soards, The Speeches in Acts, 36; Juel, ‘Social Dimensions of Exegesis’, 546; Richard F. Zehnle, Peter’s Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lukan Reinterpretation in Peter’s Speeches of Acts 2 and 3 (SBLMS 15; Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 34. 25. The most frequently attested phrase is e)n decia|,= which appears in Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22. Luke is the only New Testament author who uses th|= decia|= (Acts 2:33; 5:31) of Christ’s exaltation, each time in conjunction with the verb u(yo/w.

206

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

traditional formulation th|= decia|26 ~ because it provided a better link with the ending of Ps 15:11 LXX, which he apparently presumed despite not quoting it. The question of whether Peter’s references to Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation designate simultaneous or successive events has received various answers. While scholars generally accept the former interpretation with regard to early Christian traditions attested elsewhere,27 some interpreters argue that it also applies to Acts 2:32-33 as part of the traditional material Luke incorporates.28 Others, however, contend that Luke’s distinction between Jesus’ resurrection and his ascension is also operative in Peter’s speech.29 On this reading, exaltation is equated with ascension, while Peter’s description of Jesus’ outpouring of the Holy Spirit (v.33b)30 refers to Pentecost, the second great event that followed Jesus’ resurrection in the Lukan scheme. Peter introduces the quotation of Ps 110:1 (109:1 LXX) with another ‘via negativa argument’31 with regard to its presumed reference to David. By asserting that ‘David did not ascend into the heavens’ (v.34a), he explains that David, though the immediate speaker in this psalm, did not refer to himself but to somebody else whom he called ku/rio/j mou. Although the entire verse is quoted, only the first half seems significant for Peter’s argument. He appears to be interested not in the subjugation of the enemies of the second ku/rioj but merely in establishing that the designation ku/rioj refers to Jesus. Only the first half of Ps 109:1 LXX, 26. So W. R. G. Loader, ‘Christ at the Right Hand – Ps. CX.1 in the New Testament’, NTS 24 (1978): 202. Martin Hengel (‘“Sit at my Right Hand!” The Enthronement of Christ at the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110:1’, in Studies in Early Christology [trans. Rollin Kearns; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995], 143) suggests that by leaving out the preposition e)n, Luke formulated a dativus loci. 27. See Chapter 3, section 4 of this study. 28. Hayes, ‘The Resurrection as Enthronement’, 338; Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 43; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 260; Lövestam (Son and Saviour, 40) emphasises that ‘in Luke’s writings the suffering of death and the exaltation are time and again contrasted with one another, by which the difference between the resurrection and the ascension is played down’. With regard to Acts 2, Lövestam argues that ‘[w]hen the message of Jesus’ resurrection is here immediately followed by the words ou]n . . . u(ywqei/j, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Jesus’ resurrection is interpreted as his exaltation’ (ibid., 42). Evans (Resurrection, 13) notes that exaltation ‘is synonymous with resurrection if Acts 2.33 is to be rendered “exalted by the right hand of God”, but carries the thought forward if the meaning is “exalted at the right hand of God”’. 29. Eric Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 33; Pervo, Acts, 83; Gerhard Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas (SANT 26; Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1971), 228–9. 30.  Mikeal C. Parsons (Acts [Paideia; Grand Rapids: 2008], 47) notes that ‘Jesus and God seem interchangeable: both are credited with pouring out the Spirit’ (cf. 2:17 and 2:33). 31. Ibid., 46.

Resurrection and Scripture in Acts

­207

which mentions two ku/rioi and the session of the second at the right hand of the first, seems directly relevant to the claim Peter makes in this speech. Hay notes that ‘this passage in Acts is the only one within the NT which indubitably joins Ps 110.1a with the absolute christological title kyrios’.32 We saw in Chapter 3, section 5 that there was no prevalent interpretative tradition of Ps 110:1 in pre-Christian Judaism. Early Christian interpreters, however, consistently interpret this psalm in messianic terms. The inclusion of this text in Peter’s speech demonstrates its importance in Christian exegesis. It is noteworthy that the exegetical argument that is derived from this passage works on two levels. On the one hand, Peter presumes that Ps 110:1 is messianic because Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand of God, which is confirmed by his bestowal of the Spirit on the disciples that his hearers ‘both see and hear’ (v.33),33 corresponds to the words of this psalm. Since Jesus’ messianic status has just been demonstrated, Ps 110:1 ‘becomes’ messianic through its application to Jesus the Messiah. On the other hand, lexematic association of Ps 16:811 and Ps 110:1 permits a ‘transference’ of the messianic interpretation of the former to the latter even before the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus are considered. It is thus possible to speak of a two-step argument, one exegetical and one confessional, with regard to the role not only of Ps 16:8-11 but also of Ps 110:1. Regardless of which line of argumentation one prefers, however, Lindars is certainly right when he claims that ‘the argument of the “Resurrection speech” can be summarized in v.36: the Resurrection proves that Jesus is both Lord, the literal fulfiller of Ps. 110, and Christ, the literal fulfiller of Ps. 16’.34 The scriptural argument in this speech thus combines two different exegetical traditions that are characteristic of two distinct social settings: midrashic interpretation, which is typical of the rabbinic writings, and pesher-type interpretation, which is typical of the Qumran writings.35 The first mode of exegesis, which presumes ‘openness toward outsiders and . . . confidence . . . in the ability of reason to disclose the meaning of biblical passages’,36 is displayed not only through the use of lexematic 32. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 115. 33. Soards notes that ‘[t]he “evidence” of the veracity of this argument is the Holy Spirit. In several speeches one observes the tendency to understand the Holy Spirit as the ultimate “evidence” or “witness” to God’s will and work’ (The Speeches in Acts, 36). 34. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 46. A different conclusion is reached by Hayes, who claims that ‘it was the Resurrection as ascension, the literal fulfillment of Psalm 110:1, which authenticated Jesus as Lord and Messiah’ (‘The Resurrection as Enthronement’, 340). Hayes’s shift of emphasis from Ps 16:8-11 to Ps 110:1 is not justified by the text. Each psalm plays its own role in the argument, Ps 16:8-11 providing the scriptural support for the declaration that Jesus is the Messiah and Ps 110:1 providing the scriptural support that he is Lord. 35. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 85; Juel, ‘Social Dimensions of Exegesis’, 550; Bellinger, ‘The Psalms and Acts’, 135, 141. 36.  Juel, ‘Social Dimensions of Exegesis’, 555.

208

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

associations of scriptural passages but also through the construction of ‘unprejudiced’ proofs from Scripture. The second mode of exegesis, which is typical of the sectarian writings, is displayed not only through the introduction of specifically Christian material but also through an emphasis on the fulfilment of Scripture in Jesus. Thus, although LukeActs stands apart from other New Testament writings with regard to its emphasis on ‘objective’ argumentation from Scripture, it nevertheless shares with them the conviction that ‘reason alone is unable to penetrate the mysteries of the text’37 since it is only through revelation that the minds of hearers can be opened to understand the true meaning of Scripture (Luke 24:45).

3. The Fulfilled Promises to David Paul’s speech in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16-41) resembles Peter’s sermon in Acts 2.38 It contains an exegetical argument for the resurrection of Jesus that employs similar scriptural passages, most notably Psalm 16. However, Paul’s speech is not a repetition of Peter’s. Luke seems to presume his readers’ familiarity with the argument of Acts 2, as well as with other speeches in Acts 3, 7, and 10. Only one verse from Psalm 16 is quoted. The corresponding midrashic argument, which also includes quotations of Ps 2:7 and Isa 55:3, is significantly abbreviated. All of this suggests that Paul’s speech is not primarily directed to the narrative audience but to the Christian readers of Acts.39 Unlike Peter’s address in Acts 2:14-36, but similar to Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:1-53, Paul’s synagogue homily begins with a survey of major events from Israel’s history that resembles works of rewritten Scripture (Acts 13:17-22). Paul’s review, however, neither closely follows its base text nor aims at explaining it from within, but rather highlights selected events from Israel’s past in order to show the purpose of the nation’s history. The survey starts with Israel’s sojourn in Egypt and ends with the acknowledgement of God’s approval of David as a man who carried out all his wishes. The goal of Israel’s history is demonstrated not only through a selection of significant events (prosperity in Egypt – exodus – wandering in the wilderness – possession of Canaan – judges – King 37. Ibid. 38. Pervo (Acts, 337) suggests that ‘Luke wishes to show the commonality of the “gospel” of Peter and Paul. Both preach the same message, in Jerusalem and in the Diaspora.’ 39. Robert F. O’Toole, ‘Christ’s Resurrection in Acts 13,13–52’, Bib 60 (1979): 361; Pervo, Acts, 334. Pervo adds that certain portions of the speech, such as its statements regarding John the Baptist and Jesus, would probably be confusing and/or unintelligible to Jews and God-fearers in the Diaspora. He concludes that this speech ‘fully exposes the unhistorical character of the missionary speeches in Acts’.

Resurrection and Scripture in Acts

­209

Saul – King David) but also through a narrative in which the subject of almost every clause is God. The goal of this rapid review of Israel’s past is revealed in v.23, where Paul introduces Jesus as a Saviour whom God brought to Israel ‘from the seed’ (a)po\ tou= spe/rmatoj) of David ‘according to promise’ (kat’ e)paggeli/an).40 This terse formulation presumes the audience’s familiarity with Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam 7:516.41 The significance of such a strategic introduction, which firmly links Jesus to God’s promise to David, can be fully recognized only at the end of the speech. What Paul wants to demonstrate is that by raising Jesus from the dead God finally and conclusively fulfilled his promise to David. Before coming to this subject, however, Paul provides a short synopsis of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. He begins with the baptism of repentance proclaimed by John the Baptist, only to declare that John was not ‘he’ (v.25). After a renewed appeal to his hearers (‘my brothers, you descendants of Abraham’s family, and others who fear God’ [v.26]), which marks the beginning of the second part of the speech, Paul accuses the residents of Jerusalem and their leaders of condemning Jesus and handing him over to Pilate to be killed. A brief description of Jesus’ death and burial is combined with repeated references to Scripture as a whole. The Jerusalemites ‘did not . . . understand the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath, they fulfilled those words by condemning him’ (v.27), and ‘they . . . carried out everything that was written about him’ (v.29). By triumphantly declaring, ‘But God raised him from the dead’ (v.30), Paul announces the main topic of the speech. Several references to Jesus’ resurrection in vv.30-37, all of which have God as their subject, are characterized by both a formulaic structure and the use of the verbs a)ni/sthmi or e)gei/rw, which links them directly to the reference to David in the first part of the speech: v.22 h)/geiren to\n Daui/d (‘he raised up David’) v.30 o( . . . qeo\j h)/geiren au)to\n e0k nekrw~n (‘God raised him up from the dead’) v.33 o( qeo/j . . . a)nasth/saj 'Ihsou=n (‘God . . . having raised Jesus’)42

40. All translations in this section are mine. 41. Pervo, Acts, 337. 42. The meaning of this participial phrase is disputed. On the basis of Acts 3:22 and 7:37, which speak of God raising up a prophet like Moses, some scholars interpret Acts 13:33 as a reference to Jesus’ appearance in history; see, for example, Martin Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas (SNT 1; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969), 82–6; Frederick F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (3rd rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 309; Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology (JSNTSup 110; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 164–6. Most scholars, however, understand a)nasth/saj 'Ihsou=n as a reference to Jesus’ resurrection. This interpretation is supported not only by the interchangeability of the verbs a)ni/sthmi and e)gei/rw in Paul’s speech (as well as elsewhere in Luke-Acts; cf. Luke 9:22; 18:33; Acts 2:24, 32; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40) but also by the logic of his argument. See also Duling, ‘The Promises to David’,

210

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

v.34 a)ne/sthsen au)to\n e0k nekrw~n (‘he raised him from the dead’) v.37 o(/n . . . qeo\j h)/geiren (‘whom God raised up’)

However, the main proof that by raising Jesus from the dead God has finally and decisively fulfilled the promise to David is not provided by verbal links between the various components of the speech but by an argument from Scripture. In vv.33b-35, Paul quotes three scriptural texts – Ps 2:7, Isa 55:3, and Ps 16:10 (15:10 LXX) – as a means of demonstrating that ‘God has fulfilled the promise made to the fathers for us, their children, by raising Jesus’ (vv.32b-33a). The scriptural argument thus has a pesher-like function, i.e. to demonstrate the fulfilment of Scripture in Jesus, but its configuration and logic is midrashic, like Peter’s speech in Acts 2. In Ps 2:7 (quoted in v.33), the Lord (o( ku/rioj) speaks to ‘his anointed’ (o( xristo\j au)tou= [Ps 2:2]) with the words, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you’ (ui9o/j mou ei] su/, e)gw\ sh/meron gene/nnhka/ se). This text, which is quoted elsewhere in the New Testament only in Heb 1:5; 5:5,43 is in Paul’s speech used to ascribe to Jesus the messianic title ‘Son of God’ by virtue of his resurrection. Beverly Gaventa suggests that ‘[a]ssociating the “today” of the psalm with the resurrection could mean that Luke understands Jesus to become Messiah only at his resurrection, and there are other indications of that view in Acts (2:32-36; perhaps also 17:31)’.44 Romans 1:4, which interprets Jesus’ resurrection as his messianic enthronement, indicates that a link between Ps 2:7 and the resurrection was probably established very early,45 but only in Acts 13:33 is the latter interpreted as divine ‘begetting’.46 Despite some attempts to demonstrate otherwise,47 a messianic interpretation of Ps 2:7 is not attested in pre-Christian Judaism.48 At the same time, however, 4Q174 1.10–11 shows that divine adoption of the Davidic Messiah was 55–70, and Chapter 3, section 3 of this study, which discusses early Christian appropriation of the ‘raising up’ terminology of the promise tradition for application to the resurrection of Jesus. 43. See also Acts 4:25-26, which quotes Ps 2:1-2 LXX. 44.  Beverly Roberts Gaventa, The Acts of the Apostles (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 200. Gaventa adds that ‘[t]he fact that the same verse appears at Jesus’ baptism in Luke’s Gospel stands in tension with that conclusion, however, and probably means that Luke is less concerned about locating Jesus’ Messiahship in chronological time than he is about locating it in Scripture’. 45. See Chapter 3, section 3 of this study. 46. On the basis of Acts 2:24; 4 Ezra 4.40–42; Col 1:18; Rev 1:5; and Rom 1:4, Lövestam (Son and Saviour, 43–7) argues that early Christian interpreters linked the birthmotif to Jesus’ resurrection, but the evidence for this is, as he himself admits, ‘somewhat tenuous’ (47). For a critique of Lövestam’s proposal, see Bock, Proclamation, 246–8. 47. Lövestam, Son and Saviour, 15–23; Bock, Proclamation, 246; Aquila H. I. Lee, From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ Self-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms (WUNT II/192; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 241–50. 48. See Chapter 3, n.107.

Resurrection and Scripture in Acts

­211

thematized in some Jewish groups in Second Temple times. Various quotations and allusions to Ps 2:7 in the New Testament writings demonstrate that this aspect of the Davidic promise gained in importance in early Christianity. The claim in Acts 13:32-33 that by raising Jesus God has fulfilled ‘the promise to the fathers’ (th\n pro\j tou\j pate/raj e)paggeli/an), which precedes the citation of Ps 2:7 in v.33b, explains its function in the speech. The promise to which Paul refers is God’s promise to David, which is mentioned in v.23. By asserting from Ps 2:7 that Jesus is God’s Son, Paul interprets his resurrection as a messianic enthronement that fulfils God’s promise to adopt David’s offspring (2 Sam 7:14).49 Unlike in Acts 2:33, Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand of God is not mentioned, but it is probably presumed given Luke’s dislike for repetition.50 Since Acts 13:23 has already posited Jesus’ Davidic ancestry by asserting that God brought him to Israel a)po\ tou= spe/rmatoj of David, the quotation of Ps 2:7 in v.33b proves that two major elements of Nathan’s oracle have been fulfilled: Jesus comes from David’s seed (2 Sam 7:12) and God declares Jesus his son by raising him from the dead (2 Sam 7:14). The argument up to this point is very similar to the prePauline confession in Rom 1:3-4. The main difference is the clarity with which the exegetical proof is presented, especially with regard to Jesus’ divine sonship. Instead of a concise confessional formula that merely alludes to Ps 2:7, the Lukan Paul not only provides the full quotation of this text but also offers an interpretation that explains the author’s hermeneutical reasoning. The rest of his speech, however, advances the exegetical argument beyond the notions of Rom 1:3-4. Most interpreters agree that the citations from Isa 55:3 LXX (dw/sw u(mi=n ta\ o(s / ia Daui\d ta\ pista/ [v. 34b]) and Ps 15:10 LXX (ou) dw/seij to\n o(s / io/n sou i0dei=n diafqora/n [v. 35b]) are associated through their lexematic overlap: each includes the future tense of di/dwmi (which Luke adds to the quotation of Isa 55:3 to strengthen the verbal link with the citation from Ps 15:10 LXX) and the substantival adjective o(s / ioj. The role of Ps 15:10 LXX here is similar to the one it plays in Acts 2:25-31. The citation is followed by a reference to David’s death and burial, which is taken as a proof that ‘he saw corruption’ (ei]den diafqora/n [v.36]) so that, by implication, he cannot be the ‘Holy One’ mentioned in the quotation. In a clear contrast, v.37 declares that ‘the one whom God raised up’, i.e. the 49. Lövestam, Son and Saviour, 37–48; Eduard Schweizer, ‘The Concept of the Davidic “Son of God” in Acts and Its Old Testament Background’, in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 186–93; Bock, Proclamation, 245–56. 50.  Cf. Heb 1:5 and 5:5, both of which link Ps 2:7 to Jesus’ exaltation. Pace Lee, From Messiah to Preexistent Son, 255, who suggests that the missing link between Ps 2:7 and Jesus’ resurrection may be found in Ps 2:6. Lee’s attempt to demonstrate that the early church understood the latter as a prophecy of Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand of God is unconvincing for lack of evidence that Ps 2:6 was ever used for that purpose.

212

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

risen Jesus, ‘did not see corruption’ (ou)k ei]den diafqora/n) so that, again by implication, he must be the ‘Holy One’ from Ps 15:10 LXX. Even though the argument for the messianic interpretation of this designation is not repeated, it clearly seems to be presumed. Likewise, although Paul does not say that Jesus’ flesh did not see corruption (probably because Ps 15:9 LXX, which includes the term ‘flesh’, is not quoted), the resurrection of the flesh is most likely presupposed.51 That much seems clear. What is elusive is the role of the citation of Isa 55:3 in Acts 13:34 (dw/sw u(mi=n ta\ o(s / ia Daui\d ta\ pista/), the literal translation of which is: ‘I will give you the holy things of David, the things that are faithful.’52 Richard Pervo, for example, notes that at first glance this quotation is ‘superfluous and confusing’.53 Kirsopp Lake and Henry Cadbury assert that the phrase ta\ o(s / ia ta\ pista/ ‘is as unintelligible in Greek as in English’.54 They propose that the purpose of the quotation of Ps 15:10 LXX that follows is to clarify this obscure expression from Isa 55:3 through the rabbinic principle of analogy. Since the term ta\ o(s / ia is unintelligible, ‘the writer takes another passage in which the adjective o(s / ioj is used substantivally, Ps. xvi. 10, . . . and introduces it by dio/ti, to show that this is the justification for his interpretation, and that by perfectly correct Rabbinical reasoning ta\ o(s / ia means the Resurrection’.55 There is little doubt that the link between Isa 55:3 and Ps 15:10 LXX by the technique of lexematic association has the purpose of explaining the former in light of the latter, i.e. of presenting Jesus’ resurrection as the fulfilment of Isa 55:3. Moreover, Luke explains his exegetical reasoning in the remark he uses to introduce the citation of Isa 55:3: ‘And that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken thus’ (Acts 13:34a). What still remains unclear, however, is how the quotation of Isa 55:3 can provide evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. The fact that the risen Jesus will no more return to corruption seems to be particularly significant in the argument, because it is repeated in vv.36-37, not just once but twice: first in reference to David (he saw corruption) and then in reference to the risen Jesus (he did not see corruption). The purpose of this increased emphasis on seeing/not seeing corruption cannot be merely to show that David is not the speaker of the psalm.56

51. Pervo, Acts, 339. 52. NRSV: ‘the holy promises made to David’. 53. Pervo, Acts, 339. 54.  Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, English Translation and Commentary (vol. 4 of The Acts of the Apostles; ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake; The Beginnings of Christianity 1; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 155. 55. Ibid. 56. In Peter’s speech in Acts 2, diafqora/ is mentioned only twice: once in the citation of Ps 15:10 LXX (v.27) and once in the commentary (v.31). In Paul’s speech in Acts 13, diafqora/ is mentioned four times: once in the citation of Ps 15:10 LXX (v.35) and three times in the commentary (vv.34, 36, 37).

Resurrection and Scripture in Acts

­213

The most plausible explanation to date57 remains the one offered by Evald Lövestam.58 He rejects the idea that the quotation of Isa 55:3 was unintelligible to Luke’s audience because, on this assumption, it is difficult to explain ‘why an expression so obscure in itself should have been used as scriptural evidence in Acts 13:34’.59 In his view, the abridged version (dw/sw u(mi=n ta\ o(/sia Daui\d ta\ pista/) of the whole clause (diaqh/somai u(mi=n diaqh/khn ai)w/nion ta\ o(/sia Dauid ta\ pista/ [Isa 55:3 LXX]) functions as an easily recognizable reference to God’s everlasting covenant with David (2 Sam 7:12-16). This reference to Nathan’s oracle, which represents a crux interpretum of Paul’s argument, emphasises the everlasting character and irrevocable nature of God’s promise to David. This aspect of the Davidic covenant is especially prominent in 2 Sam 23:1-5; 2 Chr 13:5; 21:7; Ps 89:4-5, 27-30; 132:11; and Amos 9:11-12.60 Lövestam concludes that by raising Jesus, ‘no more return to corruption’ (Acts 13:34), God fulfilled the promise of an everlasting kingdom. ‘In the Risen Lord the promise to David of the permanent dominion of his offspring finds its fulfilment.’61 This interpretation of the role of Isa 55:3 is not only consistent with the role of other scriptural quotations and allusions in Paul’s synagogue homily but also offers a glimpse into Luke’s hermeneutical creativity. Paul’s speech in Acts 13 provides the most sophisticated argument in the New Testament of the way the resurrection of Jesus fulfils God’s promise to David. Through a combination of scriptural paraphrase, explicit quotation, allusion, and scriptural commentary, Luke uses both implicit and explicit exegesis to argue that the resurrection of Jesus demonstrates that he is the promised Messiah. More specifically, Luke shows that Jesus fulfils all three components of Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam 7:12-16: he is David’s ‘seed’ (v.23), who was enthroned and declared God’s son by virtue of his resurrection from the dead (vv.32-33), and whose dominion is everlasting because he will no more return to corruption (vv.34-37). In this way, Luke closes the circle that he opened in Luke 1:32-33, when the angel announced that all three of these elements would be fulfilled in Jesus: ‘He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’

57. For a review of the major interpretative possibilities, see Kevin L. Anderson, ‘But God Raised Him from the Dead’: The Theology of Jesus’ Resurrection in Luke-Acts (PBM; Bletchley: Paternoster, 2006), 249–54. 58. Lövestam, Son and Saviour, 48–81. 59. Ibid., 54. 60. Ibid., 55–8. 61. Ibid., 79.

214

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

4. Conclusion The author of Luke-Acts is not content merely to assert that Jesus fulfilled ‘everything written about [him] in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms’ (Luke 24:36); he also offers elaborate scriptural arguments to prove this claim. The programmatic speeches of Peter and Paul seek to show that the significance of Jesus’ resurrection can be understood properly only in conversation with Scripture. Each scriptural argument is carefully construed and includes both an apologetic and a confessional aspect. The difference between these two aspects is especially evident in Peter’s resurrection speech in Acts 2:22-36, which combines an ‘objective’ argument that employs midrashic exegetical techniques with a ‘subjective’ argument that is based on the conviction that Scripture finds its ultimate fulfilment in Jesus. Peter first quotes Ps 15:8-11 LXX to establish that it speaks of the Messiah (vv.25-28). Although the Hebrew text of this scriptural passage does not presume belief in afterlife, its Greek translation uses several terms that could be understood as references to resurrection by an interpreter who already believed in it. Peter, in fact, seems to presume that his audience agrees that the psalm speaks about resurrection, because he makes no effort to justify this interpretation of the text. What he seeks to demonstrate is that this passage describes the resurrection of the Messiah. His proof consists of two premises: (1) that David, the speaker of this psalm, did not speak of himself, and (2) that he spoke instead of the Messiah. The first premise is proved by the fact that David’s tomb is located in Jerusalem, which demonstrates that his prophecy was not fulfilled in his own person. The proof of the second premise, however, is much less transparent. It is based on God’s promise to David to put one of his descendants on his throne and an unstated scriptural link between the designations o( xristo/j and o( o(/sioj. Only after Peter has demonstrated that Ps 15:8-11 LXX speaks of the resurrection of the Messiah does he bring up Jesus’ resurrection to show that the latter literally fulfils scriptural prophecy. He also advances the argument by introducing another scriptural quotation – Ps 109:1 LXX – which allows him to declare that the second ku/rioj mentioned in this psalm is the risen and exalted Jesus (vv.34-36). The ultimate goal of Peter’s scriptural proof is to demonstrate that Jesus is the Lord mentioned in the Joel quotation at the end of the Pentecost speech and that everyone who calls on his name shall be saved (Acts 2:21). Thus this argument, though entirely christological, serves a clear soteriological purpose. Paul’s speech in Acts 13:16-41 includes a brief review of Israel’s salvation history and quotations of Ps 2:7, Isa 55:3, and Ps 15:10 LXX (vv.33-35). The main goal of his scriptural proof is to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Davidic Messiah who has fulfilled all three components of Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam 7:12-16. While Jesus’ Davidic

Resurrection and Scripture in Acts

215

descent seems to be presupposed, Paul uses Ps 2:7 to interpret Jesus’ resurrection as a messianic enthronement at which he was declared God’s Son. The application of this psalm to Jesus, which presumes his exaltation, probably results from the same type of early Christian exegesis that underlies the traditional formula in Rom 1:4. The crux interpretum of Paul’s argument lies in the citation of Isa 55:3, the purpose of which is to demonstrate the permanency of Jesus’ messianic rule. Since the author of Luke-Acts apparently presumes a messianic understanding of Ps 15:10 LXX on the part of his audience, he uses this citation mainly to support his interpretation of Isa 55:3. By bracketing both quotations with the clauses ‘no more to return to corruption’ (v.34) and ‘the one whom God raised up did not see corruption’ (v.37), Paul underscores the everlasting character of Jesus’ kingdom. In this speech, the apologetic and confessional aspects of Paul’s argument are interwoven and cannot be separated easily. This is probably the result of the fact that this utterance, although devised as a missionary homily employing midrashic exegetical techniques, is ultimately addressed to a Christian audience.

Summary of Conclusions Despite the fact that expectations regarding the resurrection of the dead in early Judaism were not uniform, none of them anticipated the resurrection of the Messiah. We have seen that only three Jewish texts associate the resurrection with the time of the Messiah – 4Q521, 4 Ezra 7, and 2 Baruch 30 – and that, of these, only the first appears to connect him with God’s giving of life to the dead, while the other two remove him from the stage before the resurrection begins. In light of this finding, the Christian claim that Scripture predicts the resurrection of the Messiah is intelligible only under certain conditions. It presumes an interpretative community that believes not only that Jesus has been raised from the dead but also that he is the Messiah. Where these conditions are met, even texts not traditionally understood to be messianic could become so through association with Jesus. For those who do not share these basic convictions, such interpretations will not be compelling; for those who do, they will carry ultimate conviction. It is therefore questionable whether the earliest attempts to interpret Jesus’ resurrection in the light of Scripture had apologetic aims. We have seen that only the speeches in Acts exhibit this characteristic, but they represent a rather developed stage of the Christian exegetical endeavour. Yet even the author of Luke-Acts presumes that understanding the claim that Jesus’ resurrection took place according to Scripture requires a special insight into the character of the sacred texts, a distinctive perception of their ultimate intention that is not available to everyone. According to Luke 24:45, for example, the disciples were not able to comprehend the scriptural testimony about Jesus’ death and resurrection until the risen Jesus ‘opened their minds’. The comment ‘for as yet they did not understand the Scripture’ in John 20:9 describes a similar situation. The New Testament writings reveal that this polarization between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ was not only very painful but also quite confusing. How is it possible that two people could read the same text and yet arrive at completely different interpretations? Paul’s explanation of this perplexing state of affairs is that the minds of unbelieving Jews are hardened, so that when they read Scripture, a spiritual ‘veil’ covers their minds in the same way that a literal ‘veil’ covered Moses’ face when he wanted to prevent the Israelites from seeing God’s glory reflected in it (2 Cor 3:12-15). ‘But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed’ (2 Cor 3:16). Second Corinthians 3:14 shows that this means turning

Summary of Conclusions

217

to Christ. Thus only a person who confesses Jesus as the Messiah is capable of a true understanding of Scripture because only such a person recognizes that Scripture speaks of Christ. A proper understanding is possible only from the perspective of faith. Similarly, the Johannine Jesus charges his adversaries, ‘You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life’ (John 5:39-40). Only those who already believe in Jesus perceive that Scripture points to him. Those who remain outside of the faith will never be able to comprehend the true meaning of scriptural passages. The Fourth Gospel seems to suggest that rational arguments are pointless, because they are not able to convince unbelievers. The polemical social setting of this Gospel, which is mirrored in the text, reinforces a sectarian reading of Scripture and restricts its plausibility to insiders. Despite this polarization of audiences, both within and without the narrative world, which characterizes many, if not all, of the New Testament writings, early Christian interpreters are at pains to demonstrate that not only Scripture in general but also particular passages of Scripture bear witness to Jesus’ resurrection. In this study, I have analysed the major New Testament passages that make these efforts in order to determine which scriptural texts they use, which exegetical techniques they employ, and how they reason exegetically. My principal assumption throughout has been that Christian interpreters employed interpretative strategies similar to those of their Jewish contemporaries, such as rewriting scriptural narratives, relating certain components of the text to contemporary events, interpreting metaphorical language literally and literal language metaphorically, and associating apparently unrelated texts through verbal or thematic overlap. Yet our familiarity with such exegetical techniques, though necessary, is only the first step in our attempts to reconstruct the logic of early Christian scriptural arguments. Equally important is examination of the principles that govern the selection of specific passages, the use of existing interpretative traditions, and the theological significance of particular exegetical outcomes. One of the earliest interpretations of Jesus’ resurrection in the light of Scripture involves employment of the third-day motif. It seems that the interpretation of Hos 6:2 as a prophecy of the resurrection of the dead, which was probably current already in the first century ce, enabled early Christians to express their principal conviction that Jesus’ resurrection marked the beginning of the general resurrection. This aspect of the resurrection seems especially important to Paul, who introduces an Adam-Christ typology to portray Jesus as the last Adam, who became a life-giving spirit. Paul’s exegetical creativity is visible through his christological reinterpretation of Gen 2:7 using language from Ezek 37:5-14, as well as through his combination of the notion that Jesus’

218

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

messianic reign begins with his resurrection and the idea that Jesus will bring about the ultimate destruction of death. Paul achieves this goal through a conflation of Ps 110:1 with Ps 8:7, which is used elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g. Eph 1:20-22, Heb 1:13–2:8, and 1 Pet 3:22) to emphasise Jesus’ supreme authority. The main purpose of the pre-Pauline confession in Rom 1:3-4 is to relate Jesus’ resurrection to his messianic status. This is accomplished, on the one hand, through a conflation of 2 Sam 7:12-14 and Ps 2:7 to present the risen Christ as the enthroned Davidic Messiah and, on the other hand, through a literal rendering of the ‘rising up’ terminology in the promise tradition. In Phil 2:9-11, which also incorporates prePauline tradition, the exalted Christ is presented as cosmocrator through a midrashic interpretation of Isa 45:23 LXX. In the Gospels, the three-day motif is further developed in two different directions. Matthew interprets the mysterious sign of Jonah by comparing Jesus’ sojourn in the grave with Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the sea monster in order to demonstrate that Jesus’ resurrection functions as the sole authentication of his messianic identity. The temple logion, which is found in Mark, Matthew, and John, uses the three-day motif to define the resurrection as the specific moment at which the messianic building of the temple begins. The programmatic speeches of Peter and Paul in Acts contain elaborate scriptural arguments to demonstrate the significance of the resurrection of Jesus for his status as Messiah. In his resurrection speech (Acts 2:2236), Peter interprets Ps 16:8-11 as a text that predicts the resurrection of the Messiah to demonstrate that Jesus is its literal fulfilment. Peter then introduces Ps 110:1 to show that the exalted Jesus can be called Lord, again because he literally fulfils this prophecy. Paul’s homily at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16-41) is concerned less with the specific titles that can be ascribed to the risen Jesus than with demonstrating that his resurrection fulfils God’s promise to give David an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam 7:1216). To achieve this goal, the Lukan Paul quotes Ps 2:7, Isa 55:3, and Ps 16:10. In both of these speeches, the use of Psalm 16 aims at creating an ‘unprejudiced’ argument whose purpose is to demonstrate that the resurrection of the Messiah is predicted in Scripture. This is accomplished, first, through a deliberate reading of the Greek translation of this psalm as a resurrection prophecy and, second, through a midrashic argument that combines explicit and implicit lexematic links of Psalm 16 with other scriptural passages recalling God’s promises to David, such as Ps 86:2 and Ps 132:10-11, to show that the person spoken of in this text is the Messiah. Since this use of Psalm 16 is documented in the New Testament only in Acts, it probably represents an advanced stage in the development of Christian scriptural arguments for the resurrection of Jesus. This study has shown that the New Testament use of individual passages to demonstrate that Jesus has been raised from the dead

Summary of Conclusions

219

according to Scripture is limited to Gen 2:7; 2 Sam 7:12-16; Pss 2:7; 8:7; 16:8-11; 86:2; 110:1; 132:10-11; Isa 45:23; 55:3; Ezek 37:5-14; and Hos 6:2. Even though in their original contexts none of these texts expresses resurrection hope, some of them, such as Ezek 37:5-14, Hos 6:2, and probably Ps 16:8-11, include imagery that proved conducive to the development of this belief in Second Temple Judaism. Early Christian exegetes appear to have been familiar with these interpretative traditions since they used them in their scriptural arguments, especially to present Jesus’ resurrection as the beginning of the general resurrection. However, they were not content merely to demonstrate that the anticipated resurrection of the dead had already begun in human history; they also were at pains to demonstrate that Jesus’ resurrection disclosed him as the expected Messiah. It is thus possible to distinguish two major thematic trajectories in the use of Israel’s Scripture in early Christian interpretations of Jesus’ resurrection. The first entails exploration of the significance of the resurrection of Jesus for the resurrection of believers. This exegetical interest is especially visible in the Adam-Christ typology developed by Paul, which enables him to relate the creation motifs from Genesis to the final destruction of death. The second trajectory involves the use of Scripture for the purpose of demonstrating Jesus’ messianic identity. It is very unlikely that Christian interpreters would have derived this conclusion from Scripture apart from their prior conviction that Jesus was the Messiah. It is certainly remarkable that the majority of their exegetical efforts – from the earliest layers of the tradition preserved in the letters of Paul, through the distinctive development of the three-day motif in the Gospels, to the speeches in Acts – are focused on relating Scripture to Jesus’ messianic identity. Psalm 2:7 and Ps 110:1 seem to have played a very important role in this development since these two texts appear not only in the earliest scriptural arguments concerning the messianic implications of the resurrection of Jesus but also in more advanced formulations in Acts. They are especially significant in the passages that describe Jesus’ exaltation and his messianic reign. The use of Ps 16:8-11 is documented only in the more complex version of this thematic trajectory, which aims not only at explaining the significance of Jesus’ resurrection for believers but also at constructing arguments intended to persuade those outside of faith. We can thus conclude that the central conviction that Jesus was raised from the dead according to Scripture was both the cause and the result of the Christian exegetical endeavour pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus. It is thus not surprising that it is preserved in three different traditions – pre-Pauline, Lukan, and Johannine – as a testimony to what early Christian exegetes desired to demonstrate in their interpretations of Israel’s Scripture.

­

Bibliography Adam, A. K. M. ‘The Sign of Jonah: A Fish-Eye View’. Semeia 51 (1990): 177–91. Alexander, Philip S. ‘The Bible in Qumran and Early Judaism’. Pages 35–63 in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by A. D. H. Mayes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ——— ‘Retelling the Old Testament’. Pages 99–121 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Edited by Donald A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ——— ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’. Pages 14–28 in Congress Volume: Salamanca, 1983. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 36. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Albright, William F. From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process. 2nd ed. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957. Allen, Leslie C. ‘The Old Testament Background of (pro)o(ri/zein in the New Testament’. NTS 17 (1970): 104–8. Allison, Dale C., Jr. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. ——— Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. ——— ‘The Decline and Fall of Literary Criticism’. Commentary 77.3 (1984): 50–56. Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980. Anderson, Kevin L. ‘But God Raised Him from the Dead’: The Theology of Jesus’ Resurrection in Luke-Acts. PBM. Bletchley: Paternoster, 2006. Anderson, George W. ‘Isaiah XXIV–XXVII Reconsidered’. Pages 118–26 in Congress Volume, Bonn 1962. VTSup 9. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. Attridge, Harold W. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus. HDR 7. Missoula, Mont.; Scholars Press, 1976. Attridge, Harold W., et al., in consultation with James C. VanderKam. Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.

222

Bibliography

Avemarie, Friedrich. ‘Interpreting Scripture through Scripture: Exegesis Based on Lexematic Association in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pauline Epistles’. Pages 83–102 in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 85; Leiden: Brill, 2009. Bacon, Benjamin W. ‘What Was the Sign of Jonah?’. BW 20 (1902): 99–112. Bar-Asher, Moshe. ‘On the Language of “The Vision of Gabriel”’. RevQ 23 (2008): 491–524. Barré, M. L. ‘New Light on the Interpretation of Hosea VI 2’. VT 28 (1978): 129–41. Barrett, C. K. From First Adam to Last: A Study in Pauline Theology. New York: Scribner, 1962. ——— The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. Barthélemy, Dominique. Les Devanciers d’Aquila. VTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Barthes, Roland. S/Z. Paris: Seuil, 1970. ——— ‘Theory of the Text’. Pages 31–47 in Untying the Text: A PostStructuralist Reader. Edited by Robert Young. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981. Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Waco: Word, 1983. Bauer, Johannes Baptist. ‘Drei Tage’. Bib 39 (1958): 354–8. Baumgarten, Joseph M., and Daniel R. Schwartz. ‘Damascus Document’. Pages 4–57 in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Vol. 2 of DSSHAGET. PTSDSSP 2. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1995. Bayer, Hans F. Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection: The Provenance, Meaning and Correlation of the Synoptic Predictions. WUNT II/20. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1986. Beasley-Murray, Paul. ‘Romans 1:3f: An Early Confession of Faith in the Lordship of Jesus’. TynBul 31 (1980): 147–54. Becker, Jürgen. Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen. AGJU 8. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Becker, Michael. ‘4Q521 und die Gesalbten’. RevQ 18 (1997): 73–96. Bellinger, William H., Jr. ‘The Psalms and Acts: Reading and Rereading’. Pages 127–43 in With Steadfast Purpose: Essays on Acts in Honor of Henry Jackson Flanders, Jr. Edited by Naymond H. Keathley. Waco: Baylor University Press, 1990. Berkley, Timothy W. From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29. SBLDS 175. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Bernstein, Moshe J. ‘4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary’. JJS 45 (1994): 1–27. ——— ‘Interpretation of Scriptures’. Pages 376–83 in vol. 1 of EDSS.

Bibliography

­223

——— ‘“Rewritten Bible”: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived Its Usefulness?’. Textus 22 (2005): 169–96. Bernstein, Moshe J., and Shlomo A. Koyfman. ‘The Interpretation of Biblical Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Forms and Methods’. Pages 61–87 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Berrin, Shani L. ‘Qumran Pesharim’. Pages 110–33 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Betz, Otto. What Do We Know about Jesus? Translated by Margaret Kohl. London: SCM, 1968. Beutler, Johannes. ‘The Use of “Scripture” in the Gospel of John’. Pages 147–62 in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Bieringer, Reimund, et al. ‘Introduction’. Pages vii–xxiv in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Reimund Bieringer et al. JSJSup 136. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Bittner, Wolfgang J. Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium: Die MessiasErkenntnis im Johannesevangelium vor ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund. WUNT II/26. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1987. Black, Matthew. The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1961. ——— ‘The “Son of Man” Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition’. ZNW 60 (1969): 1–8. ———, ed. The Scrolls and Christianity: Historical and Theological Significance. TC 11. London: SPCK, 1969. Bloch, Renée. ‘Methodological Note for the Study of Rabbinic Literature’. Pages 51–75 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice. Edited by William Scott Green. BJS 1. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978. Bock, Darrell L. ‘Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New’. BSac 142 (1985): 209–23, 306–19. ——— Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology. JSNTSup 12. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987. Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians. BNTC. London: A & C Black, 1997. Bode, Edward Lynn. The First Easter Morning: The Gospel Accounts of the Women’s Visit to the Tomb of Jesus. AnBib 45. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970. Boer, Martinus C., de. ‘Paul’s Use of a Resurrection Tradition in 1 Cor 15,20–28’. Pages 639–51 in The Corinthian Correspondence. Edited by Reimund Bieringer. BETL 125. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Boers, Hendrikus. ‘Psalm 16 and the Historical Origin of the Christian Faith’. ZNW 60 (1969): 105–10. Borgen, Peder. ‘Philo of Alexandria’. Pages 333–42 in vol. 5 of ABD.

224

Bibliography

——— Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. NovTSup 86. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bornkamm, Günther. Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson. New York: Harper, 1960. Bousset, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926. ——— Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter. Edited by Hugo Gressmann. HNT 21. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1926. Boyd-Taylor, Cameron. ‘In a Mirror, Dimly – Reading the Septuagint as a Document of Its Times’. Pages 15–31 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. SBLSCS 53. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Braude, William G., trans. The Midrash on Psalms. YJS 13. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Brock, Sebastian P. ‘Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity’. GRBS 20 (1979): 69–87. ——— ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’. OtSt 17 (1972): 11–36. Brooke, George J. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. ——— ‘New Perspectives on the Bible and Its Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls’. Pages 19–37 in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz. FAT II/35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ——— ‘Qumran Pesher: Towards the Redefinition of a Genre’. RevQ 10 (1981): 483–503. ——— ‘The Structure of 1QHa XII 5–XIII 4 and the Meaning of Resurrection’. Pages 13–33 in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar. STDJ 61. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. ABRL. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Brownlee, William H. ‘Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls’. BA 14 (1951): 54–76. Bruce, Frederick F. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. 3rd rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. ——— Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. ——— ‘Biblical Exposition at Qumran’. Pages 77–98 in Studies in Midrash and Historiography. Vol. 3 of Gospel Perspectives. Edited by R. T. France and David Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. ——— The Letter of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. 2nd ed. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Bibliography

225­

——— Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1956. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971. ——— The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. ——— Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. 2 vols. New York: Scribner, 1951–5. Byrne, Brendan J. Romans. SP 6. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996. Cadbury, Henry J. ‘The Speeches in Acts’. Pages 402–27 in Additional Notes to the Commentary. Vol. 5 of The Acts of the Apostles. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. The Beginnings of Christianity 1. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979. ——— ‘The Titles of Jesus in Acts’. Pages 354–75 in Additional Notes to the Commentary. Vol. 5 of The Acts of the Apostles. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. The Beginnings of Christianity 1. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979. Campbell, Jonathan G. ‘“Rewritten Bible” and “Parabiblical Texts”: A Terminological and Ideological Critique’. Pages 43–68 in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell, William John Lyons, and Lloyd K. Pietersen. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Campenhausen, Hans Freiherr von. Der Ablauf der Osterereignisse und das leere Grab. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1958. Carmignac, Jean. ‘Le Document de Qumrân sur Melkisédeq’. RevQ 7 (1970): 343–78. Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. BLS. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000. Cathcart, Kevin J. and Robert P. Gordon, trans. The Targum of the Minor Prophets. ArBib. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier; 1989. Cavallin, Hans C. C. Life After Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor 15, Part I: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background. ConBNT 7. Lund: Gleerup, 1974. Charles, R. H. The Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1912. Charlesworth, James H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995. ——— ‘The Interpretation of the Tanak in the Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha’. Pages 253–78 in The Ancient Period. Vol. 1 of A History of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ——— The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? With appendixes by Lidija Novakovic. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ——— ‘Prolegomenous Reflections towards a Taxonomy of Resurrection Texts (1QHa, 1 En, 4Q521, Paul, Luke, the Fourth Gospel, and Psalm 30)’. Pages 237–64 in The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity,

226

Bibliography

and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity. Edited by Ian H. Henderson and Gerbern S. Oegema. SJSHRZ 2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006. ——— ‘Where Does the Concept of Resurrection Appear and How Do We Know That?’. Pages 1–21 in Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine. By James H. Charlesworth et al. FSC. London: T&T Clark, 2006. ———, ed. John and Qumran. London: Chapman, 1972. ———, ed. The Scrolls and Christian Origins. Vol. 3 of The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Charlesworth, James H., et al. Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine. FSC. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Charlesworth, James H., Lidija Novakovic, and Henry W. Rietz. ‘4Q175 Compared with the Samaritan Pentateuch, MT, LXX, and 4Q379’. Pages 320–27 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Vol. 6B of DSSHAGET. PTSDSSP 6B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Chernick, Michael. ‘The Use of Ribbuyim and Mi’utim in the Halakic Midrash of R. Ishmael’. JQR 70 (1980): 96–116. Chester, Andrew. ‘Resurrection and Transformation’. Pages 47–77 in Auferstehung – Resurrection: The Fourth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium, ‘Resurrection, Transfiguration and Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity’ (Tübingen, September, 1999). Edited by Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger. WUNT 135. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Chilton, Bruce D. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes. ArBib 11. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987. Chow, Simon. The Sign of Jonah Reconsidered: A Study of Its Meaning in the Gospel Traditions. ConBNT 27. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995. Christensen, Jens. ‘And That He Rose on the Third Day according to the Scriptures’. SJOT 2 (1990): 101–13. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary. Edited by Harold W. Attridge. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Collins, Adela Yarbro, and John J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Collins, John J. ‘The Afterlife in Apocalyptic Literature’. Pages 119–39 in DLADRWC. ——— The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. HSM 16. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. ——— Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Edited by Frank Moore Cross. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Bibliography

­227

——— ‘The Essenes and the Afterlife’. Pages 35–53 in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar. STDJ 61. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ——— ‘A Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61:1–3 and Its Actualization in the Dead Sea Scrolls’. Pages 225–40 in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon. BIS 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ——— ‘The Interpretation of Psalm 2’. Pages 49–66 in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 85. Leiden: Brill, 2009. ——— ‘Messiahs in Context: Method in the Study of Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls’. Pages 213–29 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise et al. ANYAS 722. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. ——— ‘Prophecy and Fulfillment in the Qumran Scrolls’. JETS 30 (1987): 267–78. ——— The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1995. ——— ‘The Works of the Messiah’. DSD 1 (1994): 98–112. Connolly-Weinert, Frank. ‘Assessing Omissions as Redaction: Luke’s Handling of the Charge against Jesus as Detractor of the Temple’. Pages 358–68 in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Edited by Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Edited by George W. MacRae. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Craig, William Lane. ‘The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus’. NTS 31 (1985): 39–67. Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–9. Crawford, Sidnie White. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Crenshaw, James L. ‘Love Is Stronger Than Death: Intimations of Life beyond the Grave’. Pages 53–78 in Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine. By James H. Charlesworth et al. FSC. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Cross, Frank Moore. ‘The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert’. Pages 117–95 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975.

228

Bibliography

Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. FF. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Cumont, Franz V. M. Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans. New York: Dover, 1960. ——— Lux Perpetua. Paris: Geuthner, 1949. Dahl, Nils Alstrup. ‘The Crucified Messiah’. Pages 10–36 in The Crucified Messiah, and Other Essays. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974. Daly-Denton, Margaret. David in the Fourth Gospel: The Johannine Reception of the Psalms. AGJU 47. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Daube, David. ‘Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the Rabbis’. Pages 27–44 in Festschrift Hans Lewald. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenbahn, 1953. ——— ‘Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric’. HUCA 22 (1949): 239–64. Davies, Graham I. Hosea: Based on the Revised Standard Version. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Davies, Philip R. ‘Death, Resurrection, and Life after Death in the Qumran Scrolls’. Pages 189–211 in DLADRWC. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. ICC. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97. Dawson, David. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Day, John. ‘The Development of Belief in Life after Death in Ancient Israel’. Pages 231–57 in After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason. Edited by John Barton and David J. Reimer. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1996. Delcor, Mathias. Le livre de Daniel. SB. Paris: Gabalda, 1971. Dimant, Devorah. ‘Pesharim, Qumran’. Pages 244–51 in vol. 5 of ABD. ——— Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. ——— ‘The Scrolls and the Study of Early Judaism’. Pages 43–59 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings. Edited by Robert A. Kugler and Eileen M. Schuller. SBLEJL 15. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. ——— ‘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 Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling. CRINT 2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. New York: Scribner, 1953. ——— The Old Testament in the New. FBBS 3. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963. Doeve, Jan Willem. Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953. Dogniez, Cécile. Bibliography of the Septuagint = Bibliographie de la Septante (1970–1993). VTSup 60. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Bibliography

229­

Donahue, John R., and Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. SP 2. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002. Doran, Robert. Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees. CBQMS 12; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. Draisma, Sipke, ed. Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1989. Driver, Samuel R. ‘The Method of Studying the Psalter: Psalm XVI’. Expositor 11 (1910): 20–41. Duling, Dennis C. ‘The Promises to David and Their Entrance into Christianity – Nailing Down a Likely Hypothesis’. NTS 20 (1973): 55–77. Duhm, Bernhard. Die Psalmen: Erklärt. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1922. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of Incarnation. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1989. ——— ‘1 Corinthians 15:45 – Last Adam, Life-Giving Spirit’. Pages 127– 41 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Edited by Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. ——— ‘Jesus – Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans I. 3–4’. JTS 24 (1973): 40–68. ——— Romans. WBC 38. 2 vols. Dallas: Word Books, 1988. Dupont, Jacques. ‘Réssuscité le troisième jour’. Bib 40 (1959): 742–61. Edwards, Richard Alan. The Sign of Jonah in the Theology of the Evangelists and Q. SBT 18. London: SCM, 1971. Elledge, Casey D. ‘Appendix: A Graphic Index of Citation and Commentary Formulae in the Dead Sea Scrolls’. Pages 367–77 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Vol. 6B of DSSHAGET. PTSDSSP 6B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ——— ‘Resurrection of the Dead: Exploring Our Earliest Evidence Today’. Pages 22–52 in Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine. By James H. Charlesworth et al. FSC. London: T&T Clark, 2006. ——— ‘The Resurrection Passages in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Hope for Israel in Early Judaism and Christianity’. Pages 79–103 in Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine. By James H. Charlesworth et al. FSC. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Elliger, Karl. Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer. BHT 15. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1953. Ellis, E. Earle. ‘Midrash Pesher in Pauline Hermeneutics’. Pages 173–81 in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays. WUNT 18. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1978. ——— St. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957. Enelow, Hyman G., ed. The Mishnah of Rabbi Eliezer, or the Midrash of Thirty-Two Hermeneutic Rules. New York: Bloch, 1933.

230

Bibliography

Evans, Craig A. ‘Did Jesus Predict His Death and Resurrection?’. Pages 82–97 in Resurrection. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs. JSNTSup 186. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ——— Mark. WBC 34. 2 vols. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001. Evans, C. F. Resurrection and the New Testament. SBT II/12. London: SCM, 1970. Fales, Evan. ‘Taming the Tehom: The Sign of Jonah in Matthew’. Pages 307– 48 in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. Edited by Robert M. Price and Jeffery J. Lowder. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005. Falk, Daniel K. The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls. LSTS 63. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. ——— Philippians. IVPNTCS 11. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999. Feldman, Louis H. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism. AGJU 30. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Fernández, Miguel Pérez. ‘Midrash and the New Testament: A Methodology for the Study of Gospel Midrash’. Pages 367–84 in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Reimund Bieringer et al. JSJSup 136. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Fewell, Danna N., ed. Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. LCBI. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. ——— The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and Theology. Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1998. ——— ‘Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel’. Pages 19–37 in Midrash and Literature. Edited by Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budick. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. ——— ‘The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics’. Pages 97– 114 in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies I. Edited by Shinan Avigdor. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977. Fisk, Bruce N. Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo. JSPSup 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 31. New York: Doubleday, 1998. ——— ‘David, “Being Therefore a Prophet . . .” (Acts 2:30)’. CBQ 34 (1972): 332–39. ——— First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB 32. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

Bibliography

231

——— The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary. 3rd ed. BibOr 18B. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2004. ——— Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Flint, Peter W. ‘Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Evidence from Qumran’. Pages 269–304 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul et al. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ——— ‘The Shape of the “Bible” at Qumran’. Pages 45–103 in The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls: World View, Comparing Judaism. Part 5, vol. 2 of Judaism in Late Antiquity. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, and Bruce D. Chilton. HO 57. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Fraade, Steven D. ‘Locating Targum in the Textual Polysystem of Rabbinic Pedagogy’. BIOSCS 39 (2006): 69–91. ——— ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third–Sixth Centuries’. Pages 253–86 in Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee I. Levine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. Frankel, Israel. Peshaṭ (Plain Exegesis) in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature. Toronto: La Salle, 1956. Franklin, Eric. Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of LukeActs. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975. Friedlander, Gerald, trans. Pirḳê de Rabbi Eliezer (The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great). 2nd ed. New York: Hermon, 1965. Friedman, Richard E., and Shawna Dolansky Overton. ‘Death and Afterlife: The Biblical Silence’. Pages 35–59 in DLADRWC. Fuller, Reginald H. The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives. New York: Macmillan, 1971. García Martínez, Florentino. ‘Rethinking the Bible: Sixty Years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research and Beyond’. Pages 19–36 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ———, ed. Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. STDJ 85. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Gardiner, Frederic. The Old and New Testaments in Their Mutual Relations. New York: James Pott, 1885. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Gärtner, Bertil E. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament. SNTSMS 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Gaston, Lloyd. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. NovTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

232

Bibliography

Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. The Acts of the Apostles. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2003. Geiger, Abraham. Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judenthums. Breslau: J. Hainauer, 1857. Gerhardsson, Birger. ‘Evidence for Christ’s Resurrection according to Paul: 1 Cor 15:1–11’. Pages 73–91 in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen. Edited by David E. Aune, Torrey Seland, and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen. NovTSup 106. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Gielen, Marlis. ‘Universale Totenauferweckung und universales Heil? 1 Kor 15,20–28 im Kontext paulinischer Theologie’. BZ 47 (2003): 86–104. Ginsberg, Harold L. ‘The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant’. VT 3 (1953): 400–404. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. Translated by Henrietta Szold and Paul Radin. 7 vols. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus. EKK 2. 2 vols. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978–9. Goguel, Maurice. La foi à la résurrection de Jésus dans le christianisme primitif: Étude d’histoire et de psychologie religieuses. Paris: Leroux, 1933. Goldin, Judah. Song at the Sea: Being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971. Goldingay, John. ‘Death and Afterlife in the Psalms’. Pages 61–85 in DLADRWC. Goldstein, Jonathan. ‘The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo’. JJS 35 (1984): 127–35. Goppelt, Leonhard. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Translated by Donald H. Madvig. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Grabbe, Lester L. ‘Eschatology in Philo and Josephus’. Pages 163–85 in DLADRWC. Green, William Scott. ‘Doing the Text’s Work for It: Richard Hays on Paul’s Use of Scripture’. Pages 58–63 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 83. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Greenspoon, Leonard J. ‘The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection’. Pages 247–321 in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Edited by Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981. ——— ‘Septuagint’. Pages 1217–20 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Bibliography

­233

Grelot, Pierre. ‘L’eschatologie des Esséniens et le livre d’Hénoch’. RevQ 1 (1958): 113–21. Gruenwald, Ithamar. ‘Midrash and the “Midrashic Condition”: Preliminary Considerations’. Pages 6–22 in The Midrashic Imagination: Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and History. Edited by Michael A. Fishbane. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. ——— Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. ——— Sōma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology. SNTSMS 29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. ——— The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. NovTSup 18. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Gunkel, Hermann. Die Psalmen. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926. Haacker, Klaus. ‘Exegetische Probleme des Römerbriefs’. NovT 20 (1978): 1–21. Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Translated by Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971. Häfner, Gerd. ‘Ein übereinstimmendes Falschzeugnis – zur Auslegung von Mt 26,61’. ZNW 101 (2010): 294–9. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew. WBC 33. 2 vols. Dallas: Word Books, 1993–5. Hahn, Ferdinand. The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity. Translated by Harold Knight and George Ogg. London: Lutterworth, 1969. Harrington, Daniel J. ‘The Bible Rewritten (Narratives)’. Pages 239–47 in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. ——— ‘Afterlife Expectations in Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, and Their Implications for the New Testament’. Pages 21–34 in RNT. Hasel, Gerhard F. ‘Resurrection in the Theology of Old Testament Apocalyptic’. ZAW 92 (1980): 267–84. Hatina, Thomas R. ‘Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in NTS: Is There a Relationship?’. BibInt 7 (1999): 28–43. ——— ‘Introduction’. Pages 1–13 in The Gospel of Matthew. Vol. 2 of Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels. Edited by Thomas R. Hatina. LNTS 310. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBLMS 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. ——— ‘Philo’s Anthropology, the Spiritual Regimen of the Therapeutae, and a Possible Connection with Corinth’. Pages 127–42 in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. Edited by Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

234

Bibliography

Hayes, John H. ‘The Resurrection as Enthronement and the Earliest Church Christology’. Int 22 (1968): 333–45. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. ——— First Corinthians. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1997. Hays, Richard B., and Joel B. Green. ‘The Use of the Old Testament by New Testament Writers’. Pages 122–39 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. 2nd ed. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Heil, John Paul. The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians. SBLSBL 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Heil, Uta. ‘Theo-logische Interpretation von 1Kor 15,23–28’. ZNW 84 (1993): 27–35. Heinemann, Joseph. Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns. SJ 9. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. ——— Public Sermons in the Talmudic Period. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1970. Hendel, Ronald. ‘The Messiah Son of Joseph: Simply “Sign”’. BAR 35.1 (2009): 8. Hengel, Martin. ‘Das Begräbnis Jesu bei Paulus und die leibliche Auferstehung aus dem Grabe’. Pages 119–83 in Auferstehung – Resurrection. Edited by Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger. WUNT 135. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. ——— Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. ——— The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002. ——— ‘“Sit at my Right Hand!” The Enthronement of Christ at the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110:1’. Pages 119–225 in Studies in Early Christology. Translated by Rollin Kearns. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. ——— The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of JewishHellenistic Religion. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Hill, C. E. ‘Paul’s Understanding of Christ’s Kingdom in I Corinthians 15:20– 28’. NovT 30 (1988): 297–320. Hogeterp, Albert L. A. ‘Belief in Resurrection and Its Religious Settings in Qumran and the New Testament’. Pages 299–320 in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 85. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Hollander, Harm W., and Marinus de Jonge. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Hollander, John. The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.

Bibliography

235­

Hooke, Samuel H. The Resurrection of Christ as History and Experience. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1967. Horbury, William. ‘The New Testament and Rabbinic Study – An Historical Sketch’. Pages 1–40 in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Reimund Bieringer et al. JSJSup 136. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Horgan, Maurya P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. CBQMS 8. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979. Horovitz, Saul. ‘Midrash’. Pages 548–50 in vol. 8 of The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times. Edited by Isidore Singer. 12 vols. New York: Ktav, 1901–1906. Horsley, Richard A. ‘Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status among the Corinthians’. HTR 69 (1976): 269–88. Horst, Pieter W. van der. ‘Pseudo-Phocylides’. Pages 565–73 in vol. 2 of OTP. ——— The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. SVTP 4. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Howton, John. ‘The Sign of Jonah’. SJT 15 (1962): 288–304. Hultgren, Stephen J. ‘The Origin of Paul’s Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1 Corinthians 15.45–49’. JSNT 25 (2003): 343–70. Hurst, L. D. ‘Re-Enter the Pre-Existent Christ in Philippians 2.5–11?’. NTS 32 (1986): 449–57. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Idel, Moshe. ‘Midrashic Versus Other Forms of Jewish Hermeneutics: Some Comparative Reflections’. Pages 45–58 in The Midrashic Imagination: Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and History. Edited by Michael A. Fishbane. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. Instone Brewer, David. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE. TSAJ 30. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1992. Jacobs, Louis. Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology. London: Vallentine Mitchell, 1961. Jellicoe, Sidney. Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Jeremias, Joachim. ‘Die Drei-Tage Worte der Evangelisten’. Pages 221–9 in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn. Edited by Gert Jeremias, HeinzWolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Jewett, Robert. ‘The Redaction and Use of an Early Christian Confession in Romans 1:3–4’. Pages 99–122 in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders. Edited by Dennis E. Groh and Robert Jewett. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985. Jipp, Joshua W. ‘Ancient, Modern, and Future Interpretations of Romans 1:3–4: Reception History and Biblical Interpretation’. JTI 3 (2009): 241–59.

236

Bibliography

Johnson, Dan G. From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27. JSOTSup 61. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Jokiranta, Jutta. ‘Pesharim: A Mirror of Self-Understanding’. Pages 23–34 in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations. Edited by Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange. SBLSymS 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Jonge, Marinus de. ‘Jesus, Son of David and Son of God’. Pages 95–104 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel. Edited by Sipke Draisma. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1989. ——— The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of Their Text, Composition and Origin. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953. Joosten, Jan, and Menahem Kister. ‘The New Testament and Rabbinic Hebrew’. Pages 335–50 in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Reimund Bieringer et al. JSJSup 136. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Juel, Donald H. ‘Interpreting Israel’s Scriptures in the New Testament’. Pages 283–303 in The Ancient Period. Vol. 1 of A History of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ——— Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. SBLDS 31. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. ——— Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. ——— ‘Social Dimensions of Exegesis: The Use of Psalm 16 in Acts 2’. CBQ 43 (1981): 543–56. Kahle, Paul Ernest. The Cairo Geniza. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1959. Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 13–39. Translated by R. A. Wilson. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: Moody, 1985. Kamesar, Adam. ‘Biblical Interpretation in Philo’. Pages 65–94 in The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Edited by Adam Kamesar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Keck, Leander E. Romans. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003. ——— Romans: A New Covenant Commentary. NCCS. Eugene, Ore.: Cascade, 2009. Kern-Ulmer, Rivka. ‘Theological Foundations of Rabbinic Exegesis’. Pages 944–64 in vol. 2 of EncMidr. Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Kister, Menahem. ‘“First Adam” and “Second Adam” in 1 Cor 15:45–49 in the Light of Midrashic Exegesis and Hebrew Usage’. Pages 351–65

Bibliography

­237

in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Reimund Bieringer et al. JSJSup 136. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ——— ‘“In Adam”: 1 Cor 15:21–22; 12:27 in Their Jewish Setting’. Pages 685–90 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Klijn, Albertus F. J. ‘The Letter of Aristeas and the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch in Egypt’. NTS 11 (1964–5): 154–8. Kloppenborg, John S. ‘An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula 1 Cor 15:3b–5 in Light of Some Recent Literature’. CBQ 40 (1978): 351–67. ——— The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. SAC. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Knibb, Michael A. ‘“You Are Indeed Wiser Than Daniel”: Reflections on the Character of the Book of Daniel’. Pages 399–411 in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. Edited by Adam S. van der Woude. BETL 106. Leuven: Peeters, 1993. Knohl, Israel. ‘The Apocalyptic and Messianic Dimensions of the Gabriel Revelation in Their Historical Context’. Pages 39–59 in Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation. Edited by Matthias Henze. SBLEJL 29. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. ——— Messiahs and Resurrection in ‘The Gabriel Revelation’. KLJS 6. London: Continuum, 2009. Koch, Gerhard. Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi. 2nd ed. BHT 27. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1965. Koester, Craig R. ‘Jesus’ Resurrection, the Signs, and the Dynamics of Faith in the Gospel of John’. Pages 47–74 in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Edited by Craig R. Koester and Reimund Bieringer. WUNT 222. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Kohler, Kaufmann. Grundriss einer systematischen Theologie des Judentums auf geschichtlicher Grundlage. Leipzig: Fock, 1910. Koperski, Veronica. ‘Resurrection Terminology in Paul’. Pages 265–81 in RNT. Krašovec, Jože. Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views. VTSup 78. Leiden: Brill 1999. Kraus, Wolfgang, and R. Glenn Wooden, eds. Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. SBLSCS 53. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Kramer, Werner R. Christ, Lord, Son of God. Translated by Brian Hardy. SBT 50. London: SCM, 1966. Kremer, Jacob. Das älteste Zeugnis von der Auferstehung Christi. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966. Kreuzer, Siegfried. ‘From “Old Greek” to the Recensions: Who and What Caused the Change of the Hebrew Reference Text of the Septuagint?’. Pages 225–37 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the

238

Bibliography

Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. SBLSCS 53. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ——— ‘Zur Priorität und Auslegungsgeschichte von Exodus 12,40 MT: Die chronologische Interpretation des Ägyptenaufenthalts in der judäischen, samaritanischen und alexandrinischen Exegese’. ZAW 103 (1991): 252–8. Kristeva, Julia. La Révolution du langage poétique. Paris: Seuil, 1974. ——— Séméiotiké: Recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Seuil, 1969. Kugel, James L. The Bible as It Was. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. Kurz, William S. ‘Hellenistic Rhetoric in the Christological Proof of LukeActs’. CBQ 42 (1980): 171–95. Lacocque, André. The Book of Daniel. Translated by David Pellauer. Atlanta: John Knox, 1979. Lake, Kirsopp, and Henry J. Cadbury. English Translation and Commentary. Vol. 4 of The Acts of the Apostles. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. The Beginnings of Christianity 1. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979. Lamarche, P. ‘Le “blasphème” de Jésus devant le sanhédrin’. RechSR 50 (1962): 74–85. Lambrecht, Jan. ‘Paul’s Christological Use of Scripture in 1 Cor 15:20–28’. NTS 28 (1982): 502–27. ——— Second Corinthians. SP 8. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999. Landes, George M. ‘Jonah in Luke: The Hebrew Bible Background to the Interpretation of the “Sign of Jonah” Pericope in Luke 11.29–32’. Pages 133–63 in A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr. JSOTSup 225. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. ——— ‘Matthew 12:40 as an Interpretation of “The Sign of Jonah” against Its Biblical Background’. Pages 665–84 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. ASORSS 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Laurin, Robert B. ‘The Question of Immortality in the Qumran “Hodayot”’. JSS 3 (1958): 344–55. Lauterbach, Jacob Z. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. 3 vols. JPSLJC. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976. Lee, Aquila H. I. From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ Self-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms. WUNT II/192. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Lehmann, Karl. Auferweckt am dritten Tag nach der Schrift: Früheste Christologie, Bekenntnisbildung und Schriftauslegung im Lichte von 1 Kor. 15,3–5. QD 38. Freiburg: Herder, 1968. Licht, Jacob. The Thanksgiving Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea: Text, Introduction, Commentary and Glossary. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1957.

Bibliography

239

Lichtenberger, Hermann. ‘Auferstehung in den Qumranfunden’. Pages 79–91 in Auferstehung – Resurrection. Edited by Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger. WUNT 135. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2010. Lieberman, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E. – IV Century C.E. 2nd ed. TSJTSA 18. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962. ——— ‘How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine’. Pages 123–41 in Biblical and Other Studies. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963. Lim, Timothy H. ‘Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls’. Pages 303–22 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. ——— ‘Eschatological Orientation and the Alteration of Scripture in the Habakkuk Pesher’. JNES 49 (1990): 185–94. ——— Pesharim. CQS 3. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Lincoln, Andrew T. ‘The Use of the OT in Ephesians’. JSNT 14 (1982): 16–57. Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. ——— ‘The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology: Prolegomena’. NTS 23 (1976): 59–66. Lindemann, Andreas. Der Erste Korintherbrief. HNT 9/I. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. ——— ‘Parusie Christi und Herrschaft Gottes: Zur Exegese von 1 Kor 15,23– 28’. WD 19 (1987): 87–107. Linnemann, Eta. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte. FRLANT 102. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. ——— ‘Tradition und Interpretation in Röm. 1,3f’. EvT 31 (1971): 264–76. Linton, Olof. ‘The Demand for a Sign from Heaven (Mark 8,11–12 and Parallels)’. ST 19 (1965): 112–29. Loader, W. R. G. ‘Christ at the Right Hand – Ps. CX.1 in the New Testament’. NTS 24 (1978): 199–217. Lohfink, Gerhard. ‘Die Auferstehung Jesu und die historische Kritik’.’ BibLeb 9 (1968): 37–53. ——— Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas. SANT 26. Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1971. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Lövestam, Evald. Son and Saviour: A Study of Acts 13,32–37. With an Appendix: ‘Son of God’ in the Synoptic Gospels. Translated by Michael J. Petry. Lund: Gleerup, 1961. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8–20: A Commentary. Translated by James E. Crouch. Edited by Helmut Koester. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.

240

Bibliography

——— Matthew 21–28: A Commentary. Translated by James E. Crouch. Edited by Helmut Koester. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Macho, A. Diez. ‘The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with the Other Targums’. Pages 222–45 in Congress Volume: Oxford, 1959. VTSup 7. Leiden: Brill, 1960. Macintosh, A. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Mack, Burton L. ‘Q and the Gospel of Mark: Revising Christian Origins’. Semeia 55 (1991): 15–39. Mahoney, Robert. Two Disciples at the Tomb: The Background and Message of John 20.1–10. TW 6. Bern: H. Lang, 1974. Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus: As Recorded in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke. London: SCM, 1949. Marshall, I. Howard. ‘An Assessment of Recent Developments’. Pages 1–21 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Edited by Donald A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Martin, Ralph P. Carmen Christi: Philippians ii.5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship. SNTSMS 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Martin-Achard, Robert. From Death to Life: A Study of the Development of the Doctrine of the Resurrection in the Old Testament. Translated by John Penney Smith. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1960. Mason, Eric F. ‘Interpretation of Psalm 2 in 4QFlorilegium and in the New Testament’. Pages 67–82 in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 85. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Mays, James Luther. Hosea: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. ——— Psalms. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1994. Mburu, Elizabeth W. Qumran and the Origins of Johannine Language and Symbolism. JCT 8. London: T&T Clark, 2010. McArthur, Harvey K. ‘On the Third Day’. NTS 18 (1971): 81–6. McCasland, Selby Vernon. ‘The Scripture Basis of “On the Third Day”’. JBL 48 (1929): 124–43. McKinnis, Ray. ‘An Analysis of Mark X 32–34’. NovT 18 (1976): 81–100. McNamara, Martin. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. AnBib 27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966. ——— Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. ——— Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Bibliography

241

Menken, Maarten J. J. ‘Interpretation of the Old Testament and the Resurrection of Jesus in John’s Gospel’. Pages 189–205 in RNT. Mertens, Alfred. Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer. Würzburg: Echter, 1971. Metzger, Bruce M. ‘A Suggestion concerning the Meaning of 1 Cor 15:4b’. JTS 8 (1957): 118–23. Michael, J. H. ‘The Sign of Jonah’. JTS 21 (1920): 146–59. Michaels, J. Ramsey. John. GNC. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983. Milgrom, Jacob. ‘Florilegium: A Midrash on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1–2’. Pages 248–63 in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Vol. 6B of DSSHAGET. PTSDSSP 6B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Millar, William R. Isaiah 24–27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic. HSM 11. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome, ed. Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis. Chicago: Priory, 1968. Nagata, Takeshi. ‘Philippians 2:5–11: A Case Study in the Contextual Shaping of Early Christology’. Ph.D. diss. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. JSJSup 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Nauck, Wolfgang. ‘Die Bedeutung des leeren Grabes für den Glauben an den Auferstandenen’. ZNW 47 (1956): 243–67. Neusner, Jacob. The Age of Shapur II. Vol. 4 of A History of the Jews of Babylonia. StPB. Leiden: Brill, 1969. ——— From Shapur I to Shapur II. Vol. 3 of A History of the Jews of Babylonia. StPB. Leiden: Brill, 1968. ——— Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1994. ——— Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture: Introduction to the Rabbinic Midrash. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. ——— Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. ——— Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. ——— Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament: What We Cannot Show, We Do Not Know. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994. ——— ‘Theology of Rabbinic Midrash’. Pages 964–78 in vol. 2 of EncMidr. ——— The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction. 2 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. Newsom, Carol A. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran. STDJ 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

242

Bibliography

Newsom, Carol A., Hartmut Stegemann, and Eileen Schuller. 1QHodayota, with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota-f. DJD 40. Oxford: Clarendon, 2009. Nickelsburg, George W. E. ‘The Bible Rewritten and Expanded’. Pages 89– 156 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. ——— 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ——— Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. ——— ‘Judgment, Life-After-Death, and Resurrection in the Apocrypha and the Non-Apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha’. Pages 141–62 in DLADRWC. ——— ‘Philo among Greeks, Jews and Christians’. Pages 53–72 in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. Edited by Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. ——— Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity. Expanded ed. HTS 56. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006. Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation: Based on the Hermeneia Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm. ‘Die Werke des eschatologischen Freudenboten: 4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung’. Pages 637–46 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. BETL 131. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Nitzan, Bilhah. ‘The Continuity of Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Scrolls and Rabbinic Literature’. Pages 337–50 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Nolland, John. Luke. WBC 35. 3 vols. Dallas: Word, 1989–93. ——— The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Nordgaard, Stefan. ‘Paul’s Appropriation of Philo’s Theory of “Two Men” in 1 Corinthians 15.45–49’. NTS 57 (2011): 348–65. Nötscher, Friedrich. Altorientalischer und alttestamentlicher Auferstehungsglauben. Würzburg: C. J. Becker, 1926. ——— ‘Zur Auferstehung nach drei Tagen’. Bib 35 (1954): 313–19. Novakovic, Lidija. ‘4Q521: The Works of the Messiah or the Signs of the Messianic Time?’. Pages 208–31 in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions. Edited by Michael T. Davis and Brent A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——— ‘Matthew’s Atomistic Use of Scripture: Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 53.4 in Matthew 8.17’. Pages 147–62 in The Gospel of

Bibliography

243

Matthew. Vol. 2 of Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels. Edited by Thomas R. Hatina. LNTS 310. London: T&T Clark, 2008. ——— Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT II/170. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. O’Day, Gail R. ‘Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31: A Study in Intertextuality’. JBL 109 (1990): 259–67. O’Toole, Robert F. ‘Christ’s Resurrection in Acts 13,13–52’. Bib 60 (1979): 361–72. Orlinsky, Harry M. ‘The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators’. HUCA 46 (1975): 89–114. ——— ‘Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, IV’. JQR 43 (1953): 329–40. Painter, John. ‘“The Light Shines in the Darkness . . .”: Creation, Incarnation, and Resurrection in John’. Pages 21–46 in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Edited by Craig R. Koester and Reimund Bieringer. WUNT 222. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Parsons, Mikeal C. Acts. Paideia. Grand Rapids: 2008. Patte, Daniel. Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine. SBLDS 22. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975. Pearson, Birger A. The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism. SBLDS 12. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1973. Perkins, Pheme. Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984. Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Edited by Harold W. Attridge. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium II. Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 8,27– 16,20. 4th ed. HTKNT 2.2. Freiburg: Herder, 1991. Peters, Melvin K. H. ‘Septuagint’. Pages 1093–1104 in vol. 5 of ABD. Petersen, Anders Klostergaard. ‘Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon – Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism?’. Pages 285–306 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Philonenko, Marc. Les interpolations chrétiennes des Testaments des Douze Patriarches et les Manuscrits de Qoumrân. CRHPR 35 Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1960. Pietersma, Albert. ‘Exegesis in the Septuagint: Possibilities and Limits (The Psalter as a Case in Point)’. Pages 33–45 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. SBLSCS 53. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

244

Bibliography

——— ‘A New Paradigm for Addressing Old Questions: The Relevance of the Interlinear Model for the Study of the Septuagint’. Pages 337–64 in Bible and Computer: The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference. Edited by Johann Cook. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright. ‘To the Reader of NETS’. Pages xiii–xx in A New English Translation of the Septuagint, and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Plöger, Otto. Theocracy and Eschatology. Translated by S. Rudman. Richmond: John Knox, 1968. Polaski, Donald C. Authorizing an End: The Isaiah Apocalypse and Intertextuality. BIS 50. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Porter, Stanley E. ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology’. Pages 79–96 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Porton, Gary G. ‘Defining Midrash’. Pages 55–92 in Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur. Vol. 1 of The Study of Ancient Judaism. Edited by Jacob Neusner. SFSHJ 49. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. ——— ‘Hermeneutics, A Critical Approach’. Pages 250–68 in vol. 1 of EncMidr. ——— ‘Midrash, Definitions of’. Pages 520–34 in vol. 1 of EncMidr. ——— The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael. SJLA 19. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1976– 82. Poythress, Vern S. ‘Is Romans 1:3–4 a Pauline Confession after All?’. ExpTim 87 (1976): 180–83. Proctor, Mark. ‘“After Three Days” in Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34: Subordinating Jesus’ Resurrection in the Second Gospel’. PRSt 30 (2003): 399–424. Puech, Émile. La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le Judaïsme ancien. EtB 21–22. 2 vols. Paris: Gabalda, 1993. Purvis, James D. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect. HSM 2. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968. Qimron, Elisha, and Alexey (Eliyahu) Yuditsky. ‘Notes on the So-Called Gabriel Vision Inscription’. Pages 31–8 in Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation. Edited by Matthias Henze. SBLEJL 29. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Qimron, Elisha, and James H. Charlesworth. ‘Rule of the Community’. Pages 1–51 in Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Vol. 1 of DSSHAGET. PTSDSSP 1. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994. Qimron, Elisha, et al. ‘Some Works of the Torah’. Pages 187–251 in Damascus Document II, Some Works of the Torah, and Related Documents. Vol. 3 of DSSHAGET. PTSDSSP 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Bibliography

­245

Rad, Gerhard, von. The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions. Vol. 1 of Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. London: SCM, 1965. ——— The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions. Vol. 2 of Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. London: SCM, 1965. Reed, Jonathan L. ‘The Sign of Jonah (Q 11:29–32) and Other Epic Traditions in Q’. Pages 130–43 in Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack. Edited by Elizabeth A. Castelli and Hal Taussig. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1996. Reinhartz, Adele. ‘Jesus as Prophet: Predictive Prolepses in the Fourth Gospel’. JSNT 36 (1989): 3–16. Rese, Martin. Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas. SNT 1. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969. Reumann, John. Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB 33B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. ——— ‘Resurrection in Philippi and Paul’s Letter(s) to the Philippians’. Pages 407–22 in RNT. Riesenfeld, Harald. The Resurrection in Ezekiel XXXVII and in the DuraEuropos Paintings. Uppsala Universitetsårskrift 1948:11. Uppsala: Lundequist, 1948. Rojas-Flores, Gonzalo. ‘From John 2.19 to Mark 15.29: The History of a Misunderstanding’. NTS 56 (2009): 22–43. Runia, David T. ‘The Theme of Flight and Exile in the Allegorical ThoughtWorld of Philo of Alexandria’. SPhilo 21 (2009): 1–24. ——— Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of Alexandria. VCS 332. Aldershot: Variorum, 1990. ——— Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. PhA 44. Leiden: Brill, 1986. ——— ‘Was Philo a Middle Platonist? A Difficult Question Revisited’. SPhilo 5 (1993): 112–40. Russell, Michael. ‘On the Third Day, According to the Scriptures’. RTR 67 (2008): 1–17. Samely, Alexander. The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis. TSAJ 27. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1992. Sawyer, John F. A. ‘Hebrew Words for the Resurrection of the Dead’. VT 23 (1973): 218–34. Schaller, Berndt. ‘Adam und Christus bei Paulus: Oder: Über Brauch und Fehlbrauch von Philo in der neutestamentlichen Forschung’. Pages 143–53 in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. Edited by Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Schechter, Solomon. ‘Genizah Specimens’. JQR 10 (1898): 197–206, 654–9. Schiffman, Lawrence H., Andrew D. Gross, and James H. Charlesworth. ‘Temple Scroll: Introduction’. Pages 1–11 in Temple Scroll and

246

Bibliography

Related Documents. Vol. 7 of DSSHAGET. PTSDSSP 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Schmidt, Daryl. ‘The LXX Gattung “Prophetic Correlative”’. JBL 96 (1977): 517–22. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St John. Translated by Kevin Smyth et al. 3 vols. London: Burns and Oates, 1980–82. Schubert, Kurt. ‘Die Entwicklung der Auferstehungslehre von der nachexilischen bis zur frührabbinischen Zeit’. BZ 6 (1962): 177–214. Schwankl, Otto. Die Sadduzäerfrage (Mk 12,18–27 parr): Eine exegetischtheologische Studie zur Auferstehungserwartung. BBB 66. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum, 1987. Schwartz, Daniel R. Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. WUNT 60. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1992. Schweizer, Eduard. ‘The Concept of the Davidic “Son of God” in Acts and Its Old Testament Background’. Pages 186–93 in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert. Edited by Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966. ——— The Good News according to Mark. Translated by Donald H. Madvig. Richmond: John Knox, 1970. ——— Lordship and Discipleship. SBT 28. London: SCM, 1960. ——— ‘Röm. 1,3f. und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und Geist vor und bei Paulus’. Pages 180–89 in Neotestamentica: Deutsche und englische Aufsätze, 1951–1963. Zürich: Zwingli, 1963. Scott, James M. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of UIOQESIA in the Pauline Corpus. WUNT II/48. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1992. Scott, R. B. Y. ‘The Sign of Jonah: An Interpretation’. Int 19 (1965): 16–25. Scroggs, Robin. The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966. Segal, Alan F. Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 2004. ——— Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986. Segal, Michael. ‘4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?’. Pages 391–9 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Setzer, Claudia. Resurrection of the Body in Early Judaism and Early Christianity: Doctrine, Community, and Self-Definition. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Shinan, Avigdor. ‘The “Palestinian” Targums: Repetitions, Internal Unity, Contradictions’. JJS 36 (1985): 72–87. Sider, Ronald J. ‘St Paul’s Understanding of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians XV 1–19’. NovT 19 (1977): 124–41.

Bibliography

­247

Siegfried, Carl G. A. Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten Testaments, an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss betrachtet: Nebst Untersuchungen über die Graecitaet Philo’s. Jena: Hermann Dufft, 1875. Silberman, Lou H. ‘Once Again: The Use of Rabbinical Material’. NTS 42 (1996): 153–5. ——— ‘Unriddling the Riddle: A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab)’. RevQ 3 (1961): 323–64. Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2002. Slingerland, H. Dixon. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research. SBLMS 21. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. Smith, Morton. ‘The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena’. HUCA 29 (1958): 273–313. Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956. Soards, Marion L. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Stemberger, Günter. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated and edited by Markus Bockmuehl. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. ——— Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologie und Eschatologie des palästinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (ca. 170 v. Chr–100 n. Chr). AnBib 56. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972. Stendahl, Krister. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. ASNU 20. Uppsala: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1954. ———, ed. The Scrolls and the New Testament. New York: Harper, 1957. Sterling, Gregory E. ‘Platonizing Moses: Philo and Middle Platonism’. SPhilo 5 (1993): 96–111. Steudel, Annette. ‘Mymyh tyrx) in the Texts from Qumran’. RevQ 16 (1993): 225–46. ——— ‘Psalm 2 im antiken Judentum’. Pages 189–97 in Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität. Edited by Dieter Sänger. BThS 67. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 2004. Steyn, Gert J. Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum. CBET 12. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995. Strauss, Mark L. The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology. JSNTSup 110. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

248

Bibliography

Strawn, Brent A. ‘Authority: Textual, Traditional, or Foundational? A Response to C. D. Elledge’. Pages 104–12 in Jewish and Christian Scriptures: The Function of ‘Canonical’ and ‘Non-Canonical’ Religious Texts. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Lee Martin McDonald. JCT 7. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Strecker, Georg. Theology of the New Testament. Edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Strugnell, John, Daniel J. Harrington, and Torleif Elgvin, in consultation with Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2: 4QInstruction (Mûsār lěMēvîn): 4Q415 ff. DJD 34. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Suhl, Alfred. Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965. Sutcliffe, Edmund F. The Old Testament and the Future Life. BS 8. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1946. Swanson, Dwight D. The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT. STDJ 14. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Swetnam, James. ‘No Sign of Jonah’. Bib 66 (1985): 126–30. Talbert, Charles H. Matthew. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. ——— Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles. Rev. ed. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. ——— Romans. SHBC. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. Talmon, Shemaryahu. The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1989. ——— ‘The Textual Study of the Bible – A New Outlook’. Pages 321–400 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel according to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes. London: Macmillan, 1963. Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Translated by S. Applebaum. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959. Thackeray, Henry St. John. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. London: Humphrey Milford, 1921. Theobald, Michael. Studien zum Römerbrief. WUNT 136. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Thompson, Michael. Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13. JSNTSup 59. Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1991. Tödt, Heinz Eduard. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by Dorothea M. Barton. NTL. London: SCM, 1965.

Bibliography

­249

Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. BTL 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995. ——— ‘The Meaning of Translation-Specific Lexical Items and Its Representation in the Dictionary’. Pages 45–53 in Translation and Lexicography: Papers Read at the EURALEX Colloquium Held at Innsbruck 2–5 July 1987. Edited by Mary Snell-Hornby and Esther Pöhl. Philadephia: John Benjamins, 1989. Tov, Emanuel. ‘From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch (?)’. Pages 73–91 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ——— Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ——— ‘The Writing of Early Scrolls: Implications for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture’. Pages 355–72 in L’Écrit et l’Ésprit: Études d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique en homage à Adrian Schenker. Edited by Dieter Böhler, Innocent Himbaza, and Philippe Hugo. OBO 214. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Towner, W. Sibley. ‘Hermeneutical Systems of Hillel and the Tannaim: A Fresh Look’. HUCA 53 (1982): 101–35. ——— The Rabbinic ‘Enumeration of Scriptural Examples’: A Study of a Rabbinic Pattern of Discourse with Special Reference to Mekhilta d’R. Ishmael. StPB 22. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Ulrich, Eugene C. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ——— ‘Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century Judaism’. Pages 145–61 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by Maxine L. Grossman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ——— ‘The Notion and Definition of Canon’. Pages 21–35 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. ——— ‘The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text’. Pages 51–9 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. GAP. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. ——— The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. ——— ‘The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works’. Pages 41–56 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: British Library, 2002. Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

250

Bibliography

Vermes, Geza. ‘Bible Interpretation at Qumran’. ErIsr 20 (1989): 184–91. ——— Post-Biblical Jewish Studies. SJLA 8. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ——— The Resurrection. New York: Doubleday, 2008. ——— Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. StPB 4. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Vögtle, Anton. ‘Das markinische Verständnis der Tempelworte’. Pages 362–83 in Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie. Edited by Ulrich Luz and Hans Weder. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Volz, Paul. Die Eschatologie des jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und apokryphen Literatur dargestellt. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1934. Wagner, S. ‘dārash’. Pages 293–307 in vol. 3 of TDOT. Wengst, Klaus. Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums. SNT 7. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1973. Weren, Wim J. C. ‘“His Disciples Stole Him Away” (Mt 28,13): A Rival Interpretation of Jesus’ Resurrection’. Pages 147–63 in RNT. Whitsett, Christopher G. ‘Son of God, Seed of David: Paul’s Messianic Exegesis in Romans 1:3–4’. JBL 119 (2000): 661–81. Wilckens, Ulrich. Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation. Translated by A. M. Stewart. Atlanta: John Knox, 1978. Williamson, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. CCWJCW 1.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Witherington, Ben, III, with Darlene Hyatt. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Wolff, Hans Walter. Jesaja 53 im Urchristentum. 3rd ed. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1952. Wolfson, Harry A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962. Woude, Adam S. van der. ‘Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament’. Pages 151–69 in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer and Florentino García Martínez. CBET 5. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992. ——— ‘Prophetic Prediction, Political Prognostication, and Firm Belief: Reflections on Daniel 11:40–12:3’. Pages 63–73 in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon. BIS 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Wright, Addison G. The Literary Genre Midrash. New York: Alba House, 1967. Wright, Benjamin G. ‘Translation as Scripture: The Septuagint in Aristeas and Philo’. Pages 47–61 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in

Bibliography

­251

the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. SBLSCS 53. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Wright, N. T. ‘Adam in Pauline Christology’. Pages 359–89 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1983. Edited by Kent Harold Richards. SBLSP 22. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. ——— The Resurrection of the Son of God. Vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Wright, Robert B., ed. The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. JCT 1. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Yardeni, Ada, and Binyamin Elizur. ‘A Prophetic Text on Stone from the First Century BCE: First Publication’ (in Hebrew). Cathedra 123 (2007): 155–6. York, A. D. ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’. JSJ 10 (1979): 74–86. Zahn, Molly M. ‘New Voices, Ancient Words: The Temple Scroll’s Reuse of the Bible’. Pages 435–58 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. LHB/OTS 422. London: T&T Clark, 2005. ——— ‘Rewritten Scripture’. Pages 323–36 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Zehnle, Richard F. Peter’s Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lukan Reinterpretation in Peter’s Speeches of Acts 2 and 3. SBLMS 15. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971. Zeilinger, Franz. Der biblische Auferstehungsglaube: Religionsgeschichtliche Entstehung – heilsgeschichtliche Entfaltung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Translated by Ronald E. Clements and James D. Martin. Edited by Frank Moore Cross, Klaus Baltzer, and Paul D. Hanson. Hermeneia. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979–83. Zumstein, Jean. Kreative Erinnerung: Relecture und Auslegung im Johannesevangelim. 2nd ed. AthANT 84. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004. Zunz, Leopold. Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt: Ein Beitrag zur Alterthumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte. Berlin: A. Asher, 1832.

­

Index of References Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 1–2 1 1:2 1:11-13 1:13 1:26-27 2–3 2 2:7 2:7b 2:7c 2:8 2:19 3:7 12:10-20 22:4 25:8 31:22 34:25 40:20 42:17 42:18 Exodus 10:1-2 15:17-18 15:17 15:22 19:11 19:15 19:16 22:28 23:19 34:26 34:36

166–9 95, 164 165 130 125 166–8 196 110 5, 163–8, 171, 174, 217, 219 163, 165 162–3, 165 167 164 173 28 125, 127–9, 182 110 125 125 125 128–9, 182 125, 127, 129, 182 179 38 187–8, 194 129, 182 125 125 125, 127, 182 152 152 152 57

Leviticus 7:17 7:18 12:2 19:6 19:7 23:9-14 23:29

125 125 164 125 125 152 198

Numbers 7:24 15:18-21 19:12 19:19 24:17 29:20 35:30

125 152 125 125 80, 142 125 189

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 17:6 18:4 18:15-19 19:15 26:14 27:12 28:1-14 28:12 34:10-11

178–9 189 152 198 189 71 98 77 128 179

Joshua 2:16 3:2 4:9 9:17

127, 129, 182 125 70 125

Judges 5:20 20:30

80 125

1 Samuel 16–18 20:12

23 125

29:9 30:1 2 Samuel 1:2 7 7:1-14 7:5-16 7:10-14 7:10b-11a 7:11 7:11-14 7:12-16

80 125

7:16 14:17 14:20 23:1-7 23:1-5

125 144 139 193–4, 209 38, 144 187 194 188, 194 139, 195, 213–14, 218–19 140, 143, 145, 170, 218 138–40, 142, 211 195 185, 188, 193–5 140 139–40, 143–4, 146, 211 139 80 80 9 213

1 Kings 3:18 12:12 18:27

125 125 191

7:12-14 7:12 7:12b 7:13a 7:13b 7:14

2 Kings 20:5 20:8

125, 129, 182 125

Index of References

254 1 Chronicles 17:13 140 2 Chronicles 10:12 13:5 13:22 21:7 24:27

125 213 44 213 44

Ezra 6:15 7:10 8:32

125 44 127, 182

Nehemiah 3:16 7:72b–8:8

202 24

Esther 4:16 5:1 5:1a

129 125, 128, 182 128

Job 14:12-14 26:5-6 38:7

71 71 80

Psalms 1–2 1:1 2 2:1-2 2:2 2:6 2:7

2:8-9 3–4 8 8:5 8:7 8:7b 8:8-9 16

144 38 139, 144 38, 139, 198, 210 139–40, 210 211 5, 138–40, 143–4, 146, 170, 208, 210–11, 214– 15, 218–19 139 9 158 159 150–1, 156–60, 171, 218–19 159, 160 158 124, 198,

16:8-11 16:8-11a 16:8 16:9-10 16:9 16:10

16:11 18:51 20–21 32 41 46 55 69:10 69:26 69:36 73:23-26 79:2-3 86:2 88:11 89:4-5 89:5 89:27-30 89:27-28 89:30-33 89:30 89:37-38 89:37 89:39-52 89:39-40 89:44 90:17 106:28 109:8 110 110:1

110:1a 110:1b 118:22 132:10-11 132:10

200, 204, 207–8, 218 5, 198–201, 203–5, 207, 214, 218–19 199 205 72, 201–2 202, 212 5, 199, 202– 3, 210–12, 214, 216, 218 203, 205–6 138 9 9 9 9 9 192 198 192 72 124 203, 218, 219 71 213 138, 142 213 140 138 142 138 142 203 203 70 187 71 198 156, 207 5, 149–50, 155–6, 158– 60, 171, 199, 203, 205–7, 214, 218–19 157, 207 151 185 218–19 203

132:11-12 132:11 132:17

138 202, 213 142

Proverbs 2:18 9:18 21:16

71 71 71

Ecclesiastes 9:5-10

71

Isaiah 6:9 7:10-16 8:10 8:11 9:6 11:1-5 11:1 11:10 14:9 24–27 25:8-9 26 26:14 26:16-18 26:18a 26:19

191 179 191 38 80 138 142 138 71 74–6 74–5 76, 85 71, 76 75 75 72, 75–6, 80, 97, 112, 129, 131, 172, 196 26:21 76 26:29 80 29:9 191 40:3 38 45:18 149 45:23 147–9, 170, 218–19 49:6 70 52:13–53:12 79, 194 52:13 79 53 78, 79, 132 53:5 194 53:11 79 55:3 5, 208, 210– 15, 218–19 57:19 203 61:1 94 66 81 66:14 81 66:24 81

­255

Index of References Jeremiah 7:11 23:5 23:28 30:9 33:14-26 44:25 Ezekiel 29:21 37 37:1-14 37:1-10 37:5-14 37:5 37:6 37:8 37:9 37:10 37:11-14 37:12 37:14 37:23 Daniel 2:21-22 5 5:11-12 5:14 5:16-17 5:26 7:8 7:9 7:13-14 7:13 7:16 8:9 8:10 11:32-35 11:33 12 12:1 12:1-3 12:2-3 12:2

185 138, 142, 195 191 142 138 191 142 72–3, 76, 96 72–3, 75 72–3, 112, 144 165, 171, 217, 219 165 165 164–5 165 165 73 131, 172, 196 165 38 40 40 40 40 40 40 77 155 80 155 40 77 80 77–8 78–9 69, 76–82, 85 3, 76 3, 71, 76–8, 80–2, 92, 112 3 76, 79–82, 99, 109, 131, 172, 196

12:3 Hosea 5–6 6 6:1-3 6:2

77, 79–80, 86

6:2-3 6:3

74 73–4 73–4 72, 121–2, 125–33, 143–4, 170, 173, 175, 182, 217, 219 127 127–8

Joel 3–4 3:1-5 3:5 3:5a

58 198 198, 203 199

Amos 4:4-5 9:11-12 9:11

191 213 38, 142

Jonah 2:1 2:1b 2:11

125, 127–9, 179–83 179 129, 182

Nahum 2:12b 2:13a

39 39

Habakkuk 2:2 2:3a 2:3b 2:8 2:8a 2:12 2:17

151 36 36 151 39 39 151

Zechariah 6:12 6:12c 9–14

138, 142, 194–5 193–5 58

Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical Books 1 Maccabees 2 78 7:16-17 124 14:4-15 172 2 Maccabees 6–7 6:26 7 7:5b-17 7:9 7:10-11 7:14 7:18-19 7:22-23 7:23 7:27-29 7:28-29 7:28 7:32-33 7:36 7:37-38 12:43-45 14 14:46

89 89 89, 90, 164 90 89 89 89–90 90 90–1, 164 164 90 91 91 90 92 90 89, 92 164 89, 91, 164

Sirach/Ecclesiasticus Prologue 17–18 17:28 71 41:4 71 45:3 179 51:13-30 9 New Testament Matthew 1:22-23 1:23 2:15 2:17-18 2:23 5:17 7:12 8:17 9:1-8 11:2-6 11:13 12 12:6

53 191 53 53 53 57 57 53 191 94 57 179, 183 191

Index of References

256 12:17-21 12:22-24 12:22 12:23 12:24-37 12:25-37 12:38-42 12:38-40 12:38 12:39 12:40 12:41-42 12:41 12:42 13:40-41 16:1 16:4 16:18 16:21 17:9 17:22b-23 17:23 18:20 18:31 20:18-19 20:19 22:30 22:40 22:44 24:2 24:27 24:37 24:38-39 26:28 26:51 26:53 26:59-66 26:59-61 26:59-60a 26:60b-61 26:61 26:63 26:64 27:39-40 27:40 27:52-53 27:52

53 183 179 179, 183 179 183 175 176–7 178, 183 175, 178 118–9, 124– 5, 176–7, 179–80, 183 176 183 183 179 176, 178 175–6 190 117, 119, 180, 184 136 117 180, 184 191 124 117 180, 184 80 57 156 190 179 179 179 191 119 190 193 184 189 189 175, 184, 190–1, 194 193 156, 190 184 119, 184, 190–1 123, 131, 172 196

27:63-64 27:63 27:64 28:1 28:9-10 28:9 28:11-15 28:11 28:15 28:17 28:20 28:28 Mark 8:2 8:11-12 8:11 8:12 8:31 9:9-10 9:31 9:31b 10:33-34 10:34 11:17 12:1-12 12:32-34 12:36 13:1-2 14:55-64 14:56-58 14:58 14:59 14:62 15:29-30 15:29 15:38 16:2 Luke 4:16-30 7:18-23 9:22 9:44 11:16 11:29-30 11:29 11:30 11:31-32

118, 180 119, 180, 185 180 120 121 1 184 184 184 1 191 172 187 175–6 178 175 117, 120, 184 136 120, 122, 184 117 117 120, 184 185 185 185 156 185 193 184 119, 175, 184–91, 194 189 147, 156 184 119, 184–86, 191 186 120 24 94 117–18, 184, 209 117 176–8 176–7 175 176–7, 179 176

16:16 16:29 16:31 17:24 17:26 17:28 18:31-33 18:31b-33 18:33 20:42-43 22:22 22:66-71 22:69 23:33-43 24 24:1 24:6-7 24:7 24:13 24:26-27 24:27 24:30-31 24:34 24:36-49 24:36 24:44-47 24:44 24:45 24:46-47 24:46

John 1:23 1:45 2:14-22 2:17 2:18-22 2:19 2:20 2:21-22a 2:21 2:22 2:23 3:14 3:34 5:21 5:39-40

57 57 57 179 179 179 124 117 118, 127, 184–5, 209 156 137 184 156 184 118 120 118 127, 185 121 172–3, 196 57 196 121 121 214 57–8 57 208, 216 196 2, 4, 118, 124, 127, 136, 173, 185 193 57 192 192–3 184, 191 119, 175, 184, 191–2 191–2 192 187, 191 136, 174, 185, 192–3 173 147 192 164–5 217

­257

Index of References 6:30 6:31 6:45 6:63 6:68 7:37-38 7:39 7:42 10:34 12:13-15 12:16 12:32 12:34 12:38-40 13:7 13:18 13:19 14:10 14:24 15:25 17:8 17:12 18:9 19:24 19:28-29 19:36-37 20:8 20:9 20:11-18 20:19 20:22 20:26 20:28 21:14 Acts 1:20 1:22 2 2:14-36 2:14-21 2:14 2:17 2:21 2:22-36 2:22 2:23

173 193 193 192 192 193 192 193 193 193 192 147 147 193 192 193 192 192 192 193 192 193 192 193 193 193 173 2, 4, 136, 173–4, 193, 196, 216 121 121 174, 196 121 1 136 198 197 198, 203, 206, 208, 210, 212 4, 198, 208 198 198 206 198, 203, 214 198, 214, 218 198–200 137, 199

2:24-32 2:24 2:25-36 2:25-32 2:25-31 2:25-28 2:25 2:26b-27 2:27 2:28 2:29-31 2:29 2:30 2:31-36 2:31 2:32-36 2:32-33 2:32 2:33 2:33b 2:34-36 2:34-35 2:34a 2:34b-35 2:36 2:37 2:38a 2:39 3 3:13-15 3:15 3:22-23 3:22 4:10 4:25-26 4:33 5:30-31 5:30 5:31 6:14 7 7:1-53 7:2-50 7:2-34 7:37 7:48 7:55-56 8:34

124 199, 209–10 53 201 211 5, 198–9, 213 200, 205 201 212 203 201–2 198, 202 200, 202–3 147 201–3, 212 201, 204, 210 206 197, 201, 204–5, 209 147, 156, 205–7, 211 206 214 1, 5, 156 206 199, 205 199, 205, 207 199 199 203 208 147 136 198 209 136, 209 198, 210 197 147 209 156, 205 185 208 208 63–4 53 209 188 156 202

10 10:40 10:41 10:42 11:29 13 13:14-15 13:15 13:16-41 13:16-22 13:17-22 13:22 13:23 13:25 13:26 13:27 13:29 13:30-37 13:30 13:32-37 13:32-33 13:32b-33a 13:33-35 13:33 13:33b-35 13:33b 13:34 13:34a 13:34b 13:35 13:35b 13:36-37 13:36 13:37 15:21 17:2-3 17:3 17:26 17:31 20:1 20:7 24:14 24:21 25:1 26:22 26:23 28:7

208 118, 185, 209 136 137 137 198, 212–13 24 57 5, 198, 208, 214, 218 63–4 208 209 195, 209, 211, 213 209 209 209 209 209 136, 197, 209 53 211, 213 210 214 5, 139, 209– 10 210 211 5, 136, 210, 212–13, 215 212 211 5, 199, 212 211 212 211 210–11, 215 24 2, 4, 198 4 137 137, 210 120 121 57 197 126 57 133, 135, 152 126

Index of References

258 28:12 28:17 28:23 Romans 1:1-4 1:2-3a 1:3f 1:3-4

1:3 1:3b-4 1:4

1:17 2:24 3:4 3:10 4:1 4:17 4:24 5:10 5:14 5:19 6:4 6:9 7:4 8:3 8:11 8:23 8:29 8:32 8:34 8:36 8:38 9:3 9:5 9:13 9:33 10:9 10:15 11:8 11:16 11:26 12:19 14:11 15:3 15:9

126 126 57 145 138 146 133–5, 139– 44, 146–7, 170, 195, 211, 218 137, 141, 145–6 135 1, 131, 136– 7, 139, 142, 146, 210, 215 162 162 162 162 141 162, 165 1, 136 145 151 179 136 136 136 145 1, 136, 165 152 145, 152 145 156–7, 205 162 157 141 141 162 162 1, 136, 148 162 162 152 162 162 148–9, 162 162 162

15:21 16:5 1 Corinthians 1:9 1:19 1:31 2:9 2:13-15 3:1 3:16 3:19 6:14 9:9 10:1-13 10:1-5 10:11 12:3 15

15:3-4 15:3b-4 15:3 15:4

15:4b 15:5-7 15:12-19 15:12 15:14 15:15 15:17-19 15:20-28 15:20-22 15:20 15:21-22 15:21 15:22-28 15:22 15:23-28 15:23-27a 15:23 15:24-28

162 152

15:24 15:25-27 15:25

16:2 16:15

154, 160 156, 159–60 151, 156, 160 160 154, 159–60, 171 158 150, 160–1 151, 157–60 151 145, 154, 161 161 133 161 166 161 161, 171 162 146 5, 162–3, 166, 168 164 163 166 163, 166, 168 146, 166, 179 121 152

145 162 162 162 161 161 187 162 1 64, 162 64 63 64 148 115, 131, 133, 158, 161, 164, 166, 169 4, 124, 143 116, 123, 170 130, 154 2, 4, 116, 119, 123–6, 130, 132, 172–3, 175, 184 124 121 132, 150, 154 136, 150 1 1 1 133, 146–7, 150–2, 171 150 132–3, 136, 152–4 151, 153–4, 164 133 1 179 150, 171 150, 154, 157, 160 152–4 149, 155

15:25b 15:26

2 Corinthians 1:19 3:12-18 3:12-15 3:14 3:15-16 3:16 4:14 5:17 8:15 9:9

145 57 216 216 57 216 1 130 162 162

Galatians 1:1 1:16 2:20 3:10 4:4 4:22-31 4:22

1, 136 145 145 162 134, 145 53 162

15:27-28 15:27b-28 15:27 15:27b 15:28 15:35 15:42-50 15:42-44 15:44-54 15:44 15:44b-49 15:44b 15:45-49 15:45 15:45b 15:46 15:47-49 15:47 15:49

­259

Index of References 4:27 6:15 Ephesians 1:20-22 1:20 1:21 2:11 3:10 6:12 Philippians 2:6-11 2:6-8 2:9-11

162 130 147, 156, 159–60, 218 136, 156, 205 157 189 157 157

2:9 2:10-11 2:11 3:20-21

147 147 1, 146–7, 170, 218 147–8 148–9 148–9 166

Colossians 1:15 1:16 1:18 2:10-15 2:11 2:12 3:1

152 157 152, 210 157 189 1, 136 156, 205

1 Thessalonians 1:10 145, 166 4:16-17 166 1 Timothy 3:16

135

2 Timothy 2:8

135–6

Hebrews 1:3-13 1:3 1:5 1:6 1:13–2:8 1:13 2:8

147 1, 147, 156, 205 139, 195, 210–11 152 156, 159, 218 156, 160 159

4:7 5:5 6:1-2 8:1 10:12-13 10:12 12:2 14:3 1 Peter 1:3 1:21 3:18 3:22 Jude 14-15 Revelation 1:5 1:10 3:21

137 139, 210–11 133 147, 156, 205 156–7 156, 205 156, 205 147 136 136, 147 135, 165 156, 159–60, 205, 218 3 135, 152, 210 121 156

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 1–36 1.9 9.21 22 22.3 22.9-11 22.9 22.10-11 22.12 22.13 24.1–25.7 24.2–27.2 25.6 37–71 39 39.3–5 39.5 39.7 45.3 48.10 50.1 51.1

82–4 3 80 82 82 83 83 83 83 83 83, 112 82 83 86–7, 112 87 87, 112 80 87 155 139 87 86

51.3 51.5 55.4 58.3 61.8 62.15–16 62.15 69.29 71 71.11 85–90 90.29 90.33 90.37–38a 91–105 91.10 91.11–17 92.3 93.10 102 102.4–104.8 102.4–5 103.3–4 103.4 103.7 104.2–6 104.2

155 87, 112 155 87 155 87 87 155 80 80, 87 84, 188 188 84 84 84–6 85 85 85 85 85 85, 112 85 85, 88 86 86 80 85–6

4 Ezra 4.36 4.40–42 4.42 7 7.26–30 7.26–28 7.28–29 7.28 7.29 7.30 7.31–32 7.32 7.33 7.37–38 7.78–80 7.91 7.101 8.52–54 12.31–34

107 107, 210 107 110, 113, 216 4 154 107 107, 139 109 107 4 107 107 107 106–7 107 107 108 138

2 Baruch 11.6–7 21.13–15 21.17

108 108 108

Index of References

260 21.23 29.1–8 30 30.1–5 30.1 42.8 49.2–3 50.3 51.1–5 51.3 51.5 51.9 51.10 83.10–21

108 154 113, 216 108 108–9 109 109 109 80 109 109 109 80, 109, 112 108

Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 3.10 105 9.7 179 9.10 179 16.3 105–6 19.12–13 106 19.12 106 19.13 106 23.13 105–6 32.13 105 33.3 105 44.10 105 56.7 126 63.4 106

Pseudo-Phocylides 100–108 111 102–4 111 112–15 111 Psalms of Solomon 3.10–12 99 13.11 99 14.6–9 99 15.10–13 99 17.4 138 17.21–49 138 17.21 143, 161 17.22–46 161 17.23–25 139 17.30 193 17.32 161 17.34 161 17.46 161 Sibylline Oracles 4 110, 112 4.179–91 110 Testament of Benjamin 10.6–10 97 10.6–7 99 10.6 99, 112 10.7 98 10.8 98

3 Maccabees 6.8 181

Testament of Gad 4.6 165

Jubilees 1.17 1.29 2.7 13.10–13 23.16–31 23.30–31 23.30 23.31

Testament of Job 31.4 126 33.3 155

187 188 130 28 87 87–8 88 88

Letter of Aristeas 310–11 22 Lives of the Prophets 10 181 10.2 181 10.10 181

Testament of Judah 24.1 142 25.1 97–8 25.4 97–8 Testament of Levi 18.13–14 97 Testament of Simeon 6.7 97 Testament of Zebulun 10.1–4 97 10.2 98

Dead Sea Scrolls CD (Damascus Document) 5.18 70 16.2–4 33 16.3 10 20.6 44 1QapGen (Genesis Apocryphon) 19.10–21 28 1QHa (Hodayot) 7.29 93 14.37 93 19.15 93 1QpHab (Habakkuk Pesher) 6.14–16 151 7.1–5 36, 40 7.3 151–2 7.7 36 7.10–12 36–7 7.13–14 36 8.15 151 9.2–3 152 9.3–4 39, 151 9.4–5 39 10.9–10 39 12.1 151 12.6–7 151 12.6 152 1QS (Rule of the Community) 1.1–3 7 4.6–8 104 4.11–14 104 6.24 38, 44 8.15 38, 44 8.26 38, 44 1QSa (Rule of the Congregation) 2.11 139 2.11–12 139 4QMMT (Miqṣat Maʿaśê ha-Torah) C 9–10 7 C 10 57

­261

Index of References

4Q161 (4QIsaiah Pesher) frgs. 8–10 line 15 142

4Q252 (4QCommentary on Genesis A) 5.1–4 138 5.3–4 142, 195, 203

4Q169 (4QNahum Pesher) frgs. 3–4 1.4 39 frgs. 3–4 1.5 39

4Q256 (4QRule of the Communityb) 9.1 44

4Q174 (4QFlorilegium) 1.1–13 38, 138 1.1–3 187 1.2 38 1.10–11 140, 188, 194–5, 203, 210 1.10 195 1.11–12 188 1.11 142–3, 195 1.12 38 1.14–19 38 1.14 38, 44 1.18–19 139 1.19 139 2.3 9

4Q258 (4QRule of the Communityd) 1.1 44 7.1 44

1Q27 (1QMysteries) 1.6 179

4Q175 (4QTestimonia) lines 1–8 10 lines 9–13 10 lines 14–20 10 lines 21–30 10 4Q176 (4QTanḥûmîm) frg. 21 88 frg. 21 line 3 88 4Q177 (4QCatenaa) frg. 11 line 1 38 4Q228 (4QWork with citation of Jubilees) frg. 1 1.10 33 4Q246 (4QAramaic Apocalypse) 2.1–2 179 4Q249 (4QMidrash Sefer Moses) frg. 1 verso 44

4Q259 (4QRule of the Communitye) 3.6 44 4Q266 (4QDamascus Documenta) frg. 11 line 20 44 4Q270 (4QDamascus Documente) frg. 7 2.15 44 4Q364 (4QReworked Pentateuchb) frg. 3 2.1–6 32 4Q365 (4QReworked Pentateuchc) frgs. 6a-c 2.1–7 32 frg. 23 lines 4–11 32 4Q384 (4QApocryphon of Jeremiahb) frg. 9 line 2 33 4Q385 (4QPseudo-Ezekiela) frg. 2 lines 2–9 95 frg. 2 lines 6–8 164 frg. 3 95 4Q386 (4QPseudo-Ezekielb) frg. 1 1.1–10 95 4Q388 (4QPseudo-Ezekield) frg. 7 lines 2–7 95 4Q418 (4QInstructiond) frg. 126 2.8 93

4Q521 (4QMessianic Apocalypse) frg. 2 94 frg. 2 2.1 94 frg. 2 2.10–13 93–4 frg. 2 2.10 36 frg. 2 2.12 4, 94 frg. 4 94 11Q5 (11QPsalmsa) 27.11 35, 200 11Q13 (11QMelchizedek) 2.9 38 2.18 9 2.23 38 11Q19 (11QTemplea) 29.8–10 188 61.6–7 189 Philo On the Life of Abraham 68 43 On the Cherubim 27 44 48 41 49 41 On the Confusion of Tongues 44 41 190 43 On Flight and Finding 197 41 179 43 Who is the Heir? 264–65 44 Allegorical Interpretation 1–2 168 1.31 167–8 1.32 168 1.42 168 1.92 168 2.4–5 168 2.5 167, 169

Index of References

262 On the Migration of Abraham 34–35 44 89–93 43 On the Life of Moses 1.4 43 2.25–44 22 2.34 22 2.37 22 2.38 18 2.40 22 On the Change of Names 139 41 169 41 On the Creation of the World 134 167–8 135 168 136 167, 169 138 167, 169 140 167, 169 142 167, 169 145 167, 169 148 167, 169 151 167, 169 On Planting 38

41

Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.8 167 On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel 5 110 On Dreams 1.73 1.102 2.127 2.172

43 43 24 41

On the Special Laws 1.8 41 1.214 41 1.287 43

Josephus Against Apion 2.175 24 2.218 100–1 Jewish Antiquities 1–11 31 6.166 200 7.280–281 119 7.393 202 8.214 119 8.218 119 8.408 126 9.205–214 181 9.213 182 12.11–118 20, 22 12.39 20 12.46 20 12.56 20 12.57 20 12.86 20 12.104 22 12.108–109 22 13.249 202 16.179–183 202 18.14 101–2 18.16–17 3 18.18 103 18.85–87 179 20.97–99 179 20.169–172 179 Jewish War 1.61 1.84 2.153 2.154–155 2.163 2.165 3.74 3.362 3.372 3.374–375 7.343–346

202 103 104 103 102 102 101 100 100–1 100 103

Rabbinic Works b. ‘Erubin 19a

182

b. Nedarim 32b

155

b. Roš Haššanah 31a 127 b. Sanhedrin 38b 155 97a 127 98a 179 b. Sukkah 52a

139

y. Berakot 5.2

127

y. Sanhedrin 11.6

127

m. Megillah 4:4

25

m. Sanhedrin 10:1 3 m. Ta‘anit 2:4

182

t. Megillah 3.41

18

t. Pesaḥim 4.13 6.1 6.33a

47 47 47

t. Sanhedrin 7.11

47

’Abot de Rabbi Nathan A 37.7 47 Genesis Rabbah 8.1 165 14 165 14.5 73, 144, 164–5 14.8 165 56.1 127–8, 182 91.7 129 98.11 182

­263

Index of References Leviticus Rabbah 9.6 195 14.9 73, 144, 164 Numbers Rabbah 13.2 195 Deuteronomy Rabbah 7.6 128 Esther Rabbah 9.2 128–9, 182 Midrash Jonah 98–99 182 Midrash Psalms 2.9 139 16.10–11 202 16.11 203 18.29 155 22.5 129, 182 26.7 182 90.17 187 139.6 165 Midrash Song of Songs 4.16 195 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 10 182 51 128 Mekilta Exod 15:17

187

Targumic Texts 2 Samuel 7:14

140

1 Chronicles 17:13 140 Isaiah 52:13 53:5

194 194

Hosea 6:2

128–30

Zechariah 6:12

194

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.15.1 73 Jerome, Epistulae 57.5 18 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 51 119 76 119 97 119 100 119 107 119 Justin, First Apology 52 73

Greek and Latin Works

Porphyry, De antro nympharum 8 79

Aristophanes, Pax 832–34 79

Tertullian, Against the Jews 12.23 132

Cicero, De republica 6.13–17 79

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.43 132

Didascalia Apostolorum 21.14 180

Tertullian, The Resurrection of the Flesh 29–30 73

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 9.27 103

­

Index of Authors Adam, A. K. M. 180 Alexander, P. S. 18, 25–6 , 28, 30, 38 Albright, W. F. 120 Allen, L. C. 138 Allison, D. C. 126, 133, 141, 181–2, 190–1 Alter, R. 54, 64 Andersen, F. I. 74 Anderson, G. W. 74, 75 Anderson, K. L. 213 Ashton, J. 192 Attridge, H. W. 31 Avemarie, F. 61, 151, 205 Bacon, B. W. 177 Bar-Asher, M. 122 Barré, M. L. 74 Barrett, C. K. 163, 173 Barthélemy, D. 139 Barthes, R. 54 Bauckham, R. J. 3 Bauer, J. B. 125 Baumgarten, J. M. 10 Bayer, H. F. 119, 131 Beasley-Murray, P. 136–7, 141, 145 Becker, J. 97 Becker, M. 94 Bellinger, W. H. 200, 207 Berkley, T. W. 54 Bernstein, M. J. 14–17, 27–8, 30–1 Berrin, S. L. 37, 40 Betz, O. 140 Beutler, J. 174, 193 Bieringer, R. 38 Bittner, W. J. 178 Black, M. 103, 131 Bloch, R. 60 Bock, D. L. 56, 200, 210–11 Bockmuehl, M. N. A. 147–8 Bode, E. L. 119–21, 125–6, 132 Boer, M. C. de. 150, 158–60 Boers, H. 200 Borgen, P. 41, 44 Bornkamm, G. 1, 147 Bousset, W. 120

Boyd-Taylor, C. 17 Braude, W. G. 129, 165, 187, 202 Brock, S. P. 18–19 Brooke, G. J. 7–8, 14, 38, 57–9, 62, 96, 144 Brown, R. E. 188–90, 192 Brownlee, W. H. 37 Bruce, F. F. 37, 40, 136, 209 Bultmann, R. 137, 145, 162, 173, 175, 177 Byrne, B. J. 136–7, 140 Cadbury, H. J. 61, 201, 212 Campbell, J. G. 17, 29, 30 Campenhausen, H. F. von. 120 Carmignac, J. 34 Carter, W. 190 Cathcart, K. J. 129 Cavallin, H. C. C. 71, 75, 80, 82–3, 85–8, 91–2, 98–9, 102, 104, 106– 10, 127 Charles, R. H. 85 Charlesworth, J. H. 7, 10, 17, 33, 35, 59, 68–70, 174, 188 Chernick, M. 47 Chester, A. 73, 75, 79–80, 82 Chilton, B. D. 8, 194 Chow, S. 182 Christensen, J. 130 Collins, A. Y. 119, 144, 185–6, 188 Collins, J. J. 39–40, 71–2, 77–80, 84–6, 88, 93–4, 96, 101, 103–4, 109–10, 139, 144, 203 Connolly-Weinert, F. 184 Conzelmann, H. 126, 154 Craig, W. L. 120 Cranfield, C. E. B. 135–7, 140 Crawford, S. W. 8, 11, 15, 28–33 Crenshaw, J. L. 75–6 Cross, F. M. 11 Culpepper, R. A. 192 Cumont, F. V. M. 79 Dahl, N. A. 65 Daly-Denton, M. 192

266

Index of Authors

Daube, D. 48 Davies, G. I. 74 Davies, P. R. 92 Davies, W. D. 181–2, 190–1 Dawson, D. 42 Day, J. 68, 74–5, 79 Delcor, M. 78 Delling, G. 120, 125–6, 129, 132, 181 Dimant, D. 14, 30, 35, 95–6 Dodd, C. H. 2, 56, 58, 60–1, 126 Doeve, J. W. 57, 61 Dogniez, C. 18 Donahue, J. R. 186 Doran, R. 89 Draisma, S. 54 Driver, S. R. 200 Duhm, B. 155 Duling, D. C. 132, 141–3, 209 Dunn, J. D. G. 135–40, 145–6, 162, 166 Dupont, J. 126, 132 Edwards, R. A. 177–9, 183, 186 Elizur, B. 121 Elledge, C. D. 34, 88, 90, 94, 96, 98–9 Elliger, K. 36, 39–40 Ellis, E. E. 58 Enelow, H. G. 47 Evans, C. A. 119, 122, 131, 175, 188 Evans, C. F. 1, 71, 123, 126, 132, 147, 206 Fales, E. 180 Falk, D. K. 30, 32 Fee, G. D. 120, 125, 148, 154, 158, 167 Feldman, L. H. 31, 101 Fernández, M. P. 59–60 Fewell, D. N. 54 Fishbane, M. A. 29, 37, 49–50, 78 Fisk, B. N. 31 Fitzmyer, J. A. 33, 116, 125, 137, 153, 157, 162, 184, 200, 206 Flint, P. W. 8–9 Fraade, S. D. 25 Frankel, I. 49 Franklin, E. 205 Freedman, D. N. 74 Freedman, H. 128–9, 164–5 Friedlander, G. 128, 182 Friedman, R. E. 71 Fuller, R. H. 123–4, 131, 133 García Martínez, F. 34, 59 Gardiner, F. 56

Garland, D. E. 121, 127, 162, 167 Gärtner, B. E. 189 Gaston, L. 189 Gaventa, B. R. 210 Geiger, A. 52 Gerhardsson, B. 120–1, 131 Gielen, M. 153 Ginsberg, H. L. 78–9 Ginzberg, L. 182 Gnilka, J. 186 Goguel, M. 120, 131 Goldin, J. 187 Goldingay, J. 72 Goldstein, J. 91 Goppelt, L. 64 Gordon, R. P. 129 Grabbe, L. L. 101–2 Green, J. B. 64 Green, W. S. 56 Greenspoon, L. J. 22–3, 68, 70–1, 74–5 Grelot, P. 82 Gross, A. D. 33 Gruenwald, I. 14, 49 Gundry, R. H. 65, 162, 188, 190–1 Gunkel, H. 138, 200 Haacker, K. 141 Haenchen, E. 200 Häfner, G. 190 Hagner, D. A. 190–1 Hahn, F. 137, 140 Harrington, D. J. 30, 41, 93, 104–6, 186 Hasel, G. F. 75 Hatina, T. R. 54 Hay, D. M. 155–6, 158–9, 169, 207 Hayes, J. H. 139, 206–7 Hays, R. B. 44, 54–5, 56, 63–4, 124, 157, 163 Heil, J. P. 150, 160 Heil, U. 160 Heinemann, J. 52, 112 Hendel, R. 122 Hengel, M. 18, 79, 82, 120, 134, 206 Hill, C. E. 155 Hogeterp, A. L. A. 96 Hollander, H. W. 98 Hollander, J. 54 Hooke, S. H. 125 Horbury, W. 60 Horgan, M. P. 35, 37, 39–40 Horovitz, S. 49 Horsley, R. A. 163, 166–7 Horst, P. W. van der. 111

Index of Authors Howton, J. 177 Hultgren, S. J. 165, 167–9 Hurst, L. D. 147 Hurtado, L. W. 148 Hyatt, D. 136, 145 Idel, M. 44–5, 50 Instone Brewer, D. 15–16, 44 Jacobs, L. 48 Jellicoe, S. 20 Jeremias, J. 122, 177 Jewett, R. 137 Jipp, J. W. 134–5, 141 Johnson, D. G. 75 Jokiranta, J. 36 Jonge, M. de. 96, 98, 137 Joosten, J. 59 Juel, D. H. 2, 5, 58, 61, 65, 140, 155–7, 185–6, 188–9, 193–5, 203–5, 207 Kahle, P. E. 20–21 Kaiser, O. 74 Kaiser, W. C. 56 Kamesar, A. 42 Käsemann, E. 136, 140, 142 Keck, L. E. 140, 145 Keener, C. S. 136, 173, 191 Kern-Ulmer, R. 45–46, 50 Kingsbury, J. D. 190 Kister, M. 59, 153, 163 Klijn, A. F. J. 21, 108–9 Kloppenborg, J. S. 126, 175, 177, 179 Knibb, M. A. 78 Knohl, I. 121–2 Koch, G. 120 Koester, C. R. 173–4, 193 Kohler, K. 51 Koperski, V. 114 Koyfman, S. A. 14 Kramer, W. R. 137, 140 Krašovec, J. 74 Kraus, W. 18 Kremer, J. 120, 126 Kreuzer, S. 23 Kristeva, J. 54 Kugel, J. L. 15 Kurz, W. S. 204 Lacocque, A.  78–9 Lake, K. 212 Lamarche, P. 189

­267

Lambrecht, J. 114, 150 Landes, G. M. 177, 180 Laurin, R. B. 92 Lauterbach, J. Z. 187 Lee, A. H. I. 210–11 Lehmann, K. 119, 121–6, 129–30 Licht, J. 92 Lichtenberger, H. 92 Licona, M. R. 122 Lieberman, S. 48 Lim, T. H. 33, 35, 38–40 Lincoln, A. T. 160 Lindars, B. 2, 65, 121–2, 126, 132, 186, 192, 198–9, 202, 204–7 Lindemann, A. 127, 160, 162–3 Linnemann, E. 141, 194 Linton, O. 178 Loader, W. R. G. 206 Lohfink, G. 120, 206 Lohse, E. 187 Longenecker, R. N. 58, 202, 205, 207 Lövestam, E. 137, 139, 146, 206, 210–11, 213 Luz, U. 178, 181, 190–1 Macho, A. D. 24 Macintosh, A. A. 74 Mack, B. L. 175 Mahoney, R. 173 Manson, T. W. 177 Marshall, I. H. 56, 65 Martin, D. B. 79, 162 Martin, R. P. 147–8 Martin-Achard, R. 68, 73–4 Mason, E. F. 139 Mays, J. L. 74, 200 Mburu, E. W. 59 McArthur, H. K. 123–4, 126, 129–30, 132 McCasland, S. V. 120–1, 123, 125, 131 McKinnis, R. 119 McNamara, M. 24, 27, 129 Menken, M. J. J. 173–4, 192 Mertens, A. 92 Metzger, B. M. 4, 107, 123–4 Michael, J. H. 177 Michaels, J. R. 191 Michel, O. 189 Milgrom, J. 143, 187–8 Millar, W. R. 74 Moo, D. J. 136–7 Mowinckel, S. 138 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 58

268

Index of Authors

Nagata, T. 149 Najman, H. 34, 42 Nauck, W. 120 Neusner, J. 18, 45–6, 51–4, 60, 68 Newsom, C. A. 16, 93 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 29, 41, 68, 71, 75– 90, 92, 96, 98–100, 103–4, 107, 110–11, 188 Niebuhr, K.-W. 94 Nitzan, B. 34 Nolland, J. 177, 190 Nordgaard, S. 166 Nötscher, F. 110 Novakovic, L. 10, 36, 61, 94, 139 O’Day, G. R. 54 O’Toole, R. F. 208 Orlinsky, H. M. 10, 22 Overton, S. D. 71 Painter, J. 174 Parsons, M. C. 206 Patte, D. 24–27 Pearson, B. A. 163 Perkins, P. 99 Pervo, R. I. 204, 206, 208–9, 212 Pesch, R. 188 Peters, M. K. H. 23 Petersen, A. K. 29–31 Philonenko, M. 96 Pietersma, A. 19, 20, 23 Plöger, O. 78 Polaski, D. C. 75 Porter, S. E. 62–3, 115 Porton, G. G. 2, 13, 38, 45–52 Poythress, V. S. 133 Proctor, M. 119–20, 127 Puech, É. 68, 75, 93, 103 Purvis, J. D. 11 Qimron, E. 7, 122 Rad, G. von. 64, 91 Reed, J. L. 179 Reinhartz, A. 192 Rengstorf, K. H. 177 Rese, M. 209 Reumann, J. 147–8 Riesenfeld, H. 75 Rietz, H. W. 11 Rojas-Flores, G. 191 Runia, D. T. 42, 44 Russell, M. 125

Samely, A. 25, 44 Sawyer, J. F. A. 71 Schaller, B. 167 Schechter, S. 112 Schiffman, L. H. 33 Schmidt, D. 179 Schnackenburg, R. 192 Schubert, K. 68, 88 Schwankl, O. 86 Schwartz, D. R. 10, 54 Schweizer, E. 135, 137, 140, 189, 211 Scott, J. M. 133 Scott, R. B. Y. 177, 180 Scroggs, R. 165, 167 Segal, A. F. 54, 68–9, 71, 73, 75–6, 78, 80–1, 83–91, 102, 104, 110 Segal, M. 32 Setzer, C. 68, 76, 79 Shinan, A. 27 Sider, R. J. 120–1, 126 Siegfried, C. G. A. 43 Silberman, L. H. 40, 60 Skarsaune, O. 54 Slingerland, H. 96 Smith, M. 103 Smyth, H. W. 157 Soards, M. L. 197, 205, 207 Stanley, C. D. 59, 63, 115, 156, 158, 160, 163 Stemberger, G. 46, 87, 98–9 Stendahl, K. 58 Sterling, G. E. 42 Steudel, A. 37, 144 Steyn, G. J. 200 Strauss, M. L. 209 Strawn, B. A. 34 Strecker, G. 137 Strugnell, J. 93 Suhl, A. 125 Sutcliffe, E. F. 75 Swanson, D. D. 30 Swetnam, J. 177 Talbert, C. H. 135, 140, 173, 190 Talmon, S. 10, 12, 35 Taylor, V. 189 Tcherikover, V. 84 Thackeray, H. St J. 19, 100–4 Theobald, M. 141–2 Thiselton, A. C. 125, 163 Thompson, M. 63 Tödt, H. E. 119, 127

Index of Authors Toury, G. 17, 20 Tov, E. 11–12, 23–4, 32 Towner, W. S. 48 Ulrich, E. C. 9–13, 32, 66, 158 VanderKam, J. C. 8, 29, 32, 82, 85, 87, 188 Vaux, R. de 138 Vermes, G. 14, 27–29, 49, 51–52, 69, 112 Vögtle, A. 189 Volz, P. 88, 110 Wagner, S. 44 Wengst, K. 148–9 Weren, W. J. C. 184 Whitsett, C. G. 139–40 Wilckens, U. 69 Williamson, R. 42–4 Witherington, B., III 136, 145 Wolff, H. W. 75 Wolfson, H. A. 43

­269

Wooden, R. G. 18 Woude, A. S. van der 12, 77, 79 Wright, A. G. 52 Wright, B. G. 19, 21 Wright, N. T. 4, 68–9, 75, 80, 85–6, 88, 92, 94, 101–2, 104, 110, 114– 15, 123, 127, 136, 141, 144, 157, 161–2, 167, 172–3, 177, 191, 196, 204 Wright, R. B. 99, 143 Yardeni, A. 121 York, A. D. 25 Yuditsky, A. 122 Zahn, M. M. 27–8, 33–4 Zehnle, R. F. 205 Zeilinger, F. 68 Zimmerli, W. 73 Zumstein, J. 192 Zunz, L. 46, 52