The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature [Multilingual ed.] 3161529537, 9783161529535

Table of contents :
Cover
Preface
Table of Contents
Ralph Brucker: A Sample Article: ᾄδω
1. Greek literature
2. Papyri and inscriptions
3. Septuagint
a) Statistical observations
b) Hebrew equivalents
c) Septuagint use
4. Jewish literature in Greek
5. New Testament
6. Early Christian literature
Bibliography
Christoph Kugelmeier: Kämpfen, Mühsal und Elend in der Septuaginta: Die von ΑΕΘΛ-/ΑΘΛ- abgeleitete Wortgruppe
Katell Berthelot: The Notion of Anathema in Ancient Jewish Literature Written in Greek
Introduction
1. ἀναθήματα in the Greek world
2. The Biblical Notion of ἀνάθεμα
3. ἀναθήματα in Jewish literature written in Greek
Conclusion
Eberhard Bons: The Noun βοηθός as a Divine Title
Introduction
1. Gods as helpers of humans in Greek literature
1.1 The evidence of prayer texts
1.1.1 Gods as allies in wars
1.1.2 The noun βοηθός in reference to a specific deity
2. Helpers of humans in the documentary papyri
2.1 Gods as helpers?
2.2 Human helpers
3. God as helper in the Septuagint and in extra-biblical texts
3.1 Preliminary observations
3.2 God as helper
3.2.1 The noun βοηθός as a divine title in the Psalter
3.2.2 Examples of βοηθός as a divine title in extra-biblical texts
Concluding Remarks
Wolfgang Kraus: Die Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief
1. Das Problemfeld
1.1. Knut Backhaus
1.2. Manuel Vogel
1.3. Sebastian Fuhrmann
2. Statistik
3. Die Ersterwähnung Hebr 7,22
3.1. Methodische Vorbemerkung zur Semantik
Exkurs: Diatheke in Jesus Sirach
3.2. Der Beleg Hebr 7,22
4. Die weiteren Belege
4.1. Hebr 8,6
4.2. Hebr 8,7–13; 10,16f
4.3. Hebr 9,15–22
4.4. Hebr 10,29; 12,24; 13,20
5. Konsequenzen und Ertrag
5.1. Zur Semantik
5.2. Zur Funktion im Argumentationsgang
5.3. Zur theologischen Bedeutung
Jörg Frey: The Use of δόξα in Paul and John as Shaped by the Septuagint
Introduction
1. The profile of the usage of δόξα in the Septuagint and the quest for explanation
2. The use of δόξα in Paul and John as shaped by the Septuagint
2.1. δόξα in Paul: God’s glory revealed in Christ
2.2. δόξα in John: Christ’s glory, rooted in his ‘glorification’ as foreseen by Isaiah
3. Concluding perspectives
Jan Joosten: Mixed Blessings: The biblical notion of blessing in the works of Philo and Flavius Josephus
1. εὐλογέω in non-biblical Greek
2. εὐλογέω in the Septuagint
3. εὐλογέω in Jewish and Christian texts
4. Philo and Flavius Josephus
4.1. Philo
4.3. Flavius Josephus
4.3. Conclusions
5. General conclusions and outlook
Emanuela Prinzivalli: The Use of ὁμόνοια and Related Terms in the Septuagint and in Christian Literature of the First Three Centuries
1. The civic acceptation of ὁμόνοια
2. The noun ὁμόνοια in the Septuagint
3. The use of ὁμόνοια in early Christian writings
4. Concluding observations
Enrico Norelli: La Septante dans quelques testimonia non canoniques des origines chrétiennes
Les testimonia
Testimonia bibliques et testimonia agrapha
Circulation des testimonia
Utilisation de la Septante pour la fabrication de testimonia
1 Clément 26,2
1 Clément 29,3
1 Clément 8,2–3
Thomas J. Kraus: Eine Grammatik der Septuaginta und des Neuen Testaments: Methodische Überlegungen zu Grenzen und Möglichkeiten
Problemskizze und grundsätzliche Fragestellungen
Septuaginta und Neues Testament im sprachgeschichtlichen Kontext
Präposition ἐν mit Dativ und ב instrumenti – sprachgeschichtliche Entwicklung, Septuaginta und Neues Testament
Weitere zu bearbeitende grammatikalische Phänomene (in Auswahl)
Fazit
James K. Aitken: Outlook
The Septuagint within the history of Greek
Register and the question of popular Greek
The Greek of inscriptions
Reception history of words
Reception and interpretation
Chronology
List of Contributors
Index of Ancient Sources
1. Old Testament (Septuagint)
2. New Testament
3. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
4. Jewish-Hellenistic Literature
5. Early Christian Literature
6. Greek and Roman Literature
7. Inscriptions and Papyri
Index of Greek Words
Index of Hebrew Words

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)

367

The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature Edited by Eberhard Bons, Ralph Brucker and Jan Joosten

Mohr Siebeck

Eberhard Bons, born 1958; 1988 Dr. phil., University of Mainz; 1993 Dr. theol., PhilosophischTheologische Hochschule St. Georgen, Frankfurt; 2000 Habilitation; since 2004 Professor for Old Testament at the University of Strasbourg. Ralph Brucker, born 1961; 1996 Dr. theol., University of Hamburg; since 2010 lecturer for Old and New Testament at the Justus Liebig University Giessen; since 2011 Post-Doc Research Fellow at the University of Strasbourg. Jan Joosten, born 1959; 1989 PhD Hebrew University, Jerusalem; since 1994 Professor for Old Testament at the University of Strasbourg; head of the Groupe de Recherches sur la Septante; since 2012 president of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152954-2 ISBN 978-3-16-152953-5 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2014 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Ralph Brucker in Hamburg, printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface The projected Historical and Theological Lexicon of the Septuagint (HTLS) will offer historical studies of Septuagint words, retracing their usage from early Greek authors, over Koine Greek and the Septuagint translation itself, into Jewish-Hellenistic and early Christian literature. The latter two of these phases were the object of a workshop held in Bühl (Germany) on January 21 and 22, 2011. Indeed, the reception of the Septuagint in Greek-speaking Judaism and Christianity involves many questions touching the lexicon, such as: – How do Jewish or Christian authors writing in Greek handle the difference existing for some words between the “biblical” usage created in the Septuagint and the usual meaning in Greek? – To what extent is it possible to affirm that New Testament authors borrowed their religious terminology from the Septuagint? – Which words of the Septuagint continue in later writings with their specific meaning, and which ones go out of use? – Is it possible to observe further semantic developments in the use of “biblical” words by Jewish or Christian authors writing in Greek? These and similar questions are of concern not only to the narrow fields of lexical semantics and philology. More often than not, they have important historical and theological implications. The aim of the present volume is to contribute to the development of an adequate approach to the problems sketched out. Focussing on selected words or word groups, some articles investigate their use in Greek literature, in the Septuagint and in later Jewish and Christian texts: the verb ᾄδω, which is presented in a sample article (Ralph Brucker), the words deriving from the root ἀθλ- (ἆθλος, ἆθλον, etc.) and their presence or absence in the Septuagint (Christoph Kugelmeier), the Septuagint use of ἀνάθεµα/ἀνάθηµα/ἀναθεµατίζω and its impact on later Jewish literature in Greek and on the New Testament (Katell Berthelot), the divine title βοηθός in the Septuagint and its Jewish and Greek background (Eberhard Bons), the noun δόξα in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, in particular the Gospel of John and the Pauline Letters (Jörg Frey), the use of εὐλογέω by Philo and Josephus who are familiar with its biblical and its nonbiblical meanings (Jan Joosten), the noun ὁµόνοια in the Septuagint and in

VI

Preface

early Christian literature (Emanuela Prinzivalli). Needless to say these articles go far beyond making an inventory of the respective words or word groups but address several crucial questions: their background in Greek literature as well as in papyri and inscriptions, their biblical and non-biblical meanings which in some cases can merge, the knowledge which early Christian writers had of the Septuagint. The volume is complemented by two articles dealing with the impact of the Septuagint on the Christian testimonia (Enrico Norelli) and with the approach of grammatical phenomena typical of the Septuagint and the New Testament (Thomas J. Kraus). James K. Aitken, who was present at the workshop but did not present a paper, kindly accepted to write an “Outlook” in response to the other papers. Our thanks go to the authors of the contributions gathered in this volume who have accepted the challenge of approaching the Septuagint from an interdisciplinary point of view, as well as to Prof. Dr. Jörg Frey for accepting the present volume into the series “Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament”. Thanks are due to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki and the editorial staff of Mohr Siebeck Publishing House, in particular Dominika Zgolik, for supporting this editorial project. Dr. Bernard Laurot provided crucial help with the copyediting of some of the French contributions. Axel Horstmann checked the Greek in all articles. The Agence Nationale de la Recherche, Paris, has granted financial fundings. We also thank our research groups, the Équipes d’accueil 4377 and 4378 of the University of Strasbourg, for providing a framework enabling the interdisciplinary study of ancient texts. October 2013

Eberhard Bons, Ralph Brucker, Jan Joosten

Table of Contents Preface

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ralph Brucker A Sample Article: ᾄδω

V

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Christoph Kugelmeier Kämpfen, Mühsal und Elend in der Septuaginta: Die von ΑΕΘΛ-/ΑΘΛ- abgeleitete Wortgruppe . . . . . . . . .

17

Katell Berthelot The Notion of Anathema in Ancient Jewish Literature Written in Greek . . . . . . . . . .

35

Eberhard Bons The Noun βοηθός as a Divine Title

53

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wolfgang Kraus Die Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief

. . . . . . . . . .

Jörg Frey The Use of δόξα in Paul and John as Shaped by the Septuagint

67

. . .

85

Jan Joosten Mixed Blessings: The biblical notion of blessing in the works of Philo and Flavius Josephus . . . . . . . . . . .

105

Emanuela Prinzivalli The Use of ὁµόνοια and Related Terms in the Septuagint and in Christian Literature of the First Three Centuries . . . . . . . . .

117

Enrico Norelli La Septante dans quelques testimonia non canoniques des origines chrétiennes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129

VIII

Table of Contents

Thomas J. Kraus Eine Grammatik der Septuaginta und des Neuen Testaments: Methodische Überlegungen zu Grenzen und Möglichkeiten . . . . .

163

James K. Aitken Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183

List of Contributors

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195

Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Greek Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Hebrew Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

197 211 213

A Sample Article: ᾄδω* o~äéÜ=_êìÅâÉê

1. Greek literature The verb can be found frequently in poetry as well as in prose. Homer and Pindar always use the non-contracted Ionic form ἀείδω (also found in Ionic prose and sometimes in Tragic and Comic poetry), whereas the contracted Attic form ᾄδω predominates in classical and post-classical literature. Etymologically, the stem ἀϝειδ- is probably related to αὐδή “voice” and ὑδέω “to call” (cf. Sanskrit vadati “to speak, say, utter, tell, report”), but the basic meaning of ἀείδω/ᾄδω is “to sing”. Apart from human beings, it is frequently used of birds (e.g. Theocritus, Id. 7.141; Aristotle, Hist. an. 536a20–32; Aelian, Nat. an. 6.19), especially of the nightingale whose Greek name ἀηδών literally means “songstress” (LSJ) (e.g. Homer, Od. 19.518–519 [cf. Demetrius, Eloc. 133]; Aesop, Fab. 4). Another bird whose singing is highlighted is the swan (κύκνος), which is said to sing a most beautiful song in the moment just before death (e.g. Plato, Phaed. 84e–85b; Aristotle, Hist. an. 615b2–5; Callimachus, Iambi, fr. 194.47; Aesop, Fab. 277; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 37.2). The verb ᾄδω is further used of cocks (e.g. Plato, Symp. 223c; Theaet. 164c; Lucian, Philops. 14) and owls (Aratus, Phaen. 1000), as well as of other animals: cicadas (Hesiod, Scutum 393–395; Stesichorus as quoted by Aristotle, Rhet. 1412a23; Plato, Phaedr. 258e, 259c; Anacreont. 34.1–4; Aesop, Fab. 114.1b, 3), mosquitoes (Aristophanes, Nub. 156–158), and even frogs (Ps.-Aristotle, Mir. ausc. 835b3–4; Theophrastus, Sign. 15 [= fr. 6.15]). Occasionally, ἀείδω is used in poetic language for the sounds of inanimate things: a bow-string (Homer, Od. 21.411), a tree in the wind (Moschus, fr. 1.8), a stone when struck (Theocritus, Id. 7.26), a lyre (Anacreont. 23.11– 12). —————— * This article will be part of a larger HTLS article comprising the lemmata ᾄδω, συνᾴδω, ἐπᾴδω, ᾆσµα, ᾠδή, and ᾠδός. A first draft was presented at a Septuagint conference in Strasbourg on June 19, 2009, and at a New Testament colloquium in Hamburg on July 18, 2009. I thank all colleagues for their questions and hints in the discussions. I also thank Jill Husser (HTLS staff, Strasbourg) for improving my English.

2

Ralph Brucker

Apart from humans and animals, ἀείδω is frequently found, especially in poetry, with the Muses as its subject (e.g. Homer, Il. 2.594; Hymn. Hom. 32.1; Hesiod, Theog. 75, 965–966, 1021–1022; Theognis, Eleg. 1.15–16; Mesomedes, Hymn. Mus. 1; also Homer, Il. 1.1: ἄειδε θεά “sing, goddess!”). Though rarely, the verb is also used of other gods (Hermes: Hymn. Hom. 4.54; Phoibos: Nonnus, Dion. 2.82; the Nymphs: Cypria fr. 5.4–5 Bernabé; ἢ θεὸς ἠὲ γυνή “some goddess or some woman”, Homer, Od. 10.254–255). Besides the intransitive use, ᾄδω is used transitively as well, frequently with an accusative object that can denote what is sung (e.g. µέλος, ὕµνον, ᾠδήν, παιήονα/παιᾶνα/παίωνα, ᾆσµα), but also about what or whom (e.g. µῆνιν ἄειδε “sing of the wrath”, Homer, Il. 1.1; κλέα ἀνδρῶν “the glorious deeds of men”, Il. 9.189; νόστον “the return”, Od. 1.326; Ζῆνα θεῶν τὸν ἄριστον ἀείσοµαι “I will sing of Zeus, chiefest among the gods”, Hymn. Hom. 23.1; cf. 10.1; 15.1; 30.1; ∆ήµητρ’ ἠΰκοµον, σεµνὴν θεόν, ἄρχοµ’ ἀείδειν “I begin to sing of rich-haired Demeter, awful goddess”, Hymn. Hom. 2.1 [ed. Evelyn-White]; 13.1; cf. 11.1; 16.1, etc.). The latter is also expressed with a genitive (sc. µέλος, “sing [an air] of”, e.g. Aristophanes, Vesp. 269, 1225; Lys. 1237), or with prepositions such as ἀµφί τινος (Homer, Od. 8.266), ἀµφί τινα (Hymn. Hom. 22.1; Euripides, Tro. 511–513), εἴς τινα (Aristophanes, Lys. 1243; Epictetus, Diss. 1.16.16). If a song is accompanied by musical instruments or musicians, the prepositions πρός or ὑπό are used (ἐάν τις πρὸς αὐλὸν ἢ λύραν ᾄδῃ “if someone sings to the accompaniment of an aulos or lyre”, Ps.-Aristotle, Probl. 918a22–23; [ὑπ’ α]ὐλητῆρος ἀείδο[ν] “They sang [or I sang] with the aulete [with the accompaniment of a piper]”, Ibycus, fr. S166.5 [P.Oxy. 35.2735]; τῶν ὑπ’ αὐλοῖς ᾀδόντων “persons singing to the aulos”, Plutarch, Rect. rat. aud. 41C; ὑπ’ αὐλοῖς καὶ λύραις “with auloi and lyres”, idem, Glor. Ath. 348D [NB: the traditional translation of αὐλός as “flute” is clearly wrong and should not be used anymore; see tÉëí, Ancient Greek Music, 1–2; LSJ Rev. Suppl. s.v. αὐλός]). Sometimes a dative signifies to whom a certain song is sung (ὅς τε θεοῖσι καὶ ἀνθρώποισιν ἀείδω “me, who sing to gods and men”, Homer, Od. 22.346; ὁ παιὰν ὁ τοῦ Σοφοκλέους, ὃν ᾿Αθήνησι τῷ ᾿Ασκληπιῷ ᾄδουσιν “the paean of Sophocles which they sing at Athens to Asclepius”, Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 3.17; οἱ µὲν ἄνδρες ἐµβατήρια τῷ ∆ιονύσῳ καὶ ᾖδον καὶ ἔσπενδον, αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες ὕµνον τῇ ∆ήµητρι χαριστήριον ἐχόρευον “on embarking, the men made libation to Dionysos and sang to him while the women danced a thanksgiving hymn to Demeter”, Heliodorus, Aeth. 5.15.3). On the other hand, the dative can occasionally also indicate a singing competition (thus Theocritus, Id. 8.6: ∆άφνι, λῇς µοι ἀεῖσαι; “Daphnis, do you want to sing a match with me?”). For the idea that something “new” should be sung, which is found in the LXX (→ 3.c) and the NT (→ 5.), the following quotations from Athenian

A Sample Article: ᾄδω

3

poets of the late 5th century B.C.E. (all three of them exponents of the controversial “New Music”) may be compared: Euripides, Tro. 511–513 (ἀµφί µοι Ἴλιον, ὦ | Μοῦσα, καινῶν ὕµνων | ἆισον σὺν δακρύοις ὠιδὰν ἐπικήδειον “Sing me, O Muse, of Ilium. Sing a new strain, a strain of weeping, a funeral dirge”), Timotheus of Miletus, fr. 20 PMG (οὐκ ἀείδω τὰ παλαιά, | καινὰ γὰρ ἀµὰ κρείσσω “I do not sing the old things, for the new are far better”), and Eupolis, fr. 148 PCG (τὰ Στησιχόρου τε καὶ ᾿Αλκµᾶνος Σιµωνίδου τε | ἀρχαῖον ἀείδειν· ὁ δὲ Γνήσιππος ἔστιν ἀκούειν “It is old-fashioned to sing the [songs] of Stesichorus and Alcman and Simonides; but Gnesippus is there to hear”). Derived from the basic meaning “to sing”, ᾄδω is also used in the sense of “to praise, to celebrate” (of persons, e.g. Arrian, An. 1.11.2 [Alexander]; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 5.8 [Nero]; also of places, e.g. Bacchylides, Epinic. 6.5–6 [Ceos]; Pindar, Pyth. 8.25–27 [Aegina, “celebrated as the nurse of heroes”]). When prose is to be distinguished from poetry, ᾄδω can be used in contrast to λέγω (e.g. Plato, Lys. 205d–e: λέγων τε καὶ ᾄδων . . . τὰ λεχθέντα καὶ ᾀσθέντα “which he sings and recites . . . discourses and songs”, cf. 206b: λόγοις τε καὶ ᾠδαῖς, Xenophon, Cyr. 3.3.55: λόγος καλῶς ῥηθείς . . . ᾆσµα καλῶς ᾀσθέν “a word well spoken . . . a song well sung”). In later Greek, ᾄδω is also used – in accordance with the etymology of the word – in the broader sense “to tell, report, speak out” (e.g. Ἄιδεται δή τις αὐτῷ καὶ τοιοῦτος µῦθος “the following fable also is told by him [sc. Aesop]”, Maximus of Tyre, Dial. 32.1b; Φύλαρχος . . . ᾄδει τοιαῦτα “Phylarchus . . . reports the following”, Aelian, Nat. an. 17.5; θεσπίζειν καὶ ᾄδειν τὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης κέλευε λόγια “command her to speak from inspiration, and utter the oracles of justice”, Epictetus, Gnom. 26; ἃ δὲ Αἰγύπτιοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ᾄδουσιν “what the Egyptians tell about it [sc. the Phoenix]”, Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 3.49; µῦθόν τε ἐπὶ τῷ ἀκρωτηρίῳ ᾄδουσιν “they tell a story about this promontory”, Vit. Apoll. 4.34; cf. 5.16; 6.43; τὸ ᾀδόµενον τοῦτο “as the saying is”, Aelian, Nat. an. 5.11; cf. 2.6; 6.15; ὁ µῦθος ὁ ᾀδόµενος 16.5; τοῦτο δὲ ἄρα καὶ τὸ ᾀδόµενον λόγιον ἦν ὅτι ὁ τρώσας αὐτὸς ἰάσεται “this was the real meaning of the well-known saying, ‘He who caused the wound shall work the cure’”, Chariton, Call. 6.3.7). Hence, ᾄδω may also be combined with λέγω as a hendiadys (λέγουσι γοῦν καὶ ᾄδουσιν “[the philosophers] affirm with constant iteration”, Plutarch, Frat. amor. 479F). This usage is also attested in an inscription (→ 2.) and in Philo (→ 4.). Plato uses two phrases that seem to be proverbial: πρὶν νενικηκέναι ᾄδειν “to sing before winning the victory” or, since the reference is to a cock, “to crow too soon” (LSJ), Theaet. 164c (cf. Lys. 205d), and ἅπερ αἱ γραῖαι ᾄδουσι “such old wives’ tales” (i.e. myths), Lys. 205d. Photius, Lex. α 551, quotes a

4

Ralph Brucker

proverbial use of ᾄδεις “you sing” in the sense of “you speak in vain” from a lost comedy of Aristophanes (= fr. 101 PCG; cf. Av. 41).

2. Papyri and inscriptions The verb is found in several inscriptions, especially in cultic contexts and in funerary epigrams. As regards its use in cultic contexts, two decrees should be mentioned: Firstly the so-called “Canopus Decree” (OGIS 56), a bilingual inscription in three writing systems (Greek, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Egyptian Demotic) that survives in three copies; it contains the resolutions of an assembly of Egyptian priests meeting at Canopus (near Alexandria) in 238 B.C.E. to honor king Ptolemy III Euergetes, his wife Berenike, and his deceased daughter, also named Berenike. Among instructions on several other matters, the decree declares the deceased princess a goddess and creates a cult for her. In this cult, the men and women singers are required “to sing to her each day (ἄιδειν δ’ εἰς αὐτὴν καθ’ ἡµέραν), during the feasts and festivals of the other gods, whatever hymns the sacred scribes write and give to the teacher of songs, of which also copies shall be entered in the sacred books” (lines 68–70). The second example to be mentioned here is a decree instituting religious ceremonies in honor of the deceased queen Apollonis of Pergamon (OGIS 309 = SEG 4.619, Teos, 166/159 B.C.E.). This decree requires the free boys to sing an altar hymn (line 8: ἆισαι τοὺς ἐλευθέρους παῖδας παραβώµιον) after the offering and the maidens to dance and to sing a hymn (lines 8–9: [χορ]εῦσαι δὲ καὶ τὰς παρθένους . . . | [καὶ] ἆισαι ὕµνον); and for the rest of the time the respective hymns should be sung by both groups (lines 10–11: ἵνα δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον ὑπὸ µὲν τῶν παίδων ἄι|[δητ]αι τὸ παραβώµιον, ὁ δὲ ὕµνος ὑπὸ τῶν παρθένων). Apart from these decrees, the verb ἀείδω is also found in cultic hymns themselves; see for texts, translations and commentaries cìêäÉóL_êÉãÉê, Greek Hymns, no. 1.1 (hymn to Zeus of Mt. Dicta, Palaikastro, Crete, 4th cent. B.C.E., line 9 ἀείδοµεν); no. 6.1 (paian to Asklepios, preserved in four inscriptions, Erythrai et al. [Athens: IG II2 4509], 380–360 B.C.E., line 1 ἀείσατε); no. 6.4 (= IG IV2,1 128; Isyllos’ paian to Apollo and Asklepios, Epidauros, late 4th cent. B.C.E., line 37 [i.e. first line of the paian itself] ἀείσατε); no. 6.5 (hymn to Pan, Epidauros, mid-hellenistic time, line 2 ἀείδω [= IG IV2,1 130, line 15]); no. 7.5 (Makedonikos of Amphipolis, paian to Apollo and Asklepios, 1st cent. B.C.E.–1st cent. C.E., line 5 ἀείδοι [= SEG 23.126, line 7]); no. 7.7.2 (hymn to Telesphoros, Athens, 2nd cent. C.E., line 6 [ἄιδο]υσι, line 9 ἄιδοµεν [= IG II2 4533, line 37 ᾄδουσι, line 40 ᾄδοµεν]). In almost all of these examples, the name of the deity (or a pronoun) is found as

A Sample Article: ᾄδω

5

an accusative object, so that the verb can mean “to sing of” or “to praise”, as is typical in ancient hymns. With regard to the LXX (→ 3.a), the aorist imperative plural ἀείσατε that is attested twice at the beginning of a hymn is particularly noteworthy; cf. also no. 6.2 (= IG IV2,1 131, hymn to the Mother of the Gods, 4th/3rd cent. B.C.E., line 3 µοι συναείσατε “sing together with me!”). In Greek literature, the imperative ἀείσατε is only found in Hesiod, Theog. 965, 1021 (cf. Theocritus, Id. 10.24: συναείσατε . . . µοι “praise together with me”; Aristophanes, Ran. 874: ὑµεῖς δὲ ταῖς Μούσαις τι µέλος ὑπᾴσατε “And you, sing [by way of accompaniment] a song to the Muses!”). As for funerary epigrams, the verb ἀείδω occurs with a certain variety: In IG IV 491 (= EG 471 = GVI 1735, Kleonai, 2nd or 1st cent. B.C.E.), a widower greets his deceased wife with the words, “Homer praised in his writings Penelope above others, but none of the poets is sufficiently powerful to sing from their lips (ᾆσαι ἀπὸ στο[µάτων], line 6) of your uppermost virtue and glory” (lines 3–6). A stele from Cyrene for a woman named Plauta who died at the birth of her second child (SEG 9.194, 1st/2nd cent. C.E.) states in the epigram that “the fame of her life is sung (τῆς µὲν βι|ότου κλέος ᾄδεται, lines 9–10) as much as the everlasting grief of her unhappy husband (µελέου πένθος ἀεὶ πόσιος)” (lines 9–13). (For κλέος ᾄδεται cf. especially Sextus, Sent. 54; see also EG 441 = GVI 655 = IG VI 2474, 4th cent. C.E., Busr-el-Hariri, line 5: καλὸν ἀεὶ κλέος ἀείδουσιν “they always sing your good fame”.) A Roman inscription written for a girl who died before she could marry (IGUR 3.1234 = EG 655 = GVI 658 = IG XIV 1663, 3rd/4th cent. C.E.) laments that Hades snatched her away as his bride, “and we did not sing the bridal song of the wedding (οὐδὲ | γάµων ὑ〈µ〉έναιον ἀείσαµεν, line 9–10)” (lines 7–11). (For the motif cf. Sophocles, Ant. 806–816; Bion, Epitaph. Adon. 87–90; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 3.10.5.) The later Greek use of ᾄδω as a synonym of λέγω (→ 1.) is attested in an inscription from Smyrna that is dated to the 2nd or 1st century B.C.E. (CIG 3256 = EG 237 = GVI 760): it commemorates two men (father and son, both called Democles) depicted in a relief, and below is an eight-line epigram ending with the words, “Stranger, having bidden farewell (ξεῖνε, σὺ δ’ ἀείσας . . . χαίρειν) to Democles, son of Democles, may you travel with safe footsteps” (lines 7–8). Finally, an interesting practice of Hellenistic and Roman times should be mentioned: from this period, there are a large number of epitaphs for animals. Among these is a stele from Syracuse (IG XIV 56 = EG 628, 1st or 2nd cent. C.E.) with a two-line epigram in memory of a nightingale (imitating the language of famous poets, cf. e.g. Theognis, Eleg. 2.1232–1233; Homer, Il. 9.189 etc.; Il. 5.882–883; Sappho, fr. 1.1):

6

Ralph Brucker

ὤλετ[ο· πον]τοπόροις θυµὸ[ν τέρ]ψασα δ’ ἀηδὼν ἀθαν[άτ]η̣ς κόλπωι Κύπρι[δος ἀ]ισοµένη. She has perished: the nightingale that used to be soul-delighting to the seafarers is now singing in the bosom of immortal Aphrodite.

In the papyri, the verb is not found very often. It does occur in a literary papyrus found at Hibeh (P.Hib. 1.13, 280–240 B.C.E.), which is the beginning of a rhetorical discourse on music, or rather on harmony. The unknown author is apparently a Sophist rhetorician and a contemporary of Plato (for the attribution to Hippias or Alcidamas see tÉëí, “Analecta Musica”, 16–23, who prefers the latter and also offers a new edition of the text). He attacks certain musical theorists, who claimed that different harmonies and rhythms had different moral effects on the human mind and therefore some of them should be avoided (for this view cf. Plato, Resp. 398c–403c). According to him, these theorists “waste all their life over strings, harping far worse than the harpers, singing worse than the singers (ψάλλοντες µὲν [πολὺ χ]εῖ[ρον τῶ]ν | [ψαλ]τῶν, ἄιδοντες δὲ τῶν ὠιδῶν, lines 24–25) . . . – doing everything worse than any one else” (lines 23–26). The verb also occurs once in the acts of a religious association, an Apollo cult in Hermopolis (P.Giss. 99, 2nd or 3rd cent. C.E.), containing a fragment from the protocol of a lawsuit against the members of the association. The prosecution speech contains the accusation that at their services “hymns are sung in a foreign tongue (ὕµνοι µὲν ἄι-|[δονται] γλώτ̣τῃ ξενικῇ)” (lines 8–9) and that they offer goats (line 11), a practice which does not belong to Egyptian custom. The papyrus quotes two steles that are also extant and allow the identification of the founders of the association as Semitic, probably Idumaean soldiers (see JIGRE 155 and 156, with translation and commentary). A third occurrence can be found in a magical papyrus (PGM VI = P.Lond. 1.47, 2nd or 3rd cent. C.E.) that contains an invocation to Helios, then to Selene, called “virgin Laurel (∆άφνη παρθε[νι]κή)” (line 41). The latter is summoned: “Hither to me come quickly; haste to sing | Divine precepts to me in dark night (δεῦρό µοι, ἔρχε[ο θ]ᾶσσον, ἔπειγέ µοι [ms. επειγοµαι] ἀείσασθαι | θεσµοὺς θεσπ[εσί]ους νυκτὶ δ’ ἐνὶ δνοφερῇ)” (lines 43–44).

3. Septuagint a) Statistical observations The verb ᾄδω has 73 occurrences in the LXX of which about one third (25) appear in the Psalms. In the historical books, mainly 1–2 Chronicles and 2 Esdras [Ezra/Nehemiah], it occurs almost always as a present participle and

A Sample Article: ᾄδω

7

is used as a technical term “singer” (belonging to the personnel of the temple) (33 times, in four cases – Eccl 2:8; 2 Kgdms 19:36; 2 Esdr 2:65; 17:67 [Neh 7:67] – the feminine participle is explicitly added to the masculine participle). There are only four occurrences in the Pentateuch (Exod 15:1[bis], 21; Num 21:17), five in the Prophets (Isa 5:1; 23:16; 26:1; Jer 20:13; 37:19), and one in Wisdom literature (Eccl 2:8). As for the books with no extant Hebrew original, the only occurrence is Jdt 16:1 (within the song of Judith). (Exod 15:1 and Isa 5:1 re-appear in the Christian book of Odes, Ode 1:1 and Ode 10:1, respectively.) Besides the participles, the preferred forms are the imperative aorist plural ᾄσατε “sing!” (15 times) and the 1st person singular future ᾄσοµαι/ᾄσω “I will sing” (11 times), both typically hymnic (for the coexistence of the forms ᾄσω and ᾄσοµαι cf. Theocritus, Id. 1.145 and 8.55, respectively). b) Hebrew equivalents In the translated books, ᾄδω almost always renders a form of šîr “to sing” (qal, pil., hoph.). In four cases, the noun šîr “song” is translated by a form of ᾄδω (1 Chr 6:31[16] participle; 1 Chr 25:7; 2 Chr 29:27 infinitive; Isa 23:16 imperative). Apart from these, four isolated cases remain: In 2 Esdr 7:24, the Aramaic zammār “singer” – a hapax legomenon – is rendered adequately by the present participle of ᾄδω as technical term for “singer” (plural in both MT and LXX). The same applies to 2 Esdr 8:17, where the Hebrew has mešārtîm, the participle of šārat pi., “ministers” (hapax legomenon in Ezra/Nehemiah, but elsewhere in the LXX, viz. in 1–2 Chronicles [5 times] and Ezek 44:11, always rendered with forms of λειτουργέω). In Ps 97[98]:4, the translator obviously did not know the verb pāṣaḥ “break forth (sc. with joy)” (hapax legomenon in the Psalms, otherwise restricted to Isaiah) and had to guess the meaning from the context (here, ᾄσατε recalls the beginning of this psalm, v. 1b). Finally, in Jer 37[30]:19, tôdāh “thanksgiving” is freely rendered with the participle ᾄδοντες “singers (or, singing men)”. c) Septuagint use In the LXX, ᾄδω is always used in the strict sense meaning “to sing”. As a restriction to the use in Greek literature (→ 1.), only human beings function as the subject of ᾄδω in the LXX. This is largely in accordance with the MT; cf. Ps 103:12 where birds just “utter their voices” (δώσουσιν φωνήν as equivalent to the Hebrew expression nātan qôl, Ps 104:12 MT). But in the case of Zeph 2:14, the LXX goes even further: whereas the MT, after referring to several animals, and particularly two kinds of birds (owls), states, “(their) voice shall sing (qôl + šîr) in the windows”, the LXX has “wild beasts shall cry (θηρία φωνήσει) in the breaches thereof” (for φωνέω referring to birds cf. also

8

Ralph Brucker

Isa 38:14; Jer 17:11). On two further instances, šîr is not translated by ᾄδω: 1 Kgdms [1 Sam] 18:6, and Prov 25:20. The reason could be that the context is profane, whereas in all other cases šîr is used in a cultic context (cf. cáÅâÉê, THAT 2, 895). Thus, the LXX would reinforce a tendency that is already present in the MT. In the non-translated books, there is one reference to a cock, and here the verb κράζω “to cry” is used (3 Macc 5:23). Explicit subjects (3rd person) are Moses and the “sons of Israel” (Exod 15:1; cf. Ps 105:12: the “fathers” of Israel in the desert), Israel (Num 21:17), Debbora and Barak (JudgAB 5:1), and David (Ps 7:1). The implicit subject of the 1st person future “I will sing” is of course the singer/speaker of the psalm/song itself. As for the imperatives, the implicit subject is mostly unspecified but can be identified with the congregation of Israel. In some cases, the imperative is connected with a vocative: πᾶσα ἡ γῆ “all the earth” (1 Chr 16:23; Ps 95:1; 97:4), αἱ βασιλεῖαι τῆς γῆς “kingdoms of the earth” (Ps 67:33), and πόρνη ἐπιλελησµένη “forgotten prostitute” (Isa 23:16 as a metaphor for Tyre, cf. 23:15: ἔσται Τύρος ὡς ᾆσµα πόρνης “Tyre shall be as the song of the prostitute”). – It may be noteworthy that angels (ἄγγελοι) are never the subject of singing in the LXX (and neither in the MT). The verb ᾄδω is quite often connected with the personal dative, following the Hebrew šîr + le. This is usually in reference to God (τῷ κυρίῳ Exod 15:1, 21; 1 Chr 16:23; Jdt 16:1; Ps 7:1; 12:6, etc.; Jer 20:13; τῷ θεῷ Exod 15:1; Ps 67:5, 33; cf. σοι, κύριε Ps 100:1; ὁ θεός, . . . σοι Ps 143:9; αὐτῷ [i.e. τῷ κυρίῳ] 1 Chr 16:9; Ps 32:3; 104:2; metaphorically τῷ ἠγαπηµένῳ Isa 5:1 [the “beloved friend” as owner of the vineyard, i.e. the Lord, v. 7]). On the exceptional τῇ δυνάµει σου “your power” Ps 58:17 [v.l. τὴν δύναµιν] see eÉäÄáåÖ, Kasussyntax, 69. As for the accusative denoting the content (“sing of”), the personal accusative is absent from the LXX, whereas the impersonal accusative does appear (τὰ ἐλέη σου “your mercies” Ps 88:2, ἔλεος καὶ κρίσιν “mercy and judgment” Ps 100:1). More frequent, however, is the accusative object denoting the song itself: Predominant in the Psalms is ᾆσµα καινόν (in the recurring phrase ᾄσατε τῷ κυρίῳ ᾆσµα καινόν “Sing to the Lord a new song” Ps 95:1; 97:1; 149:1; cf. 32:3 [ᾄσατε αὐτῷ ᾆσµα καινόν]). Furthermore, the object ᾆσµα appears Num 21:17 (τότε ᾖσεν Ισραηλ τὸ ᾆσµα τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ φρέατος “Then Israel sang this song at the well”) and Isa 5:1 (ᾆσµα τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ “a song of my beloved”). Four times, the object is ᾠδήν (Exod 15:1; Ps 136:3–4; 143:9; the latter is ᾠδὴν καινήν). The object ὕµνον can be found only once, in combination with αἴνεσιν “praise” (2 Esdr 22[Neh 12]:46); the latter occurs a second time (Ps 105:12). Finally, ψαλµός appears as an object of singing (by a relative clause) in the superscription of Ps 7:1: ψαλµὸς τῷ ∆αυιδ, ὃν ᾖσεν τῷ κυρίῳ “A psalm pertaining to David, which he sang to the Lord”.

A Sample Article: ᾄδω

9

On two instances, ᾄδω is followed by ἐν, corresponding to a Hebrew be. This is clearly instrumental in 2 Chr 23:13 (οἱ ᾄδοντες ἐν τοῖς ὀργάνοις ᾠδοί “the singers singing with instruments”, cf. ibid. ἐσάλπισαν ἐν ταῖς σάλπιγξιν). In Ps 137:5, however, the phrase ᾀσάτωσαν ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς κυρίου allows two interpretations: ἐν might either be understood in a local sense (“let them sing in the ways of the Lord”, cf. _êÉåíçå; LXX.D) or as a Hebraism denoting the content (“let them sing of the ways of the Lord”, cf. eÉäÄáåÖ, Kasussyntax, 69; NETS). Several times, especially in narrative contexts, the use of ᾄδω precedes the quotation of a certain song (Exod 15:1 [τὴν ᾠδὴν ταύτην . . . λέγοντες]; Num 21:17 [τὸ ᾆσµα τοῦτο]; JudgAB 5:1 [λέγοντες]; Isa 26:1 [τὸ ᾆσµα τοῦτο . . . λέγοντες]; cf. Isa 5:1; similarly Ps 7:1, where ᾄδω appears in the superscription, followed by the psalm itself). The verb ᾄδω is frequently paralleled with other verbs, especially with ψάλλω (JudgAB 5:3 and 13 times in the Psalms). Further verbs used are ὑµνέω (1 Chr 16:9; 2 Chr 23:13), ἀγαλλιάοµαι (Ps 58:17; 97:4), compounds of ἀγγέλλω (ἀναγγέλλω 1 Chr 16:23; ἀπαγγέλλω Ps 88:2), αἰνέω (Jer 20:13), and εὐλογέω (Ps 95:2). In Jdt 16:1, as many as five verbs are combined: ἐξάρχετε τῷ θεῷ µου ἐν τυµπάνοις, ᾄσατε τῷ κυρίῳ ἐν κυµβάλοις, ἐναρµόσασθε αὐτῷ ψαλµὸν καὶ αἶνον [v.l. ψαλµὸν καινόν], ὑψοῦτε καὶ ἐπικαλεῖσθε τὸ ὄνοµα αὐτοῦ “Begin to my God with tambourines, sing to my Lord with cymbals: tune to him a psalm and a praise [v.l. a new psalm]: exalt him, and call upon his name”. For similar exuberance see Ps 97:4: ἀλαλάξατε τῷ θεῷ, πᾶσα ἡ γῆ, ᾄσατε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε καὶ ψάλατε “Shout to God, all the earth; sing, and exult, and make melody”.

4. Jewish literature in Greek The verb ᾄδω is attested 74 times in the works of Philo (including the verbal adjective ᾀστέον Legat. 204), of which 4 (Deus 74; Agr. 82; Somn. 2.269, 271) are in quotations from the Septuagint (Ps 100:1; Exod 15:1[bis]; Num 21:17). As in Classical Greek, ᾄδω is used by Philo in the basic sense of “to sing” as well as with the derived meaning “to praise, to celebrate”. The later Greek use of ᾄδω as a synonym of λέγω (→ 1., 2.) is also well attested in Philo’s works. The subject of the singing is most often Moses, in most cases with reference to the song at the Read Sea, Exod 15 (Leg. all. 2.103; Agr. 94; Ebr. 79; Sobr. 13). In this context, Moses and his sister Miriam are also pictured as the leaders of a giant double choir of men and women singing the victory hymn of Exod 15 (Agr. 79–82; Conf. 35; Vit. Mos. 1.180; 2.256; Vit. cont. 87). This double choir forms the model for the choir of the Therapeutae, who

10

Ralph Brucker

“sing hymns to God composed of many measures and set to many melodies” at their festal meetings (Vit. cont. 84; cf. 80, 85, 88). Another situation where the Israelites form a choir and sing together is at the well in the wilderness, Num 21:17 (Somn. 2.271; Vit. Mos. 1.255). Occasionally, musicians are the subject of singing (Leg. all. 2.21; Sobr. 36), and once it is Balaam, who, although a vain man, “sang loftiest hymns to God, among which is the most divine of canticles” (Migr. 113, referring to Num 23:19). Philo stresses repeatedly that the human voice is able not only to speak, but also to sing (Post. 106; Spec. leg. 1.342), and he invites his readers to praise God in speech and song (τὸ λέγειν καὶ τὸ ᾄδειν) alike (Plant. 131; Somn. 1.256; 2.38; cf. Post. 163). But even more excellent are “those who raise the hymn of thankfulness with their hearts rather than with their voices” (Ebr. 94; similarly Plant. 126). Moreover, “it seems . . . that the heaven, the original archetype of all musical instruments, was tuned with consummate skill [Pythagorean idea of the “Harmony of the Spheres”] for no other purpose than that the hymns sung in honor of the Universal Father may have a musical accompaniment” (Somn. 1.37), and the stars may become a single choir and sing in praise of God (Vit. Mos. 2.239). On the other hand, singing occasionally has a negative connotation: The “frenzied worshippers” of Exod 32, maddened by wine and dancing around the Golden Calf, sing hymns that are actually “their own funeral chant (θρῆνος)” (Ebr. 95; Vit. Mos. 2.162), and the Emperor Gaius (Caligula), dressed as Apollo, has “drilled choirs” who are “at his side singing paeans to him . . . and honoring him with hymns” as if he were a god (Legat. 96). Gaius himself receives advice by an actor, how to mock and how to sing (ὡς σκωπτέον . . . ὡς ᾀστέον, Legat. 204). The object of ᾄδω in the sense of “to praise, to celebrate” are the nobility of the ancestors (celebrated by the multitude, Deus 150); Moses as a prophet (Her. 262); heroes and demi-gods (celebrated in “vain fables”, Congr. 15); “the communal meals and sense of fellowship” of the Essenes (Prob. 91); a Laconian boy who was an example of a free mind even when in captivity (Prob. 114); Anaxagoras and Democritus (celebrated by the Greeks because they deemed philosophy more important than their estate, Vit. cont. 14). The Classical combination of singing or celebrating the “fame” of someone (ᾄδεται τὸ κλέος, → 1., 2.) is attested twice: once referring to Ptolemy Philadelphus who, due to his virtues, was the most excellent sovereign so that “even now” his fame is celebrated (Vit. Mos. 2.29), and a second time in Agrippa’s letter to Gaius, flattering the emperor (“your glory should be celebrated and your praises mingled with thanksgiving resound”, Legat. 284). The use of ᾄδω as a synonym of λέγω (“to tell, report, speak out”) is most often found in the present passive form ᾄδεται. This is sometimes combined with λόγος, referring to a proverbial saying or a philosophical thought (παλαιὸς . . . ᾄδεται λόγος “there is an old saying often quoted”, Plant. 127;

A Sample Article: ᾄδω

11

Somn. 1.233; similarly Sacr. 131). Repeatedly, Philo uses the words ἐν (τοῖς) χρησµοῖς ᾄδεται “it is uttered in the sacred oracles” as a citation formula for quotations from the Pentateuch (Migr. 60, 108; Her. 21; Fug. 50; cf. Plant. 63). Likewise, quotations from the Psalms are introduced by the formula ἐν ὕµνοις ᾄδεται “it is said in the Hymns [i.e. the Psalms]” (Mut. 115; Somn. 1.75; 2.242) – which is synonymous to ἐν ὕµνοις λέγεται (Fug. 59, → ὕµνος 4.) –, and once a corresponding formula referring to the prophets is found: ἐν προφητικαῖς ᾄδεται ῥήσεσι “the orations of the prophets proclaim” (Mut. 169). For the use of ᾄδεται as a citation formula see further Fug. 59, 178; Mut. 20; similarly the present passive participle τὸ ᾀδόµενον (“which is proverbial”, Post. 114; “which is uttered repeatedly by the best philosophers”, Migr. 128; however, τὸ ᾀδόµενον could as well be rendered “which is celebrated”). Flavius Josephus uses the verb ᾄδω nine times, and only in his Antiquitates (Ant. 3.64; 6.167, 193, 354; 7.80, 364; 8.124; 9.269; 17.235). Grammatical use of the verb reflects the range of the common usage: intransitive, transitive, with the personal object in the sense of “to praise, to celebrate”, with the dative mentioning instruments. In four cases, ὕµνους is the object (Ant. 3.64; 6.167; 8.124; 9.269). The verb occurs also in combination with other verbs: with ψάλλω (Ant. 6.167; 7.180), ὑµνέω (Ant. 7.80), and χορεύω (Ant. 7.235). Whereas the first two combinations are also attested in the LXX (→ 3.), the combination “dancing and singing” can only be found in the MT (cf. 1 Sam 18:6 MT). In four cases, ᾄδω is connected with David: the young David is “skilful in playing on the harp, and in singing of hymns” (Ant. 6.167), the victorious David, having killed many ten thousands of the Philistines, is the one whom the virgins celebrate (Ant. 6.193, 354), when the temple is dedicated by Solomon, the singers sing to the instruments which David had prepared (Ant. 7.364, referring back to 305–306), and when temple worship is restored under Ezekias, the Levites follow the musical instructions left by David (Ant. 9.269). Whereas the first eight instances refer to biblical scenes, the ninth one (Ant. 17.235) refers to the inappropriate behavior (χορεύειν καὶ ᾄδειν “dancing and singing”) of Archelaus at the funeral of his father, Herod (according to the accusation by Antipas). As for the eight biblically inspired scenes (Ant. 3.64, cf. Exod 18:9–12; Ant. 6.167, cf. 1 Kgdms 16:18; Ant. 6.193, cf. 1 Kgdms 18:6–8; Ant. 6.354, cf. 1 Kgdms 18:6–7; Ant. 7.80, cf. 2 Chr 5:13; Ant. 7.364, cf. 1 Chr 23:5; 2 Chr 7:6; Ant. 8.124, cf. 3 Kgdms 8:66; 2 Chr 7:10; Ant. 9.269, cf. 2 Chr 29:24–30), it is striking that the use of the verb ᾄδω goes back largely to Josephus himself, not to the LXX: in just one of these instances is ᾄδω used in

12

Ralph Brucker

the biblical sources (2 Chr 29:27–28; the verb šîr, however, occurs 1 Sam 18:6; 2 Chr 5:13 MT). In the remaining Jewish literature extant in Greek, ᾄδω is very rare; aÉåáë, Concordance, gives only three instances: 1 En. [= Apoc. En.] 1.5; 4 Bar. [= Par. Jer.] 7.29[33–34]; T. Abr. B 3. Whereas the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch (1 En.) 1.5, in a description of an eschatological vision, has the words “and the Watchers shall quake, and great fear and trembling shall seize them unto the ends of the earth”, the Greek version (Apoc. En. 1.5) differs remarkably: instead of “quake”, it reads “believe” (πιστεύσουσιν), and it adds the words “and they will sing hidden things (ᾄσουσιν ἀπόκρυφα) to all the heights of the [earth]. And all the heights of the earth will shake”. These words are most probably a later gloss and not a part of the original text (see Apocalypsis Enochi Graece, ed. Black, app. ad loc.). 4 Baruch, also known as Paraleipomena Jeremiou, is probably of Jewish origin, although with Christian interpolations and a Christian ending. Chapter 7 refers to correspondence between Jeremiah and Baruch (via a miraculous eagle). In his letter, Jeremiah reports from exile that the Babylonians oppress the Israelites, saying: “Say to us a song from the songs of Zion, the song of your God (Εἴπατε ἡµῖν ᾠδὴν ἐκ τῶν ᾠδῶν Σιών, τὴν ᾠδὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ὑµῶν)”, and that the Israelites answer “How can we sing for you, being in a foreign land? (Πῶς ᾄσωµεν ὑµῖν ἐπὶ γῆς ἀλλοτρίας ὄντες;)” (Par. Jer. 7.29[33–34]). The biblical allusion to Ps 136[137]:3–4 is obvious (note that the imperative ᾄσατε “sing” in the mouth of the Babylonians is replaced by εἴπατε “say”). In the third chapter of the Testament of Abraham, a miraculous tree addresses Abraham, citing freely the Trisagion (Isa 6:3). This is described in the longer recension with the verb βοάω “to cry out” (T. Abr. A 3.3). But in the shorter recension the verb ᾄδω is used (and the Trisagion is merely alluded to): “And they heard a voice from its branches singing (ᾀδοµένην), ‘Holy (are you), because you have kept the purpose for which you were sent’” (T. Abr. B 3.3). Apart from the occurrences of ᾄδω, the crowing of the cock is mentioned in 3 Bar. 6.16; 7.1; here the verb φωνέω is used (as in the LXX with reference to other birds, cf. Zeph 2:14; Isa 38:14; Jer 17:11).

A Sample Article: ᾄδω

13

5. New Testament The verb ᾄδω has only five occurrences in the NT, with only two different grammatical forms: Col 3:16; Eph 5:19 (ᾄδοντες); Rev 5:9; 14:3; 15:3 (ᾄδουσιν). The NT use of the verb reflects that of the LXX: used intransitively, ᾄδω takes the dative referring to God (τῷ θεῷ Col 3:16; τῷ κυρίῳ Eph 5:19) and when used transitively has the accusative object ᾠδήν (ᾠδὴν καινήν “a new song” Rev 5:9; 14:3; τὴν ᾠδὴν Μωϋσέως τοῦ δούλου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν ᾠδὴν τοῦ ἀρνίου “the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb” Rev 15:3). The subject of the singing is the Christian congregation (as ἅγιοι, Col 3:12; cf. Eph 4:12; as “24 elders”, “the 144,000” and οἱ νικῶντες “those who conquer” in Revelation). Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19 locate the singing in the heart (καρδία, cf. Philo, Ebr. 94, → 4.). In Eph 5:19, ᾄδω is paralleled with ψάλλω (ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες) as is frequently the case in the Psalms (cf. Ps 20:14; 26:6 etc.) and sometimes also in Josephus (→ 4.; cf. also P.Hib. 1.13, → 2.). In Rev 5:9 and 15:3, the use of ᾄδω (ᾄδουσιν, followed by λέγοντες) precedes the quotation of the ᾠδή itself (cf. esp. Exod 15:1; further Num 21:17; JudgAB 5:1; Isa 26:1). For the crowing of the cock in the passion narrative, the verb φωνέω is used in all four gospels (Matt 26:34, 74, 75; Mark 14:30, 68, 72; Luke 22:34, 60, 61; John 13:38; 18:27); this is also in accordance with the LXX with reference to birds (cf. Zeph 2:14; Isa 38:14; Jer 17:11), and particularly with 3 Bar. 6.16; 7.1, with reference to the cock (→ 4.). As in the LXX, angels (ἄγγελοι) are never the subject of ᾄδω in the NT.

6. Early Christian literature In the corpus of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, ᾄδω occurs four times in the Letters of Ignatius (Ign. Eph. 4.1, 2; Ign. Magn. 1.2; Ign. Rom. 2.2), once in the Shepherd of Hermas (Herm. Sim. 9.11.5) and once in the so-called Epistle to Diognetus (Diogn. 11.6). Ignatius uses the verb among other musical terms in the context of his plea for unity between the congregation and its bishop: “in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung (ᾄδεται)”, and “form yourselves into a chorus, that being harmonious in concord and taking the keynote of God you may in unison sing (ᾄδετε – on the indicative after ἵνα see _~ìÉê, Briefe des Ignatius, 205; the correction ᾄδητε found in several editions is not necessary) with one voice through Jesus Christ unto the Father” (Ign. Eph. 4.1, 2, similarly Ign. Rom. 2.2, with respect to Ignatius’ martyrdom: “forming your-

14

Ralph Brucker

selves into a chorus in love you may sing to the Father in Jesus Christ”). So, Ignatius can also “sing the praise of the churches” (ᾄδω τὰς ἐκκλησίας), adding immediately “that there may be in them union . . .” (Ign. Magn. 1.2). In the Shepherd of Hermas, ᾄδω occurs in a quasi-erotic scene: Hermas has to wait for the Shepherd until the next day in the company of twelve virgins who invite him to spend the night with them (but “like a brother, not like a man”) and then start to kiss him and play with him (Herm. Sim. 9.11.1–4). In this joyous playful context, singing and dancing are combined: “some of them formed a chorus, and others danced, and others sang (αἱ µὲν γὰρ ἐχόρευον, αἱ δὲ ὠρχοῦντο, αἱ δὲ ᾖδον)” (Herm. Sim. 9.11.5). In a later addition to the so-called Epistle to Diognetus (Diogn. 11–12), an eschatological outlook is given, expressed in short parallel sentences (isocola): “Then the fear of the law is sung/celebrated (φόβος νόµου ᾄδεται), and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the gospels is established, and the tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults” (Diogn. 11.6). Apart from the Apostolic Fathers, one occurrence of ᾄδω in the Infancy Gospel of James (Protevangelium Jacobi), probably also written in the 2nd century C.E., is worth mentioning: On Mary’s first birthday, her mother Anna intones “a canticle unto the Lord God” (ᾆσµα Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ) beginning with the words “I will sing a holy song unto the Lord my God (Ἄισω ᾠδὴν ἁγίαν Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ µου), because he has visited me and taken away from me the reproach of my enemies, and the Lord has given me a fruit of his righteousness, single and manifold before him.” (Protev. Jac. 6.3 [13–14 de Strycker]). This is clearly inspired not only by 1 Kgdms 2:1–10 and the cantica of Luke’s infancy narrative (where ᾄδω however is lacking), but also by the Psalms and cognate literature (for ᾄσω cf. Ps 12:6; 103:33; Isa 5:1). In Justin Martyr, the verb ᾄδω is used nine times in quoting from Ps 95 LXX, where the imperative ᾄσατε is repeated three times within v. 1–2 (Apol. 41.1; Dial. 73.3; 74.2). Apart from these quotations, but in the same context, ᾄδω is used once more in the interpretation of Ps 95 (Dial. 74.3: ᾄδοντας καὶ ψάλλοντας). Tatian uses ᾄδω three times in his Oratio ad Graecos, always in a polemical context. He explicitly mentions two of the most famous Greek singers, namely Orpheus and Sappho. Orpheus illustrates the statement that the Greeks derived all their institutions from the “Barbarians”: “Orpheus taught you to sing (ᾄδειν Ὀρφεὺς ὑµᾶς ἐδίδαξεν)” (Or. Graec. 1.1). Sappho is depicted as “a lewd, love-sick female (γύναιον πορνικὸν ἐρωτοµανές)” who “sings of (or praises) her own wantonness (τὴν ἑαυτῆς ἀσέλγειαν ᾄδει)” whereas Christian women are chaste (Or. Graec. 33.2). And the priests are described as “a number of singers (πολλῶν ᾀδόντων)” who are “winking and gesticulating in an unnatural manner (παρὰ φύσιν)” (Or. Graec. 22.2).

A Sample Article: ᾄδω

15

In the famous Bodmer Codex, a fragment of an early Christian hymn is preserved, beginning with the words Ὑµνήσατε τὸν πατέρα οἱ ἅγιοι, | ᾄσατε τῇ µητρὶ παρθένοι “Sing a hymn to the father, O holy ones! | Sing to the mother, O virgins!” (P.Bodmer 12). Since the six-line hymn-fragment follows the Paschal homily of Melito of Sardes in the codex, it has been widely assumed (following mÉêäÉê, Hymnus) that the hymn was also written by Melito (hence counted as fr. 17). But given the miscellaneous character of the codex, this assumption is not at all cogent (see `~ìääÉó, “Fragment”). The term “mother” might refer to Mary, but also to the church, or even to the Holy Spirit (if the hymn was originally written in Syriac, as `~ìääÉó, “Fragment”, 408–413, suggests). As in the LXX and the NT, angels (ἄγγελοι) are not normally the subject of singing in early Christian literature. This combination cannot be found in the extant writings of the early Church before the 4th century. In a short work spuriously attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, Inventio imaginis in Camulianis, the following reference to the Trisagion is made: “All the hosts of heaven (πᾶσαι αἱ δυνάµεις τῶν οὐρανῶν) at about the fifth watch of the night were singing and saying (ᾄδοντες καὶ λέγοντες) ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Sabaoth’” (Inv. imag. 5; similarly, the Trisagion is called “the angelic hymn” [ὁ ἀγγελικὸς ὕµνος] in the spurious Liber de cognitione dei, PG 130, 264). John Chrysostom explicitly states that not only humans but angels sing as well (Expositiones in Psalmos, PG 55, 108; In epistulam I ad Timotheum, PG 62, 576); the Christmas sermon In natalem Christi diem that is attributed to him (albeit dubious) even systemizes this to a certain extent (PG 56, 385): Ἄγγελοι ᾄδουσιν, ἀρχάγγελοι µέλπουσιν, ὑµνεῖ τὰ Χερουβὶµ, δοξολογεῖ τὰ Σεραφὶµ, πάντες ἑορτάζουσι Θεὸν ἐπὶ γῆς ὁρῶντες, καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἐν οὐρανοῖς “The angels sing, the archangels chant, the cherubim sing hymns, the seraphim give praise, all are celebrating God seen on earth, and man in heaven”. – A reference to angels singing (ᾄδοντες) the Trisagion is also made in a Christian inscription found in El Qā’hira/Cairo (Egypt) and dated to 335– 341 C.E. (SEG 18.653, line 3). Finally, the Greek version of the History of the Rechabites attests to the singing of angels (Rech. 16.1: τότε οἱ ἄγγελοι ἀναλαµβάνοντες ᾄδουσιν ᾆσµα καὶ ὕµνον ψάλλοντες τῷ θεῷ “Then the angels, while taking up [the spotless soul], sing a song and a hymn, making melody to God”). But this work in its present form probably dates from the 6th century C.E., and the questions of earlier strata, original language and Jewish or Christian provenance are hotly debated (see `Ü~êäÉëïçêíÜ, OTP 2, 444–445). The passage 16.1–8, however, is clearly Christian; furthermore, in the Syriac version of the text the angels simply “salute” and “receive” the soul without singing (see `Ü~êäÉëJ ïçêíÜ’s translation, OTP 2, 459), so the additional material in the Greek version is probably secondary.

16

Ralph Brucker

Bibliography dK=aÉääáåÖ, “ὕµνος κτλ.”, TWNT 8 (1969), 492–506. eKJgK=c~ÄêóLdK=_êìåÉêíLjK=häÉÉêLdK=píÉáåëLrK=a~ÜãÉå, “šîr”, TWAT 7 (1993), 1259–1295. oK=cáÅâÉê, “šîr”, THAT 2 (1976), 895. eK=pÅÜäáÉê, “ᾄδω, ᾠδή”, TWNT 1 (1933), 163–165. tK=_~ìÉê, Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Polykarpbrief (HNT Ergänzungs-

Band Die Apostolischen Väter II), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1920. qK=pK=`~ìääÉó, “A Fragment of an Early Christian Hymn (Papyrus Bodmer 12): some

Observations”, ZAC 13 (2010), 403–414. gK=eK=`Ü~êäÉëïçêíÜ, History of the Rechabites, OTP 2, 443–461. ^KJjK=aÉåáë, Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament: concordance,

corpus des textes, indices, Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1987. cK=gK=a∏äÖÉê, Sol salutis: Gebet und Gesang im christlichen Altertum mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Ostung in Gebet und Liturgie (LF 4–5), Münster: Aschendorff, 21925. tK=aK=cìêäÉóLgK=jK=_êÉãÉê, Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period, 2 vols. (STAC 9–10), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. oK=eÉäÄáåÖ, Die Kasussyntax der Verba bei den Septuaginta: Ein Beitrag zur Hebraismenfrage und zur Syntax der Κοινή, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1928. gK=hêçää, Die christliche Hymnodik bis zu Klemens von Alexandreia (Libelli 240), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 21968 [originally published 1921/22]. áÇÉã, “Die Hymnendichtung des frühen Christentums”, Antike 2 (1926), 258–281. Music in Early Christian Literature, ed. J. W. McKinnon, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. lK=mÉêäÉê, Ein Hymnus zur Ostervigil von Meliton? (Par. 15), Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1960. iK=mê~ìëÅÉääç, Singing Alexandria: Music Between Practice and Textual Transmission (Mn.S 274), Leiden: Brill, 2006. gK=nì~ëíÉå, Musik und Gesang in den Kulten der heidnischen Antike und christlichen Frühzeit (LQF 25), Münster: Aschendorff, 1930. gK=^K=pãáíÜ, Music in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Farnham: Ashgate, 2011. jK=iK=tÉëí, Ancient Greek Music, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. áÇÉã, “Analecta Musica”, ZPE 92 (1992), 1–54.

Kämpfen, Mühsal und Elend in der Septuaginta: Die von ΑΕΘΛ-/ΑΘΛ- abgeleitete Wortgruppe `ÜêáëíçéÜ=hìÖÉäãÉáÉê

Daß die aus dem Stamm ἀεθλ- (dichterisch und dialektal) bzw. der kontrahierten Form ἀθλ- (schon bei Homer, später dann verbindlich im Attischen und in der Koine) gebildete Wortgruppe in der Septuaginta nicht eben häufig erscheint, verwundert eigentlich nicht. Aus dem Belegmaterial für das klassische Griechisch, mehr noch – gattungsbedingt – aus ungezählten inschriftlichen Zeugnissen läßt sich die enge Verbindung des Wortstammes mit einem charakteristischen Teil der heidnischen griechischen Lebenswelt deutlich ersehen, nämlich mit dem ἀγών, dem sportlichen Wettkampf. Dies beginnt in der griechischen Literatur gleich mit Homer. In der Ilias wird Achilleus’ und Hektors Zweikampf auf Leben und Tod mit einem Gleichnis aus der agonalen Sphäre veranschaulicht, Il. 22,158–166: πρόσθε µὲν ἐσθλὸς ἔφευγε, δίωκε δέ µιν µέγ’ ἀµείνων καρπαλίµως, ἐπεὶ οὐχ ἱερήϊον οὐδὲ βοείην ἀρνύσθην, ἅ τε ποσσὶν ἀέθλια γίγνεται ἀνδρῶν, ἀλλὰ περὶ ψυχῆς θέον Ἕκτορος ἱπποδάµοιο. ὡς δ’ ὅτ’ ἀεθλοφόροι περὶ τέρµατα µώνυχες ἵπποι ῥίµφα µάλα τρωχῶσι· τὸ δὲ µέγα κεῖται ἄεθλον ἢ τρίπος ἠὲ γυνὴ ἀνδρὸς κατατεθνηῶτος· ὣς τὼ τρὶς Πριάµοιο πόλιν πέρι δινηθήτην καρπαλίµοισι πόδεσσι.1

–––––––––– 1

„Vornan floh ein Starker, jedoch ein Stärkerer folgte / stürmendes Laufs: denn nicht um ein Weihvieh, oder ein Stierfell / strebten sie, welches man stellt zum Kampfpreis laufender Männer; / sondern es galt das Leben des gaulbezähmenden Hektors. / So wie zum Siege gewöhnt um das Ziel starkhufiger Rosse / hurtiger wenden den Lauf, denn es lohnt ein köstlicher Dreifuß / oder ein blühendes Weib, am Fest des gestorbenen Herrschers: / Also kreiseten sie dreimal um Priamos Feste / rings mit geflügeltem Fuß“ (die Zitate aus Homer werden jeweils in der Übersetzung von Johann Heinrich Voß angeführt). – Dazu jK=_ê®åÇä, Der Agon bei Paulus. Herkunft und Profil paulinischer Agonmetaphorik (WUNT II 222), Tübingen 2006 (zugl. Diss. Tübingen 2005), 37: „Was auf den ersten Blick wie ein Wettlauf aussieht, entpuppt sich bei näherem Hinsehen als Kampf auf Leben und Tod“; er betont zu Recht das vom Dichter „inszenierte“ Moment dieser „Nähe von Spiel und Ernst im Wettkampf“.

18

Christoph Kugelmeier

Hier steht das Neutrum des Substantivs – ἄεθλον, auch im Kompositum ἀεθλοφόρος, und die Ableitung ἀέθλιον – in der Bedeutung „Kampfpreis“2; diese Bedeutung ist für ἄεθλον/ἆθλον auch die verbindliche, im Gegensatz zu ἄεθλος/ἆθλος, das stets den Kampf selbst bezeichnet3. Nun findet sich allerdings schon bei Homer ebenso häufig der Wortgebrauch, der für die Bibel wichtig werden wird, nämlich die Konnotation von „schwerem Ringen“, „Mühsal“, „Kampf“, vgl. Il. 7,452f. (hier spielt Poseidon auf die Erbauung Trojas an, die er zusammen mit Apollon als „Strafarbeit“ wegen eines versuchten Putsches gegen Zeus geleistet hatte)4: τοῦ δ’ ἐπιλήσονται, τὸ ἐγὼ καὶ Φοῖβος ᾿Απόλλων ἥρῳ Λαοµέδοντι πολίσσαµεν ἀθλήσαντε5

und 24,733f. (Andromache klagt um das Los ihres Sohnes Astyanax in der befürchteten griechischen Gefangenschaft): ἔνθά κεν ἔργα ἀεικέα ἐργάζοιο ἀθλεύων πρὸ ἄνακτος ἀµειλίχου6.

An einem markanten Beispiel läßt sich beobachten, wie die semantischen Felder „Kampf“ und Mühsal“ auf das engste zusammenrücken, nämlich bei der Schilderung der „Arbeiten“ (engl. “labours”)7 des Herakles, Il. 8,362f. (es spricht Athene zu Hera): οὐδέ τι τῶν µέµνηται, ὅ οἱ µάλα πολλάκις υἱὸν τειρόµενον σώεσκον ὑπ’ Εὐρυσθῆος ἀέθλων

–––––––––– 2

Das Kompositum ist zur Bezeichnung des „Siegers im (Wett-)Kampf“ sehr verbreitet; auch Il. 9,123f. sind es Rennpferde, die Preise davontragen: δώδεκα δ’ ἵππους / πηγοὺς ἀθλοφόρους, οἳ ἀέθλια ποσσὶν ἄροντο „auch zwölf mächtige Rosse, gekrönt mit Preisen des Wettlaufs“. 3 Schon bei Homer verwischt sich dieser ursprüngliche Unterschied zuweilen (vgl. Od. 24,89 ζώννυνταί τε νέοι καὶ ἐπεντύνωνται ἄεθλα „[die Jünglinge] zum Wettkampfe sich gürten um manches schimmernde Kleinod“), doch geht aus Lukian, Soloec. 2, hervor, daß seine Mißachtung nach den Forderungen der attizistischen „Sprachrichtigkeit“ als Fehler angesehen wurde. 4 Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos, Bd. I, Göttingen 1955 (LFE), s.v. ἀθλέω: „mühen, sich plagen, Frondienste verrichten“. 5 „Doch vergessen wird jene [Mauer], die ich und Phöbos Apollon / einst um Laomedons Stadt mit ringender Kraft gegründet“. 6 „Um Arbeit und Schmach zu erdulden, / ringend unter dem Zwang des Grausamen“. 7 Auf diese Konnotation kommt es hier erkennbar an, und deshalb übersetzt Voß die beiden Stellen nicht ganz korrekt: „Nicht gedenkt er mir dessen, wie oft vordem ich den Sohn ihm rettete, wann er gequält von Eurystheus’ Kämpfen sich härmte“ sowie „und dieser gebot mir die fürchterlichsten Gefahren“. Auch in den beiden angeführten neusprachlichen Ausdrücken ist eine ursprünglich negative Färbung festzustellen; so heißt nicht nur im Nibelungenlied (entstanden zu Beginn des 13. Jh.s) „der nibelunge not“ „groze arebeit“, bereits das gotische arbaiþs bedeutet „Bedrängnis, Not“, und noch im heutigen englischen labour finden sich – gegenüber dem neutralen work – beide Aspekte.

Kämpfen, Mühsal und Elend in der Septuaginta

19

und Od. 11,622: ὁ δέ µοι χαλεποὺς ἐπετέλλετ’ ἀέθλους.

Die Etymologie des Wortstammes hilft bei der Suche nach der Priorität dieser beiden Bedeutungsfelder nicht recht weiter, da sie nach wie vor als ungeklärt gelten muß.8 Chantraine9 und das LFE (beide s.v. ἄεθλος) vergleichen Sanskrit vāyati/vāyate „wird müde, wird erschöpft“10. Anders als Chantraine11 nimmt daher das LFE eine Bedeutungsentwicklung von „Mühe, Not, Kampf“ hin zu einer Spezifizierung „Totenspiel [vgl. die Wortvorkommen im 23. Buch der Ilias, anläßlich der Totenspiele für Patroklos], Wettkampf“ an, mit einer weiteren semantischen Ausgliederung speziell des Neutrums zur Bedeutung „Kampfpreis“, im Wege einer Synekdoche.12 Hans Trümpy, der Verfasser einer ausführlichen Spezialstudie13, plädiert für die Annahme einer semantischen Verengung von einer ursprünglichen Bedeutung „Mühsal, Anstrengung“ auf die agonale Sphäre des „Wettkampfs“: „Hätte ‚Wettkampf‘ die allgemeine Bedeutung ‚Lebenskampf‘ angenommen, dann würde das Wort nicht so sehr den Eindruck von Passivität und negativer Einschätzung erwecken. Die Bedeutung ‚labor‘ ist also die ältere. Weil die Wettkämpfe den Griechen als eigentliche labores vorgekommen sind, haben sie sie entsprechend bezeichnet.“

Trümpy stützt sich dabei auf nur zwei Stellen, an denen bei Homer eine solche Verbindung expressis verbis erscheint. Der erste Beleg ist Ilias 3,126–128 (Helena sitzt an einer Weberei, in die sie Kampfszenen des gegenwärtigen Krieges hineinarbeitet): πολέας δ’ ἐνέπασσεν ἀέθλους Τρώων θ’ ἱπποδάµων καὶ ᾿Αχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων, οὕς ἑθεν εἵνεκ’ ἔπασχον ὑπ’ Ἄρηος παλαµάων14

––––––––––

8 Dion Chrysostomos’ Wortspiel mit ἆθλος – ἄθλιος (s.u. Anm. 19) ist natürlich bloß als geistreiches Element seiner ethischen Argumentation aufzufassen. 9 P. `Ü~åíê~áåÉ, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, Neuaufl. Paris 2009. 10 LFE (s. Anm. 4), Sp. 151: „Vielleicht zu *ṷē- mit prothet. ἀ- oder einer volleren Wz.Form *aṷe̅̆ “. 11 « Toutefois, l’examen des faits homériques incline à croire que le sens originel s’applique précisément à des épreuves en forme de concours, ou de jeux ». 12 Zum Suffix -θλ-/-θρ-, das bei einer Ableitung aus *ṷē- etc. anzusetzen wäre (vgl. γένεθλον und γενέθλη „Abstammung, Familie“ < γεν- „geboren werden“, ὄλεθρος „Verderben“ < ὀλ- „verderben“, ἄρθρον „Gelenk“ < ἀρ- „fügen“) s. `Ü~åíê~áåÉ, Dictionnaire étymologique, 374 ; bK=pÅÜïóòÉê, Griechische Grammatik, Bd. I 1: Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion (HAW 2,1,1), München 1939 (= 61990), 533. 13 H. qêΩãéó, Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos. Untersuchungen zum Wortschatze Homers, Basel 1950 (zugl. Diss. Basel 1945). 14 „Durchwirkt mit mancherlei Kämpfen / rossebezähmender Troer und erzumschirmter Achaier, / welche sie ihrethalb von Ares’ Händen erduldet“.

20

Christoph Kugelmeier

Dazu bemerkt der Kommentar von Ameis und Hentze15: „ἔπασχον, weil in ἀέθλους der Begriff der Mühsal enthalten ist“ (diese Bemerkung wurde offenbar später von Hentze getilgt). Trümpy zitiert diese Deutung, übersieht aber dabei, daß „enthalten“, d.h. eine das Wort näher bestimmende Konnotation, eben keine Deckungsgleichheit der Bedeutungen implizieren muß. Ebenso kann man auch im heutigen Deutsch ohne weiteres von „Kämpfe erdulden“ sprechen, ohne mit Notwendigkeit eine ursprünglich andere Bedeutung für das Substantiv „Kampf“ anzunehmen als eben die übliche der „gewaltsamen Auseinandersetzung“. Als zweiter und letzter Beleg folgt Od. 4,170 (Menelaos über Odysseus): ὃς εἵνεκ’ ἐµεῖο πολέας ἐµόγησεν ἀέθλους16.

Angesichts dieser eher dünnen Belegsituation müssen Zweifel an Trümpys Deutung erlaubt sein. Eine wichtige Ableitung ist bei ihm gar nicht berücksichtigt: das Adjektiv ἄθλιος „unglücklich, unselig“. Als Adjektiv fehlt es bei Homer auch völlig; bei ihm ist die mit dem -ι-Suffix erweiterte Bildung ein Substantiv, das als Variationswort ἀέθλιον in derselben Bedeutung wie die übrigen aus ἀθλ- hergeleiteten Substantive steht (vgl. die eingangs genannten Beispiele). Dagegen reicht die Bezeugung des Adjektivs in der genannten Bedeutung nicht über das attische Drama der klassischen Periode zurück, wo es freilich eine große Rolle spielt. Nicht zuletzt dieser Befund spricht doch wohl eher dafür, den primären Wortsinn der ἀθλ-Gruppe genau umgekehrt zu sehen wie die in das LFE eingegangene Auffassung von Trümpy: ἆθλος und Verwandtes bezeichnet zunächst den Wettstreit um einen (zunächst wohl konkret, dann aber gewiß bald auch metaphorisch gedachten) „Preis“ (ἄεθλον/ ἀέθλιον); dieser Gedanke des Wettstreits wurde dann in semantischer Ausweitung übertragen auf das Ringen um Dinge, die schwer zu erlangen sind17. Besonders anschaulich läßt sich diese Metaphorik in den Gleichnissen beobachten, in denen die Kämpfer mit „einen Siegespreis erlangenden Pferden“ (ἀεθλοφόροι ἵπποι) verglichen werden, und in der Schilderung der Mühen eines Herakles und eines Odysseus, auf die nach überstandener Mühsal eben––––––––––

15 Homers Ilias für den Schulgebrauch erklärt von K. F. ^ãÉáë, bearb. von C. eÉåíòÉ, Leipzig/Berlin 51907. 16 „Welcher um meinetwillen so viele Gefahren erduldet“. Alle Zitate bei qêΩãéó, Kriegerische Fachausdrücke (s. Anm. 13), 150f. 17 Diese ethische Forderung reicht im griechischen Denken weit zurück, vgl. Hesiod, Op. 289 τῆς δ’ ἀρετῆς ἱδρῶτα θεοὶ προπάροιθεν ἔθηκαν „vor die Tugend haben die Götter den Schweiß gesetzt“, und Simonides, fr. 579 PMG ἐστί τις λόγος τὰν ᾿Αρετὰν ναίειν δυσαµβάτοισ’ ἐπὶ πέτραις . . . οὐδὲ πάντων βλεφάροισι θνατῶν ἔσοπτος, ὧι µὴ δακέθυµος ἱδρὼς ἔνδοθεν µόληι, ἵκηι τ’ ἐς ἄκρον ἀνδρείας „Es geht eine Sage, die Tugend wohne auf einem schwer zu ersteigenden Felsen, . . . sie kann nicht jedes Menschenauge erblicken, sondern nur, wem Schweiß aus dem Inneren rinnt, der das Herz zerfrißt, und wer zum Gipfel der Tapferkeit gelangt“ (zitiert bei Clemens von Alexandria, Strom. 4,7,48,4).

Kämpfen, Mühsal und Elend in der Septuaginta

21

falls ein ἀέθλιον wartet. Allein das Kompositum ἀεθλοφόρος unterstreicht übrigens die Priorität des Konkretums „Preis“. Wie stark diese Priorität des agonalen Wortgebrauchs bereits im griechischen Sprachbewußtsein einer frühen Periode verankert war, beweist Herodots Erzählung von Teisamenos, die mit der Doppeldeutigkeit der Wortgruppe spielt (Herodot 9,33–35); dazu Brändl, Agon (s. Anm. 1), 37: „Teisamenos, dem das Orakel verkündigte, daß er in fünf gewaltigen Wettkämpfen siegen würde (ἀγῶνας τοὺς µεγίστους ἀναιρήσεσθαι πέντε; 9,33,2). Der gebürtige Eleer habe daraufhin eifrig für die Spiele in Olympia trainiert, weil er auf einen Sieg bei den ἀγῶνες γυµνικοί hoffte. Nach seiner Niederlage im Fünfkampf . . . mußte er allerdings erkennen, daß sich das Orakel nicht auf athletische, sondern auf kriegerische Kämpfe (ἀγῶνες ἀρήιοι) bezogen hatte, weshalb er sich auf das Kriegshandwerk verlegte und schließlich in fünf großen Schlachten siegreich blieb (9,35,2).“

Eine gelungene Interpretation des Herakles-Bildes bei Pindar gibt die Kölner Dissertation von Kramer18, mit dem Resümee (138): „Herakles ist demnach schon am Ende der archaischen Zeit in jeder Weise Vorbild der Athleten gewesen . . . Er hat nicht nur durch sein Leben das Maß des für den Adligen Erreichbaren und Erstrebenswerten gesetzt . . . , sondern er hat auch bewiesen, daß den Mühen um die Aretá der verdiente Lohn folgt.“

Dieses Bild des ἀθλητής par excellence öffnet das Tor für die Übernahme der entsprechenden Auffassung vom ἆθλον in die biblische Märtyrertheologie. Nicht von ungefähr wurden charakteristische Züge des Herakles sogar auf Christus übertragen.19 Im Zusammenhang mit der immer stärker aufkommenden Wettkampfkultur konzentrierte sich die Wortbedeutung in diesem Sinne immer mehr auf das semantische Feld des Sports. Für Pindar, der im 5. Jh. v.Chr. die großen panhellenischen Wettkampfspiele besingt, sind ἄεθλον und ἄεθλος geradezu termini technici für zwei Bedeutungen: zum einen für den schon bei Homer, wie gesagt, primären Gebrauch als „Kampf-/Siegespreis“, wobei die metaphorische Verwendung bereits überwiegt, vgl. Pyth. 1,99: τὸ δὲ παθεῖν εὖ πρῶτον ἀέθλων20,

–––––––––– 18

hK=hê~ãÉê, Studien zur griechischen Agonistik nach den Epinikien Pindars, Köln 1970, 131–138. 19 Vgl. dazu tK=pé~êå, Hercules Christianus. Mythographie und Theologie in der frühen Neuzeit, in: Mythographie der frühen Neuzeit. Ihre Anwendung in den Künsten, hg. v. W. Killy (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 27), Wiesbaden 1984, 73–107. – _ê®åÇä, Agon (s. Anm. 1), 56, Anm. 113, weist auf die Rolle des Herakles als „Patron der Kyniker“ hin und dabei auf das interessante Wortspiel bei Dion Chrysostomos, or. 8,26–28: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἄθλους ἐκάλουν τοὺς πόνους αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ ἔργα, ὡς τὸν ἐπίπονον βίον ἄθλιον ὄντα. 20 „Daß es uns wohl ergeht, ist der erste der Kampfpreise“.

22

Christoph Kugelmeier

zum anderen für die hieraus entwickelte Synekdoche der Spiele als Veranstaltungen, vgl. Ol. 1,3–7: εἰ δ’ ἄεθλα γαρύεν ἔλδεαι, φίλον ἦτορ, ... µηδ’ Ὀλυµπίας ἀγῶνα φέρτερον αὐδάσοµεν21.

Gegenüber diesem „agonalen“ Zusammenhang fallen bei Pindar die Belege für die Bedeutung „mühevolle Arbeit“ zahlenmäßig nicht ins Gewicht. Dies steht im Einklang mit der allgemeinen semantischen Entwicklung der Wortgruppe in den literarischen Texten. Die Synekdoche verschwindet jedoch nie ganz; das Lexikon von Liddell, Scott und Jones22 greift aus dichterischer Sprache heraus Sophokles, Phil. 508 (der Chor zu Neoptolemos) πολλῶν ἔλεξεν δυσοίστων πόνων ἆθλα23, und Trach. 506, mit der wegen ihrer semantischen Differenzierung interessanten Kombination ἄεθλ’ ἀγώνων („Mühen der Wettkämpfe“, über das Duell zwischen Herakles und dem Flußgott Acheloos um den Besitz Deianeiras, das die Kontrahenten – vgl. 517ff. – teilweise als Faust- und Ringkampf austragen). Nun wissen wir, daß das Judentum in hellenistischer Zeit gerade gegen die Faszination dieses so prägenden Kulturelements einen erbitterten Kampf um seine religiös-kulturelle Identität führte.24 So erfahren wir aus den Makkabäer––––––––––

21 „Wenn du aber von Kampfpreisen [= Kampfspielen] künden willst, mein Herz . . . werden wir von keinem besseren Wettkampf als dem zu Olympia singen“. 22 A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott. New (ninth) edition, revised and augmented throughout by H. S. Jones, with the assistance of R. McKenzie, Oxford 1940, letzter Ndr. 1996 (mit Revised Supplement). 23 „Er [Philoktet] sprach von den Mühsalen vieler unerträglicher Mühen“. 24 Die kulturprägende Rolle des Wettkampfs hebt u.a. cêáÉÇêáÅÜ=káÉíòëÅÜÉ hervor; er erblickt hierin eine kulturstiftende Sublimierung des archaischen Vernichtungstriebs, vgl. „Homer’s Wettkampf“ (1872), abgedruckt in: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, hrsg. von G. Colli u.a., Dritte Abteilung, Zweiter Band, Berlin/New York 1973, 283f.: „Jede Begabung muß sich kämpfend entfalten, so gebietet die hellenische Volkspädagogik . . . Für die Alten aber war das Ziel der agonalen Erziehung die Wohlfahrt des Ganzen, der staatlichen Gesellschaft . . . Jeder Grieche empfand in sich von Kindheit an den brennenden Wunsch, im Wettkampf der Städte ein Werkzeug zum Heile seiner Stadt zu sein: darin war seine Selbstsucht entflammt, darin war sie gezügelt und umschränkt“. Ähnliche Ideen zur griechischen Kulturgeschichte finden sich bereits bei bK=`ìêíáìë, Der Wettkampf (Göttinger Universitätsrede vom 4. Juni 1856), veröffentlicht in: Alterthum und Gegenwart. Gesammelte Reden und Vorträge von Ernst Curtius. Erster Band (zitiert nach der 3. Aufl. Berlin 1882), 132–147 (s. bes. S. 134: „ihr [der Griechen] ganzes Leben war ein großer Wettkampf“, 137: „denn auch der einzelne Staat war eine Palästra bürgerlicher Tüchtigkeit, wo dem Bestbewährten als Preis Macht und Ehre ertheilt wurde“, und gK=_ìêÅâÜ~êÇí, der im Kapitel „Der koloniale und agonale Mensch“ (s. bes. S. 84–117) seiner Griechischen Culturgeschichte (hrsg. von Jakob Oeri, Berlin/Stuttgart 1898, vielfach neu aufgelegt, hier zitiert nach der Ausgabe Basel 1957) eine farbige und lebendige Schilderung der Wichtigkeit gibt, die dieses agonale Prinzip für Kultur und Gesellschaft des gesamten von Griechen bevölkerten Raums gewann (S. 84:

Kämpfen, Mühsal und Elend in der Septuaginta

23

büchern, daß dem von König Antiochos eingesetzten hellenisierenden Hohenpriester Iason als besonderer Frevel vorgeworfen wurde, in Jerusalem ein Gymnasion, also eine Sport- und Bildungsstätte im hellenischen Stil, eingerichtet zu haben, vgl. 1 Makk 1,14f.: (14) καὶ ᾠκοδόµησαν γυµνάσιον ἐν Ιεροσολύµοις κατὰ τὰ νόµιµα τῶν ἐθνῶν (15) καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς ἀκροβυστίας καὶ ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ διαθήκης ἁγίας καὶ ἐζευγίσθησαν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν καὶ ἐπράθησαν τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ πονηρόν25,

2 Makk 4,10–15: (10) ἐπινεύσαντος δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς κρατήσας εὐθέως πρὸς τὸν ῾Ελληνικὸν χαρακτῆρα τοὺς ὁµοφύλους µετέστησε . . . (11) καὶ τὰς µὲν νοµίµους καταλύων πολιτείας παρανόµους ἐθισµοὺς ἐκαίνιζεν. (12) ἀσµένως γὰρ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν τὴν ἀκρόπολιν γυµνάσιον καθίδρυσεν καὶ τοὺς κρατίστους τῶν ἐφήβων ὑποτάσσων ὑπὸ πέτασον ἤγαγεν. (13) ἦν δ’ οὕτως ἀκµή τις ῾Ελληνισµοῦ καὶ πρόσβασις ἀλλοφυλισµοῦ διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς καὶ οὐκ ἀρχιερέως ᾿Ιάσωνος ὑπερβάλλουσαν ἀναγνείαν (14) ὥστε µηκέτι περὶ τὰς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λειτουργίας προθύµους εἶναι τοὺς ἱερεῖς, ἀλλὰ τοῦ µὲν νεὼ καταφρονοῦντες καὶ τῶν θυσιῶν ἀµελοῦντες ἔσπευδον µετέχειν τῆς ἐν παλαίστρῃ παρανόµου χορηγίας µετὰ τὴν τοῦ δίσκου πρόσκλησιν, (15) καὶ τὰς µὲν πατρῴους τιµὰς ἐν οὐδενὶ τιθέµενοι, τὰς δὲ ῾Ελληνικὰς δόξας καλλίστας ἡγούµενοι26

–––––––––– „Während die Polis einerseits das Individuum mit Gewalt emportreibt und entwickelt, kommt es [das Agonale] als eine zweite Triebkraft, die kein anderes Volk kennt, ebenso mächtig hinzu, und der Agon ist das allgemeine Gärungselement, welches jegliches Wollen und Können, sobald die nötige Freiheit da ist, in Fermentation bringt. In dieser Beziehung stehen die Griechen einzig da“; auf S. 86f. kommt er auf die schon früh zum aristokratischen Lebensmotto verfestigte Bedeutung des homerischen αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔµµεναι ἄλλων, „immer der erste zu sein und sich unter den anderen auszuzeichnen“, zu sprechen, s. Homer, Il. 6,208 u.ö., vgl. die Übernahme dieses Lebensmottos bei Cicero, Ep. ad Quint. 3,5,4); s. unterdessen (kritisch) fK=tÉáäÉê, Der Agon im Mythos. Zur Einstellung der Griechen zum Wettkampf (Impulse der Forschung 16), Darmstadt 1974, 310–313 (mit Literaturhinweisen). _ê®åÇä, Agon (s. Anm. 1), 1, verweist völlig zu Recht auf „die z.T. breite, vielfältige und ausführliche Bildwelt des Wettkampfs in den Quellen der Antike“; dieser „Gedanke des Agon“ habe „nicht nur beeindruckende Bauten hervorgebracht, sondern auch seine Spuren in der Sprache hinterlassen“. Vgl. auch sK=`K=mÑáíòåÉê, Paul and the Agon Motif. Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature (NT.S 16), Leiden 1967 (zugl. Diss. Münster 1964), 16: “The competitive spirit of the games was as far removed from Jewish thinking as it could have been, quite apart from the offence in the sight of God caused by the nakedness of the athlete, whether training or competing”. Kritisch zu dieser etwas schablonenhaften Typisierung des „Griechischen“ _ê®åÇä, Agon (s. Anm. 1), 32, Anm. 2. 25 „Und sie erbauten ein Gymnasion in Jerusalem gemäß den Gebräuchen der Heiden. Und sie machten sich Vorhäute, fielen vom heiligen Bund ab, machten gemeinsame Sache mit den Heiden und verkauften sich dazu, das Böse zu tun“ (Übersetzungen aus der Septuaginta werden angeführt nach „Septuaginta Deutsch“, hg. von W. Kraus und M. Karrer, Stuttgart 2009). 26 „Als der König dem zugestimmt hatte, bemächtigte Jason sich des Amtes (des Hohenpriesters) und formte dann sogleich seine Stammesgenossen nach griechischer Weise um. . . . [Er] hob die gesetzlichen Verfassungen auf und führte neue widergesetzliche Gebräuche ein.

24

Christoph Kugelmeier

und 4 Makk 4,19f.: (19) καὶ ἐξεδιῄτησεν τὸ ἔθνος [sc. ὁ Ἰάσων] καὶ ἐξεπολίτευσεν ἐπὶ πᾶσαν παρανοµίαν (20) ὥστε µὴ µόνον ἐπ’ αὐτῇ τῇ ἄκρᾳ τῆς πατρίδος ἡµῶν γυµνάσιον κατασκευάσαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ καταλῦσαι τὴν τοῦ ἱεροῦ κηδεµονίαν27.

Das Gymnasion wurde bald zum beliebten Treffpunkt der Jerusalemer Oberschicht. Daß sich sogar die Priester mit Freuden an den Kampfspielen beteiligten, ist aus 4 Makk 13–15 zu erfahren. Vielleicht erklärt sich am besten aus dieser Scheu, zugleich mit dem Wort womöglich das „heidnische“ ideelle Konzept zu übernehmen, das völlige Fehlen der Wortgruppe in den übersetzten Texten der Septuaginta. Auch dort hätte es durchaus Gelegenheit gegeben, „Kampf“ im Sinne von „Wettkampf“ bzw. „Rivalität“ mit Hilfe dieser Wörter auszudrücken. Stattdessen werden andere Lösungen gewählt. Und so sind es wieder einmal Texte mit erkennbar starkem hellenistisch-philosophischem Einfluß28, die als einzige Bücher der Septuaginta Belege für die aus ἀθλ- abgeleitete Wortgruppe bieten. Bei einem Überblick erweist sich schnell, daß sich die Verwendung auf eine einzige Bedeutung beschränkt: 4 Makk 9,8: ἡµεῖς µὲν γὰρ διὰ τῆσδε τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ ὑποµονῆς τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἆθλα ἕξοµεν καὶ ἐσόµεθα παρὰ θεῷ, δι’ ὃν καὶ πάσχοµεν29

Weish 4,2: καὶ ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι στεφανηφοροῦσα ποµπεύει τὸν τῶν ἀµιάντων ἄθλων ἀγῶνα νικήσασα30

–––––––––– Mit Vergnügen richtete er genau unterhalb der Akropolis ein Gymnasion ein, beorderte die kräftigsten Epheben dorthin und brachte sie unter den Petasos-Hut [das Zeichen der Teilnahme an Wettkämpfen griechischer Art]. Es entstand auf diese Weise ein Höhepunkt des Griechentums und ein Zulauf zur Fremdstämmigkeit durch die alles übertreffende Verruchtheit des gottlosen, mitnichten als Hohepriester wirkenden Jason, sodass die Priester nicht mehr zum Dienst am Altar bereit waren, sondern den Tempel verachteten, die Opfer vernachlässigten und sich vielmehr darum bemühten, an der gesetzwidrigen Ausrichtung (der Wettkämpfe) in der Palästra teilzunehmen, wenn der Diskos dazu rief. Und die von den Vätern ererbten Ehren achteten sie für nichts, die griechischen Auszeichnungen hingegen hielten sie für die schönsten.“ 27 „Und er (Jason) brachte das Volk von seiner Lebensweise ab und entwöhnte es seiner Verfassung bis hin zur gänzlichen Gesetzeswidrigkeit, sodass er nicht nur oben auf dem Burgfelsen unserer Vaterstadt ein Gymnasion errichtete, sondern auch den Unterhalt des Heiligtums einstellte.“ 28 Siehe dazu eK=^åÇÉêëçå, “3 Maccabees. 4 Maccabees”, in: James H. Charlesworth (Hg.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2, New York u.a. 1985, 509–529 und 531– 564. 29 „Denn wir werden wegen dieses schlimmen Leidens und der Geduld den Siegespreis der Tugend erhalten und werden bei Gott sein, um dessentwillen wir ja auch leiden“.

Kämpfen, Mühsal und Elend in der Septuaginta

25

4 Makk 17,13–16: (13) Ελεαζαρ δὲ προηγωνίζετο, ἡ δὲ µήτηρ τῶν ἑπτὰ παίδων ἐνήθλει, οἱ δὲ ἀδελφοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο· (14) ὁ τύραννος ἀντηγωνίζετο· ὁ δὲ κόσµος καὶ ὁ τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίος ἐθεώρει· (15) θεοσέβεια δὲ ἐνίκα τοὺς ἑαυτῆς ἀθλητὰς στεφανοῦσα. (16) τίνες οὐκ ἐθαύµασαν τοὺς τῆς θείας νοµοθεσίας ἀθλητάς; τίνες οὐκ ἐξεπλάγησαν;31

4 Makk 6,9f.: (9) ὁ δὲ ὑπέµενε τοὺς πόνους καὶ περιεφρόνει τῆς ἀνάγκης καὶ διεκαρτέρει τοὺς αἰκισµούς, (10) καὶ καθάπερ γενναῖος ἀθλητὴς τυπτόµενος ἐνίκα τοὺς βασανίζοντας ὁ γέρων32

4 Makk 15,29f.: (29) ὦ µήτηρ ἔθνους, ἔκδικε τοῦ νόµου καὶ ὑπερασπίστρια τῆς εὐσεβείας καὶ τοῦ διὰ σπλάγχνων ἀγῶνος ἀθλοφόρε· (30) ὦ ἀρρένων πρὸς καρτερίαν γενναιοτέρα καὶ ἀνδρῶν πρὸς ὑποµονὴν ἀνδρειοτέρα33

4 Makk 18,23: οἱ δὲ Αβραµιαῖοι παῖδες σὺν τῇ ἀθλοφόρῳ µητρὶ εἰς πατέρων χορὸν συναγελάζονται ψυχὰς ἁγνὰς καὶ ἀθανάτους ἀπειληφότες παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ34.

„Standhaftigkeit im Glauben, Zeugen (µάρτυρες) sein auch in höchster Bedrängnis, und dafür die Unsterblichkeit als ‚Siegespreis‘ (ἆθλον) von Gott empfangen“ – so könnte man den ausnahmslos durchgängigen Tenor der hier vorzufindenden Bedeutungen zusammenfassen. Diese Tradition des Wortgebrauchs setzt sich bruchlos sowohl in der jüdischen als auch der christlichen Bibelexegese fort; man denkt an das bekannte deuteropaulinische Wort 2 Tim 4,7f.:

––––––––––

30 „ . . . und in der Ewigkeit hält sie [Kinderlosigkeit mit Tugend], geschmückt mit dem Kranz, den Triumphzug als Siegerin im Wettkampf um unbefleckte Preise.“ 31 „Als Vorkämpfer agierte Eleazar, die Mutter der sieben Knaben hielt tapfer stand, die Brüder kämpften mit. Der Tyrann fungierte als Gegenspieler. Die Welt und das Leben der Menschen schauten zu. Die Gottesfurcht siegte und bekränzte ihre eigenen Athleten. Wer wollte die Kämpfer für die göttliche Rechtssatzung nicht bewundern?“ – Vgl. die frappierende Sportmetaphorik bei Clemens von Alexandria, s. unten S. 31. 32 „Er erduldete die Schmerzen und verachtete die Zwangsmittel und ertrug standhaft die Misshandlungen. Und wie ein wackerer Athlet, der (die Schläge) wegsteckt, besiegte der Greis seine Peiniger.“ 33 „O Mutter des Volkes, Verfechterin des Gesetzes und Beschirmerin der Frömmigkeit und preisgekrönte Siegerin des Kampfs im Inneren! Du, energischer als Männer an Charakterstärke und mannhafter als Männer im Aushalten!“ 34 „Die Knaben aus Abrahams Stamm, zusammen mit ihrer Mutter, die den Siegespreis davontrug, werden dem Chor der Väter zugesellt, nachdem sie heilige und unsterbliche Seelen empfangen haben von Gott.“

26

Christoph Kugelmeier

τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα ἠγώνισµαι, τὸν δρόµον τετέλεκα, τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα· λοιπὸν ἀπόκειταί µοι ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος, ὃν ἀποδώσει µοι ὁ κύριος ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ, ὁ δίκαιος κριτής35,

aber auch ein Bibelinterpret wie Philon von Alexandria benutzt exakt die entsprechende Metaphorik, und zwar mit auffallender Häufigkeit. Ein markantes Beispiel, nämlich seine Interpretation von Jakobs Ringkampf mit dem Engel, möge hier genügen, Somn. 1,251: φίλαθλος γὰρ καὶ φιλογυµναστὴς ὁ πρὸς τὴν τῶν καλῶν ἐπιτηδευµάτων ὡρµηµένος θήραν36.

Philon ist in diesem Zusammenhang von besonderem Interesse, weil er nicht allein eng in den kulturellen Zusammenhang Alexandrias eingebettet ist, sondern ohnehin wichtiger, wenngleich nicht unproblematischer Zeuge für die Textgestalt der Septuaginta in einem recht frühen Stadium ist.37 Noch größere Bedeutung hat für diese Untersuchung, „daß Philo die reichste Einzelquelle agonistischer Fachtermini in der gesamten griechischen Literatur ist und seine Schriften die größte Sammlung von Agon-Metaphern aller erhaltenen griechischen Autoren bieten.“38

Andererseits äußert Philon durchaus Kritik an der Athletik und rät sogar von einer Teilnahme an ihr ab.39 Seine Einstellung unterscheidet sich also nicht grundsätzlich von derjenigen der heidnischen Kritiker einer übermäßigen und rein materiellen Sportverehrung. Als Vollbürger Alexandrias (was er höchstwahrscheinlich war) muß er schließlich auch die Ephebie durchlaufen haben, mit ihrer Betonung der sportlich-körperlichen ebenso wie der musischintellektuellen Erziehung; beides fand im Gymnasion statt, an das immer auch

–––––––––– 35

„Ich habe den guten Kampf gekämpft, habe den Lauf vollendet, den Glauben unverletzt bewahrt: fortan liegt für mich der Siegeskranz der Gerechtigkeit bereit, den der Herr, der gerechte Richter, mir an jenem Tage zuteilen wird“ (Übersetzungen aus dem Neuen Testament nach der Menge-Bibel). Siehe dazu `ìêíáìë, Wettkampf (s. Anm. 24), 143f.; zu dieser Thematik insgesamt _ê®åÇä, Agon (s. Anm. 1); rK=mçéäìíò, Athlet des Evangeliums. Eine motivgeschichtliche Studie zur Wettkampfmetaphorik bei Paulus (HBS 43), Freiburg 2004 (zugl. Diss. Würzburg 2003/04). 36 „Denn es liebt den Wettkampf und die Ringkunst, wer sich zur Jagd nach guten Taten aufgemacht hat“ (Übersetzungen aus Philon nach: Philo von Alexandria, Die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung, hg. von L. Cohn u.a., 2. Aufl. Berlin 1962). 37 Vgl. seinen Bericht über die Entstehung der griechischen Bibel Vit.Mos. 2,29–41; s. _ê®åÇä, Agon (s. Anm. 1), 85–115, jK=qáääó, Einführung in die Septuaginta, Darmstadt 2005, 30–33, und jK=oK=káÉÜçÑÑ, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (TSAJ 86), Tübingen 2001, 140, Anm. 15, und grundsätzlich zu Philons Haltung zur hellenischen Kultur 137–158 (s. vor allem 143). 38 _ê®åÇä, Agon (s. Anm. 1), 86. 39 Vgl. Agr. 111.

Kämpfen, Mühsal und Elend in der Septuaginta

27

eine Bibliothek angeschlossen war.40 Das wäre jedenfalls der einleuchtendste Grund für seine guten Kenntnisse auf diesem Gebiet.41 Es ist ja auch abgesehen von Philons persönlicher Einstellung klar, daß er wie jeder Schriftsteller, der sich Gehör verschaffen will, adressatenbezogen schreiben mußte, für ein hellenistisch gebildetes jüdisches Publikum, dem die beschriebene Lebenswelt genauso vertraut war wie ihren heidnischen Mitbürgern. Wie üblich schließt sich Philon in der ideellen Verwendung der Wettkampf-Metaphorik ohnehin an Platon an, im Sinne des philosophischen Ringens um die Wahrheit, die der Alexandriner als „Teilhabe am Göttlichen“ des biblischen Gottes durch die Anstrengung der Vernunft versteht, vgl. Congr. 10842: τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν ἄφεσις, τοῦτ’ ἐλευθερία παντελὴς ψυχῆς ὃν ἐπλανήθη τε πλάνον ἀποσειοµένης καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀπλανῆ φύσιν µεθορµιζοµένης καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς κλήρους ἐπανιούσης, οὓς ἔλαχεν, ἡνίκα λαµπρὸν ἔπνει καὶ τοὺς περὶ τῶν καλῶν πόνους ἤθλει. τότε γὰρ αὐτὴν τῶν ἄθλων ἀγάµενος ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος ἐτίµησε, γέρας ἐξαίρετον δούς, κλῆρον ἀθάνατον, τὴν ἐν ἀφθάρτῳ γένει τάξιν43.

Man ist versucht, die skizzierte jüdisch-christliche Geschichte der Wortgruppe als die einer aneignenden Umdeutung eines Spezifikums der hellenischen Lebenswelt aufzufassen. Auf dem Wege metaphorischer Neuinterpretation gelingt es den Autoren der Makkabäerbücher und den Autoren, die ihren Sprachgebrauch aufgreifen, gleichsam einen charakteristischen Stein aus dem Mosaik des griechischen Alltagslebens herauszulösen und ihn in das Gefüge der biblischen Theologie vom leidenden Gerechten und Märtyrer einzupassen44 – und dies ironischerweise in Schriften, deren Thema eigentlich die Abgrenzung gegen den heidnischen Hellenismus ist. Parallelen für dieses Verfahren gibt es auch bei anderen Wörtern; am nächsten vergleichen sich weitere Begriffe aus dem Umfeld der WettkampfMetaphorik, vgl. z.B. Weish 10,12: –––––––––– 40

Vgl. Spec. leg. 2,230 (Ideal der παιδεία . . . κατά τε σῶµα καὶ ψυχήν) und einen Brief an Kaiser Claudius mit Bezug auf die Teilnahme von Juden an gymnasialen Wettspielen aus dem Jahre 41 n.Chr., P.Lond. 1912; _ê®åÇä, Agon (s. Anm. 1), 93f. 41 _ê®åÇä, Agon (s. Anm. 1), 95. 42 Siehe _ê®åÇä, Agon (s. Anm. 1), 135–137. 43 „Dies bedeutet der Schuldennachlaß, dies die völlige Befreiung der Seele, die sich von ihren früheren Irrwegen lossagt, bei der nie irrenden Natur ansiedelt und zu den Besitztümern zurückkehrt, die sie besaß, als sie noch herrlich lebte und die mühevollen Kämpfe um das Gute kämpfte. Denn damals bewunderte sie der heilige Logos wegen ihrer Kämpfe und ehrte sie, indem er sie mit einer auserwählten Gabe und unsterblichem Besitz beschenkte: der Zuordnung zum Geschlecht der Unvergänglichen“. 44 hK=qK=häÉáåâåÉÅÜí, Der leidende Gerechtfertigte. Die alttestamentlich-jüdische Tradition vom „leidenden Gerechten“ und ihre Rezeption bei Paulus (WUNT II 13), Tübingen 2 1988, 230, spricht geradezu in bewußt hellenisierender Terminologie von der „Heroisierung des Leidenden“.

28

Christoph Kugelmeier

καὶ ἀγῶνα ἰσχυρὸν ἐβράβευσεν αὐτῷ, ἵνα γνῷ, ὅτι παντὸς δυνατωτέρα ἐστὶν εὐσέβεια45.

Erleichtert wurde diese wohl bewußt gewählte Bedeutungsentwicklung dadurch, daß sich metaphorischer Wortgebrauch schon recht früh feststellen läßt. Bei Tyrtaios, einem Elegiendichter des 7. Jh.s v. Chr., findet sich zum ersten Mal die wörtliche Verbindung von ἀρετή und ἄεθλον – er sagt fr. 12,13f. West von der „energischen Wehrhaftigkeit“ (θοῦρις ἀλκή): ἥδ’ ἀρετή, τόδ’ ἄεθλον ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ἄριστον46,

und Herodot läßt den persischen Feldherrn Tigranes zum Flottenkommandanten Mardonios sagen, in Anspielung auf den bloß aus einem Ölzweig bestehenden Siegespreis (ἄεθλον) bei den Olympischen Spielen (8,26): Παπαί, Μαρδόνιε, κοίους ἐπ’ ἄνδρας ἤγαγες µαχησοµένους ἡµέας, οἳ οὐ περὶ χρηµάτων τὸν ἀγῶνα ποιεῦνται ἀλλὰ περὶ ἀρετῆς47.

Vor allem aber ist es – was nicht verwundert – die Philosophie, die entscheidend für die ideelle Umdeutung der Wortgruppe sorgt und dabei dem hellenistisch-jüdischen Sprachgebrauch den Weg bereitet. Wie Brändl zeigt, kritisiert vor allem Platon einen ausschließlich körperlichen Begriff von Athletentum und verwendet die agonale Wortsphäre als erster bewußt metaphorisch, im dem Sinne, daß sich der φιλόσοφος vom Materiellen und Sinnenfälligen „losringen“ und „ausdauernd“ nach der (philosophisch verstandenen) Wahrheit streben soll.48 Von den vielen einschlägigen Stellen sei (wegen ihrer besonders frappierenden Ähnlichkeit mit dem bereits zitierten deuteropaulinischen Wort 2 Tim 4,7f.) Resp. 613b–c herausgegriffen: οὐχ οἱ µὲν δεινοί τε καὶ ἄδικοι δρῶσιν ὅπερ οἱ δροµῆς ὅσοι ἂν θέωσιν εὖ ἀπὸ τῶν κάτω, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἄνω µή; τὸ µὲν πρῶτον ὀξέως ἀποπηδῶσιν, τελευτῶντες δὲ καταγέλαστοι γίγνονται, τὰ ὦτα ἐπὶ τῶν ὤµων ἔχοντες καὶ ἀστεφάνωτοι ἀποτρέχοντες· οἱ δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ δροµικοὶ εἰς τέλος ἐλθόντες τά τε ἆθλα λαµβάνουσιν καὶ στεφανοῦνται. οὐχ οὕτω καὶ περὶ τῶν δικαίων τὸ πολὺ συµβαίνει; πρὸς τὸ τέλος ἑκάστης πράξεως καὶ ὁµιλίας καὶ τοῦ βίου εὐδοκιµοῦσί τε καὶ τὰ ἆθλα παρὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φέρονται;49

––––––––––

45 „ . . . und bei einem kraftvollen Kampf erklärte sie ihn [den Gerechten] zum Sieger, damit er erkenne, dass mächtiger als alles eine ehrfürchtige Frömmigkeit ist.“ 46 „Sie ist Tugend, sie ist bei den Menschen der beste Preis.“ 47 „Weh, Mardonios! Gegen was für Leute hast du uns in den Krieg geführt, die ihr Kampfspiel nicht um Geld abhalten, sondern um die Tugend!“ 48 _ê®åÇä, Agon (s. Anm. 1), 45–53; zur Kritik an der materiellen Auffassung vom Athletischen und den ἀθληταί vgl. Resp. 410b. 49 „Machen es die Schurken und Ungerechten nicht so wie alle jene Wettläufer, die von den Schranken nach dem oberen Ende zu tüchtig laufen, von da zurück aber nicht? Zuerst laufen sie scharf los, am Ende aber werden sie ausgelacht, lassen den Kopf hängen und machen sich ohne Siegeskranz davon. Die wahren Meister im Laufen dagegen erhalten, am Ziel angelangt, die Kampfpreise und den Kranz. Geht es meistens nicht auch so mit den Gerech-

Kämpfen, Mühsal und Elend in der Septuaginta

29

Aristoteles greift diese ideelle Deutung seines Lehrers auf und verwendet dabei wiederum die Junktur von ἆθλον und ἀρετή, vgl. Eth. Nic. 1099b16–18: τὸ γὰρ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἆθλον καὶ τέλος ἄριστον εἶναι φαίνεται καὶ θεῖόν τι καὶ µακάριον (gemeint ist die εὐδαιµονία, die „Glückseligkeit“)50.

Sonst gehört die Metapher häufig dem politischen Bereich an, vgl. Thukydides 3,82,8 (aus der sog. „Pathologie“): οἱ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι προστάντες µετὰ ὀνόµατος ἑκάτεροι εὐπρεποῦς, πλήθους τε ἰσονοµίας πολιτικῆς καὶ ἀριστοκρατίας σώφρονος προτιµήσει, τὰ µὲν κοινὰ λόγῳ θεραπεύοντες ἆθλα ἐποιοῦντο, παντὶ δὲ τρόπῳ ἀγωνιζόµενοι ἀλλήλων περιγίγνεσθαι ἐτόλµησάν τε τὰ δεινότατα ἐπεξῇσάν τε τὰς τιµωρίας ἔτι µείζους, οὐ µέχρι τοῦ δικαίου καὶ τῇ πόλει ξυµφόρου προτιθέντες, ἐς δὲ τὸ ἑκατέροις που αἰεὶ ἡδονὴν ἔχον ὁρίζοντες, καὶ ἢ µετὰ ψήφου ἀδίκου καταγνώσεως ἢ χειρὶ κτώµενοι τὸ κρατεῖν ἑτοῖµοι ἦσαν τὴν αὐτίκα φιλονικίαν ἐκπιµπλάναι51.

Nachzutragen bleibt noch der bemerkenswerte Umstand, daß auch ein prägnantes Kompositum, ἀθλοφόρος, von der beschriebenen Metaphorik erfaßt wird. Das Wort gewinnt für die Septuaginta besonderes Interesse, weil es sich als priesterlicher Titel in die spezifische kulturelle Umgebung Alexandrias, genauer der ptolemäischen Kultpraxis, einordnen läßt, wo es seit 211/210 v.Chr. als Titel einer Priesterin der Königin Berenike II. Euergetis verwendet wird (vgl. den Papyrus BGU 3.993dupl, col. 2, 5: ἀθλοφόρου Βερενίκης Εὐεργέτιδος).52 Angesichts dessen ist später bei diesem Wort eine besonders wirkungsvolle aneignende Umdeutung zu beobachten (s. dazu oben S. 27). In christlicher Zeit erscheint das Kompositum geradezu als stehendes Beiwort der Märtyrer, wobei die Vorstellung von der „Krone der Märtyrer“ (στέφανος, eigentlich, wie lat. corona, der „Kranz“, und zwar insbesondere des Siegers) als „Siegespreis“ gewiß eine erhebliche Rolle gespielt hat (dieses –––––––––– ten? Am Ende einer jeden Betätigung, eines jeden Umgangs und am Ende des Lebens finden sie doch Anerkennung und tragen die Preise von seiten der Menschen davon?“ 50 „Denn der Preis und das Ziel der Tugend ist offenbar das Beste und etwas Göttliches und Seliges“. 51 „Denn diejenigen, die an der Spitze der Städte standen, gebrauchten zwar, die einen wie die andern, wohlklingende Namen, und kämpften hier um bürgerliche Gleichberechtigung der Menge, dort um besonnene Herrschaft der Besten; in Wahrheit aber betrachteten sie das Volk, dem sie angeblich dienten, nur als Kampfpreis und, indem sie auf jede Weise übereinander zu siegen trachteten, wagten sie das Entsetzlichste und gingen bei ihren gegenseitigen Verfolgungen immer weiter und weiter, indem sie sie über die Grenze der Gerechtigkeit und des Gemeinwohls hinaus steigerten. Da sie sich nun so durch die jeweilige Rachsucht leiten ließen und entweder durch ungerechte Verurteilung oder durch Gewalt zu siegen trachteten, waren sie bereit, sich ihrer augenblickliche Parteiwut zu überlassen.“ 52 J. fàëÉïáàå, De sacerdotibus sacerdotiisque Alexandri Magni et lagidarum eponymis, Brüssel 1961, 136f., schwankt dementsprechend zwischen zwei möglichen Bedeutungen: „qui praemium (e certamine) reportat“ (also „der den Siegespreis aus dem Wettkampf heimträgt“) und „qui praemium (victori) dat“ („der den Siegespreis dem Sieger im Wettkampf überreicht“); vgl. Hyginus, Astr. 2,24,2.

30

Christoph Kugelmeier

Bild findet sich, expressis verbis in einem Gleichnis aus dem Kampfsport, bei Paulus, 1 Kor 9,25 πᾶς δὲ ὁ ἀγωνιζόµενος πάντα ἐγκρατεύεται, ἐκεῖνοι µὲν οὖν, ἵνα φθαρτὸν στέφανον λάβωσιν, ἡµεῖς δὲ ἄφθαρτον)53. Diese „Kränze“ bzw. „Kronen“ der Märtyrer kann ein Kirchenschriftsteller des 5. Jh.s geradezu als στεφάνους ἀθλητικούς benennen (Philostorgios, Hist. eccl. 4,4). Überhaupt zeigt ein Blick in das Lexikon von Lampe54, welche Fülle von Wortbildungsvarianten in der patristischen Literatur im Gebrauch war. So heißt es in 1 Clem (verfaßt ca. 90–100 n.Chr.) 5,1f.: ἀλλ’ ἵνα τῶν ἀρχαίων ὑποδειγµάτων παυσώµεθα, ἔλθωµεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἔγγιστα γενοµένους ἀθλητάς· λάβωµεν τῆς γενεᾶς ἡµῶν τὰ γενναῖα ὑποδείγµατα. διὰ ζῆλον καὶ φθόνον οἱ µέγιστοι καὶ δικαιότατοι στῦλοι ἐδιώχθησαν καὶ ἕως θανάτου ἤθλησαν55.

Ja, der ἀληθὴς ἀθλητὴς ἡµῶν wird niemand anderer als Christus selbst genannt (so im 3. Jh. n.Chr. in den ursprünglich syrischen Thomasakten, ActThom A 39, p. 157, 10). An diesem Beispiel wie auch an der Stelle aus dem Clemensbrief zeigt sich im übrigen, daß die aktive Aufladung des Wortes, das „Sich-Einsetzen“ für ein bestimmtes Ziel, eben wie im Wettstreit, im Vordergrund steht. Eine engere semantische Verbindung zur eher passiven Konnotation „Mühsal, Bedrängnis“ wird hingegen offenbar, wenn Origenes einen der großen Dulder des Alten Testaments, nämlich Ijob, als τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀθλητής bezeichnet (De or. 30,2). Aber auch diese Vorstellung gehört ja zum Märtyrer, dessen vollkommenster Typus Christus selber ist, unabdingbar dazu (dieselbe Wortwahl bietet schon 4 Makk 9,8, vgl. oben S. 24; auch sie hat ihr Vorbild bereits im heidnischen Denken, vgl. oben S. 20, Anm. 17). Im 4. Jh. führt Epiphanios in seinem Panarion neben den ἀθληταί auch weibliche ἀθλήτριαι als Vorkämpferinnen des Asketentums an.56 Auch die Substantive erhalten die entsprechende Einfärbung: So bezeichnet ἆθλον vorrangig den „Preis“, die Belohnung, die den standhaften Gläubigen erwartet, vgl. Clemens von Alexandria, Protr. 96,3: οὐ γὰρ σµικρὸν ἡµῖν τὸ ἆθλον ἀθανασία πρόκειται57,

vgl. Philon, Congr. 108 (vgl. oben S. 27): τότε γὰρ αὐτὴν τῶν ἄθλων ἀγάµενος ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος ἐτίµησε, γέρας ἐξαίρετον δούς, κλῆρον ἀθάνατον, τὴν ἐν ἀφθάρτῳ γένει τάξιν58.

–––––––––– 53 54

Ausführlich behandelt von _ê®åÇä, Agon (s. Anm. 1), 289–328. A Patristic Greek Lexicon, edited by G. W. H. Lampe, Oxford 1961–1968, letzter Ndr.

2009. 55

„Aber, um mit den alten Beispielen aufzuhören, wollen wir nun auf die Kämpfer der neuesten Zeit kommen; wir wollen die hervorstechendsten Beispiele unseres Zeitalters herausgreifen. Wegen Eifersucht und Neid haben die größten und gerechtesten Männer, Säulen waren sie, Verfolgung und Kampf bis zum Tode getragen“. 56 3,361,11 und 3,409,20 Holl. 57 „Denn nicht gering ist der Kampfpreis, der ausgesetzt ist, Unsterblichkeit“.

Kämpfen, Mühsal und Elend in der Septuaginta

31

Doch klingt hier auch, ins Christliche gewendet, die alte Vorstellung vom κλέος ἄφθιτον an; so bezeichnet bei Homer, Il. 9,413 Achilleus, ein weiterer großer ἀθλητής, sein Motiv für die Teilnahme am Trojanischen Krieg. Derselbe Clemens kann, im Einklang mit dem „klassischen“ Wortgebrauch, mit dieser Form und mit dem Maskulinum ἆθλος den „geistigen Kampf“ des standhaften Gläubigen bezeichnen, vgl. Strom. 7,3,20,3.5: οὗτός ἐστιν, οὗτος ὁ ἀθλητὴς ἀληθῶς ὁ ἐν τῷ µεγάλῳ σταδίῳ, τῷ καλῷ κόσµῳ, τὴν ἀληθινὴν νίκην κατὰ πάντων στεφανούµενος τῶν παθῶν . . . καὶ οἷον ἄθλους τινὰς τοῦ πειράζοντος ἐπαρτῶντος καταγωνισάµενος, ἐκράτησε τῆς ἀθανασίας59.

An dieser Stelle führt Clemens das der Lebenswirklichkeit seiner Leser vertraute agonale Bild überhaupt in ähnlich voller Pracht aus, wie sie auch schon im 4. Makkabäerbuch zu finden ist (vgl. oben S. 24f.), Strom. 7,3,20,4: ὅ τε γὰρ ἀγωνοθέτης ὁ παντοκράτωρ θεός, ὅ τε βραβευτὴς ὁ µονογενὴς υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, θεαταὶ δὲ ἄγγελοι καὶ θεοί60.

Tritt Gott hier sogar als „Ausrichter der kosmischen Spiele“ (ἀγωνοθέτης) in Erscheinung, so kann Christus dies und auch der ἀθλοθέτης sein, vgl. Clemens, Quis dives salvetur 3,3–6 (in einem ähnlich üppig ausgemalten Sportgleichnis): ὁ δὲ ταύτην µὲν ἐµβαλόµενος τῇ γνώµῃ τὴν ἐλπίδα, πόνους δὲ καὶ γυµνάσια καὶ τροφὰς µὴ προσιέµενος προσφόρους, ἀστεφάνωτος διεγένετο καὶ διήµαρτε τῶν ἐλπίδων. οὕτως τις καὶ τὴν ἐπίγειον ταύτην περιβεβληµένος περιβολὴν µήτε τὴν ἀρχὴν ἑαυτὸν τῶν ἄθλων τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐκκηρυσσέτω, πιστός γε ὢν καὶ τὸ µεγαλεῖον συνορῶν τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίας, µήτε µὴν αὖθις ἀνάσκητος καὶ ἀναγώνιστος µείνας ἀκονιτὶ κἀνιδρωτὶ τῶν στεφάνων τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἐλπιζέτω µεταλαβεῖν· ἀλλ’ αὑτὸν ὑποβαλέτω φέρων γυµναστῇ µὲν τῷ λόγῳ, ἀγωνοθέτῃ δὲ τῷ Χριστῷ· τροφὴ δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ποτὸν γενέσθω τεταγµένον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη τοῦ κυρίου, γυµνάσια δὲ αἱ ἐντολαί, εὐσχηµοσύνη δὲ καὶ κόσµος αἱ καλαὶ διαθέσεις, ἀγάπη, πίστις, ἐλπίς, γνῶσις ἀληθείας, . . . πραότης, εὐσπλαγχνία, σεµνότης, ἵν’, ὅταν 〈ἡ〉 ἐσχάτη σάλπιγξ ὑποσηµήνῃ τοῦ δρόµου καὶ τῆς ἐντεῦθεν ἐξόδου καθάπερ ἐκ σταδίου τοῦ βίου, µετ’ ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ συνειδότος τῷ ἀθλοθέτῃ παραστῇ νικηφόρος, ὡµολογηµένος τῆς ἄνω πατρίδος ἄξιος, εἰς ἣν µετὰ στεφάνων καὶ κηρυγµάτων ἀγγελικῶν ἐπανέρχεται 61

–––––––––– 58

„Denn damals bewunderte sie der heilige Logos wegen ihrer Kämpfe und ehrte sie, indem er sie mit einer auserwählten Gabe und unsterblichem Besitz beschenkte: der Zuordnung zum Geschlecht der Unvergänglichen“. 59 „Er ist, ja er ist der wahre Wettkämpfer, der auf dem großen Kampfplatz, nämlich in der schönen Welt, wegen des wahren Sieges über alle Leidenschaften mit dem Siegeskranz gekrönt wird . . . Wenn er aus diesem gewaltigen Ringen als Sieger hervorgegangen ist und Kämpfe, die der Versucher gleichsam über ihn verhängt hat, glücklich überstanden hat, dann hat er die Unsterblichkeit erlangt.“ 60 „Denn der, welcher den Kampf veranstaltet, ist der allmächtige Gott, der Kampfrichter aber ist der eingeborene Sohn Gottes, und Zuschauer sind Engel und Götter“. 61 „Wer . . . die Hoffnung auf den Sieg in seinem Herzen hegt, sich aber den nötigen Anstrengungen und Übungen und der richtigen Lebensweise nicht unterziehen will, bleibt unbekränzt und gelangt nicht zu dem erhofften Ziel. So soll auch ein Mensch, der im Besitz dieser

32

Christoph Kugelmeier

und Basileios, Homilia super Psalmos 111, PG 29, 485B: τίς ἡµᾶς χωρίσει ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Χριστοῦ; θλίψις; ἢ στενοχωρία; ἢ διωγµός; ἢ λιµός; ἢ γυµνότης; ἢ κίνδυνος; ἢ µάχαιρα; Ἠγάπησα οὖν ταῦτα πάντα, εἰδὼς, ὅτι ὑπὸ θεατῇ καὶ ἀθλοθέτῃ τῷ ∆εσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων τοὺς ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐσεβείας διαφέρω κινδύνους62.

Ps.-Dionysios Areopagites bildet anderthalb Jahrhunderte später hiervon das Abstraktum, Eccl. hier. 2,3,6 (p. 77, 11–13 Heil): Die Salbung stärkt den Täufling für die Kämpfe (ἀγῶνες), καθ’ οὓς ὑπ’ ἀθλοθέτῃ Χριστῷ γινόµενος, ἐπειδὴ ὡς θεός ἐστι [sc. Christus] τῆς ἀθλοθεσίας δηµιουργός63.

Bei dieser erkennbaren Begeisterung der spätantiken Theologen für die agonale Metaphorik verwundert es nicht, daß das schon bei Homer so prominente Kompositum ἀθλοφόρος (mit der Variante ἀθληφόρος und weiteren Ableitungen) eine wichtige Rolle spielt, im Sinne von „den Siegespreis davontragend“, vgl. die in Syrien beheimatete Inschrift CIG 8609 aus dem Jahre 367: οἶκος ἁγίων ἀθλοφόρων µαρτύρων64.

Eine im Hexameter gehaltene christliche Inschrift aus dem nördlichen Galatien (RECAM II 211) bietet sogar eine erst 1897 überhaupt bekannt–––––––––– irdischen Güter ist, sich weder von vorneherein für ausgeschlossen von den Siegespreisen des Heilandes erklären, wenigstens sofern er gläubig ist und die Größe der Liebe Gottes zu den Menschen kennt, noch darf er andererseits, wenn er ohne Übung und ohne Kampf bleibt, hoffen, ohne den Staub und den Schweiß des Kampfplatzes den Siegeskranz des ewigen Lebens zu erlangen. Vielmehr wird er sich selbst mit Freuden dem Logos als dem Lehrmeister im Kämpfen und Christus als dem Kampfrichter unterwerfen. Vorgeschriebene Speise und Trank sei für ihn das neue Testament des Herrn, seine Übungen seien die Gebote, seine gute Haltung und sein Schmuck bestehe in den herrlichen Tugenden, der Liebe, dem Glauben, der Hoffnung, der Erkenntnis der Wahrheit, der Güte, der Sanftmut, der Barmherzigkeit, der Keuschheit, damit er, wenn die letzte Posaune das Zeichen für das Ende des Laufes und für den Abschied vom Diesseits und damit gleichsam von der Rennbahn dieses Lebens gibt, mit gutem Gewissen als Sieger vor den Kampfrichter treten kann und für würdig des himmlischen Vaterlandes erklärt werde, in das er geschmückt mit Siegeskränzen und empfangen von dem Heroldsruf der Engel heimkehrt.“ 62 „Wer wird uns trennen von der Liebe Christi? Die Bedrückung? Oder die Bedrängnis? Oder die Verfolgung? Oder der Hunger? Oder die Nacktheit? Oder das Schwert? Ich habe sie alle liebgewonnen, da ich weiß, daß der Herr, der das Schaupiel des Alls als Kampfrichter betrachtet, zugegen ist, wenn ich die Gefahren um der Frömmigkeit willen auf mich nehme.“ Die Fragenreihe am Anfang ist ein Zitat von Röm 8,35. 63 „In welchen er unter Christus als dem Kampfesordner eintritt. Denn Christus ist seiner Gottheit nach der Schöpfer der Kampfesordnung, nach seiner Weisheit hat er die Gesetze des Kampfes festgestellt, nach seiner Herrlichkeit hat er den Siegern die prachtvollen Kampfespreise bereitet“. 64 „Ein Haus der heiligen Märtyrer, die den Siegespreis davontragen“.

Kämpfen, Mühsal und Elend in der Septuaginta

33

gewordene und in allerneuester Zeit lexikalisch verzeichnete Variante des Wortes65, eine Erweiterung mit dem Agenssuffix -εύς: ᾿Αγλαόµυρις / µάρ|τυρος ἀθλοφορῆ|ος ὅλον κοσµή|σατο νηόν66.

Als einzige weitere Ableitung aus dem Wortstamm erscheint in der Septuaginta ἄθλιος. Das Adjektiv zeigt die auch in der klassischen Literatur und in der Koine übliche Bedeutung, vgl. 3 Makk 5,37 (als negative Eigenschaft einer Person, daher als Beschimpfung verwendet): τὸν δὲ Ἕρµωνα προσκαλεσάµενος µετὰ ἀπειλῆς εἶπεν Ποσάκις δὲ δεῖ σοι περὶ τούτων αὐτῶν προστάττειν, ἀθλιώτατε;67

und 5,48f. (als Bezeichnung eines beklagenswerten Zustandes): (49) . . . οἱ Ιουδαῖοι (49) ὑστάτην βίου ῥοπὴν αὐτοῖς ἐκείνην δόξαντες εἶναι τὸ τέλος τῆς ἀθλιωτάτης προσδοκίας εἰς οἶκτον καὶ γόους τραπέντες68.

––––––––––

65 Erst im LSJ-Supplement von 1996 aufgenommen; die Inschrift wurde zuerst publiziert von mK=iÉÖê~åÇ, Inscriptions de Paphlagonie, BCH 21, 1897, 101, no. 22, zuletzt von pK=jáíÅÜÉää, The Ankara District, the Inscriptions of North Galatia, Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor 2, Oxford 1982, Nr. 211 (hiernach zitiert). Siehe auch tK=q~ÄÄÉêJ åÉÉ, Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia. Epigraphic Sources Illustrating the History of Montanism (Patristic Monograph Series 16), Macon, Ga., 1997, 532f. 66 „Aglaomyris hat den ganzen Tempel schmücken des Märtyrers lassen, der den Siegespreis davontrug“ (gemeint ist Theodot von Ankyra, Märtyrer unter Diokletian). 67 „Er [der ägyptische König Ptolemaios IV. Philopator] rief Hermon herbei und sprach unter Drohung: Wie oft muss man dir in eben dieser Hinsicht befehlen, Elendester?“ 68 „ . . . schien ihnen [den Juden] jener letzte Augenblick des Lebens der Endpunkt der elendesten Erwartung zu sein“.

 

The Notion of Anathema in Ancient Jewish Literature Written in Greek h~íÉää=_ÉêíÜÉäçí

Introduction This paper is part of a more extensive study in Jewish literature of the Hellenistic and Roman period that focuses on the history of the Jewish interpretations of the biblical texts recounting the conquest of the Promised Land and the fate of the Canaanites. It is a well-known fact that two main traditions concerning the fate of the Canaanites are found in the Torah. According to most texts outside Deuteronomy, the Canaanites will be expelled or have to be expelled from Canaan; according to the Deuteronomic tradition, they have to be annihilated or “banned”:1 in other words, the ~rx should be inflicted on them. In several cases in the Septuagint, this term and the corresponding verb ~yrxhl are translated by the Greek words ἀνάθεµα (or ἀνάθηµα) and ἀναθεµατίζω. Except for a few pages on the book of Joshua written by Jacqueline Moatti-Fine,2 no thorough study of this translation choice existed until very recently. In 2007 Hyung Dae Park published a monograph entitled Finding Herem? A Study of Luke-Acts in the Light of Herem.3 In this book, Hyung Dae ––––––––––

1 For the expulsion scenario, see for instance Exod 23:20–33; Exod 34:11–16; Num 33:50–55. On the Canaanites in the biblical texts, see M. tÉáåÑÉäÇ, “The Ban on the Canaanites in the Biblical Codes”, in History and Traditions of Early Israel (SVT 50), Leiden: Brill, 1993, 142–160; áÇÉã, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1993; B. J. pÅÜï~êíò, “Reexamining the Fate of the ‘Canaanites’ in the Torah Traditions”, in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume, ed. C. Cohen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004, 151–170. 2 See J. jç~ííáJcáåÉ, “La ‘tâche du traducteur’ de Josué/Jésus”, in Κατὰ τοὺς οʹ, “Selon les Septante”. Hommage à M. Harl, ed. G. Dorival and O. Munnich, Paris: Cerf, 1995, 321– 330 (see in particular 325–329). Her hypothesis is that the translator of Joshua used ἀνάθεµα only in the case of Jericho, because of the religious and even liturgical connotation of the story. One could also consider that Jericho represents the premices of Canaan, and that it justified the use of ἀνάθεµα in the opinion of the translator. However, both arguments are problematic, as we shall see below. 3 H. a~É=m~êâ, Finding Herem? A Study of Luke-Acts in the Light of Herem, London: T&T Clark, 2007.

36

Katell Berthelot

Park examined all the occurrences of herem in the Hebrew Bible and the Qumran manuscripts, but also the way Greek terms translating herem in the Septuagint were used in Jewish literature written in Greek. He tried to determine whether an ideology of herem existed in Second Temple Judaism and in Luke-Acts.4 My perspective in the present article greatly differs from his, since my point of departure is the meaning of the term ἀνάθηµα in Greek literature and inscriptions. My goal is to understand the semantic evolution of the word from its occurrence in Greek literature to its use in the Septuagint and then in Jewish literature written in Greek outside the Septuagint; ultimately I aim at reflecting on the ways Jewish authors who wrote in Greek understood the biblical texts relating to the conquest of Canaan. I shall also add a few words on the use of the term in the New Testament.

1. ἀναθήµατα in the Greek world Let us start with a brief presentation of what ἀναθήµατα consisted of in the Greek world. ἀναθήµατα represented a type of offering (sometimes a votive offering) clearly distinct from sacrifices.5 They were first and foremost objects that were erected or hanged on a monument or in a temple. As Jean Rudhardt puts it: “. . . ἀναθήµατα are ἱερὰ χρήµατα: the very fact of laying down the object in a temple or in a consecrated place makes it ἱερόν”.6 The ––––––––––

4 On the existence of an ideology of herem in Second Temple Judaism, see also C. _~íëÅÜ, La guerre et les rites de guerre dans le judaïsme du deuxième Temple, Leiden: Brill, 2005, in particular 438–443. On the herem in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, see M. dêÉÉåÄÉêÖ, “Herem”, EncJud 8 (1972), 344–350; N. içÜÑáåâ, “Hâram; herem”, TDOT 5 (1986), 180–199; P. D. píÉêå, The Biblical herem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience (Brown Judaic Studies 211), Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991; S. káÇáíÅÜ, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 28–77; C. pÅÜ®ÑÉêJiáÅÜíÉåÄÉêÖÉê, “Bedeutung und Funktion von Herem in biblisch-hebräischen Texten”, BZ 38 (1994), 270–275; R. D. kÉäëçå, “Herem and Deuteronomic Social Conscience”, in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans, ed. J. Lust and M. Vervenne; Leuven: Leuven University Press– Peeters, 1997, 39–54; A. iÉã~áêÉ, “Le herem dans le monde nord-ouest sémitique”, in Guerre et conquête dans le Proche-Orient ancien, ed. L. Nehmé; Paris: J. Maisonneuve, 1999, 79–92; Y. eçÑÑã~åI “The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem”, ZAW 111 (1999), 5 See for example Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1122b. 196–210. 6 Translated from French (my translation): “. . . le rite consiste dans l’acte de prendre un objet, de le poser, de le dresser, de le suspendre sur un monument ou dans un lieu consacré. . . . Les ἀναθήµατα sont des ἱερὰ χρήµατα: la déposition de l’objet dans un temple ou dans un lieu consacré lui confère la qualité de ἱερόν”; in J. oìÇÜ~êÇí, Notions fondamentales de la pensée religieuse et actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grèce classique (2nd ed., Paris: Picard, 1992), 214–215.

The Notion of Anathema in Ancient Jewish Literature Written in Greek

37

decorative function of ἀναθήµατα must also be highlighted.7 It explains the link between ἀναθήµατα and ἀγάλµατα, a term that tends to designate statues, which could therefore be considered a sub-category of ἀναθήµατα.8 As many inscriptions, votive epigrams, and literary sources show, the verb ἀνατίθηµι is often used in connection with ἀναθήµατα.9 Rudhardt defines the act of ἀνατίθηµι in its strictest sense as “to lay down a commemorative object in a temple or on a territory that is ἱερός, the act of laying down being equivalent to a consecration”.10 The verb ἀνατίθηµι even tends to mean “to consecrate” in a more abstract way, independently from the physical gestures performed by the person who brings the offering.11 All kinds of objects may become ἀναθήµατα:12 silver and gold – objects rather than coins, although money may be included too13 –, statues, paintings,14 steles, obelisks, tripods, kraters, vases, cups, bowls,15 pieces of clothing

–––––––––– 7

See for instance Polybius 4.62.2. See Herodotus 1.164; see also Josephus, Ap. 1.199 (a passage attributed to PseudoHecataeus). 9 The verb is often used together with the noun, but not systematically; see for instance SEG 31, 2, side B, lines 2–3 (Athens, before 460 B.C.E.); IG I3 78a, lines 41–42 (Eleusis, ca. 422 B.C.E.?); Herodotus 2.111; Isaeus, Or. 5.41; Plato, Leg. 955e; IG II2 333, line 8 (Athens, 335/334 B.C.E.); IG XI,2 154, lines 53–54 (Delos, 296 B.C.E.) (in this case on line 54 the verb is used instead of the noun, but in the list it is clear that the meaning is the same: the dedicated crown is an ἀνάθηµα); IG V,1 1390, line 88 (Messenia, Andania, 92/91 B.C.E.); Philo, Somn. 1.251. The place of dedication is not necessarily a temple; see for instance Theocritus, Epigr. 13: it seems that the statue of Aphrodite has been consecrated in the house of the couple. See also SEG 47, 1218, the honorary decree of the Athenians for Pausanias of Melite, who was gymnasiarch in Delos (157/156 B.C.E.): in this decree, he is being granted a place in the gymnasium for his anathemata (see J. qê¨ÜÉìñ and P. `Ü~êåÉìñ, “Décret du peuple athénien pour Pausanias de Mélitè, gymnasiarque à Délos”, BCH 121 [1997], 154–173). 10 oìÇÜ~êÇí, Notions fondamentales, 215 (my translation). 11 See oìÇÜ~êÇí, Notions fondamentales de la pensée religieuse, 218 (in French: “Déposer quelque objet commémoratif dans un temple ou sur un territoire ἱερός, un tel acte constituant à lui seul une sorte de consécration”). 12 In epigrams, offerings are often brought by private individuals who are not particularly fortunate. These offerings consist of ordinary objects used in everyday life; see for instance the lamp offered by a lover in Anth. Pal. 6.162. 13 See for instance Herodotus 1.14 (Gyges in Delphi); IG I3 389, side A, line 17–20 (Attica, ca. 408/407 B.C.E.); regarding money, see for instance Lysias, Or. 19.39. 14 See for instance Herodotus 2.182 (Pharaoh Amasis offered a portrait of himself to the Greek temple of Cyrene). On paintings as votive offerings, see M. kçïáÅâ~, “Les portraits votifs peints dans la Grèce antique”, Eos 78 (1990), 133–136. 15 See for instance IG XI,2 161, side B, lines 12–15 (Delos, 278 B.C.E.); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 1.51.1. 8

38

Katell Berthelot

or garments,16 weapons,17 etc. Even a ship after a naval battle18 or a temple constructed and dedicated to a god as a votive offering19 may be called ἀναθήµατα. The latter may also be the first fruits (ἀπαρχαί) of a person’s goods20 but only in a metaphorical or abstract way. Actual first fruits or the animals’ first-born cannot be called ἀναθήµατα. An ἀνάθηµα may have been a tithe levied on spoils (sometimes called ἀκροθίνιον) that was set aside and dedicated to the gods.21 That was common practice in Ancient Greece, as Walter Burkert underlines it, and weapons were quite frequently part of the ἀναθήµατα.22 It is unlikely that all the goods of a conquered city were consecrated as ἀναθήµατα to a god except perhaps in cases of extreme danger. In his Oeconomica (1346a–b), (Ps.-)Aristotle tells an interesting story according to which “Cypselus of Corinth had made a vow that if he became master of the city, he would offer (ἀναθήσειν) to Zeus the entire property of the Corinthians. Accordingly he commanded them to make a return of their possessions; which done, he took from each a tenth part, and told them to employ the remainder in trading. A year later, he repeated the process. And so in ten years’ time it came to pass that Cypselus received the entire amount which he had dedicated; while the Corinthians on their part had replaced all that they had paid him.”23 In some cases, a territory could be dedicated or consecrated to a god, even if in that context words like ἱερόω (or other terms derived from ἱερός) are more likely to have been used.24 In his History of the Peloponnesian War ––––––––––

16 See for instance Herodotus 2.159 (a garment worn by Pharaoh Nekos during a battle); 2.182 (a linen tunic offered by Amasis to Athena). It could also be the veil worn by a woman on the day of her wedding; see Anth. Pal. 6.133. 17 See Anth. Pal. 6.128, where ἄνθεµα (on the form see note 34) is used to designate a shield. Shields were very often dedicated in temples. 18 See Thucydides 2.84.4. The ship was not destroyed, but rather erected on a promontory. 19 See Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 1.53.1. 20 See for instance Isaeus, Or. 5.42. 21 See Herodotus 9.81; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 8.17.6: having taken the city of the Tolerienses, Marcius first set aside the objects that were to be consecrated to the gods as ἀναθήµατα, and then allowed the soldiers to plunder the town. See also A. g~ÅèìÉãáå, “Guerres et offrandes dans les sanctuaires”, Pallas 51 (1999), 141–157. 22 See W. _ìêâÉêí, Greek Religion (transl. J. Raffan), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985, 69–70, 93–94; _ìêâÉêí recalls that a booty consisted “primarily of weapons: all Greek sanctuaries were resplendent with weapons captured in war, especially shields” (69) and that “shields in sanctuaries are already spoken of by Homer” (94). 23 Transl. G. C. Armstrong, LCL, 351. 24 See for instance Thucydides 3.50.2: “(The Athenians) also pulled down the walls of Mytilene and took possession of the Mytilenaean fleet. Afterwards, instead of imposing a tribute upon the Lesbians, they divided all the land except that of the Methymnaeans into three thousand allotments, and reserving three hundred of these as sacred (ἱερούς) to the gods they sent out Athenian colonists, chosen by lot, to occupy the rest.” Transl. C. F. Smith, LCL, 87.

The Notion of Anathema in Ancient Jewish Literature Written in Greek

39

(3.104.2), Thucydides mentions a small island called Rheneia which “is so short a distance from Delos that Polycrates the tyrant of Samos, who for some time was powerful on the sea and not only gained control of the other islands [the Cyclades] but also seized Rheneia, dedicated (ἀνέθηκε) this island to the Delian Apollo, and bound it with a chain to Delos.”25 More striking, in view of a comparison with the Bible, is a passage from Aeschines’ Against Ctesiphon (4th century B.C.E.), in which the author recalls the story of the Cirrhaeans and the Cragalidae, two “most lawless tribes” who committed sacrileges against the Delphic shrine and its votive offerings (its ἀναθήµατα), thus triggering the First Sacred War in Greece. The Amphictyonic League consulted the oracle and the Pythia replied that they had to “fight (πολεµεῖν) against the Cirrhaeans and the Cragalidae day and night, bitterly ravage (ἐκπορθήσαντας) their city, enslave (ἀνδραποδισαµένους) the inhabitants, and dedicate (ἀναθεῖναι) the land to the Pythian Apollo and Artemis and Leto and Athena Pronaea, that for the future it lie entirely uncultivated; they must not till this land themselves nor permit another”. As a consequence, the members of the Amphictyonic League went to war, “they enslaved the men, destroyed their harbor and city, and dedicated their land, as the oracle had commanded (ἐξηνδραποδίσαντο τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ τὸν λιµένα καὶ τὴν πόλιν αὐτῶν κατέσκαψαν καὶ τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν καθιέρωσαν κατὰ τὴν µαντείαν)”.26 In the second passage καθιερόω replaces the verb ἀνατίθηµι. To protect the consecrated land, the Amphictyons also swore an oath “that they would not themselves till the sacred land nor let another till it, but that they would go to the aid of the god and the sacred land with hand and foot and voice, and all their might”, and finally they added an imprecation and a curse.27 The consecrated land itself is not called ἀνάθηµα, but this passage shows that the idea to dedicate a land to a god and forbid its use to human beings was not foreign to the Greek world. The question remains about human beings: were they ever dedicated to a god, thus becoming ἀνάθηµα? Could ἀνατίθηµι be used in connection with a human being? Although ἀνάθηµα rarely referred to individuals, such meaning nonetheless existed. In Euripides’ play Ion, for example, the young hero, who is actually Apollo’s son, is dedicated to the service of the god in the temple. When his mother Creusa (unaware that he is in fact her son) meets him, she –––––––––– 25

ἀπέχει δὲ ἡ Ῥήνεια τῆς ∆ήλου οὕτως ὀλίγον ὥστε Πολυκράτης ὁ Σαµίων τύραννος ἰσχύσας τινὰ χρόνον ναυτικῷ καὶ τῶν τε ἄλλων νήσων ἄρξας καὶ τὴν Ῥήνειαν ἑλὼν ἀνέθηκε τῷ ᾿Απόλλωνι τῷ ∆ηλίῳ ἁλύσει δήσας πρὸς τὴν ∆ῆλον. Transl. C. F. Smith, LCL, 181–183. 26 Aeschines, Ctes. 107–109; transl. C. D. Adams, LCL, 393. 27 Note that even when an imprecation and a curse were uttered at the time a piece of land was dedicated to the gods, the latter was not accursed. The person who cultivated that land, though, would be accursed. Thus ἀνάθεµα and the terms related to it are used differently in Aeschines’ text and in Christian literature, in which the term ἀνάθεµα frequently designates the cursed thing itself, or the cursed person.

40

Katell Berthelot

asks: “Were you offered to the god by your city or sold to him by some man?” (ἀνάθηµα πόλεως ἤ τινος πραθεὶς ὕπο;) (v. 310).28 Inscriptions confirm the practice of consecrating a person to a sanctuary: the person (often a slave freed by his/her former master) would dedicate him/herself to the service of the god worshipped in that sanctuary. In some inscriptions the terms ἀνάθηµα or ἀνατίθηµι were used.29 To sum up, ἀναθήµατα consisted of objects, territories or even individuals that were irrevocably dedicated to one or several god(s), without the donor’s ever being able to retrieve the consecrated item. The ἀναθήµατα, though, were never destroyed;30 on the contrary, they were carefully preserved within the holy place they generally adorned.31 In some cases, the names of the donors were even written down in records that were kept in the sanctuary.32 Similarly, as the passage from Aeschines’ Against Ctesiphon shows, a dedicated place was guarded in order to prevent people from using it to their own advantage. Finally, nowhere in Greek literature or documents is it implied that individuals who became ἀνάθηµα were put to death, as it is the case in the Septuagint.

2. The Biblical Notion of ἀνάθεµα It must be stated right from the start that the difference in spelling (ἀνάθεµα instead of ἀνάθηµα) that characterizes most occurrences of the term in the Septuagint is irrelevant, since the spelling ἀνάθεµα is frequently found in in–––––––––– 28

Transl. D. Kovacs, LCL, 355. See L. a~êãÉòáå, Les affranchissements par consécration en Béotie et dans le monde grec hellénistique (Études anciennes 22), Nancy: A.D.R.A. / Paris: de Boccard, 1999, in particular no. 194, p. 157–158. 30 Destroying ἀναθήµατα kept in sanctuaries is considered a sacrilegious act that transgresses the laws of war. See for instance Polybius 5.9.1–3. 31 See oìÇÜ~êÇí, Notions fondamentales, 218: “Quelle que soit la liberté avec laquelle il est employé dans son sens le plus élargi, ἀνατιθέναι ne signifie jamais un rite qui aboutisse à la destruction de l’objet consacré ; les gestes qu’il désigne en assurent au contraire la mise en réserve et la conservation.” For sure, ἀνατίθηµι is sometimes used together with the word “first-fruits” (ἀπαρχαί), which a priori refers to a consecration implying destruction; but then the term “first-fruits” is used figuratively. See Isaeus, Or. 5.42: “Furthermore, by dedicating on the Acropolis the first-fruits of their wealth, they have adorned the shrine with bronze and marble statues, numerous, indeed, to have been provided out of a private fortune (ἔτι δ᾽ ἐν ἀκροπόλει ἀπαρχὰς τῶν ὄντων ἀναθέντες πολλοῖς, ὡς ἀπὸ ἰδίας κτήσεως, ἀγάλµασι χαλκοῖς καὶ λιθίνοις κεκοσµήκασι τὸ ἱερόν)” (transl. E. S. Forster, LCL, 191). See also Herodotus 1.92. 32 See for instance IG VII 303, lines 39–48 (Oropos [Skala], late 3rd cent. B.C.E., a decree concerning the repair and recasting of dedicated metal objects in the sanctuary of Amphiaraos). 29

The Notion of Anathema in Ancient Jewish Literature Written in Greek

41

scriptions33 and may also be found in Greek literary texts from the 3rd century B.C.E. onwards (especially in Alexandrian poetical writings).34 The dominant spelling ἀνάθεµα in the Septuagint may actually reflect contemporary uses in Alexandrian literary milieux. Moreover, in the Septuagint one still finds the word spelled ἀνάθηµα twice in connection with something deemed abominable (in Deut 7:26), that is, according to one of the specific meanings invented by the translators (as we shall see below). Thus, no connection should be established between the spelling and the semantic evolution of the word. They will be connected only later, from the 2nd century C.E. onwards, in the works of lexicographers.35 As far as the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is concerned, the only term translated by ἀνάθεµα/ἀνάθηµα is the word herem or the name Horma that derives from it (in Num 21:3). The same is true of the neologism ἀναθεµατίζω (12 occurrences, plus one in 1 Maccabees), which always translates the root ~rx; as for ἀνατίθηµι, it translates either ~yrxhl (3 times), gychl (once), or ~yfl (once).36 Conversely, ~rx and ~yrxhl are not necessarily translated by ἀνάθεµα, ἀναθεµατίζω or ἀνατίθηµι. As a matter of fact, in the Septuagint ~rx and ~yrxhl are translated by other Greek terms, such as ἀφορίζω (to separate, to put apart),37 ἀφανίζω (to annihilate, to wipe out),38 φονεύω (to kill),39 ἀποκτείνω (to kill),40 ἀπόλλυµι (to make perish),41 πατάσσω ––––––––––

33 There are hundreds of cases. See for instance IG I3 389 (ca. 408/407 B.C.E.); CID 4, 23, line 8 (Delphi, 273/272 B.C.E. or 272/271 B.C.E.); ID 313, line 76 (Delos, 235–234 B.C.E.?); SIG 523 (ca. 220 B.C.E.); IG V,2 293 (Mantinea, 193/192 B.C.E.); SEG 33, 1039 and 1040 (2nd cent. B.C.E.); SEG 45, 1508 (2nd or 1st cent. B.C.E.); IG V,1 1390, line 88 (Andania, 92/91 B.C.E.). 34 Often written ἄνθεµα: Callimachus, Epigr. 5; Theocritus, Epigr. 13; see also the votive epigrams Anth. Pal. 6.47, 48, 68, 128, 162, etc., which are more difficult to date. 35 See the work of Ptolemy the Grammarian, De differentia vocabulorum, α 27 (V. m~äJ ãáÉêá, “Ptolemaeus, De differentia vocabulorum”, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Napoli 24 [1981–1982], 191–225). See also Herennius Philo (Philo of Byblus), De diversis verborum significationibus, α 6: ἀνάθηµα ἀναθέµατος διαφέρει. ἀνάθηµα µὲν γάρ ἐστιν, τὸ διὰ τοῦ η γραφόµενον, τὸ ἀνιερούµενόν τε καὶ ἀνατιθέµενον ἱερῷ τινι τόπῳ· ἀνάθεµα δέ, διὰ τοῦ ε ἐκφερόµενον, τὸ ὕβρεως ἐχόµενον καὶ ἀναθεµατισµοῦ (see Philo Byblius, De diversis verborum significationibus, text, introduction and commentary by V. m~äãáÉêá [Speculum: Contributi di filologia classica 8], Naples: D’Auria, 1988). Philo’s work is said to have been transmitted in an abbreviated form by Ammonius of Alexandria in the 4th century C.E., but the exact date and nature of this version are debated. Conversely, for the Suda (α 1869), ἀνάθεµα refers to “both that which is dedicated to the god and that which is to be for destruction; it means both things. That which is dedicated to the god is also said as ἀνάθηµα. Also ἀναθεµατίζω, with the accusative.” 36 See for ~yrxhl: Lev 27:28–29; Mic 4:13; for ~yfl: 1 Kgdms 31:10 (= 1 Sam 31:10 MT); for gychl: 2 Kgdms 6:17 (= 2 Sam 6:17 MT). 37 Lev 27:21; Ezra 44:29. 38 Deut 7:2. 39 Josh 10:35.

42

Katell Berthelot

(to strike),42 ὀλεθρεύω43 and above all ἐξολεθρεύω44 (two neologisms meaning “to destroy” or “utterly destroy”), etc.45 One cannot exclude that the translators had a different Hebrew Vorlage than the MT,46 but the great number of passages in which ~rx/~yrxhl were not translated by ἀνάθεµα/ἀναθεµατίζω suggests that in several cases, the translators understood herem in a way that led them to prefer using another Greek term rather than ἀνάθεµα. In order to better review the translators’ choices, let me briefly recall what the biblical herem consists of.47 Moshe Greenberg defines ~rx as “the status of that which is separated from common use or contact either because it is proscribed as an abomination to God or because it is consecrated to Him”.48 This definition may be further refined as herem is used in four different situations: 1) A consecration that does not necessarily imply destruction, as in Lev 27:21 (a field dedicated to God, that no one is supposed to cultivate); Num 18:14 (“every herem in Israel”, all the dedicated things, will belong to the priests); or Mic 4:13 (the booty of the nations will be dedicated to God).49 –––––––––– 40

1 Kgdms 15:8; Dan 11:44. Isa 34:2, 5; 37:11; 43:28. 42 Mal 3:23. 43 Exod 22:19. 44 Deut 2:34; 3:6; Josh 2:10; 10:1; 11:11; 1 Kgdms 15:9; 2 Chr 20:23; 32:14, etc. 45 For an exhaustive list of the terms used and the number of occurrences for each, see H. a~É=m~êâ, Finding Herem?, 56. 46 Emanuel Tov showed that in the case of Joshua, the translation of the Septuagint was based on a different Hebrew Vorlage and that some additions contained in the Massoretic text were influenced by the book of Deuteronomy; see E. qçî, “The Growth of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Evidence of the LXX Translation”, ScrHier 31 (1986), 321–339 (335 in particular). qçî also writes: “The data adduced so far lead to the view that the MT and LXX do not reflect textual differences, but rather two different editions of the book. . . . the edition of MT expanded an earlier edition very similar to the Vorlage of the LXX” (337– 338). For John Strange, the Deuteronomist strand of Joshua dates from the Hasmonean period; see J. píê~åÖÉ “The Book of Joshua – Origin and Dating”, SJOT 16 (2002), 44–51. 47 On herem as a quality attributed to something or someone, see the conclusions drawn by C. H. W. _êÉâÉäã~åë in De herem in het Oude Testament, Nijmegen: Centrale Drukkerij, 1959; the results of this PhD research were published in two articles, “Le herem chez les prophètes du royaume du Nord et dans le Deutéronome”, in Sacra Pagina. Miscellanea Biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de Re Biblica, vol. I (= BETL 12), Gembloux 1959, 377–383, and the article “~rx” in THAT 1 (1971), 635–639. For N. içÜÑáåâ, on the contrary, herem should be understood as a concrete noun or a noun expressing an action; see “Hâram; herem”, 185–186. 48 M. dêÉÉåÄÉêÖ, “Herem”, 344. 49 In this case, the reference to the destruction of the nations and to the consecration of the booty suggests that the booty itself is not destroyed but rather consecrated in a “classic” way, that is, given to the priests and to the sanctuary. The passage in 2 Esdr [Ezra] 10:8, which speaks of an Israelite who does not come to the gathering within three days, whose goods 41

The Notion of Anathema in Ancient Jewish Literature Written in Greek

43

2) A consecration implying destruction, as in Lev 27:29: “No one devoted, who is to be utterly destroyed from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death.”50 The idea that something dedicated to God should be destroyed in order not to be taken back for a profane usage51 simultaneously recalls the Greek notion of ἀνάθηµα (since it implies a final consecration) and differs from it (since ἀνάθηµα never implies destruction). Many biblical passages dealing with the conquest of the Land, such as the fall of Jericho or the episode with Achan, could belong to this category, but the fact that they concern the Canaanites leaves the door open to the possibility that such passages implicitly belong to the third category.52 3) The third meaning of herem corresponds to something or someone abominable that must be destroyed, usually because of idolatrous practices. This is the case for instance in Exod 22:19 when an Israelite brings sacrifices to other gods; in Deut 7:26 in connection with the cultic objects of the Canaanites – an abomination; in Deut 13:16–18 as a punishment against Israelites who commit idolatry; or in Deut 20:17 against the Canaanites. In these cases the herem is in no way considered an offering to God. Transgressors who are put to the ban such as the people from Jabesh-Gilead in Judg 21:11 fit into that category. 4) Finally, the terms ~rx and ~yrxhl may refer to an act of destruction in general, with no particular connection to idolatry (for instance in Zech 14:11 or in Dan 11:44; Isa 11:15 or Jer 25:9 could also be mentioned).53 It is important to understand that herem is not a type of sacrifice.54 In view of these meanings of herem, how are we to understand the choices made by the translators? As a matter of fact, the words ἀνάθεµα and ἀναθεµατίζω are used to translate the four categories of herem I have just listed.55 Obviously, ἀνάθεµα best translates herem when the term is used in connection to situations of the first aforementioned category: things dedicated to God that are not destroyed. The fact that these things are forbidden to human use once –––––––––– will be put to the ban (ἀναθεµατισθήσεται πᾶσα ἡ ὕπαρξις αὐτοῦ), and who will be excluded from the assembly is unclear: is his property simply dedicated to God or is it destroyed? 50 MT: tm'Wy tAm hd qlem'[]-ta, ht'yKihiw> %le hT'[; `rAmx]-d[;w> lm'G"mi hf,-d[;w> rAVmi qnEAy-d[;w> lle[ome hV'ai-d[; vyaime hT'm;hew> 64

The verbal form ~T,m.r:x]h;w> (probably in the singular) has been confused with a proper noun, rendered as “Ierim”.

46

Katell Berthelot

belongs to him; do not spare anyone, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”65 Finally, the use of ἀνάθεµα or ἀναθεµατίζω in Zech 14:11 and Dan 11:44 (Theodotion) – two passages where these words mean “massacre” without any particular connection to a ritual act or the conquest of Canaan – confirms the fact that in the Septuagint, ἀνάθεµα has to a great extent freed itself from its Greek meaning and has become a semantic neologism or a semantic Hebraism, that is, a Greek term with a meaning that so far existed only in its Hebrew counterpart.66

3. ἀναθήµατα in Jewish literature written in Greek If one leaves aside the case of 1 Maccabees, a book which was originally written in Hebrew and which contains one occurrence of ἀναθεµατίζω (in 1 Macc 5:5, probably with the sense “to massacre”),67 one quickly reaches the conclusion that the Jewish authors who wrote in Greek did not adopt the neologisms invented by the authors of the Septuagint. The verb ἀναθεµατίζω cannot be found in their writings, and neither is ἀνάθεµα/ἀνάθηµα in the sense of herem, that is, in connection with something abominable or with destruction. The words ἀνάθηµα and ἀνατίθηµι appear in several passages with their classic Greek meaning. Thus, many texts refer to offerings deposited in the Jerusalem temple or in other temples as ἀναθήµατα. These texts include 2 Macc 2:13 (letters about the offerings of the kings); 5:16 (items that kings dedicated to the Jerusalem temple); 9:16 (Antiochus promises gifts to the Jerusalem temple if his life is saved); 3 Macc 3:17 (the king claims that he wanted to adorn the Jerusalem temple with ἀναθήµατα); Ep. Arist. 40 (Ptolemy’s emissaries bring offerings to the Jerusalem temple); Philo, Det. ––––––––––

65 See also Judg 1:17: καὶ ἐπορεύθη Ιουδας µετὰ Συµεων τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπάταξαν τὸν Χαναναῖον τὸν κατοικοῦντα Σεφεθ καὶ ἀνεθεµάτισαν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐξωλέθρευσαν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐκάλεσαν τὸ ὄνοµα τῆς πόλεως Ἐξολέθρευσις. 66 On the expression “semantic Hebraism”, see G. açêáî~ä, “‘Dire en grec les choses juives’. Quelques choix lexicaux du Pentateuque de la Septante”, REG 109 (1996), 527–547 (531), and M. e~êä, G. açêáî~ä and O. jìååáÅÜ, La Bible grecque des Septante. Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien, 2nd ed., Paris: Cerf, 1994, 241–253. As to the verb ἀναθεµατίζω, it is a complete neologism. See G. açêáî~ä, Les Nombres (La Bible d’Alexandrie 4), Paris: Cerf, 1994, 172–173. 67 The translator also used the LXX neologisms ὀλεθρεύω (1 Μacc 2:40) and ἐξολεθρεύω (1 Macc 3:8; 7:7), as well as other verbs used in the Septuagint like ἀφανίζω (9:73). All these verbs could theoretically translate ~yrxhl. In 1 Macc 3:8 and 9:73, two passages that speak about destroying the impious in the people of Israel, Deuteronomy 13 may indeed stand in the background. However, 1 Macc 2:40 refers to the killing of Jews by Gentiles, and in the case of 1 Macc 7:7, which refers to the damage inflicted by Judas Maccabee upon his enemies, the sentence is put into the mouth of non-Jews.

The Notion of Anathema in Ancient Jewish Literature Written in Greek

47

20; Plant. 126; Legat. 151 (offerings in the Sebasteion in Alexandria), 157 (Augustus’ offerings to the Jerusalem temple), 297 (Agrippa’s offerings to the Jerusalem temple), 319 (Julia Augusta’s offerings to the Jerusalem temple), Hypoth. 8.7.3 (offerings in temples, which must be left untouched), Josephus, Ant. 7.367; 12.35 (which parallels Ep. Arist. 40); 13.78; Bell. 2.413 (which states that the Jerusalem temple was decorated mainly by the ἀναθήµατα of the Gentiles), etc.68 The words ἀνάθηµα and ἀνατίθηµι are also found in texts written in Greek by Jewish authors as a designation for an offering taken out of war plunder, a classic meaning of the term in the Greek world. In the Book of Judith (16:19), Judith dedicates to God the canopy she took in Holofernes’ tent, a canopy adorned with precious stones.69 Similarly, Josephus writes that David dedicated (ἀνέθηκε) Goliath’s sword to God (Ant. 6.192) or that the Philistines dedicated Saul’s weapons in the temple of Ashtarot (τὰς µὲν πανοπλίας αὐτῶν ἀνέθηκαν εἰς τὸ ᾿Αστάρτειον ἱερόν) in Beth-Shean (Ant. 6.374, following 1 Kgdms [1 Sam] 31:10, in which ἀνέθηκαν is used).70 In Jewish texts directly written in Greek – especially in Philo’s works – one also finds a metaphorical use of the term ἀνάθηµα, as in Greek literature. In Philo’s De somniis 1.243, “the whole heaven and the whole world is an offering (ἀνάθηµα) dedicated to God, and He it is who has created the offering.”71 Wise human beings are invited to dedicate their intelligence to God, ἀνάθηµα ἀνατιθέντα τὸ συνετὸν καὶ τὸ φρόνιµον (Mut. 220).72 Because it is a priestly people, Israel as a whole is an ἀνάθηµα, an offering dedicated to God: τὸ γὰρ θεραπευτικὸν γένος ἀνάθηµά ἐστι θεοῦ (Fug. 42). In such contexts, –––––––––– 68

See also Luke 21:5 (about the ἀναθήµατα decorating the Jerusalem temple), which corresponds to this classic use of the term in Jewish Hellenistic literature. 69 Jdt 16:19: καὶ ἀνέθηκεν Ιουδιθ πάντα τὰ σκεύη Ολοφέρνου ὅσα ἔδωκεν ὁ λαὸς αὐτῇ καὶ τὸ κωνώπιον ὃ ἔλαβεν ἑαυτῇ ἐκ τοῦ κοιτῶνος αὐτοῦ εἰς ἀνάθηµα τῷ θεῷ ἔδωκεν. The worth of the canopy can be understood when one refers back to 10:21: “Now Holofernes rested upon his bed under a canopy, which was woven with purple, and gold, and emeralds, and precious stones.” According to 13:9, the canopy is the only thing Judith takes away with her after having cut off Holofernes’ head. The canopy may be considered the premices of the booty. In any case, its dedication to God after the victory is completely in keeping with Greek cultural practices. 70 See also Ant. 7.104–105: David dedicates to God (ἀνέθηκε τῷ θεῷ) the arrow quivers and the armors of Hadad’s bodyguards; Ant. 7.108–109: David dedicates to God (ἀνατίθησι τῷ θεῷ) the treasures received from Toi, the king of Hama, as well as the gold and silver taken from the conquered cities in Syria; Ant. 8.259. 71 Transl. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, LCL, 425. 72 ἐδίδαξε δὲ Μωυσῆς κατὰ δύναµιν τῶν χειρῶν τὰς εὐχαρίστους ὁµολογίας ποιεῖσθαι, τὸν ἀγχίνουν ἀνάθηµα ἀνατιθέντα τὸ συνετὸν καὶ τὸ φρόνιµον, τὸν λόγιον τὰς ἐν λόγῳ πάσας ἀρετὰς ἀνιεροῦντα διά τε ᾠδῆς καὶ τῶν καταλογάδην τοῦ ὄντος ἐγκωµίων, καὶ κατ᾿ εἶδος τὸν φυσικὸν φυσιολογίαν, τὸν ἠθικὸν πᾶσαν τὴν ἠθικὴν φιλοσοφίαν, τὸν τεχνικὸν καὶ ἐπιστήµονα τὰ θεωρήµατα τῶν τεχνῶν καὶ ἐπιστηµῶν.

48

Katell Berthelot

ἀνατίθηµι is often synonymous with ἀνιερόω, to consecrate, as in Greek literature. Interestingly, the meaning of ἀνάθηµα in a passage like Fug. 42 is precisely the opposite of the one found in the Septuagint: far from implying the destruction of the people because of their abominable deeds, it points to their holiness. In the same vein, in Decal. 133, Philo writes that man represents the most sacred of God’s possessions and the holiest offering (ἀνάθηµα), and he explains that killing human beings is forbidden for this very reason: murder is a sacrilege! This meaning of ἀνάθηµα is a far cry from its designating something or someone abominable that must be destroyed. However, two exceptions are worth mentioning. First, when Philo re-writes the biblical account of the Israelites’ encounter with the king of Arad (Num 21:2–3), he follows the biblical text in calling the destroyed place “Anathema” (Vit. Mos. 1.253) although in that case Anathema is a proper noun. In the rest of the passage of De vita Mosis (§§ 252–254 and 259), Philo does not use ἀνάθεµα or ἀναθεµατίζω (contrary to the LXX). Rather, he speaks metaphorically of the offering of first fruits, both in § 252 (τῆς χώρας ἀπαρχὰς ἀναθήσειν τῷ θεῷ) and in § 254 (ἀνέθηκεν ἀπαρχήν . . . ἀπάρξασθαι), and he mentions the consecration (ἀνιερόω) of the cities along with their inhabitants (§ 253).73 In § 253, Philo uses the same kind of vocabulary as Aeschines does ––––––––––

73 Vit. Mos. 1.252–254: Καὶ ἅµα διὰ τούτων προτρέποντες αὑτοὺς ηὔξαντο τῆς χώρας ἀπαρχὰς ἀναθήσειν τῷ θεῷ τὰς πόλεις τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τοὺς ἐν ἑκάστῃ πολίτας· ὁ δ᾿ ἐπινεύει ταῖς εὐχαῖς καὶ θάρσος ἐµπνεύσας τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τὴν ἀντίπαλον στρατιὰν ἁλῶναι παρεσκεύασεν. Οἱ δ᾿ ἀνὰ κράτος ἑλόντες τὰς χαριστηρίους ὁµολογίας ἐπετέλουν, οὐδὲν ἐκ τῆς λείας νοσφισάµενοι, τὰς δὲ πόλεις αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσι καὶ κειµηλίοις ἀνιερώσαντες, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ συµβεβηκότος ὅλην τὴν βασιλείαν ὠνόµασαν “ἀνάθεµα”. Kαθάπερ γὰρ εἷς ἕκαστος τῶν εὐσεβούντων ἀπὸ τῶν ἐτησίων ἀπάρχεται καρπῶν, οὓς ἂν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων συγκοµίζῃ κτηµάτων, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ὅλον τὸ ἔθνος µεγάλης χώρας, εἰς ἣν µετανίστατο, µέγα τµῆµα, τὴν εὐθὺς αἱρεθεῖσαν βασιλείαν, ἀνέθηκεν ἀπαρχήν τινα τῆς ἀποικίας· οὐ γὰρ ἐνόµιζεν ὅσιον εἶναι διανείµασθαι γῆν ἢ πόλεις κατοικῆσαι, πρὶν καὶ τῆς χώρας καὶ τῶν πόλεων ἀπάρξασθαι: “252. While they thus exhorted each other, they vowed to devote to God the cities of the king and the citizens in each as first fruits of the land, and God, assenting to their prayers, and inspiring courage into the Hebrews, caused the army of the enemy to fall into their hands. 253. Having thus captured them by the might of their assault, in fulfillment of their vows of thank-offering, they took none of the spoil for themselves, but dedicated the cities, men and treasures alike, and marked the fact by naming the whole kingdom ‘Devoted.’ 254. For, just as every pious person gives first fruits of the year’s produce, whatever he reaps from his own possession, so too the whole nation set apart the kingdom which they took at the outset, and thus gave a great slice of the great country into which they were migrating as the first fruits of their settlement. For they judged it irreligious to distribute the land or the cities (in order) to inhabit (them) until they had made a first fruit offering of the land and the cities” (transl. F. H. Colson, LCL, 407–409, slightly modified). oìÇÜ~êÇí notes that “deux scholiastes posent l’équivalence ἀνατιθέναι – ἀνιεροῦν, affirmant . . . que le rite énoncé consacre l’ἀνάθηµα, ou plus exactement le rend ἱερός” (Notions fondamentales, 223). In this respect, Philo’s use of ἀνιερόω in connection with something that the LXX called ἀνάθεµα is per-

The Notion of Anathema in Ancient Jewish Literature Written in Greek

49

in his Against Ctesiphon (καθιερόω). Consecrating towns basically consisted in leaving the places desolate and unexploited by human hands in accordance with the biblical narrative – since the children of Israel had not settled in the Negev at that stage. It is more difficult to make sense of the dedication of the people. On the other hand, the notion of first fruits is linked to the idea of destruction, in this case the destruction of towns and people, a point which Philo tackles at best only indirectly, as well as ambiguously.74 In the end, Philo insists on the fact that “[the Hebrews] took none of the spoil for themselves”, and his main emphasis in this text is ultimately on the piety of Israel, not on the fate of the Canaanites (see also § 259).75 Second, an occurrence of the term ἀνατίθηµι used with a connotation of destruction can be found in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities 6.133 (in which he retells the story of the herem against the Amalekites described in 1 Samuel 15:1–9). In that passage, Josephus rephrases the divine commandment to eradicate the Amalekites in the following terms: “you shall deal death to all of every age, beginning with the women and infants, and in this way take vengeance for what they did to your forefathers; you are to spare neither beasts of burden nor any cattle at all for private profit or possession, but to devote all to –––––––––– fectly understandable. However, as stated from the outset, Philo himself does not use the term ἀνάθεµα (except as a proper noun). 74 As oìÇÜ~êÇí writes, “l’étude des ἀναθήµατα et des ἀπαρχαί nous a fait distinguer deux types de rites dont les effets sont opposés : les uns revêtent un objet durable d’une qualité religieuse en considération de laquelle il mérite la protection, les autres aboutissent – dans une opération dont nous ne connaissons pas encore tous les termes – à la destruction d’un produit d’origine animale ou végétale. La consécration énoncée par le verbe καθιεροῦν appartient au premier type.” By using the term ἀπαρχή in §§ 252 and 254 and the verb ἀπάρχοµαι in § 254, Philo implicitly points to the fact that according to Num 21, the towns and their inhabitants were actually destroyed and the people killed. When he uses ἀνιερόω, on the other hand, he suggests a consecration without a destruction, which only implies that the consecrated object would not be used for profane purposes. One struggles to make sense of the idea that the populations mentioned were “consecrated”, however, as if they had all become servants of God in a sanctuary (which, for the Hebrews, did not exist yet). Philo’s rephrasing of Num 21:1–3 in De vita Mosis where he avoids referring explicitly to the killing of the inhabitants yields a text that remains obscure in many ways. 75 On Philo, the conquest of Canaan and the fate of the Canaanites, see K. _ÉêíÜÉäçí, “ ‘Ils jettent au feu leurs fils et leurs filles pour leurs dieux’ : une justification humaniste du massacre des Cananéens dans les textes juifs anciens ?”, RB 112 (2005), 161–191; É~ÇÉã, “Philo and the Conquest of Canaan”, JSJ 381 (2007), 39–56. See in particular Spec. leg. 2.170 and the account in the Hypothetica, two texts which refer to the conquest and went unnoticed by L. H. cÉäÇã~å in his article “The Command, According to Philo, PseudoPhilo, and Josephus, to Annihilate the Seven Nations of Canaan”, AUSS 41 (2003), 13–29, in which he concludes that Philo never refers to the commandment to eradicate the Canaanites (this article is to be distinguished from another article by cÉäÇã~å, “Philo’s Interpretation of Joshua”, JSP 12 [2001], 165–178, in which the issue of the conquest is practically not addressed). cÉäÇã~å does not refer to Vit. Mos. 1.252–254 either.

50

Katell Berthelot

God (ἅπαντα δ᾿ ἀναθεῖναι τῷ θεῷ) and, in compliance with the commandments of Moses, to blot out the name of Amalek.”76 Surprisingly, in his paraphrase of the book of Joshua – in which the wars against the Canaanites are described in terms that are far from mild or ambiguous –,77 Josephus never uses the terms ἀνάθεµα, ἀνατίθηµι or ἀναθεµατίζω.78 One must conclude that the use of ἀνατίθηµι in connection with the herem against the Amalekites remains an exception in Josephus’ writings, maybe to be explained by the fact that he was following a model similar to the Septuagint and did not rephrase his model as carefully as he did elsewhere. Finally, it must be briefly stated that in Jewish literature written in Greek, one does not encounter the meaning of ἀνάθεµα as “imprecation”, “curse”,79 or “excommunication” that will become frequent in Christian literature and inscriptions.80 The meaning “to curse” for ἀναθεµατίζω can already be found in Mark 14:71 (and in the parallel passage in Matt 26:74, where καταθεµατίζω is used), in connection with Jesus’ arrest, when Peter swears with imprecations that he does not know Jesus.81 Similarly, in the Book of Acts (23:12, 14, 21),82 some Jews swear with imprecations not to eat or drink before they manage to

––––––––––

76 ἀλλὰ πάσης διεξελθεῖν ἡλικίας ἀρξαµένους ἀπὸ γυναικῶν κτείνειν καὶ νηπίων καὶ τοιαύτην ὑπὲρ ὧν τοὺς προγόνους ὑµῶν εἰργάσαντο τιµωρίαν ἀπολαβεῖν φείσασθαι δὲ µήτε ὑποζυγίων µήτε τῶν ἄλλων βοσκηµάτων εἰς ὠφέλειαν καὶ κτῆσιν ἰδίαν ἅπαντα δ’ ἀναθεῖναι τῷ θεῷ καὶ τὸ ᾿Αµαλήκου ὄνοµα ταῖς Μωυσέος κατακολουθήσαντ’ ἐντολαῖς ἐξαλεῖψαι. Transl. H. St. J. Thackeray and R. Marcus, LCL, 393. 77 As far as Jericho is concerned, see Ant. 5.25, 28: κτείνω; 5.26: διαφθείρω; 5.29, 32: ἀπόλλυµι. In 5.32 one also finds καθιερόω, in a way comparable to Philo’s account in Vit. Mos. 1.253. 78 Josephus does not even use the terms ἀνάθεµα and ἀναθεµατίζω in connection with the fall of Jericho or the story of Achan. In the case of Ai, the LXX itself does not use ἀνάθεµα in that context, contrary to the MT which uses the term ~rx in Josh 8:26 and 10:1. However, Josephus goes a step further insofar as according to his Antiquities, there is no ban at all: the population is enslaved and the spoils are taken by the children of Israel (Ant. 5.45–48). 79 In the 5th volume of the Bible d’Alexandrie (Deutéronome, Paris: Cerf, 1992, 167–168), in connection with Deut 7:26, C. açÖåáÉò and M. e~êä refer to a use of ἀνατίθηµι in a tablet containing a curse, which dates back to the 2nd century B.C.E. (C. jáÅÜÉä, Recueil d’inscriptions grecques, Brussells: H. Lamertin, 1900, p. 880, no. 1327). The verb ἀνατίθηµι, however, cannot be read on the inscription; it is reconstructed in a lacuna. 80 As far as the New Testament is concerned, see J. _ÉÜã, “ἀνατίθηµι κτλ.”, TDNT 1 (1964), 353–356. 81 Mark 14:71: ὁ δὲ ἤρξατο ἀναθεµατίζειν καὶ ὀµνύναι ὅτι οὐκ οἶδα τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦτον ὃν λέγετε. On this passage, see for instance C. cçÅ~åí, L’évangile selon Marc, Paris: Cerf, 2004, 560–561. 82 Acts 23:12: Γενοµένης δὲ ἡµέρας ποιήσαντες συστροφὴν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀνεθεµάτισαν ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντες µήτε φαγεῖν µήτε πιεῖν ἕως οὗ ἀποκτείνωσιν τὸν Παῦλον.

The Notion of Anathema in Ancient Jewish Literature Written in Greek

51

kill Paul. In the Epistle to the Romans (9:3),83 Paul wishes he would be ἀνάθεµα for the sake of the children of Israel, apparently in the sense of being separated from Christ and cursed – but does Paul mean “in place of Israel”?84 In the First Epistle to the Corinthians 12:3, it is written that a person who speaks through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit cannot say “Jesus is anathema”.85 In this context the word has often been translated as “cursed”. However, it is sounder to suppose that ἀνάθεµα here means someone who is doomed to destruction because he leads Israel into idolatry, as in Deuteronomy 13.86 This is congruent with the Jewish perception of Jesus in rabbinic literature as reflected in the Toledot Yeshu. At the end of 1 Corinthians, Paul affirms: “If someone does not love the Lord, let him be anathema” (1 Cor 16:22), probably with the meaning “cursed” and “doomed to destruction”, and with the underlying connotation of something/someone being rejected by God.87 A similar use of the term is found in Galatians 1:8–9, where Paul declares that someone who preaches another gospel than the one he is preaching is considered anathema.88 All in all, the uses of ἀνάθεµα/ἀναθεµατίζω in the New Testament, which are very much connected with the idea of destruction or at least with a threat of destruction or doom, show much more continuity with the Septuagint than Jewish literature written in Greek does, even if in the New Testament, the meaning of these words itself further evolves.

––––––––––

83 Rom 9:3: ηὐχόµην γὰρ ἀνάθεµα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν µου τῶν συγγενῶν µου κατὰ σάρκα . . . . 84 On this passage, see for instance F. J. j~íÉê~, Romans (Paideia), Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010, 220, who recalls the similarity between Paul’s saying and Moses’ reaction in Exod 32:31–32, after the incident of the golden calf. Moses challenges God to forgive the sin of Israel or to blot his name out of the Torah, whereas Paul wishes he could sacrifice himself in order to save Israel. This comparison between Paul and Moses is also found in D. L. _~êíJ äÉíí, Romans (Westminster Bible Companion), Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995, 85–86, who seems to suggest that for Paul, Israel has gone astray as their ancestors did in the desert during the episode of the golden calf. 85 1 Cor 12:3: διὸ γνωρίζω ὑµῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύµατι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει· ᾿Ανάθεµα Ἰησοῦς, καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν· Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, εἰ µὴ ἐν πνεύµατι ἁγίῳ. 86 J. A. cáíòãóÉê, First Corinthians (AB 32), New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 2008, 459, refers to another possible interpretation, which considers Deut 21:22–23 (“cursed be everyone who has been hanged on a tree”, applied to Jesus in Gal 3:13) a possible background for the expression ᾿Ανάθεµα Ἰησοῦς. See also R. pÅçíí=k~ëÜ, 1 Corinthians, Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2009, 358, who lists several possible contexts in which such a curse may have been pronounced. 87 The term κατάθεµα in Rev 22:3 probably has the same connotation. In the New Jerusalem, at the end of time, there will be nothing abominable to God or rejected by God. 88 Here the connection with the idea of excommunication is very clear.

52

Katell Berthelot

Conclusion Jewish authors writing in Greek did not use the neologisms ἀνάθεµα/ἀναθεµατίζω created by the translators of the Septuagint, possibly because they did not see in the wars against the Canaanites or the Amalekites an offering to God, even if they did not question the commandment of herem in itself. If one examines Philo’s and Josephus’ accounts of the conquest of Canaan, one may affirm that they did not pass it over in silence. This is especially true of Josephus, who was even very explicit about it, using Greek vocabulary that clearly meant destruction, massacre, etc. All in all, the main reason for which Jewish authors writing in Greek did not use the neologisms created by the Septuagint translators probably lies in the fact that they did not consider these terms adequate from a linguistic point of view, and viewed the particular meaning they had acquired in the Septuagint as incorrect Greek.89 Finally, the meaning of ἀνάθεµα as “curse” or “cursed thing/person”, which became popular in Christian texts and which certainly developed on the basis of the neologism invented by the Septuagint translators, cannot be found in Jewish literature written in Greek.90

––––––––––

89 The reason, therefore, is not primarily apologetic as some have thought. See H. a~É=m~êâ, Finding Herem?, 107, who argues that “Philo’s omission or change of the concept of herem can be seen as a result of the ‘attempt to protect the law of Moses from Hellenistic assaults.’” Nowhere in his book does H. a~É=m~êâ take the Greek linguistic and cultural context into account. 90 In the Greek translation of 1 Enoch, Apoc. En. 6.4–5, ἀναθεµατίζω has been understood by some as “to bind X with imprecations/curses”, but this is uncertain and the date of the translation is unknown. See H. a~É=m~êâ, Finding Herem?, 91–92.

The Noun βοηθός as a Divine Title Prolegomena to a future HTLS article1 bÄÉêÜ~êÇ=_çåë

Introduction In Christian prayer language, addressing God as “helper” is more than common. As early as about the beginning of the 2nd century C.E., it occurs in a list of divine attributes in 1 Clem. 59.3 where God is called “the helper of those who are in danger” (τὸν τῶν κινδυνευόντων βοηθόν).2 In the mid-second century C.E., we find another quotation of βοηθός in an apologetical context. Addressing the issue of theodicy, Justin Martyr quotes a putative contradiction: It is possible that God does not intercede in favor of his believers, even though “we confess God as a helper” (2 Apol. 5.1: εἰ θεὸν ὡµολογοῦµεν βοηθόν). No matter how Justin tries to resolve the theological problem of evil that God does not prevent, he obviously takes for granted that God can be considered a helper of humans. As for the Latin-speaking Church Fathers, the Latin translation of βοηθός, the noun adiutor, is very frequent, too, and it seems to need no further explanation.3

——————

1 I wish to express my sincere thanks to my colleagues with whom I was able to discuss several aspects of this article: Ralph Brucker (Hamburg), Jennifer Dines (Cambridge), Johann Goeken (Strasbourg), Jan Joosten (Strasbourg), Christoph Kugelmeier (Saarbrücken), Anna Passoni Dell’Acqua (Milan), and Emanuela Prinzivalli (Rome). 2 The First Letter of Clement can be dated between 70 and 130 C.E., see bK= mêáåòáî~äJ äá=L=jK=páãçåÉííá, Seguendo Gesù. Testi cristiani delle origini, vol. I, Rome: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla / Milan: Mondadori, 2010, 83. As for the LXX background of the citation, see eK=bK=içå~, Der erste Clemensbrief (KAV 2), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998, 595; eK=i∏Üê, Studien zum frühchristlichen und frühjüdischen Gebet. Untersuchungen zu 1 Clem 59 bis 61 in seinem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Kontext (WUNT 160), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, 196–198. 3 Among the numerous examples which are not quotations of earlier writings, see e.g. Jerome, ep. 140.56: ita et homo a principio conditionis suae deo utitur adiutore et, cum illius sit gratiae, quod creatus est, illius misericordiae, quod subsistit et uiuit . . . .

54

Eberhard Bons

The fact that the divine title “helper” is very popular in Christian theological language raises the question of whether it has a background in the New Testament literature. However, at first glance one notes that the New Testament evidence is more than meager.4 Indeed, the noun βοηθός never appears in the New Testament prayer texts, either in hymns like the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) or in supplications like Jesus’ Gethsemane prayer (Mark 14:36 parr.). As a New Testament hapax legomenon, βοηθός only occurs in Heb 13:6 which is a quotation of Ps 117:6LXX: κύριος ἐµοὶ βοηθός, [καὶ] οὐ φοβηθήσοµαι, τί ποιήσει µοι ἄνθρωπος; “the Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid, what can man do to me?).5 Given the scarcity of New Testament evidence of βοηθός as a divine title, one crucial question needs to be answered. We have to start from the fundamental fact that in Antiquity divine names and titles were not chosen indiscriminately. On the contrary, a deity had one or more names and titles which were obviously predetermined by tradition or convention. Therefore, it was of the utmost importance to use these and no other names and titles in prayers and invocations.6 If this assumption is right it would be logical to argue that the early Christian authors did not themselves invent the divine title βοηθός. This raises the question of where this element of prayer language comes from. To put in general terms, did the Greek speaking Christian writers follow the literary conventions of pagan prayer language? Did they find the noun βοηθός in other contexts dealing with gods? Or were they inspired by the prayer language attested in the Septuagint and in the other writings of Jewish Greek literature? Finally, do we have to take into account other sources, e.g. papyri? The aim of this article is to shed more light on these questions which seem to be neglected in recent biblical research. In the next three sections, the following issues will be addressed: 1. Does the noun βοηθός appear in relation to a deity or to deities in general in the so-called pagan Greek literature and, if so, in which contexts? 2. Do we find occurrences of βοηθός in the papyri which contribute to a better understanding of Jewish and Christian prayer language? 3. Finally, what can be said about the use of βοηθός in the Septuagint and in later Jewish literature in Greek? The article, which does not claim to be —————— 4 5

cK=_ΩÅÜëÉä, “βοηθέω κτλ.”, TWNT 1 (1933), 627.

For further information on the function of the Psalm quotation in the paraenetical context of Heb 13:1–6 see the commentaries, e.g. eK=cK=tÉáëëI= Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991, 706–707. 6 See e.g. tK=aK=cìêäÉóLgK=jK=_êÉãÉê, Greek Hymns. Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period. Volume One: The Texts in Translation (STAC 9), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001, 52: “. . . the precise naming of the god addressed was important both from the point of view of politeness and courtesy, so as not to offend a sensitive power, and from the point of view of establishing the precise channel along which one wished divine succour to flow.”

The Noun βοηθός as a Divine Title

55

exhaustive, will be concluded by some remarks which address the crucial question: How did God come to be called a helper?

1. Gods as helpers of humans in Greek literature 1.1 The evidence of prayer texts Classical and hellenistic Greek literature contains numerous prayer texts which are available in recent editions7. As for the divine title βοηθός, it must be stated at the outset that a look at classical and hellenistic Greek prayer language does not show promising results. To be sure, numerous words and expressions bear on the activity of a deity which is said to intervene in favor of humans and, more concretely, to help them, e.g. πάρειµι “to be present so as to help”8 and ἀρήγω “to help, to succor”9 and its derivative nouns and adjectives10. However, it turns out to be much more difficult to find occurrences of the noun βοηθός as well as the corresponding verb βοηθέω in the extant prayer texts of the classical and hellenistic era. It is beyond doubt that speakers quote a wide range of divine titles in order to convince the respective deity to intervene on their behalf or on behalf of other persons. Still, it has to be said that the title βοηθός seems to be missing in the different types of extant prayers and supplications. This negative result is confirmed by Karl Keyßner whose list of terms of the semantic field of “help” does not mention βοηθός11. It is perhaps no coincidence that in their edition of Greek prayer texts Frédéric Chapot and Bernard Laurot do not quote either an example of βοηθός12. 1.1.1 Gods as allies in wars A priori, we cannot rule out entirely the possibility that the divine title βοηθός might have been used by Greek speakers in the context of prayers. However, we have to bear in mind that the word βοηθός is mostly used in different contexts and not chiefly in prayers. Apart from a more or less neutral sense where ——————

7 E.g. cK=`Ü~éçíL_K=i~ìêçíI=Corpus des prières grecques et romaines. Textes réunis, traduits et commentés (Recherches sur les rhétoriques religieuses 2), Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. 8 E.g. Hermocles, Ithyphalli 1–2: ῾Ως οἱ µέγιστοι τῶν θεῶν καὶ φίλτατοι | τῇ πόλει πάρεισιν. 9 E.g. Sophocles, Electra 115: ἔλθετ’, ἀρήξατε, τείσασθε πατρὸς φόνον ἡµετέρου. 10 For a detailed list of words expressing the idea of help see e.g. hK hÉó≈åÉê, Gottesvorstellung und Lebensauffassung im griechischen Hymnus (WSAW 2), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932, 101–103. 11 hÉóëëåÉê, Gottesvorstellung, 101–103. 12 `Ü~éçí/i~ìêçí, Corpus des prières, passim.

56

Eberhard Bons

the kind of help or assistance is not specified13, in many cases a βοηθός appears in a military context. In concrete terms, a βοηθός – used in the singular or in the plural – refers to allies who offer support in fight14. This idea is sometimes underscored by a parallel noun or adjective, σύµµαχος, literally “fighting along with”15. It is particularly interesting to note that the word βοηθός can also be used in a figurative sense: Apart from human “helpers”, gods can be considered to be the helpers of a people, of a tribe or of a town especially when it is in military danger. Let us quote three examples each of which is part of a speech which encourages going to war against a frightening enemy: 1. In a speech attributed to Demosthenes (Or. 11: In epistulam Philippi) but actually taken from the Philippica of Anaximenes of Lampsacus (see FGH 72 F 11b), the orator raises the courage for battle of his Athenian fellow citizens by the following argument: πρῶτον µὲν γὰρ εἰκός, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, τοὺς θεοὺς µεγίστους ὑµῖν ὑπάρχειν συµµάχους καὶ βοηθούς “for first, men of Athens, it is probable that your mightiest allies and supporters will be the gods” (§ 2). It deserves attention that the gods bear the same designations as human allies, i.e. σύµµαχοι καὶ βοηθοί (see above), as if they would hurry to help the warring army. 2. About three centuries later the Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his Roman Antiquities, reports a speech of the Roman dictator Aulus Postumius. Before the battle of Lake Regillus (around 496 B.C.E.) he encourages his soldiers by recalling that help comes from the gods: χρὴ δὲ καὶ ὑµᾶς, ἄνδρες λοχαγοί τε καὶ στρατιῶται, µαθόντας, ὅτι συµµάχους ἔχετε τοὺς θεούς, οἵπερ αἰεὶ τὴν πόλιν σώζουσιν, ἄνδρας ἀγαθοὺς γενέσθαι περὶ τόνδε τὸν ἀγῶνα· ἐπισταµένους, ὅτι τῆς παρὰ θεῶν βοηθείας ὑπάρχει τυγχάνειν τοῖς γενναίως ἀγωνιζοµένοις “But it is necessary that you too, both officers and men, knowing that you have for allies the gods, who have always preserved our city, should acquit yourselves as brave men in this battle, remembering that the assistance of the gods is given to those who fight nobly” (Ant. Rom. 6.6.3).

——————

13 E.g. Aesop, Fab. 19: ὅτι οὕτω καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων µάταιοί εἰσιν, ὅσοι βοηθοῖς προστρέχουσιν, οἷς τὸ ἀδικεῖν µᾶλλον ἔµφυτον “thus, there are foolish people who look for helpers who have an inborn inclination towards wrongdoing”; Plato, Phaedr. 275e: πληµµελούµενος δὲ καὶ οὐκ ἐν δίκῃ λοιδορηθεὶς τοῦ πατρὸς ἀεὶ δεῖται βοηθοῦ·αὐτὸς γὰρ οὔτ’ ἀµύνασθαι οὔτε βοηθῆσαι δυνατὸς αὑτῷ “when ill-treated or unjustly offended it [i.e. a written text] always needs its father [i.e. the author] to help it; for it is unable to protect or help itself”. See also Plato, Resp. 369c. 14 Herodotus, Hist. 6.100; Thucydides, Hist. 1.53.4; Polybius, Hist. 3.31.5; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 11.35.4. 15 E.g. Xenophon, Mem. 3.4.9; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 14.67.3.

The Noun βοηθός as a Divine Title

57

3. In the course of the 3rd century C.E., we find an analogous idea in Herodianus, Ab excessu divi Marci 3.6.7, where the future Roman emperor Septimius Severus calls on his army to attack his opponent Clodius Albinus: ἴωµεν οὖν τῇ συνήθει χρώµενοι προθυµίᾳ τε καὶ ἀνδρείᾳ γενναίως ἐπ’ αὐτόν, θεούς τε ἔχοντες βοηθούς . . . “let us therefore go forth against him, relying on our customary zeal and valor, with the gods as our allies . . .”. Albeit with slight differences, these three texts, which are not written in the same epoch by the same author, display a common feature, a kind of topos: When calling on their soldiers to fight, political or military leaders try to convince them that the gods support them in the battle. Nevertheless, although gods are considered to be “helpers”, one should not lose sight of the fact that the aforementioned texts are not to be confused with prayers. On the one hand, one has to be aware of the fact that the literary genre is different insofar as the noun βοηθός is included in a speech, more precisely in a type of symbuleutic speech which has its Sitz im Leben in the organizational and psychological preparations for a war or a battle. On the other hand, the speaker does not address the deity directly by using the fitting divine titles, e.g. in the context of an invocation, but speaking of the gods as βοηθοί in the third person. These differences are not insignificant. In fact, the speakers are not primarily concerned with invoking the gods’ help in a specific situation, by reminding them that they are helpers of humans16. Rather, their aim is to encourage their human addressees by arguing that the gods are their helpers in the battle. 1.1.2 The noun βοηθός in reference to a specific deity Apart from the previous mention of a military context, we find some scattered attestations of the noun βοηθός in reference to gods in a few Greek texts of Hellenistic and Roman times. However, in contrast to the three passages cited above, the noun does not qualify anonymous gods in the plural but a specific deity. E.g., in his Hymn to Artemis, Callimachus of Cyrene (3rd cent. B.C.E.) puts the following words in Artemis’ mouth: πόλεσιν δ’ ἐπιµείξοµαι ἀνδρῶν µοῦνον ὅτ’ ὀξείῃσιν ὑπ’ ὠδίνεσσι γυναῖκες τειρόµεναι καλέωσι βοηθόον “and the cities of men I will visit only when women suffering from severe labour pains call me as helper” (Hymn. Dian. 20–22).17 A couple of centuries later, the title βοηθός is attributed to the Egyptian god Sarapis by Aelius Aristides: ——————

16 For this idea see eK=rëÉåÉê, Götternamen. Versuch einer Lehre von der religiösen Begriffsbildung, Bonn: Cohen, 1896 (= 21929), 336: “Zur erhofften Wirkung ist das treffende Wort die wichtigste Bedingung: man muß den Gott bei dem Namen anrufen und verpflichten, der das Vermögen, gerade in dem besonderen Falle zu helfen, einschließt.” 17 For the Greek text and a recent German translation see Kallimachos, Werke. Griechisch und deutsch. Herausgegeben und übersetzt von Markus Asper, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004, 402.

58

Eberhard Bons

σὲ γὰρ δὴ πᾶς τις ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ βοηθὸν καλεῖ, Σάραπι “for everybody can call you in every time a helper, Sarapis” (Εἰς Σάραπιν, Or. 45.14 Keil [p. 50, 32 Jebb]). However, Sarapis is not the only god to merit this title. Among the numerous titles which serve to characterize Zeus, βοηθός is used by Aristides as well. He concludes his Hymn to Zeus as follows: ἀπὸ τούτου ἄρχεσθαι χρὴ καὶ τελευτᾶν εἰς τοῦτον, παντὸς λόγου καὶ πάσης πράξεως ἡγεµόνα καὶ βοηθὸν καλοῦντας . . . “with him [Zeus] we should begin, and end with him, calling him leader and helper of every word and every action . . .” (Εἰς ∆ία, Or. 43.31 Keil [p. 8, 27 Jebb]). Some lines earlier, in a quite long list of titles18, Zeus is referred to as ἐν δὲ νόσοις καὶ πᾶσι καιροῖς βοηθῶν Σωτήρ “the Savior, helping in diseases and in every circumstance” (Or. 43.30 Keil [p. 8, 17–18 Jebb]). In the framework of this article, we must leave open the question of whether these quotations are exceptional or not.19 Certainly, the title βοηθός is absent from other “descriptions” of the gods, e.g. Cornutus’ De natura deorum who does not call by this title neither Zeus nor any other divinity of the Greek pantheon.20 However, there is some evidence that the noun βοηθός was not totally incompatible with contemporary religious language. An interesting example is to be found in Epictetus’ Discourses written down by Arrian at the beginning of the 2nd century C.E. Among the advice that Epictetus gives his readers, one can read: τοῦ θεοῦ µέµνησο, ἐκεῖνον ἐπικαλοῦ βοηθὸν καὶ παραστάτην ὡς τοὺς ∆ιοσκόρους ἐν χειµῶνι οἱ πλέοντες “remember God: call on him as a helper and defender, like sailors who call on the Dioscuri in a storm” (Diss. 2.18.29). This quotation is interesting for various reasons. First of all, it is not a farfetched idea to mention the attitudes of sailors whose lives are in danger (see e.g. Jonah 1:5–7). On this assumption, Epictetus argues that sailors send supplications to the Dioscuri (= Castor and Pollux) when threatened by storm. In a similar manner, the Stoic philosopher recommends his followers to pray to God as a helper and protector. Regardless of whether Epictetus tends to ——————

18 For an analysis of these titles, see gK=^ã~åå, Die Zeusrede des Ailios Aristeides (TBAW 12), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1931, 103–109. 19 It would be worthwhile to address the question of whether βοηθός appears in narrative texts as well, e.g. in Longus, Daphnis et Chloe 2.7.6: Ἐκάλουν τὸν Πᾶνα βοηθόν “I called upon Pan as helper”. 20 This text is available in two recent editions with German translations and annotations: Cornutus, Die Griechischen Götter: Ein Überblick über Namen, Bilder und Deutungen, ed. H.-G. Nesselrath et al. (SAPERE 14), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009; Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, Einführung in die griechische Götterlehre, ed. P. Busch/J. K. Zangenberg (TzF 95), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2010. Both editions, however, use the Greek text of the old and deficient Teubner edition Cornuti theologiae Graecae compendium, ed. C. Lang, Leipzig: Teubner, 1881. A new critical edition is still a desideratum.

The Noun βοηθός as a Divine Title

59

develop a monotheistic idea of God, it deserves attention that his advice supposes a kind of personal piety21 which expects help from God whatever be the situation. From this perspective, this quotation has much more in common with Christian prayer language than the aforementioned appeals launched to fight the enemies. However, it must be pointed out that the quotation does not allow clear-cut conclusions concerning the text of an underlying prayer formula. Or to put it in another way, we cannot “reconstruct” a prayer of this kind which Epictetus could have had in mind. In any case, it seems not to be impossible that Epictetus is familiar with a prayer vocabulary that includes the noun βοηθός among other divine titles.

2. Helpers of humans in the documentary papyri 2.1 Gods as helpers? Given the scarcity of attestations of βοηθός with reference to deities, the following question remains to be asked: Do the Egyptian documentary papyri provide some material that takes us a step further? In concrete terms, do we find occurrences of βοηθός which enable us to better understand the use of this noun in prayer language? When addressing this issue one has to bear in mind two facts: on the one hand, the language of most of the papyri is less literary than many prayers, hymns and narrative texts included in classical Greek literature, on the other, it is perhaps more influenced by spoken language. Thus, at least in theory papyri could be able to provide examples we have looked for in vain in Greek literature. However, on closer examination the documents one could adduce in favor of this idea seem to be rare. Apparently, one of the specific meanings of βοηθός in the Egyptian context, above all papyri of Roman times, is “assistant” of a tax gatherer or another civil servant22. As for βοηθός as a —————— 21

See oK=o~ÇáÅÉ, La concezione di Dio e del divino in Epitteto, Milan: CUSL, 1982, 98, who recognizes a tendency towards the ideas of monotheism and a personal god in Epictetus’ Discourses. He draws the following conclusion: “sicché, nel complesso, può dirsi che la teologia del nostro filosofo effettivamente muova verso forme di monoteismo (Dio-Demiurgo), escluda ogni aspetto sostanzialmente panteistico e attenui grandemente i motivi politeistici . . . e fondi filosoficamente quella diffusa e profonda sensibilità religiosa, grazie alla quale l’autore può conferire a Dio le note e gli atteggiamenti propri di un essere personale.” 22 See already cK=eK=mêÉáëáÖâÉ, Fachwörter des öffentlichen Verwaltungsdienstes Ägyptens, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915 (= Hildesheim: Olms, 1975), 40: “Hülfsarbeiter bei verschiedensten Behörden”; gK=eK=jçìäíçåLdK=jáääáÖ~å, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament illustrated from the papyri and other non-literary sources, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930, 114; lK=jçåíÉîÉÅÅÜá, La papirologia. Ristampa riveduta e corretta con addenda, Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1998, 172.

60

Eberhard Bons

divine title, the Vocabulary of the Greek Testament by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan23 only mentions a papyrus written around the year 356 C.E., P.Lond. 2.410 (= P.Abinn. 34), lines 7–9: µετὰ τὸν θεὸν οὐδιναν [sic] ἔχοµεν ἡµῆς [sic] βοηθὸν ὑµῶν “after God, we have no helper than you”24. To this might be added a text of older date quoted by Hermut Löhr25: UPZ 1.52, a petition dating from the 2nd century B.C.E. (after 161 B.C.E.), lines 8– 9, where the petitioner declares: οὐθένα ἔχωµεν [sic] βοιηθὸν [sic] ἀλλʼ ἢ σὲ καὶ τὸν Σάραπιν “we have no other helper besides you and Sarapis”. The name “Sarapis” could certainly refer to the god Sarapis who is considered a helper in the given context (see above the quotation of Aristides’ Hymn on Sarapis). Therefore, this papyrus, that goes back to the Hellenistic era, would be a good example of the pagan use of the divine title βοηθός even though there are still some doubts. Indeed, “Sarapis” is a name used not only for the Egyptian god but for human beings as well (see e.g. P.Lond. 2.257). If this were the case, the petitioner would speak of two human “helpers”: Sarapion and Sarapis. We cannot definitely rule out this possibility although there is a strong case for identifying Sarapis with the Egyptian god, the petition being addressed only to Sarapion. Be this as it may, even if we investigate more in depth the numerous occurrences of βοηθός in the papyri this would lead to a negative conclusion: In the extant papyri this noun refers only in exceptional cases to a god. Certainly, this result might be corrected by new findings, but in the present circumstances it would be too hypothetical to assume that the key of interpretation of later Christian use of βοηθός lies in the quoted papyri. 2.2 Human helpers In a certain sense a prayer represents a direct speech in which a human person speaks to a deity. Interestingly, it turned out to be difficult to find examples of prayers where a deity is referred to as βοηθός although this title occurs in Greek hymns. In view of the fact that the name of Sarapis appears in the context of a petition (see above 2.1), it seems advisable to trace the line back to other contemporary papyri. In particular, it could be useful to pursue an idea by Orsolina Montevecchi who happens to mention the title βοηθός when speaking of the courtly vocabulary of the papyri26. Although the evidence —————— 23

=jçìäíçåLjáääáÖ~å, Vocabulary, 114. For this text, see o=pK=_~Öå~ääLoK=`êáÄáçêÉ, Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt 300

24

BC – AD 800, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2006, 358–359. 25 i∏Üê, Studien, 197. 26 lK=jçåíÉîÉÅÅÜá, La papirologia, 77; see also ^K=m~ëëçåá=aÉääÛ^Åèì~, “La metafora biblica di Dio come roccia e la sua soppressione nelle antiche versioni”, EL 91 (1977), 417– 453: 432.

The Noun βοηθός as a Divine Title

61

seems to be quite meager, it is nowadays possible – thanks to computer concordances of the papyri – to provide some more significant material. In fact, given a certain number of examples it is no exaggeration to state that the title βοηθός has a specific Sitz im Leben in petitions, particularly in their conclusions. It will suffice to quote three examples: 1. In the course of the 3rd century B.C.E., a certain Paeis, according to his own statements in unlawful detention, writes a petition to Zenon, claiming that he is his only helper (P.Lond. 7.2045, line 4): οὐκ ἔχοµεν βοηθὸν ἄλλον οὐθένα ἀλλὰ σέ “we have no other helper than you”.27 2. In an enteuxis (petition) submitted to the king Ptolemy in 220 B.C.E., a person named Ptolemaios of Macedonian origin claims compensation because his pigs have been killed. The concluding formula of the petition reads as follows (P.Enteux. 70 = P.Lille 2.21, lines 13–14): βασιλεῦ, ἐπὶ σὲ κ[ατα]φυγών, τ[ὸν] κοινὸν εὐεργέτην καὶ βοηθόν, [τεύ]ξοµαι τῆς παρὰ σου βοηθείας “King, fleeing to you, the common benefactor and helper, I will obtain help from you”. 3. In another enteuxis submitted to the king in 220 B.C.E., a merchant whose name is unknown concludes his request as follows (P.Heid. 6.376, lines 17–18): ὅπως ἐπὶ σὲ καταφυγών, βασιλεῦ, τὸν πάντων βοιηθὸν [sic] καὶ εὐεργέτην, τύχω τοῦ δικαίου “in order to obtain what is just, by fleeing to you, King, helper and benefactor of all”. It is clear from these documents dating from the 3rd century B.C.E. that petitioners employed the title βοηθός when writing to the king or to another person in power. One might even go further and argue that writers or speakers do not make a clear terminological distinction between a divine and a human helper. Indeed, irrespective of whether Sarapis (see above, 2.1), Ptolemy or Zenon is considered to be the only trustworthy helper, he is called βοηθός. Finally, there is one additional observation concerning style: In contrast to texts like hymns, speeches and philosophical diatribe, the aforementioned petitions directly address somebody as a helper. From this point of view, they share one essential element with prayers.

3. God as helper in the Septuagint and in extra-biblical texts 3.1 Preliminary observations In the LXX, the noun βοηθός has about 60 occurrences. Roughly speaking, human βοηθοί are by far in the minority in comparison with God. Leaving —————— 27

For this document, see `K=lêêáÉìñ, Les papyrus de Zénon. L’horizon d’un grec en Égypte au IIIe siècle avant J.C., Paris: Macula, 1983, 128–129.

62

Eberhard Bons

aside the few cases where the word probably denotes allies (1 Chr 12:19; Ezek 12:14; Nah 3:9, see above, 1.1.1)28, only rarely does βοηθός explicitly refer to a human helper. Perhaps the most prominent case is the helper to be created for man/Adam in Gen 2:18: a “helper corresponding to him” (βοηθὸν κατ’ αὐτόν). In Gen 2:20 such a helper which is like man/Adam (ὅµοιος αὐτῷ) is still missing among the different sorts of animals. Within the deuterocanonical literature, Gen 2:18 is quoted in part by the two versions of the prayer of Tobit, TobBA 8:6 and TobS 8:6. Furthermore, the text is alluded to in Sir 36:29[24] (βοηθὸν κατ’ αὐτόν “a help like himself”). On the whole, the respective passages do not allow further conclusions concerning the kind of help to be offered by the wife qualified as βοηθός. Apart from Gen 2:18, 20 and the allusions to this text already quoted, the LXX texts several times employ the formula “who has/had no helper” (e.g. Job 29:12; Ps 71:12LXX) or “there is no helper” (2 Kgdms 22:42; Isa 63:5; Esth C:14 [4:17l]; Jdt 7:25)29. Of course, these laconic formulas are too general to determine whether a divine or a human helper is implied in each of the cases. Be that as it may, these few LXX occurrences of βοηθός are in line with one observation made above (see 1.1.1 and note 13): The noun βοηθός can be employed without a closer description of the help needed or expected in the respective contexts. 3.2 God as helper Most of the LXX occurrences of βοηθός appear in the Psalter as well as in some related texts. All of these quotations share one important feature insofar as the noun is explicitly referred to God. In general, where the LXX texts translated from Hebrew are concerned, the respective equivalents of βοηθός chiefly derive from the root ʿzr “help”. Thus, βοηθός renders the following terms which are quoted according to the Masoretic Text (MT): – the noun ʿezær “help, helper”, which is already used in Gen 2:18, 20, in Exod 18:4; Deut 33:7, 26, 29; Ps 26:9; 32:30; 69:6; 113:17; 145:5LXX (see also Sir 36:24B), – the participle of the verb ʿāzar “help”, ʿozær “one who helps” (Ps 29:11; 117:7LXX), – the inflected form of the same verb, yaʿazār “he will help me” (Isa 50:7), – the noun ʿæzrāh/ʿæzrātāh “help, assistance” (Ps 45:2; 62:8LXX). Moreover, βοηθός is once the Greek equivalent of môšîaʿ “savior” (2 Kgdms 22:42; the parallel text Ps 17:42 reads ὁ σῴζων instead of βοηθός). —————— 28

See jK=e~êä et al., La Bible d’Alexandrie. Les Douze Prophètes 4–9: Joël, Abdiou, Jonas, Naoum, Ambakoum, Sophonie (BibAlex XXIII 4–9), Paris: Cerf, 1999, 226. 29 See for a similar formula Menander, Dyscolus 934: οὐδεὶς βοηθός σοι πάρεστιν “there is no helper for you”.

The Noun βοηθός as a Divine Title

63

What is particularly noticeable is that βοηθός renders various words of the semantic field of “rock, fortress”. This phenomenon is limited to the Psalter and related texts that tend to avoid qualifying God as a rock.30 The respective Hebrew equivalents are maḥsæh “refuge, shelter” (Ps 61:9; 70:7), miśgāb “stronghold, refuge” (Ps 9:10), māʿôz “refuge” (Ps 51:9), setær “hidingplace” (Ps 118:114), ʿoz “strength” (Exod 15:2; Ps 27:7; 58:18; 80:2LXX), ṣûr “rock” (Ps 17:3; 18,15; 77:35; 93:22LXX). 3.2.1 The noun βοηθός as a divine title in the Psalter The previous observations would not be complete if we did not give special attention to two details of the translation technique underlying the LXX Psalter: α) In the LXX Psalter βοηθός is used exclusively when referring to God and not in relation to other gods or to humans. The only exception might be found in a rather neutral context where the absence of any helper is stated: ὅτι ἐρρύσατο πτωχὸν ἐκ χειρὸς δυνάστου καὶ πένητα, ᾧ οὐχ ὑπῆρχεν βοηθός “for he delivers the needy from the hand of the mighty, the poor who have no helper” (Ps 71:12). β) There are grounds for assumption that βοηθός is the standard equivalent of the Hebrew noun ʿezær “help, helper”. However, some exceptions should be noted. In fact, when ʿezær does not refer to God, the LXX Psalter prefers the noun βοήθεια, e.g. in Ps 19:3; 88:20LXX. Thus, the translator leaves no room for doubt that God is to be considered the only βοηθός of humans. An instructive example is Ps 120[121]:1: “I lift my eyes to the hills – from where will my help [MT: ʿæzrî ‘my help’] come?” Unlike other psalm quotations where the translator inserts βοηθός, he avoids using this word in favor of ἡ βοήθειά µου. Perhaps he did not want to convey the idea that God as a helper comes down from the hill. Anyway, the translation is concordant. The following verse makes clear that help (ἡ βοήθειά µου, MT: ʿæzrî “my help”) comes from the Lord. Thus, as an intermediate conclusion one can notice that the LXX Psalter has the tendency to reserve the title βοηθός exclusively for God. Of course, this is not the only divine title employed in the Psalter. Needless to say, many psalms share one important element with many pagan ancient prayers insofar as they combine various divine titles, especially in the invocation (e.g. Ps 17[18]:2–3). Other divine titles used in the immediate context are e.g. καταφυγή “refuge” (Ps 9:10; 17:3; 45:2; 58:17–18; 93:22LXX), ἀντιλήµπτωρ ——————

30 See m~ëëçåá= aÉääÛ^Åèì~, “La metafora biblica”, passim; pK=läçÑëëçå, God is my Rock. A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint (CB.OT 31), Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1990, passim.

64

Eberhard Bons

“helper, protector” (Ps 17:3; 39:18LXX), ὑπερασπιστής “one who holds a shield over someone, protector” (Ps 17:3; 32:20; 39:18; 113:17LXX), and ῥύστης “savior, deliverer” (Ps 17:3; 69:6LXX). The specific contexts of the Psalter occurrences of βοηθός cannot be reduced to one common denominator. The following examples are by no means exhaustive. Generally speaking, and leaving aside the prophetic texts within this article, we can roughly distinguish between two types of quotations. In the third person, God is confessed as the βοηθός of the poor (Ps 9:10) or of the Israelites returning to Him in their distress (Ps 77:35LXX). Persons whose helper is the God of Jacob are praised (Ps 145:5LXX), whereas the man who did not make God his help is criticized (Ps 51:9LXX). In the context of lamentation and confidence, however, believers declare in the first person that God is or has become their personal helper (e.g. Ps 17:3; 26:9; 27:7; 32:30; 39:18; 58:18; 61:9; 62:8; 69:6; 70:7; 80:2; 93:22LXX)31. Furthermore, they proclaim: “our God . . . is a helper” (Ps 45:2) or “the Lord is a helper to me” (Ps 117:6–7). Only once does such a formula occur in the vocative (Ps 18:15LXX: βοηθέ µου). 3.2.2 Examples of βοηθός as a divine title in extra-biblical texts The word βοηθός is scarcely attested in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Its characteristic LXX meaning can be found e.g. in the novel Joseph and Aseneth, which extensively uses the terminology of the LXX Psalter32. Once she has abandoned her idols, Aseneth prays to the Lord, the helper of the afflicted (Jos. Asen. 12.13: διότι σὺ εἶ ὁ πατὴρ τῶν ὀρφανῶν καὶ τῶν δεδιωγµένων ὑπερασπιστὴς καὶ τῶν τεθλιµµένων βοηθός33 “you are the father of the orphans, the protector of the persecuted and the helper of the afflicted” (see also the analogous declaration in Jos. Asen. 11.13). In the works of Josephus the divine title βοηθός occurs chiefly in prayers and speeches. In his prayer Isaac says that God has promised to his posterity “to be their kind helper and giver of still greater blessings” (Ant. 1.272: βοηθὸς εὐµενὴς καὶ δοτὴρ ἀεὶ τῶν κρειττόνων). In situations of great danger Moses exhorts the Israelites to keep in mind that the Lord is a βοηθός, e.g. when Israel is pursued by the Egyptian army (Exod 14:9–31). Trusting in the Lord who as a helper is capable of making small things great, Israelites should ——————

31 See also Sir 51:2. The ms. B has a different text, see A. J. GUERRA MARTÍNEZ, El poder de la oración. Estudio de Sir 51,1-12, Estella: Verbo Divino, 2010, 89–97. 32 For details see bK=_çåë, “Psalter Terminology in Joseph and Aseneth”, Die Septuaginta – Text, Wirkung, Rezeption (WUNT), ed. Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, Marcus Sigismund, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014 (forthcoming). 33 Quoted from Joseph und Aseneth, ed. C. Burchard, with the assistance of C. Burfeind and U. B. Fink, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003.

The Noun βοηθός as a Divine Title

65

not despair (Ant. 2.333). Before sending spies to the land of Canaan (Num 13:1), and aware of the dangers involved in occupying the promised land, Moses invites the Israelites to honor God who is above all Israel’s helper and ally (Ant. 3.302: ὅς ἐστιν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἡµῖν βοηθὸς καὶ σύµµαχος). It is beyond doubt that Josephus draws his inspiration from the literary genre dealt with above, i.e. speeches of political or military leaders (see above 1.1.1).

Concluding Remarks At the end of this article it is time to return to the questions that have been raised in the introduction. How did God come to be called βοηθός, particularly in the context of prayers? In my mind, three answers are possible: 1. On an inner-biblical level, the idea that the God of Israel is a helper is emphasized by two etiological texts. In Exod 18:4 the name of the second son of Moses, Eliezer, is explained as follows: “For the God of my father was my help [kî ʾælohî ʾābî beʿæzrî]”. The LXX renders the words in question by ὁ γὰρ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός µου βοηθός µου “for the god of my father is my helper”. It should be highlighted that neither the Hebrew nor the Greek texts use a verb (e.g. “for the God of my father has helped me”) but a noun, qualifying God as a helper. In contrast to Exod 18:4, the LXX translation in 1 Kgdms 7:12 offers far more than a word-for-word rendering of the underlying Hebrew text. In fact, setting up a stone and naming it “Ebenezer” Samuel gives the following explanation of his act: “Thus far YHWH has helped us” (ʿad hennāh ʿazārānû YHWH). The LXX not only translates this clause but also inserts a translation of “Ebenezer”: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνοµα αὐτοῦ Αβενεζερ, λίθος τοῦ βοηθοῦ, καὶ εἶπεν Ἕως ἐνταῦθα ἐβοήθησεν ἡµῖν κύριος, literally “he called its name Abenezer, stone of the helper, and said: ‘Thus far the Lord has helped us’”. These two examples show that the divine title “helper” is not chosen by chance but that it is deeply rooted in the historical experience of Israel. Therefore, the LXX translators obviously did not completely invent a divine title. Rather they developed an idea that was already present in the Hebrew biblical traditions. 2. Nevertheless, there is still a question remaining: Why would the LXX translators have chosen the term βοηθός? First of all, we have to take into account the fact that the translators were familiar with specific linguistic conventions which are abundantly attested in papyri. Thus we can infer that they were influenced by their social environment when choosing their theological vocabulary. Even though the number of examples presented above is quite limited, it is possible to conclude that βοηθός was appropriate in two contexts: in petitions submitted to a king or to a leading functionary and in prayers and supplications. These two literary genres have at least one point in common:

66

Eberhard Bons

Whether explicitly or implicitly, they express the idea of dependency. This implies that an individual (or more than one person) expects support and assistance from an authority which is considered capable of offering it. However, it would be a mistake to think that the translators’ work was limited to introduce a term into the Greek translation of Holy Scripture which they found in their Egyptian environment. As has been shown above, their aim was probably to convey the idea that God is the βοηθός par excellence. For this purpose they rendered various Hebrew terms by βοηθός although the respective Hebrew nouns do not require such a translation. Anyway, it is clear that the translation technique adopted in the Greek Psalter does not leave any room for another important βοηθός. 3. In conclusion, it must be acknowledged that this specific use of βοηθός had a real impact on later Jewish authors who did not translate from Hebrew texts. It would be interesting to quote additional material which points in the same direction. Nonetheless, these documents show clearly that the “career” of the divine title βοηθός did not come to an end when the Septuagint was finished. On the contrary, Jewish authors did not refrain from using this title in new contexts which were completely independent of biblical psalms or related texts, e.g. the prayers in Josephus’ Antiquities. Of course, we have to take into consideration that in a Hellenistic context the specific use of βοηθός with reference to God was not completely incompatible with non-Jewish religious conventions. Even though explicit prayer texts of non-Jewish origin are not available, it should not be excluded that gods could be considered helpers, βοηθοί, in all sorts of situations. Certainly, it seems impossible to answer the question why the New Testament prayers do not employ this word. However, if Christian writers from the 2nd century C.E. onwards used it among other divine titles (e.g. 1 Clem. 36.1; Justin, Dial. 30.3) it is probably because of their double heritage: Jewish and pagan.

Die Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief 1 tçäÑÖ~åÖ=hê~ìë

1. Das Problemfeld Beim Stichwort διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief (Hebr) sind verschiedene Ebenen zu unterscheiden. Zum einen geht es um ein semantisches Problem: Gibt es ein einheitliches Verständnis der 17 Belege im Hebr? Zum andern geht es um ein funktionales Problem: Welche Funktion hat die Rede von der διαθήκη im Argumentationsgang des Hebr? Dabei sind die verschiedenen Aspekte in den Blick zu nehmen, die sich in den Formulierungen der „ersten“, der „früheren“, der „besseren“, der „neuen“ und der „ewigen“ διαθήκη niederschlagen. Schließlich, drittens, geht es um ein theologisches Problem: Welchen theologischen Stellenwert hat die Rede von der διαθήκη im Hebr? Ich werde so vorgehen, dass ich zunächst drei exemplarische Positionen anspreche, die die übergreifende Bedeutung der Thematik für das Verständnis des Hebr zum Ausdruck bringen (Knut Backhaus, Manuel Vogel, Sebastian Fuhrmann). Danach werde ich kurz auf die Wortstatistik bezüglich διαθήκη im Neuen Testament eingehen. Anschließend sollen die Belege im Einzelnen angesehen und dann nach Konsequenzen und Ertrag gefragt werden. 1.1. Knut Backhaus Die nach meiner Einschätzung am weitesten ausgreifende Konzeption zum Thema διαθήκη im Hebr hat Knut Backhaus vorgelegt. Es begann mit seiner –––––––––– 1

Der Beitrag wurde als Vortrag bei einer Tagung im Rahmen des Historical and Theological Lexicon of the Septuagint in Bühl/Baden im Januar 2011 gehalten. Der Vortragsstil ist weitgehend beibehalten. Vollständigkeit hinsichtlich der Forschungsliteratur ist nicht angestrebt, denn es geht um die Darstellung einer These. Es wird nicht zu vermeiden sein, dass sich Überschneidungen mit zwei bei anderen Gelegenheiten vorgetragenen Beiträgen ergeben: tK=hê~ìë, Das Heil für Israel und die Völker nach dem Hebräerbrief, in: Der eine Gott und die Völker in eschatologischer Perspektive, hg. v. L. Neubert/M. Tilly (BThSt 137), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2013, 113–147; tK=hê~ìë, Die Rezeption von Jer 38:31–34 (LXX) in Hebräer 8–10 und dessen Funktion in der Argumentation des Hebräerbriefes, in: TextCritical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint, hg. v. H.-J. Stipp/J. Cook (VT.S 157), Leiden 2012, 447–462.

68

Wolfgang Kraus

Habilitationsschrift „Der Neue Bund und das Werden der Kirche“ 1996.2 Im Jahr 2009 hat er in einem Aufsatzband weiterführende Arbeiten zur Thematik zusammengefasst3, und 2010 hat er in einem ausgezeichneten Kommentar zum Hebr die früher erarbeiteten Grundlagen in einer eindrucksvoll geschlossenen Konzeption für den gesamten Brief noch einmal zum Ausdruck gebracht4. Nach Knut Backhaus haben wir es beim Begriff διαθήκη im Hebr mit einem „Grundbegriff“ zu tun.5 Im Anschluss an R. Koselleck u.a.6 gibt er folgende Definition: „Versteht man unter einem Grundbegriff nach Maßgabe seiner Ordnungspotenz den (bündelnden) Indikator und (strukturierenden) Faktor der zentralen Erfahrungs- und Argumentationszusammenhänge einer Kommunikationsgemeinschaft, so dient Diatheke erstmals im Hebräerbrief als solcher. Hier wird der bedeutungsstiftende Diskurs aufgenommen, der sich – auf andere Weise – im Barnabasbrief (Barn.) und dann einflussreich in Justins Dialogus cum Tryphone Iudaeo (dial.) niederschlägt.“7 Bundestheologie im Hebr hat nach Backhaus primär die Funktion der Beschreibung eigener Identität.8 Sie gehöre aber auch in den Kontext der Eschatologie, denn das Christus-Ereignis überbrücke die ontologische Kluft zwischen irdischer und himmlischer Wirklichkeit jetzt schon. Und schließlich integriere der Hebr bestimmte Christologumena in sein bundestheologisches Koordinatensystem: Die soteriologischen Denkfiguren, nämlich das Hohepriestertum Jesu nach Ps 109[110],4, die Bundesstiftung durch Jesu Sühnetod nach Ex 24,8 sowie die Sündenvergebung nach Jer 38[31],31–34, dienen nach Backhaus „wesentlich der Integration von Christus-Homologia und (atl.-) biblischen Vorgaben einer Bundestheologie“.9 Bei diesen Aussagen handelt es um die entscheidenden Weichenstellungen in der Konzeption von Backhaus. Und man möchte sogleich fragen: Ist der Sachverhalt angemessen beschrieben? Ist die Bundestheologie die „Vorgabe“? Verhält es sich nicht eher umgekehrt: Die διαθήκη-Vorstellung des –––––––––– 2

hK=_~ÅâÜ~ìë, Der neue Bund und das Werden der Kirche. Die Diatheke-Deutung des Hebräerbriefes im Rahmen der frühchristlichen Theologiegeschichte (NTA.NF 29), Münster 1996. 3 hK=_~ÅâÜ~ìë, Der sprechende Gott. Gesammelte Studien zum Hebräerbrief (WUNT 240), Tübingen 2009. 4 hK=_~ÅâÜ~ìë, Der Brief an die Hebräer (RNT), Regensburg 2010. jK=h~êêÉê hat die Arbeiten von _~ÅâÜ~ìë in zwei Rezensionen mit Recht als hervorragende Leistungen gewürdigt: GGA 262 (2010), 73–87, und ThLZ 135 (2010), 1332–1335. 5 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bund, 325; ÇÉêëK, Das Bundesmotiv in der frühchristlichen Schwellenzeit. Hebräerbrief, Barnabasbrief, Dialogus cum Tryphone, in: ÇÉêëK, Der sprechende Gott, 153– 173, hier: 155. 6 Siehe dazu _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bundesmotiv, 155 Anm. 10. 7 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bundesmotiv, 155. 8 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bundesmotiv, 157f. 9 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bundesmotiv, 159.

Die Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief

69

Hebr dient als biblische Begründung für Jesu Einsetzung als Hohepriester? Doch dazu später. In der Bundestheologie fließen nach Backhaus alle Linien zusammen, die das markante Profil des Hebr ausmachen: parakletische Sensibilität, ChristusHomologia, Schriftverständnis, typologische Methode, mittelplatonischer Verstehenshorizont.10 Die Klimax und Summe der Bundestheologie findet er in Hebr 9,15. Der Begriff διαθήκη wird als Funktionsbegriff der in der Christus-Homologia grundgelegten Staurologie verstanden. „Vom Kreuz her denkend (obschon es ausdrücklich kaum erwähnend), unterzieht Hebr die biblisch überkommene Bundestheologie einer entscheidenden Reorganisation.“11 Der alte Opferdienst sei für den Hebr verheißungsgeschichtlich überwunden, und zwar aufgrund seines irdischen Verhaftetseins. Dabei sei nur der alte Bund hinsichtlich des priesterlich-levitischen Charakters im Blick, nicht das Judentum oder der alte Bund als Chiffre für die Zeit vor Christus.12 Das Jer-Zitat in Hebr 8,7–13 und seine Wiederaufnahme in 10,15–18 bildeten eine inclusio im zentralen christologischen Mittelteil des Briefes.13 Ziel sei es, die verheißungsgeschichtliche Ablösung des levitischen Sühnekultes der ersten Diatheke aufgrund ihrer soteriologischen Defizienz zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Das Jer-Zitat habe dabei kein Eigengewicht. Nur Anfang (Übergang zur neuen Diatheke) und Ende (Sündenvergebung) würden herausgegriffen.14 Der Gegenbegriff zu „Neuer/besserer Bund“ sei daher nach dem Hebr nicht „Alter Bund“ im heilsgeschichtlichen Sinn, sondern „irdischer Opferkult“ im metaphysischen Sinn.15 „ ‚Substituiert‘ ist das Tieropfer als Gott geschuldete Leistung.“16 Was die deutsche Übersetzung des Begriffs διαθήκη angeht, entschließt sich Backhaus, ihn – außer in 9,16f., wo eindeutig „Testament“ gemeint ist – mit „Bund“ wiederzugeben (im Kommentar mit „Gottesbund“), wohl wissend, dass damit keine zweiseitige Vereinbarung gemeint ist. Die Begründung liefert ihm der LXX-Sprachgebrauch, wo διαθήκη als Übersetzung von tyrb dient. –––––––––– 10

_~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bundesmotiv, 160. _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bundesmotiv, 161. 12 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bundesmotiv, 162. 13 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bundesmotiv, 161. 14 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bundesmotiv, 161 Anm. 24. Hier setzt denn auch die Kritik von ^K=pÅÜÉåJ âÉê an, der explizit den gegenteiligen Akzent herausarbeitet: ^K=pÅÜÉåâÉê, Das Neue am 11

neuen Bund und das Alte am alten. Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel, von der Textgeschichte zu Theologie, Synagoge und Kirche (FRLANT 212), Göttingen 2006, 72 Anm. 2. 15 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bundesmotiv, 163. 16 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bundesmotiv, 163. Ob damit der alttestamentliche Kult sachgemäß erfasst ist, lasse ich für unseren Zusammenhang dahingestellt.

70

Wolfgang Kraus

1.2. Manuel Vogel Nach Manuel Vogel geht es bei der Bundesthematik im Hebr ähnlich wie bei Backhaus um Identitätsbeschreibung. Der Hebr mache (wie Barn) den Begriff des Bundes aber als „eine exklusiv christliche theologische Grundkategorie verständlich“.17 Bei der Bundesthematik gehe es daher vor allem um die „Artikulation jüdisch-judenchristlicher Identitäts-Konkurrenz“.18 Vogel datiert den Hebr – anders als Backhaus – in die Zeit vor 70 n. Chr. Er richte sich an judenchristliche Adressaten.19 Der Autor wolle den eigenen Glauben „als legitime Neuinterpretation der biblischen Tradition“ verständlich machen (ähnlich wie das schon in Qumran erfolgte) und sich „gegen konkurrierende jüdische Auffassungen der biblischen Religion“ behaupten.20 Deshalb habe die Kategorie des Bundes zentrale Bedeutung und betone den exklusiven Anspruch auf den Bund. Durch das Syntagma αἷµα τῆς διαθήκης (9,20.29; 13,20) würden die zunächst eigenständig entwickelten Themenkreise ‚Kult‘ und ‚Bund‘ miteinander verkoppelt (9,14f.18; 12,24) – und zwar so, dass die Teilnahme am himmlischen Kultgeschehen als „legitime Substitution des Tempelkultes evident“ werde.21 Anders als bei Backhaus spielt der Bundesgedanke nach Vogel keine eigenständige Rolle hinsichtlich des Hohepriestertums Jesu: Auch unabhängig vom Bundesbegriff lasse sich „eine geschlossene und stringente Beweisführung über die Legitimität des Hohepriestertums Jesu rekonstruieren“22. Durch den Bundesbegriff würden kulttheologische Interpretamente zusätzlich mit einer „Signatur“ versehen bzw. „in den heilsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang der διαθήκη eingerückt“23 – allerdings, ohne eine organische Verbindung einzugehen, denn die Tradition des jeremianischen Neuen Bundes sei von jeglicher Kulttheologie völlig unberührt. Vogel sieht damit keinen inneren Zusammenhang zwischen HohepriesterChristologie und Bundes-Theologie im Hebr, sondern versteht die BundesTheologie in ihrer wesentlichen Funktion im Sinn der Identitätsgewinnung als Abgrenzung. Anders als bei Backhaus, wo das früher dominierende heilsgeschichtliche Schema in einen ontologischen oder kosmischen Dualis-

––––––––––

17 jK=sçÖÉä, Das Heil des Bundes. Bundestheologie im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (TANZ 18), Tübingen 1996, 323 (Hervorhebung W.K.). 18 So die Überschrift bei sçÖÉä, Heil, 318. 19 sçÖÉä, Heil, 318–323. 20 sçÖÉä, Heil, 323. 21 sçÖÉä, Heil, 323. 22 sçÖÉä, Heil, 325. 23 sçÖÉä, Heil, 327.

Die Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief

71

mus eingespannt ist, hat bei Vogel der heilsgeschichtliche Dualismus wiederum Priorität gewonnen.24 Über den Nachweis der Überlegenheit des Hohepriestertums Jesu will der Hebr zeigen, dass „im Heilswirken Jesu die Geschichte des Bundes Gottes mit seinem Volk ihre Fortsetzung und ihren Abschluß findet“25. Angesichts der als Mangel empfundenen „kultlosen Gestalt des Messiasbekenntnisses“ werde der judenchristlichen Gemeinde nunmehr ein „himmlisches Kultgeschehen“ als durch Christus eröffneter Heilsraum vor Augen gestellt, und die Teilnehmer würden „durch das Opferblut Jesu zu kultfähigen Personen“.26 1.3. Sebastian Fuhrmann Der innere Zusammenhang von Hohepriester-Christologie und Bundes-Theologie, die Vogel bestritten hatte, wird von Sebastian Fuhrmann erneut behauptet. Der wichtigste Text zum Verständnis des Hebr ist nach Fuhrman das Zitat aus Jer 38[31]. Hier werde der entscheidende Inhalt der διαθήκη im Sinn von „Vergebung“ oder „Amnestie“ deutlich. Andere biblische Kontexte (Lev 16 etc.) träten dahinter zurück. Die enge Verbindung von Priestertum und Gesetz (Hebr 7,11b.12) ermögliche dem Autor des Hebr die Argumentation mit der besseren διαθήκη in Hebr 7,22.27 Der Inhalt dieser besseren Diatheke sei Sündenvergebung. Fuhrmann grenzt sich deutlich von Manuel Vogel ab, insbesondere von seiner These, dass keine Verbindung zwischen dem Bundesmotiv und dem Verständnis des Todes Jesu existiere. Vogel verkenne, inwieweit „gerade der Bezug auf die jeremianische Verheißung den soteriologischen Gehalt des Christusgeschehens inhaltlich“ fülle.28 Wenn es nach Vogel darum ging, durch das Motiv des neuen Bundes den Kontrast zu verstärken, so wurde nach Fuhrmann mit der Einsetzung Jesu zum Hohenpriester der von Jeremia verheißene Neue Bund gerade in Geltung gesetzt.29 Dem Ansatz von Backhaus stimmt Fuhrmann insofern ausdrücklich zu, als auch er die Bundestheologie „als realisierte Eschatologie unter futurischem Vorbehalt“ versteht.30 Aber er kritisiert an ihm den Mangel an inhaltlicher Deutung der neuen διαθήκη, insbesondere den Verzicht auf „die inhaltliche –––––––––– 24

Siehe bes. sçÖÉä, Heil, 331 Anm. 63. Angesichts der im Hebr nachweisbaren ekklesiologischen Begrifflichkeit fragt man sich, wo die von sçÖÉä postulierte jüdisch-judenchristliche Identitätskonkurrenz sich begrifflich niederschlägt; vgl. zur Sache hê~ìë, Heil (s. Anm. 1). 25 sçÖÉä, Heil, 331. 26 sçÖÉä, Heil, 102. 27 pK=cìÜêã~åå, Vergeben und Vergessen. Christologie und Neuer Bund im Hebräerbrief (WMANT 113), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2007, 122. 28 cìÜêã~åå, Vergeben, 10. 29 cìÜêã~åå, Vergeben, 11. 30 cìÜêã~åå, Vergeben, 12, mit Bezug auf _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bund, 246.

72

Wolfgang Kraus

Füllung des διαθήκη-Gedankens, wie ihn das Jer-Zitat nahe legt“.31 Hier aber liegt nach Fuhrmann der eigentliche Schwerpunkt; διαθήκη werde bei Backhaus zu sehr als „Funktionsbegriff christlicher Soteriologie und näherhin Staurologie“ verstanden.32 Worauf Fuhrmann nicht eingeht, ist die bei Backhaus zentrale Vorstellung der Bundes-Konzeption als Identitätsbeschreibung der Gemeinde des Hebr. Schon aus diesem kurzen Blick auf drei exemplarische Konzeptionen zum Verständnis von Diatheke im Hebr wird deutlich, dass mit der διαθήκη-Thematik bezüglich der Interpretation des Hebr nicht nur einiges, sondern fast alles auf dem Spiel steht.

2. Statistik Das Nomen διαθήκη ist im Neuen Testament signifikant verteilt: Von den insgesamt 33 Belegen begegnet es neben vier Belegen in der Abendmahlstradition (Mk 14,24; Mt 26,28; Lk 22,20; 1Kor 11,25) vor allem bei Paulus (2Kor 3,6.14; Gal 4,24; Röm 9,4 [Plural]; Röm 11,27; Gal 3,15.17 [als Testament]) und dann gehäuft im Hebr. Zu den expliziten Belegen (Hebr 7,22; 8,6.8; 9,4[bis]. 15[bis]. 16.17.20; 10,16.29; 12,24; 13,20) ist διαθήκη in 8,7.13; 9,1.18 implizit zu ergänzen. Damit ist eine Gesamtzahl von 17 erreicht. Im übrigen Neuen Testament finden sich fünf Belege: Nach Lk 1,72 gedenkt Gott seiner διαθήκη. Apg 3,25 spricht von der διαθήκη, die Gott den Vätern verordnet hat. Apg 7,8 nennt die διαθήκη der Beschneidung. Eph 2,12 spricht von den διαθήκαι der Verheißung. Offb 11,19 erwähnt die Lade der διαθήκη im himmlischen Tempel.33 Das Verbum διατίθεσθαι ist im Neuen Testament siebenmal belegt: Lk 22,29[bis]; Apg 3,25 [s.o. Nomen!]; Hebr 8,10; 9,16.17; 10,16. Aus der Statistik ergibt sich, dass eine eindeutige Festlegung auf eine bestimmte Bundesvorstellung für das Neue Testament nicht durchgängig nachweisbar ist. Für den Hebr ist erkennbar, dass die Mehrzahl der Belege sich im christologischen Mittelteil findet. Erstmals – auf den ersten Blick unvorbereitet – begegnet der Begriff in 7,22, dreimal ist er im paränetischen Schlussteil belegt. Alle übrigen Belege finden sich in 8,1–10,18. Von den 17 Belegen stellen sechs Zitate aus dem Alten Testament dar, verteilt auf zwei Texte: Jer 38[31],31–34 und Ex 24,8, wobei αἷµα τῆς διαθήκης aus Ex 24 erneut in 10,29 und 13,20 aufgenommen wird. In Hebr –––––––––– 31 32 33

cìÜêã~åå, Vergeben, 12. cìÜêã~åå, Vergeben, 13, gegen _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bund, 260.

Bei den Apostolischen Vätern finden sich 13 Belege im Barnabasbrief. Bei Justin finden wir 31 Belege im Dialog mit Tryphon.

Die Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief

73

9,4 werden zwei atl. termini technici gebraucht: κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης und πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης. Das heißt: 10 von 17 Belegen sind von LXX-Kontexten her geprägt34, oder anderes gewendet: 7 von 17 Belegen sind vom Autor selbst formuliert.

3. Die Ersterwähnung Hebr 7,22 3.1. Methodische Vorbemerkung zur Semantik Die Tatsache, dass 6 der 17 Belege in LXX-Zitaten begegnen, besagt für sich genommen noch nicht, dass der Verf. „auf den in der LXX vorgeprägten Sprachgebrauch“ zurückgreife.35 Es gibt, wie sich bei detaillierter Untersuchung herausstellt, nicht den Sprachgebrauch in der LXX, sondern in unterschiedlichen Kontexten finden sich unterschiedliche Akzente.36 Wenn HansFriedrich Weiß darüber hinausgehend feststellt, „daß der Autor des Hebr sich an den meisten Stellen auf den Sprachgebrauch der LXX bezieht, wo der griechische Terminus διαθήκη für das hebräische tyrb steht“37, dann führt das auch deshalb zu weit, weil das Verständnis von tyrb selbst umstritten ist. Der Sprachgebrauch der LXX wird hier vorausgesetzt, aber nicht diskutiert. Zudem wird behauptet, der LXX-Sprachgebrauch sei wegen der häufigen Zitate von hebr. tyrb her zu begreifen. Wie „kreativ“ jedoch der Hebr mit Zitaten umgehen kann, zeigt etwa die Verwendung von Hab 2,3f. in Hebr 10,37ff.38 Es könnte auch sein, dass der Hebr durch sein Verständnis von διαθήκη den LXX-Zitaten einen neuen Sinn aufprägt.39

––––––––––

34 Vgl. gK=cêÉó, Die alte und die neue διαθήκη nach dem Hebräerbrief, in: Bund und Tora, hg. v. F. Avemarie/H. Lichtenberger (WUNT 92), Tübingen 1996, 263–310: 266. 35 cêÉó, διαθήκη, 266 (Hervorhebung W.K.). 36 Siehe hierzu die Literaturhinweise unten in Anm. 40; daneben gK=_ÉÜãLdK=nìÉää, Art. διατίθηµι, διαθήκη, ThWNT 2 (1935), 105–137; cìÜêã~åå, Vergeben, 140–146. 37 eKJcK=tÉá≈, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13), Göttingen 1991, 411f. 38 Vgl. dazu tK=hê~ìë, Hab 2,3–4 in der hebräischen und griechischen Texttradition mit einem Ausblick auf das Neue Testament, in: Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum – The Septuagint and Christian Origins, hg. v. T. S. Caulley/H. Lichtenberger (WUNT 277), Tübingen 2011, 153–173. 39 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bund, 85.

74

Wolfgang Kraus

Exkurs: Diatheke in Jesus Sirach40 Um die Vielfalt des Verständnisses von Diatheke innerhalb eines Buches der LXX deutlich zu machen, soll ein kurzer Blick auf Jesus Sirach geworfen werden. Das Wort διαθήκη findet sich bei Sirach 23mal, davon dreimal im Plural.41 Im erhaltenen hebräischen Text von Jesus Sirach finden sich 10 Belege mit tyrb. An sieben (wenn man die textkritisch schwierige Stelle 44,18 hinzunimmt, an acht) Stellen ist διαθήκη die griechische Wiedergabe von tyrb. An zehn Stellen gibt der Begriff jedoch das hebr. qwx wieder.42 Eine semantische Festlegung auf „Bund“ (im Sinn von tyrb) ist daher nicht möglich. Die Übersetzung von διαθήκη im Buch Jesus Sirach in LXX.D oszilliert daher zwischen „Vertrag“, „(Schicksals-)Bestimmung“, „Vereinbarung“, „Bund“, „Gesetz“, „Rechtsordnung“, „Satzung“, „Bundesschlüsse“, „Setzung“ (sic!), „Bestimmungen“ und „(Königs-)Protokoll“. Heinz-Josef Fabry resümiert: „In fast allen Fällen (außer 45,15), in denen διαθήκη ein hebr. tyrb wiedergibt, legt sich die Bundesvorstellung tatsächlich nahe, auch in 44,20b (qwx). Gibt διαθήκη jedoch hebr. qwx wieder, ist in fast allen Fällen an ‚Vereinbarungen, Bestimmungen‘ etc. zu denken. . . . Möglicherweise . . . war διαθήκη semantisch noch offen und nicht auf die Bedeutung ‚Bund‘ festgelegt.“43 In Hebr 9,16f. wird διαθήκη „in seinem gemein-hellenistischen, erbrechtlichen Sinn einer ‚letztwilligen Verfügung‘ bzw. eines ‚Testaments‘ (vgl. Gal 3,15.17) gebraucht.“44 Die meisten Ausleger notieren, dass hier – ausnahmsweise – der gängige Sprachgebrauch vorliege. Diese Belege können aber m.E. nicht als ‚Sonderbelege‘ verstanden werden. Jörg Frey stellt fest: „Gerade wenn der in der hellenistischen Welt allein geläufige Sinn von διαθήκη der erbrechtliche war, dann ist es um so bemerkenswerter, wie selbstverständlich der Verfasser den Terminus in seinem von der LXX geprägten Sinn ge––––––––––

40 Zum Verständnis von Diatheke im LXX-Pentateuch s. jK=o∏ëÉä, Exkurs: Zur Übersetzung von διαθήκη, in: Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare, hg. v. M. Karrer/W. Kraus, Stuttgart 2011, Bd. 1, 170. Zur Bundestheologie im Sirach-Buch s. gK=j~êÄ∏Åâ, Die „Geschichte Israels“ als „Bundesgeschichte“ nach dem Sirachbuch, in: ÇÉêëK, Gottes Weisheit unter uns. Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach (HBS 6), Freiburg 1995, 103–123; eKJgK=c~Äêó, „Wir wollen nun loben Männer von gutem Ruf“ (Sir 44,1). Der Pinhas-Bund im „Lob der Väter“, in: Für immer verbündet. Studien zur Bundestheologie in der Bibel (FS F.-L. Hossfeld), hg. v. C. Dohmen/C. Frevel (SBS 211), Stuttgart 2007, 49–60; ÇÉêëK, Exkurs: Zur Übersetzung von διαθήκη in Jesus Sirach, in: Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare, hg. v. M. Karrer/W. Kraus, Stuttgart 2011, Bd. 2, Stuttgart 2011, 2182–2183. 41 Genaue Statistik bei c~Äêó, Exkurs, 2183. 42 tyrb als hebräisches Textplus findet sich außerdem in 11,34 (Plural) und 50,24 (vgl. c~Äêó, Exkurs, 2182). 43 c~Äêó, Exkurs, 2183. 44 cêÉó, διαθήκη, 267.

Die Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief

75

braucht.“45 Aber stellt das nicht die Dinge auf den Kopf? Müsste nicht zunächst innerhalb des Wortgebrauchs des Hebr untersucht werden, ob ein einheitliches Verständnis von διαθήκη möglich ist, bzw. um welches Bedeutungsspektrum es sich handelt – unter Einschluss der Profangräzität – und inwiefern der (differenzierte) Sprachgebrauch der LXX aufgenommen ist, anstatt einen solchen – noch dazu einheitlich von tyrb her geprägten – Sinn vorauszusetzen? Jörg Frey votiert beim Hebr für die Wiedergabe mit Verfügung, Ordnung, Stiftung, Setzung.46 Die Wiedergabe mit ‚Testament‘ hält er außer in 9,16.17 für nicht gerechtfertigt, die Wiedergabe mit ‚Bund‘ sei „eher mißverständlich“.47 Aber müsste es nicht vielmehr heißen: Soll der Begriff durch ‚Bund‘ wiedergegeben werden, dann ist das zu begründen. Die Wiedergabe mit ‚Testament‘ ist für 9,16f. auf jeden Fall vorauszusetzen, andere Stellen sind zu diskutieren. Ein Verzicht auf den Bundesbegriff liegt jedenfalls erheblich näher als dessen Verwendung. 3.2. Der Beleg Hebr 7,22 Erstmals von Diatheke spricht der Hebr in 7,22. Er tut dies relativ unvermittelt, aber – wie sich zeigen wird – nicht unvorbereitet. Hiernach ist Jesus „Bürge“ einer besseren διαθήκη. Beim Begriff „Bürge“ (ἔγγυος) handelt es sich um einen Rechtsterminus; im Neuen Testament und bei den Apostolischen Vätern ein Hapaxlegomenon. Backhaus interpretiert den Begriff sogleich in Korrespondenz mit µεσίτης und mit ἱερεύς. „Jesus bürgt für die διαθήκη, indem er das neue Verhältnis zwischen Gott und Gottesvolk ein für allemal garantiert.“48 Das steht allerdings in 7,22 so nicht da! Im Profangriechischen und in den Papyrusurkunden liegt bei „Bürge“ (ἔγγυος) eindeutig juridischer Gebrauch vor: Es geht um Verwaltungs- und Prozessrecht oder um privates Vertragsrecht, wo der Begriff Verwendung findet.49 Der Bürge nimmt die Rechtsverpflichtung auf sich: er ist Garant derselben, aber nicht Garant eines Verhältnisses. Die Formulierung „bessere διαθήκη“ in 7,22 steht parallel zu „bessere Hoffnung“ in 7,19. Letztere richtet sich auf die Vollendung der Verheißung Gottes, die das Gesetz nicht bringen konnte (7,19a). Vom Kontext her ist Jesus Bürge der Zusagen, die Gott gemacht hat. Er ist nicht Bürge eines besseren Bundes – auf diesen semantischen Gehalt von διαθήκη käme m.E. kein

–––––––––– 45

cêÉó, διαθήκη, 267. cêÉó, διαθήκη, 267. 47 cêÉó, διαθήκη, 267. 48 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bund, 83. 49 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bund, 83. 46

76

Wolfgang Kraus

Leser von 7,22 – sondern Bürge einer besseren Setzung bzw. Verfügung bzw. Ordnung oder eines Testamentes.50 Nun ist es sicher richtig, dass bereits in 7,22 die später in Kap. 8 sich zeigende Verwendung von διαθήκη die Sprache in 7,22 „färbt“51, aber es ist nicht erwiesen, dass der Hebr den Begriff „offenbar der atl.-jüdischen Tradition entlehnt, um ihn auf die neue Ordnung zu übertragen“52. Die anschließende Folgerung von Backhaus ist verfrüht und fragwürdig: „Demnach verwendet der Auctor ad Hebraeos hier und im folgenden, abgesehen von 9,16f., das Nomen διαθήκη als Terminus der zu seiner Zeit bereits geprägten biblischen ‚Binnensprache‘, nämlich zur Beschreibung einer heilsökonomischen Ordnung . . .“53. Und auch die daraus gezogene Konsequenz erscheint mir nicht ausreichend begründet: „Von daher liegt es zunächst auch keineswegs nahe, διαθήκη als ‚Testament‘ zu deuten, denn das müßte dann ebenso für die hier vorausgesetzte frühere διαθήκη gelten.“54 Hier liegt ein Zirkelschluss vor. Backhaus muss zwar zugeben: „im hellenistischen Raum war der διαθήκηBegriff nicht zu verwenden, ohne daß der Rechtsakt der letztwilligen Verfügung, für die der Terminus im profanen Bereich allgemein und ausschließlich stand, assoziiert wurde.“55 Wenn dem jedoch so ist, dann sollte man die Verwendung von διαθήκη in 9,16f. nicht als gezieltes Sich-zu-Nutze-Machen der Ambivalenz des Begriffes verstehen (87), sondern umgekehrt argumentieren: hier liegt der normale Sinn vor. Die Frage stellt sich: Wie passen die anderen Belege dazu? Für 7,22 lässt sich als Zwischenresultat formulieren: Jesus ist Bürge einer besseren Verfügung, insofern er die Vollendung der Hoffnung garantiert (7,22; vgl. 7,19). An dieser Stelle ist noch ein Blick auf die Funktion zu werfen, mit der die Diatheke-Vorstellung eingeführt wird. Sie erfolgt auf den ersten Blick überraschend und es hat den Anschein, als stehe sie zusammenhanglos da und werde auch sogleich wieder verlassen. Hebr 7,22 scheint als Begründungssatz irgendwie in der Luft zu hängen. Erst in Hebr 8,6 findet sich der nächste Beleg. Wie Jörg Frey in seiner Analyse von 7,22 jedoch zu Recht herausgestellt hat, „antizipiert [die erste Nennung] sachlich die Thematik von 8,1–10,18, gründet aber ganz in der Argumentation von Hebr 7 und dem hier ausgelegten Ps 110(109),4.“56 Dieser Sachverhalt ist hoch bedeutsam für die Argumentationsstruktur des Hebr, denn er beinhaltet, dass die Einführung der διαθήκηVorstellung verwoben ist in die Argumentation der Hohepriester-Christo–––––––––– 50 Die im Kommentar von _~ÅâÜ~ìë vorliegende Übersetzung mit „Gottesbund“ finde ich zu weitgehend und durch den Text nicht gedeckt. 51 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bund, 85. 52 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bund, 86. 53 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bund, 86. 54 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bund, 86. 55 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Bund, 86. 56 cêÉó, διαθήκη, 268.

Die Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief

77

logie.57 Sie, die Hohepriester-Christologie, ist nämlich von Kap. 7 her das eigentliche Thema. Die Einsetzung Jesu wird begründet mit Ps 109[110],4. Die Frage lautet: Wie kann das sein, dass Jesus Hohepriester ist, wo es doch bereits eine Priesterschaft gibt? Die Erklärung erfolgt durch die Begründung mit einer durch Gott verheißenen neuen, besseren διαθήκη. Das heißt, die διαθήκη-Vorstellung begründet die vorher genannte „bessere Hoffnung“, die durch Jesu Wirken als Hohepriester erfolgte. Die διαθήκη-Vorstellung hat hier also die Funktion eines begründenden Schriftbeweises für die legitime Anwendung von Ps 109[110],4 auf Jesus.58 Frey beschreibt völlig richtig, dass der Subtext, der die Argumentation in Hebr 7 leitet, in Ps 109[110],4 zu sehen ist, und dass dieser nach seinen einzelnen Elementen hin ausgelegt wird. In 7,22 wird festgestellt, dass Jesus nach der Außerkraftsetzung der früheren διαθήκη (V.12 und V.18), nun als Bürge (d.h. rechtlicher Garant) einer besseren eingesetzt wurde. Ob deshalb die Wiedergabe dieser Stelle mit „Heilsordnung“ gerechtfertigt ist59, lässt sich m.E. noch nicht entscheiden.60

4. Die weiteren Belege 4.1. Hebr 8,6 Der Vers bezeichnet Jesus als den µεσίτης einer besseren διαθήκη. Der semantische Hintergrund ist klar: es handelt sich um einen in privatrechtlichen Angelegenheiten Unparteiischen oder um den Zeugen bzw. Bürgen eines Rechtsgeschäftes.61 Es geht also nicht um einen Mittler zwischen der Welt Gottes und der Menschenwelt. Das könnte den mittelplatonischen Kontext fragwürdig erscheinen lassen. Der gleiche Begriff µεσίτης begegnet neben 8,6 auch in 9,15 und 12,24, an letzterer Stelle jedoch mit νέα διαθήκη. Es fällt auf, dass die Begrifflichkeit nicht völlig einheitlich ist. 7,22: Bürge einer besseren διαθήκη –––––––––– 57

Das wäre ein klares Argument gegen jK=sçÖÉäs Darstellung. Vgl. dazu auch sçÖÉä, Heil, 101, jedoch ohne weitere Auswertung. 59 cêÉó, διαθήκη, 274. 60 Die Argumentation des Hebr mit der „später“ verfügten Neuerung steht übrigens in diametralem Gegensatz zu der Argumentation des Paulus in Gal 3. Nach Gal 3 kann ein ratifiziertes Testament durch eine 430 Jahre später gegebene Gesetzgebung niemals aufgehoben werden (und schon gar nicht, wenn sie [nur] durch Engel vermittelt ist). Da dem Abraham eine Zusage gemacht wurde, kann die Torah die Verheißung nicht aufheben, sie muss daher eine andere Funktion haben: sie ist „zwischeneingekommen“. 61 Vgl. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 4,54,7; Josephus, Ant. 4,133; s. aK=p®åÖÉê, Art. µεσίτης, EWNT 2 (1981), 110; vgl. cêÉó, διαθήκη, 287 Anm. 102. 58

78

Wolfgang Kraus

8,6: Mittler einer besseren διαθήκη 9,15: Mittler einer besseren διαθήκη 12,24: Mittler einer neuen διαθήκη Dass Jesus µεσίτης einer besseren διαθήκη ist, wird in 8,6 mit dem vortrefflicheren Priesterdienst parallelisiert und sofort dadurch bestätigt, dass die bessere διαθήκη durch bessere Verheißungen angeordnet wurde (νενοµοθέτηται, vgl. 7,12!). Der Bezug zu 7,11f., wonach eine Veränderung des Priesterdienstes auch eine Veränderung des Nomos nach sich zieht, ist durch den Verbgebrauch unmittelbar deutlich. Ab Hebr 8,7ff. wird dann auf Jer 38[31] Bezug genommen und die vorausgehende Aussage durch die Schrift begründet. 4.2. Hebr 8,7–13; 10,16f. Die Überlegenheit der besseren διαθήκη wird durch vollständiges Zitat aus Jer 38[31],31–34 begründet.62 Eingriffe in den LXX-Text (er steht der Überlieferung von Cod. A nahe) sind kaum zu verzeichnen. Die Ersetzung von διατίθεσθαι durch συντελεῖν könnte stilistische Verbesserung sein oder die Endgültigkeit der besseren διαθήκη im Blick haben.63 Das Verständnis von Jer 38 wird durch die Rahmenverse Hebr 8,7 und 13 normiert: V.7 formuliert eine Kritik an der ersten Diatheke, V.13 spricht davon, dass die erste Diatheke dem Verschwinden nahe sei.64 K. Backhaus und J. Frey sind übereinstimmend der Meinung, dass der mittlere Teil des Zitats, wo es in Jer 38,32f. LXX (diff. MT) um den Bundesbruch geht, in Hebr 8 unbetont bleibe.65 A. Schenker hat dem gegenüber betont, dass der Hebr mit der Aufnahme des Zitats sich auch dessen Inhalt aneigne.66 Eine differenzierende Argumentation findet sich bei M. Karrer: Der Hebr gehe nicht so weit wie Jer-LXX: in V.13 sei der Bund beim Verlöschen, aber noch nicht verloschen.67 Die Argumentation von Schenker hat immerhin für sich, dass (1) auch in Hebr 3,7–4,11 von einem Bundesbruch ausgegangen wird.68 Auch dort erfolgt eine erneute Ankündigung, da die erste nicht zum Erfolg geführt hat und die Wüstengeneration nicht ins Land kam. Sodann –––––––––– 62

Vgl. cêÉó, διαθήκη, 277. eK=tK=^ííêáÇÖÉ, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia), Philadelphia 1989; eK=_ê~ìå, An die Hebräer (HNT 14), Tübingen 1984, 239; bK=dê®≈Éê, An die Hebräer (Hebr 7,1–10,18) (EKK XVII/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993, 98; cêÉó, διαθήκη, 277 Anm. 64. 64 Sie ist noch nicht verschwunden, vgl. jK=h~êêÉê, Der Brief an die Hebräer II. Kapitel 5,11–13,25 (ÖTK 20/2), Gütersloh 2008, 124.128 (gegen pÅÜÉåâÉê, Bund, 40–42). 65 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Hebr, 295; cêÉó, διαθήκη, 278. 66 pÅÜÉåâÉê, Bund, 71f. 67 h~êêÉê, Hebräer II, 124.128. 68 Vgl. dK=dÉä~êÇáåá, „Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht“. Der Hebräer, eine Synagogenhomi63

lie zu Tischa be-Aw (Bibl.Interpr.S 83), Leiden 2007, 254–258.

Die Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief

79

wird (2) durch die Einführung des Zitats mit µεµφόµενος . . . αὐτούς („sie tadelnd“) deutlich, dass der Hebr das jeremianische Trostwort als Scheltwort verstanden hat.69 Die Schwäche der alten und die Stärke der neuen Diatheke erweist sich an der Sündenvergebung (10,1–4). Genau dieser Sachverhalt wird in der Wiederaufnahme des Jer-Wortes in 10,16f. betont. Dort wird es eingeführt als Zeugnis des Heiligen Geistes für die Gegenwart. Außerdem wird zum Zitat in V.17a hinzugefügt: καὶ τῶν ἀνοµίων αὐτῶν, was noch einmal die Sündenvergebung als Hauptinhalt der besseren διαθήκη zum Ausdruck bringt und was durch V.18 erneut bestätigt wird.70 4.3. Hebr 9,15–22 Wie die soeben genannte Sündenvergebung erreicht wird, stellt Hebr in Kap. 9 in antitypischer Gegenüberstellung des Tuns Jesu mit dem der Priester/des Mose in Ex 24, Lev 16 und Num 19 dar. In 9,1 ist sachlich διαθήκη zu ergänzen.71 Auch ἡ πρώτη hatte Dienstsatzungen etc. In 9,15–22 findet sich eine besondere Dichte der διαθήκη-Aussagen. V.15a (These): Jesus ist µεσίτης einer besseren Diatheke; V.15b (Begründung): sein Tod bedeutet Erlösung von den Sünden unter der ersten Diatheke; V.15c (Folgerung mit finalem Sinn): die Berufenen sollen das ewige Erbe der Verheißungen empfangen.72 Inwiefern Jesu Tod Erlösung bedeutet, wird in 9,15 nicht näher entfaltet. Allerdings hat man den Eindruck, dass in 6,20; 9,11f.; 9,24 das Hineingehen in das himmlische Heiligtum und nicht der Kreuzestod als eigentliches Heilsereignis angesehen wird.73 In Hebr 9,16f. wird nach Darstellung von Jörg Frey in Verbindung mit V.18–22 die „fundamentale Bedeutung des Todes Jesu“ expliziert. Der Hebr mache sich dabei die „unterschiedlichen Sinngehalte von διαθήκη in der LXX und im profan-hellenistischen Griechisch zunutze“.74 In V.16f. scheint klar juridische Terminologie vorzuliegen. Zu übersetzen ist dann mit „Testament“. Der Zusammenhang zwischen dem Tod eines Testators und der Rechts–––––––––– 69

cêÉó, διαθήκη, 279; _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Hebr, 295. Auch dies wäre ein Argument gegen die Darstellung von jK=sçÖÉä und für die von pK=cìÜêã~åå. 71 cêÉó, διαθήκη, 263 Anm. 5. 72 Ob wir in 9,15 die theologische Summe des gesamten Schreibens vor uns haben (_~ÅâÜ~ìë) oder nur einen Übergangsvers (tÉá≈) muss hier nicht entschieden werden. Nach cêÉó, διαθήκη, 282 bilden 9,11f. + 15 die Summe; anders 288: dort Anschluss an _~ÅâÜ~ìë. Ich würde die Summe des Briefes nur in Verbindung mit 8,1f. sehen können. Versteht man 9,11f. im Kontext von 8,1f. und nimmt dann 9,15 hinzu, könnte man vielleicht von der Summe sprechen. 73 Die Diskussion um das Verhältnis von Kreuzestod und Eingang ins himmlische Heiligtum kann hier nicht geführt werden (vgl. cêÉó, διαθήκη, 283 Anm. 82 und Umfeld). 74 cêÉó, διαθήκη, 288. 70

80

Wolfgang Kraus

gültigkeit eines Testamentes steht im Hintergrund. Allerdings ist eine Spannung unübersehbar: Ist Jesus Mittler oder Testator oder nicht beides?75 Der Anschluss in V.18, der mit dem Stichwort „Blut“ einen neuen Gedanken einbringt, enthält erneut eine „logische Inkonsistenz“ (ebd.). In 9,18 ist zu πρώτη singemäß διαθήκη zu ergänzen. Auf sie nimmt dann V.19ff. Bezug, wo es um die Einweihung der ersten Diatheke durch Blut geht. Der in Ex 24 MT singuläre Blutritus, durch den eine Verbindung zwischen göttlicher Sphäre und Volk hergestellt werden soll, wird in Hebr 9 als Reinigungs-/Weiheritus verstanden.76 Er wird damit von den Blutriten am Heiligtum her interpretiert, durch welche dieses von Unreinheiten gereinigt bzw. geweiht wird.77 Das Volk usw. wurde für die erste Diatheke geweiht.78 Es ist jedoch auch hier die Übersetzung mit ‚Verfügung‘ am ehesten sachgemäß. Eine Wiedergabe mit ‚Bund‘ ist jedenfalls durch nichts angezeigt und führt m.E. in die falsche Richtung. Wichtig sind die Differenzen zwischen Hebr und dem LXX-Zitat aus Ex 24: a) διέθετο wird durch ἐνετείλατο ersetzt. b) κύριος wird durch θεός ersetzt und ans Ende gestellt (was eine Betonung beinhaltet). c) περὶ πάντων τῶν λόγων τούτων ist entfallen. Das kann aus der Situation erklärt werden. d) ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷµα ist geändert zu τοῦτο τὸ αἷµα. Das wird gern durch Aufnahme von Herrenmahlstradition erklärt79, kann aber in unserem Kontext vorerst unentschieden bleiben.80 Wichtig ist darüber hinaus die Fortsetzung des Zitats in 19b.21, wo der Blutritus von Ex 24,8 beträchtlich erweitert wird. Durch die Einführung des Blutes der Ziegenböcke neben dem der Stiere wird klar, dass der Blutritus von Ex 24 vom Versöhnungstag, Lev 16, her verstanden werden soll, denn auch dort findet sich diese Kumulation von Tieren.81 4.4. Hebr 10,29; 12,24; 13,20 Die weiteren Belege bringen keine völlig neuen Aspekte mehr, sondern rufen in Erinnerung, was vorher entfaltet wurde.82 Hebr 10,29: Mit der Formulierung „Blut der διαθήκη“ wird an 9,20.25.28 erinnert. Gemäß Hebr 12,24 ist Jesus Mittler einer neuen Diatheke inmitten der Aufzählung weiterer, heils–––––––––– 75 76

cêÉó, διαθήκη, 288, entdeckt eine „Inkonsistenz“. Siehe dazu tK=hê~ìë, Jesu Tod als Heiligtumsweihe. Eine Untersuchung zum Umfeld

der Sühnevorstellung in Römer 3,25–26a (WMANT 66), Neukirchen-Vlyun 1991, 238–245. 77 Vgl. dazu `K=bÄÉêÜ~êí, Studien zu Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament. Die Signifikanz von Blut- und Verbrennungsriten im kultischen Rahmen (WMANT 94), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002. 78 Von einem „sühnetheologischen Anliegen“ – so cêÉó, διαθήκη, 289 – in diesem allgemeinen Sinn sollte man m.E. besser nicht sprechen. 79 cêÉó, διαθήκη, 290. 80 Dagegen sçÖÉä, Heil, 97. 81 sçÖÉä, Heil, 99. 82 Vgl. cêÉó, διαθήκη, 291.

Die Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief

81

relevanter Sachverhalte. Für das Verständnis von Hebr 13,20 (ἐν αἵµατι διαθήκης αἰωνίου) gibt es verschiedene Vorschläge in der Literatur. M. Karrer: Gott hat „im Blut ewigen Bundes aus Toten herauf“ geführt.83 H. Braun: Gott hat „zusammen mit dem Blut der ewigen Stiftung“ den großen Hirten der Schafe aus den Toten heraufgeführt.84 K. Backhaus: Gott hat „kraft des Blutes eines ewigen Gottesbunds“ heraufgeführt.85 Nach E. Gräßer kann der Streit, ob „mit“ oder „kraft“ zu übersetzen ist, unentschieden bleiben.86

5. Konsequenzen und Ertrag 5.1. Zur Semantik Es gibt keinen Anlass, διαθήκη im Hebr mit „Bund“ zu übersetzen und 9,16f. aufgrund der Bedeutungsbreite von διαθήκη lediglich als Sonderfälle zu qualifizieren. Die Übersetzung mit „Verfügung, Setzung, Testament, Stiftung“ ist zu bevorzugen. Allen eignet die „Fremdbestimmung“. Dieser Inhalt ist nach A. Schenker auch für διαθήκη in der LXX (zumindest im Pentateuch) anzunehmen.87 Die Übersetzung mit „Gottesbund“88 ist m.E. semantisch nicht gedeckt, sondern eine Überinterpretation. Eine Wiedergabe mit „Heilsordnung“89 erscheint diskutabel. Der Hebr steht ausweislich 9,16f. in jedem Fall semantisch auch im Horizont des normalen griechischen Sprachgebrauchs. Inwiefern solcher auch in der LXX zu finden ist, müsste umfassend geprüft werden. LXX.D hat sich im Pentateuch durchgängig für „Verfügung“ entschieden, im Übrigen die Entscheidung den Autoren überlassen. Einen LXX-Sprachgebrauch ausgehend von hebr. tyrb vorauszusetzen und diesen dann im Hebr finden zu wollen – im Gegensatz zur gesamten Profangräzität – erscheint problematisch. Wer verstanden werden will, muss verstehbar reden. Auch die LXX-Zitate im Hebr lassen sich ohne Probleme vom Sinn der „Verfügung“ oder „Setzung“ her verstehen. „Bund“ muss nicht bemüht werden – auch wenn es schwer fallen sollte, darauf zu verzichten. –––––––––– 83

h~êêÉê, Hebr II, 349. _ê~ìå, Hebr, 477. 85 _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Hebr, 482. 86 bK=dê®≈Éê, An die Hebräer (Hebr 10,19–13,25) (EKK XVII/3), Neukirchen-Vluyn 84

1997, 403. 87

^K=pÅÜÉåâÉê, διαθήκη pour tyrb: L’option de traduction de la LXX à la double lumière du droit successoral de l’Égypte ptolémaïque et du livre de la Genèse, in: Lectures et Relectures de la Bible (FS P.-M. Bogaert), hg. v. J.-M. Auwers/A. Wénin (BEThL 144), Leuven 1999, 125–131. 88 So _~ÅâÜ~ìë, Hebr, durchgängig. 89 So tÉá≈, Hebr, durchgängig.

82

Wolfgang Kraus

5.2. Zur Funktion im Argumentationsgang Kann man die „Bundes-Theologie“ des Hebr als Versuch einer Selbstidentifikation in einer semantischen „Sattelzeit“ (K. Backhaus) begreifen oder als Selbst-Definition in Auseinandersetzung mit dem Judentum (M. Vogel)? Soweit ich erkennen kann, hat διαθήκη im Hebr nicht einen solch definitorischen Charakter, den man im Blick auf das Selbstverständnis der AdressatenGemeinde auswerten könnte. Der Begriff bzw. die damit verbundene Vorstellung hat eine begrenzte, wenngleich bedeutsame Relevanz. Die Einführung einer neuen, besseren Diatheke dient (1.) der Begründung des Hohepriestertums Jesu in Überbietung der levitischen Priesterschaft, (2.) der inhaltlichen Füllung der Sündenvergebung als zentrales Kennzeichen dessen, was Jesus bringt. Um Ps 109[110],4 in seiner Anwendung auf Jesus zu belegen, wird Jer 38[31] eingeführt, und um die soteriologische Qualität des Hohepriestertums Jesu zu belegen, wird postuliert: er ist es, der die durch Jer angekündigte Sündenvergebung vollzieht. Die soteriologische Tätigkeit Jesu wird dann unter Zuhilfenahme weiterer AT-Kontexte dargestellt (insbes. Ex 24; Lev 16; Num 19). Leitender Gedanke in Hebr (7,1) 8,1–10,18 ist jedoch nicht die Bundestheologie, sondern Ps 109[110],4 in Verbindung mit 8,1–2 und der Erhöhungsaussage in Kap.1 (Ps 109[110],1). Das Bekenntnis zur Erhöhung Jesu gehört auch zu den Glaubensgrundlagen der Adressaten des Hebr. In 1,3.13 – 8,1 – 10,12 – 12,2 spricht der Hebr – anders als Ps 109[110] – von dem Sitzen Jesu zur Rechten Gottes als Hoherpriester. Dabei handelt es sich um eine leitmotivische Aussage, die den ganzen Hebr durchzieht. Nach Ps 109[110],1 ist Jesus zu Gott erhöht. Die Fortsetzung Ps 109[110],4 (in Kombination mit Gen 14,17–20) bietet dem Autor des Hebr die Möglichkeit, Jesus als Hohepriester nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks zu verstehen. Die Diatheke-Vorstellung hat im Hebr insofern eine spezifische Funktion: Jer 38[31] verheißt Sündenvergebung und begründet eine neue „Verfügung/Setzung“, jenseits bzw. nach der älteren (überbotenen) Diatheke, durch welche die levitischen Priester eingesetzt wurden. Der Autor des Hebr verwendet die aus Jer 38 gewonnene Diatheke-Vorstellung um seine Hohepriester-Christologie in Gottes Verheißung, und d.h. biblisch, zu legitimieren. Dass die Argumentation des Hebr dann im weiteren Verlauf der Geschichte zur Begründung eines neuen Selbstverständnisses herangezogen werden konnte (Barn, Justin), gehört in dessen Wirkungs- oder besser: Rezeptionsgeschichte, aber noch nicht zur Absicht der Theologie des Auctor ad Hebraeos.

Die Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief

83

5.3. Zur theologischen Bedeutung Das Motiv der διαθήκη hat nach J. Frey seinen Ort in der Soteriologie.90 Nach E. Gräßer und H.-F. Weiß hat es seinen Ort in der Schriftauslegung.91 Nach dem, was mir gegenwärtig richtig erscheint, können beide Ortsbestimmungen nicht alternativ angesehen werden. Es gilt beides. Die Schriftauslegung wird in der Soteriologie fortgeführt, die Soteriologie hat ihre Basis in der Schriftauslegung. Die Herkunft des διαθήκη-Motivs aus der Herrenmahltradition kann nicht als erwiesen gelten. Die Formulierung in 9,20 mit τοῦτο als (evidentem?) Bezug auf die Herrenmahltradition scheint mir nicht ausreichend. Und sonst gibt es keine wirklich harten Fakten.92 Die erste/altgewordene Diatheke beinhaltet die Einsetzung des levitischen Priestertums. Diese war insuffizient. Die neue/bessere/frische/ewige Diatheke bedeutet die Einsetzung Jesu zum Hohepriester nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks und sein himmlisches Handeln für die Menschen. Dieses bringt jene Sündenvergebung, von der Jer 38[31] gesprochen hat. Damit ist die frühere διαθήκη überboten und somit dem Verschwinden nahe. Der Hebr ist nicht polemisch gegen das Judentum gerichtet, aber er trägt das Potential in sich, in einer Krisenzeit so rezipiert werden zu können.93 Es ist so geschehen.

–––––––––– 90 91

cêÉó, διαθήκη, 296. bK=dê®≈Éê, Der Alte Bund im Neuen. Eine exegetische Vorlesung, in: ÇÉêëK, Der Alte

Bund im Neuen. Exegetische Studien zur Israelfrage im Neuen Testament (WUNT 35), Tübingen 1985, 1–134: 99; tÉá≈, Hebr, 414. 92 Anders cêÉó, διαθήκη, 296f.; nach _ê~ìå, Hebr, 277, stellt τοῦτο einen literarischen Rückverweis dar; vgl. auch sçÖÉä, Heil, 97 (im Anschluss an Berger). 93 Ich korrigiere damit auch meine eigene, früher vertretene Position. Aufgrund seiner rigorosen Ethik und angesichts von Hebr 13,17 wäre der Hebr-Autor sicher bereit, sich dem Wort Jesu, Mt 12,36, zu unterstellen.

 

The Use of δόξα in Paul and John as Shaped by the Septuagint* g∏êÖ=cêÉó

Introduction The word δόξα (together with the verb δοξάζειν) is one of the theologically most significant words in New Testament language.1 Its usage in the New Testament is also one of the most striking examples of the influence of the LXX on early Christian language. Apart from a mere semantic influence, we can also see a particular exegetical influence or, rather, a deliberate exegetical adoption of some aspects of the LXX usage in New Testament texts. For the present paper, I will focus on two New Testament authors, Paul, our earliest Christian writer who reveals the most extensive usage of δόξα in the New Testament, and the Fourth Evangelist (= “John”) who uses the terms programmatically (cf. John 1:14) in his story of Jesus, especially in his interpretation of Jesus’ death. But before analyzing the New Testament usage, we have to look more closely at the profile of the usage of δόξα in the LXX and the open question how this usage is to be explained.

—————— * Paper given at the conference on January 22, 2011, in Bühl. I am grateful to Jan Joosten and Eberhard Bons for the invitation and to all colleagues for the critical discussion. The footnotes are kept as limited as possible. For correcting my English text, I am thankful to my assistant Dr. Benjamin Schließer (Zurich). 1 On the use of δόξα in the New Testament, especially in Paul and John, and the respective background, see two recent monographs: oK=pÅÜïáåÇí, Gesichte der Herrlichkeit: Eine exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Studie zur paulinischen und johanneischen Christologie (HBS 50), Freiburg: Herder, 2007, on Paul and John, and kK=`ÜáÄáÅáJoÉîåÉ~åì, Die Herrlichkeit des Verherrlichten: Das Verständnis der δόξα im Johannesevangelium (WUNT II 231), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007, on John. Cf. also my discussion of the theological aspects of δόξα in John in gK=cêÉó, “ ‘. . . dass sie meine Herrlichkeit schauen’ (Joh 17.24): Zu Hintergrund, Sinn und Funktion der Rede von der δόξα Jesu”, NTS 54 (2009), 375–397 (reprinted in áÇÉã, Die Herrlichkeit des Gekreuzigten: Studien zu den Johanneischen Schriften I, ed. J. Schlegel [WUNT 307], Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, 639–662).

86

Jörg Frey

1. The profile of the usage of δόξα in the Septuagint and the quest for explanation As is commonly known, the usual meaning of Greek δόξα (derived from δοκεῖν) is “expectation”, “notion, opinion, judgment”, “mere opinion, conjecture”, “fancy, vision”, or then “the opinion which others have of one, estimation, repute” and from there mostly “good repute . . .”2 It is perhaps this last notion that inspired the LXX translators to adopt the word as a rendering of Hebrew dAbK'3 and, as a consequence, the notion of (God’s) splendor and “glory”, which is also widely adopted in the New Testament. But compared with the wider spectrum of meanings in non-biblical Greek, the notion privileged by the translators of the LXX marks a very narrow selection. Even more, considering the complete absence of the other meanings of the word (which are much more prominent in non-biblical usage), the word δόξα represents one of the most impressive paradigms in biblical tradition for the change of meaning a word has undergone under the influence of the Greek Bible.4 Ceslas Spicq even argues: “L’évolution sémantique de doxa est sans doute la plus extraordinaire dans la Bible.”5 It seems to be an almost unique phenomenon. In the LXX, as also in the New Testament, the range of meanings of δόξα differs totally from common Greek usage. According to Muraoka’s dictionary, the first and foremost meaning of δόξα is “status of honor and distinction”, which is closely related with the second one, “external splendor, mag—————— 2

All quotes from the entry in eK=dK=iáÇÇÉääLoK=pÅçííLeK=pK=gçåÉë, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed. with revised supplement), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, 444. Cf. also dK=háííÉä, “δόξα A. Der griechische Sprachgebrauch”, TWNT 2 (1935), 236–240; `K=péáÅè, Notes de Lexicographie néotestamentaire. Supplément (OBO 22/3), Fribourg: Éditions universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982, 166–182, and eK=háííÉä, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes (BZNW 16), Berlin: Töpelmann, 1934, 1–31. See also `ÜáÄáÅáJoÉîåÉ~åì, Herrlichkeit, 336–344. 3 Cf. pÅÜïáåÇí, Gesichte, 37, who mentions some more aspects, especially the semantic link between ‘good reputation’ and its appearance or communication and, perhaps, the avoidance of the word ἐπιφάνεια in order to distinguish the revelation of the biblical God from the epiphanies of other deities. 4 Thus pÅÜïáåÇí, Gesichte, 32: “Gerade der Begriff der δόξα als Übersetzung von dwbk darf als klassisches Beispiel für den sprachlichen und theologischen Eigencharakter der LXX gegenüber ihrer masoretischen Vorlage gelten. Der Begriff ist eines der eindrücklichsten Paradigmen für den Bedeutungswandel, den ein griechisches Wort unter Einfluss der Bibel vollzogen hat.” See also hK=e~~ÅâÉê, “Methodische Probleme einer Septuaginta-Übersetzung”, in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der griechischen Bibel, ed. H.-J. Fabry and U. Offerhaus (BWANT 153), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001, 51–59: 55. 5 péáÅè, Notes, 168.

The Use of δόξα in Paul and John as Shaped by the Septuagint

87

nificent appearance”, whereas only very few passages use the word in accord with the predominant notion in non-biblical Greek, i.e., in the sense of “an opinion which appears to be or commonly held to be right”.6 But even in these passages, which are mostly linked with a judicial act, the idea of an “outward appearance” might be in the background.7 Obviously, the predominant meaning of δόξα in the LXX is constituted by the choice to use this word for rendering the Hebrew noun dAbK' (or the verb dbk), a word which originally means “weight”, metaphorically also honor, power, or wealth,8 but is prominently used with reference to God in order to describe his splendor or appearance, in his revelation on Mount Sinai, in the tabernacle, or later in eschatological contexts. How could the LXX translators make that choice, and how could such a distinctive and consistent usage develop? In spite of an extensive scholarly debate, there is still no satisfactory explanation.9 I would like to suggest an explanation from the historical sequence of the translation of the books of the LXX.10 If it is true, that the Pentateuch was translated first, and the Prophetic books and later writings in a longer period thereafter, it might be appropriate to look first at the translation of the Pentateuch as the core of the translation work which might have influenced later translators of other books in their choice of words.11 —————— 6 7

qK=jìê~çâ~, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Louvain: Peeters, 2009, 175.

Isa 11:3: οὐ κατὰ τὴν δόξαν κρινεῖ οὐδὲ κατὰ τὴν λαλιὰν ἐλέγξει: Here, the term κατὰ τὴν δόξαν, in parallel with κατὰ τὴν λαλιάν, means the external appearance: “he will not judge according to the external appearance” (cf. iK=eK=_êçÅâáåÖíçå, “The Greek Translator of Isaiah and his Interest in ∆ΟΞΑ”, VT 1 [1951], 23–32: 27) or “according to the popular opinion” (thus jìê~çâ~, Lexicon, 175). Cf. also Sir 8:14: κατὰ γὰρ τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ κρινοῦσιν αὐτῷ (“the court will pass a judgement in line with what he thinks right”) (jìê~çâ~, Lexicon, 175, who considers also “by having regard to his high social status”). 8 Cf. the biblical examples in péáÅè, Notes, 168 note 3. On the Hebrew see tK=dÉëÉåáìë, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 18th ed., rev. R. Meyer and H. Donner, Berlin etc.: Springer, 2005, 524–525. 9 Thus pÅÜïáåÇí, Gesichte, 36: “. . . nach wie vor keine wirklich befriedigende Erklärung für die ‘neue’ semantische Breite des δόξα-Begriffs in der griechischen Bibel.” 10 Other attempts to explain the usage take the Septuagint rather as one level, without considering the historical sequence of the translation of the books (thus, e.g., `K=`K=kÉïã~å, Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric [NovTSup 69], Leiden: Brill, 1992, 152– 153). 11 On the influence of the Greek Pentateuch on the translation of the book of Isaiah see already fK=iK=pÉÉäáÖã~åå, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems, Leiden: Brill, 1948, 45–49 (reprinted in: áÇÉã, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies, ed. R. Hanhart and H. Spieckermann [FAT 40], Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004, 119– 294: 188–193); see also cK=táäâ, “ ‘Vision wider Judäa und wider Jerusalem’ (Jes 1 LXX): Zur Eigenart der Septuaginta-Version des Jesajabuches”, in Frühjudentum und Neues Testa-

88

Jörg Frey

The term δόξα is used only three times in the LXX version of Genesis (Gen 31:1; 31:16 and 45:13), with two of the occurrences rendering Hebrew dAbK': In Gen 31:1 dAbK' is used for the wealth Jacob had gained in the years of his service (and the notion of weight, implicit in the root dbk, might have caused that choice). Here, for the first time, the LXX renders dAbK' by δόξα.12 The wealth of Jacob is also referred to in Gen 31:16, though here it is expressed by rv,[o in the Hebrew text. The LXX, however, in its translation πάντα τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τὴν δόξαν adds δόξα without any equivalent in the Hebrew text, thus creating a double expression and also an intratextual link to v. 1. Gen 45:13, finally, refers to the high rank or power Joseph gained in Egypt; here again dAbK' is rendered by δόξα (implying the notion of a good or high reputation). In the book of Exodus, the terms are used much more frequently: δόξα occurs 16 times, 9 times rendering the Hebrew dAbK'; in addition, the verb δοξάζειν occurs 8 times. Notably, in Exod 15:1–19 LXX, the Greek version of the song of Moses, δοξάζειν is used 5 times as “un leitmotiv du cantique”,13 beginning with the rendering of a Hebrew figura etymologica in Exod 15:1 (ha'G" haog")14 by ἐνδόξως . . . δεδόξασται, but in the following verses also the Hebrew verbs hwn hi. (= “to praise”: Exod 15:2) and rda ni. (= “to be mighty/glorious”: Exod 15:6, 11) are translated by δοξάζειν. Exod 15:7 also uses the noun δόξα to express the greatness or majesty of God (τῷ πλήθει τῆς δόξης σου, the Hebrew reads ^n>AaG>).15 But possibly the most significant renderings are those where δόξα is used to translate the Hebrew dAbK' in Exod 16:7 (“in the morning you shall see the glory [δόξα] of the Lord”) and 16:10 (“and the glory [δόξα] of the Lord appeared in the cloud”) and again in Exod 24:16 (“the glory [δόξα] of the Lord descended to Mount Sinai”) and 24:17 (“the appearance of the glory [δόξα] of the Lord”). The term δόξα occurs, then, again in the concluding account in Exod 40 when it is told that the glory (δόξα) of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Exod 40:34, 35). A similar usage occurs in Exod 33:22 where God’s glory (dAbK' – but see Exod 33:19: bAj = his —————— ment im Horizont Biblischer Theologie: Mit einem Anhang zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, ed. W. Kraus and K.-W. Niebuhr, with L. Doering (WUNT 162), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, 15–35: 30. 12 The reason is unclear; and the explanation in jK=e~êä, La Genèse (La Bible d’Alexandrie 1), Paris: Cerf, 1986, 235, does not provide further clarification. 13 ^K=iÉ=_çìääìÉÅLmK=p~åÇÉîçáê, L’Exode (La Bible d’Alexandrie 2), Paris: Cerf, 1989, 171. 14 Cf. also Exod 15:21 where in the song of Miriam hag is also rendered by δοξάζειν. 15 In Exod 15:11, the Plural δόξαι possibly refers to angelic beings (cf. Jud 8; 2 Pet 2:10), thus representing a remythologization in Hellenistic Judaism; cf. gK=pÅÜ~éÉê (with bK=tÉÄÉê), “Exodos”, in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare, ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011, vol. 1, 258–324: 295–296.

The Use of δόξα in Paul and John as Shaped by the Septuagint

89

“best” or his “beauty”) passes by Moses who hid in a cleft. It is also used with reference to the divine dAbK' in the description of the tabernacle which is said to be sanctified by the Lord’s own glory in Exod 29:43 (dAbK', rendered by δόξα), albeit in a very difficult construction.16 The term also occurs with regard to Aaron’s clothes εἰς τιµὴν καὶ δόξαν (Exod 28:2, 40), expressing his beautiful and honorable appearance. The verb δοξάζειν is again used for rendering Hebrew !rq (= “shine”) in the tale of Moses’ shining face (Exod 34:29, 30, 35). We can see that the frequent usage of the two terms in the LXX of Exodus is concentrated on the revelation of God at Mount Sinai in his splendor, his appearance in the tabernacle and its reflection on the shining face of Moses. This is apparently the impressive and influential usage which could shape the further usage of the δόξα terminology accordingly and thus create the semantic ‘innovation.’ In the other books of the Pentateuch, the word is used only twice in Leviticus (Lev 9:6, 23) and once in Deuteronomy (Deut 5:24), in each case rendering dAbK'. It is more frequent in Numbers, but again, 8 of the 11 occurrences of δόξα are a translation of dAbK', mostly referring to God’s splendor, which appears (14:10; 16:19, 42; 17:7; 20:6), fills the earth (14:21) and is perceived by humans (14:22).17 This impressive concentration of the usage of δόξα for Hebrew dAbK' and most distinctively for the glorious appearance of God in his revelation at Mount Sinai or in the tabernacle may explain the phenomenon that δόξα became, as it were, a ‘new’ word in the LXX with the notion of “glory”, “radiance”, “splendor”, mostly with respect to God’s appearance, revelation and glory, and that this meaning prevails in the later books of the LXX. The word is also introduced into other passages where dAbK' does not occur in the Hebrew text. This particular usage of δόξα is also continued or even intensified in the late books of the LXX originally composed in Greek. There is no need to enter the wide-ranging discussion here whether the meaning developed in the LXX was already present in non-biblical Greek, as

—————— 16

The LXX changes the 3rd person to the 1st person, so that not the tabernacle (thus MT), but God himself will be sanctified (ἁγιασθήσοµαι ἐν δόξῃ µου, also Targum Jonathan). The meaning of δόξα is unclear: A meaning close to the Hebrew could be: “I will be seen as holy (i.e., recognized as God) by my splendor (i.e., through my appearance)” (thus gK=tK=tÉîÉêë, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus [SBLSCS 30], Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990, 487). In a different reading, δόξα could also get the notion of “praise”: “Und ich will geheiligt werden durch meinen Lobpreis” (thus Septuaginta Deutsch: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, ed. W. Kraus and M. Karrer, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009, 86 note a on Exod 29:43; cf. pÅÜ~éÉê, “Exodos”, 315). 17 The verb is only used in Lev 10:6 (for dbk) and in Deut 33:16 where a Nazirite is rendered in Greek as a “consecrated” or “honored” one (δοξασθείς).

90

Jörg Frey

was suggested, e.g., by Adolf Deissmann,18 or whether it in fact had become a ‘new’ word with a ‘biblical’ meaning, as the editor of the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Gerhard Kittel, suggested.19 The attempts to identify a similar meaning of δόξα in the context of a “heavenly ascent”20 or dream visions21 or to find a notion of δόξα connected with light in some magical papyri22 do not make a strong case for the presence of the ‘biblical’ meaning in pagan religious contexts which could then serve as a background for rendering the idea of God’s dAbK' and its revelation by use of the word δόξα by the translators of the LXX.23 Although the appearances of gods are sometimes linked with some kind of light or radiance, only Jewish and Christian writings use the term δόξα in this context, so that this observation cannot serve as a prove of a notion of “light” for δόξα independent from the LXX.24 In my view, the translators’ choice is better explained from the very beginning of the Septuagint, i.e., from the adoption of the term in Genesis where dAbK' is used in its rather ‘profane’ meaning of “weight”, “good reputation” or even “power”. It is only the overlap in the notion of “honor” which could allow for translating the word dAbK' with δόξα.25 From the usage in Genesis, we can explain the usage of the same word in Exodus which became, then, most influential due to the centrality of the Sinai pericope. The frequency of the term in this context, and the pivotal relevance of these passages might give the best reason for the enormous semantic change the term δόξα underwent in the LXX where it becomes the standard term for God’s splendor and appearance in his revelation. Once embedded in this context, the term could adopt the —————— 18

^K=aÉáëëã~åå, “Die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus”, NJKA 11 (1903), 161–177: 165–166; cf. also gK=pÅÜåÉáÇÉê, Doxa: Eine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Studie (NTF 3/3), Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1932, 4–10. 19 Thus dK=háííÉä, Lexicographia Sacra: Two Lectures on the Making of the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (“Theology” Occasional Papers 7), London: SPCK, 1938, 22; áÇÉã, “δόξα D. δόξα in LXX und bei den hellenistischen Apokryphen”, TWNT 2 (1935), 245–248: 245–246. On the discussion see the overview in kÉïã~å, Christology, 134–153. 20 Cf. Parmenides, fr. 1.24–32 DK; it is, however, not clear that the term adopts a notion different from ‘opinion’. See ^K=cK=pÉÖ~ä, “Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity, and their Environment”, ANRW 2.23.2, 1333–1394: 1344–1345, quoted in kÉïã~å, Christology, 145–146. 21 gK=pK=e~åëçå, “Dreams and Visions in the Graeco-Roman World and Early Christianity”, ANRW 2.23.2, 1395–1427: 1409, quoted in kÉïã~å, Christology, 146. 22 Thus pÅÜåÉáÇÉê, Doxa, 10 etc.; see the references and criticism in `ÜáÄáÅáJoÉîåÉ~åì, Herrlichkeit, 343–344. 23 Even considered together, the explanations are not convincing (contra kÉïã~å, Christology, 147). 24 Thus `ÜáÄáÅáJoÉîåÉ~åì, Herrlichkeit, 344, and also pÅÜïáåÇí, Gesichte, 36. 25 This is the only plausible one of three factors mentioned by kÉïã~å, Christology, 152.

The Use of δόξα in Paul and John as Shaped by the Septuagint

91

whole range of meanings of the Hebrew word dAbK'.26 If this is true, there is no need to explain the fact that the Greek word adopted a ‘Hebrew’ meaning, by any theory of ‘biblical Greek’ or ‘Jewish Greek.’27 It is better explained by the (somewhat arbitrary) choice of the first translators of the Pentateuch and the influence of the translation of the Pentateuch on the later books of the LXX. Particular attention should be paid to the book of Isaiah: Already in the Hebrew text, the motif of God’s dAbK' is quite important.28 But the motif is even more intensified in the LXX version: More than anywhere else, the translator of that book inserts words related with δόξα into verses where the Hebrew did not use dAbK' or dbk.29 Whereas dAbK' occurs 28 times in the Hebrew text, δόξα is used 68 times in the Greek. Apparently, δόξα “was . . . not only a favourite [word] in the translator’s vocabulary” but it had also “considerable significance for him”.30 So the profile of this translator (or translators) is visible in his frequent use of δόξα and related words. In the present context, I can mention only two examples which are also relevant for our further considerations. In the account of Isaiah’s temple vision (Isa 6) Isaiah sees God “sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple”. The LXX replaces the train of the robe (probably considered too anthropomorphic) by the term δόξα, and reads “and the house was filled by his glory” (καὶ πλήρης ὁ οἶκος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ). This replacement reinforces the notion of δόξα which was already present in the immediate context, namely in the ‘trishagion’ quoted in v. 3: AdAbK. #r ~Wry"). The verbal link between both texts is strengthened in the LXX where the δόξα terminology is introduced or reinforced in both texts: In Isa 6, where the notion of δόξα is rooted in v. 3, the term is additionally introduced in v. 1, and in Isa 52:13 the LXX now translates the three Hebrew verbs by only two, introducing the verb δοξάζειν: In the version ἰδοὺ συνήσει ὁ παῖς µου καὶ ὑψωθήσεται καὶ δοξασθήσεται σφόδρα (“Behold, my Servant will have insight, he shall be exalted and greatly glorified”), the two verbs aF'nIw> ~Wry" are now contracted to the one verb ὑψωθήσεται, whereas the third one, Hb;g"w>, is now rendered by the verb δοξασθήσεται, which has no equivalent in the Hebrew text and is introduced to intensify the notion of δόξα in the text.62 So the connection between Isa 6 and Isa 52:13–53:12, already present in the Hebrew text, is thus strengthened in the LXX. Within Jewish exegetical tradition, this could invite readers to combine them by use of some kind of gezera shawa, and although the evangelist does not precisely combine Isa 52:13 with Isa 6:1–3, he puts together two other verses from the respective pericopes, namely Isa 53:1 and Isa 6:10, demonstrating that he has in mind the combination of these two texts. The question how Isaiah could see the glory – not only of God (as in the Hebrew text) but of Jesus – may be explained from such a scriptural combination: The Servant Song was largely read as a prophetic text proclaiming the fate of Jesus, and the evangelist could read the Song as a prophetic announcement of the exaltation and glorification of the Servant, i.e., of Jesus, the crucified one. Isa 52:13 LXX prominently combines the two words ὑψωθῆναι and δοξάζειν which the evangelist utilized as his predominant paradigms for interpreting Jesus’ death. Thus, the prominent pattern of interpreting Jesus’ death is taken from Isaiah, more precisely, from a particular verse in the Greek version of the Song of the Servant. Notably, these two words occur together in several other passages of Isaiah, mostly as a free rendering of the Hebrew text and with eschatological connotations.63 But Isa 52:13 is certainly the most significant passage: The text speaks about the Servant in the future tense, so the verbs could be understood as a prophecy of the Servant’s eschatological glorification. The two —————— 62

lK=eçÑáìë, “Zur Septuaginta-Übersetzung von Jesaja 52,13b”, ZAW 104 (1992), 107–

110.

63

Isa 4:2; 5:16; 10:15; 33:10. Cf. pÅÜïáåÇí, Gesichte, 81–82.

The Use of δόξα in Paul and John as Shaped by the Septuagint

103

verbs use the passivum divinum, thus implying that it is God’s action that will exalt and glorify his Servant. In spite of his lack of δόξα, i.e., of honor and dignity among humans (Isa 52:14: ἀδοξήσει; cf. 53:2b), he shall be exalted and glorified with the eschatological δόξα so that – as Isa 52:15 phrases – the nations will be astonished, and those who had not heard about the Servant, shall understand and see him. This means that the fate of the Servant, his death and – even more – his exaltation and glorification will have a universal salvific effect. The revelation of the divine glory to the nations – one of the pivotal ideas of the book of Isaiah – will happen through the Servant, i.e., in early Christian reading, through Jesus and his exaltation and glorification. This is the reading of the Scriptures, which gives reason to the Johannine interpretation of the cross: Actually, Jesus was crucified and put to death, but according to the scriptural truth, he was not simply lifted up to the cross, but exalted to the Father and glorified by him so that he – once “lifted up” – can now draw all humans to himself, i.e., give universal salvation (John 12:32). In the Johannine view, not only the prophecy of Isa 6:10 but also the prophecy or vision of the Servant’s future glorification is now fulfilled in Jesus. The book of Isaiah with its eschatological vision of the universal salvation thus provides the predominant pattern for interpreting the truth which is hidden from human eyes, the true meaning of Jesus’ crucifixion and death which is not grasped by unbelief and which shall be understood by the readers of the gospel: His death is not the end but the divine beginning, he is truly exalted, and he is glorified by the Father, i.e., invested with eschatological (and divine) glory. This is the true meaning of Jesus ‘hour,’ or of his death, as foretold by the Scriptures and understood not before post-Easter times, in the ‘inspired’ reading of the Scriptures, i.e., through the Spirit. In any case, John’s predominant pattern of the interpretation of Jesus’ death as ‘exaltation and glorification’ is rooted in a very precise reading of the LXX.

3. Concluding perspectives Both authors, Paul and John, show the distinctive influence of the LXX on the usage of δόξα in New Testament language. Both avoid the usage of δόξα with the notion “opinion”, they can use it in the somewhat ‘secular’ sense of “honor”, but their usage is predominantly shaped by the ‘biblical’ notion of “glory”, rendering the idea of God’s dAbK'. But whereas the Pauline usage cannot be explained from a particular scriptural passage, but adopts the predominant notion of the divine glory (in its late, eschatologized form), the Johannine usage can be explained more precisely from a particular scriptural passage, the Song of the Servant in Isaiah 53. From here, more precisely from Isa 52:13 LXX, John takes two of his major categories to express the truth be-

104

Jörg Frey

hind Jesus’ death, a truth which could only be understood and expressed from the post-Easter perspective, when the fate of the word incarnate could be rediscovered in the biblical prophecy about God’s Servant who shall be ‘exalted’ and ‘glorified.’ From here, the whole earthly appearance of Jesus could be depicted in terms of his glory, notwithstanding the fact that the ‘glorification’ only happened in ‘his hour,’ i.e., in the context of the events of his death and resurrection. Thus, the image of the ministry of Christ becomes a rather ‘mythologized’ image, insofar the post-Easter glory of Christ is now transferred to the way of the incarnate one, to his way to the cross, and (in a single passage: John 17:5) also to the pre-existent one. In John, δόξα becomes a Christological term. Herein, John goes far beyond Paul where the primary reference to God is much more strongly preserved, and of course also beyond the Synoptics. The LXX, however, provides the basis for this remarkable Christological usage.

Mixed Blessings The biblical notion of blessing in the works of Philo and Flavius Josephus g~å=gççëíÉå

Translation is often understood as a process of adaptation to a new cultural context. When a text is rendered into another language, its meaning is assimilated to the receiving culture. The exclamation of the hero in an American action movie who, upon discovering something particularly revolting, says: “Jesus Christ!” is legitimately rendered in the French dubbing as: “Putain!”1 Closer to our present field of inquiry, the rendering of the Hebrew Bible into Greek entailed the assimilation of its contents to a new, Hellenistic culture and worldview. The translation of whbw wht in Gen 1:2 as ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος – whether or not this phrase reflects Platonic philosophy – undoubtedly represents an effort to express the meaning of the Hebrew phrase in a way that could be understood by a Greek reader.2 There is, however, another side to the process of translation. The meaning of the source text is affected, but so is the language of the host culture. The intercultural exchange goes both ways. Translators often create new expressions in the target language: they bring in new words from the source language, they “calque” idiomatic expressions, and they combine words in unusual ways in imitation of the language of the original. Some authorities condemn such bending of the target language: to them, a good translation should read like an original.3 Others recognize it as a necessary effect of

—————— 1

Literally: “Whore!” This example was brought to my attention by Marie-Christine Michaud during a graduate seminar on the Septuagint. 2 For the debate, see, e.g., jK=o∏ëÉä, Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien Zur Genesis-Septuaginta (BZAW 223), Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994, 32; gK=aáåÉë, “Imaging Creation: The Septuagint Translation of Genesis 1:2”, HeyJ 36 (1995), 439–450. 3 In biblical studies, this influential approach is represented by bìÖÉåÉ= káÇ~, see, e.g., bìÖÉåÉ= káÇ~, The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden: Brill, 1982, 12: “The best translation does not sound like a translation.”

106

Jan Joosten

translation.4 But the most enlightened theoreticians view it in a positive light. Rudolf Pannwitz writes: [Der übertragende] muss zumal wenn er aus einer sehr fernen sprache überträgt auf die letzten elemente der sprache selbst wo wort bild ton in eines geht zurück dringen er muss seine sprache durch die fremde erweitern und vertiefen . . .5

Walter Benjamin argues that this is in fact the only legitimate way of translating literary texts, and he recommends Luther, Voß, Hölderlin, and George for practicing it, for breaking down “ramshackle fences of their own language” (“morsche Schranken der eigenen Sprache”).6 Both of these aspects of translation are eminently relevant to the Septuagint. The message of the Hebrew Bible was undeniably Hellenized to a certain extent when it was translated into Greek. At the same time, however, the Greek language was “Hebraized”: Hebrew and Aramaic loanwords, such as πασχα and χερουβιµ were newly added; expressions such as “to take the face” (λαµβάνειν πρόσωπον) were coined through literal translation; and Greek words were given a new meaning or referent: δόξα took on the meaning “glory”, for instance, and χριστός was used in reference to the anointed king. The target language was creatively extended so as to render it apt to express the alien ideas of the source text. While at first, in the third and second centuries B.C.E., these innovations may have gone unnoticed, or been brushed off as occasional “barbarisms”, in time they acquired a recognized status in the language. Some came into their own in ecclesiastical parlance. Many of them live on in Modern Greek. An excellent illustration of the two-way acculturation that takes place within the Septuagint is offered by the multifaceted translational equivalence between Hebrew $rb “to bless” and Greek εὐλογέω.

—————— 4

See, e.g., dK=qçìêó, Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995. 5 oìÇçäÑ= m~ååïáíò, Die krisis der europaeischen kultur (1917), as quoted in tK=_ÉåJ à~ãáå, “Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers” (1923), in áÇÉã, Gesammelte Schriften IV/1, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1972, 20. English translation: “The one who translates, particularly when translating from a very distant language, must press on to the smallest elements of the language itself, where word, image and tone flow together; he must deepen and enlarge his own language by the help of the foreign one.” [Emphasis added]. 6 _Éåà~ãáå, “Aufgabe”, 19.

Mixed Blessings

107

1. εὐλογέω in non-biblical Greek In Greek literature, the etymologically transparent verb εὐλογέω is used from Pindar and Aeschylus onwards with the meaning “to praise, to commend”. The meaning “to speak well” is attested but very rarely: Ep. Arist. 249 Φήσας δὲ εὐλογεῖν ἄλλον ἠρώτα [the king] said that he had spoken well and then asked another . . .

In the meaning “to praise”, he verb plays a role – a minor one – in the vocabulary of public honor and shame. It typically co-occurs with verbs like ἐπαινέω “to laud” and ὑµνέω “to sing praises”, and stands opposed to verbs expressing blame, like καταλαλέω, ὀνειδίζω, λοιδορέω or καταφέρω ψόγον. In religious discourse, the verb is extremely rare. Praise of the gods is usually expressed by other verbs, notably ᾄδω and ὑµνέω. Two instances of εὐλογέω are found in Euripides’ Ion (Ion 137: “Phoebus is my true father, [says Ion] I praise [εὐλογῶ] the one who feeds me”; similarly Ion 1614). With a divine subject the verb is practically unattested: the Greek gods do not usually praise human beings. A single exception is Euripides, Suppl. 927, where it is said of Amphiaraus: “As for the noble son of Oecleus, him, while yet he lived, the gods snatched hence to the bowels of the earth, and his chariot too, manifestly praising him (εὐλογοῦσιν).” According to legend, the earth had swallowed Amphiaraus alive during the war of the Seven against Thebes, so as to preserve him from ignominy. The usage of the verb is metaphorical but the meaning remains very close to the normal one: the act of the gods is interpreted as an expression of approval. The religious usage of the verb appears to have been enhanced a bit in the Hellenistic period. In two brief inscriptions, one dedicated to Pan and the other to Isis, εὐλογέω is used to praise the God (e.g., ε[ὐ]λογ[ῶ] τὸν εὔο[δο]ν θεόν “I praise the god who prospered my travel”, in a sanctuary dedicated to Pan, CIG 4705b.2). The same usage is attested in a Jewish inscription of the same general period (OGIS 73). Otherwise, Hellenistic usage continues earlier patterns.

2. εὐλογέω in the Septuagint In the Septuagint, the picture changes completely. The normal Greek usage, “to praise, to commend” someone in a social-political setting, although attested, occurs only a few times, e.g., Prov 31:30: ψευδεῖς ἀρέσκειαι καὶ µάταιον κάλλος γυναικός· γυνὴ γὰρ συνετὴ εὐλογεῖται

108

Jan Joosten

Allurements are false, and the beauty of a woman is vain, but an intelligent woman is spoken well of.7

A similar instance is found in Job 29:13 (see also Sir 34[31]:23). But these instances are marginal in the Septuagint. Otherwise, the verb is attested over 500 times in two basic usages, the first diverging somewhat, the second diverging markedly from what is normal non-biblical Greek. Firstly, εὐλογέω is used often to express the praising of God. This usage links up with the language of inscriptions from the Hellenistic period. Gen 24:48 “I praised (εὐλόγησα) the Lord, God of my lord Abraham, who prospered my way (ὃς εὐόδωσέν µοι)”, is essentially similar to CIG 4705b.2 quoted above. In language directed to God, εὐλογέω co-occurs with the same synonyms as in Greek literature, such as [ἐπ]αινέω and ὑµνέω (see, e.g., 1 Esdr 5:57; 2 Esdr 19[Neh 9]:5; Ps 33[34]:2; 144[145]:1; TobS 12:6, 18, 22; 1 Macc 4:24; 13:47; Sir 39:14, 35; 51:12; Isa 38:18; DanLXX/Th 3:51–90). What is nevertheless distinctly biblical is the frequency of the usage. While in non-biblical Greek the religious use is rare, in the Septuagint the verb has become a staple expression in prayers and liturgical texts. Secondly, εὐλογέω is used very often with a human object in a way that is decidedly un-Greek. Where God is the subject and his creatures the direct object, it is nearly impossible to give the verb its usual Greek meaning. Instead, the process referred to appears to imply the transferal of a divine force enhancing life and fertility: God “blesses” (ηὐλόγησεν) the animals saying, “Increase and multiply” (Gen 1:22); Satan says to God “You ‘blessed’ the works of his hands, and his livestock you increased on the earth” (Job 1:10). A similar meaning seems to be called for in many passages where the verb has a human subject and object: Isaac “blesses” (ηὐλόγησεν) his son Jacob, wishing him economical, social, and spiritual flowering (Gen 27:27– 29). Curiously, after having done this, he cannot take back his ‘blessing’ even when it turns out he has been deceived. In many passages, the process is presented as type of prayer: the one who blesses requests God to send his vivifying power on his fellow human being. What stands at the back of the remarkable use of εὐλογέω in the Septuagint is, as any biblical scholar knows, the Hebrew verb $rb. In the translation technique typifying the Greek version, the former was used as the stereotyped equivalent of the latter, whatever its contextual meaning. The association between these two verbs probably came about in the language of prayer. Consider a passage like Ps 145:1 MT:

—————— 7

The verse continues with a doublet (a second translation of the same Hebrew hemistich): φόβον δὲ κυρίου αὕτη αἰνείτω “yes, let her praise the fear of the Lord” (NETS).

Mixed Blessings

109

`d[,(w" ~l'îA[l. ^ªm.vi÷ hk'îr]b'a]w: %l,M,_h; yh;äAla/ ^åm.miAra] I will exalt you, my God, the King, I will bless your name forever and ever.

The meaning of Hebrew $rb here must probably be viewed as declarative: “to bless God” is to declare that he is a source of blessing. Since this very precise meaning cannot easily be expressed in Greek, the translation with εὐλογέω “to praise” seems defensible, thus Ps 144:1 LXX: ῾Υψώσω σε, ὁ θεός µου ὁ βασιλεύς µου, καὶ εὐλογήσω τὸ ὄνοµά σου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος. I will exalt you, my God, my King, I will praise your name forever and forever and ever.

Whatever its origin, once the equivalence between εὐλογέω and $rb was established, the Septuagint translators tended to observe it constantly. Even where the Hebrew verb referred to divine “blessings” the same equivalence remained in force. The phenomenon is not uncommon in the Septuagint: once a Greek word has been matched up with a Hebrew one, it tends to be used throughout, even where Greek usage does not allow it.8

3. εὐλογέω in Jewish and Christian texts In parabiblical literature of the Hellenistic and Roman periods the normal Greek usage of praising meritorious human beings is found only occasionally (e.g., Jdt 15:9). Far more prominent are the patterns established in the Septuagint, with the verb εὐλογέω expressing either praise of God, or blessing originating in God. Taking a somewhat closer look, these two usages appear not to have been adopted everywhere at the same speed. Several works attest only the usage more congenial to the Greek language. In 2 Maccabees, for instance, the verb is used only in the sense “to praise (God)” (2 Macc 1:17; 11:9; 15:34).9

——————

8 The only problem with the explanation offered is that the first occurrences of the verb in Genesis – probably the first book to be translated into Greek – all refer to divine blessing: God blesses the animals, the human couple, the Sabbath, Abraham. If the equivalence between εὐλογέω and $rb came about in the language of prayer, the workshop of the translators of Genesis cannot be the place where it was established. In an earlier publication, I have argued that the equivalence was created in the language of Jewish prayer at the very beginning of the Hellenistic age, before the translation of the Torah was begun. See gK=gççëíÉå, “Le vocabulaire de la Septante et la question du sociolecte des juifs alexandrins : Le cas du verbe εὐλογέω, « bénir »” in Septuagint Vocabulary. Pre-History, Usage, Reception, ed. E. Bons, J. Joosten (SBLSCS 58), Atlanta: SBL, 2011, 13–23. 9 See also Sib. 4.25.

110

Jan Joosten

Similarly, in 3 Maccabees, the verb expresses the praise of God (3 Macc 7:23) and of idols (3 Macc 6:11). In other texts, however, both usages are found. In translated texts, such as 1 Henoch, this is perhaps only to be expected. But the meaning “to bless” is found rather frequently also in writings originally composed in Greek, such as the Testament of Abraham and Joseph and Aseneth, e.g. Jos. Asen. 8.9: σὺ, κύριε, εὐλόγησον τὴν παρθένον ταύτην καὶ ἀνακαίνισον αὐτὴν τῷ πνεύµατί σου You, Lord, bless this virgin and renew her through your spirit.10

These instances confirm that the Greek verb has really been given a new meaning, in addition to the one it possessed in Greek literature. By repeated use in contexts where the “biblical” meaning is called for, the semantics of the Greek verb were extended. Both usages are well represented also in the New Testament writings.11

4. Philo and Flavius Josephus It is instructive to see how Jewish Hellenistic authors deal with the verb εὐλογέω in light of the complex situation created by the Septuagint. Both of the “biblical” usages are attested in the fragments of early Judaeo-Hellenistic historians: the meaning “to praise God” is found in a fragment of Eupolemus (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.34.1), and the meaning “to bless” occurs in a fragment where Demetrius summarizes the story of Isaac’s blessing in Gen 27 (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.21.1). One can hardly draw any kind of conclusion from such sparse attestations, however. The works of Philo and Flavius Josephus give more ample purchase on the question how an author standing between Greek culture and the biblical heritage handles the semantics of this interesting verb.

—————— 10

So also Wis 14:7 “For blessed (εὐλόγηται) is the wood whereby righteousness comes” (note the antonym, “accursed” [ἐπικατάρατον], in the next verse). 11 The New Testament also attests a new, and unique, usage, namely: “to say a blessing”. See gK=gççëíÉå, “The Graeco-Semitic vocabulary of the New Testament: A plea for a new research tool” in Sacred Text. Explorations in Lexicography, ed. Juan-Pedro Monferrer Sala, Angel Urbán, Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2009, 115–126, in particular 121–123.

Mixed Blessings

111

4.1. Philo The data in the writings of Philo are suggestive but also rather complicated.12 On his own initiative, Philo uses the verb εὐλογέω, along with other verbs like εὐχαριστέω and ἐπαινέω, in reference to the praise of God: Plant. 135 οὐκοῦν Ἰούδας ὁ εὐλογῶν τὸν θεὸν νοῦς καὶ τὰς εἰς αὐτὸν εὐχαρίστους ὑµνῳδίας ἀπαύστως µελετῶν αὐτὸς ὁ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν “ἅγιος καὶ αἰνετὸς καρπὸς” ἦν Therefore Judas, the mind which blesses God, and which is without ceasing, devoted to pouring forth hymns of praise and gratitude to him, was himself in truth “the holy and praiseworthy fruit”.13

This usage clearly links up with Septuagintal models but, as has been remarked before, it is also congenial to secular Greek. As such, it naturally did not pose a problem to Philo and his readers. Things become more complex in the numerous passages where Philo relates to biblical verses containing εὐλογέω with the Hebrew meaning “to bless”. In an exegetical work, Philo shows that he understands the biblical usage well. In a comment on Exod 23:25 “I will bless your bread and your water”, he explains: Quaest. Exod. 2.18 οὔτε ἄρτος οὔτε ὕδωρ καθ’ ἑαυτὰ τρέφουσιν· ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ὅτε καὶ βλάπτουσι µᾶλλον ἢ ὠφελοῦσιν, ἐὰν µὴ θεῖος λόγος καὶ τούτοις χαρίσηται τὰς ὠφελητικὰς δυνάµεις· ἧς χάριν αἰτίας φησίν· “εὐλογήσω τὸν ἄρτον σου καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ”, ὡς οὐχ ἱκανὰ καθ’ ἑαυτὰ τρέφειν ἄνευ θείας εὐµενείας καὶ ἐπιφροσύνης. Neither bread nor water nourishes by itself, they may even do damage rather than good if the divine word (Logos) does not bestow upon them its helpful powers. That is why he says, “I will bless your bread and your water”, as if they were not sufficient to give nourishment by themselves without the loving friendship and care of God.

The verb is interpreted to mean: “to endow with helpful powers”, an admirable definition of the meaning of the Hebrew, which is required here by the context. In his philosophical works, Philo shows sensitivity to the Hebrew meaning of εὐλογέω when he glosses it, or replaces it, with the verb εὔχοµαι “to pray”, in passages referring to humans blessing other humans.14 For instance, εὐχόµενος εὐλογεῖ τὸν λεών “[Moses] prays for and blesses the people” (Mut. 125), in reference to the blessing of Moses, Deut 33:1 (see also Vit. Mos. 1.291). Elsewhere, too, the verb εὐλογέω is associated with the —————— 12

See mK=qçãëçå, “Blessing in Disguise. ΕΥΛΟΓΕΩ and ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΕΩ between ‘Biblical’ and Everyday Greek Usage”, in Voces Biblicae. Septuagint Greek and its Significance for the New Testament, ed. J. Joosten, P. Tomson (CBET 49), Leuven: Peeters, 2007, 35–61. 13 See also Sobr. 58. 14 See qçãëçå, “Blessing in Disguise”, 41–42.

112

Jan Joosten

transfer of benefits (Somn. 1.176) or the procurement of divine favor (Migr. 122). Nevertheless, in many passages, the Hebrew meaning remains completely in the background and Philo draws out other meanings more consonant with non-biblical Greek, and with his own philosophical system. The verb εὐλογέω is connected with notions of honor and praise, of sound reasoning, and of eloquence: a) Honor and praise: The verse “I will bless those who bless you” [Gen 12:3] is explained: τὸν γὰρ ἀγαθὸν καὶ ὁ ἐπαινῶν ἐγκωµιαστός “he who praises a good man is himself worthy of encomium” (Migr. 109–110).15 b) Sound reasoning: In a comment on Gen 2:3 “And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it”, Philo writes: συγγενέστατοι γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ὁ εὐλόγιστός τε καὶ ὁ ἅγιος “for that which is reasonable and that which is holy, are closely connected with one another”. In what follows, it becomes clear that the adjective εὐλόγιστος keeps its Greek sense here: “On this account he says, concerning him who has vowed a great vow, that ‘If a sudden change comes over him, and pollutes his mind (τὸν νοῦν), he shall no longer be holy’ [cf. Num 6:9, where what is affected is not the mind but the head, τὴν κεφαλήν]” (Leg. all. 1.17).16 c) Eloquence and wise action: When defining the “third gift”, the blessing, Philo quotes the phrase καὶ εὐλογήσω σε “and I will bless you” and explains it τουτέστιν ἐπαινετὸν λόγον δωρήσοµαι “I will give you praiseworthy speech” (Migr. 70). In what follows Philo evokes in turn the thinker who has good ideas but is unable to express them well, and the sophist who speaks well although he really hasn’t anything important to say. I am not sure whether these additional associations can really be qualified as just “Wortspielereien”, as is done in Beyer’s TWNT article on εὐλογέω.17 It seems rather that the essential quality transmitted in God’s blessing, according to Philo, is of an intellectual nature: the “blessed” man is the one who reasons well, speaks well, and because of these qualities is praised by all; prosperity and good health – mentioned expressly in many biblical passages – are merely further byproducts. In this way, Philo in a way re-Hellenizes the Hebraizing Greek of the Septuagint.

—————— 15

See also Quaest. Gen. 4.228 (on Gen 27:34). See also Leg. all. 3.210. 17 eK=tK=_ÉóÉê, “εὐλογέω κτλ.”, TWNT 2 (1935), 751–763, in particular 757. 16

Mixed Blessings

113

4.3. Flavius Josephus Flavius Josephus uses the verb εὐλογέω sparingly, and almost exclusively in the sense “to praise God”:18 Ant. 8.111 Τὴν σὴν εὐλογεῖν µεγαλειότητα καὶ περὶ τῶν ὑπηργµένων εἰς τὸν ἡµέτερον οἶκον καὶ τὸν Ἑβραίων εὐχαριστεῖν ἀνάγκη. “It becomes us to bless thy Majesty, and it is necessary for us to return thee thanks for what thou hast bestowed upon our house, and on the Hebrew people”19

Only a single passage in the War of the Jews appears to attest the Hebrew meaning “to bless”: Bell. 6.307 οὔτε δέ τινι τῶν τυπτόντων αὐτὸν ὁσηµέραι κατηρᾶτο οὔτε τοὺς τροφῆς µεταδιδόντας εὐλόγει “[Jesus son of Ananias] neither cursed those who beat him every day, nor blessed those who gave him food.”

This unique instance shows – as might indeed be expected – that Josephus knows and understands the “biblical” usage of this verb. More interesting than the use of the verb is its non-use in the Antiquities where Josephus paraphrases passages in which divine or human blessings are central. He deals with these passages in one of three ways. To begin with, in some instances, he simply omits the notion of blessing, as in the account of creation corresponding to Gen 1 (Ant. 1.27–33) or of the calling of Abraham: Ant. 1.154 ῞Αβραµος . . . καταλείπει τὴν Χαλδαίαν ἑβδοµήκοντα καὶ πέντε γεγονὼς ἔτη τοῦ θεοῦ κελεύσαντος εἰς τὴν Χαναναίαν µετελθεῖν Now Abram . . . left the land of Chaldea when he was seventy-five years old, and at the command of God went into the land of Canaan (cf. Gen 12:1–3).

The notion of divine blessing, promised directly to Abram and those who “bless” him, and indirectly to all the families of the earth, is very prominent in the biblical account. It has completely disappeared in Josephus’ retelling. Secondly, when he does incorporate the motif of blessing in his paraphrase, he uses Greek words other than εὐλογέω to express it. A notable example is that of the blessing Isaac intended to give to Esau:

—————— 18

In the purely secular sense of “to recommend”, Josephus uses the verb in Bell. 5.401: ὑµῖν δὲ τί τῶν εὐλογηθέντων ὑπὸ τοῦ νοµοθέτου πέπρακται “As for you, what have you done of those things that are recommended by our legislator?” 19 See also Ant. 4.318; 7.380; 9.15.

114

Jan Joosten

Ant. 1.267–268 ἐκέλευσεν ἐξελθεῖν ἐπὶ κυνηγέσιον καὶ . . . παρασκευάσαι δεῖπνον ἵνα µετὰ τοῦτο ἱκετεύσῃ τὸν θεὸν σύµµαχον αὐτῷ καὶ συνεργὸν εἰς ἅπαντα παρεῖναι τὸν βίον, . . . παρασχεῖν αὐτῷ βούλεσθαι τὸν θεὸν ταῖς εὐχαῖς ταῖς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ παρακεκληµένον. “[Isaac] bid him therefore to go out a hunting and prepare him supper . . . that after this he might make supplication to God, to be to him a supporter and an assister during the whole time of his life; saying . . . that he was desirous, by prayers for him, to procure, beforehand, God to be merciful to him” (cf. Gen 27:1–4).20

Thirdly, and most interestingly, Josephus occasionally transforms the meaning of the text so as to be able to use the verb εὐλογέω in a more properly Greek meaning. According to the biblical text, Solomon, after pronouncing his great prayer in dedication of the temple, “blessed the entire congregation of Israel” (3 Kgdms [1 Kgs] 8:55). In the version of the Antiquities, this becomes: “The king began to praise (εὐλογεῖν) God, and exhorted the multitude to do the same, as now having sufficient indications of God’s favorable disposition to them” (Ant. 8.119). Unless I err, this transformation shows that Josephus is here taking the Greek translation of 1 Kings into account. The avoidance of the verb εὐλογέω in passages requiring the biblical meaning “to bless” is probably to be explained in light of Josephus’ readership. Greek or Roman readers unfamiliar with biblical literature would have experienced difficulties with this biblical usage. 4.3. Conclusions The present study requires to be supplemented with an investigation of nominal forms related to the verb εὐλογέω, notably εὐλογία “blessing” and εὐλογητός “blessed”. But some preliminary conclusions are in order even at this preliminary stage. Over and beyond their intrinsic interest, the ways Philo and Josephus relate to Septuagintal language throw an interesting light on the work of the translators. As it turns out, even Jewish readers well acquainted with the Septuagint were led to devise special strategies to deal with its special vocabulary. Philo, in accord with his general program of reading the Bible in light of Platonic philosophy, draws the biblical text as much as possible to the Greek side, teasing out meanings that may not have been in the mind of the translators but are fully consonant with his own system. Josephus, on the other hand, prefers to solve the problem by plastering it over. From reading the Antiquities, one would not imagine that εὐλογέω was ever used in a sense that was not fully congenial to secular Greek. Both approaches, that of Philo and that of Josephus, show that the Septuagintal use of εὐλογέω in the

—————— 20

For other examples, see Ant. 1.331–334; 4.315.

Mixed Blessings

115

meaning “to bless, to endow with helpful powers”, was in a way a Fremdkörper in the Greek language.

5. General conclusions and outlook Close study of the verb εὐλογέω shows clearly that the process of translation deeply affected the Greek language as used by the translators. It is not just a matter of creating occasional Hebraisms or overusing expressions that were attested in Greek anyway. Some Greek words really were filled with new, Hebraic, meanings in a way that could easily alienate a Greek reader lacking familiarity with Judaism or with the biblical corpus. The “biblical” use of εὐλογέω may have been created in the sociolect of Greek-speaking Jews of the beginning of the third century B.C.E. (see above, section 2). In the absence of direct attestation, this point must remain speculative. What is certain, however, is that in later times, the “biblical” meaning was used freely by Greek-speaking Jews in religious contexts. Writings like Joseph and Aseneth or the Gospel of Luke bear witness to this. Philo and Flavius Josephus may be supposed to have known the special use of the verb in the “Jewish-Greek” sociolect. They themselves, however, hardly ever express themselves in this way. The avoidance of the “biblical” usage seems to be due to the standard of Greek style they have set themselves. Both Philo and Josephus, although each in his own way, take account of a potential readership that was unfamiliar with the Septuagint and the Greek style influenced by this version. One of the objectives of the projected Historical and Theological Lexicon of the Septuagint is to shine a light on other cases where the meaning and usage of Greek words has changed under the influence of biblical culture. Each word, each group of words, has its own story. But each unique story illuminates in its own way the encounter between Hellenism and Judaism, between Greek thought and biblical thought, that took place in the western diaspora in the early third century B.C.E.

 

The Use of ὁµόνοια and Related Terms in the Septuagint and in Christian Literature of the First Three Centuries bã~åìÉä~=mêáåòáî~ääá

1. The civic acceptation of ὁµόνοια The investigation that I am proposing is very limited but I will attempt to put forward some key issues. I have chosen to examine two words used by Christian authors up to the middle of the third century: ὁµόνοια and φιλαδελφία. The first term, ὁµόνοια, is not included in the New Testament1 and therefore is not present in the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. We do have an excellent essay by Klaus Thraede in the Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum.2 Following the Peloponnesian War, the collection of terms connected to the root ὁµονο- characterizes the inner peace of each city, the absence of factions and divisions which cause the dissolution of the city, weakening it from within. The high regard held for ὁµόνοια (concordia in Latin) led to it be adopted as a deity in both the Greek and the Roman pantheons since the fourth century B.C.E. If you look at the classical Greek and the Hellenistic literature in its entirety, there are three principal meanings for the word ὁµόνοια: 1) civil concord, 2) concord among the Greeks and 3) family concord. In general, the term describes a state of peace within a homogeneous social or political body, whether it be a polis, the Greek nation or a household. However, according to sources available to us, of the three meanings found in Greek texts, the principal one is the civic meaning. This can be easily deduced from a definition that dates back to the philosopher Epictetus, and which is all the more significant as he uses ὁµόνοια along with other words which refer to a ——————

1 The closest word is the adverb ὁµοθυµαδόν, for which, as we will see also in the case of ὁµόνοια, the most ancient use is that which regards the political field. In NT it appears always in Acts (1:14; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57; 8:6; 12:20; 15:25; 20:18 v.l.) with the exception of Rom 15:6; cf. eK=tK eÉáÇä~åÇ, s.v., TWNT 5 (1954), 185–186. 2 K. qÜê~ÉÇÉ, “Homonoia (Eintracht)”, RAC 16 (1994), 176–290.

118

Emanuela Prinzivalli

positive situation of peace and tranquility in different areas. Indeed, Epictetus states, according to Arrianus (Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae 4.5.35): ταῦτα τὰ δόγµατα ἐν οἰκίᾳ φιλίαν ποιεῖ, ἐν πόλει ὁµόνοιαν, ἐν ἔθνεσιν εἰρήνην, πρὸς θεὸν εὐχάριστον. (“These principles produce love in a house [family], concord in a state, peace among nations, and gratitude to God.”) Epictetus was a contemporary of Dio of Prusa, known as Chrysostom because of his eloquence, and one of the earliest exponents of the great rhetorical literary movement that goes under the name of the Second Sophistic.3 In rhetorical speeches of the Second Sophistic, purely aesthetic themes were alternated with committed speeches which recalled the great Greek tradition of the 5th century B.C.E. In this movement, the Hellenic pride is evident, but always associated with loyalty to the Roman Empire, which marked the political/economic elites of the Greek world who were fully represented by the Second Sophistic. Therefore, in these speeches there is double loyalty: to Rome, recognized for its political/legislative primacy, and to Greece for its superior spirit and culture. In counterpart, emperors from Hadrian to Marcus Aurelius relied on the Greek language for philosophical discourse. The civic acceptation of the term ὁµόνοια flourished in the epideictic speeches of the Second Sophistic. We could list pages and pages on ὁµόνοια in the speeches of Dio of Prusa who, for political purposes, used the term frequently to foster peace both within Greek cities and in their mutual relations as independent entities, according to the dictates of the political ideology of the Roman hegemony. ὁµόνοια should not only be practiced within an individual city but also between neighboring cities:4 ὁµόνοια in the vision of Dio of Prusa, as it is so well put by Bakke,5 “is a precondition for making good use of other advantages of city life”. This can be seen in what was said to the citizens of Nicaea: “But it is fitting that those whose city was founded by gods should maintain peace and concord and friendship (εἰρήνη καὶ ὁµόνοια καὶ φιλία) toward one another . . . For is it not clear that not only those who are the rulers, but also the gods, pay attention to those who live in concord (τοῖς µὲν ὁµονοοῦσιν), but those who live in a state of faction do not

——————

3 V. A. páê~Öç, “La seconda sofistica come espressione culturale della classe dirigente del II secolo”, ANRW II.33.1 (1989), 36–78; cf. S. dçäÇÜáää, “Rhetoric and the Second Sophistic”, in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rhetoric, ed. E. Gunderson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 228–241. 4 See especially Or. 38–41; further 33; 34; 48. Also this acceptation of concord used as the relationship between cities has a long history behind it: cf. Lysias, Or. 33.6; Isocrates, Or. 4.85 (cf. qÜê~ÉÇÉ, RAC 16, 191–193). 5 O. M. _~ââÉ, “Concord and Peace”: A Rhetorical Analysis of the First Letter of Clement with an Emphasis on the Language of Unity and Sedition (WUNT 141), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001, 74.

The Use of ὁµόνοια and Related Terms

119

even hear each other?”6 After Dio, Aelius Aristides further underlines the advantages of living in cities which enjoy ὁµόνοια rather than cities dominated by στάσις which is “a terrible, disruptive thing like consumption”.7 Plutarch, shortly before the Second Sophistic, often uses the term ὁµόνοια (54 times), and in his writings the civic acceptation is always predominant.

2. The noun ὁµόνοια in the Septuagint What use does the term have in the Septuagint? Overall, there are only seven instances, two in Psalms (54:15; 82:6), two in Wisdom (10:5; 18:9), one in Sirach (25:1) and two in 4 Maccabees (3:21; 13:25). Firstly, the psalmist refers to a prior agreement between two former friends: “we walked in the house of God in concord” (Ps 54:15).8 In the second occurrence in Psalms, the psalmist reports the plots of the enemies of God: “they have taken counsel together in concord” (Ps 82:6).9 The same sense of unanimity in evil is considered in Wisdom 10:5: “when the nations in concord of evil had been put to confusion”. In the case of Wisdom 18:9, the author speaks instead of concord of the Israelites when fleeing from Egypt (“in secret, the holy children of good men offered sacrifices and agreed to the divine law in concord [καὶ τὸν τῆς θειότητος νόµον ἐν ὁµονοίᾳ διέθεντο]”). In Sirach 25:1, concord among brothers (ὁµόνοια ἀδελφῶν) is the first of three things the teacher of wisdom appreciates. Three occurrences of the verb ὁµονοέω have to be added: one in Lev 20:5 (“then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will destroy him – and all those in concord with him [πάντας τοὺς ὁµονοοῦντας αὐτῷ], so that he should prostitute himself to the rulers10 – from among his people”): the second in Esth C:24 [4:17s] (“put a well-measured word into my mouth in front of the lion, and turn his heart to hate him who fights against us, to the utter destruction of him and of them that are in concord with him [τῶν

—————— 6

Dio, Or. 39.2–4. Aelius Aristides, Or. 23.31; cf. Or. 24.12ff. (cf. _~ââÉ, “Concord and Peace”, 74). 8 The Hebrew Text (Ps 55:15 MT) reads “we walked in the house of God in a throng” (i.e. a procession? cf. Ps 42:5 MT), but it seems to be corrupted (see the exegetical commentaries on the Psalms). The LXX translator apparently did not know the Hebrew word regesh “throng” (a hapax legomenon) and had to guess the meaning from the context. 9 In this case, ἐν ὁµονοίᾳ is an adequate rendering of the Hebrew leb, literally “(with) heart” (Ps 83:6 MT). 10 Greek: ἄρχοντες, meaning the Canaanite deities (as a rendering of the Hebrew Molek). 7

120

Emanuela Prinzivalli

ὁµονοούντων αὐτῷ]”); and the third in Dan 2:43 (“And as you saw11 the iron mixed with clay, they shall mingle themselves for the procreation of human beings: but they will not be in concord and not well-disposed to one another [οὐκ ἔσονται δὲ ὁµονοοῦντες οὔτε εὐνοοῦντες ἀλλήλοις]12, as iron cannot mix with clay”). In actual fact, not only is the term ὁµόνοια rarely used, but its meaning is generic. Only in Wisdom 18:9 does it become more precise, where a connection is established between concord and the observance of the law. Just as interesting is the use of ὁµόνοια in 4 Maccabees. This is a text of uncertain date, in all probability from the second half of the first century C.E. Written in elevated style, it is indebted to the lexicon and ideas of Plato, kindred to Philo (regarding the debt 4 Maccabees owes to Philo, see the use of the term λογισµός13) and Josephus, and thus a typical product of Hellenistic Judaism. The first of the two occurrences states, “because, thanks to good legislation (διὰ τὴν εὐνοµίαν) our fathers enjoyed deep peace (βαθεῖαν εἰρήνην) and well-being to the point that the king of Asia, Seleucus Nicanor, set aside a sum for their cult and approved their constitution (τὴν πολιτείαν αὐτῶν), at which time some people wanted to introduce innovations contrary to the general concord (πρὸς τὴν κοινὴν νεωτερίσαντες ὁµόνοιαν), causing every type of misfortune” (4 Macc 3:20–21). The text is interwoven with political language and it is clear that the terminology has been twisted to express a particular Jewish law, based on observance of the law of God. But this does not exclude that expressions such as εὐνοµία (not found anywhere else in the Septuagint but three other times in 4 Maccabees: 4:24; 7:9; 18:4), βαθεῖα εἰρήνη14 (found nowhere else in the Septuagint), the verb νεωτερίζω (also this a hapax of the Septuagint), have their Sitz im Leben in the political practice of cities and reflect their meaning on ὁµόνοια. Thus, the necessity of cohesion in the Jewish ethnos is accentuated by the redundant adjective κοινή joined to the noun ὁµόνοια. This kind of concord reigning in the Jewish people has been recognized also by the gentiles.

——————

11 This is the explanation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar about the statue of various materials (Dan 2:31–35). 12 The MT (Aramaic) has a single verb: “they shall not cleave one to another”. In the LXX, this is rendered freely with a paronomastic hendiadys: “they will not be in concord and not well-disposed to one another” (οὐκ ἔσονται δὲ ὁµονοοῦντες οὔτε εὐνοοῦντες ἀλλήλοις). 13 Cf. G. pÅ~êé~í, Quarto libro dei Maccabei. Testo, traduzione, introduzione e commento. Con una nota storica di G. Firpo (Biblica 9), Brescia: Paideia, 2006, 66–70. 14 For the political sense of the expression cf. W. C. î~å=rååáâ, “ ‘Tiefer Friede’ ” (1. Klemens 2,2), VC 24 (1970), 261–279; áÇÉã, “Noch einmal ‘Tiefer Friede’: Nachschrift zu dem Aufsatz von Herrn Dr. K. Beyschlag”, VC 26 (1972), 24–28.

The Use of ὁµόνοια and Related Terms

121

This passage of 4 Maccabees has been compared15 to a passage of Philo (Virt. 119) where he states that Moses with all his law-giving (διὰ πάσης τῆς νοµοθεσίας)16 wanted to produce ὁµόνοιαν, κοινωνίαν, ὁµοφροσύνην, κρᾶσιν ἠθῶν, that is “all that can lead houses and cities, nations and countries, and the entire human race to the supreme good”. Linking the two quotations 4 Macc 3:20–21 and Philo, Virt. 119, is in fact legitimate. Firstly because of the general idea that the law of God has many positive effects, in particular concord, and secondly because of terminology: the combination of the terms ὁµόνοια and κοινωνία truly recalls the link in 4 Maccabees between the adjective κοινή and the noun ὁµόνοια. It should be noted however that in Philo the divinely inspired Mosaic law corresponds to natural law, whereas the author of 4 Maccabees refers the term “law” as to positive law, put in writing but divinely inspired nevertheless.17 The second instance (4 Macc 13:25) falls within the familiar acceptation of the term ὁµόνοια, as it underlines the common feelings of the seven brothers and their deep union: “a common zeal for virtue strengthens their goodwill for one another and concord”. However, the basis of concord, the same as in the previous passage, is an attitude shared by the seven brothers: the observance of the law as well as the devotion towards God. It should be noted that Philo defends the same idea (Virt. 35): The main reason for concord and συµφωνία amongst the Jews is the belief in one god. Moreover, Philo, in a Platonic18 manner, underlines in Decal. 14 that the foundation of a good political regime is that the citizens are governed so as to live ἐν ὁµονοίᾳ καὶ κοινωνίᾳ καὶ διανοµῇ. In summary, the texts of Hellenistic Judaism presented above – Septuagint (Wisdom and 4 Maccabees) as well as extra-biblical authors (Philo, Josephus) – date back to the period between the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. Depending on Greek and, above all, Platonic thought, they emphasize the significance of civic ὁµόνοια as the most important virtue for human coexistence. However, this idea is framed into the particular conception of God, who is the source of a just law system.

—————— 15

Cf. pÅ~êé~í, Quarto libro dei Maccabei, 59. The term νοµοθεσία is attested in Philo and Josephus, but not mentioned by the author of 4 Maccabees, who uses εὐνοµία, also used, albeit with fewer occurrences than νοµοθεσία, in Philo and Josephus. 17 pÅ~êé~í, Quarto libro dei Maccabei, 82–83. 18 Plato, Resp. 1, 331e. 16

122

Emanuela Prinzivalli

3. The use of ὁµόνοια in early Christian writings Let us now turn to the Christian writers. We immediately find ourselves in an interesting situation with two authors, dating from the late first century and the first decades of the second. These authors, very different in character, are connected, at least to some extent, by the issues dealt with, and this probably because the latter knew the first.19 I am speaking of the author of the so-called First Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (= 1 Clement) and Ignatius of Antioch. To give an idea of the importance of the term ὁµόνοια for both authors, it is enough to say that the term is used 14 times in 1 Clement and 20 times in Ignatius (8 in the seven authentic letters and the rest in the long interpolated text20, showing that its anonymous author considered the term characteristic of Ignatius’ language). The term is almost absent in later Christian Greek literature:21 up to 10 occurrences are found in Clement of Alexandria and 14 in the extant Greek texts of Origen. It should be reminded that the remaining corpora of the two Alexandrian authors greatly exceed the length of 1 Clement as well as the letters of Ignatius. 1 Clement, it is known, has a collective sender and a collective addressee: it is the church in Rome, writing to the church in Corinth. Therefore, the name of the real author, the person who arranged the text material and drafted the long letter, is unknown. A tradition, dating back to the middle of the second century, attributed the letter to Clement. There is no real reason for rejecting the reliability of this tradition, whereas it is completely anachronistic to consider Clement as the third bishop of Rome, as later developments of the tradition purport.22 The letter is like a patchwork of quotations from Scripture taken from the Septuagint text. Such a broad use (the citations cover a quarter of the letter) confirms what we know from other sources (above all from the testimony of Ambrosiaster, a later Roman author23) about the close connection between the newly-born Roman Christianity and the local Jewish community. It is no coincidence that it is Paul’s epistle to the Romans which uses the greatest —————— 19

C. qêÉîÉíí, “Ignatius ‘To the Romans’ and I Clement LIV–LVI”, VC 43 (1989), 35–52. Cf. A. _êÉåí, Ignatius of Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the Origin of Episcopacy, London: Continuum, 2007, 1–13. 21 There are 3 occurrences in the Pseudo-Clementines, 1 occurrence in the Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, 2 in the Shepherd of Hermas, 2 in Irenaeus, 2 in the Acts of Thomas, 1 in Hippolytus, Commentarium in Danielem, 1 in the Refutatio omnium haeresium (traditionally attributed to Hippolytus), and 1 in Pseudo-Hippolytus, De consummatione mundi. 22 Cf. E. mêáåòáî~ääá, in bK= mêáåòáî~ääá=L=jK=páãçåÉííá, Seguendo Gesù. Testi cristiani delle origini, vol. I, Rome: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla / Milan: Mondadori, 2010, 141–149. 23 Ambrosiaster, Ad Romanos, CSEL 81,1. 20

The Use of ὁµόνοια and Related Terms

123

number of biblical quotations among his authentic letters. The same goes for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews who probably writes to the Romans as well. The most interesting observation is that, in the case of long quotations, 1 Clement faithfully follows the Septuagint, while in short quotations he sometimes quotes from memory, hence with a greater number of variants. This means that he has at his disposal scrolls of the various books of the Septuagint and, when necessary, consults them. After Psalms and Isaiah, the most cited biblical books – and this is also the case for the writings which will become part of the New Testament – are, in order of their frequency: Job, Proverbs, Exodus, other prophets and Wisdom. The language of 1 Clement belongs to the Koine of Hellenistic Judaism and is therefore the language found in the literary production of the diaspora.24 Lona statistically analyzed the Greek of 1 Clement25 and realized that most (97%) of the vocabulary can be found in the extant texts of Hellenistic Judaism. However, only a small part of the vocabulary used in 1 Clement is not found in the Septuagint or in the New Testament. There are more words in common with the Septuagint which are not found in the New Testament. Clement’s vocabulary in common with the New Testament is above all Pauline. Furthermore, since there are so few words in common with the Septuagint only and not with other Hellenistic Jewish texts, we can observe that the vocabulary of 1 Clement, notwithstanding his excellent knowledge of the Septuagint, is not marked with characteristic expressions of this text.26 The most significant absence from the vocabulary used by 1 Clement is the term νόµος (law), replaced by other less expressive terms (orders, precepts). In an author so deeply rooted in biblical culture, such an absence is obviously intentional: Clement does not want to refer to any idea that could create division, committing himself to bringing peace to the community in Corinth which was divided within due to the expulsion of some presbyters. In such a context of a search for peace within the community, the term ὁµόνοια has a key function. In the final summary of the topics covered, the author places the verb ὁµονοέω (1 Clem. 62.1–2) in a central position, shortly after he describes the letter as a “petition for peace and concord”. There are fewer occurrences of —————— 24

I prefer to speak of the literary production of the diaspora, because those using the conceptualization of Hengel could say that also the Palestinian Judaism is Hellenistic: cf. M. eÉåÖÉä, “Zum Problem der ‘Hellenisierung’ Judäas im 1. Jahrhundert nach Christus” (in: M. eÉåÖÉä, Judaica et Hellenistica: Kleine Schriften I [WUNT 90], Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 1–90), 85. However, it is not always easy to distinguish between the production of the Judeo-Hellenistic of the Diaspora and the Palestinian: still, ibid., 49f. 25 For the Greek text of 1 Clement cf. Seguendo Gesù, 180–275. 26 For these data and the conclusions cf. eK=bK=içå~, Der erste Clemensbrief (KAV 2), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998, 35.

124

Emanuela Prinzivalli

the term ὁµόνοια than εἰρήνη (found 21 times, five of which are hendiadys with ὁµόνοια), but they have a stronger connotation, specifying the more generic εἰρήνη. In the first instance ὁµόνοια reveals God’s plan for the creation of the world and of humankind: God calls on the creatures to go into the ark in concord (9.4); and God punishes Lot’s wife for lack of concord (11.2). In chapter 20, in which the author describes cosmic concord established by God, the terms εἰρήνη and ὁµόνοια are repeated alternatively or as hendiadys. The marvelous organization of the cosmos is the model with which, in the rhetorical strategy of the letter, the faithful of Corinth must conform. The admonition to reconcile the human organisation with the harmony of the Universe is diffuse in Hellenistic Jewish literature and in the Second Sophistic.27 Thus, the author of 1Clement appears to be influenced by the specific cultural climate of his time. Nevertheless, the argument in Dio Chrysostom serves the purpose of peace within the city, while in 1 Clement it is re-translated to mean peace within the church. More precisely, we are faced with an improvement of Paul’s linguistic choice, which Mitchell defined as “rhetoric of reconciliation”28. Compared to Paul, 1 Clement has a greater lexical range. I cite as example the opposite terms ὁµόνοια and στάσις; the expression “deep peace” (εἰρήνη βαθεῖα 2.2) which we have already found in 4 Maccabees and which falls within the vocabulary of politics; the use of the more classic and understandable noun πολιτεία (2.8; 54.4) – and the related verb πολιτεύοµαι (3.4; 6.1; 21.1; 44.6; 51.2; 54.4) – instead of Pauline πολίτευµα (Phil 3:18). The highest point of Clement’s reformulation of concord can be gathered from the emulative rewriting of Paul’s hymn to Love (1 Cor 13), when he affirms that “Love does all in concord” (ἀγάπη πάντα ποιεῖ ἐν ὁµονοίᾳ 1 Clem. 49.5). The passage will be quoted literally by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 4.18.111.3). Needless to say this use of ὁµόνοια cannot be explained by existing models. As can be shown, none of the occurrences of ὁµόνοια are connected to a quotation or an echo of the passages of the Septuagint which contain such vocabulary. We now turn to Ignatius of Antioch.29 Unlike the author of 1 Clement, who conceals himself completely behind the community, Ignatius, in giving advice to the various churches, takes all the limelight for himself and uses his status as a prisoner – condemned to death for Christ – to exert his authority. And yet he does not talk of himself or his prior situation. —————— 27

Dio, Or. 40.35–37; Aelius Aristides, Or. 23.77; 24.42; Philo, Jos. 145; Congr. 133; Spec. leg. 2.141. 28 M. M. jáíÅÜÉää, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (BHT 28), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. 29 For the Greek text of Ignatius cf. Seguendo Gesù, 344–425.

The Use of ὁµόνοια and Related Terms

125

Reading between the lines, we gather from the letters that in all probability the community in Antioch was torn by internal conflict, but we do not know what part Ignatius played in this. As for the biblical quotations, the position of Ignatius is completely different from that of 1 Clement. There are only three explicit quotations (Eph. 5.3; Magn. 12; Trall. 8.2), two from Proverbs, and one (probably) from Isaiah. However, twice he mentions the term νόµος (contrary to 1 Clement) even though one occurrence may be dubious: Magn. 8.1; Smyrn. 5.1. Here, νόµος is opposed to faith in Christ being based on the Jewish Scriptures and Ignatius completely overturns this position, conferring the primacy of faith in Christ over the Jewish Scriptures which should be read in the light of Christ. He testifies that the Christian community is drawing away from Jewish customs, in the name of the incipient christianismos (the word appears for the first time in his letters). If we are to take his situation as a prisoner seriously, in addition to his travelling, we have to recognize that, in any case, Ignatius would not have had the possibility of making longer or more frequent quotations of the biblical text. However, the problem remains. In fact, even in this condition, Ignatius would have been able to allude to Scripture, as he so often does to Johannine and Pauline texts. From Schoedel30 onwards, research has interpreted Ignatius’ letters against a complex and vivacious urban background, particularly that of Antiochia. More recent publications have developed this hypothesis, recognizing and investigating his use of political terminology.31 Instead of addressing this question in detail, I will just underline two points: firstly, Ignatius inherited from the Second Sophistic, and more specifically, from 1 Clement the idea that in the church ὁµόνοια derives from God’s concord and imitates it.32 Secondly, like 1 Clement, he attributes a new function to all the vocabulary of civil concord and adapts it to another idea he promotes: the monepiscopate. In Ignatius’ language, there are many words that speak of the internal division, although the term στάσις is absent, and not by chance. Rather than a state of active conflict, Ignatius confirms the division of factions, probably due to the previous organization of the community which was less centripetal. ——————

30 W. R. pÅÜçÉÇÉä, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia), Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. 31 A. _êÉåí, The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity before the Age of Cyprian (VCSup 45), Leiden: Brill, 1999; H. O. j~áÉê, “The Politics and Rhetoric of Discord and Concord in Paul and Ignatius”, in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. A. F. Gregory and C. M. Tuckett, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, 308–324; A. _êÉåí, Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic (STAC 36), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. 32 Phld., inscr.; Magn. 6.1; 15.

126

Emanuela Prinzivalli

In contrast to Clement, another terminology appears: ἕνωσις and ἑνότης.33 In the past, this terminology was supposed to be of Gnostic influence, and in fact it is an achievement of recent studies to have understood that it derives from the reconversion of civic language made by the first Christian writers.34 For a greater number of occurrences of ὁµόνοια we turn to the other Clement – the Alexandrian. He uses ὁµόνοια 10 times: none of these in connection with quotations of the Septuagint. What characterizes Clement is to give the term a philosophical connotation. He picks up on and updates the Philonian vocabulary, speaking of the law of the pedagogic Logos which “leads through peace to the holy concord of life” (ἐπὶ τὴν ἱερὰν τῆς πολιτείας ὁµόνοιαν εἰρηναγωγεῖ).35 In the Stromateis, Clement explicitly recalls the philosophical definitions of ὁµόνοια: from the Platonic definition of politics whose aim is the maintenance of friendship and concord (ἔτι τὸ µὲν νοµικὸν πρὸς γενέσεως εἶναι, τὸ πολιτικὸν δὲ πρὸς φιλίας καὶ ὁµονοίας ὁ Πλάτων ὠφεληθείς)36 to one that defines concord as the knowledge of common good.37 The education of love and forgiveness eradicates enmity and leads to concord which brings happiness.38 We note the same use of a philosophical quotation, this time from Aristotle, regarding the “precious concord”39 in marriage, which should be obtained not through passion but according to reason. Another philosophical definition, deriving from the Stoic, is that concord is “agreement on the same object”.40 Origen is the first to quote the Septuagint regarding ὁµόνοια, even though he does so only once: in Contra Celsum 5.29, he limits himself to citing Wisdom 10:5 about the problem of the division of peoples. In Cels. 5.63, the use of the word is general, in the sense of reciprocal agreement, and the word ὁµόνοια, attributed to Celsus, refers to the impossibility of agreement between Christians. The third context (Cels. 8.12) is more important because ὁµόνοια is the first of the three terms which defines the unity between the Father and the Son: “they are two things regarding the hypostasis but only one regarding concord, harmony, and identity of will” with an ascendant climax. We are at the heart of Origenian theology, with his typically dynamic vision of the unity

—————— 33

For ἕνωσις Magn. 1.2; 13.2; Trall. 11.2 Phld. 4.1; 7.2; 8.1; Pol. 1.2; 5.2; for ἑνότης Eph. 4.2; 5.1; 14.1; Phld. 2.2; 3.2; 5.2; 8.1; 9.1; Smyrn. 12.2; Pol. 8.3; for ἑνόω Eph., inscr.; Magn. 6.2; 7.1; 14.1; Smyrn. 3.3. 34 j~áÉê, The Politics and Rhetoric, 317. 35 Paed. 1.8.65.3. 36 Strom. 1.25.166.1; cf. Plato, Epin. 977b. 37 Strom. 2.9.42.2; cf. Stobaeus, Ecl. 2.7.11b, p. 94, 1–4 Wachsmuth. 38 Strom. 2.18.90.3. 39 Strom. 2.23.143.1; cf. Aristotle, Oec. 3.4. 40 Strom. 7.11.68.2.

The Use of ὁµόνοια and Related Terms

127

between Father and Son (the phrase is identical in the creed of Antioch of 341 C.E.).41 This theological use of ὁµόνοια is Origen’s most significant contribution, because he adapts the specific connotation of ὁµόνοια in family life to that of the intra-divine relationship. Otherwise, Origen uses the term in a general sense, and often reinforces it by adding the adjective πᾶσα.42

4. Concluding observations Taking the above discussion into account, it can be said that early Christianity readapted the prevalently civil connotation which ὁµόνοια had at the time, in order to express the feelings of union meant to unite members of a church. In fact, in the practical life of the community, it was necessary to find the correct words to decline the command of love of Jesus Christ. The term ὁµόνοια lent itself well to this need. Not only does it express a positive concept, but also, in the light of its antonym στάσις, it evokes in some cases the dangers of discord as explicitly mentioned in 1 Clement. Two other words belonging to the same initial and creative period of Christian language, and both used metaphorically in the New Testament, should be mentioned: φιλαδελφία43 and, closely related, ἀδελφότης44. In the Septuagint, both terms can be found almost exclusively in 4 Maccabees.45 Here, their meaning is always connected to blood brotherhood, even though these blood ties are loaded with a surplus of significance given by the heroic virtue and religious piety of the seven brothers, because of their martyrdom. Only in 1 Maccabees (12:10, 17) is ἀδελφότης used metaphorically to indicate the ties which unite allies. We are not surprised to find both terms also in 1 Clement, who is creating a lexicon to talk in concrete terms of the lovebonds between members of the church. To conclude, I will recall two questions Jan Joosten posed in the introduction to this meeting: – How do Jewish or Christian authors writing in Greek handle the difference existing for some words between the “biblical” usage created in the Septuagint and the usual meaning in Greek? —————— 41

M. páãçåÉííá, Studi sulla cristologia del II e III secolo (SEAug 44), Rome 1993, 109–143. 42 As happens in Comm. Matt. 13.15.10 and in Fr. 1 Cor, fr. 38.7 (p. 153 Pieri). 43 Rom 12:10; 1 Thess 4:9; Heb 13:1; 1 Pet 1:22; 2 Pet 1:7(bis). 44 1 Pet 2:17; 5:9. 45 See 4 Macc 13:23, 26; 14:1 for φιλαδελφία and 9:23; 10:3, 15; 13:19, 27 for ἀδελφότης.

128

Emanuela Prinzivalli

– To what extent is it possible to affirm that New Testament authors borrowed their religious terminology from the Septuagint? In the case of ὁµόνοια the significance of the term in the Septuagint is too general to leave its mark. Only in Wisdom and in 4 Maccabees does it become pregnant with meaning, but a specific revival cannot be found in the Christian authors. To complicate the question, there is the problem of dating 4 Maccabees. It is more prudent to say that the same cultural climate influenced this book as well as the most ancient Christian authors, and therefore, that what might appear to be an influence could be better explained as a common background. In the case of φιλαδελφία we find ourselves faced with a Christian innovation, connected to the heroic and creative period of the origins. In the course of Christian history, the term did not have the success which one could have expected. Its scarce use indirectly confirms that the word reflects the hope of a new manner in which Christian communities of the origins wished to shape their relationships. Perhaps this hope was gradually given up.

La Septante dans quelques testimonia non canoniques des origines chrétiennes båêáÅç=kçêÉääá

Ma présentation a une position un peu spéciale dans cette journée d’études. En effet, elle ne s’occupe du destin du vocabulaire de la Septante que sous l’angle de l’utilisation de textes de la Septante pour la fabrication de ce que j’appelle des testimonia agrapha. Je me suis déjà occupé à quelques reprises des testimonia dans le premier christianisme1 et je n’ai pas à refaire ici l’histoire des débats autour de ce sujet depuis le XIXe siècle, laquelle a été du reste esquissée par d’autres, dont Martin C. Albl dans son livre « And Scripture Cannot Be Broken »2. Je n’ai pas non plus à discuter les problèmes fondamentaux de la recherche sur les testimonia et je me borne ici à définir un ou deux concepts.

——————

1 En particulier : « Il martirio di Isaia come testimonium antigiudaico? »: Henoch 2 (1980), 37–57; « Due testimonia attribuiti a Esdra »: ASEs 1 (1984), 231–282; « La polemica con il giudaismo: testimonia, Barnaba, Giustino », in L’uso della Bibbia nel cristianesimo antico, vol. I, éd. E. Norelli (La Bibbia nella storia 15/1), Bologna: Dehoniane, 1993, 199– 233; « Avant le canonique et l’apocryphe: aux origines des récits sur l’enfance de Jésus » : RThPh 126 (1994), 305–324 ; « Testimonia apocryphes dans le christianisme ancien – projet d’un recueil et problèmes de méthode », Bulletin de l’AELAC 6 (1996), 12–18 ; « Un testimonium sur l’Antichrist (Hippolyte, L’Antichrist 15 et 54) », in Poussières de christianisme et de judaïsme antiques. Etudes réunies en l’honneur de Jean-Daniel Kaestli et Eric Junod, éd. Albert Frey et Rémi Gounelle (Publications de l’Institut romand des sciences bibliques 5), Lausanne: Zèbre, 2007, 245–270 ; « Les plus anciennes traditions sur la naissance de Jésus et leur rapport avec les testimonia », in Infancy Gospels. Stories and Identities, éd. Claire Clivaz et al. (WUNT 281), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 47–66. 2 j~êíáå=`K=^äÄä, « And Scripture Cannot Be Broken ». The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections (NT.S 96), Leiden: Brill, 1999. On peut voir mon compte rendu dans Apocrypha 12 (2001), 279–282.

130

Enrico Norelli

Les testimonia Je désignerai comme testimonium tout énoncé qui se présente comme une citation tirée des Ecritures d’Israël3 et qui a pour but de prouver que certains événements ou situations concernant Jésus ou la première génération de ceux qui croyaient en lui avaient été prophétisés. Mon usage du terme testimonia fera donc abstraction de la question de savoir si le testimonium est isolé ou inclus dans un groupe, ou bien s’il est plus ou moins conforme au texte de la Septante, ou bien s’il a été puisé directement dans le contexte d’un livre biblique ou dans une source intermédiaire.

Testimonia bibliques et testimonia agrapha Cela dit, les testimonia entretiennent des rapports différents avec le texte de la Septante. Certains lui correspondent tout à fait, éventuellement avec des variantes qui sont cependant attestées dans la tradition directe des livres bibliques4.  La plupart des testimonia affichent des différences textuelles par rapport à la tradition directe. Dans certains cas on peut se demander s’il ne s’agit pas là de variantes qui ne sont pas contenues dans les manuscrits conservés, mais qui se sont formées dans la tradition directe ; en général, pourtant, il s’agit de modifications réalisées lors de la production et de la circulation des testimonia en tant que tels. Or ces différences peuvent avoir des modalités très variées : on va de modifications légères, du moins du point de vue formel, éventuellement réalisées par l’insertion, dans un testimonium, d’éléments venant d’autres passages bibliques, à des montages réalisés par réunion de bouts de textes bibliques différents, à des constructions qui intègrent des éléments bibliques mais qui insèrent aussi des mots et des phrases non bibliques, en donnant vie à de courts textes qu’il est impossible de rattacher simplement à un ou même à plusieurs endroits bibliques. Pour les ——————

3 En réalité, on pourrait élargir le champ ; en plus d’extraits tirés de livres qui ne seront retenus ni dans le canon rabbinique ni dans la Septante (Hénoch ou l’Apocryphe d’Ezéchiel, par exemple), les auteurs chrétiens anciens ont cité des textes venant de la tradition grecque, y compris Platon, ou prétendus tels, comme les Oracles Sibyllins ou les faux passages des poètes tragiques et comiques grecs, en fait des productions juives d’époque hellénistique et romaine, qu’on peut lire réunis et édités par Albert-Marie Denis in Apocalypsis Henochi Graece, éd. Matthew Black, Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt Graeca una cum historicorum et auctorum Judaeorum Hellenistarum fragmentis, éd. Albert-Marie Denis (PVTG 3), Leiden: Brill, 1970, 161–174. 4 Il faut cependant remarquer que des variantes présentes dans la tradition directe ont pu été influencées par les modifications introduites dans des testimonia circulant de façon indépendante.

La Septante dans quelques testimonia non canoniques des origines chrétiennes

131

testimonia de ce dernier type, je parle de testimonia apocryphes ou de testimonia agrapha, comme on parle de agrapha de Jésus pour des paroles qui ne sont pas contenues dans des textes devenus canoniques5. Il est clair que la frontière entre les testimonia agrapha et les testimonia qu’on peut encore appeler bibliques n’est pas si clairement définie, car les degrés d’éloignement du texte biblique forment une sorte de continuum. Pour s’en rendre compte, il suffit de feuilleter la section VI « Alttestamentliche Agrapha und Apokrypha » de la deuxième édition de l’ouvrage classique d’Alfred Resch, Agrapha6. Resch y examine 62 cas, à attestation unique ou multiple, qui entretiennent avec le texte de la Septante des relations variées. Il est difficile de distinguer nettement le montage d’expressions bibliques avec des éléments nouveaux de raccordement, du testimonium fabriqué ex novo et intégrant plusieurs expressions bibliques. Cependant, ce qui nous intéresse ici n’est pas le problème abstrait mais plutôt l’examen de certains textes visant à comprendre comment ils ont été fabriqués et, si possible, dans quel but, et comment ils ont utilisé le vocabulaire et la phraséologie de la Septante.

Circulation des testimonia Une autre question classique est de savoir comment circulaient ces testimonia, que nous trouvons très souvent réunis en groupes. L’un des premiers savants qui leur ont consacré une attention spéciale, Rendel Harris7, essaya de montrer qu’il y avait eu dans les premières communautés chrétiennes un livre unique des testimonia, plus ancien que les évangiles devenus canoniques. Cette idée a été abandonnée à juste titre, en faveur d’une circulation très diversifiée de petits recueils ; mais la question de la forme physique de ces recueils et des mécanismes de leur production et circulation reste encore largement ouverte. Ce n’est qu’à partir du IIIe siècle que nous avons des livres entiers de testimonia, tels que les Testimonia ad Quirinum de Cyprien de Carthage, en trois livres, dont le troisième, doté d’une préface propre, est en fait une collection d’exhortations morales tirées en grande partie du Nouveau Testament ; ou, en grec, les Testimonia du Pseudo-Epiphane, du quatrième siècle ou du début du cinquième ; ou encore les Testimonia du PseudoGrégoire de Nysse, composés vers 400. Entre temps, les découvertes de Qumran ont montré que cette communauté possédait de brèves collections —————— 5 6

kçêÉääá, «Testimonia apocryphes dans le christianisme ancien ». ^äÑêÉÇ=oÉëÅÜ, Agrapha. Aussercanonische Schriftfragmente (TU 30.3–4), Leipzig:

Hinrichs, 21906, 295–335. 7 gK=oÉåÇÉä=e~êêáë, Testimonies, 2 volumes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916–1920.

132

Enrico Norelli

d’extraits des Ecritures qui étaient censés prophétiser des événements liés à l’histoire de ce groupe et aux derniers temps, notamment à l’avènement du messie ou des messies8. Il y a de petites collections de testimonia qui se sont conservées à l’intérieur d’ouvrages plus amples, par exemple dans le livre 4 des Institutions divines de Lactance ou dans plusieurs chapitres du Sur la Trinité de Novatien. Un cas très clair et très peu étudié avant que je ne m’y applique est celui de la collection de testimonia sur la naissance de Jésus contenue dans les Actes de Pierre 24, qui aligne des extraits bibliques, des extraits d’ouvrages non canonisés et des testimonia agrapha fabriqués sans doute en tant que testimonia. Dans le cas des testimonia agrapha, en effet, on a souvent admis qu’ils ont été extraits d’œuvres aujourd’hui perdues ; c’est pratiquement certain dans quelques cas et très vraisemblable dans d’autres, mais je crois qu’il y a un nombre assez considérable de testimonia fabriqués en tant que tels, un peu comme des juifs hellénisés ont fabriqué de faux extraits d’auteurs grecs classiques dans un but apologétique. Quelques recherches que j’ai entreprises au fil des années m’ont persuadé qu’une analyse poussée des testimonia agrapha a encore beaucoup à nous révéler sur les débuts des théologies chrétiennes, sur les réceptions de l’Ecriture et sur certains milieux du premier christianisme.

Utilisation de la Septante pour la fabrication de testimonia Dans la présente circonstance, je me suis proposé d’examiner comment la Septante a été utilisée dans la fabrication de quelques testimonia agrapha. J’avais d’abord dressé une liste d’une trentaine de cas, ensuite j’ai dû progressivement réduire mon programme jusqu’à décider de me restreindre à trois cas, tous compris dans un seul ouvrage, la lettre de Clément de Rome aux Corinthiens qu’on date vers 959. Cette limitation me permettra, je l’espère, d’aller un peu en profondeur.

——————

8 Ils sont passés en revue par exemple par ^äÄä, « And Scripture Cannot Be Broken », 86–92 ; ma propre conception des testimonia est cependant plus restreinte que la sienne. 9 Pour les problèmes d’introduction et le commentaire de cet ouvrage, voir notamment gçëÉéÜ=_~êÄÉê=iáÖÜíÑççí, The Apostolic Fathers. Second Edition. Part One : S. Clement of Rome, 2 volumes, London/New York: Macmillan, 1890 ; eçê~Åáç=bK=içå~, Der erste Clemensbrief (KAV 2), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998 ; ^åÇêÉ~ë=iáåÇÉã~åå, Die Clemensbriefe (HNT 17), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Je désignerai ce texte par la dénomination habituelle de 1 Clément, qui le distingue de la « Deuxième épître de Clément aux Corinthiens », en réalité une homélie anonyme du 2e siècle qui n’a rien à voir avec Clément de Rome mais qui suit le texte précédent dans la tradition manuscrite.

La Septante dans quelques testimonia non canoniques des origines chrétiennes

133

1 Clément 26,2 Commençons par trois citations sur la résurrection, contenues dans un développement consacré à elle aux ch. 24–26. La résurrection en tant que telle n’est pas un thème majeur de la lettre ; son évocation ici vise à montrer que Dieu est fidèle dans ses promesses. Les trois brèves citations se suivent en 26,2–3. Je les reproduis, en faisant suivre chacune d’elles par les passages bibliques que les commentateurs ont proposés comme sources. 2 Λέγει γάρ που· Καὶ ἐξαναστήσεις µε, καὶ ἐξοµολογήσοµαί σοι, Ps 27,7b LXX: dans le Seigneur ἤλπισεν ἡ καρδία µου, καὶ ἐβοηθήθην, καὶ ἀνέθαλεν ἡ σάρξ µου· καὶ ἐκ θελήµατός µου ἐξοµολογήσοµαι αὐτῷ Ps 87,11 LXX: µὴ τοῖς νεκροῖς ποιήσεις θαυµάσια; ἢ ἰατροὶ ἀναστήσουσιν, καὶ ἐξοµολογήσονταί σοι;

καί· Ἐκοιµήθην καὶ ὕπνωσα, ἐξηγέρθην, ὅτι σὺ µετ’ ἐµοῦ εἶ. Ps 3,6 LXX: ἐγὼ ἐκοιµήθην καὶ ὕπνωσα· ἐξηγέρθην, ὅτι κύριος ἀντιλήµψεταί µου. Ps 22,4 LXX: ἐὰν γὰρ καὶ πορευθῶ ἐν µέσῳ σκιᾶς θανάτου, οὐ φοβηθήσοµαι κακά, ὅτι σὺ µετ᾽ ἐµοῦ εἶ.

3 Καὶ πάλιν Ἰὼβ λέγει· Καὶ ἀναστήσεις τὴν σάρκα µου ταύτην τὴν ἀναντλήσασαν ταῦτα πάντα. Jb 19,26 LXX: ἀναστήσαι τὸ δέρµα µου τὸ ἀνατλῶν ταῦτα. Mais le texte du passage contient plusieurs variantes, cf. l’édition de Ziegler10 et ci-dessous.

Les sources Pour la première citation, pourquoi les commentateurs privilégient-ils le Ps 27? Il a ἐξοµολογήσοµαι αὐτῷ avec le complément à la troisième personne, alors que le syntagme ἐξοµολογήσοµαί σοι est très fréquent dans les Psaumes : 9,2 ; 17,50 ; 29,13 ; 34,18 ; 42,4 ; 51,11 ; 56,10 ; 70,22 ; 85,12 ; 107,4 ; 110,1 ; 117,21.28 ; 118,7 ; 137,1 ; 138,14. Cf. aussi 2 R (LXX) 22,50 ; Sir 51,1.12 ; Ps Sal 16,5. Dans presque tous ces passages, le locuteur loue Dieu pour le salut qu’il a apporté ; mais dans aucun d’entre eux ne figure ἀνίστηµι ni ἐξανίστηµι. Un passage qui pourrait avoir aussi inspiré ce testimonium est Ps 70,20–22, mentionné à cet égard (avec un point

—————— 10

296.

gçëÉéÜ=wáÉÖäÉê, Iob (Septuaginta 11,4), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982,

134

Enrico Norelli

d’interrogation) par Bauer/Danker11, même s’il faut remarquer qu’il ne contient ni ἐξανίστηµι ni ἀνίστηµι : 20 ὅσας ἔδειξάς µοι θλίψεις πολλὰς καὶ κακάς, καὶ ἐπιστρέψας ἐζωοποίησάς µε καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀβύσσων τῆς γῆς πάλιν ἀνήγαγές µε. 21 ἐπλεόνασας τὴν µεγαλοσύνην σου καὶ ἐπιστρέψας παρεκάλεσάς µε [καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀβύσσων τῆς γῆς πάλιν ἀνήγαγές µε.] 22 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἐξοµολογήσοµαί σοι ἐν σκεύει ψαλµοῦ τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου, ὁ θεός· ψαλῶ σοι ἐν κιθάρᾳ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Ισραηλ.

Le Ps 27,7 a cependant une pertinence dans la mesure où il affirme : « ma chair a poussé à nouveau », ce qui pouvait bien sûr être exploité comme une allusion à la résurrection, de même que le contexte pouvait être mis en rapport avec la Passion de Jésus. On pourrait aussi se demander si la σάρξ de ce verset ne pourrait être mise en rapport avec la présence de σάρξ dans la troisième citation, celle de Job, alors qu’en Jb 19,26 les manuscrits de la Septante ont soit δέρµα, soit σῶµα. Le TM a  yrIA[ « ma peau ». Le mot bāśār apparaît en fait dans le TM de Jb 19,26 : H;Ala/ hz