The Word is Near You: A Study of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in Paul's Letter to the Romans in a Jewish Context [Reprint 2012 ed.] 3110193418, 9783110193411

Citation preview

Per Jarle Bekken The Word is Near You

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Herausgegeben von

James D. G. Dunn · Carl R. Holladay Hermann Lichtenberger · Jens Schröter Gregory E. Sterling · Michael Wolter

Band 144

≥

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Per Jarle Bekken

The Word is Near You A Study of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in Paul’s Letter to the Romans in a Jewish Context

≥

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Printed with the support of Norges Forskningsrad

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines 앪 of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

ISBN 978-3-11-019341-1 ISSN 0171-6441 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. 쑔 Copyright 2007 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Data conversion and typesetting: Progressus Consultant KB in Karlstad, Schweden Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin

To Erlend, Ida and Vegard

Acknowledgements This study arises out of the work I did for my thesis which I defended for the Ph.D. (Doctor Artium) degree at the Norwegian University of Technology and Science, Faculty of Arts, August 1998. There are many to whom I owe thanks and acknowledgements for their help to me. I am particularly grateful to my Doktorvater Professor Peder Borgen. Without his encouragement and help, far beyond what is expected from an advisor, this study would never have been completed. Professor Borgen kindled my interest in the writings of Philo of Alexandria and their relevance for the study of the New Testament. His various studies on this subject have been a stimulating guide and have inspired me for many years. Professor Borgen has introduced me to several scholars in the field field of both Philonic and New Testament research. Through the years 1989–1992 I was invited by Professor Borgen to join a Nordic research project on ‘The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism’ supported by the Joint Committee of the Nordic Research Councils for Humanities (NOS–H) together with Professor Lars Hartman, Uppsala, Professor Karl Gustav Sandelin, Åbo, and Professor Søren Giversen, Aarhus. I am indebted to them all for valuable comments on earlier drafts of the study. The flaws that remain in this thesis are all my own. Parts of my investigation have also been discussed personally or in seminars in Norway or abroad with scholars such as the late Nils A. Dahl, Charles Kingsley Barrett, Vernon Robbins, David E. Aune, Klaus Berger, Nikolaus Walter, Jacob Jervell, and David Hellholm. I express my warmest thanks to them for sharing their expertise with me. Thanks are also due to the members of the doctoral committee, Professors Karl Olav Sandnes and Jarl Ulrichsen, for their helpful comments. Most of the research has been undertaken during the years 1988–1992. In 1988– 1989 I received scholarships from the Norwegian School of Theology, Oslo and the Joint Committee of the Nordic Research Councils for Humanities. The main part of the work was done during a three year scholarship granted by the Norwegian Research Council. The Norwegian Research Council has also subsidized the printing and publishing of the book. My appreciation goes to these institutions for their interest in the project.

viii

Acknowledgements

I will also express my gratitude to Rev. Dr. Brian McNeil who has seen through my English, and to Professor Bjørn Helge Sandvei for the correction of the Greek texts of the study. I am also indebted to Engineer Christer Hellholm for his assistance in order to prepare my manuscript in accordance with the standards required by the Publisher. I should also like to thank the Publishers Walter de Gruyter, represented by Dr. Albrecht Döhnert and Editor Carsten Burfeind, for undertaking the publication of the book and including it in the series Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche. Last but by no means least, my thanks are due to my family for their love and support over years and many friends for their encouragements during my work with this thesis. The book is dedicated to my children Erlend, Ida, and Vegard as an expression of my love to them. Oslo, December 2006 Per Jarle Bekken

Abbreviations Abbreviations follow the rules recommended by the Society of Biblical Literature, according to The SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson 1999. These rules include standard abbreviations for Biblical books, early Jewish and Christian literature and classical literature. The following abbreviations are not mentioned in The SBL Handbook of Style: PCH PLCL

Philo, German translation, edited by L. Cohn et al. Philo, Loeb Classical Library

The Philonic works are abbreviated according to the guidelines set out in The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (Vol. XVIII. Edited by D. T. Runia and G. E. Sterling; pp. 240–241. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006) in the following way: Abr. Aet. Agr. Anim. Cher. Conf. Congr. Contempl. Decal. Deo Det. Deus Ebr. Flacc. Fug. Gig. Her. Hypoth. Ios. Leg. 1–3

De Abrahamo De Aeternitate Mundi De Agricultura De Animalibus De Cherubim De Confusione Linguarum De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia De Vita Contemplativa De Decalogo De Deo Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Solet Quod Deus Immutabilis Sit De Ebrietate In Flaccum De Fuga et Inventione De Gigantibus Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit Hypothetica (Apologia pro Iudaeis) De Iosepho Legum Allegoriae I, II, III

x Legat. Migr. Mos. 1–2 Mut. Opif. Plant. Post. Praem. Prob. Prov. QE QG 1–4 QGE Sacr. Somn. 1–2 Spec. 1–4 Virt.

Abbreviations

Legatio ad Gaium De Migratione Abrahami De Vita Mosis I, II De Mutatione Nominum De Opificio Mundi De Plantatione De Posteritate Caini De Praemiis et Poenis, De Exsecrationibus Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit De Providentia Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum I, II Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim I, II, III, IV Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini De Somniis I, II De Specialibus Legibus I, II, III, IV De Virtutibus

The biblical quotations are from RSV. Texts from Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are quoted from OTP, or if not found there, from APOT. Otherwise, the footnotes give the sources of the quotations.

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................vii Abbreviations............................................................................................................ix CHAPTER ONE 1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 1.1. The Focus of the Study................................................................................... 1 1.2. Survey of the Current State of Research ...................................................... 3 1.2.1. Deuteronomy 30:11–14 in its Immediate Literary Context........... 3 1.2.2. Paul’s Rendering of Deut 30:12−14: Quotation or Not? ................. 4 1.2.3. Exegetical Method, Structure and Terminology.............................. 6 1.2.4. Paul’s Interpretation and Application of Deut 30:12–14 in Jewish Context. .................................................................................... 8 1.2.4.1. The Christological Exposition of Deut 30:12–14.............. 9 1.2.4.2. The Juxtaposition of Deut 30:12–14 and Lev 18:5. Why these Texts?................................................................. 10 1.2.4.3. The Attribution of Deut 30:12–14 to the Issue of Righteousness by Faith ....................................................... 12 1.2.4.4. Eschatological Application and Perspective .................... 15 1.3. The Approach, Method and Course of the Study..................................... 19 CHAPTER TWO 2. Literary Observations on the Surface Level...................................................... 25 2.1. Approach ....................................................................................................... 25 2.2. Taxonomy of Textual Features Instrumental for the Analysis................ 26 2.3. De Virtutibus 183–184: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought............................................................................................. 28 2.3.1. Literary Context................................................................................. 28 2.3.2. Textual Organisation and Line of Thought .................................... 30 2.4. De Praemiis et Poenis 79–84: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought ............................................................. 35 2.4.1. Literary Context................................................................................. 35 2.4.2. Textual Organisation and Line of Thought .................................... 38 2.5. Romans 10:4–17: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought............................................................................................. 42 2.5.1. Literary Context ................................................................................. 42

xii

Table of Contents

2.5.2. Textual Organisation and Line of Thought of Rom 10:4–17 within the Literary Context of Rom 10:1–21 ................................. 45 CHAPTER THREE 3. Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology ............................................. 53 3.1. Thesis and Approach .................................................................................... 53 3.2. The Method of Exegetical Paraphrase........................................................ 54 3.3. Exegetical Structures and Terminology ..................................................... 69 3.4. Summary........................................................................................................ 80 CHAPTER FOUR 4. Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context ................................................................................................... 83 4.1. Approach ....................................................................................................... 83 4.2. Conversion within the Jewish People and as Proselytism ....................... 83 4.3. Deut 30:11–14 and the Conversion from Discord to Harmony............. 94 4.4. Conversion to Membership within the true People of God.................. 102 4.5. Some Final Remarks................................................................................... 112 CHAPTER FIVE 5. The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings: De Praemiis et Poenis 79–84 in its Literary Context........................................................................................ 115 5.1. Approach ..................................................................................................... 115 5.2. Obedience to the Law as a Condition for the Future Hope of Blessings........................................................................................ 117 5.3. The Eschatological Blessing of Victory over the Enemies..................... 122 5.4. The Law, Wisdom and Worship of the People of God........................... 138 5.5. Some Final Remarks................................................................................... 151 CHAPTER SIX 6. Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context.................................................................................................... 153 6.1. Thesis and Approach.................................................................................. 153 6.1.1. The Juxtaposition of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14. Why these Texts? ............................................................................. 153 6.1.2. The Attribution of Deut 30:12–14 to the Righteousness by Faith.............................................................................................. 154 6.1.3. Eschatological Application and Perspective ................................. 155 6.2. Israel and the Righteousness of the Law.................................................. 157 6.3. Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith ..................................... 166 6.4. Christ and the Cross–National Community of Jews and Gentiles ...... 193 6.5. Christ, Israel and the Nations ................................................................... 198 6.6. Summary...................................................................................................... 219

Table of Contents

xiii

Final Summary ....................................................................................................... 223 Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 231 A. Sources and Reference Works ..................................................................... 231 1. The Bible: Texts and Translations ........................................................... 231 2. Jewish texts ............................................................................................... 231 a. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha......................................................... 231 b. Josephus and Philo................................................................................ 231 c. Qumran.................................................................................................. 232 d. Rabbinic Literature ............................................................................... 232 3. Greek and Latin Sources .......................................................................... 233 4. Early Christian texts ................................................................................. 234 5. Lexica and Tools........................................................................................ 235 B. Secondary Literature ..................................................................................... 236 Index of Modern Authors......................................................................................265 Index of References ................................................................................................271

CHAPTER ONE

1. Introduction 1.1. The Focus of the Study The following statement by P. Borgen on the relationship between Philo’s writings and the New Testament can serve as a point of departure for the present study: Philo’s writings provide significant background material both for New Testament research and for studies in patristics. In New Testament research Philonic exegesis has especially been utilized to throw light upon the concept of Logos in John’s Gospel and upon the platonizing exegesis and thoughts in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Philo’s writings can illuminate other New Testament ideas as well, and his use of exegetical techniques and forms produces comparative material of interest.1

In his Manson Memorial Lecture of 1965 on ‘St. Paul and Philo of Alexandria’, H. Chadwick made a plea for the relevance of the literature of the Hellenistic synagogue to our understanding of early Christian theology.2 In order to illustrate his main point he gave many examples from Paul’s letters comparing elements of his theology with similar points in related passages in the writings of Philo of Alexandria. However, since Chadwick’s study, there has been some progress in the field. This should be developed to see if fruitful insights might be gained. In an unpublished paper delivered at the SNTS Meeting at Madrid, July 1992, K. Haacker comments on this field of research: Apparently the followers of Paul are not very fond of Philo. There are, of course, fundamental differences between the Christian apostle and the Jewish philosopher. But it cannot be ruled out that the history which Paul made and our image of Philo have heightened the differences to the detriment of historical justice and enlightened understanding. In both cases, with regard to Philo and Paul, recent scholarship has tended towards an upgrading of their Jewish heritage and identity. After all, the gap between these two Jewish writers may turn out less deep and

1

Borgen, 1984a., 106.

2

Chadwick, 1966, 286−307.

2

Introduction

wide than it has been estimated, and further comparative reading of their works should be on our agenda.3

It is within this general current situation of research that the present work hopes to make a contribution to the task of comparing these two Jewish authors and contemporaries. In Paul’s case, there are several good reasons for concentrating on Romans 9–11. These chapters have been subjected to intense study, especially in the context of attempts to clarify Christian attitudes towards the people of Israel, and the role of Israel as the people of God and its relation to the early church.4 The problem of unbelief and opposition to the gospel among the majority of the Jewish people was not only a challenge, but a problem that affected even the picture of God and his relation to his own people. The problem arises when the situation of the faith of the Gentiles, and the unbelief of the Jews, is confronted by the valid and binding records of God’s words and promises in the holy Scripture of Israel. Paul is a representative of early Jewish Christianity who searched for a solution to the problem, not least in the Scriptures. As a biblical theologian Paul delivered a reciprocal interpretation of new events and scriptural traditions.5 Thus, in Romans 9–11 he develops a theology of history on the basis of Scripture as his answer to the conflict and coherence between sacred tradition and new experiences.6 In this case it is interesting to ask whether or not Paul’s answers build on scriptural elements and language of some sort, which would have some coherence to a Jewish matrix and perhaps also be capable of winning some acceptance among his readership, at least among the many prospective readers in Rome—Jews, proselytes and Gentile sympathisers with a background in the synagogue, well acquainted with the Law of Moses from the expository readings in the synagogue. This study is meant as a contribution under this heading, especially focusing on Paul’s use of Deut 30:12−14 within the literary context of Rom 9:30−10:21. Chadwick drew attention to similarities between Paul’s use of this Scripture in Romans 10:6–10 and Philo’s interpretation of the same Scripture: The exegesis of “the word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (Deut xxx.14) in Romans x. 7 f. evidently reproduces a common pattern of synagogue exposition since it occurs no less than four times in Philo. Philo even provides a parallel to the words “With the heart one believes to righteousness, with the

3

An expanded German version of this paper is published in NTS; cf. Haacker, 1997, 209–222; see most recently, idem, 2003, 105–108.

4

Romans 9–11 is regarded by Küng (1991, 610) ‘as the locus classicus for the relation of young Christianity to the people of Israel’. Cf. Räisänen (1995, 744), who comments on this description as ‘an accurate description of the focus of the chapters’.

5

Cf. Dahl, 1977, 121ff.

6

Cf. Räisänen (1995, 761), who comments: ‘Paul is wrestling with his sacred tradition in the light of his new experience (positively, the living together of different ethnic groups in his church; negatively, the rejection of his message by most Jews).’

Survey of the Current State of Research

3

tongue confession is made unto salvation”, where Philo’s context is the admission of the penitent proselyte.7

Unfortunately Chadwick did not go into more details. In what follows we try to sharpen the focus of this investigation, and perhaps to explore what Chadwick was alluding to without claiming to give an exhaustive account.

1.2. Survey of the Current State of Research Paul’s use of Deut 30:12−14 within the literary context of Rom 9:30−10:21 brings to light several exegetical questions. Some of the main questions on which scholars have focused should be mentioned at the outset of this study. This study is meant to be our suggestion towards seeking for new answers to these questions. Before presenting the approach of our study and a survey of the current state of research, we will give a brief account of the content of Deuteronomy 30:11–14 in its own literary context. 1.2.1. Deuteronomy 30:11–14 in its Immediate Literary Context Deut 30:11–14 is part of Moses’ last address to Israel before they enter the land.8 In both Deuteronomy and Leviticus, Moses describes the blessings that will come to Israel if they obey the Law (Deut 28:1–14) and the curses that will come for disobedience (Deut 28:15–68). Deuteronomy presupposes an exilic situation due to their dullness and deceptiveness of their hearts (cf. Deut 29:4, 10, 19, 28), which persist to “this day” (cf. Deut 29:4).9 The section Deut 30:1–10 explains that it is not enough to just ponder on the blessing and cursing: Israel must also make a conversion from an evil, disobedient way of life to an obedient one in accordance with the divine commandments of the Lord. When Israel turns and obeys ‘with all their heart’, God will gather them from the diaspora to the promised land (Deut 30:3–5). Deut 30:10 emphasizes the two conditions which are to be met if the promise of abundance shall be the result: a) ‘… if you obey the voice of the Lord your God to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law….’ 7

Chadwick, 1966, 295.

8

von Rad, 1966, 182–185.

9

The perspective of exile and blessing spoken of in Deuteronomy 30:1–14 are regarded as being actualized for the authors of 4QMMT and Baruch. In the letter of 4QMMT Deuteronomy 30:1–2 is quoted (C 12–16 = 4Q397 frgs. 14–21, lines 12–14) with a reference added that this text deals with ‘the end of days’:]Q]LX]VNEF (C 14); X]VLEF (C 16). Likewise the author of Baruch claims that Deut 30:1–2 has been realized (2:30–33; 3:7), and from the perspective of exile hears the words of Deut 30:1–6 as a promise for the people of Israel of his own day, and prays for the return from exile to the promised land (Bar 2:34–35; 3:1–8). Cf. Ross Wagner, 2002, 166 n. 143; Watson, 2004, 454–473.

4

Introduction

b) The second condition is a thoroughgoing repentance, i.e ‘if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.’ G. von Rad summarizes his understanding of Deut 30:1–10 in the following way: The curses in Deuteronomy, which is here understood predominantly as law, have been fulfilled. From this standpoint the speaker looks to the future and announces a redemptive activity by which God himself creates for his people the prerequisites for complete obedience.10

In Deut 30:11–14 the elect people of God is adjured to obey the commandments of God. By so doing it will gain the rewards of life and future prosperity (Deut 30:9). Moses emphasises that the required commandments are not hidden, or obscure, but written plainly in a public document, ‘this book of the law’ (Deut 30:10). The existence of a fixed, accessible Law means that ‘the word is very near you’ (Deut 30:11, 14). The statements in Deut 30:12–13 establish this point by an argument for the availability and practicality of the Law, that Yahweh has done all that is necessary by placing the ‘word’ on Israel’s lips and in its heart. So the ‘word’ placed near by God never requires an effort on man’s part to fetch it from distant place. This argument provides the context for understanding the statements in Deut 30:15–20 of the consequences of disobedience: life or death. 1.2.2. Paul’s Rendering of Deut 30:12−14: Quotation or Not? A fundamental issue regarding Paul’s rendering of Deut 30:12−14 is the question of whether the Pauline reference to Deuteronomy 30 is merely allusive or intended as an actual quotation. The fact that Paul interprets Deut 30:12−14 differently from the meaning in the original context, has led several scholars to the conclusion that Paul did not actually intend to interpret Scripture at all.11 For example, W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam think that Paul intended neither to quote Deut 30:12−14 nor to deliver an exposition of the Scripture, but only that he was simply applying some of its language and imagery to make his point: ‘The Apostle does not intend to base any argument of the quotation from the O.T., but only selects the language as being familiar, suitable, and proverbial, in order to express what he wishes to say.’12 Now most scholars have abandoned this standpoint for the following main reasons:13 The text is too close to that of the Deuteronomy passage, and the deviations of Paul’s rendering of Deut 30:12−14 from known textual versions are not significant enough to say that he only makes use of proverbial sayings. On closer examination one can observe that Paul uses 10

von Rad, 1966, 184.

11

See e.g. Sanday and Headlam, 1945, 289; Barrett, 1975, 199. See further Badenas, 1985, 125−126, with bibliography.

12

Sanday and Headlam, 1945, 289.

13

Cf. the survey of current research in Dunn, 1987, 216−228.

Survey of the Current State of Research

5

the middle part of Deut 30:12 in Rom 10:6 more or less verbatim—‘Who will go up … to heaven?’ Also Rom 10:8 follows Deut 30:14 more or less exactly. Here the adverb ‘very’ and the final phrase ‘so that you can do it’ are omitted. However, Rom 10:7 is more problematic. There the primary change to the Old Testament text appears, in which Paul substitutes the phrase ‘ … go down to the abyss?’ for ‘cross the sea for us?’ One proposed explanation for this deviation reads Rom 10:7 in the light of the targumic tradition preserved in Tg. Neofiti. Scholars such as M. McNamara, J. D. G. Dunn, and S. Lyonnet have claimed that like Paul, Tg. Neofiti interprets Deuteronomy’s ‘crossing the sea’ as a descent into the abyss/ the depths, and thus provides a Jewish parallel to Paul.14 However, this claim has been refuted by other scholars as J. A. Fitzmyer and R. Le Déaut, who both emphasise that the word abyss does not appear in the text of Tg. Neofiti.15 Thus, it has been difficult to find a Jewish parallel, reference or exegetical tradition that can explain Paul’s alteration on this point. In general, D.−A. Koch has used Paul’s use of Deut 30:12−14 as illustrative material to emphasise the difference and the distance between Paul and contemporary Jewish exegesis.16 His conclusion is formulated in the following way: Die formal analoge personale Interpretation führt also aufgrund ihrer inhaltlich entgegengesetzten Ausrichtung nicht nur zu einer völlig konträren Zitatauslegung, sondern auch zu einer Umgestaltung des Textes selbst, die inhaltlich und auch methodisch so in der jüdischen Exegese nicht möglich war.17

A weakness of this conclusion is that Koch has not taken into account available comparative material that can be made the basis for a different approach. According to Dunn, Paul’s rendering of Deut 30:12−14 in Rom 10:6−8 in a series of partial citations can be illuminated by the use of the very same Deuteronomy passage in other Jewish writings such as Bar 3:29−30, Philo: Post. 84−85, and Tg.

14

Cf. McNamara, 1978, 74−75; Dunn, 1988, 604−606; Lyonnet, 1989, 305–308. McNamara (1978, 74−75) translates Tg. Neof. Deut 30:12−13 as follows: The Law is not in heaven that one should say: Would that we had one like the prophet Moses who would ascend to heaven and fetch it for us and make us hear the commandments that we might do them. Neither is the Law beyond the Great sea that one may say: Would that we had one like the prophet Jonah who would descend into the depths of the Great sea and bring it up for us and make us hear the commandments that we might do them.

15

Fitzmyer, 1993, 591; Le Déaut, 1974, 254.

16

Cf. the remark by Koch (1986, 197): ‘Der Zusammenhang mit der zeitgenössischen jüdischen Exegese und der gleichzeitige Abstand von ihr wird exemplarisch in der Anführung von Dtn 30,12−14 in Röm 10,6−8 deutlich.’

17

Koch, 1986, 198.

6

Introduction

Neof. Deut 30:12–14.18 In all these cases the context makes it clear that Deuteronomy is being cited, and that the partial quotations reflect the sequence and significance of Deuteronomy’s imagery.19 Moreover, Philo’s use of the text shows that it was freely handled, certainly as freely as in Paul’s treatment. In this regard Dunn makes two observations: a) Philo repeatedly makes use of LXX’s addition of ‘in your hands’ to the MT (Deut 30:14), and b) like Paul, pays little attention to the final clause in Deut 30:12-14 (‘so that you can do it’). Accordingly ‘the freedom Paul demonstrates in handling the text would likewise occasion little surprise among his Jewish contemporaries’.20 However, there is room for further investigation of these texts and comparison also with other relevant texts such as e.g. Philo, Virt. 183 and Praem. 80, to illuminate how Paul handles his Old Testament text, involving the way he can omit, select, alter, and add to it.21 1.2.3. Exegetical Method, Structure and Terminology The problem of Paul’s treatment of Deut 30:12−14 also raises the following questions: Is it meant to be an exegesis of the Scripture? If Paul’s treatment of Deut 30:12−14 is to be seen as exegesis of Scripture, can we then also detect an use of exegetical methods of any kind and any kind of conventional structures and terminology? The issue of exegetical method is underestimated in the study of Paul’s use of Deut 30:12−14.22 On the one hand, according to Badenas, ‘Paul’s so-called pesher in Rom 10:6–8 is better understood in the light of Deut 30:11−14 and its context than in light of its Jewish parallels.’23 A commentator on Romans, U. Wilckens, holds ‘dass diese Exegese von Dtn 30 auch im Rahmen jener damals geläufigen

18

Dunn, 1987, 218.

19

Dunn, 1987, 218.

20

Dunn, 1988, 605.

21

In 1992 we read a paper on the topic “Paul’s Use of Deut 30:12-14 in a Jewish Context” at a conference held at the Faculty of Theology at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. Then we presented some of the observations which are worked out more fully in chapter three and six of this present study. The essay was published (Bekken,1995,183–203), and has been referred to and drawn on favourably by scholars, such as by Haacker (1999, 210), Ross Wagner (2002, 169), and most recently by Wehr (2006, 192–206).

22

Cf. the following general remark made by Koch, 1986, 199: ‘In welcher Form und in welchen Umfang feste Auslegungsmethoden der zeitgenössischen jüdischen Exegese für Paulus vorgegeben waren, ist nur begrenzt aufzuhellen.’

23

Badenas, 1985, 143−144.

Survey of the Current State of Research

7

pescher-Methode höchst gewaltsam ist.’24 Moreover, H. Hübner has characterised Paul’s exegetical treatment of Deut 30:12–14 in the following way: Man kann darüber spekulieren, ob und inwiefern Paulus in Röm 10,5–13 in einer jüdischen Midrasch-Tradition steht … Sollte dies der Fall sein, so ist er mit dieser Tradition genauso souverän umgegangen wie mit dem Schrifttext selbst.25

On the other hand, the manner in which Paul interjects christological statements between the phrases of the Old Testament text, with his use of the connective ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė, has prompted a number of commentators to characterise his mode of exposition as an instance of pesher interpretation documented in Qumran manuscripts.26 So e.g. E. Käsemann writes: But the threefold interpretative ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė makes sense only in correct exegesis … In this regard Paul follows the pesher form … which is specially plain in 1QpHab 12:2ff.; CD 7:14ff., for which the often violent interpretation of Scripture in actualization of its hidden eschatological content is characteristic. Longer interpretative statements are inserted, interpretation is linked to single keywords or sentences, and it is introduced by a mere demonstrative ….27

Although there is a certain kind of similarity in form between Rom 10:6–8 and the Qumran pesher, which consists of the insertion of interpretative comments between the pieces of OT text, there are also scholars who are cautious to transpose the pesher form to Romans 10:6–8.28 Differences in form have caused these to distance Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 from the Qumran pesher. We can quote J.A. Fitzmyer as one representative of this position: Pace McNamara (Palestinian Targum, 1972), this formula (ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė) is not the same as pišrô ‘al, which means, lit., “the interpretation of it concerns…” That introductory formula has a different function, being normally used in pesharim.29

On the other hand, Fitzmyer locates Paul’s expository rendering of Deut 30:12– 14 within a Jewish exegetical context illustrated by Baruch and Philo: Having cited Lev 18:5 explicitly, he does not do the same for Deut 30:11–14. Rather, he quotes parts of it and alludes to the rest, commenting in midrashic fashion on clauses of it that he does not cite … … In his argument to establish dikaiosynê ek pisteôs, he merely borrows phrases from Deuteronomy and applies them to Christ … He is instead using clauses

24

Wilckens, 1978–1982, VI/2, 225.

25

Hübner, 1984, 94 n. 320a.

26

So for instance Lietzmann, 1971, 96; Michel, 1978, 238f.; Koch, 1986, 130.

27

Käsemann, 1980, 284.

28

So e.g. Hanson, 1974, 208–209, and Lim, 1997, 124–139.

29

Fitzmyer, 1993, 590.

8

Introduction

from the Deuteronomy passage as it is also used in Bar 3:29–30; Philo, De post. Caini 24 §§ 84–85.30

A suggestion for further parallels to the exegesis of Scripture in Rom 10:6–10 is delivered by N. Elliot, who has made the following statement: ‘The specific homiletic technique in view here is discussed by Peder Borgen with relation to Jn 6.’31 However, Elliott’s suggestion is not followed by an investigation which draws upon Borgen’s investigation on John 6, and which compares the exegetical method, structure and terminology employed by Paul, John and other authors. Such a study would clarify whether Paul’s exposition of Deut 30:12–14 follows the conventions of early Jewish and Christian exegetical activity. Thus, there is further room for comparison with parallels that have been partly overlooked, particularly the texts of Philo, which can shed light on Paul’s manner of using this Old Testament text, both with regard to exegetical techniques and form. 1.2.4. Paul’s Interpretation and Application of Deut 30:12–14 in Jewish Context. Is Paul’s exposition of Deut 30:12–14 idiosyncratic, or is it possible to find Jewish parallels that can shed light on Paul? Barrett asks: ‘Is Paul’s exegesis honest? Is it sensible?’32 Various answers have been delivered. Some scholars have characterized the interpretation of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10 as ‘purely fanciful’,33 a 36 ‘fanciful interpretation’,34 ‘especially crass’,35 ‘arbitrary’, and even ‘baffling’.37 A. J. Guerra finds Paul’s mode of interpretation in Rom 10:6–8 to be ‘capricious’.38 According to R. D. Kaylor, the ‘modern reader is likely to be perplexed … and … aghast’ at what appears to be a wholly self-serving and wilful twisting of the text.39 Moreover, according to R. Hays, there is a prevailing opinion that Paul’s exegesis of Deut 30:12–14 not only seems startling to a modern reader, but must even have startled Paul’s first audience.40 In his critic of Hays’ book ‘Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul’, C. A. Evans makes the observation that Hays has not listened carefully enough for the echoes of interpreted and applied Scripture 30

Fitzmyer, 1993, 588.

31

Elliot, 1990, 268.

32

Barrett, 1982, 142.

33

Dodd, 1959, 166.

34

Ross Wagner, 2002, 167.

35

Gaugler, 1952, 124.

36

Hanson, 1974, 147; Byrne, 1979, 196.

37

Hays, 1989, 73.

38

Guerra, 1990, 232–233.

39

Kaylor, 1988, 167.

40

Hays, 1989, 87.

Survey of the Current State of Research

9

in the Pauline writings.41 At least this concerns Hays’ reading of Rom 10:6–10 and Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14, which Evans takes as an example. To this critic, Hays replied: ‘Evans calls us to attend to certain traditions of scriptural interpretation within Judaism that might thicken our perception of Paul’s readings of Scripture. I say that is a laudable goal, where appropriate evidence exists.’42 It is the purpose of this study to present and provide such evidence. An overarching question in the study of Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6ff. is why Paul chose this passage to support his argument and how this Old Testament reference fits in the immediate literary context. So Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 in the literary context of Rom 9:30–10:21 has brought to light several problems. We will focus on four main problems which have been posed and the solutions reached so far. The problems turn around four main issues: 1) the christological exposition of Deut 30:12–14; 2) the juxtaposition of Deut 30:12– 14 and Lev 18:5; 3) the attribution of Deut 30:12–14 to the issue of righteousness by faith; 4) the eschatological use of Deut 30:12–14. 1.2.4.1. The Christological Exposition of Deut 30:12–14 Efforts have been made to find Jewish parallels which might shed light on Paul’s christological exposition. It has been suggested by H. Windisch and M. J. Suggs and others that Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 has been influenced by and filtered through the two Jewish exegetical traditions identified in Bar 3:29–30 and Tg. Neof. Deut 30:11–14. Windisch’s proposal that there is a literary relationship between Bar 3:29–30 and Rom 10:6–10 was followed up by Suggs and supported by a number of commentators on Romans.43 Suggs tried to substantiate the hypothesis that Paul reflects conventions associated with the personified figure of ‘Wisdom’ in Sir 24:5 and Bar 3:29–30. For example, in Sir 24:5 ‘Wisdom’ speaks: Alone I compassed the circuit of heaven, and in the depths of the abyss I walked.

This same tradition that associates wisdom with heaven appears in Bar 3:29–30, where Deut 30:12–13 is paraphrased onto the figure of ‘Wisdom’: Who hath gone up into heaven, and taken her, And brought her down from the clouds? Who hath gone over the sea, and found her, And will bring her for choice gold?

41

Evans, 1993, 47–51.

42

Hays, 1993, 73.

43

Windisch, 1914, 220–234; Suggs, 1967, 289–312; Lietzmann, 1971, 52–53; Käsemann, 1980, 289; Johnson, 1989, 151–159; Pate, 2000, 242–244.

10

Introduction

According to Suggs, Paul’s interpretation of Deut 30:12–14 has been filtered through this sapiental tradition, in which ‘Wisdom’ is identified with Israel’s Torah (cf. Bar 4:1): The tension between the Gospel and the Law is resolved by the identification of Christ with Wisdom-Torah. The apostle hopes in this way to rescue his Gospel from the stigma of absolute opposition to the law … The righteousness based on faith does not annul the law but brings it to its true goal, for ‘the word of faith which we preach’ is Jesus Christ, incarnate wisdom, telos nomou.44

Meanwhile, Suggs’ conclusion has been rejected by other scholars, for example most recently by Hays: In fact, however, only a subtle reader would make the connections that Suggs makes and draw the appropriate theological conclusions. Paul does not explicitly argue that Christ is to be identified with Wisdom and therefore also with Torah. This fusion occurs in the cave of echo, not at the overt discursive level.45

Other scholars have suggested that Paul’s christological exegesis of Deut 30:12– 14 draws on the interpretation in its rendering in Tg. Neofiti.46 However, this position has been challenged by Fitzmyer on the basis of the problematic dating of the Palestinian Targums.47 It is the hypothesis of this study that Paul’s interpretive moves and christological exposition of Deut 30:12–14 are the logical inference from the assertion that Christ is the ĞƬĕęĜof the Law. This falls within the framework of the method of Jewish exegetical paraphrase, and thus justifies his fresh and idiosyncratic exposition. In order to substantiate this thesis we will also draw on the parallel provided by the exposition of Deut 30:12–13 about the personified ‘Wisdom’ identified with the Law in the writing of Baruch. 1.2.4.2. The Juxtaposition of Deut 30:12–14 and Lev 18:5. Why these Texts? Dunn has focused on the problem of the Law in Rom 9:30–10:10, as it is especially reflected in the juxtaposition of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:5–8. Here Paul sets two texts from the Torah, Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 in relation 44

Suggs, 1967, 306. Cf. also Conzelmann, 1965/6, 231–244.

45

Hays, 1989, 81.

46

Cf. Goldberg, 1970, 127–131; Black, 1971/2, 9; Miller, 1971, 29–82; Hanson, 1974, 146–194; Le Déaut, 1974, 252–255; McNamara, 1978, 74–78; Käsemann, 1980, 160–161; Lyonnet, 1989, 305–308. The reference in Tg. Neof. Deut 30:12–14 to the figures of Moses and Jonah has led Lyonnet (1989, 305–308) to maintain that Paul’s christological interpretation of the same passage reflects this exegetical tradition, since in the early church these figures were seen as types of Christ.

47

Fitzmyer, 1993, 322–325. Cf. on the question of the dating of targumic literature, York, 1974, 49–62.

Survey of the Current State of Research

11

to each other, both of which emphasise the necessity of keeping and acting according to the Law; both use in the Greek translation the same verb (ĚęēƬģ). 1. Lev 18:5: You shall therefore keep my statues and my ordinances, by doing (ĚęēƬģ) which a man shall live: I am the Lord.

2. Deut 30:12–14: It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do (ĚęēƬģ) it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do (ĚęēƬģ) it?’ But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do (ĚęēƬģ) it.

Paul takes Lev 18:5 as a description of ‘the righteousness which is based on the law’ and Deut 30:12–14 as a reference to ‘the righteousness based on faith’, ‘Christ’ and ‘the word of faith’. Is there an antithesis between the texts? Why should Paul choose two texts that in their original contexts could be placed together to characterise two different aspects of righteousness? As Fitzmyer recently expressed it: ‘The problem is to understand his logic, if there is any.’48 On the question ‘Why did Paul choose just these texts to make his point?’ Dunn gives the following answer: The answer seems to be that they characterized two Jewish attitudes to the Torah—different attitudes, but both Jewish. Lev 18:5 could be regarded, quite legitimately and recognizably, as an expression of Jewish nomism, as maintained most vehemently within Palestine. Whereas Deut 30:11-14 was widely regarded as looking beyond the Torah to some transcendent category of more universal appeal, particularly in the diaspora. Paul’s choice of these texts indicates a recognition of this potential dichotomy and an attempt to exploit it in the service of the gospel.49

In particular, Dunn’s assumption that Paul’s use of these Scriptures was based on a recognition of two Jewish attitudes to the Torah and a potential dichotomy between them reflected in the Diaspora, is hardly valid, and needs to be tested. It is a weakness of Dunn’s analysis that he has failed to take sufficient note of Jewish expositions such as those in Philo, that Deut 30:11–14 was applied within the context of Jewish ’nomism’, in which the Law of Moses and actions in obedience to the law were seen as the characteristics of the Jewish people of God marking it out from Gentiles. Thus, Philo’s application of Deut 30:11–14 in Praem. 48

Fitzmyer, 1993, 588.

49

Dunn, 1987, 220.

12

Introduction

79–84 can illustrate a Jewish background to Paul’s juxtaposition of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 and the contrast he draws between them in Rom 10:5–6. Such a location of Paul’s use of these Scriptural passages within a Jewish nomistic context provided by the Philonic data is also more appropriate according to Dunn’s understanding of these texts within their literary contexts. Dunn takes the position that the juxtaposition of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 must be set within the literary context of Rom 9:30–10:5, in which the Law as expressed by Lev 18:5 became a basic statement of Israel’s distinctiveness as the people specially chosen by God to be his people as distinguished from the surrounding peoples. Accordingly, Paul’s ‘exposition of Deut 30:12–14 is at the centre of his attempt to expound the continuing and wider significance of the law in a way which retrieves the law from a too narrowly defined understanding of ‘This do and live’ ([Rom] 10:5–13).’50 1.2.4.3. The Attribution of Deut 30:12–14 to the Issue of Righteousness by Faith Since there is no reference to faith or to righteousness in Deuteronomy 30, scholars have asked for an explanation of Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 to the issue of righteousness by faith. Hays has formulated the problem in the following way: In an apparently capricious act of interpretation, the reader will recall, Paul seizes Moses’ admonition to Israel, warning them to obey the Law without rationalization or excuse (Deut. 30:11–14), and turns it into an utterance of The Righteousness from Faith, a character who contravenes the manifest sense of Moses’ words by transmuting them into a cryptic prophecy of the Christian gospel as preached by Paul. Such a reading looks on the face of it like a wild and disingenuous piece of exegesis, so much so that embarrassed Christian commentators have with surprising frequency—and perhaps not without a certain disingenuousness of their own— attempted to deny that Paul is actually interpreting Scripture at all.51

H.–J. Eckstein and F. Lang have expressed the same problem in the following way: Während die Motive für die Verwendung und Zuordnung der beiden Belege aus Lev 18 5 und Dtn 8 14f./9 4–6 in Röm 10 5 und 6b bei Berücksichtigung des alttestamentlichen und des paulinischen Kontextes durchaus erkennbar werden, erweist sich die Fortsetzung des Schriftzitats in Röm 10 6c–8 als eine crux interpretum. …Warum zitiert er einen Beleg, den er erst durch Verändern und Streichen modifizieren muss, damit nicht die Stimme der Sinai-Tora, sondern die der Glaubensgerechtigkeit in ihr vernommen wird?52 50

Dunn, 1991a., 303. Cf. idem, 1991b., 135–139.

51

Hays, 1989, 73–74.

52

Eckstein, 1988, 210–211.

Survey of the Current State of Research

13

… dann wird die häufig nicht gestellte Frage unausweichlich, warum Paulus gerade Dtn 30 als Schriftbeleg für die Glaubensgerechtigkeit heranzogen …53

Several suggestions have been delivered with a view to answering this problem. So e.g. Michel suggests that Paul’s interpretation is an answer to Jewish polemic against Christian preaching: ‘Verständlich wird uns dieser exegetische Prozess, wenn wir annehmen können, dass die Synagoge gerade diese Grundstelle Dt 30,11–14 vom Gesetz verstanden und gegen die christliche Verkündigung ausgespielt hat.’54 On the other hand, Wilckens has suggested that Paul’s exposition reflects a polemic against the Synagogue.55 However, as scholars have pointed out, there are no indications in available data to substantiate these assumptions.56 Suggs has suggested that Paul’s attribution of Deut 30:12–14 to ‘righteousness by faith’ is a simple ‘stylistic flourish’.57 However, most scholars have sought to explain on theological grounds why Paul’s use of the text is legitimate. According to Badenas, ‘a careful analysis of the context of Deut 30:12–14 shows that Paul’s use of the OT is less arbitrary and irrelevant than has been assumed.’58 So Badenas suggests that ‘the fact that Paul sees a characteristic of the new dispensation the circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:29), and that this is precisely stated in Deut 30:6–16, makes it easier to understand why he chose this chapter as anticipatory of righteousness by faith.’59 D. O. Via suggests that the righteousness by faith speaking in the Deuteronomic text indicates that Paul saw righteousness by faith as a basic structure in the Old Testament. So, according to Via, when Paul attributes Deut 30:12–14 to righteousness by faith, Paul means that this motif is speaking in the Old Testament, and, therefore, Paul is expressing his understanding of the Old Testament.60 A similar point of view has been set forth by J. Murray: ‘It would be a complete misconstruction of Deuteronomy to interpret it legalistically. The whole trust

53

Lang, 1997, 594–595. Cf. also Burchard, 1997, 360 n. 89.

54

Michel, 1978, 328 n. 14.

55

Wilckens, 1978–1982, VI/2, 225.

56

Cf. e.g. Käsemann, 1980, 278; Eckstein, 1988, 210.

57

Suggs, 1967, 301.

58

Badenas, 1985, 129.

59

Badenas, 1985, 130.

60

Via (1975, 212) suggests that a term like ‘righteousness’ is given a new meaning within Paul’s message, but that it always retains its basic significance. According to Via (1975, 212), ‘The apostle was intuitively following the rule of compatibility: no proclamation will reach anyone if it cannot make some contact with the hearer’s pre–understanding. The new meaning system cannot be so incompatible with the hearer’s frame of reference.’

14

Introduction

is the opposite … The words in question, therefore, do not find their place in a legalistic framework but in that of grace which the covenant bespoke.’61 According to Hays, Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 to the righteousness of faith rests on sheer force of assertion. However, Hays proposes that ‘the intertextual echoes created by Paul’s evocation of Deut 9:4 and of the Wisdom tradition suggest hauntingly that Paul’s reading is less arbitrary than it sounds. From Deuteronomy, Paul echoes the idea that the covenant depends on grace from start to finish rather than on Israel’s own righteousness.’62 According to E. P. Sanders, the issue of ‘righteousness from faith, and not by the law’ in Romans is to be seen as a question of membership in the people of God. Thus, in light of the textual context of Romans 9–10, Sanders refers Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 to the topic of ‘admission to the body of those who will be saved’, which also involves the argument for the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God.63 S. R. Bechtler too holds that Paul’s argument from the Law in Rom 10:5– 10 deals with the issue of the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God: Nevertheless, Paul certainly does present contrasts between doing and believing (in Romans 4 as well as in Rom 10:5–10) and between works and grace (in Rom 11:6). It is important to note, however, that these contrasts, like the antithesis őĘ ŕěčģė/őĔĚưĝĞďģĜ, occur in contexts where the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles and not as converts to Judaism within the purview of God’s redemptive activity is at issue (Galatians 2–3; Rom 1:16–17; 3–4; 9–11).64

Dunn has made an effort to find Jewish parallels which might shed light on Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 about the issue of righteousness by faith within a context dealing with the issue of inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God. Dunn proposes that … in both Baruch and Philo Deut 30:11–14 was seen as expressing something which everyone of good will was open to and eager for—divine wisdom, the good. Of course Baruch and Philo both see that more universal ideal to be focused in the Law. But by developing such an apologetic line they opened Jewish thought to the recognition that what Deuteronomy spoke of was capable of more universal expression.65

61

Murray, 1959, vol. 2, 52. Cf. Lang (1997, 594–595) for a similar argumentation on the relation between Deut 30:11–14 and its Old Testament context, especially Deut 30:1–9.

62

Hays, 1989, 82.

63

Sanders, 1983, 42–43.

64

Bechtler, 1994, 305 n. 63.

65

Dunn, 1987, 224.

Survey of the Current State of Research

15

Thus, according to Dunn, ‘Deut 30:12–14 … could more readily be given a wider, more universal perspective, and thus characterize the eschatological breadth of God’s covenant purpose, where righteousness was to be seen in terms of faith, of obedience from the heart, and open to Gentile as Gentile as well as to Jew.’66 While scholars such as Via, Badenas, Murray, and Lang understand Paul’s attribution of Deut 30:12–14 to the righteousness of faith in the light of the Old Testament context, Dunn emphasises and draws more upon the Jewish parallels as explanations. However, the basic weakness of. Dunn’s approach is that he takes for granted that Deut 30:11–14 was regarded as looking beyond the Torah to some transcendent category of more universal appeal, particularly in the Diaspora. Against this background, then, it becomes important to examine afresh Jewish texts, such as the Philonic text Virt. 183–184, asking whether this and other texts can throw new light upon Paul’s attribution of Deut 30:12–14 to the issue of righteousness by faith in the context of Rom 9:30–10:21. 1.2.4.4. Eschatological Application and Perspective The application of Deut 30:12–14 to the issue of righteousness by faith leads Eckstein to formulate another question which needs to be answered, viz. Paul’s eschatological application of Deut 30:12–14: Warum zitiert Paulus bei seiner Gegenüberstellung der beiden sich ausschliessenden Wege zum Heil einen Beleg als Ausspruch der Glaubensgerechtigkeit (Röm 106), in dem weder der Begriff ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđ noch der Begriff ĚưĝĞēĜ eine Rolle spielt? Wie kommt Paulus anderseits dazu, zur Begründung der Identifikation des Wortes aus Deut 3014 mit dem Evangelium in Röm 109f. die Begriffe ĝȤĐďēė/ ĝģĞđěưċ und ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđ einzuführen? … die Frage ist aber wodurch diese Assoziation bei Paulus ausgelöst wird und welches Motiv oder Stichwort ihn auf den Zusammenhang des Heils, d.h. der Gerechtigkeit, bringt.67

Eckstein suggests that the association of the concepts of righteousness (ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđ) and salvation (ĝģĞđěưċ) in Deutero–Isaiah provides a possible background for the eschatological use of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10: Kommen wir an dieser Stelle auf unsere Frage zurück, was Paulus im Zusammenhang von Röm 101–21 zum Zitat von Dtn 3011–14 bewegt haben könnte und wie sich seine ungewöhnliche Interpretation eines Wortes aus der Sinai-Tora als Ausspruch der Glaubensgerechtigkeit erklären lässt, so ist vor allem festzuhalten,

66

Dunn, 1987, 225.

67

Eckstein, 1988, 216–217.

16

Introduction

dass Paulus Dtn 3014 offensichtlich auf dem Hintergrund der dtjes. Verkündigung vom Nahen (őččưĐďēė) des Heils und der Gerechtigkeit Gottes verstanden hat.68

C. Burchard has pointed out that Paul’s interpretation of Deut 30:12–14 is ‘,,recht eigenwillig“ … aber weder gewaltsam noch willkürlich. … Damit ist noch nicht erklärt, warum Paulus gerade Dtn 30,11-14 heranzog ….’69 He also notes that Paul’s eschatological interpretation is not derived from the Old Testament text (i.e. Deut 30:12–14) itself, but rather from the prophetic words quoted in Rom 10:11–13: Von Heilsfolgen, nämlich Glaube und ewiger Rettung, sagte der ausgelegte Text freilich nichts. Paulus holt das in V. 10 nach und begründet es in V. 11 mit Jes 28,16b, sicher nicht zufällig, weil in 9,33 schon einmal zitiert. Er setzt aber ĚǬĜ zu žĚēĝĞďƴģė dazu, deutet es in V. 12 auf Juden und Heiden ohne Unterschied, d.h. Heiden ohne Beschneidung, und begründet in V. 13 mit Joel 3,5. Der Vers passt nicht nur, weil er mit ĚǬĜ anfängt und mit ĝģĒƮĝďĞċē aufhört, sondern weil er mit ƀŃėőĚēĔċĕƬĝđĞċēĞƱƁėęĖċĔğěưęğ für Paulus genau die nennt, die nach V. 9 ,,Kyrios Jesus“ bekennen. So wird V. 6-13 eine geschlossene Argumentation. … Dass er die Auslegung durch Prophetenworte ergänzt, besagt nicht, dass die Tora in Dtn 30,11-14 mit ihrem eigenen Wort am Ende ist. Paulus nimmt die Propheten hier als das, was sie nach jüdischem Verständnis auch sind: als bevollmächtigte Ausleger der Tora.70

Moreover, E. Kamlah remarks on Paul’s eschatological application of Deut 30:12–14: ‘In dem Ton der Dtn-Stelle hört er (Paulus) den Begriff der ĝģĞđěưċ mitschwingen ….’71 Most recently, Wehr has welcomed our thesis published in a previous article (cf. Bekken, 1995, 183–203) that Paul’s eschatological use of Deut 30:12–14 has points of connection to Hellenistic Judaism as illustrated by Philo’s writings: ‘Beide antiken Autoren verstehen die Stelle in einem endzeitlichen Rahmen.’ ‘Wir haben gesehen, dass es für einige Aspekte der paulinischen Schriftdeutung in Röm 10,5–10 Anknüpfungspunkte im hellenistischen Judentum seiner Zeit gibt.’72

However, a survey of the vast literature on Paul’s interpretation of Deut 30:12–14 creates the impression that the eschatological aspect has been underestimated. It is the purpose of this study to provide a new explanation of the problem of Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 in an eschatological perspective. A careful analysis 68

Eckstein, 1988, 218.

69

Burchard, 1997, 361.

70

Idem, 1997, 361.

71

Kamlah, 1954, 281.

72

Wehr, 2006, 204.

Survey of the Current State of Research

17

of Paul’s eschatological use of Deut 30:12–14 within a contemporary Jewish context will demonstrate that his exposition is less unnatural and arbitrary than it at first appears, and may be seen to have greater coherence than scholars have previously recognised. In conclusion, this short survey of previous research has demonstrated that there is room for further investigation. Thus, the following questions and aspects involved in Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 within the context of Rom 9:30–10:21 will be discussed and answered in this study: Is Paul’s exegetical treatment of Deut 30:12–14 idiosyncratic, or is it possible to find Jewish parallels that can shed light on Paul? Is Paul’s reference to Deut 30:12–14 meant to be a quotation or not? Is Paul’s treatment of Deut 30:12–14 to be seen as exegesis, and can we detect a use of exegetical methods and any kind of exegetical structures and forms? Why should Paul choose two texts, Deut 30:12–14 and Lev 18:5, which in their original contexts could be placed together, to make his point? Is there an antithesis between the texts? Is there any explanation for Paul’s attribution of Deut 30:12–14 to the issue of righteousness by faith? Is there any explanation for Paul’s eschatological application of Deut 30:12–14? How does Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 support his argument, and how does this Old Testament reference fit in the immediate literary context of Rom 9:30–10:21? A presupposition of this study, which justifies it, is that, in spite of the vastness of the secondary literature, the various aspects of Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 need to be examined further, especially since Philo can provide us with parallels which have not been made the subject of a detailed analysis.73 Even though none has made an extensive comparative analysis of Philo’s and Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14, many scholars have commented on the relation between these 73

In an article on Romans 9–11, B. Chilton (1988, 27–37) has made a distinction between Paul’s use of Scripture in Romans 9–11 and sources such as Midrash, the pesher commentary technique of Qumran, and Philo’s writings. According to Chilton, making such comparisons, ‘obscures more than it discloses’ (1988, 31). In another article on the same topic, he makes a similar comment on the relation between Paul and e.g. Philo: Both the Pesherim and the Philonic corpus represent different activities and settings from Paul’s: his scriptural interpretation strictly serves the protreptic function of Romans. He shows no sustained interest in historizing scripture (as in the Pesherim) or in philosophizing with it (as in Philo). Paul is driven by other motives, which is why Romans 9–11 is neither Midrash, Pesher, nor philosophical commentary (Chilton, 1994, 222).

18

Introduction

two.74 The most comprehensive attempt at such an enterprise is presented by Dunn, who has devoted attention to a comparison between Philo and Paul.75 Dunn has pointed to Philo’s exposition of Deut 30:12–14 in his effort to indicate why Paul chose this passage in his argumentation in Rom 10:1–10. Against the background of Philo’s repeated use of Deut 30:12–14 as plain evidence that this Scripture was the subject of considerable reflection among Jewish synagogues in the Diaspora, Dunn surmises that ‘it would probably cause little surprise among congregations familiar with the diaspora heritage, therefore, when Paul turned to just this text.’76 So Dunn regards Paul’s appeal to Deut 30:12–14 as something which would resonate with a diaspora Jewish readership: It is self-evident that the immediately preceding passage, Deut 30:1–10, would be greatly cherished by the devout of the diaspora, with its explicit promise to those scattered among the nations that conversion (return to the Lord) and obedience would result in restoration and a circumcision of the heart which would produce love of God from the heart. This a priori likelihood is confirmed by Philo, Praem 163–172, where just such a use of the exhortations and promises of Deut 30:1–10 is made.77

Moreover, D. Georgi has observed that Philo’s application of Deut 30:12–14 provides a background for Paul’s exposition in Rom 10:4–10: It is interesting that Philo can cite Deut 30:10–15 to show the familiarity of Jews as well as proselytes with the Law (Virt. 183–184; Praem. 80–81; cf. Post. 84–88; Mut. 236–39; Somn. 2. 180). Paul does the same (Rom. 10:8) in a section devoted to the essence of missionary preaching. Clearly Philo and Paul interpret the passage in different, indeed contradictory, ways. But Philo’s exegesis provides a background for Paul’s declaration that Christ is the end of the law.78 In this study, it is our aim to prove that comparative texts, such as Philo’s, must not be set aside, but can be informative with regard to elucidate the Jewish background of Paul’s use of Scripture in Romans 10. 74

Scholars as H. Vollmer and A. Schlatter have in a general way commented on the relation between Philo’s and Paul’s interpretation of Deut 30:12–14. For example, Vollmer has considered Paul’s exegesis as a midrash. He finds support for this assumption by referring to Philo’s interpretation of those verses: ‘Und Philo’s Deutung kann geradezu als eine Vorstufe für die paulinische angesehen werden’ (Vollmer, 1895, 52 n. 2). In a similar way Schlatter made the following observation with respect to Philo’s and Paul’s expositions: ‘Die Stellen bleiben sich so gleichartig, dass sie den Gedanken nahelegen, Philo wiederhole einen ihm in der Literatur schon geformt vorliegenden Satz, so dass die Berührung mit Paulus durch die ältere Literatur vermittelt sein kann’ (Schlatter, 1918, 90). Michel’s remark can likewise be seen as typical of a general presumption: ‘So muss man annehemen, dass Paulus und Philo von gemeinsamen Traditionen und exegetischen Methoden abhängig sind, …’ (Michel, 1972, 111).

75

See Dunn, 1987, 218; idem, 1988, 598–618.

76

Dunn, 1987, 218.

77

Dunn, 1987, 219–220.

78

Georgi, 1987, 180 n. 41.

The Approach, Method and Course of the Study

19

In the following we will present the approach and the course of the study, and comment on the methods applied in order to achieve and substantiate the aims of this investigation.

1.3. The Approach, Method and Course of the Study Dunn and Georgi have made it clear that we may expect the Philonic material to shed light on Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14, involving the aspects of exegetical method, content and purpose. Nevertheless, their observations are more a point of departure and an outline for further research. As we have already pointed out, it is a general weakness of Dunn’s study that it is not substantiated by a detailed examination of the data in Philo and Baruch. So his observations need to be corrected and modified as well as supplemented and developed by a more detailed analysis of these data. It is our thesis that especially the Philonic material can serve as appropriate evidence of Scriptural interpretation within first-century Judaism that might throw new light upon Paul’s reading of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10. Both Philo and Paul make use of Deut 30:12–14. Philo expounds and makes use of this Old Testament text in various contexts, viz. in Post. 84–88; Mut. 236ff.; Virt. 183ff.; Praem. 80ff.; Somn. 2:180 and Prob. 68, while Paul utilises the passage within the context of Rom 10:4–17. This fact suggests a detailed investigation and comparison of how of these authors have ‘lived’ with this Old Testament text. In particular, the study tries to compare how Deut 30:12–14 is dealt with by these authors with respect to quotation techniques, exegetical method, structure and terminology, perspective and application. We will see that by setting Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 within the context of a contemporary Jewish application of the same passage, as illuminated by other texts from the period, an understanding emerges which does fuller justice to the various aspects of Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 within the literary context of Rom 10:4–17. While this study investigates how Deut 30:12–14 was used and interpreted especially by two selected authors, i.e. Philo and Paul, we shall also particularly draw on Baruch, since this author exhibits important similarities to both Philo and Paul and contributes to placing them in a broader Jewish perspective. In this study we have especially selected two of Philo’s texts, viz. De Virtutibus 183–184 and De Praemiis et Poenis 79–84, for a detailed analysis and comparison with Paul. The other relevant Philonic texts, such as Post. 84–88, Mut. 236ff., Somn. 2:180, and Prob. 68, will be drawn upon only when they can complement our understanding of Philo’s use of Deut 30:11–14 in Virt. 183–184 and Praem. 79–84. Likewise, it is outside the scope of this study to examine in detail the use of Deut 30:12–14 in MT, LXX, the Targums, and the rabbinic literature. Obser-

20

Introduction

vations from these sources will be drawn upon as far as they can throw light upon the use of Deut 30:12–14 by Paul and Philo. Our methodology differs from recent investigations of Paul’s use of Scripture by e.g. Koch (1986), Stanley (1992; 2004), Ross Wagner (2002), and Watson (2004), who do not offer a detailed comparative study of the use of Scripture in Paul and in writings contemporaneous with his letters, but rather refer to comparative data so far as they can be in service of Paul’s interpretative activity. Our procedure in what follows will be to examine the use of Deut 30:12-14 in Paul and in writings contemporaneous with him, which requires treating each individual document on its own terms before attempting a comparison among them. Thus, before the comparison of Philo’s and Paul’s use of this Old Testament text can take place, it is first necessary to investigate the function of Deut 30:12–14 in the relevant texts where the passage is used by Paul and Philo. Thus, in chapter two we will make some observations on the literary surface level on the three selected texts from Paul and Philo. The following questions will guide the inquiry: What is the function of these texts within their literary context? How are the different elements of the texts organised? With regard to the last question we will consider organising factors as text-connectors, i.e. such as adverbs, particles and conjunctions, transitions in person, e.g., from 1st person to 3rd, shift in time etc. This methodological approach is inspired to a certain extent by some methods of analysis elaborated on by scholars in text-linguistics and literary criticism. The chapter will start with a brief account of the taxonomy of textual features employed in this analysis. The main purpose of this chapter is to see how the texts are constructed in order to investigate the argumentative function of the use of the passage Deut 30:12–14 within the train of thought of their textual contexts. Such an analysis will be helpful when we set Paul’s use of this Old Testament passage within the context of other contemporary Jewish ways of applying this text with regard to common exegetical devices and over-arching topics and perspectives. Although there have been published several studies to Romans 9–11, the remarks made by Dahl are still relevant: ‘The other aspect which scholars have neglected is a formal analysis of the composition and style of Romans 9–11.’79 If this is the case within Pauline studies of Romans 9–11, there is also a need for more work to be done on the aspects of style and composition in Philonic studies as well.80 Our observations in this chapter on the textual surface of the selected 79

Dahl, 1977, 138.

80

Cf. Borgen, 1983b., 191f.; Runia, 1986, 185–198. Cf. the following statement by Runia concerning this field of research: ‘A third major piece of research could also be proposed, namely a comprehensive comparison of Philo’s structures with other forms of exegesis, both Greek and Jewish, produced at approximately the same period’ (Runia, 1984, 221). Cf. in general the works of Adler (1929), Thyen (1955), Delling (1974a), and Conley (1984) concerning forms of exegesis in Philo’s writings.

The Approach, Method and Course of the Study

21

texts, inspired by the field of text–linguistics, will thus be a contribution within this area of research too. With chapter three we begin the comparison of the text of Paul with the Philonic texts and other Jewish relevant texts. The first section of this chapter deals more in general with how Philo and Paul appropriate quotation techniques in terms of selection, combination and modification. The second and third sections investigate more specifically the way Philo’s and Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 presents itself as exegesis by use of exegetical methods, moulded in various exegetical structures and terminology. It is the purpose of this chapter to show that Paul’s handling of Deut 30:12–14 is not arbitrary, but follows accepted practice, exegetical techniques, structures, and terminology, even when it is shaped by his christology and eschatology. The observations on the textual organisation and exegetical methods and formal characteristics of the texts will serve as the basis for the following investigations of the content in chapters four, five, and six. In these chapters we will try to sort out the significant elements and the message in the use of Deuteronomy 30 within their literary contexts. As we see it, such elements involved in the use of this Old Testament passage can be traced by literary devices such as have been set out in chapter two, but also by the exegetical methods and structures which help to organise the details, and which will be discussed in chapter three. In spite of many similarities with regard to the content and perspectives in the texts of Philo and Paul, they must be dealt with separately, because they differ too much as to subject matters. On the other hand, the application of Deut 30:12–14 in Philo’s writings and other relevant Jewish texts will be helpful in order to reconstruct a referential background against which Paul’s use can emerge as more understandable. There are similarities between Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 within the literary context of Rom 9:30–10:21 and the Philonic texts (Virt. 175–186; Praem. 79–98), going beyond the exposition of the same Scripture, and this helps us to establish a referential background against which Paul’s use of this Old Testament passage should be read. Such a referential background can then make it possible to see a logic in Paul’s argument in Rom 9:30–10:21, including the argumentative function of his use of Deut 30:12–14. The problem of method is important for a study of Philo’s writings. If one should study the various ideas found in Philo’s writings, it would seem to be natural to follow the approach similar to that applied by H. A. Wolfson in his comprehensive collection of material to almost every idea drawn from relevant passages in Philo’s writings at large.81 However, the critics of Wolfson seem to be right when they criticise him for going too far in making Philo into a systematic theo81

Cf. Wolfson, 1947, vols. I–II.

22

Introduction

logian.82 In this study we will follow another course in the study of Philo and of Paul. The emphasis will lie on the fact that both were exegetes for their time whose aim was to interpret the Old Testament, although from different angles and perspectives.83 Thus, on the basis of the fact that both authors develop an exegetical paraphrase of Deuteronomy 30, in which they replace and supplement Old Testament words with other interpretative words, the specific task must be to examine these words and terms, and to define their background and application within their textual contexts. In this case, in particular the immediate context of Philo’s and Paul’s texts, viz. Philo’s ‘Exposition’84 of the Laws of Moses and Paul’s letter to the Romans, but also other relevant data from both Greek and Jewish texts will be drawn upon which can throw light upon these aspects of the texts. Certain presuppositions of the study are of a more fundamental character. In searching for parallels to a biblical expression or custom in extra-Biblical sources, it is a basic rule to be followed that one needs to be cautious. When one compares texts, a presupposition is of course that both texts contain comparable material. One has, moreover, to pay sufficient attention to both the similarities and the differences.85 One must at least concentrate on the differences. This is important in order to avoid over–bold analogy and identification. But then, even while looking for differences, the distinctive features must not be exaggerated to such an extent that the genuine similarities become concealed. The resemblances in method, form, content etc. which in fact may exist and are perhaps already presupposed, must not be obscured, even when a comparative study always entails the risk of over-emphasising the analogies and overlooking the divergences. Philo’s and Paul’s use and interpretation of Deut 30:12–14 can be seen to be related parallels, but mutually independent of each other.86 This means that in some respects their use and applications of Deut 30:12–14 represented no idi82

For a survey of Philonic research, see Borgen, 1984a., 141–142.

83

On Paul as a biblical theologian and interpreter of Scripture, see e.g. Dahl, 1977, 121ff.

84

The ‘Exposition’ consists of the following extant exegetical treatises: De Opificio Mundi; De Abrahamo; De Iosepho; De Decalogo; De Specialibus Legibus 1–4; De Virtutibus; De Praemiis et Poenis. For a survey of how Philo’s Exposition of the Laws is structured, see Borgen, 1996, 115–134.

85

Cf. Sanders’ comment: “Parallels are often illuminating, as long as one does not jump from ‘parallel’ to ‘influence’ to ‘identity of thought’” (1977, 11; emphasis original). See also Sandmel’s famous essay on the danger of ‘Parallelomania’ (1962). Moreover, cf. also Engberg–Pedersen, 2005, 36–37. In this study we will be looking for Paul’s and Philo’s analogous and contrasting ways of using and interpreting Scripture rather than searching for identical interpretations.

86

We do not presuppose with Haacker that Paul is acquainted with Philo’s writings: ‘Although Paul’s religious education under Gamaliel will have been more conservative than that of Philo, the fame of this learned man and creative thinker may have induced Paul to read some of his writings’ (Haacker, 2003, 105). Wehr (2006, 202, 204) makes a completely misjudgement of our article (Bekken 1995, 183–203) when he criticizes us for assuming that Paul has known Philo’s

The Approach, Method and Course of the Study

23

osyncrasy, but rather were examples of ways of dealing with this passage within the same period of time in related Jewish milieus. It is an underlying principle of this study that Philo and Paul as Jewish contemporaries belonged to a similar and related cultural context, represented by the Jewish communities both in Palestine and the Diaspora.87

writings, and has been influenced by him. We have never expressed such a point of view, and it is not in the least a necessary presupposition for our comparison of these two authors. 87

A comparison of material from Philo with Paul and other Jewish data can also support the hypothesis that Philo can be seen as a representative of the manifold streams of Judaism of his time. As to the problem of Philo’s place in Judaism, a survey of the scholarly discussion is given by Græsholt, 1993, 19–34, and Hay, 2001, 357–379.

CHAPTER TWO

2. Literary Observations on the Surface Level 2.1. Approach J. L. Austin’s classic work How to Do Things with Words (1962) dealt with what he termed performative sentences, and drew attention to what words do to the hearer(s)—that is, evoking some sort of response.1 After the publication of Austin’s book it has become common in text–linguistic studies to speak about the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic dimensions of a text. The surface organisation stands for the syntactic aspect (dealing with the relation between sign and sign); the structure of the contents corresponds to the semantic aspect (concerning the relation between signs and designata); the historical context and the function of the text over against its addressees are ways of speaking of the pragmatic aspect (regarding the relation between signs, designata and sign–users). Of these aspects the pragmatic one includes the two others, and the semantic aspect includes the syntactic aspect. Actually one has not rendered justice to a textual communication unless all these dimensions of a text are taken into account.2 However, as one tries to reconstruct elements of the supposed historical situation of an ancient text, one gets into trouble, since we often know too little about 3 the external contexts of the textual communication. This regards also the texts we have selected for our investigation and implies that we have to be cautious. Thus, in this chapter, we will restrict ourselves to investigate the texts within which Deuteronomy 30 is located with regard to their actual surface organisation in order to seek the meaning and function of this Old Testament quotation in such literary contexts.4 Such an investigation is an essential and necessary 1

Austin, 1962.

2

These three components or dimensions correspond to what Austin identified as the three distinct elements of the speech act: 1. the locutionary act, saying something which has a certain sense and reference; 2. the illocutionary act, uttering orders, warnings etc., i.e. sentences with a certain conventional force; 3. the perlocutionary act, achieving something by saying something, e.g. convincing or deterring; see ibid., 1962, 94–120.

3

See Hellholm, 1980, 78–79; Johanson, 1987, 7.

4

In his book Arguing with Scripture. The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul, Stanley has investigated the way Paul’s quotations of Scripture ’work’ as an essential part of the unfolding structure of Paul’s letters. See Stanley, 2004, 136–170, for his study of the role of quotations in

26

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

preliminary step in an exegesis of a text.5 Before we proceed to such an analysis we will give an account of some analytical tools which are taken from the field of text–linguistics.

2.2. Taxonomy of Textual Features Instrumental for the Analysis The following types of textual features will be instrumental for the analysis. Space does not permit an extensive discussion of text–linguistic technicalities. a) Meta–communicative clauses (abbreviated MC). Such clauses will mostly involve a meta–communicative verb of saying, hearing or writing etc., and the identification of someone speaking, hearing etc. The MC clauses are about the communication at hand, and serve to thematize the communication in a communication situation. An initial MC may be seen as defining a primary level of communication, within which additional levels of communication can be embedded, being signalled by an additional subordinate MC.6 This type of marker in a text is qualified as pragmatic and of highest rank.7 b) Another type of markers that appears in most texts, particularly in an argumentative text, is different words, clauses or sentences that in different ways signal the theme dealt with or topic to be dealt with. Such markers can be referred Romans. Unfortunately, among the texts he does not study, is the use of Deut 30:12–14 within its literary context Rom 10:1–10. 5

Cf. Hellholm (1995b., 22–23), who remarks: Werner Kallmeyer und Reinhard Meyer–Hermann haben mit Recht hervorgehoben, dass “die Gliederung von Texten nach Sinn– oder Funktionsabschnitten immer schon ein Gegenstand der Textwissenschaft und der Rhetorik”, und – das muss man als Bibelwissenschaftler hinzufügen – der Exegese “gewesen ist”.

6

Cf. Hellholm, 1993, 124: The importance of these meta–communicative clauses lies mainly in the fact that they serve as signals for changes between various levels of communication, that is for distinguishing between text internal and text external communication levels and between various text internal communication levels. Consequently they also signalise different dialogue phases and dialogue structures in a text.

7

Gülich and Raible, 1977, 137ff.; Hellholm, 1980, 80ff.; idem, 1995a., 124–125. According to Gülich and Raible, text–sequences of a text’s macro–structure are often manifested on the surface level of a text by various linguistic signals provided for the addressee by the author. Such markers can be classified according to whether their function is pragmatic, semantic or syntactic, with the pragmatic markers holding the highest rank and the syntactic the lowest. However, such a systematisation of the markers should be used heuristically rather than axiomatically, with sensitivity towards an author’s possible idiosyncratic use of such markers. On this, see the deliberations by Johanson, 1987, 25.

Taxonomy of Textual Features Instrumental for the Analysis

27

to as thematic markers (abbreviated ThM).8 They can introduce larger or smaller sequences or subordinate sequences of a text or an argument. Often the ThM are introduced by an expression on meta–level as related to the clause indicating the theme. Such explicit semantic expressions are constituted by what can be labelled a ‘Meta–propositional Base’ (abbreviated MB), e.g. ‘I promise’, ‘It is possible’, etc. and a ‘Proposition’ (abbreviated P), e.g. ‘that he will come tomorrow’.9 c) Within argumentative texts we can meet a couple of other signals or markers which allow the recipients to recognise the structure of pro– and counter–argumentation within a dialogue form. These are the Meta–active clauses (MAC) and the so–called Meta–oppositional indicators (MOI). MACs are, according to P.–L. Völzing, constituted by those sentences within an argumentation that question the validity of an action.10 J. Schwitalla has observed how in opposing a thesis or a pro– or counter–argument an opponent frequently begins his or her argument with an expression indicating his or her opposition, ‘die in einer Metarelation zu den Textteilen stehen, denen wiedersprochen wird, und zu denen, die die Korrektur enthalten’.11 This expression may be called a Meta–oppositional indicator (MOI), a designation that brings out its meta–relationship over against what precedes and what follows.12 d) Shift of person Seen from a pragmatic point of view the shift in person often signals that the author will make an application of an argumentation to the readers, e.g. when an author makes a transition from 3rd person to 2nd person. Or when an author argues that the addressee should take a practical stand or move, and pursues his argument from 3rd person to 2nd person, and then returns to 3rd person, this shift in person has a certain delimiting text–organising effect, which we should observe and note.13 e) Shift of style Shifts of person can also involve a shift of style, and this shift of style has in general a text–organising effect. ‘Style’ refers here generally to different types of sentences, e.g. larger or smaller sentences, rhetorical questions, Old Testament 8

Grosse, 1976, 95ff.; Johanson, 1987, 29f.

9

Grosse, 1976, 75.

10

See Völzing, 1979, 127; Hellholm, 1993, 125.

11

Schwitalla, 1977, 40, 43.

12

See Hellholm, 1993, 125.

13

Hartman, 1993, 129–130.

28

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

quotations and allusions. Moreover, stylistic markers as an inclusio contribute particularly to our observations of the textual organisation of the text. It involves the phenomenon of important words, phrases or clauses that occur at the beginning of a text–sequence being repeated at or near the end of it. f) Temporal and /or spatial markers and the shift of tense often also indicate a transition in a text, and may have a text–delimiting function in the organisation of the text. The markers mentioned from b) to f) belong to markers of the text–semantic type and hold a middle position in the endeavour to classify the markers in a hierarchical order according to their predominant function.14 g) The connectors are markers of various types, and contribute to relate clauses in different ways to each other. These markers are often conjunctions, particles etc., that both relate larger text–units to each other within the texts macro–structure, and smaller clauses to each other, often in a logical relationship. Within a taxonomy of connectors, items such as sequential, additive, concessive, inferential, comparative, specifying and illustrative connectors may be included. Often the connectors co–operate with other text markers such as those mentioned above, e.g. a ThM: when the aim for which the author set out is reached, a conclusion can be explicitly introduced, e.g. by conjunctions as ęƏėŅěċor ƞĝĞď. Such connectors deserve extra attention because they mark logical structures of the text, and serve to delimit larger or smaller units of a text.15 The connectors belong to the predominantly text–syntactic markers and are of lowest rank.

2.3. De Virtutibus 183–184: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought 2.3.1. Literary Context De Virtutibus belongs to the extant treatises which have been designated the ‘Exposition’ of the Laws of Moses. The other extant treatises are: De Opificio Mundi, De Abrahamo, De Iosepho, De Decalogo, De Specialibus Legibus, and De Praemiis et Poenis. In these exegetical commentaries Philo gives an exegetical paraphrase by expanding or abbreviating large parts of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.16

14

See Hellholm, 1980, 78–95; Hartman, 1993, 130.

15

Hartman, 1993, 128–129.

16

For a survey of the classification of the treatises in Philo’s writings, see Borgen, 1987, 17ff.

De Virtutibus 183–184: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought

29

The connection between De Decalogo, De Specialibus Legibus and De Virtutibus finds expression in Spec. 4:133–134.17 Here Philo says that the virtues are common to all the commandments, and do not fit in with any one particular number in the Decalogue. While the virtue of justice is presented in Spec. 4: 136–238, the remaining virtues are treated in De Virtutibus. Here the virtues of courage (Virt. 1–50), humanity (Virt. 51–174), conversion (Virt. 175–186) and nobility (Virt. 187–227) are presented and illustrated on the basis of the Pentateuch.18 Here Philo has included the concept of conversion among the classical Greek virtues in a way that the Greeks did not.19 The immediate context of Virt. 183–184 will be further characterised below in connection with the discussion of the textual organisation of Virt. 183–184. The text (the underlined words reflect the language of the Old Testament) Virt. 183 ĚċčĔƪĕęğĜĖƬėĞęēĔċƯĞƩĜďŭĜĖďĞƪėęēċėƊĠđčƮĝďēĜ ĚęēďȉĞċēċŴĜĎēĎċĝĔƲĖďĒċĖďĒċěĖƲĐďĝĒċēĞƱėČưęė őĘŁėċěĖęĝĞưċĜďŭĜĞƭėŁĖďưėģĖďĞċČęĕƮėä ĠđĝƯčƪěƂĞē ĞęğĞƯĞƱĚěǬčĖċ ęƉġƊĚƬěęčĔƲėőĝĞēė ęƉĎƫĖċĔěƩėŁĠďĝĞƲĜ ęƍĞďĔċĞƩĞƱėċŭĒƬěċŁėģĞƪĞģ ĔŁėőĝġċĞēċȉĜčǻĜ ęƍĞďĚƬěċėĞǻĜĖďčƪĕđĜĒċĕƪĞĞđĜ ƚĜŁĎğėċĞǻĝċēĕċČďȉė ŁĕĕǵŕĝĞēėőččğĞƪĞģ ĞěēĝƯĖƬěďĝēĞȥėĔċĒǵŞĖǬĜőėĎēċēĞƶĖďėęė ĝĞƲĖċĞēĔċƯĔċěĎưǪĔċƯġďěĝư 17

The relevant part of these paragraphs reads as follows: … But we must not fail to know that, just as each of the ten separately has some particular laws akin to it having nothing in common with any other, there are some things common to all which fit in not with some particular number such as one or two but with all the ten Great Words. These are the virtues of universal value. For each of the ten pronouncements separately and all in common incite and exhort us to wisdom and justice and godliness and the rest of the company of virtues … (Spec. 4:133–134). For a detailed analysis of this text, see now Cohen, 1995, 86–105.

18

Courage on the basis of parts of Numbers 25 and 30, Deuteronomy 20, 22 and 28; humanity from Numbers 27 and various laws in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy; conversion from parts of Deuteronomy 26 and 30, and nobility from passages in Genesis.

19

Cf. Cohen, 1995, 86–105.

30

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

ĎēƩĝğĖČƲĕģėĕƲčęēĜĔċƯČęğĕċȉĜĔċƯĚěƪĘďĝēä ĕƲčęğĖƫėčƩěĝĞƲĖċĝƴĖČęĕęė ĔċěĎưċĎƫČęğĕďğĖƪĞģė ĚěƪĘďģėĎƫġďȉěďĜ őėęŴĜĞƱďƉĎċēĖęėďȉėőĝĞēė Virt. 184 ƂĞċėĖƫėčƩěęŴęĜžĕƲčęĜĞęēƪĎďŞčėƶĖđ ĔċƯęŴęėĞƱČęƴĕďğĖċĞęēƪĎďŞĚěǬĘēĜ őĚċēėďĞƱĜĔċƯĞƬĕďēęĜžČưęĜ ƂĞċėĎƫĝĞċĝēƪĐǹĞċȘĞċőėŁĕĕƮĕęēĜ ŁĞďĕƮĜĞďĔċƯĢďĔĞƲĜ ďŭĖƮĞēĜĞǻĜłěĖęėưċĜĞċƴĞđĜőĚēĕƪĒęēĞę ďƉċěďĝĞƮĝďēĒďȦčďėƲĖďėęĜžĖęȘĒďęĠēĕƭĜ ĔċƯĠēĕƲĒďęĜ ƂĒďėďƏĔċƯĝğĖĠƶėģĜĞęȉĜďŭěđĖƬėęēĜőġěƮĝĒđĞƱ ĕƲčēęėőĔďȉėęä “ĞƱėĒďƱėďŲĕęğĝƮĖďěęėďųėċưĝęēĒďƲė ĔċƯĔƴěēęĜďŲĕċĞƲĝďĝƮĖďěęė čďėƬĝĒċēĕċƱėċƉĞȦȻ 2.3.2. Textual Organisation and Line of Thought Because the selected section of Virt. 183–186 is bound to the preceding context, we have to deal with some details with regard to the textual structure of Virt. 175–182. In Virt. 175 the reader is confronted with a meta–communicative clause and a thematic marker, introduced by a MB and a P, which covers the whole section Virt. 175–186:20 Our most holy Moses, who so dearly loved virtue and goodness and especially his fellowmen, exhorts everyone everywhere to pursue piety and justice, and offers to the repentant in honour of their victory the high rewards of membership in the best of commonwealths and of the felicities both great and small which that membership confers (Virt. 175).

20

Already the title of this section, ûďěƯ ĖďĞċėęưċĜ, serves as kind of a meta–communicative phrase that signals to the reader the theme and the performative function of the whole section. Cf. Hellholm, 1980, 60: ‘Unter Unter Präsignalen sind in erster Linie Titel oder Gattungsbezeichnungen zu nennen und ihre Bedeutung besteht darin, den „Empfänger sogleich über die Funktion (und teilweise noch genauer sogar den Typ oder Subtyp) des Textes (zu) orienteren“.’

De Virtutibus 183–184: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought

31

The text sets out to be a communication between Moses and ‘everyone everywhere’. In this way Philo can address and apply Moses’ instruction to the addressees, those in Philo’s own time included. The meta–communicative expression ‘Moses … exhorts everyone everywhere’ indicates also that the function of the instruction is a practical one concerning behaviour. The MC serves also as a MB which introduces the theme realised by propositions: ‘(MB) … exhorts everyone everywhere (P) to pursue piety and justice, and offers (P) to the repentant in honour of their victory the high rewards of membership in the best of commonwealths ….’ In Virt. 176 the theme of repentance is explicated further, which is signalled by the connector čƪě. The explication is based on an analogy and contrast. Primarily, health, a ship’s freedom from danger, and the soul’s memory of things worth remembering, are regarded as values; secondarily, rectification is of value, as in recovery from disease, deliverance from the dangers of voyage and recollection from forgetfulness. Conversion (ĖďĞƪėęēċ) is counted among the same group of second rank values. In Virt. 177 the value of conversion is explained (cf. čƪě). God alone is sinless, of course a state of mind of the first rank, but conversion from sin to a blameless life shows a man who has not been ignorant of that which is good for him. Virt. 178 is related to the foregoing clause by the connector ƂĒďė, ‘whence’, ‘therefore’. Thus the statement in Virt. 177 about the man of wisdom who knows what is good for him serves as the basis for Moses’ instruction on this valuable thing, viz. conversion: ‘And, therefore, when he convokes such people ….’21 This expression stands on a meta–level over against the following statement which explicates the content of Moses’ instruction concerning the theme of conversion (1.1 ThM). At the end of this explication, in Virt. 179, a pragmatic sentence appears. The reader encounters here the connector ęƏė which signals a conclusion and an application over against the reader. Philo appeals to the reader to accept and rejoice with those who have abandoned polytheism and turned to the creed of the one God, and who have converted to a God–loving ethos, from darkness to light: So therefore (ęƏė) all these who did not at the first acknowledge their duty to reverence the Founder and Father of all, yet afterwards embraced the creed of one instead of a multiplicity of sovereigns, must be held to be our dearest friends and closest kinsmen (Virt. 179).

21

Our translation.

32

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

Virt. 180 opens with a statement that shifts to 3.p.sg. and which is of an anaphoric type and functions as a MC : ‘This is what there is to be said about the first and most necessary form of repentance’,22 viz. the conversion from polytheism to the one God. The expression is related to the preceding text by the relator ęƏė, which gathers into a unit the preceding section beginning in Virt. 178 and functions as introducing a conclusion to the whole section. Thus, Virt. 178–179 can be delimited as a self–contained unit within the textual macro–structure. The next clause of Virt. 180 is introduced by a verb in the imperative (ĖďĞċėęďưĞģ) which functions as a new meta–propositional base that introduces a subordinate ThM of conversion in other matters (1.2 ThM). The theme of conversion in other matters is further formulated in the form of a contrast (ĖƮ—Łĕĕƪ), with the first clause as a restatement of the first conversion, and the next clause as a positive statement of the ‘second’ conversion, which deals with other necessary matters of life. The content of this conversion in other necessary matters of life (őėĞęȉĜ ŅĕĕęēĜƂĝċĚďěƯČưęėŁėċčĔċȉċ) is described in a comparison (ƞĝĚďě) as conversion ‘from mob–rule, which is the vilest of misgovernments, into democracy, the government in which good order is best observed.’23 An explanation of this comparison then follows (ĞęȘĞęĎǵőĝĞưė) by the means of a double catalogue of vices and virtues which describes in contrast form (őĔ—ďŭĜ) the life which the repentant person abandons, and the one he turns to. In Virt. 181 we encounter a statement (čƪě) which develops the line of thought above and describes the theme of conversion as a turning from vices to virtues. According to Philo, this aspect of conversion must follow the conversion from polytheism to monotheism as the body is followed by the shadow in sunshine. Then follows a further explanation and application, introduced by the relator čƪě, which describes the kind of virtues following the honour rendered to God by the proselytes, and as a contrast the vices resulting from apostasy from the holy Laws. The unit beginning in Virt. 183 is demarcated by a shift in person to 1.p.pl., as the grammatical subject for the instructions on conversion. The expression on a meta–level, (ĚċčĔƪĕęğĜĖƬėĞęēĔċƯĞƩĜďŭĜĖďĞƪėęēċėƊĠđčƮĝďēĜĚęēďȉĞċēċŴĜ ĎēĎċĝĔƲĖďĒċ) calls the reader’s attention to this added aspect of conversion now introduced. The following theme (1.3 ThM) of conversion (cf. ďŭĜĖďĞƪėęēċė) is stated in Virt. 183 in the same form of contrast őĔ—ďŭĜ as in the preceding context: ĖďĒċěĖƲĐďĝĒċēĞƱėČưęėőĘŁėċěĖęĝĞưċĜďŭĜĞƭėŁĖďưėģĖďĞċČęĕƮė. As in the preceding context the use of this contrast form outlines the stages in 22

Our translation.

23

Cf. Borgen, 1983b., 82: ‘Catalogues may also be used to characterize the pagan life which the proselytes leave behind. Thus, in Virt 180 Philo uses a double catalogue to show what conversion means …’ Cf. also a similar double catalogue of contrast in the Apostolic Constitutions, cited in Berger, 1975, 233.

De Virtutibus 183–184: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought

33

the life of the converted before and after the conversion. The shift in person to 1.p.pl. (cf. ĎēĎċĝĔƲĖďĒċ) has the rhetorical effect of engaging the readers and of bringing speaker and hearer on the same footing. In this way Philo can apply the theme of conversion to the people involved in the communication, i.e. Jews and Gentiles in the process of conversion. The aspect of conversion indicated in Virt. 183 is the change from discord to harmony, which in the following part of Virt. 183 is explained by the rendering of Deut 30:11–14 (cf. čƪě) and then further by Virt. 184 (cf. čƪě). The quotation formula ĠđĝƯčƪěƂĞē introduces the rendering and exposition of Deut 30:11–14. The semantic and grammatical subject dealt with by this rendering of the Old Testament text is referred to as ĞęğĞƯĞƱĚěǬčĖċ. In text–linguistic terminology this expression may serve as a substitution on Abstraction–Level (SA), which substitutes the theme of conversion which introduces the quotation. The exposition is structured in the following steps: In Virt. 183a, the words from Deut 30:11–14 are rendered with interpretative supplements in the form of four negative statements contrasted with a positive affirmation and application (cf. Łĕĕƪ) of this to the reader. Then follows in Virt. 183b a first explanation (cf. čƪě) and repetition of the interpretation of ‘mouth’, ‘heart’, and ‘hands’. This first explanation makes plain that in the triad words, thoughts, and actions lies happiness. In Virt. 184a the reader encounters the second explanation (cf. čƪě) of the triad word, thought, and action. The explanation is formed as a conditional temporal clause: Positively it is stated that when word, thought, and action correspond with each other, life becomes praiseworthy and perfect. This statement is contrasted with a negative statement, also a conditional temporal clause, which expresses the fact of the opposite condition: when they (a substitution on text–level for word, thought and action from the preceding clause) are at strife with each other, life is imperfect and blameable. Then follows in Virt. 184b a further positive statement in conditional form (ďŭ + optative describing the potential condition in the protasis and what would happen on the fulfilment of the condition in the apodosis) that picks up the main line of thought and in a way summarises the content of the preceding positive statement. The expression ĞǻĜłěĖęėưċĜĞċƴĞđĜ in the protasis seems to function as a substitution on the meta–level, gathering up the argument on ‘harmony’ from the Virt. 183 so far. On the fulfilment of harmony, the apodosis promises that such a man will be well–pleasing to God, and at once both God–beloved and God–loving. This interpretation of Deut 30:11–14 is rounded off, supported and further commented on by a quotation of Deut 26:17–18: ‘And so in full accordance with these words there was given from above the good saying, “Thou hast chosen to–day God to be God to thee, and the Lord has chosen thee to–day to be a people to Him”.’ The consecutive co–ordinating particle ƂĒďė (‘so’) introduces a

34

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

meta–clause, and is a further pointer to the superstructure of the whole treatise on conversion. It signals to the reader not only a strictly local role connecting neighbouring clauses, but together with the participle ĞęȉĜ ďŭěđĖƬėęēĜ, which functions as a substitution on abstraction level, it also has an anaphoric function to round off and conclude a longer argumentative section. In Virt. 185–186 Philo elaborates further (cf. the particle čƬ) on the reciprocal choice as taken by the individual within the collective and God, a choice which makes man a servant and suppliant of God, and each single man God’s people. Virt. 186 explains (cf. čƪě) this choice of the individual to become people of God from an analogy (cf. ƚĜ), exemplified by the pilot who is worth as much as all the crew, and the general as much as all the soldiers. The whole treatise is then rounded off by a comparison and application of these examples to the wise man worth as much as a whole nation, who is protected against a fall by the wall of godliness. On the basis of the observations on ‘text–linguistic’ elements of the kind above, we suggest that we can briefly categorise the application and function of Deut 30:11–14 in the following points: a. Deut 30:11–14 is applied in Virt. 183 to the subject matter of conversion, drawing the line from conversion as proselytism in Virt. 175–182 to conversion within the Jewish nation. b. Deut 30:11–14 is in Virt. 183 applied to (Moses’) instruction of converts of Jews and Gentiles, probably in Philo’s own time. c. The use of Deut 30:11–14 in Virt. 183–184 serves to explain more specifically the aspect of conversion from discord to harmony as the condition for the right relationship between God and the convert. d. Moreover, in Virt. 185–186 Deut 30:11–14 is combined with Deut 26:17–18 to characterise the relationship between God and the convert in terms of inclusion in the people of God. In retrospect we now display the argumentative structure of the text, as we understand its organisation: Line of thought: An outline Virt. 175–186 Unit on Conversion Virt. 175–177 Statement of the theme (MB; ThM) Virt. 178–179 Arguing of sub–theme (MB; 1.1 ThM; the theme of conversion from polytheism to monotheism; ęƏė; conclusion and application)

De Praemiis et Poenis 79–84: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought

35

Virt. 180–182 Arguing of sub–theme (1.2 ThM; the theme of conversion from vices to virtues applied to the conversion of proselytes) Virt. 183–184 Arguing of sub–theme (1.3 ThM; shift to 3.p.sg.; conversion from discord to a better condition) Virt. 183a Explanation of the theme by quotation (čƪě) Interpretative rendering of Deut 30:11–14 by four negative statements (ęƉġ;ęƉĎƬ;ęƍĞď;ęƍĞď) contrasted with a positive affirmation and application (Łĕĕƪ; shift in person to 1.p.pl.) of it to the reader Virt. 183b First explanation (čƪě) and repetition of the interpretation of ‘mouth’, ‘heart’ and ‘hands’ from Deut 30:14 Virt. 184a Repetition and explanation in the form of protasis and apodosis of the exposition of Deut 30:14 (čƪě) * First part, positive (ĖƬė) * Second part, negative contrast (ĎƬ; reproach) * Third part, returning to the previous positive statement Virt. 184b Further support and conclusion of the explanation and Deut 30:11–14 by quote (ƂĒďė) Virt. 185–186 Elaboration on the reciprocal choice by man and God

2.4. De Praemiis et Poenis 79–84: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought 2.4.1. Literary Context Like De Virtutibus, De Praemiis et Poenis is an integral part of the section of Philo’s writings called the ‘Exposition’ of the Law of Moses. Against the background of creation (De Opificio Mundi), and the stories of the patriarchs as living prototypes of the Laws (De Abrahamo; De Iosepho), and the interpretation of the Laws themselves (De Decalogo; De Specialibus Legibus 1–4), Philo has described their function relative to virtues and vices (De Virtutibus), and proceeds in De Praemiis et Poenis to the various attitudes and actions of men relative to the Laws, and the consequences, on the one hand in rewards and blessings, and on the other hand in punishments and curses.24

24

Philo delivers an outline of the ‘Exposition’ in two places, viz. in Praem. 1–3, in which Philo divides the ‘Exposition’ in three main parts, the story of creation, the historical part and the legislative part. In Mos. 2:45ff. two parts are mentioned, the historical and legislative. The historical part mentioned in De Vita Mosis 2, is, however, divided into the creation story and the genealogical part, in accordance with the two points of the outline given in Praem. 1–3. Thus,

36

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

The outline Philo delivers in Praem. 1–3 supports the view that the treatise De Praemiis et Poenisis is an integral part of the ‘Exposition’,25 and that the whole ‘Exposition’ aims at the positive claim for law obedience and its consequences: the story of the creation is followed by the historical part, the legislative part.26 In Praem. 4 Philo also defines the relationship between the laws, the virtues and the rewards and punishments: those who are schooled in the laws and exhortations are called into the sacred arena to be tested. Then the true athletes of virtue will gain victory and rewards while the unmanly will suffer defeat and punishments. Already Mos. 2:52–65 presents this understanding of rewards and punishments, and thus serves as a brief anticipatory survey.27 De Praemiis et Poenis falls into two main parts: After the transitional statement, which serves to summarise the whole ‘Exposition’ (Praem. 1–6), the first main part deals with rewards and punishments (Praem. 7–78). Then the second part follows on blessings and curses (Praem. 79–172). There is no transitional passage between these two main parts. While the first part is largely based on Genesis, the section on blessings and curses in De Praemiis et Poenis covers sections in these books, and then mainly from Leviticus 26, Exodus 23 and Deuteronomy 28–30.28 the ‘Exposition’ can be divided in three parts: the story of creation, the historical part, and the legislative part. 25

The summary in Praem. 1–3 should be quoted more fully: The oracles delivered through the prophet Moses are of three kinds. The first deals with the creation of the world, the second with history and the third with legislation. The story of the creation is told throughout with an excellence worthy of the divine subject, beginning with the genesis of Heaven and ending with the framing of man … The historical part is a record of good and bad lives and of the sentences passed in each generation on both, rewards in one case, punishments in the other. The legislative part has two divisions, one in which the subject matter is more general, the other consisting of the ordinances of specific laws … All these and further the virtues which he assigned to peace and war have been discussed as fully as was needful in the preceding treatises, and I now proceed in due course to the rewards and punishments which the good and bad have respectively to expect.

26

It is noticeable that as in the law codes of the Pentateuch itself (cf. the ‘book of covenant’ in Exodus 20:23–23:33; the holiness code in Leviticus 17–26 and the law code in Deuteronomy 12–32), Philo’s exhortations to law obedience in Praem. 79ff. are sandwiched between his exposition of the Mosaic law code and its sanctions.

27

Cf. Goodenough, 1933, 112; Borgen, 1987, 27.

28

In particular the latter chapters from Deuteronomy had a considerable influence on the early Jewish texts. According to the observations made by Hartman (1979, 152 n. 63), the following texts come into consideration: 1 QS 2; Jub. 1; As. Mos. 1; 12; Bar 2; 3; 4; 1 Enoch 1–5; 103; Sib. Or. 3. In addition 2 Macc, Bib. Ant., T. Levi, and 2. Apoc. Bar. describe the destruction of the Greeks in terms clearly inspired by Deuteronomy 28. Cf. also further the importance of ‘the greater songs of Moses’ (Deuteronomy 32) by Philo (Mos. 2:72–75; Leg. 3:105; Post. 167; Plant. 69; Sobr. 10; Mut. 182; Somn. 2:191), and its central role in Samaritan religion, see M. Gaster 1932, 77ff.

De Praemiis et Poenis 79–84: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought

37

The closer literary context of Praem. 79–84 is briefly as follows: Praem. 79–172 is made up of the sections on blessings (Praem. 79–126) and curses (Praem. 127–162), while the last part is dominated by an outlook to the return and restoration of the Jewish nation (Praem. 163–172). The immediate context following, Praem. 85–126, deals with the blessings of victory over human and natural enemies (Praem. 85–97), wealth (Praem. 98–107), a long and good life (Praem. 108–117), and exemption from disease (Praem. 118–126). The text (the underlined words reflect the language of Deut 30:11–14) Praem. 79 ɁĖċěĞğěưċĎƫĝċĠƭĜőėĞęȉĜŮďěęȉĜŁėƪĔďēĞċēčěƪĖĖċĝē ĕƬčďĞƩĜďƉġƩĜĚěƲĞďěęėńĜďƉĕęčưċĜďűģĒďėŽėęĖƪĐďēė őƪėĠđĝưĞƩĜĒďưċĜőėĞęĕƩĜĠğĕƪĞĞđĞďĔċĞċĚďēĒďȉĜčēėƲĖďėęēĞęȉĜ ĚěęĝĞƪčĖċĝēĔċƯĞƩĎēċčęěďğƲĖďėċ ĖƭĖƬġěēĜŁĔęǻĜĔċĞċĎƬġđĝĒď ŁĕĕƩĎēƩĞȥėĞęȘČưęğĚěƪĘďģėőĚēĞďĕǻĞď ĚěƶĞđėĎģěďƩėŖĘďĞďėưĔđėĔċĞǵőġĒěȥė Praem. 80 ęƉčƩěƊĚƬěęčĔęēĔċƯČċěƴĞďěċēĞǻĜĞȥėġěđĝęĖƬėģėĎğėƪĖďģĜ ċŮĚěęĝĞƪĘďēĜďŭĝƯė ęƉĎƫĖċĔěƩėĞƱŁčċĒƱėŁĠƬĝĞđĔďė şĚƬěċėĒċĕƪĞĞđĜ şőėőĝġċĞēċȉĜčǻĜƚĜĎďȉĝĒċēĚęĕğġěęėưęğĔċƯĔċĖċĞđěǬĜ ŁĚęĎđĖưċĜ ęƉĎǵőĘċưĠėđĜőĝĞďưĕċĞęĞƭėőėĒƬėĎďďŭĜęƉěċėƱėŁĚęēĔưċė ŲėċĞēĜĖďĞƬģěęĜĔċƯĚĞđėƱĜŁěĒďƯĜĖƲĕēĜ őĠēĔƬĝĒċēĞęƴĞģėĎğėđĒǼä ĚĕđĝưęėĎǵőĝĞƯĔċƯőččğĞƪĞģ ĞěēĝƯĖƬěďĝēĞȥėĔċĒǵŖĔċĝĞęėŞĖȥėőėēĎěğĖƬėęė ĝĞƲĖċĞēĔċƯĔċěĎưǪĔċƯġďěĝư ĞěęĚēĔƶĞďěęėĕƲčȣĔċƯĎēċėęưǪĔċƯĚěƪĘďĝēė Praem. 81 őƩėčƩěęŴċĞƩČęğĕďƴĖċĞċĞęēęȘĞęēęŮĕƲčęēĔċƯęŴċĞƩĕďčƲĖďėċ ĞęēċưĎďċŮĚěƪĘďēĜƟĝēĔċƯĞċȘĞċŁĕĕƮĕęēĜŁėĞċĔęĕęğĒǼ ĎďĒƬėĞċłěĖęėưċĜŁĕƴĞęēĜĎďĝĖęȉĜ For the influence of Deuteronomy 32 in Paul’s letter to the Romans, see Hays, 1989, 163–164; R. Bell, 1993, 44ff.; Ross Wagner, 2002, 191–205; Watson, 2004, 473.

38

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

ďƉĎċēĖęėưċĔěċĞďȉĞęğĞƬĝĞēėŞŁĢďğĎďĝĞƪĞđĝęĠưċĔċƯĠěƲėđĝēĜ ĝęĠưċĖƫėčƩěĚěƱĜĒďěċĚďưċėĒďęȘ ĠěƲėđĝēĜĎƫĚěƱĜŁėĒěģĚưėęğČưęğĎēęưĔđĝēė Praem. 82 ŅġěēĖƫėęƏėĕƬčďĞċēĖƲėęėĞƩĞȥėėƲĖģėĚċěċččƬĕĖċĞċ ČěċġďưċĜşęƉĎďĖēǬĜŁĚęĎęġǻĜĞğčġƪėďēä ĚěęĝčďėęĖƬėģėĎǵŁĔęĕęƴĒģėĔċƯŒĚęĖƬėģėŕěčģėőėĞęȉĜ ĞęȘČưęğĚǬĝēėőĚēĞđĎďƴĖċĝēėƞĝĚďěőĔĐƲĠęğČċĒƬęĜďŭĜĠȥĜ ŁėċġĒƬėĞċĚďěēĕċĖĠĒƮĝďĞċēĎēǵďƉĔĕďưċĜĔċƯďƉĠđĖưċĜ Praem. 83 ĞưĜčƩěęƉĔŃėďűĚęēĔċƯĞȥėĠƴĝďēČċĝĔƪėģėƂĞēĝęĠƱėŅěċčƬėęĜ ĔċƯőĚēĝĞđĖęėēĔƶĞċĞęėĖƲėęėĞęȘĞǵőĝĞưėǝĞƩĜĒďưċĜĚċěċēėƬĝďēĜ őĘďčƬėďĞęĖƭĔďėƩĜĔċƯőěƮĖęğĜŁĚęĕēĚďȉėĞȥėęŭĔďưģėĚěƪĘďģė ŁĕĕƩĚĕđěȥĝċēĞęƳĜĕƲčęğĜŕěčęēĜőĚċēėďĞęȉĜà Praem. 84 ĞęȘĞęĞƱčƬėęĜęƉĖċĔěƩėŁĚȤÜÜĔēĝĞċēĒďęȘĠċėĞċĝēęƴĖďėęėŁďƯ ĞƩċŭĒƬěēċĔƪĕĕđĔċƯĚęĎđčďĞęƴĖďėęėƊĚǵŕěģĞęĜęƉěċėưęğ ƚĜĔŃėďŭĚƴĒęēĞƲĞēĜĚęȉęėŕĒėęĜĖƬčċĚěęĝĠğȥĜŅėĞēėċĜ ŁĚęĔěưėċĝĒċēäǞžĒďƲĜőĝĞēėőĚƮĔęęĜŮďěęĚěďĚďĝĞƪĞģėďƉġȥė ĔċƯĞċȉĜŁĚƱĔċĒċěęȘĞęȘĝğėďēĎƲĞęĜĔċĞċĔĕƮĝďĝēĝğėďččưĐģė 2.4.2. Textual Organisation and Line of Thought The text is introduced by a reference to the authority of Scripture. This reference signals the weight and the content of the following clause introduced by a meta–propositional base , ‘take and read first the invocations (ĕƬčďĞƩĜďƉġƩĜ ĚěƲĞďěęė) …’, which stands on a meta–level over against the following expression ‘… which he is accustomed to call benedictions’ (ńĜ ďƉĕęčưċĜ ďűģĒďė ŽėęĖƪĐďēė) …’, which mentions the theme to be dealt with (ThM). Through this meta–communicative clause and the meta–communicative verb, ĕƬčģ, the communicative situation is established and thematized as both a ‘gesprochene Kommunikation’ and ‘geschriebene Kommunikation’29, which signals both a text encoding and a text decoding communication. Thus, the verb ĕƬčģ in the imperative follows a usual way of citing a document in antique texts, and

29

See Hellholm, 1980, 81.

De Praemiis et Poenis 79–84: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought

39

can here be translated ‘cite’ or ‘read’.30 The meta–clause is in fact a pointer to the macro–structure of the whole section of Praem. 79–172, and specifically delimits the section Praem. 79–126. This is also confirmed by the sequential adjective ‘first’ (ĚěƲĞďěęĜ) in Praem. 79, which marks a contrast to the section on curses following in Praem. 127ff. The invocations (ďƉġċư) which are explained as ‘benedictions’ (ďƉĕęčưċē) in the thematic marker (ThM) in Praem. 79, are referred to again in Praem. 126 and thus form an inclusio.31 In this way the thematic marker about the benedictions/blessings in Praem. 79 here introduces the theme to be dealt with in the whole section Praem. 79–126. The first subsection of Praem. 79–126 is the unit Praem. 79–97. The borderline of Praem. 97 is marked by the summarising statement on Praem. 79–97 in Praem. 98: These are the first blessings which he tells us will fall to the lot of those who follow God and always and everywhere cleave to His commandments and so fasten them to every part of life that no part can go astray into new and unwholesome ways.

The unit of Praem. 79–97 is introduced in Praem. 79 by a formula which signals a quotation and an amplification of Deut 28:1 LXX: If, he says, you keep (ĠğĕƪĞĞģ) the divine commandment in obedience to his ordinances (ĞƩĚěęĝĞƪčĖċĞċ) and accept his precepts, not merely to hear them but to carry them out by your life and conduct (ŁĕĕƩĎēƩĞȥėĞęȘČưęğĚěƪĘďģė őĚēĞďĕǻĞď) ….

The shift in person from 3.p.sg. in the statement preceding the quotation to 2.p.pl. in the citation has a certain text–delimiting effect and also a text decoding and pragmatic effect. This marker together with the text decoding verbs in the protasis, including the negative statement to not only hear the commandments, and contrasted with the positive statement to fulfil the commandments with actions, is an appeal to the addressees that they should make a practical move/action. It is to be expected that Philo’s readers here get the impression that the author is at the kernel point of the things which he will influence and urge them to do. The apodosis is also applied to the addressees by the use of 2.p.pl. and states that the first gift for those who fulfil the condition of obedience to the law, is victory over their enemies. Before Philo discusses and elaborates the idea of victory over enemies in Praem. 85–97, he further explains and urges the necessity of carrying out the Law in Praem. 80–82. 30

Cf. the comment in PLCL 8.361 n. a: ‘The form follows the usual way of citing a document in Demosthenes.’

31

Praem. 126: These are the blessings (ďƉġċư) invoked upon good men, men who fulfil the laws by their deeds …

40

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

Thus, in Praem. 80 Philo adduces an explanation and a rationale (cf. čƪě) of the content expressed in the preceding protasis, as to why one could keep the commandments (and probably implying: not think or say that one could not keep them). The explanation is conveyed in the form of an interpretative rendering of Deut 30:11–14. By the rendering of words from Deut 30:11–13 Philo explains in three negative statements the commandments, which are not too huge and heavy and need not to be fetched from across the sea or at the end of the earth, so as to become accessible and capable of being put into practice. These negative statements are then contrasted with the positive statement of the words from Deut 30:14, which are applied to the reader as near and available in ‘mouth’, ‘heart’, and ‘hand’, which then are further explained as representing word, thought, and action. Then, in Praem. 81 Philo explains (cf. čƪě) and repeats the interpretation of the triad ‘mouth’, ‘heart’, and ‘hand’ from Deut 30:14. This explanation is formed as a conditional clause. The protasis states that when word, thought, and action mutually follow each other, the apodosis explains that happiness will be created, which is further explained (cf. ĞęğĞƬĝĞēė) as wisdom and understanding, followed by an explanation (cf. čƪě) of wisdom as directed towards worship of God, and by an explanation (cf. ĎƬ) of understanding as directed to the regulation of human life. Then follows a summing up and application (cf. ęƏė) of the argument so far, summing up Praem. 79–82 as a unit. The clause is formulated on the one side (cf. ĖƬė) as a negative statement which states that the acceptance of the commandments is little or none so long as they only are said. To this negative statement we encounter a positive contrast (cf. ĎƬ), which states that the effect of words followed by actions will be that the commandments were brought from darkness to light and surrounded with good fame. Before the following elaboration of the main theme of victory over the enemies in Praem. 85–97, Philo in Praem. 83 picks up the thread from Praem. 81 about wisdom, and further explains (cf. čƪě) the effect of the good fame and report. By allusion to Deut 4:6 Philo explains that the people who fulfil the words with laudable actions will be attested by outsiders as wise and understanding. In this way Philo applies the argument about obedience to the law in Praem. 79–82 to a description of the race which is obedient to the law. In Praem. 84 Philo further delivers an exegetical paraphrase of Deut 4:6–7 in the form of question and answer to describe the people who are wise and understanding as a great nation, attested by outsiders as a nation which has God to listen to their prayers and invocations and to draw nigh when they call upon him with a clean conscience. On the basis of the ‘text–linguistic’ analysis above, we suggest that we can identify the following elements conveying the message of Deut 30:11–14 within the text’s structure and the application made of it:

De Praemiis et Poenis 79–84: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought

41

a. Within the textual context of Praem. 79–126, Deut 30:11–14 is applied to the overarching theme of the blessings to be inaugurated on the condition of obedience to the law, and in Praem. 79–97 particularly to the blessing of victory over one’s enemies. b. Within the context of Praem. 79–82, Deut 30:11–14 serves as a rationale for the claim for obedience to the law stated in Praem. 79 as a condition for blessings. Thus, Philo’s use of Deut 30:11–14 is intended to encourage the keeping of the Law by emphasising that the commandment of God is not too hard; the Law is not something unattainable; it is near by and one can obey it. c. Deut 30:11–14 is applied in Praem. 83–84 to the notion of the people of the Law, which is described as the wise and understanding nation and the people of God in comparison with the other nations. In retrospect this analysis of the textual organisation of Praem. 79–84 can be displayed as following: Praem. 79–126 Unit on Blessing Praem. 79–97 Statement of the theme (MB; ThM; statement on the theme of blessing) Praem. 79–82 Arguing of the sub–theme of the blessing of victory over the enemies (from 3rd to 2nd person) Praem. 79 Introductory ‘quotation’ from Scripture about law obedience Praem. 80 Rationale for law obedience and explanation of the Law (čƪě) * Interpretative rendering of Deut 30:11–14 by three negative statements (ęƉ; ęƉĎƬ; ęƉĎƬ)contrasted with a positive statement (ĎƬ) Praem. 81 Repetition and explanation in the form of protasis and apodosis of the exposition of Deut 30:14 (čƪě) * Explanation of the apodosis in three steps (ĞęğĞƬĝĞēė; čƪě; ĎƬ) Praem. 82 Conclusion and consequences (ęƏė) * Negative conclusion (ĖƬė) * Positive conclusion (ĎƬ) Praem. 83 Application of the argument to the race which obeys the law (čƪě) * Theme–setting question (ThM; For who … would not …) Praem. 84 Description of the race which obeys the law in the form of question and answer

42

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

2.5. Romans 10:4–17: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought 2.5.1. Literary Context Wide Context In the following we will provide a brief sketch of our understanding of the line of thought in Romans. In Rom 1:18–8:39 Paul elaborates the idea of God’s righteousness which is now made available to Jews and Gentiles alike. No man, whether Jew or Gentile, can become righteous through observance of the Law (Rom 1:18–3:10f., 20). It is usual to regard Rom 1:16–17 as the theme of the letter:32 In the gospel the righteousness of God has been revealed and offered to everybody who believes. This ‘everybody’ in Rom 1:16 is further defined as Jew and Gentile: ‘… to the Jew first and also to the Greek.’33 This addition indicates 32

Rom 1:16–17 is seen by most commentators as the theme of the letter. On the other hand, e.g. Friedrich (1961, 1139) and Balz (1971, 28f.) regard Rom 1:1–5 as the theme. Wuellner (1977, 168ff.) views Rom 1:16–17 as a ‘transitio’ from the exordium (1:1–15) to the confirmatio (1:18–15:13) which ‘lays out the central argument’.

33

Literary theory (cf. e.g. Hellholm, 1980, 80; Hartman, 1979, 96–101) has developed some categories which are helpful in imaging who the first readers of Romans were, that is the distinction between the empirical reader, the encoded explicit reader, and the encoded implicit reader. The empirical readers are those who once received the letter in Rome and read it. The encoded explicit reader is the audience explicitly manifest in the text. Such readers can also be included in direct address of the audience in the second person plural and direct reference in the first person plural as well as in expressions as e.g. ‘brothers’. The encoded implicit readers resemble what scholars call the ideal or competent readers. Such readers one can presuppose share the assumptions, knowledge, frame of reference, and horizon of expectations which the letter implies in order to be fully understood. Against the background of such categories our reading of Romans is based on the following assumption about the letter’s audience: The empirical readers were the first readers of the letter. However, since we do not have access to the extra–linguistic data around the text of Romans, we are left with the mere text of Romans, and we will have to look for signals in the text to inform us about the readers. We can know with certainty that the encoded explicit readers in the text of Romans are Gentiles (cf. e.g. Rom 1:5; 11:13, 17–24). The encoded implied reader we can only speculate about. Thus, the audience constructed by the text itself is Gentile, although we reckon with the possibility that Jewish Christians were at least included among the encoded implicit readers of Romans. It is possible that the Gentile readers of Romans were divided amongst themselves over their observance or non–observance of the Jewish law. On the one hand there were probably those who sought to preserve many of the practices of Judaism and remained in contact with the synagogue. Probably some of these were critical to the way Gentiles could be included in the community on the basis of a law–free gospel. Thus, these were in need of arguments that could help them to change their attitude and welcome and accept Gentiles as equal members of the same community. On the other hand, we imagine that there were others among the Roman Christians who had abandoned the synagogue and saw themselves as released from the Jewishness of their faith. Presumably there were some in this group who sought to sever their ties with Israel and things Jewish. Paul needed to correct such attitudes so that they learned to see that their faith in Christ was interrelated to Israel. Especially the Gentile–Christian disdain for Judaism, which comes to expression in

Romans 10:4–17: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought

43

that the priority of the Jews and the inclusion of the Gentiles in salvation is the real theme in the letter. This view of Rom 1:16 is supported by the fact that the subject of Jew and Gentile which is located in the centre of the main theme is followed up in subsequent parts of the letter (in addition to Romans 9–11 also in Rom 2:9ff.; 3:9, 29f.; 4:9f.; 9:24, 30f.; 10:12; 15:8f.).34 Righteousness is given to Jews and Gentiles through faith in what God has done in Jesus Christ (Rom 3:21–31). The righteousness by faith reveals that God is God for all people, both Jews and Gentiles. Moreover, the righteousness by faith does not abandon the Law, but rather upholds the Law. This is supported by the witness of the Law about Abraham who was declared righteous by faith, and so is the father not only of the Jews but of the Gentile believers as well (Rom 4:1–25). The explanation of the righteousness available to both Jews and Gentiles goes further in Rom 5:1–8:39, a section which emphasises the life according to righteousness (Rom 5:1–21). In the subsequent section, Rom 6:1–7:6, Paul answers the question whether the new righteousness meant a freedom from the Law in the sense that the Christians can do what the Law forbids and condemns. Through referring to the baptism into Christ (Rom 6:1–14), and the examples of the slave in relation to his master (Rom 6:15–23) and of marriage (Rom 7:1–16), Paul demonstrates that one should no longer continue the old way of life. Against the opinion that the Law is evil, Paul shows that the Law is good (Rom 7:7–25). In Rom 7:25–8:18 Paul explains that the possibility of a righteous life is opened up in Christ through the Holy Spirit. In Jesus Christ the believer has passed from the dominion of the flesh. Under this dominion the Law could not lead to righteousness because it was weakened by the flesh (Rom 8:2–3). However, what was impossible in the old life is now made possible through the Holy Spirit, so that the just requirements of the Law might be fulfilled in the believer who walks according to the Spirit. In Rom 8:19–29 Paul complements his explanation of the righteousness by an eschatological outlook which opens up a universal perspective of this righteousness which will encompass all mankind and the entire creation. Thus, we can regard Rom 8:19ff. as an important part of the foundation for Paul’s argument in Romans 9–11 on the relations between Jews and Gentiles. Romans 9–11 is followed by the paraenetic part of the letter (Romans 12–15) which draws on the argument in Romans 1–11 in favour of the Rom 11:17, seems to form the background for the reminder in Rom 11:18 that Jews are ‘the root that supports you’. So Gentile Christians need to welcome Jews and recognise that their own Christian status is bound up with Israel as the people of God, which once in the future will be included within the newly constituted people of Jews and Gentiles (Rom 11:25–31). For a similar picture of the audience of Romans, see Stowers, 1994, 21–41; 287–289. Concerning the question of audience of Romans, see also Lampe, 1987, 53–63; Wedderburn, 1988, 44–65; Dunn, 1988, (Romans 1–8), xliv; Stanley, 2004, 136–170. 34

For an outline of the macro–structure of Romans from this perspective, see Boers, 1994, 80ff.

44

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

unity of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ as ‘in … harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus …’ (Rom 15:5). The letter ends with the salutations in Romans 16. The Closer Context, Romans 9–11 Some scholars see Romans 9–11 as an excursus in the letter.35 To others Romans 9–11 is a new section of the letter presenting a new theme, viz. the place of Israel in the history of salvation.36 Contrary to such opinions most scholars today regard Romans 9–11 as a well integrated part in the textual context of the letter.37 The question of Israel in Romans 9–11 is already prepared by the question raised in Rom 3:1: ‘Then what advantage has the Jew?’, which is only provisionally answered in Rom 3:1–8. In the light of the preceding chapters Romans 1–8, in which Paul has described the gospel and the righteousness available to Jews first as well as Gentiles, it is necessary to take up the question of God’s faithfulness to his people and the present status of the unbelieving Israel.38 After a brief introduction in Rom 9:1–5, a statement follows about the faithfulness of God which covers the following discussion in Romans 9–11: ‘But it is not as though the word of God failed’ (Rom 9:6a). This statement functions as a theme which is explained in the subsequent sections Rom 9:6–13, 14–20, 21–29, and with a conclusion in Rom 9:30–33. Then follows Rom 10:1 as a fresh start. In our view one comes best to an understanding of Rom 10:1–21 in its literary context, if one recognises with Dahl that Romans 10 is a delayed explanation of the factors which caused Paul to raise the question posed in Rom 9:6.39 Such a view is supported by the many factors in Rom 9:1–33 which receive an explanation only in Rom 10:1–21.40 In Rom 11:1–10 Paul returns to the main theme of Rom 9:6, and he here asserts that God cannot have rejected his people. In Rom 11:1–10 Paul continues the line of thought from Rom 9:22–29 about the remnant. Here he argues that 35

Cf. Vielhauer, 1972, 183; Robinson, 1979, 108.

36

So e.g. Lietzmann, 1971, 89.

37

Cf. Stendahl (1976, 29), who maintains the view on Romans 9–11 as ‘the climax of the letter’. Cf. also Beker, 1984, 87, and Lübking, 1986, 12.

38

So Dahl, 1977, 139.

39

Cf. Dahl, 1977, 148.

40

The following observations support this view: In Rom 10:1–3 Paul explains what prompts the sorrow about which he spoke in Rom 9:1–3. Israel’s unbelief is mentioned in Rom 9:30–33. Only in Rom 10:4ff. (cf. particularly Rom 10:16) is it explained how this unbelief came about. The reason Israel did not attain to the law referred to in Rom 9:31–32 is only understandable against the background of Paul’s elaboration of this in Rom 10:4–13. Moreover, the faith of the Gentiles and their attainment of righteousness referred in Rom 9:30 is likewise explained in Rom 10:4–13. Already J. Munck (1956, 90), stressed that Romans 11 clearly resumes the thread of Rom 9:29, and that the intervening passage (Rom 9:30–10:21), is not some incidental parenthesis, but a necessary and basic explanation.

Romans 10:4–17: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought

45

ethnic Israel has split into two parts, that is the elect remnant and the hardened rest. In Rom 11:11–16 Paul explains that the unbelief of Israel was a necessary component in God’s plan of making salvation available to the Gentiles. In Rom 11:17–24 Paul turns to the parable of the olive tree to present the position of Jews and Gentiles in the state of salvation. The unbelieving Israel is described as branches which have been broken off the tree, while the believing Gentiles are seen as wild branches which have been grafted into the tree among the believing part of Israel. The image of the tree serves as an admonition to Gentiles to remain in faith in order to avoid being broken off as well (Rom 11:22). The statement that God has the power to graft anew those Israelites who have fallen leads to the future outlook in Rom 11:25–33 that finally, the entire people of Israel will share in the salvation which is now already made available to a remnant among Israel and the Gentiles. When the full number of the Gentiles has come in, all Israel will be saved, for God’s call is irrevocable. The language in Rom 11:25ff. implies that Paul has received this knowledge about Israel’s future as a revelation, probably through an inspired exposition of Scripture. 2.5.2. Textual Organisation and Line of Thought of Rom 10:4–17 within the Literary Context of Rom 10:1–21 The text (the words from Deut 30:12–14 are underlined) ĞƬĕęĜčƩěėƲĖęğāěēĝĞƱĜďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĞċėĞƯĞȦĚēĝĞďƴęėĞē ÷ģĥĝǻĜčƩěčěƪĠďēĞƭėĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĞƭėőĔĞęȘėƲĖęğƂĞē žĚęēƮĝċĜċƉĞƩŅėĒěģĚęĜĐƮĝďĞċēőėċƉĞęȉĜ ŞĎƫőĔĚưĝĞďģĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđęƎĞģĜĕƬčďēä ĖƭďűĚǹĜőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğä ĞưĜŁėċČƮĝďĞċēďŭĜĞƱėęƉěċėƲė; ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėāěēĝĞƱėĔċĞċčċčďȉėä šäĞưĜĔċĞċČƮĝďĞċēďŭĜĞƭėŅČğĝĝęė; ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėāěēĝĞƱėőĔėďĔěȥėŁėċčċčďȉėä ŁĕĕƩĞưĕƬčďē; őččƴĜĝęğĞƱȗǻĖƪőĝĞēėőėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔċƯőėĞǼ ĔċěĎưǪĝęğĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėĞƱȗǻĖċĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜ ƀĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė ƂĞēőƩėžĖęĕęčƮĝǹĜőėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğ ĔƴěēęėǵôđĝęȘėĔċƯ ĚēĝĞďƴĝǹĜ őėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğ ƂĞēžĒďƱĜċƉĞƱėščďēěďėőĔėďĔěȥė

46

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

ĝģĒƮĝǹä ĔċěĎưǪčƩěĚēĝĞďƴďĞċēďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđė ĝĞƲĖċĞēĎƫžĖęĕęčďȉĞċēőēĜĝģĞđěưċė ĕƬčďēčƩěŞčěċĠƮäĚǬĜžĚēĝĞďƴģėőĚǵ     ċƉĞȦǵęƉ ĔċĞċēĝġğėĒƮĝďĞċē ęƉčƪěőĝĞēėĎēċĝĞęĕƭǵôęğĎċưęğĞďĔċƯ ȐðĕĕƮėęĜ žčƩěċƉĞƱĜĔƴěēęĜĚƪėĞģėĚĕęğĞȥėďŭĜ ĚƪėĞċĜĞęƳĜőĚēĔċĕęğĖƬėęğĜċƉĞƲėä ĚǬĜčƩěƀĜŃėőĚēĔċĕƬĝđĞċēĞƱƁėęĖċ ĔğěưęğĝģĒƮĝďĞċē ûȥĜęƏėőĚēĔċĕƬĝģėĞċēďŭĜƀėęƉĔőĚưĝĞďğĝċė; ĚȥĜĎƫĚēĝĞƬğĝģĝēėęƐęƉĔšĔęğĝċė; ĚȥĜĎƫŁĔęƴĝģĝēėġģěƯĜĔđěƴĝĝęėĞęĜ; ĚȥĜĎƫĔđěƴĘģĝēėőƩėĖƭŁĚęĝĞċĕȥĝēė; ĔċĒƵĜčƬčěċĚĞċēäƚĜƚěċȉęēęŮĚƲĎďĜĞȥė ďƉċččďĕēĐęĖƬėģėĞƩŁčċĒƪ ǵìĕĕǵęƉĚƪėĞďĜƊĚƮĔęğĝċėĞȦďƉċččďĕưȣ ǵòĝċȈċĜčƩěĕƬčďēäĔƴěēďĞưĜőĚưĝĞďğĝďėĞǼŁĔęǼ ŞĖȥė; ŅěċŞĚưĝĞēĜőĘŁĔęǻĜŞĎƫŁĔęƭĎēƩȗƮĖċĞęĜāěēĝĞęȘ Some observable features in the first two verses show that Paul in this chapter addresses the epistolary and communicative situation more directly than in other parts of Romans. Dahl has demonstrated that the ‘epistolary style’ shows itself more clearly in Romans 9–11 than in Rom 1:17–8:39.41 By ‘epistolary style’, Dahl means the letter’s conventions of writing as if friends were conversing in each other’s presence. The text begins in Rom 10:1 with the assurance of Paul’s plea to God on behalf of the Jews that they may be saved: ‘Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.’42 This clause stands on a meta–level over against the following sentences and serves to thematize the act of communication between Paul and his listeners. In general both assertions 41

Cf. Dahl, 1977, 140–141. Cf. also S. Stowers, 1994, 291.

42

Many commentators, as e.g. Käsemann, 1980, 276, connect Rom 9:30–33 with Romans 10 rather than with Romans 9. In our view Rom 9:30–33 is a conclusion of Rom 9:6–29, although it is thematically connected to Romans 10. Thus, Rom 9:30ff. can be seen as a transition to Romans 10. So also Plag, 1969, 116; Dahl, 1977, 143; Michel, 1978, 319f.; Rese, 1989, 255.

Romans 10:4–17: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought

47

and intercessions in Corpus Paulinum occur in epistolary contexts, and serve to cultivate the good relations between sender and recipients. The assurance is introduced with an appeal to the addressees identified as ‘brethren’. The use of this vocative at the beginning of a new text–sequence is quite characteristic of Paul’s personal address.43 In Rom 10:2 Paul gives the explanation and motivation (cf. čƪě) for the plea, which is introduced by a meta–propositional base: ‘I bear them witness. …’ As Dahl notes, this expression is a common recommendation for a third party in letters.44 The following clause then further defines the testimony, and at the same time signals the topic to be dealt with (ƂĞē): ‘that they have a zeal for God, ….’ This positive statement stands in negative contrast (cf. ŁĕĕǵęƉ) to their lack of knowledge: ‘but it is not enlightened.’ Then follows an explanation in Rom 10:3 (cf. čƪě) of the consequence of this zeal lacking knowledge in the negative statement that they did not submit to God’s righteousness: ‘For … they did not submit to God’s righteousness’, which in turn is developed by the two preceding participial clauses: ‘… being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, ….’ The following čƪě in Rom 10:4 we take to refer back to Rom 10:2b: ‘… but it is not enlightened.’45 Thus, the function of Rom 10:4 may be to give a thetic, positive explanation (cf. čƪě) of what Israel did not know (Rom 10:2b) and why Israel is mistaken in their zeal (Rom 10:2a), which was demonstrated in their not submitting to God’s righteousness (Rom 10:3b), being unknowing of this righteousness and seeking their own righteousness (Rom 10:3a): ‘For Christ is the ĞƬĕęĜ of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.’ A paraphrase of Rom 10:1–4 can clarify the reading proposed here: Brothers, the desire of my heart and my prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have zeal for God, but they lack knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God. What do they not know, and why is therefore Israel mistaken in her zeal for God and did not submit to God’s righteousness? The explanation is that they do not know that Christ is the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law, so that every one who has faith may be justified and saved.

Both the shift of person (focusing on Paul in 1.p.sg. and Israel in 3.p.pl.) in Rom 10:1–3 (while in Rom 10:5–13 the focus is more on the individual who believes [3.p.sg. and 2.p.sg.]), and the shift of theme between Rom 10:1–3 (dealing with the unknowing Israel) and Rom 10:5–13 (here the focus on Israel is lacking, 43

In Romans it occurs in Rom 1:13; 7:1, 4; 8:12; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14, 30; 16:17.

44

The phrase ‘I bear them witness’ is a common recommendation of a third party, cf. 2 Cor 8:3; Col 4:13. Cf. Dahl, 1977, 140.

45

Cf. a similar understanding of the relation between Rom 10:2 and Rom 10:4 suggested by Dunn (1988, 596): ‘V 4 gives a further reason explaining Israel’s lack of knowledge and ignorance of God’s righteousness, and provides a transition to the next phase of the argument.’

48

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

and returns not until Rom 10:14ff.), demarcate Rom 10:4 as a transitional verse between Rom 10:1–3 and Rom 10:5–13.46 The argument for the thetic statement in Rom 10:4 begins in Rom 10:5 with a MB that explicates (cf. čƪě) the topic of the righteousness based on the Law from this quotation: ‘… the one having kept them, shall live by them’(Lev 18:5).47 This statement is then juxtaposed (cf. ĎƬ) in Rom 10:6 with another MB (‘But also the righteousness based on faith says’) that introduces the topic of righteousness by faith expressed by a rendering of Deut 30:12–14 supplemented with interpretative statements in Rom 10:6–8. First, in Rom 10:6 Deut 30:12 is cited, introduced by the negative statement alluding to Deut 8:17a and 9:4a: ‘Do not (ĖƮ) say in your heart’, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’, and supplemented by the interpretative statement ‘that is, to bring Christ down’. Likewise, in Rom 10:7 the expression alluding to Deut 30:13 is rendered: ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’, supplemented by the interpretative phrase ‘that is, to bring Christ up from the dead’. Then, in Rom 10:8 the negative statement which introduced Rom 10:6 is contrasted with the positive statement introducing Deut 30:14: ‘But (Łĕĕƪ) what does it say?’ ‘The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart’, expanded with the interpretative supplement ‘that is, the word of faith which we preach’. The interpretative rendering of Deut 30:14 in Rom 10:8 is followed up in Rom 10:9 with an explanation (ƂĞē) of ‘mouth’ and ‘heart’ from Deut 30:14 formulated in conditional form as an őƪėclause.48 In Rom 10:10 Paul proceeds from Rom 10:9 with an explanation (cf. čƪě) and repetition in chiastic order of the explanation of ‘heart’, and a repetition (cf. ĎƬ), without any further explanation, of the explanation of ‘mouth’. Rom 10:11 proceeds further with an explanation (cf. čƪě) by quotation (Isa 28:16) of ‘belief ’ leading to ‘salvation’: ‘The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.”’ Thus, this quotation picks up the expression ‘that every one who has faith’ from Rom 10:4. Paul’s inclusion of ‘all’ in this quotation gets its explanation (cf. čƪě) in Rom 10:12: ‘For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. …’ Then follows in Rom 10:12 an explanation (cf. čƪě) of the abolition of this distinction between Jew and Greek. The explanation refers to the Lord of all who is generous to all who call upon him, which again is explicated and supported by an expanded quotation (Joel 3:5) in Rom 10:13: ‘… the same Lord is Lord of all and 46

Cf. also Keck (2005, 250): ‘That verse 4 is explained in verses 11–13 is shown by the fact that Paul’s interpretation of scripture in these verses picks up all the key terms in verse 4 except telos itself: law, righteousness, all, believe, Christ.’

47

Our translation.

48

The quotation of στόμα and καρδία from Deut 30:14 is commented on throughout Rom 10:9– 13. This quotation and comment appear in the form of a chiasm ababbaba as diagrammed below: v.8: (a) ĝĞƲĖċ—(b) ĔċěĎưċ v.9: (a) žĖęĕęčƬģ—(b) ĚēĝĞďƴģ v.10: (b) ĚēĝĞďƴģ—(a) žĖęĕęčƬģ v.11–13: (b) ĚēĝĞďƴģ (11) —(a) őĚēĔċĕƬģ

Romans 10:4–17: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought

49

bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”’ So the argument in Rom 10:6–13 seems to serve as an argument which explains the means by which one comes to righteousness and salvation and the universality of salvation to all, Jews and Gentiles alike. In Rom 10:14–17 Paul develops this argument a step forward to explain how Israel then did not come to believe in the gospel as the word of Christ. Rom 10:14 is linked to the preceding clauses in Rom 10:8–13 by the common verbs ‘call upon’, ‘believe’ and ‘preach’: ‘But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without preaching?’49 The conjunction ęƏė in Rom 10:14 signals that Paul gathers the preceding argument in Rom 10:4–13 to a unit and will now apply it. The shift of person (instead of 2. and 3.p.sg. again 3.p.pl.) and tense (instead of present again aorist) between Rom 10:4–13 and Rom 10:14, not only contributes to demarcating the following text, but signals that Paul will apply the argument to the unbelieving part of Israel. The backward argumentation built up as a chain of thought in Rom 10:14–15 (‘called upon’—‘believed’—‘preached’—‘sent’), reaches its climax in the Old Testament quotation (Isa 52:7) in Rom 10:15b, which serves to show that the last two conditions of sending and preaching had been fulfilled: ‘And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!’ Then follows in Rom 10:16 a negative statement (cf. ŁĕĕǵęƉ) particularly appropriate to the unbelieving Israel, which shows that the unbelieving part of Israel is exempted from the ‘all’ who believe, as explained (cf. čƪě) by an Old Testament quotation (Isa 53:1): ‘But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”’ In Rom 10:17 Paul recapitulates the preceding statement from the Old Testament quotation and makes a conclusion (cf. Ņěċ) of the whole argument from Rom 10:8 on: ‘So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the word of Christ.’50 The inclusio of Rom 10:8 and Rom 10:17 seems to confirm this assumption.51 At this level, Paul has done what he set out in 10:4 to do, referring 49

Our translation.

50

Our translation.

51

Another Pauline stylistic feature serving to indicate text–delimitation is the inclusio. It involves the phenomenon of important words, phrases etc. that occur at the beginning of a text –sequence and which are repeated at or near the end of it. In Rom 10:8–17 we find an example of such an inclusio by the similarity between the opening and concluding statements of Rom 10:8c and Rom 10:17: Rom 10:8c: ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėĞƱȗǻĖċ ĞǻĜ ĚưĝĞďģĜ ƀ ĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė. Rom 10:17: ŅěċŞĚưĝĞēĜőĘŁĔęǻĜŞĎƫŁĔęƭĎēƩȗƮĖċĞęĜāěēĝĞęȘ. The underlined words point to the fact that the opening and closing statements have words in common. Furthermore, both represent interpretations of Deut 30:14. At the same time the closing statement in Rom 10:17 is a concluding remark to the exposition of Deut 30:12–14 as

50

Literary Observations on the Surface Level

back to the theme in Rom 10:1–3: Israel is mistaken in their zeal for God, since they do not know that Christ is the telos of the Law with respect to righteousness, and this is demonstrated in Israel’s unbelief in the word of Christ. In Rom 10:17 we encounter a feature that goes together with other signs to indicate that the discussion of a theme is over, namely that a new theme can be introduced in the sentence that concludes the former theme.52 Thus, in Rom 10:18 there follows a new theme introduced by the question whether Israel has heard. This question (‘have they not heard?’) which is introduced by a MC (cf. ŁĕĕƩ ĕƬčģ), constituted as a MAC and functioning as a counter–argument, marks a new theme and a shift in person to 1.p.sg. The MAC picks up the thread from Rom 10:14. The answer is stated positively in the form of MOI (cf. ĖďėęȘėčď), and is followed by a pro–argument in the form of a quotation (Ps 18:5). Then, in Rom 10:19 we meet a new MAC (ĖƭǵôĝěċƭĕęƉĔŕčėģ) as a question raised by Paul (again we meet the MC ŁĕĕƩĕƬčģ and a shift in person to 1.p.sg.) on the theme of whether Israel did not understand. The answer is stated by the quotations (Deut 32:21, Isa 65:1 and 65:2) which follow in Rom 10:19–21. The first quotation states that God will make Israel jealous of peoples which are foolish, and the next quotation (cf. ĎƬ) says that others have instead found God. Then, in Rom 10:21 Paul rounds off the answer by the contrast (ĎƬ) and quotation about Israel which is a disobedient people. On the basis of these observations that can be made from different structuring signs on the literary surface, the text can be seen as organised and delimited in the following partial texts: Rom 10:1–3; 10:4–17; 10:18–21. Moreover, the text Rom 10:4–17 can be seen as divided into the two sub–units Rom 10:4–13 and Rom 10:14–17. The main function of the quotation of Deut 30:12–14 in the textual context of Rom 10:4–17 is then to explain the thetical statement of Rom 10:4, which in turn serves as an explanation of the theme of Israel’s ignorance in Rom 10:2b. In Rom 10:6–13 the expository rendering of Deut 30:12–14 is applied to a a whole. This observation has some bearing on the question whether Rom 10:17 may be regarded as a gloss, as some exegetes have concluded, cf. Bultmann, 1967, 278–284; Schmithals, 1975, 207; Lübking, 1986, 90. An assessment of Rom 10:17 as a gloss presupposes that the verse would be more appropriate as a summary after Rom 10:14–15a. However, it is our suggestion that Rom 10:17 is only a recapitulation of the content of Rom 10:16, and must be explained from the point of view that Rom 10:8c–17 involves an exegesis of Deut 30:14 cited in Rom 10:8. Thus, Rom 10:17 can be seen to elaborate further on the understanding of ‘the word’ in Deut 30:14, and at the same time as a conclusion to the interpretation of this Old Testament Scripture throughout the unity of Rom 10:8c–17. 52

This feature is found elsewhere in Romans. The question of whether a sentence belongs to the preceding or to the following paragraph is anachronistic, since the text was to be read aloud and the original handwriting did not set the paragraphs off from one another. In this regard the Pauline style was part of Greek prose style that was in general closer to oral speech than are modern literary products. See Wifstrand, 1944, 5–38; Dahl, 1977, 79.

Romans 10:4–17: Literary Context, Textual Organisation and Line of Thought

51

description of the righteousness by faith for all, without distinction between Jews and Greek. In Rom 10:14–17 the argument in Rom 10:8–13 is brought further to an argument on preaching and believing. In Rom 10:17 the argument from Rom 10:4 onwards reaches its conclusion. In retrospect we can display our analysis of the line of thought in Rom 10:1–21 as follows: Line of thought: An outline Rom 10:1–21 Rom 10:1–3: The theme * Rom 10:1: Paul’s plea to God on the salvation of Israel (MC; shift of style; vocative; 1.p.sg.) * Rom 10:2: Motivation for the plea (čƪě; MB; ThM; Israel has zeal for God, but it is not enlightened) * Rom 10:3: Explanation of the theme in Rom 10:2b (čƪě; Israel did not submit to God’s righteousness) Rom 10:4–17: Argument for the theme in Rom 10:1–3 Rom 10:4: Explanation of the theme in Rom 10:2b and statement of sub–theme (čƪě; Israel did not know that Christ was the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law) Rom 10:5–13: Argument for the sub–theme (shift to 2. and 3.p.sg.) * Rom 10:5: Explanation of righteousness based on the Law (čƪě; MB; ThM; quote from Lev 18:5) * Rom 10:6–10: Explanation and argument about the righteousness based on faith (ĎƬ; MB; ThM; interpretative rendering of Deut 30:12–14) ** Rom 10:6–8: Expository rendering of Deut 30:12–14 (3x ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė) ** Rom 10:9–10: Further explanation of Deut 30:14 (ƂĞē; the means for righteousness and salvation) * Rom 10:11–13: Argument for the universality of righteousness and salvation to all (čƪě4x; scriptural quotations) Rom 10:14–17: Application of the argument in Rom 10:8–13 Rom 10:14–16: Application of the argument to the preaching and the unbelieving Israel (ęƏė; shift to 3.p.pl., the arguing is supported by quotations from Scripture) Rom 10:17: Conclusion of the argument in Rom 10:8–17 (Ņěċ; faith comes from the message which is heard, and what is heard is the word of Christ) Rom 10:18–21: Counter–arguments and their answers (MC; MAC; MOI; scriptural quotations; shift to 1.p.sg.)

CHAPTER THREE

3. Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology 3.1. Thesis and Approach In the previous chapter we have investigated the textual organisation and argumentative line of thought in three texts, with the purpose of identifying the role and function of Deut 30:11–14 within the texts. Such a study of the syntagmatic aspects serves as a basis for the focus of this chapter, namely a comparison of Paul with Philo, and also to some extent with Baruch with respect to the way they handle Deut 30:11–14. In short, we will pay attention to the appropriation techniques these authors adopt as reflected in the wording of the biblical text, and furthermore inquire into kinds of hermeneutical and ‘theological’ axioms and the reasons which lie behind their appropriation and interpretation of the biblical text.1 We will primarily focus on aspects of the expository paraphrase of the Scriptural passage and the literary structures and terminology applied in the exposition. It is the hypothesis of this study that an understanding of Paul’s treatment of Deut 30:12–14 on the basis of the method of exegetical paraphrase can not only explain aspects of Paul’s rendering of the Jewish Scripture, but also clarify the exegetical reasoning and argument in and behind Rom 10:4ff., and thus to some extent justify his fresh exposition of Deut 30:12–14. Paul’s interpretative rendering of Deut 30:12–14 gives a sample of exegetical paraphrase of a biblical text, in which words, phrases and sentences from the Old Testament are either omitted, repeated or replaced by interpretative terms and fused together and supplemented with other qualifying terms.2 Thus, the whole analysis aims at sub1

According to S. E. Porter (1997, 79), ‘The use of the Old Testament and related texts in the New Testament is an active area of contemporary New Testament research.’ For a review of earlier research on the Old Testament quotations in the NT, see the various articles in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, eds., 1988; C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, eds., 1997. See also E. E. Ellis, 1988, 692ff. and 1991, 53ff.

2

This definition of an exegetical paraphrase is deduced from the empirical data provided by the texts themselves. Thus, we have attempted to avoid a definition which can be assumed to be too mechanical and too abstract.

54

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

stantiating the thesis that Paul’s christological treatment of Deut 30:12–14 can be placed within a Jewish exegetical context of his day with respect to the wording of the quotation, exegetical methods, structures and terminology. Thus, such a conclusion goes against recent investigations that are inclined to look at Paul’s treatment of Deut 30:12–14 as an idiosyncratic creation by himself.3

3.2. The Method of Exegetical Paraphrase As far as Paul’s use of the method of exegetical paraphrase in Rom 10:6–8 is concerned, the viewpoints vary. On the one hand, Koch suggests that Paul’s rendering of Rom 10:6–8 cannot be compared with e.g. the Targumic expository renderings of Old Testament quotations: Dieses Verfahren ist von der freien Textübertragung in TgFrag bzw. CN (»… der in die Tiefe des grossen Meeres hinabstiege« …) zu unterschieden. Weder übersetzt Pls, noch paraphrasiert er, sondern er zitiert. Vergleichbar wäre nur ein Zitat des HT von Dtn 30,11–14 innerhalb eines ebenfalls hebräischen Textes, das eine TgFrag bzw. CN entsprechende Änderung enthielte.4

On the other hand, scholars such as Michel and Fitzmyer come close to a view that a paraphrasing method is found in Rom 10:6–8. So Michel observes: ‘Paulus paraphrasiert den ganzen Text auf Grund dieses Lehrsatzes: »nahe ist euch das Wort« (ĞƱȗǻĖċ).’5 Without using the terminology of paraphrase, Fitzmyer characterises Paul’s expository rendering of Deut 30:12–14 in the following way: Having cited Lev 18:5 explicitly, he does not do the same for Deut 30:11–14. Rather, he quotes parts of it and alludes to the rest, commenting in midrashic fashion on clauses of it that he does not cite …. … In his argument to establish dikaiosynê ek pisteôs, he merely borrows phrases from Deuteronomy and applies them to Christ … He is instead using clauses from the Deuteronomy passage as it is also used in Bar 3:29–30; Philo, De post. Caini 24 §§ 84–85.6

The following examination of Rom 10:6–8 in its Jewish exegetical context will lend support to many of these general comments made by Michel and Fitzmyer. The avenue proposed by Fitzmyer, namely to seek parallels to Paul in Baruch and Philo, should then be explored further. Such an exploration leads to the conclusion that Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–8 can be apprehended as an exegetical paraphrase. The way these authors have handled Deut 30:11(12)–14 3

Cf. the recent comments given by scholars such as Hübner (1984), Koch (1986), and Fitzmyer (1993).

4

Koch, 1986, 198 n. 47.

5

Michel, 1978, 328, n. 14.

6

Fitzmyer, 1993, 588. Cf. also Baarda, 1988, 208–248.

The Method of Exegetical Paraphrase

55

should be called an exegetical paraphrase of the biblical text, which represents techniques of adapting and conforming a biblical text to various themes and contexts, including the practice of selective citation, omissions, additions, alteration, rephrasing and substitution of words of the citation with other words.7 In this way the biblical text could be freely handled, certainly as freely as in Paul’s treatment, so that it is probable that Paul’s way of handling the text would occasion little surprise among his Jewish contemporaries. As a point of departure we will convey the wording of Deut 30:11–14 LXX in the following figures of the relevant texts. Two kinds of markings have been included: the underlining indicates allusion to the Septuagintal text — sometimes in running quotation — or appropriation of terms or phrases; bold italics indicate paraphrase or substitution of close synonyms.

7

Our close examination of the wording of Paul’s and Philo’s quotations or allusions to Deuteronomy assumes the view that both Paul and Philo use a manuscript of the ‘Septuagint’. Paul’s Vorlage seems to have been nearly identical with the ‘Septuagint’ version of Deut 30:12–14; see the recent investigations of this subject of the wording of the Old Testament text in the Pauline writings by Koch (1986), Stanley (1992; 2004), Lim (1997), and Ross Wagner (2002). However, neither of these scholars compared Philo and Paul regarding their use of Deut 30:12–14. On Philo’s text of the Pentateuch, see Runia, 2001, 20–21. When Philo’s readings often diverge from the LXX, the reasons for this lie in his method, adopting or re–writing the wording of his biblical allusions to clarify main points or interpretative strategies. The same can be said to hold true for Paul’s re–writing of e.g. Deut 30:12–14 in Romans.

56

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

Figure 3.1: Deuteronomy 30:12–14 LXX in Romans 10:6–8 Deut 30:11–14 LXX (11)

Rom 10:6–8 (6) ŞĎƫőĔĚưĝĞďģĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđ ęƎĞģĜĕƬčďēä

ƂĞēŞőėĞęĕƭċƎĞđɁ

(12) ęƉĔőėĞȦęƉěċėȦŅėģ őĝĞƯė ĕƬčģėä þưĜŁėċČƮĝďĞċēŞĖȉėďŭĜĞƱėęƉěċėƱė ĔċƯĕƮĖĢďĞċēċƉĞƭėŞĖȉė; ĔċƯŁĔęƴĝċėĞďĜċƉĞƭėĚęēƮĝęĖďė (13) ęƉĎƫĚƬěċėĞǻĜĒċĕƪĝĝđĜ őĝĞƯėĕƬčģėäþưĜĎēċĚďěƪĝďēŞĖȉė ďŭĜĞƱĚƬěċėĞǻĜĒċĕƪĝĝđĜ ĔċƯ ĕƮĖĢďĞċēŞĖȉėċƉĞƮė;

ĖƭďűĚǹĜőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğä ĞưĜŁėċČƮĝďĞċēďŭĜĞƱėęƉěċėƲė; ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėāěēĝĞƱėĔċĞċčċčďȉėä

(7) šä ĞưĜĔċĞċČƮĝďĞċē ďŭĜĞƭėŅČğĝĝęė; ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė āěēĝĞƱėőĔėďĔěȥėŁėċčċčďȉė

ĔċƯŁĔęğĝĞƭėŞĖȉėĚęēƮĝďē ċƉĞƮėĔċƯĚęēƮĝęĖďė (14) ŕĝĞēėĝęğőččƳĜĞƱȗǻĖċĝĠƲĎěċ őėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğ ĔċƯőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğ ĔċƯőėĞċȉĜġďěĝưėĝęğ ċƉĞƱĚęēďȉė

(8) ŁĕĕƩĞưĕƬčďē; őččƴĜĝęğĞƱȗǻĖƪőĝĞēė őėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğ ĔċƯőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė ĞƱȗǻĖċĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜƀĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė

The Method of Exegetical Paraphrase

Figure 3.2: Deuteronomy 12–13 LXX in Baruch 3:29–30 Deut 30:12–13 LXX (12) ęƉĔőėĞȦęƉěċėȦŅėģ őĝĞƯėĕƬčģėä þưĜŁėċČƮĝďĞċēŞĖȉė ďŭĜĞƱėęƉěċėƱė ĔċƯĕƮĖĢďĞċēċƉĞƭėŞĖȉė;

Bar 3: 29–30 LXX (29) ĞưĜŁėƬČđ ďŭĜĞƱėęƉěċėƱė ĔċƯŕĕċČďėċƉĞƭė ĔċƯĔċĞďČưČċĝďėċƉĞƭė őĔĞȥėėďĠďĕȥė;

ĔċƯŁĔęƴĝċėĞďĜċƉĞƭėĚęēƮĝęĖďė

(13) ęƉĎƫĚƬěċėĞǻĜĒċĕƪĝĝđĜ őĝĞƯėĕƬčģėä þưĜĎēċĚďěƪĝďēŞĖȉė ďŭĜĞƱĚƬěċėĞǻĜĒċĕƪĝĝđĜ ĔċƯ ĕƮĖĢďĞċēŞĖȉėċƉĞƮė; ĔċƯŁĔęğĝĞƭėŞĖȉėĚęēƮĝďē ċƉĞƮėĔċƯĚęēƮĝęĖďė

(30) ĞưĜĎēƬČđ ĚƬěċėĞǻĜĒċĕƪĝĝđĜ ĔċƯ ďƐěďėċƉĞƭė ĔċƯęűĝďē ċƉĞƭėġěğĝưęğőĔĕďĔĞęȘ

57

58

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

Figure 3.3: Deuteronomy 30:11–14 LXX in De Virtutibus 183 Deut 30:11–14 LXX (11) ƂĞēŞőėĞęĕƭċƎĞđ, ŠėőčƵőėĞƬĕĕęĖċưĝęēĝƮĖďěęė, ęƉġƊĚƬěęčĔƲĜőĝĞēė ęƉĎƫĖċĔěƩėŁĚƱĝęȘ. (12) ęƉĔőėĞȦęƉěċėȦŅėģ őĝĞƯė ĕƬčģėä þưĜŁėċČƮĝďĞċēŞĖȉėďŭĜĞƱėęƉěċėƱė ĔċƯĕƮĖĢďĞċēċƉĞƭėŞĖȉė; ĔċƯŁĔęƴĝċėĞďĜċƉĞƭėĚęēƮĝęĖďė. (13) ęƉĎƫĚƬěċėĞǻĜĒċĕƪĝĝđĜ őĝĞƯėĕƬčģėäþưĜĎēċĚďěƪĝďēŞĖȉė ďŭĜĞƱĚƬěċėĞǻĜĒċĕƪĝĝđĜ ĔċƯ ĕƮĖĢďĞċēŞĖȉėċƉĞƮė;

Virt. 183 ĠđĝƯčƪě ƂĞēĞęğĞƯĞƱĚěǬčĖċ ęƉġƊĚƬěęčĔƲėőĝĞēė ęƉĎƫĖċĔěƩėŁĠďĝĞƲĜ ęƍĞďĔċĞƩĞƱėċŭĒƬěċŁėģĞƪĞģ ĔŁėőĝġċĞēċȉĜčǻĜ

ęƍĞďĚƬěċėĞǻĜĖďčƪĕđĜ ĒċĕƪĞĞđĜ ƚĜ ŁĎğėċĞǻĝċēĕċČďȉė

ĔċƯŁĔęğĝĞƭėŞĖȉėĚęēƮĝďē ċƉĞƮė, ĔċƯĚęēƮĝęĖďė. (14) ŕĝĞēėĝęğőččƳĜĞƱȗǻĖċĝĠƲĎěċ őėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğ ĔċƯőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğ ĔċƯőėĞċȉĜġďěĝưėĝęğ ċƉĞƱĚęēďȉė.

ŁĕĕǵŕĝĞēėőččğĞƪĞģ ĞěēĝƯĖƬěďĝēĞȥėĔċĒǵŞĖǬĜőėĎēċēĞƶĖďėęė ĝĞƲĖċĞē ĔċƯĔċěĎưǪ ĔċƯġďěĝư,…

The Method of Exegetical Paraphrase

59

Figure 3.4: Deuteronomy 30:11–14 LXX in De Praemiis et Poenis 80 Deut 30:11–14 LXX (11) ƂĞēŞőėĞęĕƭċƎĞđ ŠėőčģőėĞƬĕĕęĖċưĝęē ĝƮĖďěęė ęƉġƊĚƬěęčĔƲĜőĝĞēė

ęƉĎƫĖċĔěƩ ŁĚƱĝęȘ (13) ęƉĎƫĚƬěċėĞǻĜĒċĕƪĝĝđĜ őĝĞƯėĕƬčģėä þưĜĎēċĚďěƪĝďēŞĖȉė ďŭĜĞƱĚƬěċėĞǻĜĒċĕƪĝĝđĜ ĔċƯ ĕƮĖĢďĞċēŞĖȉėċƉĞƮė;

Praem. 80

ęƉčƩěƊĚƬěęčĔęē ĔċƯČċěƴĞďěċēĞǻĜĞȥėġěđĝęĖƬėģėĎğėƪĖďģĜ ċŮĚěęĝĞƪĘďēĜďŭĝƯė ęƉĎƫĖċĔěƩėĞƱŁčċĒƱėŁĠƬĝĞđĔďė

şĚƬěċėĒċĕƪĞĞđĜ şőėőĝġċĞēċȉĜčǻĜ ƚĜ ĎďȉĝĒċēĚęĕğġěęėưęğĔċƯĔċĖċĞđěǬĜŁĚęĎđĖưċĜ

ĔċƯŁĔęğĝĞƭėŞĖȉėĚęēƮĝďē ċƉĞƮėĔċƯĚęēƮĝęĖďė (12) ęƉĔ őėĞȦęƉěċėȦŅėģ őĝĞƯėĕƬčƵėä þēĜŁėċČƮĝďĞċēŞĖȉė ďŭĜĞƱėęƉěċėƱė ĔċƯ ĕƮĖĢďĞċēċƉĞƭėŞĖȉė;

ęƉĎdz őĘċưĠėđĜőĝĞďưĕċĞęĞƭėőėĒƬėĎď ďŭĜęƉěċėƱėŁĚęēĔưċė Ųėċ ĞēĜĖďĞƬģěęĜĔċƯĚĞđėƱĜŁěĒďƯĜĖƲĕēĜőĠēĔƬĝĒċēĞęƴĞģė ĎğėđĒǼä

ĔċƯŁĔęƴĝċėĞďĜċƉĞƭė ĚęēƮĝęĖďė (14) ŕĝĞēėĝęğőččƳĜĞƱȗǻĖċ ĝĠƲĎěċ őėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğ ĔċƯőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğ ĔċƯőėĞċȉĜġďěĝưėĝęğ ċƉĞƱĚęēďȉė

ĚĕđĝưęėĎdzőĝĞƯĔċƯőččğĞƪĞģ ĞěēĝƯĖƬěďĝēĞȥėĔċĒdzŖĔċĝĞęėŞĖȥėőėēĎěğĖƬėęė ĝĞƲĖċĞē ĔċƯĔċěĎưǪ ĔċƯġďěĝư …

In the following we will comment on observations which can be made on the basis of these figures. We will first notice that both Paul and Philo indicate that their wording of Deut 30:11(12)–14 is to be recognised as a quotation of this Scripture. The introductory phrase ‘But the righteousness based on faith says’ (Ş ĎƫőĔĚưĝĞďģĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđęƎĞģĜĕƬčďē) in Rom 10:6 is an unusual quotation formula among the Pauline introductions. Thus, as already noticed, Sanday and

60

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

Headlam have made the assessment that this unusual form indicates a proverbial usage.8 However, since the wording of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–8 serves as a counterpart to the preceding quotation of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5, which is introduced by a clearly defined quotation formula referring to ‘Moses’, this seems to indicate that the introductory phrase ŞĎƫőĔĚưĝĞďģĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđęƌĞģĜĕƬčďē in Rom 10:6 is meant to introduce another reference to Scripture. Likewise, the introductory phrase ‘But what does it say?’ (ĞưĕƬčďē) in Rom 10:8 signals an appeal to an authoritative text.9 Moreover, the formula ‘that is’ (ĞRȘĞǵŕĝĞēė) which introduces the additions inserted between the partial wording of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–8, signals to the reader that Paul intended these additions as an exposition to the quoted part of Deut 30:12–14.10 In both Virt. 183 and Praem. 80 the reference to Deut 30:11–14 is introduced by means of a quotation formula, and thus intended as a citation. In Virt. 183 the introductory part of the rendering of Deut 30:11–14 reads: ‘For he says that (ĠđĝƯ čƪě ƂĞē) ….’11 In Praem. 80 the rendering of Deut 30:11–14 is part of Philo’s reference to the invocations called benedictions, which are mentioned in Praem. 79: ‘take and read (ĕƬčď) first the invocations which it is accustomed to call benedictions. If, he says, (őƩėĠđĝư), ….’12 In the practice of adapting the wording of Deut 30:12–14 LXX to a new context, it is common for the authors here concerned to omit words, phrases, or even whole clauses deemed irrelevant to their focus and purpose in adducing the quotation. Thus, the diagram above shows that Paul omits Deut 30:11, Deut 30:12a, Deut 30:12c (Ĕċư to the end), Deut 30:13a, Deut 30:13c (Ĕċư to the end), 8

Sanday and Headlam, 1945, 289. Longenecker (1975, 114) agrees with Sandy and Headlam when he writes: ‘It may be that by such an introduction Paul was endeavouring more to alert us to a proverbial employment of biblical language than to identify a biblical quotation.’

9

Cf. Rom 4:3, Rom 11:2, 4, and Gal 4:30 for the use of the expression ĞưĕƬčďēreferring to the Jewish Scriptures.

10

Cf. the following conclusion reached by Koch (1986, 130): Doch ist trotz des Fehlens einer formelhaften Zitateinleitung in Röm 10,6 a der Zitatcharakter der jeweils Dtn 8,17 a (bzw. 9,4 a); 30,12–14 entsprechenden Textteile von Röm 10,6–8 nicht zu bestreiten. Schon die Einführungswendung 10,6 a bezieht sich antithetisch auf die Zitateinleitung in 10,5 a zurück, was auf erneute Schriftanführung hinweist. Vor allem zeigen jedoch die drei mit ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė eingeleiteten interpretierenden Zwischen- bzw. Nachbemerkungen des Pls, daβ er hier ein Wort der Schrift anführt und schrittweise auslegt. Der Unterschied zwischen übernommenem Zitat und eigener Interpretation ist also klar erkennbar.

11

Our translation.

12

As far as I know there is still no broad study of the quotation formulas and exegetical formulas in the Philonic writings. Cf. Borgen, 1983b., 191, who remarks that form critical analysis of Philo’s works as such is ‘an area in which much research needs to be done.’ On the research situation, see also Borgen, 1984a., 132–138; idem, 1997, 80–101, 124–139, 153–156.

The Method of Exegetical Paraphrase

61

and Deut 30:14b (second Ĕċư to the end). Correspondingly, Philo omits in Virt. 183 Deut 30:12b, Deut 30:12c, Deut 30:13b, Deut 30:13c, and in Praem. 80 Deut 30:11a, Deut 30:12a, Deut 30:12b, Deut 30:13b, and Deut 30:13c. Although Bar 3:29–30 lacks a phrase introducing the biblical wording analogous to Paul and Philo, and as such cannot be regarded as an explicit quotation of Deut 30:12–13, the diagram above shows that the wording of Bar 3:29–30 is so close to that of the Deuteronomy passage that there is no doubt which text the author refers to. Thus, Baruch omits Deut 30:11, Deut 30:12a, Deut 30:12c (καί to the end), and Deut 30:13a, and the whole of Deut 30:14. Thus, Paul, Philo, and Baruch have all omitted the repeated purpose clause ‘to hear and do it’ (ĔċƯŁĔęƴĝċėĞďĜċƉĞƭė ĚęēƮĝęĖďė) from Deut 30:12–13 LXX, and the infinitive construction ‘to do it’ (ċƉĞƱ Ěęēďȉė) from Deut 30:14 LXX. Also the word ĝĠƲĎěċ from Deut 30:14 LXX has been dropped by these authors. Moreover, all the authors delete the prepositional phrase ‘for us’ (ŞĖȉė) in Deut 30:12 –13 LXX. The practice of adding interpretative words, phrases, and even whole clauses is another feature common to Paul, Philo, and Baruch when they adduce Deut 30:11(12)–14 LXX. Likewise we see how words and elements from a biblical text can be substituted with other elements. The next paragraphs will examine the way in which these techniques are applied by Paul with parallels in Baruch and Philo as characteristic features of the method of exegetical paraphrase. The following outline of the text in Rom 10:6–17 can display how quotations from the Scriptures may be followed by a paraphrase of words from the quotation and other interpretative words. The words in and from the Old Testament are here underscored, and the other words are interpretative elaborations. 6 ŞĎƫőĔĚưĝĞďģĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđęƎĞģĜĕƬčďēäĖƭďűĚǹĜőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğä ĞưĜŁėċČƮĝďĞċēďŭĜĞƱėęƉěċėƲė;ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėāěēĝĞƱėĔċĞċčċčďȉėä (‘But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ that is to bring Christ down’) 7 NjäĞēĜĔċĞċČƮĝďĞċďưĜĞƭėŅČğĝĝė;ĞęȘĞdzŕĝĞēėāěēĝĞƱėďĔėďĔěȥė Łėċčċčďȉėä (‘or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ that is to bring Christ up from the dead.’) 8 ŁĕĕƩĞưĕƬčďē;őččƴĜĝęğĞƱȗǻĖƪőĝĞēėőėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔċƯőėĞǼ ĔċěĎưǪĝęğ,ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėĞƱȗǻĖċĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜƀĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė. (‘But what does it say? The word is near you on your lips and in your heart, that is the word of faith which we preach;’)

62

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

9 ƂĞēőƩėžĖęĕęčƮĝǹĜőėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔƴěēęėǵôđĝęȘėĔċƯ  ĚēĝĞďƴĝǹĜőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğƂĞēžĒďƱĜċƉĞƱėščďēěďėőĔėďĔěȥė  ĝģĒƮĝǹä (‘because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.’) 10 ĔċěĎưǪčƩěĚēĝĞďƴďĞċēďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĝĞƲĖċĞēĎƫžĖęĕęčďȉĞċēďŭĜ ĝģĞđěưċė. (‘For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.’) 1 ŅěċŞĚưĝĞēĜőĘŁĔęǻĜŞĎƫŁĔęƭĎēƩȗƮĖċĞęĜāěēĝĞęȘ (‘So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.’) The hermeneutical ‘freedom’ of Paul’s reading of Deut 30:12–14 has been set in relief and highlighted by comparing Paul with Philo and Baruch.13 By ‘freedom’ we understand the way Paul can read the Scripture on the basis of Jewish and Christian presuppositions, and thus come to an understanding of biblical texts which varies from the sense these originally had in their Scriptural contexts. However, we need to remind ourselves of the words of T. W. Manson: We tend to think of the text as objective fact and interpretation as subjective opinion. It may be doubted whether the early Jewish and Christian translators and expositors of Scripture made any such sharp distinction. For them the meaning of the text was of primary importance; and they seem to have had greater confidence than we moderns in their ability to find it. Once found it became a clear duty to express it; and accurate reproduction of the traditional wording of the Divine oracles took second place to publication of what was held to be their essential meaning and immediate application.14

In the passages selected for a comparison, Rom 10:6–17, Virt. 183, Praem. 80, and Baruch 3:29–30, we see that Paul, Philo and Baruch appeal to the same Scripture (Deut 30:11–14 LXX) as a warrant for different contents and meanings. In general Philo’s interpretations demonstrate flexibility in the interpretation of Deut 30:12–14. Philo takes Deut 30:11–14 to refer to ‘the good’ (Praem. 80–81; Somn. 2:180; Post. 84ff.), to the subject of ‘conversion’ (Virt. 183) and to ethical virtues in general (Prob. 67ff.). Likewise Baruch demonstrates a flexible use of this text, since here Deut 30:12–13 is taken to refer to the divine wisdom (Bar 4:1). Against the background of a flexibility in the interpretation of this Scripture, we should 13

Cf. Dunn, 1987, 220.

14

Manson, 1945, 135.

The Method of Exegetical Paraphrase

63

evaluate the possibility that such a flexibility might facilitate an application of Deut 30:12ff. in other contexts or combinations with new motifs or elements. Accordingly, the way Paul takes the same Scripture to refer to ‘the righteousness of faith’, ‘Christ’ and ‘the word of faith’ in Rom 10:6–17, would have been controversial, but not necessarily surprising to his readers, since when compared with Philo and Baruch, his flexible and creative use of the text represented no idiosyncrasy, but instead puts him in good Jewish company.15 In addition, we can now make the observation that despite the free use, the wording and interpretation of Deuteronomy 30 by Paul and Baruch fall within the framework of the method of exegetical paraphrase.16 First, Rom 10:6–7 will be analysed and compared with pertinent Jewish material. The method of replacing words from an Old Testament quotation with other interpretative words or whole sentences is a characteristic feature of an exegetical paraphrase.17 The conflated quotation of Deut 8:17a and Deut 9:4a (ĖƭďűĚǹĜ őėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğ) replaces the expression ĕƬčģėfrom Deut 30:12a.18 In Rom 10:6–7 the words from Deut 30:12–13 are followed and interpreted by two paraphrastic expansions: ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėāěēĝĞƱėĔċĞċčċčďȉė (‘that is to bring Christ down’, Rom 10:6) andĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėāěēĝĞƱėőĔėďĔěȥėŁėċčċčďȉė (‘that is to bring Christ up from the dead’, Rom 10:7). The question to be asked then is: Do some of the words and phrases in these expansions replace and interpret words and phrases in Deut 30:12–13? The answer seems to be in the affirmative. In Rom 10:6–7 the phrasesāěēĝĞƱėĔċĞċčċčďȉė(‘to bring Christ down’) and āěēĝĞƱė Łėċčċčďȉė(‘to bring Christ up’) are probably an interpretation and replacement of the purpose clause ĕƮĖĢďĞċēċƉĞƮė (‘shall take it’) in Deut 30:12–13 LXX. The following observations seem to support this suggestion: In combination with ĞęȘĞǵ ŕĝĞēė the constructions āěēĝĞƱė ĔċĞċčċčďȉė and āěēĝĞƱė Łėċčċčďȉė can be understood as final infinitive constructions that state the purpose and meaning of the words partially quoted from Deut 30:12–13: ĞưĜŁėċČƮĝďĞċēďŭĜĞƱėęƉěċėƲė; (‘Who will ascend into heaven?’) 15

See Dunn, 1987, 220.

16

Cf. the statement set forth by Stanley (1992, 359–360): A thorough examination of Paul’s hermeneutic would have to take into account both the way Paul reads individual passages from the Jewish Scriptures, i.e. how his Jewish and Christian presuppositions and his own existential concerns shape the way he understands and appropriates the wording of the biblical text, and his method of applying these same texts to the concrete circumstances of his readers in order to bring about changes in their understanding and/or behaviour.

17

Cf. Borgen, 1965, 66–67.

18

Cf. Koch, 1986, 131: ‘Das durch die Auslassung von Dtn 30,12a bezugslos gewordene ĕƬčģė ersetzt Paulus – durchaus geschickt – durch die aus Dtn 8,17a bzw. 9,4a übernommene Wendung: ĖƭďűĚǹĜőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğ.

64

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

ĞưĜĔċĞċČƮĝďĞċēďŭĜĞƭėŅČğĝĝęė;(‘Who will descend into the abyss?’) Thus, the name āěēĝĞƲĜ in Rom 10:6–7 probably interprets and replaces ċƉĞƮin Deut 30:12–13 LXX which refers back to ‘the commandment’, ŞőėĞęĕƭċƎĞđŠė őčƵőėĞƬĕĕęĖċưĝęēĝƮĖďěęė,in Deut 30:11 LXX.19 Moreover, the verb ĕċĖČƪėģ (‘take’) in Deut 30:12–13 LXX has been replaced and changed to ĔċĞƪčģ and Łėƪčģin Rom 10:6–7. Thus, Paul seems to have adjusted the vocabulary so that Deuteronomy 30:12–13 is conformed to a new context, viz. the Christ-event. Such a method of replacing words from the Old Testament with interpretative words is commonplace in expository paraphrases of the Old Testament texts in first-century Jewish exegesis.20 Hence, when Fitzmyer states that Paul in these verses ‘is not interpreting the OT in the strict sense’,21 this statement needs to be modified in the light of commonly used exegetical techniques of Paul’s time. Thus, Fitzmyer too admits that in Rom 10:6ff. ‘Paul gives a midrashic explanation of Deuteronomy. In this explanation “Christ” is substituted for the “word” of the Torah.’22 The exegetical reasoning and the hermeneutical key behind this exposition and replacement of words from the Old Testament with interpretative words are expressed by the thetical statement in Rom 10:4, which makes an explicit connection between Christ and the commandments of God by the phrase: ‘Christ is the ‘end’/’goal’ of the Law (ĞƬĕęĜ čƩě ėƲĖęğ āěēĝĞƲĜ)’.23 As a result of this connection between Christ and the Law, Paul in his comments on Deut 30:12–14 replaces the legal imagery with christological imagery.24 19

In Figure 3.1 above, we highlighted these exegetical paraphrases and transformations with bold italics.

20

See Borgen, 1965, 98.

21

Fitzmyer, 1993, 588.

22

Fitzmyer, 1993, 590. Cf. most recently Ross Wagner, 2002, 163, who makes the following comment on Paul’s use of Scripture in Rom 10:6–8: ‘Paul’s strategic omissions and crisp interpretive comments deftly replace Deuteronomy’s original emphasis on “doing the commandment” with the story of Christ proclaimed in Paul’s gospel.’

23

Cf. Keck (2005, 256): ‘Paul’s reading of Deuteronomy is no more arbitrary than the assertion that the telos of the law is Christ; in fact, his interpretive moves are the logical inference from that assertion.’

24

Thus, one may, with Fitzmyer (1993, 590), call this exegesis ‘midrashic’ exegesis. However, the problem is that the midrashim were written down later, from the middle of the second century C.E. to several centuries later. Meanwhile, if parallels appear also in first century writings, such as e.g. in Philo’s expository commentaries, then they exemplify methods and conventional forms which are probably also employed by New Testament authors, such as Paul. Regarding the various definitions of a ‘midrash’, cf. Juel 1988, 35–49, and Chilton, 1994, 217–220. Cf. also the following definition of midrash as paraphrase by Neusner (1987, 7): The exegete would paraphrase Scripture imposing fresh meanings, by the word choices or even by adding additional phrases or sentences and so revising the meaning of the received text. This I call Midrash as paraphrase because the fresh meaning is imputed by obliterating the character of the original text and rendering or translating it in a new sense. The barrier between the text and the comment here is obscured and the commentator joins in the composing of the text. Midrash as paraphrase may also include

The Method of Exegetical Paraphrase

65

It is common for those who comment on Rom 10:6–7 to make reference to the connection between Torah and ‘Wisdom’ in Jewish tradition, including the text from Bar 3:29–30. However, the way this text applies Deut 30:12–13 LXX to the ‘Wisdom’ made accessible in the Torah has not been taken sufficiently into account as an important parallel which can illustrate Paul’s exegetical treatment of Scripture in Rom 10:6–7, i.e. the paraphrase of Deut 30:12–13 LXX within the context of Bar 3:9–4:4. In Bar 3:29–30 the verbal form ĕƮĖĢďĞċēċƉĞƮė(‘shall take it’) from Deut 30:12 LXX has been replaced by the phrases ŕĕċČďė ċƉĞƮė (‘brought her’) and Ĕċư ĔċĞďČưČċĝďėċƉĞƭėőĔĞȥėėďĠďĕȥė (‘And brought her down from the clouds’) Likewise, in Bar 3:30 the phrase from Deut 30:13 LXX ĎēċĚďěƪĝďē…ĚƬěċėĞǻĜ ĒċĕƪĝĝđĜ (‘shall go over to the other side of the sea’) has been replaced by the corresponding expression ĎēƬČđĚƬěċėĞǻĜĒċĕƪĝĝđĜ(‘gone over the sea’).25 In the light of the immediate context, in which the author of Baruch reproaches Israel for deserting and not seeking ‘Wisdom’ (cf. Bar 3:12, 20–22, 31), the author in Bar 3:29–30 has taken ċƉĞƮ in Deut 30:12–13 LXX, which originally refers to the commandment, to refer to the concept of ‘Wisdom’. The point of the allusion to Deut 30:12–13 is stated in the following verses: Israel had no reason to set out on a search for ‘Wisdom’, since it was already available: ‘And [God] hath given it unto Jacob his servant, And to Israel that is beloved of him’ (Bar 3:37). Then, in Baruch 4:1, ‘Wisdom’ is identified with ‘the book of the commandments of God, and the Law that endureth for ever’ (ċƎĞđ Ş ČưČĕęĜ Ğȥė ĚěęĝĞċčĖƪĞģė ĞęȘ ĒďęȘĔċƯžėƲĖęĜžƊĚƪěġģėďŭĜĞƱėċŭȥėċ).Thus, Bar 3:29–30, which refers to Deut 30:12–13, makes the point that God’s ‘Wisdom’ is accessible and ready at hand in the Law. In the giving of the Law, God has given ‘Wisdom’ to Israel. The figurative language represented by the terms ‘heaven’ and ‘across the sea’ from Deut 30:12–13 serve to portray the inaccessibility that has been overcome in the giving of ‘Wisdom’/Law. Because the writer of Baruch affirms a connection between ‘Wisdom’ and Law, it follows naturally for him that Deut 30:12–13 refers to ‘Wisdom’, although in the Scriptural context it refers to the commandment of God.26 Thus, there is evidence to say that within Jewish circles there was fresh materials, but these are presented as if they formed an integral part of the original text. 25

Philo too has examples of this technique. In Praem. 80 the phrase ĞƱŁčċĒƲėis a substitute for the wordŞőėĞęĕƮin Deut 30:11 LXX

26

In Sirach the imagery of personified ‘Wisdom’ in chapter 24 is even more striking than in Baruch. Here ‘Wisdom’ is pictured as coming out of the mouth of God and covering the earth (Sir 24:2–3). She was created by God and was commanded to dwell in Jacob (Sir 24:8–9). Sir 24:23 declares that the things that have been written are the book of the Law: ‘All these things are the book of the covenant of God the Most High, the Law which Moses commanded as an heritage for the assemblies of Jacob….’ Thus, in the same way as Baruch, ‘Wisdom’ is here

66

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

a tendency to view ‘Wisdom’ as representing the Torah, and to apply to ‘Wisdom’ Scriptural passages and language that in their Scriptural contexts pertain to the commandments of God. In the interpretative comments that Paul appends to the two parts of the citation of Deut 30:12–13 in Rom 10:6–7, the person of Christ functions similarly. On the basis of the description of Christ in personified terms as the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law, Deut 30:12–13 is understood as pertaining directly to him. In Paul’s interpretation of this passage, the person of Christ assumes the place and role of God’s commandment as represented in the Scriptural text and context. Hence, by using the techniques of omitting certain words and phrases from Deut 30:12–14 and replacing others with interpretative terms, Paul and Baruch adapt the Deuteronomic text to a new semantic context.27 A parallel to Paul’s exegetical reasoning in Rom 10:4–10 can also be seen in John 6:31ff. On the basis of the Old Testament quotation in John 6:31b: ‘bread from heaven he gave them to eat’, John lets Jesus make explicit the exegetical application of the Old Testament quotation to himself in John 6:35: ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’ As Borgen concludes: ‘the Old Testament quotation in v. 31b serves as a text, while Jesus’ word in v. 35 gives the precise expository meaning of the word “bread” in the quotation.’28 Borgen makes the following observation on the exegetical reasoning in John 6:31ff.: ‘The Old Testament quotation in v. 31b and the pronouncement in v. 35a are tied together in the way formulated in 5:39: “it is they [the Scriptures] that bear witness to me”. Thus, on the basis of this hermeneutical key the pronouncement in Jn 6:35a, “I am the bread of life”, renders the precise meaning of the central term in the Old Testament quotation in v. 31b: “bread from heaven he gave them to eat”. The scriptural text in v. 31b bears witness to Jesus.’29 pictured in ‘personified’ terms and as representing the Law. Cf. Hengel, 1974, vol. 1, 156–162; Sheppard, 1978, 166–176; Cohen 1995, 179ff.; Pate, 2000, 242–244. 27

A referred to in chapter one, interpreters of Romans 10:6-8 (e.g. Windisch, 1914, 224; Suggs, 1967, 289; Schnabel, 1985, 249; Johnson, 1989, 133–134; Pate, 2000, 242–244) have explained the parallels between Paul and Baruch’s exegesis of Deut 30:12–14 by finding a form of ‘wisdom christology’ behind Paul’s Christological identification of ‘the commandment’. Dunn (1988, 604–605) and Hays (1989, 81) are right to disagree with such a view. Most recently, Fee (2001, 351–378) and Hooker (2003, 138–139) have argued that Paul’s so-called ‘Wisdom–Christology’ should rather be called ‘Torah–Christology’, since the basis of the understanding of Christ’s role in creation, history, and redemption is that Paul often begins with Christ’s priority to the Law. According to Hooker this understanding of the relation between the Law and Christ is reflected in such texts as 1 Cor 10:4, 2 Cor 3:6ff., Rom 10:4–10 and Col 1:15–20.

28

Borgen, 1996, 218.

29

Borgen, 1996, 217–218.

The Method of Exegetical Paraphrase

67

Against the background of such parallels between Paul and Baruch in their application and interpretation of Deut 30:12–13 Koch’s comments to Rom 10:6–7 are mistaken: Die formal analoge personale Interpretation führt also aufgrund ihrer inhaltlich entgegengesetzen Ausrichtung nicht nur zu einer völlig konträren Zitatauslegung, sondern auch zu einer Umgestaltung des Textes selbst, die inhaltlich und auch metodisch so in der jüdischen Exegese nicht möglich war.30

On the contrary, our analysis has demonstrated that Paul’s rendering and interpretation of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–8 can be located within the Jewish method of interpretative rendering and application, especially the application of OT Scripture to the personified ‘Wisdom’. We now analyse Rom 10:8–10 and Rom 10:17. The method of supplementing words from an Old Testament quotation with other interpretative words or whole sentences is another characteristic feature of an exegetical paraphrase which is illustrated in Rom 10:8–10 and Rom 10:17.31 Here words from the quotation of Deut 30:14 in Rom 10:8 are repeated and paraphrased by supplementary terms. In Rom 10:8 the terms ĞƱȗǻĖċ are repeated and qualified by the genitive construction ĞǻĜ ĚưĝĞďģĜ and the relative clause ƀ ĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė ĞęȘĞǵ ŕĝĞēė ĞƱ ȗǻĖċĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜƀĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė(‘that is, the word of faith which we preach’). In this way Paul transforms by the method of exegetical paraphrase the word (ȗǻĖċ= the commandment [ŞőėĞęĕƭċƎĞđ, Deut 30:11]) that Israel is ‘to do’ into ‘the word of faith that we are preaching’. So ‘believing’ the word can be interpreted to mean that the ‘doing’ (ĚęēƮĝċĜ) of the commandment required by Lev 18:5 is the true way to attain the righteousness with God.32 Another example of a supplementary qualification of the same term is given in Rom 10:17. There the qualification of the repeated term is represented by the genitive āěēĝĞęȘ ŅěċŞĚưĝĞēĜőĘŁĔęǻĜŞĎƫŁĔęƭĎēƩȗƮĖċĞęĜāěēĝĞęȘ(‘So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the word of Christ’).33 Parallels to such supplements are found in Philo’s exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:12–14 LXX in Virt. and Praem. 80–81, and also in Bar 3:29–30. Thus, e.g. Philo in Virt. 183 expands the biblical text (Deut 30:12 LXX) with the clause ĔŁėőĝġċĞēċȉĜčǻĜ. The addition of the phrase ƚĜĎďȉĝĒċēĚęĕğġěęėưęğĔċƯĔċĖċĞđěǬĜŁĚęĎđĖưċĜ to Deut 30:13 LXX in Praem. 80 is another example which can be adduced to 30

Koch, 1986, 198.

31

On the method of supplementing words from an Old Testament quotation with other interpretative words or whole sentences as a characteristic feature of an exegetical paraphrase, see Borgen (1965, 66), who observes how this method is applied in John 6:31–58; Philo: Leg. 3:162 and Sacr. 86.

32

For the understanding of ȗǻĖċreferring to the initial ŞőėĞęĕƭċƎĞđ in Deut 30:11, cf. Repo, 1959, 81–83; Wevers, 1995, 485.

33

Our translation.

68

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

illustrate this practice. In Bar 3:29 the phrase ĔċƯĔċĞďČưČċĝďėċƉĞƭėőĔĞȥė ėďĠďĕȥėis added to Deut 30:12 LXX. In Bar 3:30 the expression ĔċƯęűĝďēċƉĞƭė ġěğĝưęğőĔĕďĔĞęȘsupplements the rendering of Deut 30:13 LXX. Moreover, we will observe below, when dealing with the expository forms given to Paul’s and Philo’s use of Deut 30:12–14, that both Paul (Rom 10:8–10) and Philo (Virt. 183 and Praem. 80–81) build the phrases ĔċěĎưċ and ĝĞƲĖċ from the quotation of Deut 30:14 into an exegetical paraphrase supplemented with other interpretative words. Paul’s use of the method of replacing and supplementing words from Deut 30:12–14 with other words also has a parallel in Tg. Neof. Deut 30:12–14. In the following extract from Tg. Neof. Deut 30:12–14 the underlining indicates the Old Testament text referred to by Paul: (Deut 30:12) The law is not in the heavens, that one should say: ‘Would that we had one like Moses the prophet who would go up to heaven and fetch it for us, and make us hear the commandments that we might do them!’ (Deut 30:13) Nor is the Law beyond the Great Sea, that one should say: ‘Would that we had one like Jonah the prophet who would descend into the depths of the Great Sea and bring up the law for us and make us hear the commandments that we might do them!’ (Deut 30:14) For the word is very near to you, in the word of your mouths and in your hearts, that you may do it.34

Here Tg. Neofiti, like Paul, replaces the idea of going across the sea with that of descending into the depths. Thus, according to Dunn, the possibility cannot be excluded that there was a text form of Deut 30 in which the horizontal contrast (heaven/other side of the sea) had been replaced by the vertical contrast (heaven/sheol; …). It is more likely, however, that the two contrasts were recognised in Jewish circles as equivalent, so that one could be used in place of or to supplement the other without loss of or addition to the meaning.35

Moreover, Koch makes the following comment on the similarity between the renderings of Paul and Tg. Neofiti: Die Überstimmung mit dem paulinischen Verfahren ist deutlich: Jeweils wird auf diejenige Person verwiesen, deren ›Werk‹ grundlegende Bedeutung für die

34

Quoted from the edition of McNamara, 1997. Tg. Neof. Deut 30:12 shares a common tradition with Deut. Rab. 8:6 to Deut 30:12: “Moses said to Israel: ‘Do not say: “Another Moses will arise and bring us another Torah from heaven”; I therefore warn you: IT IS NOT IN HEAVEN, that is to say, no part of it has remained in heaven’” (translation according to the edition of Rabinowitz, 1977). In view of the targumic tradition preserved in the Fragmentary Targum, see also Lyonnet, 1957, 502–505.

35

Dunn, 1988, 606.

Exegetical Structures and Terminology

69

gegenwärtige Existenz der Leser hat, und jeweils ist dieses ›Werk‹ der Grund für die Nähe des ›Wortes‹.36

From a comparison of Paul with contemporary literature it should be clear that the way Paul handles the wording of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10 represents nothing unique that would put him out of contact with contemporary Jewish techniques and practices. On the contrary, in adapting the language of Deut 30:12–14 to reflect his own understanding of the passage, Paul was simply following the literary practice of exegetical method of his day. The next section will show that Paul’s fresh exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:12– 14 is shaped within the framework of conventional exegetical forms. This means that there are also agreements and similarities between Paul, Philo and similar passages with regard to the form given to the exegetical paraphrase.

3.3. Exegetical Structures and Terminology A certain variation in terminology as regards ‘form’ often exists among biblical scholars. Thus, German authors often use ‘Gattung’ when they speak of smaller literary units such as proverbs and miracle stories. But they can also speak of the ‘Form’ of such units and mean the same thing. On the other hand they can discuss, e.g. the ‘Gattung’ and the ‘Form’ of the Gospel and give the two terms an identical meaning. English-speaking authors tend to designate smaller literary units by the word ‘form’, whereas the term ‘genre’ is used about whole works such as e.g. the Gospels. In addition, however, ‘form’, both in English and German, can be used to refer to what has been labelled both ‘specific form’ and ‘general form’. In this chapter we will use the term ‘form’ in this latter meaning.37 By ‘specific form’ we mean the specific shape of a given text, and by ‘general form’ we think of the structure, that is an inner organisational coherence of a bounded entity, which occurs in several literary pieces and that manifests itself in the shape of a given text.38 From a linguistic point of view this distinction between ‘general form’ and ‘specific form’ corresponds to the distinction between language and speech made by F. de Saussure. To use Saussure’s terms, the ‘general form’ belongs to a wider linguistic system, ‘langue’, which can manifest itself in individual ‘specific forms’, ‘parole’, within that system.39 The aspects of form such as ‘langue’ and ‘parole’ make clear that when an author uses a fixed conventional form on the level of ‘langue’, he is the sovereign master of how to give it shape on the level 36

Koch, 1986, 159. Cf. also Fitzmyer, 1993, 590–591.

37

A useful survey of the problems related to the concept of ‘form’ among biblical scholars can be found in Doty, 1972, 413–48. See also Hartman, 1983, 329–343.

38

Cf. Doty, 1972, 434.

39

Cf. Saussure, 1916, 23–54.

70

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

of ‘parole’. This means that the ‘general forms’ can manifest themselves in the ‘specific forms’ in a flexible way. We have found the basic linguistic distinction between form on the levels of ‘langue’ and ‘parole’ useful in the assessment of forms appropriated in texts from Paul and his contemporaries for the following basic reason: the phenomenon of ‘langue’ implies that such features as words, grammatical forms, syntactical constructions, literary conventions etc. are sociologically conditioned. Accordingly, grammatical features, ‘patterns’ and language structures are deposited in our memories where they can remain constantly at our disposal. This psychological aspect of ‘langue’ can thus provide substantiation for the impression that classical authors, such as Paul and Philo, were not conscious of employing a certain form as a form. They just expressed and steeped their message in conventional, traditional forms, and had hardly any independent interest in form as such. Thus, as with exegetical methods, so also exegetical conventional forms developed. A similar view is held by R. Le Déaut and D. Daube according to W. D. Davies: The authors were conscious of writing in tradition rather in a certain form (R. Le Déaut, 270–1). … Professor Daube long ago taught me that form, unlike substance, tends to be fastened by instinct rather than deliberation.40

In the following we shall see how Rom 10:6–17 displays some characteristic elements as to the forms given to expository paraphrases. This unit has the following characteristics with regard to its form: A quotation from the Old Testament (Deut 30:14 in Rom 10:8) is followed by an exegetical paraphrase (throughout Rom 10:8–17). Parts of the quotation are repeated and given an exposition throughout the unit. The exposition can be demarcated by the correspondence between the opening and closing statements. At the same time the closing statement serves as a summary of the main points from the entire exposition. Other structural agreements too can be detected in Rom 10:6–17, which are also to be found in e.g. Philo’s writings, St. John’s Gospel and in Palestinian midrashim. Thus, Paul’s exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–17 can be located within the framework of structural characteristics common to Judaism and the early Church. The outline of an exegetical paraphrase can vary.41 Sometimes the Old Testament quotation is divided in parts and paraphrased in a successive sequence, as in Rom 10:4–17:42 6 ŞĎƫőĔĚưĝĞďģĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđęƎĞģĜĕƬčďēäĖƭďűĚǹĜőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪ 40

Davies, 1984, 176.

41

Similarly in Leg. 3:162–168; Mut. 253–263; John 6:31–58. See Borgen, 1965, 34–35.

42

Similarly in Virt. 183.

Exegetical Structures and Terminology



71

ĝęğäĞưĜŁėċČƮĝďĞċēďŭĜĞƱėęƉěċėƲė;ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėāěēĝĞƱė ĔċĞċčċčďȉėä (‘But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ that is to bring Christ down’)

7 šäĞưĜĔċĞċČƮĝďĞċďŭĜĞƭėŅČğĝĝęė;ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėāěēĝĞƱėőĔėďĔěȥė Łėċčċčďȉėä (‘or ‘Who will ascend into the abyss?’ that is to bring Christ up from the dead.’) 8 ŁĕĕƩĞưĕƬčďē;őččƴĜĝęğĞƱȗǻĖƪőĝĞēėőėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔċƯőėĞǼ  ĔċěĎưǪĝęğĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėĞƱȗǻĖċĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜƀĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė (‘But what does it say? The word is near you on your lips and in your heart, that is the word of faith which we preach;’) 9 ƂĞēőƩėžĖęĕęčƮĝǹĜőėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔƴěēęėǵôđĝęȘėĔċƯ  ĚēĝĞďƴĝǹĜőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğƂĞēžĒďƱĜċƉĞƱėščďēěďėőĔėďĔěȥė  ĝģĒƮĝǹä (‘because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.’) 10 ĔċěĎưǪčƩěĚēĝĞďƴďĞċēďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĝĞƲĖċĞēĎƫžĖęĕęčďȉĞċēďŭĜ ĝģĞđěưċė. (‘For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.’) 1 ŅěċŞĚưĝĞēĜőĘŁĔęǻĜŞĎƫŁĔęƭĎēƩȗƮĖċĞęĜāěēĝĞęȘ (‘So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the word of Christ.’)43 The underlining shows clearly the main quotation from the Old Testament and the manner in which words from this are paraphrased throughout the text. Thus, Deut 30:12 is given an exposition in Rom 10:6, Deut 30:13 in Rom 10:7, and Deut 30:14 in Rom 10:9–10 and Rom 10:17. Philo’s paraphrastic rendering and exposition of Deut 30:12–14 in Praem. 80 provides us with an illustration of the same form given to this Old Testament text (the words from the Old Testament are underscored): 1) Paraphrase of the partial quotation of Deut 30:13: šĚƬěċėĒċĕƪĞĞđĜşőėőĝġċĞēċȉĜčǻĜ (‘either beyond the sea or at the end of the earth’), expanded by an 43

Our translation.

72

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

2) interpretative clause introduced by the phrase ƚĜ: ƚĜĎďȉĝĒċēĚęĕğġěęėưęğĔċƯĔċĖċĞđěǬĜŁĚęĎđĖưċĜ(‘so that it requires of you a lingering and wearisome exile’), 1) Paraphrase of the partial quotation of Deut 30:12: ęƉĎǵőĘċưĠėđĜőĝĞďưĕċĞęĞƭėőėĒƬėĎďďŭĜęƉěċėƱėŁĚęēĔưċė(‘nor has it suddenly left this earth to settle in heaven’), expanded by an 2) interpretative clause introduced by the exegetical phrase Ųėċ: ŲėċĞēĜĖďĞƬģěęĜĔċƯĚĞđėƱĜŁěĒďƯĜĖƲĕēĜőĠēĔƬĝĒċēĞęƴĞģėĎğėđĒǼ(‘so that one can scarce reach them though he soar on high and wing his way thither’). 1) Paraphrase of the quotation of Deut 30:14: Ěĕđĝưęė Ďǵ őĝĞƯ ĔċƯ őččğĞƪĞģ ĞěēĝƯ ĖƬěďĝē Ğȥė ĔċĒǵ ŖĔċĝĞęė ŞĖȥė őėēĎěğĖƬėęė, ĝĞƲĖċĞēĔċƯĔċěĎưǪĔċƯġďěĝư(‘But it is close by and very near, firmly set in three of the parts of which each of us is constituted, mouth and heart and hand’45), expanded by an 2) interpretative clause introduced by the phrase ĞěęĚēĔƶĞďěęė: ĞěęĚēĔƶĞďěęėĕƲčȣĔċƯĎēċėęưǪĔċƯĚěƪĘďĝēė (‘representing in a figure speech and thought and action’). However, in Rom 10:6–8 and Rom 10:17, most of the words and phrases are paraphrased in the same sequence as they are given in the Old Testament quotation,46 while in Praem. 80 the paraphrase does not follow the sequence in which words 44

In a way similar to Paul in Rom 10:6–7, Philo here in Praem. 80 supplements the paraphrases of Deut 30:12–13 with final infinitive clauses which indicate their meaning. This interpretative form of a quotation from an Old Testament passage supplemented by means of a final clause represents a ‘general form’, since St. John’s Gospel and rabbinical writings provide more examples of it. In the examples presented here, the words from the Old Testament quotation are underscored: Rom 10:6: ‘Who will ascend into heaven? that is to bring Christ down …’ Praem. 80: ‘… nor has it suddenly left this earth to settle in heaven, so that one can scarce reach them though he soar on high and wing his way thither.’ John 6:38: ‘For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; …’ Mek. Exod. 19:7: ‘Do not read thus, but read: The Lord came to Sinai, to give the Torah to Israel.’ Here Philo and John use Ųėċ, while in Mek. Exod. 19:7 the Hebrew equivalent preposition PA is used. Cf. Borgen, 1965, 71.

45

The translation in PLCL is modified.

46

As in e.g. Leg. 3:169–174. See Borgen, 1965, 35f.

Exegetical Structures and Terminology

73

occur in the quotation.47 In our analysis of the textual organisation of Rom 10:1– 21, we argued that Rom 10:8–17 form an inclusio by the similarity between the opening and concluding statements in Rom 10:8c and Rom 10:17: Rom 10:8c: ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėĞƱȗǻĖċĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜƀĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė. Rom 10:17: ŅěċŞĚưĝĞēĜőĘŁĔęǻĜŞĎƫŁĔęƭĎēƩȗƮĖċĞęĜāěēĝĞęȘ. The underlined words point to the fact that the opening and closing statements have words in common. Furthermore, both statements represent interpretations of Deut 30:14. At the same time the closing statement in Rom 10:17 is a concluding remark to the exposition of Deut 30:12–14 as a whole. Thus, Rom 10:17 can be seen to elaborate further on the understanding of ĞƱ ȗǻĖċ in Deut 30:14, and at the same time be a conclusion to the interpretation of this Old Testament Scripture throughout the unity of Rom 10:8c–17.48 Illustrations of forms on the level of ‘langue’ are further manifested in Rom 10:6– 8 with regard to the form of the exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:12–14. The most conspicuous structural feature is the pattern of the text: 1) Scriptural citation, 2) exposition introduced by an expository phrase (ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė). This form is repeated three times in these verses. Parallels to this form appear elsewhere in Philo’s writings, e.g. in Migr. 70, Fug. 49, 59, and Post. 14. This exegetical structure of Deut 30:12–14 , which does not appear elsewhere in the Pauline writings, is further paralleled by Philo’s use of Deut 30:12–14 in Praem. 80, as quoted in full above. As an illustration of this form we here quote Migr. 70: ‘He says [introductory phrase] ‘And I will bless thee’ [quote], that is (ĞęğĞƬĝĞēė) I will endow thee with excellent reason and speech [exposition].’

Another example of a ‘general form’ is provided by Paul’s exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:14 in Rom 10:8–10. Analysing Rom 10:8–10, we can observe that Paul’s exegetical paraphrase of each of the expressions őėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęȘ and őė ĞǼ ĔċěĎưǪ ĝęğ from Deut 30:14 follows the exegetical structure of a basic exposition of an Old Testament quotation succeeded by an elaboration of the exposition: 8 ŁĕĕƩĞưĕƬčďē;őččğĜĝęğĞƱȗǻĖƪőĝĞēėőėĞȣĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔċưĞǻ ĔċěĎưǪĝęğĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėĞƱȖǻĖċĞǻĜĞưĝĞďģĜƀĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė (‘But what does it say? The word is near you on your lips and in your heart, that is the word of faith which we preach;’) 47

E.g., in Leg. 3:65–75a; Rom 4:3–22.

48

As Borgen (1965, 52) has observed, this characteristic of a correspondence between the opening and the closing statements is also to be found in Philo: Leg. 3:162–168; Mut. 253–263, with parallels in John 6:31ff., Rom 4:3–22 and Exod. Rab. 25.

74

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

9 ƂĞēőƩėžĖęĕęčƮĝǹĜőėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔƴěēęėǵôđĝęȘėĔċƯ  ĚēĝĞďƴĝǹĜőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğƂĞēžĒďƱĜċƉĞƱėščďēěďėőĔėďĔěȥė  ĝģĒƮĝǹä (‘because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.’) 10 ĔċěĎưǪčƩěĚēĝĞďƴďĞċēďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĝĞƲĖċĞēĎƫžĖęĕęčďȉĞċēőēĜ  ĝģĞđěưċė. (‘For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.’) In Rom 10:9 we can observe how Paul picks up and builds each of the phrases őė ĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğ(‘in your mouth’) and őėĞǼÜĔċěĎưǪĝęğ(‘in your heart’) into an exegetical paraphrase supplemented with the following phrases from the early Christian tradition: ‘ĔğěēęĜǵôđĝęȘĜ’and ‘žĒďƲĜċƉĞƱėščďēěďėőĔėďĔěȥė’49 In Rom 10:10 he repeats the terms ĔċěĎưċandĝĞƲĖċ, and at the same time motivates and elaborates the paraphrase from Rom 10:9. In fact, in all of the texts in which Philo deals with the same part of Deut 30:14, he parallels this method and form. In this context we will restrict ourselves to indicating this form in two of these texts, i.e. Virt. 183 and Praem. 80–81. In addition, it can be demonstrated that John 6:31b–33 also illustrates the same form. The underlining indicates the quotation from the Old Testament and the paraphrasing of words from this quotation in the exposition. Philo, Virt. 183: Allusion/Quotation: …ŁĕĕǵŕĝĞēėőččğĞƪĞģĞěēĝƯĖƬěďĝēĞȥėĔċĒǵŞĖǬĜ őėĎēċēĞƶĖďėęėĝĞƲĖċĞēĔċƯĔċěĎưǪĔċƯġďěĝư… (‘ … but is very near, residing in three parts of our being, mouth, heart and hands, …’)50 Explanation: …ĎēƩĝğĖČƲĕģėĕƲčęēĜĔċƯČęğĕċȉĜĔċƯĚěƪĘďĝēä… (‘… symbolising words and thoughts and actions …’) Rationale and expanded explanation: 49

1 Cor 8:6; 12:3, Phil 2:11, and Col 2:6 seems to indicate that the expression ĔƴěēęĜǵôđĝęğĜwas already an established confessional formula. Cf. Cranfield, 1986, 527. The expression žĒďƱĜ ċƉĞƱėščďēěďėőĔėďĔěȥė was evidently one of the earliest credal-type affirmations of the first Christians, cf. Acts 3:15; 4:10; 13:30; Rom 4:24; 7:4; 8:11; 1 Cor 15:12, 20; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12. Cf. Dunn, 1988, 223.

50

The translation in PLCL is modified.

Exegetical Structures and Terminology

75

…ĕƲčęğĖƫėčƩěĝĞƲĖċĝƴĖČęĕęėĔċěĎưċĎƫČęğĕďğĖƪĞģė ĚěŁĘďģėĎƫġďȉěďĜőėęŴĜĞƱďƉĎċēĖęėďȉėőĝĞēė (‘… for the mouth is a symbol of speech, the heart of thoughts and intentions, the hand of actions, and in these three lies happiness.’) Philo, Praem. 80–81: Allusion/Quotation: … ĚĕđĝưęėĎǵőĝĞƯĔċƯőččğĞƪĞģĞěēĝƯĖƬěďĝēĞȥė ĔċĒǵŖĔċĝĞęėŞĖȥėőėēĎěğĖƬėęėĝĞƲĖċĞēĔċƯĔċěĎưǪ ĔċƯġďěĝư (‘… But it is close by and very near, firmly set in three of the parts of which each of us is constituted, mouth and heart and hand, …’)51 Exposition: … ĞěęĚēĔƶĞďěęėĕƲčȣĔċƯĎēċėęưǪĔċƯĚěƪĘďĝēė. (… ‘representing in a figure respectively speech and thought and action.’) Rationale and expanded exposition: őƩėčƩěęŴċĞƩČęğĕďƴĖċĞċĞęēęȘĞęēęŮĕƲčęēĔċƯęŴċ ĞƩĕďčƲĖďėċĞęēċưĎďċŮĚěƪĘďēĜƟĝēĔċƯĞċȘĞċŁĕĕƮĕęēĜ ŁėĞċĔęĕęğĒǼĎďĒƬėĞċłěĖęėưċĜŁĕƴĞęēĜĎďĝĖęȉĜ ďƉĎċēĖęėưċĔěċĞďȉ… (‘For if our words correspond with our thoughts, and our actions with our words, and the three mutually follow each other, bound together with indissoluble bonds of harmony, happiness prevails …’) John 6:31b–33: Allusion/Quotation: … ŅěĞęėőĔĞęȘęƉěċėęȘŕĎģĔďėċƉĞęȉĜĮċčďȉė. (‘… He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’) Exposition: ďųĚďėęƏėċƉĞęȉĜžǵôđĝęȘĜäŁĖƭėŁĖƭėĕƬčģƊĖȉė ęƉ÷ģğĝǻĜĎƬĎģĔďėƊĖȉėĞƱėŅěĞęėőĔĞęȘęƉěċėęȘ, ŁĕĕǵžĚċĞƮěĖęğĎưĎģĝēėƊĖȉėĞƱėŅěĞęėőĔĞęȘęƉěċėęȘ ĞƱėŁĕđĒēėƲėäžčƩěŅěĞęĜ… (‘Jesus then said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. …’) 51

The translation in PLCL is modified.

76

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

Rationale and expanded exposition: …žčƩěŅěĞęĜĞęȘĒďęȘőĝĞēėžĔċĞċČċưėģėőĔĞęȘęƉěċėęȘ ĔċƯĐģƭėĎēĎęƳĜĞȦĔƲĝĖȣ (‘… For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.’’) These texts unquestionably follow the same literary convention as Rom 10:8–10. The agreements between them justify the following contention: 1) Allusion/ Quotation of the Old Testament text. 2) Words from the biblical allusion are given an exposition, which is signalled and introduced by an exegetical expression. 3) Then follows a sequence, introduced by the conjunction čƪě, which gives the rationale and expands the exposition.52 In addition, within this structure three other similar points can be listed: 1) Both Paul and Philo deliver an exposition of each of the phrases ĔċěĎưċ and ĝĞƲĖċ. 2) Moreover, a comparison of Paul with Philo uncovers the structure of a chiasm (a)–(b)–(b)–(a) with regard to the exposition of ĝĞƲĖċ and ĔċěĎưċ in Rom 10:9–10 and Praem. 80–81: Rom 10:9–10: (a) őėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔƴěēęėdzôđĝęȘėĔċƯĚēĝĞďƴĝǹĜ (b) őėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğƂĞēžĒďƱĜċƉĞƱėščďēěďėőĔėďĔěȥėĝģĒƮĝǹä (b) ĔċěĎưǪčƩěĚēĝĞďƴďĞċēďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđė (a) ĝĞƲĖċĞēĎƫžĖęĕęčďȉĞċēďŭĜĝģĞđěưċė Praem. 80–81: (a) ĝĞƲĖċĞēĔċƯ (b) ĔċěĎưǪĔċƯġďěĝư,>ĞěęĚēĔƶĞďěęėĕƲčȣĔċƯĎēċėęưǪĔċƯĚěƪĘďĝēė@ őƩėčƩěęŴċ (b) ĞƩČęğĕďƴĖċĞċ (a) ĞęēęȘĞęēęŮĕƲčęēĔċƯęŴċĞƩĕďčƲĖďėċĞęēċưĎďċŮĚěƪĘďēĜƟĝēĔċƯ ĞċȘĞċ ŁĕĕƮĕęēĜ ŁėĞċĔęĕęğĒǼ ĎďĒƬėĞċ łěĖęėưċĜ ŁĕƴĞęēĜ ĎďĝĖęȉĜ ďƉĎċēĖęėưċĔěċĞďȉ… 3) A further similarity exists in the manner in which both Rom 10:10 and Virt. 183, in the rationale, give an explicative statement that repeats the exposition of ĝĞƲĖċ and ĔċěĎưċ and expands the exposition: Rom 10:10: Rationale and expanded version: 52

Other examples of a similar form appear in the following Philonic texts: Det. 47–48; Fug. 59. Cf. Borgen 1996, 216 n. 31.

Exegetical Structures and Terminology

77

ĔċěĎưǪčƩěĚēĝĞďƴďĞċēďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĝĞƲĖċĞēĎƬ žĖęĕęčďȉĞċēďŭĜĝģĞđěưċė. (‘For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.’) Virt. 183: Rationale and expanded explanation: …ĕƲčęğĖƫėčƩěĝĞƲĖċĝƴĖČęĕęėĔċěĎưċĎƫČęğĕďğĖƪĞģė ĚěƪĘďģėĎƫġďȉěďĜőėęŴĜĞƱďƉĎċēĖęėďȉėőĝĞēė (‘… for the mouth is a symbol of speech, the heart of thoughts and intentions, the hand of actions, and in these three lies happiness.’) In the remaining part of this discussion of traditional expository forms relevant to Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14, we shall turn to forms of smaller range. According to Saussure the linguistic system, ‘langue’, includes all kinds of signs, whether they be the structure of signs such as those outlined above, or the simplest clause, or just single words such as will now be considered. In Rom 10:8–9 we have the structure of a quotation (Deut 30:14) followed by an exposition, in which the exposition refers to and repeats words from the Old Testament quotation, and a causal proposition introduced with ƂĞē added as a motivation. Again John and Philo offer parallels. The same structure is also met with in John 6:36 and Leg. 1:28. The words from the Old Testament quotation are underlined:53 Rom 10:8–9: ŁĕĕƩĞưĕƬčďē;őččƴĜĝęğĞƱȗǻĖƪőĝĞēėőėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔċƯőėĞǼ ĔċěĎưǪ ĝęğĞęȘĞǵŖĝĞēėĞƱȗǻĖċĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜƀĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė ƂĞēőƩėžĖęĕęčƮĝǹĜőėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔƴěēęėǵôđĝęȘėĔċƯ ĚēĝĞďƴĝǹĜőėĞǼĔċěĎưċĝęğƂĞēžĒďƱĜċƉĞƱėščďēěďėőĔėďĔěďȥė ĝģĒƮĝǹä John 6:36: ǵìĕĕǵďųĚęėƊĖȉėƂĞēĔĞĕ

53

See the texts rendered and analysed in Borgen, 1965, 74–75.

78

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

Leg. 1:28: “And a spring (ĚđčƮ) went up out of the earth (őĔĞǻĜčǻĜ) and watered all the face (ĞƱĚěƲĝģĚęė) of the earth” (Gen. ii. 6). He calls the mind “a spring” of the earth (čǻĜĚđčƮ) and the senses its “face,” (ĚěƲĝģĚęė) because (ƂĞē) Nature … assigned this place to them … In Rom 10:9 the exegetical paraphrase of ĝĞƲĖċ andĔċěĎưċ from Deut 30:14 is cast in the form of a conditional clause, followed by a main clause. In Praem. 81, in which Philo interprets this part of Deut 30:14, we find a similar form used. Rom 10:9: …ƂĞēőƩėžĖęĕęčƮĝǹĜőėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔƴěēęėǵôđĝęȘėĔċƯ ĚēĝĞďƴĝǹĜőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğƂĞēžĒďƱĜċƉĞƱėščďēěďėőĔėďĔěȥė ĝģĒƮĝǹä (‘… because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.’) Praem. 81: őƩėčƩěęŴċĞƩČęğĕďƴĖċĞċĞęēęȘĞęēęŮĕƲčęēĔċƯęŴċ ĞƩĕďčƲĖďėċĞęēċưĎďċŮĚěƪĘďēĜƟĝēĔċƯĞċȘĞċŁĕĕƮĕęēĜ ŁėĞċĔęĕęğĒǼĎďĒƬėĞċłěĖęėưċĜŁĕƴĞęēĜĎďĝĖęȉĜ ďƉĎċēĖęėưċĔěċĞďȉ… (‘For if our words correspond with our thoughts and our actions with our words and the three mutually follow each other, bound together with indissoluble bonds of harmony, happiness prevails …’) The conditional clauses in both texts are introduced by the conjunction őƪė. ǵðƪėwith the subjunctive mood denotes that which, under certain circumstances, is expected from an existing general or concrete standpoint in the present, the so-called ‘case of expectation’.54 With Philo the protasis states that when there is correspondence and harmony between the mind, the words and the actions, the apodosis explains that harmony will be created. In Rom 10:9 the condition is confession of Jesus as Lord, and the belief that God has raised Jesus from the dead. The apodosis states then that the consequence of salvation is within reach. Most recently, A. Reichert has characterized the form of Paul’s conditional statement in Rom 10:9 as ‘allgemeingültig-regelhaft’: ‘Ähnlich [referring to the use of the passive formulations in Rom 10:10]55 macht aber auch das Konditionalgefüge von V. 9 mit der generellen 2. Person Singular (= „man“) den Eindruck einer Regel.’56 Expositions cast in a similar conditional style are not unusual, and the 54

See BDF, 1961, 188.

55

Our comment inserted in parenthesis.

56

Reichert, 2001, 172 n. 133.

Exegetical Structures and Terminology

79

New Testament, Philo’s writings and other Jewish expository literature provide us with further examples.57 An examination of Paul’s and Philo’s use of exegetical terminology within the contexts of their expositions of Deut 30:12–14, reveals also some specific points of agreement: both Paul (Rom 10:7–8) and Philo (Praem. 80; Somn. 2:180) can use the disjunctive conjunction što introduce the partial quotation from Deut 30:13 and the adversative conjunction ŁĕĕƪĎƬto introduce the partial quotation of Deut 30:14. Rom 10:7–8: šäĞưĜĔċĞċČƮĝďĞċēďŭĜĞƭėŅČğĝĝęė;ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėāěēĝĞƱėőĔėďĔěȥė Łėċčċčďȉėä (‘or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.’) 8 ŁĕĕƩĞưĕƬčďē;őččƴĜĝęğĞƱȗǻĖƪőĝĞēėőėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔċƯőėĞǼ ĔċěĎưǪĝęğĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėĞƱȗǻĖċĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜƀĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė (‘But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach’) Praem. 80: …şĚƬěċėĒċĕƪĞĞđĜ… (… either beyond the sea …) ĚĕđĝưęėĎǵőĝĞƯĔċƯőččğĞƪĞģĞěēĝƯĖƬěďĝēĞȥė ĔċĒǵŖĔċĝĞęėŞĖȥėőėēĎěğĖƬėęėĝĞƲĖċĞēĔċƯĔċěĎưǪ ĔċƯġďěĝư, … (‘… But it is close by and very near, firmly set in three of the parts of which each of us is constituted, mouth and heart and hand, …’)58 The Jewish practise of exposition often reflected adapted forms of the common usage of the Greco-Roman world.59 This fact applies to Paul’s and Philo’s appropriation of exegetical notes with the formula ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė. This exegetical expression has been seen as parallel to the pesher form used in the Qumran expositions to introduce an interpretation.60 A commentator such as Michel considers Paul’s 57

See Beyer, 1968, 75–229. This form has also a similarity in casuistic legal clauses found in the Old Testament and Judaism; cf. Fiebig, 1925, 3–20; Nauck, 1957, 29ff.; Borgen, 1965, 88f.

58

The translation in PLCL is modified.

59

See Ellis, 1988, 691–725.

60

See e.g. Käsemann, 1980, 284. According to Fitzmyer (1993, 590), this formula does not reflect the pesher form. Pace McNamara (1978, 72), Fitzmyer holds that introductory formula to have a different function, being normally used in pesharim. Fitzmyer notes a similar Qumran introductory formula in the following texts: CD 1:13; 7:15; 10:16; 16:15; 1QS 8:14–15; 1QpHab

80

Exegetical Method, Structure, and Terminology

use of the formula against this background: ‘ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė stammt nicht aus der hellenistischen Rhetorik (z.B. Epict. Diss I 17,26; 25,14; II 1,25; III 1,25; Ench. 33,10), sondern aus der exegetischen Terminologie des Judentums (vgl. Z.B. 1QS 8,15. Dam 4,1 ü.ö.).’61 According to Koch, this view of the Jewish background may be regarded as one-sided, since the formula has also been found introducing an interpretation in Hellenistic literature, as evidenced in the writings of Plutarch and in expositions of the Old Testament in Philo’s writings.62 Accordingly, there is no reason either to consider Paul’s and Philo’s use of ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė mainly in the light of the exegetical phraseology of the Qumran writings, or to make too sharp a distinction between Jewish and Hellenistic methods of exegesis.63 In our context it is of further interest to note that both Paul (Rom 10:6–8) and Philo (Praem. 81) can use this exegetical expression in their exposition of Deut 30:12–14.

3.4. Summary In opposition to the point of view that Paul’s treatment of Deut 30:12–14 is idiosyncratic, it has been the purpose of this chapter to substantiate the thesis that it can be located within the literary conventions of exegetical method, structure and terminology of his day. In comparison especially with Baruch and Philo, Paul’s handling of Deut 30:12–14 follows a common method of exegetical paraphrase as to the way the wording of biblical texts are rendered and interpreted, including the practice of selective citation, omissions, and rephrasing of words, phrases and sentences from the Old Testament Scripture, which are either repeated or replaced with interpretative terms and supplemented with other qualifying terms. It has also been shown that Paul’s exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:12–14 is shaped within the framework of conventional forms. The following exegetical structures and features have been observed: 12:3–4; 4QFlor (frg. 1), 1:11. Lim, (1997, 139), when raising the question whether the technical term ‘pesher’ is an equivalent to the expression ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė, reaches the following conclusion: ‘Pauline exegesis may be compared to the pesherite interpretation of the Qumran scrolls. While formal distinctions between the two should not be ignored, and the pesher as a genre is sui generis, they nevertheless manifest commonalities that cannot be denied.’ 61

Michel (1978, 328–29) refers to the pesher form applied in 1QS 8:15; CD 4:1.

62

For references, see Koch (1986, 28), who refers to Plutarch: Moralia, 19 C; 12 E/F; 36 A/B. In Philo’s writings this phrase a word or a phrase is explained by another word, phrase or sentence. Some examples are: Leg. 1:16, 27, 45, 52, 62, 77, 92, 98; 2:55; 3:11, 16, 20, 28, 46, 52, 95, 126, 142, 143, 145, 153, 154, 176, 230, 232, 242, 244; Sacr. 62, 86, 119; Post. 150, 168, 182; Ebr. 40, 70, 95, 125; Somn. 1:112; 2:76. Cf. Adler, 1929, 23; Thyen, 1955, 81; Borgen, 1997, 154.

63

As Daube (1949, 239–264) has shown, the seven middot that Hillel prescribed were derived from Alexandrian rhetoric from the Hellenistic period. Cf. also Vos, 2002, 115–134.

Summary

81

1) A quotation from the Old Testament (Deut 30:14 in Rom 10:8) is followed by an exegetical paraphrase throughout the unit of Rom 10:8–17. The exposition is demarcated by an inclusio, with agreements in terminology between Rom 10:8 and Rom 10:17. 2) The structure of a Scriptural citation followed by an exposition introduced by an exegetical phrase, is repeated three times in Rom 10:6–8. 3) Rom 10:8–10 displays this exegetical form: a) Words from the Old Testament are quoted or alluded to. b) The allusion/quotation is given an exposition which is signalled and introduced by an exegetical expression. c) Then follows a sequence, introduced by the conjunction čƪě, which gives the rationale and expands the exposition. 4) In Rom 10:8–9 we have the structure of a quotation (Deut 30:14) followed by an exposition, in which the exposition refers to and repeats words from the Old Testament quotation, and a causal proposition introduced with ƂĞē added as a motivation. 5) In Rom 10:9 the exegetical paraphrase of ĝĞƲĖċ andĔċěĎưċ from Deut 30:14 is cast in the form of a conditional ‘rule’, followed by a main clause. 6) Moreover, with respect to forms of smaller range, Paul’s use of exegetical terminology such as the exegetical phrase ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė is conventional both within Jewish and Hellenistic exegesis.

CHAPTER FOUR

4. Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context 4.1. Approach In chapter one we noted that Georgi hinted that Philo’s application of Deut 30:11–14 in Virt. 183–184 about the Law and Jewish proselytism, provides a background for Paul’s declaration that Christ is the ‘end’ of the law. However, unfortunately Georgi did not elaborate on his observation. Thus, when we come to the final chapter of this study we will attempt to explore what Georgi was alluding to, namely the way Philo’s use of Deut 30:11–14 in Virt. 183–184 may prove helpful to illustrate aspects of the Jewish background to which Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:4–17 refers. As a basis for such an analysis it is necessary first to examine Virt. 183–184 in some detail on its own. The analysis will be undertaken in the following way: First, we will examine Virt. 183–184 within the immediate literary context of Virt. 175–182. Then, the next two sections of this chapter will examine in due course Philo’s exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:11–14 in Virt. 183–184 as it is applied to conversion from discord to harmony with the aim of clarifying how to be a the true people chosen by God. Finally, we will make some remarks as to the importance of the observations reached in this chapter for a comparison with Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14.

4.2. Conversion within the Jewish People and as Proselytism As was shown in chapter two, Virt. 183 is introduced by an expression on a meta–level: ‘Admirable indeed too (Ĕċư) are the instructions (ƊĠđčƮĝďēĜ) to conversion (ĖďWƪėęēċ), in which we are taught ….’ Our first task is now to analyse this statement. First, the meaning of the concept of ĖďĞƪėęēċ in Virt. 183 and its immediate literary context will be analysed.

84

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

÷ďĞƪėęēċ is an ambiguous term which can mean ‘reconsideration’, ‘improvement’, ‘repentance’, or ‘conversion’.1 In Greek philosophy repentance was not seen as a virtue as in Virt. 175–186.2 There are Hellenistic philosophers who used ĖďĞƪėęēċ to describe moral improvement; however they do not use it as a characterization of conversion to monotheism.3 In Philo’s works the concept of ĖďĞƪėęēċ can be taken to refer to repentance and conversion, which can be applied to Jews and proselytes.4 As for the concept of ĖďĞƪėęēċtaken to refer to ethical repentance, Philo discusses this in relation to Enoch, Abr. 17:5 The second place after hope is given to repentance (μετάνοια) for sins and to improvement, and therefore, Moses mentions next in order him who changed from the worse life to the better (ŁėċčěƪĠďēĞƱė…ĚěƱĜĞƱėŁĖďưėģĖďĞċČċĕƲėĞċ), called by the Hebrews Enoch but in our language “recipient of grace”.

Here Philo appears to be speaking about ĖďĞƪėęēċ as ‘improvement’ or ‘repentance’, which involves a change to something better (ĚěƱĜ ĞƱė ŁĖďưėģ ĖďĞċČċĕƲėĞċ). In Somn. 2:105–109 Philo describes the repentance of Joseph in a similar way: ‘But when he changes his life for the better (ĚěƱĜŁĖďưėģČưęė)….’ In Mut. 233–241 the motifs of the sacrifice of beasts, birds and flour from Lev 5:7 12 are taken to refer to three ways of repentance, which prepare the introduction of Deut 30:12–14. The three ways of repentance refer to the three classes of heart, mouth and hand (cf. Deut 30:14), since the achievement of righteousness and sinning are found in all these places: Moses, then, employs for propitiation the three methods of repentance (μετάνοια) here mentioned, beasts or birds or wheaten flour, adapted doubtless to the capacity of the penitent who is purified, for small things do not need great, nor great things small purifications, but such as are like and equal on the principle of proportion. Why then there should be three ways of repentance is worth inquiry. Practically cases both of sinning and of achieving righteousness fall into three classes, thoughts, words and deeds. And therefore in his Exhortations Moses, when he is shewing that the acquisition of the good, is neither impossible nor hard to pursue, says, “You need not fly up to heaven nor to go to the ends of earth and sea to lay hold of it, … but near and very near is every work to thy mouth 1

See Behm, 1942, 972–976.

2

Cf. e.g. StVF 3:548; Aristoteles: Nic. Eth. III, 1:1110b22–23.

3

See e.g. Plutarch: Virt. Prof. 452c–d; Seneca: Nat. 3, Praef. 3; Pseudo–Cebes: Tabula 10:4–11:2. Cf. Nock, 1933, 164–186; Méndez-Moratalla, 2004, 56–64; Sterling, 2004, 45–47.

4

For Philo’s use of ĖďĞƪėęēċ, see Völker, 1938, 105–115; Michel, 1987, 105–120; Winston, 1990, 4–7; Bailey, 1991, 135–141; Birnbaum, 1996, 203.

5

Cf. also Praem. 17–21. In Sir 44:16 and Wis 4:7ff. Enoch is depicted as an example of one who converts to the one true God. See Noack, 2000, 52–55.

Conversion within the Jewish People and as Proselytism

85

and heart and hands” (Deut. xxx. 12ff.). In these words he figures words, thoughts and intentions, deeds. For good thinking and intending, good speaking and good doing make up, he means, human happiness just as their opposites make up unhappiness, since achievement of righteousness and sinning are found in all these places, heart, mouth and hand (Mut. 235–238).

In the context of Spec. 1:235–238 Philo delivers documentation for the Jewish tradition which associates repentance with confession and propitiation for voluntary sins against humans: … if then after having apparently escaped conviction by his accusers he becomes, convicted inwardly by his conscience, his own accuser, reproaches himself for his disavowals and perjuries, makes a plain confession of the wrong he has committed and asks for pardon—then the lawgiver orders that forgiveness be extended to such a person on condition that he verifies his repentance (ĖďĞƪėęēċ) not by a mere promise but by his actions, by restoring the deposit or the property which he has seized or found or in any way usurped from his neighbour … (Spec. 1:235– 236).6

Moreover, Philo also gives evidence for the Jewish tradition that the sacrifices brought on the Day of Atonement provide the occasion for repentance:7 The high dignity of this day has two aspects, one as a festival, the other as a time of purification and escape from sins, for which indemnity is granted by the bounties of the gracious God who has given to repentance (ĖďĞƪėęēċ)the same honour as to innocence from sin (Spec. 1:187).

In Virt. 175–182 ĖďĞƪėęēċ is used to describe the various aspects of conversion needed when a Gentile converts to Judaism. This text helps us to see how Philo understands the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism.8 It is made clear here that the conversion of Gentiles entails both a religious, social/national and ethical change of lifestyle. In the following some of the main aspects will be described. a) From many gods to the One God. The conversion from polytheism to Jewish monotheism was central when Gentiles became proselytes. Virt. 179 may illustrate this theme: So therefore all these who did not at the first acknowledge their duty to reverence the Founder and Father of all, yet afterwards embraced the creed of one instead of a multiplicity of sovereigns, must be held to be our dearest friends and closest kinsmen.

6

Cf. t. Yoma 4:9. See also Sib. Or. 3: 624–629.

7

Cf. t. Yoma 4:9.

8

In Philo’s works the words ĚěęĝƮĕğĞęĜ(Spec. 1:51–53)ŕĚđĕğĜ(Praem. 152)őĚđĕƴĞđĜ(Mos. 1:7) and őĚƮĕğĞęĜ (Virt. 102–104) are used to describe proselytes. In Virt. 182 the word őĚđĕƴĞđĜ is used. Cf. Birnbaum, 1996, 195–202; Seland, 2001, 252–256; idem, 2005, 39–78.

86

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

A corresponding formulation in Philo is found in Virt. 102–104: the incomers (ęŮőĚđĕƴĞċē) … abandoning … the temples and images of their gods … have taken the journey to a better home, from idle fables to the clear vision of truth and the worship of the one and truly existing God.9

The issue of transition from polytheism to monotheism is elsewhere described by Philo by means of the model proselytes Abraham and Tamar. Abraham is described as a son of an astrologer. Realizing that this could prevent his progression to the One God, Abraham broke up from his native country ‘knowing that if he stayed the delusions of the polytheistic creeds would stay within him and render it impossible to discover the One’ (Virt. 214). Abraham is thus the first person spoken of as believing in God and a model of those ‘abandoning the ignobility of strange laws and monstrous customs which assigned divine honours to sticks and stones and soulless things in general’ (Virt. 219). Likewise Philo describes Tamar as a model proselyte who ‘became schooled in the knowledge of the monarchical principle by which the world is governed’ (Virt. 220). In both Virt. 179 and Virt. 102–104 Philo describes the various forms of polytheism in a general way. However, in other parts of his ‘Exposition’ Philo offers criticism of polytheism. Thus, in Decal. 52–57 and Spec. 1:13–31 Philo characterises a variety of polytheistic cults, such as worship of the creation in the form of deification of elements within the cosmos10 and living creatures (animals),11 and worship of lifeless images e.g. sculptural forms of deities.12 b) From pagan immorality to Jewish morality. In passages about proselytes Philo describes the ethical change from pagan vices to the Jewish virtues, which immediately follows the worship of the One God, as a life in accordance with the Laws of Moses within the ĚęĕēĞďưċ. Philo’s explicit reference in Virt. 180–182 to the passing of the convert into ‘the government/way of life under the best laws (ďŭĜĞƭėőğėęĖģĞƪĞđėĚęĕēĞďưċė)’ documents this: … but a man should convert, … but also in the other fundamental things of life, by passing, as it were from mob–rule, which is the vilest of misgovernments, into democracy, the government/way of life under the best laws (ďŭĜĞƭėďƉėęĖģĞƪĞđė 9

A similar text is also found in Joseph and Asenath 13:11–12. See also the development of this theme in Spec. 1:309; 4:178; Virt. 212. Also in the New Testament and in other Christian writings this motif is a basic element in the conversion of the polytheists: Gal 4:8f.; 1 Thess 1:9; Acts 15:19; 1. Pet 4:3–4; Barn. 16:8 and Justin: 1 Apol. 14; 25; 49; Dial. 11:4, 30; 83:4; 91:3. Cf. Acts 15:19.

10

Cf. Decal. 54–56 where Philo refers to several Greek and Roman gods, such as Kore, Demeter, Pluto, Poseidon, Hera, Hephaestus, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite, Hermes and the Dioscuri. Cf. also Spec. 1:19–20; Wis 13:2; Rom 1:23, 25.

11

Cf. Decal. 76–80.

12

Cf. Decal. 66; Spec. 1:21, 28–29. Mos. 2:205.

Conversion within the Jewish People and as Proselytism

87

ĚęĕēĞďưċė) … For it is excellent and profitable to desert without a backward glance to the ranks of virtue and abandon vice, that malignant distress; and where honour is rendered to the God who is, the whole company of the other virtues must follow in its train as surely as in the sunshine the shadow follows the body. The proselytes become at once temperate, content, modest, gentle, kind, humane, serious, just, high–minded, truth–lovers, superior to the desire for money and pleasure ….13

On the contrary, to Philo there is also a close relationship between polytheistic worship and immorality.14 Indirectly, Philo also portrays the life of the proselyte within the context of the Laws of Moses, when he describes their life in Virt. 182 by means of a list of virtues in contrast to the life of those who rebel against the holy laws (ęŮŮďěęƯėƲĖęē). So we regard it as inappropriate when S. J. D. Cohen makes the statement that ‘Philo does not explicitly associate the process of conversion with the observance of the special laws ….’15 Thus, in the context of Virt. 175–182, the following elements of conversion are all to be found in this context. The denial of the pagan gods, the belief in the God of Israel, the integration into the Israelite polity (ĚęĕēĞďưċ), and the process of conversion are all aspects associated with the Law and the keeping of the law.16 As we will point out in the next paragraph conversion according to Philo meant that the proselytes also made a social and ethnic break with pagan society and joined the Jewish nation. c) From other ethnic groups to the Jewish politeia. A conversion to Judaism involved a change of social and ethnic identity. Becoming a Jew was tantamount to repudiating one’s national affiliation and taking on a Jewish ethnic identity. The proselyte, Philo says, has fled from his country (cf. Praem. 17; Virt. 214; Spec. 1:52). The model of the proselytes is Abraham, moving from his own country to a new one: He is the standard of nobility for all proselytes, who, abandoning the ignobility of strange laws and monstrous customs which assigned divine honours to stocks and stones and soulless things in general, have come to settle in a better land, in a commonwealth full of true life and vitality, with truth as its director and president (Virt. 219).17

In addition, in Virt. 212 Philo states that Abraham was the most ancient member of the Jewish nation: ‘The most ancient member of the Jewish nation was a 13

Tre translation in PLCL is modified.

14

Cf. e.g. Sacr. 48; Post. 96; Spec. 1:21–27; 3:40–42.

15

Cohen, 1989, 26–27.

16

As Cohen (1989, 26) notes, these elements are the crucial ones in Jewish conversion texts, and they are all affirmed by the book of Judith. When Achior the Ammonite ‘saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God, and was circumcised, and joined the house of Israel, remaining so to this day’ (Jdt 14:10).

17

Cf. Abr. 62.

88

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

Chaldaean of birth ….’18 In Virt. 102 Philo says that the proselytes have left their family, their country and their customs: ‘… because abandoning their kinsfolk by blood, their country, their customs and the temples and images of their gods ….’ Leaving the context of family and kinfolk could imply the risk of their lives. Thus, for example, Tamar is said to have ‘deserted to the camp of piety at the risk of her life’ (Virt. 220). In Spec. 4:178 Philo says that the proselytes have made their kinsfolk into mortal enemies: For the incomer, because he has turned his kinsfolk, who in the ordinary course of things would be his sole confederates, into mortal enemies, by coming as a pilgrim to truth and the honouring of One who alone is worthy of honour, and by leaving the mythical fables and multiplicity of sovereigns, so highly honoured by the parents and grand–parents and ancestors and blood relations and this immigrant to a better home.

This aspect of being exposed to the risk of mortal dangers also finds expression in the way Philo characterizes the proselytes as ‘refugees to the camp of piety’ (Spec. 1:52). This issue of enmity to family relatives as a consequence of the proselyte’s conversion is also described in the novel about Joseph and Asenath: ‘all people have come to hate me, and on top of those my father and mother, because I, too, have come to hate their gods and have destroyed them…. And therefore my father and mother and my whole family have come to hate me and says, “Asenath is not our daughter because she destroyed our gods”’ (Joseph and Asenath 11:4–6).19 In the same way the historian Tacitus described the consequences of a religious and social break with the native background as is implied in the convert’s transference to Judaism: ‘those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into them, to despise the gods, to disown their country, and set at nought parents, children and brethren’ (Histories 5:5). According to Philo, the proselytes have to be received and considered by the Jews as close friends and relatives, Virt. 102: … they have taken the journey to a better home, from idle fables to the clear vision of truth and the worship of the one and truly existing God. He commands all members of the nation to love the incomers, not only as friends and kinsfolk, but as themselves both in body and soul….

From the perspective of the welcoming Jewish fellowship, Philo can describe the proselytes in the language of friendship and family.20 Thus, Philo emphasises 18

Cf. also Mos. 1:7: ‘He [Moses] was seventh in descent from the first settler [i.e. Abraham], who became the founder of the whole Jewish nation.’

19

Compare also Joseph and Asenath 12:7.

20

Texts which offer good insights in Philo’s model of social compensation i.e. loss of family caused by conversion was to be compensated by the new family and relationships involving practical

Conversion within the Jewish People and as Proselytism

89

the ethnic aspect of conversion and also the benefits of belonging to the Jewish fellowship which the convert has now joined. Already in the introductory paragraph Virt. 175 of the section on conversion, we recognise these aspects; conversion to Judaism offers ‘membership in the best of commonwealths (ĚęĕēĞďưċ) and of the felicities both great and small which that membership confers.’ Here we meet a key concept for the understanding of the conversion of proselytes, viz. the concept of the Jewish ĚęĕēĞďưċ. ‘Proselytes’ are so called, Philo says, because ‘they have come to a new and God–loving commonwealth (ĚęĕēĞďưċ)’ (Spec. 1:51).21 Within the Hellenistic world a city and tribe might be organised as a ĚęĕēĞďưċ, with its own laws, customs, mode of government, citizenship, and way of life.22 According to Cohen, the ĚęĕēĞďưċ of a state included all those elements that gave a distinctive character to that state’s public life.23 Hecataeus is the first (c. 300 BCE) Greek writer to describe Moses and his ĚęĕēĞďưċ, and his description

consequences are Spec. 1:52 and Virt. 102–103. We quote the former text in full: Thus, while giving equal rank to all in–comers with all the privileges which he [Moses] gives to the native–born, he exhorts the old nobility to honour them not only with marks of respect but with special friendship and with more than ordinary goodwill. And surely there is good reason for this; they have left, he says, their country, their kinsfolk and their friends for the sake of virtue and religion. Let them not be denied another citizenship or other ties of family and friendship, and let them find places of shelter standing ready for refugees to the camp of piety. For the most effectual love–charm, the chain which binds indissolubly the goodwill which makes us one, is to honour the one God (Spec. 1:52). Cf. also Sandnes, 1994, 41–46. For Philo’s description of proselytes, see especially Borgen 1983b., 75–97, and Birnbaum, 1996, 195–202. 21

The translation in PLCL is modified. This is an example of a text in which Philo can describe the life of proselytes by means of general summary statements. Such general statements are given by Philo when he says that the proselytes join the commonwealth of the best laws (Virt. 180), and a commonwealth (ĚęĕēĞďưċ) full of true life and vitality (Virt. 219). According to Philo, a proselyte has even secured himself a place in heaven (Praem. 152). Josephus has a similar conception, see Cohen, 1987, 425–427. In three passages in Contra Apionem ‘conversion’ is described in the following terms as: those among Greeks who ‘have come to our law’ (Ap. 2:123); those who choose to ‘share our ways’ (Ap. 2:209–210). In these two passages a convert denies his previous life, affirms loyalty to Judaism, and as a result is considered equal to the native born because ‘relationship is created not only through birth but also through the choice of the manner of life’ (Ap. 2:210).

22

See Cohen, 1990., 204ff.; idem, 1999, 125–129.

23

It seems that the Hellenistic world not only served as the foil against which the Jews redefined themselves, but also in larger or smaller degree provided the conceptions that were essential to the Jewish self–definition. One of those conceptionswasĚęĕēĞďưċ, cf. S. J. D. Cohen, 1990, 204ff.; See also Dahl, 1941, 95ff.

90

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

is the first of many, Philo’s descriptions included.24 The Jews too had their own ĚęĕēĞďưċ, a constitution given to them by their lawgiver Moses and with some limitations accepted by the Roman authorities. The question of Alexandrian citizenship has been subject of a scholarly controversy.25 The most recent and thorough investigation of whether the Jews of Alexandria also included citizenship during the Roman principate concludes that ĚęĕēĞďưċ should be taken to mean the political organization of the Jews and/or their way of life.26 According to M. Smallwood this could mean ‘a recognized, formally constituted corporation of aliens enjoying the right of domicile in a foreign city and forming a separate, semi–autonomous civic body, a city within the city; it had its own constitution and administered its internal affairs as an ethnic unit through officials distinct from and independent of those of the host city’.27 In Philo’s writings it is clear that the ancestral laws of the Jews, i.e. the laws of the Torah and their virtues, constituted the ĚęĕēĞďưċ of the Jewish people.28 As we shall see, this is implicit in his formulations in Virt. 180–182. This survey of ĖďĞƪėęēċ and related ideas in Philo’s works has shown that it can be applied both to repenting Jews and to Gentiles who became proselytes. We have further observed that Deut 30:11–14 can be applied to the theme of ĖďĞƪėęēċMoreover, Philo can speak of ĖďĞƪėęēċ as improvement and a change to something better. When we now turn to Virt. 183–184 we will see that these aspects come into view here too. The way Philo develops the concept of ĖďĞƪėęēċ in Virt. 175–186 also indicates that both Jews and Gentiles are encompassed. The following observations speaks in favour of this understanding. In Virt. 175 the overarching theme to be dealt with in the whole section of Virt. 175–186 is introduced as conversion: Our most holy Moses, who so dearly loved virtue (ĠēĕƪěďĞęĜ) and goodness (ĠēĕƲĔċĕęĜ) and especially his fellow men (ĠēĕƪėĒěģĚęĜ), exhorts everyone to 24

Cf. J. Gager, 1972, 26–37. See e.g. 2 Macc 4:11; 6:23; 8:17; 13:14; 4 Macc 3:20; 8:7; 17:9; Ap. 1:189; Ant. 3:84; 5:98; 15:281; J. W. 1:169, 178; Philo: Spec. 1:63, 314, 319; 2:73; 3:51; 4:10, 55, 100, 105, 120, 149; Mos. 2:211.

25

According to V. Tcherikover (1963, 1–32) the Jews were devoid of citizenship, and were in his view counted together with the Egyptians as part of the lowest estate in the Roman scale, and charghed the heavy poll tax (laographia). This view has recently been challenged by A. Kasher (1985, 233–309), and M. R. Niehoff, who concludes: ‘Yet even if the Jews were not directly implied in the laographia and succeeded in maintaining an independent status, they were nevertheless influenced by the increasing social tension under Roman rule’ (idem, 2001, 22).

26

Delia, 1991. See also Horst, 2003, 154.

27

Smallwood, 1976, 225.

28

In Legat. 194, Philo refers explicitly the word ĚęĕēĞďưċto the Jews. Cf. also Virt. 108.

Conversion within the Jewish People and as Proselytism

91

pursue piety and justice, and offers to the repentant (ęŮĖďĞċėęęȘėĞďĜ)in honour of their victory the high rewards of membership in the best of commonwealths and of the felicities both great and small which that membership confers.29

Virt. 175 introduces a communication between Moses and ‘everyone everywhere’30, probably those in Philo’s own time.31 Thus, the participle ęŮ ĖďĞċėęęȘėĞďĜ in Virt. 175 probably embraces both Jewish penitents and Gentiles who had become proselytes, an observation which becomes clear as Philo develops the theme of ĖďĞƪėęēċ in the treatise.32 Since the instruction on conversion from polytheism to monotheism in Virt. 178–179 is pictured as the first and essential form of repentance (cf. Virt. 180: ‘This is what there is to be said about the first and most necessary form of repentance …’ ), and Philo in Virt. 180–182a goes on to deal with the national and ethical conversion of the proselytes from pagan mob–rule and immorality to Jewish morality33 within the Jewish ĚęĕēĞďưċ, we can infer from this that the teaching in Virt. 178–179 is seen as the basic step in the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism. The meta–propositional base introducing Virt. 183 (‘admirable indeed too are the admonitions to repentance, in which we are taught …’) also makes clear that 29

The same epithets ĠēĕƪěďĞęĜ, ĠēĕƲĔċĕęĜ, and ĠēĕƪėĒěģĚęĜused of Moses here are also used of him in Opif. 128 and Mut. 113. Cf. Runia, 2001, 253; 297.

30

R. Riesner (2000, 241) interprets Moses’ communication to all of mankind in Virt. 175 in the light of Philo’s belief that every man through reason could recognize the vanity of polytheism and the superiority of Jewish monotheism and its ethics, referring to other Philonic texts as Cher. 127; Leg. All. 3:45; Spec. 1:54, and Mos. 2:27.

31

The phenomenon described in Virt. 176ff. that Moses’ teaching aims at conversion is mentioned elsewhere in Philo’s writings, cf. Spec. 1:15. Without reference to Moses, conversion is stated as the result of teaching also in rabbinic sources as Cant. Rab. 1:63, which states that when the elder sits and teaches, many proselytes are converted to Judaism. It is within the same framework we can understand also a text such as Matt 23:2ff., which describes the Scribes and Pharisees as sitting on the chair of Moses, acting as teachers, and who are reported in v. 15 as crossing sea and land to make a single proselyte. Moreover, according to Acts 26:18, conversion of Gentiles is the aim of Paul’s work when he was sent to the Gentiles. In this text the conversion of Gentiles is described with proselyte terms as conversion from the darkness of pagan life to the light and to the one God: ‘… to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God’. Cf. Virt. 179: ‘They [i.e. the proselytes] have shown the godliness of heart which above all leads up to friendship and affinity, and we must rejoice with them, as if, though blind at the first they had recovered their sight and had come from the deepest darkness to behold the most radiant light’. See Berger, 1975, 232–248 and Borgen, 1987, 210–212.

32

Cf. also Birnbaum, 1996, 150, 203.

33

In Virt. 181–182 the conversion is seen from the perspective of the desires related to the topos of belly–devotion. A proselyte is converting from ‘the delights of the belly (ĞƩĜčċĝĞěƱĜ ŁĚęĕċƴĝďēĜ) and the organs below it – delights which end in the gravest injuries both to body and soul’ (Virt. 182). It is most likely that Philo here speaks about the pagan feasts. Belly–devotion is seen as an aspect of paganism. Thus, conversion meant for the proselyte changing attitudes towards food and the desires of the belly. Cf. Sandnes, 2002, 130.

92

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

Virt. 183–186 is another subsection and aspect of conversion related to the preceding sections in Virt. 175–177, 178–179 and 180–182, dealing with the subject of conversion, ĖďĞƪėęēċ. Thus, the additive connector Ĕċưand the reference to (Moses’) instructions (ƊĠđčƮĝďēĜ) on the theme conversion (ĖďĞƪėęēċ) in Virt. 183, indicate that Philo here takes up the thread from Virt. 178 (cf. here the same expression of instructions, ƊĠđčƮĝďēĜas in Virt. 183) and will add another aspect of conversion, namely the conversion from discord to harmony. Moreover, in Virt. 183 Philo applies 1.p.pl. in both the meta–propositional base introducing the topic of conversion (‘… in which we are taught [ĎēĎċĝĔƲĖďĒċ] …’), and the exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:14 (… ‘but very near, residing in three parts of our being [ĔċĒǵ ŞĖǬĜ] …’). This use of 1.p.pl. can mean either Jews, or Jews and proselytes, or just be understood rhetorically. As we now turn to analyse the immediate following context, an understanding of the first person plural encompassing both repenting Jews and Gentiles who become proselytes is supported by the way the main terms used in the section of Virt. 183–186 can be applied to both groups. First, we analyse the terms applied in the marker in Virt. 183 introducing the theme to be dealt with in the subsection Virt. 183–184: ĖďĒċěĖƲĐďĝĒċēĞƱėČưęė őĘ ŁėċěĖęĝĞưċĜ ďŭĜ Ğƭė ŁĖďưėģ ĖďĞċČęĕƮė (‘to correct our life from disharmony to a better and changed condition’). The verb ĖďĒċěĖƲĐģ‘correct’, used in Virt. 183, is applied elsewhere in Philo’s writings to both Jews and proselytes. In Virt. 141 it is the Jewish people who ‘through the instructions of the laws (ėƲĖēĖęēƊĠđčƮĝďēĜ) learn from their earliest years to correct (ĖďĒċěĖęĐƲĖďėęĜ) any wilfulness of souls to gentle behaviour’. In a similar way as in Virt. 183, Virt. 141 then describes this correction of life as the result of instructions (in the laws of Moses). In a corresponding way, Philo in Spec. 1:15 uses the verb ĖďĒċěĖƲĐģ about Moses’ instruction on the basis of the Law with the aim of conversion from the worship of heavenly bodies as gods, i.e. from ignorance to knowledge: ‘From this ignorance our most holy lawgiver (žŮďěƶĞċĞęĜėęĖęĒƬĞđĜ) would correct (ĖďĒċěĖƲĐģ) them to knowledge with these words … (quoting from Deut 4:19).’35 As in Virt. 183 Philo can use the same stem to describe the conversion of a proselyte. Thus, in Virt. 214 he describes Abraham’s proselyte conversion from the polytheistic creeds to the belief in the One God in the following way:

34

As Cohen (1995, 266 n. 11) notes, the term ƊĠƮčđĝēĜ leading, guidance, is not to be found either in the Septuagint or the New Testament. The following texts seems to support the rendering of this word as ‘instructions’: Spec. 2:256; 3:125; 4:141, 218 and Virt. 15, 141.

35

Our translation.

Conversion within the Jewish People and as Proselytism

93

… knowing that if he stayed the delusions of the polytheistic creeds would stay within him and render it impossible for him to discover the One, who alone is eternal and the father of all things, conceptual and sensible, whereas if he removed, the delusion would also remove from his mind and its false creed be corrected (ĖďĒċěĖęĝċĖƬėđ) to the truth (Virt. 214).36

The contrast form őĔ—ďŭĜin the thematic marker in Virt. 183 outlines the conditions in the life of the converted before and after the conversion (őĘŁėċěĖęĝĞưċĜ ďŭĜĞƭėŁĖďưėģĖďĞċČęĕƮė).37 The existential conditions from which the convert turns are further specified in Virt. 183 as ŁėċěĖęĝĞưċ, disharmony, while the expression ŞŁĖďưėģėĖďĞċČęĕƮ(‘a better and changed condition’) describes the new life of the convert.38 As we have seen, the latter expression was applied by Philo to describe the improvement and repentance of Enoch and Joseph. In Spec. 1:51 Philo uses a similar expression to describe the conversion of proselytes to the better order: … whether they have been such from the first or through conversion to the better order (őĔĞęȘĖďĞċČƪĕĕďĝĒċēĚěƱĜĞƮėŁĖďưėģĞƪĘēė) have reached that higher state … the latter because their judgement led them to make the passage to piety. These last he calls “proselytes”, because they have joined the new and godly commonwealth.

To sum up, Virt. 183–184 is located in the context of Virt. 175–186, presented as the teaching of Moses on repentance/conversion among Jews and also by Gentiles to Judaism. By means of the 1.p.pl. in Virt. 183 this teaching is probably applied by Philo to people in Philo’s own time.39 In Virt. 175–177 Philo begins the section by speaking about ĖďĞƪėęēċin a mannerwhich can refer to repentance among Jews as well as to the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism. The opening statement in Virt 175 shows the application of Moses’ teaching to ‘every one everywhere’. Then Philo turns in Virt. 178–180 to the aspect of conversion from revering created things to honouring God. According to Virt. 178 Moses actively invites polytheists and offers them instruction, exhorting them to turn to the 36

Our translation.

37

Also in Abr. 24 and Virt. 180 the same form is used in connection with the subject of conversion.

38

Also in Hellenistic philosophy repentance can be described as moral improvement, cf. e.g. Pseudo–Cebes: The Tabula of Cebes 10:4–11:2; Plutarch: Moralia 26 D; 27 A; 204 A; 551 D; 712 C. Cf. also Acts 26:20.

39

Without referring to the arguments used, we will mention here the three points of view on the audience of Philo’s ‘Exposition’ put forward in the scholarly discussion. 1. Sandmel (1979, 465) represents the view that the writings aimed at a Jewish readership. 2. Goodenough (1933, 124) has argued that the ‘Exposition’ was intended solely for Gentiles: ‘The Exposition is thus more intelligible throughout when, in contrast with the writings designed for Jews, it is recognised to have been written for Gentiles’. 3. The third point of view tries to balance the preceding ones; the ‘Exposition’ was intended for both Jews and Gentiles, see Borgen, 1984a., 119. For a survey of research on the questions regarding De Virtutibus, see Hilgert, 1991, 103–115.

94

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

one God. In Virt. 180–182 Philo speaks explicitly about the conversion of the proselytes as turning from pagan society and immorality to the Jewish commonwealth and morality. Then in Virt. 183 Philo adds another aspect of ĖďĞƪėęēċ viz. repentance/conversion from disharmony to a better condition. The 1.p.pl. and the language of conversion used in Virt. 183 add further support to the view that Philo here applies Moses’ teaching on conversion to Philo’s own time, encompassing both Jews and potential proselytes among Gentiles. In the following section we shall probe in more detail Philo’s exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:11–14 in Virt. 183–184, as he applies the biblical text to the aspect of conversion from discord to harmony.

4.3. Deut 30:11–14 and the Conversion from Discord to Harmony The aspect of conversion in Virt. 183–184 is indicated as a change from discord to harmony, which is being explained (cf. čƪě introducing Virt. 183 and Virt. 184) by the rendering and exposition of Deut 30:11–14 in Virt. 183 and Virt. 184. As we saw in chapter three, the exegetical method of replacing a word from the Old Testament with an interpretative word is a common feature in an exegetical paraphrase. This method seems also to be used by Philo in the rendering of Deut 30:11 and Deut 30:14 in Virt. 183: ‘He tells us that the thing (ĞƱĚěǬčĖċ) is not overgreat nor very distant, … but very near, residing in three parts of our being, mouth, heart and hands ….’ Here the words Ş őėĞęĕƮ (Deut 30:11 LXX) and ĞƱ ȗǻĖċ (Deut 30:14 LXX) have been interpreted and rendered by the word ĞƱĚěǬčĖċ. What is the background for this interpretative rendering? The background may be that the word ĞƱȗǻĖċ, besides meaning ‘utterance’, can have the meaning‘event’, ‘matter’, ‘circumstance’. Thus, in LXX within contexts that underline the subject matter ĞƱȗǻĖċ can be rendered by ĞƱĚěǬčĖċ.40 Philo seems to stand within the same stream of interpretative tradition when he thus conforms Deut 30:11–14 to the subject matter (ĞƱȗǻĖċ) of conversion. We suggested in chapter two that this expression ĞƱĚěǬčĖċ may serve as a substitution on the abstraction–level for the aspect of conversion referred to in the thematic marker in Virt. 183: ‘… in which we are taught to refit our life from its present misfit into a better and changed condition.’ As we have noted above, elsewhere 40

E.g. Dan 2:8,10 LXX; 1 Chr 21:8 LXX; Jer 47:16; 51:4 LXX; Amos 3:7 LXX. Cf. Repo (1951, 160), who comments: ‘Die Die Tendenz zur Analysierung des „Wortes“ tritt noch deutlicher in Erscheinung, daβ in sachbetonten Bedeutungsaufgaben das Wort ĚěǬčĖċ, die spezifische Entsprechung für „Sache“, gebraucht ist.’

Deut 30:11–14 and the Conversion from Discord to Harmony

95

too Philo can associate Deut 30:11–14 to the theme of conversion, e.g. within the context of Mut. 233–241. The rendering of Deut 30:14 in Virt. 183a is in Virt. 183b followed by an exposition of the triad of mouth, heart and hand: ‘… thus symbolising words and thoughts and actions, for the mouth is a symbol of speech, the heart of thoughts and intentions, the hand of action, and in these three lies happiness.’ In chapter three we demonstrated that Philo at this point shared a formal similarity with Paul’s exegesis of Deut 30:14 in Rom 10:10: Both authors give an exposition of each of the phrases ĔċěĎưċ and ĝĞƲĖċ. Moreover, both authors give a rationale for the exposition which repeats the exposition of ĔċěĎưċ and ĝĞƲĖċ and expands the exposition. In Virt. 183 the exposition is introduced by the formula ĎēƩ ĝğĖČƲĕģė, which is an exegetical formula employed by Philo, meaning ‘through tokens (by which one infers something)’.41 The first exposition of Deut 30:14 is an explanation of each of the words of the triad. The exposition of ĝĞƲĖċ as representing the word (ž ĕƲčęĜ) is obvious; the connection between the mouth and words is explicitly stated by Philo in e.g. Somn. 2:302: ‘For the lives of the good and the bad are shewn, one in deeds, the other in words, and words belong to the tongue, mouth and lips.’ A close parallel to such an interpretation of ĝĞƲĖċ in Deut 30:14 as representing the words is attested by Paul in Rom 10:9–10: ‘if you confess (žĖęĕęčƬģ)with your lips;42 … and he confesses (žĖęĕęčƬģ)with his lips and so is saved.’ In places where Philo comments on Deut 30:14 he interprets ĔċěĎưċ regularly through the words Ďēƪėęēċ43 and ČęğĕƮ44 as here in Virt. 183. In addition, in Philo’s writings the conception of ĔċěĎưċ represents the corporeal organ of the heart.45 In general in Philo’s writings, the meaning of Ďēƪėęēċ and ČęğĕƮ, when it interprets ĔċěĎưċ, represent the inner part of the human, in which the thinking and will are located.46 Also midrashic and targumic renderings of Scripture reflect this spiritualized interpretation of ‘heart’. In Tg. Onqelos to Deut 29:18 and in Eccl. Rab. 1:16 we meet the association of thought and heart. In the rendering of Deut 29:18 Tg. Onqelos reads: ‘I will be safe, though I will follow the 41

Cf. Leg. 3: 45; Spec. 1:167, 200; 2:29; 3:58; Prob. 29. Regarding Philo’s use of various exegetical formulas, see Borgen, 1984b., 263; idem, 1997, 131–136, 153–156.

42

A further parallel to this expository paraphrase of Deut 30:14 is provided by Tg. Neof. Deut 30:14: ‘…in the word of your mouths …’ (quoted according to the edition of McNamara, 1997, 141).

43

Cf. Praem. 80; Somn. 2:180.

44

Cf. Mut. 237; Somn. 2:180; Post. 85; Prob. 68.

45

Cf. Det. 90; Post. 138; Spec. 1:215; Leg. 1:68; Somn. 1:32.

46

See Berger, 1972, 69, 74, 177–178.

96

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

thoughts of my heart’.47 The Hebrew X[VVZ is here rendered V[LVL—‘thoughts’, as the latter is usually associated with the heart. Eccl. Rab. 1:16 likewise reflects the same tradition: ‘the heart thinks [VLVLQ]’, employing the same root as the targum does, as it is said ‘though I follow the imaginations of my heart’ (Deut 29:18).’48 A corresponding ‘spiritual’ exposition of ĔċěĎưċ from Deut 30:14 as in Virt. 183 is paralleled by Paul, who, in Rom 10:10, interprets ĔċěĎưċas representing the organ of belief: ‘… and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart ….’ Moreover, elsewhere in the New Testament the association of ĔċěĎưċ and Ďēƪėęēċ is attested, e.g. in Luke 1:51 and in the quotations of Jer 38:33 in Heb 8:10 and Heb 10:16.49 In addition to the places where Philo interprets the word ‘hand’ in Deut 30:14 as in Virt. 183, this interpretation of ‘hand’ also appears elsewhere in Philo’s writings.50 In short, we have noted that Philo’s exposition of the triad mouth, heart, and hand based on Deut 30:14 LXX can be placed within a Jewish interpretative framework. Moreover, as Cohen has suggested, Philo’s exposition of the triad of mouth, heart, and hand in Virt. 183–184 is an example of how Greek notions were drafted into the exegesis to serve Jewish religious commitment and here particularly applied to the conversion of repentant Jews and of proselytes to Judaism.51 It is well known that Philo draws on his knowledge of Greek philosophy in the process of commenting on the laws of Moses. Thus, Philo’s exposition

47

Quoted from the edition of Grossfeld, 1988, 85 n. 12.

48

Quoted from the edition of Grossfeld, 1988, 85 n. 12. Cf. also Num 15:39 where the Hebrew has ‘hearts’ and the Tg. Onqelos translates ‘the thoughts’; there the subject being man straying after the thoughts of his heart, which are innately evil (cf. Gen 8:21).

49

Cf. Behm, 1938, 611–616.

50

See e.g. Spec. 4:137f.; Mos. 2:130, 150; QG 4:98; QE 1:5; 2:20.

51

Cf. Cohen, 1993, 19–23. It is characteristic of Philo’s exegesis that he fuses words from the Old Testament and Jewish traditions of exegesis with terms and views from Greek philosophy so that his exegesis expresses his philosophical interests. Cf. Borgen, 1984b., 265: ‘In Philo, biblical exegesis and philosophy are inseparable: He is a philosophically minded exegete, and a philosopher imbued with the Bible. True philosophy, which is the full understanding of the Law of Moses, can only be developed in the context of Jewish religion.’ See also the discussion of Greek influence on Philo by several authors in SPhA 5 (1993) 95–155. The foundation of Philo’s combination of Greek philosophy and Jewish exegesis is his view of the Mosaic Law. The Torah was the supreme authority, constituting a perfect revelation of divine wisdom. Everything in the holy writings of Moses was divinely inspired (cf. Mos. 2:35). On the basis of this presupposition Philo derived from the Old Testament all the philosophical doctrines which in practice he appropriated from the Greek philosophers. So the Torah contained all that was good and true; Moses was the real teacher of all mankind, and the Greek philosophers had derived their thoughts from him. On this notion which can be traced through Ps.–Eupolemus, Aristobulus, Artapanus, Josephus, and the Church Fathers, see Hengel, 1974, vol. 1, 86, 90, 92, 129ff., 165ff.

Deut 30:11–14 and the Conversion from Discord to Harmony

97

of Deut 30:11–14 is an example of how Philo can fuse together exegesis of Scripture and philosophical ideas. This maxim, that thoughts, words, and actions should be in harmony with each other, is a Greek commonplace, and is found in Plato as well as in later Stoic sources.52 The maxim thought, word, and action has also a parallel in Jewish texts as T. Gad 6:153 and T. Jos. 10:4.54 The same maxim is often reiterated by Philo.55 The parallels listed by D. Winston are found in the following texts: Spec. 1:138; 2:52; Mos. 1:29; 2:48, 130, 140, 150; Virt. 184; Praem. 81–83; Prob. 96, 155; Ios. 230; Fug. 150; Mut. 237; Somn. 1:182; Decal. 102; QG 4:7, 84, 110; QE 1:5; Post. 88.56 In Mos. 1:29 Philo explicitly states that this was a philosophical commonplace. Speaking of Moses as a model to be imitated, Philo writes: He [Moses] exemplified his philosophical creed by his daily actions. His words expressed his feelings, and his actions accorded with his words, so that speech and life were in harmony, and thus through their mutual agreement were found to make melody together as on a musical instrument.

A parallel text to this one we find in QE 2:20, speaking about Moses’ will: For He wishes him who philosophizes in accordance with Him to be a harmony of all sounds like a musical instrument with no discord or dissonance in any part but with one and the same consonance and harmony, of will with word and word with deed and of deed with both of these.

Further, in Post. 85 and Post. 88 Philo has explicitly identified Deut 30:14 to be an expression of this Hellenistic maxim. It is also obvious that he takes this for granted, since he does not bother to explain this for his readers. He writes: … And in a thoroughly philosophic way he [Moses] makes a threefold division of it: saying “It is in thy mouth and in thy heart and in thy hand ” (Deut 30:14) … (Post. 85).

52

Cf. Cohen (1993, 19 n. 34), who refers to this maxim in ‘Plato, Statesman 498e; Seneca, Letters 20:2; 24:19; 52:8; 75:4; 108:36, 114; Marcus Aurelius 10:16, and Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras 176.’

53

‘And now, my children, love each one his brother and put away hatred from your hearts, loving one another in deed and word and in disposition of the soul (şőėŕěčȣşőėĕƲčȣşőė ĎēċėęưǪ)’.

54

‘For in every way, whether in deed or in word or in mind, man is constrained (şőėŕěčȣşőė ĕƲčȣşőėĎēċėęưǪ)’.

55

See the remarks by Winston (1983, 9–10), who points out that this is a Hellenistic commonplace. See now also Cohen, 1993, 19–23.

56

Brought by Winston, 1983, 9–10. See also Völker (1938, 276), who has minimised the Greek influence.

98

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

… But if a man succeeded, as if handling a lyre, in bringing all the notes of the thing that is good into tune, bringing speech into harmony with intent, and intent with deed, such an one would be considered perfect and of a truly harmonious character (Post. 88).

In all these texts the meaning of harmony is characterised as the unity of word, deed, and intention/thought in accordance with the model of Moses.57 Elsewhere too, where Philo makes an exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:11–14, he associates Deut 30:14 with this commonplace. In the context of Praem. 80–81, obeying the commandments is similar to achieving harmony in words, thoughts, and deeds. In the discussion of Praem. 79 below we will return to Philo’s use of this commonplace within a context of encouraging to law obedience as a condition for realization of the hope of future blessings. It is interesting that the maxim of thought, word, and deeds also is applied in Philo’s exposition of Gen 24:1 to Abraham as an illustration of his progress in piety: Wherefore it says above, “an old man advanced,” (meaning) increase in worthiness, of which the consummation is piety, (and) excellent judgement in all aspects of life, in thoughts, deeds, and words (QG 4:84).

As the founder of the Jewish nation and as the first proselyte, Abraham with his advance in piety in ‘thoughts, deeds, and words’, could serve as a model for the converts among Jews as well as among Gentiles becoming proselytes. Against this background, Philo’s application in Virt. 183–184 of the maxim of harmony in thought, word, and action to the topic of conversion among Jews as well as Gentiles when becoming proselytes, was indeed ‘philosophically’ appropriate.58 Birnbaum too reaches a similar conclusion: ‘… by presenting God’s commandments as exhortations to virtue and harmony—which are easy to follow—Philo depicts Judaism as a way of life that his readers might want to consider.’59 Thus, Philo’s ‘philosophical’ exegesis of Deut 30:14 in Virt. 183–184 can illustrate the way Philo claims philosophical ideas in his surroundings to interpret the Scripture on the basis of the perspective that ideas found in Hellenistic philosophy were seen to be already present in the Laws of Moses. The interpretative rendering of Deut 30:14 in Virt. 183a is followed in Virt. 183b by a repetition of the interpretation and an elaboration of it: ‘… for the mouth is a symbol of speech, the heart of thoughts and intentions, the hand of action, and 57

The comparison of harmony with musical harmony is frequent in Philo, cf. e.g. Spec. 2:157; Mos. 1:29; Somn. 1:202. Cf. Feldman, 1996, 509–517.

58

See Cohen, 1993, 20–21.

59

Birnbaum, 1996, 152.

Deut 30:11–14 and the Conversion from Discord to Harmony

99

in these three lies happiness.’ The same interpretation of Deut 30:14 about happiness appears in Mut. 237–238: ‘For good thinking and intending, good speaking and good doing make up, he means, human happiness (ďƉĎċēĖęėưċ) just as their opposites make up unhappiness, since achievement of righteousness and sinning are found in all these places, heart, mouth and hand.’ The motif of the triad of words, thoughts, and actions as the source of ďƉĎċēĖęėưċ appears elsewhere in Philo’s writings.60 In Praem. 81 Philo can say that when there exists a unity of words, intentions, and actions, ‘happiness prevails, that is wisdom pure of all falsehood, the higher and the lower wisdom.’ In Mos. 2:212 Philo can characterise ‘the true philosophy’ embedded in the Law of Moses as ‘woven from three strands—thoughts, words, and deeds—united into a single piece for the attainment and enjoyment of happiness.’61 According to D. Runia the life that ďƉĎċēĖęėưċdescribes is the good life or ‘well– being’, and is a main issue in Philo’s Exposition of the Laws: After the Special Laws have been explained, Philo turns to a treatment of a number of excellences (or virtues) which the Law enjoins, bur cannot be placed under the individual commandments because they are common to them all. The aretai that he discusses are justice, courage, humanity, repentance and true nobility of birth. In each case Philo argues that the practice of excellence will result in the life of eudaimonia.62

Then Runia refers to Virt. 183–185 and Philo’s exposition of Deut 30:11–14 as an example of how Philo explains the life of the convert by means of this concept of the ďƉĎċēĖęėưċ. The conversion and the state of ‘well–being’ are not far away, but are close at hand in words, thoughts, and actions. Runia has also pointed out how Virt. 183–185 and the theme of repentance are linked to a passage in Joseph and Asenath (16:7), in which all those who like Asenath attach themselves to God in repentance are called blessed, a theme which in Philo is synonymous with the concept of ďƉĎċēĖęėưċ.63 60

See e.g. Mos. 2:212.

61

Runia (1986, 10 n. 1), has listed a selection of activities or conditions which Philo describes as constituting ďƉĎċēĖęėưċ, such as: Opif. 144: consorting with the celestial beings. Opif. 172: subscribing to the five priceless doctrines. Det. 86: gaining knowledge of God. Abr. 157: practising virtue. Mos. 2:212: engaging in the pursuit of philosophy. Decal. 100: worshipping God on the Sabbath through contemplation and self–examination. QG 4:4: the presence of God.

62

Runia, 2002, 142.

63

Idem, 2002, 138. Cf. Opif. 172; Praem. 30.

100

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

In Virt. 184 the interpretation of Deut 30:14 and the condition of happiness in Virt. 183 is elaborated further (cf. čƪě) by Philo through the following conditional temporal clause: ƂĞċė Ėƫė čƩě ęŴęĜ ž ĕƲčęĜ ĞęēƪĎď Ş čėƶĖđ ĔċƯ ęŴęė ĞƱ ČęƴĕďğĖċ ĞęēƪĎď Ş ĚěǬĘēĜ őĚċēėďĞƱĜ ĔċƯ ĞƬĕďēęĜ ž ČưęĜ … (‘For when thoughts correspond to words and actions correspond to intentions, life is praiseworthy and perfect …’). Here it is positively stated in the protasis that when word, thought and action correspond with each other, life is praiseworthy, őĚċēėďĞƲĜ, and perfect, ĞƬĕďēęĜ. Let us evaluate each of these two words in order to grasp their meaning in Virt. 184. In Stoicism, ŕĚċēėęĜ praise, approval, applause was an element in the term ĞƱ ĔċĕƲė.64 This aspect of ‘the good’ was manifested by virtue and virtuous activity.65 In this way there is a link between being approved as laudable and being in the state of happiness, since Stoicism placed virtuous activity in the highest rank with regard to happiness as the goal of life. Stoic ethic is also concerned with freeing the individual from the judgement of men and emphasising approval by God, and the priority of the inner life over the outward life, but in so doing it simply proves how great a value the ancient world placed on ŕĚċēėęĜ either by individuals or by the public.66 We can recognise many of these commonplaces in Philo’s use of the same concept. To Philo, ŕĚċēėęĜ may also signify public recognition or applause in the Greek sense,67 though approval by God is the decisive element in his concept. Thus, Philo can state that public applause was not the decisive thing for Abraham (cf. Abr. 190).68 Philo renders the story of Abraham, the prototype of a proselyte, and his belief in God according to Gen 15:6, as a ‘record of praise (ŕĚċēėęĜ) attested by words from Moses’ prophetic lips’ (Abr. 262), and ‘a necessary addition to speak the praise (ŕĚċēėęĜ)due to him who has believed’ (Her. 90).69 So Abraham, according to Philo, was the first man spoken of as an elder, ‘for the true elder is shown as such not by his length of days but by a laudable and perfect life (őėőĚċēėďĞȦĔċƯĞďĕďưȣČưȣÜÜ)’ (Abr. 270). It is worth observing that in Post. 84–88 Philo takes Deut 30:12–14 to refer to the concept of the ‘good’, 64

See StVF 2:1003; 3:29, 37.

65

See StVF 3:16, 30; Cicero: De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum 5:23, 66.

66

Cf. e.g. Epictetus: Discourses III, 23:19.

67

Post. 71; 72; 141; Abr. 186.

68

In T. Benj. 6:4 it is a characteristic of the good man that he ‘does not admit of glory nor dishonour from men, and it does not know any guile or lie, fighting or reviling;….’ Here this Jewish writing expresses the thought of not admitting any praise from men, which is a topos in Stoic philosophy, see e.g. Epictetus: Discourses I, 24:6; 30:2; II, 1:35; 9:15; Plutarch: Moralia, 36 E; 227 E. — Cf. also Philo: Spec. 4:88; Praem. 24; Prob. 23, 55. See also Hollander, 1981, 84–85.

69

See also Leg. 3:77.

Deut 30:11–14 and the Conversion from Discord to Harmony

101

ĞƱĔċĕƲė, with the meaning the Law of Moses, and relates it to the concepts of praise and harmony. Thus, the motif of praise in Post. 84 refers to what deserves praise, namely the harmonious life in which the ‘good’, that is the Law of Moses, is manifested in the unity of speech, intent and deed (elaborating on Deut 30:14).70 The concept of praise has a similar sense within the context of Virt. 184. In this context, ‘praise’, ŕĚċēėęĜ, is connected to Philo’s elaboration of Deut 30:14 and the harmonious unity of word, intent, and action, as seen as an aspect of the conversion within the Jewish nation and as proselytism. Moreover, approval by God is a component of praise in Virt. 184, since Philo in the following clauses describes the person who has this harmony in terms of his relationship to God: ‘If a man does not forget to keep this harmony, he will be well–pleasing to God, thus becoming God–beloved and God–loving.’ Likewise, the association of the motif of praise with Abraham, the first proselyte and the founder of the Jewish nation, may also be in the background of Philo’s use of this concept in the context of Virt. 175–186, which describes the conversion of both Jews and proselytes. The nature of happiness and the outcome of the unity of word, intention and action are further elaborated through the concept of ĞƬĕďēęĜ, ‘perfect’ in Virt. 184a.71 We have seen in Abr. 270 that the concept of ŕĚċēėęĜ can come into view along with the concept of ĞƬĕďēęĜ. In the context of Post. 84–88, Deut 30:14 and 70

The text reads: Moses, full of indignation at such people, pronounces a curse on them saying, “Cursed is he that shifteth his neighbour’s boundaries” (Deut. xxvii. 17). What he describes as “near” and “hard by” like a neighbour is the thing that is good. For it is not necessary, he says, to fly up into heaven, nor to get beyond the sea in searching for what is good; for that it stands hard by and is near to each man. And in a thoroughly philosophic way he makes a threefold division of it saying : “It is in thy mouth and in thy heart and in thine hand” (Deut 30. xxx.11–14), that is, in words, in plans, in actions. For these are the parts of the good thing, and of these it is compacted, and the lack of but one not only renders it imperfect but absolutely destroys it. For what good is it to say the best things but to plan and carry out the most shameful things? This is the way of the sophists, for as they spin out their discourses on sound sense and endurance they grate on the ears of those thirsting to listen, but in the choices that they make and the actions of their lives we find them going very far wrong. And what is the good of having right intentions, and yet resorting to unfitting deeds and words, by the words inflicting loss on those who hear them, and by the deeds on those who are their victims? Again, it is blameworthy to practise the things that are excellent without understanding and explicit speech. For what is done apart from these comes under the head of involuntary action, and in no way whatever merits praise (őĚċēėďĞƲĜ). But if a man succeeded, as if handling a lyre, in bringing all the notes of the thing that is good into tune, bringing speech into harmony with intent, and intent with deed, such an one would be considered perfect (ĞƬĕďēęĜ) and of a truly harmonious (ďƉƪěĖęĝĞęĜ) character. Thus the man who removes the boundaries of the good and beautiful both is accursed and is pronounced to be so with justice (Post. 84 88).

71

These two terms, happiness and perfection, can appear as synonyms in Philo’s writings; see e.g. Cher. 86; Prob. 91; Praem. 11. Cf. Völker, 1938, 340ff.

102

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

the triad of speech, intention and action are interpreted within the framework of being perfect and harmonious, such as in Virt. 184: But if a man succeeded, as if handling a lyre, in bringing all the notes of the thing that is good into tune, bringing speech into harmony with intent, and intent with deed, such an one would be considered perfect (ĞƬĕďēęĜ) and of a truly harmonious (ďƉƪěĖęĝĞęĜ) character (Post. 88).

Both Abraham and Moses are among the persons who are considered by Philo as perfect (ĞƬĕďēęĜ) men.72 In Philo’s writings Moses is exemplified as a model of perfection, especially because he is one who has removed passion from his soul, and lives in harmony with nature, i.e. the cosmic principles and order manifested in the Laws of Moses, with respect to words, thoughts, and actions.73 Against such a background, a conceivable meaning of the idea of ĞƬĕďēęĜ ‘perfect’, when applied in Virt. 184, may be the following one: Here the motif of being ĞƬĕďēęĜ is applied to both penitent Jews and converted proselytes, when, as a result, they live in harmony in words, thoughts, and actions in accordance with the Law. In the next section we will study how the aspect of conversion as living in harmony is elaborated further in Virt. 184b–186.

4.4. Conversion to Membership within the true People of God In Virt. 184b the aspect of harmony is further elaborated by means of a conditional statement: ‘If (ďŭ)a man does not forget to keep this harmony, he will be well–pleasing to God, thus becoming God–beloved and God–loving.’74 Here harmony is seen as the condition for gaining the right relationship to God, and the convert is characterised as becoming well–pleasing to God (ďƉċěďĝĞƬģĒďȦ), which in turn is further specified as becoming God–beloved (ĒďęĠēĕƮĜ) and God–loving (ĠēĕƲĒďęĜ)Let us analyse Philo’s use of each of these terms.75

72

Abraham: Leg. 3:203; Virt. 217; Moses: Leg. 2:91; Ebr. 84.

73

See Post. 88–89. In Philo’s description of Moses it is relevant to have in mind the Stoic background. In Stoicism the concept of ĞƬĕďēęĜ is orientated from the goal of a harmonious life according to nature. The goal of the human life is thus to live in this state of perfection and harmony with nature. Cf. e.g. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 7:87. Cf. Völker, 1938, 340ff; Osnes, 1954, 41ff.

74

Our translation.

75

A. Nissen (1974, 304ff.) has stated that Philo never quotes the Old Testament injunction of loving one’s neighbour as oneself; that his focus is wholly on the love–relationship between man and God. This is not correct, however, as Philo clearly applies Lev 19:34 in Spec. 1:51–53 and Virt. 102–104.

Conversion to Membership within the true People of God

103

The verb ďƉċěďĝĞƬģwithGod as its object, ‘to be acceptable to God’, ‘to please God’, applies to both Jews and proselytes in Philo’s works. In the context of Praem. 24–27 Abraham is characterised as the first (proselyte) who pressed forward to the goal of becoming well–pleasing to the Maker and Father of all, by passing over from the vanity of polytheism to the truth of adopting the godly creed about the one God.76 According to Praem. 27, Abraham ‘in adopting the godly creed, who first passed over from vanity to truth, came to his consummation (ĞďĕďưģĝēĜ) by virtue gained through instruction, and he received for his reward belief in God.‘ In Praem. 167 the outcome of the conversion and the restoration of the Jewish nation is described by means of the same verb: ‘to become well–pleasing to God (ďƉċěďĝĞƬģĞȦĒďȦ) as sons may with their father.’ Commenting on Gen 6:9 in Deus 117–118, Philo characterises Noah in the following way: … the fact that he was a man, that he was just, that he was perfect (ĞƱĞƬĕďēęė ďųėċē), that he was well pleasing to God (ĞƱĒďȦďƉċěďĝĞǻĝċē). And this last as being the consummation of these virtues, and the definition of supreme happiness (ďƉĎċēĖęėưċ), is put at the end of them all (Deus 118).

Here we can observe that the conception of being well–pleasing to God is considered by Philo as the consummation of the virtues of justice and being perfect (ĞƬĕďēęĜ), and at the same time a definition of happiness. Thus, we have here a similar association of the concepts of happiness, being perfect and being well–pleasing to God as in Virt. 183–184.77 This is an indication that the concepts of happiness and being perfect in Virt. 183 and Virt. 184 are to be seen in a God–orientated perspective. Virt. 184 is further the only reference in which what is well–pleasing is affirmed in a conditional form: the Jewish or Gentile converts are in a state of happiness and are perfect inasmuch as they have the harmonious unity of words, thoughts, and actions and so receive the attribute of being well– pleasing to God. The subsequent designations ‘God–beloved’ (ĒďęĠēĕƮĜ) and ‘God–loving’(ĠēĕƲĒďęĜ)are further best taken as appositions to the phrase ‘well–pleasing to God’ (ďƉċěďĝĞƬģĒďȦ). The phrase ĒďęĠēĕƮĜ‘God–beloved’, is used by Philo to describe the special relationship between God and the Jewish people.78 In Abr. 98, Philo describes the 76

See also Abr. 235.

77

The same cluster of these motifs connected to Gen 9:6 is found in Abr. 31ff.

78

The adjective is not to be found in the LXX. We cannot find any passage where Philo applies this term to Gentiles outside the Jewish nation. Thus, Nissen’s thesis (1974, 476–478) that there is a tension in Philo’s thought with regard to this concept between nationalistic and universalistic aspects, cannot be substantiated. It is more fruitful to view the relation between universalism and particularism, and the confluence between Greek and Jewish ideas as a sort of universal particularism, which means that Philo takes his philosophical ideas, language and idioms from his surroundings, and transforms them or employs them to characterise the Jewish nation. Regarding the discussion on the relation between universal and particular elements in Philo, cf. Borgen, 1965, 116–118.

104

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

‘God–beloved’ nation (őĒėȥė ĞƱ ĒďęĠēĕƬĝĞċĞęė) and claims that they are assigned the offices of priest and prophet for the whole world. Philo likewise writes that the Jews serve as priests or intercessors for all humankind in Mos. 1:149, Spec. 1:97, and Spec. 2:162–167.79 According to Philo, the God–beloved nation is the people which migrated from Egypt (Her. 203) and went through the desert (Migr. 114), and which sang the hymn according to Num 21:7f. (Mos. 1:255). Finally, in Hypoth. 6:7, Philo suggests that the conquest of the land (Canaan) by the biblical nation, by winning the respect of its inhabitants, would show that even their enemies acknowledge them as most beloved of God (ĒďęĠēĕƬĝĞċĞęē) The phrase can also be used individually about persons and groups within the Jewish people, e.g. about Moses, who can be described in the following way: ‘Thus he [Moses] came to love God (ĠēĕƲĒďęĜ) and be loved by Him (ĒďęĠēĕƮĜ) as have been few others’ (Mos. 2:67).81 Spec. 3:126 ff. shows that the state of being beloved by God is ranked over every tie of family and kinship. Here Philo praises the actions of the Levites in the desert against those worshipping the golden calf,82 and he says that ‘They began with their nearest and dearest, for they acknowledged no love nor kinship but God’s love (ĒďęĠēĕƮĜ)’ (Spec. 3:126).83 On this basis it can be asked whether the love of God has also been a motivation for a proselyte in abandoning the ties of family and friendship. The application of this term to proselytes within the context of Virt. 220 seems to confirm such an idea: ‘To this nobility not only did men beloved of God (ĒďęĠēĕďȉĜ) aspire, but women also ….’ In light of the immediate literary context of Virt. 219–221 it is clear that the term is applied to the description of Abraham and Tamar as model proselytes. Thus, the use of this word to describe Abraham’s conversion as the first proselyte corresponds to the fact that a Gentile through conversion becomes a Jew.84 Moreover, in Mos. 1:147, Philo mentions that the children of 79

The priestly role of the Jewish nation is also suggested but not stated directly in Spec. 4:180 and Legat. 3. In Spec. 1:97, Philo portrays their high priest as one who prays on behalf of all people and indeed of the whole universe. In Spec. 2:162–167, Philo asserts that not only do the Jews act as the priesthood for all other nations, but they also serve to correct the false worship of these other nations.

80

In Mos. 1:147 and Hypoth. 6:7 Philo attributes to outsiders the observation that the Jews are God–beloved.

81

According to Sir 45:1 Moses is God’s beloved.

82

Philo’s use of Exod 32:26–28 about Jewish apostasy seems to be unparalleled in other Jewish texts from the same time as Philo’s writings. However, several later works demonstrate that this apostasy was an embarrassment to the Jews. Cf. Smolar and Aberbach, 1968, 91–116.

83

Cf. Mos. 2:170ff.; 270ff. for another description of the same incident.

84

The phrase is also used once in Josephus: J. W. 5:381, and then about Abraham and his family: ‘… upon those Hebrews beloved (ĒďęĠēĕďȉĜ) of God ….’ Without using the same terminology, other Jewish writings describe some biblical sages as beloved: Abraham is called God’s beloved in 2 Chr 20:7 (LXX: ĞȦŝčċĚđĖƬėȣĝęğ). Cf. Jas 2:23: ǵìČěċƩĖ…ĠưĕęĜĒďęȘőĔĕƮĒď; Philo: Sobr. 56: ǵìČěċƩĖĞęȘĠưĕęğĖęğ; Apoc. Abr. 9:6: ‘… and I called you my beloved’; 10:5: ‘…

Conversion to Membership within the true People of God

105

Egyptian women and Hebrew fathers had been adopted into the Hebrew families, ‘attracted by the divine favour shewn to the people (ƂĝęēĞƱĒďęĠēĕƫĜ)had come over to them (őĚđĕƴĞċē őčƬėęėĞę)…’. Hence, this text too confirms the association of this designation of being God–beloved with the conversion of Gentiles to the Jewish nation. In Palestinian Jewish writings too the proselytes can be characterised as beloved of God, e.g. in Tanch. Lekh-Lekha 6 (32a): ‘Resh Lakish said: The proselyte, who passes over to Judaism, is more beloved of God than the Israelites who stood on Mount Sinai. But the convert comes along and without having perceived anything of all this, commends himself to God and accepts God’s Lordship. Could there be any one more beloved?’85 Against the background of the use of ĒďęĠēĕƮĜin Philo’s works, it is clear that the designation ĒďęĠēĕƮĜin Virt. 184describes the status of the Jewish or Gentile convert in relation to God and within a Jewish context. The term ĠēĕƲĒďęĜ can be applied by Philo to a description of Moses (Mos. 2:66) and other pious persons.86 Especially the text in Prob. 83–84 offers insights with regard to Philo’s understanding of this concept. In this context he describes the Therapeutae as a sort of model community within the Jewish nation as they gather on the Sabbath. Their gathering and activity is rendered in the following way: They are trained in piety, holiness, justice, domestic and civic conduct, knowledge of what is truly good, or evil, or indifferent, and how to choose what they should and avoid the opposite, taking for their defining standards these three, love of God (ĠēĕƲĒďęĜ), love of virtue, love of men. Their love of God (ĠēĕƲĒďęĜ)they show by a multitude of proofs, by religious purity constant and unbroken throughout their lives, by abstinence from oaths, by veracity, by their belief that the Godhead is the cause of all good things and nothing bad … (Prob. 83 84).

Here we see that being ĠēĕƲĒďęĜ is associated with the ceremonial purity and avoidance of defilement and monotheistic belief in the one God as the cause of all good things. The monotheistic aspect of the term comes also to expression in Decal. 106–111, in which Philo speaks about the two parts of the decalogue. According to Decal. 110 the one who follows the first part dealing with the duties of man to God is ĠēĕƲĒďęĜwhile he who follows the second part dealing with the duties of man to man is ĠēĕƪėĒěģĚęĜ.87 Moreover, Spec. 1:51, from which we have already quoted, indicates that the term ĠēĕƲĒďęĜserves also as a description of the Jewish commonwealth, into which friend of God who has loved you ….’ Isaac is called Abraham’s beloved son in Gen 22:2. Jacob is mentioned as God’s beloved in two Qumran documents: 4Q462 (4Q Narrative) 11; 4Q539 (frg.) 2, 2; Cf. further Jub. 19:27: ‘Jacob, my [Abraham’s] beloved son .…’ 85

The text is quoted from Schoeps, 1961, 229. Cf. also Mek. Exod. 22:21.

86

Leg. 3:55; Det. 48; Agr. 88; Prob. 83.

87

Cf. Berger, 1972, 159; Borgen, 1997, 253.

106

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

the proselytes enter by conversion: ‘These last he calls proselytes, or newly joined, because they have joined the new and godly commonwealth (ĚěęĝďĕđĕğĒƬėċē …ĠēĕęĒƬȣĚęĕēĞďưǪ).’ In Spec. 1:314 Philo gives almost a Jewish ‘self–definition’ when applying a similar description of a God–loving commonwealth to the Jewish people of his own time: … we who, born as citizens of a godly community (őėĚęĕēĞďưǪĠēĕęĒƬȣ), reared under laws which incite to every virtue, trained from our earliest years under divinely gifted men, show contempt for their teaching and cling to what truly deserves our contempt, count the serious side of life as child’s–play and what befits the playground as matters of serious import.

Thus, we have seen that the term ĠēĕƲĒďęĜdesignates some of the common characteristics of the Jewish people in its relation to God, encompassing the Jewish proselytes. This connotation of the wordin Virt. 184 also fits well in a literary context dealing with Moses’ teaching on conversion among Jews and potential proselytes offering to ‘the repentant in honour of their victory the high rewards of membership in the best of commonwealths …’ (Virt. 175). Our understanding of the features of being ‘God–beloved’ and ‘God–loving’ is in agreement with an observation made by Birnbaum: ‘I have also identified other features that characterise the relationship between God and the Jews according to Philo, namely that the Jews are allotted or have allotted themselves to God and that they are God–beloved or God–loving.’88 We have observed how Deut 30:14 is interpreted in Virt. 183 and 184a as speaking of harmony as an aspect of conversion and as a condition for a right relationship between the convert and God. In light of the textual context of Virt. 175–182, and the use of 1.p.pl. in Virt. 183, it is appropriate to apprehend this condition as a ‘membership requirement’ in the process of becoming a member of the true Jewish community. As we will see, such an understanding is also affirmed in Virt. 184b–186, which we now analyse. The dissertation ‘The Place of Judaism in Philo’s thought: Israel, Jews and Proselytes’, by E. Birnbaum may serve as a convenient point of departure for our analysis at this point.89 88

Birnbaum, 1993, 63 n. 14. Birnbaum (1993, 54–69) also suggests that the following other features are attributed to the Jews: 1. The Jews believe in the true God and worship Him by following specific laws and customs; 2. The Jews serve as priestly intercessors between God and the whole world; 3. The Jews have been allotted or have allotted themselves to God; 4. The Jews are particular beneficiaries of God’s providence.

89

The article (Birnbaum, 1993, 54–69) summarises in broad outline many of the findings in the later dissertation (Birnbaum, 1996). The dissertation focuses upon how Philo understands the relationship between ‘Israel’ and the Jews. The study shows that in Philo’s works one may distinguish between ‘Israel’, a loosely defined entity that sees God, and the Jews, the real historical

Conversion to Membership within the true People of God

107

Birnbaum has analysed Philo’s use of Deut 26:17–18 in Virt. 184–186. According to Birnbaum these paragraphs testify to the way Philo universalises biblical passages to make the particular details of Scripture representative of all people. She writes: In the Exposition, Philo presents the relationship between God and Biblical Israel as available to anyone who chooses to turn to God and live virtuously. Here the “chosen people” become the mind of the worthy person, and any true suppliant is equal in worth to a whole nation.90 God does indeed have special relationships with people; the “chosen”, however, are not a particular historical or contemporary nation but the mind of the man of worth (Praem. 123), those who are people in truth (Spec. 1.303), or the true suppliant (Virt. 185–186).91

Our main objection against E. Birnbaum’s reading of Virt. 184–186 is that she has failed to take into sufficient account the immediate context of Virt. 175–183, dealing with the issue of conversion of penitent Jews and proselytes. It is clear that Philo in Virt. 184–185 applies Deut 26:17–18 so that these verses may apply to both Jews and Gentiles. However, contrary to the understanding of Birnbaum, this does not mean that Philo has removed this passage from a contemporary and historical Jewish context and community. This is also indicated by the term used for people, ĕċƲĜ, which in the quotation of Deut 26:17–18 in Virt. 184b designates the people of God: ‘And therefore in accordance with these words there was given from above the good saying “Thou hast chosen to–day nation that believes and worships Him by following special laws. While membership in ‘Israel’ appears open to anyone spiritually capable of seeing God, membership in the Jewish nation is open to anyone who chooses to believe in and worship God and join the Jewish community. For Philo, then, being a Jew does not necessarily signify that one can ‘see God’ nor that one belongs to a historically ‘chosen’ people. Rather, it signifies, among other things, that one belongs by birth or choice to the only nation dedicated to serving God, on behalf of all humankind. Scholars have argued whether Israel who ‘sees God’ represents the concrete nation of Israel or whether it developed as a spiritualised concept only. Birnbaum represents the latter view. Goodenough (1935, 136 and 1938, 12) has presented both views without discussing this contradiction. Scholars like Völker (1938, 283ff.), Wolfson (1947, vol. II, 51f.), Borgen (1965, 117– 118), and Delling (1984, 27–41) have suggested that the nation that ‘sees God’ is a description of the concrete Jewish nation. Borgen (1965, 117–118) states: ‘… the concept of the vision of God is used by Philo as a distinctive characteristic of the Jewish nation ….’ Dahl (1941, 108ff., 113) mediates between these two views of ‘the nation of vision’. According to Dahl the concept of Israel in Philo moves from the concrete Jewish nation, through the invisible ‘church’ of more universal character, to the abstract vision of God. Thus, Philo has both the perspective of particularism and universalism, but on different levels, according to Dahl. It is beyond the scope of this study to enter the discussion of Birnbaum’s argument concerning the relationship between ‘Israel’ and ‘Jews’ in Philo’s writings. 90

Birnbaum, 1996, 159.

91

Birnbaum 1996, 152.

108

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

God to be God to thee, and the Lord has chosen thee to–day to be a people to Him (čưėęĖċē ĕċƱė ċƉĞȦ).”’ In Philo’s writings the term ĕċƲĜ is reserved for the people of the Jewish nation.92 Generally speaking he uses it less often than the term ĞƱŕĒėęĜ, which is another term used to describe the Jewish people as distinguished from other peoples.93 The understanding of ĕċƲĜin Virt. 185 as a characterisation of the Jewish people of God is supported by Virt. 175 which explicitly says that the converts join the Jewish ĚęĕēĞďưċ: Our most holy Moses, who so dearly loved virtue and goodness and especially his fellow men, exhorts everyone everywhere to pursue piety and justice, and offers to the repentant (ĖďĞċėęęȘėĞďĜ) in honour of their victory the high rewards of membership in the best of commonwealths (ĚęĕēĞďưċ)and of the felicities both great and small which that membership confers (Virt. 175).

E. Birnbaum comments on this paragraph: Here ĖďĞċėęęȘėĞďĜ can refer either to penitents or to proselytes, an observation which becomes clear as Philo develops the theme of ĖďĞƪėęēċ in the treatise. Though he doesn’t make explicit in the passage above that “the best polity” refers to the Jews, this identification is implicit since he is talking about the ĚęĕēĞďưċ of Moses, and the Jews are the very community which lives according to his ĚęĕēĞďưċ94

Such a comment by Birnbaum seems to stand in conflict with her understanding that Philo in Virt. 185–186 ‘describes the exclusive relationship between God and the historical nation to give the impression that such a relationship can be achieved by any genuine suppliant, a wise man, who seeks to please God and to serve Him.’95 In the light of Birnbaum’s understanding of the words ĖďĞƪėęēċ 92

Birnbaum (1996, 56–60) has observed that in the Exposition, Philo regularly uses ĕċƲĜ(people) and ŕĒėęĜ(nation) to indicate the historical nation, or as a rule ĕċƲĜ, to denote the ancient Hebrews rather than Philo’s Jewish contemporaries. However, Spec. 2:45 is a text where ĕċƲĜ refers to the contemporary nation. In passages as Agr. 44, 88; Leg. 3:163; Migr. 14, Philo uses this word in connection with the phrase ‘the whole people of the soul’. According to Borgen (1965, 134), Ebr. 37 (‘He [Moses] in his wisdom was recalling the whole people of the soul to piety, and to honouring God and was teaching them the commandments and holy laws.’) gives support to the suggestion that this phrase is an interpretation of the Jewish people, because here the people are associated with piety, the honouring of God, the commandments and holy laws—in short the precise characteristics of the Jewish people in contrast to ‘a city or commonwealth peopled by a promiscuous horde, who swing to and fro as their idle opinions carry them’ (Ebr. 36). See also Dahl, 1941, 112; Cohen, 1990, 205.

93

Cf. Umemoto, 1994, 23: ‘Das Wort ŕĒėęĜtaucht nach dem Index Philoneus 280 mal auf. Fast genau die Hälfte der Belege (insgesamt 141) zeigt, dassĞƱŕĒėęĜbzw. ŕĒėęĜ ohne den bestimmten Artikel das jüdische Volk bedeutet.’ According to the complete Greek word index to the writings of Philo of Alexandria by Borgen, Fuglseth, and Skarsten (2000, 104), the word ŕĒėęĜ is used 287 times.

94

Birnbaum, 1996, 217 n. 49.

95

Birnbaum, 1996, 152. M. R. Niehoff (2001, 95 n. 84) critisezes Birnbaum’s radical distinction between Jews and Israel as unwarranted:

Conversion to Membership within the true People of God

109

and ĚęĕēĞďưċ in Virt. 175, her statement about the proselytes and the collectivity they join also needs to be modified: As for his characterisation of the collectivity that proselytes join, Philo never directly says that they become menders of the Jews nor of ‘Israel’, nor does he state that they enter a new ŕĒėęĜ,ĕċƲĜ orčƬėęĜ… In addition, although he (Philo) doesn’t specify that proselytes enter a new ŕĒėęĜ,ĕċƲĜ orčƬėęĜ, ….96

When Philo applies this quotation Deut 26:17–18 in Virt. 184 to the theme of conversion, he also wants to emphasise that the people of God are constituted by an initiative taken both by the convert and God. The motif of God’s election of his people is one of the basic ideas in the Old Testament and Judaism, and is associated with the complex idea of covenant.97 Even when the terminology of a covenant (i.e. ĎēċĒƮĔđ) between God and his people is lacking in Virt. 184 and in the whole of Philo’s ‘Exposition’, the idea of God’s choice of the Jewish nation as his people is present in Philo’s understanding of the Jewish nation. Thus, according to Philo, the people who serve God are the chosen people of God and so also the true human beings: ‘… out of the whole human race He chose as of special merit and judged worthy of pre–eminence over all, those who are in a true sense men, and called them to the service (ĒďěċĚďưċ) of Himself …’ (Spec. 1:303). Here Philo paraphrases the words addressed to Israel in Deut 10:15: ‘… and chose … you above all peoples ….’98 Philo’s elaboration of Deut 26:17–18 in Virt. 185 supports the idea that the convert becomes a member fully entitled to the service of the chosen people of God: Glorious is this reciprocation of choice (ċŲěďĝēĜ), when man hastens to serve (ĒďěċĚďƴģ) the Existent, and God delays not to take the suppliant to Himself and anticipates the will of him who honestly and sincerely comes to do Him service Statements such as “the suppliants race which the Father and King of the Universe and the source of all things has taken for his portion … is called in the Hebrew tongue Israel, but expressed in our tongue, the word is ‘he that sees God’” (Leg. 3–4) demonstrate the intrinsic connection between Jews and Israel. Birnbaum dismissed the importance of such statements in the Legatio, because she held this treatise to be an apologetic work for a foreign audience. … Philo’s view of Abraham similarly suggests a deep connection between Israel and the Jews: this patriarch is interpreted as both the founder of the Jewish nation and the paradigmatic visionary of God (ŁěġđčƬĞęğĞęȘŕĒėęğĜ(Abr. 276); Abr. 77; Her. 279). Similarly, Moses the paradigmatic nomothetes of the Jews enjoyed a most perfect vision (Mos. 1:158). 96

Birnbaum, 1993, 65.

97

Cf. Sanders, 1977, 84ff.

98

According to Philo the Jewish people is ‘a nation most dearest to God’ (Abr. 98); ‘the chosen people (ĕċƱĜőĘċưěďĞęĜ), the people not of particular rulers, but of the one and only true ruler, a people holy even as He is holy’ (Praem. 123). The Jews are further designated by Philo as ‘God’s portion’ (Spec. 4:159, 179–180; Legat. 3; Post. 89, 93). Even though Philo does not directly refer to the Jewish nation in these paragraphs, these concepts are associated with the Jewish people.

110

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

(ĒďěċĚďưċ). And that true servant and suppliant (ĒďěċĚďğĞƮĜ Ğď ĔċƯ ŮĔƬĞđĜ), even though in actual number he be but one, is in real value, what God’s own choice makes him, the whole people (žĕďƶĜ), in worth equal to a complete nation.

Philo concludes this elaboration of Deut 26:17–18 in Virt. 186: ‘So, too, against the worth of a whole nation the wise man can hold his own, protected by the impregnable wall of godliness’ (Virt. 186). As Birnbaum notes, this exegesis is based upon the singular pronoun ‘you’ in Deut 26:17–18. On this basis Philo derives the lesson that an individual suppliant is of equal value to a whole nation.99 According to Birnbaum, this interpretation of Deut 26:17–18 shows: … that Philo does not acknowledge the literal sense of the Biblical verses that God and the people of Israel choose each other, and he omits reference to the nation’s agreement to obey God’s commandments. Instead he changes the sense of a passage that describes the exclusive relationship between God and the historical nation to give the impression that such a relationship can be achieved by any genuine suppliant, a wise man, who seeks to please God and to serve Him.100

Again, our objection against this reading of Virt. 184–186 is that Birnbaum fails to recognise the immediate context dealing with conversion to Judaism. Moreover, as we now turn to analyse the words used in Virt. 185–185, they can be taken by Philo to characterise the relationship between God and both Jews and proselytes. According to Philo, man broke down the order of creation by worshipping many gods. This failure of human beings was then rectified by the Jewish people who chose the service of God. In Spec. 2:166 Philo states: When they went wrong in what was the most vital matter of all, it is the literal truth that the error which the rest committed was corrected by the Jewish nation which passed over all created objects … and chose the service (ĒďěċĚďưċ) only of the Uncreated and Eternal ….

According to this passage, it is clear that Philo holds the view that what distinguishes the Jewish people from other peoples is that they alone serve God, and that they serve Him on behalf of all peoples.101 Thus the special worship of God by the Jews was understood by Philo as universal in its outreach, and in principle all men’s duty. In Spec. 1:309 (cf. Virt. 221) Philo also describes proselytes as becoming suppliants and worshippers of God with use of the same terminology

99

Birnbaum, 1996, 152.

100 Birnbaum, 1996, 152. 101 Cf. also Spec. 4:179–182 and Legat. 115–118.

Conversion to Membership within the true People of God

111

(i.e. ŮĔƬĞċēĞďĔċƯĒďěċĚďğĞċư)as in Virt. 185.102 Concerning the relationship between proselytes and God, Philo writes in Spec. 1:51–53, Virt. 102–104 and Virt. 178–181 that they abandon false beliefs and worship to adopt belief in and worship of the one God. Moreover, in the writings of Philo and Josephus, there is further evidence that one could be recognised as a Jew through the choice undertaken by the convert, expressed with similar terminology as here in Virt. 185 (Cf. Abr. 251: ĚěęċưěďĝēĜ; and Virt. 185: ċŲěďĝēĜ). So according to Philo in Abr. 251, Hagar can be seen as an Egyptian by birth, but by choice a Hebrew: But to avoid any suspicion of jealousy on my part take if you will my handmaiden, outwardly a slave, inwardly of free and noble race, proved and tested by me for many years from the day she was first brought to my house, an Egyptian by birth, but a Hebrew by choice (ĞƮėĎƫĚěęċưěďĝēėȭðČěċưċė).

Borgen comments on this paragraph from Abr. 251: The word ĚěęċưěďĝēĜ means “choice” and “purpose”. It may refer to the purpose or motive of some particular action (see Contempl. 29 and 79; Jos. 150) or the choice, motives and principles which regulate a lifetime or a career. Here in Abr. 251 it means that Hagar, although being an Egyptian by birth, based her way of life on Hebrew principles and rules. Hagar lived as a law–abiding Jew.103

Borgen’s understanding is supported by the observation that Josephus applies the term ĚěęċưěďĝēĜto the conversion of proselytes to Judaism in Ap. 2:210. Here Josephus writes: To all who desire to come and live under the same laws with us, he [Moses] gives a gracious welcome, holding that it is not family ties alone which constitute relationship, but also the choice of the manner of life (ĞǼ ĚěęċēěƬĝďē ĞęȘ Čưęğ) ….104

This shows that both Philo and Josephus holds the view that a ‘Jew’ is a ‘Jew’ by birth, but also that one can become a ‘Jew’ by choice of manner of life.

102 Spec. 1: 309 reads: He provides for the incomers (őĚđĕƴĞċē) because forsaking the ancestral customs in which they were bred, customs packed with false inventions and vanity, they have crossed over to piety in whole–hearted love of simplicity and truth, and rendering to Him that truly exists the supplication and service (ŮĔƬĞċēĞďĔċƯĒďěċĚďƴĞċē)which are His right, partake in due course of His protecting care in the measure that fits their case, and gain in the help that He gives the fruit of making God their refuge. 103 Borgen, 1995b., 155–156. According to Birnbaum’s analysis (1996, 46 n. 53) of the word ‘Hebrews’ (ȭðČěċȉęĜ), this is another word that designates the Jewish people. 104 The translation in LCL is modified.

112

Conversion of Jews and Gentiles: De Virtutibus 183–184 in its Literary Context

To sum up, the use of Deut 26:17–18 in Virt. 184b–186, which rounds off Philo’s exposition of Deut 30:11–14 in Virt. 183 –184a, serves as a biblical ‘proof text’ for what happens to the convert, once he becomes a true Jew. When the convert’s thoughts, words, and deeds are in agreement, that person, whether Jew or proselyte, is a member of the true people of God. Thus, Philo’s elaboration of this scriptural passage also seems to support the following observation of Cohen: According to numerous passages in the Torah and the prophets, God chose the Israelites to be his people and the Israelites chose God to be their Lord. Such a conception provides an ideological basis for conversion, because the link between God and his people is not “natural”, but “covenantal” and would seem other too to choose God to be their Lord.105

4.5. Some Final Remarks In this chapter we have analysed the use and application of Deut 30:11–14 in Virt. 183–184 within the immediate context of Virt. 175–186. We have argued that Philo in these paragraphs addresses both Jews and Gentiles when he teaches about conversion. Philo adds to the aspects of religious, ethical, and social conversion described in Virt. 175–182, the aspect of conversion from discord to harmony in Virt. 183–184, which applies to both Jews and Gentiles. In Virt. 183–186, the application of Deut 30:11–14 to Jews and Gentiles has the function of drawing the line from conversion from paganism to Judaism to conversion within the Jewish nation. In the exposition of Deut 30:14 in Virt. 184 Philo links the Old Testament passage with the Greek idea of happiness and harmony in words, thoughts and actions. This illustrates the way Philo could lay claim to Greek ideas from his surroundings in order to interpret aspects of Judaism and Jewish life on the basis of the laws of Moses. For Philo, conversion to harmony, as one aspect of the conversion to Judaism, is a condition for gaining the right relationship with God and to be the true people of God. This idea is further supported by an elaboration on Deut 26:17–18 in Virt. 184–186, which rounds off the elaboration on conversion to the Jewish people of God. The reading of Deut 30:11–14 with Deut 26:17–18 shows that the former Scripture serves to clarify the choice taken to make a conversion from discord to become the true people of God. The reference to Deut 26:17–18 made clear that the relationship between God and the convert was further interpreted by Philo within the framework of the ‘covenantal’ idea of a reciprocal choice between God and the penitent Jew or proselyte. Finally we suggest that our observations are of special importance for a comparison with Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:4–10. In addition to the similari105 Cohen, 1990, 209.

Some Final Remarks

113

ties pointed to above between Philo’s and Paul’s exposition of words from Deut 30:14 (‘mouth’ and ‘heart’), the following features noted in this chapter shed new light on Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 in its textual context: 1) Philo’s expository use of Deut 30:11–14 applies to the teaching of Jews and Gentiles in his own time on conversion. This usage of Deut 30:11–14 provides a background for Paul’s application of this text to his own missionary preaching and teaching among Jews and Gentiles. 2) Like Philo, Paul applies Deut 30:12–14 to the entry of Jews and Gentiles into the true people of God. In this regard both authors elaborate on Deut 30:12–14 in the form of a conditional statement defining the condition for gaining the right relationship with God and becoming members of the true people of God. Moreover, both authors regard the incoming of Jews and Gentiles to the people of God as based on a divine choice. 3) In addition, Philo’s application of Deut 30:11–14 to the conversion of Gentiles who become proselytes and join the Jewish community, i.e. the commonwealth of people living according to the laws and constitution of Moses, can serve to illustrate the social and historical context of Rom 10:4–10. There Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 serves to clarify the condition on which both Jews and Gentiles can belong to the cross–national people of God. Before arguing this case by means of an analysis of the Pauline text, our next task will be to examine Philo’s use of Deut 30:11–14 in Praem. 79–84 within the broader context of Praem. 79–98.

CHAPTER FIVE

5. The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings: De Praemiis et Poenis 79–84 in its Literary Context 5.1. Approach The point of departure for this chapter is the following question: Which points in Praem. 79–84 can illuminate Paul’s application of Deut 30:12 14 within the context of Rom 10:4–13? This chapter will conclude with an answer to this question. However, it is first necessary to analyse the Philonic text on its own. In chapter two we observed on the literary surface level of Praem. 79–84 how Deut 30:11 14 was applied as an argument for the possibility of obedience to the law as a condition for the blessing of victory over the enemies. Against this background the procedure in this chapter will be as follows. First, we will analyse the aspect of law obedience as a condition for the realisation of blessings as this comes to expression within Praem. 79–82. Then in the next section we pass on to examine some aspects of the blessings elaborated on in Praem. 79 and Praem. 85–97. While these two sections examine the exegetical context in which the use of Deut 30:11 14 is located, the third section of this chapter will analyse in a more specific way the various aspects of Philo’s exposition and application of this scripture passage in Praem. 80–84. In each section the selected text and problems in the text will be related to problems discussed in Philonic research. As in chapter four we will draw upon other parts of Philo’s works insofar as they can throw light upon the aspects we discuss. As a background for the analysis of Praem. 79 84, it is fruitful to sketch various views on De Praemiis et Poenis in general. In previous research scholars have approached De Praemiis et Poenis from the angle of the following basic questions in Philonic research: How far has Philo overcome Jewish particularistic religion and developed an individual universalism? Is there a tension between universalism and nationalistic particularism? Various answers have been given. D. Winston observes that there are sufficient particularistic elements reflected in Philo’s hope for the future ‘to reveal the inner tensions in his thought between nationalism and universalism, the mystical and the this-worldly.’1 Others have regarded 1

Winston, 1985, 58.

116

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

particularistic nationalism and universalism as mutually exclusive alternatives and accordingly they find a conflict running through Philo’s works between his Jewish nationalism and individual universalism.2 So for instance U. Fischer reads the text of De Praemiis et Poenis in this perspective, seeing the traits of historical particularism removed in favour of a dehistoricised individual universalism: Wie für Philo die Gestalten der vergangenen jüdischen Geschichte in erster Linie nicht als historische Persönlichkeiten, sondern als Symbole bestimmter Stufen des “königlichen Weges”, des in der Gegenwart erlebbaren mystischen Aufstiegs zu Gott, bedeutsam sind, so sieht Philo auch in den atl. Verheissungen für die Zukunft des jüdischen Volkes nicht so sehr Aussagen über die künftige nationale Geschichte, sondern symbolische Aussagen über das (Seelen) Heil des frommen Individuums.3

A similar point of view on messianic texts in the Philonic Corpus has been expressed by R. Hecht: Here, Philo’s presentation of the Golden Age or Messianic Era is thoroughly dehistoricized and spiritualized. There are no references to an identified national destiny and at the point where this might be introduced, he returns to the spiritualized interpretation.4

On the other hand, Borgen holds the view that Philo in his ‘Exposition’ combines the particularistic and universalistic aspects in his exposition of the Laws of Moses in the context of two or three levels of exegesis, which he characterises as the specific level, the general cosmic and ethical level, and the divine level of the beyond. According to Borgen, the foundation of this hermeneutical perspective is formulated in Mos. 2:48, 52, in which Philo affirms that the Laws of Moses coincide with the universal and cosmic principles. Accordingly, in De Praemiis et Poenis too Philo regards the cosmic, ethical and particular principles of the Laws of Moses as the foundation of the people of the Laws of Moses.5 Thus, when it comes to the materialisation of the future hope of blessing related to the whole creation, the people of the Laws of Moses will play the central role.6 Against the background of this research situation Praem. 79–84 will be analysed, as well as

2

Cf. e.g. Boussett, 1915, 135ff.; Heinemann, 1932, 418ff.; Schürer, 1973–1987, 433, 872–873; Fischer, 1978, 184ff. For the scholarly discussion on this point, see Borgen, 1992, 344.

3

Fischer, 1978, 211.

4

Hecht, 1987, 158.

5

See Borgen, 1997, 144–153, 262, 280–281.

6

According to Borgen (1997, 279), the ‘agreements between thoughts in Praem. 163–72 and the treatises Against Flaccus and On the Embassy to Gaius … show that the principles at work according to Praem. 163–72 were already at work in historical events of Philo’s own time. Moreover, they support the view that the national and nationalistic motifs present in On the Life of Moses and the Exposition of the Laws of Moses were central to Philo himself.’

Obedience to the Law as a Condition for the Future Hope of Blessings

117

Praem. 85–97. First, the aspect of obedience to the law as it comes to expression in Praem. 79–82 will be examined.

5.2. Obedience to the Law as a Condition for the Future Hope of Blessings Obedience to the Law as a condition for realisation of the future blessings is conveyed in Praem. 79 in the following way: őƪėĠđĝưĞƩĜĒďưċĜőėĞęĕƩĜĠğĕƪĞĞđĞďĔċĞċĚďēĒďȉĜčēėƲĖďėęēĞęȉĜ ĚěęĝĞƪčĖċĝēĔċƯĞƩĎēċčęěďğƲĖďėċĖƭĖƬġěēĜŁĔęǻĜĔċĞċĎƬġđĝĒď ŁĕĕƩĎēƩĞȥėĞęȘČưęğĚěƪĘďģėőĚēĞďĕǻĞďĚěƶĞđėĎģěďƩėŖĘďĞďėưĔđėĔċĞǵ őġĒěȥė (‘If, he [Moses] says, you keep the divine commandment in obedience to his ordinances and accept his precepts, not merely to hear them but to carry them out by your life and conduct, the first boon you will have is victory over your enemies.’)

Deut 28:1, 7 LXX and Lev 26:7 LXX have influenced our text to such an extent that it has almost been rendered as a quotation (cf. the formula Ġđĝư)The ‘quoting’ parts of the text are underscored. On the basis of form, what we have here is a conditional promise of blessing.7 In its Old Testament context Deut 28:1, 7 LXX and Lev 26:7 LXX describe the blessings associated with obedience to the Law. Deut 28:7 LXX and Lev 26:7 LXX contain the promise of the land which involves the conquest of the inhabitants of the land characterised as enemies. As we will examine in more detail below, Philo in Praem. 85ff. interprets these enemies to be of two kinds, wild beasts in nature and within man himself and men. Philo’s omission of references in the Old Testament text to the historical context of Israel leads Fischer to make the following statement: Damit verlieren die Segnungen und Flüche nicht nur ihren ursprünglichen geschichtlichen Kontext und werden zu Verheissungen und Verwünschungen für eine (von Philo im übrigen ganz irdisch gedachte) unbestimmte Zukunft, sondern durch Auslassungen findet vor allem eine gewisse Entnationalisierung jener biblischen Weissagungen statt.8

However, the references to Deut 28:1, 7 LXX and Lev 26:7 LXX in the context of Virt. 34–48 seem to substantiate the view that the historical and national elements are integral to Philo’s perspective in Praem. 79ff. as well. As Borgen has 7

The conditional form of blessing is, from early Deuteronomic texts onward, part of the Deuteronomic field of language, and for all the non–Deuteronomic instances one may suspect more or less obvious Deuteronomic influence (cf. Exod 23:22, 25). Other instances of conditional promises of blessing are Exod 19:5; Lev 26:3; Deut 4:29; 7:12; 11:13, 27; 13:19; 15:5; 21:9; 28:1, 2, 13; 30:1, 2, 10, 16; 1 Kgs 3:14; 9:4; 11:38; 2 Kgs 21:8; Job 36:11; Prov 2:1; Jer 17:24; Zech 6:15.

8

Fischer, 1978, 190.

118

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

observed,9 Philo regards in Virt. 34–48 the blessings of Deut 28:1, 7 LXX and Lev 26:7 LXX as manifested in the victory of the Hebrews in the war against the Midianites. According to Borgen, the connection between these passages and this historical event comes to expression by ƂĒďė, ‘whence, therefore’ in Virt. 47:10 Therefore, he says in his Exhortations, “If thou pursuest justice and holiness and the other virtues, thou shalt live a life free from war and in unbroken peace, or if war arises, thou shalt easily overcome the foe under the invisible generalship of God, who makes it His care mightily to save the good …” (Virt. 47).

On the basis of this passage Borgen draws the following conclusion: Since in Virt 34–48 the victorious wars fought by the Hebrews during the exodus from Egypt to Canaan served as the basis for Moses’ words about the blessing of peace or victory in wars—provided that they pursue the virtues—then those events are also presupposed as background for Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 about the blessings of peace or victory in war, Virt.11 93–97.12

If we also add to Borgen’s observations the references to Deut 28:1, 7 LXX and Lev 26:7 LXX in Praem. 79, it seems that Philo entertained the view that this national and historical event of the Jewish people in the past also formed the expectations of future demonstrations of Moses’ words. This line of reasoning is in line with Philo’s own interpretation of Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 33 at the time of his death, according to Mos. 2:288: Then, indeed, we find him [Moses] possessed by the spirit, no longer uttering general truths to the whole nation but prophesying to each tribe in particular the things which were to be and hereafter must come to pass. Some of these have already taken place, others are still looked for, since confidence in the future is assured by fulfilment in the past.13

Thus, against the background of Virt. 34ff., we can reckon with the possibility that a nationalistic motif is integral to Philo’s references to Deut 28:1, 7 LXX and Lev 26:7 LXX in Praem. 79 and Praem. 85ff. as well. In the conditional part of the statement in Praem. 79 the emphasis is on verbs for ‘doing’ the commandments: ‘If, he says, you keep (ĠğĕƪĞĞģ) the divine com9

Borgen, 1992, 355.

10

Quoted from Borgen, 1992, 355.

11

Here Borgen refers to Virt. 93–97, but the correct reference shall be Praem. 93–97.

12

Borgen, 1992, 355.

13

See also Virt. 77, Josephus: Ant. 4:125 (‘And from these prophecies having received the fulfillment which he predicted one may infer what the future also has in store.’), and 4QMMT: C13– 14, 20 (C20: ‘we know that some of the blessings and the curses have (already) been fulfilled’; C13–14: ‘“and it shall come to pass, when all these things [be]fall you”, at the end of days, the blessings and the curses …’), for the same way of reasoning. The quotation of 4QMMT is taken from Qimron and Strugnell, 1994.

Obedience to the Law as a Condition for the Future Hope of Blessings

119

mandment … not merely to hear them, but to carry (őĚēĞďĕƬģ) them out by your life and conduct (ĎēƪĞȥėĞęȘČưęğĚěƪĘďģė), ….’14 This topic of hearing and doing the Law is frequently found in conditional texts of blessing in Old Testament texts.15 Parallels to the topos of hearing as well as doing according to the Law are documented in the New Testament, Matt 7:26; Rom 2:13; Jas 1:22–25, and in rabbinic writings.16 The words for the commandments and the precepts in Praem. 79, őėĞęĕƮ ĚěƲĝĞċčĖċ and the verb Ďēċčęěďƴģ which lies behind the participle ĞƩ ĎēċčęěďğƲĖďėċ refer to the Laws of Moses. This conclusion is supported by the reference to the ‘the commandments of the laws’ in Praem. 82, and by the fact that the same terms are reiterated in Philo’s exposition of the Laws of Moses in De Decalogo and De Specialibus Legibus 1–4.17 Philo’s use of Deut 30:11–14 in Praem. 80–82 likewise falls within the context of the positive claim for obedience to the law as the condition for the victory and rewards.18 In chapter two we observed how literary devices on the surface level 14

The promise that observance of the Law is followed by a materialisation of the blessings is further repeated throughout De Praemiis et Poenis in several paragraphs: These are the first blessings which he tells us will fall to the lot of those who follow God and always and everywhere cleave to His commandments and so fasten them to every part of life that no part can go astray into new and unwholesome ways (Praem. 98). For there is a divine promise that on those who keep the sacred ordinances Heaven will shower timely rains … (Praem. 101). And none of those who conform to the Laws will die an early death or be cut short … (Praem. 110). He promises that those who take pains to cultivate virtue and set the holy laws before them to guide them in all they do or say in their private or in their public capacity will receive as well the gift of complete freedom from disease … (Praem. 119). These are the blessings invoked upon good men, men who fulfil the Laws by their deeds … (Praem. 126).

15

For a list of references, see Lohfink, 1994, 46 n. 26.

16

See e.g. m. Avot 5:14. Cf. Str–B III, 84ff.

17

The term őėĞęĕƮ inPraem. 79 referring to Deut 28:1 LXX, appears in Spec. 1:300, alluding to Deut 10:12–14 LXX. The wordĚěƲĝĞċčĖċis used inDecal1as a reference to the second commandment on the second table of the decalogue. Likewisethe verbĎēċčęěďƴģappears in Spec. 1:249; 2:130; 3:150; 4:143 and 4:219. The plural participle, ĞƩĎēċčęěďğƲĖďėċused as a noun as in Praem. 79, refers in Mos. 2:138 and Dec. 158 to the rites observed in the temple. In Mos. 2:52 and Spec. 2:1 the same participle is used about the particular enactments of the Laws of Moses. þhese observations support the assumption that De Praemiis et Poenis is an integral part of Philo’s ‘Exposition’. Cf. Borgen, 1997, 262.

18

The requirement of obedience to the law may also be applied as criticism of a current within Alexandrian Judaism which emphasised the allegorical and ethical meaning of the Laws to such an extent that valid Jewish customs and observance were undermined and neglected. The central passage is Migr. 89–93. Here Philo takes time out to inveigh heatedly against those ‘who,

120

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

identified this element of law keeping as significant in conveying the message of the section. It was shown how the issue of carrying out the Law is marked out by negative statements followed by a positive affirmation in both Praem. 79 and Praem. 82: ‘… not merely to hear them, but to carry them out by your life and conduct, …’ (Praem. 79); ‘Thus (ęƏė) while the commandments of the laws are only on our lips our acceptance of them is little or none, but when we add thereto deeds which follow in their company, deeds shown in the whole conduct of our lives …’ (Praem. 82).19 Praem. 80–83 demonstrates that Philo interpreted Deut 30:11–14 as a rationale for the attainment of the Law and thus the possibility of obedience to the Law as a condition for the blessings, which comes to expression in Praem. 79. An outline of selected parts of Praem. 79–83 shows that the emphasis in the text lies on the unity of thoughts and actions in accordance with the Law, and that this theme is interwoven with the exposition of Deut 30:14 as well (the words from LXX Deut 30:14 are underscored). If, he says, you keep the divine commandments in obedience to his ordinances and accept his precepts, not merely to hear them but to carry them out by your life, … (Praem. 79). … No, it is close by, very near, firmly set in three of the parts of which each of us is constituted, mouth and heart and hand, representing in a figure respectively speech and thought and action (Praem. 80). For if our words correspond with our thoughts and intentions and our actions with our words and the three mutually follow each other, bound together with indissoluble bonds of harmony, happiness prevails and happiness is wisdom pure of all falsehood, the higher and the lower wisdom, the higher for the worship of God, the lower for the regulation of the human life (Praem. 81). Thus while the commandments of the laws are only on our lips our acceptance of them is little or none, but when we add thereto deeds … deeds shown in the whole conduct of our lives … (Praem. 82). For who … would not admit that surely that nation alone is wise and full of knowledge whose history has been such that it has not left the divine exhortations

regarding the Laws in their literal sense in the light of the symbols … (treat them) with easygoing neglect …’(Migr. 89). ‘Nay’, he continues, ‘we should look on all these outward observances as resembling the body, and their inner meanings as resembling the soul’ (Migr. 93). ‘It follows’, Philo goes on, ‘that exactly as we have to take thought for the body, because it is the abode of the soul, so we must pay heed to the letter of the Laws. If we keep and observe these, we shall gain a clearer conception of those things of which they are symbols, …’ (Migr. 93). Thus, in Philo’s understanding of the Law both the allegorical and literal aspects are interwoven and belong together. This also applies to the exegesis of the Law in Philo’s own writings. 19

The translation in PLCL is modified.

Obedience to the Law as a Condition for the Future Hope of Blessings

121

voided and forsaken by the actions which are akin to them, but has fulfilled the words with laudable deeds? (Praem. 83).

In the Philonic Corpus it is clear that the people subject to God’s Laws is the Jewish nation who have received the Law of Moses as especially their own. Thus, keeping the Law of Moses distinguishes the Jewish people from the nations. This is evident on the basis of the following passages: We children of the Hebrews follow laws and customs which are especially our own (Ios. 42). … but because in virtue of the distinction of their peculiar customs they do not mix with others to depart from the ways of their fathers (Mos. 1:278). There is something surely still more wonderful—even this: not only Jews but almost every other people, particularly those which take more account of virtue, have so far grown in holiness as to value and honour our laws. In this they have received a special distinction which belongs to no other code (Mos. 2:17). One may say that the whole Jewish race is in the position of an orphan compared with all the nations on every side … But the Jewish nation has none to take its part, as it lives under exceptional laws which are necessarily grave and severe, because they inculcate the highest standard of virtue (Spec. 4:179).20

Moreover, it is worth noticing, that the word for ‘commandments’ (ċŮĚěęĝĞƪĘďēĜ) used in Praem. 80 alluding to Deut 30:11, is in Spec. 4:219 used about ‘the general commandments (ĚěęĝĞƪĘďēĜ) which he [Moses] addresses to the whole nation in common ….’ Here Philo alludes to Deut 20:10ff., which describe the proper conduct of war against distant nations. In Spec. 4:224 Philo makes his discussion of these commandments the basis for a characterisation of the peaceful relation between the Jewish nation and other nations: ‘All this shows clearly that the Jewish nation is ready for agreement and friendship with all like-minded nations whose intentions are peaceful ….’ In giving a brief summary of our analysis so far, we have observed that Philo in Praem. 80–82 interprets Deut 30:11–14 as a rationale for the attainment of the Law and obedience to the law as a condition for the blessings, which comes to expression in Praem. 79. Moreover, we have seen that in Philo’s writings obedience to the Law of Moses characterises the Jewish nation in its relation to other nations. Thus, it seems mistaken to read into Praem. 79ff. an individual universalism and exclude the possibility of Jewish particularistic elements, as Fischer does.21 20

Cf. also Spec. 4:159; Legat. 3; Post. 89, 93; Ios. 42; Conf. 141.

21

See Fischer, 1978, 187ff.

122

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

5.3. The Eschatological Blessing of Victory over the Enemies We have seen that the theme of obedience to the Law as a condition for blessings, belongs to the context within which Philo makes use of Deut 30:11–14 in Praem. 79–82. We will now examine the aspect of blessings mentioned in Praem. 79 and elaborated upon in Praem. 85–97. This analysis is of special importance for our subsequent comparison with Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10 within an ‘eschatological’ outlook and perspective. We will begin with a further determination of the concept of ‘eschatology’ which may be relevant for both our discussion of Philo and the comparison of Paul and Philo. Then we will analyse briefly the content of Praem. 79 and Praem. 85–97 with particular regard to the problem of universalism and nationalism which scholars have examined in these passages. The scholarly views on the subject Philo and ‘eschatology’ have been divided. On the one hand, there are those scholars who hold the view that ‘eschatology’ is concealed, peripheral or even plays no part in Philo’s writings.22 On the other hand, there are scholars who entertain the position that the eschatological ideas in Philo are an integral part of his thinking.23 ‘Eschatology’ has been traditionally used, on the one hand, of ‘individual’ eschatology and, on the other hand, of ‘general’ or ‘collective’ eschatology. While ‘general eschatology’ refers to the situation of the world before and in connection with ‘the end’, ‘individual eschatology’ refers to the transcendent situation of the individual after death. An alternative understanding of ‘eschatology’ differing from this traditional one has been characterised by the notion of existential decision (Entscheidung), in which the aspect of time disappears.24 Some have attempted to broaden the notion of ‘eschatology’ by distinguishing between ‘prophetic’ and ‘apocalyptic’ eschatology.25 ‘Prophetic eschatology’ is described as that time when Israel’s enemies are destroyed, and a golden age of peace and prosperity begins. ‘Apocalyptic eschatology’ is described as a dualistic view which comprises the expectation for the end of the present world, the destruction of cosmic forces, and a resurrection of 22

Cf. R. Bultmann’s remark in TDNT (1948b., 530), for the view that ‘eschatological hope plays no part in Philo’. Hengel (1974, vol. 1, 254) is more cautious: ‘In Josephus … and in Philo … the eschatological element is concealed, even if it is not completely absent.’ For the view that ‘eschatology’ holds a peripheral role, alien to Philo’s philosophy etc., cf.: Bréhier, 1908, 3–10; Bousset and Gressmann, 1926, 443; Volz, 1934, 59; Fisher, 1978, 184–213; Amir, 1983, 31–37; Barraclough, 1984, 480–481.

23

Cf. Bertram, 1939, 193–199; Goodenough, 1938, 115–119; Wolfson, 1947, vol. II, 395–426; Borgen, 1984b., 233–280; idem, 1992, 341–361; idem, 1995a., 369–390.

24

For a discussion of the various meanings of ‘eschatology’, see Hartman, 1966, 15–17.

25

Cf. Davenport (1971, 5–9) for a survey of the use of these terms and notions.

The Eschatological Blessing of Victory over the Enemies

123

the dead, in which the aspect of the new life of the individual is included.26 In the following we propose to use ‘eschatology’ in the sense of ‘general eschatology’, and so far as the aspects of time and history are concerned, ‘eschatology’ will be defined as the age to come as perceived within the framework of actual history, expecting this to set in at a preordained stage in the progress of history.27 A common biblical tradition accounts for the numerous similarities between Philonic ‘eschatological’ topics referring to ‘general eschatology’ and the Jewish apocalyptic tradition. Many of these similarities have been noted in the secondary literature which gives an account of the many elements and topics involved in ‘general eschatology’. In particular the many similarities between De Praemiis et Poenis and Jewish ‘eschatological’ texts with regard to such topics indicate that ‘eschatology’ plays an integral role in Philo’s thinking and writings.28 As a point of departure for the following analysis of Praem. 79 and Praem. 85–97 we refer to the views set forth by Hecht and Fischer. Hecht considers Philo’s presentation of the future hope respecting the Golden Age or the Messianic Era to be thoroughly dehistoricised and spiritualized, with the historical and particularistic elements referring to the Jewish nation removed: … Philo’s presentation of the Golden Age or Messianic Era is thoroughly dehistoricized and spiritualized. There are no references to an identified national destiny and at the point where this might be introduced, he returns to the spiritualized interpretation.29 While other forms of Jewish messianism might have been rejected because of their disastrous results, Philo attempted to accommodate it by transforming its

26

Cf. Russell, 1964, 263–271. See Aune, 1992, 594–597.

27

Cf. Hay (2001, 378): ‘In discussing the blessings and curses at the end of the Mosaic legislation in Deuteronomy, Philo mentions rewards and penalties experienced in this world. He does not typically speak about life after death as the realm when divine sanctions come into effect.’ For a similar view, cf. also Grabbe, 2000, 163–185. Frey (1997, 410) and Schwemer (2000, 216) refer to Philo’s writings (e.g. Praem. 79–126; Spec. 1:208; Mos. 2:263) for the eschatological expectation of Israel’s redemption and return to the land.

28

See Hartman, 1966, 23–50. Here Hartman refers to various Jewish texts with a parallel in De Praemiis et Poenis in connection with the following topics: 1. Errors in religious and moral respects (Praem. 134f.; Cf. 1 Enoch 99:5, 15; Jub. 23:19; 4 Ezra 5:9; 6:24; m. Sota 9:15); 2. Political misfortunes (Praem. 137ff.; Cf. Jub. 23:13; Pss. Sol. 17:20; T. Jud. 23:3; T. Napht. 4:2; Sib. Or. 3:265ff.); 3. Accidents or abnormal phenomena in the natural creation (Praem. 127ff.; Cf. 1 Enoch 80:2f.; Jub. 23:18; Pss. Sol. 17:20f.; Apoc. Abr. 30:5; 2 Apoc. Bar. 27:6); 4. In the time of restoration and salvation the earth is again fruitful (Praem. 101ff.; 168; Cf. 1 Enoch 10:18ff.; 2 Apoc. Bar. 29:5; Sib. Or. 3:620ff., 660); 5. Enmity between men and animals is abolished (Praem. 85–90; Cf. 2 Apoc. Bar. 73:6; Sib. Or. 3:788ff.; Gen. Rab. 95:1; Sipre Lev 26:6). See most recently Collins, 2002, 93–108, for a comparison of apocalyptic eschatology and Philo’s De Praemiis et Poenis.

29

Hecht, 1987, 158.

124

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

historical and particularistic elements. In neutralizing messianism Philo gave it a new life apart from the particular political energies it might release.30

Principally, Hecht has based this view on his observations with regard to Praem. 85–94. Commenting on Praem. 95, he writes: The starting point of the messianic time is, then, the overcoming of the hostility between humans and the animals, and the unsuccessful assault of unnamed enemies. Here, we already see a major characteristic of Philo’s description of the Messianic Era or the Golden Age. He begins immediately by dehistoricizing the human situation. The enemies are unnamed; they are abstractions … But Philo also turns the initial conflict with the enemies into a ‘bloodless’ battle.31

A similar view to that of Hecht is proposed by Fischer. In addition, Fischer argues that Praem. 79 represents no national ‘eschatology’, but rather is ‘individuelle Vergeltungslehre’: Die Tatsache, dass Philo die ihm durch Lev 26/Dt 28 vorgegebenen Zukunftsaussagen durch Auslassungen entnationalisiert und die Segnungen und Flüche in PraemPoen79–161 nicht ausdrücklich als Belohnungen und Strafen für das jüdische Volk versteht, lässt vermuten, dass Philo in PraemPoen 79ff gar nicht ein Bild vom eschatologischen Schicksal des jüdischen Volkes zeichnen will, sondern dass er gemäss seinem Verfahren in PraemPoen 1–78 die künftigen Belohnungen und Strafen für die Frommen und Gottlosen im Rahmen einer individuellen Vergehltungslehre darzustellen beabsichtigt.32

It is our contention that this perspective represented by Hecht and Fischer has no sufficient support in the texts themselves. On the contrary, on the basis of specific observations on the texts from Praem. 79 and Praem. 85–98 as located in their literary context we shall argue for the following thesis: Philo interprets in these texts the future hope of blessing about victory over the enemies in an ‘eschatological’ perspective in which the Jewish people is in the centre. Thus, even though biblical Laws of Moses about the blessing of victory over the enemies can be interpreted to include universal aspects related to the animal world and to nature and other nations, the people of the Laws of Moses will play the central role with regard to the historical and final materialisation of the blessing in time. In Praem. 79 and Praem. 85–98 we will observe that Philo’s ‘eschatology’ means that within history the ideal order of the creation is effectuated with peace and the universal role of the Jewish nation as the leading people among the nations. Here follows an outline of the relevant texts:

30

Hecht, 1987, 163.

31

Hecht, 1987, 153–154.

32

Fischer, 1978, 192.

The Eschatological Blessing of Victory over the Enemies

125

The Condition If, he says, you keep the divine commandments …

The Blessing … the first boon you will have is victory over your enemies (Praem. 79).

The Blessing is specified: Victory over the enemies Victory over the wild beasts and in the war within man himself (Praem. 85–91a). Characterisation of the wild beasts (Praem. 86). a. Some of these fear man as their master and cringe before him yet retain a rancorous hatred, … b. … others are audacious and more venturesome and are the first to attack, lying in wait to seize their opportunity if they are weaker, openly if they are stronger. This is the one war that can be quelled only by the Uncreated, when He judges that there are some worthy of salvation (cf. Praem. 87). Victory over the wild beasts within man himself as a necessary preliminary to the victory over the external wild beasts: … Therefore we need not give up hope that when the wild beasts within us are fully tamed the animals too will become tame and gentle … (Praem. 88).

Description of the peace among animals and between the animals and human beings (Praem. 89–91a). Victory over men (Praem. 91b–97) Alternative 1 (the enemy will give in peacefully): Either, then, as he says, the war will not pass through the land of the godly at all, but will dissolve and fall into pieces of itself when the enemy perceives the nature of their opponents, that they have in justice an irresistible ally … (Praem. 93).

Alternative 2 (futile attack): a. Victory by superior strength: Or if some fanatics whose lust for war defies restraint or remonstrance come careering to attack, till they are actually engaged, they will be full of arrogance and bluster, but when they have come to a trial of blows they will find that their talk has been an idle boast. Win they cannot. Forced back by your superior strength,

126

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

they will fly headlong, companies of hundreds before handfuls of five, ten thousands before hundreds by many ways for the one by which they came (Praem. 94).

b. Some stricken by fear: Some, without even any pursuer save fear, will turn their backs and present admirable targets to their enemies so that it would be an easy matter for all to fall to a man. For, ‘‘there shall come forth a man’’, says the oracle, and leading his host to war he will subdue great and populous nations, because God has sent to his aid the reinforcement which befits the godly, and that is dauntless courage of soul and all-powerful strength of body, either of which strikes fear into the enemy, and the two if united are quite irresistible (Praem. 95).

c. Some defeated by swarms of wasps: Some of the enemy, he says, will be unworthy to be defeated by men. He promises to marshal against them to their shame and perdition swarms of wasps to fight in the van of the godly, … (Praem. 96).

d. The victory: … who will win not only a permanent and bloodless victory in the war but also a sovereignty which none can contest bringing to its subjects the benefit which will accrue from the affection or fear or respect which they feel. For the conduct of their rulers show three high qualities which contribute to make a government secure from subversion, namely dignity, strictness, benevolence, which produce the feelings mentioned above. For respect is created by dignity, fear by strictness, affection by benevolence, and these when blended harmoniously in the soul render subjects obedient to their rulers (Praem. 97).

In Praem. 85–97 Philo develops the blessing theme of victory over the enemies from Praem. 79. In Praem. 85–91a Philo describes the victory as of two kinds, i.e. victory over the wild beasts and in the war within man himself. As will be shown below, regarding both these topics Philo can draw the line back to De Opificio Mundi. This demonstrates that De Praemiis et Poenis is an integral part of the whole of the ‘Exposition’.33 Moreover, it makes it clear that Philo interprets the future hope of man’s sovereignty over the animals and nature within the perspective of a correspondence between ‘protology’ and ‘eschatology’. In Opif. 79ff. Philo works with the correspondence between obedience/disobedience and its consequences within the context of protological and eschatological perspectives. Philo explains explicitly in Opif. 79 that the reason why man was created after all things, was that man then found all the provisions for life, and this was written down for the instruction of future generations. In this way Philo makes the creation story point to a corresponding ‘eschatological’ possibility: the first father of the race lived without toil or trouble, in lavish abundance. According 33

Cf. Praem. 1–3.

The Eschatological Blessing of Victory over the Enemies

127

to Philo these times will return if the religious and ethical conditions are met.34 As Borgen has observed, the same pattern of thought and the same elements are described as the eschatological consequences in Praem. 79 and Praem. 85–91a as in Opif. 79ff.35 Within the context of Praem. 79ff. Philo refers back to the ideal condition of the first human beings within the order of the creation. The following similar points between Opif. 79ff. and Praem. 79ff. substantiate this: 1. Philo elaborates in Praem. 88–125 the same expectations of abundance for those obedient to the laws as he described briefly in Opif. 79ff. Thus, the blessings of abundance of food, safe residence, health etc., will come as a reward to those who follow God and always cleave to his commandments, cf. Praem. 98. Further, those who practise the virtues of contentment (ŽĕēčƲĎďēċ) and practise self-restraint (őčĔěƪĞďēċ) will have abundance, cf. Praem. 100. The key to the understanding of this correspondence between obedience to the law and its cosmic consequences lies in Philo’s conception of the Laws of Moses. In this regard we quote Mos. 2:48 and Mos. 2:52: … in relating the history of early times, and going for its beginning right to the creation of the universe, he wished to show two most essential things: … secondly that he who would observe the laws will accept gladly the duty of following nature and live in accordance with the ordering of the universe … (Mos. 2:48).36

34

Opif. 79 reads: Such is the first reason for which apparently man was created after all things: but we must mention a second that is not improbable. Directly he came into existence man found there are all provisions for life. This was for the instruction of future generations. Nature seemed almost to cry aloud in so many words that like the first father of the race they were to spend their days without toil or trouble surrounded by lavish abundance of all that they needed. And this will be so if irrational pleasures do not get control of the soul, making their assaults upon it through greediness and lust, nor the desires for glory or wealth or power arrogate to themselves the control of the life, nor sorrows lower and depress the mind; and if fear, that evil counsellor, do nor dispel high impulses to noble deeds, nor folly and cowardice and injustice and the countless host of other vices assail him.

35

Borgen, 1995a., 382.

36

The correspondence between the specific laws and the cosmic laws of creation, is illustrated in various ways in Philo’s writings. For example, by the way several ideas in Opif. 77ff. reoccur in Philo’s interpretation of the first commandment in Decal. 52–65, e.g. the four elements, the cosmos seen as megapolis and human beings’ sovereignty over the animals. On this basis of agreement between the specific Laws of the Jewish nation and the order of the universe, Philo can hold the view that the man who observes the Law is constituted a loyal citizen of the world (Opif. 3). Primarily this is Moses, a true cosmopolitan (Mos. 1:157; Conf. 106). In the second place, the people of the Jewish nation is meant. For the idea that Israel’s Law is a law for the world, cf. also Wis 18:4; 4 Ezra 7:20; 2 Apoc. Bar. 48:40; T. Levi 14:4; b. Abod. Zar. 2b.

128

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

Thus whoever will carefully examine the nature of the particular enactments will find that they seek to attain to the harmony of the universe and are in agreement with the principle of eternal nature (Mos. 2:52).

Here Philo expresses the view that the cosmic and universal principles are ‘revealed’ in the Laws of Moses so that the specific laws are a manifestation of these cosmic and universal principles.37 Thus, since the cosmic principles are manifested in the Laws of Moses, those who keep these Laws will play a universal role even for the realisation of the future restoration of the order of creation.38 2. Similar terminology is used in Opif. 83–84 and Praem. 89b–90 of man’s conflict with the beasts. On the basis of Gen 1:26 and Gen 1:28 Philo in Opif. 83 describes man’s royal function as ruler and king over nature. This is further illustrated by the way in which the animals acted towards man: … Ųėċ ĞďĕďğĞċȉęĜ őĘċĚēėċưģĜ ĞęȉĜ ŅĕĕęēĜ ĐȤęēĜ őĚēĠċėďƯĜ őĖĚęēƮĝǹ ĔċĞƪĚĕđĘēėä ŕĖďĕĕď čƩě ŭĎƲėĞċ ĚěȥĞęė ĞďĒđĚƬėċē ĔċƯ ĚěęĝĔğėďȉė ƚĜ Ńė ŞčďĖƲėċĠƴĝďēĔċƯĎďĝĚƲĞđėä (‘… in order that coming last and suddenly appearing to the other animals he might produce consternation in them; for they were sure, as soon as they saw him, to be amazed and do homage to him as to a born ruler or master: ….’)

Here the words ĔċĞƪĚĕđĘēė…ĚěęĝĔğėďȉėƚĜŃėŞčďĖƲėċĠƴĝďēĔċƯĎďĝĚƲĞđė are a close parallel to the phrases in Praem. 89b about the beasts’ fear of man as their master, ĔċĞċĚĕċčƬėĞċĎǵƚĜŅěġęėĞċĔċƯĠƴĝďēĎďĝĚƲĞđėďƉĕċČȥĜŖĘďē ….39 3. In Opif. 79ff. the context is the idea that the world was created for the sake of human beings. Philo’s statements about man’s sovereignty over the world in 37

This correspondence between the cosmic laws and the Laws of Moses is an often recurring subject in Philo’s writings. See Spec. 2:129f.; 3:137; 4:131; Virt. 18; Opif. 3; Abr. 1–6; QE 2:42. See Dahl, 1941, 98; Barraclough, 1984, 508, 541; Runia, 2001, 106–107; Martens, 2003, 97; Birnbaum, 2006, 251.

38

The notions of ‘particularism’ and ‘universalism’ are not a contradiction in Philo’s writings, but are two dimensions of the way in which Philo reads Scripture and interprets the role of the Jewish nation in its relationship to the rest of the world. Thus, particular and universal perspectives are applied for instance to individual persons as Moses with regard to his offices as legislator, high priest and prophet (Mos. 2:12–291), to the marriage between Abraham and Sarah ‘from which was to issue … a whole nation, and that the nation dearest of all to God, which, as I hold, has received the gift of priesthood and prophecy on behalf of all mankind’ (Abr. 98). Philo also believes that if his nation flourishes again, ‘each nation would abandon its peculiar ways, and, throwing overboard their ancestral customs, turn to honouring our laws alone. For when the brightness of their shining is accompanied by national prosperity, it will darken the light of the others as the risen sun darkens the stars’ (Mos. 2: 43–44).

39

When Philo in Opif. 83 tells about the homage which the animals made to man, he draws on a Jewish expository tradition, cf. PCH 1.57 n. 3 which refers to Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 11. See Borgen, 1997, 230.

The Eschatological Blessing of Victory over the Enemies

129

Opif. 84 are based upon Gen 1:28.40 This motif and exegetical tradition appear in several Jewish texts,41 as the basis for the idea of man’s sovereignty over the whole creation. In 2 Apoc. Bar. 73:6 the allusion to Gen 1:28 becomes a promise that will be fulfilled in the last days, so that man’s ruling over the animals was understood ‘eschatologically’: ‘And the wild beasts will come from the wood and serve men, and the asps and the dragons will come out of their holes to subject themselves to a child.’42 R. Bauckham comments on this quotation: ‘Since the following verse predicts that women will no longer suffer pain in childbirth (cf. Gen 3:16), it is clear that a restoration of paradisal conditions is envisaged.’43 An early Christian version drawing on this ‘eschatological’ application of Gen 1:28 exists in Barn. 6:18–19: And we have said above, “And let them increase and multiply and rule over the fishes”. Who then is it who is now able to rule over beasts or fishes or birds of heaven? For we ought to understand that to rule implies authority, so that one may give commandments and have domination. If then this does not happen at present he has told us the time when it will;—when we ourselves also have been made perfect as heirs of the covenant of the Lord.

Thus, there is evidence that the motif of man’s rule over the animals could be interpreted in an ‘eschatological’ perspective in a way similar to what Philo has done in Praem. 85ff. 4. In Opif. 8144 the motif of warfare in the soul appears;45 if the vices and the fruitless practices to which they prompt were to give place to the virtues and the corresponding activities, the warfare in the soul would have been abolished 40

Cf. Borgen, 1995a., 372–375; Runia, 2001, 255.

41

See 4 Ezra 6:54–59; 7:10ff.; 9:13; 2 Apoc. Bar. 14:17–19; 15:7; 21:24; As. Mos. 1:12; Sipre Deut 48:85a; b. Sanh. 98b; b. Roš Haš. 10b, 11a; Gen. Rab. 1:4; Lev. Rab. 36:4; Cant. Rab. 5:11. The idea has also parallels among the Stoics, cf. StVF 2:527, 1041, 1152–1167; 3:369, 658.

42

Cf. Jervell, 1960, 42.

43

Bauckham, 1994, 18.

44

The text reads: … if, in a word, the vices and the fruitless practices to which they prompt were to give place to the virtues and their corresponding activities, the warfare in the soul, of all wars veritably the most dire and most grievous, would have been abolished, and peace would prevail … (Opif. 81). Cf. Runia, 2001, 252.

45

This motif illustrates how Philo internalises man’s conflict with the wild beasts. In Decal. 80 Philo can apply this internalisation to the Egyptians as people. A non–Egyptian who sees the Egyptians worshipping wild beasts ‘regards them with good reason as more miserable than the creatures they honour, as men with souls transformed into the nature of those creatures, so that as they pass before him, they seem beasts in human shape.’ Cf. Leg. 1:69, in which Philo compares desire, with which the virtue of self–mastery is concerned, to a tiger, ‘the animal least capable of being tamed.’

130

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

and peace would prevail. In Opif. 79–81 it was said that if men’s passions were brought under control, wrongs were checked by righteousness, etc., then the warfare in the soul would have been brought to an end, and ideal conditions would be restored. In a corresponding way, on condition of obedience to the Law (cf. Praem. 79), Philo in Praem. 88 hopes for the day ‘when the wild beasts within us are fully tamed’. In Praem. 98 and Praem. 118 Philo refers this condition to the establishment of peace, as in Opif. 81. As both Borgen and Fischer have suggested, in Praem. 85–90 Philo draws on Lev 26:6: ‘And I will give peace in the land … and I will remove evil beasts from the land ….’46 Fischer remarks on Philo’s interpretation of Lev 26:6 in Praem. 85–90: Lehrreich ist Philos Interpretation von Lev 26,6 deshalb, weil Philo jenen universalen Naturfrieden in seiner Bedeutung als eschatologischem Heilsgut durch seine Konzeption eines notwendigerweise vorangehenden inneren Friedens aller Menschen relativiert. Das äussere Heilsgut eines universalen Friedens zwischen Tier und Mensch verliert seinen Eigenwert und erscheint nur noch als die Konsequenz eines viel gewichtigeren Heilsgutes, “wie es grösser nicht zu finden ist“, nämlich des inneren Seelenfriedens aller Menschen.47

In his comment on Praem. 85–90 Fischer has underestimated the point that Philo in Praem. 88–89 regarded victory over the wild beasts in the soul as a necessarily preliminary to the realisation in time of the victory over the wild beasts outside the man: Would that this good gift might shine upon our life and that we might be able to see that day when savage creatures become tame and gentle. But a very necessary preliminary to this is that the wild beasts within the soul shall be tamed, and no greater boon than this can be found … (Praem. 88). Therefore we need not give up hope that when the wild beasts within us are fully tamed the animals too will become tame and gentle. When that time comes I believe … (Praem. 88–89).

Moreover, Fischer has emphasised too much Philo’s spiritual interpretation of the biblical text. Thus, Fischer has underestimated the fact that Philo in Praem. 85–90 can combine a spiritual and a concrete interpretation of Lev 26:6 in combination with other scriptures such as Gen 1:28 and Isa 11:6ff.. Thus, there are other features in Praem. 85–90 which indicate that Philo in his future hope even goes beyond the idea of the original ideal state after creation. According to Opif. 83, the animals still had fierce conflict among themselves. Philo in Praem. 85–90 hopes that even this conflict will end. Thus, Philo here makes the superior eschatological condition a transformation of the first crea-

46

Borgen, 1995a., 382; Fischer, 1978, 197.

47

Fischer, 1978, 197.

The Eschatological Blessing of Victory over the Enemies

131

tion.48 In this regard he tells about peace both among the animals and between the animals and human beings. Thus, Philo in Praem. 87–90 goes beyond the idea in Lev 26:6 about peace and seems to be influenced by the prophecy of Isa 11:6–9 LXX, since Philo resembles many of its features, and the expectation of the return of primal peace, embracing both men and animals, which is limited in the Old Testament to this passage.49 In Praem. 89, Philo states that When that time comes I believe that bears and lions and panthers and the Indian animals, elephants and tigers, and all others whose vigour and power are invincible, will change their life of solitariness and isolation for one of companionship, and gradually in imitation of the gregarious creatures show themselves tame when brought face to face with mankind.

Philo concludes that man will even be sacrosanct among the most vicious animals such as the crocodiles and hippopotamuses of the Nile. Such references to animals from both India and Egypt speak against the view of scholars such as Hecht that Philo’s portrayal of the future is a dehistoricisation. Rather, Praem. 89–90 shows that Philo expects his future hope to be realised in history and in time. The temporal phrases in Praem. 88–89 (žĔċēěƱĜ…őĔďȉėęĜ… ĞƲĞď)indicate that it is a real future and a real pacification of nature that Philo portrays. The following corresponding features between Isa 11:6–9 LXX and Praem. 87–90 come into view: several of the animals, as wolves, lambs, bears, lions, leopards, snake/asp are mentioned in both texts. Philo lacks the domestic animals, cows and bulls, which are mentioned in Isaiah 11, while he adds elephants and tigers. Likewise the texts focus on the animals grazing together.50 A similar use of this text to depict the abolition of the enmity between men and animals in the last 48

This type of the correspondence between the first and last things appears in the Old Testament and in post–biblical Jewish texts. Cf. Isa 30:26; 40:19f.; Dan 12:3; 1 Enoch 45:4–5; 2 Apoc. Bar. 51 etc.; See Volz, 1934, 339f.; 396–401; Aalen, 1951, 25ff.; 162ff.; 181ff.; 261ff.; 319ff.; Dahl, 1976, 120–140.

49

See for Isa 11:6–9, Kaiser, 1991, 259. Isa 11:6–9 reads: The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. Contra Hecht (1987, 155) who comments on Praem. 87–90: ‘This may be a paraphrase of Isaiah 11:6, but there is nothing in the paraphrase itself which would link it directly to the Septuagint.’ Bréhier (1908, 5) and Wolfson (1947, vol. II, 414) likewise think that Philo here refers to Isa 11:6–9.

50

Isa 11:6–9 LXX expresses this with the word ČƲĝĔģwhich means ‘feed’; passive: ‘eat’, ‘graze’. Philo uses another term for the same, ĝƴėėęĖęĜmeaning ‘feeding in herds together’ Cf. Borgen, 1995a., 383. Cf. furthermore Bauckham, 1994, 17, n. 36, who makes the following statement:

132

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

days is also to be found in 2 Apoc. Bar. 73:6, Sib. Or. 3:788–795, and Tg. Isa 11:6.51 In both 2 Apoc. Bar. 73:6 and Praem. 85–90 the idea from Gen 1:28 about man’s sovereignty over the animals is combined with ideas from Isa 11:6–9 about peace among the animals. Thus, Philo’s allusion to and combination of Scriptures applied to the ‘eschatological’ topics of cosmic peace can be placed within Jewish exegetical tradition and context. Again, as in Praem. 88–89, Praem. 91a shows that Philo has an expectation of a final realisation of this blessing in the future time which he expresses in this way: ‘Thus the age-long and natural and therefore primary war will be brought to an end through the change which makes the wild beasts tame and amenable.’ The way Philo interprets the Old Testament blessings in an ‘eschatological’ perspective can also be located within a Jewish framework. In the post-exilic period the blessing/curse motifs came more and more to be thought of in an eschatological perspective.52 In Praem. 87 the hope of blessing is tied to ‘some’ who are worthy of salvation (ƂĞċė Ĕěưėǹ ĞēėƩĜ ĝģĞđěưċĜ ŁĘưęğĜ …). Their personal blessing will then be brought to people in general for all to share. The understanding that those referred to by Philo in the word ‘some’, are those who keep the Laws of Moses, is in accordance with the introduction which is given in Praem. 79–84 to the larger section on blessings. As we have observed Praem. 79 described the recipients of blessing with an exposition of Deut 28:1 LXX: ‘If, he [Moses] says, you keep the divine commandments ….’ As we have pointed out in the analysis of Praem. 79–84 above, according to Philo those who keep the Law are the Jewish people of the Law of Moses. In Praem. 91b–97 Philo proceeds by depicting the victory over men based on a concrete understanding of Lev 26:6 and other Jewish Scriptures. On the one hand, the victory will never be won through war (cf. Lev 26:6), because the enemy will dissolve and fall to pieces when they recognise the nature and virtues of their opponents. Here in Praem. 93 Philo clearly states that the possibility of eschatological victory might be won by peaceful means.53

That Philo has Isaiah 11 in mind is suggested by the fact that he not only refers to the wolf and the lamb (Praem. 87), which was a virtually proverbial image (Matt 10:16; Luke 10:3; Acts 20:29), but also to all the other wild animals which appear in Isaiah 11: bears, lions, leopards, poisonous snakes, while adding some more exotic examples (Praem. 89–90). 51

Cf. also Gen. Rab. 95:1 and Sipre Lev 26:6. See L. Hartman, 1966, 48.

52

See Hartman (1979, 74), who mentions as examples the texts of Jub. 1; 22; 1 Enoch 1–5; 101– 104, building on the chapters of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 on blessings.

53

At several places Philo models this peaceful ideological ‘warfare’ on the picture of Abraham. Even when war was to be fought, the aim was peace for Abraham:

The Eschatological Blessing of Victory over the Enemies

133

On the other hand, in Praem. 94ff. Philo tells about the alternative of combats and intervention by God in the history. For, as stated in Praem. 94ff., if war arises and some attack, they will be defeated. The defeat can take place in various ways: 1. The enemy will be forced back by the superior strength of the Jewish nation (cf. Lev 26:8 and Deut 28:7), Praem. 94. 2. Some will flee due to fear caused by the military leader, Praem. 95. In this context Num 24:7 is quoted and elaborated upon. 3. Other enemies are described as unworthy to be defeated by men, and these will be conquered by swarms of wasps (cf. Exod 23:28; Deut 7:20), Praem. 96. In Praem. 97 Philo concludes that the victorious people also will gain ruling power over the enemies after the war. A catalogue of three virtues, dignity, strictness and benevolence, is then listed to characterise the quality of the people which makes the other peoples obedient to them as rulers. Hecht states that Philo in Praem. 94 turns the initial conflict with the enemies into a ‘bloodless’ battle. Again Hecht takes this text as an example of Philo’s ‘dehistoricization’: Regardless of the [scriptural] text in question in Philo’s description, the portrayal is not only a dehistoricization, but also an idealization, where the particular qualities of the conflict are covered over for a possible Stoic description of political turmoil.54

So, then the man of worth was not merely peaceable and a lover of justice but courageous and warlike, not for the sake of warring … but to secure peace for the future … (Abr. 225; cf. also Virt. 218 and Abr. 261). Philo’s vision for the future and preferred approach is indicated also by the statement in Virt. 119–120: This is what our most holy prophet through all his regulations especially desires to create, unanimity, neighbourliness, fellowship, reciprocity of feeling, whereby houses and cities and nations and countries and the whole human race may advance to supreme happiness. Hitherto, indeed, these things live only in our prayers, but they will, I am convinced, become facts beyond all dispute, if God, even as he gives us the yearly fruits, grants that the virtues should bear abundantly. And may some share in them be given to us, who from well–nigh our earliest days carried with us the yearning to possess them. Philo also believes that if his nation flourishes again … each nation would abandon its peculiar ways, and, throwing overboard their ancestral customs, turn to honouring our laws alone. For when the brightness of their shining is accompanied by national prosperity, it will darken the light of the others as the risen sun darkens the stars (Mos. 2:44). In these texts the role of the regulations of Moses is seen as the pivotal factor in the process leading up to its achievement, which is seen as an evolutionary transformation of the whole humanity. Thus, the realisation of an ideal future is inspired by the Law and sustained by God’s grace, and is to some extent dependent on humanity and particularly the Jewish nation as God’s partner. 54

Hecht, 1987, 154.

134

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

Moreover, Fischer states that instead of the enemy being killed in the war, Philo in Praem. 97 talks of a bloodless victory by the godly people. Borgen has argued against Fischer: … the term “bloodless” (ŁėċēĖģĞư)does not exclude the possibility that the enemies were killed, since the Hebrews won a bloodless victory when the Egyptians drowned in the sea when they pursued the Hebrews, Vita Mos I:180, cf. Virt 38. Bloodless means therefore that the soldiers were not involved in a direct fight. Victory was won by other means, such as through drowning or through wasps (Praem 96) or through terror (Praem 95), with killing involved, or without.55

Some more details of Praem. 93–97 will be highlighted by a comparison with two other texts, viz. Mos. 1:289–291 and Virt. 34–48.56 This comparison will show that Philo can conceive ‘eschatology’ within the framework of a correspondence between past historical and future events. We have noted that this line of reasoning finds some support in the above cited passage from Mos. 2:288: Then, indeed, we find him [Moses] possessed by the spirit, no longer uttering general truths to the whole nation but prophesying to each tribe in particular the things which were to be and hereafter must come to pass. Some of these have already taken place, others are still looked for, since confidence in the future is assured by fulfilment in the past.

Philo draws upon historical events as a prototype and background for future events. In this way Philo’s ‘eschatology’ can also be understood within the category of ‘prophecy and fulfilment’, as follows: Philo sees the benedictions as partially manifested in the historical events of the Hebrew people and its relationship to the rest of the world. On this basis he holds the conviction that the events of the past give certainty for the complete fulfilment of the benedictions in the future.57 The following observations are important for an understanding of Praem. 93–97. In Mos. 1:289–291 and Virt. 34–48 Philo describes the victorious wars fought by the Hebrews during the exodus from Egypt to Canaan, based on Num 25:1–18 and Num 31:1–18. In Virt. 47, Mos. 1: 289 and Praem. 95 the Hebrew army is led by a warrior leader. In Mos. 1: 289 God is the commander in chief, while in Virt. 47 and Praem. 95 the warrior leader, who is a king, is the commander in chief and the ‘man’, based upon the oracle of Num 24:7. According to Virt. 47 the victory demonstrated the blessings of Deut 28:1, 2 and 7, and Lev 26:6. According to 55

Borgen, 1992, 356.

56

The following comparison of these texts depends on the study by Borgen, 1992, 355ff.

57

Grabbe (2000, 171) states an opposition to Borgen’s juxtaposition of these two texts: ‘Instead of reading each passage in context, Borgen has conflated the two different texts—taking them out of context—to produce a single composite figure. Philo nowhere suggests such a composite figure; it is Borgen’s creation, not Philo’s.’ Against Grabbe it can be argued that he does not take sufficiently into account the hermeneutical principle expressed by Philo in Mos. 2:288, postulating a correspondence between past historical and future events.

The Eschatological Blessing of Victory over the Enemies

135

Mos. 1:289–291 Balaam uttered the prophecy about the future ‘man’ (Num 24:7) during the Hebrew army’s conflict with Balak and his people. Here Philo pictures an ‘emperor’ who is to rule over many nations, and, after he has appeared, his kingdom will spread gradually. Philo places here the appearance of a ‘man’ some time in future, by adding ĚęĞƬto the LXX version. Thus he distinguishes in time the universal reign pictured in Balaam’s oracle from the present conflict with Balak. On the basis of these observations we can draw some conclusions with regard to Praem. 79 and Praem. 93–97: 1. Since in Virt. 34–48 the victory in the war with Balak served as the basis of the words in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 about the blessing of peace or victory in war, this victory is probably also presupposed as background for the use of the same biblical words in Praem. 79 and 93–97. 2. This could mean also that the prophecy of Num 24:7 about the future ‘man’, which was uttered during the Hebrew army’s conflict with Balak and his people, was a natural and integral element in Philo’s interpretation of the blessings in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26, not an alien element in his exegesis and in his expectations for the future. The future hope which envisioned a universal conquest of all nations by the Jewish nation was already formulated in the Septuagint version of Num 24:7: ‘There shall come a man out of his seed, and he shall rule over many nations … he shall consume the nations of his enemies ….’ 3. In this way the events of the Hebrew people in the war with Balak, which served as the basis for Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 about the blessings of peace or victory in war, and which included the prophecy about a future ‘Emperor’, were seen as a pointer to the future realisation of these blessings and the things that were still to take place. Accordingly, when Philo in Praem. 79 and Praem. 93–95 draws on the words of Deut 28:1, 7 LXX, Lev 26:7 LXX, and Num 24:7 LXX, he pictures a Hebrew ‘Emperor’ who will bring the universal blessings and the universal and victorious role of the Hebrew nation in its relationship to the other nations to the final and complete fulfilment: For “there shall come forth a man”, says the oracle, and leading his host to war, he will subdue great and populous nations, because God has sent to his aid the reinforcement which befits the godly, and that is dauntless courage of soul and all-powerful strength of body, either of which strikes fear into the enemy and the two if united are quite irresistible (Praem. 95).

The ‘Man’, as the eschatological emperor of many nations, is not a Davidic king, and the term ‘Messiah’ is not used; nevertheless, he bears the features of a ‘Messiah’ in accordance with a ‘Messianic’ interpretation of Num 24:7 LXX elsewhere in early Judaism.58 The expectation of the Jewish nation as the future world rul58

The use of the Septuagint version of Num 24:7 in various writings indicates that this tradition had a considerable influence in early Jewish milieu. See Vermes, 1961, 159ff.; Meeks, 1967, 71–72; Neusner, 1984, 241–247; Hengel, 1989, 655–686; Riesner, 2000, 250; Evans, 2006, 29. Collins (1995, 63) and Pike (1996, 183 n. 46) both remark erroneously that Philo in Praem. 95

136

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

ers of all nations is found elsewhere in Philo’s writings (cf. Mos. 1:289–291), and finds expression later in Praem. 125 in the idea that the Hebrew nation is to become the head of the other nations: For as in an animal the head is the first and best part and the tail the last and meanest, and in fact not a part which helps to complete the list of members, but a means of swishing off the winged creatures which settle on it, so too he means that the virtuous one, whether single man or people (ĕċƲĜ), will be the head of the human race and all the others like the limbs of a body which draw their life from the forces in the head and at the top.

The fact that Philo in his interpretation of Deut 28:13 refers to the ruling people by the word ĕċƲĜ indicates what he thinks of the Jewish people.59 This word is used as an ethnic self-designation of the Jewish people in Philo’s writings, and never with reference to other peoples.60 Thus, Philo here seems to share the hope that the Jewish people shall conquer the nations and rule them, which is a widespread topic in extra-biblical Jewish writings.61 The hope expressed in Praem. 93–97 of a victory and sovereignity over the nations also converges with several elements in Philo’s picture of Abraham as a victorious warrior king and with his reference to the Abrahamic promise of land interpreted as a hope that the Jewish nation would inherit and rule the world. Corresponding to the picture of the ‘man’ in Praem. 95, Philo describes Abraham as a warrior king entering into warfare against his enemies. As in Praem. 93, Philo underscores in Abr. 225 that even when war was to be fought, the aim was peace: So, then, the man of worth was not merely peaceable and a lover of justice but courageous and warlike, not for the sake of warring … but to secure peace for the future …

Likewise, corresponding to the divine help in the war fought under the leadership of the ‘man’ in Praem. 95, God also reinforced Abraham and made him a sovereign ruler over those around him:

interprets Num 24:17 LXX. Although this text too can be interpreted in a messianic way in first century Judaism, Philo’s writings nowhere attest this exegetical tradition. 59

Contra Fischer (1978, 192) and Birnbaum (1996, 149–150), who hold the view that Philo in Praem. 123–125 only writes about the individual wise person or the wise people among all human beings.

60

Cf. Agric. 44, 88; Leg. 3:163; Ebr. 37; Migr. 14; Virt. 186. See N. A. Dahl 1941, 112.

61

Contra Fischer (1978, 192), who sees no ‘eschatological’ hope expressed here. For this Jewish ‘eschatological’ expectation, cf. Jub. 26:23; 39:4; Sib. Or. 3:49; 5:414–416; 1 Enoch 62:6, 9; T. Sim. 7:2; T. Levi 2:11; 4:3–4; 18:1–9; T. Jud. 24:6; T. Zeb. 9:8; T. Benj. 10:5; Pss. Sol. 17:29–30; 4 Ezra 6:26. We also find the notion that the Laws of the Jewish nation will be universally put into effect in the future. See Mos. 2: 36, 44; Wis 18:4; Sib. Or. 3:716–719.

The Eschatological Blessing of Victory over the Enemies

137

… he who as I have said was regarded as a king by those in whose midst he settled, a sovereignty gained not with weapons, nor with mighty armies, as is the way of some, but by the election of God, the friend of virtue, who rewards the lovers of piety with imperial powers to benefit those around them? (Virt. 218).

Moreover, both in Praem. 97 and Virt. 217 the divine reinforcement made the warrior kings awe-inspiring and irresistible. In addition, on the basis of the Abrahamic promise of the land, Philo expects the Jewish nation to fill the earth and become the sovereign of the world. In early Judaism, the Abrahamic promise of the land is interpreted as an eschatological hope that Israel would inherit and rule the world.62 Philo expresses the Abrahamic promise in terms of universal sovereignty in his interpretation of Gen 28:14, which reiterates the Abrahamic promise to Jacob: And this, in accordance with the divine promises, is broadening out to the very bounds of the universe, and renders its possessor inheritor of the four quarters of the world, reaching to them all, to East, and West, and South and North: for it is said, “It shall spread abroad to the West and to the South and to the North and to the East” (Somn. 1:175).

This expectation of the realisation of the Abrahamic promise also converges with Philo’s hope of a Jewish sovereign who will bring the Hebrew nation to be rulers of the conquered nations. Let us sum up: the parallels between Praem. 85–97 and Opif. 79–82 indicate that Philo can interpret the hope of a future within the perspective of a correspondence between protology and eschatology. Furthermore, our analysis of Praem. 85–91a has shown that Philo can combine a spiritualised and a concrete interpretation of Lev 26:6 (“And I will give peace in the land … and I will remove evil beasts from the land …”), taking the removal of the wild beasts within the soul of man as the presupposition for the realisation of the day when the wild animals outside men will likewise become tame and gentle. Moreover, in Praem. 85–90 Philo also combines the idea from Gen 1:28 about man’s sovereignty over the animals with ideas from Isa 11:6–9 about peace among the animals. Thus, Philo’s hope of a future universal peace means a transformation of the ideal state of the creation. We have also observed that Philo’s hope of future blessing is tied to the keeping of the Laws of Moses by the Jewish people. In Praem. 91b–97 the biblical blessings of victory over the enemies has been extended to include other nations, which means that the universal role of the Jewish nation among the nations is realised. Against the background of texts as Virt. 34–48 and Mos. 1:289–291, we have argued for the view that concrete national and historical events in the past

62

Cf. Jub. 19:21; 22:11b, 13–14; 32:19; Sir 44:19–23; 4 Ezra 6:55–59; Rom 4:13.

138

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

constitute the basis for the realisation of such a hope in the future.63 This means that we must reckon with the possibility that nationalistic and concrete historical motifs and events of the past are integral to Philo’s ‘eschatology’ on this point. Thus, we consider such scholars as Fischer and Hecht to be mistaken when they maintains that Philo in Praem. 85–90 champions a spiritual and universal hope, which excludes the perspective of the future blessings which will be materialised if the Jewish people observes the Laws of Moses.64

5.4. The Law, Wisdom and Worship of the People of God In this section, in which we shall examine Philo’s exposition and application of Deut 30:12–14 in Praem. 80–84, we shall likewise begin with a question discussed among Philonic scholars. In the foregoing analysis of Praem. 79 we took as our point of departure the position argued by some scholars that Philo here entertains an individual, universalistic and dehistoricised perspective in contrast to a Jewish particularistic outlook where nationalistic motifs and elements are integral. This view raises a decisive question about the specific understanding of Praem. 79–84: Has Philo here delivered a ‘spiritualised’ and ‘psychological’ interpretation of the Laws of Moses, that the text is dehistoricised and denationalised of Jewish nationalistic elements? This question again is related to other questions in Philonic scholarship: What is the relationship between Philo’s biblical exegesis and the use of Greek philosophy in his interpretations? And should the ‘philosophic’ and ‘Jewish’ elements in Philo be seen as antithetical or synthetical? There is a growing consensus among Philonic scholars today that it is not possible to render an either/or verdict concerning ‘Hellenistic’ vis-à-vis ‘Jewish’ 63

The hopeful words of comfort in the Song of Moses about Israel’s restoration, Philo reasons, ‘must be followed by their happy fulfilment’ (Virt. 75). In Deus 176 Philo’s confidence about the future of his nation seems to be based on his view of the succession of world empires, which seems to be derived from Daniel: For circlewise moves the revolution of that divine plan which most call fortune. Presently in its ceaseless flux it makes distribution city by city, nation by nation, country by country. What these had once, those have now. What all had, all have. Only from time to time is the ownership changed by its agency, to the end that the whole world should be as a single city, enjoying that best of constitutions, democracy. If Philo here views Rome as the Fourth Empire of Daniel, then the ‘city’ to which he refers might be Jerusalem, which meanwhile spreads its tent to encompass the whole earth.

64

Fischer (1978, 199) reaches the following conclusion in his analysis of Praem. 85–90, 120–125 and 158–161: Die drei genannten Belege lassen deutlich erkennen, dass Philo versucht, sie durch psychologisierende Interpretation als Aussage über bestimmte seelische Vorgänge zu begreifen. Damit bekundet er nicht nur ein offensichtliches Desinteresse an nationaleschatologischen Erwartungen, sondern zugleich eine gewisse innere Distanz gegenüber eben diesen Erwartungen.

The Law, Wisdom and Worship of the People of God

139

frames of reference and also concerning the literal and allegorical and ‘spiritual’ aspects in Philo’s writings.65 Moreover, our overall view of the relationship between the literal and allegorical and the national and cosmic aspects of Philo’s interpretations is covered by the following statement of Borgen: Since the specific laws and the special position of the Hebrew people reflect and are in harmony with cosmic law and cosmic citizenship, then the heavenly reality, and the general cosmic philosophical, ethical, and psychological principles are the foundation and the dynamic force at work in the life of this people and its relationship to the rest of the world … Thus the literal and allegorical interpretations are interwoven, and the concrete national and “messianic” eschatology and the general, cosmic principles belong together.66

An analysis of Praem. 80–84 will demonstrate that the exegetical paraphrase and application of Deut 30:14 is placed within a Jewish context and serves to encourage commitment to Judaism and the practice of the Torah commandments. This means that we hold Fischer to be mistaken when he argues that Philo here removes Jewish nationalistic elements on the basis of a psychological or a ‘spiritualized’ exegesis of the Laws of Moses. Thus, the task is to investigate the Philonic exegesis and texts to see how Greek and Jewish elements may be intertwined and to inquire into the specific meaning in each concrete instance in light of the context. By means of his reference to Deut 30:11 in Praem. 80 about the commandments which are not too huge, and the additional comments that they are not heavy for the strength of those to whom they will apply, Philo will further motivate and exhort to adherence to the Law (cf. čƪě in Praem. 80). In chapter three it was shown that words from an Old Testament quotation could be replaced by other terms in the exposition. This method was used in Virt. 183, and paralleled in Rom 10:6–7 and Bar 3:29–30. Here in Praem. 80 Philo has replaced the word ŞőėĞęĕƮ from Deut 30:11with the phrases ċŮĚěęĝĞƪĘďēĜ and ĞƱŁčċĒƲė. This interpretation of Deut 30:11 about ‘the good’ has led Dunn to suppose that ‘Deut 30:11–14 was widely understood to have a reference which transcended the original more straightforward reference to the Torah.’67 So, according to Dunn, ‘Deut 30:11–14 was widely regarded as looking beyond the Torah to some transcendent category of more universal appeal, particularly in the Diaspora.’68 However, a weakness 65

On the discussion of Jewish and Greek elements in Philo, see the following papers in SPhA 5 (1993), 95–155: Sterling, 1993, 96–111; Runia, 1993, 112–140; Winston, 1993, 141–146; Tobin, 1993, 147–150; Dillon, 1993, 151–155. Moreover, see also Cohen, 1987, 165–186; 1993, 9–23; 1995, 10–14, and the surveys of Philonic research in Borgen, 1984a., 138–154; idem, 1997, 1–13.

66

Borgen, 1992, 360.

67

Dunn, 1987, 220.

68

Dunn, 1987, 220.

140

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

with this view is that Dunn underestimates the literary context with its focus on obedience to the law, and that, according to Philo, ĞƱŁčċĒƲė is focused in the Law of Moses. Thus, the determination and identification of the commandments of the Law as ‘the good’ (ĞƱŁčċĒƲė) also appears elsewhere where Philo interprets Deut 30:11–14, viz. in Post. 84, Mut. 236ff. and Somn. 2:180ff. The notion that the Law and its commandments were regarded as ‘the good’ appears in later rabbinic texts as well.69 As we have shown in chapter three, the exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:14 in Praem. 80 can illustrate a method of composition often applied in Philo’s writings.70 Praem. 80 reads: No, it is close by, very near, firmly set in three of the parts of which each of us is constituted, mouth and heart and hand, representing in a figure respectively speech and thought and action.

Philo uses here the exegetical method of supplementing words from Scripture with other terms (in the quotation above, the Old Testament words are italicised); these are often terms and commonplaces taken from Greek philosophy (underscored in the quotation). He also uses an exegetical phrase to link the motifs from Greek philosophy to the scriptural text (in bold type in the quotation). Then follows in Praem. 81 an elaboration of the exposition: For if our words correspond with our thoughts and intentions and our actions with our words and the three mutually follow each other, bound together with indissoluble bonds of harmony, happiness prevails and happiness is wisdom pure of all falsehood, the higher and the lower wisdom, the higher for the worship of God, the lower for the regulation of the human life.

Philo here develops an exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:14 in Praem. 80–81 within the framework of the idiomatic philosophical commonplace respecting a harmony of thoughts, words and actions. In an article on ‘The Philonic Sage’ Winston points out Philo’s use of this philosophic commonplace.71 He cites Völker who also refers to the use of this Greek commonplace in Philo’s writings, but who seems to minimise the Greek influence: ‘Gewiss hat Plato das Ideal dieser Harmonie aufgestellt (Staat VI 498E, auch Seneca, ep. 114,1, S. 547, 15f. Hense), aber er wird für Philo nicht die Hauptquelle gewesen sein; die suche ich in dessen jüdischer Auslegung (Siracide 3,8).’72 Winston disagrees with Völker on the influence of this Greek element of Philo, and sets forth the thesis that Philo uses 69

See m. Avot 6:3 and Sipre Deut 11:17 § 43. Cf. further Str–B I, 809 and III, 238. See also Dahl, 1941, 121; Hengel, 1974, vol. 1, 171 and vol. 2, 113.

70

See e.g. Leg. 1:98 commenting on Gen 2:16. Cf. also Leg. 1:29, 54, 65; 2:45, 62, 77, 92. Cf. Borgen, 1984b., 264.

71

Winston, 1983, 9–10.

72

Völker, 1938, 276.

The Law, Wisdom and Worship of the People of God

141

this topos to portray the wise sage according to the Stoic ideal: ‘Philo’s portrait of the wise man is essentially identical with that of the Stoics, faithfully echoing the well-known paradoxes which they had applied to him.’73 However, when Winston emphasises so strongly the Greek element in Philo’s use of this topos, he seems to have underestimated the Jewish nationalistic context in the relevant texts. As Philo’s writings can show, Philo transforms this Greek topos within a Jewish context in two ways. First, the Greek topos is ‘present’ in the Law and revealed by the way Moses himself lived in harmony between actions, speech, and the inner life. Speaking of the Law and about Moses, Philo writes in Mos. 1:29: He [Moses] exemplified his philosophical creed by his daily actions. His words expressed his feelings, and his actions accorded with his words, so that speech and life were in harmony, and thus through their mutual agreement were found to make melody together as on a musical instrument.

Moreover, in Post. 85 Philo interprets Deut 30:14 as an expression of this commonplace: And in a thoroughly philosophic way he [Moses] makes a threefold division of it: saying “It [viz. ‘the good’] is in thy mouth and in thy heart and in thy hand” (Deut. xxx. 11-14), that is, in words, in plans, in actions (PLCL).

Second, while we observed in Virt. 183ff. that this topos was drawn upon to interpret the concept of conversion of proselytes to Judaism, Philo in Praem. 82 elaborates on the Greek commonplace within the framework of the practice of the commandments of the Law. In this way Philo transforms the Greek topos and gives it a specific meaning within a Jewish context: ‘Now while the commandments of the laws are only on our lips our acceptance of them is little or none, but when we add thereto deeds … deeds shown in the whole conduct of our lives …’ (Praem. 82). In Mos. 2:48 Philo interprets the harmony of words and deeds as an outcome of observance of the law and a life in accordance with the ordering of the universe:74 … secondly that he who would observe the laws will accept gladly the duty of following nature and live in accordance with the ordering of the universe so that his deeds are attuned to harmony with his words and his words with his deeds.

73

Winston, 1983, 10.

74

Here again the combination of ‘particularism’ and ‘universalism’ is based upon the conception of the Law as the cosmic principles manifested in the Laws of Moses.

142

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

Moreover, in Spec. 4:134 Philo explicitly tells us that the Ten Commandments achieve the realisation of this harmony:75 These are the virtues of universal virtue; for each of the ten pronouncements separately and all in common76 incite and exhort us to wisdom and justice and godliness and the rest of the company of virtues, with good thoughts and intentions combining wholesome words, and with words actions of true worth, that so the soul with every part of its being attuned may be an instrument making harmonious music so that life becomes a melody and a concent in which there is no faulty note.

By making the association between the practice of the Torah Commandments and this Hellenistic topos, Philo lets the Greek element interpret Judaism, and vice versa. Correspondingly, obedience to the law is understood in terms of the harmony between thought, word, and action. As we have shown in chapter two, Philo linked Deut 30:11–14 in Praem. 79 and Praem. 82 to the issue of carrying out of the Law. The obedience to the law understood within the framework of this Hellenistic topos of harmony then helps Philo to explain the meaning of this adherence by life and conduct, in particular when the commandments involved hearing: ‘not merely to hear them, but to carry them out by your life and conduct, …’ (Praem. 79). Parallels to this requirement about fulfilling the commandment also with the intentions, if they involved hearing, are documented in the Palestinian Talmud.77 According to Cohen this homiletic association of Deut 30:14 with the Hellenistic topos and with the obligation to keep the commandments ‘was already a part of the common stock which informed the Septuagint version used by Philo.’78 In LXX the phrase ‘and in your hands’ (ĔċƯőėĞċȉĜġďěĝưėĝęğ) has been added to MT Deut 30:14, and this seems to be a reflection of this Hellenistic topos. If this holds true, this association of the Greek philosophical topos with Deut 30:14 and with the obligation to keep the commandments seems to have been part of the pre-Philonic tradition which has also influenced the LXX tradition used by Philo. In short, Philo’s exegesis of Deut 30:14 can serve to illustrate how Philo interprets a Greek philosophic topos within a Jewish frame of reference. In this case Philo seems to build on a tradition which associates the Greek topos of unity in word, thoughts, and actions with practice of the Torah.

75

According to Spec. 4:100–131 one aspect of the purpose of the dietary laws of Moses is to get rid of extravagance. In this context Philo tells that the laws are ‘producing a life of harmony and concord which none can blame’ (Spec. 4:102). Cf. Sandnes, 2002, 111.

76

The subject here is the decalogue.

77

See y. Ber. 2:5 referred to by Urbach, 1987, 397, 856–857.

78

For the full argumentation of this case, see Cohen, 1993, 22–23.

The Law, Wisdom and Worship of the People of God

143

We now pursue the analysis of Praem. 81 and Philo’s explanation of the harmony of word, thought, and action. In Praem. 81 Philo first explains the outcome of harmony leading to ďƉĎċēĖęėưċ, ‘well-being’. In this context the ‘well-being’ is qualified as the harmony of speech, thought, and action in accordance with the Laws of Moses. This meaning of ‘well-being’ comes to expression also in other Philonic texts.79 ‘Well-being’ is further defined as wisdom and prudenceĝęĠưċ ĔċƯĠěƲėđĝēĜ. The understanding and distinction between these two concepts of ĝęĠưċĔċƯĠěƲėđĝēĜhave a background in Greek philosophy. On the one hand, ĠěƲėđĝēĜis identified with ĝęĠưċand related to both theoretical and practical knowledge; this is found in e.g. Plato and Xenocrates, and is taken over by Alcinous (Did. 2.2 153.5-7) and Clement (Strom. 6.154.4). Aristotle (Nic. Eth. VI, 7:1141a8-21) and Plutarch (Mor. 443 E/F) distinguish between the two, reserving ĠěƲėđĝēĜfor the practical sphere. According to Runia this is the view presupposed by Philo in Praem. 81.80 However, the concepts of wisdom and prudence also have Jewish connotations. In Praem. 81 the concept of wisdom is further qualified as service of God, ĒďěċĚďưċ ĒďęȘ, while the concept of prudence is explained as related to the regulation of human life. The identification of wisdom and ‘well-being’ is common in Philo.81 He also knows the Stoic definition of wisdom as ‘the knowledge of things divine and human and their causes.’82 The connection between ‘well-being’ (or ‘happiness’), wisdom and service of God is logical, since according to Philo the concept of ĒďěċĚďưċis seen as ‘the beginning and consummation of happiness’ (Spec. 2:38).83 However, a further analysis of the concepts of wisdom and understanding in this context will show that they are placed within a Jewish frame of reference, and serve as features characterising the Jewish people in their relationship to God. The association Philo makes between obedience to the Law and prudence and likewise between ‘well-being’ and prudence seems also to have its background in Greek philosophy. According to Plato and Aristotle there is an ideal relationship between ‘classic virtues’ and the ideal laws.84 According to the Stoics, prudence epitomises the virtues,85 and is the only virtue which is related to ‘well-being’

79

Cf. Völker, 1938, 343: ‘… sie [‘well–being’] sieht ihr Wesen am besten verwirklicht in dem Erfüllen der göttlichen Gebote, in dem Bestreben, Gott zu gefallen.’ Cf. Migr. 128; Deus 118.

80

Cf. Runia, 2001, 368.

81

Cf. Cher. 29; Praem. 122; Deus 92; Contempl. 11; QG 1:6; QE 2:51.

82

See Migr. 136; Cong. 79. Aristobolus and the author(s) of 4 Maccabees also know this Stoic definition of wisdom. See Pohlenz, 1948, vol. 2, 181; Hengel, 1974, vol. 1, 167.

83

See also Post. 185.

84

Cf. Plato, Laws I, 631a; Aristotle, Nic. Eth. II, 1:1103b1–7; V, 2:1130b23–25; X, 9:1179b32.

85

An indication of this is that when the Stoics cite the names of the virtues they almost always cite prudence first. This is also the case with Plato. See Plato, Laws I, 631c; 688b.

144

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

independently of the others.86 It seems clear that according to Philo, prudence, as the epitome of all the virtues,87 and temperance were the virtues particularly discussed in Spec.1–4 as a whole.88 Thus, Philo makes obedience to the laws of Moses the realisation of this philosophic relationship between the virtues and the ideal laws. In Ebr. 20ff. Philo gives an illustration of how prudence could be applied to the way a Jew should behave in order to take part in non-Jewish social clubs. These he could enter provided the object was to share the best of possessions, viz. prudence, and that he be permitted to keep the Jewish customs and rules of life.89 Thus, to Philo prudence means wisdom, which gives guidance for the regulation of human life based on the divine Laws of Moses.90 Such a meaning also fits the literary context here in Praem. 79–84. A Jewish frame of reference for the motifs of wisdom and prudence is indicated in the immediate literary context of Praem. 82–83. Praem. 81 is followed by a conclusive statement in Praem. 82 summing up the line of thought from Praem. 79: ‘Now while the commandments of the laws are only on our lips our acceptance of them is little or none, but when we add thereto deeds which follow in their company, deeds shown in the whole conduct of our lives ….’ So wisdom and prudence are here linked to the notion of obedience to the law. According to F. H. Colson, Philo in Praem. 81 has in mind Deut 4:6: ‘you shall keep them and do them. For this is your wisdom and understanding.’91 The following use and paraphrase of Deut 4:6 in Praem. 83 in the form of a rhetorical question and its answer makes this suggestion reasonable, since Philo here makes an explicit connection between law observance, wisdom and understanding. The association of the Law and obedience to the Law with wisdom and understanding is a commonplace in the Old Testament and post-biblical Judaism.92 Some examples can illustrate this association of motifs: 86

See StVF 3:53, 58, 284.

87

Cf. Philo’s list of virtues in Spec. 4: 134. Cf. also Leg. 2:18; Mos. 2:216.

88

This conclusion is based upon Spec. 4:135 and Virt. 1. Cf. Cohen, 1993, 15.

89

Cf. Borgen, 1996, 29–30.

90

See Mos. 1:25; 2:189, 216; Spec. 1:191–193, 277; 2:18, 62, 257–259; Virt. 180.

91

Cf. Colson, PLCL 8.362 n. a, b and c. According to Cohen (1995, 292–293), we here meet another instance of an adoption of a Greek topos to a biblical verse. Cohen suggests that Philo in Praem. 81 makes an exegetical paraphrase of Deut 4:6 by replacing the Septuaegint’s ĝƴėďĝēĜ by ĠěƲėđĝēĜ, so that we have here a juxtaposition of sophia and phronesis, which was a Greek topos, cf. e.g. Cicero: De Officiis I, XLIII 153.

92

Cf. Deut 32:6; 28f.; Josh 23:14; 1 Enoch 2:1; 3:1; 5:1; 100:6; 101:8; 103:7; CD 1:11f.; 2:2ff., 14f.; Ps.-Philo 19:5; T. Napht. 3:1; 3:4; 4:3; 4 Ezra 7:37; 2 Apoc. Bar. 48:9; 84:1; Tg. Ps.–J. Deut 29:3; Tg. Isa 1:3. In most of these instances the topos concerns different ways of knowing God and His works and His will, and it implies a responsibility to behave in accordance with this knowledge. See Hartman 1979, 82–83; Pate, 2000, 22.

The Law, Wisdom and Worship of the People of God

145

If thou desire Wisdom (ĝęĠưċ), keep the commandments … (Sir 1:26). … and love of her is observance of her laws; And to give heed to her laws … (Wis 6:18).

Moreover, in Wis 9:4, and Wis 9:9 we read: Give me wisdom, her that sitteth by thee on thy throne; … (Wis 9:4). And with thee is wisdom, which knoweth thy works, And was present when thou wast making the world, And which understandeth what is pleasing in thine eyes, And what is right according to thy commandments (Wis 9:9). And there shall be bestowed upon the elect wisdom, And they shall all live and never again sin, Either through ungodliness or through pride: but they who are wise shall be humble. And they shall not again transgress, Nor shall they sin all the days of their life, … (1 Enoch 5:8–9).

The association of wisdom with the unity of words and deeds in Praem. 83, also has a Greek parallel, as e.g. in the following quotation from Seneca: This, I say, is the highest duty and the highest proof of wisdom, – that deed and word should be in accord, that a man should be equal to himself under all conditions, and always the same (Seneca: Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales IV, 20:2).

In Praem. 81 the concept of wisdom is further qualified as service of God, ĒďěċĚďưċĒďęȘ In Philo’s writings service to God is one of the predicates that characterise the particular relationship between the Jewish nation and God. Some examples can give an illustration of this. Philo speaks about the Jewish nation as a whole as ‘the worshipping race’ (ĞƱĒďěċĚďğĞēĔƱėčƬėęĜ). According to Fug. 42 ‘the worshipping race (ĞƱĒďěċĚďğĞēĔƱėčƬėęĜ) is a votive offering to God, consecrated for the great high priesthood to Him alone.’ Clearly Philo alludes here to the notion that the Jews perform service vicariously on behalf of all humanity; he relates this notion elsewhere particularly to the Jerusalem temple cult.93 In Spec. 2:167 he writes about the service of the Jewish nation on behalf of the other nations: ‘… by using its prayer and festivals and first-fruit offerings as a means of supplication for the human race in general and of making its homage (ĒďěċĚďƴģ)to the truly existent God in the name of those who have evaded the service which it was their duty to give, as well as of itself.’94 Bearing in mind that man broke down the order of creation by worshipping many gods, Philo says in Spec. 2:166–167 that this failure was rectified by the Jewish people: 93

Spec. 1:97; 168; 2:167. For Philo the cult belongs essentially to the worship of God; cf. Spec. 1:77f.; Flacc. 48; Legat. 191, 347.

94

The universal role of the Jewish nation on behalf of the nations is often emphasised by Philo, cf. Spec. 1: 96–97; 2:162; Mos. 1:49; 2:135; QE 1:10; 2:107. Cf. Fuglseth, 2005, 331–334.

146

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

When they went wrong in what was the most vital matter of all, it is the literal truth that the error which the rest committed was corrected by the Jewish nation, … and chose the service (ŞĒďěċĚďưċ)only of the Uncreated and Eternal.

In Spec. 2:167 Philo holds the view that this service was vicarious for all of humanity ‘who have evaded the service which it was their duty to give.’ This indicates that the worship of God by the Jewish nation should be undertaken by all. Thus, the Jewish nation manifests the true human beings, as Philo expressly says in Spec. 1:303: ‘Yet out of the whole human race He chose as of special merit … those who are in a true sense men, and called them to the service of Himself ….’95 Our survey of the concept of service to God seems to support the observation made by Birnbaum that this feature characterises the relationship between God and the Jews according to Philo: ‘The relationship between God and the Jews, then, is characterised by their faith in and service to Him, a feature which distinguishes them from all other peoples.’96 In the remaining part of this section we shall look at Philo’s application of Deut 30:11–14 in Praem. 83–84 with regard to the motif of the worshipping people of God as distinct from the other nations. According to Fischer and Birnbaum, Praem. 83–84 provides a good example of how Philo often universalises the meaning of Scripture by applying to all good people what is said of the nation Israel in particular. So Fischer states: Das “weise und sehr verständige Volk“, das Philo in PraemPoen 83f im Anschluss an Dt 4,6f preist, ist jedoch nicht speziell das jüdische Volk, sondern zu ihm gehören alle, die Gottes Gesetze in ihrem Leben erfüllen (81f).97

It is a weakness of Fischer’s contention that it is not substantiated by a detailed analysis of the text in Praem. 83–84. According to Birnbaum, Philo in Praem. 79–126 emphasizes obedience to the commandments (cf. Praem. 98, 101, 106, 110–11, 119, 126) and speaks about those who receive the blessings as good or wise men in general. In other words, Philo does not portray these people specifically as members of the biblical nation Israel or of the contemporary nation of the Jews (cf. Praem. 112, 120).98 Commenting on Praem. 83–84, Birnbaum 95

Here Philo paraphrases the words addressed to Israel in Deut 10:15: ‘… and chose … you above all peoples ….’ Cf. Borgen, 1995a., 386.

96

Birnbaum, 1993, 62. According to Birnbaum, the motifs of service to God and worship serve to distinguish the relationship between God and the Jews from the relationship between God and ‘Israel’ in Philo’s writings. Although Philo occasionally speaks of ‘Israel’ as worshipping God (Sacr. 120; Plant. 60), this characterisation of ‘Israel’ is rare in Philo, in contrast to Philo’s description of the Jews, according to Birnbaum.

97

Fischer, 1978, 191.

98

Birnbaum, 1996, 146–150.

The Law, Wisdom and Worship of the People of God

147

suggests that ‘Philo … stops short of identifying the nation …. While the original words in Deuteronomy are addressed to the historic people Israel, however, Philo derives from them a general lesson for all time ….’99 Birnbaum substantiates her view by noting Philo’s choice of the words ŕĒėęĜ ĖƬčċ and čƬėęĜ in Praem. 83–84 to describe the group that observes the commandments.100 Against the background of this research situation, we now turn to Praem. 83–84. Unlike Fischer and Birnbaum we will argue that this passage deals with the concrete Jewish nation in its relation to other peoples. First, let us comment on Praem. 83. In Praem. 83 Philo applies the motif of observance of the law in the foregoing paragraphs Praem. 79–82 to the notion of a wise race/class. A comparison between Deut 4:6 LXX and Praem. 83 shows that Philo makes a paraphrase of Deut 4:6, which further explains why Philo interprets wisdom and understanding within the framework of law obedience. Deut 4:6 reads: Keep them and do them; for that will be your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statues, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’

Praem. 83 reads: For who, however spiteful his nature, would not admit that surely that nation alone is wise and full of knowledge (ƂĞē ĝęĠƱė Ņěċ čƬėęĜ ĔċƯ őĚēĝĞđĖęėēĔƶĞċĞęė) whose history has been such that it has not left the divine exhortations voided and forsaken by the actions which are akin to them, but has fulfilled the words with laudable deeds?

As Cohen remarks: ‘The paraphrase is indeed very close and Colson has noted the association with this biblical verse.’101 Deut 4:6 connects Israel’s wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the other peoples to its divine ordinances. Thus, Israel is distinguished by its commandments and by the observance of them. In Praem. 83, Philo comments that anyone, even a malicious person, would make such an observation. Thus he claims that the observation made by the nations would be made even by an evil person. In Praem. 83 these persons are described in terms of having a ‘spiteful (ČƪĝĔċėęĜ) nature’. In Philo’s writings this phrase ČƪĝĔċėęĜ serves to characterise Gentiles living outside the regulations of the Law and the people which was coterminous with the Law, that is the people of 99

Birnbaum, 1996, 148.

100 Cf. also the following statement by Birnbaum (1996, 149): ‘Because he (Philo) uses čƬėęĜsparingly in his exegetical works when he speaks about the real Biblical or contemporary nation, his choice of words here may underscore his emphasis in this passage that what is primarily important is practice of the laws and the worshipper’s purity of intention rather than—as the Bible implies—membership in the historic nation Israel.’ 101 Cohen, 1995, 293.

148

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

God.102 This conviction of the relation between Israel as the people of God and the Gentiles with the focal point in the Law comes to expression in the following text by Philo. In Mos. 1:278 Philo writes: … the people, which shall dwell alone, not reckoned among other nations; not because their dwelling-place is set apart and their land severed from others, but because in virtue of the distinction of their particular customs they do not mix with others to depart from the ways of their fathers.

In Mos. 2:44 Philo can formulate this view in this way: I believe that each nation would abandon its peculiar ways, and, throwing overboard their ancestral customs, turn to honouring our laws alone.

This claim of wisdom and knowledge for the Jews alone in distinction to the Gentiles, linked to an application of Deut 30:12–13 appears also within the context of Bar 3:9–4:4. Baruch exhorts Israel to ‘Learn where is wisdom!’ (Bar 3:14). Baruch states that men did not ‘find out her place’ (Bar 3:15). ‘There is none that knoweth her way, nor any that comprehendeth her path’ (Bar 3:31). According to Baruch, God alone grasps the way of knowledge (cf. Bar 3:36). In Bar 3:29–30 the author applies Deut 30:12–13 to divine ‘Wisdom’, which later in Bar 4:1 is identified with ‘the book of the commandments of God’. In contrast to the other peoples this ‘Wisdom’ which assumes the character of the Law is given by God to Israel alone. Neither the giants nor the Gentiles have grasped the ‘Wisdom’, which only has been given to the elect people of God: … And hath given it unto Jacob his servant, And to Israel that is beloved of him (Bar 3:37). This is the book of the commandments of God, And the law that endureth forever: All they that hold it fast are appointed to life; But such as leave it shall die. Turn thee, O Jacob, and take hold of it; Walk towards her shining in the presence of the light thereof. Give not thy glory to another, Nor the things that are profitable unto thee to a strong nation. O Israel, happy are we: For the things that are pleasing to God are made known unto us (Bar 4:1–4).103 102 Cf. e.g. Spec. 1: 241; Flacc. 29; Abr. 21, 199. Cf. similar characterisations of the Gentiles (as anomos and the Gentiles words as anomia) in texts as Pss 28:3; 37:28; 55:3; 73:3; 92:7; 104:35; 125:3; of Gentiles and apostates in 1 Macc 3:5–6; 7:5; 9:23; 11:25; 14:14; and of the Gentile (= sinner) in 1 Macc 2:44, 48; Tob 13:6 (LXX 8); Jub. 23:23–24; Pss. Sol. 1:1; 2:1–2; 17:22–25; Matt 5:47; Luke 6:33; Gal 2:15. 103 We think D. Garlington (1991, 208) catches the meaning of Baruch 3:29–30 within its literary context when he writes: The use made of Deut 30.12–13 in 3.29–30 is consistent with this writer’s insistence that wisdom resides only in Israel. The point of the Deut passage is that the law is accessible and, therefore, performable. However, Baruch has turned the tables: wisdom

The Law, Wisdom and Worship of the People of God

149

The connection of ‘Wisdom’ and the Law in Baruch seems to draw upon Deut 4:6–8, which equates wisdom and understanding with the commandments of the Law.104 In Praem. 83 Philo characterises the wise nation with the designation ‘race’ (čƬėęĜ) andwhich in Praem. 84 is identified as ‘the people’(ŕĒėęĜ):‘Such a race (čƬėęĜ)has its dwelling not far from God; … So that if one should ask “what manner of people (ŕĒėęĜ) is great?” others might answer ….’Three observations suggest that čƬėęĜ here means the Jewish nation, and not as Birnbaum supposes, any people.105 First, čƬėęĜ can be used about the Jews in Legat. 3, 178, 201, and 346. Second, Philo’s identification of čƬėęĜ with the word ŕĒėęĜin Praem. 83–84speaks in favour of the view that Philo here has in mind the Jewish nation. Among the 287 occurrences of ŕĒėęĜin the works of Philo106, the majority are used of ‘the nation of the Jews’ (ĞƱǵôęğĎċưģėŕĒėęĜ),107or simply ‘the nation’ (ĞƱ ŕĒėęĜ).108Philo can also take it to refer to other nations,109 and also to nations apart from the nation of the Jews.110In one series of passages (Spec. 2:171, 188, 190) Philo distinguishes ‘the people’ (ŕĒėęĜ)from humanity in general.111 These statements accord with what Philo says about the people of the Jews as the one which ‘has been set apart out of the whole human race as a kind of first fruits to the Maker and Father’ (Spec. 4:180).112Third, in Praem. 83 the wise čƬėęĜ is charis basically inaccessible – except to Israel! In large measure this would account for the writer’s consistent attitude toward the Gentiles: they are only objects of judgement to be extirpated at the time of Israel’s release from captivity; ultimately they perish for a want of knowledge. See also Pate, 2000, 33–37; Watson, 2004, 468–473. 104 Cf. Weinfeld, 1991, 202–203; Steck, 1993, 154–155. 105 Cf. Birnbaum, 1996, 149. 106 Cf. Umemeto, 1994, 23–24; Borgen, Fuglseth, and Skarsten, 2000, 104. 107 Cf. Mos. 1:7; Decal. 96; Spec. 2:166; 4:244; Flacc. 170. 108 Cf. Her. 174; Mut. 191; Mos. 1:4, 71; 2:250; Virt. 42; Legat. 373. 109 Cf. Leg. 3:187; Abr. 188; Mos. 1:263; Virt. 34. 110 Cf. Mos. 1:278; Abr. 98; Mos. 2:271; Legat. 116–117, 240; Spec. 4:179. 111

We have shewn, then, that the Sheaf was an offering both of the nation’s own land and of the whole earth, given in thanks for the fertility and abundance which the nation and the whole human race desired to enjoy (Spec. 2:171). Next comes the opening of the sacred month, when it is customary to sound the trumpet in the temple at the same time that the sacrifices are brought there, and its name of “trumpet feast” is derived from this. It has a twofold significance, partly to the nation in particular, partly to all mankind in general (Spec. 2:188). This is a significance peculiar to the nation. What follows is a common to all mankind (Spec. 2: 190).

112 Also the word ĕċƲĜÜis used as a self–designation of the Jewish people in Philo’s writings, see e.g. Virt. 186; Praem. 125. In several places in the Greek Diaspora the Jews called their local com-

150

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

acterised by the keeping of the Law of Moses in the history of the Jewish people: ‘… whose history has been such that it has not left the divine exhortations voided and forsaken by the actions which are akin to them, but has fulfilled the words (ęŮĕƲčęē)with laudable deeds?’ As Colson has recognised,113 Philo here exhorts his readers to carry out the commandments of the Law. As Cohen has observed, in certain contexts in Philo’s writings the word ĕƲčęĜ means the commandments of the Law.114 For example Philo can apply the term Decalogue (ĎƬĔċ ĕƲčęē) WR the ten commandments: ‘The ten words or oracles, in reality laws or statutes (ĞęƳĜĎƬĔċĕƲčęğĜşġěđĝĖęƴĜėƲĖęğĜşĚěƱĜŁĕƮĒďēċėƁėĞċĜ)…’ (Decal. 32). Moreover, as Birnbaum notes ‘since Philo speaks in the past tense about the čƬėęĜ that has fulfilled God’s commandments, he appears to be talking about the Jews and their ancestors.’115 In short, the analysis of čƬėęĜ and ŕĒėęĜhere probably implies that the Jewish nation is included. Thus, the wise race and people in Praem. 83–84 is not only to be thought of in terms of a universalism as argued by Fischer and Birnbaum, nor only in terms of the wise sages as proposed by Winston. In Praem. 84 the wise race is characterised further by a paraphrase of Deut 4:7. Deut 4:7 reads: ‘For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him?’ Praem. 84 reads: Such a race has its dwelling not far from God; it has the vision of etherial loveliness always before its eyes, and its steps are guided by a heavenward yearning. So that if one should ask “what manner of nation is great?”, others might aptly answer “a nation which has God to listen to its prayers inspired by true religion and to draw nigh when they call upon him with a clean conscience”.

In Deut 4:7, Moses characterises the great nation by its nearness to God and its ability to call upon him. Thus, Israel is distinguished by its special access to God. In Praem. 84 we note that Philo divides the entire question posed in Deut 4:7 into a question and answer. Instead of ‘what great nation is there that has a god so near…’, Philo asks, ‘what manner of nation is great?’ (Praem. 84). His answer is then based upon the rest of Deut 4:7: The great nation is the one to which God is near whenever they call upon him. It is striking that Philo here upholds the characteristic of the great nation mentioned in the Bible, namely the biblical munity ĕċƲĜÜ, which seems to be an ethnic self–designation. See Dahl, 1941, 112; Cohen, 1990, 205. Generally speaking Philo uses ĕċƲĜÜ much less often than ŕĒėęĜ, in half of these cases in citations from LXX, i.e. some 40 times, while he takes ŕĒėęĜ from the LXX 25 times, as here in Praem. 84, and uses it on his own accord about 150 times. 113 PLCL 8.310. 114 Cf. Cohen, 1993, 22. 115 Birnbaum, 1996, 148.

Some Final Remarks

151

nation’s nearness and invocation of God. Since the word ŕĒėęĜ which is here used to describe the wise nation, elsewhere in Philo’s writings mostly refers to the Jewish people, there is no reason to exclude the possibility of this meaning here as well. Moreover, in Praem. 84 Philo makes use of the motif of invocation (ŞĔċĞƪĔĕđĝēĜ)which is commonly used in the Old Testament and post-biblical Judaism for Israel as the people of God.116 The emphasis here on the worshipping nation points in the direction of other passages in the ‘Exposition’ referred to above which describe the Jewish people of God who chose the service of God as the true human beings.117

5.5. Some Final Remarks In this chapter we have analysed the use of Deut 30:11–14 within the immediate context of Praem. 79–84 and Praem. 85-97. We have approached the investigation of these sections from basic questions raised in Philonic research concerning ‘particularism’ and ‘universalism’. We have observed how Philo makes an exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:11–14 in Praem. 80–82 as a rationale for the claim of obedience to the Law as a condition for the realisation of victory over enemies as one of the blessings that the Law promises (Praem. 79). In Praem. 83–84 Deut 30:14 was applied to keeping the law and to the worshipping people of God as distinguished from the other nations. In our examination of the section Praem. 79–84 and Praem. 85-97 we have argued that the concrete nation of the Jews is in the centre and plays a crucial role in the realisation of their hope for future blessings in a final age to come within history. An eschatological perspective comes to expression in Praem. 79 and Praem. 85–92 about the victory over the enemies. This promise was spiritualized to comprise peace both among the animals and between animals and human beings. Here Philo combines the idea from Gen 1:26 and Gen 1:28 about man’s sovereignty over the animals with ideas from Isa 11:6–9 about peace among the animals. In Praem. 87 Philo ties this hope of a universal peace to ‘some’ who are worthy of salvation. Their personal blessing will then be brought to people in general for all to share. In light of Praem. 79, those referred to by Philo in the word ‘some’ are those who keep the Laws of Moses. In Praem. 93–97 the victory over the enemies is extended to the nations. Here Philo describes how the nations will be conquered by subjugating themselves under the divine people, either voluntarily or, if needed, by the appearance of a ‘man’ based on ideas from Num 24:7 LXX, i.e. a non–Davidic Jewish Sovereign and ‘commander in chief ’ who will conquer the nations. The victorious people will then bring to its subjects ‘the benefit which will accrue from the affection or fear or respect which they feel’ (Praem. 97). 116 Cf. Dahl, 1941, 206. 117 Cf. Borgen, 1997, 280.

152

The Law and the Future Hope of Blessings

Finally, we will suggest a tentative answer to the question introducing this chapter: Which points in Praem. 79–84 can shed light on Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 in the context of Rom 10:4–13? The following observations are relevant for a comparison with Paul: On the one hand, scholars have interpreted Praem. 79–84 as having a spiritual and ‘universal’ meaning beyond a national Jewish ‘particularism’. If this view is right, Dunn’s assumption that Deut 30:11–14 could more readily be given a wider, more universal perspective, seems to be affirmed. Then, the consequence Dunn draws regarding Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 is to the point: ‘Paul’s interpretation would have all the greater credibility since there was already a widespread recognition that the language of Deut 30:11–14 pointed to something more mysterious, more ultimate.’118 However, our analysis has shown that nationalistic and historical elements are at least reflected in the text, and thus probably central in Philo’s hope for the future. Thus, in the final chapter, some of the following national and historical elements from Praem. 79ff. should be compared with points in Rom 9:30–10:21: 1) the application of Deut 30:11–14 to the Jewish people who keeps the Law and calls upon God as distinguished from the other nations; 2) the application of Deut 30:11–14 about obedience to the Law as a condition for the fulfilment of ‘eschatological’ blessings, which include both the nation of the Jews and other peoples (cf. Praem. 87). Moreover, this ‘eschatological’ perspective includes the possibility of an ‘eschatological’ figure to come, who will serve as a universal ‘commander in chief ’ and ‘Emperor’ of the Hebrew nation who ‘leading his host to war … will subdue great and populous nations …’ (Praem. 95).

118 Dunn, 1987, 224.

CHAPTER SIX

6. Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context 6.1. Thesis and Approach As we pointed out in the introductory survey of research, Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 in its literary context exposes several exegetical problems. It is our thesis that a fuller appreciation of the Jewish context of Paul’s use of this Scripture, as illuminated by the Philonic data, provides new solutions to these problems. In chapter three we have shown that there were close similarities between Philo’s and Paul’s expositions of Deut 30:12–14 in terms of Jewish exegetical method, structures and terminology. They employed the same method of exegetical paraphrase in the rendering and exposition of words from the Old Testament quotation, and the exegetical paraphrase was formed according to conventional exegetical method, structure and terminology. It is the purpose of this chapter to indicate that the Philonic texts examined in chapter four (Virt. 183–184) and five (Praem. 79–84) can also provide help in establishing a Jewish referential background, against which the various aspects of Paul’s eschatological and christological use of Deut 30:12–14 in its literary context can be clarified and become more intelligible. In spite of the differences between Philo and Paul, they offer mutually illuminating parallels in their application of Deut 30:12–14. We begin by presenting a brief summary of the solutions that we consider to be provided by the Jewish material. 6.1.1. The Juxtaposition of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14. Why these Texts? We have observed in chapter five that in Praem. 79–84 Philo draws on Deut 30:11–14 to illuminate how actions in obedience to the law are the characteristics of the people of God marking the Jews as the people of God off from Gentiles. Such a use of this Scripture provides a Jewish background against which Paul’s treatment of the Law as witnessed by Deut 30:12–14 within the context of Rom 9:30–10:10 can be placed. The way Paul sets Deut 30:12–14 (Rom 10:6–10) in contrast to Lev 18:5 (Rom 10:5), because Christ is at the same time both the ‘end’ and the ‘goal’ of the Law (Rom 10:4), makes it very likely that he presup-

154

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

poses a use of Deut 30:12–14 about the Law and actions in obedience to the law understood as a boundary between Jews and Gentiles as illustrated by Philo in Praem. 79–84. In the literary context of Rom 9:30–10:5, Lev 18:5 can also be taken to summarize the Law understood as defining the righteousness restricted to the Jews as the people of the Law. However, according to Paul, Lev 18:5 can be read at the same time as the ‘righteousness from the Law’ which finds its fulfilment in ‘the righteousness from faith’. So instead of interpreting Deut 30:12–14 in terms of the Law and actions in obedience to the law which locates righteousness in Israel as the people of God, Paul transfers it to the righteousness received on the basis of faith in Christ and available to Jews as well as Gentiles. Again, this transference of Deut 30:12–14 from an exclusivistic understanding of the Law to Christ, is then given a Christological rationale in Rom 10:4, which can be taken to mean that Christ is the ‘end’ and ‘goal’ of the Law. In short, Paul’s juxtaposition of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 can be placed against a Jewish referential background that can illuminate and substantiate the view of Dunn that Paul’s ‘exposition of Deut 30:12–14 is at the centre of his attempt to expound the continuing and wider significance of the Law in a way which retrieves the Law from a too narrowly defined understanding of “This do and live” (10:5–13).’1 In addition, whereas Philo in Praem. 83–84 draws on Deut 30:11–14 to characterize the Jewish nation as the people which invokes God, unlike the other nations, Paul appropriates Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:11–13 to the people of God as those who call on the name of the Lord without any distinction between Jews and Gentiles. This means that by means of Deut 30:12–14 Paul wants to redraw the boundary between Jews and Gentiles by reclaiming what he considers to be the proper meaning of the Law and thus the criteria for belonging to the people of God. 6.1.2. The Attribution of Deut 30:12–14 to the Righteousness by Faith In chapter four, the study of Virt. 183–184 has shown that Philo applies Deut 30:12–14 to conversion within the Jewish nation and to the change which takes place in the life of Gentiles when becoming Jewish proselytes, and to defining the condition for being in a right relationship with God and participating in the true people of God. It is our suggestion that such an application provides a Jewish context for Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 to the issue of righteousness by faith. In the literary context of Rom 9:30–10:21, Paul’s application of this scriptural passage to the issue of righteousness by faith serves to explain the condition by which Jews and Gentiles gain a right relationship with God and constitute the true people of God. Moreover, the Philonic evidence in Virt. 183–184 also provides a Jewish context for understanding Paul’s juxtaposition of Deut 30:12–14 1

Dunn, 1991a., 303. Cf. idem, 1987, 223–225.

Thesis and Approach

155

with Lev 18:5 within a literary setting dealing with the issue of inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles into the people of God, without the requirement of conversion to Judaism. Thus, the way Paul applies Deut 30:12–14 to the righteousness offered to Gentiles on the basis of faith in Christ as the ĞƬĕęĜof the Law, not by obedient actions done in accordance with the Law of Moses, becomes more intelligible. 6.1.3. Eschatological Application and Perspective We have also observed in chapter five that Philo in Praem. 79–82 can utilise Deut 30:11–14 in juxtaposition with Deut 28:1 about actions in obedience to the law as a condition for the realisation of the eschatological blessings. This conditional promise of blessing was in Praem. 85–97 interpreted in an eschatological outlook, which envisages that the eschatological blessings of Israel are to be shared by Gentiles. Moreover, this future hope also included the expectation of a non–Davidic ‘Messiah’, who, if necessary, would conquer the enemies and subdue great and populous nations. It is our thesis that the location of Deut 30:12–14 in such an eschatological framework illustrates a Jewish context which can justify Paul’s eschatological use of Deut 30:12–14 in juxtaposition with the claim of actions in obedience to the law expressed by Lev 18:5. Likewise, against such a Jewish referential background, it becomes more intelligible why Paul could use Deut 30:12–14 within a literary context dealing with the ‘Messianic’ salvation that is offered to Jews and Gentiles on condition of faith in Christ as Lord and Ruler of the world. In short, what at first has been claimed to have been a forced and unnatural interpretation of Deut 30:12–14 may be seen to have greater coherence,2 and to have been capable of winning the assent of the interested Jews, proselytes and God–fearers in the Roman congregations where this argument of the letter would have been heard and read. Indeed, a filling out of our understanding and knowledge of such an applied reading of the Old Testament by one of Paul’s contemporaries can be helpful in order to reconstruct a referential background on which much of Paul’s argument to his original readers must have depended. Although the relevant data in the Philonic texts may also illustrate how a text as Deut 30:12–14 would have been applied and heard by the competent reader in Rome, we will not give much

2

A similar assumption is held by Dunn, who writes: Although Paul clearly does rechannel the thrust of the passage in accordance with his own theological insight, the possibility and propriety of his so doing would therefore not necessarily have been a subject of controversy, even if his conclusions would have been resisted by many of his fellow countrymen (1988, 605).

156

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

weight to this pragmatic aspect in the present study.3 The aspects of the referential background we shall focus upon become visible to the extent that the elements 4 and patterns of thought remain present even in Paul’s text as a counter-foil. Thus the referential background material helps to determine and profile the Christian new elements. However, for the purpose of more clarity some basic deliberations are necessary as to what we mean by referential background. In this study we will adopt the broad notion of the ‘referential background’ of a text outlined by Hartman: By “referential background” I mean the general setup of institutions, customs, conventions, philosophies, ideas, etc., which, without necessarily being explicitly referred to in a text, nonetheless form a background of that to which the text refers, and this in such a way that one should know about this background in order to catch the full implication of the text.5

The evidence of parallels in mutually independent literary texts can provide the scholar with help in reconstructing the various features of a referential background in a certain text. In such cases these parallel texts must satisfy the following two criteria: 1. It must be possible to situate the parallel text chronologically, historically, culturally and ideologically so that it becomes probable that the sender and receiver of the text under consideration are aware of and share the 3

The general comments on the argumentative situation of an author put forward by Baasland (1995, 192 n. 4) are relevant in this regard: Ein Verfasser weiss selten, was der reale Leser denkt und fühlt. Paulus fühlt sich nach kurzer Zeit der Lage etwa in Korinth entfremdet, obwohl er die Gemeinde gründete und den Lebenslauf der implizierten Personen relativ gut kannte. Es ist somit immer ein Unterschied zwischen dem, was der Verfasser denkt und noch mehr dem, was er als die Situation darstellt, und der realen Situation der Empfänger. Hier hat die Rezeptionskritik zu differenzieren versucht (zwischen intendiertem und realem Leser, uzw.), was an sich wünschenwert ist, aber selten möglich ist.

4

Barrett (1989, 31) has described the communication situation seen from the angle of the sender of the message, e.g. from the point of view of Paul writing to the Romans, in the following way: Er muss eine Ausdrucksweise benutzen, die seinen Zuhörern bekannt ist. Wenn er einen ganz neuen Wortschatz benutzt, versteht ihn niemand. Wenn er aber die alten Wörter mit den alten Bedeutungen benutzt, so wird er nichts weiter erlangen als nur eine Anordnung der Ideen. Er muss den alten Wortschatz benutzen, aber er muss auch den alten Wörtern eine neue Bedeutung geben – eine Bedeutung, die der alten verwandt ist, so dass es einen Anknüpfungspunkt gibt, aber eine verschiedene, so dass die neue Botschaft mitgeteilt wird.

5

Hartman, 1979, 123. We can imagine cases in which such features and implications of a text are fully shared by the author and the reader, in such a way that the sender’s and receiver’s horizons coincide. Here we will assume that a receiver has a correct understanding of a text, when the sender and receiver fully share features of the background to which the message of the text refers. Cf. also idem, 1980, 103–105.

Israel and the Righteousness of the Law

157

same presuppositions. 2. It must be possible to explain and understand the text against the background of the alleged parallels. It is a presupposition of this study that the Philonic texts satisfy these criteria. It is an advantage of our study that we draw on Jewish material which has not received sufficient attention, in order to explain Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 within the line of thought of the immediate literary context in Rom 9:30ff. Relevant points from the Philonic data will be brought into the discussion of various aspects of Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14. Finally, some general presuppositions must be stated briefly at the beginning of our discussion in this chapter. The coming of Jesus as the Christ is the decisive event for Paul. The ‘Messiah’ has come, and Paul is now living in the messianic age, though that eschatological age has not yet been fully consummated. Hence, Paul’s eschatological framework must be constantly kept in mind. Moreover, it must be remembered that Paul is writing from the perspective of his faith in Christ as living in the messianic age. Paul’s thought must therefore be viewed in terms of what happens when the Messiah comes; what happens to the Law, the Jews as the people of God, and the Gentiles. We now turn to an analysis of the Pauline passage.

6.2. Israel and the Righteousness of the Law In this section we shall first concentrate on the content of Rom 9:30–10:4 making up the line of thought anchored in the quotation of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5. Such an analysis of Rom 9:30–10:5 is a preliminary step in order to determine the various aspects implied in Paul’s choice of Lev 18:5 as a background for the juxtaposition of this text with Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:5–10. So in the next section we will examine Rom 10:4–10 against the results yielded in the first section. We turn first to an examination of Rom 9:30–33. Rom 9:30–33 The previous section, Rom 9:24–29, has concluded that God has called both Jews and Gentiles, including Paul and his readers (cf. ŞĖǬĜin Rom 9:24)to become his people. The inclusion of Gentiles among the people of God was prophesied in the Old Testament (Hos 2:23 LXX; 1:9 LXX), Rom 9:24–26.6 Furthermore, Scripture (Isa 10:22 LXX; Hos 2:1 LXX) also predicted that if God had not spared a remnant, Israel itself would have been destroyed, Rom 9:27–29.7 In Rom 9:30 the 6

Cf. Koch, 1986, 104–105, 166–167, 173–174, 279–280.

7

Whereas these OT passages originally looked forward to the restoration of Israel after the exile, Paul applies them to believing Jews and Gentiles who are made the people and sons of God. Cf.

158

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

question ‘What shall we say, then?’ introduces a provisional summary of Paul’s view of this contemporary situation.8 The apostle speaks directly to the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God and the exclusion of all but a remnant of Israel in Rom 9:30–33.9 In Paul’s answer in Rom 9:30–32 the statements about Israel and Gentiles are structured in the form of an antithetical parallelism in terms of the attainment of righteousness. Paul starts each statement about the pursuit of righteousness (A), then adds an observation on the result of this search (B), and finally explains the reason for this observation (C).10 The structure can be outlined in the following way: 9 ŕĒėđ ($) ĞƩĖƭĎēƶĔęėĞċĎēĔċēęĝƴėđė (%)  ĔċĞƬĕċČďėĎēĔċēęĝƴėđė (&)   ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĎƫĞƭėőĔĚưĝĞďģĜ 91 ($) (%) 9 (&)

ǵôĝěċƭĕĎƫ ĎēƶĔģėėƲĖęėĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜ  ďŭĜėƲĖęėęƉĔŕĠĒċĝďė 



ĎēƩĞư;ƂĞēęƉĔőĔĚưĝĞďģĜŁĕĕǵƚĜőĘŕěčģėä

First, Paul asserts in Rom 9:30 that Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness attained righteousness: the reason is that they attained it ‘by faith’ (őĔĚưĝĞďģĜ).11 Paul proceeds in Rom 9:31, by a contrast (ĎƬ) about Israel. Here the parallelism seems to break down: where we would expect to find ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđ, we instead encounter ėƲĖęĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜ. According to Paul, Israel—in contrast to the Gentiles—pursues (ĎēƶĔģ) the Law of righteousness (ėƲĖęĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜ). Dealing with the Pauline texts, one has to determine the content of ėƲĖęĜ from text to text. Paul sometimes uses ėƲĖęĜ to mean the Old Testament Scriptures,12 the Toalso 2 Cor 6:16, 18, which applies the covenant formula to the Gentile–Christian addressees in Corinth. See Scott, 1995, 133. 8

So Dahl, 1977, 147. The form of the question, with ƂĞē introducing the answer, has parallels in the exegetical form of questions and answers in Philo’s writings, see e.g. Leg. 1:105. See Borgen, 1983b., 198–199.

9

In Rom 11:1–10 Paul elaborates further on this exchange of roles between the inclusion of Gentiles and the exclusion of Jews from the present salvation. Thus, the whole section 9:30–11:10 provides an explanation of Paul’s statement in Rom 9:6 that ‘not all who are of Israel are Israel’. Cf. Gundry Volf, 1990, 166.

10

In Rom 9:31 Paul uses a conventional form of question and answer. The form of a question raised by the phrase ĎēƩĞư; with ƂĞē introducing the answer, is found in Philo: Leg. 1:82; QG 1:1, 94; 2:62; 4:144, 145; QE 2:64, 65. See Borgen, 1997, 133.

11

The particle ĎƬintroduces here an explanation, cf. BDF, 1961, 232.

12

Cf. 1 Cor 9:8; 14:21,34; Rom 3:10–18; Gal 4:21b. Cf. also John 10:34; 12:24; 15:25. See Hofius, 1989, 66, 176; Str–B II, 542f.; III, 159, 462f.

Israel and the Righteousness of the Law

159

rah (Pentateuch),13 or ‘norm’.14 If there is widespread agreement among scholars that ėƲĖęĜin Rom 9:31 refers to Torah,15 the grammatical relationship between ėƲĖęĜand the genitive ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜis not so clear, and thus much discussed.16 In view of the noun ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđin Rom 9:30, to which ėƲĖęĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜ corresponds in the antithetical parallelism, we prefer to understand the genitive ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜhere as both an adjectival genitive and a genitive of result or purpose.17 Thus the meaning should be that whereas the Gentiles attained a righteousness they did not pursue, Israel pursued a ‘Law of righteousness’ that had the purpose of leading to or resulting in righteousness.18 However, in Paul’s observation on the result of this search for a Law that leads to righteousness, he does not say that Israel did not attain righteousness as we might have expected. Rather he formulates the point in Rom 9:31 in such a way that the term Law appears twice: Israel ‘did not attain the Law’ (ďŭĜėƲĖęėęƉĔŕĠĒċĝďė). In this way Paul seems to focus on the real problem of Israel, viz. its conception of the Law. However, the statement that Israel ‘did not attain the Law’ poses a new problem. Precisely what is Israel’s fault? Is the problem that Israel has not succeeded in attaining the Law, or that that they did not reach righteousness by the Law? Some scholars interpret the passage by arguing that ėƲĖęĜhere stands for the ‘Law of righteousness’. In this case ‘righteousness’ is the understood object of the final verb.19 However, such a reading does not take seriously the fact that Paul repeats ‘Law’ and not ‘righteousness’. The problem is to understand Rom 9:31 within its literary context. It is true that Paul elsewhere, e.g. in Rom 2:21–27, can chide the Jews for not obeying their Law, but various elements of Paul’s argument in the immediate 13

E.g. Rom 3:21. The expression žėƲĖęĜĔċƯĚěęĠǻĞċē is Jewish, see 2 Macc 15:9; 4 Macc 18:10. Cf. for žėƲĖęĜ denoting the Pentateuch, Sir 1:8, 24; 2. Macc 2:18; Ep. Arist. 15:32, 38f.; J. W. 2:229; 7:162.

14

As in e.g. Rom 3:27. Cf. also Wis 2:11; Heb 7:16.

15

See e.g. Käsemann, 1980, 277; Räisänen, 1983, 54; Badenas, 1985, 102–103; Cranfield, 1986, 508; Bechtler, 1994, 292.

16

The phrase has been viewed as the Law which leads to or results in righteousness (e.g. Bechtler, 1994, 292; Keck, 2005, 243–244). Some have interpreted it as a Law which demands righteousness (e.g. Schlier, 1977, 307), others as the Law falsely understood as a way of righteousness (e.g. Michel, 1978, 321; Bläser, 1941, 173–177; Stuhlmacher, 1966, 92). Still others view it as the Law which promises righteousness, either because it bears witness to it as in Rom 3:21 (so e.g. Käsemann, 1980, 277; Meyer, 1980, 62; Rhyne, 1981, 100; Badenas, 1985, 103–104) or as promising righteousness to those who keep or fulfil it (so Michel, 1978, 219; Wilckens; 1978–1982, VI/2, 212 n. 944).

17

Cf. BDF, 1961, 92. For a discussion of options, see Das, 2001, 242–247.

18

The nearest parallel in Jewish literature is Philo, Praem. 162, which uses the genitive form ėƲĖģė ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜ, and then most likely in an adjectival sense: ‘… who disregard the holy laws of justice and piety (… ęŮĞȥėŮďěȥėėƲĖģėĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜĔċƯďƉĝďČďưċĜƊĚďěęěȥėĞďĜ) ….’ Barrett (1982, 140) suggests a similar adjectival understanding of the genitive ėƲĖęĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜin Rom 9:31.

19

Thus, for example Hahn, 1976, 50; Stuhlmacher, 1978, 276; Käsemann, 1980, 277.

160

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

context indicate that this is not what he is doing in Rom 9:31.20 When he affirms that Israel did not attain the Law (Rom 9:31), Paul has in mind the following aspects: Israel has not attained the purpose and the ‘goal’ of the Law, i.e. the ‘Law of righteousness’ pointing to righteousness, because Israel lacks the right conception of the Law.21 Hence, Israel pursued the Law in a wrong manner. Not the Law itself or observance of the Law, but a particular manner of observing the Law, one predicated on a false conception of the Law, was the real problem of Israel. 22 As we will argue below, this reading of Rom 9:31 is supported by Rom 9:32–33 and the argumentative connection between Rom 10:2b and Rom 10:4–5. When Paul speaks of the Law as the object which Israel did not attain, he probably still includes the aspect of the ‘goal’ of the Law referred to in the expression ėƲĖęĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜ. Because Israel did not attain the ‘Law of righteousness’, i.e. the Law and the righteousness to which the Law itself testifies, it did not in fact attain the ‘goal’ of the Law. The antithetical parallelism between the Gentile attainment of righteousness and the Jewish non–attainment of the Law that leads to righteousness seems to indicate that it is the ‘goal’ of the Law, namely righteousness, as much as the Law with which Paul is concerned when he focuses on the non–attainment of the Law in Rom 9:31. As we discuss in more detail below, the thetical statement in Rom 10:4 (ĞƬĕęĜ ėƲĖęğ āěēĝĞƱĜ ďŭĜ ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđė) also seems to indicate this aspect of the relation between the Law and the righteousness. Indeed, if we translate ĞƬĕęĜ with ‘goal’ and the construction ďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđė with a consecutive sense, ‘which results in righteousness’, it is the ‘goal’ of the Law, with a purpose to righteousness, which is emphazised in Rom 10:4 as well.23 But why has Israel not attained the Law and its ‘goal’? The reason why Israel did not attain the Law, and by implication the righteousness which it desired, is stated in the terse ƂĞē–clause in Rom 9:32: ‘Because [she sought to attain the Law] not by faith (őĔĚưĝĞďģĜ) but [proceeding from a mistaken assumption,] as if [it could be attained] on the basis of observance of the Law (őĘŕěčģė)’.24 The clause implies that Israel according to Paul missed the true assumption of the Torah and the true mode of observing the Torah. The contrast between the proper manner of pursuit—őĔĚưĝĞďģĜ—and the manner introduced by ƚĜ,—őĘŕěčģė—seems

20

Contra Thielman, 1989, 112; Schreiner, 1993, 104–112.

21

Cf. Hooker, 2003, 128: ‘In striving to fulfil it, however, Israel lost sight of the law’s purpose: she treated it as an end in itself instead of pursuing its goal—righteousness.’

22

See for a similar understanding of Rom 9:31, Cranfield, 1986, 509; Dunn, 1988, 582–583; Bechtler, 1994, 295; Keck, 2005, 244.

23

Cf. Keck, 2005, 249–250, for a similar understanding.

24

On the formulation őĘŕěčģė, see L. Radermacher, 1925, 26.

Israel and the Righteousness of the Law

161

not only to introduce a distinction between two different modes of observing the Law, but also to refer to a distinction between two concepts of the Law. In Rom 9:32c–33 Paul further explains the statement that Israel pursued the Law not by the manner of faith but by the mode of works: They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Here Paul makes use of an early Christian tradition of interpreting the ‘stone’ of Isa 28:16 and Isa 8:14 to refer to Christ.25 The implication of this application as an explanation of ‘not by faith but by works’ is that the Jewish people would not have ‘stumbled’, but attained the Law and its ‘goal’ of righteousness, if they had believed in Christ. Hence, faith in Christ is the only manner of attaining the Law which leads to righteousness. Thus, for Paul, justification by faith in Christ is embedded in the Law itself, and so in Rom 9:31 Paul can speak of a ‘Law of righteousness’. Herein lies also the contrast between őĔĚưĝĞďģĜand őĘŕěčģėin Rom 9:32. These phrases aremuch debated in New Testament research. There is a strong exegetical tradition in which the contrast is seen as between God’s gift of grace and human self–achievement.26 However, the understanding of the contrast represented by e.g. Sanders and Dunn, viz. these phrases refer to the concrete relationship between Jews and Gentiles, is supported by a closer reading of Paul’s argument in Rom 9:30–33.27 In this context the contrast seems to imply the issue of inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles, and not as converts to Judaism. Here őĘŕěčģėrefers to the observance of the Torah restricted to the Jewish people of the Law alone, which distinguishes it from the Gentiles, who have attained the righteousness out of faith, őĔĚưĝĞďģĜ28For Paul the fact that Gentiles have 25

In a similar way as in Rom 9:33, Isa 28:16 is also given a christological reference in 1 Pet 2:6. According to Dunn (1988, 584) ‘The fact that 1 Pet 2:6–8 also combines Isa 28:16 (in fuller form) with Isa 8:14 (with Ps 118:22 in between) is probably sufficient indication that a collection of ‘stone’ testimonies was made early in Christian circles for apologetic use.’ Cf. also Koch, 1986, 69–71. Ross Wagner (2002, 156–157) has compared Paul’s interpretation of the “stone” in Isaiah 28:16 in 1QS 8.7 and 1QHa 14[6].26; 15[7].9: ‘In these Qumran texts, the community—those who trust in and remain faithful to God—is the stone. For Paul, the community is made up of those who trust in the stone, Christ.’

26

See e.g. Bultmann, 1983, 242. Cf. Dunn, 1991b., 134–139.

27

Sanders, 1983, 36–43. According to Dunn (1991b., 134–139), what Paul had in mind when he wrote of ‘works of law’, was the social function of the Law insofar as it divided Jews and Gentiles. The problem was with Jewish nationalism and particularism, not with legalism or activism. Thus, those who insisted on Gentiles observing the ‘works of law’ were requiring that Gentiles become Jews in order to enter the people of God. According to Sanders, Paul was convinced that ‘works of law’ do not save, because, as a Christian, he was persuaded that salvation is available only through Christ.

28

The contrast Paul here wants to draw is not between ‘righteousness’ in Rom 9:30 and the ‘Law of righteousness’ or the ‘Law’ in Rom 9:31. In that case, he would have written ‘righteousness’

162

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

embraced righteousness by faith (Rom 9:30), shows that Gentiles have attained the ‘goal’ of the Law which is now offered to all peoples. The manner of pursuit on the basis of Law observance (őĘŕěčģė)is the way toattain the righteousness only open to Israel or converts to Judaism, and can only result in failure to attain the Law and the righteousness it proffers. For according to Paul, as he speaks elsewhere in Romans and in Galatians, no one attains righteousness through the Law (ĎēƩėƲĖęğ)or on the basis of the Jewish observance of the Law (őĘŕěčģė ėƲĖęğ).29 For Paul this misunderstanding and misjudgement of the Law is the crucial problem of Israel, and the reason why they are excluded from the righteousness attained by the Gentiles who are included in the people of God. When we now turn our attention to Rom 10:1–5, we shall consider the way Paul further elaborates on Israel’s misconception of the Law and its righteousness, conceived as the foundation of Israel’s distinctiveness as the people of God, distinguishing Israel from the surrounding nations. Rom 10:1–5 The summary in Rom 9:30–33 functions as a transition to the following section of the letter, Rom 10:1–21. In Rom 10:1–3 Paul explains and specifies further what he has just said in Rom 9:30–33. As we have suggested in chapter two, Paul makes a new start in Rom 10:1–3, reaffirming his concern for his compatriots. Furthermore, Rom 10:1–3 can be regarded as stating the theme which is argued in Rom 10:4–17. In Rom 10:1 Paul discloses what prompts the sorrow and anguish of which he spoke in Rom 9:1–3. Before he begins to explain the only ground for salvation (Rom 10:6–10), Paul introduces in Rom 10:2 the theme to be dealt with in the following section: that his fellow Jews have a zeal for God, but ‘it is not enlightened’. The phrase ‘zeal for God’ was a typical element of piety in both Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism at the time of Paul. Paul himself can characterise his pre–Christian piety and activity in this term. According to Acts 22:3, Paul addressed the people of Jerusalem with these words: in place of ‘Law’ in Rom 9:31. The contrast he draws is more likely between pursuing righteousness through observance of the Law (őĘŕěčģė) and attaining it through faith (őĔĚưĝĞďģĜ). Thus, this contrast in Rom 9:30–32 precludes the contrast between the righteousness of God for all and ‘their own righteousness’, i.e. for Jews alone, in Rom 10:3. For a similar understanding of the relationship between Rom 9:30–32 and Rom 10:3, see Keck, 2005, 247. 29

See Rom 3:20. Paul’s argument in Galatians differs in many ways from the one he uses in Romans 9–10. In Galatians 2–3 (esp. 2:16–21 and 3:10–12) Paul draws a contrast between ‘faith’ and ‘Law’, which raises the question of inconsistency or development in Paul’s thought on the Law. To deal with this question is outside the scope of this study. However, in Galatians this contrast may refer to Paul’s explanation of why Paul’s Gentile converts need not accept the Jewish Law in order to enter the people of God.

Israel and the Righteousness of the Law

163

I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God (ĐđĕģĞƭĜ…ĞęȘĒďęȘ) as you all are this day.

This ‘zeal for God’, then, was something that concerned the whole of (Palestinian as well as Diaspora) Judaism at that time. However, even though it was not an attitude confined to the Zealots, most Jews at this time would probably associate it with biblical figures as Simeon and Levi,30 Phinehas,31 and Mattathias.32 ‘Zeal for the Law’ was an integral element of the ‘Zeal for God’, according to the Maccabean literature,33 the Qumran writings,34 and the Philonic writings.35 As a Pharisee Paul describes himself as ‘extremely zealous … for the traditions of my fathers’ (Gal 1:14).36 An essential aspect of this attitude was that he was ‘as to zeal a persecutor of the church’ (Phil 3:6). Furthermore, Paul’s zeal corresponds with the statement ‘as to righteousness under the Law blameless’ (Phil 3:6). In virtually all these references to ‘zeal’ in early Jewish and Christian literature, Israel’s ‘zeal’ was not only directed toward God and God’s commandments as a typical expression of Jewish piety, but also directed negatively against anything or anyone jeopardising the purity of the covenant relationship. Although Paul recommends the genuine ‘zeal for God’ that Israel displays, he most probably viewed a ‘zeal’ that was defined by an exclusivistic understanding of the relation between the Jewish people and God based on the Law, distinguishing them from other peoples.37 Such an exclusivistic connotation of Israel’s zeal may be included in Paul’s remark ‘but it is not enlightened’ in Rom 10:2. This ‘unknowing’ is further explained in the following arguments in Rom 10:3: it is demonstrated in their not submitting to the righteousness of God, which according to Rom 1:17 and Rom 3:26, is based on faith. In both these contexts the theme of the inclusion of Gentiles apart from the works of the Law is in focus. Thus, in Rom 1:16–17 Paul explains that his Gospel reveals the ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĒďęȘbecause the gospel represents the power of salvation to everyone who believes, without distinction between Jews 30

Cf. Genesis 34; Jdt 9:4; Jub. 30:5–20.

31

Num 25:10–13; Sir 45:23–24; 1 Macc 2:54; 4 Macc 18:12; Philo: Leg. 3:242; Conf. 57; Post. 183; Mut. 108. Cf. also Spec. 1:56–57.

32

1 Macc 2:19–26.

33

1 Macc 2:26, 27, 50, 58; 2 Macc 4:2.

34

1QS 4:4; 9:23; 1QH 14:14.

35

Cf. Spec. 1:54–57; 2:252–253.

36

See Hengel, 1974, vol. 1, 305–314; idem, 1976, 64ff.; Seland, 2002, 449ff.

37

Cf. the saying of Mattathias in Josephus’ Ant. 12:271: ďűĞēĜĐđĕģĞƮĜőĝĞēėĚċĞěưģėőĒȥė. Here the term ŕĒęĜseems to denote primarily the customs characteristic of the Jews, which distinguish them from other peoples. See Klinghardt, 1988, 116–120.

164

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

and Gentiles. Likewise, in Rom 3:21–31, Paul explains that justification by faith is tantamount to saying that the one God is God of both groups, Jews and Gentiles. In Rom 10:3 the clause ‘being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God’ stands antithetically parallel to the clause ‘seeking to establish their own [righteousness]’. Furthermore, ‘zeal’ as well as ‘seeking to establish’ seems to be clarifications of ‘pursuing’ in Rom 9:31.38 The phrase ŞŭĎưċĎēĔċēęĝƴėđis a contrast to the genitive ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĒďęȘThus, if God’s righteousness is the righteousness by faith available to Jews as well as Gentiles, it follows that the phrase ŞŭĎưċĎēĔċēęĝƴėđrefers to the righteousness available to the Jew alone on the basis of works in accordance with the Law.39 Again, as in Rom 9:30–33, Paul’s argument in Rom 10:3 is oriented to Israel’s view of its own righteousness and distinctiveness in comparison with the other peoples, in contrast to the righteousness available to all peoples, without distinction between Jews and Gentiles. The two parallel participles ŁčėęęȘėĞďĜ and ĐđĞęȘėĞďĜ in Rom 10:3 are then 40 read as an explanation of the verb ƊĚęĞƪĝĝęĖċē Because the Jewish people were unknowing, they did not submit to the righteousness of God, which they did unknowing about the righteousness of God and seeking their own righteousness In Rom 10:4 Paul grounds his assertion, introduced by čƪě of Israel’s ignorance in the claim, ĞƬĕęĜėƲĖęğāěēĝĞƱĜďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĚċėĞƯĞȦĚēĝĞďƴęėĞē. Hence, Rom 10:4 should also be connected to Rom 10:2b as an explanation of why Israel is mistaken and misinformed in their ‘zeal’ for God. This connection between Rom 10:2b and 10:4 seems to support our previous reading of Rom 9:31 above: Israel’s main problem was its conception of the Law. Israel did not reach the Law because she was ignorant of Christ as the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law. The discussion of the meaning of ĞƬĕęĜ, whether it should be rendered ‘end’ or ‘goal’, or both, will be postponed until the next section. Now we turn to the role of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5 in light of the exegesis so far of Rom 9:30–10:4. 38

Cf. Lambrecht, 1999, 146.

39

Cf. Sanders, 1983, 38: ‘‘Their own righteousness”, in other words, means “that righteousness which the Jews alone are privileged to obtain” rather than “self–righteousness which consists in individuals’ presenting their merits as a claim upon God.” For similar views, see Howard, 1969, 336; Räisänen, 1983, 174–177; Dunn, 1988, 595; Wright, 1991, 98; Bechtler, 1994, 297; Keck, 2005, 247. Representatives of the view that the phrase refers to the Jewish attempt to attain one’s own righteousness by performing works of pious achievement are the following scholars: Käsemann, 1980, 281; Luz, 1968, 156–157; Wilckens, 1978– 1982, VI/2, 220–221; Cranfield, 1986, 515.

40

So also Bechtler, 1994, 296–297

Israel and the Righteousness of the Law

165

In Rom 10:5–10 Paul proceeds to explain his thesis that ‘Christ is the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law for righteousness to every one who believes’ by means of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14. The reference to Moses in Rom 10:5 makes it clear that Paul is thinking of the Law of Moses: For Moses writes of the righteousness that comes from the law that the one who does these things [sc. the regulations (ĞƩĚěęĝĞƪčĖċĞċ) and statutes (ĞƩĔěưĖċĞċ) of the Law] will find live in them (÷ģĥĝǻĜčƩěčěƪĠďēĞƭėĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĞƭėőĔ ėƲĖęğƂĞēžĚęēƮĝċĜċƉĞƩŅėĒěģĚęĜĐƮĝďĞċēőėċƉĞęȉĜ).41

With scholars as Dunn and Bechtler we will suggest that one aspect of the rendering of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5 is to summarize Israel’s view of the Law and its righteousness as this has come to expression in the preceding context from Rom 9:30ff.42 This means that it summarizes the concepts of ėƲĖęĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜ and őĘ ŕěčģė of Rom 9:31–32. Thus, the modifiers of ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđ (Ş ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđ ŞőĔėƲĖęğin 10:5 andėƲĖęĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜ in Rom 9:31) and the actions prescribed (žĚęēƮĝċĜ in Rom 10:5 and őĘŕěčģė in Rom 9:32) correspond to each other The appropriateness of the comparison of these expressions is confirmed by the fact that Israel’s pursuit of the ‘Law of righteousness’ (ėƲĖęĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜ) is set against the righteousness through faith (őĔ ĚưĝĞďģĜ) attained by Gentiles in Rom 9:30–32, just as the righteousness which is based on the Law (Ş ĎēĔċēęĝƴđėđŞőĔėƲĖęğ) is juxtaposed with righteousness of faith (őĔĚưĝĞďģĜ ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđ). Hence, if our understanding of Rom 9:30ff. so far is sound, Lev 18:5 expresses Israel’s view of the Law and its righteousness in terms of works, as the boundary of Israel marked out from the Gentiles. In this section we have concentrated on elements in the train of thought anchored in Lev 18:5 within the context of Rom 9:30–10:5. We have suggested that in this context Lev 18:5 functions as an expression of Israel’s exclusivistic sense of being the people of God marked out from the Gentiles by their pursuit of righteousness through keeping the Law. This analysis of Rom 9:30–10:5 has been a necessary preliminary to our study of various implications of Paul’s juxtaposition of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:5ff. in the light of the Christ–event, which we now analyze further. We will then observe how the location and use of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:5–10 within the context of an exclusivistic understanding of the Law share some illuminating similarities with the writings of Philo, and also to some extent with Baruch. 41

The textual problems are quite complex in this verse. Here we have accepted the text of NA27 as original, attested by early witnesses such as Alexandrian texts and most Western texts. On the text–critical problems involved, cf. Lindemann, 1982, 231–250, Schreiner, 1998, 562–563, and Quesnel, 2003, 321–335.

42

Cf. Dunn, 1988, 612; Bechtler, 1994, 295.

166

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

6.3. Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith In chapter two above, we have suggested that Rom 10:4 (ĞƬĕęĜėƲĖęğāěēĝĞƱĜ ďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĚċėĞƯĞȦĚēĝĞďƴęėĞē) should be connected to Rom 10:2b as an explanation of why Israel is mistaken and misinformed in their ‘zeal’ for God. Moreover, we have seen that the argument of Rom 10:5–17 can be seen as Paul’s way of supporting this thetical statement of Rom 10:4. In this section we will first analyse the association between Rom 10:4 and Rom 10:5, then the relation between Rom 10:5 and Rom 10:6, and subsequently the connection between Rom 10:4 and Rom 10:6–10. We will also draw on comparative material from the writings of Philo and Baruch, which provides us with a Jewish context which gives coherence to Paul’s treatment of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:4–10 within its immediate literary context. According to Sanders, Rom 10:4 has, perhaps, received as much attention as any single verse in Paul.43 Rom 10:4 (ĞƬĕęĜ čƩě ėƲĖęğ āěēĝĞƱĜ ďŭĜ ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđė ĚċėĞƯĞȦĚēĝĞďƴęėĞē) represents a crux interpretum in the exegetical discussion, not least centred around the question of the meaning of ĞƬĕęĜ in Rom 10:4. Is Christ the ‘end’ of the Law in the sense of ‘termination’? Or its ‘goal’? Or both? Scholars such as Howard, Rhyne, Badenas, Cranfield, Tobin, Fitzmyer, Humphrey, Bechtler, and Keck hold that ĞƬĕęĜmeans ‘goal’.44 The decisive argument which these scholars deliver for this view is that it is consistent with the course of the argument in Rom 9:30–10:3, where the pursuit of uprightness by Gentiles (Rom 9:30), the pursuit of the Law by Israel (Rom 9:31), and Israel’s ‘zeal’ (Rom 10:2), suggest the meaning of a ‘goal’ to be reached. Other scholars as e.g. Schneider, Bruce, Barrett, and Hooker believe that ĞƬĕęĜmeans both ‘termination’ and ‘goal’.45 According to this view Christ is the one who puts an ‘end’ to law– righteousness and at the same time is seen as the ‘goal’ of the Law in the sense that all that the Law aimed at is summed up in him. Still others claim that ĞƬĕęĜ means ‘termination’, ‘end’.46 According to this view, Christ is understood as the ‘termination’ of the Law as a way to righteousness for the followers of the Law, i.e. Israel.

43

Sanders, 1983, 38.

44

Howard, 1969, 331–337; Rhyne, 1981, 95–116; Badenas, 1985, 81–115; Cranfield, 1986, 515– 20; Tobin, 1991, 272–280; Fitzmyer, 1993, 584; Bechtler, 1994, 298; Humphrey, 1999, 129–148; Keck, 2005, 249.

45

Schneider, 1964, 420; Bruce, 1963, 56, 203; Barrett, 1975, 197–198; Hooker, 2003, 126–146.

46

This view is held e.g. by Sanders, 1983, 39–40; Hübner, 1984, 135, 138, 148; Dunn, 1988, 589; Heil, 2001, 484–498; Schreiner, 1998, 534–549; Wehr, 2006, 194.

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

167

Dunn rightly characterises the current debate about Rom 10:4 by the comment that the immediate context has not been taken sufficiently into account.47 However, scholars will probably continue to interpret this verse in accordance with their general understanding of the immediate context. Thus, the most that can be accomplished seems to be to indicate the reading of Rom 10:4 which is adopted, and the reasons for the choice of this reading. The following discussion of Rom 10:4 within its literary context will suggest that ĞƬĕęĜ should be rendered both ‘end’ and ‘goal’. Citing from the Law itself, Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 are used by Paul to illustrate that Christ can be seen as both ‘end’ and “goal” of the Law, both because Christ had brought to an end one of the principles set out in the Law based on works and because the same Scriptures point to Christ as the goal of the Law. The rendering of ĞƬĕęĜ as ‘end’ referring to the Law in the light of Lev 18:5, i.e. as terminated by Christ, is consistent with the train of thought in Rom 9:30–10:4 and with the larger context of Romans on the basis of the following deliberations: in Rom 3:21–22 the righteousness of God is said to be disclosed in Christ apart from the Law: ‘But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.’ A similar line of thought is found in Rom 10:3–4. Rom 10:4 provides the basis for the statement in Rom 10:3 by asserting that Israel’s failure to submit to God’s righteousness is due to its ignorance of the fact that ‘the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law is Christ for righteousness to all who believe’, indicating the accent on the identity of the law’s ĞƬĕęĜ. God’s righteousness is then in Rom 10:3–4, as in Rom 3:22, defined by reference to Christ. According to Paul, it is Christ who results in righteousness for everyone who believes.48 We then understand ďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđė in Rom 10:4 to be consecutive and to modify the preceding clause ĞƬĕęĜėƲĖęğāěēĝƲĜ. Thus the sentence could be restated in this way: Christ is the ĞƬĕęĜof the Law; the result is that righteousness is available to all believe. As in Rom 1:16–17 and Rom 3:21–22, Rom 10:4 clarifies that the consequence or result of the Christ event is that righteousness is available to all who believe. In all these texts the words ‘all’ and ‘faith’ emphasise that righteousness is offered, not only to Jews on the basis of exclusivistic works in accordance with the Law of Moses, but to both Jews and Gentiles on the same basis of faith without distinction.49 Consequently, a claim for righteousness open only to those who do the commandments of the Law as it comes to expression in Lev 18:5, is excluded in light of Christ. This understanding is affirmed by the way Paul continues in Rom 10:5–6 by juxtaposing two kinds of attaining righteous47

Dunn, 1988, 589.

48

For a similar interpretation, see Käsemann, 1980, 290; Sanders, 1983, 39, 283; Räisänen, 1983, 55 n. 59; Cranfield, 1986, 519.

49

Cf. Moxnes, 1980, 78–99.

168

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

ness, one based on the observance of the Law (őĔėƲĖęğžĚęēƮĝċĜ)expressed by Lev 18:5, and the other based on faith (őĔ ĚưĝĞďģĜ) manifested in Deut 30:12–14. Already the context in Rom 9:30–32 seems to suggest an understanding of ĎƬ in Rom 10:6 in an adversative sense. If so, the contrast in Rom 9:30–32 is carried over into Rom 10:5–6. Thus, the righteousness by faith in Rom 9:32 and Rom 10:6 stands in contrast to the righteousness based on the Law, which is defined by ‘works’ (Rom 9:32) and ‘doing’ (Rom 10:5). Moreover, the different subjects (Moses versus the ŞőĔĚưĝĞďģĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđ), the different modifiers for ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđ(őĔėƲĖęğYHUVXVőĔĚưĝĞďģĜ)and the different actions prescribed (doing the commandments versus confessing and faith) seem to create a contrast between Rom 10:5 and Rom 10:6. Whereas Rom 10:5 explains the righteousness based on the Law for Israel alone (cf. Rom 9:31; 10:3), Rom 10:6–10 explains the righteousness based on faith for all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile (cf. Rom 9:30, 33; 10:6–10). Hence, as an explanation of Rom 10:4, the principle of the Law set out in Lev 18:5 (in Rom 10:5) could be considered as terminated in Christ, in contrast to the Law of Deut 30:12–14 (in Rom 10:6–10) which pointed to Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law all along. As a preliminary conclusion we can assume that ĞƬĕęĜin Rom 10:4 means that Christ is the ‘end’ of the Law as explained by the quotation of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5. It is this understanding of the Law out of a misplaced devotion to ‘their own righteousness’ in terms of ‘works’, which has been excluded by the coming of Christ and which has prevented Israel from attaining the true significance of the Law—which should have been pursued őĔĚưĝĞďģĜ. The discussion regarding the relation between Rom 10:5 and Rom 10:6 has centred on the question whether verse 6 complements verse 5 or states an antithesis or contrast to it.50 Räisänen is representative of those who argue that Paul associates ėƲĖęĜin Rom 10:4 with the őĔėƲĖęğ in Rom 10:5 and contrasts Rom 10:5 with Rom 10:6 in order to support the thesis that Christ is the end of the Law.51 On the other hand, some of those who interpret ĞƬĕęĜ as ‘goal’ argue that there is no antithesis between Rom 10:4–5 and Rom 10:6. Rather, each verse elaborates on what precedes. This view has resulted in various expositions of Rom 10:5–6. For example, some scholars read Rom 10:6 as an explanation of Rom 10:5 and depict the obedience that stems from faith, and argue that ĎƬin Rom 10:6 is not adversative, but should be understood as continuative.52 Another interpretation of Rom 10:4–6 represented e.g. by Cranfield is based on the view that Christ is

50

For the discussion, cf. Vos, 1992, 254–270; Siegert, 1985, 149–150.

51

Räisänen, 1983, 54; So also Luz, 1968, 157; Käsemann, 1980, 1980, 284; Wilckens, 1980, VI/2, 224; Sanders, 1983, 41; Dunn, 1988, 602.

52

Cf. e.g. Flückiger, 1955, 155; Getty, 1988, 467; Stowers, 1994, 308–310; Keck, 2005, 253.

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

169

the one who fulfils the Law as it comes to expression in Rom 10:5.53 A third interpretation, set forth by scholars such as Bring, Howard, Badenas, Hays, and Ross Wagner, argues that Rom 10:5 is a reference, not to Christ, but to the person who fulfils the Law as it is redefined in light of Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law expressed in Rom 10:6–10. Thus ‘doing’ the Law is redefined to mean obeying ‘the word of faith’ and ‘believing’ in Christ. According to this view, it is not the Jew but any one (Jew or Gentile) who practices righteousness.54 Against Räisänen we hold the view that the čƪěof Rom 10:5 need not mean that only Rom 10:5 provides the basis of Rom 10:4. Rather, Rom 10:5 together with Rom 10:6–10 explain Rom 10:4 about Christ being both the ‘end’ and ‘goal’ of the Law. We will argue that Paul holds the view that in the light of Christ, the ‘righteousness from the law’ (Lev 18:5) also finds its ‘goal’ in ‘the righteousness from faith’ (Deut 30:12–14). Thus, our thesis is that Paul interprets Lev 18:5 deliberately as equivocal, as an expression of the Jewish Law which is terminated because it is fulfilled in the light of Christ as the law’s ĞƬĕęĜ.55 In the immediate context, as we suggested above, Paul in Rom 9:31 (ǵôĝěċƭĕĎƫ ĎēƶĔģėėƲĖęėĎēĔċēęĝƴėđĜ) states that the ‘Law of righteousness’ which Israel pursued was intended to result in righteousness. This Law Israel did not attain, because she did not pursue it on the basis of faith, but as if the Law could be attained by the manner of works, Rom 9:32. The manner of faith, through which the Gentiles have attained to righteousness according to Rom 9:30 (ŕĒėđĞƩĖƭ ĎēƶĔęėĞċĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĔċĞƬĕċČďėĎēĔċēęĝƴėđė), is defined in Rom 9:33 with reference to Christ, ‘the stumbling stone’, in whom they believed. The implication of the argument in Rom 9:31–33 is that if Israel had believed in Christ, she would not have stumbled on her course towards the ‘goal’ of the Law.56 This line of thought is further elaborated by Paul in Rom 10:3 and Rom 10:5–10. Israel’s misunderstanding and pursuit of the Law and its righteousness as if it was based on ‘works’ as expressed by Lev 18:5 (Rom 10:5), prevented the nation from submitting to God’s righteousness (Rom 10:3) as disclosed in Christ, who is the ‘goal’ of the Law (Rom 10:4–10). Hence, Israel’s non–attainment of the Law (Rom 9:31) 53

See Cranfield, 1986, 521–522. Cf. Bandstra, 1964, 105.

54

So e.g. Bring 1969, 54; idem, 1971, 49; Howard, 1969, 336–337; Badenas, 1985, 124–125; Hays, 1989, 75–83; Ross Wagner, 2002, 159–168.

55

Cf. Keck, 2005, 253–254: ‘At issue is whether what faith-derived righteousness says is a Christological alternative to what Moses says or a Christological appropriation of it.’ According to Keck (2005, 254) the latter point of view is the case; we agree with this position.

56

In Rom 11:11 Paul refers to this ‘stumbling’ in the question: ‘So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall?’ The reference here to the ‘stumbling’ and the expression ‘as to fall’, point back to the imagery in Rom 9:31–33 describing how Israel, while pursuing their goal as in a race, stumbled on her way, i.e. they ‘stumbled’ in Christ. As a result, Paul refers in Rom 11:11–12, as in Rom 9:30–33, to the exclusion of Jews from salvation in contrast to Gentiles who receive a share in it.

170

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

was due to her ignorance of Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law of Moses with regard to righteousness, i.e. the righteousness received in faith which is available to Jews as well as to Gentiles. According to Paul the proper understanding of the Law and its function of leading to righteousness had now come to focus in Christ, and that righteousness is available to everyone on the basis of faith. Thus, the Scriptural passages quoted in Rom 10:5 (Lev 18:5) and Rom 10:6–8 (Deut 30:12–14) point to Christ as the fulfilment and ‘goal’ of the Law (Rom 10:2–4). So the ‘commandments’ referred to in Lev 18:5 are to be pursued, not in terms of ‘works’, but ‘out of faith’ by obedience to ‘the word of faith’. This is why Paul takes Deut 30:12–14, saying the same as Lev 18:5,57 to refer to Christ and ‘the word of faith’, and as correlative and not only antithetical to the righteousness from the Law expressed by Lev 18:5.58 Accordingly, Paul redefines ‘doing’ (Lev 18:5) as the obedience to the Law which was made possible by the ‘word of faith’ (Deut 30:14), — brought near by the proclaiming of the gospel. Thus, citing the words of the Law itself, Paul takes both Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 seriously, and transfers them to faith in Christ. The Law, properly understood as calling for obedience, does not call for something impossible. The ‘commandments’ attainable as the “word of faith” require now the obedience of faith, understood as confession to Christ and belief in him. The hermeneutical principle implied in Rom 10:4–10 and presupposed in Paul’s fresh interpretation of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 was that the Law, properly understood, should be interpreted on the basis of the eschatological event to which it points, viz. to Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law. Accordingly, in Paul’s argument in Rom 10:2–4 it was the ignorance of the Law properly understood (Rom 10:2b, 5ff.), and Israel’s manner of observing the Law of Moses in terms of works, and not out of faith (Rom 9:32), which prevented Israel from attaining the Law and its ‘goal’ and thus being subordinate to the righteousness of God. Philo, with a parallel in Baruch, can shed light on Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 within the framework of a nationalistic understanding of the role of the Law which distinguishes Israel from the Gentiles. As we will observe, this also means that Paul’s juxtaposition of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 can be placed against a Jewish referential background which confirms the view of Dunn that Paul’s ‘exposition of Deut 30:12–14 is at the centre of his attempt to expound the continuing and wider significance of the Law in a way which retrieves the Law from a too narrowly defined understanding of “This do and live” (10:5–13).’59 57

Cf. the terminological links between Lev 18:1–5 and Deut 30:6–20: Both texts promise ’life’ (ĐģƮĐȥ:Lev 18:5; Deut 30:6, 15, 16, 19, 20) to those who ‘do’ (ĚęēƬģ: Lev 18:4, 5; Deut 30:2, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14) the commandments of the Law.

58

For a similar view of Paul’s interpretation and juxtaposition of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14, see Hays, 1989, 76; Ross Wagner, 2002, 160; Keck, 2005, 254.

59

Dunn, 1991a., 303.

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

171

Accordingly, Praem. 80–82 demonstrates that Philo interpreted Deut 30:11–14 as a rationale (cf. čƪě in Praem. 80) for the requirement of obedience to the Law which in Praem. 79 was stated as the condition for the blessings.60 In Praem. 83–84 Philo applies the argument about actions in the obedience to the law to the Jewish nation, which is marked out from other nations as the people close to God. This claim for the Law and obedience to the law as marking out the distinctiveness of Jews as the people of God from the Gentiles, is thus a significant element in the use of Deut 30:11–14 in Praem. 79–84. In Bar 3:29–30, we find a reference to Deut 30:12–13 within a context which expresses pride in the Law and obedience to the Law as the mark of God’s favour to Israel, which distinguishes them from the other peoples. After the section of sin– confession according to the Deuteronomic sin—exile—return-pattern in Bar 1:15–3:8,61 and before the section that promises blessing for Zion in Bar 4:5–5:9, the middle section in Bar 3:9–4:4 recalls the nation to obedience to the Law. We should note that like Philo, Baruch applies Deut 30:12–13 in Bar 3:29–30 within a context which claims a special wisdom for the Jewish nation on the basis of the Law which was given to Israel alone unlike the other nations. Thus, in Baruch the contrast is drawn between human ignorance and divine knowledge, which is the same time a contrast between the ignorance of the nations (Gentiles) and the divine knowledge given to Israel.62 An underlining and italicising of words (the italicised words refer to people other than Israel) in the following quotation of Bar 3:36–4:4 indicates this: (3:36) He [God] hath found out all the way of knowledge, (3:37) And hath given it unto Jacob his servant, And to Israel that is beloved of him. (4:1) Afterward did she appear upon earth, And was conversant with men. This is the book of the commandments of God, And the Law that endureth forever: (4:2) All they that hold it fast are appointed to life; But such as leave it shall die. (4:3) Turn thee, O Jacob, and take hold of it: Walk towards her shining in the presence of the light thereof. (4:4) Give not they glory to another, 60

See chapter five above.

61

This pattern was first recognised in Baruch and many other post–biblical Jewish texts in the study of Steck, 1967. See now also Watson, 2004, 459.

62

According to Baruch the way to understanding (ĠěƲėđĝēĜ: 3:9, 14, 28), wisdom (ĝęĠưċ: 3:12, 23) and knowledge (őĚēĝĞƮĖđ: 3:20, 27, 36) is known to God alone, and hidden to the ignorant humankind. However, God has imparted the ‘way of knowledge’ to Israel in the form of ‘the book of the decrees of God, the law which endures for ever’ (3:37; 4:1). Cf. Watson, 2005, 465.

172

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

Nor the things that are profitable unto thee to a strong nation. O Israel, happy are we: For the things that are pleasing to God are made known unto us.

As in Praem. 79–84, Baruch’s use of Deuteronomy 30:12–13 about the ‘Wisdom’ given through the Law is set within the context where legally observant actions of the Jewish nation are a distinctive marker between the Jewish nation and the Gentiles. Moreover, as in Paul (Lev 18:5/Rom 10:5) and Philo (Deut 28:1/ Praem. 79), we observe that the requirement of obedience to the law in Bar 4:2 is stated in a casuistic form: ‘All they that hold it fast are appointed to life’. This, then, provides a Jewish context within which Paul’s juxtaposition of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 within the line of thought in Rom 9:30–10:5 can be located. We have argued in the preceding section that within the literary framework of Rom 9:30–10:5 Paul saw Lev 18:5 as an expression of Israel’s exclusive view of the law, circumscribing righteousness to the followers of the law and setting them apart from the Gentiles. The way Paul applies Deut 30:12–14 (Rom 10:6–10) to the righteousness of faith for all, without distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and gives the contrast he posits between Lev 18:5 (Rom 10:5) and Deut 30:12–14 a christological rationale (Rom 10:4), makes it likely that he presupposes a use of Deut 30:12–14 about the Law and actions in obedience to the law as a boundary distinguishing between Jews and Gentiles, as illustrated by Philo, and with a contextual parallel in Baruch as well.63 Before examining the various aspects of Paul’s exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10, we shall first see how the translation of ĞƬĕęĜas both ‘end’ and ‘goal’ and the suggested reading of Paul’s interpretation of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 within the line of argument in Rom 9:30–10:4 is in keeping with his argument in the rest of Romans. The larger context in which Paul’s understanding of the relation between Christ, the Law and the opposition of works and faith is situated, should not be neglected. Although Christ is not mentioned in the thematic statement in Rom 1:16–17, the righteousness of God mentioned there is further characterised in Rom 3:21–22 as the righteousness of God ‘through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe’. While this righteousness of God disclosed in Christ is manifested apart from the Law (3:21), Paul in Rom 3:20 asserts that “no one will be ‘rightwised’ in God’s sight by the works of the Law”, while both Law and prophets witnesses to the fact that the righteousness promised came only through faith (Rom 63

Wehr rightly emphasizes the contrast between Paul and Baruch too: Die Bar–Stelle beginnt gleichsam eine Brücke zu Paulus zu bauen, insofern sie den alttestamentlichen Text auf die Weisheit bezieht, aber es bleibt bei einem Brückenansatz, der noch lange bis an das andere Ufer der paulinischen Auslegung heranzieht (idem, 2006, 201).

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

173

3:21–22). As in Rom 3:19–22, so in Rom 3:27–28 Paul appears to be opposing two interpretations of the Law, one which is focused on ‘works’, and the other which witnesses to faith. This is the same contrast that we find in Rom 9:31, not between Law and faith, but between two principles set out in the Law—‘works’ (v.30) and ‘faith’ (vv. 31–32). The continuity between Law and faith is expressed by the claim in Rom 3:31 that the Law is not abolished by this faith; on the contrary the Law is upheld. In Romans 4 Paul continues to demonstrate through the story of Abraham that the Law points to righteousness by faith. In Romans 7 Paul points out that the Law is ņčēęĜand ĚėďğĖċĞēĔƲĜ and the commandment is ĎēĔċưċ and ŁčċĒƮ(Rom 7:12, 14). The Law is further described as God’s Law (Rom 7:22, 25), but it is unable to save; but God has now done what the Law, weakened by the flesh, was unable to do. By sending his Son, God has enabled those who receive the Spirit to fulfil the righteous intent (ĎēĔċưģĖċ) of the Law and to submit to God’s Law (Rom 8:4).64 In Rom 13:8–10 Paul says that the commandments concerning adultery, murder, theft, and covetousness may not be ignored. Rather, Paul here takes a further step, when he claims that doing such commandments means the fulfilment of love: ‘Love is the fulfilling of the Law’. Such a train of thought is in keeping with Paul’s statement in Rom 10:4–10: the righteousness of God testified by the Law is the same righteousness revealed in Christ and proclaimed in the gospel.65 Thus, when Paul cites Lev 18:5 about the ‘righteousness from the Law’ and then uses Deut 30:12–14 as a Christological appropriation of what Moses says about that righteousness, he demonstrates that the Law is fulfilled and reaches its true goal in the ‘righteousness from faith’, because Christ is the ‘goal’ of the Law (Rom 10:4). Such an understanding of the Law, bearing witness to righteousness through faith, fits in the immediate context and makes sense according to the argument of Romans at large.66 As we noted in chapter one, Sanders maintains that the question of ‘righteousness by faith, not by Law’, must be seen as a part of the discussion of membership in the people of God discussed in Rom 9:6–33:67 Who belongs to the true Israel? On what basis is righteousness and membership in the true people of God attained? Sanders proposes that Paul’s argumentation in Rom 10:6–10 can

64

On the continuing positive role of the Law in Romans, see Dunn, 1995, 469–471.

65

Cf. the elaboration of the relation between the Law and faith from Rom 3:31 in Romans 4. Here, as in Rom 1:2 and Rom 3:21–22, Paul argues that the Law together with the Prophets, with its story about Abraham and David, attest the gospel of righteousness by faith. Cf. also Gal 3:8. See for a discussion of this topic, Hays, 1989, 51–57.

66

Cf. Hays, 1989, 76; Keck, 2005, 254.

67

Sanders, 1983, 43.

174

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

be seen as a development of what was said in Rom 9:24–33.68 This means that the doctrine of righteousness of faith, and then also Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 can be seen as subsidiary arguments on the topic of inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in the people of God. Bechtler is close to such a view in the following comment on Rom 10:5–10: Nevertheless, Paul certainly does present contrasts between doing and believing (in Romans 4 as well as in Rom 10:5–10) and between works and grace (in Rom 11:6). It is important to note, however, that these contrasts, like the antithesis őĘ ŕěčģė/őĔĚưĝĞďģĜ, occur in contexts where the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles and not as converts to Judaism within the purview of God’s redemptive activity is at issue (Galatians 2–3; Rom 1:16–17; 3–4; 9–11).69

A similar understanding of Paul’s phrase ‘the works of the Law’ within the relationship between the Jewish nation and the Gentiles is formulated by Sanders: Paul’s phrase the “works of the Law” does not refer to how many good deeds an individual must present before God to be declared righteous at the judgement, but to whether or not Paul’s Gentile converts must accept the Jewish law in order to enter the people of God or to be counted truly members.70

However, we must ask: Does Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 to the issue of the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in the people of God have any precedents or parallels in contemporary Jewish thought and application of the same text or other Old Testament texts? In an examination of Paul’s Old Testament quotations applied to the admission of Gentiles in the people of God in Romans 9–11, B. Lindars has searched for an answer to this question. He concludes with a negative answer.71 Lindars seems to be right in pointing out that Paul has no direct exegetical tradition on which to build. However, he has not paid enough attention to the use of the Old Testament in Jewish proselyte traditions as a possible link to Paul. Such an approach has been taken by Georgi, who suggests that Philo’s application of Deut 30:12–14 to proselytism can serve as a background for Paul’s usage of this text in Rom 10:6–10:

68

69

Hofius (1990, 26) observes: ‘In Romans 10 Paul develops what was said in 9:24–33, now putting all the emphasis on Israel (vv.1–19 and v. 21) and bringing in the Gentiles for contrast only in v. 20.’ It is true that Paul explicitly refers to the Gentiles only in Rom 10:20. However, the many references to ‘all’ in Rom 10:4, 11–13, certainly include Gentiles in the perspective. Bechtler, 1994, 305 n. 63. We find a similar understanding of this phrase in Aageson (1987, 61–62): In the discussion in 9.30–33, the issue is not ‘belief ’ versus ‘unbelief ’. It is ‘faith’ versus ‘works’.… The situation which precipitated the issues in 9.30–33 would have involved contention between Jews and Gentiles over the issue of obedience to Torah.

70

Sanders, 1983, 20. Cf. also Borgen (2000, 352).

71

Lindars, 1987, 526.

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

175

It is interesting that Philo can cite Deut 30:10–15 to show the familiarity of Jews as well as proselytes with the Law (Virt. 183–184; Praem. 80–81; cf. Post. 84–88; Mut. 236–39; Somn. 2. 180). Paul does the same (Rom 10:8) in a section devoted to the essence of missionary preaching. Clearly Philo and Paul interpret the passage in different, indeed contradictory, ways. But Philo’s exegesis provides a background 72 for Paul’s declaration that Christ is the end of the Law.

The following observations will spell out the implications at which Georgi hints. It is noteworthy that Philo takes Deut 30:12–14 to refer to Moses’ teaching on conversion with the aim of clarifying how to be a true member of the people of God, whether the converts are from within the Jewish nation or from the Gentiles who are to become proselytes. Such a reference seems to be an important referential background for Paul’s application of the same Scripture to Gentiles and Jews with regard to the theme of righteousness. Thus, there are similarities between Philo and Paul in the way Deut 30:12–14 is applied to the issue of how Jews and Gentiles gain a right relationship with God, which in turn is seen as an aspect of attaining membership in the true people of God. In Virt. 183–184 Philo applies Deut 30:12–14 to conversion within the Jewish nation and to the change which takes place in the life of Gentiles when they become Jewish proselytes. In Virt. 184b, Deut 30:12–14 was understood to deal with harmony as an aspect of conversion and as a condition for gaining a right relationship with God: ‘If (ďŭ)a man does not forget to keep this harmony, he will be well–pleasing to God, thus becoming God–beloved and God–loving.’

This conditional clause explains the consequence of the fulfilment of the condition of unity in words, thoughts and actions, based on an exposition of Deut 30:14. The conditional form given to the exposition of Deut 30:14 seems to suggest that it is regarded as the mode of participation in the people of God. As we have seen in chapter four above, the features of being God–beloved and God– loving can characterise the Jewish people as the true people of God, including Gentiles who had become proselytes. Thus, in Virt. 184 the exposition of Deut 30:12–14 about harmony and a right relationship with God was rounded off and supported by a quotation of the covenant formula in Deut 26:17–18: And so in full accordance with these words there was given from above the good saying “Thou hast chosen to–day God to be God to thee, and the Lord has chosen thee to–day to be a people to Him”.

72

Georgi, 1987, 180 n. 41. Here Georgi erroneously states that Philo comments on Deut 30:10–15, but the correct Old Testament reference is to Deut 30:11–14.

176

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

Thus, according to Philo, the aspect of harmony and a right relationship with God means being included in the Jewish people of God, among those who have chosen God to be their God and who God has elected, whether from within the Jewish nation or from the Gentiles who become proselytes. In a corresponding way, Paul has interpreted Deut 30:14 in Rom 10:9–10 as a condition for gaining a right relationship with God and entry into the people of God: … because, if (őƪė) you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.

Since the study of H. Cremer, it has been recognised that ‘righteousness’ is a relational concept. Applied to Paul and his letter to the Romans, if ‘righteousness by faith’ testified by the Law is in view, this implies that faith in Christ, and not conversion within or to the Jewish nation accepting and obeying the Jewish law, is the way into the right relationship with God and to be counted truly members of the people of God.73 When we now focus on further similarities between Philo and Paul, we need to bear in mind this basic difference and contrast between them. Like Philo, Paul locates Deut 30:12–14 within a theological framework in which the question of who has the right relationship with God, and on what basis it is attained, is to be seen as a question of membership in the people of God.74 Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 is included in his line of argumentation to explain why not all Jews belong to Israel (Rom 9:6) and they are outside the community of the true people of God, while Gentiles are included (Rom 9:24–30; 10:11–13). Thus, an overarching theme in Rom 9:6–11:10 is God’s election of his people. The fundamental thesis, which is elaborated in Rom 9:6–29, is stated in Rom 9:6–7: ‘For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants.’ These statements show that membership in the true people of Israel does not, eo ipso, imply membership in Israel as the community of the true Israel which receives the promise.75 In Rom 9:6–13 Paul shows that membership in the true Israel is solely by the call of God who made the promise (Rom 9:12a) and whose call goes forth again and again. Paul shows that God’s call operates according to selection within the collective. Paul shows what this mean by adducing the examples of Isaac and Ishmael (Rom 9:7b–9) on the one hand, and Jacob and Esau (Rom 9:10–13) on the other. Isaac and Jacob represent the Israelites whom God has chosen and called, whereas Ishmael and Esau represent the Israelites whom God has passed over and re73

See Cremer, 1900, 34–38. Cf. also Dunn, 1988, 616.

74

Cf. Sanders, 1983, 43.

75

Cf. Abasciano, 2005, 221–224.

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

177

jected. In Rom 9:24–26 Paul’s point is to show that God acts in the same way in the present as He has acted in the history of his people, namely as the One who sovereignly elects and rejects. God does so now both within Israel, as He calls Jews, but also by calling the Gentiles (Rom 9:24).76 In Rom 9:25 Paul quotes from Hos 2:23 LXX (2:25MT): ‘“Those who were not my people I shall call ‘my people’; and her who was not loved I shall call ‘my beloved’.”’ As Philo characterises the Gentiles who have become proselytes as the chosen ‘people’ (cf. Deut 26:17–18) and the ‘beloved’ of God, Paul adapts Hos 2:23 LXX particularly to the Gentiles who have become ‘my people’ and ‘beloved’. In other words, as Gentiles they have become God’s people, the object of his choice and love.77 In Rom 9:30–33, Paul makes a provisional summary of the contemporary situation. The Gentiles have embraced the righteousness that stems from faith, but the historical Israel, apart from the faithful remnant, has not attained this. In Romans 10 Paul develops further the explanation of this fact, but now turns to the effect of the coming of Christ on the constitution of the true people of God. Israel was indeed anxious to be the true people of God, but their mode of attaining this status was mistaken (cf. Rom 10:2). The righteousness defined by the Law was still the criterion of deciding who belonged to the true people of God. According to Paul, the majority of Israel had been ignorant of the correct way to pursue the righteousness of God. Instead, they had pursued their own righteousness based on their own conception of the Law (cf. Rom 9:31–31; 10:3). Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 is part of his explanation of the relationship between the Law and Christ, with respect to attaining the righteousness and membership now called for by the inauguration of the eschatological age. In our discussion of the line of thought in Rom 10:12–13 below this topic will be further developed. In short, against this Philonic background, Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 to the issue of righteousness by faith related to the question of who constitutes ‘Israel’ as the true people of God, and on what basis, may be seen to have much greater coherence, despite the differences and contrasts which exist between these two Hellenistic Jewish authors.78

76

The use of the verb ‘call’ (ĔċĕƬģ) in Rom 9:7–26 is elsewhere in the Corpus Paulinum employed for the divine initiative at conversion with belief in the gospel as a result, cf. Rom 8:28, 30; 1 Thess 5:24; 2 Thess 2:14. Cf. Gundry Volf, 1990, 165–166.

77

Cf. Paul’s description of the Jews in Rom 11:28 as ŁčċĚđĞęư, ‘beloved [by God]’, because of election. Here the status of being beloved according to election likely refers back to the divine love manifested in the election of the patriarchs, according to Rom 9:13. Cf. the recent works by Ross Wagner (2002, 79–89) and Stanley (2004, 155–160) dealing with Paul’s application of Hos 2:23 LXX to the Gentiles.

78

Cf. Bekken, 1998, 315–331.

178

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

We will pass on to an examination of the various aspects of Paul’s interpretation of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10. First, we shall analyse the exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:12–13 in Rom 10:6–7. In Rom 10:6 Deut 30:12–14 is prefaced by a warning expressed by the words of Deut 8:17a (LXX) and 9:4a (LXX) as spoken by the ‘Righteousness of faith’: ‘Do not say in your heart’. Both Deut 8:17a and 9:4a warn the people of Israel not to think that God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt and his victory over the nations of Canaan is due to their own ‘strength’ (Deut 8:17a) and ‘righteousness’ (Deut 9:4a). Rather, they have inherited their land because of God’s gift and mighty deed. As Ross Wagner has pointed out: ‘In view of Paul’s criticism of Israel in Rom 10:3, it is surely not accidental that he has drawn on a text that repeatedly admonishes Israel against trusting in “their own righteousness”….’79 In line with the warning in Deut 8:17a and Deut 9:4a, Paul in Rom 10:7–8 has selected phrases from Deut 30:12–13 LXX which suggest that the Law might not need to be fetched from heaven or from across the sea, so as to become accessible and capable of being put into practice.80 However, the following explanation and exposition of the meaning of these questions shows how Paul makes an exegetical paraphrase of the text, interpreting the text about Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law. To each part of the Old Testament text he makes an expository paraphrase of Deut 30:12–13 with glosses which apply it to Christ. In the first case the question of Deut 30:12 is supplemented by the clause ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėāěēĝĞƱėĔċĞċčċčďȉė (‘that is, to bring Christ down’). In the second case Paul actually substitutes ‘descend into the abyss’ for ‘go over the sea’from Deut 30:13, which fits the following exposition and application to Christ better: ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėāěēĝĞƱėőĔėďĔěȥė Łėċčċčďȉė(‘that is, to bring Christ up from the dead’)$VZHKDYHSRLQWHGRXW LQFKDSWHUWKUHHDERYHWhis method of replacing a word from the Old Testament text, which in this case refers to the commandment of Law, with interpretative words—here with a substitution of Christ for the commandment—requires an agreed hermeneutical principle: What is here said of the Law can and should be said of Christ. This is exactly the hermeneutical principle which is stated and 79

Ross Wagner, 2002, 162. See also Heil, 2001, 493–495.

80

The ĎƬ in Rom 10:6 is often thought to make either a contrast or connection between the Scriptures of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14. In this study we take the position that ĎƬ can be taken as both disjunctive and conjunctive, signalling both a contrast and a continuity between the two Scriptures in Paul’s view. Further arguments for the connective meaning of ĎƬ in Rom 10:6 are presented by Badenas, 1985, 121–125. Ross Wagner (2002, 161, n. 132) observes in favour of a connective force of ĎƬin Rom 10:6 a parallel in the immediate context: ‘… Paul uses ĎƬin Rom 10:20 not to oppose Isaiah’s oracle to the words of Moses, but merely to signal the change of speakers….’ Likewise Keck (2005, 253) observes that ‘the same complementary use of de occurs in verse 10, where it clearly does not mean “but”’.

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

179

established in Rom 10:4 by the expression that the law’s ĞƬĕęĜis Christ. We have also seen in chapter three that Baruch’s application of Deut 30:12–13 to ‘Wisdom’, identified in personified terms with the Law, as embodied within ‘the book of the commandments of God, And the Law that endureth for ever’, provides a Jewish exegetical analogy to Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–13 to Christ, portrayed in personal terms and described as the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law. Paul’s christological interpretation of these phrases of Deut 30:12–13 makes it clear that he intended to explain the continuity between Christ and the Law. The meaning of Paul’s reference to Deut 30:12–13 seems clear: it is a warning against saying that Christ as the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law might need to be fetched from heaven or brought up from the grave. In Deut 30:12–13 the questions ‘Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us …?’ and ‘Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us … ?’, serve as counter-foils to the assertion of the accessibility of the Law. It has already been given to Israel ‘in this book of the Law’ (Deut 30:10). In a corresponding way Paul uses the questions from Deut 30:12–13 as a counter-foil to the assertion that Christ has already come down from heaven, and already been raised up from death, so that there is no need for questers. On the contrary, God has already done this (Rom 10:9), and in contrast to the effort of seeking to bring Christ down, the ‘word of faith’, which has been brought near in the gospel preached by Paul and others, has brought Christ near when it is received in mouth and heart.81 It may be the case that Paul’s combination of Deut 8:17a, Deut 9:4a, and Deut 30:12 draws on inner–Jewish polemic against circles within Judaism which 82 searched for new knowledge and revelations by means of heavenly journeys. Paul’s warning implied in the combination of Deut 8:17a, Deut 9:4a, and the question of Deut 30:12 may be an interesting precursor to the polemic in John 3:13 (“No one has ascended to heaven…”) against the claim that human beings have ascended to heaven.83 In Jewish exegesis it can be said that Moses ascended to heaven when receiving the Law on Sinai (so e.g. in Philo: Mos. 1:158–159; 81

Cf. Hays, 1989, 79–80: ‘God has already done the work in Christ’s incarnation and resurrection and needs no help from well–intentioned spiritual questers. The futility of the undertaking mirrors the futility of Israel’s seeking to establish their own righteousness and not submitting to God’s.’

82

Cf. also the Qumran document 4Q491 (frg. 11), 1:12–19. We should note that in the midrash of Deut. Rab. 8:9, Deut 30:12 is applied in polemic against searching for the Law in heaven to support the notion that since the complete law was given on Sinai, nothing of it has been kept back in heaven. Cf. also Frg. Tg. Deut 30:12; b. Tem. 16a. See Jervell, 1971, 93–95; Schäfer, 1974, 28.

83

Cf. Schweizer, 1982, 116, on Rom 10:6–7: ‘If there is a polemical overtone it is not against a gnostic myth but, as in John 3.13 and 4 Ezra 4.8, against ‘‘prophets’’ who claimed to have ascended to heaven.’

180

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

Josephus: Ant. 3:96; cf. furthermore Mek. Exod. 19:20; Num. Rab. 12:11). Philo gives also examples of an imitatio Mosis in Mos. 1:158. After describing Moses’ entry into the place where God was, Philo concludes: ‘… he has set before us … a model for those who are willing to copy it.’ One might also refer to Philo’s description of his own ascent to the heavenly sphere: ‘I … seemed always to be borne aloft into the heights with a soul possessed by some God–sent inspiration …’ (Spec. 3:1). Thus, Paul’s interpretation of Deut 30:12–13 may be located within a Jewish context and environment exemplified by Philo, John, and 4 Ezra, in which Jewish versions of ascent traditions existed as well as persons who claimed to have experienced heavenly ascents. After the negative statement in Rom 10:6–7, which forbids to do for oneself what God has already done (in Christ), Paul continues by stating positively in Rom 10:8 the location of the message of what God has done in Christ: ŁĕĕƩĞưĕƬčďē;őččƴĜĝęğĞƱȗǻĖƪőĝĞēėőėĞȦĝĞƲĖċĞưĝęğĔċƯőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪ ĝęğĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėĞƱȗǻĖċĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜƀĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė (‘But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach;’)

This quotation from Deut 30:14 is followed by a qualification of the ȗǻĖċ in the quotation. As was shown in chapter three, Paul here uses the method of exegetical paraphrase, supplementing a word (ĞƱȗǻĖċ) from the Old Testament by attaching the clause ĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜƀĔđěƴĝĝęĖďėThis exposition of the word ȗǻĖċ from Deut 30:14 LXX should be understood within the context of Paul’s explanation of the relation between the Law and faith, which comes to expression in the immediate context, Rom 9:31–32. In Rom 9:31–32 Paul describes Israel as failing to attain the Law, because she pursues the Law not by faith, but as if it can be attained by works (ďŭĜėƲĖęėęƉĔŕĠĒċĝďėĎēƩĞư;ƂĞēęƉĔőĔĚưĝĞďģĜŁĕĕǵƚĜ őĘŕěčģė)These words indicate the ambiguity in Paul’s conception of the Law and the way Paul operates with two conceptions of the Law.84 On the one hand, the Law, as the Mosaic legislation and the Law of the one nation Israel, can be aligned on the side of ‘doing’ the Law, and be contrasted with faith. This contrast is postulated in several texts in Paul’s writings, as in Gal 3:12, and Rom 4:14, 16. This is explicitly the point in Gal 3:12: ‘… but the law does not rest on faith, for “He who does them shall live by them.”’ Here Paul states with a reference to Lev 18:5 that the Law of Moses has nothing in common with faith; the Law requires work—the keeping of all the commandments. It is the same claim of the Law distinguishing Jews from Gentiles which Paul repeats in Rom 2:13, 25, and which 84

Again it is necessary to investigate the meaning of ėƲĖęĜin each case, and at the same time remember that Paul can use a term with different meanings within the same text. Cf. Hofius (1989, 68 n. 61) who comments on Paul’s different use of the word ėƲĖęĜ within the same text, as e.g. in Rom 3: 21–31: ‘Wie Sap 2, 11 f zeigt, kann ėƲĖęĜin ein und demselben Textzusammenhang durchaus in unterschiedlichem Sinn gebraucht werden.’

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

181

is contrasted in Rom 10:5–6 with the righteousness of faith. It is then reasonable to think that the same contrast lies behind the expression ęƉĔőĔĚưĝĞďģĜŁĕĕǵ ƚĜőĘŕěčģėinRom 9:31. However, in the light of the immediate context, ‘faith’ here refers to faith in Christ as the foundation of a people of God with no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, in contrast to ‘works’ which divide Jews from non–Jews. On the other hand, if Paul says that the Law Israel had pursued is the Mosaic legislation, and yet has not attained the Law because she failed to pursue by faith, it must follow that the Law Paul thinks of with the expression ďŭĜėƲĖęė ęƉĔŕĠĒċĝďė is the Torah which serves as a witness to faith.85 Thus, the statement in Deut 30:14 about ‘the word’ that is near by, interpreted as ‘the word of faith’ in Rom 10:8, can be taken by Paul to refer to the entire Law, which together with the prophets bears witness to the righteousness of God and righteousness by faith, as indicated by Rom 3:21–22 and Rom 3:27–31. In Rom 3:27 Paul makes a distinction between works of the law and faith, and this faith is characterised in terms of the Law: ‘the Law of faith’ (ėƲĖęĜĚưĝĞďģĜ). The antithesis between faith and works of the Law in Rom 3:27–31 serves to eliminate any reason for the Jewish ‘boasting’. Here it is clear that ‘boasting’, as in Romans 2, refers to that specific Jewish boasting of possessing and doing the Law, as a sign of a special status in relation to God.86 With Rom 3:31, the argument of Rom 3:27–31 is summed up. In Rom 3:31 the Law is seen by Paul as not nullified or controverted by faith, but confirmed. Thus, both the phrase ‘the Law of faith’ (ėƲĖęĜĚưĝĞďģĜ) in Rom 3:27, which must refer to the Law of the Jews, and the statement in Rom 3:31, makes it clear that Paul considers the Law to be in continuity with faith. So it is the Law properly understood in terms of faith which eliminates the boasting and the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. The emphasis in Rom 10:8 on Deut 30:14 as ‘the word of faith’ in contrast to and in continuity with Lev 18:5 seems then to continue the line of thought from Rom 3:21–22, Rom 3:27–31, and Rom 9:30–31. Within the literary context of Rom 9:30–10:8, such an interpretation of Deut 30:14 in contrast and continuity to Lev 18:5 serves the purpose of explaining the Law properly understood, and so also exposing Israel’s misunderstanding. According to Rom 9:30–31, the Law could only be reached on the basis of faith, not by works. Thus, Rom 9:30–31 implies a dialectic of the Law which Paul needs to explain. In Rom 10:4–10, Paul explains 85

This analysis of Rom 10:8 seems to support the view of Dahl (1977, 148), that Paul in Rom 10:5–6 ‘introduces a distinction between two concepts of the Law’ in order to come to terms with what appeared to be contradictory quotations in Scripture. For Dahl the distinction is between the narrow sense of the Law—the commandments—and the entire Law, ‘the Law that together with the prophets bears witness to the righteousness of God.’ We agree with this view, but we would prefer to take the ‘narrow’ Law in terms of the Law of Israel as the people of God, which divides between Jews and non–Jews.

86

Cf. Moxnes, 1988, 71.

182

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

this dialectic conception of the Law on the basis of its transformation in the light of Christ and the inauguration of the eschatological age. In short, by the juxtaposition of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14, and by interpreting the latter as ‘the word of faith’, Paul makes the point that the failure to make the response to the Law in terms of faith in Christ was the main factor which explained why Israel did not reach the Law. Since Christ is the fulfilment and ‘goal’ of the Law, the obedience required was achieved in him, and so the proclamation of the gospel leads to the obedience of faith.87 Thus, the Law and its righteousness, as it is also expressed by Lev 18:5, are not abrogated, but fulfilled. Again, Philo’s use of Deut 30:11–14 in Praem. 79–84 as encouraging the keeping of the Law exemplifies a Jewish framework for Paul’s emphasis on Deut 30:12–14 as ‘the word of faith’ in juxtaposition to Lev 18:5 within the context of Rom 9:30–10:8. Whereas Philo in Praem. 79–82 interprets Deut 30:11–14 as correlative with Deut 28:1 LXX and the requirement of actions in accordance with the Law of Moses, with agreement between ‘mouth’, ‘heart’, and ‘hand’, Paul considers actions in obedience to the Laws of Moses as prescribed by Lev 18:5 as both adversative and correlative to Deut 30:12–14 and the obedience of ‘mouth’ and ‘heart’ in Rom 10:5–10. The rationale for such a polyvalent reading of Lev 18:5 in juxtaposition with Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:5–10 was obviously the idea stated in Rom 10:4 that Christ was the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law, circumscribing a status of righteousness available to Jews and Gentiles on the basis of faith. It is not easy to determine the sense of the genitive in the construction ĞƱȗǻĖċ ĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜin Rom 10:8. It has been explained as denoting the response to the preached word and thus fides qua creditur, as Cranfield takes it.88 It has also been taken as the content of what is preached, fides quae creditur, as Schlier, Michel, and Käsemann have understood it.89 Rom 10:17 helps us grasp the meaning of the construction. As was shown above in chapter three, the opening and concluding statements of Rom 10:8c and Rom 10:17 form an inclusio: Rom 10:8c: ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēėĞƱȗǻĖċĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜƀĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė. Rom 10:17: ŅěċŞĚưĝĞēĜőĘŁĔęǻĜŞĎƫŁĔęƭĎēƩȗƮĖċĞęĜāěēĝĞęȘ Since Rom 10:17 explicitly states that faith comes from the hearing of the preaching, and the hearing of the preaching is grounded in the word of Christ, the ‘word of faith’ in Rom 10:8 then probably means the word that creates faith. Thus, faith seems here to be a fides qua creditur.90 87

Cf. Hooker, 2003, 133.

88

Cranfield, 1986, 526.

89

Schlier, 1977, 312; Michel, 1978, 329; Käsemann, 1980, 290.

90

Gal 3:2, 5 is to be understood similarly. Cf. Hofius, 1989, 160: ‘Im Galaterbrief prägt Paulus dementsprechend – in Analogie zu dem Ausdruck ĞƱȗǻĖċĞǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜ– den Begriff der ŁĔęƭ

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

183

The exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:14 is further elaborated in Rom 10:9–10: ƂĞē őƩė žĖęĕęčƮĝǹĜ őė ĞȦ ĝĞƲĖċĞư ĝęğ Ĕƴěēęė ǵôđĝęȘė ĔċƯ ĚēĝĞďƴĝǹĜ őė ĞǼ ĔċěĎưǪ ĝęğ ƂĞē ž ĒďƱĜ ċƉĞƱė ščďēěďė őĔ ėďĔěȥė ĝģĒƮĝǹä ĔċěĎưǪ čƩě ĚēĝĞďƴďĞċēďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĝĞƲĖċĞēĎƫžĖęĕęčďȉĞċēďŭĜĝģĞđěưċė (‘because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.’)

In Rom 10:9 ƂĞē can be understood as a ƂĞē recitativum meaning ‘that’.91 Rom 10:9 then serves to clarify the content of the ‘word of faith’ proclaimed. It can also be taken as introducing a motivating causal proposition which can be translated ‘because’ or ‘for’.92 This latter reading, with which we agree, is supported by the understanding of ‘word of faith’ in Rom 10:8 as referring to a fides qua creditur. Moreover, this understanding may also find some support in our observation in chapter three that Rom 10:8–9 follows the exegetical structure of a quotation followed by an exposition, in which the exposition refers to and repeats words from the Old Testament quotation and a causal proposition introduced with ƂĞēLVadded as a motivation In the sense ‘because’, the argumentation is then as follows: The ‘word’ which ‘is near in your mouth and heart’ is the ‘word of faith’, because it manifests itself in confession and faith in ‘mouth’ and ‘heart’. As to content, a text such as Gal 3:1–5 suggests that Paul’s emphasis on ‘the word of faith’ is related to the issue of inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles in God’s people, and not as converts to Judaism.93 This text shows that the argument about preaching and faith belonged to a situation in the early church in which one discussed the status of the Gentile converts. According to Gal 3:1–2, the reception of the Spirit was brought about by Paul’s missionary preaching of ‘Jesus Christ crucified’, and especially by the Gentiles’ ‘hearing of faith’.94 Here the ‘hearing of the faith’ (őĘŁĔęǻĜĚưĝĞďģĜGal 3:2) is contrasted with the ‘works of the Law’ (őĘŕěčģėėƲĖęğ, Gal 3:2, 5)How can the proclamation of Christ and the hearing of faith be an alternative to the works of the Law?According to Borgen this question is answered by Paul in a twofold way: First, ‘Jesus Christ crucified’ is the foundation for a new kind of community, as in Gal 5:6: ‘For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor un–circumcision means anything. …’ Second, the reĚưĝĞďģĜ, der »Glauben wirkenden Predigt« (Gal 3,2. 5).’ See also Schlatter, 1935, 314; Delling, 1974b., 404; Eckstein, 1988, 220. 91

So e.g. by Barrett, 1975, 200; Käsemann, 1980, 291; Wilkens, 1980, 227; Fitzmyer, 591; Schreiner, 1998, 559.

92

So understood e.g. by Cranfield, 1986, 526; Moo, 1996, 657; Reichert, 2001, 172 n. 134.

93

Cf. Moxnes, 1980, 85; Jervell, 1972, 65–67.

94

Similarly, in Acts 15:7 the Spirit was given by the Gentiles’ hearing of the gospel preached by Peter and their believing on that basis, ĎēƩĞęȘĝĞƲĖċĞęĜĖęğŁĔęȘĝċēĞƩŕĒėđĞƱėĕƲčęėĞęȘ ďƉċččďĕưęğĔċƯĚēĝĞďȘĝċē.

184

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

ception of the Spirit happened to the Gentile Christian converts even though they were not Jewish proselytes committed to the Law of Moses and obliged to undergo circumcision. Thus, according to Paul, they belonged to the people of God without having become citizens of the Jewish nation.95 There are some points of similarity between Paul’s argument in Rom 9:30–10:13 and Gal 3:1–5 that suggest such an understanding of the contrast of ‘the hearing of faith’ and ‘works of the Law’. In Rom 10:4–13, as in Gal 3:1–5, the message, focused upon Christ and received in faith, is contrasted with the requirement of the Law of Moses to act according to its commandments. Thus, as in Gal 3:1–5, christology is seen as the rationale for this contrast: Paul could regard Christ as the ‘end’ of the Law of Moses (Rom 10:4–5) circumscribing a righteousness for Israel alone. Instead, the Law of Moses, when understood properly and eschatologically, points to faith in Christ as the foundation for gaining a right relationship with God and entry into the eschatological true people of God (Rom 9:26– 33; Rom 10:4; 6–10). In Rom 10:9 the kerygmatic elements from the Christian tradition about Christ (őƩė žĖęĕęčƮĝǹĜ őė ĞȦ ĝĞƲĖċĞư ĝęğ Ĕƴěēęė ǵôđĝęȘė ĔċƯĚēĝĞďƴĝǹĜőėĞǼĔċěĎưǪĝęğƂĞēžĒďƱĜċƉĞƱėščďēěďėőĔėďĔěȥė) are in the centre of Paul’s transformation of the Law into the ‘word of faith’. Moreover, in Rom 10:9–13 Paul concentrates on christological points which are relevant to the cross–national perspective of the context: ‘Jesus is Lord’ (Rom 10:9); ‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame’ (Rom 10:11); ‘… the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For ‘every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved’ (Rom 10:12–13). Likewise, in Rom 10:12, as in Gal 5:6, christology is seen as the foundation for a new kind of community: ‘For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him.’ In short, this meant to Paul that Gentiles could be included and remain in the people of God as Gentiles without becoming Jewish proselytes and citizens of the nation of the Law of Moses, obliged to live according to the commandments of the Law. The basis for this view of including Gentiles as Gentiles, and not as converts to Judaism, seems to be the interpretation of Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection within the framework of the inauguration of the eschatological era which would also include the non–Jewish nations.96

95

See Borgen, 1994a., 228; Hooker, 2003, 144–145.

96

Cf. Dahl, 1974, 10–36; Borgen, 1994a., 221; idem, 1998, 245–250. Among the wide variety of eschatological ideas in Second Temple Judaism, both the idea of the inclusion of the Gentile nations and the idea of their conversion as proselytes are found; cf. Pss. Sol. 7:31–41; 1 Enoch 91:14; Sib. Or. 3:716–719; Mos. 2:43–44, and Sopre Deut. Berakah 354, f. 147a. Within this context Paul argued for his eschatological view that the Jewish nation and the nations were on an equal footing, namely that both belonged to the one united people of God on the condition of faith in Jesus Christ.

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

185

Against the background of Philo’s application of Deut 30:11–14 in Virt. 183–184 to the teaching of Jews and Gentiles on conversion within and to Judaism in his own time, the question arises whether this also offers a framework for Paul’s application of Deut 30:14 to the missionary preaching in Rom 10:8–17. An understanding of the early Christian missionary preaching, building on methods and ideas related to Jewish proselytism and the Hellenistic Synagogue, has already been suggested by scholars such as Stuhlmacher, Bussmann and Borgen.97 According to Sanders, Paul’s mission to Jews and Gentiles implies a ‘conversion’ of both Jew and Gentile in order to be admitted into the church as the people of 98 God. Thus, Sanders refers to the use of conversion language such as the verb ‘to win’ (ĔďěĎċưėģ) in 1 Cor 9:19–23, which he takes to refer to Paul’s efforts to win both Jew and Gentile: ‘Both Jew and Gentile need to be won in the sense of “converted.”’99 Such an understanding of Paul’s ministry as seeking a ‘conversion’ of both Jew and Gentile is also supported by Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 to the missionary preaching against the Philonic background. According to Virt. 175–177 Moses actively reached out to ‘everyone everywhere’, encompassing Gentiles as well as Jews. He offers to the repentant the high rewards of membership in the best of commonwealth. He invites the converts and offers them instruction, exhorting them to turn from the many gods to the one God, the Founder and Father of all. Moreover, in Virt. 183–185 Philo applies Deut 30:11–14 to Moses’ instruction of converts on how to enter and become a true member of the people of God, whether the converts are from within the Jewish nation or from the Gentiles who had become proselytes. In a similar way Paul’s application of Deut 30:14 to the preaching of ‘the word of faith’ concerns the reaching out to both Jews and Gentiles (as developed further in Rom 10:14–17), with the aim of leading them into the true people of God.100 In Rom 10:8 Paul’s 97

Stuhlmacher (1968, 261) suggests: Wenn die hellenistisch–jüdischen Christen beim Aufbruch zur Heidenmission sich an geprägte Vorbilder anlehnen und auf geprägte Materialien zurückgreifen wollten, so waren es diese Materialien aus der hellenistisch–jüdischen Synagoge. Der Rückgriff auf das synagogale Material lag schon deshalb nahe, weil die christliche Heidenmission in den um die Synagoge versammelten ĝƬČęĖďėęēĞƱėĒďƲė ihre ersten Adressaten und am besten vorbereiteten Hörer gefunden haben dürfte! Es ist also wahrscheinlich, dass die Hauptmotive und einige der Hauptaussagen der hellenistisch–judenchristlichen Missionspredigt dem Begriffs– und Vorstellungsschatz der hellenistischen Synagoge entstammen. Cf. Bussmann, 1971, 10ff.; Borgen, 1987, 209.

98

Sanders, 1983, 176–177.

99

Sanders, 1983, 177.

100 Cf. Sanders (1983, 176), who states: We should also note the degree to which it is incorrect to speak of Christianity as a new religion. I have thus far spoken of “conversion” as being required of both Jew and Gentile. W. D. Davies, however, has pointed out that if the term implies abandonment

186

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

interpretation of Deut 30:14 about ‘the word of faith’ serves as an argument for the thetical statement in Rom 10:4 that Christ was the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law with respect to righteousness for all, i.e. a right relationship with God and the inclusion of both Jews and Gentiles in the people of God. According to Paul, it was the missionary preaching centred on Christ and the response of this preaching by faith,101 and not submission to the Laws of Moses, that brought both Jews and Gentiles into a right relationship with God within the people of God. Thus, Paul would presumably have seen his missionary ministry among Jews and Gentiles as seeking precisely that ‘conversion’ of which Deuteronomy 30 was understood to refer within a Diaspora context, as exemplified by Philo.102 As for Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10, the Philonic material has made it possible to reach the following conclusion: Philo gives evidence for a use of Deut 30:11–14 about conversion within the Jewish nation and as proselytism. Against such a Jewish background we can more easily grasp why Paul applies Deut 30:12–14 to ‘righteousness by faith’ and ‘the word of faith’ in opposition to the claim for actions in obedience to the law as expressed in Lev 18:5 (Rom 10:5–6), in a context which explains the constitution of the chosen true people of God within the Jewish nation and among Gentiles. According to Paul, in the light of Christ, the eschatological observance of the Law which was now called for was obedience out of faith in Christ. Thus, righteousness and membership in the people of God were conditioned by faith in Christ brought about by the ‘word of faith’, not by submitting to the Laws of Moses, and this was open to Gentiles as Gentiles as well as to Jews. For Gentiles, this meant that taking up the Law in the form of ‘the word of faith’ did not involve inclusion in the Jewish nation, but rather inclusion in the cross–national ‘Israel’ as the true people of God comprised of both Jews and Gentiles.

(as he takes it to do), it should not be applied to Jews. He further argues that “Paul was not thinking in terms of what we normally call conversion from one religion to another but of the recognition by Jews of the final or true form of their own religion.” 101 This relationship between faith and preaching is reflected in an expression as ęƎĞģĜĔđěƴĝĝęĖďė ĔċƯęƎĞģĜőĚēĝĞďƴĝċĞď in 1 Cor 15:11. Often the content of the faith is introduced by a ƂĞē recitativum as in 1 Thess 4:14: ƂĞēdzôđĝęȘĜŁĚƬĒċėďėĔċƯŁėƬĝĞđ(‘that Jesus died and rose’), or as here in Rom 10:9:ƂĞēžĒďƱĜċƉĞƱėščďēěďėőĔėďĔěȥė (‘that God raised him from the dead’). In the latter case this faith corresponds with the proclaimed message ďŭ Ďƫ āěēĝĞƱĜ ĔđěƴĝĝďĞċēƂĞēőĔėďĔěȥėőčƮčďěĞċē(‘that Christ is raised from the dead’) in 1 Cor 15:12. Likewise, according to Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:3 the Christians confess: ĔƴěēęĜǵôđĝęȘĜ(‘Jesus is Lord’), which reflects the apostolic message according to 2 Cor 4:5 that ǵôđĝęȘĜ āěēĝĞƱĜ ĔƴěēęĜ(‘Jesus Christ is Lord’). 102 Cf. also Dunn (1987, 225–226), who applies the terminology of ‘conversion’ required of both Jews and Gentiles for admission to the true people of God.

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

187

We will now analyse the eschatological application of Deut 30:14 in Rom 10:9– 10.103 Here we find a structure that appears also elsewhere in the Corpus Paulinum, viz. the correspondence between the saving events and the preaching of them.104 Preaching brought about the actualisation of saving events. In this way the effect of Christ’s death and resurrection was actualised and applied when it was received in faith. Accordingly, participation in righteousness and eschatological salvation was conditioned by obedience to the ‘word of faith’ by mouth and heart, which Paul expounded to mean confessing the lordship of Christ and believing in Christ’s resurrection (Rom 10:9–10). Here, it is relevant to ask with Eckstein: How does Paul achieve the eschatological reading of Deut 30:12–14 as he proposes?105 Again, Philo’s use of Deut 30:11–14 may prove helpful. In the rest of this chapter we will observe how the eschatological perspectives of Philo and Paul, in which Deut 30:12–14 is included, despite differences share some features of similarity. We will point to some interesting resemblances between the interpretative textual contexts of Deut 30:12–14 as documented by Philo (Praem. 79– 172) and Paul (Romans 9–11).106 Thus, we will support the view that Paul’s eschatological application of Deut 30:12–14 when compared with Philo may be seen to have much greater coherence within a Jewish context than has been previously noticed. Within the limits of this investigation some scattered pieces of material will be brought forward without being discussed in detail. Some passages from Philo have already been discussed more fully above. Nevertheless, the passages cited will suffice to substantiate the points made, showing that Philo and Paul share common perspectives and motifs in their view of the future hope of Israel, and that these offer mutually illuminating parallels. In the following some points of similarity between Praem. 79–98 and Rom 9:30–10:10 will be noted. A comparison of Praem. 79–84 with Rom 10:6–10 makes it clear that both passages expound Deut 30:12–14 in terms of the Law from an eschatological perspective. Such use of Deut 30:12–14, as illustrated by Philo, is an important part 103 Cf. Wehr, 2006, 201–204. 104 See 2 Cor 5:14–21; 1 Cor 1:17ff., 2:1ff.; cf. Hofius, 1989, 149–150. 105 Cf. Eckstein, 1988, 216. 106 Deuteronomy 30–32 plays a role for both Philo and Paul as a biblical foundation of their restoration eschatology. Thus, Deut 30:1–10, 30:11–14, and Deuteronomy 32–33 play a crucial role in Praem. 79ff. and 162–172. Likewise, the hopeful words of comfort in the Song of Moses about Israel’s restoration, Philo reasons, ‘must be followed by their happy fulfilment’ (Virt. 75). Philo further notes that some of the blessings of Moses on the twelve tribes of the nation (Deut 33:1–29) have already taken place, and this inspires confidence that the others will be fulfilled in the future (cf. Mos. 2: 288). In Praem. 107, Philo applies Deut 15:6 about loans to the future. In a similar way Paul builds on Deuteronomy 30–32 in his argument about Israel’s future in Romans 9–11 and Romans 15 (cf. Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–8; Deut 32:21 in Rom 10:19; Deut 32:43 in Rom 15:10). Hays (1989, 164) calls Deuteronomy 32 ‘Romans in nuce’. See further Scott, 1995, 96–97, 133; Ross Wagner, 2002, 190–205; Watson, 2004, 439–454.

188

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

of the referential background, and this probably determined Paul’s appeal to both Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14. We have seen in chapter five how Philo in the context of Praem. 79–82 interpreted Deut 30:11–14 about the claim of actions obedient to the law based on Deut 28:1 LXX. The juxtaposition of Deut 28:1 LXX and Deut 30:11–14 in Praem. 79–82 is paralleled by the juxtaposition of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:5–6. The form of the rendering of Deut 28:1 LXX in Praem. 79 is similar to that of Paul’s rendering of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5, viz. the form of a conditional clause. Praem. 79 reads: If (őƪė), he says, you keep (ĠğĕƪĞĞģ) the divine commandment in obedience to his ordinances (ĞƩ ĚěęĝĞƪčĖċĞċ) and accept his precepts, not merely to hear them but to carry them out (őĚēĞďĕƬģ) by your life and conduct (ĎēƩĞȥėĞęȘ ČưęğĚěƪĘďģė), the first boon you will have is victory over your enemies.

Rom 10:5 reads: For Moses writes of the righteousness that comes from the law that the one who does these [sc. the regulations (ĞƩĚěęĝĞƪčĖċĞċ) and statutes (ĞƩĔěưĖċĞċ) of the Law] will find live in them (÷ģĥĝǻĜčƩěčěƪĠďēĞƭėĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėĞƭėőĔĞęȘ ėƲĖęğƂĞēžĚęēƮĝċĜċƉĞƩŅėĒěģĚęĜĐƮĝďĞċēőėċƉĞęȉĜ).

The condition of obedience to the precepts of the Law of Moses107 is the same in both texts.108 In both texts a conditioned future hope is described. Although the specific content of the main clause is different in Praem. 79 (‘the first boon you will have is victory over the enemies’) and Rom 10:5 (‘you will live’), both passages contain a conditional promise of blessing.109 According to Philo, the 107 In both texts a common terminology is presupposed with regard to the precepts of the Law, cf. ĞƩĚěęĝĞƪčĖċĞċ referred in Praem. 79 and presupposed in the literary Old Testament context of Lev 18:5 LXX, cf. Lev 18:4–5a LXX. 108 In the rendering of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5 the obedience to the Law as a condition for the realisation of the future hope of life is marked by use of an aorist tense (žĚęēƮĝċĜ). Paul often demonstrates that he understands the Mosaic legislation as comprised of commandments which need ‘doing’, and hence as based on actions/works. Examples from Romans are: According to Romans 2 the Law is something that can be ‘done’ (cf. the expression ‘doers (ęŮ ĚęēđĞċư) of the Law’, Rom 2:13), ‘obeyed’ (ĚěƪĝĝģRom2:25) or ‘kept’ (ĞďĕƬģ Rom 2:27). Cf. also Gal 3:10–13, 17; 5:3; 6:13. Westerholm (1988, 146) observes that Paul cites Scripture as supporting this notion, and he further comments: ‘He quotes Lev 18:5, and it suits his purpose well. But it is only one of dozens of texts from which Paul could conclude that keeping the Law was Israel’s path to life.’ Westerholm then cites Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Ezekiel for other typical expressions. 109 Cf. the following remarks about the collection of laws in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26), including Lev 18:5, by Zimmerli (1978, 113): ‘This collection of laws also leads up to alternative perspectives on the future: the gracious gift of all life has to offer if obedience is chosen, ruin and loss of everything if disobedience is chosen. The words ‘blessing’ and ‘curse’ are not used, but substantially they represent the choice.’

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

189

realisation of the eschatological blessing was conditional upon total obedience to the Law of Moses which encompassed words, thoughts and deeds. In a similar way, Paul refers to this principle of the Law, which states that for the Law to be the means of salvation it is necessary that it should be kept. The underlying principle of the Law of Moses is that ‘the doers’ of the Law will attain ‘justification/ salvation’. In Rom 2:13 we have the nearest parallel to Praem. 79 with regard to this principle of the Law: ‘For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.’110 The same principle of the Law is then also expressed by quoting Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5 as scriptural support for the righteousness of the Law. The issue of obedience to the Law is set within an eschatological framework both within the literary context of Praem. 79 and in Rom 10:5. Although Lev 18:5 deals with the promise of physical life in the land of promise, the line of thought in Rom 9:30–10:13 shows that Paul has set this conditional promise of life in an eschatological framework.111 As Paul cites it, Lev 18:5 speaks about the righteousness from the Law. In the literary context the soteriological meaning of righteousness emerges clearly in Rom 1:16–17 and in Rom 10:10, where righteousness and salvation appear side by side. Moreover, the argument of Rom 9:30–10:21 was to serve as an explanation of why the main body of the Jewish nation was excluded from the company of those who are being saved, Gentiles included.112 In a similar way to Philo, Paul also focuses on the Law as a way of participation in the eschaton. As Rom 9:31–32 shows, Israel pursues righteousness, which implies salvation for Israel by the Law: … but Israel who pursued the law of righteousness, did not attain the law. Why not? Because [it sought to attain the law] not from faith, but as if [it could be attained] from works.113

This concept of righteousness and the Law in terms of works maintained by the main body of Israel is, in the light of the eschatological age inaugurated by 110 Cf. Sanders, 1983, 134 n. 32, who refers to Praem. 79, 82 as an analogy to this principle of the Law in Rom 2:13. Sanders (ibid., 134) also notes other aspects of Romans 2 which point to a context of inner–Jewish debates with parallels in Philo’s De Virtutibus: criticism of reliance on descent (Rom 2:17, 28; Virt. 206) and the reminder that conscience is the true judge (Rom 2:15; Virt. 206). 111 Hofius (1990, 23 n. 29) takes Paul’s reference to ĐƮĝďĞċē in the quotation of Lev 18:5 to refer to eternal life, meaning ‘participation in the full salvation of God’, and further notes that the same interpretation is found in Tg. Onq. Lev 18:5 and Tg. Ps.–J. Lev 18:5. According to Avemarie (1996, 105), an eschatological exposition of Lev 18:5 parallel to Paul may be found in ‘Sifra Ahare–mot Pa. 9, 10’ to Lev 18:5 (cited according to Avemarie’s reference system). 112 Cf. Fitzmyer (1993, 592): ‘The difference between justification and salvation should not be stressed. The verse [i.e. Rom 10:10] formulates rhetorically the relation of human uprightness and salvation to faith and the profession of it.’ Cf. also Dunn’s (1988, 609) comment on Rom 10:10: ‘The near equivalence of “righteousness” and “salvation” in this context is wholly Jewish in character, as their frequent use in parallel in the Psalms and Second Isaiah makes clear.’ 113 Our translation.

190

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

Christ, inappropriate to the new concept of righteousness and salvation by faith and the Law. When Rom 9:31–32 is read with Rom 10:4–5, the following picture emerges: Israel pursues the Law in its narrowest sense as the Law based on regulations of the Sinai code which need to be done. Now by the inauguration of the eschatological age, this Law is abolished by Christ. In this sense, Christ is the ‘end’ of the Law. Christ’s coming requires a different way of obtaining righteousness, viz. faith. So Paul produces in Rom 10:5–10 a new understanding of righteousness and the Law which holds good in the new dispensation by an exegetical paraphrase of Deut 30:12–14 in juxtaposition with Lev 18:5. Whereas Philo interpreted Deut 30:11–14 in continuity with the claim of Deut 28:1 LXX about actions in obedience to the law as a condition for the realisation of the eschatological blessings, Paul sets actions in obedience to the Laws of Moses as prescribed by Lev 18:5 both in an adversative and a correlative relationship to Deut 30:12–14. Accordingly, the inauguration of the eschaton and participation in the eschatological salvation was dependent on obedience to the Law, but not in terms of regulations and ‘works’ according to the Law of Moses as presupposed in Israel’s ‘own’ attitude to the Law (Rom 9:31; 10:2; 10:5), and illustrated by Philo, but in terms of faith in Christ. In Rom 10:2–3 Paul starts from the fact that the Jews have not been wrong to seek to establish their righteousness, but they have not taken into account the consequences of the eschatological Christ– event with respect to the Law. Since Christ was seen by Paul as both the ‘end’ and ‘goal’ of the Law, the hope for salvation was tied to a response to the Law in terms of faith. As we pointed out in chapter three above, the conditional form of Rom 10:9 combined with the use of 2.p. sg. gives an impression of a kind of a general valid rule, emphazising the condition of salvation. In Rom 10:9 Paul’s exposition of Deut 30:14 is put in the form of a conditional clause to express the fact that the one essential condition of salvation is faith in Christ. This emphasis on faith as a condition for salvation is underlined in order to exclude the possibility of the alternative condition of ‘works’114 described by the conditional promise stated in the reference to Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5.115 However, it is our thesis that Paul in the light of Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law read Lev 18:5 as an equivocal statement 114 A similar understanding of Rom 10:6–10 is put forward by Reichert (2001, 173): ‘… gerade die allgemeingültig–regelhaft formulierten SchluČsätze (V. 9f.) schlieČen die Möglichkeit einer irgendwie anders bedingten Rettung für die derzeit abseits des Heils befindlichen Israeliten aus.’ 115 Wedderburn (1994, 37 n. 52) has expressed our understanding of Paul’s argument in Rom 10:5– 10 in the following way: That both righteousnesses are found in the Law, including that of the righteousness based on faith, means that the salvation that Christ brings is indeed that towards which the Law has pointed (cf. 3:21), but in so doing it points to that which will supersede it as a way of salvation by “doing” what it demands; with the near word of Christ there is no need for another righteousness and indeed, since it is the word of Christ, to choose another path would be disobedient folly.

Christ, the Law and the Righteousness of Faith

191

correlative with Deut 30:12–14: the ‘works’ element of the Law as the basis of Israel’s own righteousness was terminated by Christ (cf. Rom 10:4), though not the requirement expressed by Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:14 that men should and could be obedient to God by deeds and mouth and heart. As we observed in chapter three above, Philo in Praem. 81 makes use of a similar conditional form in his exposition of Deut 30:14: őƩėčƩěęŴċĞƩČęğĕďƴĖċĞċĞęēęȘĞęēęŮĕƲčęēĔċƯęŴċ ĞƩĕďčƲĖďėċĞęēċưĎďċŮĚěƪĘďēĜƟĝēĔċƯĞċȘĞċŁĕĕƮĕęēĜ ŁėĞċĔęĕęğĒǼĎďĒƬėĞċłěĖęėưċĜŁĕƴĞęēĜĎďĝĖęȉĜ ďƉĎċēĖęėưċĔěċĞďȉ… (‘For if our words correspond with our thoughts and our actions with our words and the three mutually follow each other, bound together with indissoluble bonds of harmony, happiness prevails …’)

In Philo, the protasis lays down the condition of correspondence and harmony between the mind, the words, and the actions, and the apodosis explains that ďƉĎċēĖęėưċ (‘happiness’/‘well–being’) as a state of blessing will then be created. In Rom 10:9 the condition of salvation is confession of Jesus as Lord, and the belief that God has raised Jesus from the dead. The way Paul interprets Deuteronomy’s mention of ‘mouth’ and ‘heart’ as a call to ‘believing’ and ‘confessing’ in accordance with the ‘doing’ expressed by Lev 18:5, allows him to redefine the obedience the Law calls for properly understood in light of Christ. Moreover, such a correlative reading of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 may also explain why Paul has omitted the mention of ‘hands’ in Deut 30:14 LXX altogether. Again, Philo may provide a possible Jewish background for Paul’s juxtaposition and interpretation of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 in the light of each other. In chapter five we pointed out that the association of the Greek philosophical topos of harmony between thought, word, and actions with Deut 30:14, and with the obligation to keep the commandments, could have been part of a tradition which has also influenced the LXX tradition used by Philo. In short, Philo’s exegesis of Deut 30:14 seems to build on an exegetical tradition which associates the Greek topos of unity in word, thoughts, and actions with the observation of the Torah. Our suggestion is that Paul’s juxtappostion and use of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 can be seen as a variant of the same exegetical tradition in two ways: First, Lev 18:5 (linked to Deut 30:11–14 by gezerah shawah) replaces the ‘doing’ (ĚęēƬģ) omitted from Paul’s quotation of Deut 30:12–14. Second, using the method of exegetical paraphrase Paul transforms ‘the word’ in Deut 30:14 (ĞƱ ȗǻĖċ  Ş őėĞęĕƭċƎĞđ, Deut 30:11), that Israel is ‘to do’, into ‘the word of faith’ (ĞƱȗǻĖċ ĞǻĜ ĚưĝĞďģĜ, Rom 10:8). This suggests that believing ‘the word of faith’ is the fulfilment or goal of ‘doing’ the commandments which Lev 18:5 calls for. Hence, believing with the heart and confessing with the mouth what God has done in Christ now fulfill the ‘doing’ of the commandments which is required in order to attain the righteousness of God testified by the Law (Lev 18:5).

192

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

As an additional point of similarity we note that both Philo and Paul utilise Deut 30:12–14 in an eschatological perspective which envisages that the eschatological blessings of Israel are to be shared by Gentiles.116 In Praem. 87 the non–Jews are included in the eschatological view by the hope that the blessings of those ‘worthy of salvation’ (cf. the noun ĝģĞđěưċ), i.e. the Jewish people of God cleaving to the commandments of the Law, will be brought to people in general to share: ‘… because their will is to bring their private blessings into the common stock to be shared and enjoyed by all alike. Would that this good gift might shine upon our life and that we might be able to see that day …’ (Praem. 87). In Rom 10:1 and Rom 10:11–13 Paul makes clear that the salvation on condition of faith in Christ was understood in universal terms encompassing both Jews and Gentiles. So the distinctive mark of the eschatological people of God is no longer the exclusivistic ‘works of the Law’ (Rom 9:32; 10:5), but rather the inclusivistic faith in Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law (Rom 10:4, 6–13). Accordingly, salvation was now open to both Jews and non–Jews alike, since the coming of Christ implied that there was no longer any distinction between these groups: ‘For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him’ (Rom 10:12). In this way the salvation that would be shared by non–Jewish nations through Israel was now achieving eschatological fulfilment in Christ, who, Paul emphasises in Rom 9:5, was of the race of Israel according to the flesh: ‘… and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ ….’ In Rom 11:11 Paul speaks about how the Jews’ stumbling has benefited the Gentiles by opening the door to salvation for them. In Rom 11:12 he explains that this anticipates a further benefit which the Gentiles will share through the Jews, which will surpass in greatness that already gained: ‘Now if their transgression was riches for the world and their loss, riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness.’117 Moreover, in Rom 15:27 Paul says that the Gentiles have come to share in Israel’s spiritual blessings, so it is right that they should reciprocate in terms of material blessings.118

116 The idea that the Gentiles will participate in the ‘salvation’ of the end–time as a consequence of the restoration of Israel is present in the following Jewish apocalyptic texts: Tob 13:11; 14:6–7; 1 Enoch 10:21; 90:30–33; 91:14; Sib. Or. 3:564–570, 715–723, 757–775; 2 Apoc. Bar. 72:1–6. Cf. also Philo: Mos. 2:43–44; Isa 54:15 LXX; Amos 9:12 LXX. The eschatological sections of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs likewise contain examples of this expectation: T. Levi 18:3, 9; T. Naph. 8:3–4; T. Jud. 24:6; 25:5; T. Zeb. 9:8; T. Benj. 10:3–11. See Jeremias, 1967, 19–24; Riches, 1980, 69; Sanders, 1985, 213–218; Donaldson, 1990, 8; idem, 1993, 81–98. 117 Our translation. 118 In Gal 3:8–14 Paul operates with a similar line of thought: Here Paul regards the coming of the Spirit to the Galatians through Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of the Abrahamic blessing promised to the Gentiles. Thus, the promise that Abraham’s blessing would be shared by the nations was achieving eschatological fulfilment through Jesus Christ. See Dunn, 1993, 164–167; idem, 1995, 463; Gager, 2000, 61–64.

Christ and the Cross–National Community of Jews and Gentiles

193

To sum up, the Philonic evidence has shown that Deut 30:11–14 could be used as a rationale for the possibility of actions in obedience to the law, which were seen as a condition for the realisation of the ‘eschatological’ blessings to be shared by Jews and Gentiles. Such evidence provides a Jewish referential background for Paul’s eschatological use of Deut 30:12–14 in juxtaposition to the requirement of actions in obedience to the law expressed in Lev 18:5, in order to explain the condition for salvation. Thus, Paul’s eschatological application of Deut 30:12–14 as an explanation of why most Jews have failed to come into the messianic salvation already shared by Gentiles, may be seen to have greater coherence to a contemporary Jewish context than scholars have previously observed.

6.4. Christ and the Cross–National Community of Jews and Gentiles Whereas Rom 10:6–10 has described the means of salvation, as part of the argument for the thesis stated in Rom 10:4 that Christ is the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law with righteousness and salvation as a result, Rom 10:11–13 takes the argument a step forward (cf. čƪě) in Rom 10:11) by asserting the universality of salvation for all: 11 12 13

ĕƬčďēčƩěŞčěċĠƮäĚǬĜžĚēĝĞďƴģėőĚǵċƉĞȦ ęƉĔċĞċēĝġğėĒƮĝďĞċē ęƉčƪěőĝĞēėĎēċĝĞęĕƭdzôęğĎċưęğĞďĔċƯȐðĕĕđėęĜ žčƩěċƉĞƱĜĔƴěēęĜĚƪėĞģėĚĕęğĞȥėďŭĜ ĚƪėĞċĜĞęƳĜőĚēĔċĕęğĖƬėęğĜċƉĞƲėä ĚǬĜčƩěƀĜŃėőĚēĔċĕƬĝđĞċēĞƱƁėęĖċĔğěưęğ ĝģĒƮĝďĞċē

As several scholars rightly observe, the chain of Scripture quotations in Rom 10:11–13 serves to confirm the exposition of Deut 30:12–14.119 Since the Law and the promise of righteousness were no longer to be identified with the exclusivistic Law of Israel distinguishing the Jewish nation from other nations, Paul held that it had reached its ‘goal’ in Christ as the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law with an inclusivistic function. So in Rom 10:11–13 Paul presents a universalist vision of the people of God encompassing Jews and Gentiles.120 Again we will see that the material from Philo can illuminate the Jewish matrix of Paul’s eschatological application of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:11–13. First, as in Rom 9:33, so also in Rom 10:11, Paul cites from Isa 28:16: 119 So e.g. Dunn, 1988, 609; Ross Wagner, 2002, 168. 120 We understand ‘universalist’ to signify an openness to everyone, a potential inclusiveness of all people.

194

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

ĕƬčďēčƩěŞčěċĠƮäĚǬĜžĚēĝĞďƴģėőĚċƉĞȦęƉĔċĞċēĝġğėĒƮĝďĞċē (‘The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.”’)

In Rom 9:33 the quotation is meant to explain that the righteousness attained by Gentiles is accessible only on the basis of faith in Christ. This is also Paul’s concern in Rom 10:11 when he adduces Isa 28:16 to confirm the exposition of Deut 30:12–14, which, in turn, explains why Christ is the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law leading to righteousness for all. In the Old Testament context of Isa 28:16 the righteous ask God to save them, to grant them justice so that they may be saved with honour and their enemy left with shame. Paul applies this quotation of Isa 28:16 as a promise to the Christians that they shall not be put to shame before of God. Obviously Paul understands the phraseęƉĖƭĔċĞċēĝġƴėĒǹfrom Isa 28:16 as equivalent tothe phrasesďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđėandďŭĜĝģĞđěưċėin Rom 10:10.121 Thus, the quotation of Isa 28:16 is introduced to explain (čƪě)and support the statement of the previous verse that faith leads to justification (ĚēĝĞďƴďĞċē… ďŭĜĎēĔċēęĝƴėđė)Paul indicates the universal aspect of the righteousness and salvation which are offered by adding ĚǬĜto the quotation of Isa 28:16. As observed by E. E. Ellis, this is an example of an interpretative quotation, where the interpretation is built into the quotation itself.122 As in Rom 9:33, őĚǵċƉĞȦ in the quotation of Isa 28:16 is understood by Paul to refer to Christ. Within the immediate context this is the most natural reference.123 The rationale for the addition of ĚǬĜ(‘no one’)in the quotation from Isa 28:16 in Rom 10:11 is given by the following statement in Rom 10:12, viz. that there is no distinction between Jews and non–Jews. Whereas Paul in Rom 9:33 first interpreted Isa 28:16 with reference to Israel’s manner of pursuing the Law, the point in Rom 10:11 is positive the promise pertaining to faith and salvation now applies equally to Jews and Gentiles. The verse likewise explains and picks up the phrase from the thesis in Rom 10:4 that Christ is the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law to righteousness for everyone who has faith (cf. the expression ĚċėĞƯĞȦĚēĝĞďƴęėĞē) Precisely as in Rom 1:16–17, Rom 3:21–30, Paul seems to break with the claim to special status for the Jews, which was particularly based on the Law of Moses.124 It was the Jewish 121 So Cranfield, 1986, 531. 122 Ellis, 1957, 140. Cf. also Ross Wagner, 2002, 169, who states: ‘This is a crystal–clear example of a deliberate modification of the text by Paul.’ See also Shum 2002, 165. 123 The idea that the salvation is accessible only on the basis of belief in Christ should also be located in the larger context of Romans. In Rom 3:21–26 the means by which the offer of salvation is extended is explained by the phrase ‘the redemption which is in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 3:24). In Rom 3:21–22 the righteousness of God is specified as ‘the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.’ Thus, the basis of salvation and its extension is faith in the eschatological act of Christ. The salvation secured in Christ is offered not only to Jews, but to everyone who believes (Rom 3:22; cf. Rom 1:16–17). 124 Already at the outset of Romans Paul places the unity between Jews and non–Jews in the perspective of the revelation of the righteousness of God. In Rom 1:16–17 the offer of salvation to all, to the Jew first and also to the Greek, implies that the distinction between Jews and Gentiles

Christ and the Cross–National Community of Jews and Gentiles

195

Law which explicitly upheld the distinctions between Jews and non–Jews. Thus, the statement that there is no distinction between Jews and non–Jews also disputes the claim that the Jews possessed the Law as a sign of special status. In this regard Paul differs from the stand taken by Philo and Baruch in the texts which we have discussed above.125 In Rom 3:29–30 Paul insists that the equal position of Jews and Gentiles was grounded in theology proper, that God shows no partiality and is God for both Jews and Gentiles: Or is God the God of Jews only ? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.

In this text Paul clearly operates within the Jewish notion that the one God of Israel is also the God of the nations.126 However, within both Hellenistic and Rabbinic Judaism such a monotheism was tempered by the conviction that God has associated himself especially with Israel, as is seen in their reception of the Law.127 It is this function of the Law as the dividing–line between Jews and non– Jews that Paul makes obsolete when he says that God deals with both groups without distinction. Within the context of Rom 3:30, Paul’s affirmation of the oneness of God serves to support his doctrinal thesis that both Jew and Greek are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (Rom 3:28, 31). Hence Paul gives a polemical twist to monotheism against the Jew who relies on the Law and boasts of his special relation to God. As Räisänen remarks, the point of Rom 3:27–30 is, as Rom 3:29–30 emphatically states, the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God.128 It is in a similar way as in Rom 3:27–30, Paul argues in Rom 10:12. Here too, the issue is the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God. In Rom 10:12 the preceding statement from Rom 10:11 about the promise of salvation/honourable status at the eschaton is applied to Jews and non–Jews alike, and is given a christologiis broken in regard to salvation. Also in Rom 3:27–30 the justification of all excludes the claim of honour linked up with the Law and obedience to the Law. 125 Philo, Baruch, and Paul describe the world from a Jewish perspective. The world consisted of the Jewish nation on the one hand, and of the nations on the other. Paul too accepts this division, but seen from the perspective of Christ as the end of the Law (Rom 10:4) there was no longer a distinction between Jews and non–Jews (Rom 10:12). Even though Paul recognises the zeal of the Jews and affirms the distinctiveness of Israel as the chosen people of God, he was concerned that the Law and its righteousness in the eschatological age were no longer to be identified with ethnic Israel exclusively. 126 See Davies, 1955, 58–85; Dahl, 1977, 178–191. 127 Cf. Avemarie, 1996, 488ff. 128 Räisänen, 1983, 171.

196

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

cal motivation (cf. čƪě): ‘the same Lord is Lord of all (cf. ĔƴěēęĜĚƪėĞģė) and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him.’ Here the epithet ĔƴěēęĜĚƪėĞģė seems to have been applied to Christ.129 In Rom 9:5 Paul states that Christ comes out of Israel: ‘… and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ ….’ However, Paul does not see this claim as antithetical to the point in Rom 10:12 that the eschatological Christ–event meant a re–drawing of the boundaries between the people of God and other peoples. For Paul the membership in the people of God was still indeed defined by righteousness, but no longer restricted to a response in terms of works according to the Law (what he calls ‘their own righteousness’, Rom 10:3), but rather defined in terms of faith in Christ as Lord (Rom 10:6–10).130 We have seen in chapter four that Philo within the context of Virt. 183–185 applied Deut 30:11–14 to the issue of conversion of Jews and Gentiles. This meant that a suppliant who seeks to please and serve God, even though he be but one, is in real value, what God’s own choice makes him, the whole people (žĕďƶĜ), (Virt. 185). Moreover, the examination in chapter five has shown that in Praem. 129 In the light of the immediate context of Rom 10:4–10 and Rom 10:14–17, it appears that we must conclude that Paul is here referring to Christ rather than God. See for this view, Cranfield, 1986, 531; Dunn, 1988, 610–611. 130 We have proposed above that Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 as so far discussed has some connection to the use of the same passage within Jewish proselytism. Now we see that the motif of no distinction between Jews and non–Jews in Rom 10:12 can also be understood within a similar Jewish context. In texts such as Gal 3:28, Acts 10:34–35, and Acts 15:9–11 there are similarities to Rom 10:12. These texts point to the conflict whether God–fearers and other non–Jews should be circumcised as a necessary requirement for becoming proselytes within the people of God, as a probable Sitz im Leben for Paul’s argumentation in Rom 10:12. Gal 3:28: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ Acts 10:34–35: ‘And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him”.’ Acts 15:9–11: ‘… and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’ These all refer to the equal position of Jews and non–Jews in a religious perspective. Moreover, Gal 3:28 and Acts 15:9–11 have similar christological points to Rom 10:12 pertaining to the arguments for a cross–national community–paradigm. Accordingly, in Rom 10:12 Paul resembles a type of argument from early Christian tradition used as arguments against the need for Gentile proselytes to undergo circumcision and become Jewish proselytes. According to Paul the ‘proselyte’ status and the maintenance of membership in the people of God was no longer defined by the Law as restricted to the Jewish nation, but had a new and eschatological foundation in the equal status of Jews and non–Jews grounded in the universal Lordship of Christ: ‘the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him’ (Rom 10:12). Cf. also the line of thought in Eph 2:11–22, in which several Jewish proselyte motifs have been transformed and christianized by the author in the light of the Christ–event.

Christ and the Cross–National Community of Jews and Gentiles

197

84 Philo applied Deut 30:14 to the nation observing the law, which has ‘God to listen to its prayers inspired by true religion and to draw nigh when they call upon him with a clean conscience’. Such a nation will manifest itself and be recognised by others as a wise and great nation by its worship of God and by the presence of God. This application of Deut 30:12–14 to the people who invoke God has a parallel in Rom 10:12–13, especially in Rom 10:13: ‘For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”’ At an early date, Christians took over the language of God as their own self– designation, as seems clear from such texts as 1 Cor 1:2, 1 Pet 1:17, Acts 2:21, 9:14, 22:16, and 2 Tim 2:22.131 Thus the ‘word’ that is ‘near’ is manifest when the community gathers to invoke the exalted Lord. In a way corresponding to Philo, Paul applies Deut 30:12–14 to the motif of invoking God as a characteristic of the people of God. Whereas however Philo considered the worshipping nation to be the Jewish people of God who observes the law, Paul’s use of the description ęŮ őĚēĔċĕęğĖƬėęēċƉĞƲė(i.e. ĞƱėĔƴěēęė) is applied to the notion of the inclusive people of God comprised of Jews and Gentiles who invoke Christ. Moreover, we should note that the eschatological perspective connected to the motif of the people who invoke God in Rom 10:13 (‘every one who calls upon … shall be saved’) is shared by Philo in Praem. 84. Within the literary context of Praem. 79–98 it is the Jewish nation characterized by actions in obedience to the law and as the people who invoke God, who receive the promise of eschatological blessings.132 Summing up our discussion in this section, we have seen that Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10 is developed in Rom 10:11–13 by asserting the universality of salvation for all: since the Law and the promise of righteousness were no longer to be identified with the exclusive Law of Israel distinguishing the Jewish nation from other nations, the law was instead perceived by Paul as reaching its ‘goal’ in Christ as the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law, with an inclusivistic function. So in Rom 10:11–13 Paul presents a ‘universalist’ vision of the people of God encompassing Jews and Gentiles. Again we have seen that the data from Philo and 131 See Davis, 1996, 118–133. 132 This analysis of Rom 10:13 in light of Philonic data might give some support to the suggestion by Käsemann (1980, 291) that Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:13 can be situated in the situational context of the church in its relation to the synagogue: The word is also near in the fact that it has a fixed place on earth and a concrete bearer. The promise of Joel 3:5 LXX is thus fulfilled. … Salvation is found in the Christian community. As the host of believers it confesses the word which according to 2 Cor 3:6ff. was concealed and closed up in the synagogue and which is now linked to the presence of the exalted one in the church as his sphere of lordship. The OT predicted this. It is the leading witness for the replacement of the synagogue by the host which is gathered from Jew and Gentile under the word of faith that is near.

198

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

Baruch can serve to illuminate the Jewish context of Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:11–13. Thus, the statement in Rom 10:12 that there is no distinction between Jews and non–Jews also relates to the Jews’ claim to possess the Law as a sign of special status. In this regard Paul differs from the stand taken by Philo and Baruch in the texts which we have discussed above. Moreover, in a manner corresponding to Philo, Paul applies Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:12–13 to the motif of the people of God who invoke God. Likewise, we have observed that the eschatological perspective connected to the motif of the people who invoke God in Rom 10:13 (“every one who calls upon … shall be saved”) is shared by Philo.

6.5. Christ, Israel and the Nations In this section we will analyse the application of Deut 30:12–14 in the context of Paul’s argument in Rom 10:14–21. Again, our analysis will be guided by a locating of Paul’s use of the same Scripture within its Jewish context, illustrated by Philo’s application of Deut 30:12–14 in an eschatological perspective. On the view that the topic of Rom 9:30–10:21 is ‘Israel’s responsibility’, Rom 10:14–17 can be interpreted as referring to missionary activity directed to the Jews.133 However, the immediate context speaks rather in favour of the view that the text refers to the missionary activity to both Jews and Gentiles:134 a) In Rom 9:30–10:13 the universality of righteousness and salvation is emphasised. We have argued in the preceding sections that the antithesis between works and faith is primarily a contrast between a way open to Jews only and a way open to Jews as well as Gentiles. So Rom 10:4 as explained in Rom 10:6–10 makes clear that Christ is the ‘goal’ of the Law in order to make righteousness and salvation available to both Jews and Gentiles. As a climax of this argument beginning in Rom 10:4 describing the means of salvation, Rom 10:11–13 characterises the universality of salvation as based on faith open to Jews and Gentiles without distinction. Rom 10:14 follows on directly from Rom 10:13 as can be seen from the connection in terminology, in that the introductory question (ûȥĜęƏėőĚēĔċĕƬĝģėĞċē) picks up the quotation in Rom 10:13 (ĚǬĜčƩěƀĜŃėőĚēĔċĕƬĝđĞċē…). b) The reference to Scripture in Rom 10:18 confirms that the context of Rom 10:14–17 deals with both Jews and Gentiles. Here Paul’s application of Ps 18:5 LXX supports the notion of an active outreach to both groups: ‘“Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words (ȗƮĖċĞċ) to the ends of the world”’. The word ȗǻĖċlinks this quotation to Paul’s use of ȗǻĖċ for the gospel in Romans 133 So e.g. Dodd, 1959, 179; Schlier, 1977, 316; Käsemann, 1980, 294; Cranfield, 1986, 533. 134 Thus Watson, 1986, 166; Wright, 1991, 245ff.; Bechtler, 1994, 307; Ross Wagner, 2002, 170.

Christ, Israel and the Nations

199

10, beginning with his interpretation of Deut 30:14 in Rom 10:8. So Paul’s argument in Rom 10:14–21 seems more to continue the train of thought in Rom 10:4–13: When Christ is the ‘goal’ of the Law to righteousness to all (Rom 10:4; 6–11) and Scripture says that this applies to ‘every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved’ (Rom 10:13), how shall both Jews and Gentiles be included among these ‘all’? Having established that salvation is purely a matter of faith and confession in Christ as the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law disclosed in ‘the word of faith’ (Rom 10:6–10), and having asserted its universality (Rom 10:11–13), Paul then proceeds to elaborate how the ‘word’ has been brought near, viz. by the apostolic commissioning and preaching of the gospel by Paul and his fellow missionaries.135 Rom 10:14–15 is built up on a chain of questions rounded off by a citation from Scripture.136 As we have observed, the verb ‘call upon’ (őĚēĔċĕƬęĖċē) from Rom 10:13 is picked up in Rom 10:14 and elaborated in the first question: ‘But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed?’ This structure, in which the question picks up the verb from the preceding verse and elucidates it in a question, is also followed in the subsequent questions in Rom 10:14–15: ‘And how are they to believe in him whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how are they to hear without anyone preaching? And how can men preach unless they are sent?’ All these questions function to summarise the conditions for salvation and the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in the community of ‘all’ who will be saved. Through the quotation of Scripture in Rom 10:15 Paul shows that the conditions of preaching and sending have been fulfilled: ‘As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!”’ Although this quotation differs from MT and LXX, Paul seems to have in mind the words of Isa 52:7.137 The Łĕĕƪwhich introduces Rom 10:16 indicates the contrast between the conditions for salvation and belief and the fact that not all have been obedient to the gospel. By quoting from Isa 53:1 Paul finds scriptural support for this fact: ‘“Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”’ As is apparent in the literary context, this statement about unbelief applies especially to Israel (in Rom 10:21 Paul quotes Isa 65:2 and applies it to Israel which here is called ‘a disobedient and contrary people’).

135 Thus the pronoun ċƉĞȥė probably refers to the Christian preachers of the gospel in the plural, i.e. Paul and his missionary fellows. 136 In this chain the necessary sequence is traced backwards; see Cranfield, 1986, 533. 137 Cf. Stuhlmacher, 1989, 144–145. For a detailed comparison of Rom 10:15 with Isa 52:7LXX and MT, see now Ross Wagner, 2002, 170–174.

200

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

So in Rom 10:17 Paul draws the argument towards a conclusion: ‘So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the word of Christ.’138 What is then the meaning of the phrase ĎēƩȗƮĖċĞęĜāěēĝĞęȘin Rom 10:17 ? First, it is usual to take it to refer to the word of which Christ is seen as the content (objective genitive), the message about Christ.139 Second, it can be taken to refer to Christ as the bearer of the message, that is the one who himself has brought the message (genitive of origin).140 Third, it has also been suggested that it refers to Christ’s word of commission to his apostles.141 Though the first understanding is possible, in light of the question in Rom 10:14b, we hold the second view to be likely and best fitting in the context, especially Rom 10:14; there Paul raises the question: ĚȥĜĎƫĚēĝĞďƴĝģĝēėęƐęƉĔšĔęğĝċėThe relative pronoun ęƐ seems to refer to the person of Christ whose words are heard in the gospel– preaching.142 With respect to the third possible understanding of the phrase ĎēƩ ȗƮĖċĞęĜ āěēĝĞęȘ, viz. as a word of commission, it is true that in Rom 10:15 the thought seems to be that the preachers must act under the authority of him who sent them. However, this does not necessarily imply that the genitive ȗǻĖċ āěēĝĞęȘ then refers to a decree of Christ or to any words of commission in which Christ sends his apostles. As a further elaboration of ȗǻĖċ from Deut 30:14 quoted in Rom 10:8, Paul in Rom 10:17 explains the ‘word of faith’ as the ‘word of Christ’. ‘Faith results from hearing the message,143 and the hearing of the message comes about through the word of Christ’, i.e. through Christ speaking his words by the mouths of his messengers. So Paul holds the view that the Torah is near as the ‘word of Christ’, as it has been spoken by Christ himself through his messengers to both Jews and Gentiles. In light of the thesis of Rom 10:4, Paul can hold the gospel as the ‘word of Christ’ to be in continuity with the Torah, since it is grounded in Christ as the ĞƬĕęĜ of the Law. In the logic of Paul’s argumentation within Rom 9:30–10:17, the Jewish rejection of the gospel (Rom 10:16) is at the same time a rejection of the ‘word of Christ’, and signifies that they have not understood the Law (Rom 10:2b–4) and therefore have not attained the Law and its goal, to which it had been pointing all the time, i.e. Christ (Rom 9:31; 10:4, 6–10). Moreover, this ‘word of Christ’, as preached by Paul and other messengers to both Jews and 138 Our translation. 139 So Sanday and Headlam, 1945, 298; Fitzmyer, 1993, 598. 140 So Lagrange, 1950, 261. 141 So e.g. Sandnes, 1991, 162–164. For further arguments against this understanding, see Moe, 1932, 436; Jervell, 1973, 196. 142 So e.g. Barrett, 1975, 204; Dunn, 1988, 620. 143 In spite of the fact that ŁĔęƮ has just occurred in the sense of ‘message’ in the quotation from Isa 53:1 in Rom 10:16, the meaning ‘hearing’ is the one which best fits with Rom 10:14b and the immediate context.

Christ, Israel and the Nations

201

Gentiles, also shows that the Law of Moses as understood in an exclusivistic way as the possession of the Jews alone has ceased to exist. The implication is that, if Paul’s kinsfolk Israel had believed the gospel, they would have recognised Christ as the constitution of the people of God, in which Jew and Gentile alike are now being gathered. Thus, they would have understood that Christ is the goal of the Law for righteousness for all who believe (Rom 10:2b–4). In this line of thought Rom 10:17 can then be seen to summarise the argument from Rom 10:4, which in turn serves as an explanation of the theme of Rom 10:1–3. At this point, the perspective in Rom 10:14–21 of a missionary outreach to the nations on the basis of the Christ–event, must be located within the context of Philonic parallels and within the context of Romans at large. In Philo’s ‘eschatology’ we found that the motif of a Jewish sovereign who has a universal claim on the nations formed an integral part of his thinking. On this basis Philo reckons with a future active outreach of the Hebrew nation, if necessary, by the means of a future ‘man’ who would be king of all nations and bring to its full realisation the universal charge of the Hebrew nation as the rulers of all nations. The scriptural basis for this future expectation in Philo’s writings is Num 24:7 LXX. The use in various writings of the Septuagint version of this text proves that it represented a living tradition.144 In Mos. 1:290 Philo elaborates on this text when he portrays a Hebrew ‘Emperor’ who would come forth from Israel one day and who would rule over the nations: őĘďĕďƴĝďĞċưĚęĞďŅėĒěģĚęĜőĘƊĖȥėĔċƯőĚēĔěċĞƮĝďēĚęĕĕȥėőĒėȥėĔċƯ őĚēČċưėęğĝċŞĞęȘĎďČċĝēĕďưċĔċĒǵŒĔƪĝĞđėŞĖƬěċėĚěƱĜƎĢęĜŁěĒƮĝďĞċē (‘There shall come forth from you one day a man and he shall rule over many nations, and his kingdom spreading every day shall be exalted on high.’)

In Praem. 95 Philo also refers to Num 24:7 LXX and states that the outreach to the nations will take place by means of a ‘man’ who leads the Hebrew army as a warrior king: őĘďĕďƴĝďĞċēčƩěŅėĒěģĚęĜĠđĝƯėžġěđĝĖƲĜĔċƯĝĞěċĞċěġȥėĔċƯĚęĕďĖȥė ŕĒėđĖďčƪĕċĔċƯĚęĕğƪėĒěģĚċġďēěƶĝďĞċē… (‘For “there shall come forth a man”, says the oracle, and leading his host to war he will subdue great and populous nations …’)

In a way similar to Philo, Paul has a scriptural basis for his expectation of a Jewish Sovereign who would come to rule the nations. Whereas Philo’s ideas of a future king was warranted by the Pentateuch, Paul’s scriptural basis of ‘Messiah’ was mainly the predictions of the former and later prophets and the Psalms of a Davidic Messiah.145 In Rom 15:12 we find eschatological expectations regarding 144 With variations the Septuagint version of this passage is also found in the Targums and Josephus: Ant. 4:7; 10:208–10. Cf. chapter five above. 145 Cf. Dahl, 1992, 391ff.

202

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

the future king and the age to come similar to those of Philo, Mos. 1:290 and Praem. 95. Paul sees Isa 11:10 as the scriptural basis for the expectation of a future king who will rule the nations: The Root of Jesse shall come, he who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles hope.

This quotation is slightly abridged version of LXX, which differs from MT.146 The LXX introduces the motif of the Root of Jesse ‘ruling’ the nations, which will find their ‘hope’ in him: ‘and on that day the Root of Jesse will also be the one who rises to rule the nations; for him the nations will hope.’147 It is a usual understanding of Rom 15:12 that Paul regards Isa 11:10 ‘als schon realisierte Prophetie’.148 Paul understands Jesus as the anointed king, the Messiah, welcoming Jew and Gentile alike. Thus, Jesus, sprung from the root of Jesse, has become the source of hope for both Jews and the nations. Sanders comments on Paul’s use of Isa 11:10: ‘Root of Jesse’ refers to an anointed Davidic king, that is, a Messiah, but as Paul and other Jewish Christians thought, the Messiah, whom they believed to be Jesus. This prophecy meant to Paul that, since the Messiah had come, it was time for the Gentiles to be brought under his rule – and he, Paul, was the chief appointee to see that this was done.149

Further evidence from Romans and other parts of Paul’s letters show that Paul, in a way similar to Philo, thinks of an active reaching out to the nations on the basis of a Jewish sovereign, who has made a universal claim on the nations.150 Rom 1:3–5 can be quoted to attest the view of Christ as the one who has a universal claim on the nations and who sends his apostles to the nations:151 … the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have

146 The latter reads: ‘and on that day, about the Root of Jesse, which rises as a sign for the nations, the nations will inquire.’ 147 Other groups within Second Temple Judaism found in Isaiah 11 a scriptural basis for eschatological and messianic hopes. Thus Psalms of Solomon (17:21–44), the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q161; 1QSb 5:20–29; 4Q285 frg. 5, lines 2–4) and the Targum attest to this. See Holm–Nielsen, 1977, 97–109, Chilton, 1982, 86–96, and Vanderkam, 1994, 179–180. 148 Cf. e.g. Zeller, 1985, 199. 149 Sanders, 1996, 113. 150 Cf. Borgen, 1996, 59–62. 151 Cf. the comment on this passage by Larsson, 1995, 639: Since the resurrection Jesus, the Son of God, occupies a position as Lord by God. This means among other things that he has made Paul an apostle with the mission to bring the Gentiles under the obedience of the faith, i.e. to bring them under the universal lordship of the Son of God (cf. Acts 13:35).

Christ, Israel and the Nations

203

received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all nations ….

Rom 10:8–13 is also relevant on this point. In this text there is, as in Rom 1:3–5, an emphasis on christological traditions of Jesus as Lord and as the resurrected one. As we have observed above, the universal claim of Jesus as Lord is presupposed in the exegetical application of Deut 30:14 to Jews and Greeks, that is to the whole world seen from a Jewish perspective.152 On this basis of Jesus as Lord of all nations, Paul in Rom 10:15 expresses, as in Rom 1:4–5, the sending or mission: ‘And how can people preach unless they are sent?’ This is also the ideological context of his own ‘apostleship to the nations’.153 The difference between Philo and Paul is obvious with regard to their views about how this ‘eschatological’ expectation of an outreach to the nations on the basis of the ‘man’ and the ‘Lord’ is to be realised. According to Philo the realisation was conditioned by the obedience of the Hebrew nation to the commandments in the Laws of Moses (Praem. 79; Praem. 85–98). According to Paul, on the other hand, the exaltation of Jesus as Kyrios and Son of God meant that the ‘Jewish Sovereign’ had come who would bring the nations under his rulership and lordship. The outreach to the nations in the eschatological age was to take place by peaceful mission, not by a military conquest. Thus, Christ had commissioned his apostles to go to the nations to preach the gospel, and in this way make Christian ‘proselytes’ from all nations. Such a view comes close to R. Riesner’s view of eschatological expectations of ‘conquest’ in some Jewish Diaspora circles as a possible background of Paul’s missionary outreach: ‘Paul and other early Christians shared the universal 152 In the text of Phil 2:10–11, the scene is the proskynesis before Jesus Christ as Lord, that is, as the cosmic ruler: ‘ … that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’ 153 In several texts Paul presents himself as the apostle of Christ to the nations. As we have seen, Paul writes in the introductory passage of Romans that he is ‘a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle … to bring about the obedience of faith … among all the nations …’ (Rom 1:1–5). A similar statement occurs in Rom 11:13: ‘Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the nations …’ (our translation). The same theme recurs in the letter to the Galatians. In Gal 1:16 Paul in language resembling the call of Jeremiah as a prophet, likewise says that God had called him and revealed his Son for him ‘in order that I might preach him among the nations’. Here Paul goes on to say specifically that his mission was first to Arabia (Gal 1:17) and then to Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21). According to Gal 2:8 Paul was chosen as an apostle ‘to the nations’. From the rest of the New Testament, Matt 28:18–19 testify to this point: ‘All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Go therefore … make disciples of all nations ….’ This scene about the cosmic authority of Jesus corresponds to the divine charge given to Moses as universal king in Mos. 1:155–157, which according to Philo will be brought to its fulfilment by the ‘man’ who shall rule over many nations, Num 24:7 LXX, as rendered by Philo in Mos. 1:290–291 and Praem. 95–97. Another tradition–historical framework for Matt 28:16–20 is proposed by Stuhlmacher (2000, 28–29), i.e. the expectation of the eschatological restoration of Israel, the conversion of the nations, and their pilgrimage to Zion, commemorated each year anew when the Jews celebrated the feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem.

204

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

perspectives of such Jewish hopes although they started their “conquest” peacefully in the present and recruited a cross–national community.’154 Philo’s teaching about conversion to Judaism in Virt. 175–186, including the use of Deut 30:11–14, offers an adequate background for this peaceful form of a Christian ‘proselyte–making’ (Rom 10:8, 14–17). Nevertheless, as we also have pointed out above, the Christian mission meant a recasting of the notion and method of Jewish proselytism. Hence, both the basis and method of Paul’s missionary activity as an apostle to the nations share some similarity to the motif of an active outreach to the nations based on the universal claim of a Jewish sovereign and the motif of a peaceful form of outreach by the teaching of converts to Judaism.155 Philo’s eschatological outlook also included the idea about the Hebrew nation as the head of all who would rule over all mankind in a world–wide empire. Praem. 97 says in a general manner that the conquered subjects will feel affection, fear or respect: For the conduct of their rulers show three high qualities which contribute to make a government secure from subversion, namely dignity, strictness, benevolence, which produce the feelings mentioned above.

In contrast, Paul entertained the view that the Gentiles were to be included in the inclusive people of God of Jews and Gentiles (Rom 10:11–13). However, even though the Christian people of God is a cross–national entity of Jews and Gentiles, it is not understood by Paul to be a new Israel or a new Jewry as opposed to the old Israel. In Paul’s eschatological view, the Jews as the people of God retained a distinctive function in their relation to the Gentiles. We will analyse more closely below how Paul elaborates this idea of a distinctive function of Israel vis–à–vis the Gentiles in Rom 11:17–24. In Rom 10:18–21 Paul repeats the point he made in Rom 9:31–33: the ‘nations’ have found the God they did not seek, while Israel has proven to be a disobedient and recalcitrant people. In Rom 10:18 Paul quotes from Ps 18:5 LXX to underscore that the gospel has gone out to the ends of the world, and thus Israel 154 Riesner, 2000, 250. 155 Cf. Hengel (1995, 4), who remarks: For Paul it is a self–evident fact that Christ is the Messiah promised to Israel – to be sure his salvific work as already attested in the promises given to the fathers, and to the prophets, has universal significance. Because the God of Israel is also the God of the Gentiles who will justify both, Jews and pagans, groups of people through faith alone (Rom 3:30), the salvific work of Christ also has universal significance. This fact is so self–evident that he no longer needs to develop it expressis verbis. This certainly forms one of the pillars of his apostleship to the Gentiles.

Christ, Israel and the Nations

205

too has definitely heard the message. The contrast between the negative response of the Jews and the positive response of the nations to the gospel is elaborated in Rom 10:19–21 by the quotations of Deut 32:21 (‘“I will make you jealous of 156 those who are not a nation, with a foolish nation I will make you angry”’) and 157 Isa 65:1–2. It is interesting that the exposition of Deut 30:12ff. in Philo, Baruch, and Paul is located within contexts in which Israel is described as the wise nation in contrast to the unknowing Gentiles. As we have seen, Philo applies Deut 30:11–14 in Praem. 83 to the Jewish nation as the people of God who observe the law, and this serves to emphasise this distinction between the Jews and the other nations: Surely that nation alone is wise and full of knowledge whose history has been such that it has not left the divine exhortations voided and forsaken by the actions which are akin to them, but has fulfilled the words with laudable deeds?

Likewise the claim that wisdom and knowledge are found only in the law—abiding Jews in distinction to the Gentiles appears within the context of Bar 3:9–4:4. In Bar 3:29–30 the author applies Deut 30:12–13 in Bar 3:29–30 to divine ‘Wisdom’, which is later in Bar 4:2 identified with ‘the book of the commandments of God’ and ‘the Law’. In contrast to the other peoples (cf. Bar 3:31; 4:4) this knowledge and ‘Wisdom’, which assumes the character of the Law, is given alone to Israel: ‘And hath given it unto Jacob his servant, And to Israel that is beloved of him’ (Bar 3:37). A similar understanding of Israel as a wise nation in contrast to the ‘foolish’ Gentiles is probably also presupposed by Paul in the question in Rom 10:19 whether Israel has been understanding or not. Now what is Paul’s answer? We hold his answer to be a negative one: Israel has shown herself as unknowing, since she is a disobedient and obstinate people.158 The passages of Praem. 79–84 and Rom 10:19–21 share some common features which can clarify what we propose to be Paul’s point in Rom 10:19–21: Each text is concerned with the contrast between Israel and the surrounding Gentiles, in terms of Israel’s wisdom or lack of it, which is directly dependent on her obedience or disobedience vis–à–vis God. On the one hand, according to Philo’s paraphrase of Deut 4:6 in Praem. 79–84, Israel as the people of God was the only nation ‘wise and full of knowledge’ because of her obedience to the commandments of the Law. On the 156 Of the 45 times thatŕĒėęĜ appears in Paul’s letters, approximately 30 percent occur in conjunction with Old Testament quotations. In the plural, ŕĒėđis used in the sense of the nations of the world (e.g. in Gal 3:8), of the non–Jewish nations (e.g. in Rom 1:5; 15:10–11; 15:18), and of the Gentiles, that is, individuals of any nation other than the nation of the Jews (e.g. in Eph 2:11–22). Cf. Scott, 1995, 121–122. 157 In Rom 11:25 Paul understands this contrast between Israel and the nations as a hardening which has come upon part of Israel until the full number of the nations come in. 158 For a similar reading of Rom 10:19, cf. Baasland, 1989, 210–213; Rese, 1989, 263–265; Hofius, 1989, 176 n. 5. For a discussion of the various interpretations of Rom 10:19, see Bell, 1993, 95–106.

206

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

other hand, Paul’s quotations of Deut 32:19 and Isaiah 65:1–2 draw a different picture of the relation between the Gentiles and Israel: God has revealed Himself to the ‘not–understanding’, and He has been found by ‘those who are not a nation’ among Gentiles, while Israel had manifested herself as a disobedient and obstinate people of God, and consequently shown herself to be an unknowing nation.159 Thus, Paul reads Isa 65:1 (‘“I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me”’), as a reference to the Gentiles, and Isa 65:2 (‘“All day I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people”’), is taken as a reference to Israel.160 In that case Rom 10:1–17 with the exposition of Deut 30:12–14 has explained how Israel and the Gentiles came to exchange roles within the history of salvation. According to Paul, the Law in terms of ‘the word of faith’ (Deut 30:14/Rom 10:8) and the ‘word of Christ’ (Deut 30:14/Rom 10:17) that would result in salvation on the condition of obedience, had been brought near to the Jewish nation and the other nations (cf. Rom 10:8–10, 18). However, this message about faith in the Messiah became an offence to the majority of Israel, as we see in their disobedience to the gospel (cf. Rom 9:31–33; 10:16, 19–21). Instead, the ‘foolish’ Gentiles had shared in the messianic salvation, while Israel, ignoring of the effect of the Christ–event was excluded from the present salvation because of her disobedience (cf. Rom 9:30–33; 10:2–3, 19–20).161 We have seen that Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 is included in the line of argumentation to explain the incoming of Gentiles in the true people of God, while not all Jews belong to the true people of Israel. In the following we will study this exchange of roles between Jews and Gentiles within the eschatological perspective in Romans 9 and Romans 11, with parallels in Philo’s writings. J. M. Gundry Volf makes the following comment on the way Paul needs to justify the statement that ‘not all who are from ‘Israel’ are ‘Israel’ in Rom 9:7ff.: 159 The position that Paul demands a negative answer in Rom 10:19 is supported by the following observations: The Old Testament meaning of the verb čēėƶĝĔģapplied in the question of Rom 10:19 involves the sense of ‘die gehorsame Anerkennung des Erkannten’ (Hofius 1989, 176 n. 5), cf. e.g. Isa 43:10 LXX. Thus, Paul’s statement in Rom 10:19–21 about a disobedient Israel makes it evident that Israel has not reached such an obedient understanding. A negative answer in Rom 10:19 accords well with Paul’s statement about the unknowing Israel in Rom 10:2. Thus, Rom 10:19 may be an echo of the wider scriptural context: in Deuteronomy 32 from which Paul quotes in Rom 10:19, Israel is described as a foolish nation, without wisdom and faith (cf. Deut 32:6, 20, 28ff.). Cf. Fitzmyer, 1993, 599. 160 Cf. Koch, 1986, 281; Scott, 1995, 132. 161 According to a common view, scholars regard Paul’s concept of the coming in of the nations as deriving from the OT expectation of the eschatological pilgrimage of the nations to Zion (cf. Isa 2:2–4; Mic 4:1–3). Cf. Sanders, 1983, 179. As Hofius (1989, 324) suggests, Paul may have in mind certain OT texts (such as e.g. Isa 45:14–17; 45:20–25; Mic 4:1–8) that put the eschatological pilgrimage of the Gentiles before the restoration of Israel.

Christ, Israel and the Nations

207

This justification is indeed necessary. For a Jewish reader would have looked with suspicion on Paul’s argument against the unreliability of God’s word. By denying to the elect people as a whole a necessary place in present salvation based on their election through Abraham, and by implying that this expected honour has been usurped by the Gentiles, who, along with a handful of Jews, make up the “Israel” which is the Messianic community of salvation, Paul contradicts Jewish self–understanding. The Jews considered themselves to have priority in receiving salvation by virtue of their physical descent from Abraham, the father of the elect nation.162

This statement needs to be modified in light of Jewish data provided e.g. by Philo’s writings. Contrary to the presumption of Gundry Volf, we shall observe that Philo and Paul share the common motif of how God’s disregard of physical descent explains why some of the offspring and members of the chosen people can be excluded from the heritage, which can mean that they can suffer a loss of blessing in the history of God’s promise. It is essential for the understanding of Philo’s ‘eschatology’ to realise that he relates it to his concept of a God–given cosmic law which is made manifest in the laws of Moses. Thus, his ‘eschatology’ is conditional upon man’s obedience or disobedience to these laws, and he therefore has to develop the ‘eschatological’ alternatives of blessings and curses. The second part of the treatise Praem. 79–161, sets forth these alternatives. In this regard he lets the whole section of blessing, Praem. 79–125 open with a reference and application of Deut 30:11–14. As we have seen Philo applies Deut 30:11–14 to the realisation of the future blessings for Israel and other peoples conditional on obedience to the Law. In Praem. 126–161 Philo proceeds to explain the alternative resulting consequences in punishments and curses relative to the disobedience to the Law. The section opens and concludes with the following statements communicating its subject: We must now investigate the curses delivered against the law–breakers and transgressors (Praem. 126). I have now described without any reservation the curses and penalties which they will deservedly suffer who disregard the holy laws of justice and piety … (Praem. 162).

It is in the context of pointing out the consequences of disobedience to the Law that Philo does not shrink from the idea that members of the chosen people can suffer a loss by being excluded from a share in the history of God’s promise of blessing. In his exposition of the curses described in the Pentateuch, Lev 26:28 and Deut 28:43, Philo continues in Praem. 152 his reflection on true nobility to the point where he warns his readers:

162 Gundry Volf, 1990, 164.

208

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

… while the nobly born who has falsified the sterling of his high lineage will be dragged right down and carried into Tartarus itself and profound darkness. Thus may all men seeing these examples be brought to a wiser mind and learn that God welcomes the virtue which springs from ignoble birth, that he takes no account of the roots but accepts the full–grown stem, because it has been changed from a weed into fruitfulness.

The application of the motif of God’s disregard of physical descent to the future generations of the people of Israel in Praem. 152 is in line with Philo’s view of the biblical history of Abraham and his descendants, which shows that not all the sons of one father partake in his spiritual nobility and heritage. In the tract De Virtutibus, in which Philo discusses the notion of nobility in Virt. 187–197, he proves the thesis that real nobility is not based on descent but on virtue, by for example adducing in Virt. 207–209 the examples of Esau and the half–brothers of Isaac:163 The first was the father of many children, begotten of three wives, not for indulgence in pleasure but in the hope of multiplying the race. But of his many sons, only one was appointed to inherit the patrimony. All the rest failed to show sound judgement and as they reproduced nothing of their father’s qualities, were excluded from the home and denied any part in the grandeur of their noble birth. Again, the one who was approved as heir begat two twins, who had no resemblance to each other, either in body or disposition [except in the hands, and in these only for a particular act of policy]. For the younger was obedient to both his parents and won such favour that God, too, joined in praising him, but the elder was disobedient, indulging without restraint in the pleasure of the belly and the lower lying parts. Influenced by these he surrendered his birth–right to his junior, then, at once, repenting of the surrender, sought his brother’s life, and all his concern was to act in such a way as would cause grief to his parents. Therefore, for the younger they prayed that he should be blessed above all others, all which prayers God confirmed and would not that any of them should be left unfulfilled. But to the elder in compassion they granted an inferior station to serve his brother ….

Here we can see that Philo holds the view that Esau and the half–brothers of Isaac were excluded from the family and house of Abraham because they did not live up to the moral quality of their noble birth. We find a similar argument in Praem. 58–60: … [Abraham] had many children, but all faulty save one to whom he bound fast the cables of the race and there found a safe haven. That son again endued with a nature which learned from no other teacher than itself had two sons. One was wild and indocile, brimful of fierce temper and lust, who to sum him up armed the unreasoning part of the soul to war against the rational. The other was gentle and kindly, a lover of noble conduct, of equality and simplicity, a soldier of the 163 Philo first in Virt. 198–210 adduces a number of negative examples from Scripture: Cain, Ham, Adam, the sons of Abraham (apart from Isaac) and Esau. Then, in Virt. 211–227, Philo refers to examples of virtue without noble descent: Abraham, Tamar, and the two concubines of Jacob.

Christ, Israel and the Nations

209

better cause, the champion of reason and antagonist of folly. This is the third of the founders, father of many children and alone among the three blessed in them all, who met with no mishap in any part of his household, like a happy husbandman who sees his whole crop safe and sound, thriving under his hand and bearing fruit.

The idea here is that physical descent must be complemented by qualities of moral character resembling the origin. In these two Philonic passages the application of this idea ends with Jacob, that is, in these texts Philo finds no failure among the twelve ancestors of the tribes of Israel. When we now turn to Paul we find in Romans 9 an analogy to the use of the idea of disregard of physical descent as an explanation of why some of the offspring can be excluded from the heritage. Moreover, in Romans 11 Paul elaborates on the idea that members of the chosen people can be excluded and suffer a loss of their share in the history of God’s blessing. As we will observe below, it is interesting that Paul can make reference to the biblical history of Abraham and Jacob and their descendants in order to explain the situation for some of Israel in his own time, whose lack of faith in the gospel means to him that they are excluded from Israel as the community of salvation. In a similar way to Philo, Paul presented in Rom 10:5–10 the eschatological alternative of salvation on condition of obedience to the Law (Lev 18:5 as explained by Deut 30:12–14). According to Paul, the apostles have seen their ministry as preaching the ‘word of faith’ to seek the obedience that would result in the inauguration of the age of salvation for Israel.164 At the time Paul wrote the letter to the Romans he presupposed that the eschatological goods of salvation had been offered through the gospel to Israel (cf. Rom 10:14–15). Accordingly, Israel has had the choice to obey what they have heard in the preaching of the gospel, and thus to get a share in salvation. Instead, Paul had been witness to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Israel had proven to be disobedient to the gospel and therefore excluded from salvation. Israel’s obedience is referred to by means of quotation as Isa 53:1: ‘“Lord, who has believed what he heard from us?”’, and Isa 65:2: ‘“All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”’ In Paul’s application of Isa 65:2, the Scriptural passage is understood to correspond to the disobedience of contemporary Israel, as this has been expressed in the rejection of the gospel. In light of the comment on Isa 53:1 in Rom 10:16 (‘But they have not all obeyed the gospel’), it is evident that the message of this citation from Isa 65:2 has come to expression in the missionary work of the Christian apostles. Thus, an aspect of the line of thought in Rom 9:30–10:21 is to explain and describe how Israel has 164 Paul shares with several Jewish and Christian contemporaries a conviction that Israel’s repentance and obedience to the law will inaugurate the eschaton, so. e.g. Praem. 79ff. ; 4 Ezra 4:35–37; 2 Apoc. Bar. 23:4–5; T. Dan 6:4; Acts 3:19–20; 2 Pet 3:11–12. Allison (1980, 229–234) also examines several later rabbinic texts that voice the same conviction.

210

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

had an opportunity for responding to the gospel and thus enter the eschaton, and then also how the majority of Israel is excluded from the inaugurated age of salvation. In a corresponding way to Philo, Paul can explain this exclusion of some members of Israel from salvation in the light of the history of God’s promise to Abraham and the idea of the disregard of descent. Now that the overwhelming majority of Israel has proven to be closed to the gospel and so also to the salvation of God which was promised to Israel and has presently become a reality in Christ, the question inevitably arises: Has God’s word, the promise made to Abraham and along with him to the descendants of Abraham, failed? This is the topic introduced in Rom 9:6, which is elaborated through Romans 9–11. An overarching theme in Rom 9:6–11:10 is God’s election of his people. The fundamental thesis elaborated in Rom 9:6–29 is stated in Rom 9:6–7: ‘For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants.’ These statements affirm that membership in the people of Israel does not eo ipso imply membership in Israel as the community of the true Israel which receives the promise. Membership in Israel as the community of the true Israel is solely due to their call by God who made the promise (Rom 9:12) and whose call goes forth again and again. In Rom 9:7–13 Paul shows that the selection and election within Israel is prefigured in the history of Israel, by the appeal to the scriptural testimony regarding Isaac and Ishmael (Rom 9:7–9) and Jacob and Esau (Rom 9:10–13). So we have arrived at a sequence of three instances where not all sons of one father partake in his spiritual heritage. This disregard of physical descent reminds us of passages quoted above from Philo which make use of the same logic.165 Nevertheless we should for different purposes acknowl165 These parallels between Paul and Philo have been noted by Berger (1966, 83): Eine gewisse Ähnlichkeit zur Struktur des Isaak– und des Jakob–Esau–Beispiels bietet die Schrift Philos »De nobilitate«. Als Beispiel dafür, dass für den Besitz der Gerechtigkeit blutsmässige Abstammung wertlos sei, werden aufgeführt (jeweils in dem Sinne, dass die Eltern edel, die Kinder aber verworfen waren): Gott – Adam, Adam und Eva – Kain, Noe – einer seiner Söhne. Sogar unter den Juden gibt es »unter den Abkömmlingen der Stammväter einige, denen die Tugenden der Vorfahren nichts genützt haben (206)«. Als Beispiel dienen, wie bei Paulus, Isaak im Verhältnis zu den anderen Söhnen Abrahams und von Isaaks Söhnen Jakob im Verhältnis zu Esau. Recently Haacker (1997, 212) has made a similar observation on the parallel between Paul’s argumentation in Rom 9:6–13 and Philo’s writing De Virtutibus: Diese Abwertung der physischen Abstammung erinnert an Ausführungen bei Philo, die zwar eine andere Intention, aber doch eine vergleichbare Denkstruktur haben. In seiner Schrift ‘Über die Tugenden’ schliesst Philo mit einer Reflexion ‘Über den Adel’ (ĚďěƯ ďƉčďėďưċĜ), in der er die These vertritt, dass nicht die Abstammung von adligen Vorfahren, sondern erst der Besitz der ŁěďĞƮwirklichen Adel verleiht (vgl. Virt. 187–97). See now also Haacker, 2003, 105–108.

Christ, Israel and the Nations

211

edge some common features: Both authors argue that physical descent must be complemented by additional factors in order to make one a real member of the family, the ‘house’. The difference between Paul’s argument in Romans 9 and Philo lies in the definition of this additional requirement. In Philo, it is the moral quality of the individual, a behaviour that merits praise, while this is exactly what Paul denies in Rom 9:11–12: … though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, she was told, “The elder will serve the younger.”166

In the rest of Romans 9 Paul’s point is to argue that God acts in the same way in the present. This is confirmed by the statements in Rom 9:24ff. and 11:5ff., which explain how God acts in the present in the same manner as in the history of the people, as the one who sovereignly elects and rejects. God does so now in that he calls only a remnant within Israel (Rom 9:27), while the others stumble (Rom 9:32–33). Thus, like Philo, Paul can apply the idea of the true descendants to all generations of the people of Israel, including himself: ‘I ask, then, has God rejected his people ? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin’ (Rom 11:1). Isaac and Jacob prefigure the Israelites whom God has elected and called, whereas Ishmael and Esau rep166 In Rom 9:12 Paul quotes from Gen 25:23. The way Philo makes use of this Scripture in Virt. 209 and Leg. 3:88 with agreements by Paul, makes it probable that Philo and Paul draw on common exegetical traditions of Gen 25:23. Leg. 3:88 has particularly close points common with Romans 9. Leg. 3:88 reads: Once again, of Jacob and Esau, when still in the womb, God declares that the one is a ruler and leader and master, but that Esau is a subject and a slave. For God the Maker of living beings knoweth well the different pieces of his own handiwork, even before He has thoroughly chiselled and consummated them, and the faculties which they are to display at a later time, in a word their deeds and experiences. And so when Rebecca, the soul that waits on God, goes to inquire of God, He tells her in reply, “Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated from thy belly, and one people shall be above the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger” (Gen 25:23). The following agreements between Virt. 208–210, Leg. 3:88 and Rom 9:10–12, 20–23 can be observed: 1. These texts belong to a list of biblical persons, including Abraham, Sarah, Rebecca, Jacob, and Isaac, referred to in Virt. 206–210, Leg. 3:75–88 and Rom 9:6–13. 2. These lists of examples, especially the case of Jacob and Esau, illustrate God’s election and foreknowledge (cf. also Rom 11:2 for this motif of God’s foreknowledge referring to God’s election of Israel in eternity as a people to be set apart for God), even before they were born and had done any deeds and experiences. 3. God as Creator is described as a modeller in clay, cf. Leg. 3:88 and Rom 9:20–21. 4. In all three passages the case to be illustrated is given a rationale by referring to Gen 25:23. In the scholarly discussion of Rom 9:7–13, researchers as Berger/ Colpe (1987, 220) and Borgen (1997, 54–56), have noticed these agreements.

212

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

resent the Israelites who now have lost their share in the history of God’s promise of salvation. God does so now in that he calls only a remnant within Israel to faith through the gospel (Rom 9:27–29; 11:1–10), and lets the others stumble over Christ, who is preached in the gospel ( Rom 9:32–33). In Rom 11:11 Paul answers the questions concerning those who have stumbled: ‘So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall?’ by an emphatic denial: ‘By no means!’ In Rom 11:12 and Rom 11:15 Paul characterises further the consequences of the trespass of those who do not belong to the remnant: Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! (Rom 11:12). For if their loss means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acquisition mean but life from the dead? (Rom 11:15).167

In these passages Paul interprets what has actually happened. The Gentiles had become participants in the eschatological blessings promised to Israel, not as a consequence of Israel’s obedience to the law and the consequent blessings, but rather as a result of the losses of blessings which the disobedient Israel has suffered. This thought is implied in the statement of Rom 11:30: ‘Just as you were once disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience …’ Thus, like Philo, Paul can expect that members of the chosen people, thanks to their disobedience to God, can suffer a ‘loss’ by being excluded from the ‘eschatological’ blessings in the history of God’s promise. Moreover, the way both Philo and Paul can view the exclusion of Jews from the eschatological blessings as interrelated with the incoming of Gentiles in the blessings of God’s people, takes us further to the next paragraph. We have noticed above how Philo and Paul use the motif of the disregard of physical descent in two ways: On the one hand, it can justify and explain the coming in of outsiders who are not members of the chosen family or people of birth. We find this application of the idea to the incoming of Jewish/Christian ‘proselytes’ in Virt. 183–186 and Rom 9:24–26. In the literary contexts of these texts both authors applied Deut 30:12–14 in order to explain entry into the true people of God. On the other hand, the idea of disregard of physical descent can justify excluding some of the offspring from the heritage, and thus explain also 167 Our translation. As Jegher–Bucher (1991, 329) has argued, ŁĚęČęĕƮ must be translated ‘loss’ as in the only other instance in the New Testament, Acts 27:22. Such a translation corresponds better to the opposite expression ĚěƲĝĕđĖĢēĜin Rom 11:15which means‘profit’ or ‘acquisition’. The common translation ‘rejection’ seems inappropriate in the light of Rom 11:1, and is first attested in some patristic writings. Moreover, we take the genitive ċƉĞȥė in Rom 11:15 as a subjective genitive referring to the losses which Israel has suffered. The probable parallelism with the other genitive constructions ĚċěƪĚĞģĖċċƉĞȥė and ŢĞĞđĖċċƉĞȥė in Rom 11:12 speaks in favour with such a reading.

Christ, Israel and the Nations

213

how members of the Jewish nation can lose their share in God’s blessing and promise in an ‘eschatological’ perspective. We have found such an application of the idea in Praem. 152 and Rom 9:6–13. We also find that both Philo and Paul develop an interdependence between inclusive and restrictive deviations from the line of physical descent seen in an ‘eschatological’ perspective. This means that both authors consider an exchange of roles between excluded Jews and incoming Jewish/Christian proselytes in an ‘eschatological’ perspective. A comparison and look at Praem. 152 and Rom 11:17–24 within their literary contexts will support this suggestion. It is a usual trait in several Philonic texts to contrast the Jews who betrayed their Jewish religion in one or another way with the proselytes.168 In Praem. 152 we find an example of this. This text which we already quoted in part, is quoted here in full: The proselyte exalted aloft by his happy lot will be gazed from all sides, marvelled at and held blessed by all for two things of highest excellence, that he came over to the camp of God and that he has won a prize suited to his merits, a place in heaven firmly fixed, greater than words dare describe, while the nobly born who has falsified the sterling of his high lineage will be dragged right down and carried into Tartarus itself and profound darkness. Thus may all men seeing these examples be brought to a wiser mind and learn that God welcomes the virtue which springs from ignoble birth, that he takes no account of the roots but accepts the full–grown stem, because it has been changed from a weed into fruitfulness.

In Praem. 152 the comparison of the exclusion of Israelites with that of the proselytes builds upon an exegetical paraphrase of Deut 28:43 LXX: The stranger in your midst shall rise high above you and you will come down lower and lower. He will lend money to you and not you to him. He will be the head and you the tail.

While the ‘stranger’ in this text is originally meant in an ethnical and political sense, Philo uses the term ‘proselyte’.169 As we observed in chapter four, Philo uses this term about one who not only lives among Israelites but has been converted in a religious, ethnical and national sense. In Praem. 152 the proselyte, securing for himself a place in heaven, is further contrasted to the disobedient Jew, who has falsified the sterling of his high lineage, and is dragged down to hell, to Tartarus.170 We should note that the passage of Praem. 152 belongs to the 168 Examples of such texts are Spec. 1:51ff. and Virt. 183. 169 Philo uses here the termŕĚđĕğĜfor a proselyte. For a discussion of these expressions in Philo’s writings, see Birnbaum, 1996, 195–201. 170 Cf. e.g. Leg. 3:162–168. With regard to the topic of the heavenly quality of the Jewish nation in Philo, see Borgen, 1965, 133–145. The basis for the contrast here between the proselyte and the apostate relative to the Law, is found in Philo’s view of the Laws of Moses as a manifestation of the cosmic laws and principles. Accordingly, the heavenly reality, and the cosmic and ethical

214

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

section of curses, Praem. 127–161, which describes the resulting consequences relative to disobedience of the Law in an eschatological perspective. This means that Philo reckons on an exchange between proselytes and the disobedient Jew as an ‘eschatological’ possibility in the future. In Praem. 152 the idea of disregard of descent is expressed in the metaphorical language applied to the proselyte. Here Philo speaks about the virtue of the proselyte as the moral quality that merits the prize of heaven. This virtue, coming from ignoble birth, is compared to a full–grown stem bearing fruit, which is been cultivated from being a wild weed. Thus the origin of the descent is in turn pictured as the root. Philo applies this example to the proselyte in contrast to the disobedient Jew, including this metaphorical language, as a lesson to all men to learn that God welcomes virtue irrespective of descent.171 Praem. 152 may be compared with Rom 11:17–24: But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. And even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.

There are close agreements between Praem. 152 and Rom 11:17–24 which have seldom been noted in studies of this Pauline text.172 If we replace Philo’s proselytes by Paul’s Gentile Christian ‘proselytes’ and Philo’s ‘virtue’ by Paul’s ‘faith’, we will recognise a similar pattern of thought and even some similarities in the metaphorical language.173 The agreements make it probable that both Philo and principles are the foundation of the Jewish nation in its relationship to the rest of the world. This combination of universalism and particularism is formulated in Mos. 2:52: Thus whoever will carefully examine the nature of the particular enactments will find that they seek to attain to the harmony of the universe …. 171 Rabbinic literature too uses the language of ‘Einsenken eines Schösslings in Abraham’ about proselytes converting to Judaism, so e.g. b. Yebam. 63a, according to Str–B III, 292. 172 The commentaries of Käsemann (1980, 307–309) and Wilckens (1978–1982, VI/2, 247 n. 1105) only refer to the two texts without comparing them in detail. 173 Cf. the remark by Räisänen (1988, 187), who takes it for granted that the Gentiles in Rom 11:17ff. are seen as proselytes: ‘In this allegory, ethnic Israel is seen as God’s people, and Gentiles

Christ, Israel and the Nations

215

Paul elaborate on motifs applied to proselytes in contemporary Judaism.174 Like Philo, Paul reckons in Rom 11:17–24 with an exchange of roles between unbelieving Jews and incoming Christian ‘proselytes’, not however as a possibility in the future, but as a report of events which have already taken place. In a similar way to Philo, the Christian ‘proselytes’ are pictured as wild branches which God has grafted onto the domesticated olive tree. According to Paul the removal of the natural branches has happened in order to make place for other branches to be grafted in: ‘You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith’ (Rom 11:19–20). This language has a close parallel in Praem. 152, where similar metaphors are applied to the coming in of proselytes in contrast to some of Israel, who were excluded from the history of God’s blessing and promise because of disobedience against the Laws of Moses. Like Philo, Paul uses the image of the olive tree to illustrate God’s impartiality and sovereign freedom independently of origin and descent.175 However, Paul in particular turns the image against Gentile Christians as a warning against boasting at the expense of the unbelieving Jews. These Gentile Christians apparently felt superior to the unbelieving Jews since the latter had been ‘cut off ’ from the olive tree, whereas they had been grafted into the tree by the incoming in the people of God.176 Paul emphasises that the Christian ‘proselytes’ stand in the tree because of faith and that they are supported by the root: ‘… do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you’ (Rom 11:18).177 Like Philo, Paul here elaborates on the image of the root as the origin of descent. The metaphor of the root here probably refers to Abra-

are viewed as proselytes.’ 174 Delling (1987, 82) comes close to a similar understanding when he comments on the similarity between Praem. 152 and Rom 11:17: ‘Wandelt Paulus Röm 11,17 ein diasporajüdisches Motiv ab?’ Cf. also the following scholar’s comments on the parallel between Praem. 152 and Rom 11:17–24: Rengstorf, 1978, 145; Michel, 1978, 348–349. Zeller, 1985, 197, Haacker, 2003, 105–106. 175 Cf. also Virt. 206: All humanity should remember that ‘those who have no true excellence of character should not pride themselves on the greatness of their race.’ Paul makes use of a similar line of thought turned against the boasting of the Jews in Rom 2:17, 28. 176 The olive tree was a familiar designation of the people of God in the Old Testament and Judaism, cf. Jer 11:16; Hos 14:6; b. Men. 53b. For the motif of Israel as a planting, cf. Ps 92:13; Ps. Sol. 14:3–4; 1 Enoch 10:16; 84:6; 93:2–10; Jub. 1:16; 7:34; 16:26; 21:24; 36:6; 1 QS 8:4–5; 11:8; CD 1:7. 177 Cf. Esler (2003, 124): Provoked by non-Israelite arrogance towards Israel among the Roman Christ movement (Rom. 11.13, 18, 20), Paul constructs an image conveying the insight that the undoubted and vital fact that Israelites and non-Israelites form one social category in Christ in no way means that the differences between these subgroups had been erased. Nor that one is not superior to the other!

216

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

ham.178 The unbelieving Jews are pictured as branches which naturally belong to the tree, but which have been removed. Paul stresses that their exclusion was a result of their lack of faith (Rom 11:23).179 While Philo reckons with the possibility that members of Israel can lose their share in the history of God’s blessing and promise because of disobedience to the Law, Paul considers the basis for the exclusion to be disobedience against the gospel in terms of ‘the word of faith’ (cf. Rom 10:16). However, a main distinction and difference between Philo and Paul is that while Philo reckons with his fellow Jews’ exclusion from the promised blessings as a future possibility, Paul presents this as a report of what has actually happened, thanks to the dawn of the future age inaugurated by Christ. In this way, the section of Rom 9:30–10:21, including the exposition of Deut 30:12–14, explains the Jews’ exclusion from the true people of God and from the present blessings of the Messianic salvation as consistent with their behaviour toward the gospel. As in Israel’s history, so now God deals sovereignly with God’s chosen people in disregard of physical descent, which has come to expression in God’s exclusion of some Jews and the inclusion of Christian ‘proselytes’(cf. Rom 9:6–33). Thus, Paul’s use of the olive tree is consistent with this line of thought in Romans 9, and serves as another explanation of the exchange of roles between Jews and incoming ‘proselytes’ because of their reaction to the gospel. The universal perspective and the dichotomy of the relationship between Israel and the nations also remains in the eschatological perspective throughout Romans 11. The present rejection of the gospel by the Jews is here interpreted by Paul as a phase which will lead eventually to the salvation of ‘all Israel’. On this point too, Philo’s eschatological perspective in De Praemiis et Poenis provides a parallel. In Praem. 162–172 Philo deals with the future hope of rewards for the Jewish nation. Fischer argues that Praem. 79ff. must be seen in a perspective of individual universalism with all traits of Jewish particularism removed, but he too must admit that the section of Praem. 162–172 is an exception: Zwar setzt Philo in PraemPoen 93–97 und 162ff insofern neue Akzente gegenüber der übrigen Schrift, als er zunächst in der Tat an diesen beiden Stellen von

178 In Judaism, the root of the planting of Israel can be thought of as Abraham, cf. 1 Enoch 93:5, 8; Philo: Her. 279. 179 Berger (1966, 84) refers to 2 Apoc. Bar. 84: 2 as a parallel to the use of motifs applied in Rom 11:17–24. In 2 Apoc. Bar. 84:2 it is promised that Israel will be planted on condition of obedience to the law: ‘Remember that once Moses called heaven and earth to witness against you and said, “If you trespass the Law, you shall be dispersed. And if you shall keep it, you shall be planted.”’ (Quoted from the edition of Charlesworth, 1983, vol. 1). Cf. also Wilckens (1978–1982, VI/2, 247), who draws on this text as a parallel to Rom 11:17–24.

Christ, Israel and the Nations

217

künftigen Belohnungen nicht für den einzelnen Frommen, sondern für das jüdische Volk spricht.180

Philo’s section on the restoration of the Jewish nation in Praem. 162–172 seems to belong to the category of ‘Jewish restoration eschatology’.181 This is confirmed by the many similar motifs between Jewish ‘eschatological’ texts and the Philonic thought in this text. According to Sanders ‘What is peculiar to the works which have traditionally been considered Palestinian Jewish apocalypses is the combination of revelation with the promise of restoration and reversal.’182 While Sanders maintains that the aspect of revelation is lacking in Philo’s writings, it is interesting that Borgen has shown that Philo shares even this element of revelation with Palestinian Jewish apocalypses.183 Let us summarise the content of Praem. 162–172: If those in the Diaspora who have strayed away from the ancestral teaching reproach themselves for going astray by confessing their sin, they will find favour with God (Praem. 162–163). Here Philo comments that the curses which have befallen them (cf. Deut 28:15ff.) serve as a disciplinary warning; they are not intended to destroy them.184 This conversion to virtue will strike awe into their masters, who will set them free, ashamed to rule over men better than themselves (Praem. 164).185 Like a return from exile, they will rally ‘with one impulse to the one appointed place, guided in their pilgrimage by a vision divine and superhuman …’ (Praem. 165).186 According to Philo, three factors make ‘the reconciliation with the Father’ (i.e. God) possible: (1) the clemency and kindness of God; (2) the intercession of the holy founders of the race, i.e. the immortal patriarchs, who ‘cease not to make supplications for their sons and daughters’ (Praem. 166),187 and (3) ‘the reformation 180 Fischer, 1978, 210. 181 The phrase ‘Jewish restoration eschatology’ is taken from Sanders (1985, 335). In another article, Sanders (1989, 456) locates Praem. 162ff. within Jewish texts dealing with this theme of restoration, such as: Dan 12:1–4; 1 Enoch 38:4–6; 46:4; 53:2–7; 90:28–36; 91:12f.; Jub. 23:4; 4 Ezra 11:45; 12:31–33; 13:49; 2 Apoc. Bar. 51:5; 85:4; Apoc. Abr. 31; T. Levi 2:10. While this theme is a commonplace in such Palestinian Jewish apocalypses, they are not limited to such writings as e.g. Sirach 35 and 1QM 13–14 can show. 182 Sanders, 1989, 456. 183 Cf. Borgen, 1993, 255 n. 28. 184 Cf. 2 Macc 6:12; Wis 3:5; 12:22; Pss. Sol. 13:6–10; 18:4. 185 According to Josephus’ understanding of Numbers 25, in Ant. 4:14–44, Moses offered apostates the possibility of conversion. 186 ‘The one appointed place’ for the ingathering of the last days probably refers here to Jerusalem, see Bar 4:36–5:9; Pss. Sol. 11; Tob 13:8–18; 14:5–7; 1 Enoch 26:1; Jub. 8:19; Sib. Or. 5:250. 187 Colson, PLCL 8.419, observes that this motif is founded on the promise made in Lev 26:22. However, his remark that the idea of the departed patriarchs acting as intercessors is unique to Philo is questionable, see Josephus: Ant. 11:169. Cf. H. Thyen, 1970, 122 n. 2; 124f.

218

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

working in those who are being brought to make a covenant of peace’ (Praem. 167). In Praem. 168 Philo envisages the return of the exiled people to their homeland, in which the ruined cities will be rebuilt,188 the barren land will become fruitful once again, and prosperity will exceed that of the ancestors, thanks to the abundant riches God will pour out upon them. In Praem. 169–172 Philo describes the grand reversal of fortunes.189 Those who have mocked and persecuted the Jewish nation ‘will reap the rewards of their cruelty’ (Praem. 171). Finally, ‘new growths will shoot up’ from the root of the Jewish nation. The conditions of the restoration are underscored in Praem. 172 by the emphasis placed on devotion to virtue. As Sanders has noticed, Paul’s line of thought in Romans 9–11 can be categorised as one example of what he labels ‘Jewish restoration eschatology’. In his book on Jesus and Judaism, Sanders extends the theology he has called ‘covenantal nomism’ to embrace the element of ‘restoration’, taking the theology in Romans 9–11 as an example: The hope for restoration presupposes God’s loyalty to the covenant with Israel and, in most of the expressions of it which are still available, the expectation that Israel would show its loyalty to God by obeying his law. That is, the theology includes what I have elsewhere called ‘covenantal nomism’, but extends to embrace a further element: restoration. … We may again refer most readily to Paul. He reflects the common view that God is faithful to his covenant promises in Rom. 9.4; 11.29; the hope for the redemption of Israel is implied throughout Rom. 11 in particular and is precisely enunciated in 11.26 … The common expectation that Jews obey the law is clear in Rom. 9.30–10.3. In none of this do I intend to discuss Paul’s particular views and characteristic theology, but only the reflection of common opinion.190

We can likewise say that Philo accepted a kind of ‘covenantal nomism’.191 The present study has shown that the component parts of such a theology are central to Philo in his ‘Exposition’ of the Laws of Moses.192 It is interesting that many of the motifs associated with the restoration of Israel in Praem. 162ff. can also be detected in Romans 11.193 Thus, to justify his hope of Israel’s restoration, Paul appeals to the following motifs in Romans 11: a) the motif of God’s mercy in Rom 188 Cf. the motif of a rebuilding of Jerusalem in Tob 13:16–17; 14:5; 1 Enoch 90:28–29; Sib. Or. 5:249–252, 420–427; 2 Apoc. Bar. 32:2–4. 189 The theme of reversal is often accompanied by the restoration theme in Jewish texts. 190 Cf. Sanders, 1985, 335–336. 191 Cf. Hay, 2001, 357–379. 192 Cf. our discussion of Philonic passages in chapter five above. 193 Many of the similarities between Romans 11 and Praem. 162ff. have seldom been noted in the studies of Romans 11. Exceptions are the comments made by Zeller, 1990, 175–181, Haacker, 1997, 216–219, and Borgen, 1997, 278.

Summary

219

11:32 (cf. Rom 9:16): ‘For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.’ b) the motif of grace in Rom 11:29: ‘For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.’ c) the motif of the ancestral fathers reflected in Rom 11:28 (cf. Rom 9:4; 11:16): ‘… but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.’ These motifs are similar to those Philo described in Praem. 166–167 as ‘intercessors’, which the disobedient Jews were to hope for in order to be reconciled with God. In addition, it can be noted that these motifs in Praem. 162f. and Rom 11:26 seem to emphasise trust of the final restoration of Israel, which will take place geographically out from Jerusalem/Zion (cf. Rom 9: 26): ‘… and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.”’194 Moreover, Philo’s way of describing Israel’s restoration by means of the picture of the new growths which will shoot up from the root of the Jewish nation has a parallel in Paul’s use of the picture of the branches which will be ‘grafted back into their own olive tree’ as to illustrate the final salvation of all Israel (Rom 11:24ff). These observations indicates that Philo and Paul share motifs belonging to a common ideology dealing with the hope of a future restoration of the Jewish nation.

6.6. Summary It is the hypothesis of this chapter that Philo illustrates a Jewish exegetical context in which Paul’s treatment of Deut 30:12–14 should be located. Thus, there are points of similarities as well as differences and contrasts between Philo’s and Paul’s application of this Scripture which can clarify and explain the use and the argumentative role of Deut 30:12–14 within the line of thought in Rom 9:30– 10:21. Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–4 is located within a literary context with similarities to the following issues and perspectives attested in Philo’s application: 1) The people who keep the law and invoke God as distinguished from the Gentiles; 2) Conversion of Jews and Gentiles as condition of entry into the true people of God; 3) The promise of blessings conditional upon obedience to the laws in an eschatological outlook, including the perspective of blessings which embrace the Jewish people and other peoples; 4) Without using the terminology of ‘Messiah’, Philo hopes for the possibility of a non–Davidic ‘messianic’ Jewish sovereign to come, who would rule the nations. Moreover, we have seen that both Philo and Paul reckon with the future possibility of an exchange between

194 Scholars have debated whether Paul understands Isa 59:20 about the Deliverer from Zion as a future or past event. According to the first view, the salvation of Israel is a future event expected to take place at the ‘parousia’ of Christ (so Wilckens, 1978–1982, VI/2, 256; Käsemann, 1980, 314; Cranfield, 1986, 578). According to the other view, the restoration of Israel had already happened in the resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah, who had come from Jerusalem (so Hvalvik, 1990, 87–107; Fitzmyer, 1993, 625; Wright, 1995, 60–61).

220

Christ, the Law, Israel and the Nations: Rom 10:4–17 in its Literary and Jewish Context

disobedient Jews and incoming ‘proselytes’, which will finally be followed by a time with restoration of the whole Jewish nation. Against the background of such Jewish perspectives we will give a brief summary of the way we understand the argumentative use of Deut 30:12–14 within the line of thought in Rom 9:30–10:21. Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 is located in a context dealing with the issue of the Law as distinguishing Israel from the other nations. In Rom 10:5 the quotation of Lev 18:5 can be taken to refer to Israel’s concept of the Law: The Law and its observation was the foundation and basic expression of Israel’s distinctiveness vis–à–vis the other nations as the Jewish people of God. According to Paul such a concept of the Law represented a misunderstanding, and so Israel had not attained to the Law and the righteousness it was intended to lead to (Rom 9:31–32, 10:2b). In Rom 10:4–17 follows Paul’s explanation of what Israel did not know concerning the Law. In the light of Christ Paul saw the end of the righteousness confined to observance of the Law and available only to Jews (Rom 10:4–5 [Lev 18:5]), since Christ is seen to be the ‘end’ of the Law. At the same time Christ was also seen as the ‘goal’ of the Law, so that the Law and the righteousness were attained on the basis of faith in Christ (Rom 9:30–33; Rom 10:6ff.). Part of Paul’s argument is that the Law itself as a ‘Law of righteousness’ (Rom 9:31) points to justification by faith in Christ. In the light of Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law, Paul interprets the ‘doing’ —to which the Law itself testifies (Lev 18.5)— as fulfilled by the obedience of faith to the ‘word of faith’ (Deut 30:12–14). Thus, Paul can transfer the meaning of Deut 30:12–14 to the righteousness of faith (Rom 10:6), Christ (Rom 10:6–7), the ‘word of faith’ (Rom 10:8) and the ‘word of Christ’ (Rom 10:17), as the Law properly understood. Hence, if Christ ‘replaces’ the Law and faith in Christ occupies the previous function of the Law in Jewish thought, then God’s people are redefined: the essential characteristic and foundation of belonging to the people of God are now faith rather than the actions obedient to the Law. The distinctive marks of the eschatological people of God are then no longer ‘works of the Law’, but the inclusive marker of faith in Christ (cf. Rom 10:11–13). In this way Paul redefined the conception of the Jewish people of God in the light of Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law. In Rom 10:11–13 Paul entertains a view of the people of God as the cross–national people of God among Jews and Gentiles. Since righteousness was defined on the basis of faith in Christ, and no longer by the Law of Moses which made a distinction between Israel and other nations (cf. Rom 10:11–12), the people of God has been transformed to become a cross–national people of Jews and Gentiles. The people of God is now designated as the people of Jews and Gentiles who invoke Christ (cf. Rom 10:12–13). In the literary context of Rom 9:30–10:13 Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 to the issue of righteousness by faith also serves as an argument in relation to the

Summary

221

question of inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in the people of God. According to Paul, Jew and Gentile could be included in the people of God on the basis of faith in Christ (Rom 9:30; 10:6–13). Thus, Paul tries to open a way for a cross–national people, which means that Gentiles need not become Jews in its ethnic sense after having become integrated into Israel as Christian ‘proselytes’. According to Paul, the righteousness of faith bears directly on the issue of salvation (Rom 10:1, 9–10). Thus Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 is also located within a textual context where the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in the eschatological salvation is at issue. It is our contention that Paul presupposes an application of Deut 30:12–14 about obedience to the Law as a condition for the realisation of blessings in the age to come for the nation of Jews that would be shared by the other nations. According to Paul, the Christ event meant that this end–time had arrived so that Israel’s restoration and blessings now would be shared by the nations. However, the coming of Christ meant a transformation of the Law so that the righteousness and eschatological blessings were not received on the condition of ‘works’ of the Law, but rather on condition of confession and faith in Christ (Rom 10:8–10). So the eschatological blessings of Israel would be shared by the nations through receiving Christ in faith and not as the consequence of Israel’s obedience to the Law. In this way Paul transfers Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10 from an exclusivistic understanding about the Law and obedience to the Law by the Jewish people of God to Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law, resulting in righteousness and salvation for all who believe. In order to explain the thesis in Rom 10:4 about ‘Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law to righteousness for all who believe’, Paul in Rom 10:5–13 took Lev 18:5 and the ‘doing’ Moses called for to refer to Christ and to the ‘word of faith’ (Deut 30:12–14). This made ‘confession’ and ‘faith’ in Christ the condition for partaking in the salvation for the cross–national people of God including Jews and Gentiles. In the logic of the argument in Rom 9:30–10:21, the Jewish rejection of Christ explains Israel’s non–attainment of the Law and consequently their present exclusion from the blessings/salvation inaugurated by Christ and already shared by the other nations as members of the true people of God among Jews and Gentiles (Rom 9:30–33; 10:16, 18–21; 11:17–24).

Final Summary This study is an investigation of Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 in the letter of Romans against the background of the expositions of Philo, De Virtutibus and De Praemiis et Poenis. To some extent also other Jewish material, such as the book of Baruch, has been drawn upon. The purpose of this study was to deliver some new answers to questions involved in Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 within the context of Rom 9:30–10:21. In this final summary the conclusions reached so far shall be brought together as answers to these questions. 1) Is Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 idiosyncratic, or is it possible to find Jewish parallels that can shed light on Paul? The purpose of chapter six was to indicate that especially the Philonic texts examined in chapter four (Virt. 183–184) and five (Praem. 79–84) could provide help in establishing a Jewish referential background against which the various aspects of Paul’s eschatological and christological use of Deut 30:12–14 in its literary context could be illuminated and become more intelligible. In spite of the differences between Philo and Paul, they offer mutually illuminating parallels in their application of Deut 30:12–14. 2) Is Paul’s reference to Deut 30:12–14 meant to be a quotation or not? In comparison with Baruch and Philo, it has been shown that Paul’s handling of Deut 30:12–14 can be located within a Jewish context with regard to the way the biblical quotations are rendered. Thus, we found that Paul’s quotation of Deut 30:12–14 reflects the manner of selective citation, omissions of words, phrases and sentences from the Old Testament Scripture, and the practice of supplementing words from the Old Testament with other terms. 3) Is Paul’s treatment of Deut 30:12–14 to be seen as exegesis, and can we detect a use of exegetical methods and any kind of exegetical structures and forms? Paul’s exegetical treatment of Deut 30:12–14 has been qualified by some as ‘arbitrary’ and ‘outrageous’ and ‘idiosyncratic’. In opposition to such a point of view, it has been the purpose of chapter three to substantiate the thesis that Paul’s expository rendering of Deut 30:12–14 follows the method of exegetical paraphrase of a biblical quotation. So, in comparison with Baruch and Philo, Paul’s

224

Final Summary

interpretative rendering of Deut 30:12–14 gives an example of exegetical paraphrase of a biblical text, in which words, phrases and sentences from the Old Testament quotation are either repeated or replaced by interpretative terms and supplemented with other qualifying terms. Thus, Paul’s christological exposition of Deut 30:12–14 can be located within the method of exegetical paraphrase, with a parallel in Baruch’s application of this OT Scripture to the personified ‘Wisdom’. It is also our conclusion that Paul’ exposition of Deut 30:12–14 can be located within the literary conventions of exegetical structures and terminology of his day. Thus, the following exegetical ‘forms’ have been observed: 1) A quotation from the Old Testament (Deut 30:14 in Rom 10:8) is followed by an exegetical paraphrase throughout the unit of Rom 10:8–17. The exposition is demarcated by an inclusio, with agreements in terminology between Rom 10:8 and Rom 10:17. 2) The structure of a Scriptural citation followed by an exposition introduced by an exegetical phrase, is repeated three times in Rom 10:6–8. 3) Rom 10:8–10 displays this exegetical form: a) The Old Testament is quoted. b) The quotation is given an exposition which is signalled and introduced by an exegetical expression. c) Then follows a sequence, introduced by the conjunction čƪě, which gives the rationale and expands the exposition. 4) In Rom 10:8–9 we have the structure of a quotation (Deut 30:14) followed by an exposition, in which the exposition refers to and repeats words from the Old Testament quotation, and a causal proposition introduced with ƂĞē added as a motivation. 5) In Rom 10:9 the exegetical paraphrase of ĝĞƲĖċ and ĔċěĎưċ from Deut 30:14 is cast in the form of a conditional clause, followed by a main clause. 6) Moreover, with respect to forms of smaller range, Paul’s use of exegetical terminology such as the exegetical phrase ĞęȘĞǵŕĝĞēė is conventional both within Jewish and Hellenistic exegesis. 4) Why should Paul choose two texts, Deut 30:12–14 and Lev 18:5, which in their original contexts could be placed together to make his point? Is there an antithesis between the texts? We have observed in chapter five that Philo in Praem. 79–84 can utilise Deut 30:11–14 as a rationale for the possibility of actions obedient to the Law as marking the Jews as the people of God out from Gentiles. It is our thesis that such a use of Deut 30:11–14 provides a context within which we must set Paul’s treatment of the Law as witnessed by Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6ff.. The way Paul sets Deut 30:12–14 (Rom 10:6ff.) in contrast to Lev 18:5 (Rom 10:5), and gives it a christological rationale (Rom 10:4), makes it very likely that he presupposes a use of Deut 30:12–14 about the Law and actions in obedience to the law understood as

Final Summary

225

a boundary between Jews and Gentiles as illustrated by Philo in Praem. 79–84. In the textual context of Rom 9:30–10:5 Lev 18:5 can be taken to summarise the Law of Moses understood as defining the righteousness restricted to the Jewish people. So instead of interpreting Deut 30:12–14 in terms of the Law and actions in obedience to the law which assigns righteousness to the Jewish people as the people of God, Paul transfers it to the righteousness received on the basis of faith in Christ and available to Jews as well as Gentiles. This means that by means of Deut 30:12–14 Paul wants to redraw the boundary between Jews and Gentiles by reclaiming what he considers to be the proper meaning of the Law and thus the criteria for belonging to the people of God. In Rom 10:11–13 Paul develops the argument in his application of Deut 30:12–14 to a description of the people of God as those who call on the name of the Lord, without any distinction between Jews and Gentiles. In this study we have argued that Paul deliberately interprets Lev 18:5 as equivocal, as a Jewish Scripture which at the same time is terminated and fulfilled in light of Christ. So according to Paul the proper understanding of the Law and its function of leading to righteousness had now come to focus in Christ, and this righteousness is available to everyone on the basis of faith. Thus, the Scriptural passages quoted in Rom 10:5 (Lev 18:5) and Rom 10:6–8 (Deut 30:12–14) point to Christ as the fulfilment and ‘goal’ of the Law (Rom 10:2–4). The ‘commandments’ referred to in Lev 18:5 are to be pursued, not in terms of ‘works’, but ‘out of faith’ by obedience to ‘the word of faith’. This is why Paul takes Deut 30:12–14, saying the same as Lev 18:5, to refer to Christ and ‘the word of faith’, and as correlative and not only antithetical to the righteousness from the Law expressed by Lev 18:5. Accordingly, Paul redefines ‘doing’ (Lev 18:5) as the obedience of the Law which was made possible by the ‘word of faith’ (Deut 30:14), — brought near by the proclaiming of the gospel. Thus, citing the words of the Law itself, Paul takes both Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 seriously, and transfers them to faith in Christ. The Law, properly understood as calling for obedience, does not call for something impossible. The commandments are attainable as the ‘word of faith’, and require now obedience of faith, understood as confession of faith in Christ. The hermeneutical principle implied in Rom 10:4ff. and presupposed in Paul’s fresh interpretation of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 was that the Law, properly understood, should be interpreted on the basis of the cosmic and eschatological reality to which it points, i.e. to Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law. In short, a Jewish referential background provided by Philo, and to some extent also Baruch, can illuminate and substantiate the view that Paul’s exposition of Deut 30:12–14 is at the center of his attempt to expound the continuing and wider significance of the Law in a way which retrieves the Law from a too narrowly defined understanding as it comes to expression in Lev 18:5.

226

Final Summary

5) How can we explain Paul’s attribution of Deut 30:12–14 to the issue of righteousness by faith? In the textual context of Rom 9:30–10:17, Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 to the issue of righteousness by faith functions to explain the ground on which Jews and Gentiles as Gentiles can be included in the people of God. Our study of Virt. 183–184 in its literary context in chapter four has shown that Deut 30:11–14 can be applied to the teaching on conversion referring both to penitent Jews and to Gentiles who become proselytes within the Jewish nation. In this context Philo could elaborate on Deut 30:11–14 as defining the condition for gaining the right relationship with God and being a member of the Jewish people of God. Moreover, it was our suggestion that this evidence provides a Jewish matrix for Paul’s attribution of Deut 30:12–14 to the issue of righteousness by faith and his application of this scriptural passage to the missionary preaching directed to both Jews and Gentiles about Christ as the ‘end’/‘goal’ of the Law, and as the constitution of the cross–national people of God. Thus, the Philonic evidence can also serve to illuminate the Jewish referential background of Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 in juxtaposition with the requirement of actions in obedience to the law expressed by Lev 18:5, in a textual context which deals with the issue of the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles in the people of God, without the need to convert to Judaism. 6) How can we explain Paul’s ‘eschatological’ application of Deut 30:12–14? We have also observed in chapter five that Philo in Praem. 79–82 can utilise Deut 30:11–14 in juxtaposition with Deut 28:1 about actions in obedience to the law as a condition for the realisation of blessings. This conditional promise of blessing prescribed in the Law of Moses was interpreted in Praem. 85–97 in an ‘eschatological’ outlook, in which the future ‘eschatological’ blessings of Israel are to be shared by Gentiles. It is our thesis that the location of Deut 30:11–14 in such an ‘eschatological’ outlook can illustrate a Jewish referential background, which makes sense of Paul’s ‘eschatological’ use of Deut 30:12–14 in juxtaposition with the requirement of actions in obedience to the law expressed by Lev 18:5. Likewise, against a Jewish background of this kind, it becomes more intelligible why Paul could use Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10 as an explanation of the condition for salvation, in order to elucidate why most Jews because of their disobedience against the gospel failed to fulfil the condition of faith in Christ, and so were excluded from the messianic salvation that was shared by Gentiles. Moreover, we have found that both Philo and Paul locate their use of Deuteronomy 30 within an a common ‘eschatological’ outlook, in which the relationship between Israel and the nations remains in the perspective. The future hope of a Jewish Sovereign who would rule the nations, the possibility of an exchange of

Final Summary

227

roles between rejected Jews and ‘proselytes’, and the final restoration of the Jewish nation, are common features within this ‘eschatological’ outlook. 7) How does Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 support his argument and fit in the immediate literary context of Rom 9:30–10:21? In this study we have proposed the following understanding of the meaning of Deut 30:12–14 within the literary context of Rom 10:4–17: Paul’s application of Deut 30:12–14 is located within the textual context of Rom 9:30–10:5 dealing with the issue of the law as distinguishing Israel from the other nations. In Rom 10:5 the quotation of Lev 18:5 summarises Israel’s concept of the Law: The Law and its keeping was the foundation and basic expression of Israel’s distinctiveness vis–à–vis the other nations as the Jewish people of God. According to Paul such a narrow concept of the Law represented a misunderstanding, and so Israel had not attained to the Law and the righteousness it was intended to lead to (Rom 9:31–32, 10:2b). In Rom 10:4–17 there follows Paul’s explanation of what Israel did not know concerning the Law. In the light of Christ Paul saw the righteousness confined to observance of the Law and available only to Jews as terminated (Rom 10:4–5 [Lev 18:5]), since Christ is seen to be the ‘end’ of the Law. At the same time Christ was seen as the ‘goal’ of the Law, so that the Law and its righteousness were attained on the basis of faith in Christ (9:30–33; Rom 10:6ff. [Deut 30:12–14]). Instead of taking Deut 30:12–14 as a claim for the exclusivistic Law and legal observance of the Jews as this was expressed by Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5, Paul’s exposition of Deut 30:12–14 is at the center of his attempt to broaden the significance of the Law from what he perceived to be a too narrowly defined understanding. In the light of Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law, he transfers Deut 30:12–14 to the ‘righteousness of faith’ (Rom 10:6), Christ (Rom 10:6–7), the ‘word of faith’ (Rom 10:8) and the ‘word of Christ’(Rom 10:17) as the Law properly understood. The distinctive marks of the eschatological people of God are then no longer ‘works of the law’ but the inclusive marker of faith in Christ (Rom 10:11–13). In this way Paul redefined the conception of the Jewish people of God in terms of Christ as the ‘end’/‘goal’ of the Law. Thus, in Romans 10:11–13 Paul entertains a view of the people of God as the cross–national people of God among Jews and Gentiles. Since righteousness was defined on the basis of faith in Christ, and no longer by the Law of Moses which made a distinction between Israel and other nations (Rom 10:11–12), the people of God have been transformed into a cross–national people of Jews and Gentiles. The people of God is now designated as the people of Jews and Gentiles who invoke Christ (Rom 10:12–13). In the textual context of Rom 9:30ff. Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 about righteousness by faith as applied to Jews and Gentiles, also serves as an argument related to the requirements for entry into the people of God. According to Paul, ‘faith in

228

Final Summary

Christ’ rather than observance of the commandments of the Law becomes the essential mark and foundation of belonging to the people of God. Accordingly, on the one hand, Gentiles did not need to become Jews in the ethnic sense after having become integrated into the cross–national people of God as Christian ‘proselytes’. On the other hand, ‘faith in Christ’ was the requirement that Paul applied to Jews as well in order to enter and remain in the true eschatological people of God. According to Paul, the righteousness of faith bears directly on the issue of salvation (Rom 10:1, 9–10). Thus Paul’s use of Deut 30:12–14 is also located within a textual context where the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in the eschatological salvation is at issue. It is our hypothesis that Paul presupposes an application of Deut 30:12–14 about obedience to the law as a condition for the realisation of blessings in the age to come for the nation of Jews that would also be shared by the other nations. According to Paul, the coming of Christ meant that this end–time had arrived, and Israel’s blessings would now be shared by the nations. However, the coming of Christ meant a transformation of the Law so that the righteousness and eschatological blessings were not received on the condition of ‘works’ of the Law, but rather on condition of confession and faith in Christ. (Rom 10:8–10). So the eschatological blessings of Israel would be shared by the nations through receiving Christ in faith and not as the consequence of Israel’s obedience to the Law. In this way Paul could transfer Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10 from an exclusivistic understanding about the Law and obedience to the Law to Christ as the ‘goal’ of the Law, resulting in righteousness and salvation for all who have faith. So in order to explain the thesis in Rom 10:4 about Christ as the ‘‘goal’ of the Law to righteousness for all who believe’, Paul took Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–10 to refer to Christ and the ‘word of faith’ which made confession and faith in Christ the condition for participation in the salvation/blessings for the cross–national people of God including Jews and Gentiles (Rom 10:11–13). In the logic of the argument in Rom 9:30–10:21, the Jewish rejection of Christ explains Israel’s non–attainment of the Law and consequently their present exclusion from the blessings/salvation inaugurated by Christ and already shared by the other nations (Rom 9:30–33; 10:16, 18–21; 11:17–24).

Bibliography and Indices

Bibliography A. Sources and Reference Works 1. The Bible: Texts and Translations Biblica Hebraica. Stuttgartensia. Edited by R. Kittel et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung 1966/77. Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by K. Aland et al. 27. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2001. Septuaginta. Edited by A. Ralphs. 2. vols. 8. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung 1935. The Holy Bible. Revised Starndard Version. 2. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Bible Publishers 1971.

2. Jewish texts a. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by R. H. Charles. 2. vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1913. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2. vols. London: Darton, Longman & Todd 1983–1985. The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelwe Patriarchs. Edited by R. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1908.

b. Josephus and Philo Josephus. The Life. Against Apion. The Jewish War. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by H. S. J. Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren and L. H. Feldman. 9. vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann 1926–1965.

232

Bibliography

Philo. [Works]. Translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker and R. Marcus. 12. vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press;; London: William Heinemann 1926–1962. Philon. Les Oeuvres de Philon ď Alexandrie. Philo translated by R. Arnaldez, J. Caseaux, S. Daniel et al. Paris: Cerf 1961–1979. Philo von Alexandria. Die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung. Edited by L. Cohn et al. 7. vols. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co 1962–1964. Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt. Edited by L. Cohn, P. Wendland, S. Reiter, and I. Leisegang. 7. vols. Berlin: Reimer 1962.

c. Qumran Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebräisch und Deutsch. Edited by E. Lohse. München: Kösel-Verlag 1971. Miqsat Ma‘ase Ha-Torah. Edited by E. Qimron and J. Strugnell. DJD 10.5. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1994. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Translated by G. Vermes. London: Penguin Books 1987. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. Edited by F. García Martínez. Leiden: E. J. Brill 1994.

d. Rabbinic Literature The Aramaic Bible. The Targums. Edited by K. Cathcart, M. Maher, and M. McNamara. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark 1987–. The Babylonian Talmud. Edited by I. Epstein. 18. vols. London: The Soncino Press 1935–1952. Deuteronomy Rabbah. English translation in Midrash Rabbah, compact edition. Translated by J. Rabinowitz. London, Jerusalem, and New York, NY: The Soncino Press 1977. Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael. Translated by J. K. Lauterbach. 3. vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1933–1935. Midrash Rabbah. Edited by H. Freedman and M. Simon. 10. vols. London: The Soncino Press 1939.

Bibliography

233

The Mishnah. Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and brief Explanatory Notes. Translated by H. Danby. New York, NY: Oxford University Press 1933. Neophyti I. Targum Palestinense. Edited by A. Diez Macho. 5. vols. Textos y Estudios. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas 1968. Sifra. Halachischer Midrasch zu Leviticus. Translated by J. Winter. Breslau: Verlag von M. & H. Marcus 1938. Sifre. A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. Translated by R. Hammer. Yale Judaica Series 24. New Haven: Yale University Press 1986. Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy. Translated, with Apparatus and Notes. Translated by M. McNamara. The Aramaic Bible 5A. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark 1997. The Bible in Aramaic. I. The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos. Edited by A. Sperber. Leiden: E. J. Brill 1959. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch. With the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum. Translated by J. W. Etheridge. New York, NY: KTAV Publishing House 1968. The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy. Translated, with Apparatus and Notes. Translated by B. Grossfeld. The Aramaic Bible 2. Wilmington: Michael Glazier 1988. The Tosefta. Translated from the Hebrew. Edited by J. Neusner. 6. vols. New York, NY: KTAV Publishing House 1977–1986. Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi. Edited by M. Hengel et al. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) 1977–1995.

3. Greek and Latin Sources Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackham. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann 1934. Cicero. De Officiis. Translated by W. Miller. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann 1942. --- De Nature Deorum Accademica. Translated by H. Rackham. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann 1979. --- De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum. Translated by H. Rackham. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann 1983.

234

Bibliography

Dio Chrysostom. Discourses. Translated by J. W. Cohoon et al. 5. vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann 1932– 1954. Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. 2. vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press;; London: William Heinemann 1991. Epictetus. Discourses as Reported by Arrian, the Manual, and Fragments. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. 2. vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann 1989. Plato. Laws. Translated by R. G. Bury. 2. vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann 1984. Plutarch. Moralia. Translated by F. C. Babbitt et. al. 16. vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann 1927–1969. Pseudo-Cebes. The Tabula of Cebes. Translated by J. T. Fitzgerald and L. M. White. SBLTT 24. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press 1983. Seneca. Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. Tranlated by R. M. Gummere. 3. vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann 1989. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. Edited by H. von Arnim. 4. vols. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner 1903–1924.

4. Early Christian texts The Apostolic Fathers. Translated by K. Lake. 2. vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann 1912. New Testament Apocrypha. Edited by W. Schneemelcher. Translated by R. McL. Wolson. 2. vols. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co.; Loisville: The Westminster Press/John Knox Press 1991–1992. Tacitus. Histories. Book I. Edited by Cynthia Damon. Cambridge Greek and Latin classics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003.

Bibliography

235

5. Lexica and Tools Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: The University of Chigago Press 1979. Blass, F. and A. F. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. A Translation and Revision of the ninth–tenth German edition incorporating supplementary notes of A. Debrunner by R. W. Funk. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press 1961. Borgen, P., K. S. Fuglseth, and R. Skarsten. The Philo Index. A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria. Grand Rapids, Mich./Leiden: William Eerdmans Publishing Company/E. J. Brill 2000. Kittel, G. and G. Friedrich, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch Zum Neuen Testament. 10. vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag 1933–1979. --- eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10. vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964–1976. Lampe, G. W. H. , ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1961. Liddell, H. G., S. Robert and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1940. Mayer, G. Index Philoneus. Berlin and New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter 1974. Rehkopf, F. Septuaginta-Vokabular. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1989. Strack, H. L. and P. Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 7. and 8. ed. 5 vols. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung 1978–1983.

236

Bibliography

B. Secondary Literature Aageson, J. W. 1987. ‘Typology, Correspondence, and the Application of Scripture in Romans 9–11.’ JSNT 31 (1987) 51–72. Aalen, S. 1951. Die Begriffe ’Licht’ und ’Finsternis’ im Alten Testament, im Spätjudentum und im Rabbinismus. Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse. 1951. No. 1. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1951. Abasciano, B. J. 2005. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1–9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis. Library of New Testament Studies 301. London, New York: T & T Clark, 2005. Adler, M. 1929. Studien zu Philon von Alexandria. Breslau: Verlag von M. & H. Marcus, 1929. Allison, D. 1980. ‘The Background of Romans 11:11–15 in Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Literature.’ Studia Biblica et Theologia 10 (1980) 229–234. Amir, Y. 1983. Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien. Forschungen zum jüdisch-christlichen Dialog; Bd. 5. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. Aune, D. E. 1992. ‘Early Christian Eschatology.’ ABD 2 (1992) 594–609. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words: The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962. Avemarie, F. 1996. Tora und Leben: Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 55. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1996. Baarda, T. 1988. ‘Het einde van de wet is Christus: Rom 10:4–15: Een midrasj van Paulus over Deut 30:11–14.’ GTT 88 (1988) 208–248. Baasland, E. 1989. ‘Cognitio Dei im Römerbrief.’ Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 14 (1989) 185–218. --- 1995. ‘Rhetorischer Kontext in Apg 15,13–21. Statuslehre und die Actareden.’ In Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman. Edited by T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm; pp. 191–226. Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Boston: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. Badenas, R. 1985. Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4 in Pauline Perspective. JSNTSup 10. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.

Bibliography

237

Bailey, J. N. 1991. ‘Metanoia in the Writings of Philo Judaeus.’ SBLSP 30 (1991) 135–141. Balz, H. 1971. Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung: Strukturen der paulinischen Eschatologie nach Römer 8,18–39. BEvT 59. München: Kaiser, 1971. Bandstra, A. J. 1964. The Law and The Elements of The World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul’s Teaching. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1964. Barraclough, R. 1984. ‘Philo’s Politics, Romans Rule and Hellenistic Judasim.’ In ANRW II:21:1; pp. 417–553. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. Barrett, C. K. 1975. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. BNTC. London: A & C Black, 1975. --- 1982. Essays on Paul. London: S.P.C.K., 1982. --- 1989. ‘Paulus als Missionar und Theologe.’ ZTK 86 (1989) 18–32. Bauckham, R. 1994. ‘Jesus and the Wild Animals (Mark 1:13): A Christological Image for an Ecological Age.’ In Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Edited by J. B. Green and M. Turner; pp. 3–21. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1994. Bechtler, S. R. 1994. ‘Christ, the þƬĕęĜ of the Law: The Goal of Romans 10:4.’ CBQ 56 (1994) 288–308. Behm, J. 1938. ‘ĔċěĎưċ’ TWNT III (1938) 611–616. --- 1942. ‘ĖďĞƪėęēċ’ TWNT IV (1942) 972–976; 985–1016. Beker, J. C. 1984. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Bekken, P. J. 1995. ‘Paul’s Use of Deut. 30:12–14 in Jewish Context.’ In The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism. Edited by P. Borgen and S. Giversen; pp. 183–203. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1995. --- 1998. ‘Election, Obedience, and Eschatology: Deuteronomy 30:12–14 in Romans 9–11 and the Writings of Philo.’ In Recruitment, Conquest, and Conflict: Strategies in Judaism, Early Christianity and the Greco-Roman World. Edited by P. Borgen, V. K. Robbins, and D. B. Gowler; pp. 315–331. Emory Studies in Early Christianity, vol. 6. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998.

238

Bibliography

Bell, R. 1993. Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11. WUNT 2/63. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. Berger, K. 1966. ‘Abraham in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen’. MTZ 17 (1966) 47–89. ---1972. Die Gesetzauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament. Teil I: Markus und Parallelen. WMANT 40. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972. --- 1975. ‘Jüdisch-hellenistische Missionsliteratur und apokryphe Apostelakten.’ Kairos 17 (1975) 232–248. Berger, K. And C. Colpe. 1987. Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Neuen Testament. NTD. Textreihe Band 1. Göttingen, Zürich: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1987. Bertram, G. 1939. ‘Philo als politisch-theologischer Propagandist des spätantiken Judentums.’ Theologisches Literaturblatt 64 (1939) 193–199. Beyer, K. 1968. Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament. 2. rev. ed. SUNT 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. Birnbaum, E. 1993. ‘The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes.’ SBLSP (1993) 54–69. --- 1996. The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes. Studia Philonica Monographs 2. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1996. --- 2006. ‘Two Millennia Later: General Resources and Particular Perspectives on Philo the Jew.’ Currents in Biblical Research 4(2) (2006) 241–276. Black, M. 1971/2. ‘The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.’ NTS 18 (1971/2) 1–14. Bläser, P. 1941. Das Gesetz bei Paulus. NTAbh 19.1–2. Münster: Aschendorff, 1941. Boers, H. 1994. The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. Borgen, P. 1965. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. NovTSup 10. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965. --- 1983a. ‘Logos was the True Light’ and other Essays on the Gospel of John. Trondheim: Tapir Publishers, 1983.

Bibliography

239

--- 1983b. ‘Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men’ and other Essays on Christian Origins. Trondheim: Tapir Publishers, 1983. --- 1984a. ‘Philo of Alexandria: A Critical and Synthetical Survey of Research Since World War II.’ In ANRW II:21:1; pp. 98–154. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. --- 1984b. ‘Philo of Alexandria.’ In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Secterian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by M. E. Stone; pp. 233–282. CRINT II:2. Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. --- 1987. Philo, John and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity. BJS 131. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987. --- 1992. ‘”There shall come forth a Man”’: Reflections on Messianic Ideas in Philo.’ In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J. Charlesworth; pp. 341–62. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1992. --- 1993. ‘Heavenly Ascent in Philo: An Examination of Selected Passages.’ In The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans; pp. 246–268. JSPSup 14. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. --- 1994a. ‘Jesus Christ, the Reception of the Spirit, and a Cross-National Community.’ In Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Edited by J. B. Green and M. Turner; pp. 220–235. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1994. --- 1994b. ‘‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘How Far?’’: The Participation of Jews and Christians in Pagan Cults.’ In Paul in his Hellenistic Context. Edited by T. EngbergPedersen; pp. 30–59. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. --- 1995a. ‘Man’s Sovereignity over Animals and Nature According to Philo of Alexandria.’ In Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman. Edited by T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm;; pp. 369–389. Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Boston: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. ---1995b. ‘Some Hebrew and Pagan Features in Philo’s and Paul’s Interpretation of Hagar and Ishmael.’ In The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism. Edited by P. Borgen and S. Giversen; pp. 151–164. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1995.

240

Bibliography

--- 1996. Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996. --- 1997. Philo of Alexandria. An Exegete for his Time. NovTSup 86. Leiden, New York, Köln: E. J. Brill, 1997. --- 1998. ‘A Response to Fredriksen’s “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2”’. In Recruitment, Conquest, and Conflict: Strategies in Judaism, Early Christianity and the Greco-Roman World. Edited by P. Borgen, V. K. Robbins, and D. B. Gowler; pp. 245–250. Emory Studies in Early Christianity, vol. 6. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998. --- 2000. ‘Openly Portrayed as Crucified: Some Observations.’ In Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honor of David. R. Cathpole. Edited by D. G. Horrell and C. M. Tuckett; pp. 345–353. NovTSup, vol. 99. Leiden, Boston, Köln: E. J. Brill, 2000. Bousset, W. 1915. Jüdisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom. FRLANT 23. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915. Bousset, W. and H. Gressmann. 1926. Die Religion des Judentums im Späthellenistischen Zeitalter. 3. ed. HNT 21. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1926. Bréhier, E. 1908. Les Idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’ Alexandrie. Études de Philosophie médiévale, no. 8. Paris: J. Vrin, 1908. Bring, R. 1969. Christus und das Gesetz: Die Bedeutung des Gesetzes des Alten Testaments nach Paulus und sein Glauben an Christus. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969. --- 1971. ‘Paul and the Old Testament.’ ST 25 (1971) 21–60. Bruce, F. F. 1963. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. TynNTC 6. London: Tyndale Press; Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963. Bultmann, R. 1948a. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1948. --- 1948b. ‘őĕĚưĜ’ TDNT II (1948) 529–535. --- 1967. Exegetica. Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: J. C. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1967. --- 1983. Theology of the New Testament: Volume One. (Translated by K. Grobel from the German Theologie des Neuen Testaments published by J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1948.) London: SCM Press, 1983.

Bibliography

241

Burchard, C. 1997. ‘Glaubengerechtigkeit als Weisung der Tora bei Paulus.’ In Jesus Christus als Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums. Edited by C. Landsmesser, H.–J. Eckstein, and H. Lichtenberger; pp. 341–362. BZNW 86. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter 1997. Bussmann, C. 1971. Themen der paulinischen Missionspredigt auf dem Hintergrund der spätjüdisch-hellenistischen Missionsliteratur. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/3. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1971. Byrne, B. 1979. ‘Sons of God’ – ‘Seed of Abraham’: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of all Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background. AnBib 83. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979. Carson, D. A. and H. G. M. Williamson 1988. Eds. It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Chadwick, H. 1966. ‘St. Paul and Philo of Alexandria.’ BJRL 48 (1966) 286–307. Chilton, B. D. 1982. The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenance of the Isaiah Targum. JSOTSup, vol. 23. Sheffield: JSOT, 1982. --- 1988. ‘Romans 9–11 as Scriptural Interpretation and Dialogue with Judaism.’ Ex Auditu 4 (1988) 27–37. --- 1994. Judaic Approaches to the Gospels. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 2. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1994. Cohen, N. G. 1987. ‘The Jewish Dimension of Philo’s Judaism: an Elucidation of de Spec. Leg. 4: 132–150.’ JJS 38 (1987) 165–186. --- 1993. ‘The Greek Virtues and the Mosaic Laws in Philo: an Elucidation of De Specialibus Legibus IV 133–135.’ SPhA (1993) 9–23. --- 1995. Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 24. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995. Cohen. S. J. D. 1987. ‘Respect For Judaism By Gentiles According to Josephus.’ HTR 80 (1987) 409–430. --- 1989. ‘Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew.’ HTR 82 (1989) 13–33. --- 1990. ‘Religion, Ethnicity, and ’Hellenism’ in the Emergence of Jewish Identity in Maccabean Palestine.’ In Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom. Edited by P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle; pp. 204–223. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 1. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1990.

242

Bibliography

--- 1999. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Hellenistic Culture and Society XXXI. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1999. Collins, J. J. 1995. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1995. --- 2002. ‘Apocalyptic Eschatology in Philosophical Dress in the Wisdom of Salomon.’ In Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism. Edited by J. L. Kugel; pp. 93–108. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, vol. 74. Leiden, Boston, Köln: E. J. Brill, 2002. Conley, T. M. 1984. ‘Philo’s Rhetoric: Argumentation and Style.’ In ANRW II:21:1; pp. 343–371. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. Conzelmann, H. 1965/6. ‘Paulus und die Weisheit.’ NTS 12 (1965/6) 231–244. Cranfield, C. E. B. 1986. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Volume II. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. Cremer, H. 1900. Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhang ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. 2. ed. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1900. Crown, A. D. 1989, ed. The Samaritans. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. Dahl, N. A. 1941. Das Volk Gottes: Eine Untersuchung zum Kirchenbewusstsein des Urchristentums. Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse. 1941. No. 2. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1941. --- 1974. The Crucified Messiah and Other Essays. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1974. --- 1976. Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church: Essays. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1976. --- 1977. Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977. --- 1992. ‘Messianic Ideas and the Crucifixion of Jesus’. In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth; pp. 382– 403. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1992. Das, A. A. 2001. Paul, the Law and the Covenant. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publisher, 2001. Daube, D. 1949. ‘Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric.’ HUCA 22 (1949) 239–264.

Bibliography

243

Davenport, G. L. 1971. The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees. SPB 20. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971. Davies, W. D. 1955. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. London: S.P.C.K., 1955. --- 1984. Jewish and Pauline Studies. London: S.P.C.K.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Davis, C. J. 1996. The Name and Way of the Lord: Old Testament Themes, New Testament Christology. JSNTSup 129. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Delia, D. 1991. Alexandrian Citizenship During the Roman Principate. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991. Delling, G. 1974a. ‘Perspektiven der Erforschung des hellenistischen Judentums.’ HUCA 45 (1974) 133–176. --- 1974b. ‘Nahe ist dir das Wort.’ TLZ 99 (1974) 402–412. --- 1984. ‘The “One Who Sees God” in Philo.’ In Nourished With Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel. Edited by F. E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgert, and B. L. Mack, pp. 27–41. Scholars Press Homage Series 9. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984. --- 1987. Die Bewältigung der Diasporasituation durch das hellenistische Judentum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1987. Dillon, J. 1993. ‘A Response to Runia and Sterling.’ SPhA 5 (1993) 151–155. Dodd, C. H. 1959. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. 2. rev. ed. MNTC. London: Collins, 1959. Donaldson, T. L. 1990. ‘Proselytes Or ’Righteous Gentiles’? The Status of Gentiles in Eschatological Pilgrimage Patterns of Thought.’ JSP 7 (1990) 3–27. --- 1993. ‘‘Riches for the Gentiles’ (Rom 11:12): Israel’s Rejection and Paul’s Gentile Mission.’ JBL 112 (1993) 81–98. Donfried, K. P. 1991, ed. The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. Doty, W. G. 1972. ‘The Concept of Genre in Literary Analysis.’ SBLSP (1972) 413–448. Dunn, J. D. G. 1987. ‘“Righteousness from the Law” and “Righteousness from Faith”: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 10:1–10.’ In Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, FS E. E. Ellis. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne; pp. 216–228. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William

244

Bibliography

B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1987. --- 1988. Romans. Word Biblical Commentary. Volume 38 A and B. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1988. --- 1991a. ‘The New Perspective on Paul: Paul and the Law.’ In The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition. Edited by K. P. Donfried; pp. 299–308. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. --- 1991b. The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991. --- 1993. The Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC. London: A. & C. Black, 1993. --- 1995. ‘Was Paul Against the Law? The Law in Galatians and Romans: A TestCase of Text in Context.’ In Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman. Edited by T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm;; pp. 455–475. Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Boston: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. Eckstein, H.–J. 1988. ‘»Nahe ist dir das Wort«: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Röm 10,8.’ ZNW 79 (1988) 204–220. Elliot, N. 1990. The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism. JSNTSup 45. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Ellis, E. E. 1957. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd 1957. --- 1988. ‘Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church.’ In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by M. J. Mulder; pp. 691–726. CRINT II:1. Assen and Maastricht: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. --- 1991. The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research. WUNT 54. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1991. Engberg-Pedersen, T. 1994, ed. Paul in his Hellenistic Context. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortess Press; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. --- 2005. ‘The Relationship with Others: Similarities and Differences Between Paul and Stoicism’, ZNW 96 (2005) 35–60.

Bibliography

245

Esler, P. F. 2003. ‘Ancient Oleiculture and Ethnic Differentiation: The Meaning of the Olive-Tree Image in Romans 11.’ JSNT 26 (2003) 103–124. Evans, C. A. 1993. ‘Listening for Echoes of Interpreted Scripture.’ In Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; pp. 47–51. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, vol 1. JSNTSup 83. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. --- 2006. ‘Messianic Hopes and Messianic Figures in Late Antiquity.’ Journal of Greco–Roman Christianity and Judaism 3 (2006) 9–40. Evans, C. A. and J. A. Sanders 1993, eds. Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, vol 1. JSNTSup 83. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. --- 1997. Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Fee, G. D. 2001. To What End Exegesis? Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological. Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001. Feldman, L. H. 1996. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism. AGJU 30. Leiden, New York, Köln: E. J. Brill, 1996. Fiebig, P. 1925. Der Erzählungsstil der Evangelien im Lichte des rabbinischen Erzählungsstils untersucht, zugleich ein Beitrag zum Streit um die ‘Christusmythe’. UNT 11. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich Verlag, 1925. Fischer, U. 1978. Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum. BZNW 44. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1978. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1993. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993. Flückiger, F. 1955. ‘Christus, des Gesetzes ĞƬĕęĜ.’ TZ 11 (1955) 153–157. Frey, J. 1997. Die johanneische Eschatologie I: Ihre Probleme im Spiegel der Forschung seit Reimarus. WUNT 96. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1997. Friedrich, G. 1961. ‘Römerbrief .’ RGG V (1961) 1137–1143. Fuglseth, K. S. 2005. Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological, Historical, and Comparative Analysis of Temple and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, Philo and Qumran. NovTSup 119. Leiden, Boston: E. J. Brill, 2005.

246

Bibliography

Gager, J. G. 2000. Reinventing Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Garlington, D. B. 1991. ‘The Obedience of Faith’: A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context. WUNT 2/38. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1991. Gaster, M. 1932. The Samaritan Oral Law and Ancient Traditions: Volume 1: Samaritan Eschatology. London: Oxford University Press, 1932. Gaugler, E. 1952. Der Römerbrief. Kapitel 9–15. Prophezei. Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1952. Georgi, D. 1987. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987. Getty, M. A. 1988. ‘Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Romans 9–11.’ CBQ 50 (1988) 456–469. Ginzberg, L. 1968. The Legend of the Jews. 2. ed. 7. vols. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1968. Goldberg, A. M. 1970. ‘Torah aus der Unterwelt? Eine Bemerkung zu Röm 10,67.’ BZ 14 (1970) 127–131. Goodenough, E. R. 1933. ‘Philo’s Exposition of the Laws and His De Vita Moses.’ HTR 26 (1933) 109–125. --- 1935. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935. --- 1938. The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938. Grabbe, L. L. 2000. ‘Eschatology in Philo and Josephus.’ In Judaism in late Antiquity. Part Four: Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the WorldTo-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Edited by A. J. Avery-Peck and J. Neusner; pp. 163–185. Handbuch der Orientalistik, vol. 49. Leiden, Boston, Köln: E. J. Brill, 2000. Grosse, E. U. 1976. Text und Kommunikation: Eine linguistische Einführung in die Funktionen der Texte. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1976. Græsholt, G. 1993. ‘Er Filon bare et sidespor?’ DTT 56 (1993) 19–34. Guerra, A. J. 1990. ‘Romans: Paul’s Purpose and Audience with special Attention to Romans 9–11.’ RB 97 (1990) 219–237. Gülich, E. and W. Raible 1977. Linguistische Textmodelle. UTB 130. München: Fink, 1977.

Bibliography

247

Gundry Volf, J. M. 1990. Paul and Perseverance: Staying in and Falling Away. WUNT/2 37. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1990. Haacker, K. 1997. ‘Die Geschichtstheologie von Röm 9–11 im Lichte philonischer Schriftauslegung.’ NTS 43 (1997) 209–222. --- 1999. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. ThHK 6. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999. --- 2003. The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Hahn, F. 1976. ‘Gesetzverständnis im Römer-und Galaterbrief.’ ZNW 67 (1976) 29–63. Hanson, A. T. 1974. Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology. London: S.P.C.K., 1974. Hartman, L. 1966. Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par. ConBNT. 1. Lund: Gleerup, 1966. --- 1979. Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5. ConBNT 12. Lund: Gleerup, 1979. --- 1980. ‘Bundesideologie in und hinter einigen paulinischen Texten.’ In Die paulinische Literatur und Theologie. Edited by S. Pedersen; pp. 103– 118. Teologiska studier 7. Aarhus: Aros; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980. --- 1983. ‘Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre.’ In Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979. Edited by D. Hellholm; pp. 329–343. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1983. --- 1993. ‘Galatians 3:15–4:11 as Part of a Theological Argument on a Practical Issue.’ In The Truth of the Gospel (Galatians 1:1–4:11). Edited by J. Lambrecht, pp.127–158. Monographische Reihe von Benedictina, Biblisch-ökumenische Abteilung 12. Roma: Abtei von St Paul vor den Mauern, 1993. Hay, D. M. 2001. ‘Philo of Alexandria.’ In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume I. The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifried; pp. 357–379. WUNT 2/140. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2001.

248

Bibliography

Hays, R. 1989. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1989. --- 1993. ‘On the Rebound.’ In Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; pp. 70–96. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, vol 1. JSNTSup 83. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Hecht, R. 1987. ‘Philo and Messiah.’ In Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by J. Neusner, W. S. Green, and E. Frerichs; pp. 139–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Heil, J. P. 2001. ‘Christ, the Termination of the Law.’ CBQ 63 (2001) 484–498. Heinemann, I. 1932. Philo’s griechische und jüdische Bildung. Breslau: Verlag von M. & H. Marcus, 1932. Hellholm, D. 1980. Das Visionenbuch des Hermas als Apokalypse: Formgeschichtliche und texttheoretische Studien zu einer literarischen Gattung. Band I: Methodologische Vorüberlegungen und makrostrukturelle Textanalyse. ConBNT 13:1. Lund: Gleerup, 1980. --- 1993. ‘Amplificatio in the Macro-Structure of Romans.’ In Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. FS Wilhelm Wuellner. Edited by S. E. Porter and Th. H. Olbricht; pp. 123– 151. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. --- 1995a. ‘Enthymemic Argumentation in Paul: The Case of Romans 6.’ In Paul in His Hellenistic Context. Edited by T. Engberg-Pedersen; pp. 119–179. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995. --- 1995b. ‘Substitutionelle Gliederungsmerkmale und die Komposition des Matthäusevangeliums.’ In Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman. Edited by T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm;; pp. 11–76. Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Boston: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. Hengel, M. 1974. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2. vols. (Translated by J. Bowden from the German Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2.Jh.s v.Chr. published by J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen, 2 ed. 1973) London: SCM, 1974. --- 1989. The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod 1 until 70 A.D. (Translated by D. Smith from the German Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zur jüdischen Freiheitsbewegung

Bibliography

249

in der Zeit von Herodes I bis 70 n. Chr. published by Brill, Leiden, 2 ed. 1976) Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989. --- 1989. ‘Messianische Hoffnung und politischer ‘Radikalismus’ in der jüdischen Diaspora.’ In Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979. Edited by D. Hellholm. 2 ed.; pp. 655– 686. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. --- 1995. Studies in Christology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995. Hilgert, E. 1991. ‘A Review of Previous Research on Philo’s De Virtutibus.’ SBLSP 30 (1991) 103–115. Hofius, O. 1989. Paulusstudien. WUNT 51. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. --- 1990. ‘‘All Israel Will be Saved’: Divine Salvation and Israel’s Deliverance in Romans 9–11.’ Princeton Seminary Bulletin Supplements 1 (1990) 19–39. Hollander, H. W. 1981. Joseph as an Ethical Model in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. SVTP 6. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981. Holm-Nielsen, S. 1977. ‘Die Psalmen Salomos.’ In Poetische Schriften. Edited by W. G. Kümmel; pp. 49–112. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 4.2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1977. Hooker, M. D. 2003. ‘Christ: the ‘End’ of the Law.’ In Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen. Edited by D. E. Aune, T. Seland and J. H. Ulrichsen; pp. 126–146. NovTSup, vol. 106. Leiden, Boston: E. J. Brill, 2003. Horst, P. W. van der. 2003. Philo of Alexandria. Philo’s Flaccus. The First Pogrom: Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Pieter W. van der Horst. Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series. Volume 2. Leiden, Boston, Köln: E. J. Brill, 2003. Howard, G. E. 1969. ‘Christ the End of the Law: The Meaning of Romans 10:4ff.’ JBL 88 (1969) 331–337. Humphrey, E. M. 1999. ‘Why Bring the Word Down? The Rhetoric of Demonstration and Disclosure in Romans 9:30–10:21.’ In Romans and the people of God: essays in honor of Gordon D. Fee on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Edited by S. Söderlund and N. T. Wright; pp. 129–148. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.

250

Bibliography

Hübner, H. 1984. Gottes Ich und Israel: Zum Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Römer 9–11. FRLANT 136. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Hvalvik, R. 1990. ‘A ‘Sonderweg’ for Israel: A Critical Examination of a Current Interpretation of Romans 11.25–27.’ JSNT 38 (1990) 87–107. Jegher-Bucher, V. 1991. ‘Erwählung und Verwerfung im Römerbrief? Eine Untersuchung zu Röm 11,11–15.’ TZ 47 (1991) 326–336. Jeremias, J. 1967. Jesus’ Promise to the Nations. Rev. ed. (Translated by S. H. Hooke from the German Jesu Verheissung für die Völker by Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1956) SBT 24. London: SCM, 1967. Jervell, J. 1960. Imago Dei: Gen. 1,26f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen. FRLANT 76. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. --- 1971. ‘Die offenbarte und die verborgene Tora.’ ST 25 (1971) 90–108. --- 1972. Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972. --- 1973. Gud og hans fiender: Forsøk på å tolke Romerbrevet. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1973. Johanson, B. 1987. To All the Brethren: A Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to I Thessalonians. ConBNT 16. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987. Johnson, E. E. 1989. The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9–11. SBLDS 109. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989. Juel, D. 1988. Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. Kaiser, O. 1991. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1991. Kamlah, E. 1954. ‘Buchstabe und Geist.’ EvTh 14 (1954) 276–282. Käsemann, E. 1980. Commentary on Romans. (Translated by G. W. Bromiley from the German An die Römer published by J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1980) Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980. Kasher, A. 1985. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The struggle for equal Rights. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum; vol. 7. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1985. Kaylor, R. D. 1988. Paul’s Covenant Community: Jew and Gentile in Romans. Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1988.

Bibliography

251

Keck. L. E. 2005. Romans. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005. Klinghardt, M. 1988. Gesetz und Volk Gottes: Das lukanische Verständnis des Gesetzes nach Herkunft, Funktion und seinem Ort in der Geschichte des Urchristentums. WUNT 2/32. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1988. Koch, D.–A. 1986. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHT 69. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1986. Küng, H. 1991. Das Judentum: Die religiöse Situation der Zeit. München: Piper 1991. Lagrange, M.–J. 1950. Saint Paul: Épître aux Romains. 4. ed. Ebib. Paris: Gabalda, 1950. Lambrecht, J. 1999. ’The Caesura between Romans 9.30–3 and 10.1–4.’ NTS 45 (1999) 141–147. Lampe, P. 1987. Die stadtrömischen Christen in der ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte. WUNT 2/18. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1987. Lang, F. 1997. ‘Erwägungen zu Gesetz und Verheissung in Römer 10,4-13.’ In Jesus Christus als Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums. Edited by C. Landsmesser, H.–J. Eckstein, and H. Lichtenberger; pp. 579–602. BZNW 86. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Larsson, E. 1995. ‘The Resurrection of Jesus and the Rise of Christology.’ In Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman. Edited by T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm; pp. 623–647. Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Boston: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. Le Déaut, R. 1971. ‘Apropos a Definition of Midrash.’ IBC 25 (1971) 259–282. --- 1974. ‘Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation.’ BTB IV (1974) 243–289. Lietzmann, H. 1971. An die Römer. 5. ed. HNT 8. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1971. Lim, T. H. 1997. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Lindars, B. 1987. ‘Old Testament and Universalism in Paul.’ BJRL 69 (1987) 511– 527.

252

Bibliography

Lindemann, A. 1982. ‘Die Gerechtigkeit aus dem Gesetz.’ ZNW 73 (1982) 231– 250. Lohfink, N. 1994. Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the priestly narrative and Deuteronomy. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Longenecker, R. 1975. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975. Lorenzi, L. De. 1977. Die Israelfrage nach Röm 9–11 (herausgeben von Lorenzo De Lorenzi). Monographische Reihe von Benedictina, Biblisch-ökumenische Abteilung 3. Roma: Abtei von St Paul vor den Mauern, 1977. Lübking, H.–M. 1986. Paulus und Israel im Römerbrief: Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 9–11. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23.260. Bern, New York, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1986. Luz, U. 1968. Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus. BEvT 49. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968. Lyonnet, S. 1957. ‘Saint Saint Paul et l’ exégèse juive de son temps: A propos de Romains 10:6–8.’ In Mélanges Bibliques rédigés en l’honneur de André Robert. Travaux de l’Institut catholique de Paris; 4; pp. 494–506. Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1957. --- 1989. Études sur l’épître aux Romains. AnBib 120. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Instituo Biblico, 1989. Manson, T. W. 1945. ‘The Argument From Prophecy.’ JTS 46 (1945) 129–136. Martens, J. W. 2003. One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco–Roman Law. SPAMA, 2; Ancient Mediterranean and Medieval texts and Contexts. Boston, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003. McNamara, M. 1978. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. AnBib 27A. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Instituo Biblico 1978. Meeks, W. A. 1967. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. NovTSup 11. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967. Méndez–Moratalla, F. 2004. The Paradigm of Conversion in Luke. JSNTSup 252. London, New York: T & T Clark, 2004. Meyer, P. 1980. ‘Romans 10:4 and the ‘End’ of the Law.’ In The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman. Edited by J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sandmel; pp. 59–78. New York, NY: KTAV Publishing House, 1980.

Bibliography

253

Michel, A. 1987. ‘La métanoia chez Philon d’ Alexandrie: De Platon au Judéo– Christianisme en passant par Cicéron.’ Augustinus 32 (1987) 105– 120. Michel, O. 1972. Paulus und seine Bibel. BFTC 2/18. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972. --- 1978. Der Brief an die Römer. 5. ed. MeyerK 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Miller, M. P. 1971. ‘Targum, Midrash and the Use of the OT in the NT.’ JSJ 2 (1971) 29–82. Moe, O. 1932. Apostelen Paulus’s Brev til Romerne: Innledet og fortolket. Oslo: Aschehoug & Co., 1932. Moo, D. J. 1996. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. Moxnes, H. 1980. Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans. NovTSup 53. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980. --- 1988. ‘Honour and Righteousness in Romans.’ JSNT 32 (1988) 61–77. Munck, J. 1956. Christus und Israel: Eine Auslegung von Röm 9–11. Acta Jutlandica. Aarsskrift for Aarhus universitet XXVIII, 3. Teologisk Serie 7. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget; København: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1956. Murray, J. 1959. The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. 2. vols. NICNT. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott; Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959. Najman, H. 2003. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. JSJSup 77. Leiden, Boston: E. J. Brill, 2003. Nauck, W. 1957. Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes. WUNT 3. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1957. Neusner, J. 1984. Messiah in Context: Israel’s History and Destiny in Formative Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. --- 1987. What is Midrash? Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New Testament Series. Edited by D. O. Via. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Niehoff, M. R. 2001. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism; vol. 86. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2001.

254

Bibliography

Nissen, A. 1974. Gott und der Nächste im antiken Judentum: Untersuchungen zum Doppelgebot der Liebe. WUNT 15. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1974. Noack, C. 2000. Gottesbewußtsein: Exegetische Studien zur Soteriologie und Mystik bei Philo von Alexandria. WUNT 2/116. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2000. Nock, A. D. 1933. Conversion: The Old and New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933. Osnes, T. 1954. Fullkommenhetstanken i Det Nye Testamente: En studie over begrepet þƬĕďēęĜ. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co., 1954. Pate, C. Marvin. 2000. The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom and the Law. WUNT 2/114. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2000. Pike, D. M. 1996. ‘The Book of Numbers at Qumran: Texts and Context.’ In Current Research & Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30. April 1995. Edited by D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks; pp. 166–193. STDJ 20. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996. Plag, C. 1969. Israels Wege zum Heil: Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 9 bis 11. Arbeiten zur Theologie 1. 40. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1969. Pohlenz, M. 1948. Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung. 2. vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1948. Porter, S. E. 1997. ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology.’ In Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; pp. 79–96. JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997. Quesnel, M. 2003. ‘La figure de Moϊse en Romains 9–11.’ NTS 49 (2003) 321– 335. Rad, G. von 1966. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1966. Radermacher, L. 1925. Neutestamentliche Grammatik: Das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache. HNT 1. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1925. Räisänen, H. 1983. Paul and the Law. WUNT 29. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1983.

Bibliography

255

--- 1988. ‘Paul, God and Israel: Romans 9–11 in Recent Research.’ In The social World of formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in tribute to Howard Clark Kee. Edited by J. Neusner, et al.; pp. 178–192. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. --- 1995. ‘Romans 9–11 and the “History of Early Christian Religion”.’ In Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman. Edited by T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm; pp. 743–766. Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Boston: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. Reichert, A. 2001. Der Römerbrief als Gratwanderung: Eine Untersuchung zur Abfassungsproblematik. FRLANT 194. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2001. Rengstorf, K. H. 1978. ‘Das Ölbaum-Gleichnis in Röm 11, 16ff. Versuch einer weiterführender Deutung.’ In Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in honour of David Daube. Edited by C. K. Barrett, E. Bammel and W. D. Davies; pp. 127–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978. Repo, E. 1951. Der Begriff ’’Rhema’’ im Biblisch-Griechischen: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und semasiologische Untersuchung I: ’’Rhema’’ in der Septuaginta. Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ. Sarja - Ser. B Nide - Tom. 75,2. Helsinki: Druckerei - A. G. der Finnischen Literaturgesellschaft, 1951. --- 1959. ’’Rhema’’ im Neuen Testament: Unter Berücksichtigung seines Gebrauchs in der übrigen altchristlichen Literatur. Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ. Sarja - Ser. B Nide - Tom. 88,1. Helsinki: Druckerei - A. G. der Finnischen Literaturgesellschaft, 1959. Rese, M. 1989. ‘Israels Unwissen und Ungehorsam und die Verkündigung des Glaubens durch Paulus in Römer 10.’ In Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im frühen Christentum: Beiträge zur Verkündigung Jesu zum Kerygma der Kirche. Festschrift für Willi Marxsen zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by D.–A. Koch, G. Sellin, and A. Lindemann; pp. 252–266. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1989. Rhyne, C. T. 1981. Faith establishes the Law. SBLDS 55. Chigago, Cal.: Scholars Press, 1981. Riches, J. 1980. Jesus and Transformation of Judaism. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1980.

256

Bibliography

Riesner, R. 2000. ‘A Pre-Christian Jewish Mission?’ In The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. Edited by J. Ådna and H. Kvalbein; pp. 211–250. WUNT 127. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2000. Robinson, J. A. T. 1979. Wrestling with Romans. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1979. Runia, D. T. 1984. ‘The Structure of Philo’s allegorical treatises: a review of two recent studies and some additional comments.’ VC 38 (1984) 209– 256. --- 1986. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Philosophia Antiqua 44. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986. --- 1993. ‘Was Philo a Middle Platonist? A Difficult Question Revisited.’ SPhA 5(1993) 112–140. --- 2001. Philo of Alexandria. On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary by David T. Runia. Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series. Volume 1. Leiden, Boston, Köln: E. J. Brill, 2001. --- 2002. ‘Eudaimonism in Hellenistic–Jewish Literature.’ In Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism. Edited by J. L. Kugel; pp. 131–157. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, vol. 74. Leiden, Boston, Köln: E. J. Brill, 2002. Russell, D. S. 1964. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic 200 BC–AD 100. OTL. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964. Sanday, W. and A. C. Headlam 1945. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 5. ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1945. Sanders. E. P. 1977. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. London: SCM Press, 1977. --- 1983. Paul, the Law and the Jewish People. London: SCM Press 1983. --- 1985. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM Press, 1985. --- 1989. ‘The Genre of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypses.’ In Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979. Edited by D. Hellholm; pp. 456–458. 2 ed. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. --- 1996. ‘Paul’. In Early Christian thought in its Jewish context. Edited by J. Barclay and J. Sweet; pp. 112–129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1996.

Bibliography

257

Sandmel, S. 1962. ‘Parallelomania’. JBL 81 (1962) 1–13. --- 1979. Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. Sandnes, K. O. 1991. Paul – One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s Self-Understanding. WUNT 2/43. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1991. --- 1994. A New Family: Conversion and Ecclesiology in the Early Church With Cross-Cultural Comparisons. Studien zur interkulturelle Geschichte des Christentums, Bd. 91. Bern: Peter Lang, 1994. --- 2002. Belly and Body in the Pauline Epistles. SNTSMS 120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Saussure, F. de 1916. Cours de Linguistique Géneralé. Paris: Payot, 1916. Schäfer, P. 1974. ‘Die Torah der messianischen Zeit.’ ZNW 65 (1974) 27–42. Schlatter, A. 1918. ‘Herz und Gehirn im ersten Jahrhundert.’ In Studien zur systematischen Theologie. Edited by F. Traub; pp. 86–94. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1918. --- 1935. Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1935. Schlier, H. 1977. Der Römerbrief. Kommentar. HTKNT 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. Schmithals, W. 1975. Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem. SNT 9. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1975. Schnabel, E. J. 1985. Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A tradition historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. WUNT 2/16. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1985. Schneider, E. 1964. ‘Finis legis Christus.’ TZ 20 (1964) 410–422. Schoeps, H.–J. 1961. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. (Translated by H. Knight from the German Paulus: Die Theologie des Apostels im Lichte der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte published by J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1959) Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961. Schreiner, T. 1993. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1993. --- 1998. Romans. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998.

258

Bibliography

Schürer, E. 1973–1987. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135). Edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman. 3. vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–1987. Schweizer, E. 1982. ‘Paul’s Christology and Gnosticism.’ In Paul and Paulinism: Essays in honour of C. K. Barrett. Edited by M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson; pp. 115–123. London: S.P.C.K., 1982. Schwemer, A. M. 2000. ‘Himmlische Stadt und himmlisches Bürgerrecht bei Paulus (Gal 4,26 und Phil 3,20).’ In La Citéde Dieu. Die Stadt Gottes: 3. Symposium Strasbourg, Tübingen, Uppsala 19.–23. September 1998 in Tübingen. Edited by M. Hengel, S. Mittmann and A. M. Schwemer; pp. 195–243. WUNT 129. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2000. Schwitalla, J. 1977. ‘Über Formen des argumentativen Widerspruchs.’ In Theorie der Argumentation. Edited by M. Schecker; pp. 40–43. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 76. Tübingen: Narr, 1977. Scott, J. M. 1995. Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians. WUNT 84. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995. Seland, T. 1995. Establishment violence in Philo and Luke: A Study of non-Conformity to the Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions. Biblical Interpretation Series, vol. 15. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995. --- 2001. ‘ûƪěęēĔęĜĔċƯĚċěďĚưĎđĖęĜ: Proselyte Characterizations in 1 Peter?’ BBR 11.2 (2001) 239–268. --- 2002. ‘Saul of Tarsus and Early Zealotism: reading Gal 1,13-14 in light of Philo’s Writings.’ Biblica 83 (2002) 449–471. --- 2005. Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian identity in 1 Peter. Biblical Interpretation Series, vol. 76. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005. Sheppard, G. T. 1978. ‘Wisdom and Torah: The Interpretation of Deuteronomy Underlying Sirach 24:23.’ In Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honour of William Sanford LaSor. Edited by G. A. Tuttle; pp. 166–176. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978. Shum, S.–L. 2002. Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran Secterian Texts. WUNT 2/156. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2002. Siegert, F. 1985. Argumentation bei Paulus gezeigt an Röm 9–11. WUNT 34. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1985.

Bibliography

259

Smallwood, M. 1976. The Jews under Roman Rule: from Pompey to Diocletian. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, vol. 20. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976. Smolar, L. and M. Aberbach, 1968. ‘The Golden calf in Postbiblical Literature.’ HUCA 39 (1968) 91–116. Stanley, C. D. 1992. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. --- 2004. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York, NY/London: T. & T. Clark International, 2004. Steck, O. H. 1967. Israel und das Gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum. WMANT 23. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967. --- 1993. Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration »kanonischer« Überlieferung. FRLANT 160. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Stendahl, K. 1976. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. London: SCM Press;; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. Sterling, G. E. 1993. ‘Platonizing Moses: Philo and Middle Platonism.’ SPhA 5 (1993) 96–111. --- 2004. ‘The Place of Philo of Alexandria in the Study of Christian Origins.’ In Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. I. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo–Hellenisticum 1.-4. Mai 2003, Eisenach/Jena. Edited by R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr; pp. 21–52. WUNT 172. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2004. Stowers, S. 1994. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews & Gentiles. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994. Stuhlmacher, P. 1966. Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus. 2. rev. ed. FRLANT 87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. --- 1968. Das paulinische Evangelium: I. Vorgeschichte. FRLANT 95. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. --- 1978. ‘Das Gesetz als Thema biblischer Theologie.’ ZThK 75 (1978) 251–280. --- 1989. Der Brief an die Römer. NTD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989.

260

Bibliography

--- 2000. ‘Matt 28:16–20 and the Course of Mission in the Apostolic and Post– Apostolic Age.’ In The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. Edited by J. Ådna and H. Kvalbein; pp. 17–43. WUNT 127. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2000. Suggs, M. J. 1967. ‘The Word Is Near You: Romans 10:6–8 within the Purpose of the Letter.’ In Christian History and Interpretation: Studies presented to John Knox. Edited by W. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr; pp. 289–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Tcherikover, V. 1963. ‘The Decline of the Jewish Diaspora in Egypt in the Roman Period.’ JJS 14 (1963) 1–32. Thielman, F. 1989. From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans. NovTSup 61. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989. Thyen, H. 1955. Der Stil der jüdisch-hellenistischen Homilie. FRLANT 65. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. --- 1970. Studien zur Sündenvergebung im Neuen Testament und seinen alttestamentlichen und jüdischen Voraussetzungen. FRLANT 96. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Tobin, T. H. 1991. ‘Romans 10:4: Christ the Goal of the Law.’ SPhA 3 (1991), 272–280. --- 1993. ‘Was Philo a Middle Platonist? Some Suggestions.’ SPhA 5 (1993) 147– 150. Umemeto, N. 1994. ‘Juden, ‘Heiden’ und das Menschengeschlecht in der Sicht Philons von Alexandria.’ In Die Heiden. Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden. Edited by R. Feldmeier and U. Heckel; pp. 22–51. WUNT 70. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1994. Urbach, E. E. 1987. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987. Vermes, G. 1961. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. SPB 4. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961. Vanderkam, J. C. 1994. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994. Via, D. O. 1975. Kerygma and Comedy in the New Testament: A Structuralist Approach to Hermeneutic. Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1975.

Bibliography

261

Vielhauer, P. 1972. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter. De Gruyter Lehrbuch. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972. Völker, W. 1938. Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Frömmigkeit. TU 49.1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1938. Vollmer, H. 1895. Die Alttestamentlichen Citate bei Paulus textkritisch und biblisch–theologisch gewürdigt nebst einem Anhang über das Verhältnis des Apostels zu Philo. Freiburg, Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1895. Völzing, P.–L. 1979. Begründen, Erklären, Argumentieren: Modelle und Materialien zur einer Theorie der Metakommunikation. UTB 886. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1979. Volz, P. 1934. Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1934. Vos, J. S. 1992. ‘Die hermeneutische Antinomie bei Paulus (Galater 3,11–12; Römer 10,5–10).’ NTS 38 (1992) 254 –270. --- 2002. Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus: Studien zur antiken Rhetorik. WUNT 149. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2002. Wagner, J. Ross. 2002. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans. NovTSup 101. Leiden, Boston, Köln: E. J. Brill, 2002. Watson, F. 1986. Paul, Judaism and The Gentiles: A Sosiological Approach. SNTSMS 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. --- 2004. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London, New York: T & T Clark International, 2004. Wedderburn, A. J. M. 1988. The Reasons for Romans. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988. --- 1994. ‘Paul and ‘Biblical Theology’.’ In New Directions in Biblical Theology. Edited by S. Pedersen; pp. 24–46. NovTSup 76. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994. Wehr, L. 2006. ‘„Nahe ist dir das Wort“ – die paulinische Schriftinterpretation vor dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Parallelen am Beispiel von Röm 10,5–10.’ In Unterwegs mit Paulus: Otto Kuss zum 100. Geburtstag. Edited by J. Hainz für das Collegium Biblicum München e. V.; pp. 192–206. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 2006.

262

Bibliography

Weinfeld, M. 1991. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 5. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991. Wes, M. A. 1992. ‘Mourning becomes Jerusalem. Josephus, Jesus the Son of Ananias, and the Book of Baruch (1 Baruch).’ In Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honor of A.S. van der Woude. Edited by J. N. Bremmer and F. García Martínez; pp. 119–150. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, vol. 5. Kampen: KOK Pharos Publishing House, 1992. Westerholm, S. 1988. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988. Wifstrand, A. 1944. Tider och Stilar. Lund: Gleerup, 1944. Wevers, J. W. 1995. Notes on the Greek text of Deuteronomy. SBLSCS 39. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995. Wilckens, U. 1978–1982. Der Brief an die Römer. EKKNT VI/1–3. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978–1982. Windisch, H. 1914. ‘Die Die göttliche Weisheit der Juden und die paulinische Christologie’. In Neutestamentliche Studien: G.Heinrichi zu seinem 70. Geburtstag dargebracht. Edited by A. Deissmann and H. Windisch; pp. 220–234. UNT 6. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs Verlag, 1914. Winston, D. 1983. ‘The Philonic sage.’ Daat 11 (1983) 1–13. --- 1985. Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985. --- 1990. ‘Judaism and Hellenism: Hidden Tension in Philonic Thought.’ SPhA 2 (1990) 1–19. --- 1993. ‘Response to Runia and Sterling.’ SPhA 5 (1993) 141–146. Wolfson, H. A. 1947. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2. vols. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press, 1947. Wright, N. T. 1991. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. --- 1995. ‘Romans and the Theology of Paul.’ In Pauline Theology: Volume 3: Romans. Edited by D. Hay and E. E. Johnson; pp. 30–67. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1995.

Bibliography

263

Wuellner, W. 1977. ‘Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans.’ In The Romans Debate. Edited by K. P. Donfried; pp.152–174. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977. York, A. D. 1974. ‘The Dating of Targumic Literature.’ JSJ 5 (1974) 49–62. Zeller, D. 1985. Der Brief an die Römer. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, Regensburg 1985. --- 1990. Charis bei Philon und Paulus. SBS 142. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. Zimmerli, W. 1978. Old Testament Theology in Outline. (Translated by D. E. Green from the German Grundriss der alttestamentlichen Theologie by Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1972) Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978.

Index of Modern Authors Aageson, J. W. Aalen, S. Abasciano, B. Aberbach, M. Adler, M. Allison, D. Amir, Y. Aune, D. E. Austin, J. L. Avemarie, F. Baarda, T. Baasland, E. Badenas, R. Bailey, J. N. Balz, H. Bandstra, A. J. Barraclough, R. Barrett, C. K. Bauckham, R. Bechtler, S. R. Behm, J. Beker, J. C. Bekken, P. J. Bell, R. Berger, K. Bertram, G. Beyer, K. Birnbaum, E.

174 131 176 104 20, 80 209 122 123 25 189, 195 54 156, 205 4, 6, 13, 15, 159, 166, 169, 178 84 42 169 122, 128 4, 8, 156, 159, 166, 183, 200 129, 131 14, 159, 160, 164, 165, 166, 174, 198 84, 96 44 6, 16, 22, 177 37, 205 32, 91, 95, 105, 210, 211, 216 122 79 84, 85, 89, 91, 98, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 128, 136, 146, 147, 149, 150, 213

Black, M. Bläser, P. Boers, H. Borgen, P.

Bousset, W. Bréhier, E. Bring, R. Bruce, F. F. Bultmann, R. Burchard, C. Bussmann, C. Byrne, B. Carson, D. A. Chadwick, H. Chilton, B. D. Cohen, N. G.

Cohen. S. J. D. Collins, J. J. Colpe, C. Conley, T. M.

10 159 43 1, 8, 20, 22, 28, 32, 36, 60, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 79, 80, 89, 91, 93, 95, 96, 103, 105, 107, 108, 111, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, 139, 140, 144, 146, 149, 151, 158, 174, 183, 184, 185, 202, 211, 213, 217, 218 122 122, 131 169 166 50, 161 13, 16 185 8 53 1, 2, 3 17, 64, 202 29, 66, 92, 96, 97, 98, 139, 142, 144, 147, 150 87, 89, 108, 112, 150 123, 135 211 20

266 Conzelmann, H. Cranfield, C. E. B.

Index of Modern Authors

10 74, 159, 160, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 182, 183, 194, 196, 198, 199, 219 Cremer, H. 176 Dahl, N. A. 2, 20, 22, 44, 46, 47, 50, 89, 107, 108, 128, 131, 136, 140, 150, 151, 158, 181, 184, 195, 201 Daube, D. 70, 80 Davenport, G. L. 122 Davies, W. D. 70, 185, 195 Davis, C. J. 197 Delia, D. 90 Delling, G. 20, 107, 183, 215 Dillon, J. 139 Dodd, C. H. 8, 198 Donaldson, T. L. 192 Doty, W. G. 69 Dunn, J. D. G. 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 43, 47, 62, 63, 66, 68, 74, 139, 140, 152, 154, 155, 160, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 173, 176, 186, 192, 193, 196, 200 Eckstein, H.–J. 12, 13, 15, 16, 183, 187 Elliot, N. 8 Ellis, E. E. 53, 79, 194 Engberg-Pedersen, T. 22 Esler, P. F. 215 Evans, C. A. 8, 9, 53, 135 Fee, G. D. 66 Feldman, L. H. 98 Fiebig, P. 79

Fischer, U.

116, 117, 121, 123, 124, 130, 134, 136, 138, 139, 146, 147, 150, 216, 217 Fitzmyer, J. A. 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 54, 64, 69, 79, 166, 183, 189, 206, 219 Flückiger, F. 168 Frey, J. 123 Friedrich, G. 42 Fuglseth, K. S. 108, 145, 149 Gager, J. G. 90, 192 Garlington, D. B. 148 Gaster, M. 36 Gaugler, E. 8 Georgi, D. 18, 19, 83, 174, 175 Getty, M. A. 168 Goldberg, A. M. 10 Goodenough, E. R. 36, 93, 107, 122 Grabbe, L. L. 123, 134 Grosse, E. U. 27 Græsholt, G. 23 Gülich, E. 26 Guerra, A. J. 8 Gundry Volf, J. M. 158, 177, 206, 207 Haacker, K. 1, 2, 6, 22, 210, 215, 218 Hahn, F. 159 Hanson, A. T. 7, 8, 10 Hartman, L. 27, 28, 36, 42, 69, 122, 123, 132, 144, 156 Hay, D. M. 23, 123, 218 Hays, R. 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 37, 66, 169, 170, 173, 179, 187 Headlam, A. C. 4, 60, 200 Hecht, R. 116, 123, 124, 131, 133, 138 Heil, J. P. 166, 178

Index of Modern Authors

Heinemann, I. Hellholm, D.

116 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 38, 42 Hengel, M. 66, 96, 122, 135, 140, 143, 163, 204 Hilgert, E. 93 Hofius, O. 158, 174, 180, 182, 187, 189, 205, 206 Hollander, H. W. 100 Holm-Nielsen, S. 202 Hooker, M. D. 66, 160, 166, 182, 184 Horst, P. W. van der 90 Howard, G. E. 164, 166, 169 Hübner, H. 7, 54, 166 Humphrey, E. M. 166 Hvalvik, R. 219 Jegher-Bucher, V. 212 Jeremias, J. 192 Jervell, J. 129, 183, 200 Johanson, B. 25, 27 Johnson, E. E. 9, 66 Juel, D. 64 Käsemann, E. 7, 9, 10, 13, 46, 79, 159, 164, 167, 168, 182, 183, 197, 198, 214, 219 Kaiser, O. 131 Kamlah, E. 16 Kasher, A. 90 Kaylor, R. D. 8 Keck, L. E. 48, 64, 159, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 169, 170, 173, 178 Klinghardt, M. 163 Koch, D.–A. 5, 6, 7, 20, 54, 55, 60, 63, 67, 68, 69, 80, 157, 161, 206 Küng, H. 2 Lagrange, M.–J. 200 Lambrecht, J. 164

Lampe, P. Lang, F. Larsson, E. Le Déaut, R. Lietzmann, H. Lim, T. H. Lindars, B. Lindemann, A. Lohfink, N. Longenecker, R. Lübking, H.–M. Luz, U. Lyonnet, S. Manson, T. W. Martens, J. W. McNamara, M.

267

43 12, 13, 14, 15 202 5, 10, 70 7, 9, 44 7, 55, 80 174 165 119 60 44, 50 164, 168 5, 10, 68 62 128 5, 7, 10, 68, 79, 95 Meeks, W. A. 135 Méndez–Moratalla, F. 84 Meyer, P. 159 Michel, A. 84 Michel, O. 7, 13, 18, 46, 54, 79, 80, 159, 182 Miller, M. P. 10 Moe, O. 200 Moo, D. J. 183 Moxnes, H. 167, 181, 183 Munck, J. 44 Murray, J. 13, 14, 15 Nauck, W. 79 Neusner, J. 64, 135 Niehoff, M. R. 90, 108 Nissen, A. 102 Noack, C. 84 Nock, A. D. 84 Osnes, T. 102 Pate, C. 9, 66, 144, 149 Pike, D. M. 135 Plag, C. 46 Pohlenz, M. 143 Porter, S. E. 53

268 Quesnel, M. Rad, G. von Radermacher, L. Räisänen, H.

Index of Modern Authors

165 3, 4 160 2, 159, 164, 167, 168, 169, 195, 214 Raible, W. 26 Reichert, A. 78, 183, 190 Rengstorf, K. H. 215 Repo, E. 67, 94 Rhyne, C. T. 159, 166 Riches, J. 192 Riesner, R. 91, 135, 204 Robinson, J. A. T. 44 Runia, D. T. 20, 55, 91, 99, 128, 129, 139, 143 Russell, D. S. 123 Sanday, W. 4, 59, 200 Sanders. E. P. 14, 22, 109, 161, 164, 166, 167, 168, 173, 174, 176, 185, 189, 192, 202, 206, 217, 218 Sanders, J. A. 53 Sandmel, S. 93 Sandnes, K. O. 89, 91, 142, 200 Saussure, F. de 69, 77 Schäfer, P. 179 Schlatter, A. 18, 183 Schlier, H. 159, 182 Schmithals, W. 50 Schnabel, E. J. 66 Schneider, E. 166 Schoeps, H.–J. 105 Schreiner, T. 160, 165, 166, 183 Schürer, E. 116 Schweizer, E. 179 Schwemer, A. M. 123 Schwitalla, J. 27 Scott, J. M. 158, 187, 205, 206 Seland, T. 85, 163 Sheppard, G. T. 66

Shum, S.–L. Siegert, F. Smallwood, M. Smolar, L. Stanley, C. D.

194 168 90 104 20, 25, 43, 55, 63, 177 Steck, O. H. 149, 171 Stendahl, K. 44 Sterling, G. E. 84, 139 Stowers, S. 43, 46, 168 Stuhlmacher, P. 159, 185, 199, 203 Suggs, M. J. 9, 10, 13, 66 Tcherikover, V. 90 Thielman, F. 160 Thyen, H. 20, 80, 217 Tobin, T. H. 139, 166 Umemeto, N. 149 Urbach, E. E. 142 Vermes, G. 135 Vanderkam, J. C. 202 Via, D. O. 13, 15 Vielhauer, P. 44 Völker, W. 84, 97, 101, 102, 107, 140, 143 Völzing, P.–L. 27 Vollmer, H. 18 Volz, P. 122, 131 Vos, J. S. 80, 168 Wagner, J. Ross 3, 6, 8, 20, 37, 55, 64, 161, 169, 170, 177, 178, 187, 193, 194, 198, 199 Watson, F. 3, 20, 37, 149, 171, 187, 198 Wedderburn, A. J. M. 43, 190 Wehr, L. 6, 16, 22, 166, 172, 187 Weinfeld, M. 149 Westerholm, S. 188 Wevers, J. W. 67 Wifstrand, A. 50

Index of Modern Authors

Wilckens, U.

6, 7, 13, 159, 164, 168, 214, 216, 219 Williamson, H. G. M. 53 Windisch, H. 9, 66 Winston, D. 84, 97, 115, 139, 140, 141, 150 Wolfson, H. A. 21, 107, 122, 131 Wright, N. T. 164, 198, 219 Wuellner, W. 42 York, A. D. 10 Zeller, D. 202, 215, 218 Zimmerli, W. 188

269

Index of References 1. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 1:26 1:28 2:6 2:16 3:16 6:9 8:21 9:6 15:6 22:2 24:1 25:23 34 Exodus 19:5 20:23-23:33 23 23:22 23:25 23:28 32:26–28 Leviticus 5:7-12 18:4-5a 18:5

128, 151 128, 129, 130, 132 137, 151 78 140 129 103 96 103 100 105 98 211 163 117 36 36 117 117 133 104 84 188 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 17, 48, 51, 54, 60, 67 153, 154, 155, 157, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173,

19:34 26 26:3 26:6 26:7 26:8 26:22 26:28 Numbers 15:39 21:7f. 24:7 24:17 25 25:1-18 25:10-13 27 30 31:1-18 Deuteronomy 4:6-7 4:6-8 4:6 4:7 4:19

178, 180, 181, 182, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 209, 220, 221, 224, 225, 226, 227 102 36, 118, 132, 135 117 123, 130, 131, 132, 134, 137 117, 118, 135 133 217 207 96 104 133, 134, 135, 151, 201, 203 136 29, 217 134 163 29 29 134 40 149 40, 144, 147, 205 150 92

272 4:29 7:12 7:20 8:17 9:4 10:15 11:13 11:27 12-32 13:19 15:5 21:9 26:17-18 28 28:1 28:1-14 28:3 28:7 28:13 28:15-68 28:43 29:4 29:10 29:19 29:28 30:1 30:1–2 30:1–6 30:1-9 30:1-10 30:1-14 30:2 30:3-5 30:6 30:6–16 30:6-20 30:8 30:9 30:10 30:10-15 30:11

Index of References

117 117 133 48, 63, 178, 179 14, 63, 178, 179 109, 146 117 117 36 117 117 117 33, 34, 107, 109, 110 112, 175, 177 36, 118, 132, 135 117 3 117 117, 133 117, 136 3 207, 213 3 3 3 3 117 3 3 14 3, 4, 18, 187 3 117, 170 3 170 13 170 170 4 3, 4, 117, 179 18, 175 121, 139, 191

30:11-14

30:12 30:12-13

30:12-14

30:13

3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 83, 90, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 101, 112, 113, 115, 119, 120, 121, 122, 139, 140, 142, 146, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 171, 175, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 196, 204, 205, 207, 224, 226 65, 67, 68, 71, 179 4, 9, 10, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 72, 148, 171, 178, 179, 180, 205 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 60, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 77, 79, 80, 83, 84, 100, 112, 113, 115, 122, 138, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 206, 209, 212, 216, 219, 220, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228 48, 65, 67, 68, 71,

Index of References

30:14

30:15–20 30:16 32 32:6 32:19 32:20 32:21 32:28ff. 32:43 32–33

79, 178 5, 6, 35, 40, 41, 48, 50, 51, 61, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 81, 84, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 112, 113, 120, 139, 140, 141, 142, 151, 170, 175, 176, 180, 181, 183, 185, 186, 187, 190, 191, 197, 199, 200, 203, 206, 224, 225 4 117 36, 37, 187, 206 144, 206 206 206 50, 187, 205 144, 206 187 187

Joshua 23:14

144

1 Kings 3:14 9:4 11:38

117 117 117

2 Kings 21:8

117

Job 36:11 Psalms 18:5 92:13 118:22

Proverbs 2:1 Isaiah 2:2-4 8:14 10:22 11 11:6ff. 11:6-9 11:10 28:16 30:26 40:19f. 43:10 45:14-17 45:20-25 52:7 53:1 54:15 59:20 65:1-2 65:1 65:2

273

117 206 161 157 132, 202 130 131, 132, 137, 151 202 48, 161, 193, 194 131 131 206 206 206 49, 199 199 192 219 50 206 199, 206, 209

Jeremiah 11:16 17:24 38:33 47:16 51:4

215 117 96 94 94

Daniel 2:8 2:10 12:1-4 12:3

94 94 217 131

117 50, 198, 204 215 161

Hosea 1:9 2:1 2:23 14:6

157 157 157, 177 215

274

Index of References

Joel 3:5

16, 48, 197

Amos 3:7 9:12

94 192

Micah 4:1-3 4:1-8

206 206

Zechariah 6:15

117

2. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 9:6 30:5 31 Assumption of Moses 1 1:12 12 Baruch 1:15-3:8 2 2:34-35 3 3:1-8 3:9-4:4 3:12 3:14 3:15 3:20-22 3:29-30

3:30 3:31 3:36 3:36-4:4 3:37 4 4:1 4:1-4 4:2

104 123 217 36 129 36

171 26 3 36 3 65, 148, 171, 205 65 148 148 65 5, 8, 9, 54, 57, 61, 65, 67, 139, 148, 171, 205 65 65, 148, 205 148 171 65, 148, 205 36 10, 62, 65, 148 148 172, 205

4:4 4:5-5:9 4:36-5:9

205 171 217

2 Apocalypse of Baruch 14:17-19 129 15:7 129 21:24 129 23:4-5 209 27:6 123 29:5 123 32:2-4 218 48:9 144 48:40 127 51 131 51:5 217 72:1-6 192 73:6 123, 129, 132 84:1 144 84:2 216 85:4 217 1 Enoch 1-5 2:1 3:1 5:1 5:8-9 10:16 10:18ff. 10:21 26:1 38:4-6

36, 132 144 144 144 145 215 123 192 217 217

Index of References

45:4-5 46:4 53:2-7 62:6 62:9 80:2f. 84:6 90:28-29 90:28-36 91:12f. 91:14 93:2-10 93:5 93:8 99:5 99:15 100:6 101:8 101-104 103 103:7

131 217 217 136 136 123 215 218 217 217 184 215 216 216 123 123 144 144 132 36 144

4 Ezra 4:8 4:35-37 5:9 6:24 6:26 6:54-59 6.55-59 7:10ff. 7:20 7:37 9:13 11:45 12:31-33 13:49

179 209 123 123 136 129 137 129 127 144 129 217 217 217

Joseph and Asenath 11:4-6 12:7 13:11-12

88 88 86

16:7 Jubilees 1 1:16 7:34 8:19 16:26 19:21 19:27 21:24 22 22:11 22:13-14 23:4 23:13 23:18 23:19 23:23-24 26:23 30:5-20 32:19 36:6 39:4 Judith 14:10

275 99 36, 132 215 215 217 215 137 105 214 132 137 137 217 123 123 123 148 136 163 137 215 136 87

Letter of Aristeas 15:32 15:38f.

159 159

1 Maccabees 2:19-26 2:26 2:27 2:50 2.58 2:44 2:48 2:54 3:5-6 7:5

163 163 163 163 163 148 148 163 148 148

276

Index of References

9:23 11:25 14:14

148 148 148

2 Maccabees 2:18 4:2 4:11 6:12 6:23 8:17 13:14 15:9

159 163 90 217 90 90 90 159

4 Maccabees 3:20 8:7 17:9 18:10 18:12

90 90 90 159 159

Ps.-Philo 19:5

144

Psalms of Solomon 1:1 2:1-2 7:31-41 11 13:6-10 17:20 17:20f. 17:22-25 17:29-30 18:4

148 148 184 217 217 123 123 148 136 217

Sibylline Oracles 3 3:49 3:265ff. 3:564-570 3:620ff. 3:624-629

36 136 123 192 123 85

3:660 3:715-723 3:716-719 3:757-775 3:788-795 3:788ff. 5:249-252 5:250 5:414-416 5:420-427

123 192 136 192 132 123 218 217 136 218

Sirach 1:8 1:24 1:26 24:2-3 24:5 24:8-9 24:23 44:16 44:19-23 45:1 45:23-24

159 159 145 65 9 65 65 84 137 104 163

Testament of Benjamin 6:4 10:3-11 10:5

100 192 136

Testament of Dan 6:4

209

Testament of Gad 6:1

97

Testament of Joseph 10:4

97

Testament of Judah 23:3 24:6 25:5

123 136, 192 192

Index of References

Testament of Levi 2:10 2:11 4:3-4 14:4 18:1-9 18:3 18:9

217 136 136 127 136 192 192

Testament of Naphtali 3:1 3:4 4:2 4:3 8:3-4

144 144 123 144 192

Testament of Simeon 7:2

136

Testament of Zebulun 9:8

277

Tobit 13:6 13:8-18 13:16-17 13:11 14:5 14:5-7 14:6-7

148 217 218 192 218 217 192

Wisdom of Solomon 2:11 3:5 4:7ff. 6:18 9:4 9:9 12:22 13:2 18:4

159 217 84 145 145 145 217 86 127

136, 192

3. Philo De Abrahamo 1–6 17 21 24 31ff. 62 77 98 157 186 188 190 199 225 235 251 261

128 84 148 93 103 87 109 103, 109, 128, 149 99 100 149 100 148 133, 136 103 111 133

262 270 276 De Agricultura 44 88

100 100, 101 109 108 105, 108

De Cherubim 29 86 127

143 101 91

De Confusione Linguarum 57 106 141

163 127 121

278

Index of References

De Vita Contemplativa 11 29 79

143 111 111

De Decalogo 32 52–57 52–65 54–56 66 76–90 80 96 100 102 106–111 110 132

150 86 127 86 86 86 129 149 99 97 105 105 119

Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Solet 47–48 76 48 105 86 99 90 95 Quod Deus Immutabilis Sit 92 117–118 118 176

143 103 103, 143 138

De Ebrietate 20ff. 36 37 40 70 84 95 125

144 108 108, 136 80 80 102 80 80

In Flaccum 29 48 170 De Fuga et Inventione 42 49 59 150

148 145 149 145 73 73, 76 97

Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit 90 100 203 104 174 149 279 109, 216 Hypothetica 6:7

104

De Iosepho 42 230

121 97

Legum Allegoriae I, II, III 1:16 1:27 1:28 1:29 1:45 1:52 1:54 1:62 1:65 1:68 1:69 1:77 1:82 1:92 1:98 1:105 2:18 2:45

80 80 77, 78 140 80 80 140 80 140 95 129 80 158 80 80, 140 158 144 140

Index of References

2:55 2:62 2:77 2:91 2:92 3:11 3:16 3:20 3:28 3:45 3:46 3:52 3:55 3:65–75 3:75–88 3:77 3:88 3:95 3:105 3:126 3:142 3:143 3:145 3:153 3:154 3:162 3:162–168 3:163 3:169–174 3:176 3:187 3:203 3:230 3:232 3:242 3:244 Legatio ad Gaium 3 3–4 115–118 116–117

80 140 140 102 140 80 80 80 80 95 80 80 105 73 211 100 211 80 36 80 80 80 80 80 80 67 70, 73, 213 108, 136 72 80 149 102 80 80 80, 163 80 104, 109, 121, 149 109 110 149

178 191 194 201 240 346 347 373 De Migratione Abrahami 70 89 89–93 93 114 128 136

279 149 145 90 149 149 149 145 149 108, 136 73 120 119 120 104 143 143

De Vita Mosis I, II 1:4 149 1:7 85, 88, 149 1:25 144 1:29 97, 98, 141 1:49 145 1:71 149 1:147 104 1:149 104 1:155–157 203 1:157 127 1:158 109, 180 1:158–159 179 1:255 104 1:263 149 1:278 121, 148, 149 1:289 134 1:289–291 134, 135, 136, 137 1:290 201, 202 1:290–291 203 2:12–291 128 2:17 121 2:27 91 2:35 96

280 2:36 2:43–44 2:44 2:45ff. 2:48 2:52 2:52–65 2:66 2:67 2:72–75 2:130 2:135 2:138 2:140 2:150 2:170ff. 2:189 2:205 2:211 2:212 2:216 2:250 2:263 2:270ff. 2:271 2:288

Index of References

136 128, 184, 192 133, 136, 148 35 97, 116, 127, 141 116, 119, 127, 128 214 36 105 104 36 96, 97 145 119 97 96, 97 104 144 86 90 99 144 149 123 104 149 118, 134, 187

De Mutatione Nominum 108 113 182 191 233–241 235–238 236ff. 236–239 237 237–238 253–263

163 91 36 149 84, 95 85 19, 140 18, 175 95, 97 99 70, 73

De Opificio Mundi 3 77ff. 79 79ff. 79–81 79–82 81 83 83–84 84 128 144 172 De Plantatione 60 69 De Posteritate Caini 14 71 72 84 84ff. 84–85 84–88 85 88 89 93 96 138 141 150 167 168 182 183

127, 128 127 126, 127 126, 127, 128 130 137 129, 130 128, 130 128 129 91 99 99 146 36 73 100 100 101, 140 62 5 18, 19, 100, 101 175 95, 97, 141 97, 97, 98, 102 109, 121 109, 121 87 95 100 80 36 80 80 163

Index of References

De Praemiis et Poenis 1–3 35, 36, 126 1–6 36 4 36 7–78 36 11 101 17–21 84 24–27 103 27 103 30 99 48 11 58–60 208 79 37, 39, 41, 60, 98, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 132, 135, 138, 142, 144, 151, 171, 172, 188, 189, 203 79–82 40, 41, 115, 117, 122, 147, 155, 182, 188, 226 79–83 120 79–84 12 79–97 39, 41 79–98 21, 113, 187, 197 79–125 207 79–126 37, 39, 41, 123, 146 79–172 36, 37, 39, 187 79ff. 36, 117, 121, 127, 152, 187, 209, 216 80 6, 37, 40, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 67, 71, 72, 73, 79, 95, 120, 121, 139, 140, 171 80–81 18, 62, 67, 68, 74, 75, 76, 98, 140, 175 80–82 39, 119, 121, 151, 171

80–83 80–84 81

82 83

84 85–90 85–91 85–92 85–94 85–97

85–98 85–126 85ff. 86 87 87–90 88 88–89 88–125 89 89–90 89–91 91–97 93 93–95 93–97 94 94ff.

281 120 115, 138, 139 37, 40, 41, 78, 80, 97, 99, 120, 140, 143, 144, 145, 191 38, 41, 119, 120, 141, 142, 144 38, 40, 41, 121, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 154, 171, 205 38, 40, 41, 149, 150, 151, 197 123, 130, 132, 137, 138 137 151 124 37, 39, 40, 115, 117, 122, 123, 126, 137, 151, 155, 226 124, 203 37 117, 118, 129 125 125, 132, 151, 152, 192 131 125, 130 130, 131, 132 127 131 131, 132 125, 127 125 125, 132, 136 135 118, 134, 135, 136, 151 126, 133 133

282 95 95–97 96 97 98 98–107 100 101 106 107 108–117 110 110–111 112 118–126 119 120 120–125 122 123 123–125 125 126 126–161 127–161 127–162 127ff. 129 134ff. 137ff. 152 213, 214, 215 158–161 162 162–163 162f. 162ff. 163–172 166–167

Index of References

124, 133, 134, 135, 136, 152, 201, 202 203 126, 133 39, 126, 133, 134, 137, 151, 204 39, 119, 127, 130, 146 37 127 119 146 187 37 119 146 146 37 146 146 138 143 107, 109, 136 136, 149 146 207 214 37 123 196 123 123 85, 89, 207, 208, 138 159, 207, 216, 217, 217 219 217, 218 37 219

167 168 169–172 171 172 206

103, 218 123, 218 218 218 218 189

Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 23 29 55 67ff. 68 83 83–84 91 96 155

100 95 100 62 19, 95 105 105 101 97 97

Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim I, II, III, IV 1:1 1:6 1:94 2:62 4:4 4:7 4:84 4:110 4:98 4:144 4:145

158 143 158 158 99 97 97, 98 97 96 158 158

Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum I, II 1:5 1:10 2:20 2:42 2:51 2:64 2:65

96, 97 145 96, 97 128 143 158 158

Index of References

2:107

145

De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 48 62 86 119 120 De Somniis I, II 1:32 1:112 1:175 1:182 1:202 2:76 2:105–109 2:180 2:180ff. 2:191 2:302

87 80 67, 80 80 146

95 80 137 97 98 80 84 18, 19, 62, 79 95, 175 140 36 95

De Specialibus Legibus I, II, III, IV 1–4 144 1:13–31 86 1:15 91, 92 1:19–20 86 1:21 86 1:21–27 87 1:28–29 86 1:51 89, 105 1:51ff. 213 1:51–53 85, 102, 111 1:52 87, 88, 89 1:54 91 1:54–57 163 1:56–57 163 1:63 90 1:77f. 145 1:96–97 145 1:97 104, 145

1:138 1:167 1:168 1:187 1:191–193 1:200 1:208 1:215 1:235–236 1:235–238 1:241 1:249 1:277 1:300 1:303 1:309 1:314 1:319 2:1 2:18 2:29 2:38 2:45 2:52 2:62 2:73 2:129f. 2:130 2:157 2:162 2:162–167 2:166 2:166–167 2:167 2:171 2:188 2:190 2:256 2:257–259 3:1 3:40–42 3:51

283 97 95 145 85 144 95 123 95 85 85 148 119 144 119 109 86, 110, 111 90, 106 90 119 144 95 143 108 97 144 90 128 119 98 145 104 110, 149 145 145, 146 149 149 149 92 144 180 87 90

284 3:58 3:125 3:126 3:126ff. 3:137 3:150 4:10 4:55 4:88 4:100 4:100–131 4:102 4:105 4:120 4:131 4:133–134 4:134 4:135 4:136–238 4:137ff. 4:141 4:143 4:149 4:159 4:178 4:178–180 4:179 4:179–182 4:180 4:218 4:219 4:224 4:244 De Virtutibus 1 1–50 15 34 34–48 42

Index of References

95 92 104 104 128 119 90 90 100 90 142 142 90 90 128 29 142, 144 144 29 96 92 119 90 109, 121 86, 88 109 121, 149 110 104, 149 92 119, 121 121 149

47 51–174 75 102 102–104

144 29 92 149 117, 118, 134, 135, 137 149

183ff. 183–184

108 141 175 175–177 175–182 175–183 175–186

176 176ff. 177 178 178–179 179 180 180–182 181 182 183

118, 134 29 138, 187 88 85, 86, 89, 102 111 90 92 30, 89, 90, 91, 106, 108, 109 34, 92, 93, 185 30, 34, 83, 85, 87, 106, 112 107 21, 29, 30, 34, 90, 93, 101, 112, 204 31 91 31 31, 32, 92, 93 32, 34, 91 31, 85, 86, 91 32, 89, 91, 93, 144 35, 86, 90, 94 32, 91 85, 87, 91 6, 29, 32, 33, 34, 58, 60, 61, 62, 67, 68, 70, 74, 76, 77, 83, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 100, 103, 106, 139, 213 141 15, 18, 19, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 83, 90, 92, 93, 94, 96, 98, 112, 153, 154, 175 185, 223, 226

Index of References

183–186 184

184–186 185 185–186 186 187–197 187–227 198–210 206

30, 92, 112, 212 30, 33, 94, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 109, 112, 175 107, 110, 112 108, 109, 111, 196 34, 35, 107, 108 34, 110, 136, 149 210 29 208 189, 211, 215

206–210 207–209 208–210 209 211–227 212 214 217 218 219 220 221

285 211 208 211 211 208 86, 87 86, 87, 92, 93 102, 137 133, 137 86, 87, 89, 104 86, 88, 104 110

4. Josephus Antiquitates Iudaicae 3:84 3:96 4:7 4:14–44 4:125 5:98 10:208–210 11:169 12:271 15:281

90 180 201 217 118 90 201 217 163 90

De Bello Judaico 1:169 1:178 2:229 5:381 7:162

90 90 159 104 159

Contra Apionem 1:189 2:123 2:209–210 2:210

90 89 89 89, 111

5. Dead Sea Scrolls 1 QH 14:14

163

1QpHab 12:1-3 12:2ff

80 7

1QM 13-14

217

1 QS 2 4:4 9:23 8:4-5 11:8

36 163 163 215 215

1QSb 5:20-29

202

286

Index of References

4QFlor frg. 1, 1:11

80

4Q161

80

4Q285 frg. 5, 2-4

202

4QMMT C 12-16 C 13-14 C 14 C 16 C 20

3 118 2 3 118

4Q462 frg. 1, 11

105

4Q491 frg. 11, 1:12-19

179

4Q539 frg. 2, 2

105

CD 1:7 1:11f. 1:13 2:2ff. 4:1 7:14ff. 7:15 10:16 16:15

215 144 79 144 80 7 79 79 79

6. New Testament Matthew 5:47 7:26 10:16 23:2ff. 28:16-20 28:18-19

148 119 132 91 203 203

Luke 1:51 6:33 10:3

96 148 132

John 3:13 6 6:31ff. 6:31–33 6:31–58 6:31 6:35 6:36 6:38

179 8 66, 73 74, 75 67, 70 66 66 77 72

10:34 12:24 15:25

158 158 158

Acts 2:21 3:15 3:19–20 4:10 9:14 10:34–35 13:30 13:35 15:7 15:9 15:9–11 20:29 22:3 22:16 26:20 26:18 27:22

197 74 209 74 197 196 74 202 183 86 196 132 162 197 93 91 212

Index of References

Romans 1–11 1–8 1:1–5 1:2 1:3–5 1:4–5 1:5 1:13 1:16 1:16–17

1:17 1:17–8:39 1:18–3:10f. 1:18–8:39 2 2:9ff. 2:13 2:15 2:17 2:21–27 2:25 2:27 2:28 2:29 3–4 3:1 3:1–8 3:9 3:10–18 3:19–22 3:20 3:21 3:21–22 3:21–26 3:21–30 3:21–31 3:22 3:24

43 44 42, 203 173 202, 203 203 42, 205 47 43 14, 42, 43, 163, 167, 172, 174, 189, 194 163 46 42 42 181, 188, 189 43 119, 180, 188, 189 189 189, 215 159 188 188 215 13 174 44 44 43 158 173 42, 162, 172 159 167, 172, 173, 181, 194 194 194 43, 164, 180 167, 194 194

3:26 3:27 3:27–28 3:27–30 3:27–31 3:28 3:29–30 3:29f. 3:30 3:31 4 4:1–25 4:3 4:3–22 4:9f. 4:13 4:14 4:16 4:24 5:1–21 5:1–8:39 6:1–7:6 6:1–14 6:15–23 7 7:1 7:1–16 7:4 7:7–25 7:12 7:14 7:22 7:25 7:25–8:18 8:2–3 8:4 8:11 8:12 8:19–29 8:19ff. 8:28 8:30

287 163 159, 181 173 195 181 195 195 43 195, 204 173, 181 14, 173, 174 43 60 73 43 137 180 180 74 43 43 43 43 43 173 47 43 47, 74 43 173 173 173 173 43 43 173 74 47 43 43 177 177

288 9–11

9 9:1–3 9:1–5 9:1–33 9:4 9:5 9:6 9:6–7 9:6–13 9:6–29 9:6–33 9:7–9 9:7–13 9:7–26 9:10–13 9:11–12 9:12 9:13 9:14–20 9:16 9:21–29 9:22–29 9:24 9:24–26 9:24–29 9:24–30 9:24–33 9:24ff. 9:25 9:29 9:30 9:30–32 9:30–33

9:30–10:3 9:30–10:4

Index of References

2, 17, 20, 43, 44, 46, 174, 187, 210, 218 206, 209, 211, 216 44, 162 44 44 219 192, 196 44, 158, 176, 210 176, 210 44, 176, 210, 211, 213 46, 176, 210 173, 216 176 210, 211 177 176, 210 211 176, 210, 211 177 44 219 44 44 157, 177 177, 212 157 176 174 211 177 44 158, 159, 161, 162, 166, 168, 169 158, 162, 165, 168 44, 46, 157, 162, 164, 169, 177, 206, 220, 221, 228 166 157, 164, 167, 172

9:30–10:5 9:30–10:8 9:30–10:10 9:30–10:13 9:30–10:21

9:30ff. 9:31

9:31–32 9:32 9:32–33 9:33 10 10:1 10:1–3 10:1–4 10:1–5 10:1–10 10:1–17 10:1–21 10:2 10:2–3 10:2–4 10:3 10:3–4 10:4

12, 154, 157, 165, 172, 225, 227 181, 182 10, 153, 187 184, 189, 198, 220 2, 3, 9, 15, 17, 21, 44, 152, 154, 189, 198, 209, 216, 219, 220, 221, 223, 227, 228 46, 157, 165, 227 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 173, 181, 190, 200, 220 44, 165, 180, 189, 190, 220, 227 160, 161, 165, 168, 169, 170, 192 160, 211, 212 161, 168, 169, 193 194 18, 44, 46, 174, 177, 198 44, 46, 47, 51, 162, 192, 221, 228 44, 47, 48, 50, 51, 162, 201 47 162 18, 26 206 44, 45, 51, 73, 162 47, 51, 162, 163, 166, 177, 190, 206 190 170, 225 47, 51, 162, 163, 164, 167, 169, 178 167 47, 48, 50, 51,

Index of References

10:4–5 10:4–6 10:4–10

10:4–13 10:4–17

10:5

10:5–6 10:5–8 10:5–10 10:5–13 10:5–17 10:6

10:6–7

10:6–8

10:6–10

64, 153, 154, 160, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 186, 191, 192, 193, 194, 198, 199, 200, 201, 221, 224, 228 160, 168, 184, 190, 220, 227 168 18, 66, 112, 113, 157, 166, 169, 170, 173, 181, 196 44, 49, 50, 115, 152, 184, 199 19, 45, 50, 51, 70, 83, 153, 162, 162, 220, 227 48, 51, 60, 153, 157, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 172, 188, 189, 190, 192, 220, 224, 225, 227 12, 167, 168, 181, 186, 188 10 14, 157, 165, 169, 174, 182, 190, 209 12, 47, 51, 221 166 5, 48, 59, 60, 71, 72, 166, 168, 178, 227 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 72, 139, 178, 179, 180, 220, 227 5, 6, 7, 8, 48, 51, 54, 56, 60, 64, 67, 72, 73, 80, 81, 170, 187, 224, 225 8, 9, 15, 19, 51, 69, 122, 153,

10:6–13 10:6–17 10:6ff. 10:7 10:7–8 10:8

10:8–9 10:8–10

10:8–13 10:8–17 10:9

10:9–10 10:9–13 10:10 10:11 10:11–12 10:11–13

10:12 10:12–13

289 162, 166, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 178, 186, 187, 190, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 221, 226, 228 49, 50 61, 62, 63, 70 9, 64, 224, 227 5, 48, 63, 71, 79, 178 79, 178 5, 18, 48, 49, 50, 60, 67, 70, 81, 175, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 191, 199, 200, 204, 206, 220, 224, 227 77, 81, 183, 224 67, 68, 73, 76, 81, 206, 221, 224, 228 49, 51, 203 49, 51, 70, 73, 81, 185, 224 48, 74, 78, 81, 179, 183, 184, 186, 190, 191, 224 51, 71, 76, 95, 176, 183, 187, 228 48, 184 48, 74, 76, 78, 95, 96, 189 48, 184, 193, 194, 195 220, 227 16, 51, 154, 192, 193, 197, 198, 199, 204, 220, 225, 227, 228 48, 184, 192, 194, 195, 196, 198 177, 184, 197, 198,

290

10:13 10:14 10:14–15 10:14–16 10:14–17

Index of References

220, 227 48, 197, 198, 199 49, 50, 198, 199, 200 49, 199, 209 51 49, 50, 51, 185, 196, 198

10:14–21 198, 199, 201 10:15 199, 200, 203 10:16

10:17

10:18 10:18–21 10:19 10:19–21 10:20 10:21 11 11:1–10 11:2 11:4 11:6 11:11 11:11–16 11:12 11:13 11:15 11:17 11:17–24 11:17ff. 11:18

44, 49, 50, 199, 200, 209, 216, 228 49, 50, 51, 67, 71, 72, 73, 81, 182, 200, 201, 206, 220, 224, 227 50, 198, 204 51, 204, 228 50, 187, 205, 206 50, 205, 206 174, 178 50, 199 44, 206, 209, 216, 218 44, 158 60, 211 60 14, 174 169, 192, 212 45 192, 212 203 212 43, 215 45, 204, 213, 214, 215, 216, 228 214 43, 215

11:19–20 11:22 11:25 11:25–31 11:25–33 11:25ff. 11:26 11:28 11:29 11:30 12–15 12:1 13:8–10 15 15:5 15:10 15:10–11 15:12 15:14 15:18 15:27 15:30 16 16:17

215 45 47, 205 43 45 45 219 117, 219 219 212 43 47 173 187 44 187 205 201, 212 47 205 192 47 44 47

1 Corinthians 1:2 1:17ff. 2:1ff. 8:6 9:8 9:19–23 10:4 12:3 14:21 14:34 15:11 15:12 15.20

197 187 187 74 158 185 66 74, 186 158 158 186 74, 186 74

2 Corinthians 3:6ff.

66, 197

Index of References

4:5 5:14–21 6:16 6:18 8:3

186 187 158 158 47

Galatians 1:1 1:14 1:16 1:17 1:21 2–3 2:8 2:15 2:16–21 3:1–2 3:1–5 3:2 3:5 3:8 3:8–14 3:10–12 3:10–13 3:12 3:17 3:28 4:8f. 4:21 4:30 5:3 5:6 6:13

74 163 203 203 203 14, 174 203 148 162 183 183, 184 182, 183 182, 183 173, 205 192 162 188 180 188 196 86 158 60 188 183, 184 188

Ephesians 1:20 2:11–22

74 196

Philippians 2:10–11 2:11 3:6

203 74 163

Colossians 1:15–20 2:6 2:12 4:13

291

66 74 74 47

1 Thessalonians 1:9 4:14 5:24

86 186 177

2 Thessalonians 2:14

177

2 Timothy 2:22

197

Hebrews 7:16 8:10 10:16

159 96 96

James 1:22–25 2:23

119 104

1 Peter 1:17 2:6 2:6–8 4:3–4

197 161 161 86

2 Peter 3:11–12

209

292

Index of References

7. Rabbinic Literature Leviticus Rabba

Mishnah

36:4

Avot

5:14

129

119 Numeri Rabba

12:11

Sotah

9:15

180

123 Deuteronomium Rabba

8:6 8:9

Talmud Yerushalmi Berakhot

2:5

68 179

142 Ecclesiastes Rabba

1:16

Talmud Bavli

95, 96

Avodah Zarah

2b

127

Canticum Rabba

129 129

Sifre Leviticus

129

Sifre Deuteronomium

Rosh HaShanah

10b 11a

1:63 5:11 26:6

91 129 123, 132

Sanhedrin

98b Temurah

16a

11:17 48:85a

140 129

179 Tanhuma B

Lekh-Lekha 6:32a

Yevamot

63a

105

214 Fragmentary Targum

Menahot

53b

215

Yoma

85

Mekilta on Exodus

72 105

Exodus Rabba

25

1:3 11:6

144 132

Targum Neofiti

Midrashim 19:7 19:20 22:21

54 179

Targum Isaiah

Tosephta 4:9

Deut 30:11-14 Deut 30:12

73

Deut 30:11-14 Deut 30:12 Deut 30:12-13 Deut 30:12-14 Deut 30:14

9 68 5 5, 10, 68 95

293

Index of References

Targum Onqelos

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

Gen 8:21 Lev 18:5 Num 15:39 Deut 29:18

96 189 96 95

Deut 29:3

144

8. Christian Authors Barnabas 6:18-19 16:8

1:49 129 86

Dialogus cum Tryphone

11:4 11:30 83:4 91:3

Clement of Alexandria Stromateis

6.154.4

86

143

86 86 86 86

Justin Martyr Apologia

1:14 1:25

86 86

9. Greek and Latin Authors Alcinous

Diogenes Laertius

Didaskalikos

2.2, 153.5-7

Vita Philosophorum

143

Aristotle

102

Epictetos

Ethica Nicomachea

II, 1:1103b1-7 III, 1:1110b22–23 V, 2:1130b23-25 VI, 7:1141a8-21 X, 9:1179b32

7:87 Dissertationes

143 84 143 143 143

Cicero

I, 24:6 I, 30:2 II, 1:35 II, 9:15 III, 23:19

100 100 100 100 100

Plato

De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum

5:23 5:66

Leges

100 100

De Officiis

I, XLIII 153

144

I, 631a I, 631c I, 688b

143 143 143

294

Index of References

Plutarchos

108:114 114:1

Moralia

12 E/F 19 C 26 D 27 A 36 A/B 36 E 204 A 227 E 443 E/F 551 D 712 C

80 80 93 93 80 100 93 100 143 93 93

Naturales Quaestiones

3 2:527 2:1003 2:1041 2:1152-1167 3:16 3:29 3:30 3:47 3:53 3:58 3:284 3:369 3:548 3:658

Tabula

84, 93

Seneca Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales

20:2 24:19 52:8 75:4 108:36

97, 145 97 97 97 97

84

Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta

Pseudo-Cebes 10:4-11:2

97 140

129 100 129 129 100 100 100 100 144 144 144 129 84 129

Tacitus Historiae

5:5

88