Understanding Texts in Early Judaism: Studies on Biblical, Qumranic, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature in Memory of Géza Xeravits 3110768364, 9783110768367

Table of contents :
Preface: In memoriam Géza G. Xeravits (1971–2019)
Contents
Part 1: Old Testament and Early Judaism
“From the Heavens, From the Earth”
Different Texts and Different Interpretations of “Exile”
Effaced and Naturalized Modes of Jewish Reading: The Judah and Tamar Story (Genesis 38), the Book of Jubilees, and Robert Alter
Part 2: Qumran
The Two Spirits and the Origin of Evil
Reading Instruction as a Sectarian Composition
Thoughts on the Way towards “Prolegomena” to an Introduction to the Writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Levi, Levites and Worship in Qumran
Children Confined in the House of Darkness
Part 3: Deuterocanonica
“Narrate omnia mirabilia eius” (Tob 12:20 Vg)
The Rhetorical Function of Burying the Dead in the Book of Tobit
Das Wortfeld „Sterben“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch
The Topic of Intercession in Second Temple Judaism
What’s in a Name?
Des Menschen Wohltat und Gottes Wohlwollen
“Better”–Proverbs in the Book of Ben Sira
“When the Lord created his works from the beginning” (Sir 16:26a)
“Pillars of Gold on Plinths of Silver. . .” (Sir 26:18)
Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing
The Enigma of the Judges in Ben Sira 46: 11–12
Bethesda in Sirach 50 revised
Is Wisdom in Baruch 3:9–4:4 Combined with Torah?
Part 4: Cognate Literature
Good and Bad Angels in the Vitae Prophetarum
“All Is Vanity, Saith the Preacher”
Part 5: Antique Synagogue
An Evolutionary Perspective on Temple, Synagogue, and Ekklēsia with Special Focus on Paul
Bibliography of Géza G. Xeravits
List of Contributors
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Sources
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Understanding Texts in Early Judaism

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies

Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Kristin De Troyer, Beate Ego und Tobias Nicklas

Volume 48

Understanding Texts in Early Judaism Studies on Biblical, Qumranic, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature in Memory of Géza Xeravits Edited by József Zsengellér

ISBN 978-3-11-076836-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-076853-4 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-076856-5 ISSN 1865-1666 Library of Congress Control Number: 2021948240 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.dnb.de. © 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Géza György Xeravits (1971–2019)

Preface: In memoriam Géza G. Xeravits (1971–2019) It is always a trauma to lose a family member or a close friend, but if it is by way of a dramatic disease, it is a tragedy. Géza was only 48 years old; he leaves behind four kids (Ábris 20; Sára 18; Döme 15; Rézi 11) and a wife (Kriszta). To be con­ soled we need to remember. Remember the good days, the time we spent together, the good deeds he did, and for a scholarly community, especially his scholarly legacy. In this volume 25 colleagues and friends have gathered to express our honor, love, and thanks for the life of Géza Xeravits who would be 50 in this year. We remember him as a colleague, scholar, and friend. As a colleague: Géza Xeravits’s career began after his graduation from the Pázmány Péter Catholic University Budapest (1996); he was a lecturer at the Saint Athanas College of the Greek Catholic Church in Nyíregyháza, where he worked for two years. After three years of scholarships in Leuven and Groningen (1999– 2002), he started to work at the Reformed Theological College at Pápa as an assis­ tant professor. During his seven years of teaching he defended his PhD thesis in Groningen (2002) and made a habilitation (2008). He was a beloved and popular teacher among the students, and he had an ability to identify those with talent. He became professor in Pápa in 2008. From 2009 he was professor and chair of Biblical Studies at the Sapientia College of Theology of Religious Orders in Buda­ pest. Between 2015 and 2018 he taught at the Theological Faculty of the János Selye University of Komarno (Slovakia). In his last year (2019), he was employed as research professor at the Theological Faculty of the Károli Gáspár Reformed University Budapest. As a scholar: Géza Xeravits published his first book in 1995 on the conti­ nuous pesharim from Qumran while still in his graduate studies. He founded a Hungarian journal for Biblical Studies in Nyíregyháza (Studia Biblica Athanasi­ ana), which he edited until his death. His interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls was continuous and resulted in his PhD dissertation on the eschatological protag­ onists of the Yahad community and further in several articles, an introductory monograph, and an edited book. In Old Testament literature his favorites were the books of Isaiah, Daniel, and Psalms. He wrote several articles about them and an exegetical monograph about the pilgrim psalms. During his years in Pápa his interest turned to the deuterocanonical literature, and he published ten volumes of the proceedings of the international conferences on this literature in Pápa and Budapest (some of them with collaboration of the present author). He founded a monograph series on Deuterocanonica with five published books. He also wrote a monograph on the Book of Baruch. At the Sapientia in Budapest, he started a monograph series of the chair of Biblical Studies, which numbered twelve books during his time. In his last years he concentrated on the interpretation of the https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-202

VIII 

 Preface: In memoriam Géza G. Xeravits (1971–2019)

iconographic decorations of the Jewish synagogues in Antiquity and published several articles on the topic. Altogether he published 3 English, 1 German and 14 Hungarian books, 15 English and 10 Hungarian volumes as editor or co­editor, and 40 English, (French and German) and 73 Hungarian articles in books and journals (see his bibliography in this book). In his writings he concentrated pri­ marily on the texts and the topics themselves, and the discussion of the second­ ary literature was only secondary for him. Géza organized a series of ten international conferences on deuterocanonical literature concentrating first on individual books and later on different common characteristics and themes. From 2010 he was the vice president of the Society of Hungarian Hebraists. His scholarly work was acknowledged with the József Schweitzer award in 2019. As a friend: Géza was very open. After the first meeting with him, one felt as if he were an old friend. He enthusiastically discussed all personal, religious, cultural, political, or scholarly topics with others. He not only wanted to share his own ideas with his friends and conversation partners, but he was really interested in how the others thought about the world. On the other hand, he was very extroverted and wanted to involve his friends in the knowledge he had of a very wide range of topics, from the culinary and wine specialties of different regions in Hungary to the cultural particularities of the Armenian or the Dutch people. His style of storytell­ ing was entertaining and enlightening, and he had a great sense of humor. The less hair he had over the years, the greater his beard grew. Some of these characteristics were mentioned by some of the contributors of the present volume. Twenty four papers of twenty five colleagues commemorate Géza Xeravits in this volume, but several other colleagues expressed their emotions and good memories of him, even if they could not deliver a paper. Just to mention some of them: Stefan Schorch, Eibert Tigchelaar, Michael Duggan, Nicholas Allen, Stefan Reif, Renate Egger­Wenzel, Marcus Witte, Eugen Ulrich, Sidnie White Crawford, Oda Wischmeyer, Marko Martilla, Ulrike Mittmann, George Brooke, Kristin de Troyer, Candido Don Dionisio. Hungarian colleagues will commemorate him with a Hungarian volume. In his short life Géza Xeravits was a fruitful scholar, he, however, could not show all the truth as the angel Raguel in the book of Tobit does, but he always tried to “reveal with due honor the works of God” (Tob 2:11).1 Although we are sad that he is not with us anymore, according to our belief, all of the works and secrets of God are already revealed to him for eternity. József Zsengellér

1 This citate from the Book of Tobit was the working title of the present volume.

Contents Preface: In memoriam Géza G. Xeravits (1971–2019) 

 VII

Part 1: Old Testament and Early Judaism Thomas Hieke “From the Heavens, From the Earth”: Structure and Messages of Psalm 148  Stefan Beyerle Different Texts and Different Interpretations of “Exile” 

 3

 29

Matthew Goff Effaced and Naturalized Modes of Jewish Reading: The Judah and Tamar Story (Genesis 38), the Book of Jubilees, and Robert Alter   45

Part 2: Qumran John J. Collins The Two Spirits and the Origin of Evil 

 63

John Kampen Reading Instruction as a Sectarian Composition 

 75

Peter Porzig Thoughts on the Way towards “Prolegomena” to an Introduction to the Writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Reflections on the Categorization and Nomenclature of the Dead Sea Scrolls    93 Balázs Tamási Levi, Levites and Worship in Qumran 

 107

Réka Esztári Children Confined in the House of Darkness: An Akkadian Incantation Ritual of the Stillborn   119

X 

 

Contents

Part 3: Deuterocanonica Beate Ego and Lucas Brum Teixeira “Narrate omnia mirabilia eius” (Tob 12:20 Vg): Jerome’s Vulgate Version of Tobit as a Wundergeschichte   153 Francis M. Macatangay The Rhetorical Function of Burying the Dead in the Book of Tobit  Tobias Nicklas Das Wortfeld „Sterben“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch 

 161

 177

Maria Brutti The Topic of Intercession in Second Temple Judaism: Between 2 Maccabees and 4 Ezra   189 Benjamin G. Wright What’s in a Name?: The Book of Ben Sira and Its Paratexts 

 207

Friedrich V. Reiterer Des Menschen Wohltat und Gottes Wohlwollen: Aspekte der Anthropologie und Theologie Ben Siras   223 Pancratius C. Beentjes “Better”–Proverbs in the Book of Ben Sira: Typology, Position, Topics, and Distribution over the Book   241 Angelo Passaro “When the Lord Created His Works from the Beginning” (Sir 16:26a): Study of Sir 16:26–17:14   255 Nuria Calduch-Benages “Pillars of Gold on Plinths of Silver. . .” (Sir 26:18): Female Body Imagery in Ben Sira   265 Severino Bussino Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

 283

Jeremy Corley The Enigma of the Judges in Ben Sira 46: 11–12 

 315

Contents 

Otto Mulder Bethesda in Sirach 50 Revised 

 335

JiSeong James Kwon Is Wisdom in Baruch 3:9–4:4 Combined with Torah? 

 351

Part 4: Cognate literature József Zsengellér Good and Bad Angels in the Vitae Prophetarum 

 371

Karin Schöpflin “All Is Vanity, Saith the Preacher”: A Psalm-like Poetical Abstract of Qohelet in Lord Byron’s Hebrew Melodies   389

Part 5: Antique Synagogue Anders Klostergaard Petersen An Evolutionary Perspective on Temple, Synagogue, and Ekklēsia with Special Focus on Paul: A Dialogue with Géza Xeravits (and several other colleagues)   401 Bibliography of Geza G. Xeravits  List of Contributors 

 441

Index of Modern Authors  Index of Sources  Index of Subjects 

 451  477

 443

 433

 XI

Part 1: Old Testament and Early Judaism

Thomas Hieke

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” Structure and Messages of Psalm 148

Abstract: This paper demonstrates that the poetic beauty of Psalm 148 becomes an ethical challenge when confronted with our contemporary problems. It uses a reader­oriented and text­centered methodology in order to describe the struc­ ture and content of this biblical text, its individual features and its typical traits shared with other texts, its context within the Psalter as well as within the Hebrew and the Greek Bible, and the messages that emerge from the process of this ana­ lytical reading. The imperative calls for praise in Psalm 148 thus become in the present time calls for respect for creation, for the entire cosmos and the ecological balance, which human beings are threatening to an unprecedented extent. Keywords: Psalm 148, psalms, Hallel, praise of God, today’s reading

1 Introduction This contribution on Psalm 1481 was composed during the global Coronavirus pandemic, which brings about so much death, suffering, and restrictions of social contacts, as well as during the ongoing climate crisis that threatens life all over the planet; it is dedicated to a friend and colleague who passed away all too early, dear Géza Xeravits, due to a horrible disease. At first sight, there seems to be no reason for praise. Weeping and lament might be more adequate instead of an exegesis of a haləlû yāh psalm of praise. Why then, for heaven’s sake, another study on Psalm 148? Why meditate on a psalm that calls the whole of creation to praise in a uniquely dense manner? The answer is simple: Because Psalm 148 changes our viewpoint, lifts our hope, challenges our way of living, and calls us to a new future. Read under today’s conditions, Psalm 148 becomes much more than a simple yet beautiful song of praise: It becomes an ethical challenge. From a personal perspective, I have come to know Géza as a person who abounded with joy over the gifts of creation: The love for his family, good food, flavorful wine, feasting with friends after hard work examining God’s living word. Surely there were days in which praise of God was natural and appropriate. Let 1 I am very grateful to Dr. Andrew Bowden for his assistance in preparing the English version of the paper. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-001

4 

 Thomas Hieke

us remember those days when meditating on Psalm 148. But let us also remember that all the hardships are not yet all finished. As believers, we share our common hope that God granted us the creation as a cosmos for a good life, and that God will lead all creation and all of us to completion in the days to come. As scholars, we scrutinize God’s word and uncover reasons why our hope is not in vain. At the same time, however, we also discover new perspectives as well as fresh aspects and messages in God’s word that speak today. Let me share with you my thoughts about praising YHWH with Psalm 148 in the face of the crises of our days, espe­ cially the climate crisis.2 In this paper, I intend to demonstrate the poetic beauty of Psalm 148, which in turn becomes an ethical challenge when confronted with our contemporary problems. I will use a reader­oriented and text­centered methodology3 in order to describe the structure and content of this biblical text, its individual features and its typical traits shared with other texts, its context within the Psalter as well as within the Hebrew and the Greek Bible, and the messages that emerge from the process of this analytical reading. Psalm 148 contains several references to other texts, thus creating an intertextual network. “References,” in this contri­ bution, however, denote text­text­relations that can be observed on the level of the reader; these relations are not necessarily intended by an author or editor. Likewise, the messages that Psalm 148 conveys from this analysis are certainly not entirely intended by the historical (human) author(s) of this text. If we limit a text’s message to the mere content its author packed in it, we could dismiss a biblical text like Psalm 148 as a poem of the past, a pleasant artefact within a glass showcase, but without relevance for the complexities of the current day. This is not the way believers received the biblical texts; they rather have seen and still see in them the word of the living God. Christian theologians and exe­ getes must reflect this process of reading in a scholarly manner in order to find valuable impulses for the problems of our time. The following analysis of Psalm 148 intends to demonstrate how the beauty of an old text (roughly two and a half millennia) challenges the contemporary way of living.

2 As late as 2014, Estes, Creation Theology, 30, laments that Psalm 148 has appeared less fre­ quently in discussions of nature or creation psalms. I share his opinion that this Psalm has much to contribute to a biblical theology of the created world. 3 The textbook on methods of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament exegesis that I wrote together with Benedict Schöning (Hieke / Schöning, Einführung) explains my approach.

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” 

 5

2 The Text (Hebrew, Transcription, Translation, Coherence) 2.1 Text and Versions 2.1.1 The Masoretic Text and Its Transcription ‫ַ ֥ה ְללּו ָ֨יּה׀‬ ‫ן־ה ָש ַ ֑מיִ ם‬ ַ ‫ת־י֭הוָ ה ִמ‬ ְ ‫ַ ֽה ְל ֣לּו ֶא‬ ‫רֹומים׃‬ ֽ ִ ‫ַ ֝ ֽה ְל ֗לּוהּו ַב ְמ‬ ‫ל־צ ָבאֹו׃‬ ְ ‫ל־מ ְל ָא ָכ֑יו ַ ֝ ֽה ְל ֗לּוהּו ָכ‬ ַ ‫ַ ֽה ְל ֥לּוהּו ָכ‬ ‫ֹוכ ֵבי ֽאֹור׃‬ ְ ‫ל־כ‬ ֥ ‫ׁש ֶמׁש וְ יָ ֵ ֑ר ַח ַ֝ה ְל ֗לּוהּו ָכ‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ַ ֽ֭ה ְללּוהּו‬ ‫ַ ֽ֭ה ְללּוהּו ְׁש ֵ ֣מי ַה ָש ָ ֑מיִ ם‬ ‫וְ ַ֝ה ַ֗מיִ ם ֲא ֶ ׁ֤שר׀ ֵמ ֬ ַעל ַה ָש ָ ֽמיִ ם׃‬ ‫הו֑ה ִ ֤כי ֭הּוא ִצָּו֣ה וְ נִ ְב ָ ֽראּו׃‬ ָ ְ‫ת־ׁשם י‬ ֣ ֵ ‫יְ ֽ ַ ֽ֭֭ה ְללּו ֶא‬ ‫ק־נ ַ֗תן‬ ָ֝ ‫עֹול֑ם ָח‬ ָ ‫וַ יַ ֲע ִמ ֵיד֣ם ָל ַע֣ד ְל‬ ‫וְ ֣ל ֹא יַ ֲע ֽבֹור׃‬ ‫ן־ה ָ ֑א ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ת־י֭הוָ ה ִמ‬ ְ ‫ַ ֽה ְל ֣לּו ֶא‬ ‫ל־תה ֹֽמֹות׃‬ ְ ‫ַ֝תנִ ִ֗ינים וְ ָכ‬ ‫יטֹור‬ ֑ ‫ׁש ֶלג וְ ִק‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ֵ ֣אׁש ּו ָ֭ב ָרד‬ ‫֥ר ַּוח ְ֝ס ָע ָ ֗רה ע ָ ֹ֥שה ְד ָב ֽרֹו׃‬ ‫ל־א ָר ִ ֽזים׃‬ ֲ ‫ֶה ָה ִ ֥רים וְ ָכל־גְ ָב ֑עֹות ֵ ֥עץ ְ֝פ ִ ֗רי וְ ָכ‬ ‫ל־ב ֵה ָ ֑מה ֶ ֝֗ר ֶמש וְ ִצ ֥פֹור ָכ ָנֽ֭ף׃‬ ְ ‫ַ ֽה ַח ָי֥ה וְ ָכ‬ ‫ל־ל ֻא ִ ֑מים‬ ְ ‫י־א ֶרץ וְ ָכ‬ ֶ֭ ‫ַמ ְל ֵכ‬ ‫֝ ָש ִ ֗רים וְ ָכל־ ׁ֥ש ֹ ְפ ֵטי ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬ ‫תּולֹות ְ ֝ז ֵק ִ֗נים ִעם־נְ ָע ִ ֽרים׃‬ ֑ ‫ם־ב‬ ְ ַ‫חּורים וְ ג‬ ֥ ִ ‫ַב‬ ‫הוה ִ ֽכי־נִ ְש ָג֣ב ְׁש ֣מ ֹֹו‬ ֗ ָ ְ‫ת־ׁשם י‬ ֵ֬ ‫יְ ַה ְל ֤לּו׀ ֶא‬ ‫ל־א ֶרץ וְ ָׁש ָ ֽמיִ ם׃‬ ֥ ֶ ‫ֹודו ַע‬ ֗ ‫ְל ַב ּ֑דֹו ֝ה‬ ‫ידיו‬ ֗ ָ ‫ל־ח ִס‬ ֲ ‫וַ ָי֤ ֶ֭רם ֶ ֨ק ֶרן׀ ְל ַע ֡מֹו ְת ִה ָל֤ה ְ ֽל ָכ‬ ‫ם־קר ֹ֗בֹו‬ ְ ‫ִל ְב ֵנ֣י ִי ְ֭ש ָר ֵאל ַ ֽע‬ ‫לּו־יּֽה׃‬ ָ ‫ַ ֽה ְל‬

 1

 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14

  1  haləlû yāh haləlû ʾet-YHWH min-haššāmayim haləlûhû bammərômîm   2  haləlûhû kol-malʾākāyw haləlûhû kāl-ṣəbāʾô   3  haləlûhû šemeš wəyārēaḥ hallûhû kol-kôkəbê ʾôr   4  haləlûhû šəmê haššāmāyim wəhammayim ʾăšer mēʿal haššāmāyim   5  yəhaləlû ʾet-šēm YHWH kî hûʾ ṣiwwâ wənibrāʾû   6  wayyaʿămîdēm lāʿad ləʿôlām ḥoq-nātan wəlōʾ yaʿăbôr   7  haləlû ʾet-YHWH min-hāʾāreṣ tannînîm wəkol-təhōmôt   8  ʾēš ûbārod šeleg wəqîṭôr rûaḥ səʿārâ ʿōśâ dəbārô   9  hehārîm wəkol-gəbāʿôt ʿēṣ pərî wəkol-ʾărāzîm 10 haḥayyâ wəkol-bəhēmâ remeś wəṣippôr kānāp 11 malkê-ʾereṣ wəkol-ləʾummîm śārîm wəkol-šōpəṭê ʾāreṣ 12 baḥûrîm wəgam-bətûlôt zəqēnîm ʿim-nəʿārîm 13 yəhaləlû ʾet-šēm YHWH kî-niśgāb šəmô ləbaddô hôdô ʿal-ʾereṣ wəšāmāyim 14 wayyārem qeren ləʿammô təhillâ ləkol-ḥăsîdāyw libnê yiśrāʾēl ʿam-qərōbô haləlû-yāh

2.1.2 Notes on the Hebrew Text and an English Translation Ps 148:1, 14: The framing haləlû-yāh in v. 1 and v. 14 is not a necessary part of the psalm and perhaps arises from editorial activity. The initial haləlû-yāh is missing in the manuscript 11QPsa (11Q5), and there is no final haləlû-yāh in the Septua­ gint and the Peshitta.4 However, due to the general character of this expression of

4 See, e.g., Hillers, Psalm 148, 325.

6 

 Thomas Hieke

praise, it makes little difference whether one regards the framing imperative as an original part of the psalm or as an editorial addition. Ps 148:1: The manuscript 11QPsa omits the nota objecti ʾet and assimilates the preposition min to the following word, thus reading mšmym.5 Ps 148:2: The Qere suggests reading the (unusual) plural (ṣbʾy-w) at the end of the line (see the versions). The Ketib reading as singular is to be preferred.6 Ps 148:3: The LXX renders the “shining stars” – a construct chain also witnessed in 11QPsa – by an enumeration: πάντα τὰ ἄστρα καὶ τὸ φῶς. This places the light as the first work of creation prominently at the end of the line and thus creates an intertextual connection with Genesis 1. Ps 148:4: 11QPsa reads at the end of the verse mʿl lšmym. Ps 148:5: The LXX aligns this verse with the similar wording in Ps 33[32]:9 and thus adds αὐτὸς εἶπεν, καὶ ἐγενήθησαν after ὅτι αὐτός.7 11QPsa reads the impera­ tive hllw, “praise,” instead of the jussive yhllw, “let them praise.” The pendant in Ps 148:13 is unfortunately missing in the scroll fragment.8 Ps 148:8: The rare Hebrew term qîṭôr literally means “smoke, fog” (see Gen 19:28; Ps 119:83). The parallel with “snow” and the LXX rendering leads several translations to render it with “frost” (see NRSV; NAB chooses “thick clouds”). Ps 148:14: The consonants of the first verb are wyrm, an ambiguous form which can be vocalized in different ways. The Masoretic vocalization reads a waw­im­ perative (wayyārem), while the LXX reads a future tense (i.e., a wəyiqtol form: wəyārēm): καὶ ὑψώσει. The time period in which YHWH intervened (or: will inter­ vene) for his people is dependent upon one’s interpretation of the consonantal text: Did it already happen in the past, which the Psalm remembers (thus MT), or is it a promise for the future (as the LXX puts it)? Ps 148:14: The final haləlû-yāh is not represented in the LXX.

5 A brief examination of the attestation of Psalm 148 (more precisely: Psalm 148:1–12) in the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially 11QPsa, is provided by Brodersen, End, 152–153. She concludes: “In summary, in 11QPsa Psalm 148 follows Ps 146 and may have preceded Ps 120 (not preserved) and the preserved Ps 121. There is no opening Hallelujah, the end of Ps 148 is not preserved. There are small differences in wording and orthography.” 6 See the brief discussion by Brodersen, End, 144. 7 Hillers, Psalm 148, 325, opts to restore this colon in the MT, but he offers no compelling rea­ sons. The MT can be retained here, see below. 8 See, e.g., Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 255.

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” 

 7

The following English translation uses the NRSV in an emended and adapted way: 1 a Praise YHWH! b Praise YHWH from the heavens; c praise him in the heights! 2 a/aV1 Praise him, all his angels;9 b/bV2 praise him, all his host! 3 a/aV3 Praise him, sun and moon; b/bV4 praise him, all you shining stars! 4 a/aV5 Praise him, you highest heavens, aV6 and you waters above the heavens! 5 a Let them praise the name of YHWH, b for he commanded c and they were created. 6 a He established them forever and ever; b he set an order c that will never change. 7 8

9 10 11 12 13

14

a aV1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 a b c a b c

Praise YHWH from the earth, you sea monsters and all deeps, fire and hail, snow and fog, stormy wind fulfilling his command! Mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars! Wild animals and all cattle, creeping things and flying birds! Kings of the earth and all peoples, princes and all rulers of the earth! Young men and women alike, old and young together! Let them praise the name of YHWH, for his name alone is exalted; his glory is above earth and heaven. He has raised up a horn for his people, praise for all his faithful, for the people of Israel who are close to him. Praise YHWH!

9 “V” stands for vocative.

8 

 Thomas Hieke

Notes on the translation: In Ps 148:6, the NRSV translates, “he fixed their bounds, which cannot be passed.” This translation implies that the law (ḥōq) refers directly to the entities mentioned before, that is, the highest heavens, the waters above, etc. The elements of the cosmos received their eternal law from YHWH, which cannot be changed. This interpretation fits the context very well, but the Hebrew text does not state explicitly to whom the law refers (the pronoun in “their bonds” is not in the biblical text). Hence, the version of the NAB (“[he] set an order that will never change”) is closer to the Hebrew text. This observation has consequences for the inner coherence and unity of the text (see below). The NRSV offers in a footnote on Ps 148:6 the verbatim translation: “he set a law that cannot pass away.”10 The syntax and semantics of Ps 148:14b are not clear.11 (1) The term təhillâ can be interpreted as an additional accusative object, that is, as a parallel to “horn.” Then it would mean something like “renown”; in other words, YHWH’s interven­ tion would provide honor and respect for the previously despised and mocked Israel. However, təhillâ usually, and especially in the Final Hallel of the Psalter, designates the praise that Israel sings for YHWH. (2) Hence, it is more appropri­ ate to understand v. 14b as a nominal clause commenting on v. 14a, that is, the empowerment with which YHWH strengthened Israel (“he has raised up a horn”) is the reason for or the content of the praise that Israel sings for YHWH: “And he has raised up a horn for his people: (reason for) praise for all his faithful . . ..” The rendering of təhillâ with ὕμνος by the Septuagint (LXX; see below) corroborates this reading: The Greek nominal clause is to be read as an explanation or conse­ quence of v. 14a (like in the MT).12

10 See also Zenger, Psalm 148, 630: “‫חק‬, ‘law, order, ordinance,’ here means first of all the cosmic order, but – above all in the context of the Final Hallel – it also connotes the Torah (Ps 147:19; cf. Pss 146:7; 149:9).” See also Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 282. 11 For the following see Zenger, Psalm 148, 630. For a detailed discussion, see Brüning, Psalm 148, 4–6; see also Schmutzer / Gauthier, Identity, 172–174. 12 Cf. Zenger, Psalm 148, 640; see also Brodersen, End, 148; Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hym­ nen, 255–256; Schmutzer / Gauthier, Identity, 177–179.

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” 

 9

2.1.3 The Greek Text (Septuagint) and Its English Translation Psalm 148 (LXX)

Psalm 148 (NETS adapted)

Αλληλουια· Αγγαιου καὶ Ζαχαριου. Αἰνεῖτε τὸν κύριον ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, αἰνεῖτε αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις. 2 αἰνεῖτε αὐτόν, πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ· αἰνεῖτε αὐτόν, πᾶσαι αἱ δυνάμεις αὐτοῦ. 3 αἰνεῖτε αὐτόν, ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη· αἰνεῖτε αὐτόν, πάντα τὰ ἄστρα καὶ τὸ φῶς. 4 αἰνεῖτε αὐτόν, οἱ οὐρανοὶ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑπεράνω τῶν οὐρανῶν. 5 αἰνεσάτωσαν τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου, ὅτι αὐτὸς εἶπεν, καὶ ἐγενήθησαν, αὐτὸς ἐνετείλατο, καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν. 6 ἔστησεν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος·πρόσταγμα ἔθετο, καὶ οὐ παρελεύσεται. 7 αἰνεῖτε τὸν κύριον ἐκ τῆς γῆς, δράκοντες καὶ πᾶσαι ἄβυσσοι· 8 πῦρ, χάλαζα, χιών, κρύσταλλος, πνεῦμα καταιγίδος, τὰ ποιοῦντα τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ· 9 τὰ ὄρη καὶ πάντες οἱ βουνοί, ξύλα καρποφόρα καὶ πᾶσαι κέδροι· 10 τὰ θηρία καὶ πάντα τὰ κτήνη, ἑρπετὰ καὶ πετεινὰ πτερωτά· 11 βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντες λαοί, ἄρχοντες καὶ πάντες κριταὶ γῆς· 12 νεανίσκοι καὶ παρθένοι, πρεσβῦται μετὰ νεωτέρων· 13 αἰνεσάτωσαν τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου, ὅτι ὑψώθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ μόνου· ἡ ἐξομολόγησις αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ οὐρανοῦ. 14 καὶ ὑψώσει κέρας λαοῦ αὐτοῦ· ὕμνος πᾶσι τοῖς ὁσίοις αὐτοῦ, τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ, λαῷ ἐγγίζοντι αὐτῷ.

1 Hallelouia. [Of Haggaios and Zacharias] Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the highest heights! 2 Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his hosts! 3 Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all the stars and the light! 4 Praise him, you heavens of heavens and you water above the heavens! 5 Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he spoke, and they came to be; he commanded, and they were created. 6 He established them forever and forever and ever; an ordinance he issued, and it will not pass away. 7 Praise the Lord from the earth, you dragons and all deeps, 8 fire, hail, snow, ice, tempest blast, those things that do his word! 9 The mountains and all the hills, fruit trees and all cedars! 10 The wild animals and all the cattle, creeping things and winged birds! 11 Kings of the earth and all peoples, rulers and all judges of earth! 12 Young men and unmarried women, old with young! 13 Let them praise the name of the Lord, because the name of him alone was exalted; acknowledgement of him is in earth and sky. 14 He will exalt his people’s horn; a hymn belongs to all his devout, the sons of Israel, a people drawing near to him.

1

The Septuagint (LXX) version13 shows some differences from the Hebrew text; a few of these differences can be interpreted as deliberate changes in order to strengthen intertextual relationships with other texts.14 13 Brodersen, End, 154–170, provides a close examination of the Septuagint version of Psalm 148. She concludes that the DSS and the LXX version of Psalm 148 are very close to the MT ver­ sion, “though LXX stresses universalism and future” (p. 170). 14 On the following passage see, e.g., Zenger, Psalm 148, 640.

10 

 Thomas Hieke

The LXX enlarges the psalm’s heading by adding “Of Haggaios and Zacharias,” thus suggesting that the writings of these prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, have some relationship with this psalm and also Psalms 145(146), 146(147:1–11), and 147(147:12– 20), where they are also mentioned.15 There are indeed some thematic relationships and linguistic parallels between these psalms and the writings of Haggai and Zecha­ riah.16 Regarding Psalm 148, the most likely connection to Zechariah “may be found in the idea expressed by the Psalmist that all kings on earth, all nations and all rulers in the world shall praise God (v. 11). This ideal state is expressed in the message of Zechariah, ‘Yea, many peoples and mighty nations shall come to seek the Lord of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to entreat the favor of the Lord’ (Zech 8:21).”17 Ps 148:3 LXX adds after sun, moon, and stars as a fourth entity the light itself (thus dissolving the construct chain in the Hebrew text: “stars of light,” “shining stars”). Whether or not this change or interpretation is deliberate, it nevertheless creates a closer relationship with Genesis 1, where the light is created as an entity of its own and before the sun, the moon, and the stars. Ps 148:5 LXX is enlarged with material from Ps 32(33):9 LXX. The addition disturbs the structure; however, it gains a closer intertextual relationship with Psalm 32(33).18 The chart illustrates the process: Ps 148:5 Hebrew Text (NRSV)

Ps 148:5 LXX (NETS)

Ps 32:8–9 LXX (NETS)

Let them praise the name of YHWH,

Let them praise the name of the Lord,

for he commanded and they were created.

for he spoke, and they came to be; he commanded, and they were created.

Let all the earth fear the Lord, and due to him let all the inhabitants of the world be shaken, because he it was that spoke, and they came to be; he it was that commanded, and they were created.

Psalm 148 shares with Psalm 32(33) the notion of the interconnectedness of cre­ ation with God’s election of Israel: While the entire creation came to be through the word of God, it is Israel who has a special relationship with God the creator; see, for example, Ps 32(33):12 LXX: “Happy is the nation of whom the Lord is God, a people he chose as a heritage for himself” (NETS). Ps 148:6 LXX renders the superlative of eternity (lāʿad ləʿôlām, see below) by making use of a long formula repeating the term αἰῶνα three times: εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 15 For the discussion about these assignments see, e.g., Brodersen, End, 17. 16 See Slomovic, Historical Titles, 362–364. 17 Slomovic, Historical Titles, 364. 18 Cf. Zenger, Psalm 148, 640.

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” 

 11

καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος. There is a tendency in LXX psalms to translate the Hebrew lā-ʿad with εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος, and this probably leads to the accumula­ tion of three occurrences of αἰῶνα. Similar renderings occur, for example, in Exod 15:18; Ps 9:6; 9:37(10:16); 20(21):5; 44(45):18; 47(48):15; 51(52):10, etc. Ps 148:8 LXX renders the rare Hebrew term qîṭôr, lit. “smoke, fog,” with the term κρύσταλλος, probably taken from Ps 147:6 LXX (147:17), where this word translates the Hebrew qeraḥ, “frost, ice, hail.” The closeness of the preceding passage, the similarity of the Hebrew consonants, and the semantic equivalent to “snow” might have led to this replacement, which several modern translations tend to adopt. Again, the LXX strengthens the intertextual connection between Psalms 147 and 148 by employing the same (rare!) term κρύσταλλος. In Ps 148:14 LXX, the Septuagint shifts the “rising of the horn” for Israel to the future, rendering the Hebrew narrative form (waw­imperative) wayyārem with the Greek future ὑψώσει (see above). Hence, while the Hebrew text probably remembers a particular historical situation, for example, the deliverance of the people of Israel from the exile in Babylon, the Septuagint awakens an eschatological expectation.

2.2 Coherence The overall thrust of Psalm 148 focuses on the cosmos as a whole. The two halves refer to entities in heaven (vv. 1–6) and on earth (vv. 7–13). Up to v. 13, Psalm 148* has a global and an international perspective, including humanity in its entirety. The focus on Israel in v. 14ab does not fit into this pattern. If “Israel” was the primary focus of the original psalm, the people of God would have been mentioned among the groups of human beings in vv. 11–12.19 Hence, it is probable that v. 14 is a second­ ary addition.20 If, however, the last verse of Psalm 148 is an editorial enhancement,

19 See Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 299. 20 On the scholarly discussion, see, e.g., Zenger, Psalm 148, 634–635. Zenger concludes that v. 14 stands in tension with the preceding body of the psalm: “Although v. 14, as a concluding coda, establishes a clearly thematic accent, it remains very indeterminate in relation to the course of the psalm and in its own semantics. The ‘riddle’ of v. 14 is resolved if one regards the verse not only as a redactional transition to Psalm 149 (cf. v. 1), but as an element intended to integrate Ps 148:1–13 within the overall concept of Psalms 146–150” (p. 635). See also Zenger, Aller Atem, 576, n. 34. Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 261–263; 283–284, strongly opts with good reasons for a secondary addition of v. 6 and v. 14. For a different opinion, see Brüning, Psalm 148, 3–4, who insists on the originality of v. 14 with reference to Sir 51:12o (Hebrew only). However, the points C. Brüning makes in favor of the originality of v. 14 can cut both ways and hence are not compelling reasons. Ruppert, Aufforderung, 277–278, connects v. 14a with v. 13 and identifies this combi­ nation as the original end of Psalm 148*, while v. 14bc forms a secondary (editorial) colophon.

12 

 Thomas Hieke

this addition to the second half of Psalm 148* would require a similar addition to the first half; otherwise, the well­balanced pairing of “from the heavens – from the earth” would be disturbed. On the basis of this assumption, it is probable that the same editor who added the “Israel” notion in v. 14ab created a counterweight in v. 6bc: “he [YHWH] set an order that will never change.” This wording is a very skillful elaboration, as the reader can understand “order” (Hebrew ḥōq without pronoun) in two ways: First, in a vertical reading following the flow of the text, ḥōq refers to the heavenly entities mentioned above: sun, moon, stars, heavens, waters above the heavens. YHWH provided an order for them according to which they function for centuries and millennia. Second, in a horizontal reading, v. 6bc appears as the counterweight to v. 14ab (see the analysis of the psalm’s structure below), that is, ḥōq refers to Israel and thus appears as a synonym to the tôrâ that YHWH gave to Israel. In other words, if an editor wanted to add the focus on Israel in v. 14ab, this editor had to create a counterweight in the first half. For this counterweight, the editor has chosen a wording that perfectly fits the immediate context (vv. 1–5) as well as the “Israel” supplement (v. 14ab). To confirm this, one can read Psalm 148:1–5, 7–13, 14c as a unity (abbreviated notation: Psalm 148*). Hence, the psalm developed in two stages: a Grundschrift (Psalm 148*) with a global perspective, and a supplement (Psalm 148:6ab, 14ab) with a focus on Israel and its tôrâ = ḥōq. However, if one does not adopt this speculative reconstruction of the psalm’s origin, one can at least read the psalm in two ways: either with a focus on the entire cosmos, in which Israel takes on a special role, or with a focus on Israel as the apex of the praise of creation.21

3 The Structure 3.1 The Basic Structure At first sight, Psalm 148 in its final form (Masoretic text) reveals two structural characteristics:22 First, the imperative haləlû yāh, “Praise YH[WH],” is the first 21 Brodersen, End, 150, makes the bold statement that “Ps 148MT is one unit.” Although she lists other opinions in the footnotes, she neither engages with the arguments that these scholars mention nor does she offer a suggestion about how to read the tension between the global view of creation (Psalm 148*) and the focus on Israel (Ps 148:14) as “one unit.” As pointed out above, such a reading is possible, but this question reaches beyond the methodological framework of Brodersen’s study. 22 See Zenger, Psalm 148, 631; Zenger, Aller Atem, 575. For a detailed syntactic and struc­ tural analysis of Psalm 148 see Brodersen, End, 132–135; Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 260–267. For suggestions on the structure of Psalm 148 from the French­speaking world, see

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” 

 13

and the last word of the psalm and thus frames the entire text (v. 1a; v. 14c).23 Two further repetitions divide the psalm in two halves (parts): The phrase haləlû ʾet-YHWH min-, “Praise YHWH from . . .,” occurs in v. 1b and v. 7a and thus opens the respective part. The phrase yəhaləlû ʾet-šēm YHWH kî, “Let them praise the name of YHWH for . . .,” in v. 5a and v. 13a initiates the second half of each part. Thus, the two parts of Psalm 148 consist of two strophes each:24 (I) 1b–4 + 5–6; and (II) 7–12 + 13–14b. The basic structure of Psalm 148 can be illustrated in the following diagram: Frame Body

1a

Praise YH[WH]

First part (I)

1b–6

Praise YHWH from the heavens

Second part (II)

7–14b

Praise YHWH from the earth

14c

Praise YH[WH]

Frame

The two parts (halves) of the psalm between the haləlû yāh frame form a diptych.

3.2 The Diptych The inner structure of the two parts proceed in a parallel way and thus form a mirror symmetry.25 The following diagram displays the related passages. 1a

Praise YH[WH]

1b

Praise YHWH from the heavens

7a

Praise YHWH from the earth

1c–4

6 times “Praise him”; 6 vocatives

7–12

12 vocatives

5a

Let them praise the name of YHWH

13a

Let them praise the name of YHWH

5b–6a

Motivations

13bc

Motivations

6bc

the never changing order

14ab

the horn for Israel

14c

Praise YH[WH]

Auffret, Qu’ils louent, 221–234, with references to his own older work (1982), to J. Trublet­J.­N. Aletti (1983), and to M. Girard (1994). Auffret also discusses the suggestions made by G. Ravasi (Italian, 1984) and W.S. Prinsloo (English, 1992). 23 But see the text­critical remark on the framing haləlû-yāh above: Perhaps this feature is a later addition. 24 See, e.g., Scaiola, La conclusione, 293. 25 See also, e.g., Brüning, Psalm 148, 2.

14 

 Thomas Hieke

The perfect symmetry makes it highly probable that v. 6bc and v. 14ab are second­ ary additions to introduce God’s order (or “law,” ḥōq) and the focus on Israel.26 Despite the perfect symmetry and the deliberate repetitions to form the sym­ metrical diptych, the two parts also contain differing structural elements. The first half (vv. 1b–6a) correlates six repetitions of the call to praise YHWH (haləlûhû) with six vocatives. The vocatives (“V”) address the heavens and entities related to them. They are grouped in a descending order: V1–2 angels and heavenly court V3–4 heavenly bodies (= lower deities in Israel’s neighborhood) V5 highest heaven (perhaps the visible sky?) V6 the heavenly ocean as source for rain, hail, snow, etc. As the semantic field of “heaven” is opened, the motivations (vv. 5b–6a) focus thematically on God’s everlasting creation.27 The second half (vv. 7–13) contains only one call to praise YHWH (v. 7a), but twelve (two times six) vocatives which address a variety of phenomena and inhab­ itants of the earth. The rhetorical device of merism dominates throughout. The motivations (v. 13bc) emphasize the name of YHWH as the only one to be exalted and God’s glory that transcends earth and heaven. The counting of the vocatives needs some explanation. Some instances address a single entity (“all his angels,” “all his host”), but some uses address (at least) a pair combined by “and” and separated from the next pair by asyndeton. Hence, “sun and moon” (v. 3aV3) is counted as a unity (one vocative). In v. 8, two pairs separated by asyndeton (“fire and hail, snow and fog”) are counted as two vocatives. Similar pairs occur in vv. 9–12. The pairs that are internally con­ nected by “and” (Hebrew: w-) mostly form a merism: Two terms closely related express a larger entity, for example, v. 10V7: “wild animals and all cattle,” that is, all animals (mostly quadrupeds) that live on the land, and v. 10V8: “creep­ ing things and flying birds,” that is, all other animals which are neither wild nor cattle. “Kings of the earth and all peoples” (v. 11V9) are all human beings, and likewise “old and young” (v. 12V12). One can arrange the twelve vocatives in the second half of Psalm 148 according to the following system: V1 phenomena in the oceans V2–4 the weather

26 See Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 261. 27 On the “ministructure” of Ps 148:5–6, 7–12, see Auffret, Qu’ils louent, 223–227; see ibid., 227–230, on the microstructure of verses 13 and 14. The observations are very detailed and cannot be discussed here.

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” 

 15

V5 the landscape V6 plants V7–8 animals V9–12 human beings This sequence resembles the creation account in Genesis 1 and in Psalm 104, which is likewise dependent on Genesis 1.

3.3 The Number Symbolism Psalm 148 reveals a carefully arranged number symbolism.28 In the psalm’s body the root HLL (“praise”) occurs ten times. Likewise, the term kol, “all,” is used ten times. The number “ten” symbolizes totality and perfection: Ten words of creation and ten times wayyiqrāʾ, “and he [God] said” in Genesis 1, the “Ten Words” of the Decalogue. If one adds the two occurrences of haləlû yāh in the psalm’s frame, the sum amounts to twelve (twelve tribes of Israel, twelve months of the year, in a word: everything).29 Without the two occurrences of haləlû yāh in the psalm’s frame, the body of the psalm has 30 lines (three times ten). In sum, 30 entities are summoned to praise YHWH (seven in the first half, 23 in the second half).30 The sequence “heavens” – “earth” of the psalm’s body relates in an inverted manner to the phrase “earth and heaven” in v. 13c. This sequence, in turn, mirrors the relationship between Gen 1:1 (heaven and earth) and Gen 2:4 (earth and heav­ en).31 The question arises about how the two halves of Psalm 148 relate to each other and which messages the text intends to convey.

28 Cf. Brodersen, End, 135–136; Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 258–259; Bielefeld / Brüning, Psalm 148, 276–279; Brüning, Psalm 148, 6–10. 29 Cf. Zenger, Psalm 148, 632. 30 In addition, Ruppert, Aufforderung, 278–281, and Zenger, Psalm 148, 632, count seven stro­ phes in Ps 148:1–13, which may well be an allusion to the creation of “heaven and earth” in seven days according to Gen 1:1–2:3. However, one should also take into account that God created heav­ en and earth actually in six days, while the seventh day is separated and sanctified as the day of rest, later called the “Sabbath.” In Psalm 148, one can identify no allusion to the Sabbath. 31 Cf. Zenger, Psalm 148, 638; Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 294–295.

16 

 Thomas Hieke

4 The Content 4.1 Propositions The first part of Psalm 148 (vv. 1–6) focuses on the upper sphere of the biblical conception of the world (“heavens” and “heights,” v. 1). The text summons the phenomena located in this upper sphere to praise YHWH: Angels, YHWH’s host, sun and moon, shining stars, the celestial spheres containing the heavenly ocean that brings rain from time to time (vv. 2–4). All these entities, invisible or visible, are told to praise YHWH, for YHWH (1) has created them, (2) established them in eternity, and (3) provided an unchangeable order for them (vv. 5–6). (1) The term for “created,” wə-nibrāʾû, is a Nifal form of the verb BRʾ. This verb also occurs in the very first verse of the Bible (Gen 1:1) and is exclusively reserved for God (YHWH) as subject. Hence, the passive voice (Nifal) is clearly a passivum divinum, God alone is the acting power behind the passive “they were created” (see also Ps 104:30). (2) The phrase rendered as “forever and ever” (v. 6a) combines two Hebrew terms denoting “eternity”: ʿad and ʿôlām, both with the preposition l-. This poetic construction expresses an unsurmountable superlative that transgresses all limits of time.32 Thus, Psalm 148 extends the imagination of its readership in space and time to the ultimate borders and beyond: From the highest heavens down to the earth, from creation to eternity (forever and ever). The implied message conveys the notion that YHWH has no spatial or temporal limits; there is no era and no space without YHWH. Although this is not stated explicitly, the conclusion remains inevitable. Thus, Psalm 148 conveys the concept of an implicit mono­ theism. (3) Regarding the crucial term ḥōq in v. 6b, this order can refer in the imme­ diate context to the cosmic order, that is, the fixed paths of the stars, of sun and moon, the repetitions of the seasons, and the weather. However, a larger view that includes the context of the neighboring psalms associates the term ḥōq with God’s “statutes” given to Israel, as Ps 147:19 states: “He [YHWH] declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and ordinances (ḥuqqāyw ū-mišpāṭāyw) to Israel.” This last part of Psalm 147 is very closely related to the first part of Psalm 148, since both texts share the topic of cosmic or meteorological phenomena (snow, frost/ fog, hail, waters). A reader of Psalm 148 who is acquainted with the immediately

32 Hillers, Psalm 148, 325–326, suggests an emendation of the text and translates: “He esta­ blished them as an ordinance forever.” Because this is a lectio facilior, the MT should not be changed.

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” 

 17

preceding Psalm 147 will definitely associate both meanings of ḥōq in Ps 148:6: The cosmic order as well as God’s statutes and ordinances for Israel.33 The second part of Psalm 148 (vv. 7–14) focuses on the lower sphere, that is, the earth and all other imaginable spaces: (1) The sea monsters and all deeps, (2) the atmosphere with its weather phenomena, (3) the landscapes, plants, animals, and human beings. To be specific: (1) The sea monsters (tannînîm) occur in the cre­ ation account (Gen 1:21) and other texts alluding to God’s creative (and restrictive) powers (Isa 27:1; 51:9; Ps 74:13; 148:7; Job 7:12).34 The deeps (təhōmôt) are a poetic expression for the water beneath the earth, predominantly used in the Psalms, usually not accessible to human beings, but dominated by YHWH. The pair “sea monsters and all deeps” form a t-alliteration in Hebrew: tannînîm wəkol təhōmôt. (2) The weather phenomena in Ps 148:8 repeat similar terms from the preced­ ing Psalm 147: Psalm 148:8

Psalm 147

fire and hail (bārod),

17 He hurls down hail (qeraḥ) like crumbs

snow (šeleg) and fog (qîṭôr),

16 He gives snow (šeleg) like wool; he scatters frost (kəpôr) like ashes.

stormy wind (rûaḥ səʿārâ) fulfilling his command!

18 . . . he makes his wind (rûaḥ) blow . . .

The differences in sequence and terminology do not obscure the shared motif of God’s command over the weather phenomena, which are beyond the control of human beings. Hence, both psalms exalt and praise YHWH by interpreting the uncontrollable events of the weather as expressions of YHWH’s power. YHWH’s name and glory are the reasons why the entire earth and its inhabitants are sum­ moned to praise YHWH (see Ps 148:13). (3) The imagined “camera” of Psalm 148 looks down through the atmosphere to the landscape of the earth: Mountains, hills, trees, animals, and even creeping things, that is, very small animals crawling on the surface of the earth (vv. 9–10).35 These verses read like the storyboard of an image video of the earth’s beauty. The 33 See, e.g., Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 282. 34 The other occurrences in Exod 7:9, 10, 12; Deut 32:33 denote snakes. In Jer 51:34 and Ezek 29:3, the term refers in a metaphorical way to foreign powerful kings (Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and Pharaoh, king of Egypt). 35 Estes, Creation Theology, 35, aptly writes: “Nothing is excluded from Yahweh’s praise choir. Yahweh has deep concern and care for all the animals (cf. Job 38:41; Ps 104:21; Jonah 4:11), and all are exhorted to praise Him. What might sound to human ears like a cacophony of roars, grunts, squeals, and chirps is to Yahweh a sonorous symphony exalting Him.” I appreciate Estes’ invita­ tion to take on YHWH’s perspective for a moment!

18 

 Thomas Hieke

psalm tries to cover every imaginable feature on the earth, closely resembling the order and terminology of Genesis 1. The merisms in vv. 11–12 describe the totality and diversity of human beings. Furthermore, as the diversity of genders and ages, between peoples and leading powers often lead to harsh conflicts, one can also read Psalm 148 as a call to a common praise of God: The psalm binds all these different groups and interests together in one single praise that acknowledges YHWH’s world order in which every element and group does precisely that for which it was created.36 Psalm 148 presents the world as a “sound(ing) cosmos.”37 “Heaven(s)” and “earth” do not simply denote two parts or spheres, but this merism works as a compound term relating to the entirety of creation, to the cosmos as a whole. Biblical Hebrew has no special term for “cosmos” or “world.” YHWH, however, is separated from this entirety of “heaven and earth.”38 The deity as creator transcends the cosmos.39 The phrases “from the heavens” and “from the earth” imply a dynamic move­ ment: In the same way as almost all of the enumerated phenomena move and change throughout, the praise for YHWH should carry on without pause or end. The dynamic within the phenomena itself corresponds to a teleological dynamic within the entire psalm: Using the “camera” metaphor, one could say that the text describes one long tracking shot from the farthest point that human beings can imagine (the highest heavens) down to all human beings (vv. 11–13), and, in the final form of Psalm 148, down to Israel as God’s chosen people (v. 14). The move­ ment of this track of praise also marks a progression. The final form of Psalm 148 culminates with the very close and unique relationship between YHWH and his people. This fascinating relationship motivates the entire cosmos to praise YHWH. Deutero­Isaiah expresses a similar idea: Sing, O heavens, for YHWH has done it; shout, O depths of the earth; break forth into singing, O mountains, O forest, and every tree in it! For YHWH has redeemed Jacob, and will be glorified in Israel (Isa 44:23).40

The focus on Israel as YHWH’s people connects Ps 148:14 with Ps 147:19–20 and Ps 149:4 (see also the “[children of] Israel” in Ps 147:13; Ps 148:14; Ps 149:2). This observation can corroborate the assumption that Ps 148:14 (together with Ps

36 Even more, as Estes, Creation Theology, 35, states: “Even those humans who because of their gender, class, or status are routinely dismissed have a welcome voice in Yahweh’s choir of praise.” 37 See Zenger, Aller Atem, 579. 38 Cf. Zenger, Psalm 148, 636. 39 Zenger, Psalm 148, 636. 40 See also Isa 49:13; cf. Zenger, Psalm 148, 632.

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” 

 19

148:6bc) is an editorial addition, intending to focus the entire praise of Psalms 147–149 (and beyond) on Israel’s relationship with YHWH.41 Without this addi­ tion, Psalm 148* focuses on God’s creation as a whole, from the highest heavens down to the creeping things on the earth, from the angels in heaven to human beings, old and young, on the earth. The psalm’s symmetry and balance unfold a fascinatingly beautiful picture.

4.2 Speech Acts (Illocutionary Acts) The dominating speech act of Psalm 148 is without doubt the call for praise, that is, a directive speech act that summons various entities to praise YHWH. The recurring syntactical pattern is the combination of the imperative with the voc­ ative, especially in vv. 1–4 and vv. 7–12. The imperative (second person plural) changes to the jussive (third person plural) in v. 5a and v. 13a, followed by a connective assertion (vv. 5b–6a and v. 13bc) which works as a motivation for the call for praise. Psalm 148* thus follows the basic pattern of the imperative hymn (“imperativischer Hymnus”). Needless to say, the call for praise (syntactically expressed by imperatives and jussives) is itself already the speech act of praise: The uttering of the imperative “Praise!” is in itself an act of praise.42

5 The Typical (Genre and Language) As the analysis of the speech acts already demonstrated, Psalm 148 is a quite typical representative of the genre “imperative hymn”: A call for praise followed by some sort of motivation or reasoning why (or: for which) God shall be praised (see, e.g., Psalm 117 for comparison).43

41 See Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 298–303. 42 Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 303–306. She concludes: “So hat die Forderung eines universalen Lobaufrufs bereits Auswirkung auf die Gegenwart. Durch den Hymnus, der aller Welt aufgetragen ist, wird der Blick auf die Welt und auf Gott gestaltet. Dabei wird das Loben als die höchste und eigentlichste Aufgabe allen Seins gepriesen – ob schon vollzogen oder nicht. Der Anspruch ist formuliert und wird dadurch schon Wirklichkeit. Gleichwohl hat sich der Ver­ fasser von V. 14 wohl etwas mehr Realitätssinn bewahrt, als der ursprüngliche Psalm formulieren wollte: Denn er versteht Israel als Initiator des kosmischen Lobpreises, das jetzt schon mit seinen Psalmen den Herrn des Kosmos, der zugleich sein Gott ist, loben kann und soll.” 43 See, e.g., Brodersen, End, 148–149.

20 

 Thomas Hieke

Psalm 148* has intertextual relations with several prominent texts of the Hebrew Bible.44 First of all, the intertextual connections with Genesis 1 cannot be overlooked. The sequence of the created items is very similar. Hence, Psalm 148 is also connected with other texts that refer to Genesis 1, such as Psalm 104 and God’s speeches in the book of Job (Job 38–39).45 Psalm 148* shares with Psalm 103:20–22 the call for praise addressed to entities beyond the human realm: The angels, the mighty ones, the host of YHWH, all his works. However, instead of HLL (Piel) in Psalm 148, Psalm 103 uses BRK (Piel). Nevertheless, the basic idea is common to both texts, and Psalm 148* looks like an expansion and realization in a larger scale of the brief suggestion in Psalm 103:20–22: “Bless YHWH, all his works, in all places of his dominion” (Ps 103:22) – Psalm 148* does exactly that.46 The final form of Psalm 148 correlates God’s creation with “an order that will never change” (v. 6bc). The same combination occurs notably in Psalm 19 with its two parts:47 Psalm 19:1–6 (“the heavens are telling the glory of God”) and Psalm 19:7–14 (“the law of YHWH is perfect”). Perhaps the editor who added v. 14 and v. 6bc to Psalm 148* had an eye on this composite psalm. One can also detect a close relationship of Ps 148:1–2 with Neh 9:6: “You are YHWH, you alone; you have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. To all of them you give life, and the host of heaven worships you.” The idea of YHWH the creator48 draws from a linguistic reservoir of very similar expressions and motifs. The pairs “heaven + the heaven of heavens” as well as “earth and heaven” or “the earth and all that is on it” or “the seas and all that is in them” form merisms that seek to cover the entire organized world.49 The creation of all this alone by the word of God occurs at various places in the Hebrew Bible, not only in Genesis 1, but also in Psalm 33:6–9:

44 For a detailed study of the dependence of Psalm 148 on earlier Scripture, see Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 267–306; see also Ruppert, Aufforderung, 283–286. Psalm 148 has a close parallel in the deuterocanonical (Greek) parts of the Book of Daniel: The song of the three young men in the furnace (Dan 3:52–90); see Ruppert, Aufforderung, 281–282, who regards the hymn in Daniel as a secondary imitation. 45 See also Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 251–252; Ruppert, Aufforderung, 293–294. 46 See Ruppert, Aufforderung, 294–295. 47 See, e.g., Zenger, Psalm 148, 637; Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, 254. 48 The idea of YHWH as creator is an important aspect in the final composition of the Psalter; see Scaiola, La conclusione, 296. 49 For the motif of Heaven and Earth as personified entities praising God, see Neumann, Schrift­ gelehrte Hymnen, 252–255. She points especially to Deutero­Isaiah (Isaiah 44 and 49), Deut 32:1–3, and Psalms 96–98.

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” 

 21

6 By the word of YHWH the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathered the waters of the sea as in a bottle; he put the deeps in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear YHWH; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

Especially Ps 33:9 is so close to Ps 148:5 that the Septuagint version enlarged the latter verse by filling in phrases from Ps 32:9 LXX (see above). The stability of the earth as a testimony of God’s power and wisdom is also a topic that occurs frequently in the psalms (for example, Ps 24:2; 104:5; 119:90–91; see also Prov 3:19). The phrase “kings of the earth and all peoples” in Ps 148:11 echoes texts like Ps 2:10; 47:9–10; 102:16–17, 23; 138:4–5. These verses express the hope that all foreign powers and peoples will finally find their way to Zion and YHWH (see also the pilgrimage of all peoples in Isaiah 2:1–5 and Micah 4:1–5).50 Especially Ps 148:11, 13 and Ps 138:4–5 show many similarities:51 Psalm 138

Psalm 148

4 All the kings of the earth shall praise you, YHWH, for they have heard the words of your mouth.

11 Kings of the earth and all peoples, princes and all rulers of the earth! . . .

5 They shall sing of the ways of YHWH,

13 Let them praise the name of YHWH, for his name alone is exalted; his glory is above earth and heaven.

for great is the glory of YHWH.

Like the depiction of the entire cosmos in Psalm 148, the part about human beings also represents the order of the world as it is: Foreign affairs and domestic policy, administration, government, genders, age groups. Ps 148:13 formulates the large topic of God’s majesty, power, and glory. The text uses motifs and coined phrases from texts like Isa 12:4 and especially Ps 8:2; 96:6; 104:1. This observation corroborates the overall impression that Psalm 148 uses more or less the conventional language of praise and arranges it in a struc­ ture with impressive beauty (see the “diptych” above).52

50 See also the eschatological hope expressed in Hag 2:7–9 and Zech 8:20–23, which might have led the Septuagint to add the names “Haggaios and Zacharias” to the heading of the psalm (see above). Some Greek manuscripts add “of Zacharias” or “of Haggaios and Zacharias” also to the heading of Psalm 137 (p. 138). 51 For “praise” and “glory,” both texts use different but synonymous terms. 52 Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, calls Psalms 145 and 146–150 rightly “schriftgelehrte Hymnen” (songs of praise based on Scripture). On Psalm 148, she states: “Der Psalm zeugt von einer hohen und unvergleichlichen formalen Durchgestaltung” (p. 251).

22 

 Thomas Hieke

The raising of a horn as a metaphor for “gaining/providing power or strength”53 (or, more generally, the wild ox with raised horns as a symbol for power and strength, see Deut 33:17) is very common in the Hebrew Bible; see, for example, 1 Sam 2:1, 10; Ps 75:11; 89:18, 25; 92:11; 112:9; 1 Chr 25:5.54 Regarding the history of tradition,55 Psalm 148 stands in two ways in the cul­ tural tradition of Israel’s environment: (1) The enumerations in Psalm 148 follow the “science of lists” as it can be found in the Egyptian school of wisdom. A first step for a scientific understanding of the world from a human perspective can be seen in the early lists of animals, plants, places, deities, etc. The multitude of entities and the variety of species became manageable by inventorying them in these lists. As an example, the Onomasticon of Amenope (21st/22nd Dynasty; 11th century BCE) lists 610 entries.56 The comprehensive encyclopedic lists try to understand the complex world in an anthropocentric perspective. (2) Psalm 148 also stands “in the tradition of Babylonian­Assyrian and Egyp­ tian prayers and hymns in which the individual divinities and elements or living things of the world are called upon, sequentially and in order, to praise the creator god (for example, Marduk) or the sun god.”57 The Great Hymn to the Aten is a very close parallel to Psalm 104, and thus also to Psalm 148: This hymn from

53 In many cases, the modern translations do not use “horn” (the verbatim rendering), but the abstract terms like power or strength; see, e.g., the NRSV of 1 Sam 2:1, 10: The term qeren, “horn,” is rendered in 1 Sam 2:1 as “strength,” and in 2:10 as “power.” On the discussion about the mean­ ing of the term “horn” in the context of Psalm 148, see Schmutzer / Gauthier, Identity, 161–183. They conclude: “The sociopolitical reality of exile gathers themes of deliverance and judgment for 148:14a from the surrounding FD [Final Doxology, i.e., Psalms 146–150]. The ethical treat­ ment of the poor and needy is prominent in the FD, and an expectation for national restoration pervades this unit. In the LXX, this is more explicitly the case with Diaspora Judaism. Against a postexilic background with unique political realities for the Judean returnees, ‘raising a horn’ describes both the judgment of Israel’s enemies and Israel’s restored reputation on an interna­ tional scale” (p. 183). 54 See also Zenger, Psalm 148, 638–639, with examples from Ancient Near Eastern iconography. 55 On the following passage see Zenger, Psalm 148, 632–633. Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hym­ nen, 266, sees only few formal contacts between Psalm 148 and the Ancient Near Eastern lists. The intertextual connections to Deutero­Isaiah and the YHWH­is­king psalms are much more intense. 56 Introduction and text: Gardiner, Ancient Egypt Onomastica, 24–63 (and the autographed text in vols. 1 and 2); see also Zenger, Aller Atem, 577–578; Ruppert, Aufforderung, 292–293. Hillers, Psalm 148, 329–330, points out major differences between Psalm 148 and the long lists of Amenope; he sees no literary dependence on learned Egyptian tradition. Hillers identifies the hymnic traditions of Mesopotamia and Egypt as the major background for Psalm 148. 57 Zenger, Psalm 148, 633; Ruppert, Aufforderung, 286–287.

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” 

 23

the Amarna literature (14th century BCE) praises the great living Aten represented by the sun disk wandering over the sky and thus enumerates all the works the sun god created in his great wisdom.58

6 The Context The neighboring Psalms 147 and 149 have much in common with Psalm 148. In all three psalms the term təhillâ, “song of praise,” occurs in prominent places, that is, at the beginning (Ps 147:1; 149:1) or at the end (Ps 148:14). Psalm 147 shares with Psalm 148 the basic scheme: God’s creation gives reason for praise (the stars, heavens, earth, rain, plants, animals, snow, frost, fog, hail, wind), and the focus on Israel and God’s statutes for his people (see Ps 147:19–20) is added to the original version of Psalm 148* in Ps 148:6bc, 14. The combination of God’s care for Israel/Jerusalem with God’s creation in general seems to be very natural in Psalm 147 and a basic feature in this text. Perhaps Psalm 147 therefore “colored” Psalm 148* in the process of the composition of the end of the Psalter, that is, an editor added the focus on Israel to Psalm 148* in order to align Psalm 148 with the preceding one. However, this assumption, which sounds quite prob­ able, must remain a speculation or a “good guess.”59 The impression of the reader 58 For an English translation of the Great Hymn to the Aten see Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 96–100. See also Ruppert, Aufforderung, 288–289. 59 Brodersen, End, 140–141, carefully lists the shared elements between Psalm 147 and Psalm 148 and in conclusion casts heavy doubt on the assumption of an intended reference: “Thus, apart from the shared frame ‫ ַה ְללּו־יָ ּה‬/‘Praise­Yah!’, a reference is unlikely.” She also doubts in­ tended references between Psalm 148 and Psalm 149 (ibid., 95–96) and all other texts taken into account: “References to Gen 1–2; Deu; Isa; Ps 2; 33; 96; 98; 103; and 104 are unlikely. Ps 146; 147; 149; and 150 show no references except the framing Hallelujahs” (ibid., 142). This statement makes Psalm 148 look like an island without any intertextual relationships, but it fits the very strict and narrow methodological approach. Brodersen does not acknowledge the perspective of the readership and possible conclusions from the process of reading Psalms 146–150 in a row. Her exclusive focus on authorial intention regarding the “references” leads quite naturally to the conclusion that there are no such intended references that can be proven with the historical­ critical methodology. Although the methodological rigor of this approach is praiseworthy, the gain of knowledge is comparably small, and this was even to be expected. Hence, the methods applied to the exegesis of the Psalter are now wider and more diverse, including reader­oriented and text­centered intertextual approaches like the one executed here should be welcomed. Brod­ ersen’s study does not manage to falsify these approaches and their results, and it hopefully did not intend to do that. The study by Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen, heads in quite the oppo­ site direction from Brodersen’s approach. Neumann identifies a wide variety of intertextual rela­ tionships between Psalm 148 and other biblical writings (see pp. 267–303).

24 

 Thomas Hieke

of the end of the Psalter is more obvious: Coming from Psalm 147, the reader is already acquainted with the idea that God’s creation finds its apex in God’s rela­ tionship with Israel. While an isolated reading of Psalm 148 detects the focus on Israel in Ps 148:14 as a secondary addition, the contextual reading (i.e., Psalms 147 and 148 together) mitigates this impression or even triggers the expectation that Psalm 148 will not only praise God for the creation but will also mention God’s care for Israel. The final verse 14 satisfies this expectation. Psalm 148 is part of the large Hallel (“praise”) that closes the Psalter (Psalms 146–150) and marks the middle position within this composition.60 With the clear intertextual references61 to Genesis 1, Psalm 148 sums up the creation motifs in Psalms 146 and 147. Ps 148:14 shares with Ps 147:19–20 the particular role of Israel within the cosmos. This unique relationship of God with Israel, made visible through Israel’s praise of YHWH, also connects Ps 148:14 with Ps 149:1 (see the key word ḥăsîdāyw/ḥăsîdîm, “[his] faithful”).62 The praise of YHWH’s name (Ps 148:5, 13) is continued in Ps 149:3.63

7 The Messages Psalm 148* in its original form (without Ps 148:6bc, 14) formulates a call for praise which perceives (realizes and regards) the entire world as a well­designed cosmos that God arranged and stratified according to a meaningful and helpful order. This entirety is the source and reason for a permanent praise of God as the crea­ tor.64 Thus, Psalm 148* becomes an invitation to join this ongoing admiration and 60 Quite a number of studies deal with the final composition of the Psalter of the Hebrew Bible and related texts; see, e.g., Brodersen, End; Neumann, Schriftgelehrte Hymnen; Scaiola, La conclusion; Zenger, Aller Atem; Zenger, Ps 145–150. 61 Notabene (see footnote 59): These references are observations on the level of the reader and do not necessarily imply authorial or editorial intention. 62 On this connection between the editorial addition of V 14 in Psalm 148 and the following Psalm 149, see especially Zenger, Ps 145–150, 17. 63 Cf. Zenger, Psalm 148, 639. 64 See, e.g., Estes, Creation Theology, 36–41, with his five points on creation theology derived from Psalm 148, and his conclusion with a quote from the poem of Francis of Assisi. However, while all these statements remain valid, one must add another aspect to Psalm 148’s theology. It is a challenging one, as I will demonstrate in the following. In his Ennarationes in Psalmos, Augustine provides a theological interpretation of Psalm 148 as praise for God’s creative power; see Augustine, Expositions, vol. 6, 415–433; Bielefeld / Brüning, Psalm 148, 280–281; on a Christological interpretation of Psalm 148 by the Fathers of the Church, see ibid., 283–284. They conclude: For Christians in their earthly reality, the singing performance of Psalm 148 has the

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” 

 25

worship in the face of an orderly, harmonious world. It becomes clear that the text only works in a world that is in an ecological balance. However, in view of the manifold destructions and pollutions that humans are inflicting on this world today, Psalm 148* becomes a call to respect and preserve God’s creation, the psalm of praise becomes a hidden commandment to keep the earth in a praiseworthy balance. This new pragmatics only emerges in today’s perspective. In the original version of Psalm 148* that ends with v. 13, the text has an international and global perspective. It focuses on humanity in general and integrates all human beings into a bigger picture, that is, humanity is not a counterpart of “the world” or its “crown,” but rather a part of it next to other entities of the world (visible and invis­ ible, animated and not animated). Although it is not explicitly stated, the praise for YHWH and YHWH’s creation, name, and glory implies a strong sort of respon­ sibility on the side of the one who utters the praise – in other words: One cannot praise God’s glory together with God’s creation and at the same time exploit and thus destroy this harmonious world. Praying and praising with Psalm 148 is not compatible with environmental pollution and irresponsible behavior in economy and society at the cost of the climate, of nature, animals, and plants.65 In a sense, the imperative calls for praise in Psalm 148* thus become in the present time calls for respect for creation, for the entire cosmos and the ecological balance, which human beings are threatening to an unprecedented extent.66

function, on the one hand, of furthering salvation and, on the other, of expressing and igniting the Christians’ longing for the perfect harmony in the heavenly Jerusalem. . . . According to the understanding of the Fathers of the Church, Psalm 148, when sung as the Word of God in the Holy Spirit, is therefore at the same time the song of longing and the song of freedom already given (conclusion translated by TH). 65 This aspect needs to be added to the otherwise very fine summary that Erich Zenger formu­ lated for Psalm 148*: “The praise of God that unites the various powers and forces, institutions and groups, animals and humans is presented in Psalm 148 as the cooperation of creatures in binding chaos and keeping the cosmos working. The concept of the psalm, according to which the entire creation is called to praise YHWH because of the world order he has bestowed, and whereby cosmic as well as social antagonisms are dissipated, ultimately means that the individ­ ual elements of creation should, through their praise of God, accept and acknowledge the place assigned to them by God” (Zenger, Psalm 148, 640). 66 Hence, the critique of Viviers, Eko­bilike beoordeling, 815–830, seems to be a bit exaggerat­ ed. He thinks that Psalm 148 depicts YHWH as the “super” male and reveals an androcentric and ideological stance. Perhaps due to my lack of knowledge of Afrikaans, I cannot understand this position. I would like to stress the following point: The distance that Psalm 148 makes between the creation in its entirety and her creator lifts YHWH far beyond any human ideas about gender; in other words, the creator is neither male nor female, but something (better: someone) com­ pletely different. Regarding human beings, Psalm 148 does not single out humans as something special, but rather integrates them as parts of YHWH’s creation, and as such they have to behave,

26 

 Thomas Hieke

The addition of Ps 148:14 (and 148:6bc) causes a focusing on Israel. The deity whom receives praise from the entire cosmos, YHWH, has turned in a unique way to his chosen people, Israel, and has given them an eternal law (ḥōq in the sense of tôrâ, v. 6bc). This people, Israel, has been exalted by God and has received the privilege of coming very close to God. But what is the sense and purpose of all this? The task that comes with election and exaltation is not mentioned here, but can be derived, for example, from Exod 19:5–6: Israel’s task is to keep YHWH’s cove­ nant, to obey YHWH’s voice and thus demonstrate to the entire world (keyword: “in the sights of the nations”) in a paradigmatic way how the keeping of God’s tôrâ leads to a fruitful and happy life (for example, Lev 18:5: “You shall keep my stat­ utes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live”; Lev 26:45: “I will remember in their favor the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, to be their God”). In this regard, the general, international, and global praise of Psalm 148* becomes an encouragement to the people of Israel to focus on this God and his tôrâ and to reassure themselves of this election and this task. Erich Zenger concludes: “Praise of God creates community, advances harmony, and leads to the perfection of creation and history. In this, as the conclusion of the psalm emphasizes, a special task is given to Israel.”67

Bibliography The source texts are taken from Logos Bible Software Version 9: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia SESB 2.0 Version, 5th corrected edition by Adrian Schenker, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. – Septuaginta, ed. Alfred Rahlfs, Editio altera ed. Robert Hanhart, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Auffret, P., “Qu’ils louent le nom de YHWH!.” Étude structurelle du psaume 148: Église et Théologie 29/2 (1998) 221–234. Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, Oxford 1847. Bielefeld, P. / Brüning, Ch., Psalm 148 im Gebet der Kirche: Erbe und Auftrag 77 (2001) 273–284.

i.e., they have no right to exploit and destroy all the other works of God, which are summoned to praise YHWH in Psalm 148. To put it frankly, Psalm 148 forbids human beings from pursuing an economy that wastes resources and irreparably destroys the environment, because this “en­ vironment” is also a source of praise for YHWH. Read this way, the cosmic praise of Psalm 148 turns out to be a harsh critique of the andro­ and even anthropocentric economy and society of our days. Maybe the criteria for eco­justice in texts from 2004 were not yet elaborated enough to find a way to read Psalm 148 as a challenge for contemporary failures to “create” an eco­sensitive and eco­just society, economy, politics, and church. 67 Zenger, Psalm 148, 640.

“From the Heavens, From the Earth” 

 27

Brodersen, A., The End of the Psalter: Psalms 146–150 in the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint (BZAW 505), Berlin 2017. Brüning, Ch., Psalm 148 und das Psalmenbeten: Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 47/1 (1996) 1–12. Estes, D. J., Creation Theology in Psalm 148: Bibliotheca Sacra 171 (2014) 30–41. Gardiner, A. H., Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, 3 vols., Oxford 1947. Hieke, T. / Schöning, B., Einführung in die Methoden alttestamentlicher Exegese, Darmstadt 2017. Hillers, D. R., A Study of Psalm 148: Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978) 323–334. Lichtheim, M., Ancient Egyptian Literature, Berkeley 2006 (https://www.jstor.org/ stable/10.1525/j.ctt1ppr00.8). Neumann, F., Schriftgelehrte Hymnen: Gestalt, Theologie und Intention der Psalmen 145 und 146–150 (BZAW 491), Berlin 2016. Ruppert, L., Aufforderung an die Schöpfung zum Lob Gottes. Zur Literar-, Form-, und Traditionskritik von Psalm 148, in: E. Haag and F-L. Hossfeld (eds.), Freude an der Weisung des Herrn. Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen (SBB 13), 2nd ed., Stuttgart 1987, 227–246. Scaiola, D., La conclusione (Sal 146–150) e lo scopo del Salterio: Rivista Biblica 58/3 (2010) 280–297. Schmutzer, A. J. / Gauthier, R. X., The Identity of „Horn“ in Psalm 148:14a: An Exegetical Investigation in the MT and LXX Versions: Bulletin for Biblical Research 19 (2009) 161–183. Slomovic, E., Toward an Understanding of the Formation of Historical Titles in the Book of Psalms: ZAW 91 (1979) 350–380. Viviers, H., ’N Eko-bilike beoordeling van Psalm 148: HTS 60 (2004) 815–830. Zenger, E., “Daß alles Fleisch den Namen seiner Heiligung segne” (Ps 145,21): die Komposition Ps 145–150 als Anstoß zu einer christlich-jüdischen Psalmenhermeneutik: Biblische Zeitschrift 41 (1997) 1–27. Zenger, E., “Aller Atem lobe JHWH!”: anthropologische Perspektiven im Hallel Ps 146–150, in: M. Bauks / K. Liess / P. Riede (eds.), Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5). Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie. Festschrift für Bernd Janowski zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008, 565–579. Zenger, E., Psalm 148, in: F-L Hossfeld / E. Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2011.

Stefan Beyerle

Different Texts and Different Interpretations of “Exile” Abstract: After a dense description of, especially German speaking, modern schol­ arship on questions of text critique and text history, the analysis focusses on the motif of “Exile” in Jer 52. Furthermore, the discussion refers to 2 Kgs 24–25; 2 Chr 36 and Jer 39, by considering also the Hebrew and Greek versions, including the Antiochene recension, of those texts. As regards the Book of Jeremiah and despite the many cases where the Greek text preserved the older version, it can be learned by the analyzed examples that neither the Septuagint represents the Urtext nor the Hebrew handed down the “end­text.” Textual re­readings in the different lit­ erary traditions of these texts are influenced by later religious concepts like “sal­ vation” and “judgment,” or “guilt” and “judgment.” Keywords: literary criticism, textual history, history of historic­critical interpreta­ tion, Book of Jeremiah, exile. In nowadays, German­speaking scholarship still communicates specific methods and insights within the debates of Hebrew Bible exegesis. These methods differ, to some degree, from those communicated at other academic circles, especially in the English­speaking world. The topic of this article gives me the opportunity to refer to a certain academic habit within the German speaking scholarly community that, to my view, still predominates exegetical discussions. This habit can be explained as the general tendency to connect questions of historiography with those concerning literary layers of relevant biblical sources. Literary criticism and, not at least, the history of biblical texts are combined with historical questions. Consequently, the historical reliability of the content of a biblical passage is interrelated to the literary integrity and, also, to the attestation of a–mostly only to be reconstructed–Urtext. A good case in point is the concept of the well­respected German commentary series Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament: every section starts with “Text,” i.e. a translation of the Masoretic Text and a more or less detailed discussion of textual variants, sometimes in order to establish an Urtext that may function as a basis for further interpretations. As a next step, the “Form” questions the context and literary structure of a biblical passage. In recent times, only exceptional examples still refer to the “form” in the tradition of Hermann Gunkel’s Gattung or “Sitz im Leben.” What follows is “Ort.” Here, the historical circumstances of a text or differ­ ent literary strata of a composed unit are examined. The section “Wort” provides a verse­by­verse explanation, and “Ziel” has the theological dimension in focus. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-002

30 

 Stefan Beyerle

This concept highlights an old German ideal of exegetical method: It pro­ ceeds from a text­critically established fundament toward historical and theolog­ ical conclusions. But what if the text consists of several Urtexte? What if some literary layers are partly preserved in the textual sources or versions beside the Masoretic Text? Here the Book of Daniel in chapters 4–6 is a test case. And con­ sequently, the excellent commentary of Klaus Koch on the Book of Daniel in the series Biblische Kommentar has no alternative than to dismantle the fixed pattern of his commentary.1 Another test case is the Book of Jeremiah. The discussion of the text history of the prophetic book is as old as modern critical exegesis itself. It was already Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, a German scholar in Oriental studies and Hebrew Bible, who recognized the different versions in the Hebrew and in the Greek text and, also, discussed the date and importance of the Septuagint.2 Eichhorn’s examinations go back to his “Bemerkungen über den Text des Propheten Jeremias” stemming from 1777. Eichhorn furthermore documented that, undoubtedly, the Church Fathers Origen and Jerome had already referred to the problem that the Hebrew text of Jere­ miah is longer than the Greek and that the Greek text includes some sequences that deviate from the Masoretic Text, especially with regard to the “Oracles against the Nations.”3 Eichhorn also stated that the prophet himself had written both textual versions of the book in Egypt. The shorter one was sent to the Babylonian exiles and was, later on, supplemented by Jeremiah for the use among Palestinian Jews.4 Both German pioneers in modern critical exegesis, Johann Gottfried Eich­ horn and Johann David Michaelis, initiated a century­long debate as to evalu­ ate the Hebrew and Greek Jeremiah text that only came to an end with Bernhard Duhm’s commentary on the Book of Jeremiah in 1901.5 It is interesting to see that especially Roman Catholic scholars were involved in the debate before Duhm’s commentary was edited. And they emphasized the authority and importance of the Greek canon and more or less diminished the wealth of those fragments that 1 Cf. Koch, Daniel, 376–416. 2 Cf. Eichhorn, Einleitung, 178–89, where he asserted the existence of two “editions” or “versions” (in German: Rezensionen). 3 The problem is generally known: Compared with the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint lacks words, phrases, verses and some complete passages, like Jer 33:14–26; 39:4–13; 51:44b–49a; 52:27b–30. Furthermore, the „Oracles against the Nations“ (MT: 25:15–38; 46–51) and ch. 45 appear as rear­ ranged in the Greek text, compared with the outline of the Masoretes. The Greek chapters are fol­ lowing after Jer 25:13 (MT) by placing the Babylon cycle (chs. 50 – 51 [MT]) after the oracle against the Philistines (ch. 47 [MT]): cf. the short and helpful explanations in Herrmann, Jeremia. Der Prophet und das Buch, 182. 4 Cf. the announcements on Eichhorn in Lange, Handbuch, 305. 5 Cf. Duhm, Buch Jeremia.

Different Texts and Different Interpretations of “Exile” 

 31

the Hebrew Masoretic Text kept as a surplus if compared with the shorter Septu­ agint. In the aftermath of Duhm’s commentary, wherein 850 verses of the Book of Jeremiah are viewed as additions, the question whether only the few words— some 3,000—of the Masoretic Text that overlap with the Septuagint can still be judged as authorized or inspired became obsolete.6 Consequently, mostly in German­speaking scholarship of the first half of the twentieth century the ques­ tion of the Jeremiah­“Urtext” was not posed anymore. For example, the very influ­ ential commentary on the Book of Jeremiah by Wilhelm Rudolph considers the Greek text with the aim to reconstruct an “Urtext.” And his orientation remains within the Masoretic tradition: Die hebräische Vorlage von G steht dem heutigen M viel näher, als man früher dachte [. . .]. [. . .] Daß G nach Kürzung strebt, ist unverkennbar [. . .], aber auch unabsichtliche Auslas­ sungen, vor allem durch Homoioteleuton, sind bei G nicht selten.7

It comes as no surprise that the exegetical part of this commentary refers to the Masoretic Text only. This is also true for the commentary on the first two chap­ ters of Jeremiah by the late Siegfried Herrmann,8 though Herrmann’s commen­ tary remained too fragmentary to provide general information in this regard. Nevertheless, Herrmann’s treatment of the Jeremiah­Septuagint and its textual problems in his review of the scholarship already revealed his rather conserva­ tive tendencies.9 Here we are back to the Biblische Kommentar. And what is very significant: Armin Lange, who follows Herrmann in writing a commentary on the Book of Jeremiah, obviously prefers the opposite point of view when it comes to questions of text­history. Already in his Habilitationsschrift, Lange hints several times to readings of the Septuagint that he characterizes as “primary witness­ es.”10 And in his recent publication on the biblical manuscripts from Qumran, he comes to a quite clear conclusion. Despite the fact that we have to consider and discuss each single reading, Lange writes: Die Tendenz der protomasoretischen Fassung, Namen um Patronyme etc. zu vervollständigen, neue Details und kurze Erklärungen in den Text einzufügen, Formeln auszuweiten und ihre Zusätze in Abhängigkeit von anderen Jeremiatexten oder sogar anderen Büchern der Hebrä­

6 Cf. Hubmann, Bemerkungen, 263–269. The article reflects on hermeneutical undertones of the discussion in the nineteenth century and qualifies Duhm’s position in the above mentioned way. 7 Rudolph, Jeremia, XIX–XX. 8 Cf. Herrmann, Jeremia. On Rudolph and Herrmann see also Engel, Erfahrungen, 81. 9 Cf. Herrmann, Jeremia, 182–186. 10 Cf., among other references, Lange, Vom prophetischen Wort, 87 n. 97, 90 n. 104, 91–92 n. 109, 108–109 n. 167.

32 

 Stefan Beyerle

ischen Bibel zu formulieren, spricht m.E. dafür, daß es sich bei dem protomasoretischen Jeremiabuch um eine bewußte Überarbeitung der hebräischen Jer­G­Vorlage [Hebrew version for the translators of Septuagint in the book of Jeremiah, SB] handelt.11

It is not by accident that Lange’s book on Qumran attests such a far­reaching conclusion on the textual history of Jeremiah. With the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls six different manuscripts from the Book of Jeremiah came into view. Espe­ cially 4QJerb (4Q71), from the early second century BCE, provides passages from Jer 9 and 10 that mainly agree with the shorter version of the Septuagint.12 Again, the old hypothesis of Eichhorn and others has been resuscitated. Now, it states more concretely, that the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint, as represented in, e.g., 4QJerb, is an earlier recension compared to the pre­Masoretic text­form and partly handed down in the Hebrew Bible.13 The most recent discussion between Georg Fischer and Hermann­Josef Stipp focuses on Jer 52 and the interpretation of the “Exile.” While Fischer argues for the Masoretic Text as the most ancient witness,14 Stipp denies generally that the search for an Urtext is appropriate and searches for a more complex model in text­history. Stipp rightly emphasizes the probable connection of the Greek Book of Jeremiah to a Hebrew pre­text on the basis of biblical fragments from the Dead Sea. But, as Stipp further points out, this says nothing about a “better” or gener­ ally “earlier” text in the sense of an Urtext. In sum, the pre­Masoretic text on the one hand and the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint on the other represent only two points within a complex textual development. And our naturally very limited ability to look inside this development suggests a probable supplementation in the Hebrew pre­text and not a shortening of the longer pre­Masoretic text.15 Consequently, the account of the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah is shaped by at least two different texts:16 a longer elaborated version in Hebrew that goes back to a pre­Masoretic version, and a short Greek one that probably has its basis in a different Hebrew Vorlage.17—As we will see later on, this does not apply to all passages in those texts.—This rather brief principle of textual development is especially referred to chs. 39 and 52 of the Book of Jeremiah. And their different 11 Lange, Handbuch, 318. 12 Cf. Tov, Textual Criticism, 286–294; Lange, Handbuch, 297–303, and especially ibid, 300. 13 Within the debate on the Qumran findings of the Book of Jeremiah the 1965 Harvard disserta­ tion of Janzen, Studies, is of special importance. 14 Cf. among many other publications in the field Fischer, Diskussion, 612–629. 15 In his argument, Stipp especially counts terminological peculiarities (“prämasoretischer Idi­ olekt”): cf. Stipp, Zur aktuellen Diskussion, 632–636. Cf. also Engel, Erfahrungen, 80–93. 16 E.g., Bogaert, La vetus latina, 51–82, also considers the short version of the Vetus Latina. 17 Cf. also Tov, Literary History, 362–363.

Different Texts and Different Interpretations of “Exile” 

 33

texts are part of a certain style and narrative connected with other parts of each version within the Book of Jeremiah.18 Compared with 2 Kgs 25, the Hebrew version of Jer 52 adds several elements and details. It comes along simply much more elaborated. If we look for some detailed expansions, the section on the deportation of items from the Temple comes into view (Jer 52:17–23 par. 2 Kgs 25:13–17). The supplementation within the list of Temple vessels and utensils in Jer 52 does not have the character of a simple supplemen­ tary notation. Rather, it emphasizes the theological tendency of the tradition that is related to the connection of the catastrophe with Jeremiah’s prophecy. Insofar, the “plus” in Jer 52 in comparison to 2 Kgs 25 can be read within a framework that is provided by Jer 27:18–22 and 2 Chr 36:22–23. In Jer 27:19, 21–22 it is said: 19 For thus says the Lord of hosts concerning the pillars and the sea, concerning the trolleys and all the remains of the vessels that are left in this city. [. . .] 21 For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning the vessels that were left in the House of the Lord and in the House of the king of Judah and Israel. 22 To Babel, they shall be carried. And there, they shall be until the day when I visit them, says the Lord. And I will bring them up and will restore them to this place.

The passage on the Temple vessels in Jer 27 is a later reinterpretation19 of older prophetic speeches. The Hebrew text in v. 20, a historigraphical elaboration of this statement that combines judgment and salvation in the time between 597 and 587 BCE, and the last colon in v. 22, the notice of restoration, are missing in the Septuagint. That means that a later interpreter used the significance of the Temple vessels as an opportunity to explain judgment and salvation in the context of Jeremiah’s prophecy.20 And in Persian times the Chronicler enlarged this hope, when he connected the—already realized—hope for salvation, understood as the completion of Jeremiah’s prophecy, with the return of the people (2 Chr 36:22–23): 22 In the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, in order to complete the word of the Lord in the mouth of Jeremiah, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, the king of Persia: He has let spread a voice all around his kingdom and also in an edict: 23 Thus says Cyrus, the King of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth had the Lord, the God of heaven, given to me. And it was he, who visited me to build for him a house in Jerusalem that is in Judah. Whoever among you is from his people, the Lord, his God, is with you—and he shall go up!

18 Cf., e.g., the analysis of Wells, Amplification, 272–292. 19 Thiel, Deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45, 8–9, quotes for his D­composition. 20 The hope for salvation, as expressed in the bringing back of the vessels (v. 22b), could stem from Jer 32:37. Cf. Levin, Verheißung, 192.

34 

 Stefan Beyerle

The passage clearly interprets the word and prophecy of Jeremiah in a positive sense. In this respect, it goes beyond the notices in Jer 27. Again the reconstruc­ tion of the Temple of Jerusalem is mentioned, and the use of the “visitation” (‫פקד‬: cf. 2 Chr 36:23 with Jer 27:22) has positive connotations, just as the meaning of “bring up” (‫ עלה‬Hiph‘il: cf., again, 2 Chr 36:23 with Jer 27:22). This reading of some key terms can be contrasted with the episode of Gedaliah, the later­assassinated governor (‫ פקד‬Hiph‘il: cf. 2 Kgs 25:22–23; Jer 52: vac.)21, and with the fate of king Zedekiah, who once was brought up (‫ )עלה‬to Riblah for judgment (cf. 2 Kgs 25:6; Jer 52:9 and 39:5). If we look at the parallels of Jer 52:17–23 and 2 Kgs 25:13–17, it is striking that there is a mass of material in both the Hebrew and the Greek version of Jer 52 that could not be found in 2 Kgs, and here also in the Hebrew and in the Greek texts.22 And what is more, the “plusses” collect utensils from the inner part of the Jerusalem Temple, like the “tossing­bowl” (Jer 52:18; 1 Kgs 7:40, 45, 50), the “pots and lampstands” (Jer 52:19; 1 Kgs 7:45, 49), the “twelve brazen oxen under” the base of the “sea” (Jer 52:20; 1 Kgs 7:25, 44), which “king” Solomon made (cf. 1 Kgs 7:13–14). All these expansions stem from the detailed description of the Temple or its predecessors in 1 Kgs 7 or in Exod 25 and Num 7.23 Bearing in mind the Temple of Solomon as an orientation and the double function of judgment and salvation stemming from the explained frame, the fol­ lowing conclusion can be drawn: Jer 52:17–23 represents a late tradition, obviously from a time when the second Temple was already finished, that added specimens from the time of the Solomonic Temple in order to see the prophecies of Jere­ miah fulfilled in a positive sense.24 As with some traditions from King David, the utensils of the Temple of Solomon could function as a kind of “counter­present reality.”25 This phenomenon is based on the idea that the reality a text constructs

21 The lack of references to Gedaliah “the governor” in Jer 52 may be due to the episode about Gedaliah’s assassination already mentioned in Jer 40:7–41:18: cf. Person, II Kings 24,18–25,30, 180; Person, Kings – Isaiah, 108. 22 Cf. the list in Person, II Kings 24,18–25,30, 179. 23 Cf. the recent commentaries of McKane, Jeremiah, 1370–1376; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52, 647– 650. Recently, Levin, Empty Land, 77–78, also hints to 2 Chr 36:7, 10, 18; Jer 27:16–22 and charac­ terizes 2 Kgs 25:13–17 (MT) as a “midrash” using “palpable terms” that point to the re­building of the Temple under Cyrus. 24 Pace Fischer, Jeremia 52, 345–350, who interprets the “plusses” in Jer 52, as compared to 2 Kgs 25, through the motivation of the “redactor” in Jer 52 to reach completeness and to emphasize the judgment of Exile, in contradiction to my proposed interpretation. 25 For the terminology cf. Theissen, Tradition und Entscheidung, who writes (ibid, 175): “Die theologischen Ideen, in denen die kontrapräsentische Treue zur Vergangenheit begründet ist,

Different Texts and Different Interpretations of “Exile” 

 35

is not in agreement with the reality of the writer and his time. For example, with regards to the Temple, the Qumran Temple Scroll preserves such a phenomenon. The much shorter parallel in Jer 39 does not even mention the Temple in its Hebrew and Greek editions. And this is the reason why some commentaries pro­ posed to insert in v. 8 the Tetragrammaton (cf. 52:13) and read: “And the house of the king, the house of the Lord and the houses of the people the Chaldaeans set on fire.”26 But there is no textual evidence for such a reading. The LXX version in Jer 39 (ch. 46: LXX) did not witness the relevant passage (vv. 4–8: Hebrew) and consequently only features a rather general notice concerning the “city that was broken up” (v. 2: Aorist passive of ῥήγνυμι; Hebr. Hoph‘al ‫)בקע‬27. Furthermore, in both texts, Hebrew and Greek, of Jer 39:16 the prophet’s attitude is still heavily influenced by the prediction of judgment, as Jeremiah’s saying for Ebed­melech underlines (cf. also Jer 21:10; 44:27 and Am 9:4):28 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Look, here I am to bring my words against this city for evil and not for good.” Contrary to the tendency of the Hebrew and Greek text in Jer 52, ch. 39 shows no allusion to a positive and hopeful future for the exiled people. This one­sided aspect is further emphasized in Jer 39, because the foreign, i.e. Ethiopian, minister, the rescuer of Jeremiah, Ebed­melech (cf. Jer 38:7–13), is the only person besides the prophet who perceives liberation. It is further notewor­ thy to recognize that a comparison of the plot of the Hebrew version in Jer 39 with that of Jer 52 and 2 Kgs 25 reveals the following: while in Jer 39 the story of Jeremiah’s and Ebed­melech’s releases follow the notice on the endowment of the remaining poor people by Nebuzaradan (vv. 10 and 11–18), the parallel notices on those remaining poor men in 2 Kgs 25:12 and Jer 52:16 are followed by the above­discussed passage concerning the deportation of the Temple vessels (cf. 2 Kgs 25:13–17; Jer 52:17–23).29 Consequently, the compositions in those three texts also underline the different tendencies, mentioned above, in Jer 52 on the

sind die Ideen der Erwählung, des Gedenkens, der Umkehr und der Hoffnung.” For some rea­ sons, all these theological topics are included in the later Book of Jeremiah. 26 Cf. Rudolph, Jeremia, 208–209; and also the discussion in McKane, Jeremiah, 978–979. 27 The Hoph‘al of ‫ בקע‬in Jer 39:2 is unique, as the parallels in Jer 52:7 and 2 Kgs 25:4 prefer the Niph‘al of the same root (cf. Fischer, Jeremia, 351). 28 About the change in attitude within the post­exilic prophetic traditions cf. Schmid, Buch­ gestalten, 358–359. For a possible relationship between the different contexts of the above men­ tioned quotation cf. Levin, Verheißung, 200, who adds also the „Vision of the Fig­baskets” (Jer 24, cf. vv. 5–6, 9). 29 Bogaert, La vetus latina, 60, calls it “modification.”

36 

 Stefan Beyerle

one hand and in Jer 39 on the other. And a literary­historical dependency of ch. 39 on Jer 52 and 2 Kgs 25 is thus hardly convincing.30 Certainly, all traditions concerning the Exile are based on the hermeneutical background of “Exile as judgment.” But at least the “pluses” in Jer 52 go beyond this interpretation. The relevant passages about the interior of the Temple should be read in the context of a late tendency within the Book of Jeremiah that com­ bines judgment and salvation, and the latter only for those who experienced judgment as the “exiled people” (v. 9; cf. 2 Kgs 25:11; Jer 52:15).31 With a view to the Greek texts of the deportation of Temple utensils, I already noted their widespread coincidence with the Hebrew edition. But this is only the case in Jer 52. A different phenomenon comes to view if 2 Kgs 25:13–17 and its Antiochene or Lucianic edition is recognized.32 The Greek editions reflect very differently on the question of responsibility for the deportation of the Temple vessels. For many reasons, 2 Kgs 25:16 and Jer 52:20 are significant. While the Mas­ oretic Text and the Septuagint of 2 Kgs 25:16 refer to the “two pillars, the one sea and the trolleys which Solomon made for the house of the Lord,” the Antiochene edition of the same verse in 2 Kgs 25 differs and speaks of those vessels “which King Solomon made in the house of the Lord.”33 The “plus” of the title of Solomon converges with the Hebrew and Greek text in Jer 52:20. The Masoretic text of Jer 52:20 provides a supplemented edition, compared with the Masoretic version and the Septuagint in 2 Kgs 25: 16 (Jer 52:20): “the trolleys which King Solomon made for the house of the Lord.” The name of Solomon is mentioned only here in the Book of Jeremiah. Taking this phenomenon into account, Solomon’s designation as “King” might be reasonable. But for 2 Kgs it does not make any sense for the reader to be introduced to Solomon’s kingship. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Antiochene edition of 2 Kgs 25 was influenced at this point by the latter tradi­ tion from Jer 52.34

30 Pace Fischer, Jeremia, 349–361. But cf. Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit, 190, who refers to Jer 39:4–10 as an older passage (cf. also the discussion in McKane, Jeremiah, 989–992). 31 Cf. also a text like Jer 38:2–3 (see also 21:9): “2 Thus says the Lord: The one who resides [fur­ ther] in this city [Jerusalem] will die through the sword, through hunger and pestilence. But the one who will go out to the Chaldaeans will live. And his life will be for him like a booty, and he will live. 3 Thus says the Lord: Make sure to give this city [Jerusalem] in the hand of the army of the king of Babylon, and he will take her.” 32 Some general information on the Lucianic recension provides the book of Trebolle Barre­ ra, Jewish and Christian Bible, 310–311. 33 For the text cf. Fernández Marcos / Busta Saiz, Texto antioqueno, 159. 34 Cf. also Person, II Kings 24,18–25,30, 180, who states that “the addition of »king« in Jer 52,20 can be easily understood as an addition arising out of the re­application of a passage from DtrH to its place in the Deuteronomistic redaction of Jeremiah.” Despite the fact that one should be

Different Texts and Different Interpretations of “Exile” 

 37

Furthermore, in the same verse of 2 Kgs 25:16 the Antiochene text reads: “those [the vessels] which Nabuzardan, the leader of the guard, took.” This reading is unique among all versions of the texts. But on the other hand, all textual witnesses (2 Kgs 25:18, 20 [MT, LXX, LXXLuc]; Jer 52:24, 26 [MT, LXX]) refer to the “leader of the guard” or “Nabuzar[a]dan, the leader of the guard,”35 who “took them.” And again, the wording corresponds to that of the above noticed passage in 2 Kgs 25:16. Only, in the latter texts no vessels but Temple and state officials are “taken by Nabuzar[a]dan.” And, it should be added, while only the second attestation men­ tions also the name Nabuzar[a]dan (2 Kgs 25:20; Jer 52:26), the first two verses in 2Kgs 25:18 (cf. v. 15) and Jer 52:24 only refer to the “leader of the guard.” Obviously, the Antiochene text of 2 Kgs 25 tries to emphasize the responsibility of the Babylo­ nian official Nabuzar[a]dan within the context of the exile of the Temple vessels, despite the fact that the Antiochene text is not consequent in this regard.36 Another interesting point is the question of how these different texts inter­ pret guilt and responsibility in relation to the Exile within the editions’ own con­ texts. It makes sense to start with the Chronicler’s view. Most of the commentators count this passage among the youngest known versions (2 Chr 36:12–13): 12 And he (i.e., Zedekiah) did the evil in the eyes of the Lord, his God. He did not humble himself before Jeremiah, who prophesied by means of the mouth of the Lord. 13 And also against king Nebuchadnezzar he rebelled, who made him swear by God. And he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart, not to turn back to the Lord, the God of Israel.

The text explains the guilt of king Zedekiah through a typical Deuteronomistic expression (v.12): “He did the evil in the eyes of the Lord, his God.” Furthermore, it is noted that Zedekiah rebelled (hebr. ‫ )מרד‬against king Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon.37 Here, the text comes along together with 2 Kgs 24:19a and v. 20b.38 The awkward­faded humility of the king is mentioned, by using this terminology, only in 2 Chr 33:23, with view to king Amon. Of even more interest is Zedekiah’s

careful with terms like “DtrH” and “Deuteronomistic redaction of Jeremiah,” the Antiochene text had obviously borrowed again the term “king” from Jer 52. 35 Further provenance of “Nabuzar[a]dan, the leader of the guard” can be found in 2 Kgs 25:8, 11 (MT, LXX, LXXLuc.); Jer 39:9–11, 13 (MT; LXX: vac.); 40:1 (MT) / 47:1 (LXX); 41:10 (MT; LXX: vac.); 43:6 (MT) / 50:6 (LXX: only the proper name without title); 52:12, 15–16, 30 (MT; LXX: vac.). All occurrences in MT call Nabuzaradan by his title: ‫ב־ט ָב ִחים‬ ַ ‫“( ַר‬leader of the guard”). As far as not otherwise indicated, all Greek translations read ὁ ἀρχιμάγειρος. 36 Cf., e.g., 2 Kgs 25:14, where the LXX reads the singular of the verb λαμβάνω, while the Anti­ ochene text has the plural. 37 On the motif of the broken oath see also Ezek 17:19 and Japhet, 2 Chronik, 505. 38 All Greek texts, including the Antiochene version on 2 Kgs 24:19–20, converge.

38 

 Stefan Beyerle

stubbornness (hebr. ‫קשה‬, Hiph‘il). The Chronicler obviously refers to the Deu­ teronomistic interpretation of the end of the Northern Kingdom (cf. 2 Kgs 17:14), which also points to the stubbornness of the “fathers” in the Chronicler and Nehemiah (2 Chr 30:8; Neh 9:16–17) and to several further attestations in the Book of Jeremiah (cf. Jer 7:26; 17:23; 19:15)39. It is noticeable that in Jer 19:14–15 stubborn­ ness is mentioned in a speech of the prophet Jeremiah, in which he addressed the crowd (‫ נבא‬and ‫ )עם‬with the word of God for the first time. Konrad Schmid highlights the following aspects in Jer 19–20: Sobald also Jeremia mit den an ihn ergangenen Jhwh­Worten an die Öffentlichkeit tritt, kommt sowohl seine persönliche Verfolgung als auch das konkrete Gerichtswerkzeug Jhwhs, Babel, zur Sprache.40

The remaining passage that is inserted by the Chronicler, when compared with 2 Kgs 24, is the notice about Zedekiah’s “stiffened heart” (‫אמץ‬, Pi‘el). Once again, the Chronicler took his inspiration from Deuteronomistic contexts (cf. Deut 2:30; 15:7). In sum, the Chronicler’s text concerning the Babylonian occupation lays em­ phasis on the guilt of King Zedekiah in an elaborated way compared with its par­ allels. The chapter therefore combines allusions from Deuteronomistic passages and from late traditions in the Book of Jeremiah (cf. also 2 Chr 36:21). The motifs and the terminology allude to Deuteronomistic passages that also recall the guilt of the fathers’ generation. And as it follows in 2 Chr 36, the broadening of the respon­ sibility, by means of mourning the unfaithfulness of the priests and the people (2 Chr 36:14–16), also brings to mind passages from the Book of Jeremiah, wherein the guilt of the fathers is transmitted to the apostasy of the exilic generation (cf. Jer 3:25; 14:20).41 In short, the Chronicler blamed king Zedekiah and the priests together with the people. But he does it in a way that echoes a theological concept that was already known to late layers in the Book of Jeremiah and also in Deuter­ onomistic texts. The texts in 2 Kgs 24:19–20 provide a different picture. First of all, the Hebrew text in 2 Kgs and in Jer 52:2–3 is identical, apart from some minor orthographic deviations. There is an allusion to the fathers’ guilt and stubbornness, and, beside the well­known Deuteronomistic formula that Zedekiah did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord (v. 19), there is only a brief notice (v. 20b): “And Zedekiah rebelled

39 All these passages are interpreted as “Deuteronomistic Jeremiah” (JerD) in Thiel, Deuterono­ mistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25, 123–124, 205, 226. 40 Schmid, Buchgestalten, 4. 41 Cf. Levin, Verheißung, 54.

Different Texts and Different Interpretations of “Exile” 

 39

against the king of Babylon.” The reference to the guilt of Judah and Jerusalem does not fit in that context syntactically.42 Here, we read (v. 20a): ‫ד־ה ְׁש ִלכֹו א ָֹתם ֵמ ַעל ָפנָ יו‬ ִ ‫יהּודה ַע‬ ָ ‫ּוב‬ ִ ִ‫ירּוׁש ַלם‬ ָ ‫ל־אף יְ הוָ ה ָהיְ ָתה ִב‬ ַ ‫ִכי ַע‬ For because of the Lord’s anger, it happened in Jerusalem and Judah, while/until43 he cast them out of his presence.

In this passage God’s anger is a reaction against the unfaithfulness of the remain­ ing people in Judah and Jerusalem. Its consequence is the complete isolation from the God of Israel (cf. also 2 Kgs 13:23; 17:20).44 The theological consequence of guilt and responsibility is painted in different colors when compared with 2 Chr 36.45 But much more different is the way in which the Greek text of Jer 52 dealt with the responsibility and guilt of the exiled people. The examined verses of the Hebrew text are lacking in the Septuagint. And what is more, the Greek text of Jer 52 lacks every hint at guilt and responsibility, whether king Zedekiah or the people of Judah are concerned.46 This is also the case in both the Hebrew and the Greek text of Jer 39. With a view to the Greek text of Jer 52, we have two differ­ ent ways of how to explain this lack: first, the Greek text was based on a shorter Hebrew edition or, second, the Greek translators shortened their Hebrew Vorlage. Concerning the first possibility, one could assume that the Greek text retained an older, pre­Deuteronomistic type of text. But this would presuppose a shorter, pre­Deuteronomistic Hebrew Vorlage, which we do not have. With a view to the 42 Therefore Würthwein, Bücher der Könige, 474–475; Levin, Empty Land, 70, 74, assigns only v. 20b to the older stratum. Levin interprets v. 20a as a theological gloss wherein the exiles are the elect of God, in contrast to the people who remained in the land. 43 For the durative aspect of the Hebrew preposition ‫ עד‬cf. Waltke and O’Connor, Introduc­ tion, 215, with reference to 2 Kgs 9:22 (11.2.12, # 5.). Fischer, Jeremia 26–52, 633 (cf. also ibid, 641–42), translates as such: “Denn zum Zorn JHWHs geschah [Vieles?] in Jerusalem und Juda, [bis] daß er sie von seinem Angesicht verwarf.” 44 Cf. Person, Kings—Isaiah, 110–111; Person, II Kings 24,18–25,30, 185–186. It should be added to the list: Jer 7:15. 45 The Greek texts, including the Antiochene version, understood ‫ כי‬as ὅτι and ‫ עד‬as ἕως: “For it was according to the Lord’s anger against Jerusalem and in/on Juda, until he cast them out of his presence, that Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon.” In this understanding of the guilt God’s anger with Jerusalem and Judah is connected with Zedekiah’s apostasy. But: the construction and Greek syntax was not formulated in a clear structure. For example, the editors of the Antiochene text set a period after v. 20a. Consequently, the sentence καὶ ἠθέτησεν Σεδεκιας ἐν τῷ βασιλεῖ Βαβυλῶνος would not signify the accordance of God’s anger and Zedekiah’s rebel­ lion against the king of Babylon (cf. Fernández Marcos / Busto Saiz, Texto antioqueno, 157). 46 Cf. also the observations in Fischer, Jeremia 52, 341, and the synopsis of German translations of the Septuagint and the MT in Finsterbusch / Jacoby, MT­Jeremia, 272–281.

40 

 Stefan Beyerle

second possibility, it would be necessary to reconstruct reasons why the Greek text left out references to the guilt of Zedekiah and the Judean people. A closer look at how the Book of Jeremiah deals with Zedekiah can help to clarify this question. Zedekiah is one of the most prominent figures in the Book of Jeremiah. In general, this figure ran the gamut from a king who will die in peace (Jer 34:5)47 to a rather weak and chicken­hearted character in chs. 37–38, to an instant source of evil behavior (especially as the archenemy of the prophet Jeremiah: cf. Jer 44–45LXX).48 In Jer 37:1–2 we read, contrary to the rest of this chapter, a highly negative depiction of Zedekiah together with his officials and the ‫עם הארץ‬. But the style of vv. 1–2 is clearly Deuteronomistic and, insofar, different from what follows. In Jer 37:1–2, as in the other texts I already discussed, the Deuteronomistic concept of guilt combines the individual habit of the king (Zedekiah) with that of the people.49 All in all, the following data may allow us to come to a conclusion: In general, the picture of Zedekiah within in the different layers of the Book of Jeremiah becomes more and more negative. A connection between the evil doing of the king and the people should also be considered. With the reconciliation of Jehoiachin in 562 BCE, the general mood changed. As Juha Pakkala has shown, the negative character of Zedekiah is due to a newly arising hope that could be articulated as a story of the legitimization of Jehoiachin and the Davidic kingship connected with this ruler (cf. 2 Kgs 25:27–30; Jer 52:31–34).50 This fits with the generally positive allusions within Jer 52 I already pointed out. Thus, a hint to a guilty king and people or, at least, to responsibility for judgment in general would have clashed horribly with the described tendency. The Greek text of Jer 52 possibly had reason in this literal­historical context to omit vv. 2–3 of the Hebrew text.

Conclusions In the aftermath of a late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries text­critical dis­ cussion and a more literary­critical oriented early twentieth century debate, we are back at a more methodologically reflected and, in terms of data bases (see Qumran), enlarged analysis of text­critical phenomena, especially when it comes to the Book of Jeremiah. From a specific German speaking scholarship point of

47 This notice obviously stands in contradiction to the reported fate of king Zedekiah in 2 Kgs 25:6–7 par. Jer 52:9–11* and also in Jer 39:5–7. Cf. also Pakkala, Zedekiah’s Fate, 445–447. 48 Cf. Stipp, Zedekiah, 627–648. 49 This is also the case in the Hebrew text of Jer 52:2–3, where the LXX is lacking. 50 Cf. Pakkala, Zedekiah’s Fate, 449–452.

Different Texts and Different Interpretations of “Exile” 

 41

view, we are just learning that text­critical operations should not be separated from redaction criticism or questions concerning the traditions of a text com­ position. In general, we should stay away from the idea of “Urtexte” and their reconstruction.51 Despite the many cases where the Greek text preserved the older version, it can be learned by the analyzed examples that neither the Septuagint represents the Urtext nor the Hebrew handed down the “end­text.” The passage on the deportation of the Temple vessels has shown, e.g., that the Hebrew and Greek text of Jer 52 rely upon a late reinterpretation of Jeremi­ ah’s prophecy with an eye to the combination of salvation and judgment. Another “contextual reading” in the Book of Jeremiah further outlines a completely dif­ ferent hermeneutic in ch. 39, wherein the destruction of the Temple is not even mentioned. Finally, the Antiochene text in 2 Kgs 25:13–17 transmits readings from Jer 52 with the theological aim underscoring Nebuzar[a]dan’s role in the deporta­ tion of the Temple vessels. The second paradigm, the question of guilt and judgment, required for the omission of every hint to the responsibility of king Zedekiah or the Judean people in the Greek text of Jer 52. Again, the context of the Book of Jeremiah might pave the way to an answer: Zedekiah’s portrait in the Book of Jeremiah, which devel­ ops from a more or less neutral king, a fainthearted person, to an evil­doer in combination with the connection of the King’s and the people’s guilt, did not fit with the aim of the Greek text in Jer 52: to articulate hope after the Exile. The recent debate on the different texts in Jeremiah and the Book of Kings is, especially in Germany, highly ideological. The texts discussed here show how care­ fully one should pass judgment on these different texts when it comes to “Exile.”

Bibliography Bogaert, P.-M., La vetus latina de Jérémie: texte très court, témoin de la plus ancienne Septante et d’une forme plus ancienne de l’hébreu (Jer 39 et 52), in: A. Schenker (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SBLSCS 52), Atlanta 2003, 51–82. Duhm, B., Das Buch Jeremia (KHC 11), Tübingen – Leipzig 1901. Eichhorn, J. G., Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Vierter Band, Göttingen 1824. Engel, H., Erfahrungen mit der LXX-Fassung des Jeremiabuches im Rahmen des Projektes ‘Septuaginta Deutsch’, in: H.-J. Fabry and D. Böhler (eds.), Im Brennpunkt: Die

51 We should also stay away from qualifying terms like “am besten bezeugt,” “Fremdkörper,” “isoliert,” or comparable expressions that Fischer, Jeremia, 52, 337, 340–341, uses. For a critical evaluation cf. Stipp, Zur aktuellen Diskussion, 631–632.

42 

 Stefan Beyerle

Septuaginta. Vol. 3: Studien zur Theologie, Anthropologie, Ekklesiologie, Eschatologie und Liturgie der Griechischen Bibel (BWANT 174), Stuttgart 2007. Fernández Marcos, N. / Busta Saiz, J. R. (eds.), El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega (Textos y estudios «Cardenal Cisneros» de la Biblia Políglota Matritense 53), Madrid 1992. Finsterbusch, K. / Jacoby N., MT-Jeremia und LXX-Jeremia 25–52. Synoptische Übersetzung und Analyse der Kommunikationsstruktur (WMANT 146), Neukirchen 2017. Fischer, G., Die Diskussion um den Jeremiatext, in: M. Karrer and W. Kraus (eds.), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006 (WUNT 219), Tübingen 2008, 612–629. Fischer, G., Jeremia 26–52 (HThKAT), Freiburg 2005. Fischer, G., Jeremia 52 – ein Schlüssel zum Jeremiabuch: Bib 79 (1998) 333–359. Hardmeier, Ch., Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas. Erzählkommunikative Studien zur Erzählsituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzählungen in II Reg 18 – 20 und Jer 37 – 40 (BZAW 187), Berlin/New York 1990. Herrmann, S., Jeremia (BKAT XII,1–2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986/1990. Herrmann, S., Jeremia. Der Prophet und das Buch (EdF 271), Darmstadt 1990. Hubmann, F. D., Bemerkungen zur älteren Diskussion um die Unterschiede zwischen MT and G im Jeremiabuch, in: W. Groß (ed.), Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung” (BBB 98), Weinheim 1995, 263–270. Janzen, J. G., Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6), Cambridge 1973. Japhet, S., 2 Chronik (HThKAT), Freiburg 2003. Koch, K., Daniel. 1. Teilband: Dan 1 – 4 (BKAT XXII/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2005. Lange, A., Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Band 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und anderen Fundorten, Tübingen 2009. Lange, A., Vom prophetischen Wort zur prophetischen Tradition. Studien zur Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte innerprophetischer Konflikte in der Hebräischen Bibel (FAT 34), Tübingen 2002. Levin, Ch., Die Verheißung der neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137), Göttingen 1985. Levin, Ch., The Empty Land in Kings, in: E. Ben Zvi and Ch. Levin (eds.), The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts (BZAW 404), Berlin and New York 2010, 61–89. McKane, W., Jeremiah. Vol. II: Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–LII (ICC), Edinburgh 1996. Pakkala, J., Zedekiah’s Fate and the Dynastic Succession: JBL 125 (2006) 443–452. Person, Jr. R. F., The Kings – Isaiah and Kings – Jeremiah Recensions (BZAW 252), Berlin/ New York 1997. Person, Jr., R. F., II Kings 24,18–25,30 and Jeremiah 52: A Text-Critical Case Study in the Redaction History of the Deuteronomistic History: ZAW 105 (1993) 174–205. Rudolph, W., Jeremia (HAT I/12), Tübingen 1947. Schmid, K., Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches. Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsund Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches (WMANT 72), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996. Stipp, H.-J. Zur aktuellen Diskussion um das Verhältnis der Textformen des Jeremiabuches, in: M. Karrer and W. Kraus (eds.), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006 (WUNT 219), Tübingen 2008, 630–653.

Different Texts and Different Interpretations of “Exile” 

 43

Stipp, H.-J., Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Formation of a Biblical Character: CBQ 58 (1996) 627–648. Theissen, G., Tradition und Entscheidung. Der Beitrag des biblischen Glaubens zum kulturellen Gedächtnis, in: J. Assmann and T. Hölscher (eds.), Kultur und Gedächtnis, Frankfurt am Main 1988, 174–188. Thiel, W., Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1 – 25 (WMANT 41), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973. Thiel, W., Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45. Mit einer Gesamtbeurteilung der deuteronomistischen Redaktion des Buches Jeremia (WMANT 52), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981. Tov, E., Der Text der hebräischen Bibel. Handbuch der Textkritik, Stuttgart 1997. Tov, E., The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of Its Textual History, in: E. Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72), Leiden 1999, 363–384. Trebolle Barrera, J., The Jewish and the Christian Bible. An Introduction to the History of the Bible, Leiden 1998. Waltke, B. K. / O’Connor, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake 1990. Wells, Jr, R. D., The Amplification of the Expectations of the Exiles in the MT Revision of Jeremiah, in: A.R. Pete Diamond et al (eds.), Troubling Jeremiah (JSOTSup 260), Sheffield 1999, 272–292. Würthwein, E., Die Bücher der Könige. 1. Kön. 17 – 2. Kön. 25 (ATD 11,2), Göttingen 1984.

Matthew Goff

Effaced and Naturalized Modes of Jewish Reading: The Judah and Tamar Story (Genesis 38), the Book of Jubilees, and Robert Alter Abstract: Robert Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative (1981) is a stinging critique of the field of biblical studies. It asserts that biblical scholars do not have the requisite literary sensibility to appreciate the narrative art of the Hebrew Bible. He illustrates the literary approach he advocates with a reading of the Judah and Tamar story (Genesis 38). He argues that an “intelligent reading” of the narrative with precise attention to its literary details demonstrates that, whereas most bibli­ cal scholars view it as an interruption of the Joseph novella, it makes sense exactly where it is in Genesis. He supports his argument by appealing to Genesis Rabbah, contending that early midrashists were able to discern the same formal or aes­ thetic elements of Genesis 38 his approach highlights, and thus they reached the same conclusion, that the tale’s location makes sense where it is in Genesis. Alter naturalizes as a straightforward “close reading” nurtured in the secular realm of literature departments an approach that is in continuity with a larger rabbinic exegetical project that affirms the canonical text of the Hebrew Bible. Alter’s approach, while insightful and engaging, occludes and effaces other Jewish modes of reading that are not in line with the canonizing exegesis of midrash. This article explores this issue by juxtaposing Alter’s reading of the Judah and Tamar story with that of the Book of Jubilees, which, unlike Alter or Genesis Rabbah, pre­ sumably understood the placement of the story a problem, since in Jubilees the tale has been relocated to just before the famine in Egypt. There is a kind of “intel­ ligent reading” behind this scribal maneuver that cannot be accommodated by Alter’s canonizing “literary approach.” Keywords: Robert Alter, literary approach, intelligent reading, Book of Jubilees

Note: A version of this article was presented at the Southeastern Regional Meeting of the SBL/ AAR on March 14, 2021. This essay is warmly dedicated to Géza Xeravits, who was a good scholar, a good person, and a top-notch organizer of conferences. I thank Emily Olsen and Tommy Woodward for their assistance with this essay. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-003

46 

 Matthew Goff

1 Introduction Few books have made an impact like Robert Alter’s slim 1981 volume, The Art of Biblical Narrative. The book offers a devastating critique of scholars of the Hebrew Bible. Alter argues that their training, which promotes the view that one should identify incongruities in biblical texts in order to identify and separate their constituent sources, prevents them from appreciating the literary and aes­ thetic aspects of narratives. Biblical scholars, he contends, do not have the requi­ site skills to adequately read the Bible. Over the years Alter’s literary approach has had its promoters and detrac­ tors.1 For a long time I was in the former camp, and I still sort of am, but mainly out of a sense of nostalgia. Alter’s books were instrumental in my own decision as a young student to go into biblical studies. Over the years Alter’s core message has stayed with me – that biblicists often have a tin ear and miss the literary subtleties of the text. It was always important to me not to be a scholar like that. But now later in my career it is easier to see if not the shortcomings then the limitations of Alter’s approach. His insightful and engaging literary gaze essentially stops when it reaches the canonical bounds of the Jewish Bible. That’s where the carpet ends. Much has happened in the field since the 1980s. Biblical studies has been transformed by the Dead Sea Scrolls and there is more inter­ est than ever before in ancient texts that are in neither the Jewish nor Christian canons. The publications of Géza Xeravits, which focus on the Dead Sea Scrolls and apocryphal/deuterocanonical literature, are representative of this shift. This ongoing decentering of the canon has gone hand in hand with a re­evaluation of the conceptions of scripture that we bring to the study of ancient Jewish litera­ ture. Moreover, Wellhausenian source criticism, and its impulse to break down narratives into their putative constituent parts, which was for Alter a key reason biblical scholars are not attuned to read narratives as a whole, is no longer the master paradigm it was when The Art of Biblical Narrative was published.2 These factors for me place Alter’s critique of the field in the history of scholarship; it is not, at least for me, the guiding star it once was.3

1 Steven Weitzman, in the lead article of Prooftexts 27.2 (2007), a special issue devoted to “Before and After the Art of Biblical Narrative” (his essay has the same title), offers a helpful overview of assessments and critiques of Alter’s literary approach and its reception. 2 Classic source criticism, however, had already begun to come under serious critique by the early 80s, by scholars such Rendtorff, Blum, and Levin. See for example Rendtorff, The ‘Yahwist’ as Theologian? 3 The decline of an Alteresque literary approach from its heyday in the 80s and 90s is a broader phenomenon and aptly charted by Weitzman, Before and After, 194–196. Even Alter himself

Effaced and Naturalized Modes of Jewish Reading 

 47

Alter stresses that the mode of literary analysis he advocates, while out of step with mainstream biblical studies, is in continuity with traditional Jewish exegesis or midrash. He argues that the rabbis, as close readers of biblical nar­ rative, were able to see the literary nuances he as a professor of literature can observe. Midrash serves as evidence that the narrative art of the Hebrew Bible he promotes, while by and large unnoticed in biblical studies, has been there for a long time. The reading strategies of both Alter and the authors of midrash, which are similar but not the same, are shaped by core parameters of rabbinic Judaism and informed by exegetical traditions that privilege the canonical text of Judaism, the Hebrew Bible.4 This is not in itself a problem but articulating this intellec­ tual context allows us to recover other Jewish styles of reading Genesis that are is willing to concede this his approach “may be a failing enterprise” (Response, 368). Alter’s mode of reading biblical texts should be understood in the context of the high modernism of New Criticism that dominated English literature departments in the mid­twentieth century. This approach promoted “close readings” of texts without contextualization of the reader, the text, or the author. Alter stresses the formal elements of texts as objective features intentionally com­ posed by authors in ancient Israel. He consistently frames his observations as simple yet pre­ cise consequences of “reading” rather than as “interpretation.” It follows that any intelligent or discerning reader would observe the literary details he does and come up with the same or at least similar readings. All of this, while in line with the earlier New Criticism, is out of step with the rise and institutionalization in English departments during the 80s and 90s of what can be broadly called “theory” – reader­response criticism, with its emphasis on the production of meaning not by the author but rather by the reader, and the attendant pluriformity of possible readings, the rise of deconstruction or post­modernism, with their emphasis on indeterminacy and the absence of objective knowledge, or the rise of a mode of cultural studies that prioritiz­ es attention to power dynamics, ideology, and marginalized or subaltern perspectives, rather than decontextualized devotion to the aesthetics of canonical texts. This broad trend in literature departments may explain Alter’s own shift away from modern literature to the Hebrew Bible. But now these intellectual trends are increasingly common in biblical studies. This may in turn explain Alter’s shift in the latter phase of his career, which is much more engaged with biblical translation than biblical scholarship, focusing on iteration of the primary text rather that the production of secondary literature. The renewed sense in biblical studies today that we should avoid anachronistically imposing modern conceptions of authorship and textuality on ancient texts makes the Alteresque view that we should carry out close readings of biblical texts with the same sensibility with which we read Shakespeare or Proust hard to sustain. This contempo­ rary concern, powerfully expressed by scholars such as Najman or Mroczek (see, respectively, Najman, Seconding Sinai, and Mroczek, The Literary Imagination), hearkens back to Kugel’s early critique of Alter, that his approach demands more contextualization of both ancient tex­ tuality and modern reading, and the subsequent appreciation of the difference between the two discursive worlds. See Kugel, On the Bible, 234. For a defense of Alter’s approach, see Kawashi­ ma, Comparative Literature. Note also Geller, Some Pitfalls, 409. 4 Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 11. See also Weitzman, Before and After, 198; Kugel, On the Bible, 223.

48 

 Matthew Goff

different from and effaced by Alter’s canon­centric “literary approach” and its midrashic antecedents. I would like to illustrate this point by juxtaposing Alter’s reading of the Judah and Tamar story in Genesis 38 with the iteration of this tale in the book of Jubilees.

2 Alter’s J’Accuse: The Judah and Tamar Story and its Placement in the Book of Genesis The Art of Biblical Narrative begins with a close reading of the Judah and Tamar story that exemplifies Alter’s “literary approach.” Genesis 38 serves as “Exhibit A” in his charge that biblical scholars by and large do not have the competency to adequately appreciate the nuances of the text. Genesis 38 works as a coherent story on its own. It centers on the patriarch Judah and his family. He has three sons – Er, Onan, and Shelah. Tamar was first married to Er and then, after he died, to Onan, following the custom of levirate marriage, but then Onan died as well. Judah is thus obliged to marry his young­ est son Shelah to Tamar. He must wait for him to grow up before he can marry Tamar. But, as she eventually realizes, Judah never intends to do that. Judah, as v. 11 stresses, is very aware that both his sons who were betrothed to Tamar are dead, and he is concerned that he would lose his last son too if he were to marry Tamar.5 She, from Judah’s perspective, is bad luck.6 Taking Tamar’s point of view, she is a woman trapped in legal limbo, at the mercy of a patriarchal culture in which she is powerless before the whims of her father­in­law, as feminist scholars have observed.7 Tamar also demonstrates that being trapped in a discriminatory culture can be an occasion for subversion and creative forms of liberation.8 Her predicament explains why she has sex with Judah when disguised as a prosti­ tute. She agrees to sleep with him in exchange for a kid goat as payment. Key for understanding her proposal is that he does not have a goat with him – so she accepts as a pledge several items that mark his identity, such as his signet

5 “(Judah said) ‘Remain a widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up’ – for he feared that he too would die, like his brothers.” Unless otherwise stated, this article uses the NRSV translation of the Bible. 6 In this sense Judah can be compared to Raguel the father of Sarah in the book of Tobit, who an­ ticipates that Tobias will die on the night of the wedding, since that had happened to the seven men previously betrothed to Sarah (Tob. 8:9–18; cf. 6:14–15). See also Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 160. 7 Galambush, Reading Genesis, 135–136; Niditch, Genesis, 42. 8 Claassens, Resisting Dehumanization.

Effaced and Naturalized Modes of Jewish Reading 

 49

(vv. 16–18, 25).9 Her possession of these objects allows her to prove, when Judah angrily demands that she be burned to death for becoming unlawfully pregnant, that he is the father (vv. 24–25).10 In an unusual expression of female agency, Tamar forces Judah to fulfill the obligations of the levirate marriage – she pro­ vides the family children not through her expected spouses but Judah himself.11 Through an embodied form of deception, she changes him from the problem to the solution. The chapter concludes with Tamar giving birth to twin sons, Perez and Zerah. The importance of her children is stressed in Ruth 4:18–22, which includes a genealogy of David that begins with Perez, giving Tamar’s lineage a royal pedigree. The story of Judah and Tamar disrupts the flow of the Joseph story. The preced­ ing chapter (ch. 37) ends with the brothers bringing Joseph’s cloak to Jacob, a mark of that son’s favored status, dipped in the blood of a goat to make it seem that he was killed by a wild animal. The ending of Genesis 37 makes clear that he was sold into slavery in Egypt. The story of Joseph’s enslavement is resumed in chapter 39. A comparison of the last verse of chapter 37 with the first one of chapter 39 makes this clear: Meanwhile, the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard. (Gen 37:36) Now Joseph was taken down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there. (Gen 39:1)

9 Alter, Genesis, 220; Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 156. 10 This form of capital punishment for a woman who is pregnant out of wedlock can be un­ derstood as a harsh but normative aspect of the society in the narrative world which Judah and Tamar inhabit. However, death by fire is not legislated in biblical law for a woman who becomes unlawfully pregnant. This mode of capital punishment is mandated in the sexuality laws of the Pentateuch in the case of a man who has intercourse with both a woman and her mother. Levit­ icus 20:14 states that all three people should be burned to death. The daughter of a priest who becomes a prostitute is also to be killed with fire (21:9; cf. Deut 22:13–22). Neither is the situation in Genesis 38. Judah’s call for death by fire can be understood as more extreme than any cultural norm of ancient Israel preserved in pentateuchal law. His desire to have Tamar burned to death can be interpreted in more Machiavellian terms: that he sees Tamar’s pregnancy as an opportuni­ ty to have her killed and thus solve his problem – that he is obliged to give her to Shelah but does not want to. Consistent with this impression, he seems to want her to die as soon as possible. Upon learning about her pregnancy, he says “Bring her out and let her be burned” (Gen 38:24). See Alter, Genesis, 222; Kugel, Ladder of Jacob, 171. 11 Amos, Genesis, 15, observes this point. Niditch, Genesis, 41–43, similarly describes Tamar as a “trickster” mother figure whose actions constitute an indirect critique of patriarchal society. See also Singh, Woman’s Fight.

50 

 Matthew Goff

Moreover, the Judah and Tamar story of Genesis 38 covers many years, enough for Judah to become a father and his three sons to get married, a scope of time that neither chapter 37 nor 39 accommodate. If the story of Genesis 38 were omitted, we would simply have the unbroken story of Joseph becoming a slave in Egypt continued from ch. 37 to 39. The standard conclusion reached by biblical scholars, which is still quite mainstream, is that the Judah and Tamar story is an independent text which interrupts the flow of the Joseph story and has little if anything to do with its loca­ tion in Genesis.12 This position irks Alter. For him it represents everything that is wrong with biblical studies.13 Alter fully realizes that the Judah and Tamar story has its own scale of narrative time. But the issue is how one discerns continuity between texts. Alter wants to show that Genesis as we have it was intentionally written with clear and sophisticated points of connection between ch. 38 and its immediate literary context. Narrative disjuncture is transcended by a higher the­ matic unity. Key links in terminology show that the story in Genesis 38 is not a disruption but rather an integral part of the Joseph novella (Gen 37–50). Crucial for Alter’s viewpoint is the use of verb ‫“( נכר‬to recognize”) as a Leitwort. Jacob “recognizes” Joseph’s bloody robe, meaning that he identifies it as belonging to Joseph and thus realizes that his son is dead: “He recognized it (‫ )וַ יַ ִכ ָירּה‬and said ‘It is my son’s robe! A wild animal has devoured him; Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces’” (37:33). Tamar deploys this same verb to show that the markers of identity belong to Judah: “Recognize please (‫)ה ֶכר־נָ א‬, ַ whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff” (38:25) and then he does, again with the key verb: “Then Judah acknowledged (‫( )וַ יַ ֵכר‬them)” (v. 26). The verb “to recognize” occurs in Genesis 37 as part of an act of deception, so that Jacob would “recognize” (acknowledge, believe) the lie that Joseph was dead. Then in chapter 38, Alter insightfully observes, this same verb is employed to uncover deception – Judah’s realization that the prostitute he slept with was Tamar. It was Judah in chapter 37 who recommended to his brothers that they sell Joseph into slavery (vv. 26–27). In Alter’s reading, strategic placements of the verb “recognize” help one discern that Genesis 38 makes sense exactly where it is – that the Judah and Tamar story offers a form of recompense against Judah for his deeds against Joseph in chapter 37. Alter concludes that Genesis 38 “is an exemplary narrative instance of the deceiver deceived.”14 12 See, for example, Carr, Reading the Fractures, 249–253. 13 Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 4, observes that Speiser in his authoritative Anchor Bible commentary (Speiser, Genesis, 299) argues that Genesis 38 has “no connection” with the Joseph story. For Alter this “illustrates the limitations of conventional biblical scholarship.” 14 Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 10. See also idem, Genesis, 223.

Effaced and Naturalized Modes of Jewish Reading 

 51

Moreover, the term “recognize” and the semantic freight it carries in chapters 37–38 resonate with broader themes in the Joseph novella. After much dramatic action and character development, Joseph and his brothers eventually recognize each other in Egypt. The moral development of Judah in Genesis 38, who “rec­ ognizes” that he treated Tamar wrongly (v. 26), also lays the groundwork for his own narrative arc within the Joseph novella in which he eventually becomes a leader in his family, willing to sacrifice himself to protect Benjamin (Gen 44) – a pointed contrast from his earlier treatment of Joseph. Alter’s insight regarding terminology helps highlight other themes that unify the Judah and Tamar story with its context in Genesis. A connection between clothing, sexuality, and decep­ tion occurs not only in chapter 38 but also in Gen 39:15–18 when Potiphar’s wife holds up Joseph’s “garment” to make the false claim that he forced himself on her. The brothers’ use of goat’s blood to deceive Jacob into believing that Joseph is dead (37:31) resonates with the Judah and Tamar story since there too a goat plays a role in the deception of identity, as mentioned above (38:17).15 Decep­ tion regarding the identity of one’s sexual partner is also a motif elsewhere in Genesis, as in Laban’s switch of Leah and Rachel, as is the use of clothing to obscure identity, such as Jacob masquerading as Esau before Isaac (which also involves the verb ‫נכר‬, 27:23 ). Even if the tale of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38 was written as an inde­ pendent story, Alter wants to show that its location “is manifestly the result not of some automatic mechanism of interpolating traditional materials but of careful splicing of sources by a brilliant literary artist.”16 To concur with the mainstream position in biblical scholarship that Genesis 38 is out of place, Alter contends, misses a great deal. Thus to practice what he calls “the intelligent reading of bib­ lical narrative” one must cultivate a kind of literary sensibility not provided by biblical studies but by literature departments. That is, the “intelligent” reading of biblical narrative requires not only attention to contradictions and inconsist­ encies, which biblical studies is quite good at, but also involves appreciating the delineation and interrelatedness of the formal and aesthetic features of texts, such as terminology, themes or syntax, or other literary devices, by which they comprise narrative wholes. But professors of literature were not the first to discern the literary subtleties of the Hebrew Bible. As Alter points out, the rabbis long ago had observed the core point that biblical scholars have missed – that terminological connections illustrate the thematic unity of Genesis 37 and 38. The midrashic text Genesis

15 Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 11; idem, Genesis, 220; Galambush, Reading Genesis, 134. 16 Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 10.

52 

 Matthew Goff

Rabbah, a compilation of rabbinic exegesis often dated to the fourth century, reads: She sent to her father­in­law, saying: ‘By the man whose these are, I am with child’ (Gen 38:25a). He wished to deny, whereupon she said to him ‘Acknowledge (‫)ה ֶכר־נָ א‬ ַ your Creator in these, for they are yours and your Creator’s. ‘Recognize, please (‫)ה ֶכר־נָ א‬, ַ whose are these, the signet …’ (Gen 38:26b). R. Johanan said: The Holy One, blessed be he, said to Judah: ‘You said to your father, Recognize please (‫;)ה ֶכר־נָ א‬ ַ as you live, Tamar will say to you, Recognize please (‫’)ה ֶכר־נָ א‬ ַ (Gen. Rab. 85:11).17

The midrashist imagines Judah as the son who presents Joseph’s bloodied cloak to Jacob–a detail not in Genesis (cf. 37:32)–and as the one who asks him to “rec­ ognize” it. Thus when Tamar says ‫ ַה ֶכר־נָ א‬to Judah in Gen 38:25 it echoes back to Judah’s earlier use of the term, and thus helps illustrate that what she does consti­ tutes payback for what Judah did to Joseph, with God himself repeating the Leitwort ‫ ַה ֶכר־נָ א‬to emphasize the point.18 The tale is understood in rabbinic midrash as a case of the deceiver deceived, exactly as in Alter’s “intelligent reading” of the story. Years ago I found Alter’s reading of Genesis 38 compelling. I still do. But today I am more inclined to understand Alter’s discernment of narrative artistry and its emphatic conclusion that Genesis 38 makes sense where it is as a kind of canonical reading. How the rabbis read Genesis 38 in Genesis Rabbah in relation to its immediate context coheres with how they read the Hebrew Bible in general. Their linkage of terminology between chapters 37 and 38 is the same method they utilize to connect words in Genesis to their usage, for example, in the Psalms. This approach speaks to a larger goal of rabbinic exegesis, to affirm and advocate for the underlying unity of the canonical text of the Hebrew Bible.19 For Alter midrash serves as evidence that discerning readers have long been able to see the subtleties of biblical narrative which biblical scholars miss. But Alter’s stress that his own literary sophistication was nurtured in the secular realm of literature departments masks his continuity with a Jewish exegetical tradition that is unapologetically confessional. He naturalizes a rabbinic mode of reading which is explicitly canon­ ical and compelled to affirm the biblical text in its received form. Alter, like the producers of midrash, shows minimal interest at best in the “outside” books, the

17 Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 11. 18 In Tg. Ps.-Jon. Gen 38:26 Judah hears a bat qol after realizing that he has wronged Tamar: “Then Judah acknowledged (them) and said, ‘Tamar is innocent; she is pregnant by me.’ Then a heavenly voice came down from heaven and said, ‘The matter has come from before me.’ So both of them were delivered from judgment.” See Kugel, Ladder of Jacob, 182–184. Consult also Menn, Judah and Tamar, 286–354. 19 Kugel, On the Bible, 223–224, 234.

Effaced and Naturalized Modes of Jewish Reading 

 53

traditional Jewish appellation for non­canonical texts (e.g., m. Sanh. 10:1). I do not mean this as a criticism of Alter or midrash. I intend it rather as an act of “recog­ nition” that articulates the canonizing and Jewish confessional context of Alter’s literary mode of reading biblical texts, which is by and large unstated in his work. ‫ה ֶכר־נָ א‬, ַ one might say.

3 Altering Texts: The Judah and Tamar Story in Jubilees I would like to illustrate this point by turning to a text that very few scholars cared about when the Art of Biblical Narrative was published in the early 80s – the book of Jubilees. This composition contains one of the earliest known sus­ tained Jewish efforts to engage, often at a minute and sophisticated level, the stories in Genesis and Exodus.20 Jubilees provides an iteration of these stories, from creation to Sinai, that frames the entire narrative as a transcript of what was disclosed to Moses on Sinai, thus chronologically placing Jubilees prior to the giving of the Torah to Israel. This framing device imbues the work’s particu­ lar iteration of scriptural narrative with Sinaitic authority. Jubilees is a Hebrew composition that was produced during the Hasmonean period and thus predates rabbinic literature.21 The text’s articulation of scriptural stories reflects concerns that were important in this period, such as halakhah. For example, when Noah plants in the vineyard, according to Jub. 7:1–2 he does so following stipulations

20 Other early engagements of the Judah and Tamar story include the Testament of Judah 10–13 and LAB 9:5–6. See Zucker / Reiss, Righting and Rewriting; Kugel, Ladder of Jacob, 169–185; Menn, Judah and Tamar, 107–213. The current trend in Jubilees studies is to not prioritize comparison with Genesis and Exo­ dus. This perspective has been recently well articulated by Reed, Demons, 95–96. It, she warns, can encourage atomizing forms of reading, which stresses the comparison of specific verses com­ pared with verses in the Torah. This leads to the concern that with this perspective one can miss themes and aspects of Jubilees which one needs to appreciate the composition as a whole. The present study bucks this current trend, since showing how Jubilees engages Genesis can help illustrate that Alter’s construal of his literary mode of exegesis as in line with Jewish exegetical tradition neglects important ancient Jewish forms of reading Genesis. 21 The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that Jubilees was written in Hebrew. This accords with the con­ tent of Jubilees itself, which thematizes Hebrew (e.g., 12:27). The composition in its entirety is preserved only in Ethiopic, since, as a legacy of the authoritative status of the book in antiquity, it is in the canon of the Old Testament in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. For the Qumran Hebrew manuscripts of Jubilees, see VanderKam, Jubilees, 4–8.

54 

 Matthew Goff

regarding horticulture in Lev 19:23–25. This shows, as scholars in recent years have discerned, that Jubilees attests a clear devotion to scriptural texts while having a notion of scripture that does not always cohere with later conceptions of the Bible.22 There was no Bible in the sense of a fixed and established canon in the period in which Jubilees was composed. As will be demonstrated below, the composition’s devotion and concern with the minutiae of texts are expressed by how it refashions them. The composition displays an overriding interest in the scriptural heritage of Judaism but one that does not share the same canonizing attitude that imbues rabbinic midrash. Midrash relies upon a clear distinction between the biblical text and its interpretation. In this mode Genesis is inter­ preted as if Abraham, for example, acted in accordance with Jewish law (e.g., Gen. Rab. 61:1; 95:3; m. Qidd. 4:14). In Jubilees Genesis is simply told as if Abraham and other patriarchs followed Jewish law. The scriptural text and its interpreta­ tion are fused into one. The interpretation, in Jubilees, transforms the text. The composition is the product of sustained Torah study and likely served as an inter­ pretive lens by which some scribes in the period understood, and perhaps taught, Genesis and Exodus.23 Jubilees strives to show the inherent unity of the national story of Israel in a way never promulgated in rabbinic Judaism. The composition adds chronologi­ cal markers to almost every story. In this way Jubilees presents the narratives of Genesis and Exodus as taking place along a single continuum, strengthening the impression that they together comprise one macro­story, from creation to Sinai. Logical contradictions or duplications are often identified and removed. Noah and his family for example only enter the ark once, whereas they enter twice in the Masoretic text (compare Jub. 5:23 with Gen 7:7, 13). The famous Ishmaelite/ Midianite problem in Gen 37:27–28, a discrepancy traditionally attributed in bibli­ cal scholarship to multiple sources, is not found in Jubilees.24 Rather the brothers sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites; the Midianites are never mentioned (Jub. 34:11).25 This and other similar examples suggest that Jubilees utilized a form of Genesis that is not dissimilar from the MT. Inconsistencies, often involving textual minu­ tiae, were regarded by the scribes who produced Jubilees as problems to be solved. There are also revisions that reflect their theological perspectives. Jacob never wrestles an angel in Jubilees, for example, in contrast to Genesis 32. Jubilees is a product of a sophisticated, pre­rabbinic form of Jewish textual scholarship.

22 Mroczek, Literary Imagination, 114–155. See also Lambert, Torah of Moses. 23 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 117–118. 24 See, for example, Speiser, Genesis, 291, 294. 25 VanderKam, Jubilees, 929.

Effaced and Naturalized Modes of Jewish Reading 

 55

Critical for the matter at hand, in Jubilees the Judah and Tamar story is not located where it is in Genesis. The tale is placed just before the famine in Egypt begins, in Jubilees 41.26 It would be as if the Judah and Tamar story came at the end of Genesis 41, rather than between chapters 37 and 39. Jubilees’ treatment of this narrative is a product of “intelligent reading” of Genesis. But it is one that is quite different from that of Alter or the midrashists.27 Jubilees likely utilized a version of Genesis that had the Judah and Tamar story where it is in the MT. This presupposition is likely but not fully provable.28 The Greek translation of Genesis, generally dated to the third century BCE (thus predating Jubilees), has the Judah and Tamar story exactly where it is in the MT. Moreover, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the text of Genesis is relatively stable by the second century BCE.29 These data make it reasonable to suggest that the story’s different location in Jubilees is a consequence of a scribal intervention, an intentional effort to move the story. The story’s placement in Jubilees should not simply be regarded as an alternate version of Genesis. Why would the textual scholars who produced Jubilees want to relocate the Judah and Tamar story? The conclusion that its location between descriptions of Joseph becoming a slave in Egypt is problematic comes into focus when consider­ ing Jubilees’ interest in chronology. The composition’s overriding goal of putting the stories of Genesis into a single, chronologically consistent timeline makes the story of chapter 38 a problem since it covers several generations of narrative time, only to return in chapter 39 back to the Joseph story that began in chapter 37. The chronological markers Jubilees provides for the Judah and Tamar story help present Jubilees’ interpretation of the tale. They specify, whereas Genesis does not, that Tamar’s act of sexual deception happened only four years after she was married to Er (41:1, 8). This undercuts the moral problem, which is so

26 Studies of this passage include VanderKam, Jubilees, 1033–1055; Werman, Book of Jubilees, 488–495; Kugel, Walk Through Jubilees, 182–185; Dimant, Judah and Tamar; Halpern­Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 113–117. Translations of Jubilees are from Goff, Book of Jubilees. 27 One can also discern in Josephus another ancient Jewish response to the Judah and Tamar story that differs from Alter’s literary approach or classic midrash. Josephus, whose engagement with scriptural tradition is extensive, leaves out the Judah and Tamar story in his recounting of the Joseph novella (Ant. 2.35–40). Material that accords with the ending of Genesis 37 flows smoothly into what one finds at the beginning of Genesis 39. This omission suggests that Jose­ phus, not unlike the producers of Jubilees, considered the location of the Judah and Tamar story a problem that he needed to solve. 28 Only a small portion of Jubilees 41 survives in Hebrew. 4Q223–224 3 ii (a very small fragment) preserves remnants of Jub. 41:7–10. None of the Hebrew fragments of Genesis from Qumran un­ fortunately includes any material from Genesis 38. 29 Brooke, Genesis 1–11, 471–473.

56 

 Matthew Goff

prominent in Genesis 38, that Judah is content with placing Tamar in a state of legal limbo indefinitely, by not allowing her to marry Shelah even after he has grown up. Tamar’s mistreatment by Judah is not a major concern in Jubilees’ iter­ ation of the story. Moreover, Jubilees gives a different explanation than Genesis regarding Judah’s refusal to allow Shelah to marry Tamar. It is not because he is afraid Shelah might die, a concern stated in Gen 38:11. Rather his wife Bedsuel will not let him marry Tamar to Shelah (Jub. 41:7).30 It is the fault of his Canaan­ ite wife. Tamar’s plight is minimized and the blame for it is shifted away from Judah.31 This is consistent with a Tendenz in Jubilees to cast the patriarchs of Genesis in a positive light. Jubilees does, however, want to make clear however that Judah did some­ thing wrong – not against Tamar, however, but Shelah. The problem is not Judah’s callous treatment of Tamar but that he “uncovered the clothing of his son” (41:23). This language of uncovering nakedness invokes the language of pentateuchal law regarding sexual relations deemed illegitimate (e.g., Lev 18:15). The expression also signifies the clothing of Tamar, which were removed when she had sex with Judah. But her clothes are regarded as Shelah’s. This reflects the view that she was the legal property of Shelah, and Judah violated this principle, even though Shelah never actually marries Tamar (cf. Jub. 33:8–9). The moral problem is not the mistreatment of Tamar but Shelah. Judah disrespected Shelah’s property rights. Jubilees 41:23 specifies that Judah lamented for having committed the sin of “uncovering the clothing of his son” – this, to use Alter’s Leitwort, is his “rec­ ognition” moment. Also showing an apologetic interest in this patriarch, Jubilees affirms that Judah was forgiven.32 Judah is also guilty, according to Jub. 41:23, of sleeping with his daughter­ in­law. This is another indication that Shelah is treated as the lawful husband

30 The name Bedsuel becomes easier to understand by looking at its variant in the brief account of Judah’s marriage to her in Jub. 34:20 – Betasuel. It appears to be a survival of a Hebrew phrase which in the text’s Ethiopian transmission was understood as a personal name. Betasuel likely derives from the Hebrew “daughter of Shua” (‫ ;)בת שוע‬Genesis does not give the name of this woman but 38:2, 12 says she is the daughter of a Canaanite woman named Shua (cf. 1 Chr 2:3; T. Jud. 13:3). See VanderKam, Jubilees, 934; Halpern­Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 113. 31 VanderKam, Jubilees, 1040; Werman, Book of Jubilees, 494; Halpern­Amaru, Empower­ ment of Women, 116; Rothstein, Why, 115. In the Testament of Judah Judah did not recognize Tamar when he slept with her because he was drunk and she returns his identity markers to him in secret, sparing him public humiliation (12:3, 5). 32 He was and informed by angels in a dream that he was forgiven because he repented and lamented over his sin (v. 24). Judah’s sincere repentance for having done something wrong un­ derscores the importance, in the mindset of Jubilees, of the legal principle that the wife is the property of the husband.

Effaced and Naturalized Modes of Jewish Reading 

 57

of Tamar.33 Showing Jubilees’ halakhic interest in scriptural narrative, the Judah and Tamar story now functions as the origin of the law in Leviticus (18:15; 20:12) that a man is prohibited from having sex with his daughter­in­law or, as Jub. 41:25 states, his mother­in­law.34 Also the claim that Judah “uncovered” her clothing locates the agency driving the sexual encounter as primarily that of Judah rather than Tamar, which is a rather androcentric construal of Tamar subverting Judah’s control over her through sexual deception. The issue of Judah’s punishment can perhaps help us understand the place­ ment of the Judah and Tamar story in Jubilees. Genesis 38 never specifies any punishment for Judah. The relocation of the story before the famine begins can be understood as an exegetical move related to this point. The famine, which makes all of Israel suffer, can be interpreted as punishment for Judah’s sexual transgres­ sion. The seven years of abundance are concluded when Perez and Zerah are born (Jub. 41:21–22). This happens, according to the work’s chronological arrangement of scriptural narrative, in 2170 AM (anno mundi), and the famine begins in the

33 She was also of course previously married to two other sons of Judah, Er and Onan. But ac­ cording to Jub. 41:27 the angels told Judah in a dream that neither of his sons had ever had sex with her. In both cases, Jubilees stresses, their status as husband and wife was never fully con­ summated. See Rothstein, Sexual Union, 364. 34 The reference to mothers­in­law is opaque. There is a tradition of emending the word “mother­ in­law” in Jub. 41:25 to “daughter­in­law.” Leviticus 20:14 can help us understand the crux, as Segal, Book of Jubilees, 67–69, suggests. The legislation against a male sleeping with his daughter­in­law or his mother­in­law (e.g. Lev 18:15; 20:12; Deut 27:23) does not stipulate that they are to be punished with death by fire, whereas Jub. 41:25–28 emphasizes this point (cf. 20:4). The punishment of death by fire is however found in Lev. 20:14, which states that this is the punish­ ment for a man who has intercourse with both a woman and her mother; all three individuals are to be killed by fire (cf. m. Sanh. 9:1). Judah’s assertion that Tamar is to be burned to death can be understood as an occasion to harmonize Lev 20:14 with the laws prohibiting sexual relations with female in­laws. Jubilees 41 may, not unlike later midrash, engage in a kind of halakhic exegesis that produces an injunction that is not actually in the Torah. One other aspect of the legal rea­ soning behind Jubilees’ presentation of the Judah and Tamar story as the etiology of a prohibition against men having sex with either their daughters­in­law or their mothers­in­law may be that, if one considers Judah the husband of Tamar, and such a view could be based on the fact that they slept together and had children, then Tamar could be understood as the mother­in­law of their sons – and thus simultaneously Judah’s daughter­in­law, being obliged to marry Shelah. A slippage between Tamar as Judah’s daughter­in­law and wife could be grounded in the fact that, as Galambush, Reading Genesis, 138, points out, the Hebrew word for “daughter­in­law,” ‫כלה‬, can also mean “bride.” Jubilees may also, as Rothstein, Sexual Union, 379–382, suggests, attest a form of halakhic thinking according to which a rule that regards one kind of person (daughters­ in­law) is extended to a different but similar kind of person (mothers­in­law), as one finds in CD 5:9–11. See also Kugel, Walk Through Jubilees, 184; Menn, Tamar and Judah, 49–73; Werman, Book of Jubilees, 495; Dimant, Judah and Tamar, 787–788, 793; Rothstein, Why.

58 

 Matthew Goff

year 2171 (42:1). This rearrangement can be understood as answering a question Genesis never asks – why does the famine happen? The ancient “intelligent reading” of Genesis preserved in Jubilees also includes attention to subtle terminological points of connection between scriptural stories. But the mode of literary sensibility evident here does not involve the Leitwort ‫נכר‬, in contrast to the reading of Genesis 38 by Alter or Genesis Rabbah. In Jubilees the famine begins in 42:1, as already mentioned. In Genesis it does in 41:53. This is directly after the birth of Manasseh and Ephraim (41:50–52). The birth of these twins is acknowledged but not narrativized in Jubilees. They appear only in Jubilees’ version of the list of Jacob’s descendants in Genesis 46 (Jub. 45:24). The Judah and Tamar story also includes the birth of twin sons – Perez and Zerah. In Jubilees Perez and Zerah are where Manasseh and Ephraim are in Genesis. The former twins may have functioned as a sort of hook – not as evidence to justify the loca­ tion of the Judah and Tamar story, as in Alter’s take on Genesis 38 or midrash on it, but rather as a rationale to move the tale later in the narrative. The account of the birth of one set of twins is replaced with another. Jubilees utilizes a technique of textual aesthetics that never comes up in canon­centric Alter’s literary approach – the rearrangement of stories. Identifying this scribal practice, to use his language, helps us understand Jubilees as a form of scriptural narrative art.35 Jubilees is in a sense more in keeping with traditional biblical scholarship of the modern era than Alter’s “intelligent reading” or its midrashic antecedents. We can examine modern biblical scholarship and the ancient textual scholar­ ship that produced Jubilees through the lens of a kind of comparative scholasti­ cism. In both contexts, exegetes considered the location of the story of Judah and Tamar a problem, because it was considered an interruption of the story of Joseph becoming a slave in Egypt. This view is explicit in traditional biblical scholar­ ship and implicit with regard to Jubilees. While in both milieus scholars exhibit a concern for logical consistency in scriptural narrative, how they resolve such problems could not be more different – whereas modern critical scholarship tra­ ditionally appeals to source criticism and the nature of Genesis as a composite text to explain the relationship of Genesis 38 to its literary context, in Jubilees the story is relocated within the Joseph novella. The unity of the national history and

35 In Jubilees the strategy of giving a story a different location in the narrative arc of Genesis and Exodus is relatively rare. While the composition shows a willingness to produce its own iterations of scriptural stories, by and large its sequence of events accords with that of Genesis and Exodus. This puts Jubilees’ treatment of the Judah­Tamar story in a starker light, allowing its placement of the tale to be understood as the scholar­scribes who produced Jubilees making an unusual or extreme intellectual decision. This highlights the sense that they considered the location of the story in Genesis a problem.

Effaced and Naturalized Modes of Jewish Reading 

 59

scripture of Israel is affirmed in Jubilees but in a way that does not prioritize the canonical location of the story in Genesis.

4 Conclusion Jubilees is the product of a sophisticated engagement with Genesis that does not attest what Alter calls an “intelligent reading of biblical narrative.” The compo­ sition displays its devotion to scriptural narrative not by advocating canonizing exegesis that celebrates the artistry of the text as it is but rather by showing a will­ ingness to “alter” the text. Alter’s style of reading, while insightful, naturalizes a canonical form of exegesis that is part of a Jewish hermeneutical tradition as a conclusion reached by the straightforward, astute reading of texts – that a reader attuned to literary details such as repetition and syntax will discern the brilliance of the biblical text exactly as it is. Alter’s presentation of his literary approach as simply “close readings” of the biblical text, a skill earlier Jewish exegetes had whereas modern biblical scholars by and large do not, cannot accommodate the diversity and range of ancient Jewish approaches to Genesis. This article, by focusing on the iteration of the Judah and Tamar story in Jubilees, has illus­ trated this point with only one example. Many other examples could have been adduced, from texts such as the Genesis Apocryphon or the Book of the Watchers. This suggests to me that Alter’s critique of biblical studies should be revised. His cri de coeur still rings true, at least to me – that the literary sensibility he advo­ cates, with its attentiveness to the pragmatic and literary details of texts, is still a good practice, even though it should be accompanied with more historical con­ textualization than Alter himself endorses, as Kugel argued in the early 80s. But if we affirm an Alteresque literary sensibility, we should also expand the literary gaze. It should go beyond Alter’s canonical limitations. The range of “intelligent readings” in ancient Jewish literature, a fuller impression of which the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has brought to light, is effaced by an approach that exclu­ sively prioritizes the biblical canon and rabbinic exposition of it.

Bibliography Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative, New York 1981. Alter, R., Genesis: Translation and Commentary, New York 1996. Alter, R., Response: Prooftexts 27 (2007) 365–370. Amos, C., Genesis, in: D. Platte et al. (eds.), Global Bible Commentary, Nashville 2004, 1–16.

60 

 Matthew Goff

Brooke, G. J., Genesis 1–11 in Light of Some Aspects of the Transmission of Genesis in Late Second Temple Times: HeBAI 1 (2012) 465–482. Carr, D. M., Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches, Louisville 1996. Claassens, L. J. M., Resisting Dehumanization: Ruth, Tamar, and the Quest for Human Dignity: CBQ 74 (2012) 659–674. Dimant, D., Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41, in: E. F. Mason et al. (eds.), A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (JSJSup 153), 2 vols. Leiden 2012, 783–797. Galambush, J., Reading Genesis: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Macon 2018. Geller, S. A., Some Pitfalls in the ‘Literary Approach’ to Biblical Narrative: JQR 74 (1984) 408–415. Goff, M., Book of Jubilees, in: J. Klawans and L. M. Wills (eds.), The Jewish Annotated Apocrypha, New York 2020, 1–97. Halpern-Amaru, B., The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 60), Leiden 1999. Kawashima, R. S., Comparative Literature and Biblical Studies: The Case of Allusion: Prooftexts 27 (2007) 324–344. Kugel, J. L., The Ladder of Jacob: Ancient Interpretations of the Biblical Story of Jacob and His Children, Princeton 2006. Kugel, J. L., On the Bible and Literary Criticism: Prooftexts 1 (1981) 217–236. Kugel, J. L., A Walk Through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 156), Leiden 2012. Lambert, D., How the ‘Torah of Moses’ Became Revelation: An Early, Apocalyptic Theory of Pentateuchal Origins: JSJ 47 (2016) 22–54. Menn, E. M., Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis: Studies in Literary Form and Hermeneutics (JSJSup 51), Leiden 1997. Mroczek, E., The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity, New York 2016. Najman, H., Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77), Leiden 2003. Niditch, S., Genesis, in: Carol A. Newsom et al. (eds.), Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, Westminster 2012, 27–45. Reed, A. Y., Demons, Angels, and Writing in Ancient Judaism, Cambridge 2020. Rendtorff, R., The ‘Yahwist’ as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism: JSOT 3 (1977) 2–9. Rothstein, D., Sexual Union and Sexual Offences in Jubilees: JSJ 35 (2004) 363–384. Rothstein, D., Why Was Shelah Not Given to Tamar? Jubilees 41:20: Hen 27 (2005) 115–126. Schneider, T. J., Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis, Grand Rapids 2014. Segal, M., The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJSup 117), Leiden 2007. Singh, J. S., A Woman’s Fight For Her Right: Tamar: RelSoc 63 (2018) 64–67. Speiser, E. A., Genesis (AB 1), New York 1964. VanderKam, J. C., Jubilees: A Commentary in Two Volumes (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2018. Weitzman, S., Before and After the Art of Biblical Narrative: Prooftexts 27 (2007) 191–210. Werman, C., The Book of Jubilees: Introduction, Translation, and Interpretation, Jerusalem 2015. Zucker, D. J. / Reiss, M., Righting and Rewriting Genesis 38: Tamar and Judah in the Pseudepigrapha: BTB 45 (2015) 195–201.

Part 2: Qumran

John J. Collins

The Two Spirits and the Origin of Evil Abstract: The Treatise on the Two Spirits in 1QS 3–4 is notable for its lack of explicit reference to Torah, covenant or community structures such as the yahad. For this reason it is unlikely to have been composed for its present context, Serek ha­Yahad, where these terms are definitive. It should rather be seen as a wisdom composition, comparable to 4QInstruction. The authors of these texts were cer­ tainly familiar with the Jewish scriptures, especially Genesis, but they do not explicitly appeal to Torah as authoritative. Their enterprise is intellectual rather than polemical, even if the view of the world they developed later proved con­ genial to the sectarians. The dualism of light and darkness is clearly indebted to Zoroastrianism, although the Jewish author adapted it for his purpose. Implicit in many objections to foreign influence in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the idea that the sectarian community was hermetically sealed and lived in an intellectual world defined entirely by Jewish scriptures. But as Eibert Tigchelaar has argued, there is little evidence of cultural isolation in this literature. Keywords: dualism, Zoroastrianism, truth, falsehood, creation

1 Introduction The Treatise on the Two Spirits expounded in columns 3–4 of the Community Rule was long regarded as the heart of sectarian theology.1 In recent years, however, it has come to be regarded as somewhat exceptional.2 The reassessment is due primarily to the realization that it is not found in all manuscripts of the S tradi­ tion, but also that it is not well attested in other sectarian writings. To be sure, the conflict of the Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness is fundamental to the War Rule, there are reference to Belial and the Prince of Lights, and to the Sons of Light in the D manuscripts, and a few other shared phrases, such as “the God of knowledge” that occur in other writings,3 but the claim that God gave humanity two spirits in which to walk is only found in the Treatise.

1 Xeravits, Dualism, was one of many editorial projects undertaken by Géza Xeravits, in his all too brief career. This essay is fondly dedicated to his memory. 2 See e.g. Hempel, The Treatise. 3 For a maximal view of the influence of the Treatise, see Alexander, Predestination. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-004

64 

 John J. Collins

The Treatise is a remarkably systematic composition.4 It begins with a veri­ table table of contents: “For the Maskil, to instruct and teach all the sons of light in the nature of all human beings, according to all the kinds of their spirits, with their signs for their works, in their generations, and with regard to the visita­ tion of their afflictions and their periods of well­being” (1QS 3:13–15). It is prop­ erly classified as a wisdom instruction. The Maskil, whatever else he may have been, was presumably a wise man, and the Treatise is designed for instruction and teaching.5 It deals with the constitution of human beings (toledoth, often translated as “nature,” but including the idea of genealogy or derivation), but also with cosmic spirits and with eschatology. In his dissertation, published more than twenty five years ago, Armin Lange identified the chief purpose of the text as “eine Erklärung für den Ursprung des Bösen.”6 This is at least one aspect of the text. I would like to nuance it, however, by asking about the nature of the evil whose origin is sought, and the purpose for which the explanation is designed.

2 The Nature of Evil The idea that all evil has one ultimate source is perhaps more indebted to Chris­ tian theology than to ancient Judaism. We find several different paradigms in the texts of the Hellenistic period, such as 1 Enoch, Daniel and Ben Sira. What has not perhaps received enough attention is the fact that these texts address different sorts of problems. In Daniel 7, the beasts that rise from the sea are political allego­ ries. The evil they represent is foreign domination, especially when it interfered with the native cult in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.7 In the case of the Book of the Watchers, the evil seems to be cultural – alien knowledge, skills, and practices disseminated by the Watchers on earth.8 Ben Sira’s use of the Adamic myth in Sir 15:14–15 seems to be more concerned with keeping the Law or the commandments. What is the problem envisioned in the Treatise on the Two Spirits? The two spirits are identified in 1QS 3:18–19 as ‫רוחות האמת והעול‬. ‫ אמת‬is routinely translated as “truth.” There is more variety in the rendering of ‫עול‬. The preferred transla­ tions are either “injustice” (Vermes, Knibb, Metso)9 or “deceit” (Wernberg­Møller,

4 Alexander, Predestination, 26. 5 See now Bakker, Figure of the Sage. 6 Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 157. 7 Portier­Young, Apocalypse, 223–279. 8 Reed, Demons, Angels, 189–246. 9 Vermes, Complete, 101; Knibb, Qumran Community, 94; Metso, Community Rule, 23.

The Two Spirits and the Origin of Evil 

 65

Qimron and Charlesworth).10 In fact, both ‫ אמת‬and ‫ עול‬have a range of meaning. The word ‫ אמת‬occurs much more frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls than was the case in the Hebrew Bible.11 In fact, just three texts, the Rule of the Community, the Hodayot and 4QInstruction have more occurrences of the word than the entire Hebrew Bible.12 There are 15 occurrences in the Treatise alone. Scholars have disputed the precise nuance of the term, variously emphasizing fidelity (from the root ‫)אמן‬, or correspondence to reality. In one notable late biblical instance, Dan 8:12 (“truth was cast to the ground”), the word seems to take on a broader meaning of “correct religion.”13 The closest Aramaic counterpart is ‫קושט‬, which normally renders ‫אמת‬, but can also render ‫צדק‬, righteousness, on occasion, and can be rendered in Greek by either ἀλήθεια or δικαιοσύνη. The Hebrew terms ‫ אמת‬and ‫ צדק‬are often juxtaposed in the Scrolls, and arguably represent different aspects of the Aramaic ‫קושטא‬.14 Tigchelaar has characterized the use of ‫ אמת‬and ‫ קושטא‬in the Scrolls as fol­ lows.15 First, ‫ אמת‬is often associated with wonders, sometimes with “wonder­ ful mysteries.” In works like Hodayot, 4QInstruction and Mysteries, it entails the concept of hidden causes or origins for the order of creation or nature. Second, it is often associated with God, who is sometimes called ‫ אל אמת‬and associated with the final annihilation of evil (1QHa 7:38; 4Q416 1 14; 418 2 6). Third, truth is the object of knowledge and understanding. Fourth, truth is also a prime or founda­ tional human virtue, which encompasses a catalogue of subordinate virtues. There is a close correlation between truth as the foundational order of creation or nature and truth as the prime virtue. 4QInstruction even states: “for the God of knowl­ edge is the foundation of truth” (4Q417 1 i 8).16 In 4QInstruction and the Treatise on the Two Spirits, truth seems to have replaced wisdom as the foundation of cosmic order. The kind of conduct it entails is spelled out in a catalogue of virtues in 1QS 4: a spirit of humility, patience and great mercy and everlasting goodness and intelligence and understanding and great wisdom, steadfast in all 4the works of God, relying on the abundance of his mercy, and a spirit of knowledge with regard to every design of action, and zeal for the ordinances of righteousness, and a holy 5intention with a steadfast purpose

10 Wernberg­Møller, Manual of Discipline, 15. 11 Tigchelaar, Changing Truths. See also Hultgren, ‫ ;אמת‬Scott, Sectarian Truth; Fraade, Word ‫אמת‬. 12 Tigchelaar, Changing Truths, 401. The affinities of the Treatise with 4QInstruction and the Hodayot are also noted by Christian, Literary Development. 13 Tigchelaar, Changing Truths, 400. 14 Tigchelaar, Changing Truths, 400. 15 Tigchelaar, Changing Truths, 406. 16 Compare Hultgren, ‫אמת‬, 230–232.

66 

 John J. Collins

and great love for all the sons of truth, and glorious purity, loathing all unclean idols, and walking humbly 6with discernment in all things, and concealment for the truth of the mys­ teries of knowledge.

The corresponding negative terms ‫ עול‬and ‫ עולה‬also have a range of meaning. In the formulation of Carol Newsom, they “serve as comprehensive terms to desig­ nate morally negative character and conduct.”17 This spirit is characterized by greed and neglect of the service of righteousness, wickedness, falsehood, pride and haugh­ tiness, deceit and falsehood and fierce treachery, 10great hypocrisy, impatience, great folly, insolent zeal for abominable works in a spirit of fornication and ways of defilement in the service of impurity, 11a blasphemous tongue, blindness of eyes, hardness of hearing, stiff­ ness of neck and hardness of heart to walk in all the ways of darkness, and evil craftiness.

Neither of the usual translations, injustice or deceit, fully does justice to this range of concerns, although deceit is the more strongly represented of the two. In the Treatise on the Two Spirits, ‫ עולה‬is the antithesis of ‫ אמת‬and this also favors the choice of “deceit.” Newsom suggests that the term has the specific nuance of “falseness, deception,” but without losing the general sense of “iniquity.”18 It seems fair to say that the understanding of evil here is in line with the wisdom tradition: right understanding of the order of creation is the necessary precondi­ tion of moral action. The evil that the Treatise seeks to explain is the evil of false understanding and misapprehension of that order, and the consequential wrong actions that follow from this. ‫ עולה‬and ‫ אמת‬only appear together once in the Hebrew Bible, in Mal 2:6, where Levi is praised for ‫ תורת אמת‬and freedom from ‫עולה‬. This is unlikely to be the source of the antithetical pairing in the Scrolls. The terms are linked in 4QInstruction. 4Q416 1 13–14 reads: “all ‫ עולה‬shall come to an end; then the age of ‫ אמת‬will be fulfilled . . . for he is a God of ‫אמת‬.” In 4Q416 2 iii, the addressee is instructed to study the ‫רז נהיה‬, which is variously translated as “the mystery that is to come” or “the mystery of existence,” in order to understand the ways of ‫ אמת‬and the roots of ‫עולה‬. Moreover, Charlotte Hempel has argued that this polarity is also a defining feature of the community in 1QS 5–9.19 1QS 5:2 says that the ‫ יחד‬must separate from the congregation of the men of ‫עול‬, and the passage goes on to say how it must establish “a foundation of ‫ ”אמת‬and “a house of ‫אמת‬.” (1QS 5:5–6). In 1QS 6:16, a person is admitted to the association “to turn to ‫ אמת‬and to depart

17 Newsom, ‫עול‬, ‫עולה‬, 48. 18 Newsom, ‫עול‬, ‫עולה‬, 53. 19 Hempel, The Treatise, 116.

The Two Spirits and the Origin of Evil 

 67

from all ‫עול‬.” These passages are also attested in 4QSd, which did not contain the Treatise on the Two Spirits.20 The presentation of the two spirits in the Treatise differs from the occurrences of ‫ אמת‬and ‫ עולה‬in 4QInstruction and 1QS 5–9 in that it is elaborated in a more sys­ tematic way, including the imagery of light and darkness, and that the two spirits are explicitly said to be created by God.21 Most notably, however, it differs from the usage in other parts of 1QS. Nothing is said of separation from the congre­ gation of ‫ עול‬or of a new association. (This is also true of 4QInstruction). In fact, many scholars think that the Treatise was composed before the formation of the ‫יחד‬.22 Several terms characteristic of the sectarian Scrolls are missing here. There is no reference to the ‫ יחד‬and the words ‫( עצה‬council or counsel), ‫ חוק‬statute, and even ‫( תורה‬Law or Torah) do not occur. “Covenant” is mentioned only in 4:22, and then it is used in an eschatological context, as something that will result from the final purification. The name Belial is not used for the Angel of Darkness. God is referred to as “the God of Israel,” a designation that is atypical of sectarian texts. While there are certainly allusions to the Torah, especially to the opening chapters of Genesis, there is no explicit appeal to scriptural authority, in strik­ ing contrast to other parts of the Rule.23 The duality of ‫ אמת‬and ‫ עול‬in 1QS 5–9 was not necessarily derived from the Treatise on the Two Spirits, or vice versa. In the very first Enoch seminar, almost 20 years ago, Klaus Koch argued that essen­ tially the same duality is found in Aramaic in the Apocalypse of Weeks, in the opposition of ‫ קושטא‬and ‫שקרא‬, surely long before the formation of the ‫יחד‬.24 The idea of a fundamental opposition between truth and deceit appears to have been known in Judaism before the rise of the sectarian movement. It was not invented to explain the refusal of most Jews to join the new covenant. In 4QInstruction and in the Treatise, the context is sapiential, the quest for understanding the nature of reality, not just sectarian affiliation.25

20 Reinhard G. Kratz has argued that the Treatise may have developed within the context of the community rules; Kratz, Der ‘Penal Code’, 219–220, but then the absence of the ‫ יחד‬from the Treatise would be difficult to explain. Kratz’s argument is elaborated by Porzig, Place of the Treatise. 21 Christian, Literary Development, 161: “Although both Instruction and Hodayot stress the point that everything happens according to God’s plan, they tend to avoid presenting him as the creator of iniquity.” 22 Stegemann, Die Essener, 154; Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 127–128; Frey, Different Patterns, 262–263. Frey’s article was first presented as paper in 1995. 23 Alexander, Predestination and Free Will, 27. 24 Koch, History as a Battlefield. 25 I am not persuaded that we should “recognize a political subtext” in the Treatise, or see it “as a text that responds to the politics of empire,” as suggested by Newsom, Self as Symbolic Space,

68 

 John J. Collins

3 Persian Influence? As in the case of the dualism of light and darkness, Zoroastrian analogies have come to mind in connection with the characterization of the two spirits, specifi­ cally the opposition of aša and druj, which have often been translated as “truth” and “the lie.”26 Like the Hebrew and Aramaic terms, the Persian ones also have some range of meaning.27 Some Iranologists argue that aša means “order,” whether of the cosmos, political society or human behavior. Truth or order man­ ifests itself at various levels in Zoroastrianism as well as in the Treatise. The cor­ respondence is one of structure rather than of precise terminology. In the words of Albert de Jong: The system of 1QS is almost wholly parallel to the Iranian one. That is to say, the two spirits are wholly opposed to each other and do not share a single common trait. They are associ­ ated with two distinct realms, described in (predictable) opposing terms.28

According to the Gathas, the two conflicting spirits were the twin children of Ahura Mazda: In the beginning those two spirits who are the well­endowed twins were known as the one good and the other evil, in thought, word, and deed. Between them the wise chose rightly, not so the fools. And when these Spirits met they established in the beginning life and death that in the end the followers of the Lie should meet with the worst existence, but the follow­ ers of Truth with the Best Mind. Of these two spirits, he who was of the Lie chose to do the worst things; but the Most Holy spirit, clothed in rugged heaven, [chose] Truth as did [all] who sought with zeal to do the pleasure of the Wise Lord by [doing] good works.29

In the account of Zoroastrianism preserved by Plutarch, Ahura Mazda is identi­ fied with the good spirit, and he is born from the purest light, while his opponent Ahriman is from darkness. In the end, their conflict will be resolved in favor of the good spirit.30 Quoting de Jong again:

88. No doubt, the desire to give a total explanation of reality is related to the new globalization of the Hellenistic age, but its political ramifications are on a fairly high level of abstraction. 26 Tigchelaar, Changing Truths, 400–405; Newsom, ‫עול‬, ‫עולה‬, 52–53. 27 See Tigchelaar, Changing Truths, 403–405, and especially Skjaervø, Truth and Deception. See also Skjaervø, Zoroastrian Dualism. 28 de Jong, Iranian Connections, 493–494. The completeness of the opposition is not dimin­ ished by the fact that the Treatise provides for conflict within individuals. 29 Yasna 30. Zaehner, Dawn and Twilight, 42. 30 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 47; Griffiths, Plutarch, 193. See also de Jong, Traditions of the Magi; Leonhard­Balzer, Scrolls, 159–160.

The Two Spirits and the Origin of Evil 

 69

The opposition ‘truth­falsehood’ is the most frequently used set of terms to refer to the two spirits in early Iranian texts, up to the point that ‘Lie’ (drug­) has become a general term for ‘demon’ and is the only term used to refer to the principle of evil in Old Persian inscriptions. These represent cosmic realms, imagined as realms of light and darkness, respectively, and located in the heights (the domain of the ‘eternal lights’, where Ahura Mazda dwells) and in the depth (the domain of darkness, which is the abode of the demons, who are said to ‘be of the nature of darkness’; Vendidad 8.80).31

It is sometimes objected that if the Treatise were influenced by Zoroastrianism, it would have used a word more clearly identified with “the Lie.” The question is all the more striking because of the familiar use of “the man of the Lie” in the Damascus Rule. But while the Hebrew word ‫ עולה‬is not a technical term for Lie, we have seen that its use in the Treatise includes the note of “deceit.” We are not speaking her of direct translation, but of the transposition of concepts from one culture to another. The schema is adapted in any case. In the Gathas, the wise were supposed to choose between the two spirits.32 In the Treatise, the element of choice seems to have disappeared. Many scholars resist the suggestion that a passage in the Scrolls is influenced by Persian ideas. Some of the objections are ideological (e.g. for Paul Heger, it was decisive that dualism was incompatible with “Israelite doctrine,” and axi­ omatic that it must be explained from scripture.33 Jan Dochhorn objects to a “liberal Protestant” hermeneutic that treats Christianity and Judaism as religions like other religions, subject to the influence of myth34). Others are troubled by the difficulty of dating the Persian sources. The Gathas are usually assumed to be old, possibly deriving from Zoroaster himself, but their actual date is uncertain (as is the date of Zoroaster, who is variously dated from mid­second to mid­first millen­ nium BCE).35 The Pahlavi sources such as the Denkart date from early medieval times, although they contain older traditions of uncertain antiquity. The date of Plutarch and Theopompus is not in doubt, but there is considerable doubt as to how accurately they represent Persian traditions. But, in fact, fidelity to Persian tradition is irrelevant here. No one has ever suggested that the Jewish author of the treatise wished to reproduce Persian ideas accurately, or understood them for that matter. Whether Plutarch’s account was accurate or not, it is indicative of one way that Persian tradition was received in

31 de Jong, Iranian Connections, 494. 32 This point is rightly emphasized by Brand, Iranian Influence. 33 Heger, Another Look, 41. 34 Dochhorn, Religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergründen, 210–211. 35 Skjaervø, Zoroastrian Dualism, 81.

70 

 John J. Collins

the west.36 In the words of Jutta Leonhardt­Baltzer: “The basic contrast of two opposing spirits related to light and darkness seems to be a concept well known in Hellenistic authors and linked to Zoroastrianism.”37 We do not know from what sources Jewish authors may have become aware of it. The author of the Treatise adapted the material freely. What he took from the Persian tradition was the idea of two primeval, antithetical, spirits, symbolized by light and darkness, and the conviction that the conflict between them would ultimately be resolved in favor of the forces of light. Despite significant differences in detail, the correspondence in broad outline remains striking.

4 The Reception of the Treatise in the Sectarian Writings The degree to which the doctrine of the two spirits was accepted in the sectarian movement is difficult to assess. The War Scroll provides the most notable parallel to the cosmological dualism, identifying the angelic spirits as Michael and Belial. Any discussion of its relation to the Treatise would presuppose an analysis of the development of the War Rule, which goes beyond the bounds of the present paper. There are some minor points of contact with other Scrolls. For example, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice say that “from the God of knowledge comes all that exists forever.”38 1QHa 6: 11–12 refers to the spirits of man and to good and evil. The most interesting points of contact are with the rule books. CD 5:17–19 por­ trays the struggle between Moses and Aaron and the Egyptian magicians Jannes and Jambres in terms of the struggle between the Prince of Lights and Belial. The oldest of the 4Q manuscripts of the Damascus Rule, 4QDa (4Q266), begins with a heading “for the So]ns of Light to keep apart . . .” The manuscript is dated to the Hasmonean era.39 These references may well be instances of “dualistic reworking,” as Jean Duhaime has argued.40 The sapiential passage in CD 2:2–13 is introduced as an address to those who enter the covenant. It does not mention spirits of Light and Darkness, but it has a strongly deterministic tone. It says of the wicked: “From the beginning God chose them not. He knew their deeds before ever they were created and he hated their generations,” but in every generation 36 de Jong, Traditions of the Magi, 158. 37 Leonhardt­Baltzer, Scrolls, 159. 38  4Q402 4 12–15; 4Q406 1 1–2; Maslk I 1–7; Charlesworth / Newsom, Dead Sea Scrolls, 152–153. 39 Baumgarten, Damascus Document, 1. 40 Duhaime, Dualistic Reworking, 51–55.

The Two Spirits and the Origin of Evil 

 71

he preserved a remnant. Jörg Frey recognizes here “two literary citations of, and even more affinities to, 1QS III 13 – IV 26.”41 Nonetheless, it does not repeat the bold claim of the Treatise that God gave humanity two spirits in which to walk, and it gives no hint that the spirits struggle within the hearts of individuals. We have already noted the polarity of ‫ אמת‬and ‫ עול‬in 1QS 5–11. It also figures prominently in the opening columns of the Scroll. In 1QS 1:11, those who join the ‫ יחד‬are said to “volunteer for his truth.” They should not depart from “the ordi­ nances of his truth” to the right or to the left” (1:15). Those who enter the cove­ nant shall be in “the association of truth” (‫יחד אמת‬, 2:24) or “the association of his truth” (‫יחד אמתו‬, 2:26). Truth is here embodied in the ‫יחד‬, and truth becomes identified with the correct interpretation of the statutes, in a way that is not envi­ sioned in the Treatise on the Two Spirits.42 Remarkably, however, the word ‫תורה‬ does not occur in the opening columns of 1QS. The claim that God gave the two spirits to humanity is not repeated outside the Treatise. That explanation of the origin of evil remains exceptional. We should not suppose that there was strict orthodoxy on the subject within the sectarian movement.

5 Implications of Persian Influence I would like to conclude by asking about the implications for the nature of the sectarian movement if they did indeed make use of language and concepts bor­ rowed from Persian myth. In an essay published in 1985, James Barr commented critically on K. G. Kuhn’s argument for Persian influence on the Treatise on the Two Spirits. “All that is required,” wrote Barr, “is a hypothesis that could account for the same facts on an inner­Jewish basis.”43 In fairness to Barr, he did not claim absolute validity for this principle; he only wished to counter Kuhn’s claim that the phenomenon could only be the result of Persian influence. But it is clearly not the case that any hypothesis that relies on Jewish traditions is automatically to be preferred; the strength of any hypothesis has to be judged on a case by case basis. Moreover, lines of continuity with Jewish tradition do not preclude other influences. Bor­

41 Frey, Different Patterns, 269, following Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 244–270. 42 See Hultgren, ‫אמת‬, 232–233; Fraade, Word ‫אמת‬, 101–105. 43 Barr, Question of Religious Influence. Compare Kuhn, Sektenschrift.

72 

 John J. Collins

rowings from other traditions always require an Anknüpfungspunkt in the bor­ rowing culture.44 Implicit in many objections to foreign influence in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the idea that the sectarian community was hermetically sealed and lived in an intel­ lectual world defined entirely by Jewish scriptures. This view has been eroding for some time. The quasi­scientific material relating to astronomy and horoscopes may serve as an illustration.45 There can be doubt that this material drew heavily on Babylonian and Hellenistic sources. Annette Reed has recently written of the rise of angelology and demonology in this context. The Aramaic literature found in the Dead Sea Scrolls is especially important in this connection. 46 When Klaus Koch argued for the influence of Persian ideas on the Apocalypse of Weeks, he argued that the medium of transmission was Aramaic.47 A more obvious example of engagement with Zoroastrian ideas is provided by the Testament of Amram, another Aramaic text preserved in fragments at Qumran.48 To be sure, we have only vague ideas as to how such circulation took place, but there is little reason to doubt that it did. The sectarian literature in the Scrolls as a whole is Torah­centric. But the scrolls hidden in the caves include a considerable assortment of pre­sectarian literature, most of it in Aramaic, which preserve a literary and intellectual herit­ age that was not defined narrowly by sectarian concerns. Some Hebrew texts are also likely to reflect debates and discussion before the ‫ יחד‬took definitive shape. The wisdom text, 4QInstruction, and the Treatise on the Two Spirits belong to this milieu. Their authors were certainly familiar with the Jewish scriptures, espe­ cially Genesis, but they do not explicitly appeal to Torah as authoritative. They are wisdom texts. Their enterprise is intellectual rather than polemical, even if the view of the world they developed later proved congenial to the sectarians. As Tigchelaar remarks in his essay on truth, “there is little evidence of cultural isola­ tion” in this literature.49 In philosophical/theological matters, no less that quasi­ scientific ones, the Scrolls must be seen in the wider intellectual context of the Hellenistic age.

44 Tigchelaar, Changing Truths, 402, citing Doniger, The Hindus, 20: “an imported idea takes root only if it also responds to something already present in the importing culture.” See also Brand, Iranian Influence, 32, on the nature of influence as the integration of ideas within a system that is already in place. 45 Popović, Reading the Human Body; Popović, Networks of Scholars. 46 Reed, Demons, Angels, and Writing. 47 Koch, History as a Battlefield. 48 See Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša, 75–98. 49 Tigchelaar, Changing Truths, 402.

The Two Spirits and the Origin of Evil 

 73

Bibliography Alexander, Ph S., Predestination and Free Will in the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: J.M.G. Barclay and S. Gathercole (eds.), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment (LNTS 335), London 2006, 27–46. Bakker, A., The Figure of the Sage in Musar le-Mevin and Serek ha-Yahad (Ph.D. Diss.), Leuven 2015. Barr, J., The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity: JAAR 53 (1985) 201–235. Baumgarten, J. M., Damascus Document, in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), Damascus Document II, Some Works of the Torah, and Related Documents (The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations 3), Tübingen / Louisville 2006, 1–186. Brand, M. T., Iranian Influence at Qumran: Texts and Beliefs, in: A. Koller and D. Tsadik (eds.), Iran, Israel, and the Jews. Symbiosis and Conflict from the Achaemenids to the Islamic Republic, Eugene 2018, 24–45. Charlesworth, J.H. / Newsom, C.A., Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts with English Translations 4B), Tübingen / Louisville 1999. Christian, M., The Literary Development of the ‘Treatise of the Two Spirits’ as Dependent on Instruction and the Hodayot, in: J. Jokiranta and M. Zahn (eds.), Law, Literature, and Society in Legal Texts from Qumran (STDJ 128), Leiden 2019, 153–184. de Jong, A., Iranian Connections in the Dead Scrolls, in: T.H. Lim and J.J. Collins (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford 2010, 479–500. de Jong, A., Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World), Leiden 1997. Dochhorn, J., Zu den religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergründen der jüdischen und christlichen Satanologie. Eine Antwort auf John J. Collins, zugleich Sondierungen zum Verhältnis zwischen der Zwei-Geister-Lehre in 1QS III,13 – IV,26 und dualistischen Konzepten iranischer Herkunft: Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 96/2 (2020) 199–260. Doniger, W., The Hindus: An Alternative History, New York 2009. Duhaime, J., Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran: CBQ 49 (1987) 32–56. Fraade, S. D., The Word ‫[ אמת‬truth] in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: S.E. Fassberg (ed.), Hebrew Texts and Language of the Second Temple Period: Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ 134), Leiden 2021, 96–106. Frey, J., Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on their Background and History, in: J. Frey (ed.), Qumran, Early Judaism, and New Testament Interpretation (WUNT 424), Tübingen 2019, 243–299. Griffiths, J. G., Plutarch. De Iside et Osiride. Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Cardiff 1970. Heger, P., Another Look at Dualism in the Qumran Writings, in: G.G. Xeravits (ed.), Dualism at Qumran (LSTS 76), London 2010, 39–101. Hempel, Ch., The Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community, in: G.G. Xeravits (ed.), Dualism in Qumran (LSTS 76), London 2010, 102–120. Hultgren, S., ‫אמת‬: ThWQ 1:227–237. Knibb, M., The Qumran Community, Cambridge 1987. Kobelski, P. J., Melchizedek and Melchireša (CBQMS 10), Washington, D.C. 1981.

74 

 John J. Collins

Koch, K., History as a Battlefield of Two Antagonistic Powers in the Apocalypse of Weeks and in the Rule of the Community, in: G. Boccaccini (ed.), Enoch and Qumran Origins. New Light on a Forgotten Connection, Grand Rapids 2005, 185–199. Kratz, R., Der ‘Penal Code’ und das Verhältnis von Serekh Ha-Yachad (S) und Damaskusschrift (D): RevQ 25 (2011) 199–227. Kuhn, K. G., Die Sektenschrift und die iranische Religion: ZTK 49 (1952) 296–316. Lange, A., Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18), Leiden 1995. Leonhardt-Baltzer, J., Scrolls and Non-Jewish Hellenistic Literature, in: G.J. Brooke and Ch. Hempel (eds.), The T & T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls, London 2019, 156–163. Metso, S., The Community Rule. A Critical Edition with Translation (EJL 51), Atlanta 2019. Newsom, C., ‫עול‬, ‫עולה‬: ThWQ 3:47–53. Newsom, C., The Self as Symbolic Space. Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (STDJ 52), Leiden 2004. Popović, M., Networks of Scholars: The Transmission of Astronomical and Astrological Learning between Babylonians, Greeks, and Jews, in: J. Ben-Dov and S. Sanders (eds.), Ancient Jewish Sciences and the History of Knowledge in Second Temple Literature, New York 2014, 153–193. Popović, M., Reading the Human Body. Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism (STDJ 67), Leiden 2007. Portier-Young, A. E., Apocalypse against Empire. Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism, Grand Rapids 2011. Porzig, P., The Place of the ‘Treatise of the Two Spirits’ (1QS 3:13–4:26) within the Literary Development of the Community Rule, in: J. Jokiranta and M. Zahn (eds.), Law, Literature, and Society in Legal Texts from Qumran (STDJ 128), Leiden 2019, 127–152. Qimron E. / Charlesworth, J. H., Rule of the Community, in: J.H. Charleshworth (ed.), Rule of the Community and Related Documents (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations 1), Tübingen / Louisville 1994, 1–52. Reed, A. Y., Demons, Angels, and Writing in Ancient Judaism, Cambridge 2020. Scott, I., Sectarian Truth: The Meaning of ‫ אמת‬in the Community Rule, in: P.W. Flint et al. (eds.), Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection (EJL 30), Atlanta 2011, 303–343; Skjaervø, P. O., Truth and Deception in Ancient Iran, in: C.G. Cereti and F. Vajifdar (eds.), Ātaš-e Dorun: The Fire Within: Jamshid Soroush Soroushian Memorial Volume II, Bloomington 2003, 383–434. Skjaervø, P. O., Zoroastrian Dualism Appendix: The Sources of Zoroastrianism, in: A. Lange et al. (eds.), Light Against Darkness. Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World (JAJSup 2), Göttingen 2011, 55–91. Stegemann, H., Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus, Freiburg 1993. Tigchelaar, E., Changing Truths: ‫ אמת‬and ‫ קשט‬as Core Concepts in the Second Temple Period, in: L.C. Jonker et al. (eds.), Congress Volume Stellenbosch 2016 (VTSup 177), Leiden 2017, 395–415. Vermes, G., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, London 2004. Wernberg-Møller, P., The Manual of Discipline (STDJ 1), Leiden 1957. Xeravits, G. G., Dualism in Qumran (LSTS 76), London 2010. Zaehner, R. C., The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, London 1961.

John Kampen

Reading Instruction as a Sectarian Composition Abstract: While most scholars engaged in the study of the wisdom texts from Qumran regard Instruction as a pre­sectarian composition, there has been a minority who regarded it as the composition of persons related to the Yaḥad or some similar structure. Similarities to the texts of the Hodayot and the Commu­ nity Rule have frequently been noted, the interpretation of their significance for a sectarian reading of Instruction the subject of a variety of interpretations. This paper rather examines Instruction from a sociological perspective, evaluating the level of tension exhibited within the text to its socio­cultural environment. Such an examination employs the criteria of difference, antagonism, and sepa­ ration. This results in a conclusion suggesting that Instruction demonstrates the level of tension characteristic of sectarian groups in Second Temple Judaism but also illustrates that the literature identified as sectarian does not all point to one homogeneous group. Keywords: sociological, sect, Instruction, Qumran, tension, sectarian

1 Introduction While it is commonplace to regard Instruction as a pre­ or non­sectarian compo­ sition, this assumption has not been accepted by all students of this composition. In her attempts to develop a classification system for the Qumran corpus based upon an analysis of the vocabulary employed therein Dimant considered Instruc­ tion to be a sectarian composition.1 While noting that works such as Jubilees and the Temple Scroll exhibit affinities with the sectarian compositions, Dimant dis­ tinguishes them from Instruction which she regards as sectarian noting the simi­ larities in usage of construct phrases including words such as ‫ קודש‬in both bodies

1 Dimant, Sectarian, 105, n. 13. See also Dimant, ‫בין כתבים‬, 79–81; Dimant, Vocabulary, 91–93. Note: It is a great pleasure to contribute an essay to a volume honoring such a committed scholar imbued with vision and generosity. It was always a pleasure to be in his presence and to be associated with his work. May his memory be a blessing. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-005

76 

 John Kampen

of literature.2 She also points to the dualistic pairing of ‫ אמת‬and ‫עול‬, and various forms derived from it such as ‫( בני אמתו‬4Q416 1, 10) or ‫( בחירי אמת‬4Q 418 69 II 10) as the equivalent of the light­darkness contrast of 1QS and 1QM. The evocative phrase 3‫ כי אל דעות סוד אמת‬also finds expression in 1QH VII, 37–38 with the use of the phrase ‫כי אל אמת‬. Of course references to ‫ אל הדעות‬in the Hodayot support such an identification.4 Pointing to what has been regarded as the diverse literary charac­ ter of Instruction by most scholars, Nitzan argues for the literary and ideological unity of the composition.5 This unity transcends attempts to separate different sections of apparently different literary genres such as sapiential admonitions and the ideological discourses into discrete layers of composition. Through an extensive analysis of stylistic features and key terms such as ‫ רז נהיה‬and ‫ נחלה‬in the various sections of Instruction she can establish a conceptual unity very similar to that which can be identified in key sectarian texts and which could point to an author associated with the Qumran community. These linguistic arguments have not been considered sufficient by many scholars to make a determination that there is a plausible case for reading Instruction as a sectarian composition. Early in the study of Instruction, Jefferies built a similar case documenting the manner in which the linguistic features and forms of biblical wisdom are altered or adapted in Instruction in manners that are consistent with or in service to sec­ tarian perspectives reflected in CD, 1QS, 1QSa, and Hodayot. He begins his case by arguing for similarities in the role outlined for the ‫ משכיל‬or another authoritative figure in both bodies of literature.6 In his extensive comparison with sectarian texts he produces the resulting classification of Instruction as “extra­Qumranic.”7 While elsewhere he simply dubs it a sectarian composition,8 Kister also indicates some related sectarian identification: “While some recently published works from Qumran (such as 4QInstruction) apparently belong to wisdom literature, much of their content is close to sectarian literature and alien to biblical or Near Eastern wisdom literature.”9 In his commentary on the text under consideration Goff deals with the topic in an elusive cursory manner: “The community to which 4QInstruction is addressed can, however, be understood as a sect. . . . The classifi­

2 Dimant, Vocabulary, 386–392. 3  4Q417 1 I, 8 // 4Q418 43–45 I, 6. 4  1QHa IX, 28; XX, 13; XXI, 32; XXII, 34; XXV, 33. 5 Nitzan, Ideological. 6 Jefferies, Wisdom, 119–138. 7 Jefferies, Wisdom, 57–77, 323–324. See pp. 319–324 for a summary of conclusions. 8 Kister, Physical, 171. 9 Kister, Wisdom, 18. Note also his evaluation in ‫ספרות‬, 1:304–316. On his more cautious approach to sectarian classification, see his article in the same volume, ‫עוד על בעיית‬.

Reading Instruction as a Sectarian Composition 

 77

cation of the circle of the mebinim in which 4QInstruction was produced as a sect is not unreasonable. But it is one with a much looser form of organization than that of the yaḥad.”10 All of these studies point to the similarities between Instruc­ tion and key sectarian texts, particularly the manuscripts of the Community Rule and the Hodayot. The persistent recognition of these connections necessitates a more comprehensive exploration of the possibility that Instruction should be read as a sectarian composition. A recent categorization of the texts from Qumran attempting to reflect and build upon the trends in emerging research is found in the work of White Craw­ ford. She compiles a list of terms which includes the epithets used to refer to the sectarian community in those texts, those utilized to describe the leadership positions, and other words that are characteristic of the sectarian literature or are used to designate the opponents of the sect.11 Out of the entire list the only term found in Instruction is ‫( משכיל‬sage). On this basis she designates Instruction and Mysteries as affiliated texts, placing them in the same category as Aramaic Enoch, Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and many others.12 Many of these works are prominent in the Qumran collection but lack the sectarian indicators previously identified by her and others. While the specification of this category is a valu­ able and insightful contribution to the study of the Qumran corpus, the ascrip­ tion of Instruction and Mysteries to it bears further analysis.13 White Crawford’s approach to this question is similar to that of many others in the field, including my own in past analyses.14 A further investigation of Instruction’s sectarian char­ acter is in order.

2 Sociological Analysis and Instruction While there is ample discussion about both the validity of utilizing the methods of sociology in the study of ancient texts and its utility for the study of the Qumran corpus, I accept its value for helping to establish the relationship between texts and their social location with regard to each other and to the other texts of the Jewish world in which they were composed.15 The importance of establishing these 10 Goff, 4QInstruction, 27. 11 Crawford, Scribes, 14–15. 12 Crawford, Scribes, 232–235. On p. 159 she includes Instruction in the list of sectarian compo­ sitions. In private communication the author has indicated that this is an error. 13 Note the contrasting treatment in Dimant, Vocabulary, noted above (n. 2). 14 Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 16–25; Kampen, Wisdom, 105–107; Kampen, Puzzle, 196–202. 15 This question is addressed most explicitly in Chalcraft, Historical?

78 

 John Kampen

distinctions is evident in the work of White Crawford already mentioned. I will not review the history of the development and critique of this concept in sociology and religious studies from its initial development by Max Weber and Ernest Troeltsch down to the present day.16 For its use in the study of new religious movements emerging in the second half of the twentieth century, Benton Johnson proposed the category of tension with the social environment as an analytical category. This constituted an effort to move the discussion beyond the earlier historical and the­ ological categories that limited its broader utilization in the study of new religious movements.17 As articulated by Chalcraft, “The point to grasp in these sociological experiments is not to get the label correct but to find a way of appreciating the full variety and complexity of the social phenomena being explored.”18 An explora­ tion based on the category of tension develops that possibility. One attempt to come to terms with the limitations of the category of sect derived from its Protestant European origins was the work of Bryan Wilson.19 In order to advance the study of sect within the sociology of religion, he identified a spectrum of responses to evil based upon the type of tension with their environ­ ment he observed among these groups he regarded as sects: conversionist, rev­ olutionist, introversionist, manipulationist, thaumaturgical (and spiritualistic), reformist, and utopian.20 However these categories are of value for purposes of explanation rather than description (or definition).21 They do not provide a sub­ stantive basis for the identification and evaluation of sectarian Jewish groups within Second Temple Jewish life. An important attempt to provide a definition of sectarianism informed by the sociological category of tension is found in the seminal study by Baumgarten: “a voluntary association of protest, which utilizes boundary marking mecha­ nisms – the social means of differentiating between insiders and outsiders – to distinguish between its own members and those otherwise normally regarded as belonging to the same national or religious entity.”22 Sect formation as a type of subcultural deviance is the basis of this definition. It highlights the “boundary marking mechanisms” of the group itself, those behaviors and beliefs which dis­ 16 Chalcraft, Sectarianism, 26–111. For an evaluation of how this history relates to the study of Qumran see Jokiranta, Approaches. 17 Johnson, On Church; Johnson, Church and Sect. 18 Chalcraft, Social Scientific Approaches, 237. It must be noted that the particular analysis advanced in this essay is not one that Chalcraft advocates or discusses in his work on the topic. 19 Wilson, Magic; Wilson, Social Dimensions. 20 Wilson, Magic, 18–28. 21 See Luomanen, Sociology, 120; Wassen / Jokiranta, Groups, 208; Jokiranta, Approaches, 213–14. However note the employment of his spectrum in Jokiranta, Learning. 22 Baumgarten, Flourishing, 7.

Reading Instruction as a Sectarian Composition 

 79

tinguish it from others in the same socio­cultural group. The focus is on a group that sets some kind of boundary or barriers between itself and others with the same national or religious identity. In the development of his definition Baumgarten was informed by the catego­ ries developed by Stark and Bainbridge to evaluate the level of tension with one’s social environment displayed by deviant groups within a society. The criteria they developed consist of three elements: difference, antagonism, and separation.23 They are interdependent, intended to portray a more complex picture of how the tension is created and sustained.24 The level of tension is to be understood as a continuum rather than in binary categories. Their utilization in Qumran studies in a comprehensive manner is most evident in the work of Jokiranta.25 Their use in this examination of Instruction is an attempt to further the discussion of its place within the complex assemblage of literary works attested at Qumran.

3 Instruction and Sectarian Analysis With at least eight copies of Instruction identified among the Qumran fragments it is the most comprehensive work available in what is regarded as the wisdom tradition, in this case in a trajectory following from the book of Proverbs.26 It is the evidence from this composition that more than any other text from Qumran is responsible for the blurring of the lines of the genres of apocalyptic and wisdom which has occupied so much of the subsequent work on the nature of the literary categories used to describe this literature in the Second Temple era.27 Within Qumran studies it has been commonplace to suggest that non­sectarian literature precedes sectarian when considering the date of composition, hence a second­century BCE date and even earlier has been most frequently proposed. Many assumptions underlying our approach to this composition are related to the question of its sectarian status. It is reasonable to presume that 4Q416 1 constitutes an introduction to one or more copies of Instruction due to its wide right hand margin.28 The sociological 23 Stark / Bainbridge, Future, 49–67. 24 Stark / Bainbridge, Future, 66. 25 Jokiranta, Sectarianism, 228–230, 236–239; Jokiranta, Social Identity, 17–76. 26 Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 5–23; Goff, 4QInstruction, 12–23. For a discussion of the diffi­ culties involved in the identification of wisdom literature see Sneed, Was There? 27 Wright / Wills, Conflicted; Macaskill, Revealed, 72–114; Macaskill, Creation. 28 The fragmentary remains of this composition, while extensive and with some significant overlaps between copies, do not permit a comprehensive comparison of the manuscripts.

80 

 John Kampen

element of difference is immediately apparent in this initial column which pro­ vides an ideological introduction to the remainder of the composition. Difference indicates the extent to which sectarians advocate or practice deviant norms of behavior.29 These norms vary from those followed by the average members of the society or from the standards advocated or practiced by the powerful members of the society. In the words of the Baumgarten definition cited above, “those other­ wise normally regarded as belonging to the same national or religious entity.” Within this fragmentary text which situates judgment within the context of the structure of the universe a basic purpose stands out: “so that the righteous can understand the difference between good and evil.”30 The fragmentary sections of the following line suggest some distinction between the ‫( ]י]צר בשר‬the inclination of the flesh) and the ‫מביני]ם‬, the addressees of this composition. This line appears within the context of the eschatological judgment in lines 10–15 of this column which is preceded by the cosmological portrait stressing the orderly and deter­ mined nature of the universe. This cosmological description wraps everything from celestial bodies to political divisions into the spatial elements of this portrait as well as the temporal dimensions based upon the festal cycle. The description of judgment is integral to the construction of the universe. It is inevitable and its time is determined within the spatial dimensions of that construction.31 A similar purpose is identified in the first extant column of 4Q417: “you will know truth and perversity, wisdom [and foll]y . . . . Then you will know the differ­ ence between [go]od and [evil according] to [their] deeds. [F]or the God of knowl­ edge is the base of truth and with the raz nihyeh he spread out her foundation and her deeds.”32 The mebynyn have the ability to make this distinction between good and evil since it is the result of revelation available only to them.33 That revelation was present in the construction of the universe in both its spatial and temporal dimensions. I use the plural (mebynyn) deliberately since the regular use of the singular in this composition appears to be a rhetorical device rather than an indi­ cator of singular instruction.34 This dualistic notion of good and evil, knowledge of which is acquired through revelation of the raz nihyeh, places the human expe­ rience in a cosmological context.

29 Stark / Bainbridge, Future, 51–56; Jokiranta, Social Identity, 51–57; Kampen, Matthew, 43–44. 30  4Q416 1, 15. See Cashell­Moran, Cosmological, 333. 31  4Q416 1, 13–14; Goff, 4QInstruction, 53–54. 32  4Q417 1 I, 6–8. 33 Bakker, Sages. 34 Goff, Searching, 120–121.

Reading Instruction as a Sectarian Composition 

 81

Amply discussed in the literature, this raz nihyeh includes a comprehensive understanding of the human experience, past, present, and future. It also entails a full conception of the universe including the celestial bodies as well as the polit­ ical and social structures which provide the context for human life. This distinc­ tive knowledge has implications for how the mebyn is to live, with the following lines stipulating that this understanding results in knowing how to walk and indicating that the intentions of God are made known to those who walk perfect­ ly.35 What is the content of this exclusive knowledge and how is it acquired? While some have argued that it is the equivalent of Torah,36 Wold has demonstrated dis­ tinct instances in which the raz nihyeh has supplanted the Torah within the text of Instruction such as the use of Ps 1:2b in 4Q417 1 I.37 His analysis of the repeated formula, ‫( גלה אוזנכה ברז נהיה‬uncover your ears to the raz nihyeh) also illustrates this case. For example, in 4Q416 2 III, 14–19 the Decalogue and the Shema are combined in a manner similar to Ps 119:1838 and then Torah is supplanted by the raz nihyeh. Finally in 4Q418 55, 3: ‫( נכרה דרכיה‬we delve into its ways). In CD VI, 3–4 it is explicitly stated that it is “well of the Torah” that is being dug into. In 4Q525 5, 12 the pursuit of wisdom, in this composition equated with Torah, is described utilizing this same verb. The raz nihyeh at the center of the process of the acquisi­ tion of wisdom does function in a manner similar to that of Torah in some other Second Temple wisdom texts. But other proposals for the identification of the raz nihyeh with specific texts have also been advanced. The most apparent connection within the text of Instruction to the possible content of revelation is to the equally elusive ‫( חזון ההגוי לספר זכרון‬the vision of Haguy for the memorial book) in 4Q417 1 I, 16. Within Instruction only receiving additional mention in the following line, the term Haguy is resonant due to the references to the ‫ ספר ההגו‬or ‫ ההגי‬in CD X, 6, XIII, 2, XIV, 8, and 1QSa I, 7. Arguing for the connection between the Haguy and the raz nihyeh by suggesting that the former is a description of the content of the mystery, Elgvin finds that content in the Enochic tradition.39 While noting the importance of general influences and context, Stuckenbruck fails to find specific connections with the content of 1 Enoch.40 Attempts to relate specific content to the raz nihyeh have not been suc­ cessful.

35  4Q417 1 I, 10–12. 36 Lange, Diskussion,; Lange, Wisdom, 342–343. 37 Wold, 4QInstruction, 154–171. 38 For a study of these examples in Second Temple Judaism see Penner, Patterns, 59–67. 39 Elgvin, Mystery, 141–147. 40 Stuckenbruck, 4QInstruction. For an evaluation of the issue see Macaskill, Revealed, 78–85.

82 

 John Kampen

The level of difference advanced in the composition is apparent in later lines of the first column of 4Q417: “They shall give it as an inheritance to humankind in company with a people of spirit, f[o]r after the pattern of the holy ones he formed it. Yet he did not give this insight to the spirit of flesh, for it could not dis­ tinguish between [go]od and evil according to the judgment of his [sp]irit.”41 In other words the vision formed after the pattern of the angels is given only to the people of spirit and not to the spirit of flesh. The element of difference is explicitly advanced for the company of mebynym as the purpose of the instruction they are to receive and according to which they are to orient their lives. It is inherent in the distinctive teaching imparted to the maśkylym by the mebynyn.42 While we can speculate on its content the evidence of Instruction suggests that the knowledge of the raz nihyeh is a mystery, not limited to or even contained within any one text. This appellation rather points to the exploration, appropri­ ation, and development of a comprehensive worldview of which the author of Instruction, and perhaps Mysteries, only provided hints and clues while empha­ sizing the motivational aspect, the importance of its continuing pursuit.43 In other words, within the social structure advanced within this composition, being included among the ‫ מבינין‬is necessary to develop any understanding of the mystery of existence.44 As noted above, Goff suggests that the distinction between the “spiritual people” and the “people of flesh” represents a real affiliation on the part of the former, also described as mebynyn in the plural, “sons of his truth,” and men of favor.45 It is apparent that you had to be within the circles of the adher­ ents of this wisdom in order to attain it and benefit from it.46 Of course, outside of this circle this wisdom is not available. The details of the practices advocated in Instruction do not show evidence of being that disparate from those advocated in other Jewish literature of that time. Admittedly our knowledge of these practices is rather limited. As demon­ strated by Schiffman the connections between the stipulations in Instruction and those normally regarded as distinctive in the Rules texts and other compositions of post­biblical law are not apparent.47 He regards those of Instruction as reflec­ 41  4Q417 1 I, 15–18. 42 Wold, 4QInstruction, 12–94. 43 Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 46–50; Goff, 4QInstruction, 14–17. 44 Strugnell / Harrington, DJD 34:36, even though the court setting may be questioned (DJD 34:20–21). 45  4Q417 1 I, 16–19; Goff, Worldly, 219–221. See also Harrington, Two Early Jewish Approach­ es, 36–38. 46 Tigchelaar, Addressees, 75. Note the term “democratization” with regard to 4Q418 81 by Elgvin, Priestly Sages? 83. 47 Schiffman, Halakhic Elements.

Reading Instruction as a Sectarian Composition 

 83

tive of Pharisaic traditions. The type of material found in the Rules texts such as the Penal codes also is not found here. However is this lack to be attributed to the literary tradition in which the composition is found rather than understood as a reflection of its non­sectarian character? From roughly the same era we recall that Ben Sira reflects limited instances in which it advocates stipulations of biblical or attested post­biblical law. In both Instruction and Ben Sira we observe that authority is not portrayed in a manner that could be termed as legal argumenta­ tion, as developed in Rabbinic Judaism or even found in New Testament. We do not find instances in which advice for life is based upon distinctive legal pre­ cedents from the Pentateuch, or from cases developed directly from those texts. Torah is a term used to describe the right manner in which its adherents should live. This is wisdom based in creation,48 as it is in Instruction, even though its method of appropriation is rather different, one tending towards observation, the other toward revelation.49 Its difference is identified with the limitation of its availability and its method of appropriation, i.e., in Instruction the sociological element of difference is integrally connected with its separation. The second element of sociological tension is separation, articulated most clearly in 4Q418 81 + 81a, 1–3: “By th]is He has separated you from all the spirit of flesh. You, keep separate from all that he hates and abstain from all of the abom­ inations of life. [Fo]r He has made all things and bestowed upon every50 man his inheritance. He is your portion and your inheritance in the midst of the sons of men [and over] His [in]heritance He has made you ruler.” The element of sepa­ ration evaluates the evidence for a restriction of social relations. Group norms, behavioral expectations, and demands for communal engagement are all exam­ ples of how a group may limit relationships with members outside the group.51 This analysis does not depend upon the need for evidence to describe the other group(s), whether majority or competing minority. It is the treatment of the rela­ tionship with the outside group(s) within the composition that is the object of evaluation. While in the instance cited we might understand the separation from the spirit of flesh as a theological distinction,52 the separation of the mebyn from the remainder of humankind has a recognizable social dimension as well.53 This social dimension does not necessarily mean total separation from normal life, it

48 Ben Sira 1:1–20; 16:24–30. 49 Kampen, Wisdom, 92–99. 50 The alternate reading in 4Q423 23, 1 would result in the translation, “the man.” 51 Stark / Bainbridge, Future, 60–62; Jokiranta, Social Identity, 60–62; Kampen, Matthew, 43–44. 52 Goff, 4QInstruction, 243–244. 53  4Q417 1 I, 15–18. See Goff, 4QInstruction, 165.

84 

 John Kampen

may be more selective with regard to the aspects deemed important. The source of the distinctive knowledge available to the mebyn is the raz nihyeh available only to those in the community of the mebynym who learn from the maśkylym of that same association. This is knowledge you begin to acquire once you are in that circle which separates you from other human beings. This is made clear in the section from 4Q417 already cited above: “f[o]r after the pattern of the holy ones he formed it. Yet he did not give this insight to the spirit of flesh.” An illustration of how this functions is apparent in 4Q416 2, a fragment well­ known for its emphasis on the poverty of the mebyn, the addressee of the com­ position. While the material that follows in these four columns could be read as counsel for self­care and the maintenance of personal dignity they are based on a direct appeal: “Do not abandon your statutes and pay attention to your mysteries [for] your [life].”54 In the next column, ‫( ואתה א]ל[ תבטח למה תשנא‬You, do n[ot] trust whatever you hate).55 Throughout the remainder of these four columns there is a regular appeal to the subordinate to search for or consult the raz nihyeh. What the mebyn hates is what he is to keep separate from, in order to “abstain from all of the abominations of life.”56 So the mebynym receiving advice on how to handle the fragility of a marginal economic position are enjoined to proceed upon the basis of what they have gained concerning the mysteries. The life rooted in the raz nihyeh is valuable and not to be forfeited nor overshadowed by those more wealthy and powerful. The injunction is to keep separate from those things that stand in the way of that type of life while in the service to those of higher status and means. It is the element of antagonism that is less apparent throughout the extant fragments of Instruction than in the manuscripts of the S and D texts.57 For example, the frequent use of the term “hate” is familiar in these Rules texts. In these texts it can be applied to people58 or to patterns of behavior that the sect deems as not representative of what God desires from human beings.59 But the latter is also the case in 4Q418 81+81a, 2 already mentioned above: “You, keep sep­ arate from all that he hates and abstain from all of the abominations of life.” Such a rationale also provides an explanation for the meaning of the line in 4Q416 2 II, 14: “You, do n[ot] trust whatever you hate.” This language of animosity, remark­ ably similar to the articulation in the Rules texts even though less common, does

54  4Q416 2 II, 8–9. 55  4Q416 2 II, 14. 56  4Q418 81+81a, 2. 57 Stark / Bainbridge, Future, 56–60; Jokiranta, Social Identity, 57–60; Kampen, Matthew, 43–44. 58  1QS I, 10; CD I, 15; VII, 18; XIX, 31. 59  1QS I, 4; IV, 1, 24; CD I, 15.

Reading Instruction as a Sectarian Composition 

 85

indicate the sharp line of division between acceptable and unacceptable behav­ ior within the lifestyle advocated by the author. While there is not sufficient evidence to suggest any literary dependence upon Instruction by the sectarian authors in the usages cited here, or vice versa, the similarity of the themes is indicative of some congruity in terms of uniformity with the sectarian orientation of the Rules texts. Furthermore there is a level of antagonism implicit in the initial descriptions of judgment and scattered elsewhere throughout the fragments. The inevitability of judgment is described as an inherent part of the structure of the universe in these accounts. The nature of that description attests to a dualistic structure with regard to humankind. The terror and fear of that judgment scene is evident in 4Q418 2 I, 2–5 and elsewhere.60 Such a scene exhibits a fair level of hostility toward those who are characterized by the spirit of flesh from whom the addressees are to remain separate. As already noted, they are to separate them­ selves from all that God hates, presumably true of those who defiled themselves, and from all abominations.61 What becomes immediately clear is that what the defiled are lacking is access to the raz niheyh. These two bodies of persons inhabit very different worlds and the people of the spirit, the addressees, expect a very hostile outcome for those from whom they have distanced themselves in life. The element of antagonism is assumed within the viewpoint of the composition, even if not articulated as clearly as in the sectarian Rules texts.

4 Conclusion A review of this sociological evaluation suggests a relatively high level of differen­ tiation and separation not unlike that evident in the sectarian Rules texts, but a less explicit antagonism towards the remainder of the Jewish world of which they were a part. Perhaps this conclusion finds explanation in the type of literature in which it is penned. I hesitate to use the word genre since the stability of that designation for wisdom literature continues to be questioned. However if Instruc­ tion is understood to be a composition within a trajectory influenced by the book of Proverbs, as are Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon, then the judgment por­ tions of this composition can be understood to constitute a literary development that reflects the influence of a specific historical situation and social location. Evidence for this can be found in the emphasis on the lower status, poverty, and

60 Note parallel in 4Q416 1, 9–16. 61  4Q418 81+81a, 2.

86 

 John Kampen

need of the addressees, a rather remarkable feature.62 While the term ‫מחסור‬, ubiq­ uitous in Instruction, is not found in the major sectarian texts, ‫ אביון‬is common and the verb form ‫ רש‬and the substantive ‫ריש‬, common in Instruction, is coupled with ‫ עני‬in 1QHa to describe the plight from which God has saved the addressee, “lest they tear the soul of the destitute and the poor to pieces.”63 ‫ עני‬appears else­ where throughout the Hodayot and is the object of attention in the D mss as well. The implied social location of the mebynym of Instruction is much closer to that addressed in the Rules texts than other works found in the trajectory of Proverbs such as Ben Sira and Wisdom of Solomon. For Instruction, the element of separation is a predominant feature in which the greatest level of tension with its socio­cultural environment can be demon­ strated. The significance of this element finds some explanation in the stated goal of the sectarian way of life suggested in both Instruction and the S materials: the imitation or anticipation of life with the angels. Bakker has argued that in both compositions true knowledge does not belong to the sphere of human activity but rather is a feature of heavenly existence, the province of the ‫קדושים‬.64 The well­ known passage in 1QS XI appears after the earlier mention of the raz nihyeh65 and references to the knowledge hidden from humankind: “to those whom God chose he gave them as an eternal possession and an inheritance with the lot of the holy ones. With the sons of heaven he has united their association, an assembly of the yaḥad.”66 Similarly within Instruction, “[ . . . Have] you [not kno]wn, have you not heard that His holy angels are in heaven [ . . . ]truth and they will pursue all of the sources of understanding. They will be vigilant over [ . . . ] their knowledge they will be glorified. . . .”67 The demonstrated interest in perfection, ubiquitous in S compositions but also evident throughout Instruction in the phrase ‫ התהלך תמים‬is evidence of the centrality of this goal for both compositions.68 Also of significance is the research of Wold in which he has advanced the case for understanding Instruction to consist of material the maśkylym impart to the mebynym. Arguing that the use of the first person is more extensive in Instruction than previously recognized and pointing to the frequent use of the term maśkyl, but identifying it as a noun rather than a participle, he identifies the composition

62 Kampen, Wisdom, Poverty. 63  1QHa XIII, 16; cf. X, 36; XIII, 22. 64 Bakker, Sages. 65  1QS XI, 3–4. 66  1QS XI, 7–8. 67  4Q418 55, 8–11. 68  4Q415 2 I + II, 3; 4Q417 1 I, 12, 1 II 5; 4Q418 172, 4.

Reading Instruction as a Sectarian Composition 

 87

as the voice of the maśkylym.69 The argument for the employ of the first person is in part based upon Tigchelaar’s reconstruction of 4Q418 222+221 and 238 as frag­ ments that may constitute part of the incipit of the composition.70 The content is instructional material whereby the mebyn is able to become a maśkyl. The status of the latter is to be placed among the angels. This is evident in 4Q418 81+81a, 4–5 which addresses the mebyn who has been separated from every fleshly spirit and kept separate from everything that God hates (lines 2–3): “He has appointed you as a most holy one over all of the earth and among all his angels he has cast your lot and has magnified your glory greatly.” As indicated by Wold, this is the present status of that mebyn, not some reward of future glory.71 This is the place and lot of the one who has separated and is in pursuit of the raz nihyeh. A similar case for the aspirations of the mebynyn is evident in 4Q418 55, 8–12 and 4Q418 69 II, 9–15.72 Angelic beings seem to be behind the imagery of 4Q417 1 I, 17: “f[o]r after the pattern of the holy ones he formed it.” Frequently in Instruction the angels are designated as the ‫( קודשים‬holy ones) among other names. The separa­ tion attached to holiness is used in this composition to refer to the angelic status attached to the mebynym. Participation with the angels receives attention in the earlier portions of the composition in 4Q416 2 III, 8–12 as well. In this section the poor mebyn becoming a maśkyl is lifted from a real or metaphorical poverty to be seated among the angelic beings.73 In this instance the term employed is ‫נדיבים‬: “Among the princes He seated you and over an inheritance of glory he gave you authority.”74 While neither Bakker nor Wold understand Instruction to be a sec­ tarian composition, their arguments for the relationship of the mebonym and/or the maśkylym to participation in the heavenly realm with the angels provides an ideological setting for the sociological separation that can be identified as inte­ gral to the social setting of the composition. In conclusion a high level of tension with one’s socio­cultural environment is evident in Instruction in the separation of the people of the spirit from the spirit of flesh. The element of difference is of a different nature than that found in the Rules text but is vigorously asserted in the introductory sections, presumably establishing the orientation for the instruction to follow. The level of antago­ nism is less apparent even though implicit in the particular manner in which the role and nature of judgment is portrayed and its integration into the ideological 69 Wold, 4QInstruction, 26–37. 70 Tigchelaar, Increase, 188–190. 71 Wold, 4QInstruction, 73–75. This translation is by Wold. 72 Wold, 4QInstruction, 14–25. 73 Wold, 4QInstruction, 83–91. 74 Wold translates this term as “noble ones.”

88 

 John Kampen

orientation of the instruction. It is reasonable to postulate that these differences are explicable more by the nature of the literature in which they are found than by the higher level of tension with the socio­cultural environment projected from within the composition as an expectation for the addressees. In the conclusion to their comparative analysis of the S and D texts with regard to sectarianism, Wassen and Jokiranta note that the “tension is manifested in the distinctiveness of these groups in comparison to other groups and in the high demands that not all in the society were able to fulfil.”75 They also note that this tension is evident in criticisms of the temple, the priesthood, and leadership in general. But such tension is not always evident to outsiders. In their analy­ sis the two sets of compositions display the same level of tension, even though they are not regarded as being from the same group by many scholars and the Damascus Document is often thought to be less rigorously sectarian in its ori­ entation. Already noted above is the observation of Goff that the manuscripts of Instruction suggest a sectarian orientation but of a different nature than the Rules texts.76 The analysis in this essay provides a context for Goff’s observation. Those works which demonstrate the level of tension characteristic of sectarian groups in Second Temple Judaism do not all point to one homogeneous group. These varied texts are literary productions that point to a variety of responses to the issues and institutions of the Second Temple era that found sectarian expression. Each may point to a different group, however not to be overlooked is the possibility of a greater variety of literary modes of expression from the same body of adherents. This sectarian analysis is one contribution to the purpose already stated above, as assumed up to this point in Qumran scholarship: “the point to grasp in these sociological experiments is not to get the label correct but to find a way of appreci­ ating the full variety and complexity of the social phenomena being explored.”77

Bibliography Bakker, A., Sages and Saints: Continuous Study and Transformation in Musar le-Mevin and Serek ha-Yaḥad, in: H. Najman et al. (eds.), Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism (JSJSup 174), Leiden 2016, 106–118. Baumgarten, A. I., The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (JSJSup 55), Leiden 1997.

75 Wassen / Jokiranta, Groups, 224. 76 Goff, 4QInstruction, 27. 77 Chalcraft, Social Scientific Approaches, 237. It must be noted that the particular analysis advanced in this essay is not one that Chalcraft advocates or discusses in his work on the topic.

Reading Instruction as a Sectarian Composition 

 89

Cashell-Moran, H., Cosmological Origins and Creation in 4QInstruction, in: M. W. Duggan et al. (eds.), Cosmos and Creation: Second Temple Perspectives (DCLY 2019), Berlin 2020, 331–344. Chalcraft, D., Is a Historical Comparative Sociology of (Ancient Jewish) Sects Possible? in: S. Stern (ed.), Sects and Sectarianism in Jewish History (ISJ SJ 12), Leiden 2001, 235–286. Chalcraft, D., ed., Sectarianism in Early Judaism: Sociological Advances, London 2007. Crawford, S. (White), Scribes and Scrolls at Qumran, Grand Rapids 2019. Crawford, S. (White), Social Scientific Approaches. a. Sectariansim, in: G. J. Brooke and Ch. Hempel (eds.), T & T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls, London 2019, 237–241. Dimant, D., Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts from Qumran: The Pertinence and Usage of a Taxonomy, in: Idem, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Essays (FAT 90), Tübingen 2014, 101–111 (also found in RevQ 24 (2009) 7–18). Dimant, D., The Vocabulary of the Qumran Sectarian Texts, in: Idem, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Essays (FAT 90), Tübingen 2014, 57–100. [also found in: J. Frey et al (eds.), Qumran und die Archäologie: Texte und Kontexte ( WUNT 278), Tübingen 2011, 347–395]. Dimant, D., ‫בין כתבים כתתים לכתבים לא כתתים במגילות קומראן‬, in: M. Kister (ed.), vol. 1 of ‫ מבואות ומחקרים‬:‫מגילות קומראן‬, 2 vols. Jerusalem 2009, 49–86. (Also found in: D. Dimant, Connected Vessels: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Literature of the Second Temple Period, Jerusalem 2010, 54–96. Elgvin, T., The Mystery To Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation, in: F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments (JSOTSup 290), Sheffield 1998, 113–150. Elgvin, T., Priestly Sages? The Milieus of Origin of 4QMysteries and 4QInstruction, in: J. J. Collins et al. (eds.), Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 20–22 May, 2001 (STDJ 51), Leiden 2004, 67–87. Goff, M. J., 4QInstruction (WLAW 2), Atlanta 2013. Goff, M. J., Searching for Wisdom in and beyond 4QInstruction, in: H. Najman et al (eds.), Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism (JSJSup 174), Leiden 2016, 119–137. Goff, M. J., The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (STDJ 50), Leiden 2003. Harrington, D. J., Two Early Jewish Approaches to Wisdom: Sirach and Qumran Sapiential Work A: JSP 16 (1997) 25–38. Jefferies, D. F., Wisdom at Qumran: A Form-Critical Analysis of the Admonitions in 4QInstruction, Piscataway 2002. Johnson, B., Church and Sect Revisited: JSSR 10 (1971) 124–137. Johnson, B., On Church and Sect: American Sociological Review 28 (1963) 539–549. Jokiranta, J., Learning from Sectarian Responses: Windows on Qumran Sects and Emerging Christian Sects, in: F. García Martínez (ed.), Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (STDJ 85), Leiden 2009, 177–209. Jokiranta, J., ‘Sectarianism’ of the Qumran ‘Sect’: Sociological Notes: RevQ 20 (2001) 223–239. Jokiranta, J., Social Identity and Sectarianism in the Qumran Movement (STDJ 105), Leiden 2013. Jokiranta, J., Sociological Approaches to Qumran Sectarianism, in: T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford 2010, 201–231. Kampen, J., The Puzzle of Torah and the Qumran Wisdom Texts, in: B. Y. Goldstein et al. (eds.), HĀ-’ÎSH MŌSHE: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein (STDJ 122), Leiden 2017, 190–209.

90 

 John Kampen

Kampen, J., Wisdom in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literatures, in: G. G. Xeravits et al. (eds.), Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals: Papers of the Jubilee Meeting of the International Conference on Deuterocanonical Books (DCLS 22), Berlin 2014, 89–119. Kampen, J., Wisdom Literature (Eedrmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls), Grand Rapids 2011. Kampen, J., Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction, in: K. Davis et al. (eds.), The War Scroll, Violence, War and Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honour of Martin G. Abegg on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (STDJ 115), Leiden 2016, 215–236. Kister, M., Physical and Metaphysical Measurements Ordained by God in the Literature of the Second Temple Period, in: E. G. Chazon et al. (eds.), Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (STDJ 58), Leiden 2005, 153–176. Kister, M., Wisdom Literature and its Relation to Other Genres: From Ben Sira to Mysteries, in: J. J. Collins et al. (eds.), Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 20–22 May, 2001 (STDJ 51), Leiden 2004, 13–47. Kister, M., ‫ספרות החכמה בקומראן‬, in: Idem, ‫ מבואות ומחקרים‬:‫מגילות קומראן‬, vols 2. Jerusalem 2009, 1:299–319. Kister, M., ‫עוד על בעיית זיהוים של כתבים כתתיים בקומראן‬, in: Idem, ‫ מבואות ימחקרים‬:‫מגילות קומראן‬, vols 2. Jerusalem 2009, 1:87–90. Lange, A., In Diskussion mit dem Temple: zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kohelet und weisheitlichen Kreisen am Jerusalemer Temple, in: A. Schoors (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (BETL 136), Leuven 1998, 113–160. Lange, A., Wisdom and Predestination in the Dead Sea Scrolls: DSD 2 (1995) 340–354. Luomanen, P., The ‘Sociology of Sectarianism’ in Matthew: Modeling the Genesis of Early Jewish and Christian Communities, in: I. Dundenberg et al. (eds.), Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Heikke Räisänen (NTSup 103), Leiden 2002, 109–130. Macaskill, G., Creation, Eschatology and Ethics in 4QInstruction, in: F. García Martínez (ed.), Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen (STDJ 70), Leiden 2008. Macaskill, G., Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (JSJSup 115), Leiden 2007. Nitzan, B., The Ideological and Literary Unity of Instruction and its Authorship: DSD 12 (2005) 257–279. Penner, J., Patterns of Daily Prayer in Second Temple Period Judaism (STDJ 104), Leiden 2012. Schiffman, L. H., Halakhic Elements in 4QInstruction, in: Idem, Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism, Grand Rapids 2010, 204–215. Sneed, M. R., Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies (AIL 23), Atlanta 2015. Stark, R. / Bainbridge, W. S., The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation, Berkeley 1985. Strugnell, J. / Harrington, D. J., Qumran Cave 4, XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2 (DJD 34), Oxford 1999. Stuckenbruck, L. T., 4QInstruction and the Possible Influence of Early Enochic Traditions: An Evaluation, in: C. Hempel et al. (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BETL 159), Leuven 2002, 245–261.

Reading Instruction as a Sectarian Composition 

 91

Tigchelaar, E. J. C., The Addressees of 4QInstruction, in: D.K. Falk et al. (eds.), Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998 (STDJ 35), Leiden 2000, 62–75. Wassen, C. / Jokiranta, J., Groups in Tension: Sectarianism in the Damascus Document and the Community Rule, in: D. J. Chalcraft (ed.), Sectarianism in Early Judaism: Sociological Advances, London 2007, 205–245. Wilson, B., Magic and the Millenium: A Sociological Study of Religious Movements of Protest among Tribal and Third-World Peoples, New York 1973. Wilson, B., The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society, Oxford 1990. Wright, B. G., III. / Wills, L. M. (eds.), Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism (Symposium 35), Atlanta 2005.

Peter Porzig

Thoughts on the Way towards “Prolegomena” to an Introduction to the Writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls Preliminary Reflections on the Categorization and Nomenclature of the Dead Sea Scrolls Abstract: The article takes the co­authoring of the German “Introduction to Qumran Literature” with Géza G. Xeravits as a starting point for examining and reflecting the changes and developments within recent Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship on categories like Genre and Taxonomy of the texts. Its aim is to find a possible way for rendering the often complex and multi­dimensional models (García Martínez, Najman and Tigchelaar, Justnes, etc.) into the simple format of a (text­) book – without having to give up any order at all, but avoiding the pitfalls of using the simple term of genre to characterize and describe the relations between single manuscripts. It is meant as a contribution to the respective discussion rather than any sort of final result. Keywords: Dead Sea Scrolls, taxonomy, genre, sectarian, non­sectarian, discourse After the months of working together with Géza on the translation, reworking, and updating of his Hungarian Bevezetés from 2008,1 the year 2015 marked its publication, the German Einführung in die Qumranliteratur.2 Long before the book was published, Géza had already invited me to become his co­author, since our fruitful discussion of the manuscripts had resulted in a transformation of the original text, which on the one hand meant trying to keep as much of the quality of the established Hungarian parts, and on the other hand reflecting the process of the years of Qumran research in the years between the two books.3 From the beginning of the project onward, it was clear that a mere translation would not be sufficient for a new Introduction to the Qumran texts – all the more because a German counterpart did not even exist at the time.4 1 It was published as volume 3 in the Deuterocanonica series: Xeravits, Könyvtár a pusztában. 2 Xeravits / Porzig, Einführung. 3 This fact at the same time reflects Géza’s kind, encouraging and unpretentious character, always interested in the subject itself rather than only promoting his personal view of the matter. 4 Fortunately, the situation has changed since then, not only with “our” Einführung, but also with the publication of another introductory work by Stökl Ben Ezra, Qumran, only one year later. – For the following considerations, the author would especially like to thank Dr. Roman https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-006

94 

 Peter Porzig

One of the main concerns or intentions back then was to present the scrolls in their diversity and their distinct theologies and tendencies, and not to measure them too soon by the same yardstick (like an overarching hypothesis about “Qumran”), sticking to one document as long as possible. The Scrolls should speak for themselves, and we and the reader would listen rather than the other way around. Certainly, also practical considerations had an impact. Already the disposition of the material was mainly based on the definition of text genres, an approach already taken before and having reached its most striking expression in the index volume to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series, i.e., DJD 39, edited by Emanuel Tov. There, Armin Lange and Ulrike Mittmann­Richert com­ piled a comprehensive list of all published texts, allowing the readers of the Scrolls to blaze their own trail through the thickets of the hundreds of manu­ scripts.5 Another six years have gone by since then, and, less surprising, research on the Scrolls did not stop – the opposite is true. The six (later two) volumes of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader by Donald W. Parry and Tov made the outline according to genre almost palpable.6 However, rooting in the popular ideas of Formgeschichte by Hermann Gunkel and his predecessors and successors, this idea was a point of discussion among exegetes right from the beginning, especially in those cases where longer passages or even books were characterized by (and designated by) a single “genre”7, with several excep­ tions (or motifs), and on the other hand even tearing apart single works (e.g., the Community Scroll 1QS found its place in vol. 1, but the section of the so­called Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS III,3–IV,26) in vol. 4). Still, this classification has its advantages, it is widely spread and a good first, although rather mechanical, orientation. Two other long­time discussions must be added. Both are closely connected to one another, and to the “genre” question. These additional categories are the binary definitions “biblical” vs. “non­biblical” and “sectarian” vs. “non­sectarian.”8 The problem of a continuous, smooth transgression from one pole to another is reduced to a binary (or very simply graduated) raster. Again, closely related texts may be Vielhauer and Professor Dr. Reinhard Gregor Kratz in Göttingen for fruitful and inspiring dis­ cussions. 5 DJD XXXIX, 115–164. 6 Parry / Tov, Dead Sea Scrolls; Parry / Tov, Dead Sea Scrolls Reader 2. 7 See Tigchelaar / Najman, Preparatory Study, 307 with n. 3 for literature on genre theory and its development, esp. the elucidating studies by Newsom, Pairing, and Brooke, Genre Theory. 8 For an overview see Blenkinsopp, Sectarian Element. It should be mentioned that the topic is not restricted to the Qumran movement, for an example see Gallagher, Samaritan Pentateuch, as well as the instructive contributions by Fröhlich, Defining Sectarian, and Kister, Further Thoughts.

Thoughts on the Way towards “Prolegomena” 

 95

found separated from another, appearing to be more different than they are in reality (like “Pentateuch” and “Reworked Pentateuch” manuscripts), a wide variety may be pushed into the same category, etc. Although categories are necessary to be able to communicate what researchers are doing, they will at the same time almost always fail where a text is very closely read. In many cases such a close read will result in falsifying any categorial distinction. Also, our way of reading and dealing with the texts is often influenced by the respective “genre.”9 As already noted, the problem is certainly not new, not even for the research on the Scrolls. In the case of “biblical” / “non­biblical,” the case has been made by Tov and his shifting assignments of 4Q158 and 4Q364–367 (originally Pentateuchal Paraphrase) to Reworked Pentateuch or Pentateuch, respectively.10 Both designations are “right” in a way, and, at the same time, wrong in another way. The “truth” may be in­between, a “shade of grey,” but it might nevertheless only be visible in a more complex (not one­dimensional) system where the two poles “biblical” and “non­biblical” are located. In any case, the decisions stay subjective. The same is, mutatis mutandis, true for the questions of “sectarian” vs. “non­ sectarian” writings and for assigning other “genres.” A classic definition finds a certain vocabulary or distinct ideas that can help to classify the single texts. The name to mention here certainly is the Grand Dame of today’s Qumran research, Devorah Dimant,11 who has developed a system and elaborated it almost to per­ fection. According to her concept, texts are either sectarian, non­sectarian or, should features not suffice for one of these two categories, “in­between.” This third category makes clear that she is, of course, fully aware of the problems that such a classification system can pose. However, it can also be seen as an indicator for the disadvantages of binary descriptions. The big advantage here is that the classifications take their point of departure in the texts themselves, rather than, e.g., an external “genre” definition. Moreover, it avoids anachronisms (compared to, e.g., the “biblicity” of a text, comparing it with the later Hebrew Bible canon). But the model does not allow for dynamics: the output of any textual community will always be subject to change over time. New times require new interpretations of the ancient traditions, new situations shape the language as well as develop new concepts for the emerging texts. A static system can never account for such

9 See, e.g., the roundup of Zahn, Talking, 93. 10 Also cf. the doubts of Strugnell, Moses­Pseudepigrapha. 11 See Dimant, Vocabulary; Dimant, Sectarian and Nonsectarian; Dimant, Between Sectarian and Nonsectarian, and Dimant, Between Qumran Sectarian.

96 

 Peter Porzig

changes, even less when the “composite character” or literary and textual history of many of the Scrolls is taken into account.12 Årstein Justnes has called this an “author­related category” (personally, I would prefer “composition­,” “scroll­,“ or “work­related”) while the “biblical” category is based on a textual collection (text­related) that could not have existed in these times. Consequently, he also asks for more “inclusive” language.13 Sim­ ilarly, Hindy Najman and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar point out: “If we allow ourselves to imagine the possibilities of rewriting and expansion [. . .], we can begin to rethink the presuppositions that scholars of the first two generations were unable or unwilling to jettison.”14 A viable way out of this “binary” or “digital” dilemma was shown by Flor­ entino García Martínez in his 2008 article:15 Dead Sea Scrolls research should “abandon attempts to classify these writings according to our modern (or post­ modern) conceptions,” since it may “benefit our understanding of the collection as a whole and in its real historical context:” El abandono de los intentos de clasificación de estos escritos de acuerdo con nuestras con­ cepciones modernas (o post­modernas) puede beneficiar nuestra comprensión de la colec­ ción en su conjunto y en su contexto histórico real, anterior a la destructión del Templo y al establecimiento del Judaísmo y del Cristianismo que nosotros conocemos.16

This view can only be welcomed, as it is always helpful to understand a text from itself, “listen” to it rather than applying modern concepts to it and exclusively allow historically plausible ideas to guide the reader (as far as this is possible, of course).17 As Justnes puts it: “every category of texts from Qumran should be studied ‘in situ’ (linguistically, materially, and socio­historically), and not in ide­ alized contexts.”18

12 Apart from Dimant (Composite Character), see the recent works of, to name but a few, Rein­ hard G. Kratz, Annette Steudel, Meike Christian, and Franziska Ede, in the long and ongoing tra­ dition of, e.g., Jerome Murphy O’Connor, Eibert Tigchelaar, Sarianna Metso, Charlotte Hempel, and many others (I spare the reader the detailed listing of references with all contributions). 13 Justnes, On Being a ‘Librarian’, 15, referring to ideas by Liv Ingeborg Lied. Cf. also Ulrich, Sharper Focus. 14 Tigchelaar / Najman, Preparatory Study, 324. 15 García Martínez, ¿Sectario, No­Sectario, o Qué? 16 García Martínez, ¿Sectario, No­Sectario, o Qué?, 394. 17 This is related to what John J. Collins calls “Sectarian Consciousness.” (Collins, Sectarian Consciousness; cf. Collins, Sectarian Communities, and the ideas in Collins, Beyond the Qum­ ran Community. 18 Justnes, On Being a ‘Librarian’, 15.

Thoughts on the Way towards “Prolegomena” 

 97

In the context of giving a practical overview over the whole variety of the texts, however, this would surely result in chaos, without any possibility of sorting the material at all. Even if one would, for example, take the assigned number (4Q1, 4Q2, 4Q3, . . .), a scholarly predefined order (“biblical” before “non­biblical” would influence the reader’s perception of the single manuscript. And single booklets covering one manuscript (or “composition”) each is certainly unfeasible as well as unacceptable for both the reader and the author of such an overview (or rather non­overview). Others try to ease the process of ordering manuscripts by assigning new names, like, e.g., Elisha Qimron in his latest edition.19 This could indeed be of great help – but evidently, it does not solve the problem – as Najman and Tigchelaar have shown: Rather, Qimron “climbs out of the pit of the canonical­apocryphal distinction, only to be caught in the snare of genre” again.20 It was the aforementioned Eibert Tigchelaar who (in a 2012 SBL paper and an article on Dimant’s naming of the “pseudo­prophetic” material21) proposed a new and different solution to the dilemma. He proposes “clusters” of texts rather than fixed barriers between the categories. One can be quite certain that some of the scrolls, e.g., the Rules Texts, are of a somewhat sectarian origin, and therefore good candidates for forming the center of a cluster of texts that are closely or remotely related to them. One could then, for example place these texts in a shorter or farther distance to the center. Taking each manuscript as a “center” of its own, such a procedure would lead to certain new clusters or result in separate independent clusters, showing their mutual relationships as a kind of “network.” Such a description would be more open for dynamics, it would apply a text­internal standard, and could be more precise than the static system. Still, the clusters would probably stay unchanged at a certain point of development. Finally, Årstein Justnes, in a collected volume dedicated to the question of Qumran as a library, takes the approach of a “librarian” (cf. the title of his contri­ bution22) to address the main problems of earlier models:

19 Qimron, Scrolls. 20 Tigchelaar / Najman, Hindy, Preparatory Study, 323. 21 Paper: “Distinguishing Clusters of Texts in the Qumran Library: A Case Study: Jubilees – Ani­ mal Apocalypse – CD* – Apocryphon of Jeremiah C,” SBL International, Amsterdam, 24/07, 2012; article: Tigchelaar, Classifications. 22 Justnes, On Being a ‘Librarian’. To describe the Qumran texts as a “library,” as Justnes ac­ knowledges, surely has its difficulties and should only be used with much caution.

98 

 Peter Porzig

What strikes me as essential in an analysis of the ‘Qumran library’ is to characterise the collection(s), identify literary milieus and different kinds of clusters of texts, indicate the functions of the different texts, map out the relations between them, and to describe them in dialogue with the other texts in the collection. In short: To make sense of the totality of texts at a particular timeframe in history.23

Hence, Justnes on the one hand suggests using Tigchelaar’s model of “clusters” of manuscripts – instead of terms like “sectarian” and “non­sectarian,” – on the other hand he asks for more specific “literary milieus” like “Law,” “”Prophets,” or “Psalms,” where all related manuscripts can be filed without the necessity of a distinction between “biblical,” “non­biblical,” and / or “scriptural,” etc.24 In my eyes, this model is quite powerful, and taken together with the “cluster” model it could very well form the base of a future taxonomy. It avoids many of the pitfalls of the former systems, and at the same time also adds a practical attitude to the theoretical base – a fact that should not be underestimated. However, also Justnes’ characterization stays, although in a lesser degree, a static one, especially when it comes to the textual and compositional history of many texts. This turns out to be the hardest factor when trying to systematize the texts and present them in a book or “list” or another single linear system. (Since these are only first thoughts about a new “introduction,” it has to be clear that this is and will remain a problem in principle.) Another point is the difficulty of texts that are “communicating” with others. This can take place by means of verbatim quotations or parallels, citations, ideas that texts share among each other, just like we find it in the Hebrew Bible itself (cf., e.g., Psalm 1 and Joshua 1) – the phenomenon Najman rightly calls the vitality of Scripture: “They have a life, a history, of their own.”25 The concept of generative aspects in relation to authorita­ tive texts, should, moving beyond Najman’s concept, be extrapolated into the formation process of the texts themselves. It is the same way of thinking that causes texts to be redacted, expanded, or “kept alive” (cf. Überleben) by later authors. There is a certain point when this “vitality” turns into the production of commen­ taries and / or whole new works (and so forth), the Fortleben, to use the terms of Walter Benjamin.26 But this point, as important as it may be, still remains only one single moment in the life of the text.

23 Justnes, On Being a ‘Librarian’, 21. 24 Justnes, On Being a ‘Librarian’, 25–28. 25 Najman, Vitality of Scripture, 516. 26 Benjamin, Aufgabe des Übersetzers, 9–10: “So wie die Äußerungen des Lebens innigst mit dem Lebendigen zusammenhängen, ohne ihm etwas zu bedeuten, geht die Übersetzung aus dem Original hervor. Zwar nicht aus seinem Leben so sehr denn aus seinem ‘Überleben.’ Ist doch die Übersetzung später als das Original und bezeichnet sie doch bei den bedeutenden Werken, die

Thoughts on the Way towards “Prolegomena” 

 99

A closer look on the mentioned example, Joshua 1 and Psalm 1. Genre­wise, these two texts are clearly separable: part of a poetic (Psalms) and a narrative (Joshua) milieu. However, the mutual influence cannot be overseen, no matter what opinion on the growth of the texts one holds (or does not hold). The paral­ lel in question in this case, is indeed originated in a third “genre”: “This book of the Tôrah shall not depart out of your mouth; you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to act in accordance with all that is written in it. For then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall be suc­ cessful.” – “Happy are those” whose “delight is in the Tôrāh of Yhwh, and on his Tôrāh they meditate day and night. [. . .] In all that they do, they prosper.” (Ps 1:1–2) From the position of the book of Joshua, Moses’ successor is identi­ fied with the pious and righteous man of Psalm 1 (and therefore has nothing to fear in the forthcoming conquest), from the position of the praying Psalmist, the ʾîš of Psalm 1 is called into the succession of Moses like once Joshua, to live under God’s Tôrāh. From my point of view, this mutual relationship can be best described as a “communication” or “discourse,” reflecting an ongoing discus­ sion between the texts and their authors and readers (or traditions in the widest sense). At the same time, discourses do not confine to a single text or a group of texts, but they can interfere or overlap with other discourses, the longer the discourse is continuing, the more complex the situation will get, the more “spill­ over” or overlap is possible. Since the word “discourse” has a long and complicated history (as well as many understandings, definitions, and uses), it should be noted that the term is used in a very general and “sloppy” sense here. If we see a discourse as a gener­ alization of the perception of a conversation to any communication, it includes, roughly speaking, groups of statements (texts, concepts, terms), or, closer to the definitions of Michel Foucault, “systems of thoughts composed of ideas, atti­ tudes, courses of action, beliefs, and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak.” (Iana Lessa27) A discourse embod­ ies hints to authoritative and power structures, and in this special case may even be interpreted as a more general expression for “tradition” or “transmission” of such systems and their changes over time (diachronic view) or as shaping or unfolding of an increasing complexity of the system and its subsystems (syn­ chronic view). da ihre erwählten Übersetzer niemals im Zeitalter ihrer Entstehung finden, das Stadium ihres Fortlebens” (emphasis mine). Also quoted by Najman, The Vitality of Scripture, 516. Translation is a variant form of the wider phenomenon of interpretation which itself can certainly be de­ scribed in terms of vitality or creativity, but at the same time of authority and validity. 27 Lessa, Discursive Struggles, 283. Cf. Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge.

100 

 Peter Porzig

The War Scroll may serve as an example: its core (the bulk of 1QM II. III–IX / X plus passages from XI–XIX) clearly is part of a “Priestly” or “Mosaic” discourse, with a clear influence of an (prophetic­) eschatological perspective. Obviously, only the existence Column I (–II) transforms the material to become part of an “Apocalyptic,” “Prophetic,” “Danielic,” or “Dualistic” discourse. In this case, in a description of the ongoing Mosaic discourse, at a certain point (which could, but needs not to be defined as a point in time, simply a point on a “map” or a description of the discourse as such), would be “infiltrated” or “supplemented” by a parallel “Danielic” discourse, clearly revealing a dynamic development of the different discourses. Since a “discourse” cannot be tied down as easily to a fixed and delimiting category. It might even be “fuzzy” from the outset, a com­ plete separation of discourses (exactly drawn lines) is neither possible nor rea­ sonable, reflecting the complexity of the texts themselves. Having said that, such a model could on the other hand, avoid dubious claims about “non­relationships.” One last example. The Qumran “canon,” or the group of “authoritative texts”28 is not exactly known to us later ones. Almost certainly though it differs or is perhaps more comprehensive than the canon of the later Hebrew Bible. But it would at the same time be overstated to describe the collec­ tion as totally “free” or fully “detached” from that later canon, disregarding that the Hebrew Bible’s canon is almost completely included in that of the Dead Sea writings, and sure enough makes out major parts of what they acknowledged as authoritative scriptures. It cannot be mere coincidence that these groups overlap to such an extent.29 According to this, similar texts would always come to stand at a short distance to one another, while texts that are part of the same discourse(s) but are less connected could be singled out more easily. Almost all Qumran Texts share one common feature: All of them are – be it more closely or more remotely – related (and / or connected) to a textual body that would finally become part of the scriptural “canon” of the Hebrew Bible. This (for a Jewish group) unsurprising relation may explicitly be seen through a common topic or forms (wisdom and knowledge of what was, what is now, and what is to come, apocryphal Psalms, . . .), common figures or persons (Jeremiah,

28 See the important precautions of Najman, Vitality of Scripture. In Qumran, all evidence leads us to assume an “open” collection rather than a closed canon. 29 At this point, I clearly see a danger of using terms like “open” or “closed” for authoritative or “scriptural” texts (perhaps overemphasized by Najman). Although there is far more freedom than is usually in our mind when the term “canon” is used, the aspect of closedness should not be completely dismissed. After all, every community that develops concepts like “authority” of certain texts (i.e., all textual communities) must still be able to communicate with the “outward world” and to rebuild their identity inwardly.

Thoughts on the Way towards “Prolegomena” 

 101

testament literature, Enoch, . . .), vocabulary (berît [ha-]ḥadāšāh, the “[new] covenant,” priestly structures in the Damascus Document, Hebrew in general, . . .), quotations (4QMMT, Pešārîm, . . .), outright interpretation of what would later become biblical texts or books (Jubilees, Pešær Ḥaḇaqqûq, Midrāš on MalkîṢædæq, etc.).30 Even if some material should pre­date the proto­canonical texts, it can be subsumed under a certain discourse that is later included in the Bible. Hence, this phenomenon is at the same time a criterion derived from the material itself (“in situ”), not anachronistic, but accounting for the similarities between a quarter of the material and the later canon. It acknowledges the socio­historical background of the discourse and is open for “material” observations. Last, but not least, it allows for hypotheses of literary and textual growth in the sense that discourses can mix and overlap with, even take over, other discourses. Discourses I would preliminarily suggest (building on and developing further observations from and discussions with Reinhard G. Kratz on his soon­to­be­ published German Qumran book31, as well as his predecessors) the following main strands of discourse: 1. a “Mosaic” Discourse (in the widest sense: Tôrāh and Former Prophets; perhaps with focal points like “patriarchal / ancestoral” and small “royal” subdiscourses; law and rule texts, . . .), 2. a “Prophetic” Discourse (the Latter Prophets, with foci on eschatological and apocalyptic features and developments, Daniel, apocalyptic literature, paraprophetic material, . . .), and 3. a “Davidic­Solomonic” Discourse (Psalms, Wisdom, influences and overlaps with Mosaic discourse, e.g., in Chronicles; Hodayot [prophetic­eschatological discourse], . . .) Describing these three main discourses and their development will automatically lead to “subdiscourses” or at least overlaps and influences of other discourses and finally result in the complicated picture we all have in front of us. Having seen that, any publication of “volumes” would not be able to give an accurate description. Perhaps none of the manuscripts would only fit “its” distinct dis­ course, but all would take their point of departure within the borders of the three main discourses in a way. The distances between the manuscripts can be inter­ preted within a history of traditions, a literary history, or a more or less static picture. They can also be seen as a mere description of a snapshot taken shortly 30 On the complexity of defining these various kinds of relationship, see as an example, the discussion by Novick, Paucity. 31 It should be noted that Kratz’s discourse categories in the book will slightly differ from (and be of different “weight” than) the ones realized in this article.

102 

 Peter Porzig

before 68 CE. They could, finally, also be continued and expanded by later liter­ ary works of (e.g., Rabbinic) Judaism. To give a very limited and simplistic example (see Figure 1):

Figure 1: Partial and incomplete raw draft of the discourse clusters.

In the above example, the manuscript list/order would basically go down from top to bottom, adding subparagraphs where the arrows (other discourses) enter a certain part of the respective discourse: Genesis, Gen. Apocryphon, Influence of the “Solomonic” discourse on the patriarchal focus = testament literature, etc. Or, from Deuteronomy (Mosaic focus) over Temple Scroll (a conflation of “Mosaic” foci, one might have added prophetic influence [Ezekiel] here) to Community Scroll, influences of the Prophetical/eschatological discourse, finally overlap with the “Solomonic” (wisdom) discourse: “Two Spirits Treatise.” Above, the author tried to verbalize his thoughts on the conception of a new and up­to date introduction to the Qumran literature. It seems that a trend in the recent scholarship of the Scrolls, namely, to view the manuscripts found in the Judean desert as part of a dynamic and living “body” of texts (reflecting the way the people behind the Scrolls are dealing and interacting with them) rather than as a fixed and inflexible “corpus,” if not “corpse,” is on the right way to address the problems and offer solutions. It cannot be emphasized enough that I am fully aware of the fact that this is not the last word on the topic, to say the least. Readers will certainly find many errors and shortages in this contribution. On the

Thoughts on the Way towards “Prolegomena” 

 103

other hand, it is no less and no more meant to be simply that: a tiny impulse for the continuing discussion, and perhaps a tiny step towards a new solution for the old problem of the taxonomy and classification of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Its aim is modest: to draft a “table of contents” for a future edition of an Introduction to the Scrolls. Yet, the discussion is an important one. It is my hope that all abovemen­ tioned scholars (and certainly the author of this article, too) can agree upon the quote of Najman and Tigchelaar’s last paragraph: We should not allow our understanding of the vitality of ancient Judaism to be shaped by those elements that survived and gave rise to the subject matters studied in the fields of Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Rabbinics and Early Christianity. Instead, we should embrace the opportunity to see ancient Judaism in flux, prior to the origination of these subject matters, when scriptural texts were polyform and the possibilities for development had not yet been narrowed down.32

The “flux,” the dynamics, the dialogues, the vitality that these texts “live,” mirror a vivid Jewish life within its communities, the consonances and the dissonances, on the path to better understand the inspired Scriptures and one’s own tradi­ tions. It is the path that some of us had the pleasure to be accompanied by Géza Xeravits, and a path with the same shared destination.

Bibliography Benjamin, W., Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers, in: T. Rexroth (ed.), Gesammelte Schriften: Bd. IV,1: Kleine Prosa, Baudelaire-Übertragungen, Frankfurt am Main 1972, 9–21. Blenkinsopp, J., The Sectarian Element in Early Judaism, in: J. Blenkinsopp (ed.), Essays on Judaism in the Pre-Hellenistic Period (BZAW 495), Berlin 2017, 192–206. Brooke, G. J., Genre Theory, Rewritten Bible, and Pesher: DSD 17 (2010) 332–357. Brooke, G. J., From Florilegium or Midrash to Commentary: The Problem of Re-Naming an Adopted Manuscript, in: J. Brooke and J. Høgenhaven (eds.), The Mermaid and the Partridge (STDJ 96), Leiden 2011, 129–150. Collins, J. J., Sectarian Consciousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: J. J. Collins, Scriptures and Sectarianism: Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls (WUNT 332), Tübingen 2014, 164–176. Collins, J. J., Sectarian Communities in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in T. Lim and J. J. Collins (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford 2010, 151–172. Collins, J. J., Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids 2009. Dimant, D., History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies (FAT 90), Tübingen 2014.

32 Tigchelaar / Najman, Preparatory Study, 325.

104 

 Peter Porzig

Dimant, D., The Vocabulary of the Qumran Sectarian Texts, in: D. Dimant, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies (FAT 90), Tübingen 2014, 57–100. Dimant, D., Sectarian and Nonsectarian Texts from Qumran: The Pertinence and Use of a Taxonomy, in: D. Dimant, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies (FAT 90), Tübingen 2014, 101–111. Dimant, D., Between Sectarian and Nonsectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua, in: D. Dimant, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies (FAT 90), Tübingen 2014, 113–133. Dimant, D., Between Qumran Sectarian and Qumran Nonsectarian Texts: The Case of Belial and Mastema, in: D. Dimant, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies (FAT 90), Tübingen 2014, 135–151. Dimant, D., The Composite Character of the Qumran Sectarian Literature as an Indication of Its Date and Provenance, in: D. Dimant, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies (FAT 90), Tübingen 2014, 171–183. Foucault, M., L’archéologie du savoir (Bibliothèque des sciences humaines), Paris 1969. Fröhlich, I., Defining Sectarian by ‘Non-Sectarian’ Narratives in Qumran, in: S. Stern (ed.), Sects and Sectarianism in Jewish History (IJS Studies in Judaica 12), Leiden 2011, 63–86. Gallagher, E. L., Is the Samaritan Pentateuch a Sectarian Text?: ZAW 127 (2015) 96–107. García Martínez, F., ¿Sectario, No-Sectario, o Qué? Problemas de una Taxonomía Correcta de los Textos Qumránicos. [Sectarian, Non-Sectarian or What Else? Problems of an Exact Taxonomy of the Qumran Texts.]: RevQ 23 (2008) 383–394. Justnes, Å., On Being a ‘Librarian’: Labels, Categories, and Classifications, in: S. White Crawford and C. Wassén (eds.) The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library (STDJ 116), Leiden 2016, 15–29. Kato, T., 4QMMT Reconsidered: Is It Really a Sectarian Text?: Journal of the Interdisciplinary Study of the Monotheistic Religions 15 (2020) 21–33. Kister, M., ‫[ עוד על בעית זיהוים של כתבים כתתיים בקומראן‬Some Further Thoughts on Identifying Sectarian Writings at Qumran], in: M. Kister (ed.), ‫ מבואות ומחקרים‬:‫[ מגילות קומראן‬The Qumran Scrolls and Their World], Jerusalem 2009, 87–90. Kohn, R. L. / Moore, R., Rethinking Sectarian Judaism: The Centrality of the Priesthood in the Second Temple Period, in: Sh. Dolansky (ed.), Sacred History, Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible, and Religion in Honor of R. E. Friedman on his Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake 2008, 195–214. Lange, A. / Mittmann-Richert, U., Annotated List of the Texts from the Judaean Desert Classified by Content and Genre, in: E. Tov, The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series, (DJD XXXIX), Oxford 2002, 115–164. Lessa, I., Discursive Struggles Within Social Welfare: Restaging Teen Motherhood: The British Journal of Social Work 36 (2006) 283–298. Lim, T. H., Towards a Description of the Sectarian Matrix, in: F. García Martínez (ed.), Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (STDJ 85), Leiden 2009, 115–164. Najman, H., The Vitality of Scripture Within and Beyond the ‘Canon’: JSJ 43 (2012) 497–518. Newsom, C. A., Pairing Research Questions and Theories of Genre: A Case Study of the Hodayot: DSD 17 (2010) 241–259. Novick, Tz., On the Paucity of Biblical Exemplars in Sectarian Texts, in: B. Goldstein et al. (eds.), Hā-ʾîsh Mōshe: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein (STDJ 122), Leiden 2017, 248–256.

Thoughts on the Way towards “Prolegomena” 

 105

Parry, D. W. / Tov, E., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. 6 vols., Leiden 2004–2005. Parry, D. W. / Tov, E., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Second, Revised, and Expanded Edition. 2 vols., Leiden 2013. Qimron, E., ‫ החיבורים העבריים‬:‫[ מגילות מדבר יהודה‬The Scrolls of the Judean Desert: The Hebrew Writings]. 3 Volumes., Jerusalem 2010; 2011; 2014 = idem., :‫החיבורים העבריים מקומראן‬ ‫[ מהדורה משולבת‬The Hebrew Writings from Qumran: Composite Edition], Tel Aviv 2020 (Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3737950). Stökl Ben Ezra, D., Qumran: Die Texte vom Toten Meer und das antike Judentum (Jüdische Studien 3, UTB 4681), Tübingen 2016. Strugnell, J., Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: 4Q375, 4Q376, and Similar Works, in: L. Schiffman (ed.), Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin, Sheffield 1990, 221–256. Tigchelaar, E., Classifications of the Collection of Dead Sea Scrolls and the Case of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.: JSJ 43 (2012) 519–550. Tigchelaar, E. / Najman, H., A Preparatory Study of Nomenclature and Text Designation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: RevQ 26 (2014) 305–326. Ulrich, E., Our Sharper Focus on the Bible and Theology Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls: CBQ 66 (2004) 1–24. Xeravits, G. G., Könyvtár a pusztában: Bevezetés a holt-tengeri tekercsek nem-bibliai irodalmába (Deuterocanonica 3), Budapest 2008. Xeravits, G. G. / Porzig, P., Einführung in die Qumranliteratur (De Gruyter Studium), Berlin 2015. Zahn, M. M., Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology, in: H. von Weissenberg et al. (ed.), Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW 419), Berlin 2010, 93–119.

Balázs Tamási

Levi, Levites and Worship in Qumran Abstract: In this article I focus on the references to Levi and Levites in various contexts in the Qumran Library that can be regarded as sources of the commu­ nity’s views and ideas about the Levites’ proper ritual role and functions in the Qumran worship. The analysis of the relevant material may answer the question, how Levites were involved in the worship within the Qumran community and how they were associated with it in the sense of the idealistic way of understanding. Keywords: Levi, levites, worship, Qumran

1 Introduction In my article I focus on the references to Levi and Levites in various contexts in the Qumran Library that can be regarded as sources of the community’s views and ideas about the Levites’ proper ritual role and functions in the worship. The anal­ ysis of the relevant material may answer the question, how Levites were involved in the worship within the Qumran community and how they were associated with it in the sense of the idealistic way of understanding. For instance, looking at 1QS, the Community Rule we can learn about the commitments of the Levites during the covenant renewal ceremony that also includes religious poetry and prayers. Another example is the Aramaic Levi Document that exalts Levi and his descend­ ants as ideal priestly figures in parabiblical narratives, and by Levi’s prayer, one or two visions of temple sacrifice and priestly admonitions. The Temple Scroll also provides the Levites with extra privileges in animal sacrifices and meal offer­ ings if we compare it with the Torah. By understanding the genre and function of these works, we can see that how relevant they are from the perspective of the worship. In my research I am dealing with Levi and Levites because this problem is still in the focus of scholarship and these sources have not been investigated

Note: This study is dedicated to the blessed memory of my dear friend and mentor Géza Gy. Xeravits. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the International Conference on Various Aspects of Worship in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature: International Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. The conference chaired by Prof. Géza G. Xeravits and Prof. József Zsengellér, and organized by the Department of Bible, Sapientia College of Theology, and the Faculty of Theology of the Károli Gáspár Reformed University, Budapest, Hungary, on 28 June – 1 July, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-007

108 

 Balázs Tamási

from the perspective of the Qumran Worship yet. First, I will attempt to summa­ rize the scholarly standpoints regarding the social­historical status and situation of the Levites in the Second Temple Period shortly then I will turn to the exami­ nation of the relevant texts. In my view, the conception of the worship in Qumran requires carefulness since our understanding attached too tightly to the idea that religious praxes in Qumran must be interpreted as a reaction to the lack of the temple sacrifices or the disfavor of the institutional worship.

2 Levites in Qumran – Status quaestionis Before focusing on the relevant sources, it is necessary to refer to the complex problem of status of the Levites in the Second Temple period. Yet, there is still a limited consensus among scholars concerning Levitical origins, functions, and status in Israelite and early Jewish religious history. It is more or less true that since the time of Wellhausen, the beginning of research of this topic. It is not accidental that there is still an ongoing scholarly discussion on the status of Levites in Qumran as well. It’s relevant to mention the most important names of the scholars on this topic like Milgrom,1 Stallman,2 Kugler,3 Kugel,4 Schiffman, Brooke,5 Werman6 and Stackert7. If we look at the state of investigation, namely how the status of Levites in Qumran has been evaluated in the scholarship, the views differ. For instance, an attractive and convincing solution has been sug­ gested by George J. Brooke that concerns pro­Levite editorial activity in the com­ munity. With respect to the textual evidence, George Brooke suggests that „some time or times it seems as if certain Levites formed a major part of the movement generally, and even the Qumran community.”8 I agree with him that Rule of Com­ munity, Rule of Congregation, the War Scroll, the Words of Moses, the Damascus Document, and others that positively portray or favor the Levites might have been amended by the Levites themselves. Milgrom suggested 30 years ago that Levit­ ical textual innovations reflect “the tensions and struggles among priestly fam­

1 Milgrom, Studies; Milgrom, Further Studies. 2 Stallman, Levi and the Levites. 3 Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest. 4 Kugel, Levi’s Elevation. 5 Brooke, Levi and the Levites. 6 Werman, Levi and Levites. 7 Stackert, Cultic Status. 8 Brooke, Levi and the Levites, 115.

Levi, Levites and Worship in Qumran 

 109

ilies and between priests and Levites at the end of the Second Temple period.”9 I  agree with Milgrom to a certain extent but perhaps the timing of this social phenomenon is not exact. The tension between pro­Levite qumranic texts and the late scriptural sources like Chronicles may indicate that Levites was a mar­ ginalized group in the 3rd and 2nd century BCE. Moreover, in the light of the com­ munal and ritual activity of Levites in Qumran we can’t prove their presence on the wide spectrum of society. Thus, we shouldn’t assume that there was a tension between priests and Levites at the end of the Second Temple period. However, it also seems problematic to assume that the priestly authors of the Second Temple Period and the writers of the Qumran community created the Levites only at a lit­ erary level, as Cana Werman suggested and she added that “only Aronide, namely Zadokite priests served in the Second Temple.” She also believes that Ben Sira doesn’t mention the Levites for this reason. However, in my opinion, it doesn’t prove anything and their absence form Ben Sira can be regarded as a form of polemic against them. Robert Kugler similarly assumes that the Qumran com­ munity, as a group of outsider priests, identified themselves with the Levites as historically subordinated cultic officials. In my eye and as it will be shown in the following, the Levites’ tasks in Qumran prove that they were a realistic and important group of the community. There are nearly one hundred references to the Levites in the scrolls. The Levites in the Qumran Library are often elevated above their traditionally lower status vis­a­vis the priests.10 However, according to the Rule of the Community (1QS ix.7), the important sectarian text, the Aaronides wield absolute power over the life of the community; and in Miqtsat Ma’asei ha­Torah (4Q394 1–2.iv.8) the Aaronides are called the most holy (1QS viii.5­ 6). The title Aaronides is used interchangeably with Zadokites, but generally in sectarian texts it distinguishes priests from other community members and the title sets priests apart from Levites: see e.g. in the Rule of the Congrega­ tion (1Q28a i.l 6. 23), the War Scroll (1QM vii.l0) and throughout the Temple Scroll (11Q19). Nevertheless, the hierarchy of the priests in Qumran was being changed from time to time during the history of the community. In my view, a consolidation and cooperation of the priestly and Levite groups within the community from the mid­2nd century to the destruction of the second Temple may explain the fact that pro­Levite texts remained in the Qumran Library. It is clear from most of the documents in Qumran that the Temple was under­ stood defiled. Thus, the priestly and non­priestly members of the community re­ moved themselves from atonement in the Jerusalem temple and were withdrawn

9 Milgrom, Studies, 501. 10 See, Stone, Levi, 485–486, 485.

110 

 Balázs Tamási

from a wide range of cultic practices. For this reason it is not striking that there are many instances where priestly and cultic images are used for the community. George Brooke explains this situation: „The strength of these images indicates that at some stage in the development of the community it was made up of priests and Levites, those who had had cultic experience or who had once served in the tem­ ple.”11 The question arises how the function of the texts dealing with the temple and sacrifices might have been understood in Qumran? And also how the meaning of worship and the tasks of the priests, Levites and other worshippers might have been changed in this new situation? While it is hard to find the answer to this ques­ tion, I would still like to summarize our knowledge regarding the most important ritual duties and services of the Levites in Qumran that might have been different forms of theʿavodah or divine worship, as Stefan Reif has convincingly defined and summarized it in his study on the concept of ʿAvodah in Early Judaism.12 In the fol­ lowing I turn to the examination of the most relevant sources that prove the varying status of the Levites in the communal hierarchy and their cultic commitments.

3 Levites as Fellows of the Priests in the Ceremonies and in the Eschatological Battle: The Community Rule and the War Scroll In the Community Rule during the annual initiation ceremony, the priests and the Levites recount the righteousness of God and bless all his true works then the Levites recount the sins of the sons of Israel and curse the unfaithful ones. After the confession of the covenanters the priests bless the lot of God, and then the Levites curse the lot of Belial. This poetic part of the Community Rule preserved very important information about the Levites as fellows of the priests in one of the most crucial rites of the Qumran Community. Thus, all those who are entering shall cross over into the covenant before God by the Rule of the Community. . . (18) When they cross over into the covenant the Priests (19) and Levites shall praise the God of salvation and all his true work. And all (20) those who cross over into the covenant shall say after them: Amen, Amen! (21) Then the priests shall report the right­ eousness of God along with its wondrous works, (22) and recount all (his) merciful acts of

11 Brooke, Aspects, 40. 12 Reif, How did Early Judaism, 4–6.

Levi, Levites and Worship in Qumran 

 111

love towards Israel. Then the Levites shall enumerate (23) the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their guilty transgression and their sins during the dominion of (24) Belial. . .13 [After the confession of the covenanters] (Col. I, 16) Then the Priests shall bless all (2) the men of God’s lot who walk perfectly in all his ways, and say: ”May he bless you, [etc.]. . .!.” (4) Then the Levites shall curse all the men of (5) Belial’s lot, they shall respond and say: “Cursed be you in all your guilty (and) wicked works. . .etc.” . . . (10) And all those who across into the covenant shall say after those who bless and those who curse: “Amen, Amen”14 (Col. II, 1)

The question may arise that how this ceremony relates to the Qumran Worship? There are liturgical texts such as Berakhot (4Q286–290) in which a very similar blessings­curses rite can be found, and this composition reflects the dualistic language and cultic elements of 1QS 1–3, too. This parallel proves the liturgical role of the Levites in Qumran. In accordance with the ideas of the community, the members thought that they live during the realm of Belial and they regarded their period as the dawn of the eschatological times. Their authors in the community rules, prayers, scriptural interpretations and parabiblical texts evaluate the past of Israel and the period of the community from an eschatological perspective. It is not striking that not only blessings but also curses were important in the ritual way of expression of their “sectarian” feelings. As I see it, when the com­ munity imagined the anticipated eschatological battle between the righteous and unrighteous part of humanity they applied elements of the temple or the com­ munal worship. The War Scroll refers to the high priest who will take leadership in the final battle against the Sons of Darkness as kohen ha-rosh assisted by his deputy. He stands at the head of the chiefs of the priests (rashei ha-kohanim), Levites and lay leaders (1QM ii.l; 4Q494 4) and fulfills various liturgical functions in the time of battle. In the oldest copy of the War Scroll (4QMc 9–10), there is a hint that the community was convinced that the Levites had a status equal to those priests who blow the trumpet. In a later recension (1QM VII, 12–14), they have a less positive role since Levites are assigned the task of the carrying the seven rams’ horn.

13 Translation is based on Qimron / Charlesworth, Rule of Community, 8. 14 Qimron / Charlesworth, Rule of Community, 8.

112 

 Balázs Tamási

4 Levi as an Interpreter of the Scripture: The Words of Moses and the Damascus Document In the Damascus Document the ability of the proper interpretation of the Law and Prophets can also be found among the functions of the Levites. The texts say in the xiii, 3 that if ten men are assembled to read the Book of Hagu and the priest is not expert from among them, then a Levite is to do the interpretation. Beside this, a pesher on the three nets of Belial, an interpretation on Isaiah 24:17 is attributed to Levi ben Jacob. It is also intriguing that in the so­called Words of Moses the proper meaning of the Law is revealed to the Levites. While the scrip­ tural interpretation is not part of worship in the Bible (e.g. prophecies), it is a prominent genre and a revelatory form in Qumran.15 Accordingly, it could be that the Qumran community attributed to Levites a special cultic role in interpretation of the Prophets.

5 Levites as Fellows or Rivals of the Priests in the Worship: Temple Scroll Although Jerusalem Temple was regarded defiled, the Temple Scroll was received in Qumran. It’s striking that this lengthy work describes Jerusalem Temple which has never been built in the form that is included in our scroll and contains exten­ sive detailed regulations about sacrifices and temple practices. Whether it origi­ nated in Qumran itself or not, the author demonstrates his profound knowledge regarding the sacrificial laws and practice. Moreover, it appears that in some respect the Temple Scroll favors the Levites. The author deviated a great deal from the material of Deuteronomy 18 regarding priestly and Levitical assignment. It is well known that biblical texts that distinguish between priests and Levites, as the Temple Scroll does, never assign portions of the sacrificed animal to the Levites. Such offering portions are reserved for the priests alone in the Bible (Num 18:8– 20). Our scroll uniquely assigns to Levites the shoulder of animals, most specifi­ cally of the zebach. This sacrificial portion and its designation to the Levites are wholly unknown in the biblical literature.

15 This idea is based on Jassen’s understanding of the revelation of the prophetic texts in Qumran; see Jassen, Mediating the Divine.

Levi, Levites and Worship in Qumran 

 113

1. For the priests shall be the thigh of the offering and the breast 2. of the elevation offer­ ing and the first fruit, and they shall give the forearms and the cheeks and the stomachs, according to the portions. 3. This will be an eternal portion for them from the children of Israel. The shoulder which remains from the forearm 4. they shall give to the Levites, and it shall be theirs from the people as an eternal portion for them and for their offspring. 5. After­ wards, they shall bring them out to the children of Israel.16 (11QT 21:1–5 cf. 11QT 22:8–14)

The list of Levitical assignments is preserved in its entirety in Col. 60:6–11: And to Levites (you shell give) a tithe of the grain, the wine, and the oil which they sanctified to me at first, and shoulder form those offering a sacrifice, and the tribute form the booty and the spoil, and from the trapping, of the fowl, the breasts and the fish, one hundredth. And from the young pigeon, one fiftieth, and a tithe of the honey17

It is interesting at this point that the first tithe that was originally given to the priests here in the Temple scroll was apportioned to the Levites according to Numbers 18:21. The annual requirements of this tithe of our scroll was in com­ plete agreement with Jubilees (32:11). Schiffman suggests that this innovation is an attempt of a priestly writer to compensate for a graduate termination of the priestly rights over the tithes in the late Second Temple period. However, it seems to me more probable that the work has preserved a Levite oriented interpretation of Numbers 18:21. In our scroll the Levites are also apportioned a tribute from the spoils of war and the trapped animals. This regulation, to my mind, may refer to an eschatological war. The Scroll also assigned a portion of 1/50 of young pigeons to the Levites. The Scroll concludes by adding one item to the list of emoluments given to the priests (11Q 60:9–11) clearly because to emphasize that the priests are to get 1/100, half of the Levitical portion. Moreover, the Temple Scroll describes a royal council that was to guide the king in matters of judgment: “He will have twelve princes of his people with him and twelve priests and twelve Levites who shall sit next to him [to counsel him] concerning matters of law and Torah.” (11Q19 vii.11–15).18 To sum up, since the typical expressions of the sectarian work are wholly missing from the Temple Scroll, its origin is still debated among scholars. It is also true that not only one copy from Cave 11 but another fragmentary manuscript of Temple Scroll has survived in Cave 4. In my view, this testifies that the work was received and probably copied for the Qumran Community. The sacrificial and priestly privileges of the Levites in 11QT can be understood more easily in the light of the relevant textual references to them in the Aramaic Levi Document, Jubi­

16 Translation is based on Qimron, Temple Scroll, 32. (see Stackert, Cultic Status, 205., n. 16.). 17 Qimron, Temple Scroll, 85. See also Stackert, Cultic Status, 207, n. 23. 18 For translation of the Hebrew text, see Garcia Martinez, Qumranica Minora, 87.

114 

 Balázs Tamási

lees. All in all, this image of Levitical worship can be interpreted as the idea of a “priestly­like” worship that will be performed in the “heavenly” Temple, during the messianic era that were being waited for by the community.

6 Exalted Status of the Levites in the Heavenly Worship: Aramaic Levi Document and Jubilees Some Second Temple texts assert that the choice of the Levites goes all back to the time of that tribe’s founder, Levi himself. This idea is to be found in the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD), Book of Jubilees, Testament of Levi, and the Testament of Twelve Patriarchs. Each text asserts that Levi was made a priest during his life and this role and other temple tasks were granted to his descendants perpetually. The Aramaic Levi Document was reconstructed and published by Stone, Greenfield and Esther Eshel on the basis of at least seven Qumran MSS, two MSS from the Cairo Genizah and the Greek MS of Prayer of Levi. I also have to mention Robert Kugler’s pioneering work regarding the reconstruction what he published in his dissertation about the Levi­Priestly Tradition in 1996. It is also intriguing that this work served as a source for Jubilees and presumably cited by the Damascus Docu­ ment. Looking at the themes of the ALD it is clear that its author was keenly inter­ ested in the details of the temple worship like priestly purity, immersion in water, animal sacrifices, wood offerings, the measures of wood, salt, fine flour, oil, wine and frankincense. Martha Himmelfarb assumes that Isaac’s instructions to Levi, within the ALD, contain precisely the sort of information a young priest would need to know before undertaking service in the Temple. For this reason, she does not agree with Kugler that the ALD is a critique of the Jerusalem priesthood, but she is convinced that the text amends and actualizes the sacrificial rules of the Torah.19 However, the solar calendar in the ALD and its multiple copies in Qumran may refer to a sectarian invention in it. It is also noteworthy that all the topics of the section of Abraham’s speech in Jubilees concerned with the cult also appear in Aramaic Levi Document. Neither the ALD nor Jubilees mentions the heavenly Temple, although the former refers to it in Levi’s visions and his ascent to heaven. One of the most important parts of the ALD is Levi’s investiture to the priesthood. And we went to my father and thus blessed me. . .then I was before [him] at the head of the priesthood, and to me of all his sons he gave a gift of tithe to God, and he invested me in

19 See Himmelfarb, Earthly Sacrifice.

Levi, Levites and Worship in Qumran 

 115

priestly garb and consecrated me and I became a priest of the God of eternity, and I offered all of his sacrifices . . . and instruct me and to teach me the law of the priesthood.20 (ALD 5:1–5:8)

Jubilees preserved similar priestly ideology as ALD. Moreover, Isaac’s blessing of Levi depicts priests on earth as counterparts of the angelic priests in heaven. As a quotation from this shows: “May he make you and your descendants (alone) out of all humanity approach him / to serve in his Temple like the angels of the pres­ ence and like the holy ones” (31:14).21 This passage may remind us of the ideas of the heavenly worship in the Songs of Shabbat Sacrifices from Qumran. It is difficult to define whether the priestly figure of Levi had an impact on the social status of the Levites or whether it changed their status in the Qumran Commu­ nity. However, it can be demonstrated that figure of Levi is purposely associated with the theme of purity and Temple worship. This association spread and more or less connected to the venerable patriarch and his priestly linage in the Aramaic Levi, the Jubilees and the Damascus Document. One of the most relevant exam­ ples of this association is an admonition of three chief sins regarding the purity. 1)

In the Aramaic Levi Document: First of all, be[wa]re my son of all fornication and impurity and of all harlotry.22

(ALD 6:3)

2) In the Jubilees: And observe (Jacob), the commandments of Abraham, your father: “Now you, my son Jacob, remember what I say and keep the commandments of your father Abraham. Separate from the nations for their actions are something that is impure and all their ways are defiled and something abominable and detestable.23 (Jub. 22:16)

3) In the Damascus Document: The interpretation is to those three nets, fornication, wealth, and defilement of the Sanctuary, that by making them look like three kinds of righteousness, Belial entraps Israel in them concerning which Levi the son of Jacob said.24 (CD IV:17–18)

20 For translation and commentary of the Aramaic text, see Greenfield, / Stone / Eshel, Ara­ maic Levi Document, 71. 21 See VanderKam / White Crawford, Jubilees, 843. 22 Greenfield, / Stone / Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 75. 23 For translation see VanderKam / White Crawford, Jubilees, 647. 24 For the edition of the Hebrew text, see Broshi, Damascus Document.

116 

 Balázs Tamási

7 Concluding Remarks In light of the analysis of the purely sectarian texts like Community Rule, Damas­ cus Document and War Scroll, I conclude that the Levites were also involved in the Qumran worship by participating in the communal life and such performances like the annual covenantal ceremonies, saying blessings of God and cursing the unrighteous lot of the humanity, studying and giving proper interpretation of the Torah, Prophets or the book of Hagi and taking part in the symbolic or hoped­for eschatological battle lead by a proper kohen gadol. All these forms of the worship, understood in a wider sense in Qumran, served as the replacement of the reli­ gious service in the Temple. As their ritual activities demonstrate, the Levites are elevated above their traditionally lower status in the sectarian types of texts. At the same time, it can be seen that Levites just gain a highly exalted status as a priest and worshipper in the not typical sectarian texts like the Temple Scroll, Aramaic Levi Document and Jubilees. The author or an editor of the Temple Scroll interprets and amends the sacrificial laws of Numeri and Deuteronomy with the intention and hope that the Levites will participate in the priestly assignments of the offerings in a symbolic or eschatological Temple. The priestly author of Aramaic Levi Document formulates his profound knowledge regarding the sacri­ fices and offerings in a visionary form that have never applied in Qumran. Finally, it is not an accident that the Qumran works of different literary genres regarding Levi and Levites were written in almost the same period, in 2nd century BCE. But one should ask why these sources remained in Qumran in the follow­ ing two centuries when the Kohanim, the Sons of Zadok took full control of the Qumran priestly community.

Bibliography Brooke, G. J., Aspects of the Theological Significance of the Prayer and Worship in the Qumran Scrolls, in: J. Penner et al. (eds.), Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday (STDJ 98), Leiden 2012, 35–54. Brooke, G. J., Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, in: Idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Essays in Mutual Illumination, Minneapolis 2005, 115–139. Broshi, M.,The Damascus Document Reconsidered, Jerusalem 1992. Garcia Martinez, F., Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 64), Leiden 2007. Greenfield, J. C. / Stone, M. E. / Eshel E., The Aramaic Levi Document (SVTP 19), Leiden 2004.

Levi, Levites and Worship in Qumran 

 117

Himmelfarb, M., Earthly Sacrifice and Heavenly Incense: The Law of the Priesthood in Aramaic Levi and Jubilees, in: R. S. Boustan and A. Y. Reed (eds.), Heavenly Realms, Cambridge 2004., pp. 103–122 Jassen, A. P., Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (STDJ 68), Leiden 2007. Kugel, J., Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings: HTR 86 (1993) 1–64. Kugler, R. A., From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (Early Judaism and Its Literature 9), Atlanta 1996. Milgrom, J., Further Studies in the Temple Scroll (Continued): JQR 71 (1980) 89–106. Milgrom, J., Studies in the Temple Scroll: JBL 97 (1978) 501–523. Qimron, E. / Charlesworth, J. H., Rule of the Community (1QS; cf. 4QS MSS A-J, 5Q11), in: J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project), Tübingen/Louisville 1994, 1–51. Qimron, E., The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions (Judean Desert Studies), Beer Sheva/Jerusalem 1996. Reif, S., How did Early Judaism Understand the Concept of ʿAvodah?, in: G. G. Xeravits et al. (eds.), Various Aspects of Worship in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2016/2017), Berlin 2017, 1–15. Stackert, J., The Cultic Status of the Levites in the Temple Scroll: Between History and Hermeneutics, in: M. Leuchter and J. M. Hutton (eds.), Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition (Ancient Israel and its Literature, 9.), Atlanta 2011, 199–214. Stallman, R. C., Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls: JSP 10 (1992) 163–189. Stone, M. E., Levi, in: L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2., New York 2000, 485–486. VanderKam, J. C. / White Crawford, S., Jubilees: A Commentary in Two Volumes (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2018. Werman, C., Levi and Levites in the Second Temple Period: DSD 4 (1997) 211–225.

Réka Esztári

Children Confined in the House of Darkness An Akkadian Incantation Ritual of the Stillborn na-bu-ú it-tan-nu-nu la na-bu-ú in-da-har-ú-’-in-ni The ones with names have given (all this) to me (and) the ones without names have received from me.1

Abstract: The unique mention of the stillborn foetus in 11QTa L, 10–12 shows very well how much the Qumran Community was apprehensive of this uncategorized entity. For a better understanding for this awareness which is observable in every ancient culture, I examine an Akkadian ritual text. Thus far, the first ritual of the Akkadian compendium KBo XXXVI 29, unearthed in Hattuša (modern Boğazköy) was considered an enigmatic magical procedure involving the creatures called kūbū, the souls of stillborn foetuses and infants well known from various other types of Mesopotamian sources. The following discussion of this ritual, dedicated to the loving memory of Géza, a dear friend and colleague amins to reveal that actually, this text proves that according to Mesopotamian beliefs even the small­ est ones who never really experienced life, live on in eternity and can be called

1 SpTU 5, 248 obv. 8‒9, for transliteration and translation see Scurlock, Sourcebook, 684 and 689, with Couto­Ferreira, River, 102 (translation). Note: This paper is based on a lecture held at The University of London on 2016. 11. 21. within the frames of the lecture series „Ancient Ritual Techniques, Artefacts and Communication” organized by the London Centre for the Ancient Near East (LCANE) and personally by Diana Stein, to whom I’d like to thank her kind invitation‒now in written form as well. Back then, I had the great opportunity to discuss the relevant part of the text KBo XXXVI 29 and my new interpretations with several eminent scholars of Assyriology and Hettitology, among whom I’m mostly indebted to Andrew R. George for his useful advices and corrections. Of course, all errors remaining in this article are entirely my fault. The abbreviations follow the conventions of the CAD (The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago) with the following additions: CMAwRO = Abusch, T. / Schwemer, D. (with Luukko, M. / Van Buylaere, G.), Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-witchcraft Rituals online (http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/cmawro) ePSD = Tinney, Steve et al., The Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary Project, the Babylonian Section of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archeology. (http://psd.museum. upenn.edu/epsd/). ETCSL = Black, J. A. / Cunningham, G. / Ebeling, J. / FlückigerHawker, E. / Robson, E. / Taylor, J. / Zólyomi, G., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://etcsl.orinst. ox.ac.uk/). Oxford, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-008

120 

 Réka Esztári

to help those who still walk the earth. In other words, this very ritual is nothing else but the true testimony of the love of life and of faith in a higher power donat­ ing the eternity of the soul and allowing us to meet again with our loved ones – regardless to historical space and time, or religions and denominations. Although all these seem to be the vital needs of the human soul, at times there is still hard to believe in life itself or in the promise of continuity – and that is what I truly owe to Géza, to the eternal shine of his mind and to all his enthusianism, as he taught to me how to escape from darkness, and how to have and keep faith. Keywords: 11QTa, Qumran, Akkadian ritual, Hattuša (Boğazköy), stillborn foetus

1 Introduction: An Enigmatic Ritual from Hattuša and the Difficulties of Its Interpretation Liminal entities, especially stillborn foetuses caused intense fear and anxiety thorough different cultures and religions all over the world, however, the strict regulations of the Temple Scroll with their unique mention of the stillborn in Qumran texts clearly reflect that all the dangers stillbirth were considered as exceptionally malignant in the eyes of the Community. According to the relevant passage: And if a woman is pregnant and her child dies within her womb, all the days which it is dead within her she shall be impure like a grave; every house which she enters will be unclean with all its utensils for seven days; and everyone who comes into contact with her shall be impure up to the evening . . . 2 (11QTemplea L, 10–12)

2 Fort he comparison of the Temple Scroll passage with Mishnah Chullin 4:1 see Crawford, Not According to Rule, 136 with n. 30 and also Crawford, The Temple Scroll, 45. We should also treat Mishnah Chullin 4:3 in this respect, as this passage concerns human stillbirth: “With regard to an animal whose fetus died in its womb and the shepherd reached his hand into the womb and touched the fetus, both in the case of a non­kosher animal and in the case of a kosher animal the fetus does not have the status of an animal carcass that imparts ritual impurity, and the shepherd remains ritually pure. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: In the case of a non­kosher animal it is impure, and in the case of a kosher animal it is pure. With regard to a woman whose fetus died in her womb and the midwife extended her hand into the womb and touched the fetus, the midwife is thereby rendered impure with the seven­day impurity imparted by a corpse, and the woman re­ mains ritually pure until the offspring emerges from the womb.”, for the English translation see: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Chullin.4.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en.

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 121

Although stillbirth and the spirits of those never even lived disquitened the Mes­ opotamian religious mind as well, it is worth to be compared how their belief system reflected on such tragedies – with the aid of an incantation ritual poorly understood before. The completely unique and rather enigmatic Akkadian incantation ritual this paper aims to discuss forms part of a larger compendium (KBo XXXVI 29) – as the very first text of the collection. Although the latter as a whole was written in Akkadian, the known manuscripts were not of Mesopotamian origin, but rather, they were brought into light in the ancient capital of the Hittite Kingdom, Hattuša (modern Boğazköy).3 As it was proposed by Daniel Schwemer, to whom we owe the exemplary publication of KBo XXXVI 29 and it’s duplicates, the collection known to us in this present form was based on a Babylonian original, or several, originally independent Babylonian texts. These were most probably composed sometime during the 15­14th centuries in Northern Mesopotamia  – as it can be judged by the presence of grammatical peculiarities and the numerous Hurrian loanwords.4 This version may have reached the Hittite capital where the scribes of the royal court, acquainted with the Akkadian language and cuneiform as well, began to copy its text.5 According to the other parts of this collection, we are dealing with a compen­ dium of rituals against various kinds of harms caused by demons, ghosts, and dead spirits. It is clear that such types of texts belonged to the art of the Mesopo­ tamian exorcist priests, the āšipus, and formed part of their scholarly libraries.6 However, as compared to the well known contents of the latter, this certain very first ritual seems to be an exception–in many ways. Unfortunately, this part was only preserved by a single manuscript (Figure 1) – which, in addition, is a rather fragmentary one. Originally, the first ritual comprised some 60 lines – from which 44 have been left.7 Both the beginning and the end are lost, which is quite a mis­ fortune, since in case of magical rituals the actual problem, that is, the Sits im

3 On Akkadian texts from Hattuša see in general Beckman, Mesopotamians, 97‒103, with Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 8‒10. For the catalogue of Akkadian rituals and incantations from Hattuša see Košak / Müller, hethiter.net/: Catalog (2018­08­04), texts CTH 800‒813. 4 On the paleographic, grammatical, and lexical peculiarities of the text see the detailed discus­ sion in Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 8‒52), with the brief summary on pp. 50‒52. 5 For the list of manuscripts (beside the main text KBo XXXVI 29) and fragments see Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 80‒83, with Košak / Müller, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (v. 1.96)―our text has the catalogue number CTH 812. 6 On the designation and the lore of the exorcists (āšipūtu) in general see the excellent summary of Geller, Babylonian Medicine, 43‒52, with further literature. 7 Cf. Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 53.

122 

 Réka Esztári

Leben of the text is usually defined by the introductory lines, while the result of the ritual process use to be described at the end―thus in our case, where both are missing, nothing enlightens the purpose of the procedure.

Figure 1: KBo XXXVI 29 Ms A Obv. After Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, Tafel I.

Although it may seem odd at first, virtually the same can be said about the middle, more or less legible parts where completely unique ritual acts appear, together with a longer incantation – which is also unparalleled. Within the frames of the latter, the āšipu invokes the creatures called kūbū, the spirits of stillborn foetuses

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 123

and infants (see below). What is obvious even at first sight that he turns to them for help – so the ritual was not directed against them. The appearance of the kūbū in such context is also exceptional.8

2 The Incantation of the Stillborn (KBo XXXVI 29 obv. 18’‒27’)9 18’ ku-bu ú-te-el-la bi-nu-ut [ ] 19’ šar-ra-at a-ra-al-li [ ] DI 20’ a-ša-bi iš-ku-nu eš15-re-tu4 [ ] ŠA AD X 21’ É ha-di-ma ha-da-a e[š15?­re?-tu4? ... ] É­ku-nu 22’ ṭa-bu-ti a-ku-la me-e É­ku-nu [ ] X NI ZA [ ] 23’ pí-ta-an-ši-ša hu-da-a ri-ša [šu?-li?-la? ] X EL [ ] 24’ ma-te-en-na-a as-hur-ku-nu-ši e­[še-ku-nu]­ši a[s?-si?]­ku-nu-ši 25’ TÚG.SÍK­a-ku-nu aṣ-bat a-lak-ti i[p-ta]r-ku li-in-dá 26’ i-ša-ru-ti šuk-na na-ar-bi-ku-nu lu-uq-bi 27’ da-li-li-ku-nu lud-lu-ul an-na-am i-qáb-bi-ma 18’ Kūbus, arise! Creatures [ . . . ] 19’ The queen of the Nether World [ . . . ] . . . 20’ The dwelling was set, the sanctuary [ . . . ] . . . 21’ The house (É) should rejoice, you should rejoice [ . . .], your house (É-kunu) 22’ You should eat the sweet [ . . . ], the water of your house [you should drink?] . . . 23’ anoint again and again, you should rejoice, your heads?[ . . . ]. . . 24’ Now, I turned to you, sought for you, conjured you up, 25’ I grasped (the fringe) of your garment! You should know: my way is blocked (alaktī iptarkū)! 26’ Restore the correct state (išarūti šuknā), let me utter your praise! 27’ Let me proclaim your fame! – thus he speaks.

Despite the fragmentary state and the philological problems of the text, it becomes clear that for the kūbus, who are possibly called the “creatures of the queen of the Netherworld,” some kind of dwelling was made, to which the text refers to as “house” (Sumerian É, Akkadian bītu) in the followings. “House,” of course, may have several possible layers of meaning, among others: from simple dwelling house or place, this word may refer to temples (dwelling places of the gods) as well 8 Cf. Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 57. 9 The transliteration is based on the photos of Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, Plates I‒III― for additional photos of the lower part of the obverse see also the excellent photographs of the Mainzer Photoarchiv (hethiter.net/: PhotArch NO9543‒NO9548). The English translation (witch differs from the German one of Schwemer at several points, see below) was made by the author.

124 

 Réka Esztári

(that is how Schwemer interpreted this expression),10 but one should not forget that the final dwelling place, the grave could also be referred to as “house.”11 Upon reading on the quoted text, it turns out that the kūbus are provided with food and drink in this “dwelling place,” and consequently (in line 25), after stating that “my way is blocked,” they are asked to restore the natural, the normal state. Beside the fragmentary state of the passage, the unique nature of the ritual acts did not enable Daniel Schwemer to define the actual purpose of this process. The questions, why were the stillborn actually evoked, what was this abnormal state which they – as we have read – should have restored, remained open in his edition and no other student of Assyriology attempted to interpret this enigmatic incantation ritual thus far. However, a closer look on the key­expressions of the text may help us to answer these questions – and we will outline the results of this attempt in the followings. 10 Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 56, and see also Scurlock, Review, 673, with the remark that the kūbus received offerings in the Anu‒Adad temple in Aššur, and that there was a bīt kūbi, “shrine of the stillborn” in the Aššur temple as well. However, Schwemer assumed that the “tem­ ple” of our text has to be located in the Netherworld. In this regard, he cites a ceremonial ritual for undoing witchcraft, first published by the late Lambert, Incantation, by now known as CMAwR vol. 1, text 8.3 (“Burning the Witches’ Figurines before Šamaš and Purifying the Patient”), which also mentions the “bīt dKūbu (ša ṣēri)” in line 45: ṣalmīya īpušūma ina hurri ereb Šamši iphû : ṣalmīya īpušūma ina bīt dKūbu ša ṣēri [. . .] they have made figurines of me and shut (them) up in a hole in the West, they have made figurines of me and . . . them in the “temple” of the god Kūbu in the steppe. As for me, however, it is not really obvious (especially in the lack of any kind of explanation or parallels) that this “temple” (if we are dealing with a temple at all) should be located in the Netherworld (cf. Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 56. “Offenbar ist damit dasselbe Heiligtum innerhalb der Unterwelt gemeint”). At this part, each line of the texts contains parallel couplets of locations or modes of burying and burning (lines 41‒50, see also Lambert, Incanta­ tion, 292. It is obvious that the “hole in the West” is nothing else than an entrance to the Neth­ erworld―on holes as such entrances see inter alia Katz, Image, 44‒45 with further literature). On the place or perhaps more properly gate of sunset (ereb Šamši) as an entrance of the realm of the dead see Heimpel, Suna at Night, 146‒151 (summarizing the sources regarding the regular underworldly journey of the Sungod) and more recently Ragavan, Entering, 202. How can this be parallel with the bīt dKubu in the steppe? As it was already assumed by Jean Bottéro, for ordinary humans, the grave was the par excellance gate to the netherworld; see also Katz, Image, 44‒45 and Ragavan, Entering, 203), however, certain features and locations which were reminiscent to graves/entrances in some way or other, could also be used as symolic burial places in such rituals where something had to be sent to the netherworld. Among others he enumerated wells (būrtu), holes (hurru), the West (ereb Šamši), and last but not least, the steppe (ṣēru), see Bottéro, Les morts, 190. So to sum up, the very context makes it rather clear that instead of a “temple in the Netherworld,” the bīt dKubu ša ṣēri is nothing else than an entrance to the realm of the dead, and that bītu should be interpreted as an expression referring to the grave (see below with note 11)― moreover, to a specific type of burial which can be connected with the kūbū (see below as well). 11 Cf. CAD B: 282‒295, sub. bītu, esp. p. 292 (mng. 3e).

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 125

3 The Dead Ones Who Never Even Lived: The Spirits of the Stillborn However, first we should take a closer look upon the characteristics of the pro­ tagonists, the kūbus! The Akkadian word kūbu means premature, stillborn child, that is, dead foetus, infant, or toddler.12 The Old Babylonian bronze figurine on Figure 2. represents – in all probability – such a creature, especially since rather similar crouching, emaciated figures appear on the contemporary images of the Birth Goddess on terracotta plaques (see Figure 3.)13 – in the latter context, they obviously represent premature births or foetuses.14 The expression kūbu itself is often preceded by the divine determinative which signifies that we are dealing with even if not deified entities, but creatures certainly endowed with some kind of supernatural power. It is not surprising if we consider their specific, one might say liminal state: they were dead ones who never even lived, elusive entities who, to recall Mary Douglas on the concept of taboo, did not seem to fall neatly into any (socially­constructed) category and thus could be considered as “sacred” or dangerous – or both, all at once.15

12 See CAD K: 487‒488, sub. kūbu. 13 The drawing is based on a plaque now housed in the Louvre (AO. 12442), one of three similar objects (most probably made from the same mould). The others are now in the collections of the Iraq Museum (IM 9574) and the Lowie Museum―for photos see van Buren, Clay Relief, 166f. figs. 1 and 2; for discussion: Opificius, Terrakottarelief, 76f. and Tomabechi, Catalogue, 18f. no. 22 with pl. III 13. The photo of the plaque from the Iraq Museum was also published in Porada, Male Figure, 159, as Fig. 9 and in Stol, Birth, 81 as Fig. 3. For a most recent treatment of these artefacts see Steinert, Cows, 208‒201. 14 Cf. inter alia Porada, Male Figure, 163‒165), Stol, Birth, 80‒81, and Steinert, Cows, 208. On the symbol resembling the Greek Omega as the emblem of the birth goddess and the sematic rep­ resentation of the uterus of cows see most recently the detailed study of Steinert, Cows, 207‒223, with previous literature) and the summary in Paoletti / Steinert, Uterus, 516. 15 On the anthropological definition of taboo see the short summary of Buckser, Taboo, while on the approach of Mary Douglas, followed and applied by the present author see Douglas, Pu­ rity. As for the Mesopotamian taboo concept (and on the expression nig­gig / ikkibu, “taboo”) see van der Toorn, Sin, 43; Hallo, Biblical Abdominations, 29–33; Geller, Taboo; Cohen, Taboos, 25‒27; Geller, Tabu, and most recently Böck, Concept of Taboo, 305‒311. It is also worthy of note that the element “gig” of the Sumerian expression has two basic meanings, namely : “sacred” and “sick,” in other worlds, it is “something repulsive, against nature” (on this interpretation see Cavigneaux / Al­Rawi, Textes magiques, 35‒36, and Cavigneaux / Al­Rawi, Gilgameš, 20, note 60, now with Böck, Concept of Taboo, 306), which connects the seemingly contradictory mean­ ings and fits well to the above described definition of “taboo,” i.e., something/someone which/ who is sacred and dangerous at the same time.

126 

 Réka Esztári

Figure 2: Old-Babylonian emaciated bronze figurine. (Cincinnati Art Museum, after P ORADA , Emaciated Male Figure)

Figure 3: Old Babylonian terracotta plaque representing the Birth Goddess, flanked by foetuses. The drawing is based on the plaque housed in the Louvre (AO. 12442).

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 127

It is exactly this specific state which is described in the Sumerian poem Gilgameš, Enkidu, and the Netherworld (ETCSL 1.8.1.4): “Did you see the little stillborn children who knew not names of their own?”16 “I saw them.” “How do they fare?” “They play at a table of gold and silver, laden with honey and ghee”

(298‒299)

It has a variant from Me­Turan, Segm. B (= H 157):17 “Did you see the stillborn children who were not given names?18 How do they fare?” “They play at a table of gold and silver [ . . . ]”

(62‒64)

4 Before and After Earthly Existence: The “House of Darkness” in Mesopotamian Sources Thus, as we are informed, the stillborn children do not even know themselves, they never even received a name. In this regard, although they are deadly spirits as well, they have to be and had been consequently differentiated from the eṭemmus, the par exellance ghosts or deadly spirits, in other words, the ghosts of grownup persons  – who had personality, defined social status, and so on. According to later commentaries, even the Akkadian word “eṭemmu” reflects this idea, since it contains the word ṭēmu, which basically means “reason and thought.”19 Despite

16 Reading nìĝin tur­tur mu ní­ba(var. –bi) nu­zu; cf. George, Gilgamesh Epic, 768, score trans­ literation) instead of nìĝin tur­tur­ĝu10 ní­ba nu­zu, suggested by ETCSL (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac. uk/cgi­bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.1.8.1.4&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc#) and translated as: „Did you see my little stillborn children who never knew existence?.” The version from Me­Turan (Tell Hadd­ ad, see below) makes it clear that the sign “mu” after tur­tur has to be interpreted as a noun (with the standard meaning “name”), rather than a first person possessive pronoun (­ĝu10), as it was proposed by the ETCSL translation; the latter was followed by Schwemer as well, see Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 56. I owe special thanks to Andrew R. George for calling my attention to this problem. 17 For the edition of the Me­Turan tablets see Cavigneaux / Al­Rawi, La fin de Gilgameš, for H 157 see op. cit. (12‒13 with Figs. 3‒6). 18 Reading nìgin mu nu­⌈sa4⌉, following Cavigneaux / Al­Rawi, La fin de Gilgameš, 13, instead of nìgin­ĝu10 nu­⌈sa4⌉ suggested by the transcription of ETCSL (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi­ bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.1.8.1.4&display=Crit&charenc=&lineid=c1814.5.B.52#c1814.5.B.52) 19 From the viewpoint of the individual, the ṭēmu (conscience, intelligence) unifying the periods of life on earth and the existence after that, does not cease after death, but lives further in the “deadly spirit, ghost” (eṭemmu), both theoretically and phonetically. A later commentary text also dissolves and interprets the word as “e­ṭemmu,” accordingly: e-⌈ṭem⌉­me: qa­bu-ú ṭè-e-me /

128 

 Réka Esztári

all that, as we have seen, like the eṭemmus, the kūbus became inhabitants of the Netherworld as well (and were endowed with the most favourable fate in there), so in other words – and yet to quote the Akkadian Epic of Gilgameš―they became residents of the “House of Darkness”  – which is the Netherworld itself (again, designated as “house”). . . . to the House of Darkness, the seat of Irkalla, to the house which those who enter cannot leave, on the journey whose way cannot be retraced; to the house whose residents are deprived of light, where dust is their sustenance, their food clay. They are clad like birds in coats of feathers, and they cannot see light but dwell in darkness.20 (Gilgameš VII,184–190. translated by Andrew R. George)

We may safely assume that instead of beginning their earthly lives, numerous an­ cient Mesopotamian foetuses and infants became inhabitants of this “dark house.” Foetuses, infants and small children were characteristically buried in pots,21 that’s how they got into the womb of the earth – and of course, the jar itself can also be considered as an analogy of the uterus.22 These pots were, as a rule, buried under the floor of houses (of course, this is far from unique, rather, this was the usual burial form in Mesopotamia in case of adult as well – the ancestors slept under the house and thus the family remained together even after the death of a member – see Figure 4.).23 As the burials themselves show to us, the smallest ones, “who never even received a name” were integrated to this family, to the community of the dead ancestors retrospectively. Considering the rather high mortality rate it is no exaggeration to say that new­ borns who survived the birth and the subsequent neonate age were quite lucky. E: qa-bu-ú : KAde-em4-ma HI : ṭè-e-me, i.e.: eṭemmu = to say the command, since E (means) to say (qabû), (and) dimma = command (SpTU 1 49, Rv. 36b‒37). For a well­known alternative interpreta­ tion of the logogram gidim (Akk. eṭemmu) see lately Frahm, Text Commentaries, 74. For detailed information on the former wordplay see: Abusch, Ghost, 367–369) with earlier references. 20 George, Gilgamesh Epic, 645. 21 For a detailed overview of the archaeological evidence see Novák / Kulemann­Ossen, Kūbu, 121‒125, and for an earlier, short summary: Strommenger, Grabgefaß. 22 On infant burials and the analogy of womb and vessel/pot/jar see Novák / Kulemann­ Ossen, Kūbu, 125‒126, and recently on the uterus, described metaphorically as a vessel see Couto­Ferreira, River, 106‒108, and Paoletti / Steinert, Uterus, 514. 23 Cf. the beautiful poetic expression of this concept: “These are my living quarters, I have person­ ally made them and will have my peace within them; and when fate has carried me off, I will sleep therein” Erra IV 99‒101; see Cagni, L’epopea, 114‒115. On the custom of burying the dead under the houses / palaces see inter alia Strommenger, Grab, 591, and van der Toorn, Sin, 125‒126.

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 129

Figure 4: Infant and child burials arranged under the floor of the famous Old Babylonian house of Ku-Ningal at the city Ur (under Quiet Street 7)―however, this picture depicts a later phase of the excavation work, originally the upper part of these pots were raised above the floor level, thus they were visible and actually present in the living space. After Woolley / Mallowan, Ur Excavations, Plate 29).

The next quote from an Old Babylonian baby­incantation reflects the same fact. Such incantations aimed to pacify crying babies24 (of course one has to think about some kind of abnormal and constant weeping25 which woke up the deceased an­ cestors and made gods – who were traditionally quite sensible to loud noise – angry). The text addresses the child, asking, why he or she cries – despite that he or she was able to be born. Little one who dwelt in the House of Darkness (wāšib bīt ekleti), You really did come out here, you have seen the sunlight! Why are you crying? Why are you fretting?26

24 For the edition of this corpus see Farber, Schlaf Kindchen. 25 E.g. DIŠ LÚ.TUR ina UBUR AMA­šú ig-da-al-lut u ib-ta-nak-ki “If the infant is continually frightened at its mother’s breast (and) cries continually” (detail of a diagnostic omen, see Labat, Traité akkadien, 220 = TDP Tablet 40), and more recently Scurlock, Sourcebook, 259, line 24. Of course, this abnormal, incessant crying was often thought to be caused by a supernatural, demonic threat, just as in case of the cited omen which refers to the attack of the demoness Lamaštu. For a more detailed discussion of this omen see Scurlock, Baby­snatching Demons, 155, Volk, Kinderkrankheiten, 28 with note 173, and Stol, Birth, 237. 26 ṣehrum wāšib bīt ekletim / lū tattaṣâm tātamar nūr dŠamšim / ammīn tabakki ammīn tuggag. BM 122691 Rv. 1‒3., Old Babylonian baby­incantation (rubric: šiptum ša ṣehrim nuhhim “Incan­ tation to Pacify a Baby,” Rv. 12), for the transliteration and translation of the text see Farber,

130 

 Réka Esztári

So formerly, the child dwelt in the House of Darkness – but he or she could come out and see the sunlight.27 Yet, it is another “dark house”  – the womb of the mother itself.28 Of course, we are dealing with an universal concept: the states before birth and after death are depicted with similar pictures in which darkness is an essential symbol  – we are coming from the darkness of the womb of our mother and return to the dark womb of the earth. As for now, those rituals and incantations will be of importance which facil­ itated the getting out from the “House of Darkness” (the womb), so aimed to prevent still­birth―in case of various problems during childbirth. So such texts concern difficult labour (and literally: women who were “made too narrow”)29― cases when, for various possible reasons, something went wrong and the women were unable to give birth to their infants. The common ways to facilitate birth in such difficult cases were related to the world of magical healing in ancient

Beschwörungsliteratur, 62, Farber, Schlaf Kindchen, 34‒35 and 161, Farber, Magic, 140, and van der Toorn, Sin, 139. For additional translations see e.g. Foster, Before the Muses, 139, George, Review, 300, Stol, Birth, 212, or Volk, Vom Dunkel, 91. 27 For further parallels to the expression (w)āšib bīt ekleti see the text cited and summarised in Fraber, Schlaf Kindchen, 162‒165, with Scurlock, Sourcebook, 588: SpTU 3, 84: 60). 28 Cf. inter alia Farber, Beschwörungsliteratur, 68, Farber, Schlaf Kindchen, 34, Farber, Magic, 140, van der Toorn, Sin, 126‒127, and Stol, Birth, 9. On the explicit concept according to which the womb was considered as a “house” see recently Paoletti / Steinert, Uterus, 514, with previous literature. See also the Sumerian Temple hymn to the “house” of the birth goddess Nintur, where she is referred to as “mother Nintur, mistress of creating, who performs the task within your (i.e. the temple’s) dark place” (ama dNin­tur5 nin ulutim2­ma / šag4 ki ku10­ku10­ga kíğ ak­e, Temple hymns ll. 500‒501, for translation see http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi­bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.80.1&dis­ play=Crit&charenc=j&lineid=t4801.p97#t4801.p97 (ETCSL Text 4.80.1), which slightly differs from Sjöberg / Bergmann, Collection, 46. This dark interior of the temple may refer to the inner cella, called niğin­ğar (“the place where the foetus is”), now usually read as niğar (on the latter reading of the composite sign U.UD. KID (which has the same meaning as the form niğin ğar, with phonetic complement, see Krecher, Sumerische Kultlyrik, 128–131, and ePSD sub. niğar) a clear representa­ tion of the womb, cf. Krebernik, Muttergöttin, 514, who seen the temple as a whole as the rep­ resentation as well, Stol, Birth, 112, with further literature, and recently Steinert, Cows, 247, note 12. 29 Akkadian sinništu muš(t)apšiqtu, Sumerian SAL LA.RA.AH. With regard to this expression see Stol, Birth, 183, and more recently Couto­Ferreira, She Will Give Birth, 293‒294. However, we should remark that the phrase cannot be interpreted literally, so the assertion of Scurlock, Baby­snatching Demons, 140–141, according to which this was indeed the accurate diagnosis, can only be applyed to a small proportion of the cases. Later on, she also noted that the too narrow pelvic outlet affects an average 0,5% percent of childbirths in general, see Scurlock, Baby­snatching Demons, 166, note 59. For a good summary of the various difficulities which prevent birth see Benirschke / Kaufmann, Pathology, 242 and 404–408.

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 131

Mesopotamia. These magical­medical rituals incorporated incantations as well― and, again, belonged to the sphere of the exorcist, the āšipu.30

5 The Way Out from the “House of Darkness”: Mesopotamian Birth Incantations and Rituals In the followings, we will briefly recall such birth incantations in which several specific concepts and expressions will be of importance for us. Our first set of texts consists of syllabic Sumerian birth­incantations from the Old Babylonian period, survived on various manuscripts (one of these contains an Akkadian translation as well)31 – below, the translation of the composite text can be read, with the score transliteration of the relevant lines. 3)

4) 5) 6) 7) 8) A obv. 8 B obv. 5’

When the woman was about to give birth, she steered it/floated it, like a boat in the water Akkadian (C obv. 3’‒4’): “As she went into labor/her water began to flow, she bound it, like a boat.” Ninhursaĝ steered it / floated it, like a boat, in the water From the base of the horizon, when the woman was about to give birth, she steered it/floated it, like a boat in the water As on a boat carrying perfume, perfume has been loaded, As on a boat carrying cedar wood, cedar wood has been loaded, [má?] na4.za­gìn­na za­gìn­na a­am­mi­íb­si ĝ[iš.má x x x]­la? kar­ta ba­da­tag432

30 Such ritual procedures appear in the standard list/catalogue of exorcism incipits, the so­ called Handbook of the Exorcist (for a recent elaboration of this text see Jean, La magie, 62‒82; KAR 44 15: SAL PEŠ4 KÉŠ.DA (“To bind the pregnant woman” – rituals against bleeding during pregnancy, on the related texts see Finkel, Crescent Fertile. SAL LA.RA.AH (“The woman who is in hard labour” / lit.: “made too narrow” Akkadian sinništu muš(t)apšiqtu) grouped together with dDÌM.ME (“Lamaštu”) u LÚ.TUR HUN.GÁ (“Pacifying a baby”). On the quoted line of the catalogue see among others Stol, Birth, 59‒60, with note 75. 31 Manuscripts: A: BM 97093 (unpublished, identified and collated by Ulrike Steinert, OB, dated to Ammi­ditana year 35: rev. 21‒edge 2: ⌈mu⌉ a[m]­m[i]­di­ta­na / bàd am­mi­di­ ta­na KI / gú ⌈íd⌉ me­en­líl­lá­ke4 bí­in­dù­a); B: MLC 1207 (= YOS 11, 85; see van Dijk 1975: 66ff, OB, dated to Samsuiluna, year 7: rev. 28’‒31’: iti [bára]­zà­gar u4­25­kam / [mu Sa-am]-su-i-lu-na lugal­e / [ĝiš.tukul šu­ni]r níĝ­kù­GI­kù­babbar / [. . . . . . . . . . .] mu­bi­im, provenance: Larsa?); C: AUAM 73.3094 (Cohen, Literary Texts, 133ff, OB, provenance unknown); D: E47.190 (Farber, Childbirth Incantation, 313‒316, OB, provenance unknown, now in New Zealand). 32 The omitted line is written on the left edge: [ĝiš].má na4.gug / [na4.za].gìn.na i­ni­si.

132 

 Réka Esztári

C obv. 15’‒16’ D obv. 6

ma­gu­ug­za­gi­na gu­ug za­gi­na im­mi­i[n­si] / ki-ma e-le-ep sa-am-tim ù uq-ni-im sa-am-t[a-am ù uq-na-am ma-li-a-at] má­gu­ug­za­gi­na gu­ug za­gi­na i­ni­ĝar As on a boat carrying carnelian and lapis­lazuli, cornelian and lapis­lazuli have been loaded,

9) A obv. 9 B obv. 6’ C obv. 17’‒18’

[x (x)]x ku­ug? nu­uz­zu za­gi­in nu­uz­zu n[a4.gug nu­zu] na4.za­gìn nu­zu ù gu­ug nu­zu ù za­gi­i[n nu­zu] / ù sa-am-tum ú-ul i-di ù uq-nu-ú-um ú-u[l i-di] (Yet) she knows not if it is carnelian, she knows not if it is lapis­lazuli.

Here, according to a common metaphor, the mother, the pregnant woman is re­ ferred to as a boat which carries precious cargo.33 Among others, the boat is load­ ed with cornelian and lapis­lazuli, and, according to the last quoted line: “(Yet) she (the mother) knows not if it is carnelian, she knows not if it is lapis-lazuli.” Thus, a specific colour­symbolism can be detected relating to the sex of the future

33 The earliest known incantation (UM 29­15­367) which refers to a boat, can be dated to the Ur III period: van Dijk, Incantations, 53–62; new edition: Cunningham, Deliver Me, 69–75: “Text 62”; for translation see also Stol, Birth, 60–61. However, at the same time this text is basically the first known variant of the “Cow if Sîn” incantation (see below), elaborated by the scribes of the Ur III court – the boat appears in a single, short episode (lines 12–14 and 18‒20). The rele­ vant lines are: Obv. 13‒14(= 19‒20): má lugal­la­ke4 níg­ga im­mi­in­si / má­šu­lú­ka na4gug na4za­ gìn mi­ni­in­si “Like the boat of the king, she loaded (the boat) with precious cargo, she loaded the šu­lú­boat with carnelian and lapis lazuli.” The noun šu­lú is the name of a water bird (see CAD H 244, sub. hūqu B), and completely unique in such context, therefore none of the afore­ mentioned authors translated this expression. Cf. the suggestion of Barbara Böck: “The vessel »It is humankind«” in Böck, Proverbs, 274. However, it is worthy to consider that the name of the bird, which can be equated with the Akkadian hūqu, may refers to a rowing boat, or, pars pro toto, a part of this boat, also referred to as hūqu (“crossbar”). Although the latter occurs only in later texts (see CAD H, 243, hūqu A), it cannot be excluded that polyphony is the result of some kind of creative/folk etymology in here, since the idea of the water bird, swimming with its feet which remind to human hand and that of the rowing boat, swept by means of rows, which can be conceptualised as elongations of human hands, do not fall very far apart from each other. For the later, Old Babylonian incantations in which the “boat­theme” appears see the al­ ready quoted and mentioned texts (notes 31), for Neo­Assyrian variants see below, while on the motif in general see inter alia Röllig, Schiffsmetaphorik; Stol, Birth, 62; Kilmer, Of Babies, 163‒165; and Couto­Ferreira, She Will Give Birth, 295 and 310: Appendix 2: An overview on the tropes of birth. This association appears in omen texts as well: eleppum malītum iṭebbu ērītum ina alādiša imāt “the loaded boat sinks, (or) the woman in labour dies during giving birth,” edition: Jeyes, Old Babylonian Extispicy, 97 Text 1, 1.6, and see also Stol, Birth, 62, and Böck, Proverbs, 274.

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 133

baby: the blue lapis­lazuli, as a masculine noun (NA4ZA.GÌN, Akkadian uqnû) refers to a boy, while the red cornelian (expressed with a feminine noun, Sumerian GUG, Akkadian sāmtu) to a girl.34 This was, however, far from common in Mesopotamia as this colour­symbolism appears exclusively in the birth incantation corpus.35 The next quoted incantation represents the same type and applies the same boat metaphor. It is a later and more developed variant of this theme, written in Akkadian, and forms part of a larger birth incantation and ritual compendium from the first millennium (KAR 196=BAM 249), revealed in the city of Aššur.36 Here, the picture of a closed, or rather sealed boat evolves which concerns the general concept that in such cases the way of the child, the road to life and light was blocked:37

34 On this association, which appears already in the Ur III incantation (UM 29­15­367, lines 14 and 20, see the previous note), see already Cohen, Literary Texts, 133; Farber, Childbirth In­ cantation, 312 note 6; Scurlock, Baby­snatching Demons, 144; Winter, Aesthetic Value, 52 = Winter, On Art, 302, and Stol, Birth, 62 with note 87. 35 On the gender­related symbolic role of these two semi­precious stones which can be traced in the archaeological material as well see inter alia Winter, Aesthetic Value, 51–52 = Winter, On Art, 301‒302). One also has to mention that the motif of the red and blue stones appears in the Neo­Assyrian birth incantation compendium as well (on the latter, see below) – however, this can only be supposed on the basis of its commentary, revealed in Nippur, since the relevant section in which once the semi­precious stones, together with cedar wood may have been oc­ curred, is extremely fragmentary. For the reconstruction of this fragmentary part see Veldhuis, New Assyrian Compendium, 241 and 244‒245, for the commentary (11N‒T3) see Civil, Medical Commentaries, 331‒333. For recent analysis of the relevant lines (Civil, Medical Commentaries, 331: 2‒6) see Scurlock, Sourcebook, 348, and Gabbay, Exegetical Terminology, 176‒177. 36 KAR 196 (VAT 8869) = BAM 248. A new copy was published in Köcher, Babylonisch­ assyrische Medizin, 248. The tablet was unearthed in the city of Aššur, in the area known as the “House of the incantation priest,” on the latter see Pedersén, Archives, 41‒76, and Maul, Tontafelbibliothek, with previous bibliography. The text’s complete edition is still Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte, for a partial edition see Veldhuis, New Assyrian Compendium, also for addi­ tional fragments from Nineveh; on the rituals and the therapeutic material of the compendium see Couto­Ferreira, She Will Give Birth, 297‒309, and on the commentary: Civil, Medical Com­ mentaries, with Frahm, Text Commentaries, 230‒231. 37 The first quoted passage forms part of the second ceremony of the collection, which com­ prises of the followings: Obv. i 54–61: Incantation “A,” i 62–66: Incantation “B,” i 67 (rubric): KA.INIM.MA SAL LA.RA.AH.A.KÁM, i 68–69: ritual (fragmentary). The second, more detailed passage forms part of the third ceremony: Obv. ii ?– iii 5: Incantation (it is difficult to assure, in which line the incantation begins, the text only becomes legible and explainable from ii 47 onwards. For a duplicate see Obv. K 34585 + K 10443 = BAM 248 obv. ii 54– iii 6, cf. Veldhuis, New Assyrian Compendium, 240, iii 6 (rubric):KA.INIM.MA SAL LA.RA.AH.A.KÁM, iii 7–9: ritual. On the structural subdivision of the compendium as a whole see Veldhuis, New Assyrian Com­ pendium, 248–249. Incantations which refers to the closed, blocked way of the child, and thus to bolts and locks are YOS 11 86: 20‒24: ba-ni-a-at ka-li-i-in /a-na ši-ga-ri-im / ta-aq-ta-bi wu-uš-šu-r[a-a]t / [pa-a]

134 

 Réka Esztári

Obv. i. 62. ÉN ina kar mu-ti ⌈ka⌉­[lat]38 GIŠMÁ šiptu: ina kār mūti kalât elippu Incantation: the boat is held back in the quay of death, 63. ina kar dan-na-ti ⌈ka⌉­[lat] GIŠMÁ.GUR8 ina kār dannati kalât makurru the magurru­boat is held back in the quay of hardship.

This picture becomes more elaborated in another incantation of the same tablet:39 Obv. ii. 47. i-na ⌈ur⌉­[hi?40 . . .] ⌈liš⌉-li-ma GIŠMÁ ina urhi? . . . lišlima elippu On the [. . .] way? the boat may be intact, 48. i-na ⌈ur⌉­[hi?. . . ]­ ⌈šu? ⌉ liš-te-še-ra GIŠMÁ.GUR8 ina urhi? . . . lištēšera makurru On the [. . .] way? may the magurru­boat proceed directly, 49. dan-nu lip-pa-ṭir mar-kas-sa dannu lippaṭir markassa May her taunt mooring rope be slackened, 50. ù ed-lu lip-pe-ti KÁ-šá u edlu lipetti bābša And her closed door be opened!

ṭ?-ru sí-ik-ku ru / [ru-um]-ma-a da-la-t[u] “She who created us all, to the door bolt she spoke: »You are released!« Removed are all the locks, the doors are thrown aside” (OB, see van Dijk, Une in­ cantation, 503), for recent edition see Scurlock, Sourcebook, 593‒594, and for translation see also Stol, Birth, 11; Lambert, Medical Text, 31:33‒36: SAL LA.RA.AH (multapšiqtu) šap-šu-qaat Ù.TUMEŠda (alāda) / Ù.TUMEŠda (alāda) šup-šu-qa-at še-er-ra ku-na-at / še-er-ra ku-na-at ana qatu-ú ZIte (napište) ŠU.RA (mahiṣ) SAG.KUL (sikkūru) / sa-ni-iq KÁ (bābu) ana ti-nu-qí la-lu-ú pi-it ARHUŠ! (copy: SILA4)-mu “(the child) was stuck fast, the child was stuck fast―to bring life to an end, the bolt is lowered, the door is closed for the suckling, the opening of the womb is blocked” (MA, the reading of the second half of line 36 was already suggested by Albertz, Persönliche Frömmigkeit, 230, note 256. See also Stol, Birth, 130 with note 127; Couto­Ferreira, She Will Give Birth, 295; and Lambert, Medical Text, 31:52‒53: ku-na-at še-er-ra ku-na-at ana qa-tu-ú ZIte (napište) ŠU.RA (mahiṣ) si-ku-rum/ sa-ni-iq KÁbu (bābu). . . “(the child) was stuck fast, the child was stuck fast, the bolt was secure―to bring life to an end, the door was made fast. . .” (MA version of “The Cow of Sin,” see also Veldhuis, Cow, 12‒13. 38 The emendation is based on rv. iii 58–59: ina kar mu-ti ka-lat GIŠMÁ / ina kar dan-na-ti ka-lat GIŠ MÁ.GUR8. 39 For translations of this famous incantation see inter alia Foster, Before the Muses, 878; Röllig, Altorientalische Schiffsmetaphorik, 15‒16; Stol, Birth, 65; Scurlock, Sourcebook, 601, with transliteration on 596‒597. 40 Cf. Röllig, Altorientalische Schiffsmetaphorik, 16 with note 12 – transliteration.

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 135

51. DUR (markasu) ša GIŠMÁ a-na kar šul-me markasu ša elippi ana kār šulme The mooring rope of the boat for the quay of well­being, 52. DUR (markasu) ša GIŠMÁ.GUR8 a-na kar TI.LA (balāṭi) markasu ša makurri ana kār balāṭi The mooring rope of the magurru­boat for the quay of health! 53. meš-re-tu lip-te-ṭi-ra li-ir-mu-ú SAMEŠ (šer’ānū) mešrêtu lipteṭṭirā lirmû šer’ānū May the limbs relax, the sinews loosen, 54. ka-an-ga-tu4 lip-taš-ši-ra li-ṣa-a nab-ni-tu kangātu liptašširā līṣâ nabnītu What is sealed, may ease, may the creature come forth, 55. GÌR.PAD.DA (eṣemtu) a-hi-tu4 bi-nu-ut a-me-⌈lu⌉-ti eṣemtu ahītu binût amēlūti, the (yet) unknown bone, the human form, 56. ár-hiš li-ta-ṣa-am-ma li-ta-mar ZALAG (nūr) dUTU-ši arhiš littaṣamma lītamar nūr Šamši May it come forth soon and see the sunlight!

Thus, to solve this problem, somehow the way of the child had to be made – liter­ ally – “straight.” This expression appears in obv. i line 66 of the Aššur­compendium: 66. ur-hu li-ši-ir ina! ŠÀ [ik-le]-ti li-ṣa-a ⌈IGI?­mar? ⌉ dUTU-ši41 May the road be straight, may he (the child) come out from the heart of darkness (and) see the (light of) the sun!

In such cases characteristically the Akkadian verb ešēru (Sumerian SI.SÁ) was applied, which means “to be straight,” “to move straightforwardly” (in the right

41 The amendation follows (in part!) the suggestion of Stol, Birth, 67, note 117: ur-hu li-ši-ir ina(!) ŠÀ [e-ri]-ti li-ṣa-a. The latter, however, is doubtful, especially since the expression ina libbi erīti (līṣâ), “he may come out from the belly of the pregnant one” would be rather unusu­ al (cf. CAD E, 301, sub. erītu). However, if we replace erītu (“pregnant woman”) with e/ikletu (“darkness”), a well­known and already discussed picture emerges: the foetus dwells in, and subsequently comes out from the darkness, see CAD I 61, sub. ikletu, and for the womb as a dark chamber of the “House of Darkness” see already notes 17 and 18 of the present article). The line in question has an almost verbatim parallel as well: ina libbi ikleti ūṣâmma dŠamaš āmurka: “When I came out of the darkness (of the womb), I saw you, Šamaš,”(CBS 514 = PBS 1/1 14:5, a DINGIR.ŠÀ.DIB.BA incantation from the Late Babylonian period, see Lambert, (1974: 274‒275). A recent translation of our discussed line by B. Böck was, in all probability, based on sim­ ilar considerations, see Böck, Proverbs, 274. One also has to note that in this case not even the commentary can be helpful since it does not discuss this incantation, see Civil, Medical Com­ mentaries, 332, and cf. Veldhuis, New Assyrian Compendium, 246.

136 

 Réka Esztári

way) or, more often, “to make something straight” – in a causative form, as in the following examples:42 ARHUŠ (rēmu) lu ku-ṣur-ma ia ú-še-šèr šèr-ra Let the womb may be constricted and may not give birth (lit. may not be made straight) to the child! (Atram-hasīs Tablet I, S iv 5143)

Our next example is a rather late ritual from the fourth century BCE which aimed to prevent miscarriage.44 The text reveals the vivid picture of a river (also carry­ ing away the woman’s sins),45 flowing in a straight line, which is compared to “straight,” thus easy delivery, and which also, by means of analogy, “straright­ ens” the child’s way. 13. (u ÉN ana UGU­hi-šú ta-man-nu) ÉN eš-re-tu4 šu-šu-ru mu-ka muh-ra-an-ni-ma 14. ár-nu šèr-tú gíl-lat hi-ṭi-tu4 lum-nu mé-neš-tu4 šá zu-um-ri-ia it-ti A.MEŠ­ka 15. a-na qid-da-tu4 ta-bal ÍD.MEŠ lim-la-a’ a-gam-mu li-ṭe-e-pi-a ṭa-ab-a-ta 16. [l]i-še-ṣa-a’ ri-kis lum-ni-ia ÍD eš-re-tú šu-šu-ru MU-ka šu-ši-ra-an-ni-ma (and you recite the (following) incantation over it) Incantation: River, you flow in a straight line (and) your waters make (things) flow in a straight line. Receive (evil) from me and so carry away the sin, crime, offense, wrongdoing, evil, (and) weakness from my body downstream with your water. May the rivers fill up (with it). May the marshes add good things. May they make the bond of my evil depart. River, you flow in a straight line (and) your waters make (things) flow in a straight line; cause me to give birth easily (so that I may sing your praises!) (SpTU 5, 248 obv. 13‒16)46

As for the concept of “straightening,” one should also recall the end of the already quoted Neo­Assyrian incantation with the boat­theme: 1.

ÉN (šiptu) šá dASAR.LÚ.HI ni-ṣir-tu šá ⌈URU┘.[DÙGKI]47 šiptu ša dAsalluhi niṣirtu ša Eridu Incantation of Asalluhi, secret of Eridu,

42 Cf. Stol, Birth, 129, with CAD E 352‒363, sub. ešēru, esp. meaning 10 (šutēšuru = to give birth easily). 43 And see also S iv 61 (Lambert / Millard, Atra­Hasīs, 108‒109 and 110–111). 44 For a detailed discussion of this ritual see Couto­Ferreira, River; and on the identification of the Sitz im Leben of the process: op.cit.: 100, and Scurlock, Sourcebook, 684. 45 On the purificatory aspect of rivers with regard to this passage and with further examples see Couto­Ferreira, River, 103‒105. 46 For transliteration and translation see the recent re­edition of Scurlock, Sourcebook, 684 and 689, with Couto­Ferreira, River, 103 – translation. 47 Cf. Veldhuis, New Assyrian Compendium, 247, and Stol, Birth, 65, note 108.

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 137

2.

an-nu ki-nu šá dÉ-a i di tu4/tum48 ÉN šá d⌈Ma⌉-mi ⌈i!-ri! ⌉┘-[šú (sic) ana bu-luṭ KÙŠ]49 annu kīnu ša dEa I DI TU šiptu ša dMami irišu ana bulluṭ rāṭţi50 The approval of Ea . . . the incantation of Mami, the queen,51 to heal the “canal.”

3.

40 LUGAL id-di-nu ana šu-te-šur ŠÀ⌈.TÙR⌉ Ea šarru iddinu ana šutēšur šassūri Ea, the king gave (all that), so that the womb may give birth easily (lit. to make the womb straight). d

d

At this point, one may pose the question: why all these passages are relevant to our enigmatic text from Hattuša?

6 “My way is blocked!” Getting back to our ritual, it’s first part, that is, the first surviving and legible lines are also worthy of note. Here, the ritual preparations were prescribed: KBo XXXVI 29 obv. 9’­17’: ritual preparations 9’ ú-še-eš­[ši-ib(-ma?)] ZÌ.SUR.RA i-lam-mi [ 10’ UTUL7 ar-sà-an [ṣ]er-pé-ti NINDAma-ka-a[n-t* 11’ ú-ša-aš-n[a-m]a a-na IZI.GAR i-ra­⌈am!? ⌉­m[e!?

] ] ]

48 Veldhuis, New Assyrian Compendium, 244): i-ṭi-íb: “the confirmation of Ea is good” (trans­ lation: op. cit. 247), however, the verb ṭâbu never qualifies the expression annu kīnu (cf. CAD A/I 135–136, sub. annu). Yet, the latter can neither be a subject (that is: “appropriate/delightful, etc. for Ea”), since in such cases the use of the preposition eli would have been obligatory (see CAD Ṭ sub. ṭâbu, esp. p. 37). Stol, Birth, 65, did not reconstruct the verb. 49 Emendation is based on Stol, Birth, 65, note 108, (and on the collation of M. J. Geller) accord­ ing to the parallel line of K 3485 + K 10443: šá d⌈Ma⌉-mi ⌈i!-ri! ⌉┘-[šú (sic) ana bu-luṭ Ú(?)sic]. Cf. Veldhuis, New Assyrian Compendium, 244. 50 The last sign, Ú also can be read as KÙŠ, which stands for the Akkadian noun rāṭu, which means “canal, channel,” CAD R, 219‒220, sub. rāṭu, with the lexical references. The word has a secondary meaning as well, and can refer to the birth canal, see e.g.: purussī bēl mātāti ina rāṭ šasurri ilī šipikšu ītešra: “By the decree of the lord of the lands his forming succeeded inside the birth canal of the Mother goddess” (Tukulti-Ninurta epic vi 17, see CAD R 220). Moreover, cf. Malku V 6–7: ṣurru, rāṭu = libbu (see CAD R 219). For a very similar usage of bulluṭu see also KAR 321 (Hymn to Babylon), Obv. 7: nadâte ša ina nēmeqi uballaṭā rēmu “The nadītu­women who heal the womb with wisdom” cf. Foster, Before the Muses, 756; Stol, Birth 172. 51 Cf. CAD E 281, sub. erešu B (Sumerian loanword), according to the suggestion of Veldhuis, New Assyrian Compendium, 248. However, it is also possible, that we are dealing with a mis­ spelling of erištu (“wise”) since the latter is a known epithet of the Birth Goddess, see CAD E 314 (sub. eršu).

138 

 Réka Esztári

12’ IZI.GAR GE6 ù úr-ra la i-be­[el-li 13’ la-am ŠUKU ra-k[a-s]i? ⌊šum⌋-ma NITA X [ 14’ NA4KIŠIB NA4as-gi-gi x x x [ 15’ ad-bu-ub NA4KIŠIB NA4ŠÚBA [ 16’ la i-sa-an-ni-qú KUŠE.SÍ[R].MEŠ [ 17’ I[Z]I.[G]AR ú-pa-al-la-sú x i?-kám-m[i!?-is?

] ]

] ] ] ]

9’ . . . [ . . . ] he draws a circle of flour [ ] 10’ porridge, barley soup, makantu­bread52 [ ] 11’ he repeats and throws it into the lamp (IZI.GAR) [ ] 12’ Day and night, the lamp should not be extinguished [ ] 13’ Before the preparation of the ration (ŠUKU), if (he is) a male/boy (šumma NITA) [. . .] 14’ a cylinder seal of blue turquoise [ ] 15’ ―I said. A cylinder seal of ŠUBA-stone [ ] 16’ may not approach, sandal(s)? [ ] 17’ he directs his vision? towards the lamp, kneels [ down? ]

Thus we are informed about the drawing of a circle of flour (for protective reasons), thereupon sacrifices (lit. rations) are prepared, and after that, in line 13, although in a rather fragmentary context, the expression “šumma NITA” appears, which means: “If it is a male/boy.” Then, albeit the text is still quite incomplete, it concerns cyl­ inder seals, a blue turquoise one, and another, made from a certain šuba­stone. Actually, the latter is not a stone but a kind of shell – a common symbol of fertility and feminity.53 Although it is admittedly not an exact parallel and the context is rather obscure, yet one still can recall the previously mentioned colour­symbolism which concerned the sex of the future child – and which, again, appears exclusively in birth­incantations. Reading on further, the already quoted incantation of the kūbus comes next, in which, after all, a specific problem evolves – in the light of the foregoings. As we read in line 25: “My way is blocked!” The same problem, the picture of the blocked, obstructed way appeared in the birth­incantations, and there, they would have said that this road has to be made “straight.” And indeed: one line after the incan­ tation, during the food­sacrifice the āšipu addresses someone, saying: “I will make you straight!” (in line 29, using the verb ešēru). Again: it is a specific expression, and although Schwemer translated it as “I will heal you!” (Ich werde dich heilen),54

52 On this Hurrian loanword see Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 108‒109. 53 See Schuster­Brandis, Steine, 446–448, and for recently published gynaecological texts (rituals) in which this “stone” was used see Steinert, K. 263, 68‒69, 79‒80. Cf. CAD Š/III 185‒187, sub. šubû A where it is proposed to be identified with agate. 54 Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 101.

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 139

the latter would have been said in a different kind of way.55 The verb ešēru was used only in the context of childbirth and of rectal problems56 in the magical­med­ ical texts, when the occurrence of some kind of internal obstruction was supposed. If we assume that it all starts to come together and a similar problem may have been treated in our case, the role of the kūbus and their dwelling still poses a lot of questions. And finally, how would all this fit together with the overall thematic of the Hattuša­compendium?

7 Who “is Dead?” How does the Ritual of the Stillborn Fit into the Overall Thematic of the Hattuša Compendium? At this point we should take a brief look upon the other rituals of this collection since, beyond the general feature that they were used against demons and ghosts we can detect a more specific similarity which interconnects them. Namely, each ritual is, at the same time, a substitute ritual which use transitional magic. The second ritual concerns the “marriage” of the ghost. During this ceremony a figu­ rine was made from reed (we have a detailed description of this procedure describ­ ing how it should be clothed and ornamented and what kind of dowry it receives).57 According to this description, Schwemer was able to reconstruct how the figurine might have been looked like (see Figure 5). After spending three nights with the patient, the figurine was married to the malevolent ghost who tormented him and occupied his body. Afterwards, the figurine is addressed: it has to take away the ghost from the body of the sick man. Then, together with it’s dowry, it was put into a hole in the wall (literally, the āšipu made it enter to the hole), and consequently the latter is closed up.58 In ritual context, usually this kind of magical enclosing was expressed with the Akkadian verb pehû.59

55 Most probably with balāṭu D („to heal”), for examples in magical­medical texts see CAD B 58‒59, sub. balāṭu, mng. 5b. 56 E.g. ana NA esiliti libbišu šūšuri “To relieve the patients constipation” (KAR 157 rv. 25), ŠÀ.MEŠ-šú SI.SÁ.MEŠ­šú “(It is a favourable month) to purge (lit. make straight) his bowels (KAR 177 iii 15), cf. CAD E 358, sub. ešēru mng. 6e. 57 For a more recent re­edition of this ritual with some corrections and detailed philological commentary see Farber, Püppchen. 58 For the summary of the second ritual see Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 59‒67. 59 Cf. CAD P 317, sub. pehû mng. 1f.

140 

 Réka Esztári

Figure 5: Reconstruction of the reed figurine “who” was about to marry the ghost (after Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 64).

The third ritual (against demons) also involves substitute figurines – embod­ ying a demon or any kinds of evil. Here the figurines have made sail away (which is related to the concept of the travel to the Netherworld)60  – so actually, after taking over the evil, they are sent to the realm of the dead. And finally, the frag­ mentary rituals concern figurines as well.61 To sum up, in each case we are dealing with transitional magic, the evil – whatever it was – was transferred to figures which substituted the patient and then they were closed up, buried or expelled in various ways. Thus the evil was

60 On “sailing” to the Netherworld see inter alia Katz, Image, 36‒40 with further literature. 61 See Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 67‒77.

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 141

neutralized. Consequently, the question arises whether this concept can be detected in the first ritual as well? Getting back to our text, we continue with line 31. Again, the text is rather frag­ mentary, so only glimpses can be seen. Although we cannot find exact parallels to the expressions and procedures described in here, yet we do find very similar ter­ minology and acts in other texts – namely in such magical texts where something is symbolically buried – and this buried thing is nothing else than a substitute. 28’ He should serve the ritual meal, he approaches [ . . . ] ration . . . 29’ „I will make you straight!” (ešēru Š) The kūbus are present [. . .] 30’ Before you recite he approaches it (and) you say: 31’ “(For that) you do not depose alone” . . . . “He is dead!” 32’ ―he says. As the kūbus entered the [ ] 33’ are closed (pehû). 9 barleycorns of silver you/he throw(s) to the pit/well (PÚ) (KBo XXXVI 29 obv. 28’‒33’)

According to line 31, something is deposed and then the āšipu states: “He is dead!” Afterwards the kūbus “enter” – as we have learned, the very same expres­ sion was used during the mentioned “marriage ceremony” when the figurine was placed in the hole. Finally, something is closed up – expressed with the verb pehû which refers to magical enclosing. Can we propose, that something is symboli­ cally buried, enclosed here (probably into the pit or well, mentioned in line 33’) “who is dead,” that is, died instead of someone? Although it is not an exact parallel, a very similar utterance can be read in the following substitute ritual LKA 79 (ana pūhi LÚ ana dEreškigal, A man’s substitute for Ereškigal),62 where a kid is buried instead of the patient. LKA 79 (ana pūhi LU2 ana dEreškigal) obv. 19‒25 LÚ MAŠ.MAŠ rig-mu GAR­an a-na NENNI LÚGIG ana šim-te it-ta-lak i-qab-bi si-pit-tu4 GAR­an ù 3­šú KI.SÌ.GA ana dEREŠ­KI­GAL ta-kás-síp bu-uh-ra um-mar ṣer-pe-ti GAR­an tu-šar-ra-ah tu-kab-bat A.MEŠ KAŠ ŠE.SA.A GA LÀL Ì.NUN.NA Ì.GIŠ bal-qí ana GIDIM kim-te-ka KI.SÌ.GA ta-kás-sip The āšipu cries out for XY: „The patient is dead!”  – He says (and) laments (him),

62 The ritual is known from three texts from Aššur (LKA 79–80, KAR 245), which are all similar and overlap each other, see Ebeling, Tod, 65‒69; Tsukimoto, Untersuchungen, 125‒135; and for a recent discussion: Verderame, Means, 315‒317.

142 

 Réka Esztári

and three times he presents mortuary offerings (kispu) for Ereškigal. You set the cooked meal, porridge, and emmer soup, and with laudation and praise you pour water, emmer bear, and milk, and you present a mortuary offering to the ghosts of his family (eṭem kimti), (afterwards) you present a mortuary offering to the kid.

The kid dies on behalf of the patient taking upon all the evil on itself and the āšipu states, as we can read in the first quoted line: “The patient is dead!” After­ wards, usual mortuary offerings are presented and then – it is an important act when they intend to send something or someone to the Netherworld – the deadly spirits of his family are evoked, so eṭemmus, ghosts of his ancestors who receive the substitute into their netherworldly community – instead of the patient. These “family ghosts” appear in our second example as well, which is also relevant regarding the very place of the symbolic burial. KAR 91 is a Middle Assyr­ ian ritual for the purification of the stall and includes a symbolic burial rite:63 KAR 91 (VAT 10035) Rv. 18‒20 ana GIDIM IM.RI.A­šú ta-ka-sa-ap ŠUTUG.UD.MEŠ ŠUB­di GI ÙRI.GAL ta-za-qip ina KÁ ŠUTUG.UD PÚ te-hi-in-ni SAL EŠGAR tu-ka-sa-ma ana ŠÀ PÚ ŠUB­di ina UGU PÚ GIŠ.MEŠ tu-pa-rak You present kispu-offering to the ghosts of his family, you set up a reed hut, (and) you erect a standard. At the entrance of the hut you dig a pit (PÚ). You bind the female kid and throw it into the pit (and you cover the mouth of the pit with branches.)

Here the “pit” (Sumerian PÚ) appears as the final resting place of the substitute (the female kid). This word was translated in our text by Schwemer as “well.”64 Indeed, the latter meaning is more common and wells appear quite often in magical rituals when the āšipus present a ritual payment for the (holy) water (or for the clay to the clay pit), however, such acts are usually performed at the beginning of rituals – and not when the process clearly culminates (as in our case). The present example confirms that pits could also be used as symbolic graves and as such, it also allows this alternative interpretation in the case of KBo XXXVI 29 obv. 33.65 63 For a detailed discussion of this text see Tsukimoto, Untersuchungen, 178‒183, and recently Maul, Altorientalischer Pferdesegen, 19 on the characteristics of this tablet with previous litera­ ture, 22 for the summary of the ritual acts quoted in here, and 26 for a recent transliteration. Fur­ thermore, by now we know three manuscripts with the Neo­Assyrian version of the same ritual, see Maul, Altorientalischer Pferdesegen, 19‒20,―however, this passage was only preserved by the Middle Assyrian tablet. 64 Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 57‒58, who interpreted the silver as payment for the (holy) water from a well. 65 See also note 10 of the present paper.

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 143

Getting back to the family ghosts  – the question may arise: what would happen if the person whose substitute intended to be buried is not an adult, or, one might say, not even a person at all? Then, he or she would not become an eṭemmu after death, but rather, a kūbu, as we have already seen. Perhaps in such cases it is legitimate that we might expect that, upon entering to the Netherworld, such an entity would not be received by the eṭemmus of the family, but rather, by the kūbus. As the picture slowly starts to come together we may assume that the main problem treated in this ritual was some kind of difficulty during childbirth, and to prevent still­birth, the āšipu made a substitute for the future child who was in danger. This substitute was buried, sent to the Netherworld with the assistance of the kūbus. The key­expressions of the following, again, fragmentary parts of the ritual would also support this hypothesis. We continue with line 34 – yet here the ritual is in course of completion, since in the followings the purificatory acts can be detected. Line 34 contains – perhaps it isn’t surprising by now – an unique act again: a living bird which spent the night in there is bound under the feet of something or someone, but the latter part is quite obscure. KBo XXXVI obv. 34’‒35’. 34. A BURU5-bird which have not been brought away and spent the night (in there) he binds un[der?] the feet? 35. And you pour oil to the BUR.ZI.SAL.LA-jar of the lamp.

The name of this bird in Sumerian is BURU5 and its Akkadian equivalent is iṣṣūr hurri, literary the “bird of the hole.”66 This iṣṣūr hurri appears in birth rituals and

66 Of course, the usual logographic form of iṣṣūr hurri (“partridge?”) is BURU5.HABRUD(.DA), while BURU5 in itself usually refers to āribus, that is, ravens (Schwemer interpreted this logogram in this way, although he remarked that this procedure is unparalleled and the exact role/signifi­ cance of this bird in our context cannot be defined, see Schwemer, Akkadische Rituale, 58, and, moreover, that this logographic form occurs only in later texts (op.cit. 113‒114). Thus, since the latter would not fit well to the context of our ritual, we should consider that the logogram in our text may stand for, and thus represents an unusual form of the name of another bird (for other unusual spellings in our texts see below, on the name of the BUR.ZI.GAL.LA jar), the Sumerian form of which contained the BURU5­element as well. The iṣṣūr hurri was, according to Mesopo­ tamian concepts, connected with fertility and birth rituals as well (see below), so seems to be a much more probable candidate (cf. also the lexical references, e.g.: Ea II 299: BURU5 = iṣṣūru, see MSL 14, 240, with further lexical passages in CAD I‒J 210, sub. iṣṣūru). However, in the lack of exact parallels for such a form one also has to bear in mind that this remains only a hypothesis for the time being.

144 

 Réka Esztári

magico­medical texts as well.67 Here, we can quote medical instructions from a later period (second half of the first millennium) intended to solve the already known problem: to help a woman who is not able to give birth.68 SpTU 4, 153 Obv. 21‒25:69 If the month of her delivery approaches but she is unable to give birth: You [heat ?] the dust (lit. flour) of the hurru-bird with cumin, together with the potions [mixed with] fox­wine and maštakal­plant you give her to drink and then you make her move! When the pregnant woman is in trouble and she says to you: “The delivery is near,”―After­ wards you employed the tampon (made from) the dust of the hurru-bird and cumin, it will greatly dilate (lit. open) her!

In the course of this treatment the practical methods based on empirical cogni­ tion (for example the prescription of the diuretic cumin and some walks for the patient) are alloyed with magical components, and such a magical component is the “dust” (lit. flour) of the hurru­bird – which most probably means dust from its hatchery. The association behind this component becomes clear when we take into consideration that this bird broods in a hole – from here comes the name – and its nestlings fly out from this hole. According this metaphor, the future child should come out to the sunlight as easily as the nestling of this bird (so we are dealing with an action, words and deeds which we may call simple analogical magic).70 Thus, it cannot be accidental that this very bird appears in Hittite birth rituals as well: the quoted passage prescribes that this bird should be whirled above the ritual equipment of the rite of giving birth.71 67 This bird plays a significant role in potency incantations, see CAD I‒J 207‒208, sub. iṣṣūr hurri, mng. c2’, with BAM 272: 2’‒3’, 17’, 21’ (ritual and therapeutic prescriptions against impo­ tence), see Scurlock, Sourcebook, 548‒550. 68 See also Volk, Vom Dunkel, 82, note 73 with transliteration and translation. Cf. also BAM 235: 4 (where the blood of the hurru­bird was used to prevent miscarriage), see Steinert, K. 263, 81 and Scurlock, Sourcebook, 586. 69 The transliteration follows the corrections of Geller, Review, 246. See also the translation of Stol, Birth, 130. 70 In this respect, one should recall that: “The rite of transfer portrays a metaphorical use of language (verbal substitution) whereby an attribute is transferred to the recipient via a material symbol which is used metonymically as a transformer. Frazer would simply have described the procedure as contagious magic. The technique gains its realism by clothing a metaphorical procedure in the operational or manipulative mode of practical action; it unites both concept and action, word and deed.” On magic as an analogical transfer of a quality or attribute by symbolic means see in general the excellent study of Tambiah, Culture, and esp. 43 for the quoted passage. 71 Beckman, Hittite Birth Rituals, 90‒91, „Text H” (KUB IX 22 + duplicates) lines 12‒14 (com­ posite text).

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 145

And the chair, the table, the bed, the pot­stand (and) the birth­stool of the woman―and the woman herself―the patili-priest swings (over) with a hurru­bird.72

And finally, we should take a brief look upon our last, and literally telling expres­ sion in line 35’. It is the name of a jar, written as BUR.ZI.SAL.LA. This special type of jar is quite frequently used in various types of magical rituals, so its not specific to a given procedure, but its usual written form is BUR.ZI.GAL.LA and not BUR. ZI.SAL.LA, as it appears in our text.73 However, it may not be a misspelling, as it would seem at first sight, but rather, a wordplay – naturally, the latter is a modern denomination, according to Mesopotamian concepts, certain phrases and words could have magical power.74 Thus if we translate this peculiar form sign by sign into Akkadian and read it as a notaricon,75 we get the following expression: Sumerian BUR can be equated with the Akkadian pūru, which means “jar,” but it also can be equated in specific type of birth rites with the almost homophonous būru (“calf”), and this calf refers to the future child in the so­called Cow of Sîn texts.76 ZI(D) means “true, right” or “pure.”77 And finally, the basic meaning of the sign SAL – which is the remarkable element here – is “woman” in Sumerian (Akkadian sinništu).78 Reading together, the expression would thus mean: “The

72 Translated as “sheldrake” in Beckman, Hittite Birth Rituals, 91, see also 101 for commentary. 73 For references see in general CAD B 345‒346, sub. burzigallu, with Sallaberger, Babylo­ nische Töpfer, 98‒99: textual references to the items of the “bur­zi” section in Hh X 266’‒284’; dug bur­zi = “ein im Kult verwendetes Gefäß,” dugbur­zi gal = “großes burzi­Gefäß,” cf. PSD B 189f., with references, dugbur­zi­sal­la = “feines burzi­Gefäß,” only with lexical references). Apart from our text, for the sole textual reference to the latter in magical rituals see Maul, Zukunftsbewäl­ tigung, 149 with note 153 izišubbû­Namburbi), and for a further, but rather uncertain reference see: Abusch / Schwemer, Corpus, 71 line 52’ of Text 2.2, A collection of anti­witchcraft therapies from Boğazköy with commentary on p. 80. 74 For a general discussion the “magical power of words” see Tambiah, Culture, 17‒59, Chapter 1: The Magical Power of Words). On “world plays,” i.e. phonetic similarities charged with mean­ ing in Mesopotamian magic see inter alia Farber, Associative Magic; Veldhuis, Poetry of Magic, 46. Paronomasia (same or similar sound pattern of given Akkadian expressions, logograms or cuneiform signs) was a popular and widely applied hermeneutical technique in Mesopotamian scholarship as well, see e.g. Lieberman, Mesopotamian Background, 163; Noegel, Nocturnal Ciphers, 11‒45; and Frahm, Text Commentaries, 71‒72. 75 On the method of noṭariqon see Lieberman, Mesopotamian Background, 176‒183, and Frahm, Text Commentaries, 72‒73. 76 On this “sound play” see Veldhuis, Cow, 21‒22. 77 Cf. in general ePSD sub. ZID. 78 For lexical equations, as well as for the common and well­known use of this logogram for “woman” see in general CAD S 286‒292, sub. sinništu.

146 

 Réka Esztári

true calf (i.e. child) of the woman.” So it seems that an expression referring to the future child was hidden even in the – somewhat modified – name of a cultic jar.

8 Conclusion Summing up we can conclude that our enigmatic text seems to be a substitute ritual, and as such, it fits well into the context of the compendium as a whole. The problem treated in here seems to be a complication during childbirth. Clearly, there is some kind of a substitute (of the future child), which we cannot define exactly, however, it seems obvious that it was symbolically buried during the ritual to prevent still­birth, and therefore it became a kūbu spirit  – instead, in place of the real, future child. By means of all that, the substitute got into its final dwelling place – into the grave, and, in the meantime, to the Netherworld, the House of Darkness, where the other kūbūs received it. According to our ritual, by means of that the child itself could escape from the other “dark house” – the womb its mother.

Bibliography Abusch, Tz., Ghost and God: Some Observations on a Babylonian Understanding of Human Nature, in: A. I. Baumgarten (ed.), Self, Soul and Body in Religious Experience (NumenSup 78), Leiden 1998, 363–383. Abusch, Tz. / Schwemer, D., Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-witchcraft Rituals. Volume 1 (AMD 8/1), Leiden 2010. Albertz, R., Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion. Religionsinterner Pluralismus in Israel und Babylon (CThM 9), Stuttgart 1978. Beckman, G. M., Mesopotamians and Mesopotamian Learning at Hattuša: JCS 35 (1983) 97‒114. Beckman, G. M., Hittite Birth Rituals (StBT 29), Wiesbaden 1983. Benirschke, K. / Kaufmann, P., Pathology of the Human Placenta, New York 1990. Borger, R., Einige Texte religiösen Inhalts: Orientalia 54 (1985) 14‒26. Bottéro, J., Les morts et l’au-delà dans les rituels en accadien contre l’action des “revenants”: ZA 73 (1983) 153‒203. Böck, B., Proverbs 30:18‒19 in the Light of Ancient Mesopotamian Cuneiform Texts: Sefarad 69 (2009) 263‒279. Böck, B., On the Ancient Mesopotamian Concept of “Taboo”: Transgression and Delimitation, in: A. Weissenrieder (ed.), Borders: Terminologies, Ideologies, and Performances (WUNT 366), Tübingen 2016, 305‒321. Buckser, A. S., Taboo, in: T. Barfield (ed.), The Dictionary of Anthropology, Oxford 1997, 464. van Buren, E. D., A Clay Relief in the Iraq Museum: AfO 9 (1933‒1934) 165‒171.

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 147

Cagni, L., L’epopea di Erra (SS 34), Roma 1969. Cavigneaux, A. / Al-Rawi, F. N. H., Textes magiques de Tell Haddad (Textes de Tell Haddad II). Deuxième partie: ZA 85 (1995) 19‒46. Cavigneaux, A. / Al-Rawi, F. N. H., La fin de Gilgameš, Enkidu et les Enfers d’apres les Manuscrits d’úr et de Meturan (Textes de Tell Haddad VIII): Iraq 62 (2000a) 1‒19. Cavigneaux, A. / Al-Rawi, F. N. H., Gilgameš et la Mort. Textes de Tell Haddad VI (CM 19), Groeningen 2000. Civil, M., Medical Commentaries from Nippur: JNES 33 (1974) 329–338. Cohen, M. E., Literary Texts from the Andrews University Archaeological Museum: RA 70 (1976) 129‒144. Cohen, Y., Taboos and Prohibitions in Hittite Society: A Study of the Hittite Expression natta āra (’not permitted’) (THeth 24), Heidelberg 2002. Couto-Ferreira, E. M., The River, the Oven, the Garden: Female Body and Fertility in a Late Babylonian Ritual Text, in: C. Ambos and L. Verderame (eds.), Approaching Rituals in Ancient Cultures (RSONS LXXXVI Supp 2), Pisa 2013, 97‒116. Couto-Ferreira, E. M., She Will Give Birth Easily: Therapeutic Approaches to Childbirth in 1st Millennium B.C.E. Cuneiform Sources, in: A. Andreeva et al. (eds.), Childbirth and Women’s Healthcare across Cultures (Dynamis 34/2), 2014, 289‒315. Crawford White, S., The Temple Scroll and Related Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 2), Sheffield 2000. Crawford White, S., Not According to Rule: Women, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran, in: Sh. M. Paul et al. (eds.), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (VTSup 94), Leiden 2003, 127–150. Cunningham, G., “Deliver Me from Evil”: Mesopotamian Incantations 2500‒1500 B.C., (SP SM 17), Rome 1997. van Dijk, J., Une incantation accompagnant la naissance de l’homme: Orientalia 42 (1973) 502‒507. van Dijk, J., Incantations accompagnant la naissance de l’homme: Orientalia 44 (1975) 52‒79. Douglas, M., Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, London 1966. Ebeling, E., Keilschrifttexte medizinischen Inhalts IV: Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin 14 (1923) 65‒78. Ebeling, E., Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier, Berlin 1931. Farber, G., Another Old Babylonian Childbirth Incantation: JNES 43 (1984) 311‒316. Farber, W., Zur älteren akkadischen Beschwörungsliteratur: ZA 71 (1981) 51–72. Farber, W., Associative Magic: Some Rituals, Word Plays and Phylology: JAOS 106 (1986) 447–449. Farber, W., Schlaf Kindchen Schlaf. Mesopotamische Baby-Beschworungen und -Rituale (MC 2), Winona Lake 1989. Farber, W., Magic at the Cradle: Babylonian and Assyrian Lullabies: Athrophos 85 (1990) 139‒148. Farber, W., Das Püppchen und der Totengeist (KBo 36, 29 II 8‒53 u. Dupl.): ZA 91 (2001) 253‒263. Finkel, I. L., The Crescent Fertile: AfO 27 (1980) 37‒52. Foster, B. R., Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature Volume I, Bethesda 1996. Frahm, E., Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation (GMTR 5), Münster 2011. Gabbay, U., The Exegetical Terminology of Akkadian Commentaries (CHANE 82), Leiden 2016.

148 

 Réka Esztári

Geller, M. J., Taboo in Mesopotamia: A Review Article: JCS 42 (1990) 105–117. Geller, M. J., Review: Uruk. Spätbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat U 18. Teil IV. (= AUWE 12) by E. von Weiher: AfO 42/43 (1995‒1996) 245‒248. Geller, M. J., Ancient Babylonian Medicine: Theory and Practice, Chichester 2010. Geller, M. J., Tabu, in: M. Streck (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäeologie, Band XIII, Berlin 2012, 394‒395. George, A. R., Review of Farber, W., Schlaf, Kindchen, Schlaf! Mesopotamische Baby-Beschwörungen und -Rituale (MC 2): JNES 52 (1993) 298–300. George, A. R., The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 2 Vols., Oxford 2003. George, A. R. / Taniguchi, J., The Dogs of Ninkilim, Part Two: Babylonian Rituals to Counter Field Pests: Iraq 72 (2010) 79‒148. Hallo, W. W., Biblical Abdominations and Sumerian Taboos: JQR 76 (1985) 21–40. Heimpel, W., The Suna at Night and the Doors of Heaven in Babylonian Texts: JCS 38 (1986) 127‒151. Jean, C., La magie néo-assyrienne en contexte. Recherches sur le métier d’exorciste et le concept d’āšipūtu (SAAS 17), Helsinki 2006. Jeyes, U., Old Babylonian Extispicy: Omen Texts in the British Museum (UNHAII 64), Istanbul 1989. Katz, D., The Image of the Netherworld in the Sumerian Sources, Bethesda 2003. Kilmer, A. D., Of Babies, Boats, and Arks, in: M. T. Roth et al. (eds.), Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs (AS 27), Chicago 2007, 159‒165. Köcher, F., Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen Vol. 3, Berlin 1964. Krebernik, M., Muttergöttin. A, in: D. O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band VIII, Berlin 1993‒1997, 502‒516. Krecher, J., Sumerische Kultlyrik, Wiesbaden 1966. Labat, R., Traité akkadien de diagnostics et pronostics médicaux, Paris 1951. Lambert, W. G., An Incantation of the Maqlû Type: AfO 18 (1957‒1958) 288‒299. Lambert, W. G., A Middle Asyrian Medical Text: Iraq 31 (1969) 28‒39. Lambert, W. G. / Millard, A. R., Atra-Hasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood, Oxford 1969. Lieberman, S. J., A Mesopotamian Background for the So-Called Aggadic ‘Measures’ of Biblical Hermeneutics?: HUCA 58 (1969) 157‒225. Maul, S. M., Zukunftsbewältigung. Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi), Mainz 1994. Maul, S. M., Die Tontafelbibliothek aus dem sogennanten “Haus des Beschwörungspriest,” in: S. M. Maul (ed.), Assur-Forschungen: Arbeiten aus der Forschungsstelle “Edition literarischer Keilschrifttexte aus Assur” der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2010, 189‒228. Maul, S. M., Ein altorientalischer Pferdesegen. Seuchenprophylaxe in der assyrischen Armee: ZA 103 (2013) 16–37. Noegel, S. B., Nocturnal Ciphers: The Allusive Language of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (AOS 89), New Haven 2007. Novák, M. / Kulemann-Ossen, S., Kūbu und das Kind im Topf: AoF 27 (2000) 121‒131. Opificius, R., Das altbabylonische Terrakottarelief, Berlin 1961. Paoletti, P. / Steinert, U., Uterus, in: M. Streck (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band XIV, Berlin 2016, 513‒516.

Children Confined in the House of Darkness 

 149

Pedersén, O., Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur/2, Uppsala 1986. Polonsky, J., The Mesopotamian Conceptualization of Birth and the Determination of Destiny at Sunrise, in: A. Guinan et al. (eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty (CM 31), Leiden 2006, 297‒311. Porada, E., An Emaciated Male Figure of Bronze in the Cincinnati Art Museum, in: R. D. Biggs and J. A. Brinkman (eds.), Studies Presented to A. L. Oppenheim, Chicago 1964, 159–166. Ragavan, D., Entering other Worlds: Gates, Rituals, and Cosmic Journeys in Sumerian Sources, in: Heaven on Earth: Temples, Ritual, and Cosmic Symbolism in the Ancient World (OIS 9), Chicago 2013, 201‒221. Röllig, W., Altorientalische Schiffsmetaphorik, in: D. Henke et al. (eds.), Der “ganze Mensch“. Perspektiven lebensgeschichtlicher Individualität, Festschrift für Dietrich Rößler zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (APTh 10), Berlin 1997, 13‒18. Römer, W. H. Ph., Einige Bemerkungen zum dämonischen Gotte dKūbu(m), in: Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl dedicatae (SFSMD 4), Leiden 1973, 310‒319. Sallaberger, W., Der babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefässe: nach Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer Zeit sowie lexikalischen und literarischen Zeugnissen – Civil, Miguel, HAR-ra = hubullu: Tablet X dug = karpatu (MHEM 3), Ghent 1996. Schuster-Brandis, A., Steine als Schutz- und Heilmittel. Untersuchung zu ihrer Verwendung in der Beschwörungskunst Mesopotamiens im 1. Jt. v. Chr. (AOAT 46), Münster 2008. Scurlock, J., Baby-snatching Demons, Restless Souls and the Dangers of Childbirth: Incognita 2 (1991) 135‒183. Scurlock, J., Review of Akkadische Rituale aus Ḫattuša: Die Sammeltafel KBo XXXVI 29 und verwandte Fragmente by Daniel Schwemer: JAOS 120 (2000) 672‒674. Scurlock, J., Sourcebook for Ancient Mesopotamian Medicine (WAW 36), Atlanta 2014. Schwemer, D., Akkadische Rituale aus Ḫattuša. Die Sammeltafel KBo XXXVI 29 und verwandte Fragmente (TH 23), Heidelberg 1998. Schwemer, D., Ein akkadischer Liebeszauber aus Hattuša: ZA 94 (2004) 59‒79. Seux, M-J., Hymnes et prières aux dieux de Babylonie et d’Assyrie, Paris 1976. Sjöberg, Å. W. / Bergmann, E., The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns, in: Å. W. Sjöberg et al. (eds.), The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns (TCS 3), Locust Valley 1969, 3‒154. Steinert, U., K. 263+10934: A Tablet with Recipes Against the Abnormal Flow of a Woman’s Blood. Sudhoffs Archiv: Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftsgeschichte 96/1 (2012) 64‒94. Steinert, U., Cows, Women and Wombs: Interrelations between Texts and Images from the Ancient Near East, in: D. Kertai and O. Nieuwenhuyse (eds.), From the Four Corners of the Earth: Studies in Iconography and Cultures of the Ancient Near East in Honour of F. A. M. Wiggermann (AOAT 441), Münster 2017, 205‒258. Stol, M., Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting, (CM 14), Groningen 2000. Strommenger, E., Grab (I. Irak und Iran), in: E. Weidner and W. von Soden (eds.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band III, Berlin 1957‒1971, 581‒593. Strommenger, E., Grabgefaß, in: E. Weidner and W. von Soden, W. (eds.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band III, Berlin 1957‒1971, 609. Tambiah, S. J., Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective, Cambridge 1985.

150 

 Réka Esztári

Tomabechi, Y., Catalogue of Artifacts in the Babylonian Collection of the Lowie Museum of Anthropology, Malibu 1984. van der Toorn, K., Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study (SSN 22), Assen 1985. Tsukimoto, A., Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien (AOAT 216), Neukirchen ‒ Vluyn 1985. Veldhuis, N., The New Assyrian Compendium for a Woman in Childbirth: Acta Sumerologica 11 (1989) 239‒260. Veldhuis, N., A Cow of Sin, Groningen 1991. Veldhuis, N., The Poetry of Magic, in: T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn (eds.), Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives (AMD 1), Groningen 1999, 35‒48. Verderame, L., Means of Substitution: The Use of Figurines, Animals, and Human Beings as Substitutes in Assyrian Rituals, in: C. Ambos and L. Verderame (eds.), Approaching Rituals in Ancient Cultures: Proceedings of the Conference, November 28‒30, Roma (ARDSOSup 2), Roma 2013, 301‒323. Volk, K., Kinderkrankheiten nach der Darstellung babylonisch-assyrischer Keilschrifttexte: Orientalia 68 (1999) 1‒30. Volk, K., Vom Dunkel in die Helligkeit. Schwangerschaft, Geburt und frühe Kindheit in Babylonien und Assyrien, in: V. Dasen (ed.), Naissance et petite enfance dans l’Antiquité. Actes du colloque de Fribourg, 28 novembre ‒ 1er décembre 2001 (OBO 203), Fribourg 2004, 71–92. Wilhelm, G., Zur babylonisch-assyrischen Schultradition in Ḫattuša: in: Uluslararasi 1. Hititoloji kongresi bildirileri (19‒21 Temmuz 1990), Çorum 1992, 83‒93. Winter, I. J., The Aesthetic Value of Lapis Lazuli in Mesopotamia, in: A. Caubet (ed.), Cornaline et pierres précieuses. La Méditerranée, de l’Antiquité à l’Islam (Actes du colloque organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel les 24 et 25 novembre 1995), Paris 1999, 43‒58. Winter, I. J., On Art in the Ancient Near East. Vol. 2: From the Third Millennium B.C.E. (CHANE 34), Leiden 2010. Woolley, L. Sir / Mallowan, M. Sir, Ur Excavations: The Old Babylonian Period (UE 7), London 1976.

Part 3: Deuterocanonica

Beate Ego and Lucas Brum Teixeira

“Narrate omnia mirabilia eius” (Tob 12:20 Vg) Jerome’s Vulgate Version of Tobit as a Wundergeschichte Abstract: The Vulgate of Tobit constitutes a unique version of the Tobit story. Both a new translation and a revision of an Old Latin form of Tobit, Jerome’s version stands out for its paraphrastic nature in comparison to the main versions and for unique material (Sondergut), most probably from Jerome’s pen. One of the fea­ tures of the Vulgate of Tobit not yet been studied, was its use of the term mirabilia, “wonder, miracle.” The present study shows how, occurring at key points of the story, Jerome’s use of the term mirabilia reshapes the whole Vulgate of Tobit as a Wundergeschichte (“miracle story”) and the impact it has for the communicative dynamics of the text. Keywords: Tobit, Vulgate, miracles, mirabilia, Wundergeschichte

1 Introduction The Vulgate of Tobit constitutes a singular version of the Tobit story.1 Composed towards the end of the Stagirite’s translating career (around 405 CE),2 Jerome’s Tobit was according to his very words, the result of one day work and of the dictation in Latin of an oral Hebrew rendering of an Aramaic Vorlage.3 Accepted at face value, Jerome’s translation account suggests that his was, in effect, a free rendering of the story. In fact, the Vulgate of Tobit emerges as not only remarkably periphrastic and to some extent a revision of an Old Latin version of Tobit,4 but also includes Sondergut with clear Christian features, perhaps penned by Jerome himself (the most notorious one being the so called “Tobiah’s nights” in Tob 6).5 Among the 1 For a complete overview of Tobit’s textual tradition see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 3–17. 2 Jerome translation work that results in the Vulgata Latina runs from 390 to ca. 405/6 CE. See in that regard Kelly, Jerome, 159–163; Fürst, Hieronymus, 88–91. With respect to Jerome’s Tobit dating, see Gamberoni, Auslegung, 74–75. 3 See Prol. Tob. 10–13. The line numbers of Jerome’s Preface to Tobit are cited according to Beringer, Hieronymus, Biblia Sacra Vulgata, 1176. 4 See Skemp, The Vulgate of Tobit, 455–462. 5 See Skemp, The Vulgate of Tobit, 463–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-009

154 

 Beate Ego and Lucas Brum Teixeira

special material in Jerome’s Tobit that had not yet been studied, is Jerome’s use of the term mirabilia. In the Vulgate (hereon Vg), after experiencing God’s wonderful intervention in his favor, the angel sent by God commissions Tobit, to “narrate all his [God’s] wondrous deeds” (Tob 12:20 Vg). In this article, we expand on that specific Vg feature and show how Jerome uses the mirabilia concept in his version of Tobit and the impact it has in reshaping the whole story according to the well­ known biblical literary form of the Wundergeschichte (“miracle story”).

2 Mirabilia in the Vulgate In the Vulgate, Jerome employs the substantivized adjective, mirabilia,6 “won­ ders, marvelous deeds,” consistently while rendering Hebrew ‫נפלאות‬. Denominative Niph’al from the root ‫פלא‬, “to be surpassing, extraordinary, beyond one’s power,” from which the noun “wonder” (‫)פ ֶלא‬ ֶ and the adjective “wonderful” (‫)פלאי‬, ‫נפלאות‬ is used by biblical authors to express God’s extraordinary actions in favor of his people. LXX translators consistently render ‫ נפלאות‬with θαυμάσιά.7 Thus, the Lord punishes obstinate Egypt with his mirabilia, the “plagues” (see Exod 3:20). Con­ sidering that, Joshua can invite the people to trust in the God of Israel who works mirabilia in favor of his people (see Josh 3:5), a theologoumenon that even Job, in midst of his dramatic sufferings, affirms (see Job 5:9; 9:10). Gedeon, for his part, questions the angel about the mirabilia that they were told God performed in favor of his people in its past history (see Judg 6:13). Noteworthy, the mirabilia Dei are connected in particular to the events of Exodus. The Psalms repeatedly bear witness to that connection (see for instance Vg Ps 9:2; 76:15; 77:12.32; see also Neh 9:17; Rev 15:3). In his praise in Chronicles, in which the Chronist resounds the words of Ps 105, David invites the people to remember the mirabilia Dei and to recount it among the nations (see 1 Chr 16:9.12.24). Such an invitation understates the idea that in some way, the task of narrating the wondrous deeds of its God is part of Israel’s orig­ inal vocation as the chosen people. God’s wondrous deeds proclaim without words His might (see Ps 76:12 Vg). The recognition of God’s marvelous deeds becomes a source of praise (see Vg Ps 95:3; 97:1). It is worth noting that the main components of the biblical background connected to the term mirabilia resound in Jerome’s use of it in the Vg of Tobit.

6 Thesaurus Linguae Latinae 8:1051b, lines 23–25, provides the following definition of mirabilia: “speciatim de iis, quae naturali modo fieri non possunt (addidi pauca de prodigiis naturalibus), sed divino numine fiunt.” See also Glare, Latin Dictionary, 1115. 7 In the NT Vg Jerome also translates θαυμάσιά with mirabilia; see, for instance, Mt 21:15.

“Narrate omnia mirabilia eius” (Tob 12:20 Vg) 

 155

3 Mirabilia in the Vulgate of Tobit To contextualize the use of mirabilia in the Vulgate of Tobit, it may be useful to recall Tobit’s main story line. A righteous man in exile in Nineveh at the time of the Assyrians, Tobit is tragicomically blinded by birds’ droppings and turned into an object of mockery by his neighbors and his wife. In despair and full of sorrow, Tobit turns to God asking to die. This prayer of his is heard by God, who instead sends his angel of the presence, Raphael, so that Tobit might be healed (3:16f). With this prayer, a meta­level is inserted into the plot, inasmuch as God now appears as an acting figure. The angel’s name is already a “program,” since “Raphael” means “God heals.” With the sending of Raphael, everything is already stated; the following chapters of the book’s main plot (chs. 4–12) serve concretely to unfold that narrative program. In effect, old Tobit, ready to die and willing to set right his affairs, sends his son, Tobiah, to the distant Rages in Media, to recover from a certain Gabael the money that he had left as a deposit in one of his previous business travels. Tobiah is accompanied by the angel Raphael, who, however, travels incognito, as the youth, Azariah (Tob 4:1–5:17). During their travel, at a stop by the Tigris River, Tobiah’s companion encourages him to catch a fish that was attacking him and instructs him in how to produce from its innards incense and eye ointment. That ointment is then spread by Tobiah upon his father’s eyes after his return home, so that he regains his sight. Intertwined with this account is the story of Sarah: she also carries sorrow within her, because of the aggressivity of the evil demon, Asmodeus, who had caused the loss of seven of her future spouses. As with old Tobit, she is the object of derision and mockery from her neighbors and will be delivered from her dis­ tress as the story unfolds, with the incense of the liver and heart of the fish that Tobiah caught, which will cast out the demon. The actual story ends there, with the angel Raphael exhorting the protagonists to the works of mercy and to praise God, while revealing his real identity. As he vanishes, Tobit and his family remain thanking and praising God. Whereas in the Greek text the angel, in his farewell address, repeatedly invites the protagonists to express recognition (ἐξομολογεῖσθε) and praise (εὐλογεῖτε),8 in the younger Latin Vulgate, although also keeping the elements of acknowl­ 8 See Tob 12:6–7.11.17.20.22 (GII). Within Tobit’s long and complex textual history, given that the Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the book found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (the oldest known to us) are preserved only in a fragmentary manner, the long Greek version of the story (GII) is valued for transmitting the oldest virtually extant preserved version of the book. See Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit.

156 

 Beate Ego and Lucas Brum Teixeira

edgement and praise, the emphasis is on the proclamation of God’s mirabilia (12:20.22 Vg). Thus, in the Greek text we read: 20 “Now then praise the Lord upon the earth and thank God. Behold, I ascend to Him who sent me. Write down all these things that happened to you.” And he ascended.21 And they got up and could see him no longer. 22And they blessed and sang praise to God for those great deeds of his, for9 an angel of God had appeared to them.10 (Tob 12:20–22 GII)

In the Vulgate, however, the chapter itself and with it also the actual story in a strict sense, ends with these words: “It is, therefore, time for me to return to him who sent me. You, rather, bless God and narrate all his wonderful deeds (narrate omnia mirabilia eius).” And as he [the angel] had said this, he withdrew from their sight and they could see him no more. Then they threw themselves upon their faces for three hours and praised God; and they rose up and narrated all his wonderful deeds (narraverunt omnia mirabilia eius). (Tob 12:20–22 Vg)

The category of “wonder” in the Vulgate, therefore, is set as a theological interpre­ tive key of the whole account and thus it becomes explicit now, that the Vulgate of Tobit can be categorized as a biblical Wundergeschichte or “miracle story.” In effect, in the Vulgate, Jerome also implicitly stresses God’s miraculous action in favor of Tobit and his family, expanding the list of benefits brought about through the mediation of Azariah, alias of the angel Raphael. In answering his father’s question about the due payment to his travel companion (12:1–2 Vg) Tobiah recalls the achieved benefits in an ordered manner (12:3 Vg/GII). His list provides, in summary­like form, the concrete mirabilia Dei in their favor, which are presented in relation to Azariah’s actions regarding them. Whereas in the Greek/ OL traditions this list includes four benefits (safe guidance, healing of Sarah, aid in retrieving money and healing of Tobit), in the Vulgate seven are stated. Thus, in the Vulgate, Tobiah specifies that Azariah: 1) guided and protected him in both the outbound and inbound travel (me duxit et reduxit sanum); 2) he himself retrieved the money from Gabael (pecuniam a Gabelo ipse suscepit); 3) made him take a wife (uxorem ipse me habere fecit); 4) drove off the demon from his wife (daemonium ab ea conpescuit) and 5) brought joy to her parents (gaudium parentibus eius fecit); 6) saved him from being devoured by the fish (me ipsum a devora-

9  ὡς, literally “how, as.” In the phrase the conjunction seems to have a causal sense. In GII, the visible, palpable aid of angel Raphael sent by God emerges as the nucleus of God’s great deeds in favor of Tobit and his family. 10  20 καὶ νῦν εὐλογεῖτε ἐπὶ τἠς γῆς κύριον καὶ ἐξομολογεῖσθε τῷ θεῷ. ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με. γράψατε πάντα τὰ συνβάντα ὑμῖν. καὶ ἀνέβη. 21 καὶ οὐκέτι ἠδύναντο ἰδεῖν αὐτόν. 22 καὶ ηὐλόγουν καὶ ὓμνουν τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἐξομολογοῦντο αὐτῳ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῳ τὰ μεγάλα ταῦτα, ὡς ὤφθη αὐτοῖς ἄγγελος θεοῦ. English translation of GII is by the authors.

“Narrate omnia mirabilia eius” (Tob 12:20 Vg) 

 157

tione piscis eripuit), and 7) helped Tobit to once again see the light of heaven (te quoque fecit videre lumen caeli). Stating in 12:18 Vg that all came about by the will of God, Raphael underlines that God was the final cause of those benefits. Lastly, whereas in the Greek tradition and OL, the angel’s last command is to put into writing all that they have experienced, in the Vulgate, it is narrate omnia mirabilia eius (12:20). However, this is not all: the book of Tobit as such ends not with the solution of the protagonists’ trials and the angel’s departure, but it still includes a hymn of Tobit, through which he, having been summoned by the angel to praise God, nar­ ratively fulfills the commission. Tobit’s hymn belongs to the genre of the eschato­ logical Psalms. Thus, Tobit turns himself into a prophetic visionary. The hymn has two clear distinct parts. The first part (13:1–8) develops the theme of God’s praise in the Diaspora whereas the second (13:9–14:1), is in praise of Jerusalem, which is both the subject and object in it.11 The theme of God’s merciful handling of his people, although through different expressions, resounds and is emphasized in both parts of the hymn. Tobit begins his praise affirming God’s justice and mercy, and as in his prayer in Tobit 3, intertwining with it the people’s fate, exhorts his addressees to praise and acknowledgement (13:2–3.5–6 Vg). The term mirabilia appears again exactly at the center of that initial section (13:4 Vg). In it, and through the protago­ nist’s voice, the author offers a positive interpretation of the exile, giving it a “mis­ sionary” import: Israel has been scattered among the nations to narrate the mirabilia Dei, so that the people may know the might of Israel’s God. For such purpose Israel is called to conversion and live righteously (13:8 Vg). After expressing those words, which connect warning and hope, Tobit occu­ pies himself with the city of Jerusalem. The city itself has likewise become an object of the divine educational action (through justice and mercy): if she pro­ fesses God, then God will also again turn himself to her and bring back the exiles. The scattered people and the city thus share the same destiny. Tobit as a prophet­ like seer, dependent on and surpassing the prophecy of the Deutero­Isaiah (Isa 54:11–12), can describe the city in her future glory. The people will not only bring their gifts to Jerusalem, which becomes a “beacon” of light attracting nations to the worship God there (13:12–13 Vg); with hymnic description, the speaker tran­ scends the real world and lets a city rise before the eyes of his audience, which presents itself with truly marvelous features (13:1–22 Vg). Therefore, the “new Jerusalem,” future home of the returnees, also becomes part of the mirabilia God will have performed in favor of his people.

11 For a verse­by­verse commentary on Tobit’s hymn, see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 306–317.

158 

 Beate Ego and Lucas Brum Teixeira

4 Significance of Mirabilia in the Vulgate of Tobit If the Vulgate tries to represent the Tobit story explicitly as a Wundergeschichte, then the question can be raised of what the characteristics of this narrative dis­ course of miracle are. As mentioned before, the Psalms emphasize that God’s wonders should be told. In the Tobit story that instruction receives special weight, considering that it is the angel sent by God that commands it. With it, that instruction undergoes a so to speak transcendent, superhuman authorization and approaches the divinely originated Torah, which Israel has likewise received from the heavenly world. Tobit and his family experience God’s marvelous loving care in their own bodies and in their own lives; like the praying person in the thanksgiving Psalms, the protagonists act with their praise also as witnesses of the divine salvific action. The praying men and women that proclaim God’s wonders, can witness to the traditional knowledge of God’s powerful acts through their own experiences; turn them worth of belief and thus bring them to life again. Christof Hardmeier has demonstrated these connections using as an example Psalm 30.12 Particularly fascinating with respect to the Tobit story is the integration of the events in the narrative: the praise of God and the acknowledgement of his wonderful actions begin in the small family circle to then move to ever larger ones. Tobit’s hymn in chapter 13 is directed towards the Exiles and these in turn are called to admit God’s wonders before all peoples among which they are scattered. Thus, takes place in the account an increasing enlargement of the choir which acknowledges God’s mirabilia. That assumes ultimately, through the inclusion of the nations, a universal proportion. It is not only those who have experienced the wonders themselves who appear as witnesses; the individual experience is now placed in a collective framework, whereby the stay in exile acquires a positive meaning, because it has provided the opportunity to make known God’s mirabilia among the nations. Interestingly, the conclusion of Tob 11 in the Vulgate, just before the angel’s self­revelation and last teachings, proleptically enacts the above­mentioned process. In Tob 11:16 Vulgate, at recovery of Tobit’s sight, the narrator states: “and they glorified God, that is, he, his wife and all who knew him” (et glorificabant Deum ipse videlicet et uxor eius et omnes qui sciebant eum). Tobit’s healing, one of the mirabilia Dei in their favor, becomes by itself a proclamation at the family circle bringing about praise; then it is announced to “all who knew him,” i.e., the immediate circle of neighbors, acquaintances, and relatives in Nineveh. Such

12 Hardmeier, Systematische Elemente.

“Narrate omnia mirabilia eius” (Tob 12:20 Vg) 

 159

a process then is once more enacted in 11:19 Vg, now through Tobiah: “and he [Tobiah] narrated to his parents all God’s benefits that He brought about regard­ ing him through the man who had led him” (et narravit parentibus suis omnia beneficia Dei quae fecisset circa eum per hominem qui eum duxerat).13 The circle is then again enlarged in 11:20 Vg, to Ahiqar and Nabath, “Tobit’s cousins” (consobrini Tobit) who come to rejoice with him, “congratulating him on all the good things (omnibus bonis) God had done for him.” Through the angel sent by God such a process becomes a commission (12:20 Vg) and as stated before, with “divine” authority. Tobit and his family already enact it according to the narra­ tor’s statement in 12:22 Vg: “and standing, they narrated all His [God’s] mirabilia.” Through his hymn in Tobit 13, Tobit finally and decisively acts, broadcasting that same commission to whomever may come to read or hear the Tobit story.14 Thus, an ulterior meaning is revealed from the specific structure of the book of Tobit itself, provided by the connection of the actual story with the hymn in the end of the book. Since for the addressees the deliverance of the protagonists lies already in the past, the hope of a return (new Exodus) to the land15 and the new Jerusalem (which emerges as some sort of eschatological “promised land”; recall Rev 21) is not yet fulfilled,16 a certain tension arises between the central narrative’s main plot and the concluding hymn of Tobit 13. Exactly at this point the readership is drawn into the story in a particular manner, by the fact that with its present, it can enter in the large temporal coordinate system of the Tobit story. In effect, several generations have passed since the time the events of the story occurred. Those who hear of the fate of Tobit’s family are in a certain way exactly where Tobit and his family were in the context of the great display of Tobit’s story – in a time in which the exiles have still not returned and Jerusalem and the temple’s glorious edification still lie in the future. Like Tobit, however, also the readership can look back to the protagonist’s successful deliverance from their personal distresses and the wonders that they implied. Those who receive this account (readers or listeners) and identify themselves with the protagonists, can in a certain way participate in the divine sphere of mirabilia and become witnesses of God’s loving care. Recent narratological research has pointed out the importance of emotions, empathy, and the process of identification for the reading and understanding of the biblical texts.17 To experience in the mode of 13 On the theme of mediation in the Deuterocanonical, see Ego, Engel Rafael. 14 See in that regard Ego, Lob als Existenzerschließung. 15 See Macatangay, Election by Allusion. 16 See for instance Hicks­Keeton, Already. 17 See Eder, Identifikationspotentiale.

160 

 Beate Ego and Lucas Brum Teixeira

narration of God’s past wonderful deeds, is a potential of hope and trust in God’s marvelous actions in the future and the implementation of His plan for history. Tobit and the angel knew it: one should take every opportunity and continue nar­ rating the mirabilia Dei.

Bibliography Beriger A. et al. (eds.), Hieronymus, Biblia Sacra Vulgata. Lateinisch-deutsch. Band 2: Iosue – Iudices – Ruth – Samuhel – Malachim – Verba dierum – Ezras – Tobias – Iudith – Hester – Iob (Sammlung Tusculum), Berlin / Boston 2018. Eder, S., Identifikationspotentiale in den Psalmen. Emotionen, Metaphern und Textdynamik in den Psalmen 30, 64, 90 und 147 (BBB 183), Göttingen 2018. Ego, B., Der Engel Rafael und die Witwe Judit. Aspekte vermittelter Gottespräsenz in den Apokryphen, in: A. Taschl-Erber and I. Fischer (eds.), Vermittelte Gegenwart. Konzeptionen der Gottespräsenz von der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels bis Anfang des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (WUNT 367), Tübingen 2016, 11–29. Ego, B., Vom Lob als Existenzerschließung. Aspekte der Doxologie in der Tobiterzählung: Bibel und Liturgie 77 (2004) 20–26. Fitzmyer, J. A., Tobit (CEJL), Berlin 2003. Fürst, A., Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike, Freiburg im Breigau 2016. Gamberoni, J., Die Auslegung des Buches Tobias in der griechisch-lateinischen Kirche der Antike und der Christenheit des Westens bis 1600 (StANT 21), München 1969. Glare, P. G. W. (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1968–1982. Hanhart, R., Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit (MSU XVII), Göttingen 1984. Hardmeier, C., Systematische Elemente der Theo-logie in der Hebräischen Bibel. Das Loben Gottes – ein Kristallisationsmoment biblischer Theologie: JBTh 10 (1995) 111–127. Hicks-Keeton, J., Already / Not Yet: Eschatological Tension in the Book of Tobit: JBL 132 (2013) 97–117. Hillen, M. (ed.), Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (online), Berlin http://publikationen.badw.de/ de/thesaurus/lemmata#59519. Kelly, J. N. D., Jerome. His Life, Writings, and Controversies, London 1975. Macatangay, F. M., Election by Allusion: Exodus Themes in the Book of Tobit: CBQ 76/3 (2014) 450–463. Skemp, V. T. M., The Vulgate of Tobit Compared with Other Ancient Witnesses (SBLDS 180), Atlanta 2003.

Francis M. Macatangay

The Rhetorical Function of Burying the Dead in the Book of Tobit Abstract: The Book of Tobit is notable for its emphasis on the practice of burying the dead. This contribution examines the rhetorical significance of this particu­ lar work of charity in the narrative, arguing that the story offers a perspective in which the community of exiles is viewed as a community of the righteous. The story thus subtly subverts the deuteronomistic view of exilic life. Tobit’s provision of graves for fellow Jews who die unidentified while in exile is an act of remembrance and an affirmation of the righteous disposition and identity of exilic Israel. That the exilic dead receive burial from the hands of righteous Tobit has the rhetorical effect of claiming that the memory and identity of the dead are not diminished and that they enjoy the status of the righteous. Keywords: Tobit, burial of the dead, righteous, exile, remembrance, Deuterono­ mistic theology

1 Introduction Narratives privilege certain facts and events over another to convey convictions. Stories employ rhetorical strategies in the way they choose and include details in order to persuade the reader to accept a worldview or to adopt a behavior. For instance, in Mohsin Hamid’s Exit West, which tells a tale of love in the age of global migration, inhabitants of cities wrecked by war find other spaces through portals to get on with the messy matter of living. The novel charts the ravages that shifting movements inflict upon the nascent romantic relationship of the main characters Saeed and Nadia. It also portrays the destabilization of worldwide civ­ ilization that is caused by the sheer number of people fleeing their homes due to war. The war became personal as a stray bullet hit Saeed’s mother as she looked for an earring she thought she had misplaced in the family car. As Saeed and his father faced and prepared to undertake the basic human rituals that attend to death such as a funeral in this unnamed city riven by civil war, Hamid writes, Funerals were smaller and more rushed affairs in those days, because of the fighting. Some families had no choice but to bury their dead in a courtyard or at the sheltered margin of a road, it being impossible to reach a proper graveyard, and so impromptu burial grounds

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-010

162 

 Francis M. Macatangay

grew up, one extinguished body attracting others, in much the same way that the arrival of one squatter on a disused patch of government land can give rise to an entire slum.1

The novel’s description of improper and improvised burials has the rhetorical use of portraying a world turned topsy­turvy. Such detail leaves the reader with the conviction that war is a chaotic business that allots little time for burials and funerals. The reality of war makes funerals “rushed affairs.” In the Book of Tobit, burials are not so much rushed as dangerous. A royal decree forbidding burial of the dead in Tobit’s place of exile is in effect. And so, Tobit has to perform it in secret. Tobit’s violation of the Assyrian king’s edict against burying the dead, however, would be uncovered, resulting in his flight to save his life and in poverty. Tobit’s persistent practice of burial invites reflection: why does the story privilege the burial of the dead in its telling? What is its rhetor­ ical function in the narrative? Suffice it to say for now that burials and funerals as a religious rite of passage survive even in life’s abnormal circumstances because they disclose meaning and reveal fundamental convictions. The Book of Tobit is a narrative about two families plagued with misfor­ tunes while living away from the “good land,” which is the phrase the narrative employs to refer to the Promised Land (cf. Tob 14:4, 5) As the book opens, Tobit, the Torah­abiding individual known for faithfully walking in truth and in right­ eousness (cf. Tob 1:3) claims that he has performed works of charity all the days of his life. He takes pride in saying that he has provided not only clothing and food to the poor but also graves for his murdered kinsmen, an act of religious piety that the story views as the most visible face of mercy. In fact, the practice of burying the dead in the Book of Tobit is such a recurring motif that its rhetorical significance in the story would be hard to deny. This contribution attempts to explore the rhetorical use of the book’s seem­ ingly perverse preoccupation with the practice of burying the dead. In other words, in stressing the practice of burying the dead, what behavior or conviction did the author want to encourage his readers to adopt? What does burial of the dead signify in Tobit’s narrative world? What does Tobit mean when he asks his son Tobias for an honorable burial? This essay attempts to respond to these ques­ tions by arguing that the narrative emphasis on the practice of burying the dead is the story’s way of portraying the exiled members of Israel as belonging to the community of the righteous. This is certainly in tension with the deuteronomis­ tic worldview that exile is the divine punishment for disobedience and sin (cf. Tob 3:1–6). Since the deuteronomistic theology does not fully describe or capture

1 Hamid, Exit West, 79.

The Rhetorical Function of Burying the Dead in the Book of Tobit  

 163

Tobit’s view of divine rewards,2 it is likely that Tobit sees his co­religionists in exile as righteous. Tobit, of course, defines righteousness in his Torah­oriented wisdom instructions to his son.3 Tobit’s practice of remembering the dead with burial contributes to a portrait of a righteous community in exile.

2 The Burial of the Dead in the Book of Tobit The Book of Tobit folds into its narrative a multitude of references to the burial of the dead. It is in fact a theme that echoes repeatedly throughout the story. In the first chapter, Tobit reports burying his dead kinsmen whose murdered bodies birds of prey feast on as they lay outside the city walls of Nineveh (1:17). Tobit also claims that he clandestinely took and buried the bodies of his coreligionists whom Sennacherib killed as revenge upon his return in rage after his setback in Jerusalem (1:18). In the second chapter, Tobit instructs his son to invite the righteous poor among his kin to join him for a meal to celebrate the Feast of Pentecost (2:1–10). Upon his return, Tobias informs his father that one of their people had been mur­ dered. Tobit then springs to his feet and rushes from the dinner table to bury the dead man (2:4). His neighbors taunt him, wondering why Tobit continues to bury the dead despite the ever­present threat of execution for such a deed (2.8). Tobit, of course, is not so much worried about becoming a byword among his neigh­ bors, as he is concerned with showing his fear of God as a righteous individual by performing merciful acts. Indeed, as the story reaches its dénouement, Raphael reveals that Tobit’s previous lack of hesitation to get up and leave his celebratory meal to bury the dead is a test that he surpasses (12:12–13). Tobit has shown his commitment to acts of charity even when they incur contempt or worse, lead to awful results. Through the words of the angel, Tobit’s commitment to this par­ ticular act of charity earns divine approval.4 His merciful deed of burying the dead has not gone unnoticed in heaven. In fact, his prayer and his merciful act of burying the dead turn out to be a memorial that bears Tobit’s presence up before God.

2 See for instance, Kiel, Rethinking Retribution, 126–152; Anderson, Does Tobit Fear God, 115–143; Weeks, Deuteronomic Heritage, 389–404. For a short review of reading Tobit in light of Deuteronomy, see Macatangay, Abraham in Tobit, 101–122. 3 See Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions, 74–85. 4 See Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions, 108, 170–171.

164 

 Francis M. Macatangay

In a long discourse that spells out the practice of righteousness in the fourth chapter, Tobit directs Tobias to provide him a decent burial (4:3). He further instructs Tobias to bury his mother in the same grave with him after her death as a way to honor her (4:4). Tobias honors the desires of his father when, at the end of the story, he gives his father an honorable burial (14:2) and buries his mother next to Tobit’s grave (14:12). After taking care of his elderly in­laws, Tobias buries them as well (14:11b–13). The practice of burying the dead then is an ideal worth pursuing with unyielding dedication. In doing so, Tobit’s son has not only taken to heart the counsels of his father but has also become a spitting image of his father, one who is as devoted to the practice of burying the dead as his father was in his lifetime. As the narrative progresses to the journey of Tobias who has been assigned a mission to retrieve a huge sum of money entrusted to a cousin, Tobias learns from Raphael, his disguised angelic companion, that he will marry Sarah.5 A damsel in distress who has not fared well in marriage, Sarah has ended up widowed seven times. Before the marriage is to be consummated in the bridal chamber, the jealous demon Asmodeus kills each of her seven husbands. Remarkably, Tobias expresses the concern that if he were to die, no one would give his parents a proper funeral (6:15). More than anything else, Tobias is worried not about meeting his death but about meeting this filial duty that his father previously reminded him to fulfill. Upon learning that Sarah is a kinswoman, Tobias falls in love, igniting his heart on fire for Sarah (6:18). On their wedding night, however, the menacing prospect of another dead husband cannot be denied or ignored. Raguel, Sarah’s father, thus engages his servants in a shady grave­digging task (8:18). If Tobias were to suffer the hand of death like Sarah’s seven previous unlucky husbands, the body of the soon­to­be son­in­law could be promptly covered with dirt in order to prevent anyone from learning about him, thus avoiding shame and further rid­ icule from the neighbors. Thankfully, it turns out that both Tobias and Sarah are alive and fast asleep throughout their wedding night (8:14). The many episodes of burying the dead in the Book of Tobit impress the sense that this practice is an essential element in the worldview of the narrative. As a literary component, the burial of the dead no doubt fosters narrative suspense and tension. It thickens the plot and pushes the narrative forward.6 It is likely that Tobit would not have become blind had he not entombed his murdered kinsman. As a theological piece, the practice of burying the dead becomes an exilic act of remembering the Lord. It is the paradigmatic act of charity that concretizes right­

5 On this journey, see Xeravits, Stranger, 86–94. 6 See Efthimiadis­Keith, Significance of Food, 557–558.

The Rhetorical Function of Burying the Dead in the Book of Tobit  

 165

eousness.7 As an eschatological element, the grave becomes a sign or an intima­ tion of life and restoration. This is evident in the symbolic passage of Tobias from death to life on the night of his wedding. The empty shaft grave serves as proof of his figurative return to life. As a socio­cultural element, the burial of the dead is a boundary and identity marker that unmasks ties of kinship. The performance of burial and its rites are reserved for those who belong to the community (cf. Tob 4:17). In other words, Tobit’s practice of burying the dead underscores familial relations. By provid­ ing his dead kinsmen with burial, Tobit treats them as members of the house­ hold of Jacob. His practice shows his “loyalty to an entire people conceived of as family” – “Jews treating other Jews as family.”8 In fact, in the story’s universe, every character is related as a brother or sister, giving the impression that the “network of relations among these characters creates an extended family that threatens to take over all of Assyria.”9 Far from endangering the existence of the family as Renate Egger­Wenzel suggests,10 Tobit’s practice of burying the dead in fact reflects the biblical view that the individual self is “socially embedded” and indistinguishably woven with familial and kin relations.11 In life and even in death, the individual remains intimately entrenched within the family or the community. In burying the dead, Tobit acts as a kinsman.

3 Some Considerations on Burial of the Dead The Book of Tobit seems to assume that readers are familiar with burial practices since the narrative does not specifically describe how burial of the dead is per­ formed. Details on burial are left unsaid. Other than the note on purification after contact with a dead body (cf. G1 Tob 2:9), the story does not mention, for instance, rituals for mourning. For a narrative with burial as a leitmotif, it surprisingly does not include information on customs attached to funerals and entombment of dead bodies. Moreover, the reader does not learn the place where Tobit buries the dead. Presumably, Tobit does not inter his dead kinsmen in a pagan necropolis but buries them instead outside the city to preserve the rules of purity. It is also likely that these graveyards are not “impromptu burial grounds.” In any case,

7 For the importance of charity and almsgiving in Tobit, see Macatangay, Mercy, 47–66. 8 Soll, Windows, 274. 9 Wills, Jewish Novel, 78. 10 See Egger­Wenzel, Acceptance, 88. 11 See De Vito, Construction, 221–223. See also Levenson, Resurrection, 109.

166 

 Francis M. Macatangay

the story seems to suppose that the reader would have some knowledge of burial rites and funerary procedures. And so, it is striking to learn of Tobit’s request to his son to give him a good and proper burial12 and to bury him and his wife in one grave as a way to honor them as his parents. Since it is part of Tobit’s lengthy instructions to his son as death casts its shadow upon him, such directive has a significance that begs to be examined: what does Tobit envision as constituting a decent burial for him? (Tob 4:3) Some information on Tobit’s practice of burying the dead can be gleaned from some telling details. For instance, upon learning that a strangled kinsman’s body lies in the marketplace, Tobit rushes from the dinner table in order to bury the corpse before sunset (2:4, 7). The temporal notice here is in consonance with the biblical sensibility that finds exposed dead bodies offensive. It is therefore necessary to bury the dead on the same day or as soon as possible after death (cf. Deut 21:23; Josh 10:26–27). Even when performed alone, it does not take Tobit long to bury the dead body. Indeed, the reader gets the sense that the dead are dispatched to the grave in the fastest and simplest way possible. Life in a land not his own under the Assyrian ruler may have limited Tobit’s options. The same observation seems to hold true for another episode of burial in the story. Raguel assumes that his new son­in­law will suffer death on the evening of the wedding just as Sarah’s seven other husbands did previously and so directs his servants to dig a grave. Raguel of course finds out that no harm has come to the couple, so to hide this macabre move from Tobias, Raguel orders his servants to fill in the grave before dawn (Tob 8:18). This creates the impression that the time it would take to bury the dead is rather short, “only maybe a few hours to prepare a grave, which in this case, could only be a simple shaft grave dug out of the ground.”13 When Tobit speaks of an honorable burial, does he imagine it to be a “rushed affair” as these details in the narrative seem to suggest? Does he envisage a grave for his body’s burial to be a simple shaft grave dug out of the ground? As Nora Dávid notes, “if a proper burial was so important for Tobit, why did he not prepare a tomb for himself and for his wife still in his life…?”14 According to Robert Litt­ mann, the phrase “proper burial” in Tobit’s instruction means “with due rites.”15 But what does the phrase “with due rites” actually entail? Perhaps, one way to make sense of Tobit’s demand for a proper and honorable funeral can be under­ stood against the practice and ideology of secondary burials in which the remains 12 This is specific in GII version, which likely stands in close proximity to the Semitic Vorlage of Tobit. 13 Dávid, Burial, 494. 14 Dávid, Burial, 498. 15 Littmann, Tobit, 87.

The Rhetorical Function of Burying the Dead in the Book of Tobit  

 167

of the dead are buried in the ancestral or family grave where they “sleep with the ancestors” (cf. Gen 15:15; 25:8; 2 Kgs 20:21).16 Tobit’s command to his son to bury him and his wife in one grave recalls the custom of burying husbands and wives together since the time of Abraham and Sarah. This kind of burial is not likely in simple shaft graves but in burial niches familiar to the Second Temple period. As Dávid observes, “caves suitable for similar family burials were often bought already in the lifetime of the head of the family, in order to insure the most proper place for the eternal rest.”17 In this light, Tobit probably desires that his son or his descendants perform the sacred duty of moving his remains into the family tomb in the land of his ancestors for final interment in the future when circumstances allow it. Tobit’s instruction recalls that of Jacob who commanded his sons to provide him burial in the land of his ancestors (Gen 49:29–32). It also alludes to Joseph’s obtainment of an oath from his brothers to bring his bones with them from Egypt into the land when God visits them (Gen 50:24–26). Indeed, Moses did not forget Joseph’s charge to the Israelites to bring his bones to the land despite a departure so hurried as to leave the bread for the journey unleavened (Exod 13:19). Joseph would find his final place of rest in Shechem in the land of Canaan (cf. Josh 24:32) in a plot of land Jacob previously purchased (cf. Gen 33:18–20). Later, 1 Macca­ bees would report the dual burial of Jonathan. Simon retrieves the bones of his brother Jonathan after his burial by Trypho and performs a second burial for him in Modein, the city of his ancestors (1 Macc 13:23–30). In light of this history and piety, Tobit can reasonably hope that when God remembers and restores his people from exile, he too will enjoy a proper burial in the family grave. Since the “most honorable burials are those conducted in family ancestral tombs,” Tobit’s request for a proper burial may point to reburial in the land here understood as the communal or ancestral grave.18

4 The Exilic Community of the Righteous In her study of the concept of community in the Book of Tobit, Johanna Rauten­ berg notes the tension between primordial and universal views of community. Eventually, the story shows a progression from the former to the latter. The story

16 On this point, see Macatangay, When I Die, 56–75. See also Dorie Mansen, Unremembered Dead, 113–151. 17 Dávid, Burial, 499. 18 See Macatangay, When I Die, 60–64.

168 

 Francis M. Macatangay

begins with an emphasis on blood, lineage, and kinship as the criteria for com­ munity cohesion and advances to an open and inclusive notion of community based on the praise of God.19 At first glance, the story’s use of fictive kinship language seems to suggest the importance of genealogy and consanguinity as determinative of community belonging,20 proffering a portrait of the community of exilic Jews in Nineveh as one extended family.21 In other words, the prepon­ derance of kinship ties can offer the misguided impression that the cardinal cri­ terion for community belonging is ethnicity, or that ethnicity is determinative of identity. And yet, if we examine closely the narrative picture of the members of Tobit’s network of relations, it is not difficult to notice that every character within Tobit’s orbit is righteous. Tobit identifies himself as an Israelite who walks in righteous­ ness and truth (Tob 1:3); later, he specifies and concretizes righteousness in his wisdom discourse to his son, which is a type of instruction in Torah. In it, Tobit defines righteousness primarily in terms of acts of mercy, such as almsgiving, and endogamy (Tob 4:5–20).22 Ahiqar, a well­known non­Israelite wisdom figure, is incorporated into the narrative and into Tobit’s family as a nephew who extended care to Tobit in time of great need. The story trades Ahiqar’s Gentile wisdom for his benevolence, thus transforming the righteous act of almsgiving into a neces­ sary element of belonging to Tobit’s household. In other words, deeds of right­ eousness and mercy have such power that they allow the inclusion of a non­Is­ raelite into Tobit’s family.23 The presence of Ahiqar intimates that righteousness defines the identity of the members of Tobit’s household and community. Raguel, Edna, and Sarah also radiate righteousness because they follow Tobit’s prescription for endogamous marriage in imitation of their ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Tob 4:12). The cousin in Media is righteous because he did not withhold the money that Tobit earlier entrusted to him (cf. Tob 4:14).24 His son Tobias, of course, is the model of one who receives the right training in righteous­ ness; he is recognized as one like his father (cf. Tob 7:2) Finally, a key character that has puzzled interpreters is Tobit’s wife Hannah. Is she righteous or not? Commentators have mostly offered negative estimations of

19 See Rautenberg, Verlässlichkeit, 203–217. 20 See for instance Egger­Wenzel, Acceptance, 87–113. 21 Ioudaios is the term used once in GII to identify specifically the Jews as an ethnic group. Tob 11:18 states that “when Tobit’s sight was restored, the Ioudaios rejoice.” 22 See Macatangay, Wisdom Discourse, 99–111. 23 See Weigl, Rettende Macht, 212–243. 24 On the importance of economic metaphors in Tobit, see Macatangay, Fiduciary Duties, 183–196.

The Rhetorical Function of Burying the Dead in the Book of Tobit  

 169

her character.25 To start, the names in Tobit are significant. Hannah’s name is no exception; her name is as equally telling as it literally means “grace.” This invites inquiry into the kind of grace she embodies. Her initial reply when Tobit asks her about the goat she has brought home brims with truth, innocence and honesty; it provides a window into her character. Her response that the goat was given to her “as a bonus over and above her wages” (2:14) does not only attest to her industry but may also reveal the surprising ways of the divine economy to which Tobit was blind. Tobit’s disbelief that Hannah would be given a goat on top of her usual wages exposes the depth of Tobit’s inability to see beyond the expected or the traditional theological formulas for rewards. Tobit is not only blind to the physical realities of life but also stares with unseeing eyes into a realm where a similar possibility of a bonus or an unimaginable recompense can take place. By curtly and angrily dismissing Hannah’s response as nonsense, Tobit has unwit­ tingly closed himself off to God’s unexpected ways.26 Of course, such possibility becomes reality when God later displays his charity towards Tobit and his family. It was only after this experience of providence that Tobit’s sight is restored, ena­ bling him to acknowledge that God has had mercy on him.27 In this episode then, Hannah’s reply verges on the prophetic; she indeed becomes a channel of grace, one who has caught and uttered some insight into how God may act, a trait, to be sure, that righteous individuals tend to possess. In addition to the narrative representation of the various characters in Tobit’s household, Tobit utters statements that emphasize righteousness as a condition for dealing with others. A case in point, Tobit is intent on extending deeds of mercy only to the righteous poor. When he orders his son to look for some dinner company to celebrate Pentecost, Tobit specifies that they should be the righteous poor or those who are mindful of the Lord (2:2). In his instructions, Tobit advices his son to offer almsgiving and acts of charity only to the righteous of his people (Tob 4:6; cf. 1:8). He further instructs Tobias to be lavish with his bread and wine on the tomb only of the righteous (4:17). All of these paint a picture of a commu­ nity of the righteous in which every member extends righteous social conduct toward one’s neighbor. The portrayal of the members of Tobit’s household and his specific instruc­ tions to his son all converge to create the impression that righteousness is determi­ 25 See for instance, Rabenau, Studien, 56–157; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 142. Moore, Tobit, 136, says that “Hannah’s first words show her to be volatile (cf. 5:18–6:1; 10:4–7a) but perceptive woman who raises, in effect, the crucial question in Tobit, namely does it really pay to be good and to do good? 26 See Macatangay, Μισθὀς, 576–584. 27 See Kiel, Tobit’s Theological Blindness, 281–298.

170 

 Francis M. Macatangay

native of the exilic community in Nineveh. As filtered through Tobit’s discourse, righteousness is the primary quality that forms and circumscribes the community of exiles in Tobit’s narrative universe. In sum, righteousness is the boundary that Tobit draws around himself and his exilic community.

5 The Remembered Dead The depiction of the community in exile as righteous becomes rhetorically more evident in Tobit’s activity of burying unidentified dead bodies of his murdered compatriots. In the Scriptures, Israel refused burial of her enemies on occasion (cf. Ps 79:2–3; 2 Macc 5:10) as a sign of divine judgment. The denial of burial is thought of as a divine declaration that the dead are depraved. As Sir 11:28 notes, “call no man happy before his death; for by how he ends, a man is known.” Indeed, a clear example of the public declaration of divine judgment is the end of the arrogant Antiochus IV whose demise reveals his true character. 2 Macc 5:9–10 says of him that “he who had exiled so many from their country perished in exile; and he who had cast out so many to lie unburied went unmourned himself with no funeral of any kind or any place in the tomb of his ancestors.” In another text that likely dates to the 1. century BCE, the second psalm in the collection Psalms of Solomon refers to Pompey as an arrogant dragon who died on the mountains of Egypt and whose “body was carried about on the waves in great insolence” with “no one to bury him for he had rejected God in dishonor” (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:27–29). Post­mortem shame is viewed as a fitting divine sentence for Israel’s persecutors. The lack or refusal of burial, disinterment or dishonorable burial is a severe but suitable penalty not only for Israel’s enemies but also for those within Israel who are judged as wicked or as violators of the covenant (cf. 1 Kgs 14:11; Jer 14:16; Deut 28:26).28 In Jer 7:33, Ezek 29:5, 2 Kgs 9:10, Jer 22:19, Israel’s enemies are the instruments of the divine judgment upon Israel. In 1Enoch 98:12–13, however, it is the righteous Israelites themselves who dispense the divine judgment: Woe to you who love the deeds of iniquity; why do you have good hopes for yourselves? Now be it known to you that you will be delivered into the hands of the righteous; and they will cut off your necks, and they will kill you and not spare you. Woe to you who rejoice over the troubles of the righteous; your grave will not be dug.

28 Stern, Death, 272. See also McCane, Roll Back, 99: “Dishonorable burial was reserved for those who had been condemned by the people of Israel.” See also Dorie Mansen, Unremem­ bered Dead, 183–248.

The Rhetorical Function of Burying the Dead in the Book of Tobit  

 171

Unlike Deut 21:23, which states that the bodies of criminals must be buried after a period of exposure to the sun, Enoch stipulates that burial will be denied to all lovers of iniquity and unrighteousness (1 En. 91–107). Here, the enemies of the righteous are not the usual enemies of Israel but all who persecute the righteous including those who are counted as members of ethnic Israel. In a document from Qumran, the War Scroll imagines the righteous as they march through the world, destroying with God’s aid the unrighteous and leaving their corpses unburied (11.1). Moreover, the violators of the covenant within Israel who cast their lot with Belial will suffer the fate of non­burial and post­mortem disgrace. Refusal of entombment becomes a means of insistent exclusion as the righteous denies the unrighteous their grave. At the least, these passages suggest that the practice of burial functions as a boundary marker that differentiates the righteous covenanters from the apos­ tates and the wicked within Israel. A long­lasting and deliberate refusal of burial becomes a way to redraw and patrol the fence that defines membership into the community of true Israel. The requirement of Torah righteousness, it seems, demands the public humiliation of the body with a permanent denial of entomb­ ment. Non­burial signifies that the dead is not a member of the genuine family of the elect. In light of the possibility that Jews refused burial to fellow Jews who are viewed as unrighteous or apostates both as an exercise in Torah piety and as a deliberate declaration of divine punishment, Tobit’s insistence on burying his dead compatriots implies that they are the remembered dead who enjoy the status of the just. Tobit thus projects the notion that the community of the dis­ persed is not necessarily identified either by biology or genealogy but by right­ eous behavior. Tobit’s provision of burial speaks to their righteous status. They cannot be regarded as sinners and covenant absconders who deserve the pun­ ishment of non­burial. Rather, they are righteous members of Israel who deserve remembrance and whose dead bodies merit honorable interment. In his action of treating the dead with burial, Tobit saves his exilic community from the shame inflicted upon them by the foreign enemy’s cruel disregard for their dead. In short, Tobit’s actions insist that the exilic community should not be seen or counted like exposed corpses. The story seems to hold this view in tension with the deuteronomistic claim that being sent into exile is the divine punishment for sin (cf. Tob 3:1–6). If the narrative renders the exilic community of Tobit as righteous, why is it then that Tobit’s prayer and first­person narration provide the impression that the commu­ nity’s experience of exile is a divine reprimand for apostasy? This is of course the usual biblical justification for why Israel was exiled – Israel’s banishment from the land is a consequence of disobedience (Lev 26:33). As Tobit looks at Israel’s

172 

 Francis M. Macatangay

past in his prayer, he echoes the scriptural explanation. In his prayerful lament, Tobit in fact identifies with the ancestors who sinned against God and disobeyed his commandments, which is the reason why they are the subject of reproaches and are scattered among the nations (Tob 3:3–4). Tobit even acknowledges that God’s judgments are true, that God is right in dealing with him as his sins and the sins of his ancestors deserve (3:5). Of course, the reader knows from the start that Tobit has walked in the ways of righteousness and truth all the days of his life, in the land and abroad (Tob 1:3–8). This is no doubt vexing, as the juxtaposition in Tob 1–3 creates two portraits of Tobit that are clearly contradictory. Perhaps, one way to make sense of these seemingly irreconcilable portraits is to acknowledge that the received dominant tradition that is the deuteronomistic theology sits side by side, though in tension, with Tobit’s claim of righteousness. In the end, however, the story resolves the conflict in favor of the latter. Like Job, Tobit claims to be righteous.29 He may have used the deuteronomis­ tic explanation for his suffering but it does not sit well with his own experience. Tobit notably gives voice to this view in the context of prayer, giving the impres­ sion that before God, an individual always remains a sinner who can only always strive to observe all of God’s commandments. If Tobit is confined to a strict view of deuteronomistic reward and punishment, it is understandable that Tobit could only despair and desire for death. And so, Tobit’s prayer asks God to deal with him as God wills (Tob 3:6), implying that he is throwing himself at the mercy of God. Before such a reality, he can genuinely speak for himself and claim that he has done all he can to remain righteous while keeping in view God’s freedom as the ultimate judge. In this light, the story can also depict those who are in exile with Tobit as righteous ones. Indeed, there may be another view of them as apostates and vio­ lators of the covenant, as Tobit’s prayer at first glance suggests, but the narra­ tive seems to say that such deuteronomistic categorization is misleading, if not wholly inaccurate. Like Tobit, the story seems to insist against deuteronomistic thought that those in exile are righteous. Tobit’s practice of burying the dead rhe­ torically implies that their exilic condition does not necessarily mean that they are condemned to the realm of the unrighteous. That the exilic dead receive burial from the hands of righteous Tobit has the effect of claiming that the memory and identity of the dead are not diminished and that they enjoy the status of the right­ eous. This is vital since the promised restoration to the land of all Israel depends on having a community whose members are righteous. It is no wonder then that the exilic community in Tobit is portrayed as a righteous community in whom a

29 On Job and Tobit, see, for instance, Portier­Young, Dialogue, 14–27.

The Rhetorical Function of Burying the Dead in the Book of Tobit  

 173

new beginning, as symbolized by the marriage of Tobias and Sarah, is dawning.30 With Tobit in the lead, they can sing of God’s mercy and can look forward to the eventual repossession of the land (cf. Tobit 13–14). As a community of righteous deportees, they can truly expect God to fulfill his promises of life and land.

6 Concluding Remarks Tobit’s provision of graves for his murdered kinsmen is a literal and metaphor­ ical act of resistance. Literally, Tobit’s action defies the Assyrian ruler’s decree against burial of the dead. Metaphorically, it not only acknowledges but also proclaims the righteous status of the exilic community. While the king desires to shame Tobit’s exilic community by leaving Israelite dead bodies exposed in the marketplace, Tobit honors them with burial. While the royal prohibition aims to diminish the memory and identity of the dead, Tobit’s burial exalt them with remembrance. Tobit’s remembrance of his exilic dead compatriots with burial implies that they are just and do not deserve the shame of postmortem exposure. They may have been exiled, dispersed, and dead but they are remembered; their remembrance speaks to their righteousness. In so doing, Tobit asserts control on defining the identity of exilic Israel. Tobit himself extends acts of righteousness only to righteous individuals, and so, his practice of burying the dead ostensibly forms part of this logic. Certainly, Tobit defines what it means to meet the demands of the Torah and how to fulfill the requirements of righteousness in exilic living (cf. Tobit 4). His instructions presumably function as principles that guide the community while abroad to walk in the ways of truth and righteousness. With righteousness rede­ fined, the exilic community identified as a large network of brothers and sisters can be described as fulfilling the Torah. Since they are righteous whose very act of righteousness in their exilic land may have threatened their lives as Tobit’s expe­ rience shows, Tobit remembers and honors them with burial after death. With the identity of a righteous community of the dispersed intact, they can reasonably expect restoration to the land in God’s fullness of time. In short, the Book of Tobit offers a perspective in which the community of exiles is viewed as a community of the just. The story thus subtly subverts the deuteronomistic view of exilic life. Tobit’s allowance of graves for fellow Jews who die unidentified while in exile is an act of remembrance and an affirmation of the righteous disposition and identity of exilic Israel. That the story concludes 30 See Miller, Marriage, 210.

174 

 Francis M. Macatangay

with scenes of honorable burial for all the members of Tobit’s household means that, by their end, they are thus known; indeed, for this, they can be pronounced blessed (cf. Sir 11:28).31

Bibliography Anderson, G. A., Does Tobit Fear God for Nought? in: G. A. Anderson and J. S. Kaminsky (eds.), The Call of Abraham: Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 19), Notre Dame 2013, 115–143. Dávid, N., Burial in the Book of Tobit and in Qumran, in: A. Lange et al. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures 2. (VTSup 140), Leiden 2011, 489–500. De Vito, R. A. Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity: CBQ (1999) 217–238. Efthimiadis-Keith, H., The Significance of Food, Eating, Death and Burial in the Book of Tobit: JS 22 (2013) 553–578. Egger-Wenzel, R., Acceptance into the Jewish Community in the Book of Tobit: Conversion and Circumcision: BN 164 (2015) 87–113. Dorie Mansen, F., The Unremembered Dead: The Non-Burial Motif in the Hebrew Bible (Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 26), Piscataway 2018. Fitzmyer, J. A., Tobit (CEJL), Berlin 2003. Hamid, M., Exit West: A Novel, New York 2017. Kiel, M. D., The “Whole Truth”: Rethinking Retribution in the Book of Tobit (LSTS 82), London 2012. Kiel, M. D., Tobit’s Theological Blindness: CBQ 73 (2011) 281–298. Levenson, J. D., Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel. The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life, New Haven 2006. Littman, R. J., Tobit. The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus (SCS), Leiden 2008. Macatangay, F. M., Fiduciary Duties and Wages in the Book of Tobit: CBQ 82 (2020) 183–196. Macatangay, F. M., Abraham in Tobit: Conversations with the Biblical World 39 (2019) 101–122. Macatangay, F. M., Mercy as Gospel according to the Book of Tobit: Diwa: Studies in Philosophy and Theology 42 (2017) 47–66. Macatangay, F. M., When I Die, Bury Me Well: Death, Burial, Almsgiving, and Restoration in the Book of Tobit, Eugene 2016. Macatangay, F. M., The Wisdom Discourse of Tobit as Instruction in Torah: BN 167 (2015) 99–111. Macatangay, F. M., Μισθός and Irony in the Book of Tobit: Bib 94 (2013) 576–584. Macatangay, F. M., The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit (DCLS 12), Berlin 2011. McCaine, B. R., Roll Back the Stone: Death and Burial in the World of Jesus. Harrisburg 2013.

31 Géza gathered a community of international scholars over conferences on deuterocanonical and cognate literature. It is an honor to dedicate this small contribution in honor and remem­ brance of him. May his memory be blessed!

The Rhetorical Function of Burying the Dead in the Book of Tobit  

 175

Miller, G. D., Marriage in the Book of Tobit (DCLS 10), Berlin 2011. Moore, C. A., Tobit. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 40A), New York 1996. Portier-Young, A., “Eyes to the Blind”: A Dialogue Between Tobit and Job, in: J. Corley and V. Skemp (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M (CBQMS 38), Washington 2005, 14–27. Rabenau, M., Studien zum Buch Tobit (BZAW 220), Berlin 1994. Rautenberg, J., Verlässlichkeit des Wortes. Gemeinschaftskonzepte in den Reden des Buches Tobit und ihre Legitimierung (BBB 176), Bonn 2015. Soll, W., The Book of Tobit as a Window on the Hellenistic Jewish Family, in: L. M. Luker (ed.), Passion, Vitality and Foment: The Dynamics of Second Temple Judaism, Harrisburg 2001, 242–274. Stern, K. B., Death and Burial in the Jewish Diaspora, in: D. M. Master (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology 1., Oxford 2013, 270–280. Weeks, S., A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit? in: H. von Weissenberg et al. (eds.), Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW 419), Berlin 2011, 389–404. Weigl, M., Die rettende Macht der Barmherzigkeit. Achikar im Buch Tobit: BZ 50 (2006) 212–243. Wills, L., The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World, Ithaca 1995. Xeravits, G. G., “Stranger in a Strange Land”: Tobiah’s Journey, in: G. G. Xeravits and J. Dusek (eds.), The Stranger in Ancient and Medieval Jewish Tradition (DCLS 4), Berlin 2010, 86–94.

Tobias Nicklas

Das Wortfeld „Sterben“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch Abstract: 2 Maccabees, written in Greek, is one of the stylistically richest texts of the Septuagint. This article offers an overview of the various terms used to describe the “dying” of different people. The individual terms are semantically differentia­ ted from one another. It becomes apparent with what care the author of 2 Macc is able to linguistically differentiate different ways of departing from life. Keywords: 2 Maccabees, semantics, death and dying, Early Judaism

1 Einleitendes Als eine derjenigen Schriften der Septuaginta, die bereits in griechischer Sprache verfasst wurden, bietet das zweite Makkabäerbuch reiches Material für eine (meines Wissens noch immer ausstehende) umfangreiche stilistische Untersu­ chung.1 Spannend wären detaillierte Beobachtungen zur Syntax, aber auch zu semantischen Aspekten. In meinen eigenen Beobachtungen zum Text im Rahmen des Projekts Septuaginta Deutsch entdeckte ich etwa 200 Septuaginta­Hapaxle­ gomena im zweiten Makkabäerbuch sowie eine kaum überschaubare Zahl von Wörtern, die neben 2 Makk im Corpus der LXX nur an einer oder zwei weiteren Stellen (häufig in3 oder 4 Makk) begegnen.2 Ich bin mir dessen bewusst, dass dieser Befund sehr oberflächlich ist. Gerade deswegen aber könnte er den Anlass für weiterführende Untersuchungen bieten. Doch nicht nur die Verwendung von Hapaxlegomena und seltenen Wörtern ist interessant. Wo die Sprache eines Textes beschrieben wird, kann es auch wichtig sein, zu untersuchen, wie weit dieser in der Lage ist, die Möglichkeiten von für seinen Inhalt wichtigen Wortfel­ dern auszuschöpfen. Immer wieder erzählt das zweite Makkabäerbuch von Tod und Sterben einiger der in ihm begegnenden Figuren; wir lesen von Kämpfen und Schlachten, Hinrichtungen und dramatischen Martyrien, aber auch dem Tod des Verfolger­

1 Vgl. aber die interessanten Beobachtungen bei Le Moigne, Caractère hétérogène, sowie (leider wenig bekannt) Domazakis, Neologisms. 2 Nicklas, Makkabaion II. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-011

178 

 Tobias Nicklas

königs Antiochus IV. Epiphanes3 durch eine geheimnisvolle Krankheit, die als Strafe für seine Verfehlungen verstanden ist.4 Zudem bietet der Text bekanntlich eines der ältesten frühjüdischen Zeugnisse für die Vorstellung einer leiblichen Auferweckung wenigstens der Gerechten.5 Der folgende Beitrag interessiert sich jedoch nur indirekt für das schon mehrfach bearbeitete Thema einer Theologie von Tod und Auferstehung in 2 Makk. Ich möchte stattdessen untersuchen, auf welch unterschiedliche Weise der Text vom Sterben sprechen kann.6 Dies wie­ derum soll zur Basis für die Beantwortung einer tiefer gehenden Doppelfrage dienen: Inwiefern variiert das zweite Makkabäerbuch bei seinen Beschreibungen des Sterbens sprachlich? Und lassen die erkennbaren Variationen ein Muster etwa dahingehend erkennen, dass das Sterben Gerechter und damit ein ehren­ hafter Tod anders beschrieben wird als der der Feinde des Gottesvolks?

2 Übersicht und Analyse Selbst wenn man alle Verben, die nicht mit Sterben, sondern mit Töten, Hinrich­ ten oder Morden zu tun haben, ausscheidet, bleibt eine beeindruckende Zahl von Begriffen und Wendungen, die für unsere Fragestellung interessant sind.7 Das mit mehreren hundert Belegen nicht nur in der LXX sicherlich häufigste Verb, um „Sterben“ auszudrücken, ist sicherlich ἀποθνῄσκω, welches sich aller­ dings nur insgesamt sechs Mal (2 Makk 6,26; 7,2.9.18; 8,21; 14,42) im Göttinger kritischen Text des 2. Makkabäerbuches findet. Einen weiteren Beleg bieten die Handschriften der Lukianischen Rezension (plus Minuskel 311 sowie indirekt Teile der lateinischen Überlieferung inkl. der Vulgata) mit dem Plus εἰ ἀποθάνοι am Ende von 2 Makk 12,24. Der genauere Blick in die einzelnen Vorkommen lässt interessante Beobachtungen zu: So fällt auf, dass Formen des Verbs ἀποθνῄσκω fast durchgehend in direkten Reden oder Erzählerreferaten begegnen, die sich auf Reden oder Erwägungen von Charakteren der erzählten Welt beziehen. Die

3 Zu den historischen Hintergründen der in 1 und 2 Makk beschriebenen Religionsverfolgung vgl. z.B. Gruen, Hellenism, sowie Lichtenberger, Jerusalemer Religionsreform. 4 Vgl. hierzu die weiterführende Analyse bei Nicklas, Historiker. 5 Hierzu z.B. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 119–137 und Schmitz, Auferstehung. 6 Ich lege für meine Untersuchung den Text des 2 Makk zugrunde, wie er sich in der kritischen Göttinger Ausgabe findet; darüber hinaus werden einzelne Varianten angesprochen. Die Frage, ob sich der erkennbare Sprachgebrauch der Verarbeitung älterer Quellen verdankt, soll dabei zurücktreten. 7 Ich übergehe auch eine systematische Durchsicht der Verwendungen des Wortes θάνατος (2 Makk 4,47; 6,19.22.30.31; 7,29; 13,8.14).

Das Wortfeld „Sterben“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch 

 179

einzige Stelle, in der das Verb direkt das Sterben einer Figur anzeigt, ist 2 Makk 7,18, wo wir davon lesen, dass der sechste Bruder der Märtyrer, „(schon) im Begriff zu sterben“ (μέλλων ἀποθνῄσκειν) noch letzte Worte spricht. Alle anderen Stellen stehen im Zusammenhang mit Abwägungen zwischen Tod und Leben: Als dem greisen Eleazar die Möglichkeit gewährt wird, statt verbotenen Schwei­ nefleischs koscheres Fleisch zu essen und damit die Vorschrift des Königs dem Schein nach zu umgehen (vgl. 2 Makk 6,21), begründet er seine Verweigerung mit dem Gedanken, „weder als einer, der (weiter)lebt (οὔτε ζῶν), noch als einer, der (aufgrund des Urteils des Königs) stirbt (οὔτε ἀποθάνων), den Händen des Allmächtigen entfliehen zu können.“ Die Frage nach der eigentlichen Macht über Tod und Leben steht auch im Mittelpunkt der Reden der Märtyrerbrüder, in denen Formen des Verbs ἀποθνῄσκω verwendet werden: Vor allem 2 Makk 7,9 kontras­ tiert die Macht des Königs, die Märtyrer vom Leben zu trennen, mit den Möglich­ keiten Gottes, diese wieder auferstehen zu lassen. Doch nicht nur der Gegensatz von Leben und Tod bestimmt die Kontexte, in denen das Verb ἀποθνῄσκω ver­ wendet wird, sondern auch die Frage, wofür denn jemand sterbe:8 Dies deutet sich bereits in 2 Makk 7,2 an, wo der Sprecher der sieben Märtyrerbrüder betont, dass er, seine Brüder und seine Mutter eher bereit seien zu sterben als die väter­ lichen Gesetze zu übertreten (ἕτοιμοι γὰρ ἀποθνῄσκειν ἐσμὲν ἢ παραβαίνειν τοὺς πατρίους νόμους). Es verdeutlicht sich in der Rede des zweiten Bruders, welcher davon spricht, dass er und seine Familie für die Gesetze des Königs der Welt sterben würden (2 Makk 7,9: ἀποθάνοντας ἡμᾶς ὑπὲρ τῶν αὐτοῦ νόμων). In 8,21 wiederum ist es die Stimme des Erzählers, die erklärt, dass Judas mit einer an die Großtaten der Vergangenheit erinnernden Rede seine Gefolgsleute „bereit gemacht habe, für die Gesetze und das Vaterland zu sterben“ (ἑτοίμους ὑπὲρ τῶν νόμων καὶ τῆς πατρίδος ἀποθνῄσκειν). Die Entscheidung, sich als Krieger auf Seiten des Judas gegen die Gottesfeinde in einen nach menschlichem Ermessen aussichtslos erscheinenden Kampf zu stürzen, rückt damit erstaunlich nahe an die Todesbereitschaft der Märtyrer, von denen v.a. Kapitel 7 erzählt (vgl. auch 2 Makk 13,14).9 Vor diesem Hintergrund mag es nicht erstaunen, dass, so oft das zweite Makkabäerbuch auch von Tod und Sterben berichtet, das Verb ἀποθνῄσκω erst wieder gegen Ende des Buchs, und zwar im Kontext des als Martyrium ver­ standenen Suizids des Razis, begegnet:10 Auch hier interessiert der Text sich für

8 Zur Bedeutung des Gedankens, dass die Märtyrer „für Gott und sein Gesetz“ sterben, in 2 und 4 Makk vgl. ausführlich van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 125–186. 9 Diese Verbindung wird ganz knapp auch bei Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 339 angedeutet. 10 Spannende Parallelen zur Bewertung des Suizids, um Erniedrigung abzuwenden, in van Hooff, Autothanasia, 107–120 (auch erwähnt bei Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 489).

180 

 Tobias Nicklas

die Motive des Razis, welcher noch in 2 Makk 14,37 als „Vater der Juden“11 und damit als vorbildliche Figur beschrieben ist. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser Cha­ rakterisierung, aber auch weil Leserinnen und Lesern inzwischen bekannt ist, dass Gott nun unumstößlich auf der Seite seines Volks steht (2 Makk 8,5),12 ist der explizite Verweis auf ein Sterben für die Gesetze nicht mehr nötig und vielleicht auch kaum sinnvoll. Stattdessen begegnet eine Variation des Themas: Razis steht nun nicht mehr vor der Alternative zu sterben oder die Gesetze Gottes zu übertre­ ten, sondern vor der Entscheidung, einen „ehrenvollen“ bzw. „edlen“ Tod sterben zu wollen (εὐγενῶς θέλων ἀποθανεῖν) oder in die Hände der Frevler zu fallen.13 Das Adverb εὐγενῶς wiederum wird in 14,43 durch weitere Adverbien ergänzt, die sein Verhalten als γενναίως („mutig“) bzw. ἀνδρωδῶς („mannhaft“)14 charakte­ risieren (vgl. sehr ähnlich 2 Makk 6,27 beim Tod des Eleazar und 2 Makk 7,21 zur Haltung der Mutter). Etwas seltener als das Compositum ἀποθνῄσκω, jedoch immer noch knapp 100 Mal (vgl. jedoch nur neun Vorkommen im Neuen Testament), begegnet in der LXX das einfache, sich in seiner Bedeutung wohl nicht vom Ersteren unter­ scheidende θνῄσκω; drei dieser Vorkommen finden sich im zweiten Makkabä­ erbuch (vgl. 2 Makk 12,40.45; 13,7). Anders als im Falle von ἀποθνῄσκω lassen sich hier jedoch keine besonderen kontextuell auffallenden Verknüpfungen und Assoziationen erkennen. Die ersten beiden Vorkommen begegnen im Kontext der Untersuchung der gefallenen jüdischen Krieger nach der Schlachte gegen Gorgias (2 Makk 12,32–37), bei der sich zeigt, dass die Gefallenen sich – wider das Gesetz (vgl. 12,40) – durch ἱερώματα, d.h. Amulette oder Götzenbilder,15 Schutz zu verschaffen suchten. In diesem Zusammenhang begegnet zwei Mal eine Par­ tizip Perfekt­Form von θνῄσκω: 2 Makk 12,40 erzählt davon, dass Judas und die Seinen bei jedem der Toten solche Gegenstände finden (εὗρον δὲ ἑκάστου τῶν τεθνηκότων); 12,45 wiederum spricht von einem Opfer des Judas für die Toten (περὶ τῶν τεθνηκότων) zu ihrer Erlösung von den Sünden. So neutral das Verb jeweils gebraucht sein mag, so sehr zeigt sich, dass es nie für den Tod eindeutig positiv verstandener Charaktere verwendet wird. Dies scheint sich in 2 Makk 13,7 11 Parallelen bei van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 206–207. 12 Gleichzeitig verliert die Erzählung damit an theologischer Konsequenz, bleibt doch die Frage offen, warum denn noch immer Martyrien nötig seien, wenn Gott sich doch der Seinen erbarmt hat. 13 Spannende Überlegungen zu der Frage, inwiefern die Erzählungen über die Martyrien in 2 Makk mit hellenistischen Vorstellungen eines „noble death“ spielen, bietet, Baslez, Origin, 120–122. 14 So der Text nach der kritischen Ausgabe. A bietet ἀνδρείως. 15 Zur Diskussion der Übersetzung z.B. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 439–440, der auch auf Zeugnisse für die erwähnten Gottheiten, aber auch den hier angedeuteten Brauch verweist.

Das Wortfeld „Sterben“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch 

 181

zu bestätigen, wo der Tod des durchgehend als Frevler gezeichneten Hohenpries­ ters Menelaos mit dem Infinitiv θανεῖν beschrieben ist. Natürlich mag dies – bei insgesamt nur drei Stellen – reiner Zufall sein. Interessant ist aber doch, dass hier nicht das semantisch kaum unterscheidbare ἀποθανεῖν begegnet. Mit beiden bisher genannten Verben etymologisch eng verwandt ist das extrem seltene Verb ἀπευθανατίζω („einen guten Tod sterben“), welches in der gesamten griechischen Bibel aus LXX und NT nur in 2 Makk 6,28 begegnet. Die Suche im Thesaurus Linguae Graecae ergibt darüber hinaus nur einen einzigen weiteren Beleg bei dem nur schwer datierbaren, byzantinischen Lexikographen Hesychius, der sich dabei auf den Beleg in 2 Makk bezieht. Der Kontext im zweiten Makkabä­ erbuch ist erneut der Tod des Eleazar, dessen Entscheidung, in den Tod zu gehen, obwohl ihm erlaubt wird, anstelle des verbotenen Schweinefleischs koschere Fleischstücke zu essen (2 Makk 6,18–22), als eine Entscheidung gegen Unreinheit (2 Makk 6,19 und 25: μύσος) und schandhafte Befleckung (2 Makk 6,25: κηλίς) ver­ standen wird. Deswegen verhält er sich mannhaft (2 Makk 6,27: ἀνδρείως) und seines Alters würdig, um damit auch den jungen Menschen das Musterbeispiel dafür zu hinterlassen, wie man „bereitwillig und mutig“ (προθύμως καὶ γενναίως) einen guten Tod sterbe. Dieser wiederum geschehe – man beachte die Parallele zu den unter 2.1 genannten Beispielen – „für die ehrwürdigen und heiligen Gesetze“ (2 Makk 6,28: ὑπὲρ τῶν σέμνων καὶ ἁγίων νόμων). Der Text versteht dieses Sterben als Beispiel von Edelmut und Denkmal von Tugend (2 Makk 6,31).16 Das Verb μεταλλάσσω ist in der gesamten LXX nur zwölf Mal belegt, wobei neun dieser Vorkommen auf das 2. Makkabäerbuch entfallen (2 Makk 4,7.37; 5,5; 6,31; 7,7.13.1417.40; 14,46). Die Bandbreite der Bedeutungen dieses Verbs ist deut­ lich breiter als die der bisher genannten – es bedeutet bei transitivem Gebrauch in erster Linie „verändern, vertauschen“ und bei intransitiver Verwendung „sich ändern“ oder „wechseln“. In der LXX gilt dies für Est 2,20, wo wir davon hören, dass Esther auch als Königin ihre Lebensweise nicht änderte, sowie die beiden einzigen Belege im Neuen Testament (vgl. Röm 1,25–26). Je nach Kontext aber kann es auch für „Sterben“ – vielleicht am besten „scheiden“, „dahinscheiden“ – stehen, was in der LXX zur dominanten Bedeutung (in der LXX außer 2 Makk noch 1 Esdr 1,31 und Est 2,7), im 2 Makk sogar zur einzigen Bedeutung wird. Dies geht so weit, dass in einigen Fällen Formen von μεταλλάσσω ohne nähere Bestimmung stehen und alleine aus dem Kontext gefolgert werden kann, dass sie in der genannten Bedeutung verwendet werden. So beweint etwa Antiochus die

16 Hellenistische Parallelen hierzu bei van Henten / Avemarie, Martyrdom, 64–66 sowie (knapper) bei Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 294. 17 Vgl. aber die Textunterschiede zwischen den Ausgaben der Göttinger LXX und Rahlfs.

182 

 Tobias Nicklas

vernünftige Besonnenheit des dahingeschiedenen Onias (2 Makk 4,37: δακρύσας τὴν τοῦ μετηλλαχότος σωφροσύνην) oder begegnet das Verb etwa beim Tod des dritten Märtyrerbruders ohne nähere Bestimmung (vgl. 2 Makk 7,13: καὶ τούτου δὲ μεταλλάξαντος). In anderen Fällen wird die konkrete Bedeutung im Kontext durch das Akkusativobjekt τὸν βίον (2 Makk 4,7 und 5,5)18 oder durch die Präpo­ sitionalkonstruktion ἀπ ̓ἀνθρώπων (2 Makk 7,14: „von [den] Menschen“) eindeu­ tig gemacht. Insgesamt scheint das Verb an sich weder für eine besonders „gute Art“ zu sterben noch eine schlechte zu stehen, kann es doch im Zusammenhang solch unterschiedlicher Figuren wie Seleukos (2 Makk 4,7) – gemeint ist Seleu­ kos IV. Philopator, der immerhin womöglich ermordet wurde19 –, Antiochus IV. (2 Makk 5,5, im Zusammenhang mit einem Gerücht), dem Märtyrer Eleazar (2 Makk 6,31), mehreren der Märtyrerbrüder (2 Makk 7,7.13.40) und dem Märtyrer Razis (2 Makk 14,46) genannt werden. Dies wiederum heißt nicht, dass der Text den Tod dieser Figuren, die im Grunde die ganze Bandbreite zwischen Gut und Böse aus­ machen, auf gleiche Weise beurteilt. Vor allem bei den positiven Fällen interes­ siert sich 2 Makk nicht einfach für die Tatsache, dass einer der Charaktere stirbt, sondern betont, auf welche Weise dies geschieht (2 Makk 7,7: τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον …; ähnlich 6,31 und 14,46). Diese Art des Sterbens kann, wie bei Eleazar, Razis und den Märtyrerbrüdern im weiteren Kontext, aber auch mit Hilfe von Adverbien beschrieben werden: So lesen wir im Zusammenhang mit dem Tod des letzten der Brüder, er sei „rein“ und „vollkommen auf den Herrn vertrauend“ (2 Makk 7,40: καθαρῶς μετήλλαξε παντελῶς ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ πεποιθώς) dahingeschieden. Vergleichbar mit dem eben besprochenen μεταλλάσσω hat auch das Verb τελευτάω nicht zu allererst die Bedeutung „sterben,“ sondern bedeutet zunächst, transitiv verwendet, „beenden, vollenden, erfüllen“ u.a.; in seiner intransitiven Verwendung jedoch kann es, übertragen, auch für „sterben“ – dann im Sinne von „enden,“ „(sein Leben) beenden“ – stehen.20 Das Verb begegnet bei vier Vorkom­ men in 2 Makk (2 Makk 6,30; 7,5.14.41) häufig in der LXX. In 2 Makk konzentriert sich seine Verwendung auf die Erzählungen über die Martyrien des Eleazar sowie der sieben Brüder und ihrer Mutter. Da das zugehörige Nomen τελευτή – dann im 18 Im Deutschen ist dies kaum als Akkusativobjekt zu übersetzen; besser klingt „aus dem Leben scheiden“. Dieser Sprachgebrauch mit Akkusativobjekt τὸν βίον (vorangestellt oder nachgestellt) lässt sich in der dem 2 Makk etwa zeitgenössischen Literatur Dutzende von Malen in den Histori­ en des Polybios (z.B. 2,1,9; 2,4,7; 2,41,2; 2,44,2; 2,71,3 u.v.a.) nachweisen, in einzelnen Fällen aber auch bei dem Geographen Agatharchides, den Fragmenten des Historikers Heraclides Lembus, des Historikers Zeno oder in den Historien des Diodorus Siculus. 19 Knapp hierzu z.B. Habicht, 2. Makkabäerbuch, 215; vorsichtiger Goldstein, II Maccabees, 225–226 und Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 217 (mit weiterführender Literatur). 20 Das zugehörige Nomen τελευτή kann auch in 2 Makk für „Schluss“ – oder präziser: für den Schluss des Buches – stehen (vgl. 2 Makk 15,39).

Das Wortfeld „Sterben“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch 

 183

Sinne von „Ende, Lebensende“ – in 2 Makk 10,9 in Bezug auf den qualvollen Tod des Verfolgerkönigs Antiochus Epiphanes verwendet werden kann, scheint mit der Verwendung des Verbs an sich keine Bewertung des Sterbens einherzugehen. Diese jedoch kann z.B. in 2 Makk 7,5 durch ein Adverb – in diesem Falle γενναίως („tapfer, mutig“) – gegeben sein. Vor dem Hintergrund von 2 Makk 7,5, wo die sieben Brüder mit ihrer Mutter den Beschluss fassen, auf tapfere bzw. mutige Weise zu sterben, und der folgenden Beschreibung ihres Sterbens sind derartige Näherbestimmungen in den späteren Szenen 2 Makk 7,14 (beim Tode des dritten Bruders) und 7,41 (bei der überraschend knappen Darstellung des Tods der Mutter)21 nicht mehr nötig. Auch beim Tod des Eleazar (hier 2 Makk 6,30) leistet der Kontext Entsprechendes; die in wenigen Versen begegnenden verschiedenen Umschreibungen von Eleazars Sterben lassen zusätzlich daran denken, dass der Text hier offenbar auch sucht, in der Vielfalt von Ausdrücken seine Sprachkunst zu demonstrieren. Im Falle eines Todes in der Schlacht kann das zweite Makkabäerbuch auch vom „Fallen“ bzw. den „Gefallenen“ sprechen. In diesem Zusammenhang ver­ wendet der Text vier Mal Formen des Verbs προπίπτω (2 Makk 12,39.42.44 und 15,28). Dieses begegnet insgesamt nur acht Mal in der LXX und nur hier in der speziellen Bedeutung „fallen (in der Schlacht). Die anderen Belege in der LXX22 stehen für „vornüber fallen“ (Judit 13,2) oder „(zur Huldigung) nach vorne fallen (lassen)“ (Ps 21,29; 71,9 und 3 Makk 1,1623); hinzu kommt ein Beleg in der Symma­ chus­Fassung von Ps 72,7. In Variation dazu verwenden 12,34 und 12,40 – mit glei­ cher Bedeutung – den Infinitiv Perfekt des sehr häufigen πίπτω, das ansonsten in seiner einfachen Bedeutung von „Fallen, Stürzen“ begegnet (2 Makk 3,6.27; 7,36; 9,7; 10,4). So sehr die Rede von „Gefallenen“ zunächst den Eindruck erweckt, dass damit über die Ehrenhaftigkeit ihres Todes an sich noch nichts gesagt ist, so sehr stellt wenigstens 2 Makk 12,32–45, die Erzählung von der Schlacht gegen Gorgias und ihren Folgen, Verbindungen her, die das Schicksal der jüdischen Opfer in ein schlechtes Licht rücken. Tatsächlich muss der Text mit einem Dilemma umgehen: Die Passage muss erklären, warum – trotz des Schutzes durch Gott, der den Sieg in der Schlacht herbeiführt – auch auf jüdischer Seite Gefallene zu beklagen sind.24 Die Antwort des Texts ist bekannt. Laut 2 Makk 12,40 hätten die Gefalle­

21 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 318 bezweifelt wegen der lakonischen Art der Darstellung, dass die­ ser Vers auf den Verfasser des Textes zurückgeht. 22 Im Neuen Testament finden sich keine Belege des Verbs. 23  3 Makk 1,16 ist auch in der Variante προσπίπτω überliefert. 24 Zu der Beobachtung, dass das Konzept des 2 Makk, so etwas wie „theologische Geschichts­ schreibung“ zu bieten, nicht durchgehend und in letzter Konsequenz geglückt ist, vgl. Nicklas, Idee von Geschichte, 183–187.

184 

 Tobias Nicklas

nen versucht, sich durch Bilder der Götter von Jamnia zu schützen, eine nicht nur verbotene, sondern offenbar höchst kontraproduktive Aktion. Dass dann auch der Erzfeind Nikanor in 15,28 als „Gefallener“ bezeichnet wird, passt ins Bild.25 Das (auch in der LXX) sehr häufige κοιμάωμαι – üblicherweise einfach „schla­ fen“ – begegnet im zweiten Makkabäerbuch nur einmal und dort als Euphemis­ mus im Sinne von „Entschlafen“ (2 Makk 12,45). Die Stelle findet sich zwar noch im Kontext der Rede von den in der Schlacht gegen Gorgias Gefallenen und ihrer Entsühnung. 2 Makk 12,45 jedoch geht über zu Überlegungen, die, ausgehend von Gedanken zur Bedeutung über den Nutzen der Fürbitte für die Toten, allgemeiner den Gedanken der Auferstehung „der in Frömmigkeit Entschlafenen“ (τοῖς μετ ̓ εὐσεβείας κοιμωμένοις) als „heilige und fromme Vorstellung“ (ὁσία καὶ εὐσεβὴς ἡ ἐπινοία) betonen. Bereits der Bezug zum Gedanken der Auferstehung legt die Rede vom Tod als Schlaf natürlich besonders nahe.26 Ganz eindeutig negativ sind die Assoziationen, die sich mit dem Verb ἀπόλλυμι verbinden, das sich in einer aktiven Form häufig als „zugrunde richten“ (in Makk an sieben Stellen: 3,39; 7,20; 8,19.20; 10,23; 12,19 und 15,2), in der medialen Form dann als „zugrunde gehen“ (im Sinne von „umkommen, sterben“) übersetzen lässt. In 2 Makk begegnet diese Form nur ein einziges Mal, und zwar beim Tod des Hohenpriesters Jason, welcher ab Kapitel 4 bereits als einer der Auslöser des Unglücks, das über die Juden27 hereinbricht, verstanden wird. Nicht nur die Rede, dass er „zugrunde ging“ (5,9: ἀπώλετο), deutet die Schändlichkeit seines Sterbens an: Er stirbt als Verfolgter, Gehasster, Verabscheuter und von den Gesetzen Abtrün­ niger in der Fremde. Tiefer kann man aus Sicht des 2 Makk nicht fallen. Damit jedoch sind noch nicht alle Umschreibungen ausgeschöpft, die das 2 Makk verwenden kann, um Sterben zu beschreiben. Die Rede davon, dass Jason, von dessen Tod 5,9 spricht, eine „schlechte Wendung (seines Schicksals) zuteil­ wurde“ (2 Makk 5,8 κακῆς ἀναστροφῆς ἔτυχεν), bereitet die Rede von seinem Tod nur vor und ist deswegen nur in sehr weitem Sinne für die vorliegende Unter­ suchung bedeutsam. Interessanter dagegen ist 2 Makk 6,27 – ein weiteres Bei­ spiel in der Erzählung vom Martyrium des Eleazar –, das mit der Kombination 25 Differenziert zur Charakterisierung des Nikanor in 2 Makk vgl. Nicklas, Fratze des Feindes. 26 Auch das Neue Testament spielt bekanntlich mit diesem Bild; ganz besonders deutlich er­ scheint dies bei der Erzählung von der Auferweckung der Tochter des Jairus (vgl. Mk 5,21–24.35– 43 und par.). 27 Ich bin mir der Diskussion um die Frage, ob es besser sei, das griechische Ἰ ουδαῖοι als „Juden“ oder „Judäer“ zu übersetzen, sehr wohl bewusst. Wegen der für heutige Leser*innen sonst wo­ möglich fehlenden, doch aber entscheidenden religiösen Konnotation des Begriffs halte ich an der Übersetzung „Juden“ fest, obwohl in manchen Kontexten die Wiedergabe als „Judäer“ durchaus nachvollziehbar ist. Zur Diskussion z.B. Schnocks, Judäer oder Juden, sowie Öhler, Judäer oder Juden? [beide mit ausführlicher weiterer Bibliographie].

Das Wortfeld „Sterben“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch 

 185

διαλλάσσω τὸν βίον eine Variation zu dem mehrfach verwendeten μεταλλάσσω (+ τὸν βίον) einführt.28 Der jüngste der sieben makkabäischen Märtyrerbrüder wiederum kann seinen aktiven Entschluss, gegen alle Angebote des Königs für die Gesetze der Väter in den Tod zu gehen, mit der Wendung „Ich gebe Leib und Leben“ (2 Makk 7,37: ἐγὼ ... καὶ σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν προδίδωμι) umschreiben und damit wohl wenigstens impli­ zit auch den besonderen Charakter seines Todes, mit Hilfe dessen in einer Art Opfer Gott versöhnt wird, zum Ausdruck bringen. Bei der Vielfalt der bisher gesammelten Belege ist es sicherlich kein Zufall, dass auch für den Tod des Verfolgerkönigs Antiochus eine besondere Wendung reserviert ist: Dass sein Leben geradezu „katastrophal“ – aufgrund eines kom­ pletten Umsturzes alles Bisherigen – endet, deutet die Wendung κατέστρεψε τὸν βίον (2 Makk 9,28) an. Man könnte dabei gar eine Verbindung zur bei Jason beschriebenen ἀναστροφή entdecken. Impliziert sein dürfte in beiden Fällen, dass es sich nicht einfach um einen Tod wie jeden anderen handelt, sondern das Sterben eines Menschen beschreibt, der in seinem Tun Gott herausgefordert, ja, sich gegen ihn aufgelehnt hat (vgl. z.B. 2 Makk 9,10) – und dessen Leben nun von Gott her eine vollkommen unerwartete, aber gerechte Wende nimmt (vgl. z.B. 2 Makk 9,18).29 Auch andere Passagen umschreiben in Variationen einen (aus Sicht des 2 Makk) verdienten und gleichzeitig tragischen, als unehrenhaft verstandenen Tod: Ptolemaios Makron (= Ptolemaios VI. Philometor) lässt das Leben, nachdem er seine ursprünglich judenfreundliche Haltung aus politischen Gründen aufgegeben hat, durch Gift (2 Makk 10,13: φαρμακεύσας ἑαυτὸν ἐξελίπε τὸν βίον).30 Menelaos wiederum, einer der Hohenpriester, der „viele Verfehlun­ gen am Altar begangen hatte, dessen Feuer und Asche rein sind,“ „erwarb sich den Tod in Asche“ (2 Makk 13,8: ἐν σποδῷ τὸν θάνατον ἐκομίσατο). Alleine aufgrund des Kontexts, in dem das schmachvolle Sterben Antiochus‘ IV. beschrieben wird – immerhin lesen wir von den Würmern, die aus seinen Augen hervorwimmeln und dem Gestank, der von seinem zerfallenden Fleisch ausgeht (2 Makk 9,9) –, wirkt die Aussage im Schreiben seines Nachfolgers Antio­ chus V. Eupator, sein Vater sei zu den Göttern hinübergegangen (2 Makk 11,23: τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν εἰς θεοὺς μεταστάντος), so sehr sie eine für den Tod von Königen

28 Das Verb διαλλάσσω begegnet bei insgesamt zehn Vorkommen in der LXX nur hier in 2 Makk (im NT nur Mt 5,24). 29 Dass „Gerechtigkeit“ dabei gerne im Sinne eines Vergeltungsprinzips verstanden wird, bei dem den Schuldigen mit gleicher Münze heimgezahlt werden muss, zeigt der Beitrag von Ego, God’s Justice. 30 Der Kontext wiederum betont, dass es sich hier um einen unehrenhaften Tod handelt.

186 

 Tobias Nicklas

stehende Metapher sein mag, in hohem Maße ironisch.31 Die amtliche Sprache im Schreiben des Sohns versucht den Schein eines ehrenhaften Todes, ja gar einer Apotheose des Verfolgers, aufrecht zu erhalten. Leserinnen und Leser wissen, dass das Gegenteil der Fall ist.

3 Fazit Die Vielfalt von Begriffen und Wendungen, die das 2 Makk zur Beschreibung des Sterbens verwenden kann, ist erstaunlich. Vor allem in den Szenen vom Tode des Eleazar (2 Makk 6,18–31) oder auch im Kapitel über das Martyrium der sieben Brüder (v.a. 2 Makk 7,40–41) mag auch die pure Lust an der sprachlichen Varia­ tion eine Rolle spielen. Trotzdem ist nicht von der Hand zu weisen, wie präzise 2 Makk zwischen den verschiedenen Begriffen, die eingesetzt werden, differen­ ziert, um mit ihnen – z.T. mit weiteren Attributen versehen – ein ehrenhaftes oder unehrenhaftes Sterben zu umschreiben. Dieses wiederum ordnet sich jeweils in den Horizont der Frage ein, welches Leben eine Person im Angesicht des Gottes Israels geführt hat.

Bibliography Baslez, M.-F., The Origin of the Martyrdom Images: From the Book of Maccabees to the First Christians, in: G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.), The Books of the Maccabees. History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005 (JSJSup 118), Leiden 2007, 113–130. Domazakis, N., The Neologisms in 2 Maccabees (Dissertation Lund University), Lund 2018. Ego, B., God’s Justice: The ‚Measure for Measure‘ Principle in 2 Maccabees, in: G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.), The Books of the Maccabees. History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005 (JSJSup 118), Leiden 2007, 141–154. Goldstein, J. A., II Maccabees (AB 41A), New York 1983. Gruen, E. S., Hellenism and Persecution: Antiochus IV and the Jews, in: Idem, The Construct of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism. Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History (DCLS 29), Berlin 2016, 333–358. Habicht, B. C., 2. Makkabäerbuch (JSHRZ I.3), Gütersloh 1976.

31 Parallelen bei Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 406. Zur Metaphorik der Aussage vgl. knapp Nick­ las, Metaphern, 178; zur Bedeutung des Stilmittels der Ironie in 2 Makk vgl. Nicklas, Irony, 101–111.

Das Wortfeld „Sterben“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch 

 187

Le Moigne, Ph., Le caractère hétérogène du grec de la LXX: l’exemple de 2M, in: S. Kreuzer et al. (eds.), Die Septuaginta. Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte. 3. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal, 22.–25. Juli 2010 (WUNT 286), Tübingen 2012, 249–272. Lichtenberger, H., Die Jerusalemer Religionsreform im Kontext. Antiochus IV., Antiochia und Zeus Olympios, in: F. Avemarie et al. (eds.), Die Makkabäer (WUNT 382), Tübingen 2017, 1–20. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity. Expanded Edition (HTS 56), Cambridge 2006. Nicklas, T., Der Historiker als Erzähler. Zur Zeichnung des Seleukidenkönigs Antiochus in 2 Makk. ix: VT 51 (2002) 80–92. Nicklas, T., Die „Fratze des Feindes“. Zur Charakterisierung des Nikanor in 2Makk 14–15: SJOT 17 (2003) 141–155. Nicklas, T., Die Idee von ‚Geschichte‘ im 2. Makkabäerbuch, in: G.G. Xeravits and G. Schmidt Goering (eds.), Figures who Shape Scriptures, Scriptures that Shape Figures. Essays in Honour of Benjamin G. Wright III (DCLS 40), Berlin 2018, 178–196. Nicklas, T., Irony in 2 Maccabees?, in: G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.), The Books of the Maccabees. History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005 (JSJSup 118), Leiden 2007, 101–111. Nicklas, T., Makkabaion II / Das zweite Buch der Makkabäer, in: M. Karrer and W. Kraus (eds.), Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare, Stuttgart 2011, 1376–1416. Nicklas, T., Metaphern im 2. Makkabäerbuch, in: M. Witte and S. Behnke (eds.), The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2014/15), Berlin 2015, 173–184. Öhler, M., Judäer oder Juden? Die Debatte ‚Ethnos vs. Religion‘ im Blick auf das 2. Makkabäerbuch, in: F. Avemarie et al. (eds.), Die Makkabäer (WUNT 382), Tübingen 2017, 157–185. Schmitz, B., Auferstehung und Epiphanie: Jenseits- und Körperkonzepte im Zweiten Makkabäerbuch, in: T. Nicklas et al. (eds.), The Human Body in Death and Resurrection (DCLY 2009), Berlin 2009, 105–142. Schnocks, J., Judäer oder Juden? Beobachtungen zu den Beschreibungen der eigenen Identität in den Gewaltszenen des zweiten Makkabäerbuches, in: F. V. Reiterer et al. (eds.), Gesellschaft und Religion in der spätbiblischen und deuterokanonischen Literatur (DCLS 20), Berlin 2014, 111–128. Schwartz, D., 2 Maccabees (CEJL), Berlin 2008. van Henten, J. W., The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People. A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (JSJSup 57), Leiden 1997. van Henten, J.W. / Avemarie, F., Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selescted Texts from GraecoRoman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity, London 2002. van Hooff, A. J. L., From Autothanasia to Suicide: Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity, London 1990.

Maria Brutti

The Topic of Intercession in Second Temple Judaism Between 2 Maccabees and 4 Ezra

Abstract: This research paper focuses on two key elements that characterize the phenomenon of when intercession appears: on the one hand, the pluralism of forms and content and on the other hand, the expression of doubts about the value and credibility of intercession. After some preliminary problems, such as the research deficit, the lexicon deficit and the definition of sense, the research is carried out along two lines. The first concerns the analysis of texts about the figures of intercessors and the different modes of intercession present in the Second Book of the Maccabees; while the second focuses on specific passages in the Fourth Book of Ezra which concern the negation of intercession. The con­ clusion of this research, while considering the great difference between 2 Mac­ cabees and 4 Ezra with regard to their forms, perspectives, and historical origin, also highlights the importance of the two books in later times, especially in the Christian era. While acknowledging that comparisons are always risky and in this case partial, on the basis of other biblical and Jewish texts, it recognises that the positions of 2 Maccabees and 4 Ezra on intercession are part of the varieties of Jewish identity and of the fluidity of the thought, due to the encounter both with the hellenistic culture and the emerging Christianity. Keywords: intercession, 2 Maccabees, 4 Ezra, intercessory prayer, the high priest intercessor, the intercession of the mother, paideia, doubts, biblical and rabbinic texts, angel, Church fathers

1 Introduction This research paper focuses on two elements that characterize the phenome­ non of when intercession appears: on the one hand, the pluralism of forms and contents; on the other hand, the expression of some doubts regarding the value and credibility of intercession. Due to the extent of the sources on this topic, two books that appear significant for the diversity of their positions will be particu­ larly considered: primarily the Second Book of Maccabees, but also some exam­ ples from the Fourth book of Ezra. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-012

190 

 Maria Brutti

A number of problems related to and preliminary to this paper are first con­ sidered: the research deficit; the lexicon deficit and the definition of sense.

1.1 The Research Deficit The origins of intercession in the form of prayer go back in time. In an article published in 2006, Simon Parker stated that faith in intercession began in ancient peoples in order to find or receive an answer from the divinity through another divinity, that then took on the petition and interceded for them with the first divin­ ity.1 This statement seems to be confirmed in the readings of Akkadian, Assyr­ ian, Babylonian and Hittite texts2 as well as classical texts.3 It is noticeable that the issue with intercession appeared much more problematic, though, as Parker states, not impossible, for the Jewish people who professed the Jahwist credence. We must also consider that alongside the dominant theology of the Hebrew Bible, other faiths and practices existed among the Jews.4 The doubts raised by Parker are also due to the research deficit. In an article written fifty years ago, Roger Le Déaut affirmed that, from 1960 onwards, research on the theme of “intercession” had taken a leap forward, even if in alternating phases: numerous studies have been undertaken, both based on the Old Testa­ ment and the New Testament, and even on classical theologies.5 Almost 50 years later Rossier, in the introduction to his book6 that still appears to be the most comprehensive on intercession in the Hebrew Bible, stated: “Rares sont les mo­ nographies qui ont été consacré exclusivement à l’intercession telle qu’elle appa­ raît dans la Bible hébraïque.”7 In the status quaestionis of the problem, Rossier highlighted the deficit in the treatment of intercession, often relegated to diction­ aries and biblical or religious encyclopaedias in general and, paradoxically, the

1 Parker, Divine Intercession. 2 Parker, Divine Intercession, 77–79. 3 Naiden, Ancient Supplication, where, among the forms of intercession in the classic world, the Telemachus of the Odyssey (Od XXII, 354–360), the salvation of the two suitors and the salva­ tion of the life of Ciro the Grande in Herodotus (Hdt 1,112) are cited. 4 Parker, Divine Intercession, 76. With regard to the “dominant theology” it can be observed that already within the biblical text different forms of theologies can be found. For a general overview at the development of research over the past twenty years, see the interesting article by Brettler, Biblical History. 5 Le Déaut, Aspects de l’Intercession, 35. See also notes 1 and 2. 6 Rossier, L’intercession. 7 Rossier, L’intercession, 1. See also status quaestionis of the problem Rossier, L’intercession, 1–4.

The Topic of Intercession in Second Temple Judaism 

 191

fact that the only two monographs in the Old Testament go so far as to discredit the phenomenon of intercession itself.8 The scarce development and the slowness of the biblical research in this field are due to a variety problems that are of limited interest to matter. Among these issues, perhaps, is the theological value of the topic, but above all the ambiva­ lence of the definition of “intercession” itself, starting from the observation that the term is not of biblical origin but derives from Latin (verb inter­cedo). If Le Déaut meant intercession “au sense d’intervention auprès de Dieu en faveur de quelqu’en dans la prière,”9 Rossier suggested that, in the Hebrew Bible, the usage of intercession in the context of relations between man and God could be explained from the use of this same intercession in the context of inter­human relations. Intercession between men, i.e. intercession addressed to a human being, and therefore profane, would be at the origin of sacred intercession, i.e. intercession practiced towards God.10 More recently, the same topic was taken up by Benedetta Rossi who, with par­ ticular reference to the Old Testament, identified three areas in which the theme had been particularly developed: the prayer; the intercessor and the prophetic ministry.11 However, another serious problem that has long been a feature of bib­ lical research has been the difficulty of determining an explicit vocabulary for the phenomenon of intercession.

1.2 The Lexicon Deficit and the Definition of Sense In fact, if Roussier, with regard to the Hebrew Bible, analysed the problem under the title “Les insufficiences du vocabulaire,”12 and stated as a prerequisite for his discussion that “Il n’existe pas, en hébreu biblique, un vocabulaire qui soit propre à l’intercession,”13 the question does not appear to be easier with regard to the vocabulary of Greek language texts. Cimosa, speaking of the vocabulary of prayer in the LXX, and more par­ ticularly in the Pentateuch, identified the verb εὔχομαι and the compound form

8 Rossier, L’intercession 3–4. 9 Le Déaut, Aspects de l’Intercession, 35. 10 Rossier, L’intercession, 5. 11 Rossi, L’intercessione, 9–10. 12 Rossier, L’intercession, 7–8. 13 Rossier, L’intercession, 7–8.

192 

 Maria Brutti

προσεύχομαι as meaning “intercession.”14 In his conclusion, Cimosa actually stated himself the verb εὔχομαι and compounds can mean interceding with God on behalf of someone, alongside other meanings, such as asking God for some­ thing by supplication, making a votive prayer especially when the verb is associ­ ated with the noun ευχή.15 Variability is one of the characteristics of the word intercession in 2 Mac­ cabees, starting from the original meaning of the Latin term: intercede = pass through, interpose, intervene in favour of someone. The Greek language, as we have seen, also shows a linguistic pluralism for the term intercession. In 1996 Roussier claimed there was no technical term for intercession in biblical Hebrew, but the question no longer appears to be an easy one with regard to the vocabu­ lary of texts in Greek of the Septuagint. However, there are other meanings, such as asking for something from God through supplication or making a votive prayer. As we shall see below, in 2 Maccabees there are other verbal forms that seem to indicate an intercession, such as the Greek verbs ἐπικαλέω, παραλέω, ἀξιόω. This variability also makes it sometimes difficult to penetrate the same meaning of intercession; to a certain extent, in 2 Maccabees what has been generally indi­ cated as “une definition de sense” is predominant, which leads not only to define the meaning of the single word within the context in which it is found (Roussier), but also to understand the intercession in multiple facets. However, in the context of this paper, the act of intercession is not only limited to prayer, as is claimed by many.16 The term “intercession” itself contains a plurality of meanings, from the action of a prophet to that of a priest17 and from one who performs an action of mediation to that of one who performs an action of atonement on another’s behalf.18 In a certain way, in the study of the lexicon of intercession, again within the limited scope of this research, what has generally been referred to in the LXX translations as “une definition de sense” prevails,19 leading one to try to define the meaning of the individual word within the context in which it is found. 14 Cimosa, Vocabolario, 31 highlights that it is above all the form “εύχεσθαι” which presents “the sense of praying to intercede,”31 however it is mainly in the palestinian Apocryphals the we find numerous examples of intercession through prayer, cf. p. 42. 15 Cimosa, Vocabolario, 42. 16 See, for example, Balentine, Prophet as Intercessor, 161–162, where the author modifies his previous affirmation according to which the intercession was essentially “to declare a more re­ stricted meaning of the term intercession as “essentially prayer on behalf of someone else.” 17 Lé Deaut, Aspects de l’Intercession, 36. 18 Lyonnet / Sabourin, Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice, 145–146; Le Déaut, Aspects de l’Inter­ cession, 55–57. See also Iwanski, Dynamics of Job’s Intercession, 288–289. 19 Eynichel, Lexicographie de la Septante.

The Topic of Intercession in Second Temple Judaism 

 193

2 Intercessors and Intercessions in the Second Book of Maccabees In a contribution to a recent volume centred on the theme of prayer associated with emotions, Reiterer discovers the first form of intercession in the second book of the Maccabees, in a prayer that we find within the first of the two letters found at the beginning of the book (1:2–6). According to Reiterer, prayer plays an important role not only in the relation­ ship between two partners (God and the people / faithful who prays), but also an intercessor, in this case the Jews of Jerusalem who pray in favour of the Jews of Egypt. The prayer is rich in biblical references and develops through a series of verbs, of which God is the subject, expressed in the optative mood (ἀγαθοποιήσαι, μνησθείη, δῴη, διανοίξαι, ἐπακούσαι, καταλαγείη). The wealth of goods (1:2), the participation in the covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (1:2), the openness of heart to God (1:39) and to the Law (1:4), and the invitation to reconciliation (1:5) are the central themes of the prayer. The conclusion of the prayer shows its inter­ cessory character through the use of the verb προσευχόμενοι and the double per­ sonal pronoun: we–you. The reference of verse 5 to “times of difficulty,” literally “wicked” (ἐν καιρῷ πονηρῷ), follows the assumption that the Jews of Judea were not under oppression at the time of the writing and, from the rest of the writing, it is clear that the sufferings belong to a past generation, the period between Jason and the re­dedication of the Temple. The letter ends with the date: the year one hundred and eighty eight (v. 9) is the date most attested by the manuscripts (see philological notes) and, according to the calculation of the Seleucid calendar, corresponds to 124/123 BC.20 This is generally considered as the date of the first letter which in turn cites the letter of 169BC (v. 7). In Schwartz’s commentary, the lesson “one hundred and forty eight” is accepted, considered as detached from verse 9 and as forming part of verse 10a. According to this interpretation, the letter would then be dated around 143/142 and would invite the recipients to celebrate the events that occurred previously, that is, in 148 = 164, the year of the reconquest of the Temple.21

20 See Reiterer, Praying to God. 21 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 143–144.

194 

 Maria Brutti

2.1 The High Priest Intercessor for the Life However, the temporal distance between the two letters makes us consider the letter relating to the story of Heliodorus and Onias, the high priest of Jerusalem at the time of Seleucus IV Philopator (187–175 BC), in 2 Maccabees as the first text on intercession. The narrative begins with the argument about the treasury of the Jerusalem Temple between Onias and Simon, the overseer of the Temple. There is a rapid succession of events, starting with Heliodorus, the governor of the Coele­Syria and Phoenicia to Jerusalem being sent to verify the accusations against Onias. The climax of the following events, including Heliodorus’s attack on the Temple, which highlights the “agonized” reaction of the high priest, the anguish all over the city and which over­dramatises and exaggerates the narrative, is a supernatu­ ral intervention, the so­called great epiphany. The fall of Heliodorus, now close to death, provokes the request for intercession from the non­Jews to the Jewish High Priest. The central episode of intercession occurs in verses 31–33: Some of Heliodorus friends quickly begged (ἠξίουν) Onias to call upon the Most High (ἐπικαλέσασθαι τὸν ὕψιστον) to grant life to one who was lying quite at his last breath. (v.31)

Through the use of the verb ἐπικαλέω this request depicts the high priest as inter­ cessor for the pagans to the Most High (ὕψιστον), the title for the God of Israel which is present in texts of Hellenistic Jewish literature, often in the LXX and also in Flavius Josephus. The intercession is made by the high priest with a sacrifice for the salvation of man (προσήγαγεν θυσίαν ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς σωτηρίας, 2Macc 3:32). The whole passage, however, shows some particularities, such as the sacrificial action of the high priest, which is not required by the companions of Heliodorus, and the sacri­ fice itself, called, in general terms, τὸν ἱλασμὸν the “atonement.”22 Furthermore, we can see that the figure of the high priest appears as the divine mediator of life, the intercessor of God’s power for the salvation of a pagan man (v. 38). During the narrative development of 2 Maccabees, the figure of Onias appears many times with characterizations that underline his political role, as well as his loyalty to the Torah. At the beginning of chapter 4, the author of 2 Maccabees characterizes Onias with some expressions that compare him to a Hellenistic king

22 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 88.

The Topic of Intercession in Second Temple Judaism 

 195

(τὸν εὐεργέτην τῆς πόλεως καὶ τὸν κηδεμόνα τῶν ὁμοεθνῶν), but also highlights his role as a religious leader (ζηλωτὴν τῶν νόμων).23 In the last chapter of the book, Onias is once again associated with the topic of intercession. Onias appears in a dream to Judas Maccabeus, which he recounts to his soldiers before the battle. In the dream Judas sees Onias praying, with his hands outstretched, for the whole community of Jews (v. 12). The author describes him as he “who had been High Priest, a good man and true, of modest bearing and mild manner, whose utterances were always fitting, who from childhood had practiced every aspect of virtue.”24 Onias’s qualities, clearly from Greek­ Hellenistic language, are a masterpiece of the rhetorical taste of the author and are condensed in the representation of the Greek ideal of kalokagathia.25 But Onias is also and above all still “intercessor.” As Le Déaut underlines, the func­ tion of intercessor which seemed to go hand in hand with the office of high Priest (cf. Zech 3:7) becomes somehow a characteristic of the latter. 2 Macc 15:12 speaks highly of the holiness of the high Priest Onias and the power of his intercession for Israel, even on behalf of an enemy of God.26 However, Onias’s intercessory action is also a mediation: he, in Judas’s dream, presents the prophet Jeremiah to Judas and witnesses the handing over of a golden sword by Jeremiah to Judas. In this way, the sacredness of the prayer of intercession also becomes political action: by witnessing the handing over of the golden sword, Onias becomes its guarantor. This is a splendid creation by the author of the book who thus consecrated the Maccabean dynasty. Jeremiah is also an intercessor in that he is presented as “he who prays for his people” (ἐστιν ὁ πολλὰ προσευχόμενος περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ) and extends his right hand to deliver the golden sword to Judas saying: “Take this holy sword, a gift from God, with which you will strike down your adversaries” (15:16). The narrative of 2 Maccabees con­ cludes as it opens (3:1), with the figure of Onias, perhaps indicating the end of an institution that was losing its relationship with the people and its religious identity. Verses 15–16 recall once again the ideology of war: with a sword, golden because it comes from God, Judas will break Nicanor’s army.

23 Brutti, Development of the High Priesthood, 292; Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 214; Doran, 2 Maccabees, 93. 24  2 Mac 15,12: Ονιαν τὸν γενόμενον ἀρχιερέα, ἄνδρα καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν, αἰδήμονα μὲν τὴν ἀπάντησιν, πρᾶον δὲ τὸν τρόπον καὶ λαλιὰν προϊέμενον πρεπόντως καὶ ἐκ παιδὸς ἐκμεμελετηκότα πάντα τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς οἰκεῖα, τοῦτον τὰς χεῖρας προτείναντα κατεύχεσθαι. 25 Brutti, Development of the High Priesthood, 292. 26 Le Déaut, Aspects de l’Intercession, 46.

196 

 Maria Brutti

2.2 The Intercession of Martyrs as a Divine Paideia In the so­called martyrologies of chapters 6–7 intercession acquires a new ele­ ment that has its roots in the Greek world: that of paideia, education and discipline. As Tyler­Stewart points out, the research on paideia, or Jewish education, in the diaspora was not completely ignored in scholarly discussion, but was mostly col­ lected by Philo of Alexandria.27 In his opinion, however, we can already find a Jewish appropriation of the Hellenistic education prior to Philo in earlier texts, such as in the Letter of Aristea and 2 Maccabees.28 Do the martyrologies of 2 Maccabees, through the theme of intercession, offer a confirmation in support of this statement? If so, what kind of paideia is it? The old Eleazar is considered crucial for the formation of the Jewish paideia, since ancient pedagogy was based mainly on the imitation of a model.29 In the narrative fiction, there are the persecutors who intercede for Eleazar (6:21: ἀπολαβόντες αὐτὸν κατ᾽ ἰδίαν παρεκάλουν) saying that he can eat the forbidden flesh and can end the torture, but he does not accept this due to his extraordi­ nary dignity (6:30). Moreover Eleazar is the true intercessor, because he accepts the torture on behalf of the younger people, thereby becoming an example and memory of virtue (6:28–31).30 The second section, concerning the death of the mother and the seven bro­ thers (7:1–42), also presents a double intercession: that of the mother and that of the youngest brother. The mother’s intercession is expressed through the courage she gives to her children (v. 21: ἕκαστον δὲ αὐτῶν παρεκάλει; v. 28: ἀξιῶ σε, τέκνον,) to accept death. Her speech to the last son is almost a prayer of intercession so that he, looking to God the Creator, not be afraid of his persecutors and accept death, in the hope of a future conjunction with her and his brothers and sisters (v. 29). This speech introduces a concept, already exposed by the author in the long preface to the martyrologies, that the suffering of the Jews and the punishments that are inflicted upon them are (πρὸς παιδείαν τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν) “to discipline our people” (vv. 6, 12). The Greek noun παιδεία and the related verb παιδεύω recur at other times in the book (vv. 7:16.33; 10:4), in reference to the action of God on his people. In this case, however, paideia does not make use of cultural instru­ ments, such as schools (education), but of punitive actions (discipline) that have the task of correcting the behaviour of the people: this is the theology of guilt 27 Stewart, Jewish Paideia, 183. 28 Stewart, Jewish Paideia, 184. 29 Stewart, Jewish Paideia, 199. 30 One can also highlight that Eleazar becomes part of the tradition of noble death, with Socrates as his model Stewart, Jewish Paideia, 200.

The Topic of Intercession in Second Temple Judaism 

 197

and suffering (cf. Deut 8:5). This is what the last brother says: “And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, (χάριν ἐπιπλήξεως καὶ παιδείας) he will again be reconciled with his own servants” (v. 33). And he himself becomes a means of reconciliation “appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation” (v. 37). The brother’s supplication is intercession (ἐπικαλούμενος ) between God and the people (7:37). Paideia is a means used by God to arouse the intercession of the martyrs for reconciliation.

3 The Doubts on Intercessions: Some Examples The variability and the uncertainties in the very definition of the term “interces­ sion” are in some way connected to some doubts about intercession, especially with regard to rabbinic texts. According to Le Déaut, these doubts arise due to some theological misinterpretations, according to which God’s absolute sover­ eignty could be threatened by the presence of over­powerful mediators close to him and, as far as intercession for the dead was concerned, there was a reluc­ tance to give the impression that God was returning on a just sentence.31 Similar reasons had also been highlighted by Bowker which through a parallelism with the Islamic and Jewish traditions,32 observed how the figure of Moses himself, the mediator exalted by the biblical tradition, had subsequently been the object of a reduction in his role. 33 Le Déaut recalls some passages from the Targums which, if they empha­ sised the greatness of the figure of Moses as an intercessor, in some cases clearly reduced its importance, in order to bring Moses back to his subordinate func­ tion as an instrument of Yahweh. This appears for example in the commentary of Exod 14:15: And He said to Moses: ‘Why are you before me in prayer. Behold, the prayer of my people is before yours” (Ps­Jon).34 How long will you stay there begging in front of me? Behold, your prayer has been heard before me. Furthermore, the prayer of the children of Israel preceded yours. . . . (Neofiti, folio 138b)

31 Le Dèaut, Aspects de l’intercession, 51. 32 Bowker, Intercession in the Qu’ran, 81. 33 Le Dèaut, Aspects de l’intercession, 51. 34 Le Dèaut, Aspects de l’intercession, 53 note 2 where Le Déaut highlights “On veut peut­é’tre rappeler que Dieu est toujours prét à entendre son peuple: Isa. 55,24; cf. Sira 48,20.”

198 

 Maria Brutti

But there are other Jewish texts that highlight the problem even more clearly, among these Jub 1:19–21. The Book of Jubilees35 contains much of the scriptural story from Genesis 1–50 and, in a more summary fashion, Exodus 1–24. The book opens with a Prologue in which the event of Mount Sinai, the handing over of the Ten Commandments to Moses, appears as a means by which God uses Moses to convey a message to his people: “These are the words.” Immediately after the prologue, in chapter 1 we find the first dialogue between God and Moses. God (1:1–18) strongly reproaches the Israelites by retracing the events of their history, recalling their obstinacy, their lack of fidelity: “they abandoned my statutes, my commandments, my covenantal festivals, my Sabbaths, my holy things” (v.10). Moses’ answer is found in the next verses: Jub 1:19–21.36 VanderKam observes how the three verses contain the only words Moses actually speaks in the book of Jubilees37 and how in these he, responding to the long discourse of the Lord (1:15–18), “assumes his familiar role of intermediary between God and his people.”38 However, according to Paganini, in a prayer that in his opinion “undoubtedly constitutes an intercessory prayer”39 we find the reduction of the figure of Moses. The situation, in its literary context, seems to recall Exod 19, where the words of Moses are closely connected to two divine discourses, in the second of which a change takes place. In fact in Jub 1:2740 God no longer turns to Moses but to the Angel of the Presence, a figure that is not present in the book of Exodus as it seems to fulfil a task that in the Hebrew Bible is reserved for Moses. In this way Moses would no longer be the author or interpreter of the law, but only its writer.41 In my opinion, although an interesting hypothesis, it does not appear entirely sustainable, as several times during his speech God invites Moses to “write” the 35 The book of Jubilees is a narrative work composed by a Jewish author in the Hebrew language. From Hebrew a translator rendered the book into Greek, and Greek copies of Jubilees served as the base for translations into Ge‘ez (Classical Ethiopic) and Latin. According to VanderKam, Jubilees, 37 it is likely that Jubilees was written between the 170s (or even 164) and cca. 125 BCE. 36 Jub 1:19–21: “(19) Then Moses fell prostrate and prayed and said: ‘Lord my God, do not allow your people and your heritage to go along in the error of their minds, and do not deliver them into the control of the nations with the result that they rule over them lest they make them sin against you. (20) May your mercy, of Belial not rule over them so as to bring charges against them before you and to make them stumble away from every proper path so that they may be destroyed from your presence. (21) They are your people and your heritage whom you have rescued from Egyp­ tian control by your great power. Create for them a pure mind and a holy spirit. May they not be trapped in their sins from now to eternity’.” text from Vanderkam, Jubilees, 131–132. 37 However, see the exception of 47:11 // Exod 2:13 in Vanderkam, Jubilees, 156. 38 Vanderkam, Jubilees, 156. 39 Paganini, Adjusting the Narrative, 59. 40 Jub 1:27: “Then he told the Angel of the Presence to dictate to Moses.” 41 Paganini, Adjusting the Narrative, 67 and note 27.

The Topic of Intercession in Second Temple Judaism 

 199

message that he will give him for future generations (1:5, 7, 26). The fact that he later orders the Angel of the Presence to dictate His words to Moses does not diminish the intercessory and mediatory value of Moses. Indeed, VanderKam sug­ gests that there was an error in the process of transmission in the text, starting from the Hebrew version, where a causative verb (“dictate” = cause to write) was replaced by a real simple “write.”42 This introduced a contradiction into the book because of other statements where the Angel is the writer (here and in 30:12, 21; 50:6, 13), while Moses is the writer of the book in other places (1:5, 7, 26; 2:1; 23:32; 33:18).43 VanderKam himself had already previously considered the question regarding the possible author of the book of Jubilees,44 by suggesting that “the contradiction comes from a graphic confusion between qal and hiphil forms of the verb ‫ כתב‬, or from a failure by the Greek translator of Jubilees to distinguish the meanings of the two forms.” This solution would provide a simpler explanation: “the Angel dictated the contents of the book which Moses wrote.”45 Therefore there would be no contrast between the roles of the two figures: the Angel of the Presence assumes a revelatory role within the book of Jubilees which makes the Angel above all “an intermediary for the deity,”46 while Moses seems to confirm his role as an intermediary with the Israelites.

3.1 Ezra: “No One Shall Ever Pray for Another” But it is above all in the Fourth Book of Ezra where the theological “doubts” on intercession are more clearly expressed. As Charles already said at the beginning of the 20th Century, the 4 Ezra is extant in a number of translations, all of which have been made, apparently, from a lost Greek version; and this, there is reason to believe, was itself translated from a Hebrew original.47 The book is divided into seven sections which are commonly referred to as the “visions.” Visions 1–3 are composed of speeches, dialogues and predictions. The third vision is very long and has a complex structure, presenting typical dia­ logic disputes and revelations alongside other literary forms.48 In the address of

42 Vanderkam, Jubilees, 136 note b. 43 Vanderkam, Jubilees, 136. 44 VanderKam, End of the Matter, 272. 45 VanderKam, End of the Matter, 272. 46 Vanderkam, Jubilees, 49. 47 Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudephigrapha, 543. For problems concerning the text and its transmission, see Stone, Commentary, 1–8. 48 Stone / Henze, 4 Ezra, 3. For a more detailed description see Stone, Commentary, 191–193.

200 

 Maria Brutti

vision 1 (ch. 3) God the Creator is accused for the condition of the world and in particular for the sufferings of Israel under Rome which raises the problem of the­ odicy, of God’s justice. Ezra gradually leads the seer to change his position: from the radical doubt of God’s justice to accepting his incomprehensible providence (see above). In chapter 7, we find the question of intercession, which is closely related to the theological question of divine justice and the fate of sinners (“the many”) versus that of the righteous (“the few”).49 This question is not answered immedi­ ately, but later the Angel reveals to Ezra that in the time period between death and the final judgment, wicked souls “cannot now repent and do good that they may live” (7:82). Ezra then asks in “whether on the day of judgment the righteous will be able to intercede for the ungodly or to entreat the Most High for them, fathers for sons or sons for fathers, brothers for brothers, relatives for their kinsmen, or friends for friends” (7:102–103). Trunbower50 observes the value placed on personal bonds inherent in Ezra’s request; that is, what good is an eternal reward without family and friends? Ezra’s question reflects the prevailing piety among Greeks, Romans, and Jews of his day, and not surprisingly, of most people everywhere.51 For his part, Uriel simply ignores Ezra’s question and continues to speak in universal terms about the day of judgment: “The day of judgement is decisive and displays to all the seal of truth” (7:104). The lapidary statement that “No one shall ever pray for another then, neither shall anyone lay a burden on another; for then everyone shall bear his own righteousness and unrighteousness” (7:105) also refers to this truth. In vain, Ezra quotes a list of biblical examples of intercession: Abraham, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Hezekiah, concluding that “many others prayed for many” (7:110). In 7:111 there is the crucial question “If therefore the righteous for the ungodly now. . ...why will it not be so then as well?” The final answer is equally firm and without appeal: “no one will then be able to have mercy on him who has been condemned in judgement or to harm him who is victorious” (7:115). Similarly, when Ezra, elaborating Ez 34:6–7 in the form of the midrash attempts to show that God will have mercy on the “innumerable multitude” (7:132–140), Uriel briefly replies: “The Most High made this world for the sake of many, but the world to come for the sake of only a few” (8:1).52 The concept of intercession appears here closely related to that of judgment, clearly the Fourth book of Ezra states that there will be no intercession on the 49  7:47: “And now I see that the world to come will bring delight to few, but torment to many.” 50 Trunbower, Rescue for the Dead, 30. 51 Trunbower, Rescue for the Dead, 30. 52 Hogan, Theologies in Conflict, 132.

The Topic of Intercession in Second Temple Judaism 

 201

day of judgment (7:105–115) and there will be no repentance after death (7:82; 9:11–12).53 However, this does not mean that the concept of intercession, or rather, praying for someone, is absolutely rejected, but that the author of 4 Ezra, in his theodicy, sees divine judgment as inscrutably secret and hidden from man. While in the fragment of the Latin text, in the beautiful dialogue between Uriel and Ezra, Ezra’s prayer is very clear “demonstra mihi adhuc seruo tuo, si in die iudicii iusti impios excusare poterint uel deprecari pro eis,” and the response is equally clear “Sic nemo pro aliquo rogabit, omes enim portabunt unusquisque tunc iniustitias suas aut iustitias” (7:104–105).54 Moreover, there is a problem of a different nature that involves both 2 Mac­ cabees and 4 Ezra. In the Second Book of Maccabees, a rather enigmatic passage (12:43b–45) seems to assume the possibility of intercession to be connected to an intermediate period between death and judgment. The verses are found in the context of the campaigns of Judah against Gorgias (12:32–45), governor of the region of Idumea, which concludes chapter 12. At the end of the wars, after having carried out the observance of the Sabbath, the author of 2 Maccabees nar­ rates that “The next day, when the time came to do the task, Judas’ men went to collect the bodies of those who had fallen and, together with their kinsmen, to inter them in their ancestral graves. And they found, under the tunics of each of the deceased, objects dedicated to the idols of Iamnia, which the Law prohibits to Jews.” (vv. 39–40)55 The death of the soldiers is so clearly motivated by their sin. The removal of the sin of idolatry takes place in a twofold moment: first, a supplication to the Lord who judges fairly (cf. 12:6) and in front of whom nothing can be hidden, with evident reference to the hiding of idols under tunics (v. 42), followed by an atoning sacrifice. In the last verses, the author reports that Judas collected money which he sent to Jerusalem to make an atonement sacrifice (cf. Lev 23:27–28 LXX) for the sins of those fallen in battle. The same author adds that Judas did this with the thought of the resurrection (cf. vv. 6–7). Through a complex reasoning, the author then expresses the idea that, if the resurrection is considered as a reward for the dead, then prayer and the sacrifice of atonement have the function of lib­ erating them from sin (vv. 44–45). So Jason, the anonymous author of 2 Macca­ bees, considered the money sent by Judas for the sacrifice “was for the posthu­

53 Stone, Commentary, 150. 54 For the latin text, see Bensley, Missing Fragments. For the relationship between judgement and intercession, see Stone, Commentary, 149–150. 55 English Translation, by Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 416.

202 

 Maria Brutti

mous salvation of the individual sinners.”56 The expiatory action that the living undertake for the dead is of much greater urgency and significance.57

4 Conclusion 2 Maccabees and 4 Ezra present very different, greatly in their forms, perspectives and language. For 2 Maccabees, we are oriented towards the end and the middle of the second century BC as a timeframe for it’s events, but are still uncertain on to whom to attribute its writing, for 4 Ezra the most accredited date is that of the end of the first century AD.58 If in form the two books appear completely different, the first with a historiographic approach, the other clearly apocalyptic, there are, however, some elements that unite them. 2 Maccabees is not only the narration of facts and documents but presents within itself the so­called “epiphanies” or visions, the presence of mediating angels and the faith in a possible life after death which all elements common to the apocalyptic genre usually attributed to 4 Ezra. However, the celestial figures that appear in the epiphanies of 2 Maccabees do not indicate a true angelology; they are instead impersonal, anonymous and lacking in human traits (cf. 3:26; 10:29–30; 11:8; 12:22; 15:27).59 In 4 Ezra the Angel Uriel speaks directly to Ezra, sometimes substituting himself for God. Uriel and Ezra argue with each other in chapter 7 showing a high dialogical capacity. Hogan believes that Ezra’s dialogues with the angel Uriel (3:1–9:25) constitute a theo­ logical debate between “two schools of wisdom,” which were separately active in late Second Temple Judaism.60 According to Di Tommaso, in 4 Ezra both Ezra and Uriel represent a different stage in the author’s response to the crisis that had afflicted him and his audience a few decades after the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. This crisis is expressed in two dif­ ferent contradictory attitudes in the dialogue between Ezra and Uriel: on the one hand, faith in a just God who loves Israel as His chosen people, on the other, the reality of Israel’s submission to Rome. The figure of Ezra reflects the uncertainty of the situation for which the ancient way of thinking about God, the history and

56 Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead, 27, who later adds that “in 2 Maccabees an ideology of sharp differentiation of fates for righteous and wicked has entered into the equation however.” Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead, 29. 57 Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead, 29. 58 Stone, Commentary, 9–10. 59 Brutti, Epifaneiai di 2 Maccabei, 185. 60 Hogan, Theologies in Conflict, 123. See also Di Tommaso Who is the ‘I’, 119.

The Topic of Intercession in Second Temple Judaism 

 203

the future of Israel no longer provided satisfactory answers.61 Uriel’s response on intercession is connected to this way of thinking: divine judgment is infallible and therefore, after death, intercession is not possible. The theme of intercession therefore appears connected to that of judgment62 but, as Stone admonishes, 4 Ezra “uses the language of judgement in a multiple senses,” using a variety of conceptions and perhaps a variety of written traditions.63 Both of these books have left profound traces in the rereading that has since been carried out. Within 12:43–45 of 2 Maccabees we find the conception that whoever dies in sin without it being atoned for will have to suffer after death and will be excluded from the resurrection. This would then imply a punishment for sinners in a place where they can atone for their guilt: for the Catholic Church this place is Purgatory, defined as dogma by the Council of Florence in 1439.64 As Sievers points out, the most widespread recollections of the Maccabees in the Christian world were those of the martyrs as seen in the Panegyrics of the Maccabean martyrs, attributed to some of the Church Fathers, including Augus­ tine.65 The narration of the death of Eleazar and of the martyred mother with the seven sons had a strong influence on the conception of the renunciation of one’s life “as a gift of oneself to God and to others.”66 In this way, intercession is carried out through martyrdom. In the Jewish world, intercession continued to be considered practicable and desirable until the contemporary age. As Michael Stone points out, the interces­ sion of the righteous for the less righteous, even in an eschatological context, is a common theme in rabbinic literature (b. Sukkah 14a; Gen. R. 33:3; Ex R. 42:1; Deut. R. 3:15), although some other texts of Jewish origin also maintain, like 4 Ezra, that, at the final judgment, intercession will no longer take place.67 With the development of the rabbinic tradition, Gehinnom comes to be seen as a place

61 Di Tommaso Who is the ‘I’, 130. 62 Stone, Commentary, 151 n. 53. 63 Stone, Commentary, 151. 64 This interpretation of the text, alongside other problems that the book presents, such as the account of Razis’ suicide, the double tradition of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the fact it was not discovered in Greek, caused a dispute over the value of the book during the period of the Reformation, leading both Luther and Calvin to declare its exclusion from the canon. On the contrary, the Catholic Church in the Council of Trent (1545) recognised it as part of the canon, together with all the other books of the Vulgate, see Brutti, 2 Maccabees, 184. 65 Sievers, Vittoria nel martirio, 81–82. 66 Sievers, Vittoria nel martirio, 94. 67 Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead, 49 quotes 2 Bar 85:2. Bar. 85:12 spells out in no uncertain terms that intercession or mercy of any kind for the wicked will be impossible at the final judg­ ment. The Apoc.Pet. 14 and Sib.Or. 2 contain a similar statement.

204 

 Maria Brutti

of temporary punishment for twelve months (m. Eduyyot 2:10; t. Shabbat 33b; t. Rosh Hashanah 17a), after which period the majority of people will be released (Pesikta Rabbati 53:2). In these beliefs the threat of a punishment after death is real, but not eternal, insofar as prayers, either of the dead or for the dead, can manage to provoke the mercy of God. On the contrary, as we have already seen, 4 Ezra 7:82 makes it clear that the death of an individual is the most significant boundary to salvation.68 There is, however, one last aspect which links the theme of intercession to the textual tradition of both 4 Ezra and 2 Maccabees. Robert Alan Kraft69 observes that, although 4 Ezra cannot be classified as “certifiably Jewish,” its textual trans­ mission offers a good example of Christian interpolation in certain attestations; for example, in 4 Ezra 7:28, where other surviving versions refer to “messiah” or “my son the messiah,” the Latin manuscripts refer to “my son Jesus.”70 Interest in 4 Ezra was certainly alive in the early church, as is shown by quota­ tions or allusions present in the Church Fathers’ writings, in both Greek and Latin. One such example can be found in a work by Jerome, Contra Vigilantium, and is of considerable interest. The text refers to Ezra 7:102, but is, at the same time, an attack on the book of Ezra, which seems to deny intercession. “Tu uigilans dormis et dormiens scribis; et proponis (var. propinas) mihi librum apocryphum qui sub nomine Esdra, et similibus tuis legitur:ubi scriptum est, quod post mortem nullus pro aliis audeat deprecari: quem ego librum numquam legi.”71 Jerome therefore, at the end of the fourth century, decisively reaffirmed the doctrine of intercession after death. Di Tommaso, pointing out how the Angel’s answers assert that the traditional deuteronomistic notions of mercy, intercession and covenant have been sup­ planted by the apocalyptic determinism of 4 Ezra, cites a reference to a passage from the New Testament: Rom 7:1–6.72 Stone and Henze underlined how the theme of sin and a certain affinity with Paul’s thought were the reasons for the consid­ erable popularity of 4 Ezra in various Christian churches,73 while “No impression

68 Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead, 31. 69 Bauckham, Fate of the Dead, 29. 70 Kraft, Exploring the Scriptures, 29, Cf. Klijn, Apocalypse des Esra, 7,28: “Denn offenbaren wird sich mein Sohn Jesus denen, die bei ihm sind, und er wird den übrig gebliebenen Freude geben vierhundert Jahre.” 71 Bensley, Missing Fragments, 73. See also Hieronymus, Adversus Vigilantium. 72 Di Tommaso, Who is the ‘I’. 73 Stone / Henze, 4 Ezra, 6–7. On the long history of the transmission of the text of 4Ezra see Stone, Commentary, 1–9.

The Topic of Intercession in Second Temple Judaism 

 205

of 4 Ezra on rabbinic or later Judaism has been discerned to date, though further study may uncover such.”74 The same situation can be seen in 2 Maccabees written about 200 years earlier: great interest from Christian authors and a lack of interest from the Jewish world. Schwartz, who carefully considers the problem of the transmission of the book and of the disinterest in rabbinic and medieval Jewish literature, comes to the conclusion that “Josippon, a tenth­century Jewish version of Josephus, who quite obviously used some version of 2 Maccabees is a striking exception.”75 Of course, comparisons are always risky, but, as for the martyrdom in 2 Mac­ cabees, the position of 4 Ezra on intercession, which as we have already said is not isolated, seems to belong to a fluid period, where different theological­religious conceptions that are themselves affected by the period in which the books were written, sometimes appear interconnected, sometimes disjointed, eventually finding common ground in the search for the definition of one’s own identity. Last but not least, I’d like to point out that that the intercessory prayer, even if in different and sometimes contrasting forms, is a constitutive element of both Judaism and Christianity up to the present day.

Bibliography Balentine, S., The Prophet as Intercessor: A reassessment: JBL 103 (1984) 161–173. Bauckham, R., The Fate of the Dead. Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (NTSup93), Leiden 1998. Bensley, R.E. (ed.), The Missing Fragments of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book of Esdras, Cambridge 1875 (repr. 2018). Bowker, J. W., Intercession in the Qu’ran and the Jewish Tradition: JSS 11 (1966) 69–82. Brettler, M. Z., Biblical History and Jewish Biblical Theology: The Journal of Religion 77 (1997) 563–583. Brutti, M., Dalle epifaneiai di 2 Maccabei alla pronoia di Flavio Giuseppe: RicStBib 28 (2016) 179–197. Brutti, M., The Development of the High Priesthood during the pre-Hasmonean Period. History, Ideology, Theology (JSJSup 108), Leiden 2006. Charles, R. H. (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudephigrapha of the Old Testament: Pseudepigrapha,Vol.2, Oxford 1913 (repr. 2004). Cimosa, M., Il vocabolario di preghiera nel Pentateuco greco dei LXX (LAS 10), Roma 1985. Di Tommaso, L., Who is the ‘I’ of 4Ezra? in: M. Henze and G. Boccaccini (eds.), Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch. Reconstruction after the Fall (JSJSup 164), Leiden 2013, 119–133. Doran, R., 2 Maccabees. A Critical Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2012. 74 Stone / Henze, 4 Ezra, 7. 75 Stone / Henze, 4 Ezra, 90.

206 

 Maria Brutti

Eynichel, E., La lexicographie de la Septante: aspects méthodologiques: Revue de sciences religieuses 73 (1999) 135–150. Hieronymus, Adversus Vigilantium, in: J. J. Feiertag (ed.), Hieronymus (CCSL 79C), Tornhout 2018. Hogan, K.M., Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra. Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution (JSJSup 130), Leiden 2008. Iwanski, D., The Dynamics of Job’s Intercession (Analecta Biblica 161), Roma 2006. Klijn, A. F. J., Der lateinische Text der Apokalypse des Esra: Mit einem Index grammaticus von Gerhard Mussies (TU 131), Berlin 1983. Kraft, R. A., Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and Their Christian Contexts (JSJSup 137), Leiden 2009. Le Déaut, R., Aspects de l’Intercession dans le Judaïsme Ancient: JSJ 1 (1970) 35. Lyonnet, S. / Sabourin, L., Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice. A Biblical and Patristic Study (Analecta Biblica 48), Roma 1988. Naiden, F. S., Ancient Supplication, Oxford 2006. Paganini, S., Adjusting the Narrative Emotions and the Prayer of Moses (Jub 1:19–21), in: S. C. Reif and R. Egger-Wenzel (eds.), Ancient Jewish Prayers and Emotions: Emotions Associated with Jewish Prayer in and around the Second Temple Period (DCLS 26), 2015, 59–70. Parker, S., Divine Intercession in Judah?: VT 56 (2006) 76–91. Reiterer, F. V., Praying to God Passionately: Notes on the Emotions in 2 Maccabees, in: S. C. Reif and R. Egger-Wenzel (eds.), Ancient Jewish Prayers and Emotions. Emotions Associated with Jewish Prayer in and around the Second Temple Period (DCLS 26), Berlin 2015, 117–144. Rossi, B., L’intercessione nel tempo della fine. Studio dell’intercessione profetica nel libro di Geremia (Analecta Biblica 204), Roma 2013. Rossier, F., L’intercession entre les hommes dans la Bible hébraïque. L’intercession entre les hommes aux origines de l’intercession auprès de Dieu, Göttingen 1996. Schwartz, D. R., 2 Maccabees (CEJL), Berlin 2008. Sievers, J., Vittoria nel martirio e Vittoria nella spada: aspetti della violenza nella tradizione maccabaica: RicStBib 20 (2008) 81–90. Stewart, T. A., Jewish Paideia: Greek Education in the Letter of Aristeas and 2 Maccabees: JSJ 48 (2017) 182–202. Stone, M. E. / Henze, M., 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes, Minneapolis 2013. Stone, M. E., Fourth Ezra. A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 1990. Trunbower, J. A., Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity, Oxford 2001. VanderKam, J. C., Jubilees 1–21. A Critical Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2018. VanderKam, J. C., The End of the Matter? Jubilees 50:6–13 and the Unity of the Book, in: L. LiDonnici and A. Lieber (eds.), Heavenly Tablets Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (JSJSup 119), Leiden 2007, 267–284.

Benjamin G. Wright

What’s in a Name? The Book of Ben Sira and Its Paratexts Abstract: The Hebrew and Greek versions of the Wisdom of Ben Sira contain several significant paratexts (in Gérard Genette’s formulation), which have led scholars to construct a biography for its author. The revealing of the author’s name has provided the motivation for and the basis of an argument for under­ standing the first­person passages in the book as self­referential. Yet, in this text we do not encounter a real author of a book, but, rather a literary construct aimed at authorizing its instructional content and begetting a legendary character who will find a place among the other legendary figures of Israel’s past. Key words: Gérard Genette, paratext, authorial identification, textual frames, leg­ endary figures.

1 Introduction When those of us who study ancient Jewish literature think about who composed an ancient text, we frequently import our modern notions of proprietary author­ ship into the quest for an ancient author.1 As a rule, our texts do not identify the “real” person or persons who created them, but many attribute their creation to legendary figures from the past. In some cases, that legendary figure is a charac­ ter within the text who speaks or writes it. Hindy Najman has argued that many such cases construct a “discourse tied to a founder,” which serves both to author­

1 See the trenchant critique of the ideas of “author” and “book” as applied to ancient Jewish liter­ ature in Mroczek, Literary Imagination. Notes: Géza Xeravits was my friend and colleague. He introduced me to Hungary, first in Pápa, then in Budapest. He also gave me, as a fellow oenophile, an education in the wonders of Hungarian wines. I am grateful to him for inviting me to a conference on Ben Sira, part of a series of conferences in which he and József Zsengellér worked to expand Jewish and Biblical Studies in Hungary and where I first got to know him. His death was a great loss, and I miss his friendship, his scholarship, and his love for and knowledge of Hungarian wines. I offer this brief essay as a tribute. ‫“ תהי נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים‬May his soul be bound up in the bond of life.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-013

208 

 Benjamin G. Wright

ize and to restore the teachings of that legendary figure.2 In other instances, the attribution comes in textual frames or titles that identify the speaker or writer. Jacqueline Vayntrub has argued that these textual frames and titles in which texts are assigned to legendary figures “imaginatively stage the text in the broader literary tradition.”3 She contends that attribution through textual frames – so, for example, the attribution of Proverbs to Solomon – does not make explicit claims for authorship but rather engages “the biography of a legendary figure to provide an interpretive frame for the text it contains.”4 In the case of Prov­ erbs and Solomon, the brief textual frame in Prov 1:1 – “The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel” – draws on a biography that exists outside of the work in places like 1 Kings 4:29–34 in which Solomon is credited with composing 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs. Thus, Vayntrub concludes, Solomonic “author­ ship” acts more like a genre designation than an authorial claim, and it works to authorize the instructions contained within the book of Proverbs.5 An ancient reader, then, “might understand the words contained within the minimalistic frame to be bound not to a speaker in the past, but to the medium itself.”6 The textual frames and titles that Vayntrub identifies constitute some of what Gérard Genette calls “paratexts,” elements that condition the reading of a text, such as a title, author’s name, preface, or postscript. Paratextual features, accord­ ing to Genette, “surround it [i.e., the text], extend it, precisely in order to present it, in the usual sense of this verb but also in its strongest sense: to make present, to ensure the text’s presence in the world, its ‘reception’ and consumption in the form (nowadays, at least) of a book.”7 A paratext serves as a “threshold” that allows a potential reader to enter into the text or to turn away from it, as a “fringe of the printed text which in reality controls one’s whole reading of the text”; such elements occupy “a transitional zone between text and beyond­text.”8 If we examine the paratexts in the book of Ben Sira, we can see how the naming of a person responsible for its instruction together with other paratex­ tual elements function to create a “biography” of Joshua Ben Sira that generates a context for the book’s instructions, to “present it” to its readers, to use Gen­

2 For Moses, see Najman, Seconding Sinai, and for 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, see Najman, How to Make Sense. 3 Vayntrub, Before Authorship, 186. 4 Vayntrub, Before Authorship, 186. 5 Vayntrub, Before Authorship, 186, 204. 6 Vayntrub, Before Authorship, 205. 7 Genette, Paratexts, 1 (italics original). Vayntrub, Before Authorship, 204, explicitly refers to Genette’s work. 8 Genette, Paratexts, 2, citing Lejeune, Le Pacte autobiographique, 45.

What’s in a Name? 

 209

ette’s language, and to authorize and authenticate it, to “imaginatively stage the text in the broader literary tradition.” Of course, the most well­known aspect of the work that we call Ben Sira is the attribution to a “real” person rather than to some legendary figure such as Moses or Solomon. Unlike Solomon’s “author­ ship” of Proverbs that is rightly dismissed as fictional, scholars have accepted that a Jerusalemite sage named Joshua Ben Sira composed the work that bears the title “The Wisdom of Ben Sira.” Indeed, I do not see any compelling reason to think that the name Joshua Ben Sira was concocted, but accepting that this name belonged to an actual second­century Jewish sage has made it easier for schol­ ars to project modern assumptions about authorship and bookishness back onto the work transmitted in his name instead of situating it within ancient Jewish literary culture. With respect to its nature as a “book,” Eva Mroczek has an illu­ minating discussion of Ben Sira in The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity, where she argues that the “author” Ben Sira “is a personality as constructed as a pseudepigraphical hero” and that the work we call “The Wisdom of Ben Sira” constitutes a “continuous tradition handed on in writing” rather than a stable and closed book.9 In light of Vayntrub’s insights about the attribution of Proverbs to Solomon and Mroczek’s regarding Ben Sira, I want to think some about the ways that “authorial” attribution and the work’s paratextual features generate a biogra­ phy for Ben Sira that does the work of framing and authenticating the instruc­ tions passed down in his name. First, however, we need to ask which Ben Sira we are going to use, since unique paratextual elements appear in each of the language traditions, and thus, they “ensure the text’s presence in the world” and control its reading in different ways. For the purposes of this paper, I will limit my discussion to the Hebrew and Greek versions, whose paratextual elements and authorial attributions are articulated distinctly, even in the way Ben Sira’s name is reported.10

2 Ben Sira’s Name The Hebrew text of 50:27 informs us of the name of the sage whose instructions are contained in the work. It appears in the third person in a passage that reads

9 Mroczek, Literary Imagination, chap. 3, quotations from 89, 97. 10 I will not discuss the separate prologue to the book in Greek ms 248 that frames the text in a very different manner.

210 

 Benjamin G. Wright

almost as a postscript or a colophon that authenticates the teaching that has preceded.11 The text is preserved in MS B from the Cairo Genizah, which reads, ‫מוסר שכל ומושל אופנים‬ ‫לשמעון בן ישוע בן אלעזר בן סירא‬ ‫אשר ניבע בפתור לבן‬ ‫ואשר הביע בתבונות‬ Instruction, insight, and apt proverbs of Shim’on ben Yeshua ben Elazar ben Sira, who poured forth interpretation to a son and who poured forth understanding.”

The name Shim’on as part of Ben Sira’s identification occurs widely in medieval sources, including in a subscription to the work in Ms B from the Genizah (XXI verso; see below), in Saadiah Ga’on’s references to the sage himself in his Sefer Ha-Galuy, and in a medieval book list (Cambridge T­S Misc 36.150), and the name seems to have been how the sage was known to medieval Jews.12 In the text of MS B, then, Ben Sira does not reveal his own name, but rather we have what we might call, based on Genette’s categories, an “allographic postface,” that is, a paratex­ tual element placed at the end of a work written by someone other than the author, which in Ms B functions to authenticate the material that has come before and to locate it generically.13 As the text of 50:27 stands, Ben Sira’s “instruction” is constructed as that given by a father to a son, although many scholars regard ‫לבן‬, “to a son,” as a corruption of ‫לבו‬, “his heart,” on the basis of the Greek.14 I think that the Hebrew of Ms B says what it means, however. The sage of Ms B who has given his previous instruction addresses its recipient(s) as “my son” on numerous occasions (cf., for example, 3:12, 17; 4:1; 6:18; 10:28; 11:10 and others). Ms B’s postscript takes that father­son relationship seriously as the social context

11 None of the Hebrew manuscripts from Qumran, Masada, or the Cairo Genizah preserve the beginning of the work, and so we do not know whether there was a title given at the head of any manuscript. Ms B from the Genizah does have some section headings, but that does not mean that it once included a title at its head. I will treat the first­person poems in chapter 51 below, which follow this colophon­like passage. 12 For a detailed discussion, see Wright, Character, 379–381. Saadiah refers to the work as “The Book of Ben Sira.” 13 The phrase “allographic postface” reflects my understanding of Genette, who discusses al­ lographic prefaces, that is prefaces written by someone other than an author, but not explicitly allographic postfaces. At various points, however, he minimizes the distinction between the pref­ ace and the postface, allowing, I think, for the appearance of an allographic postface such as we see in Ms B. See Genette, Paratexts, 263–275. 14 See, for example, Skehan / Di Lella, Ben Sira, 557.

What’s in a Name? 

 211

for the transmission of wisdom, a device that is widespread in ancient wisdom literature.15 The form of 50:27 as a postface that identifies an “author” serves to legitimate its instruction within the framework of parental advice to a child that will help that child live a good life. It also situates the reader within an authorita­ tive parental relationship and thus authorizes that instruction as beneficial for whoever might engage the text. In addition, the revelation of Ben Sira’s name in the postscript of an 11th–12th century manuscript might be drawing on his repu­ tation as a legendary figure in the same way that Solomon became the legendary author of Proverbs, since by the early middle ages Ben Sira had accumulated something of an external biography. We see, for instance, that in some rabbinic texts Ben Sira was cited in the same manner as other rabbinic authorities (e.g., y. Hag. 2:1; Gen. Rab. 8:2) and in the medieval Alphabet of Ben Sira, he is portrayed as a great teacher, a prophet, and a miracle worker, often through some fabulous and bizarre traditions.16 The Greek, by contrast, has Ben Sira reveal his own name in the first person: Παιδείαν συνέσεως καὶ ἐπιστήμης ἐχάραξα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Σιραχ Ελεαζαρ ὁ Ἱεροσολυμίτης, ὃς ἀνώμβρησεν σοφίαν ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτοῦ. “Instruc­ tion of understanding and knowledge I have inscribed in this book, Iesous son of Sirach, Eleazar the Jerusalemite, who poured forth wisdom from his heart.”17 There is a text­critical problem with the verb in this verse that affects how we read the text. Joseph Ziegler in his Göttingen critical edition has opted for the third person verb ἐχάραξεν, “he inscribed,” on the basis of two minuscule man­ uscripts, a correction in another, and the Vulgate.18 The majority of the manu­ script tradition in Greek reads ἐχάραξα, “I inscribed.” I think Ziegler decided on the third person for two primary reasons: (1) I suspect that he was guided by the Hebrew, which has no verb and thus might suggest a third person verb in Greek, if MS B’s text represents the source text of the Greek, which, of course, is not a nec­ essary assumption, and (2) the clause “poured forth wisdom from his heart” has a third­person pronoun rather than a first­person pronoun. The text­critical situ­ ation is more complex than Ziegler’s apparatus allows, however. Ziegler’s main

15 See Wright, Generation to Generation. 16 On Ben Sira as a rabbinic sage, see Labendz, Ben Sira, who argues that his type of attribu­ tion is polemical. Later readers might not pick up on the polemic, however, and understand the citation as coming from a legitimate rabbinic authority. On the early medieval reception of Ben Sira and his “biography,” see Wright, Character. For the Alphabet, see Yassif, Sippurei, and Broznick, Alphabet. 17 All English translations of the Greek come from or are adapted from Pietersma / Wright, New English Translation. 18 Ziegler, Sapientia, 362.

212 

 Benjamin G. Wright

group of Lucianic manuscripts omits the final pronoun, and the Vulgate tradition itself is divided between the first and third persons. The Syriac, for its part, elim­ inates Ben Sira’s name altogether for a more generic postscript: “All the sayings and riddles of the wise men are written in this book.” In my view, Ziegler has not considered fully the text­critical complexity of this reading. I do not see a con­ vincing reason to opt for the third­person verb over the first person, and in light of all the evidence, I think that the first­person verb is the better reading here.19 Whether the first­person verb reflects the translator’s Hebrew Vorlage or his translational choice/interpretation/decision, in Greek the self­revelation in 50:27 ties the instruction to a specific figure who takes responsibility for its content for reasons that become clear earlier in the text. Eva Mroczek and I have argued that for three main reasons the first­person in the Greek functions similarly to the way that pseudepigraphic attributions work, what we have called somewhat cheek­ ily Ben Sira’s pseudo­pseudepigraphy. First, in Ben Sira, self­revelation “can be understood as part of a complex set of problems” that are treated throughout the text – “questions of memory, post­mortem existence, glory and praise.” Second, “these concerns move the notion of the revealed name far away from modern authorship as a proprietary concept.” Self­revelation serves to stake a claim to belonging to the company of famous people that Ben Sira praises in chaps. 44–50, who live on in Israel’s cultural memory. In light of the first­person passages else­ where in the book and in view of chapter 39 on the praise of the scribe, the Greek text positions the scribe, and Ben Sira in particular, among those whose memory will persist through time. Third, this self­revelation works. Ben Sira does become a legendary figure, as I pointed out earlier, but this does not happen by chance or accident; in our estimation, it is one of the goals of the text.20 The self­revelation of 50:27 in the Greek harks back to other first­person passages in the book that seem to give autobiographical information about the “author.” First­person pronouns actually occur with some frequency throughout the text, beginning early in the work with the second­person address with “my child” followed by imperatives, which evoke a first­person persona (e.g., 3:12; 3:17; 4:1; 6:18; 10:28: 11:10). Some of these first­person references hint at the depth and breadth of Ben Sira’s knowledge, such as 16:5 – “Many such things has my eye seen and more mighty than these has my ear heard” – or Ben Sira’s famous claim through water metaphors to a direct connection to Wisdom and prophetic­like 19 Even accepting the third­person pronoun, I am not convinced that it ought to determine the person of the main verb in the clause, especially since it comes in a relative clause following the main verb in which the relative pronoun might have determined the use of subsequent third person pronoun. 20 Wright / Mroczek, Pseudo­Pseudepigraphy, 220.

What’s in a Name? 

 213

teaching in 24:30–34. Others, however, suggest personal experience, such as 34:12–13: “I have seen many things in my wanderings, and more than my words is my understanding. Frequently I was in danger of death, and I was saved because of these things.” Whatever actual personal experience these passages might or might not reflect, more significantly all of the first­person passages in the text construct a figure who is the embodiment of the ideal sage described in 38:34– 39:11, who will be praised in life and remembered in death: “Nations will narrate his wisdom, and an assembly will proclaim his praise. If he abides, he will leave behind a name greater than a thousand, and if he rests, it will be favorable for him” (39:10–11). Ben Sira, thus constructed, offers himself as a sagely exemplar for students to emulate in their own quests to become sages like him.21 Whether it is the third­person of the Hebrew or the first­person of the Greek, waiting until the end of the text to identify its “author” has certain advantages, as Genette explains, The main disadvantage of a preface is that it constitutes an unbalanced and even shaky sit­ uation of communication: its author is offering the reader an advance commentary on a text that the reader has not yet become familiar with. Consequently many readers apparently prefer to read the preface after the text, when they will know “what it’s all about.” The logic of this situation should then lead the author to acknowledge such an impulse and offer a postface instead; here he could expatiate on his subject knowing that both sides were fully informed: “Now you know as much about it as I, so let’s have a chat.”22

Yet, as Vayntrub observes about Proverbs, which is also true about Ben Sira, “[I]nstructions and proverbs are by definition decontextualized and atempo­ ral discourses. Instruction collections thus depend upon a narrative frame of speech­performance or transmission to define them, generically, as instructions,” whether at the beginning of the book or at the end.23 It surprises somewhat, Vayn­ trub notes, that Proverbs lacks such a narrative frame, but the external biography of the legendary Solomon in 1 Kings situates Proverbs within the wider literary tradition and implicitly acts as a kind of preface.24 The same cannot be said for Ben Sira. Not only is 50:27 non­narrative, it comes at the end of the book and cannot really invite the reader to “have a chat.” It marks the contents of the work as “instruction,” but only after much of the content – for example, the father­son discourse with its appeals to listen to the sage’s advice, the first­person passages 21 Wright, Ben Sira on the Sage. 22 Genette, Paratexts, 237. 23 Vayntrub, Before Authorship, 201 (italics original). And we will see that the Greek translator actually provides something of a double identification, one at the end, as here, but also at the beginning in a prologue. 24 Vayntrub, Before Authorship, 204.

214 

 Benjamin G. Wright

that construct an ideal sage/teacher, the praise of the sagely class – already pro­ vides clues to readers that a sage is giving instruction directly to them. In its loca­ tion toward the end of the text, 50:27 reinforces that this ideal sage is a “real” person and that if his hearers/readers follow his instruction, they will become “wise” and have “strength for anything,” because their path is the “fear of the Lord” (50:28–29).

3 External Frames: Subscription and Preface In both Hebrew and Greek, the name of the sage comes within the current form of the text, in each case followed by chapter 51 (see below). Both language traditions include an external paratextual feature that further conditions how one should understand the text. Ms B concludes with a subscription that is not written in stichometric lines as is the rest of the manuscript but in three separate prose sen­ tences. The subscription reads: ‫עד הנה דברי שמעון בן ישוע שנקרא בן סירא‬ ‫חכמת שמעון בן ישוע בן אלעזר בן סירא‬ ‫יהי שם ייי מבורך מעתה ועד עולם‬ Until here are the sayings of Shimon ben Yeshua who is called son of Sira. The Wisdom of Shimon ben Yeshua ben Elazar son of Sira. May the name of the Lord be blessed from now until forever.

Here the contents of the book are called “sayings” and “wisdom.” It is not entirely clear whether the second sentence is a title or a description of the contents. As a title, this line would elevate the entirety of the book from the advice/instruction of a sage to ‫חכמה‬, wisdom, which might well recall for the reader Ben Sira’s central claim in chapter 24 that he has access to Wisdom personified, which he both teaches and exemplifies. By placing the title at the end, the subscription re­presents and invites the reader’s reception of that wisdom. The final blessing of God’s name implicitly suggests that Ben Sira’s wisdom has the force of divine instruction, which further reinforces the connections between the instruction contained in the work and divine wisdom.25

25 There are indications that the scribe who copied Ms B held the book of Ben Sira in high re­ gard. The manuscript was ruled with a ruling board and is executed in a beautiful hand. The text itself has numerous marginal glosses and alternative readings, which Jean­Sébastien Rey argues indicate its sacrality for the scribe(s) who copied it. See Rey, Transmission textuelle, 173–175 and Wright, Character, 388–389.

What’s in a Name? 

 215

The Greek translator, for his part, adds a paratextual frame at the beginning, which is unique to this language tradition. He begins with a prologue in which he offers an account of the Hebrew original, some information about Ben Sira (which partially resolves the problem of waiting until the end of the work to iden­ tify him), biographical data about himself, and his motivation for the translation, all of which control the reading of the text. Like 50:27, this preface marks the text explicitly as instruction and the biographical information about the translator, who claims to be Ben Sira’s grandson, positions him as an authoritative inter­ preter of the Hebrew text. The structure of the prologue provides a justification for including Ben Sira’s book and its Greek translations with other authoritative books of Israel’s literary heritage. The prologue is comprised of three sentences in good koine Greek. The first sentence begins by praising Israel for education and wisdom that has come through the “Law, Prophets, and the others that followed them” (ll. 1–2). The grandson then proceeds to note that people who read these texts must understand them but also “that those who love learning be capable of service to outsiders, both when they speak and when they write” (ll. 5–6). The grandson then introduces “Iesous, my grandfather” (l. 7) and by extension himself. Note that here he only gives the name “Iesous” and asserts a familial relationship, but nothing more. In a sense the grandson identifies Ben Sira without giving him away, and thereby he does not diminish the force of the revelation of Ben Sira’s complete name in 50:27. Indeed, after reading the pro­ logue, a reader would know more about the grandson, who does not reveal his own name, than about Ben Sira.26 The grandson relates that his grandfather had devoted himself to reading “the Law and the Prophets and the other ancestral books” (ll. 7–10), and when he had become proficient, he wrote a text that contained education and wisdom “in order that lovers of learning, when they come under their sway as well, might gain much more in living by the law” (ll. 11–14). In this first sentence, then, we learn some biographical tidbits, but more importantly, we see the translator trying to establish that anyone desiring to live by the law would benefit from reading his grandfather’s book, which also contains instruction and wisdom and so belongs with those other authoritative Israelite books. The second sentence focuses on the work of the grandson. He offers some­ thing of an apologia for his own work, which he compares with translations of “the Law, the Prophets, and the rest of the books” (ll. 15–25). I have argued else­

26 I do not know of any study that explores why the grandson/translator remains anonymous. Does he desire to remain in the background because he considers it to be Ben Sira’s book, in Greek as well as in Hebrew?

216 

 Benjamin G. Wright

where that this sentence reveals some real anxiety on the part of the grandson about the reception of his translation, but beyond that the sentence also works rhetorically to deflect any criticism of the Greek version of his grandfather’s book by comparing his translation with those of the most important books in Israel’s possession.27 He simultaneously deflects potential criticism while elevating the status of his own work. If his grandfather’s work belongs with “the Law, and the Prophets, and the other ancestral books,” his translation belongs in the company of these other Greek translations. The third sentence gives a hint of a biography for the grandson by pinpoint­ ing a precise year, the 38th year of Euergetes, as the time he arrived in Egypt; from where we are not told, but since he identifies Ben Sira as a Jerusalemite in 50:27, presumably he also came from there. His expressed motivation for translating marks his translation, like his grandfather’s Hebrew text, as instruction, and he compares his Greek text to his grandfather’s Hebrew one: “I myself too made it a most compulsory task to bring some speed and industry to the translating of this tome, meanwhile having contributed much sleeplessness and skill, with the aim of bringing the book to completion and to publish it for those living abroad if they wish to become learned, preparing their character to live by the law” (ll. 27–35). The parallel vocabulary with the first sentence constructs his translation as per­ forming the same function as his grandfather’s work in Hebrew. His remarks in this sentence, then, go beyond marking the text generically as an instructional text. The Greek prologue in toto forms an extended argument for the authority and authenticity of both the Hebrew and Greek versions, providing the reader “an advance commentary” on the text that predetermines how one ought to read it.

4 A Concluding Postface (Again) We might consider one other passage as a paratextual element that contributes to a biography of Ben Sira, and it acts more like a full­blown postface. Although 50:27–29 seems like a conclusion to the book of Ben Sira, in Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Latin, the text continues with chapter 51, a first­person account made up of three parts: (1) a prayer thanking God for deliverance from enemies (vv. 1–12); (2) an “autobiographical” poem on Ben Sira’s search for and intimate connection with Wisdom (vv. 13–22); (3) an exhortation to the student/reader to accept Ben Sira as a teacher and to study his instruction (vv. 23–30). The text of the second part, the search for Wisdom, is difficult textually. Verses 13–20a survive in the Cave 11 Psalms 27 Wright, Translation Greek. For a different view, see Aitken, Literary Attainment, 97–108.

What’s in a Name? 

 217

scroll from Qumran (11Q5) in which the text is an alphabetic acrostic. The Greek cannot maintain the acrostic form, and MS B from the Genizah has a different text that does not preserve the full acrostic, because most of it was retranslated into Hebrew from Syriac.28 For my purposes, the Greek and 11QPsa versions share the same basic ideas for the most part, which will be enough to make my point. I also am not worried here about whether chapter 51 comes from the “author,” whether it was added later, or whether it was part of the early stages of the book.29 All of the language traditions in their current forms contain it, and in any case, it plays the same overall role in shaping how a reader should understand what went before. In short, chapter 51 creates an autobiographical narrative that authenticates the instruction of the book, and it establishes Ben Sira’s authority to give it. The poems in chapter 51 summarize and establish a foundation for the authority that the sage assumes throughout the text.30 Ben Sira’s final exhortation to the student/reader in 50:27–29 to study and to follow his instruction thus becomes much more compelling, since the chapter that follows claims to be his own expe­ rience, which concludes with a second exhortation to accept his instruction. In the first poem, Ben Sira’s enemies have endangered his life particularly through slander and lies, but God has rescued him after hearing his petition. The theme of deliverance recalls numerous psalms that thank God for deliverance from enemies and danger due to the petitioner’s innocence and righteousness. That Ben Sira’s enemies have attacked him through slander, lies, and malicious and treacherous speech recapitulate warnings throughout the text about such dan­ gerous behavior. So, for example, in a long section in 28:12–26 on evil speech, we read in verses 14 and 18: “Slander has shaken many and scattered them from nation to nation and demolished strong cities. . .Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not as many as have fallen because of the tongue.”31 A consist­ ent theme of Ben Sira’s instruction is watchfulness against people who would do harm, whether they be friends (6:5–17), traveling companions (8:16), people invited into one’s home (11:29–34), rich people (13:1–7), or women (9:1–9). That Ben Sira had such “experiences” bolsters the authority of his teaching. In such times, the righteous can be assured of God’s deliverance. Sir 32:24–33:1 encapsu­ lates this attitude: “The one who keeps torah preserves himself, and the one who

28 See Skehan / Di Lella, Ben Sira, 577 and the literature cited there. 29 On the development of the text of Ben Sira, see Corley, Structure. If Corley is correct, the autobiography of 51:13–30 was part of the first edition of the book, which he argues contained 1:1–23:27 and 51:13–30 (p. 41). 30 Wright, Sage as Exemplar, 177–178. 31 The translation is from the Greek, since no Hebrew is extant for these verses.

218 

 Benjamin G. Wright

trusts in the Lord will not be ashamed. Whoever fears the Lord will not encounter evil and when tested he will be delivered and escape” (Hebrew Mss B, E). In the second poem, Ben Sira recounts his own search for Wisdom in lan­ guage that is erotically tinged. He stresses his dauntless pursuit of Wisdom, which epitomizes what he has instructed his students to do. Before he went traveling (cf. 34:12–13), he prayed for wisdom.32 In the Greek version, he went to the temple to ask for Wisdom, an allusion to her residence in the temple in 24:10. In the Qumran Cave 11 version, Wisdom came to him “in her beauty,” and he pursued her until the end (v. 14). In the pursuit, he found “much instruction” (v. 16). Ben Sira resolutely followed Wisdom, desired her, and preoccupied himself with her (vv.18–19). He prayed, and he learned Wisdom’s “secrets” and received under­ standing (v. 19–20). As a result, God rewarded Ben Sira with a “tongue,” and he praised God (v. 22). One does not have to search far in the book to find all of these “experiences” as included in Ben Sira’s instruction to his students. Chapter  1 begins with “All wisdom is from the Lord,” and it connects searching for Wisdom, fearing God, and fulfilling torah as the central components of the righteous and successful life. Ben Sira’s own search in chapter 51 is contained in the advice he gives in 6:23–31. Verses 26–27 make the point: “Come to her with all your soul and keep her ways with all your might. Search out and seek, and she will become known to you; and when you get a firm hold, do not let her go.” These poems of personal “experience” lead up to Ben Sira’s exhortation for the reader/student to learn from him. As one who has pursued and acquired Wisdom (with a capital “W”), he is in a position to mediate her: “I opened my mouth and spoke of her; gain wisdom for yourselves without money” (51:25; Ms  B). As is the case in 24:30–34, Ben Sira presents himself as the conduit or mediator of Wisdom, but here he bases this claim on the “experience” that he has just narrated. In sum, then, chapter 51 much more closely resembles the kind of postface that Genette describes, a “chat” with the reader that authorizes and authenticates the text’s instruction. The sage who has given instruction to his stu­ dents and readers explains how he learned from his own experience to find and to acquire the Wisdom that was present at creation, and he can mediate her to his student/reader. It constructs a Ben Sira who undertakes and successfully com­ pletes the paradigmatic pursuit of Wisdom, whom he embodies as an exemplar that the student should emulate. This chapter works doubly well, then, since it follows immediately on the heels of revelation of Ben Sira’s name.

32 I wonder whether this prayer for wisdom alludes to Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 3 and thus invokes the king as a legendary and authoritative figure and situates Ben Sira in a similar vein as an authoritative purveyor of wisdom.

What’s in a Name? 

 219

5 Ben Sira: A Biography So, taking together the paratextual features I have examined above, what does “Ben Sira: A Biography” look like? As a young man, Joshua ben Elazar ben Sira the Jerusalemite engaged in a single­minded pursuit of Wisdom. He devoted himself to her and became learned. He traveled widely, learning wisdom from any source that he could. At some point his life was endangered through the machinations of slanderous enemies, but he escaped. He ran a “house of instruction” to which students would come and learn from him. He composed a book of instruction that contained his considerable wisdom, which he wrote for those who love learning and wanted to live the right kind of life. In light of all his instruction about finding a good wife, he likely was married, and he would have had children, since his “grandson,” who, after he had traveled to Egypt, translated his book into Greek in order to make Ben Sira’s valuable instruction available to those who wanted to live according to the law. Some scholars have taken this constructed “biography” seriously as repre­ senting a clear shift in Jewish literary values that has resulted from Greek influ­ ence.33 Burton Mack, for example, thinks that Ben Sira had an “awareness of what it meant to be an author,” which was “no doubt the result of his learning about texts, education, and authorship on the model of the Greeks,” wherein the author would take responsibility for what he said or wrote and then reap the rewards of his wisdom.34 Similarly, Martin Hengel claims that “Ben Sira was the first to venture to emerge as a personality. . .Here is the beginning of a new development, for the stressing of the personality of the individual teacher derived from Greek custom.”35 Paul McKechnie has gone the farthest in accepting the details of Ben Sira’s “biography,” exploiting the poems of chapter 51 in order to reconstruct a scenario in which Ben Sira emigrated to Egypt, was an official in the court of Ptolemy IV, V, or VI, was falsely accused in front of Ptolemy, was acquitted, and set up a wisdom school in his retirement.36 Setting aside for the time being the idea that Greek literary values position authors in the same way that we do, the fact that we learn Ben Sira’s name has blinded Mack, Hengel, and McKechnie to the way that his biography is con­ structed.37 As Mroczek points out, if we did not have a specific name attached to 33 For a more detailed discussion, see Wright / Mroczek, Pseudo­Pseudepigraphy, 214–216. 34 Mack, Wisdom, 186–187. 35 Hengel, Judaism, 1:79. 36 McKechnie, Career of Ben Sira. See the critique in Mroczek, Literary Imagination, 99–100. 37 See Wright / Mroczek, Pseudo­Pseudepigraphy, 234–236, where we challenge the assump­ tions about Greek authorship inherent in Mack’s and Hengel’s claims.

220 

 Benjamin G. Wright

this work, we would know little more than we do about the first­person speak­ ers in Proverbs.38 Irene Peirano, speaking about Homer’s identification, points to the discursive function of “authorial” self­expression: “The act of identifying oneself is not an innocent gesture of self­expression; rather it manifests itself as a desire to be remembered and proleptically enacted in the mode of discourse of the genre with which remembrance of excellence is most closely associated, namely epic.”39 In the book of Ben Sira, we do not encounter a real author of a book, despite knowing the sage’s name. His identification (Hebrew) or self­iden­ tification (Greek) in 50:27 functions in the way that Vayntrub and Peirano have argued for Proverbs and Homer, and, as Mroczek and I have argued, it positions Ben Sira among those whom he extols in the opening verses of the “Praise of the Ancestors” in chapters 44–50: “Let us now sing the praises of famous men” (44:1). Indeed, he anticipates that what he says about these figures will be true of him as well: “Their offspring will continue forever, and their glory will never be blotted out. Their bodies were buried in peace, but their name lives on generation after generation. The assembly declares their wisdom, and the congregation pro­ claims their praise” (44:13–15; Mas, Ms B). The paratextual features we encounter in the Wisdom of Ben Sira create a biography, a set of first­hand experiences, and a memory for the sage that mark the work as instruction. The paratexts that frame the work, especially 50:27, combined with the first­person passages within it, manufacture the biography that Ben Sira otherwise lacks, supplying Vayntrub’s “interpretive frame for the text.” At the same time that Ben Sira’s name and his biography construct a persona who authorizes and authenticates the instruction contained in the text and who serves as an ideal for his students to emulate, it also begets a legendary figure who can take his place with the other worthies of the Israelite past.

Bibliography Aitken, J. A., The Literary Attainment of the Translator of Greek Sirach, in: J.-S. Rey and J. Joosten (eds.), The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation (JSJSup 150), Leiden 2011, 95–126. Broznick, N. / Stern, D. / Mirsky, M. J., The Alphabet of Ben Sira, in: D. Stern and M. J. Mirsky (eds.), Rabbinic Fantasies: Imaginative Narratives from Classical Hebrew Literature, New Haven 1990, 167–202.

38 Mroczek, Literary Imagination, 99. 39 Peirano, Ille ego, 261.

What’s in a Name? 

 221

Corley, J., Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira. An investigation of beginnings and endings, in: A. Passaro and G. Bellia (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLS 1), Berlin 2008, 21–47. Genette, G., Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation (Transl. Jane E. Lewin), Cambridge 1997. Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism (Transl. John. Bowden), Philadelphia 1974. Mack, B. L., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (CSHJ), Chicago 1985. Labendz, J. R., The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature: AJSR 30 (2006) 347–392. Lejeune, Ph., Le Pacte autobiographique, Paris 1975. McKechnie, P., The Career of Ben Sira: JTS 51 (2000) 1–28. Mroczek, E., The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity, Oxford 2016. Najman, H., Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77), Leiden 2003. Najman, H. (with Itamar Manoff and Eva Mroczek), How to Make Sense of Pseudonymous Attribution: The Cases of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, in: M. Henze (ed.), A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, Grand Rapids 2012, 308–336. Peirano, I., Ille ego qui quondam: on authorial (an)onymity, in: A. Marmodoro and J. Hill (eds.), The Author’s Voice in Classical and Late Antiquity, Oxford 2013, 251–285. Pietersma, A. / Wright, B. G., A New English Translation of the Septuagint, New York 2007. Rey, J.-S., Transmission textuelle et sacralization: Quelque charactéristiques de la pratque des copistes de ms. A et B du texte hébreu de Ben Sira, in: V. Litvan (ed.), Littérature et sacré: La tradition en question (Littérature et Spiritualité), Frankfurt am Main 2016, 163–177. Skehan, P. W. / Di Lella, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York 1987. Vayntrub, J., Before Authorship: Solomon and Prov. 1:1: BibInt 26 (2018) 182–206. Wright, B. G., From Generation to Generation: The Sage as Father in Early Jewish Literature, in: Ch. Hempel and J. M. Lieu (eds.), Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael Knibb (JSJSup 111), Leiden 2006, 309–332. Wright, B. G., Ben Sira on the Sage as Exemplar, in: B. G. Wright (ed.), Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, The Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (JSJSup 131), Leiden 2008, 165–182. Wright, B. G., Translation Greek in Light of the Grandson’s Prologue, in: J.-S. Rey and J. Joosten (eds.), The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation (JSJSup 150), Leiden 2011, 75–94. Wright, B. G., A Character in Search of a Story: The Reception of Ben Sira in Early Medieval Judaism, in: J. Harold Ellens et al. (eds.), ‘Wisdom Poured Out Like Water’: Studies in Jewish and Christian Antiquity in Honor of Gabriele Boccaccini (DCLS 38), Berlin 2018, 377–395. Wright, B. G. / Mroczek, E., Ben Sira’s Pseudo-Pseudepigraphy: Idealizations from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, in: G. Schmidt Goering et al. (eds.), Sirach and its Contexts: The Pursuit of Human Flourishing (JSJSup 196), Leiden 2021, 213–239. Yassif, E., Sippurei ben Sira Bi-Yemei Ha-Beinayim, Jerusalem 1984. Ziegler, J., Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. XII/2. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, Göttingen 1980.

Friedrich V. Reiterer

Des Menschen Wohltat und Gottes Wohlwollen Aspekte der Anthropologie und Theologie Ben Siras Abstract: Sira teaches his students – and everyone who study his work – how to thrive together in the private, social and religious spheres. On the one hand, the success depends on the personal attitude and on the other hand on concrete actions. Affection, benevolence, mutual help, and above all the protection of the weak are central goals that education focuses on in the spirit of Ben Sira. The LORD watches and reacts to people’s behavior. He himself turns to his creatures with forbearance and compassion, if necessary with severity. Keywords: benefit, benevolence, donations, mercy, compassion, labour of human­ ity, charity

1 Einführung Alle jene, die in Ben Siras Lehrhaus (ἐν οἴκῳ παιδείας;1 Sir 51:23) studierten, beka­ men viele Anregungen, wie das Zusammenleben unter den Menschen gelingt und sich gut entfaltet. Sira entwickelt in diesem Kontext bahnbrechende Gedanken darüber, welche Kraft in der guten Tat liegt, auch im Hinblick auf Sündenverge­ bung. Gott beobachtet wohlwollend die zwischenmenschliche Sympathie und die Bereitschaft zur Liebestat. Wir untersuchen Siras Aussagen über das Zusammen­ leben innerhalb der Menschen, also den anthropologischen Aspekt (1.), dann die religiösen Implikationen (2.) und jene Passagen, die beschreiben, wie Gott reagiert und auch selbst handelt, also den theologischen Aspekt (3.). Sira erwähnt sehr häufig, dass Gott der Schöpfer ist. Seine Geschöpfe macht er mit seinen guten Gaben (ἀπὸ τῶν ἀγαθῶν αὐτοῦ) geradezu trunken (μεθύσκοντά σε; 32,13). – Die Rolle des Schöpfers prägt Siras Denken und Argumentieren grundlegend und er sieht Relationen zwischen den Menschen und Gott, welche in

1 Die Untersuchung geht wegen der Vollständigkeit der Textbasis vom griechischen Text von Ben Sira aus und verweist allenthalben auf die hebräische Version; der griechische Text wird nach den Editionen von Ziegler und Rahlfs verwendet. Für den hebäischen Siratext wurden – neben meinen eigenen Aufzeichnungen – ‫ספר‬, Vattioni und Beentjes verwendet. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-014

224 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

der Schöpfung und durch den Schöpfer grundgelegt sind. Gott hat die Menschen nach seinem Bild geschaffen (κατʼ εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ; Sir 17,3b). Diese Abbildhaftigkeit hat Implikationen: Gott hat den Menschen ausgestattet mit „Entscheidungsfähig­ keit, Sprache, Augen, Ohren und dem Herzen als Sitz der Fähigkeit zum Denken“ (Sir 17,6). Als Werkzeuge gibt der Herr Wissen, Einsicht, die Fähigkeit der Unter­ scheidung zwischen Gut und Böse und die Fertigkeit, den Herrn ernst zu nehmen (vgl. Sir 17,7f), sodass er die innere Dynamik der Schöpfung verstehen kann. Der Mensch hat demnach durch die Schöpfung ein Sensorium mitbekommen, das auf die Wirkweisen Gottes reagieren kann. Diese Fertigkeiten begründen, dass es vergleichbare Erscheinungen zwischen der Welt des Menschen und der „Welt“ Gottes gibt.2 Daher findet sich gar manche Analogie zwischen den positiven Ebenen zwischen den Menschen und jenen, die Gottes Handeln beschreiben: die gleiche Terminologie belegt die Analogien.

2 Der anthropologische Aspekt Unter Menschen gibt es eine allgemeine Seinssolidarität, weil Menschen eben Men­ schen sind. Das Band der existentialen Verbindung führt Sira auf ein naturgemäßes Wohlwollen zwischen den Menschen zurück, denn wie „jedes andere Lebewesen (πᾶν ζῷον) seinesgleichen, so liebt (ἀγαπᾷ) auch jeder Mensch seinen Nächsten“ (Sir13,15). Intuitive Aufeinanderbezogenheit von Wohlwollen (χάρις) als Einstel­ lung und Wohltat (ἐλεημοσύνη) als konkrete Aktion hat positive mitmenschliche Wirkungen, die nach Sira für immer Bestand haben (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διαμενεῖ). Sie sind geradezu mit dem Glückzustand im Paradies vergleichbar; Sir 40,17. Diese positiven Verhältnisse sind Zielvorstellungen, zu deren Realisierung die Schüler Siras Wesentliches beitragen können. So großzügig wie du im Gebet für die eigenen Anliegen bittest, so greifbar großzügig sollst du auch bei den Wohltaten (ἐλεημοσύνην ποιῆσαι) an den Mitmenschen sein; Sir 7,10. Wenn nun ein Mitmensch Gefahr läuft, z.B. in Schuldsklaverei zu geraten, dann wird ihm der, dem es möglich ist, mit seinem Geld behilflich sein: so praktiziert man die Anteilnahme (ὁ ποιῶν ἔλεος δανιεῖ; 29,1), welche dann eben nicht nur in der Theorie besteht. Mitfühlendes Wohlwollen zeigt sich daran, dass man Mitmen­ schen, die entweder bescheiden (ταπεινός)3 oder sozial unbedeutend sind, offen­

2 Da der Umfang des Beitrages beschränkt ist, werden grundlegende Aspekte aus dem reichen Material Siras herausgegriffen. Eine umfassende Behandlung wie z.B. der Umgang innerhalb der Familie oder gegenüber Freunden wird an anderer Stelle erfolgen. 3 Vgl. Reiterer, Bedeutungslosigkeit 58–64; Schöpflin, Niedrigkeit passim.

Des Menschen Wohltat und Gottes Wohlwollen  

 225

herzig entgegengeht und nicht auf dessen Bitte wartet, um jenem eine Wohltat (ἐλεημοσύνη; Sir 29,8) zu erweisen. Du sollst mit offener Hand auf Arme zugehen („dem Armen / πτωχῷ streck deine Hand entgegen;“ Sir 7,32), doch sollte die Bereitschaft zum Beschenken (χάρις δόματος) für alle Menschen (ἔναντι παντὸς ζῶντος; Sir 7,33a) offen sein. Auffällig ist die Universalität der sozialen Einstel­ lung Siras, die keineswegs nur auf die jüdischen Mitbürger beschränkt ist. Neben den karitativ sozialen Zuwendungen sieht Sira vor allem auch in einem guten Wort einen wesentlichen Beitrag für eine gedeihliche mitmenschliche Entwick­ lung. Daher betont er, dass „sich auf den Lippen eines Verständigen Wohlwollen (χάρις) findet“ (Sir 21,16b). Sira weiß sehr genau, dass Lügen, Verleumdungen und destruktive Mehrdeutigkeiten das Leben des Einzelnen, einer kleinen wie einer großen Gemeinschaft zerstören können. Er hebt daher hervor, wie wichtig auf­ bauende Worte sind. In einem Land, wo die Sonne oft versengende Hitze bringt, weiß man, dass in dieser Situation eine Kühlung nicht nur Erholung, sondern eine wertvolle Hilfe ist. Mit einem Vergleich aus dieser Erfahrung, erklärt Sira, wie wichtig verständnisvolle Worte sind: „Vertreibt nicht der Tau die Hitze? So ist das Wort mehr als die Gabe. Ist das Wort nicht mehr wert als die Gabe?“ (Sir 18,16–17a). Sira setzt sich auch mit den großen sozialen Unterschieden seiner Zeit auseinander, denn er kennt die Armut vieler. Wenn er nun eine Gabe in solchen Notlagen einem verständisvollen Zuspruch nachordnet, zeigt er, dass die seeli­ sche Bedrängnis schrecklicher sein kann als äußere, physische Not. In verschie­ denen Formen zeigt sich, welch hohen Wert das Wohlwollen (χάρις; Sir 21,16b) im mitmenschlichen Kontext besitzt. Das Vorhandensein eines guten Verhältnisses innerhalb der Gesellschaft ist nicht nur ein zentrales Bedürfnis, sondern ist zugleich Fundament und Höhepunkt eines Sozialwesens, wobei der innere Zusammenhalt achtsam gepflegt werden muss. Wenn Sira festhält, dass „Brüder tatsächlich Hilfe sind für die Zeit der Bedrängnis“ (Sir 40,24), erinnert man sich an die Rechtsverfahren, in denen die Schar der Unterstützer eine entscheidende Rolle bei der Durchsetzung von Rechts­ ansprüchen spielte; vgl. Ps 127,5.4 Aber dieses existentielle Fangnetzt der Großfa­ milie wird noch übertroffen von dem Beistand, welchen gute Gaben und Taten am anderen – beide Aspekte sind in ἐλεημοσύνη enthalten – begründen. Innerhalb der Gesellschaft – so Sira – ist das Wohlverhalten, die gegenseitige soziale Unter­ stützung noch viel widerstandsfähiger und wirksamer als der Beistand, der durch Familienbande möglich ist. In Form eines Zahlenspruches fasst Sira die opti­ male Reife einer Gesellschaft mit folgenden Schlagworten zusammen: „Eintracht

4  „Selig der Mann, der mit ihnen [den Söhnen] den Köcher gefüllt hat! Sie werden nicht zu­ schanden, wenn sie mit ihren Feinden rechten im Tor“ (Ps 127,5).

226 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

unter Brüdern (ὁμόνοια ἀδελφῶν), Freundschaft mit den Nächsten (φιλία τῶν πλησίον) sowie Frau und Mann, die sich in Einklang befinden“ (Sir 25,1). Die Har­ monie (ὁμόνοια), eigentlich: gleiche Gesinnung, zwischen den Brüdern ist so bedeutsam, dass das Streben danach auch in den Gebetsschatz Eingang gefunden hat; vgl. Ps 133/132,1. Ein Blick auf Gen 13,8 (‫ ֲאנָ ִׁשים ָא ִחים ֲאנָ ְחנּו‬/ ἄνθρωποι ἀδελφοὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν) zeigt, dass mit dem Terminus Brüder nicht nur die direkten Geschwis­ ter – wie Ps 133/132,1 nahezulegen scheint – zu verstehen sind, sondern Brüder in einem breiteren Sinn gemeint sind, wo auch entferntere Verwandte dazuzählen. Das Wort Brüder bezeichnet also einen größeren Sozialbereich. Noch nachdrückli­ cher umfassend ist die soziale Streuung des Stichwortes Nächster, das bei Sira einfach als „Mitmensch“ belegt ist, wobei keine Konzentrierung auf Volksgenossen vorzunehmen ist; vgl. z.B. Sir 5,12; 18,13a; 31,15. In diesem Kontext ist darauf hinzu­ weisen, dass auch das Stichwort Liebe in einem breiten Wortsinn gebraucht wird. Liebe bezeichnet die innere Bindung innerhalb solcher Menschen, die das gleiche Wertesystem teilen. In den Augen Siras sind also Eintracht bzw. Harmonie und Freundschaft unter den Mitmenschen – Mitmensch in einem engeren und weite­ ren Sinne – der Kitt, der das Sozialwesen begründet und zusammenhält. Wenn man prophetisch­warnende Drohungen mit den angekündigten Maß­ regelungen durch Gott oder Gesetzestexte, in denen zum Teil recht drastische Strafen bei Vergehen vorgesehen sind, vor Augen hat, dann kann man den Ein­ druck bekommen, dass sich ein Weisheitslehrer, dem keine dieser Instrumente zur Verfügung stehen, in einer schwachen Posten befindet. Warum soll man sich um dessen Ratschläge und dessen teils mühsamen Anforderungen kümmern, wenn ja keine Sanktionen zu erwarten sind. Da nun zeigt sich, dass die Folgen auf einer ganz anderen Eben eintreten, nämlich im persönlich­individuellen Bereich: Dort haben gute Taten und Wohlwollen lange anhaltende Effekte. Es gilt einmal grundsätzlich, dass das Benehmen ausschlaggebend dafür ist, wie das soziale Umfeld reagiert. Zu seinem Schüler sagt Sira, er solle seine Arbeiten und Aufgaben in Bescheidenheit5 erledigen, dann werde er von seinem Mitmenschen – vor allem auch von einem solchen, der einen guten Stand in der Gemeinde hat, also einem „anerkannten Menschen (ἄνθρωπος δεκτός6)“ – nicht nur geschätzt, sondern auch geliebt werden (ἀγαπηθήσῃ; 3,17). Man solle sich immer vor Augen halten, dass eine angemessene Zurückhaltung (αἰσχύνη) Ehre (δόξα) und Zuneigung (χάρις) zur Folge haben (4,21). Wer das griechisch­hellenis­ tische Ideal vor Augen hat, wonach die Ehre der höchste Wert ist, den man – oft 5 Das Gewicht der Demut beeindrukt Spieckermann und er schreibt zu Sira, dass „denen, die in Demut … leben, … Gott voller Erbarmen seinen Ratschluss … “ offenbart; Spieckermann, Lebens­ kunst 123; vgl. 120f und Spieckermann, Barmherzig passim. 6 Ziegler liest ἄνθρωπος δότης.

Des Menschen Wohltat und Gottes Wohlwollen  

 227

in der hemmungslosen Besiegung – der Gegner erringt, der sieht, welch einen unterschiedlichen Ansatz für die Dynamik des gesellschaftlichen Lebens Sira vertritt. Wohl aufgrund der kontemporären Bedeutung der durch einen Sieg errungenen Ehre im hellenistischen Kontext betont Sira entgegen dem griechi­ schen Grundsatz „immer der Beste zu sein und anderen gegenüber herausragend zu verbleiben“ (Hom. Il. 6.208 und 11.784) das Gewicht ehrlicher Zurückhaltung (αἰσχυντηρὸς ἀληθινῶς), durch die „du Zuneigung (χάριν) bei den Menschen finden wirst“ (42,1). Was hat man also zu machen, um dieses Ziel, nämlich Zuneigung, zu errei­ chen? Da gibt es verschiedene Felder. Einer macht sich z.B. beliebt (ἑαυτὸν προσφιλῆ ποιήσει; 20,13), indem er sich mit klugen Worten einbringt.7 Ein anderer erzieht seine Kinder gut, damit diese dann einst den Freunden (τοῖς φίλοις) die erfahrene Wohltat (χάριν) rückerstatten (ἀνταποδιδόντα; 30,6). Was ist denn unter Wohltat zu verstehen, kann man diese näherhin beschreiben? Vielfältig sind einzelne Bespiele, aber einmal zählt Sira, wie schon oben teilweise erwähnt, eine ganze Liste auf: „Dem Armen streck deine Hand entgegen, … die Bereitschaft zum Beschenken (χάρις δόματος) werde jedem Lebenden (ἔναντι παντὸς ζῶντος) zuteil, … Entzieh dich nicht den Weinenden (μὴ ὑστέρει ἀπὸ κλαιόντων), mit den Trauernden trauere (μετὰ πενθούντων πένθησον)! Zögere nicht, einen Kranken zu besuchen8 (ἐπισκέπτεσθαι ἄρρωστον ἄνθρωπον9)“ (7,32–35). Wer das tut, befleißigt sich nicht nur der „Werke der Barmherzigkeit“, wie man solche Hand­ lungen traditionell zu bezeichnen pflegt, sondern macht sich auch selbst damit nicht nur beliebt, sondern auch geliebt (ἀγαπηθήσῃ; 7,35b). Eine gute Tat am Mitmenschen ist nie umsonst vollbracht! Sira hält fest, dass man sich dessen, der die Liebestaten tatkräftig erwidert (ὁ ἀνταποδιδούς), auch in Zukunft erinnern wird: dieser Mensch bleibt im kollektiven Gedächtnis präsent (3,31). Sira verallgemeinert andernorts eine Fragestellung, die anfänglich nur auf das erhoffte Wohlverhalten eines Reichen gemünzt war, auf Grundsätzliches hin: „Wer konnte übertreten und übertrat nicht, Böses tun und tat es nicht?“ (31,10). Wer so handelt, dessen gute Taten (τὰ ἀγαθά) und Wohltaten (τὰς ἐλεημοσύνας) werden in der Gemeinde auch in Zukunft sprichwörtlich sein und weitererzählt werden (31,11).

7 Vgl. Di Lella, Ben Siras’s doctrine 244. 8  „Der Krankenbesuch beschließt den Kreis wichtiger Beziehungen und Erweise der Zuwen­ dung. Der Besuch der Freunde Ijobs und ihre Reaktion in Ijob 2,11–13 sind der berührendste und tiefste Ausdruck dieser Praxis, die Mt 25,31 im Gericht mitentscheidet. Auch in der rabbinsichen Literatur ist die Sorge um die Kranken hervorragende Pflicht (bBQ 100a; Ned 39b; bSuk 41b)“ Marböck, Jesus Sirach 133. 9 Ziegler ohne ἄνθρωπον.

228 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

3 Die religiösen Implikationen Sira liebt es, seine Anliegen, die oft geistiger Natur sind, mit Beispielen aus der handgreiflichen Erfahrungswelt verständlich zu machen. Wenn er schreibt, „Wasser löscht loderndes Feuer“ (3,30a), dann mag man danach fragen, welche Konnotationen Sira hat, wenn er „Feuer“ als Beispiel wählt. Sira erläutert seine negativen Erfahrung mit willkürlicher Macht mittels eines Vergleichs: „Je nach dem Brennstoff flammt das Feuer auf, je nach dem Einfluss wächst der Streit“ (Sir 28,10a.b). Das Feuer tendiert dazu, immer mehr Hitze zu erzeugen, wie man bei jedem offenen Feuer beobachten kann. Daher warnt Sira im Kontext eines Streites: „Lege nicht Holz auf sein Feuer!“ (Sir 8,3b), denn die alltägliche Erfah­ rung zeigt, dass das Feuer kräftiger zu brennen beginnt, wenn man immer wieder Holz nachlegt. Sira selbst war unschuldig durch bösartige Anfeindungen in eine verzweifelte Lage geraten und es drohte sogar der Tod. Diese Situation beschreibt er dramatisch. Ihm kam vor, dass eine Rettung vollständig unmöglich ist und er sieht seine Situation so, dass von ringsherum Feuer hereinbricht und er in der Feuersbrunst erstickt (51,4a). Auch der Herr wählt die Elemente Feuer und Wasser, um die Entscheidungsfreiheit des Menschen eindringlich vor Augen zu führen: „Er hat dir Feuer und Wasser vorgelegt, was immer du erstrebst, danach wirst du deine Hand ausstrecken“ (15,16). Gemeint ist damit, dass alles, was dir von Gott zur Entscheidung vorgelegt wird, gut und dienlich ist, genauso wie das Gegenteil. „Vor den Menschen liegen Leben und Tod, was immer ihm gefällt, wird ihm gegeben“ (Sir 15,17): Der Herr lässt sich beim Menschen auf ein hohes Risiko ein! Er gibt das, wofür sich der Mensch entschieden hat. Der Ausrede, dass, wenn du dich für den Tod entschieden hast, der eigentliche Akteur des Verderbens letztlich Gott ist, schiebt Sira einen Riegel vor: „Keinem befahl er, gottlos zu sein (ἀσεβεῖν), und er erlaubte keinem zu sündigen (ἁμαρτάνειν)“ (15,20).10 Die Realität des menschlichen Lebens sieht aber anders aus: Der Mensch vergeht sich oft, ja zu oft, womit sich Sira natürlich auch beschäft, wie neben anderen Stichworten für Vergehen die 16 Belege für ἁμαρτάνειν, die 48 Belege für ἁμαρτία und die 40 Belege für ἁμαρτωλός im Buch Ben Siras bezeugen. „Des Hochmuts Einfallstor ist die Sünde (ἁμαρτία) … und der Herr vernichtet sie [= die Sünder] am Ende“ (Sir 10,13a.d). Die Sünde setzt das Leben aufs Spiel. Was ist aber, wenn du dich falsch entscheidest, und wir registrieren: Die Sünde ist da! Jetzt kommt Sir 3,30b ins Spiel, sind wir doch durch 3,30a zu den eben durchgeführten Überlegungen angeregt worden: „eine Liebestat (ἐλεημοσύνη) sühnt (ἐξιλάσεται) Sünden“ (3,30b). Das Verb ἐξιλάσκεσθαι entstammt der kulti­

10 Vgl. zur Einheit 15,11–20 Beentjes, Theodicy.

Des Menschen Wohltat und Gottes Wohlwollen  

 229

schen Sprache, genauer der Vergebungsterminologie im Rahmen von Opfern; vgl. z.B. die 32 Vorkommen des Verbes ἐξιλάσκεσθαι im Buch Leviticus.11 Ausdrücklich wird festgehalten, dass Sünden geschehen und nun negative Folgen zu erwarten sind. Durch das einschlägige Opfer entsühnt der Priester den Sünder und in passi­ ver Form – = passivum divinum, weil ja JHWH die Sünden vergibt – wird festgehal­ ten, dass die Aufhebung der Sünden12 erfolgt. Immer werden Opfertiere und ein liturgisch aktiver Priester erwähnt. Ganz anders aber Sira! Es gibt einen Weg, die Sünde unwirksam zu machen: Durch die Wohltat (ἐλεημοσύνη) ist Sühne zu erwir­ ken. Dieser Mechanismus zeigt zugleich, welches enorme Gewicht die zwischen­ menschliche soziale Guttat (ἐλεημοσύνη) besitzt, so auch HB: ‫כן צדקה תכפר חטאת‬. Sira löst die Vergebung sowohl vom Opfertier wie auch vom liturgischen Akt eines Priesters.13 Im folgenden Abschnitt interessiert uns vor allem die Bedeutung und Funk­ tion von χάρις und ἐλεημοσύνη, doch hat man zur Klärung des richtigen Ver­ ständnisses dieser Leitworte den Kontext einzubeziehen: „Wer das Gesetz (νόμον) einhält, multipliziert (πλεονάζει) Gaben (προσφοράς), ein Heilsopfer bringt dar (θυσιάζων σωτηρίου), wer die Gebote (ἐντολαῖς) hält. Wer sich für einen Liebes­ dienst (χάριν) erkenntlich zeigt (ἀνταποδιδούς), der bringt feinstes Weizenmehl 11 Lev 4,20.26.31.35; 5,6.10.13.16.18.26; 7,7; 12,7f; 14,18ff.29.31.53; 15,15.30; 16,6.11.16ff.24.30.32f; 17,11; 19,22; vgl. Zusätzlich: Ex 30,10; Num 5,8; 6,11; 15,25.28. 12 Im Zusammenhang mit unbewussten bzw. verborgenen Sünden des ganzen Volkes (Lev 4,13) wird ein Jungstier zubereitet. „Und der Priester wird für sie Sühne schaffen (ἐξιλάσεται περὶ αὐτῶν ὁ ἱερεύς) und die Sünde wird ihnen vergeben werden (ἀφεθήσεται αὐτοῖς ἡ ἁμαρτία); Lev 4,20. Gleichen Inhalts sind auch Belege, in denen Sünde zwar bei dem Sühnen, nicht aber bei der Vergebung ausdrücklich genannt wird, wie z.B. in Lev 4,26, wo es darum geht, dass sich eine ge­ sellschaftlich führende Person unwissentlich vergangen hat: Bei der Darbringung eines Ziegen­ bocks steht: „Und der Priester wird für ihn Sühne schaffen von seiner Sünde (ἐξιλάσεται … ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας) und ihm wird vergeben werden (ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ).“ Ein gewöhnlicher Israelit bringt eine weibliche Ziege zum Opfer und „der Priester wird für ihn Sühne schaffen (ἐξιλάσεται) und ihm wird vergeben werden (ἀφεθήσεται)“ (Lev 4,26); es wird also die Sünde gar nicht aus­ drücklich erwähnt. 13 Dan 3 – in sich noch zu differenzieren – gehört zu den späten Teilen im Buch Daniel und könnte ungefähr zeitgleich anzusetzen sein wie die griechische Version von Ben Sira. Der Autor beklagt zwar das Fehlen von Möglichkeiten für Opfer, doch bietet er keine Lösung im sirazi­ dischen Sinne, indem er die sozialen Aktionen als Ersatz dafür wertet oder Sündenvergebung damit verbindet: „Und es gibt in dieser Zeit keinen Leiter und Propheten und Anführer, weder Ganzopfer noch Brandopfer noch Opfergabe noch Räucheropfer noch einen Ort, Früchte vor dir darzubringen und Barmherzigkeit (ἔλεος) zu finden. Aber mit zerbrochener Seele und nieder­ geschlagenem Geist mögen wir angenommen werden! Wie beim Ganzopfer von Widdern und Stieren und (wie bei) Zehntausenden von fetten Lämmern, so geschehe unser Brandopfer heute vor dir, denn keine Schande ist bei denen, die auf dich vertrauen, und es möge hinter dir (die Annahme) vollenden!“ (Dan 3,38–40; Septuaginta Deutsch).

230 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

(σεμίδαλιν) dar, und wer eine Spende vornimmt (ὁ ποιῶν ἐλεημοσύνην), bringt ein Lobopfer dar (θυσιάζων αἰνέσεως)“ (35,1–4). (a) Es liegen verschiedene Handlungsebenen vor: – die individuelle Aktion durch Einhaltung des Gesetzes bzw. von Vor­ schriften (1a; 2b); – die Darbringung des Heilsopfer (2a), die Opferung des feinsten Weizen­ mehls (3b), die Opferung des Lobopfers (4b) richtet sich an den Herrn, – die Vervielfachung der Gaben (1b), die Erwiderung eines Liebesdienstes (3a) und Praxis einer Spende einer ansehnlichen Gabe (4b). (b) Die Zuwendungen und Liebesdienste erscheinen als Erfüllung des alttestament­ lichen Gesetzes (νόμος). Daher mag man danach fragen, wo denn derartige gesetz­ liche Vorschriften in den älteren Schriften zu finden sind, auf die sich Sira bezieht. Opfer haben in der Gesetzesliteratur einen festen Platz. Nur ansatzweise gibt es Vergleichsstellen für die Ersetzung von Opfern, wie „… anstelle von Stieren bringen wir dir unsere Lippen dar“ (Hos 14,3),14 aber der Hinweis auf den zwischenmensch­ lichen Liebesdienst fehlt. Die Feststellung der positiven Wirkung eines Dankopfers (Ps 49/50,23), bei dem sich der Beter zugleich von Dieben, Betrügern und Verleum­ dern distanziert (Ps 49/50,18–20), bringt ethische Aspekte ins Spiel, kann jedoch nicht als Ersetzung des Opfers durch ethisches Verhalten verstanden werden. Gott fragt in diesem Zusammenhang, ob dem Beter denn der Kontrast nicht auffällt, einerseits sich auf Gottes Gesetz zu berufen,15 und andererseits abwegig zu handeln. Sollte Sira von solchen Worten beeinflusst sein, dann hat er eine radikale soziale Adaptierung, ja Umgestaltung vorgenommen. Er bedient sich nur positiver Argu­ mente, während der Beleg für die „Erfüllung des Gesetzes“16 fehlt. Zu allen schon

14 Skehan / di Lella (Wisdom 418) sehen positive Konnotationen zum Kult, doch bleibt die Argumentation sowohl vage als auch nicht überzeugend. Zuletzt endet die Interpretation in dem Hinweis auf die soziale Dimension: „Ben Sira insists on almsgiving as an essential part of Jewish religion“, womit die zuvorgehende auf den Kult bezogene Argumentation eigentlich zurückge­ nommen wird. 15 „Warum zählst du meine Rechtsbestimmungen [τὰ δικαιώματα] auf und nimmst meinen Bund [τὴν διαθήκην] in deinen Mund?“ (Ps 49/50,16). 16 Es ist leichter nachzuweisen, dass einer, der Opfer darbringt, die rechte Einstellung und tie­ fes Vertrauen zu Gott haben muss, als dass die Opfer in der Erfüllung sozialen Handelns beste­ hen: „Nicht wegen deiner Opfer rüg‘ ich dich, deine Brandopfer sind mir immer vor Augen. Doch nehme ich von dir Stiere nicht an noch Böcke aus deinen Hürden. Denn mir gehört alles Getier des Waldes, das Wild auf den Bergen zu Tausenden. Ich kenne alle Vögel des Himmels, was sich regt auf dem Feld, ist mein eigen. Hätte ich Hunger, ich brauchte es dir nicht zu sagen, denn mein ist die Welt und was sie erfüllt. Soll ich denn das Fleisch von Stieren essen und das Blut von Böcken

Des Menschen Wohltat und Gottes Wohlwollen  

 231

notierten Unterschieden kommt hinzu, dass es im Psalm um verbale Bekenntnisse, nicht um praktische Taten geht. Unbestritten bleibt aber, dass Sira einen Konnex zum „Gesetz“ sieht. – Sira ist daher eher von der Intention als von der Phraseolo­ gie anderer Passagen beeinflusst, und diese stehen auch – literarisch gesehen – im Kontext von Gesetzestexten. In Lev 19,18 steht: „Du sollst deinen Nächsten lieben wie dich selbst“ und Lev 19,34 weitet den Kreis der Betroffenen aus: „Der Fremde, der sich bei euch aufhält, soll euch wie ein Einheimischer gelten, und du sollst ihn lieben wie dich selbst.“ Im Deuteronomium steht: „Ihr sollt die Fremden lieben,“ (Dtn 10,19) und Dtn 14,29 fügt hinzu, dass das bedeutet, dass sie zu essen bekom­ men, damit sie auch satt werden (φάγονται καὶ ἐμπλησθήσονται). Hier geht es – wie bei Sira – um praktizierte Unterstützung! – Allerdings fehlt in diesen sozialen Vergleichstellen der Hinweis auf den Kult. Der Gedanke der liebenden und kon­ kret­praktischen Zuwendung berührt eine innersirazidische Feststellung, wie man mit einem Sklaven – zur Zeit Siras wohl meistens Fremde bzw. Ausländer – umzuge­ hen hat: „Einen besonnenen Sklaven sollst du lieben (ἀγαπάτω)“ (7,21a). (c) Die guten Werke an den Mitmenschen haben Wirkungen wie kultische Aktio­ nen, wobei bei Sira kein Priester erwähnt wird. Faktisch ersetzen die „Werke der Barmherzigkeit“ (χάρις, ἐλεημοσύνη) den klassischen Kult. Liebesdienst und Spenden sind keine an einem vom Alltag getrennten Ort – wie z.B. ein Tempel – vorgenommene Aktionen: diese Taten werden in den Alltag und den normalen Lebensbereich hereingenommen. Bedeutsam ist, dass es sich um praktische und real­greifbare Vorgänge handelt, wie die Verben ἀνταποδίδωμι und ποιέω (35,3.4) zeigen. Es würde um Vieles zu kurz greifen, wollte man bei Sira nur eine Einstel­ lung sehen: die Praxis steht im Zentrum. Auf das Handeln kommt es an, wie auch 35,5 impliziert: „Das Gefallen des Herrn findet Abkehr vom Bösen (ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ πονηρίας): Als Sühne (ἐξιλασμός) gilt ihm die Abkehr vom Unrecht (ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ ἀδικίας)“ (35,3). Die Sühne, also Vergebung der Sünden – wie schon oben im Kontext von 3,30b ausgeführt –, ist ein Anliegen Siras. Wie geschieht tradionell eine solche Sühne? – Darauf findet man im Buch Exodus eine grundsätzliche Antwort: „Einmal im Jahr soll Aaron an seinen [= des Altars] Hörnern die Entsüh­ nung vollziehen (ἐξιλάσεται); mit dem Blut der Reinigung (ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ; hebr. ‫„ ִמ ַּדם ַח ַטּאת‬Blut des Sündopfers“) der Sünden (τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν), der Entsühnung (τοῦ ἐξιλασμοῦ), soll er sie einmal im Jahr reinigen (all) ihre Generationen hindurch“ (Ex 30,10). Die Entsühnung geschieht nun bei Sira anders

trinken?“ (Ps 49/50,8–13); vgl. ähnlich: „Schlachtopfer willst du nicht, ich würde sie dir geben; an Brandopfern hast du kein Gefallen. Das Opfer, das Gott gefällt, ist ein zerknirschter Geist, ein zerbrochenes und zerschlagenes Herz wirst du, Gott, nicht verschmähen“ (Ps 50/51,18–19).

232 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

und zwar dadurch, dass dem sich am Herrn Orientierende das Wohlwollen des Herrn zugesagt wird aufgrund seines konkreten Liebesdienstes (χάρις) am Nächs­ ten und seiner praktizierten Wohltat bzw. Spende (ἐλεημοσύνη).17 Die Wirkung von – vor allem unter erschwerten Bedingungen – getätigten Liebestaten wird so hochgeschätzt, dass auch ohne verstohlenen Blick auf die ansonsten mit dem Kult verbundene Terminologie das gleiche Ergebnis erreicht wird. Dass alte Eltern oft soziale und persönliche Schwierigkeiten verursachen, weiß Sira sehr wohl; vgl. Sir 3,12f. Wer nun gerade in dieser Situation dem Vater gegenüber eine Liebestat (ἐλεημοσύνη) vollzieht, kann sich dessen sicher sein, dass sie nicht vergessen wird (ἐπιλησθήσεται; 3,14a), wobei das durch das passive Verb angedeutete Subjekt der Herr ist. Diese gute Tat hat Fernwirkungen, wie das Verb προσανοικοδομέω, ein hapax legomenon in der LXX, festhält. Sira setzt einen markanten Akzent, indem er dem Verb ἀνοικοδομέω, „wieder aufbauen“ – was voraussetzt, dass etwas zerstört worden ist –, die Vorsilbe προσ­ „zusätz­ lich, … dazu“18 hinzufügt19: Eine anstrengende Liebestat fungiert nicht nur als ein festes Fundament – das würde schon das Verb οἰκοδομέω zum Ausdruck bringen – sondern führt zusätzlich zum Wiederaufbau, indem der Schaden, den eine Sünde anrichtet, behoben wird: „statt der Sünden wird dir die Liebestat (ἐλεημοσύνη) zum Neuaufbau dienen“ (3,14b).

4 Der theologische Aspekt Die Untersuchung wechselt nun zum Bereich, wo Gott in den Mittelpunkt rückt, wie es schon in der zuletzt behandelten Passage auf verschlüsseltem Wege der Fall war. Was ergibt sich für das menschliche Verhalten, wenn sich der Herr „ein­ mischt“? Diese Thematik wird nun in mehreren Schritten bearbeitet.

17 Di Lella (Wisdom 417f) beurteilt die Passage [35,1–5] als eine „small unit, … that describes what true worship of God is all about. Here Ben Sira insists that the moral prescriptions of the Law (charity toward the poor and avoidance of evil) take first place and that external cultic practices are efficious only when joined to interior conversion and repentance.” Es ist allerdings darauf hinzuweisen, dass Sira den Kult nicht behandelt, keineswegs von einem „inneren“ Vor­ gang spricht und auch die Bekehrung an dieser Stelle nicht erwähnt. 18 Die hier aus dem breiten Bedeutungsspektrum von πρός (Oswald, Gemoll 684) ausgewähl­ ten Bedeutungen passen gut zum Kontext. 19 Obgleich eine Tendenz im griechischen Sira gegeben ist, anstelle des verbums simplex ein Kompositum zu verwenden (vgl. Hinweise bei Reiterer, Urtext u.a. 106), sind Belege wie 3,14b Beispiele dafür, dass sich hinter den weiteren Vorsilben spezifische Absichten verbergen: der Autor will in 3,14b bewusst eine Verstärkung erreichen.

Des Menschen Wohltat und Gottes Wohlwollen  

 233

(a) Gottes Nachsicht mit dem Sünder: Der Mensch ist nicht nur nicht perfekt, nein, er tendiert sogar dazu, Falsches und sogar Verbrechen zu begehen. Sira beschreibt einen Sünder folgendermaßen: Der Sünder kümmert sich weder um die Verehrung Gottes (θεοσέβεια) noch um einen lehrreichen Spruch (παραβολὴ ἐπιστήμης; Sir 1,25). Wie geht Sira mit derartigen Individuen um? – Da sind seine Beobachtungen aufgrund der jeweiligen Ausgangslage sehr gegensätzlich. Es gibt da Menschen, die gegen ihresgleichen (ἄνθρωπον ὅμοιον αὐτῷ) nur Wut (μῆνιν; 28,5) hegen, weder Mitleid noch Mitgefühl haben – beides ist in ἔλεος (28,4) ent­ halten –, doch wenn es um die eigene Haut geht, dann erflehen und erwarten sie vom Herrn die Heilung (28,3). So geht es nicht! Denn „für den gibt es nicht Gutes, der fortgesetzt Schlechtes tut, und für den, der keine Wohltaten (ἐλεημοσύνην) erweist (μὴ χαριζομένῳ)“ (12,3). Der Herr ist nicht der Spielball menschlicher Wunschvorstellungen oder gar Willkür. Der Mensch muss für seine Taten vor Gott geradestehen (16,22 GII), weshalb der Mensch nicht halsstarrig (σκληροτράχηλος; 16,11) und auch nicht übermütig sein darf. Du kannst dir keine Vergebung von Gott erwarten, solltest du infolge des Kalküls auf göttliche Nachsicht zu Hauf Sünden sammeln; vgl. 5,5. Denk daran, dass beim Herrn neben dem Erbarmen auch der Zorn (ἔλεος γὰρ καὶ ὀργή; 5,6; 16,11) präsent ist. Wer in der Sünde verharrt, der muss damit rechnen, dass Gottes Grimm (ὁ θυμός)20 auf den Sündern verbleibt (5,6).21 Menschlich ist nun die Annahme, dass der Herr mit aller Härte durch­ greift, wenn jemand derart unverschämt mit der Nachsicht spekuliert. Reagiert auch der Herr so, wie man es „vernünftigerweise“ erwarten würde? Da kommt jetzt das umfassende Urteil des Herrn über die Begrenztheit des Menschen ins Spiel, denn „die Zahl der Tage eines Menschen beträgt höchstens hundert Jahre. Wie ein Wassertropfen aus dem Meer und wie ein Sandkorn, so gleichen wenige Jahre einem Tag der Ewigkeit“ (18,9–10). Sira stellt die Transzendenz Gottes in den Mittelpunkt, die den gewaltigen Unterschied ausmacht:  „Unter den Men­ schen ist nicht alles möglich, weil ein Menschenkind nicht ohne Tod22 ist (οὐκ 20 Die Phrase „verdeutlicht die systematisierende Tendenz des Sirachbuchs, das sich insgesamt als ein Kompendium zentraler Theologumena der hebräischen Bibel ansprechen lässt. Als Sam­ melbecken weisheitlicher, kultischer, juridischer und prophetischer Traditionen bietet sich das Sirachbuch geradezu als Ausgangspunkt für einen Überblick über das im Alten Testament zent­ rale Thema von der Barmherzigkeit und dem Zorn Gottes an“ (Witte, Barmherzigkeit 84). 21 Vgl. zu 5,1–8 Argall, 1 Enoch 220–235; Beentjes, Ben Sira 5,1–8. 22 Wie stark das Verständnis von den theologischen Kategorien, in denen man sich gewöhnlich bewegt, abhängig ist, zeigt das Adjektiv ἀθάνατος (17,30), welches gewöhnlich mit unsterblich (nEÜ; Septuaginta Deutsch; nLuth) bzw. immortal (NRSV; NAB; NETS) übersetzt wird. Der Autor will aber sagen: ἀ + θάνατος: das Alpha privativum verneint, daher: „nicht­Tod,” denn das Leben des Menschen geht eben auf den Tod zu, weil „nicht­Tod“ für den Menschen nicht zutrifft; über Unsterblichkeit, wonach es eine Existenz nach dem Tode gibt, sagt diese Passage nichts.

234 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

ἀθάνατος υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου)“ (17,30). Bei Gott gelten daher andere Maßstäbe! „Des­ wegen war der Herr mit ihnen langmütig und goss über sie sein Erbarmen aus“ (18,11). Insbesondere wenn sich sündige Menschen wieder dem Herrn zuwenden (τοῖς ἐπιστρέφουσιν ἐπʼ αὐτόν; 17,29b), überrascht er mit seiner großen Liebestat (μεγάλη ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη; 17,29a) und er schenkt die Vergebung (ἐξιλασμός; 17,29b)! Es liegt also in der Hand des Menschen, ob für ihn das Wort gültig wird: „Sein großes Erbarmen (τὸ πολὺ ἔλεος) – wie seine [frühere] Schelte “ (16,12). Die Hoff­ nung auf Gottes großes Erbarmen lebt! Sira hebt hervor, dass der Herr groß und gewaltig ist (μέγας κύριος; 43,5), seine große Stärke und Macht (μεγάλη ἡ δυναστεία) ist geradezu sprichwörtlich (3,20). Sira stellt eine Relation zwischen dem gewaltigen Herrn und dessen Nach­ sicht her: „Wie seine Größe (ἡ μεγαλωσύνη αὐτοῦ), so auch sein Erbarmen (τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ)“ (2,18). Dieses Faktum veranlasst Sira auch zur Feststellung, dass es besser ist, in die Hände Gottes23 zu fallen als in die von Menschen (2,18)24, wohl ein Hinweis darauf, dass Sira von den Mitmenschen untereinander nicht allzuviel Nachsicht erwartet. Der Herr ist eben anders: „Denn nachsichtig und barmherzig (οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων) ist der Herr (ὁ κύριος), sein ist die Vergebung (ἀφίησιν) und er rettet (σῴζει) zur Zeit der Bedrängnis“ (2,11). (b) Menschliche Guttat in Gottes Augen: Mit Siras eigenen Worten können wir ein markantes Statement festhalten, um den Unterschied zwischen der Welt des Men­ schen und der Welt Gottes deutlich herauszustellen. „Die Nachsicht (ἔλεος) eines Menschen [gilt] seinem Nächsten, die Nachsicht (ἔλεος) des Herrn aber [gilt] allen Lebewesen. Er weist zurecht, erzieht und lehrt und führt wie ein Hirt seine Herde zurück. Er [zeigt] Erbarmen mit denen, die Erziehung annehmen, und mit denen, die sich um seine Entscheidungen mühen“ (18,13f). So wollen wir jetzt den Blick­ winkel Gottes weiter nachverfolgen. Der Herr registriert nicht nur des Menschen gute Taten, vielmehr ist „die Wohltat eines jeden (ἐλεημοσύνη ἀνδρός) wie ein Siegel25 bei ihm und er wird die Güte eines Menschen (χάριν ἀνθρώπου) hüten (συντηρήσει) wie den Augapfel26“ (17,22). Für die Wohltat (πάσῃ ἐλεημοσύνῃ), 23 Hinsichtlich Zorn und Erbarmen sieht Scolarick, Gottes 130, in Sira 2,18 „die bleibende Span­ nung … [von] Ex 34,6–7 gut ausgedrückt, ebenso wie die bleibende Interpreationsaufgabe der [darin grundgelegten] Theologie.“ 24 Peters, Buch, 27, sieht in diesem Vers bzw. dem darin enthaltenen Inhalt den „Höhepunkt individueller Frömmigkeit im A.T.“ 25 Das Siegel ist ein Instrument für eine zuverlässliche und verbindliche Festlegung; vgl. u.a. Dan 6,18; 1Kön 21,8; Jes 8,16. 26 Der Augapfel ist ein besonders wichtiger und empfindlicher Körperteil, dessen Gefährdung mit Wucht und Verve zurückgeschlagen wird, im Falle des Falles eingeschlossen die Vernich­ tung dessen, der den Augapfel bedroht: „… Dies sagt der Herr, der Allherrscher … Denn wer

Des Menschen Wohltat und Gottes Wohlwollen  

 235

und damit sie auch gelingt, schafft der Herr unterstützend den geeigneten Raum (16,14). Auch die existentielle Ausstattung des Menschen wird durch die liebende Zuneigung zu Herrn beeinflusst, schenkt er doch denen Weisheit, die ihn lieben (τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν; Sir 1,10). (c) Gottes Wohltat bei menschlicher Achtung und Liebe: Solche Menschen, die den Herrn achten, die Ehrfurcht vor ihm haben (οἱ φοβούμενοι κύριον), suchen dessen Wohlgefallen. Weil sie den Herrn lieben (οἱ ἀγαπῶντες αὐτόν; 2,15), halten sie auch seine Gebote. Gottes besondere Zuneigung besteht im Faktum der Schöp­ fung: Gott hat damit schon seine „Vorleistung“ erbracht. Daher fordert Sira, „mit ganzer Kraft liebe den, der dich geschaffen hat (ἀγάπησον τὸν ποιήσαντά σε)!“ 7,30; vgl. 47,8. Gott reagiert auf die Hingabe des Menschen, indem seine Augen in besonderer Weise auf diese blicken, die ihn lieben (ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτόν; 34,19). Jene, die ihn lieben, können mit seinem umfassenden Beistand rechnen: „Die Augen des Herrn ruhen auf denen, die ihn lieben; er ist ein machtvol­ ler Schutzschild, eine starke Stütze, Schutz vor Hitze und Schatten am Mittag, Bewahrung vor dem Straucheln und Hilfe vor dem Fall; er richtet die Seele auf und lässt die Augen erstrahlen, er schenkt Heilung des Lebens und Segen“ (34,19f). Neben der Einstellung, die Gott ehrerbietig ernstnimmt, ist vor allem die aktive Zuwendung zu den sozial Benachteiligten ein Ansatzpunkt, auf den auch der Herr entsprechend reagiert. Sira fordert auf, „den Waisen wie ein Vater und wie ein Ehemann für deren Mutter“ zu sein. Nahrung, Schutz, Obsorge und Heimat biete also den Waisen und den Witwen; vgl. 35,1727. Nun die Folge: Dann nimmt dich der Herr in unnachahmlicher Weise in seine Nähe: „dann wirst du sein wie ein Sohn des Höchsten (ὡς υἱὸς ὑψίστου) und er wird dich mehr lieben (ἀγαπήσει σε μᾶλλον) als deine Mutter“ (4,10).28 Die Mutterliebe galt und gilt als die inten­ sivste Form der persönlich­innigen Bindung. Wer sich den hilflosen Mitmenschen wie ein Elternteil aktiv fürsorgend widmet, den wertet Gott wie ein Kind und seine Liebe übertrifft die Menschenliebe, ja die innigste Form der Menschenliebe!

euch berührt, ist wie einer, der den Augapfel seines Auges berührt (ὡς ἁπτόμενος τῆς κόρης τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ αὐτοῦ). Denn siehe, ich führe meine Hand gegen sie. …“ (Sach 2,8–9). Für die Intensität spricht es, wenn Spr 7,2 liest: „Bewahre meine Gebote …, meine Worte aber wie die Augenäpfel (κόρας ὀμμάτων).“ 27 Die Sorge für die Armen, Waisen und Witwen ist ein Kernanliegen der alttestamentlichen Botschaft: „Ich habe den Armen aus der Hand des Mächtigen gerettet und der Waise, die keinen Helfer hatte, geholfen“ (LXXIjob 29,12); als Auftrag an den idealen König siehe Ps 72,12f; vgl. Ex 22,21. Auffallend ist, dass Sira diese Fürsorge, die man von Gott selbst erwartet, in die Hände des Menschen legt! 28 Vgl. ausführlich die Untersuchung von Beentjes, Sei.

236 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

Wer in großer Not ist – ein Einzelner wie Sira selbst (51,8) oder das ganze Volk (ab 36,1) –, der kann sich vertrauensvoll an den mitfühlenden Herrn wenden wie im Anruf: „Hab Erbarmen (ἐλέησον) mit uns, Gebieter, du Gott aller“ (36,1; vgl. 48,20). 36,11 fügt als Begründung hinzu, dass das „Volk, bei deinem Namen gerufen worden ist,“29 obgleich kein besonderer Name genannt wird.30 Sira setzt voraus, dass das Gemeinte verständlich ist, auch wenn kein Eigenname fällt. Den Beleg für das Gewicht des Namens bietet die Tradition: „Ich hoffe auf deinen Namen im Kreis der Frommen; denn er ist gut“ (Ps 52,11). Wenn kein Eigenname31 genannt wird, zeigt der Kontext, dass meistens der Eigenname JHWH gemeint ist.32 Aus verschiedenen Gründen wird nun der klassische Gottesname in der Sep­ tuaginta gemieden, wodurch der Weg geebnet wird, eigene theologische Akzente zu setzen. Die Nennung des Namens aktualisiert jenen Inhalt, der im Namen33 enthalten ist. Sira bereitet den Namen vor, den er vor Augen hat. Seine Argume­ nation verfolgen wir ausgehend vom oben zitierten Ruf „Hab Erbarmen (ἐλέησον) mit uns, Gebieter, du Gott aller“ (36,1). Was schon für Salomo – obwohl er unter vielerlei Gesichtspunkten kein Vorbild ist, weshalb die Notiz von Xeravits zutrifft, dass Sira Salomo „with explicit criticism“34 sieht – gilt, das trifft auch grundsätz­ lich zu: „Der Herr lässt nicht ab von seinem Erbarmen bzw. sein Mitgefühl (τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ) und keines seiner Worte geht verloren“ (47,22). Das hat Sira selbst

29 Vgl. HB: ‫רחם על עם נקרא בׁשמך‬. 30 Vgl. Skehan / Di Lella, die Kyrios gemeint sehen; siehe auch Beentjes, Mercy; Beentjes, Relations. 31 Vgl. „Auch Fremde, die nicht zu deinem Volk Israel gehören, werden wegen deines Namens aus fernen Ländern kommen; denn sie werden von deinem großen Namen, deiner starken Hand und deinem hoch erhobenen Arm hören. Sie werden kommen und in diesem Haus beten. Höre sie dann im Himmel, dem Ort, wo du wohnst, und tu alles, weswegen der Fremde zu dir ruft. Dann werden alle Völker der Erde deinen Namen erkennen. Sie werden dich fürchten, wie dein Volk Israel dich fürchtet, und erfahren, daß dein Name ausgerufen ist über diesem Haus, das ich gebaut habe“ (1Kön 8,41–43). 32 Jeremia etwa spielt in seinem Hilferuf, in dem er um den Beistand Gottes ringt, auf seinen eigenen Namen an, der einen Teil des Gottesnamens – andernorts als Kurzform belegt – bein­ haltet. „Denk an mich, und nimm dich meiner an! denn dein Name ist über mir ausgerufen, ‫יְ הוָ ה‬, Gott der Heere“ (Jer 15,15f), heißt doch der Prophet ‫ ;יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו‬siehe den Namen des Propheten z.B. in Jer 1,11. 33 Der Gottesname JHWH ist etwas Besonderes: „Gott redete mit Mose und sprach zu ihm: Ich bin JHWH. Ich bin Abraham, Isaak und Jakob als El­Schaddai erschienen, aber unter meinem Namen JHWH habe ich mich ihnen nicht zu erkennen gegeben“ Ex 6,2–3. Den Inhalt und vor allem die Wirkweise des Namensträgers erläutert Ex 3,1–14 und endet: „JHWH, … . Das ist mein Name für immer und so wird man mich anrufen von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht“ (Ex 3,15); vgl. ausführlich Reiterer, Rede 29–35. 34 Xeravits, Figure 57.

Des Menschen Wohltat und Gottes Wohlwollen  

 237

erfahren, als er – von allen Menschen verlassen – in Lebensgefahrt schwebte. „Du hast mich nach der Fülle deines Mitgefühls (τὸ πλῆθος ἐλέους) und deines Namens (ὀνόματός σου) befreit, von den Bissen derer, die bereit waren zu ver­ schlingen, aus der Hand derer, die mir nach dem Leben trachten, aus vielen Nöten, die ich ausgehalten habe“ (51,3). Neben dem Mitgefühl (ἔλεος) ist der Name die Säule, auf der aufruhend der Herr den Todbedrängten gerettet hat bzw. rettet. Ein Betender spricht den Namen aus, an den sich sein Gebet richtet, und so liest man: „Das Volk richtete Bitten an den höchsten Herrn (κυρίου ὑψίστου), im Gebet vor dem Barmherzigen (κατέναντι ἐλεήμονος)“ (50,19).35 Parallelisiert werden δέομαι und προσευχή, sowie κύριος ὕψιστος und ἐλεήμων, sodass klar ist, dass κύριος ὕψvστος und ἐλεήμων auf der gleichen Ebene stehen. Richtig ist es daher, wenn man übersetzt: „The Merciful One“ (NETS). In Siras Augen ist ἐλεήμων (der Barmherzige) Eigenname, wobei der Name nicht nur eine Einstellung des Gütigen, sondern auch den Aspekt des konkreten Wohltäters zur Sprache bringt. Der Barmherzige macht das, wie er heißt, weshalb Sira zu einem einschlägigen Lobpreis auffordert: „Und nun lobpreist den Gott des Alls, der überall große Dinge tut, der unsere Tage erhöht vom Mutterleib an und an uns handelt (ποιοῦντα) nach seinem Erbarmen (κατὰ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ)!“ (50,22). Weiters bittet der Weisheitslehrer: „Sein Erbarmen (τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ) bleibe uns treu“ (50,24). Das Wissen um dieses göttliche Mitgefühl und die Erfahrung mit diesem sind Basis für bleibende Freude (51,29).

5 Zusammenfassung Wie die Gemeinschaft unter den Menschen und zu Gott ertragreich funktioniert, ist – wie die Untersuchung ergab –, ein zentrales Thema für Sira. Die Verbindung innerhalb der menschlichen Gesellschaft braucht ein Funda­ ment und dieses bilden die freundschaftliche Zuneigung bzw. Liebe unter solchen Menschen, die das gleiche Wertesystem teilen. Eintracht, Harmonie und Wohlwol­ len sind tragende Säulen sowohl im engeren persönlichen wie im gesellschaftli­ chen Kontext, wobei Sira seine Sicht nicht auf Mitisraeliten beschränkt, vielmehr bezieht er alle Menschen ein. Besonders zu betonen ist, dass er nicht nur eine

35 Spickermann, Lebenskunst, 264, schreibt einerseits richtig: „Als gegenwärtig gepriesen und angefleht wird Gott als Erbarmer,“ – also ist der Erbarmer präsent –, jedoch ist nicht registriert worden, dass es sich bei „Erbarmer“ um einen Eigennamen handelt, sodass im Deutschen besser „Gott der Erbarmer“ zu schreiben ist.

238 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

Einstellung als zentral ansieht, sondern konkreten, handgreiflichen Beistand am Nächsten einfordert, da sich ansonsten keine vertiefte Gemeinschaft entwickeln kann, sodass man vom Schwerpunkt Wohltat sprechen wird. Diese Wohltat am Mitmenschen kann, je nach Rahmenbedingungen, schwer sein. Sira formuliert einen im übrigen Alten Testament so nicht belegten theo­ logischen Schwerpunkt: Die Liebestat am Nächsten tilgt Sünden, wobei nicht die Tat an sich diese Wirkung hat, vielmehr bleibt Gott der Sühnende und Ver­ gebende. Zu erwähnen ist, dass der Herr die guten Taten innerhalb der Menschen mit Wohlwollen – und z.B. im Falle der Sündenvergebung – mit effektiver Aner­ kennung honoriert. Allerdings bleibt es bei aller Sympathie Gottes für den Menschen dabei, dass er schlechte Taten und Einstellungen der Menschen scharf ablehnt. Vor allem solche Menschen fordern ihn heraus, welche – mit der Großmut Gottes spekulie­ rend – Sünden sammeln. Diese müssen damit rechnen, dass bei Gott neben der Wohltat und Barmherzigkeit auch sein Zorn wirksam werden kann. Der Schwer­ punkt Siras liegt aber auf der Nachsicht und den Wohltaten Gottes. Mit diesen können vor allem Menschen, die sich wieder zu Gott wenden, und solche, die in Not sind, vertrauensvoll rechnen. Denn es gilt, wie oben ausgeführt, dass „die Nachsicht (ἔλεος) eines Menschen seinem Nächsten, die Nachsicht (ἔλεος) des Herrn aber allen Lebewesen [gilt]“ (18,13). Die wohlwollende Seite Gottes prägt das sirazidische Gottesbild, das darin kulminiert, dass er im Barmherzigen (ἐλεήμων) einen qualifizierenden Eigennamen des Herrn sieht.

Bibliographie Beentjes P. C., Ben Sira 5,1–8. A Literary and Rhetorical Analysis, in: P. C. Beentjes (ed.), Happy the One Who Mediates on Wisdom (Sir. 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (SBET 43), Leuven 2006, 49–60. Beentjes P. C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A text Edition of All extant Hebrew Manuscripts and A Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup 68), Leiden 2003. (Repr. Atlanta 2006). Beentjes P. C., Mercy. ‘Racham’ (pi.), ‘Rachum’, and ‘Rachamim’ in the Book of Ben Sira, in: P. C. Beentjes (ed.), Happy the One Who Mediates on Wisdom (Sir. 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (SBET 43), Leuven 2006, 241–247. Beentjes P. C., Relations between Ben Sira and the Book of Isaiah. Some Methodological Observations, in: P. C. Beentjes (ed.), Happy the One Who Mediates on Wisdom (Sir. 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (SBET 43), Leuven 2006, 201–206. Beentjes P. C., ‘Sei den Waisen ein Vater und den Witwen ein Gatte‘: Ein keiner Kommentar zu Ben Sira 4,1–10, in: R. Egger-Wenzel and I. Krammer (eds.), Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira (BZAW 270), Berlin 1998, 51–64.

Des Menschen Wohltat und Gottes Wohlwollen  

 239

Beentjes P. C., Theodicy in Wisdom of Ben Sira, in: P. C. Beentjes (ed.), Happy the One Who Mediates on Wisdom (Sir. 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (SBET 43), Leuven 2006, 265–279. Bibel, die. Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift. Gesamtausgabe. Stuttgart 2016 (= nEÜ). Bibel, die., nach Marin Luthers Übersetzung, mit Apokryphen, revidiert 2017, Stuttgart 2017 (= nLuth). Bible. New Revised Standard Version. OT Apocryphal-Deutero-Canonical Books, New York 1989 (= NRSV). Bible. The New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms, and with Roman Catholic Deutero-Canon, Washington 1991 (= NAB). Di Lella, A. A., Ben Siras’s Doctrine on the Discipline of the Tongue. An Intertextual and Synchronic Analysis, in: A. Passaro and G. Bellia (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theolgy (DCLS 1), Berlin / New York 2008, 233–252. Di Lella, A. A., Use and Abuse of the Tongue: Ben Sira 5:9–6,1, in: A. A. Diesel and R. G. Lehmann (eds.), “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit ...”. Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit. FS D. Michel (BZAW 241), Berlin / New York 1996, 33–48. Hart, J. H. A., Ecclesiasticus. The Greek Text of Codex 248, Cambridge 1909. Kraus, W. / Karrer, M. (eds.), Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, Stuttgart 2009. Liddell, H. G. / Scott, R., A Greek-English Lexicon Compiled by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott Revised and Augmented Throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the Assistance of Roderick McKenzie and with the Cooperation of Many Scholars, Oxford 1996. Marböck, J., Jesus Sirach 1–23 (HThKAT), Freiburg 2010. Oswald, R., Gemoll. Griechisch-deutsches Schul- und Handwörterbuch von W. Gemoll und K. Vretska. Zehnte, völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage, Wien 201910. Peters, N., Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25), Münster 2013. Pietersma, A. / Wright, B. G., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title, New York / Oxford 2007 (= NETS). Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta II. Libri poetici et prophetici, Stuttgart 19358. Reiterer, F. V., Bedeutungslosigkeit, Zurückhaltung, Bescheidenheit und Demut in den Augen des Weisheitslehrers Ben Sira, in: K. Schöpflin and F. V. Reiterer (eds.), Zwischen Niedrigkeit und Demut. Festgabe zum 60. Geburtstag von Reinhard Feldmeier: BN NF 155 (2012) 57–76. Reiterer, F. V., Die Rede von Gott im Alten Testament, in: Ch Udeanie and K. Zapotocky (eds.), Die Rede von Gott. Interdisziplinäre und interkulturelle Zugänge / Discourse on God. Interdisciplinary and intercultural Approaches (ITSR 6), Wien 2018, 9–36. Reiterer, F. V., “Urtext“ und Übersetzungen. Sprachstudie über Sir 44,16–45,26 als Beitrag zur Siraforschung (ATS 12), St. Ottilien 1980. Schmidt, A. J., Wisdom, Cosmos, and Cultus in the Book of Sirach (DCLS 42), Berlin 2019. Schöpflin, K., ‘… denn er hat die Niedrigkeit seiner Magd angesehen‘ (Lk 1,48). Gedanken zum Hintergrund des Begriffsfeldes ταπείνωσις in ausgewählten prophetischen Texten der Septuaginta: BN NF 155 (2012) 5–22. Scolarick, R., Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn. Die Gottesprädikationen in Ex 34,6f. und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch (HBS 33), Freiburg 2002. Skehan, P. W. / Di Lella, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York 1987. Spieckermann, H., “Barmherzig und gnädig ist der Herr …”: ZAW 102 (1990) 1–18.

240 

 Friedrich V. Reiterer

Spieckermann, H., Lebenskunst und Gotteslob in Israel. Anregungen aus Psalter und Weisheit für die Theologie (FAT 91), Tübingen 2014. ‫ ספר בן סירא‬/ The Book of Ben Sira. ‫ המקור קונקורדנציה וניתוח אוצר המלים‬/ Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary. ‫ המילון ההיסטורי ללשון העברית‬/ The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, Jerusalem 1973. Vattioni, F., Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina, e siriaca, Napoli 1968. Witte, M., Barmherzigkeit und Zorn Gottes im Buch Jesus Sirach, in: M. Witte (ed.), Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuchs. Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira und zur frühjüdischen Weisheit (FAT 98), Tübingen 2015, 83–105. Xeravits, G. G., The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira, in: G. G. Xeravits, From Qumran to the Synagogues. Selected Studies on Ancient Judaism (With editorial assistance of Ádám Vér) (DCLS 43), Berlin 2019, 49–62. Ziegler, J., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum XII,2., Göttingen 19802.

Pancratius C. Beentjes

“Better”–Proverbs in the Book of Ben Sira Typology, Position, Topics, and Distribution over the Book Abstract: Spread over the book of Ben Sira, the literary genre of the ‘better’­prov­ erb is found more than a dozen times. The majority of them are a proper reflection of the main themes in this deuterocanonical work. The way they have been inte­ grated into the sections is similar to their use and function in the book of Prov­ erbs. Six different types were found which to a high degree reflect the typology as found in the book of Proverbs. Only in Sir 40:18–27 is a type of “better”­proverb found that does not occur in the book of Proverbs, nor elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and is exclusive to the book of Ben Sira. Keywords: “better”­proverbs; simplex type; composite types; Ben Sira 40:18–26

1 Introduction In scholarly research, due attention has been paid to the distribution and compo­ sition of the so­called ‘better’–sayings in the book of Proverbs and in Qoheleth.1 As far as the book of Ben Sira is concerned, publications about this topic are scantier. In 1914, Walter Baumgartner was the first scholar to make an inventory of various literary genres that are found in the book of Ben Sira, such as hymns, lamentations, prophecies and proverbs.2 Within the genre of proverbs (mashal), he made a distinction between ‘Mahnwort’ (admonition) and ‘Vergleich’ (comparison).3 Within this latter category, he distinguished several subcategories, among which the ‘better’­proverb (tôb-Spruch) is described, albeit in just four lines.4 As an example of this type he quotes Sir 25:16 – “Besser ist es, bei einem Löwen und

1 Zimmerli, Zur Struktur, 192–194; Ogden, The ‘Better’­Proverb; Ogden, Qoheleth’s Use; Bryce, ‘Better’­Proverbs; Wehrle, Sprichwort. 2 Baumgartner, Literarischen Gattungen. 3 Baumgartner, Literarischen Gattungen, 165–167. 4 Baumgartner, Literarischen Gattungen, 167. Despite Zimmerli’s ample description of the ‘better’­proverbs in Qoheleth, for the Book of Ben Sira he confines himself to mention this spe­ cific page of Baumgartner in a footnote; Zimmerli, Zur Struktur, 193. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-015

242 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes

Drachen wohnen, als bei einem bösen Weibe wohnen.”5 In my view, this is not a perfect choice. First, this proverb is missing in its Hebrew version; second, it does not, strictly speaking, open with ‘better’ (κρείσσων). Moreover, Baumgartner mentions just three more examples of the ‘better’­type (Sir 20:25; 30:14; 41:15), of which only 41:15 is indeed a tôb-Spruch. It was not until sixty years ago that the literary feature of ‘better’­proverbs in the book of Ben Sira were given attention once more, albeit that most atten­ tion was paid to their presence in Egyptian literature, in the book of Proverbs, and in the book of Qoheleth.6 Some observations by Bryce relating to context and subject matter of ‘better’­sayings in the book of Ben Sira, however, undoubtedly were a step forward. Finally, at the turn of the century, two more publications drew attention to the topic of ‘better’­proverbs.7 This essay wants to go a step further and to present all occurrences of the ‘better’­proverbs in the Book of Ben Sira, to distinguish between different types of this literary genre, to take notice of their structure, paying attention to their content and position, and to the distribution over the book. Due to the fact that we do not have a full Hebrew text of the book of Ben Sira, we have to switch between ‘better’­proverbs that are present in both a Hebrew and a Greek version, and ‘better’­proverbs only present in the grandson’s transla­ tion. The following chart offers an overview of all ‘better’­proverbs in the book of Ben Sira and the versions in which they have been handed down.8 Ben Sira

Remarks

10:27

H

G

S

L

= 10:30 L

16:3

H

G

S

L

= 16:3–4 L

18:16

–

G

S

L

19:24

–

G

S

L

= 19:21 L

20:31

–

G

S

L

= 41:15 H

20:32

–

G II

–

–

23:27

–

G

S

L

= 23:37 L

25:16

–

G

S

L

= 25:23 L

29:22

–

G

S

L

= 29:29 L

30:14

H

G

S

L

5 “I shall be content to live with lion and dragon, rather than to live with a wicked woman” (NETS, 740). 6 Bryce, ‘Better’­Proverbs. 7 Murphy, Proverbial sayings; Reymond, Sirach 40,18–27. 8 H = Hebrew; G = Greek; S = Syriac; L = Latin (Vetus Latina).

“Better”–Proverbs in the Book of Ben Sira 

 243

(continued) Ben Sira

Remarks

30:17

H

G

S

L

33:22

H

G

S

L

40:18–26

H

G

S

L

40:28

H

G

–

L

41:15

H

G

–

L

42:14

H

G

–

L

= 30:30 G

= 41:18 L

2 Typology Just as in the book of Proverbs and in the book of Qoheleth, we have to distinguish between different types of ‘better’­proverbs, depending on their inner structure. In my view, the typology as used by Josef Wehrle for the book of Proverbs is well­ suited to the ‘better’­sayings in the book of Ben Sira.9 However, two types must be added specifically for the book of Ben Sira, since they occur neither in the book of Proverbs nor in Qoheleth, or have another function.10 On the other hand, one of the types Wehrle has described for the book of Proverbs is absent in Ben Sira.11

Type 1 (‘Better X than Y’) For the sake of clarity, within type 1 we have to distinguish between (1) simplex forms and (2) composite ones.

9 Wehrle, Sprichwort, 204 offers a summary of all types of better­sayings in the book of Prov­ erbs. 10 Wehrle, Sprichwort, 11 n. 1. Wehrle’s reference to Sir 20:13 in this footnote most probably is a typing error and must be 20:31. 11 In his list of ‘ṭōb . . . min-Sätze’, Wehrle has included Sir 36:23 and 36:26. This is true for the Greek translation, but not for the Hebrew parent text, which not only is damaged but is also quite complicated and has, therefore, brought forth a lot of speculative and diverse suggestions for reconstruction. See, e.g., Skehan–Di Lella, Wisdom, 426–427; Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View, 19–26; Strugnell, Of Cabbages.

244 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes

(1) A simplex form as such (‘better X than Y’) occurs, e.g., in Sir 18:16b (G): (a) οὐχὶ καύσωνα ὰναπαύσει δρόσος;  Does not dew mitigate scorching heat? (b) οὕτως κρείσσων λόγος ἤ δόσις.  So better a word than a gift (NETS, 733).12 Not the ‘better’­proverb of Sir 40:28b (H) itself, but what might be its original text poses a problem, since it is handed down in a twofold way: MS B. Mas.

‫]בני[ חיי מתן אל תחי‬13 ‫מני‬ ‘My son, do not live a life of gift, ֭֭ ‫טוב נאסף ממסתולל‬ better being taken away than begging’. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ‫[סף מפני חצף‬. .] ‫טוב‬ ‘better being taken away than the face of an impudent one’.14

Both the verb ‫ סלל‬hitpol (MS B.) and the adjective ‫( חצף‬Mas) used as a noun are very rare. ‫ סלל‬hitpol is only found in Ex 9:14 (‘to exalt oneself’), in Sir 40:28b (‘who one grovels’) and in Sir 39:24 (‘to be arrogant’), whereas ‫ חצף‬is only found in Est. 1:18 (‘impudent one’). The Syriac – bry mn dš’l lk l’ tklywhy wl’ thw’ ṭb lmwṭl wl’ hwyṭ ṭb lmḥyw “My son, do not refuse him who asks of you and do not be good at mur­ der{ing} if you have not been good at giving life”15 – is of no help at all. Greek Latin

Τέκνον, ζωὴν ἐπαιτήσεως μὴ βιώσῃς κρείσσον ἀποθανεῖν ἤ ἐπαιτεῖν Filii in tempore vitae tuae ne indigeas melius est enim mori quam indigere.

On the basis of the Greek verb ἐπαιτεῖν, which is rare too (only in Ps 108 [109]:10), and the Latin (“indigere”), the verb ‫“( סלל‬to be arrogant”. . . “hence to beg”)16 of MS B. might be preferred to the Masada reading, the more so since this Hebrew verb is used in Sir 39:24b too. Sometimes, the basic structure (‘better X than Y’) is expanded in both cola with an identical verbal form and the objects opposite to one another, as e.g., in Sir 20:31 (G): (a) κρείσσων ἄνθρωπος ἀποκρύπτων τὴν μωρίαν αὐτοῦ (b) ἤ ἄνθρωπος ἀποκρύπτων τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ 12 For this type of a better­saying in the book of Proverbs, see, e.g., Prov 19:22; 27:5; 27:10. 13 Corrected in the margin of MS B (Bm). 14 Yadin, Ben Sira Scroll, 40. Strugnell, Of Cabbages, 112 suggest ‫[סף ממחצף‬. .] ‫טוב‬, without, however, presenting a translation of it. 15 Calduch­Benages, Wisdom, 232–243. 16 DCH VI, 162

“Better”–Proverbs in the Book of Ben Sira 

 245

“Better a person who hides his foolishness than a person who hides his wisdom” (NETS, 735). In its Hebrew version, the same ‘better’­proverb turns up in Sir 41:15: ‫מאיש מצפין חכמתו‬

‫( טוב איש מצפין אולתו‬MS B).

“Better a man who hides his folly, than a man who hides his wisdom.” The Masada Scroll, however, is somewhat different: ‫טוב איש מטמ] [ אולתו מאיש מצפן חכמתו‬.17 It has a different verb (‫ – )טמן‬with the same meaning (“to hide”) – in the first colon, and in the second colon has not the participle ‫ מצפין‬as in MS B., but the form ‫מצפן‬.18 A simplex type of the ‘better’­proverb with a fine parallel structure is also found in Sir 33:22 H (= 30:30 G): [‫מהביטך על ידי ]בניך‬

‫כי טוב לחלות בניך פניך‬

“Yes, it is better that your sons entreat favour of you, than that you should look to the hands [of your sons].” In Sir 29:22 (G), another form of type 1 appears; here the comparison between X and Y is expanded with an apposition in both cola: κρείσσων βίος πτωχοῦ ὑπὸ σκέπην δοκῶν ἤ ἐδέσματα λαμπρὰ ἐν ἀλλοτρίοις. “Better is the life of a poor person under a shelter of rafters than splendid foods among strangers” (NETS, 743). In this case, the parallelism between X and Y is somewhat “concealed,” since in the second colon one would expect a straighter parallel to “the life of a poor person,” whereas such a parallel is surely present, but is now characterized in the collocation “splendid foods.”

17 See Beentjes, Reliability of Text­editions. 18 Instead of Yadin’s reconstruction [‫מטמ]ן‬, I therefore follow Strugnell’s option to read [‫ מטמ]ין‬in order to have a parallel verbal form with ‫ מצפין‬in MS B.; Yadin, Ben Sira Scroll, 20; Strugnell, Notes, 113. See also Reymond, Innovations, 48.

246 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes

The ‘better’­proverb in Sir 20:31c–d is only found in the so­called Gr II (MS 248)19: κρείσσων ὑπομονὴ ἀπαραίτητος ἐν ζητήσει κυρίου, ἤ ἀδέσποτος τροχηλάτης τῆς ἰδίας ζωῆς: “Better is implacable endurance in seeking the Lord, than a spurious charioteer of one’s own life” (NETS, 735). A marginal case might be Sir 25:16 of which unfortunately no Hebrew is present. The Greek runs: συνοικῆσαι λέοντι καὶ δράκοντι εὐδοκήσω ἤ συνοικῆσαι μετὰ γυναικὸς πονηρᾶς – “I shall be content to live with lion and dragon, rather than to live with a wicked woman” (NETS, 740). That εὐδοκήσω might serve as a signal towards a better­proverb is to be deducted from the Hebrew retranslation of 25:16 by Moshe Segal – ‫טוב שבת עם אריה ותנין משבת עם אשה רעה‬.20 (2) A composite form of type 1 of the ‘better’­proverb (‘better X than Y, and Z than A’) is found in Sir 30:17ab (MSS A, B): (a) ‫טוב למות מחוו שוא‬ (b) ‫ונוחת עולם מכאב נאמן‬

Better death than a worthless life, and eternal rest than constant pain.21

Skehan–Di Lella, without further argument, however, considers Sir 30:17c and 17b (in that order) as the original Hebrew text. In my view, however, the Greek, as well as the Latin reflect the Hebrew text of 17a­b, just as the Syriac for 17a. The collocation “descent to Sheol” as in the margin of MS B. is only found in 17b of the Syriac.22 This composite type is also found in Sir 33:22 H (= 30:30 G): [‫מהביטך על ידי ]בניך‬

‫כי טוב לחלות בניך פניך‬

Yes, it is better that your sons entreat of you, than that you should look to the hands [of your sons]. Within a complex text critical passage, there is no doubt, however, that a similar type (‘better X than Y, and Z than A’) is found in Sir 16:3cd (MS B):

19 Hart, Ecclesiasticus, 27. Ziegler, Sapientia Filii Sirach, 220, and Vattioni, Ecclesiastico, 106 have numeration 20:32. 20 Segal, ‫ספר‬, 155. 21 This composite type is mentioned “2 Sätze” (two sentences) by Wehrle, Sprichwort, 204. 22 Skehan–Di Lella, Wisdom, 379.

“Better”–Proverbs in the Book of Ben Sira 

 247

‫ כי טוב אחד עושה רצון אל מאלף‬Better one who does the will of God than a thousand, ‫ומות ערירי מאחרית זדון‬   and to die rather than to have arrogant posterity.23 Type 2 (‘Better X + apposition, than Y’) In Wehrle’s ‘Typisierung’ of the ‘better’­proverbs, this type is found only once in the book of Proverbs, viz. in Prov 17:1 – ‫טוב פת חרבה ושלוּה־בּה מבית מלא זבחי־ריב‬.24 Better a dry morsel with quiet than a house full of feasting with strife (NRSV). This type does not occur in the book of Ben Sira.

Type 3 (‘Better X, than Y + Z’) This type of ‘better’­proverbs has a structure in which the second element of the comparison has two complements (‘better X + apposition, than Y + apposition + apposition’), as is the case in Sir 19:24 (G): κρείσσων ἡττώμενος ἐν συνέσει ἔμφοβος ἤ περισσεύων ἐν φρονήσει καὶ παραβαίνων νόμον Better is a fearful person inferior in intelligence, than one superior in prudence and transgressing the law (NETS 734).25 This type is found in Sir 42:14 too, though with some textual difficulties: MS B. ‫מטוב רוע איש מטיב אשה ובית מחרפת תביע אשה‬ Better is the wickedness of a man, than a woman who does good, and a house which disgraces pours forth a woman.26 Mas ‫טוב רע איש מטיב אשה ובת מפחדת מכול חרפה‬

23 For a circumstantial analysis of Sir. 16:3, see Rossetti, Le Aggiunte, 610–622; Rüger, Text, 82–84. 24 Analysis of Prov 17:1 in Wehrle, Sprichwort, 191–194. 25 This type is found in Prov 8:11; 19:1; 21:9; 25:24; 28:6; see Wehrle, Sprichwort, 204. 26 Balla, Ben Sira on Familly, 44–45. See also Beentjes, Daughters.

248 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes

Better the wickedness of a man than the goodness of a woman, and a daughter who dreadeth any disgrace.27 Bm ‫ובית מחרפת תביע חרפה‬ ‫טוב רע איש מחרפת מטוב אשה‬ The problems of this line and the options of several Ben Sira scholars regarding this verse are put together by Trenchard who himself proposes the translation: “Better is the wickedness of a man than the goodness of a woman, and a daughter causes fear regarding disgrace more than a son.”28

Type 4 (‘Better X and Y, than Z and A’) Just as in the book of Proverbs (12:9; 15:16; 15:17; 16:8), ‘better’­sayings with a structure (‘better X and Y, than Z and A’) are also found in the book of Ben Sira, e.g., in Sir 30:14 (H): ‫טוב מסכן וחי בעצמו‬ ‫מעשיר ונגע בבשרו‬

Better a poor man and healthy in his body, than a rich man and stricken in his flesh.29

Here we discern a perfect parallelism between the two cola: poor man // rich man: healthy in his body // stricken in his flesh. The same pattern unfolds in Sir 10:27 (H): ‫טוב עובד ווותר הון‬ Better is he who works and has left wealth, ‫ מ]מת]כבד ]וח[ס]ר[ מתן‬than the one who glorifies himself and lacks sustenance.30

27 Yadin, Ben Sira Scroll, 44. Balla, Ben Sira on Family, 45 n 106: ‘On the basis of the cor­ rected MS M text the most probable reading is: “But better is a God­fearing daughter than a shameless son.” In that case, however, it would not be a type 3 proverb, but a composite type 1 ‘better’­proverb. 28 Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View, 147 with notes on 304–305; see also 158–160. 29 Oesterley, Wisdom, 88 with some adjustments. 30 In Sir 10:19–31, there is an extraordinary dominance of the root ‫( כבד‬10:19a; 23b; 24a; 26b; 27b; 28a; 29b; 30a; 30b; 31a; 31c).

“Better”–Proverbs in the Book of Ben Sira 

 249

5. A special Ben Sira type (‘X + Y, but better than either’) Scholars almost unanimously designate Sir 40:18–26 as a series of tôb-Sprüche. Strictly speaking, however, this passage is not to be considered a collection of ‘better’–proverbs, since the introductory tôb is missing.31 For that reason, this collection will be set apart here as a special type.32 These ‘better­than­either’­proverbs as found in Sir 40:18–26 are quite rare, or even non­existent, to the Hebrew Old Testament.33 Just one single text might come to mind: ‫וכעס אויל כבד משניהם‬

‫( כבד־אבן ונטל החול‬Prov 27:3).

A stone is heavy, and sand is weighty / but heavier than both is a fool’s provo­ cation.34 In Sir 40:18–26, in ten consecutive lines an identical pattern is carried on: X + Y + verb / “but better than either is” + Z.35 As an example, both the first and the final line of this cluster are shown: Sir 40:18 (MS. B.)36 ‫חיי יין ושכר ימתקו ומשניהם מוצא אוצר‬ A life of abundance and remuneration can be sweet, but better than either is finding a treasure.37 Sir 40:26ab (MS. B.) ‫ומשניהם [י]ראת אלהים‬ Wealth and vigor make the heart exult, but better than either, fear of God.38

]‫חיל וכח יגיל[ו‬

31 “Not the usual type of ‘better’­proverb”. Skehan–Di Lella, Wisdom, 471; Reymond, Sirach 40:18–27, 84. 32 Ben Sira likes enumerations of ten items; see, e.g., Sir 25:7–11; 39:29; 50:6–10. 33 Just one single text might come to mind: ‫( כבד־אבן ונטל החול וכעס אויל כבד משניהם‬Prov 27:3). However, the second colon has a verb, which does not occur in 40:18–26. 34 Variation on NRSV. 35 As to the repetitive ‫ ומשניהם‬at the opening of each second colon, Reymond prefers the render­ ing “but even more so”; Reymond, Sirach 40:18–27, 86–87. The Greek has καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀμφότερα (“and above both”). 36 The text of Sir 40:18–26 in the Ben Sira Scroll from Masada has only parts of 40:18–19; see Yadin, Ben Sira Scroll, 14–15. 37 Skehan­Di Lella, Wisdom, 463. 38 Skehan­Di Lella, Wisdom, 463.

250 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes

It can hardly be a coincidence that the tenth and final proverb of this list (40:26ab) is about ‘fear of the Lord’, just as the tenth and final line in Sir 25:11. Both lists of ten items point to the fact that fear of the Lord is the central theological topic of the book of Ben Sira.39 As to Sir 40:18–26ab, Murphy suggests that “the ten couplets . . . were a specific, fixed, group. Sirach could have simply adopted them because of the tenth couplet about the fear of the Lord. . . .”40 Subsequently, according to Murphy, Ben Sira would have expanded that existing list with four more lines (40:26cd–27) in order to underline the topic of fear of the Lord even more. In my view, there are at least two reasons to question Murphy’s suggestion. First, whereas the structure (and content) of proverbs in the book of Qoheleth, as well as in the book of Proverbs, are constantly compared to examples from Egyp­ tian literature, as far as Sir 40:18–26 is concerned references to a similar structure in Egyptian wisdom proverbs are missing. Moreover, the “addition” of 40:26cd–27 with its emphasis of fear of the Lord would be better explained by the observa­ tion that here we find the last passage about this central topic of the entire book, which “deserves” an expansion. To my mind, until now it has escaped attention that this type might be found in Sir 10:7 too: ‫שנואה לאדון ואנשם גאוה ומשניהם מעל עשק‬ Hateful to the Lord and men is pride, but more than either is unfaithfulness of oppression.41 The proverb fully suits the context that is devoted to rulers and pride (Sir 9:17– 10:18).

Type 6 – Subsequent to his investigation of the ‘better’­proverbs in Qoheleth, Graham Ogden has studied the ‘there is nothing better . . . than . . .’ (‫ )אין טוב‬form (Qoh 2:24; 3:12; 3:22; 8:15).42 On the look­out for this type in the book of Ben Sira, at first glance it seems as if this type is indeed used (Sir 12:3a; 30:16b). On further inspec­ tion, however, the collocation ‫ אין טובה‬has a different function there. To my mind, however, Sir 23:27 is to be considered a candidate:

39 See Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 106–118. 40 Murphy, Proverbial sayings, 39. 41 Penar, Philological Notes, 112 does not advance this possibility. 42 Ogden, Qoheleth’s Use. In the remainder of the Hebrew Bible, it occurs only in Jer 8:15 = 14:19.

“Better”–Proverbs in the Book of Ben Sira 

 251

καὶ ἐπιγνώσονται οἱ καταλειφθέντες ὅτι οὐθὲν κρεῖττον φόβου κυρίου καὶ οὐθὲν γλυκύθτερον τοῦ προσέχειν ἐντολαῖς κυρίου.43 And those who are left behind will know that nothing is better than fear of the Lord, and nothing is sweeter than to heed the commandments of the Lord (NETS, 738).

3 The Position of the ‘better’-proverbs in their Context When we put Sir 40:18–26 aside, since it is a special type in the book of Ben Sira alone, it is worthwhile to ascertain what the position of the fifteen ‘better’­prov­ erbs is in relation to their context. It can hardly be a coincidence that seven times a ‘better’­ proverb makes up the conclusion of a section (Sir 10:27; 16:3; 19:24; 20:31; 20:32; 23:27; 42:14), and five times is found at the opening of a section (Sir 18:16; 29:22; 30:14; 40:28; 41:15). The results of the inquiry into the position of the ‘better’­proverbs in the book of Ben Sira are fully in line with the observations by Bryche relating to the book of Proverbs, and Qoheleth: “. . . it is worth noting that in the concatenated series of proverbs in the book of Proverbs more than a third of the tôb-Sprüche appear either at the beginning of a chapter (17:1; 19:1; 22:1) or toward the end (16:32; 25:24). In the book of Ecclesiastes we observe a similar use of this form . . . .” The tôb-Sprüch appears “at a point in the discourse when a change of empha­ sis or subject matter is introduced, whether summarising what preceded .  .  ., introducing a new subject . . ., or a new aspect of the discourse.” A number of times, the tôb-Spruch is “used by Qoheleth to bring the preceding discourse to a conclusion in summary fashion.”44 In the book of Ben Sira the ‘better’­proverbs have a similar or even identical function.

43 In Segal’s retranslation: ‫ ;כי אין טוב מיראת יי ואין ערב משמר מצותיו‬Segal, ‫ספר‬, 142. 44 Bryce, ‘Better’–Proverbs, 351.

252 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes

4 ‘Better’-proverbs and their Topic(s) In the ‘better’­proverbs of the book of Ben Sira, undoubtedly a major topic is one’s attitude and behavior towards God. It will be no surprise at all that the topic of “fear of the Lord” and its parallels – “seeking the Lord,” “to do the will of God,” “obey the commandments of the Lord,” “not to violate the Law” – form a continuous thread (Sir 16:3; 19:24; 20:32; 23:27; 40:26).45 Whereas “foolishness” and “wisdom” make up a significant pairing all over the book of Ben Sira, is in the ‘better’­proverbs this topic surprisingly enough only to be found in Sir 20:31 and 41:15. Within Ben Sira’s collection of ‘better’­proverbs, there is – just as in the book itself – a lot of attention for different aspects of “poverty and riches” (Sir 29:22; 30:14; 33:22; 40:28). The topic of “sickness and death” is articulated in Sir 30:14 and 30:17, whereas the relationship between husband and wife is expressed in the ‘better’­proverbs of Sir 25:16 and 42:14. In a nutshell: it goes without saying that the majority of the ‘better’­proverbs in the book of Ben Sira are a proper reflection of the main themes in this deutero­ canonical work.

5 Distribution over the Book of Ben Sira When we take the overall division of sections in the book of Ben Sira as applied by Skehan and Di Lella, since it is one of the most authoritative commentaries, the following results come to light: Ben Sira

‘Better’-proverb

Part I

1:1–4:10

---

Part II

4:11–6:17

---

Part III

6:18–14:19

10:27

Part IV

14:20–23:27

16:3; 18:16; 19:24; 20:31; 20:32; 23:27

Part V

24:1–33:18

25:16; 29:22; 30:14; 30:17

Part VI

33:19–38:23

33:22

Part VII

38:24–43:33

40:18–26; 40:28b; 41:15; 42:14

Part VIII

44:1–50:24

---

45 The most extensive study about “fear of the Lord” is Haspecker, Gottesfurcht.

“Better”–Proverbs in the Book of Ben Sira 

 253

6 Conclusion Spread over the book of Ben Sira, the literary genre of the ‘better’­proverb is found more than a dozen times. The way they have been integrated into the sections is similar to their use and function in the book of Proverbs. The different types of the ‘better’­proverbs in the book of Ben Sira to a high degree reflect the typology as found in the book of Proverbs. Only in Sir 40:18–27 is a type of proverb found that does not occur in the book of Proverbs, nor elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and is exclusive to the book of Ben Sira. The following chart offers an overview of the most important data relating to the ‘better’­proverbs in the book of Ben Sira.46 Ben Sira

Type

Position

‘Better / than’–Topic

10:27 16:3

4

End

Working / begging

1 composite

End

Will of God / to die

18:16

1 simplex

Opening

Word / gift

19:24

3

End

Fearful / transgressing the Law

20:31

1 simplex

End

Foolishness / wisdom

20:32

1

End

To seek the Lord / spurious charioteer

23:27

6

End

Fear of the Lord

25:16

1 simplex

Middle

Dwell with wild animals / to live with evil woman

29:22

1 simplex

Opening

Poor at home / well-fed among strangers

30:14

4

Opening

Poor and well / rich and ill

30:17

1 composite

Middle

Death / worthless // eternal rest / pain

33:22

1

Middle

To give / to beg

40:18–26

5

Special section

40:28

1 simplex

Opening

To die / to beg

41:15

1

Opening

Foolishness / wisdom

42:14

3

End

Wickedness of a man / goodness of a woman

Bibliography Balla, I., Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality (DCLS 8), Berlin 2011. Baumgartner, W., Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: ZAW 34 (1914) 161–198. 46 I would like to thank Dr Penelope Barter, Tilburg School of Catholic Theology, Tilburg Univer­ sity, the Netherlands, for her generous help with my English.

254 

 Pancratius C. Beentjes

Beentjes, P. C., The Reliability of Text Editions in Ben Sira 41,14–16. A Case Study in Repercussions on Structure and Interpretation: Bijdragen 49 (1988) 188–194 [= Beentjes, P. C., Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom (CBET 43), Louvain, 2006, 293–299]. Beentjes, P. C., Daughters and Their Father(s) in the Book of Ben Sira, in: A. Passaro (ed.), Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2012/2013), Berlin, 2013, 183–201 Bryce, G. E., ‘Better’–Proverbs: An Historical and Structural Study, in: L.C. McGaughy (ed.), Book of Seminar Papers (SBLSP 108/2), Missoula 1972, 343–354. Calduch-Benages, N. / Ferrer, J / Liesen, J., La sabiduría del escriba. Edición diplomática de la versión siríaca del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción española e inglesa [Wisdom of the Scribe. Diplomatic Edition of the Syriac Version of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus, with Translations in Spanish and English] (Biblioteca Midrásica 26), Estella 2003. Hart, J. H. A. Ecclesiasticus. The Greek Text of Codex 248, Cambridge 1909. Haspecker, J., Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBib 30), Rome 1967. Murphy, R. E., Proverbial Sayings / ‘Better’-Sayings in Sirach, in: N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom (BETL 143), Louvain 1999, 31–40. Oesterley, W. O. E., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus). Translations of Early Documents, Series I/2: Palestinian Jewish Texts (Pre-Rabbinic), London 1916. Ogden, G. S., The ‘Better’- Proverb (Tôb–Spruch), Rhetorical Criticism, and Qoheleth: JBL 96 (1977) 489–505. Ogden, G. S., Qoheleth’s Use of the ‘Nothing is Better’-Form: JBL 98 (1979) 339–50. Penar, T., Three philological Notes on the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira: Bib 57 (1976) 112–113. Reymond, E. D., Sirach 40,18–27 as ‘Tôb-Spruch’: Bib 82 (2001) 84–92. Reymond, E. D., Innovations in Hebrew Poetry. Parallelism and the Poems of Sirach (Studies in Biblical Literature 9), Atlanta 2004. Rossetti, M., Le Aggiunte ebraiche e greche a Sir 16,1–16: Sal 64 (2002) 607–648. Rüger, H.-P., Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach. Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza (BZAW 112), Berlin 1970. Segal, M. Z., ‫ספר בן־סירא השלם‬, Jerusalem 1958. Skehan, P. W. / Di Lella, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York 1987. Strugnell, J., ‘Of Cabbages and Kings’–Or Queans. Notes on Ben Sira 36:18–21, in: J. M. Efrid (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays. Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring. Durham 1972, 204–209. Strugnell, J., Notes and Queries on “The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada”: EI 19 (1969) 109–119. Trenchard, W. C., Ben Sira’s View of Women. A Literary Analysis (BJS 38), Chico 1982. Vattioni, F., Ecclesiastico. Testo ebraico con apparato critico e version greca, latina e siriaca. Testi I, Napoli 1968. Wehrle, J., Sprichwort und Weisheit. Studien zur Syntax und Semantik in der tob . . . min-Sprüche im Buch der Sprichwörter (ATSAT 38), St. Ottilien 1993. Yadin, Y., The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada, Jerusalem 1965. Ziegler, J., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta XII,2), Göttingen 1965. Zimmerli, W., Zur Struktur der alttestamentlichen Weisheit: ZAW 51 (1933) 177–204.

Angelo Passaro

“When the Lord created his works from the beginning” (Sir 16:26a) Study of Sir 16:26–17:14 To Géza Xeravits who narrated the nifla’ot of God, with grateful friendship

Abstract: The intention of this essay is to highlight a small, but, not unimportant aspect of Ben Sira’s eulogy on the creative action in Genesis 1–2. Ben Sira’s course of argument is arranged so as to begin from the question of the relationship between human freedom and the doctrine of retribution, and of the presumed indifference of God which is the reason for the moral indifference of human beings. This last issue is presented as the word of a fool in 16:17. So then, the text 16:26–17:14 is a riposte to the objections advanced by the fool in 16:17.20–22, a response which is based (as in 15:14–17) on the creative action of God and on the place which the human being is called to assume in the creation. In other words, the reprise of the creating theme is in view of a reformulation or fine­tuning of the problem of the relationship between human moral actions and God. Keywords: wisdom, Sirach, Genesis, creation, moral action

1 Introduction “En Si XVI,24–XVII,14, [. . .] les derniers versets font allusion à l’alliance sinaï­ tique dans un contexte de création : c’est dire non seulement le rapport entre his­ toire et création, mais aussi la portée de l’histoire biblique pour tout être humain (In Sir 16:24–17:14 [. . .] the final verses allude to the Sinai covenant in a context of creation: that is to say, not only the relationship between history and creation, but also the significance of biblical history for every human being.”)1

1 Gilbert, Siracide, 1432. In the formulation of the title of this article, I am following Ziegler, Sapientia, who proposes reading κτίσει on the basis of the Hebrew ‫ברא‬. Rahlfs / Hanhart, Septuaginta, 408 reads κρίσει with the Greek manuscripts. Note: I wish to thank Dr. Michel Tait for the English translation and some useful observations. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-016

256 

 Angelo Passaro

I am taking my cue from this statement of Maurice Gilbert in order to dialogue with his contribution, precise and exhaustive, as always,2 with the intention of underlining a small, but, I believe, not unimportant aspect of Ben Sira’s eulogy on the creative action in Genesis 1–2. Ben Sira’s text has been studied in various ways (cf., for example, Prato,3 Alonso Schökel,4 Argall,5 Wénin,6 Wicke­Reuter,7 etc.), and, in fact, a unanimous consensus has emerged over the fact that it presents a meditation on creation which takes Genesis 1–2 as its starting point. However, this meditation finds its place in a broader context which runs from 15:11 to 18:14, a text whose unitary structure has been identified by Josef Haspecker.8 In this contribution, I shall not linger over the presentation of the structure of the whole of the passage. I note only that Ben Sira’s course of argument is arranged so as to begin from the question of the relationship between human freedom and the doctrine of retribution, and of the presumed indifference of God which is the reason for the moral indifference of human beings.

2 Indifference of God This issue is presented as the word of a fool in 16:17: μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι ἀπὸ κυρίου κρυβήσομαι καὶ ἐξ ὕψους τίς μου μνησθήσεται; ἐν λαῷ πλείονι οὐ μὴ γνωσθῶ τίς γὰρ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν ἀμετρήτῳ κτίσει Do not say: “I shall hide from the Lord! Who will remember me from on high? Among so many people I shall not be known, Who shall I be in the midst of a vast creation?”

The fool disregards the provident presence of God towards the individual, object­ ing that He does not pay attention to human beings whether they do good or do evil. So, if God ignores human choices, their doing good, what can they expect? 2 Cf. Gilbert, L’uomo nella teologia. 3 Prato, Problema. 4 Alonso Schökel, Vision of Man. 5 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach. 6 Wénin, Création. 7 Wicke­Reuter, Göttliche Providenz. 8 Haspecker, Gottesfurcht.

“When the Lord created his works from the beginning” (Sir 16:26a) 

 257

As can be seen, it is not just the doctrine of retribution which causes problems but the very end of human moral action: whether people do evil or good is of no importance because God is not interested! In these arguments, it is not difficult to hear the echo of the cultural climate which Ben Sira had to confront;9 and to take up a position which was not neces­ sarily the result of a conservative attitude. My impression is that this attitude is more a mytheme of conservative scholars who are at ease with his annuity posi­ tions.10 So then, the text 16:26–17:14 is a riposte to the objections advanced by the fool in 16:17.20–22, a response which is based (as in 15:14–17) on the creative action of God and on the place which the human being is called to assume in the creation. In other words, the reprise of the creating theme is in view of a reformulation or fine­tuning of the problem of the relationship between human moral actions and God. In this reflection/meditation on the creation, Ben Sira recalls the first pages of Genesis. At least, up to 17:4. Because, from 17:6 onwards – despite an allusion to Gen 2:17 in verse 7 (and he showed them good and evil) – instead of emphasising the fault of our first parents, he introduces what enables man to praise the name of the Lord and multiplies the references to the account of the giving of the Law in the theophany on Sinai (Exod 19–20). As John Collins has written: “Sirach allows no interval between the creation and the giving of the Torah. Rather, he implies that the law was given to humanity from the beginning.”11 Does the combining of creation and the Law serve only to affirm that, from Ben Sira’s viewpoint, the Torah is for everyone, and so to emphasise a universal horizon?12 Or does the operation which Ben Sira performs here reveal another, more subtle, intention? Thus, Ben Sira’s text places before the reader a series of questions which concern the internal logic of his rereading of Genesis 1–2 and the theological framework in which it is set. One can endorse as a general affirmation what Alonso Schökel says with reference to the relation between the human mortal condition and sin: “It may that Ben Sira is interpreting Genesis more rigorously than a later tradition?”13 Briefly, by way of an illustrative flash, I would like to pause over some points which could help us to answer some questions which the text provokes.

9 Cf. Bellia, Historico­anthropological Reading; Hengel, Giudaismo ed Ellenismo. 10 Cf. Passaro, Secrets of God. 11 Collins, Seers, Sibyls, and Sages, 376. 12 Alonso Schökel, Vision of Man, 244. 13 Alonso Schökel, Vision of Man, 236.

258 

 Angelo Passaro

3 Four Arguments After an invitation to listen (16:24–25), Ben Sira’s argument is developed in four strophes.14 The first evokes the creation of the universe and of the stars in four distichs (16:26–28); the second – slightly longer – turns its attention to the earthly world where man has been placed (16:29–17:4). The last two, each of four distichs, treat of what places man and God in relation: the ability to understand the world and to praise its Creator (17:6–10) and a Law of life which fulfils the covenant with Him (17:11–14). The first strophe (16:26–28) is clearly and strongly dependent on Genesis. It is usually thought that it is referring to the creation of the stars and their function.15 However, as Prato has emphasised, the fact that they are not named explicitly could mean that the sage did not wish to limit himself to the stars alone.16 What he wishes to highlight here instead is that the ἀρχή, of creation are the ἀρχαί,17 the words of command with which God decrees (κοσμεῖν) what he has separat­ ed,18 assigning to each element its proper function. The elements carry out the divine word, delivered in the form of a command, which ensures the order, the symphony of the κόσμος. Now, if Ben Sira’s argument is the reply to the arguments of the fool – the fact that it is introduced by the theme of order through separation, by the general context in which man too finds himself, – the intention is to signify that the order of the cosmos and so of the world of man is assured because every element sepa­ rated by the Creator occupies its place without invading that of the other, accord­ ing to the divine command. Man – who has his own task in the created world (cf. 17:2–3) – has also received from God the Law which concerns the world of his relations (vv. 7.11–12.14), remains in his space and accepts his limit which contributes to the cosmic order. Thus, the deceit of the fool is unveiled: to deny that man has a place and a function – which is a shared lordship – in the created world is to challenge the cosmic order.19

14 Alonso Schökel proposes a substructure in three strophes (16:26–17:4; 17:6–10; 17:11–14) introduced by an exordium 16:24–25 (Alonso Schökel, Vision of Man, 236–242). 15 Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 281. 16 Prato, Problema, 269. 17 Cf. Wénin, Création, 150. 18 Beauchamp, Création et separation. 19 Cf. Prato, Problema, 270.

“When the Lord created his works from the beginning” (Sir 16:26a) 

 259

4 The Limitation of Man Like the living beings, man too is marked by limitation and transitoriness: he is a being for death (17:1), his days are numbered. Ben Sira grasps the more deeply religious dimension of the second account of creation which makes death the wages of sin, but, at the same time, he sees in the return to the ground the term of life (cf. Gen 2:7; 3:9). Thus, death is not to be understood as the end of life but as the thing that prevents man from coming to the light in his existence of relations. Man shares this limitation with all the living beings. However, this truth is stated by Ben Sira together with man’s distinction (and particular nature) in com­ parison with the world of living beings: man exercises his authority over the earth (17:2b–4). The reprise of Gen 1:26–28 is clear: created the same day on which the animals were created, human beings occupy the same space as they do but over them they exercise a “shared power,” which has been handed over to them. It is interesting and, in certain ways, surprising that, at this point, Ben Sira introduces the idea of man as the image of God because I believe that, according to our sage, it is in the exercise of power over the animal world that man realises his being in the image of God. Just as, with his word, God “organises” the world, so man is called to “organise” the animal world with his shared power; so, to be the image of God speaks of a goal, a task to be realised: lordship over the animal world (cf. 17:4b: καὶ κατακυριεύειν θηρίων καὶ πετεινῶν). It is not difficult to grasp the line that links Ben Sira’s to the reflection of Ps 8 as well. In the psalm, the reflection on man reprises themes dear to the royal ideology20 because, just as the king who defends his country from the forces of chaos, so man – who does not place himself arrogantly at the centre of creation but is placed there by the Creator (cf. the psalmist’s emphasis on the second person singular referring to God, from v. 5 on), – is invested with power in order to protect life on the earth.

5 Rereading of Genesis 1–2 In taking up Genesis 1 again, Ben Sira gives it a profound and free reading. In fact, from 17:6 until 17:10, where the Priestly account (Gen 1:29–30) speaks of the gift of food for man and the animals, Ben Sira recalls a series of divine gifts which enable man to discern and contemplate the beauty of creation. I believe there is a 20 Cf. Mayer, Mythos; Van Seters, Creation of Man, 337. It is also useful to consult Raurell, Doxa of Man. For a summary, cf. Barbiero, Regno di Jhwh.

260 

 Angelo Passaro

clear allusion to Gen 2:17, but what is forbidden in Genesis is presented in Ben Sira in a positive manner: “God showed them good and evil” (17:7b). A liberty in inter­ pretation which does not seem to contradict the Genesis text (perhaps an attempt to make things right with regard to Genesis 2, bearing in mind Genesis 1?). On this point, taking up some exegetical cues from P. Beauchamp, A. Wénin has written with his customary precision and depth.21 I would add that, in a consistent way, having set out the place and task of man in the animal world, Ben Sira empha­ sises his responsibility, endowing him with what is necessary to attain to wisdom, precisely, the ability to choose between good and evil, a tongue to speak, two eyes to see, two ears to understand the word which directs the choice, and a heart to reflect and decide (17:6: διαβούλιον καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ ὀφθαλμούς ὦτα καὶ καρδίαν ἔδωκεν διανοεῖσθαι αὐτοῖς). Ben Sira reflects on the meaning of that word of command which concerns what man must eat: in order to live, he must not just eat! What makes him live is his readiness to listen to a word of command. In this, man maintains the order of creation because the word of command arouses and imposes a free choice. Remaining responsibly within his own limits, man, the image of God, protects the order of the created world, of his world, and is able to exercise his ἐξουσία (17:2). Therefore, God’s gaze is placed on man’s heart (17:8a: ἔθηκεν τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν), so that he may learn to recognise the grandeur of the works of God and praise his Name in telling of his great works. In this way, Ben Sira reprises the ‫ טוב מאוד‬of the Genesis account and recognises in it not only the expression of the morality of the creation but, also and above all, what makes possible the praise of His Holy Name (ὄνομα ἁγιασμοῦ). According to Wénin,22 this qualification of the name of God is an element which links the holiness of God, Sabbath, covenant and Law, taking its cue from Exod 31:13–17, a text which makes explicit reference to the conclusion of the account of creation and the Sabbath is contained in a law and is described as “eternal covenant” (‫)ברית עולם‬. Having ceased on the seventh day (cf. Gen 2:2), God sets a limit to his power, shows himself stronger than his force so that, as P. Beauchamp writes: “only the man, the human, through his limitation is the image of what God is.” The limit which God sets is the space for man’s responsible freedom. This is, perhaps, not the logic of the berît, which makes it possible, which makes possible the relationship which the Law protects and prolongs in time?23 In this self­limitation of God, there is an example of wisdom for man, left

21 Wénin, Création, 151. 22 Wénin, Création, 155. 23 Passaro, Relazione.

“When the Lord created his works from the beginning” (Sir 16:26a) 

 261

to him as his inheritance on Sinai: this is the Law of life (cf. 17:11: καὶ νόμον ζωῆς ἐκληροδότησεν αὐτοῖς). It consists (cf. 17:14) in keeping oneself far from what is unjust and placing oneself “before” one’s neighbour, that is, before another who has a space for freedom and autonomy. It is the reshit of the berît which, although in the dif­ ferent and various forms which it can assume, always demands difference and freedom. Wénin maintains that this twofold dimension finds itself summarised in the Sabbath, the day on which the Israelite does not work and does not make to work those who are dependent upon him: “Si le sabbat trouve son fondement dans le repos de Dieu qui achève l’œuvre créatrice (Gn 2,1–3), c’est au Sinaï qu’il est donné comme loi au cœur de la Loi (Ex 20,8–11), une loi dont le Deutéronome ne cesse de répéter qu’elle est pour la vie (voir en particulier Dt 30,15–20).”24 Thus, in accepting his own limitations, man is the image of God whose power is limited. This is the sapiential answer to the questions posed in chapter 16: the not marginal place which man has in the created world is not asserted in terms of power and of the search for power which generates violence because it interrupts every form of relation! This is Ben Sira’s understanding of the profound logic of the discourse of Genesis 1–2 as it was revealed historically at Sinai. In hiding himself (precisely re-veiling/revealing himself), God gives a law of liberty which is a law of life because it arouses and seeks liberty and intelligence in his interlocutor who is invited to realise himself as the image of God. In this condition, man avoids the risk of setting out in the direction of chaos. In other words, it is the same “design” which animates both creation and history. Thus, the reference to Sinai and the Decalogue does not mean only confer­ ring a universal perspective on the discourse but also grasping and underlining the profound continuity between the work of the Creator and that of the Lord of History who does not withdraw from his will for relation and his design of liberty even in the face of his interlocutor’s not listening.

6 Conclusion The text we have examined reveals, once again, that, according to what his grand­ son transmitted, Ben Sira wished to place at the centre of the attention of readers of Greek culture some fundamental concepts: enlightening knowledge, wisdom

24 Wénin, Création, 155–158.

262 

 Angelo Passaro

and law come from God and are linked internally to one another because they work together to make the revealed will of God understood and thus to ensure a life conforming to the divine intention. The grandson’s intention is supported by the considerations on Ben Sira’s own ideas regarding the organisation of the world and its models of thought. His starting point is the knowledge and under­ standing of the order in creation which happened by means of the word (42:15) which is presented as a self­enclosed totality which has no need of further revi­ sions or additions. Ben Sira is fascinated by the irresistible and incomprehensi­ ble completeness of the divine work which is revealed as a gift only to one who assumes an attitude of intellectual modesty. Wisdom, therefore, is not a gift that is given without conditions. In addition to the right attitude towards God, the disciple, like Ben Sira, must fight for wisdom (51:19a) and, above all, must behave correctly because the con­ crete fulfilment of the Law leads to the acquisition of wisdom (51:19b). The book of Sirach thus establishes strong internal links between creation, wisdom, the love of God for men, and the fear of God and the Law, enabling the reader to grasp the becoming of tradition as a cumulative and gradual process of the instructions revealed by God and put into writing in the book in which his will is signified and communicated. In this, aware of finding himself within a specific culture, the author of Sirach expresses a precise line of continuity with and respect for the ancestors, feeling obliged to follow their biblical tradition. The scriptural base from which our scribe draws his wisdom is the Law of the Most High under­ stood as a written revelation containing the guidelines for human conduct that is organised according to the will of God. Through wisdom, the Law is the gift which enables God’s plan to be realised, by means of human behaviour, according to an internal order: wisdom, creation, Law for human beings. There follows the high and manifold significance of the Torah: it has an historical sense (it is the document written for the instruction of contemporaries and for transmission to future generations); it has a theological function (word of God and word about God) and also a soteriological one since wisdom regulates the practical life of every person in a way that conforms to the revelation of God.25

25 On this point cf. the extended reflection of Passaro / Bellia, Sirach,

“When the Lord created his works from the beginning” (Sir 16:26a) 

 263

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, L., The Vision of Man in Sirach 16:24–17:14, in: J. G. Gammie and W. A. Bruggeman et al. (eds.), Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, New York 1978, 235–245. Argall, R. A., 1 Enoch and Sirach. A Comparative, Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Theme of Revelation, Creation and Judgement (SBL 8), Atlanta 1992. Barbiero, G., Il regno di Jhwh e del suo messia. Salmi scelti dal primo libro del Salterio (Studia Biblica 7), Roma 2008. Beauchamp, P., Création et séparation. Étude exégétique du chapitre premier de la Genèse (LeDiv 201), Paris 2005. Bellia, G., An Historico-anthropological Reading of the Work of Ben Sira, in: A. Passaro and G. Bellia (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLS 1), Berlin / New York 2008, 49–77. Collins, J. J., Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (JSJSup 54), Leiden 2001. Gilbert, M., L’uomo nella teologia sapienziale della creazione. Confronto con Gen 1–11, in: E. Manicardi and L. Mazzinghi (eds.), Gen 1–11 e le sue interpretazioni canoniche: un caso di teologia biblica. XLI Settimana Biblica Nazionale, Roma 6–10 settembre 2010 (RStB 24/1–2), Bologna 2012, 101–118. Gilbert, M., Siracide: DBS XII (1992) 1389–1437. Haspecker, J., Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBib 30), Rome 1967, 142–155. Hengel, M., Giudaismo ed Ellenismo. Studi sul loro incontro, con particolare riguardo per la Palestina fino alla metà del II secolo a.C., Brescia 2001. Mayer, W. R., Ein Mythos von der Erschaffung des Menschen und des Königs: Or. 56 (1987) 55–68. Passaro A., / Bellia, G., Sirach, or the Metamorphosis of the Sage, in: A. Passaro and G. Bellia (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLS 1), Berlin / New York 2008, 355–373. Passaro, A., Relazione e norma nelle tradizioni storiche e nella letteratura sapienziale dell’Antico Testamento, in: M. Crociata and G. Bellia (eds.), La sapienza sulla bocca, la Legge nel cuore. Antropologia, etica e religioni rivelate, Trapani 2009, 49–64. Passaro, A., The Secrets of God. Investigation into Sir 3:21–24, in: A. Passaro and G. Bellia (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLS 1), Berlin / New York 2008, 155–171. Prato, G. L., Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira (AnBib 65), Roma 1975. Rahlfs, A. / Hanhart, R. (eds.), Septuaginta, editio altera, corrected edition, Stuttgart 2006. Raurell, F., The Doxa of Man in Psalm VIII,6: Laurentianum 35 (1994) 73–90. Skehan P. W. / Di Lella, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York 1987. Van Seters, J., The Creation of Man and the Creation of King: ZAW 101 (1989) 333–342. Wénin, A., De la création à l’alliance sinaïtique. La logique de Si 16,26–17,14, in: N. CalduchBenages and J. Vermeylen (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. FS M. Gilbert (BEThL 143), Leuven 1999, 147–158. Wicke-Reuter, U., Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der Frühen Stoa (BZAW 298), Berlin / New York 2000. Ziegler, J., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta XII,2), Göttingen 1965.

Nuria Calduch-Benages

“Pillars of Gold on Plinths of Silver. . .” (Sir 26:18) Female Body Imagery in Ben Sira Abstract: The study of all the texts about women in the work of Ben Sira, both in the Hebrew manuscripts and in the Greek version, allow us to identify different types of images which the sage uses to describe his female characters. The most frequent images are those relating to the woman’s body and they are concentrated especially in chapters 25–26 of the book. In this paper, we intend to concentrate our attention on the following passages: Sir 25:17–18 and 26:12 (on the bad wife) and 26:16–18 (on the good wife). Keywords: Ben Sira, female imagery, female body, female sexuality, good wife, bad wife

1 Introduction The last years have seen a veritable explosion of interest in biblical poetic im­ agery.1 This interest has also been shared by Ben Sira scholars such as Antonino Minissale, Jeremy Corley and myself.2 In this paper, I intend to concentrate my attention on the imagery of female characters in Sirach’s most significant texts on wives, chapters 25 and 26, especially Sir 25:17–18 and 26:12 on the bad wife and 26:16–18 on the good wife.

1 See, among others, van Hecke, Metaphor; Witte / Behnke, Metaphorical Use. 2 Minissale, Metaphor, 253–275; Corley, Similes, 94–128; Calduch­Benages, Animal Imagery, 55–71; Calduch­Benages, Garment Imagery, 257–278; Calduch­Benages, Ben Sira 24:22, 57–72; Calduch­Benages, Poetic Imagery, 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-017

266 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages

2 Female Imagery: An Overview The study of all the texts about women in the work of Ben Sira, both in the Hebrew manuscripts and in the Greek version,3 allow us to identify different types of images which the sage uses to describe his female characters. The most frequent images are those relating to the woman’s body (face, eyes, eyelids, lips, mouth, tongue, heart, legs, feet, heels),4 and they are concentrated especially in chapters 25–26 of the book. In addition to the texts that we shall study in detail later, we should note Sir 20:4 (lacking in Hebrew) where Ben Sira juxtaposes the eunuch and the young girl in a very original comparison: “Like a eunuch who wants to deflower (ἀποπαρθενῶσαι) a young girl, so is one who wants to obtain justice through violence.” The same image is found in 30:20, albeit in a different context: “[the rich man who cannot enjoy his wealth]5 gazes at it with his eyes and sighs, like the eunuch who embraces a virgin.”6 In 26:9, the sage warns that the adulterous woman is recognised by her brazen eyes (ἐν μετεωρισμοῖς ὀφθαλμῶν) and by her eyelids (ἐν τοῖς βλεφάροις αὐτῆς), and, two verses later, recommends his pupil to be on guard against the “wandering eye” (ἀναιδοῦς ὀφθαλμοῦ) of an immodest woman (26:11). Danger also comes from the female singer/musician,7 considered a prostitute,8 whose mouth burns like fire (9:4). Finally, the scourge of the tongue (μάστιξ γλώσσης) of the bad wife (26:6) contrasts with the reassuring tongue of the good one (36:23). Another group of significant images are those taken from the animal world. In addition to 25:17, a verse on which we shall dwell later, we should mention 25:15–16, where the bad woman/wife is compared to dangerous animals: “There is no poison worse than the poison of the serpent, and there is no anger worse than the anger of a woman. I would prefer to live with a lion or a dragon rather than dwell with a wicked woman.” Along the same lines: “The ox yoke which is unsteady

3 An exhaustive study would also have to take account of Sir 26:19–27 (which exists only in Syr and in L’­743, that is, in the Lucianic recension, and in min. 743, cf. Ziegler, Sapientia, 249), and of Sir 21,3Syr: “The prostitute is a two­edged sword” (Calduch­Benages/Ferrer/Liesen, Wis­ dom, 152). Instead of the prostitute, Gr reads πᾶσα ἀνομία, “all lawlessness.” It is lacking in He­ brew. 4 For Proverbs, cf. Sloz, Body Parts, 185–195, and, above all, Rotasperti, Sorgente, 63–112. 5 Gr: ὁ ἐκδιωκόμενος ὑπὸ κυρίου, “the one persecuted by the Lord.” 6 MS B continues with an apparent gloss: “. . . like the one who does justice with violence. / So the eunuch who sleeps with a virgin, / and the Lord will take him to task for it.” For the textual problems of this verse, cf. Morla, Manuscritos, 165. On the eunuch in Ben Sira, cf. Bolle / Llewelyn, Intersectionality, 546–569. 7 Gr: μετὰ ψαλλούσης, “with the player of the lyre or a stringed instrument.” 8 Cf. Trenchard, View, 120.

“Pillars of Gold on Plinths of Silver. . .” (Sir 26:18) 

 267

(βοοζύγιον σαλευόμενον) (and so scratches the animal’s neck) is the bad wife; the one who possesses her is like one who takes hold of a scorpion” (26:7).9 On some occasions, Ben Sira also makes use of images taken from the urban and rural worlds. In 25:20, for example, he criticizes the woman who does not control her tongue: “A sandy climb ([‫כמעלה ]חול‬/ ἀνάβασις ἀμμώδης) for an old man, the sharp­tongued woman for a peaceful husband.” Sirach uses a profusion of images to praise the greatest good for a man, his wife: “Taking a wife is the begin­ ning of possessions/fortune (‫)ראשית קנין‬: defence and bulwark (‫)עזר ומבצר‬,10 and pillar of support (‫)ועמוד משען‬. When there is no hedge, the vineyard will be raided, and when there is no wife, [the man will go] wandering and vagrant” (36:24–25). Other images such as pearls, gold, portions and presents reveal the incalcu­ lable value of the good wife. In 7:19, Ben Sira recommends his pupil not to despise a sensible woman whose beauty is worth more than coral gemstones (Greek: than gold), and, in 26:3, he equates the good wife to a “generous gift” (lit.: a good part or portion, ‫ מנה טובה‬/ μέρις ἀγαθή) which the Lord grants to the one who fears him, that is, to a good and sympathetic husband.11 Finally, we should note the concentration of negative images in 9:1–9, which encourage the disciples to be cautious in their relationships with women. In this piece of instruction, without following any particular order, Ben Sira mentions various types of women and their respective dangers. To illustrate these dangers, he has recourse to images which evoke the world of the chase (nets, traps) and of slavery or imprisonment, images drawn from nature (fire) and those relating to destruction and death (blood, grave). If one comes close to a foreign woman, one can fall into her nets (‫( )במצודתיה‬9:3ab), and if one gazes at a virgin, one can remain trapped (‫)תוקש‬ because of her (lit.: “in her punishments”) (9:5). If the love of the beautiful woman burns like fire (9:8), engagement with a prostitute is no less dangerous: the one who frequents her risks remaining caught in her flatteries (12‫)תלכד בחלקותיה‬, losing his 9 See also Sir 26:25GrII and Syr: “a brazen woman is regarded as a dog.” 10 According to MS B (Gr and Syr). In MSS Bmg, C and D, on the other hand, the reading is ‫עיר‬ ‫מבצר‬, “fortified city.” 11 Cf. Sir 22:4a: Θυγάτηρ φρονίμη κληρονομήσει ἄνδρα αὐτῆς, “A prudent daughter will inherit her husband.” The meaning of κληρονομέω in the phrase is not at all clear (cf. Trenchard, View, 292). Some authors understand that the daughter will be an inheritance for her husband and so that she will enrich him (Marböck, Jesus Sirach, 250). Others try to resolve the problem caused by the verb by reconstructing the non­existent Hebrew text: “Prudent daughter, inheritance/ treasure of her husband” (cf. Box / Oesterley, Sirach, 390; Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 308). There are also those who translate the verb with “will receive” (her husband) (cf. Trenchard, View, 134.138) or else “will find” a husband (Palmisano, Siracide, 211). 12 In MS A, the reading is ‫בלקותיה‬, an incomprehensible term which some consider an error for ‫( בקלותיה‬Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 58: “ihre Stimme”). Mopsik, on the other hand, mentions a

268 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages

inheritance and aiding the destruction of his own house (9:3cd.6–7). However, the greater peril which every man must avoid is the married woman. To go near her can cost one’s life. Therefore, the sage’s advice is: “Do not eat with a married woman, do not sit down with her to drink a strong drink so that your heart is not inclined towards her and you do not go down into the tomb bloodily” (9:9).

3 Sirach 25–26 As we have shown above, most of the imagery relating to the female body is concentrated in 25–26. For this reason, before undertaking the study of the chosen texts, we shall introduce these chapters briefly. With the exception of a couple of passages (25:1–11; 26:28–29), chapters 25–26 are devoted entirely to wives. If the mysterious figure of personified Wisdom was the protagonist in Sirach 24, here it is the concrete and real women of daily life who take centre stage. Although Lady Wisdom is distinguished for the excellence of her discourse, these women seem to be without a voice. They do not speak, while Ben Sira speaks constantly of them. In fact, women are the object of his teaching. The instructions on wives alternate in this order: 25:13–26 (the bad wife); 26:1–4 (the good wife); 26:5–12 (the bad wife); 26:13–18 (the good wife). All these passages assume a male audience, especially the youths who fre­ quented Ben Sira’s school. The advice that the sage addresses to them reflects the mentality and the perspective of a mature husband. He teaches future husbands about the virtues that they should seek in a wife and about the dangers they must avoid. The division between good and bad wives,13 made from a totally androcen­ tric point of view, contemplates only the happiness, desire, convenience, honour and authority of the husband. Ben Sira judges both kinds of women, the good and the bad, in relation to their appearance, control of the tongue, and sexual behaviour (more accentuated in the case of the bad wife). These three elements affect the personal and social life of the husband positively or negatively. Consequently, the point of reference of the texts mentioned above is not, as might be expected, the figure of the woman, but rather that of the husband in his role of pater-familias.14

verb meaning “beat, strike” but does not indicate which verb he refers to. Perhaps he had in mind ‫לקה‬/‫( לקא‬rab. Heb.)? His translation is: “ses lanières [her thongs]” (Mopsik, Sagesse, 121). 13 See Calduch­Benages, Good and Bad Wives, 109–126. 14 Cf. Calduch­Benages, Good and Bad Wives, 124.

“Pillars of Gold on Plinths of Silver. . .” (Sir 26:18) 

 269

4 Sir 25:17–18 4.1 Literary Context These verses belong to Sir 25:13–26 (MS C records only vv. 13:17–24)15. It is the longest instruction about the bad wife, or, as Georg Sauer suggests, about the suffering caused by the bad wife.16 Duesberg and Fransen are more ironic: they name the passage after the wife of Socrates, “Xanthippe” (from Gr: “yellow horse”),17 who has become proverbial as the type of the ill­tempered woman. In the Hebrew text, the expression ‫ישה‬    (‫)ת‬   ‫רע‬, “the wickedness of woman” appears three times (vv. 13.17.19); in the Greek version, it is translated twice with πονηρία γυναικός (vv. 13.17) and once with κακία γυναικός (v. 19). We should also note the triple repetition of γυνή πονηρά, “bad/wicked woman” (vv. 16.23.25). According to Teresa A. Ellis, “The intense condensation of the bad wife motif in chapter 25 corresponds to the attributes of a specific genre – the Greek ‘blame of women’.”18 She is referring to the ψόγος γυναικῶν (“invectives against women”), a literary form modeled on the work of Hesiod and other ancient Greek authors. From the outset, Ben Sira sets the negative tone for the entire passage by stating that the wickedness of the woman/wife is a great evil, worse than any others and comparable to the poison of the serpent and the ferocity of the lion and the dragon (vv. 13–16), as if the wicked woman was a punishment that God has inflicted on a sinner (v. 19). Living with her has negative repercussions on the physical and psychological health of the husband (vv. 17–23). If he is put to shame, he will be forced to divorce her (vv. 24–26). In addition to the figurative language in the passage, Ben Sira employs another communicative strategy which contributes to the transmission of his message very effectively. This is the alternation of grammatical subjects. In 25:13–26, there are many sentences in the third person that have a markedly proverbial style, such as: “No wound like that of the heart, no wickedness like that of the woman” (v. 13). These sentences are interspersed by negative imperatives in the second person singular (vv. 21.25). In the climactic final verse, Ben Sira unhesitatingly recom­ mends divorce to the husband when the wife refuses to submit to his will: “If she does not carry out your desires (lit.: if she does not walk according to your hand),

15 On this pericope, cf. Trenchard, View, 57–87; Egger­Wenzel, Knechtschaft, 23–49; Balla, Ben Sira, 87–95 and Ellis, Gender, 73–78. 16 Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 190. 17 Duesberg / Fransen, Ecclesiastico, 206. 18 Ellis, Gender, 75.

270 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages

get away from her (lit.: cut her off from your flesh)” (v. 26).19 However, in our opinion, the rhetorical force of the text is rooted in the use of the first person sin­ gular: “I would prefer to live with a lion or a dragon than to dwell with a wicked woman” (v. 16). With this rhetorical device, which is often used in the book,20 the sage not only makes his opinion public but also acts as an authority whose words have prescriptive force for the disciples.21

4.2 Analysis of the Verses In Sir 25:17–18 the physical appearance of the wicked woman is compared to an animal. From the textual point of view, the passage poses some problems. By neat contrast with the Greek version, the Hebrew text (MS C) is doubtful.22 Here is my reconstruction of the text and the relevant translation. 24

‫ מראה‬23‫רע אשה ישחיר‬ 25

‫ פניה‬26‫ ויקדיר כדוב‬

17a

The wickedness of a woman makes her appearance sombre

17b

and turns her face hostile like that of a bear.

‫בן רעים ישב בעלה‬

18a

Her husband sits among his neighbours

‫ובלא טעמו יתאנח‬

18b

and sighs without even being aware of it.

Let us now concentrate on v. 17. In the first stich Ben Sira states that the wickedness of a woman is displayed in her appearance. In fact, wickedness, like goodness, cannot be hidden. Both produce changes in the person’s physiognomy: “The heart

19 Cf. Calduch­Benages, Cut, 89–92. 20 Cf. Liesen, First Person­Passages, 24–47; Liesen, Strategical Self­References, 63–74. 21 Cf. Calduch­Benages, Good and Bad Wives, 114–115. 22 For the Hebrew text, cf. Beentjes’ edition and the site www.bensira.org, and for the Greek version, cf. Ziegler’s edition, Sapientia. This applies also to the other texts. 23 Gr probably reads ‫ ישנה‬instead of ‫ ישחיר‬and translates ἀλλοιοῖ, “changes, alters.” 24 In MS C, ‫ מראה‬is followed by ‫( איש‬the appearance of the man). Probably, this is a gloss whose presence, according to Skehan, is unjustified (cf. Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 346). Gr reads τὴν ὅρασιν αὐτῆς (referring to the wicked woman/wife). Syr reproduces ‫איש‬, anticipates the ‫ פנים‬of the following stich, and, instead of ‫( קדר‬to make dark) probably reads ‫( יקר‬to make pale): “The wickedness of a wicked woman makes her husband’s face turn pale” (17a). 25 MS C reads ‫]ו‬..[‫פ‬, referring to ‫ איש‬of 17a (the husband’s face). Gr, on the other hand, reads τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτῆς (still referring to the woman). 26 Instead of ‫“ כדוב‬like a bear” (Gr ὡς ἄρκος), MS C reads, erroneously, ‫לדוב‬. Ginzberg (Randglos­ sen, 623), however, supposes ‫“ כדוד‬like a saucepan” (!) Other variants: cod. B reads ὡς σάκκoν “like a sack,” and Syr, “like the colour of the sack,” with reference to sackcloth, a penitential garment mentioned also in Lat, quasi saccum.

“Pillars of Gold on Plinths of Silver. . .” (Sir 26:18) 

 271

of a person changes (‫)ישנא‬27 his appearance whether for good or for evil” (13:25). Then he adds, “The sign of a good heart is a radiant face” (13:26a). The luminos­ ity of the face represents the interior light, which the wicked woman seems not to have: far from being radiant, she is gloomy! The verb employed to describe her appearance is ‫( שחר‬to make dark), which appears with this meaning only in Job where he declares to God that his skin “has turned black” (30:3). In our text, however, ‫ שחר‬does not refer to any particular part of the body but to the outer appearance of the woman taken as a whole. The second stich has the same subject, “the wickedness of a woman,” and the verb (Hiphil of ‫ )קדר‬has the same meaning as ‫ שחר‬in 17a, that is, to make dark, to darken. It is found also in Ezek 32:7–8, where the intervention of the Lord is manifested in the darkening of the stars, and in Ezek 31:15, where Lebanon becomes dark because it is clothed in grief. As for the object of the verb, it is more concrete than that of the first stich. There, it was the appearance of the woman (‫)מראה‬, here, it is her face (‫ )פניה‬which becomes like that of a bear. In line with vv. 15–16, the woman is again compared to a fierce animal. The comparison with the bear might surprise the reader who asks how the dark face of a woman could resemble the face of a bear. Like the lion, the bear was known for its ferocity (cf. Sir 47:3), especially the she­bear when she is deprived of her cubs (2 Sam 17:8; Hos 13:8; Prov 17:12). By way of illustration of our text, we can cite two passages from the Midrash Genesis Rabbah, where Potiphar’s wife is compared to a bear. In the first passage, R. Judah says: “That too was not an occasion of joy (he is referring to the fact that all went well for Joseph in Potiphar’s house, cf. Gen 39:2): because that she­bear assailed him” (Gen.Rab 42:3). In the second, God tests Joseph with these words: “By your life, I will incite a bear against you!” (Gen.Rab 87:4; cf. 84:7).28 The malevolent and fierce face of the wicked woman not only reveals something of her identity, her personal character and emotions,29 but also affects her husband’s state of mind: overwhelmed with depression, he does not cease from sighing or groaning when he meets his friends (25:18). His health is also affected by it: lifeless hands, useless for work, and shaking knees that prevent him from moving with agility and safety (25:23). In sum, everything is the opposite of the happy husband described in Prov 31:23.28.

27 Gr ἀλλοιοῖ, the same verb as 25:17a. 28 Freedman / Simon, Midrash, 344–345.808. 29 Cf. HALAT 886–890.

272 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages

5 Sir 26:12 5.1 Literary Context The immediate context of this verse is Sir 26:10–12 which, in its turn, forms part of 26:5–12, the second passage on the bad wife. Despite the fact that the text might give the impression that Ben Sira is speaking of various types of women, it seems to us more probable that he is still referring to the wicked wife (cf. the contrast with 26:1–4.3–18). After a numerical proverb by way of introduction (26:5–6), Ben Sira ascribes to the bad wife a series of vices, which rounds out the portrait given in 25:13–26. She is described as jealous (ἀντίζηλος) of another woman,30 a drunkard (μέθυσος), adulterous (πορνεία γυναικός), frivolous (ἐπὶ θυγατρὶ ἀδιατρέπτῳ)31 and immodest (ἀναιδοῦς ὀφθαλμοῦ). Like 25:13–26, the instruction employs different grammatical persons. It begins with the first person singular: “three things my heart fears and of the fourth I am afraid” (v. 5), and then contin­ ues in the third person singular except for vv. 10 and 11 where the sage’s advice is formulated in the second person: “guard” and “watch over.” All of these attrib­ utes are sexual (adulterous, frivolous, immodest) or are related to sexuality by the context. Thus, for example, envy between women often arises from sexual competition (cf. Gen 16:4–6; 30:1; 1 Sam 1:6), and drunkenness is often associated with indecent conduct and illicit relations (26:8b, cf. 9:9; 19:2). The passage concludes with vv. 10–12. Some scholars hold that these verses are speaking of the daughter (θυγάτηρ, v. 10a)32. Bearing in mind the context, however (cf. for example, the contacts between vv. 9 and 11), we think that they must refer to the wife33. The sage’s instruction reaches its climax in v. 12 with a series of daring images which evoke the promiscuous conduct of Jerusalem in Ezek 16:25 and which we shall examine below.

30 On polygamy in Ben Sira, Egger­Wenzel, Polygamie, 57–64. Balla, Ben Sira, 102–107 and Calduch­Benages , Polygamy, 127–138. 31 The adjective ἀδιάτρεπτος (cf. 42:11 and 26:25GrII) is also the object of discussion. Its mean­ ing is “obstinate, wild” (cf. Wagner, Septuaginta, 138), but, in the light of 42:11 and of the con­ text, it could be translated with “frivolous, shameless” (as in Syr). This opinion is shared by Ryssel, Sprüche, 364; Alonso Schökel, Proverbios, 238; Palmisano, Siracide, 249. 32 Cf. Trenchard, View, 140–144; Balla, Ben Sira, 53; Ellis, Gender, 5–6.108. 33 Cf. Smend, Jesus Sirach, 235; Minissale, Siracide, 135; Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 350; Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 152 and, especially, Camp, Understanding, 22, note 45 (although, in her last book, she seems to change her mind claiming that in the book of Ben Sira the distinction between wives and daughters is not clear, cf. Camp, Ben Sira, 56, notes 8 and 76).

“Pillars of Gold on Plinths of Silver. . .” (Sir 26:18) 

 273

5.2 Analysis of the Verse Like the other verses of 26:5–12, Sir 26:12 is missing in Hebrew (for chapter 26, in MS C, only vv. 1–3.13.15–17 have been preserved). We, therefore, record the Greek version. 12a

ὡς διψῶν ὁδοιπόρος τὸ στόμα ἀνοίξει

12b

καὶ απὀ πάντος ὕδατος τοῦ σύνεγγυς πίεται,

As a thirsty traveller opens his mouth and drinks from every water nearby,

12c

κατέναντι παντὸς πασσάλου καθήσεται

she sits down before every pole

12d

καὶ ἔναντι βέλους ἀνοίξει φαρέτραν.

and opens her quiver before (every) arrow34.

The careful reader notices immediately that in 12cd the subject of the verbs in the third person (καθήσεται and ἀνοίξει) is to be sought in the previous verses (26:10–11): it is the shameless and immodest wife whom the husband must watch over because she is incapable of controlling herself sexually. As Trenchard has shown, “Formally, v. 12 involves a two distich simile.”35 In the first distich, the vehicle of the simile (term of comparison) is the thirsty trav­ eller; in the second distich, the tenor of the simile (term compared) refers to the behaviour of the bad wife. Each stich contains two statements: the thirsty travel­ ler opens his mouth and drinks from all the water nearby (12a), and the woman sits in front of every pole and opens her quiver to every arrow (12b). The first statement (the vehicle of the simile) refers to an everyday experience: when one is on a journey and thirst is pressing, one quenches one’s thirst by drinking from any source without thinking of the quality of the water. The second statement (the tenor of the simile), on the other hand, is formulated in a metaphorical language with a double sense pervaded by sexual connotations. The pole (πασσάλος) and the arrow (βέλος) obviously refer to the male genitals while the quiver (φαρέτρα) to those of the woman. Furthermore, the verb κάθημαι (in Hebrew ‫ )ישב‬is a euphe­ mism for “lying” understood in a sexual sense, that is, “to lie with, to have rela­ tions” (in Hebrew ‫שכב‬, cf. Gen 19:32ff; Lev 15:24; 1 Sam 2:22; Mic 7:5). Having read the second stich, the careful reader discovers that the first stich also (the vehicle of the simile) contains two images of a strongly sexual tone. We are referring to the mouth and the water. As an image of the vagina, the mouth is also found in Prov 30:20 where the sage describes the behaviour of the adulteress in a brutal way: “She eats, she wipes her mouth and says: ‘I have

34 Syr reads “before every arrow” and deciphers the image with this explanation: “Thus the adulterous woman who opens her vulva to every man.” 35 Trenchard, View, 145.

274 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages

done nothing wrong’.” Another text to note is Sir 26:15 where the good wife is described thus: “A double grace is a modest woman, priceless her closed mouth (lit.: ‫ לצרורת פה‬closure of mouth).”36 In this case, the closed/sealed mouth is an ambiguous expression since it could be understood to refer either to the woman’s silence or – and this is our choice – to her chastity (closure of the vagina is understood).37 Another ambiguous expression is found in Sir 9:4: “Do not divert yourself/go to bed (‫ )אל תדמוך‬with a woman singer/musician, lest you be burned in her mouths/lips (‫( )פיפיתם‬lit.: ‘a double­edged sword’).”38 Here too, the word “mouth” (‫ )פה‬has a double meaning, invoking both the provoca­ tive words of the singer and the vagina. Ellis comments thus: “[T]he satirical words of the singer may ‘scorch’ the man, but sexual contact could result in his ‘getting burned’ by the dangerous situation.”39 The expression “(to drink) water” also has sexual connotations. For example, in Prov 9:17, as in our text, it refers to adultery: “Stolen water is sweet,” says Lady Folly to the youth without sense. In Prov 5:15–18, on the other hand, the water of the cistern represents the woman’s sexuality. Ben Sira seems to have been inspired precisely by this text when he advises his pupil: “Do not give water a way out, or freedom of speech to a wicked woman” (Sir 25:25).40 In conclusion, the images of Sir 26:12 (for some, “beautiful and daring,”41 for others “graphic and blunt”)42 illustrate in a highly graphic way the immoderate sexual appetite of the adulterous woman that incites her into offering herself to men indiscriminately (“every water,” “every pole” and, in Syr, “every arrow”). Claudia V. Camp goes further in claiming that, in this verse, “we find Ben Sira capable of virtu­ ally pornographic lewdness in describing women’s capacity for wanton desire.”43

36 Ellis adds another meaning to ‫לצרורת פה‬: “having a ‘tight,” meaning ‘well­muscled,’ vagina” (Ellis, Gender, 176). The verb ‫ צרר‬I (Qal, to shut up, to wrap up) is employed in 2 Sam 20:3 with reference to David’s concubines who were forbidden to have marital relations with the king, having to live as widows and remaining shut up in the palace until the day of their death. 37 Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 350; Camp, Honor, 179–180; Mopsik, Sagesse, 175; Balla, Ben Sira, 66; Calduch­Benages, Good and Bad Wives, 120. 38 According to Morla, the term ‫( פיפיות‬only in the plural) alludes to the double row of teeth and is a metonymy for the mouth (‫( )פה‬cf. Morla, Manuscritos, 78). Skehan / Di Lella read bîpēpîyôtehā (adj. yĕpēpî from yāpeh, “beautiful”) and translate “her charms” (Wisdom, 218). 39 Ellis, Gender, 122. 40 Cf. Camp, Understanding, 30. 41 Morla, Eclesiástico, 135. 42 Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 350. 43 Camp, Ben Sira, 56–57.

“Pillars of Gold on Plinths of Silver. . .” (Sir 26:18) 

 275

6 Sir 26:16–18 6.1 Literary Context Our passage belongs to Sir 26:13–18, the second instruction on the good wife44. These six verses can be considered as a commentary on 26:1–4 (the first instruc­ tion on the good wife) and, at the same time, an antithesis of 26:5–12. Here, by contrast with the instructions on the bad wife, characterised by a personal and highly cutting tone, the author is offering a reflection formulated in the third person singular, more objective and, consequently, less shocking for the reader. We do not know why Ben Sira preferred to show himself in this less direct and impassioned way. In the first three verses (vv. 13–15), in addition to her beauty, the good wife is distinguished for the following three virtues: prudence (‫)שכלה‬ discretion/silence (γυνὴ σιγηρά) and modesty (γυνὴ αἰσχυντηρά, ἐνκρατοῦς ψυχῆς). In vv. 16–18, as we shall see, the images employed to represent all these virtues of the woman stand out for their beauty and originality.

6.2 Analysis of the Verses Only two of the three verses, which we wish to examine, are found in MS C. Thus, we record the Hebrew text of Sir 26:16–17 and the Greek of v. 18. Unlike Hebrew, the Syriac version has the complete text. ‫שמש ]זורחת[ במרומי מעל‬

‫בדביר בחור‬45 ]‫היפ א]שת‬ 47

‫נר שרף על מנורת קדש‬

‫הוד פנים על קומת תוכן‬

16a 16b 17a 17b

The sun [rising/shining] in the heavenly heights,

is the beauty of a w[oman] in the sanctuary of her house46. A lamp standing on the sacred lampstand,

is the splendour of a face on a harmonious body48.

44 Cf. Schmidt, Wisdom, 313–319. 45 ‫בדביר בחור‬, “in the chosen sanctuary” is a problematic expression. In the OT, the term ‫דביר‬ designates the most hidden and most sacred part of the Temple (1 Kgs 6:5.16.19ff; Ps 28:2). How­ ever, the versions (Gr and Syr) refer to the house of the good wife (in Gr, her house is well kept: ἐν κόσμῳ οἰκίας αὐτῆς). We should note that the expression ‫“ בית בחירה‬chosen house” (lit.: “house of election”) to indicate the Jerusalem Temple is frequent in late Hebrew, for example, in b. Sanh. 20b (cf. Mopsik, Sagesse, 175). 46 Instead of ‫בחור‬, we read ‫ביתה‬. Syr refers to the “good” wife and reads “in the habitation of her house.” 47 ‫( תוכן‬from ‫תכן‬, “to regulate, measure, estimate”) is a difficult term. Gr (στασίμη, “steady, stable,” hapax legomenon in the LXX) may be translating ‫תקן‬, “become straight” (Aram. “be established, firm”), cf. Wagner, Hapaxlegomena, 294. For other possibilities, cf. Morla, Manuscritos, 178. 48 Syr reads “(so) is the beauty of a good woman in the ruling of her house.”

276  18a 18b

 Nuria Calduch-Benages

στύλοι χρύσεοι ἐπὶ βάσεως ἀργυρᾶς

καὶ πόδες ὡραῖοι ἐπὶ πτέρνοις εὐστάθμοις49.

Pillars of gold on plinths of silver

are beautiful legs on well-formed feet50.

In verse 16, the wife’s beauty is compared to the most noble of heavenly bodies, full of the glory of God (cf. 42:16).51 The powerful light and heat of the sun testifies to the wonderful work of the Most High (cf. 43:2–5). According to the Hebrew text of MS C, the sun shines in the heights (a cosmic setting) and the woman in the sanctuary (cultic setting). Although the mention of the sanctuary (cf. 45:9) is in line with the following verses, which evoke the austere and solid beauty of the Jerusalem Temple,52 the comparison functions better on the poetic level if one understands the expression ‫ בדביר בחור‬as referring to the domestic space (cf. Gr):53 just as the sun shines in the sky, the woman shines in her house, i.e., in her “sanctuary.” Morla comments: “The unfathomable cosmos is focused on to the smallness/the confined area of a home.”54 In my opinion, this option is to be preferred also because it fits Ben Sira’s view of the woman and of her world. However, bearing in mind the “double entendre” of the Hebrew expression, the cultic allusion is not to be discounted. In v. 17, the images convey the reader from the cosmic to the liturgico­cultic sphere. If, in the previous verse, the vehicle of the simile was the sun which shone in the heights, now it is the light shining on the menorah, a sacred object in the tem­ ple (cf. 1 Mac 1:22; 4:49–50).55 The tenor of the simile, on the other hand, remains the good wife. The only difference concerns the way in which her beauty is described. If the sage previously referred to her in a generic way, he now directs his attention to the woman’s face and figure. An element common to the two verses is the atmos­ phere of brightness pervading them. The light of the sun is reflected in the beauty of the woman, and the light of the menorah is reflected in her face (‫הוד פנים‬, “shining

49 The term εὐστάθμος is hapax legomenon in the LXX (cf. Wagner, Hapaxlegomena, 215–216). Rahlf’s edition (Septuaginta, 422) reads: στέρνοις εὐσταθοῦς, “firm breasts.” 50 Syr reads “(so) beautiful are her heels on the pedestal of her house.” 51 The same image is employed for the High Priest Simon while he is officiating in the Temple liturgy (50:7). 52 Cf. Mopsik, Sagesse, 175; Camp, Honor, 180–181; Camp, Ben Sira, 88–89; Ellis, Gender, 176. 53 Cf. Gr and Syr. Following Smend (Jesus Sirach, 237), Trenchard reads, ‫( בתכונת ביתה‬from ‫)כון‬ “in the arrangement of her home” (Trenchard, View, 9.17.189­190 n. 21 and 196 n. 86). Skehan translates freely: “the radiance of her home” (Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 345). For Balla, the expression ‫ בדביר בחור‬is out of place (Balla, Ben Sira, 67). 54 Morla, Manuscritos, 378: “El cosmos inabarcable se concentra en lo recóndito del hogar.” 55 For the first Temple, cf. Exod 25:31.37; Num 8:1–3. Without developing it, Ellis hints at a possi­ ble sexual connotation in the term “lamp” (cf. Ellis, Gender, 176).

“Pillars of Gold on Plinths of Silver. . .” (Sir 26:18) 

 277

face”). The reference to her body (‫)קומת תוכן‬56 can be understood as “well­propor­ tioned stature,” “strong or steady body” or else “slender or slim figure.” In my opinion, the image evoked by the text is that of a beautiful and harmonious body, that is, well­proportioned, with the right measurements; a body which mirrors the proportioned and harmonious figure of the candlestick with its seven branches as well as its function. Both are meant to give light: the menorah illuminates the temple and the good wife her home. Verse 18 alludes to the columns covered in gold in Zerubbabel’s Temple (cf. 1 Macc 1:22),57 but also to Songs 5:15, where the legs of the beloved man are described as “columns of alabaster, placed on bases of pure gold.” In our text, however, what is being compared to the columns of the temple are not the legs of a man but those of the good wife. The image could seem daring, but, as Gianni Barbiero has rightly observed, comparing the legs of a woman to pillars, even pillars in a sacred place, is traditional in Arab poetry.58 The association with silver and gold suggests how pre­ cious the woman’s beauty is to her husband, a beauty that is majestic, noble, impos­ ing, solid, well­formed, and robust. The columns of the Temple and the woman’s lovely limbs are part of a sacred structure. The close relation established between the woman and the sacro­liturgical space recalls chapter 24 of the book, especially vv. 10–11.15 where the sage is describing the liturgical function of Wisdom, the only female figure found com­ fortably in the sacred space. In 24:10, she herself declares her active participation in the cultic service of the temple: “In the holy tent, I served before Him, and so I was established in Zion.” In its turn, this declaration is reminiscent of 50:1–21, a poetic description of the High Priest Simon while he celebrates the cult in the Jerusalem Temple. However, the active participation in the liturgical services of Wisdom and Simon contrasts with the static and bodily picture of the woman in 26:17–18. Of course, Simon the Just is male and, moreover, the High Priest, while Wisdom, although personified as female, is not a real woman; Wisdom comes forth from the mouth of the Most High (24:3; cf. Prov 8:31). Both of these charac­ ters, therefore, belong to the divine sphere that is inaccessible to the wife of 26:17–18, a woman of flesh and blood. For this reason, the metaphorical stamp of

56  ‫ קומה‬can mean “build, stature, body.” For ‫תוכן‬, see note 44. Cf. Alonso Schökel, Proverbios, 239: “tipo esbelto”; Alonso Schökel, Diccionario, 656: “estatura bien proporcionada”; Trenchard, View, 10: “stately figure”; Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 345: “graceful figure”; Mopsik, Sagesse, 176: “taille bien ferme”; Schreiner, Jesus Sirach, 200: “edle Gestalt”; Morla, Manuscritos, 378: “talle esbelto”; Ellis, Gender, 176: “tallness of stature.” 57 According to Exod 26:31, the columns of the Temple were covered with gold and supported on silver bases. 58 For some examples, cf. Barbiero, Cantico, 253, note 215.

278 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages

our text raises many questions: How do we interpret the relationship of the woman’s body with the architecture and the sacred objects of the Temple? Why so much emphasis on the woman’s physical beauty? Are these metaphors to be interpreted as a compliment to the woman or do they transmit another, less flat­ tering message? The majority of scholars understand the text as authentic praise for the good wife.59 To some, however, in 26:17–18, “the wife seems passive, almost a beautiful ornament of her home”60 or even “an object that is being evaluated.”61 In fact, when Ben Sira celebrates the physical beauty of the wife he is evaluating her in terms of her sexual attractiveness to her husband. In our opinion, there­ fore, the subliminal message of our text is this: the more beautiful the wife, the more she will be cherished by her husband (cf. 26:13; 36:22).

7 Conclusion Although limited to only three texts, our study of female body imagery in the book of Ben Sira has shown the powerful communicative force of the metaphors and the power of female sexuality for good and ill. The first text, Sir 25:17, resonates with Cicero’s view that “the face is the mirror of the soul” (De oratore III. 59.221)62. The gloomy and ferocious expressions depicted on the face of the bad wife that cause her to resemble a bear reflect her personality, her state of mind and her character. Her dark face, without light, transmits hostility and brings sadness to all near her, especially her husband. The second text, Sir 26:12, concludes and summarises the instruction on the bad wife with vivid imagery of how she seeks to satisfy her unbridled desire with men she does not know. The term with double meaning which carries the most intense sexual emphasis is “mouth,” which stands for the female genitals and which in this case is linked with uncontrolled sexual encounters outside marriage, and so, with adultery (cf. 23:23–26). In the third and final text, Sir 26:16–18, an enveloping cultic atmosphere permeates the woman’s beauty. The luminous nature of her face, the harmony of her figure, the glory of her legs and the strength of her feet are mirrored in the imposing struc­ ture of the Temple and the beauty of its architectural and ornamental elements.

59 Cf. Alonso Schökel, Proverbios, 238: “In her house [the beautiful woman] emits light and order, her figure has something of the sacred, it is a fantasy of splendid wealth” (our translation). 60 Balla, Ben Sira, 68. 61 McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom, 172. 62 For the anthropologist David Le Breton, the body is an extension of the soul, cf. his Anthropologie du corps et modernité.

“Pillars of Gold on Plinths of Silver. . .” (Sir 26:18) 

 279

In these three texts, therefore, the metaphors relating to the female body ex­ press the hostility and unbridled sexuality of the bad wife as well as the compel­ ling beauty of the good wife. If we also take into account the remaining texts, the list is completed with the ardent sexuality of the woman singer/musician (9:4), the verbal violence of the woman jealous of another woman (26:6), the seductive­ ness of the adulterous/immodest woman (26:9.11), the personification of the impotent desire of the eunuch (20:4; 30:20) and, finally, the tenderness with which Ben Sira speaks of the good wife (36:28). For Ben Sira, the metaphors for the female body are not just embellishments in his sapiential teaching; on the contrary, they constitute a real pedagogic tool which he uses to instruct his young male pupils about the different types of women, especially the good and bad wives. The images, particularly the more daring ones, not only have an impact on the mind of the future husbands, as yet without experience, but succeed in transmitting the teaching of the sage faith­ fully and effectively. They are powerful and provocative!

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, L., Proverbios y Eclesiástico (Los Libros Sagrados VIII.1), Madrid 1968. Alonso Schökel, L., Diccionario bíblico hebreo-español, Madrid 1994. Balla, I., Ben Sira on Family, Gender and Sexuality (DCLS 8), Berlin 2011. Barbiero, G., Cantico dei Cantici. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (I Libri Biblici. Primo Testamemto 24), Milan 2004. Bolle, H. M. / Llewelyn, S. R., Intersectionality, Gender Liminality and Ben Sira’s Attitude to the Eunuch: VT 67 (2017) 546–569. Box, G. H. / Oesterley, W. O. E., The Book of Sirach, in: R. H. Charles (ed.), APOT 1, Oxford 1913, 268–517. Calduch-Benages, N., “Cut Her Away from Your Flesh.” Divorce in Ben Sira, in: G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.), Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006 (JSJSup 127), Leiden 2008, 81–95. Calduch-Benages, N., Animal Imagery in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sirach, in: J.-S. Rey and J. Joosten (eds.), The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Transmission and Interpretation (JSJSup 150), Leiden 2011, 55–71. Calduch-Benages, N., The Absence of Named Women from Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors, in: J. Corley and H. van Grol (eds.), Rewriting Biblical History. Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes (DCLS 7), Berlin 2011, 301–317. Calduch-Benages, N., Polygamy in Ben Sira?, in: A. Passaro (ed.), Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2012/2013), Berlin 2013, 127–138. Calduch-Benages, N., Good and Bad Wives in the Book of Ben Sira: A Harmless Classification?, in: Ch. M. Maier and N. Calduch-Benages (eds.), The Writings and Later Wisdom Books (The Bible and Women. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament 1.3), Atlanta 2014, 109–125.

280 

 Nuria Calduch-Benages

Calduch-Benages, N., Garment Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira, in: M. Witte and S. Behnke (eds.), The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2014/15), Berlin 2015, 257–278. Calduch-Benages, N., Ben Sira 24:22 – Decoding a Metaphor, in: I. Fischer and A. Taschl-Erber (eds.), Vermittelte Gegenwart. Konzeptionen der Gottespräsenz von der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels bis Anfang des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (WUNT 367), Tübingen 2016, 57–72. Calduch-Benages, N., Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira: A Case Study of Sir 21:1–10, in: J. K. Aitken et al. (eds.), Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting. Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 years (DCLY 2018), Berlin 2018, 267–284. Calduch-Benages, N. / Ferrer, J. / Liesen, J., Wisdom of the Scribe. Diplomatic Edition of the Syriac Version of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus, with Translations in Spanish and English (Biblioteca Midrásica 26), Estella 22015. Camp, C. V., Understanding a Patriarchy: Women in Second Century Jerusalem Through the Eyes of Ben Sira, in: A.-J. Levine (ed.), ‘Women Like This’. New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Graeco-Roman World (SBLEJL 1), Atlanta 1991, 1–39. Camp, C. V., Ben Sira and the Men Who Handle Books. Gender and the Rise of CanonConsciousness (Hebrew Bible Monographs 50), Sheffield 2013. Camp, C. V., Honor and Shame in Ben Sira: Anthropological and Theological Reflections, in: P. C. Beentjes (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 29–31 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255), Berlin 1997, 171–187. Corley, J., Similes and Sound Patterns as Rhetorical Tools in Two Hebrew Wisdom Books, in: A. L. H. M. van Wieringen (ed.), Verborgen Lezers (Theologische Perspectieven. Supplement Series Deel 2), Bergambacht 2011, 94–128. Duesberg, H. / Fransen, I., Ecclesiastico (La Sacra Bibbia. . . a cura di Mons. Salvatore Garofalo. Antico Testamento), Turin 1966. Egger-Wenzel, R., “ Denn harte Knechtschaft und Schande ist es, wenn eine Frau ihren Mann ernähert“ (Sir 25,22), in: R. Egger-Wenzel and I. Krammer (eds.), Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira (BZAW 270), Berlin 1998, 23–50. Egger-Wenzel, R., Spricht Ben Sira von Polygamie?, in: A. Buschmann (ed.), Jahrbuch der Universität Salzburg 1993–1995, Munich 1996, 57–64. Ellis, T. A., Gender in the Book of Ben Sira. Divine Wisdom, Erotic Poetry, and the Garden of Eden (BZAW 453), Berlin 2013. Freedman, H. / Simon, M., (eds.), Midrash Rabbah Genesis I, London 31961. Ginzberg, L., Randglossen zum hebräischen Ben Sira, in: C. Bezold (ed.), Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (2. März 1906) gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern und ihrem Auftrag (Orientalische Studien 2), Giessen 1906, 609–625. Hecke, P., van (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL 187), Leuven 2005. Le Breton, D., Anthropologie du corps et modernité, Paris 1990. Liesen, J., First-Person Passages in the Book of Ben Sira, in: C. O. O’Callaghan (ed.), Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 20, Dublin 1997, 24–47. Liesen, J., Strategical Self-References in Ben Sira, in: N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and in the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert (BETL 143), Leuven 1999, 63–74. Marböck, J., Jesus Sirach 1–23 (HThK.AT), Freiburg im Breisgau 2010. McKinlay, J. E., Gendering Wisdom the Host. Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink (JSOTSup 216. GCT 4), Sheffield 1996.

“Pillars of Gold on Plinths of Silver. . .” (Sir 26:18) 

 281

Minissale, A., The Metaphor of ‘Falling’: Hermeneutic Key to the Book of Sirach, in: A. Passaro and G. Bellia (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLS 1), Berlin 2008, 253–275. Mopsik, Ch., La Sagesse de ben Sira. Traduction de l’hébreu, introduction et annotation (Collection «Les Dix Paroles»), Verdier 2003. Morla, V., Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira. Traducción y notas (ABE 59 Monografías), Estella 2012. Palmisano, M. C., Siracide. Introduzione, traduzione e commento (Nuova versione della Bibbia dai testi originali 34), Cinisello Balsamo (Milan) 2016. Rahlfs, A. (ed.), Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Stuttgart 1935, 1979. Rotasperti, S., «Sorgente di vita è la bocca del giusto». L’arte della metafora nel libro dei Proverbi (Studi Biblici 75), Bologna 2016. Ryssel, V., Die Sprüche Jesus’, des Sohnes Sirachs, in: E. F. Kautzsch (ed.), Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments 1, Tübingen 1921, 230–475. Sauer, G., Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira (ATDA 1), Göttingen 2001. Schmidt, A. J., Wisdom, Cosmos and Cultus in the Book of Sirach (DCLS 42), Berlin 2019. Schreiner, J., Jesus Sirach 1–24 (NEB. Kommentar zum Alten Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung 38), Würzburg 2002. Skehan P. W. / Di lella, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary (AB 39), New York 1987. Sloz, M. B., Body Parts as Metaphor and the Value of a Cognitive Approach. A Study of the Female Figures in Proverbs Via Metaphor, in: P. van Hecke (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL 187), Leuven 2005, 185–195. Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin 1906. Trenchard, W. C., Ben Sira’s View of Women. A Literary Analysis (BJS 38), Chico 1982. Wagner, Ch., Die Septuaginta-Hapaxlegomena im Buch Jesus Sirach (BZAW 282), Berlin 1999. Witte, M. / Behnke, S. (eds.), The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2014/2015), Berlin 2015. Ziegler, J. (ed.), Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII/2), Göttingen 21980.

Severino Bussino

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing Abstract: In BS 36:18–37:15 Ben Sira teaches the art of choosing: how to recog­ nize the value of a wife, how to really know friends, how to prefer one counselor with respect to another. In this paper we will discuss how these three aspects are linked to each another and how Master Ben Sira has built his teaching. Some peculiarities of the communicative process within the text will also be investi­ gated. Keywords: Ben Sira, Hebrew text, wife, friend.

1 Introduction In chapters 36 and 37 Master Ben Sira1 offers a teaching on the art of choosing and on the attitude towards man­woman relationship, friendship and counseling. In this study we would like to understand how the text is organized, why the three topics are discussed together and the way in which Ben Sira addresses the reader. Our final goal is to understand better the whole message of the Master concerning these three aspects. The text is available in Hebrew, and we will begin our investigation with an overview of the original redaction.2 The following step of this work will be devoted to the investigation of the delimitation of the text and to the study of its inner structure. Then each section will be analyzed, in order to reach a global understanding of this teaching. Finally some conclusions will be presented.

1 As far as the book of Ben Sira is concerned, the Greek text (Sir) will be cited using the critical edition and numeration of Ziegler, Sapientia, while, for the Hebrew (BS), the text and the nu­ meration will be that of the publication of the original manuscripts by Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira. For the Syriac (Syr) the edition and the translation of Calduch­Benages / Ferrer / Liesen, Sabiduría, will be used. For the text and numeration in Latin (Eccl), the edition of Fischer, Biblia Sacra, will normally be used. The English translation of all the biblical texts will be based on the New Revised Standard Version. Reference to these sources will not be further specified in the course of the work but any differences will be explicitly indicated. 2 The textual witnesses of BS 37:1–6 and BS 37:7–15, devoted, respectively, to the choice of a friend and to the figure of the counselor, have been studied in details by Sauer, Freundschaft; Sauer, Ratgeber. See also: Margoliouth, Original Hebrew. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-018

284 

 Severino Bussino

The theme of social relationships is a main issue in the Sapiential texts and in Ben Sira, providing excellent studies on these topics.3

2 The Textual Attestation 2.1 General Remarks The Hebrew text is testified by Manuscript B and, partially, also by Manuscript C, within a collection devoted to some teaching concerning the wife, and in Manu­ script D, according to the following schema: Ms B Ms C Ms D

BS 36:18–37:15 BS 36:19.22–26 BS 36:24–37:15

In comparison with the Greek text, one main problem arises in BS 36,18cd, that shows content similar to Sir 36:26(23), while the Hebrew stich in the position cor­ responding to Sir 36:26(23) appears difficult to understand. A second main differ­ ence between the Hebrew text and the Greek version occurs in Sir 37:11, where the Greek version, followed by the Syriac, has one more distich than the correspond­ ing Hebrew text of BS 37:11. The long text GII has no differences with respect to the short version GI, while the Latin version shows some specific additions.

2.2 The Delimitation of the Literary Unit We would like to assert where the literary unit begins and where it ends, in order to understand the Ben Sira’s way of reasoning. The text beginning in BS 36:18 can be clearly distinguished from the previous section, BS 36:1–17, which is a prayer addressed to God.4 Between BS 36:17 and the following distich there is a change in the subject, all of humanity and God himself at the end of the prayer, addressed with the second person, and the stomach in BS 36:18, referred of course using the third person singular. 3 On the theme of the Woman: Gilbert, Ben Sira; Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View; Balla, Ben Sira; Calduch­Benages, Pan de sensatez; Calduch­Benages, For Wisdom’s Sake. On Friendship: Reiterer, Freundschaft; Beentjes, With All Your Soul, 207–218; Corley, Ben Sira’s teaching. 4 See: Palmisano, Salvaci.

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

 285

The whole text is marked by the repetition of the construction ‫אך יש‬. . .‫ כל‬in BS 36:18.21; 37:1.7 and this confirms that a new literary unit begins in BS 36:18. The same construct can be used to state the organization of the text, after the introduction of BS 36:18–20, in three parts devoted to the woman (BS 36:21–26), to the friend (BS 37:1–6), to the counselor (BS 37:1–15). More subtle is the question concerning the end of the passage. In BS 37:16 the solemn opening,5 ‫וראש כל‬. . . ‫ראש כל‬, “the beginning of all,” is a clear indication for the starting of a new section here, signaling a strong point of reference of Ben Sira’s teaching.6 A similar construction can be found for example in Sir 29:21, as observed by Corley,7 where the Hebrew text is not known and the Greek version uses ἀρχή, and the construction shows the beginning of a new section. Also the focus of the text is changing, moving from the deep relationship of the disciples with their wives, friends, advisers, to some more personal statements concerning the decision and the true or false wisdom. These two following parts relating to decision and wisdom in BS 37:16–18 and 37:19–26 are strictly related to one another.8 We can then identify the end of this literary unit concerning the art of choosing in BS 37:15.9 It can be observed however that the vocabulary of BS 37:16–18 echoes what precedes: v. 16 ‫( ראש‬v. 36:24 [‫ ;)]ראשית‬vv. 16 and 18 ‫( כל‬vv. 36:18a.18c.22a[C].22b; 37:1.7.15 and also in the following passage, 37:20–24); v. 16 ‫( אמר‬D) (vv. 37:1.3.7[D].9), ‫פעל‬/‫( פועל‬v. 37:11g); v. 17 ‫לבב‬/‫( לב‬vv. 36:19.20; 37:12(2x).13.14); v. 18 ‫( טוב‬v. 37:5), ‫( רע‬vv. 37:2.3.4), ‫( מות‬v. 37:2), ‫( לשון‬v. 36:23). This is a hint for an accurate organization of the whole larger section BS 36:18–37:26.10 The literary unit to be studied is therefore BS 36:18–37:15. 5 Palmisano, Siracide, 337. 6 Spicq, Ecclésiastique, 753–754. 7 Corley, Searching, 39. 8 “Ein Bindeglied zwischen 37:19–26 und den Versen 16­18 ist nicht wahrzunehmen,“ Fuss, Tra­ dition, quoted by Rickenbacher, Weisheits, 173. “Les v. 16–18 sont donc une excellent introduc­ tion au v. 19–26, qui visent différents représentants de cette classe de maîtres bénévoles, née en Israël depuis l’exil, et don le prestige s’accroìt rapidement”: Spicq, Ecclésiastique, 754. 9 So: Smend, Weisheit, 324; Corley, Searching, 39; Spicq, Ecclésiastique, 753–754; Palmisano, Siracide, 337; Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 121 and 178; Reiterer, Interpretation; Rickenbacher, Weisheits, 173; Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 424; but not: Peters, Buch, 297; Sauer, Jesus Sir­ ach, 255–257. Alonso Schökel, Proverbios, 277, suggests that the teaching should end in BS 37:15, but remarks that BS 37:16–18 can be considered a good synthesis between the preceding and the following text: “La collocation de estos versos es dudosa: por la «reflexiòn» recogen el tema precedent, que había concluido bien en v. 15; por la «lengua» introducen los seguiente. En sí nos ofrecen una interesante síntesis antropológica: pensamiento, acción, palabra; interi­ oridad radical del hombre, libertad moral, responsabilidad.” A similar position in Minissale, Siracide, 175: “Questa parentesi [37:16–18], appendice della pericope precedente o introduzione a quella seguente, offre una interessante notazione antropologica.” 10 Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 190.

286 

 Severino Bussino

3 Choosing Is Necessary: BS 36:18–20 3.1 Text and Translation The text of BS 36:18–20 is known substantially from Manuscript B. Only BS 36:19ab is testified also by Ms. C.11 This is the text and its translation: 18ab (B) 19 (B) 19 (C) 20 (B) 18ab 19 20

‫[ים‬. . .]‫[ל‬. . .] ‫אך יש אוכל‬ ‫ולכ מבין מטעמי כזב‬ ‫ואיש ותיק ישיבנה בו‬

‫כל מאכל אוכל גרגרת‬ ‫חיך בוחן מטעמי דבר‬ ‫חיך יטעם מטעמי זבר‬ ‫לב עקוב יתן עצבת‬

The stomach can eat any food, yet one food is more delightful than another.12 The palate tastes13 the delicacies14 received as a gift,15 and a discerning mind16 the subtlety of a lie. A narrow heart17 will cause grief,18 but a man with experience19 will prevent it from (doing) this.20

11 For an overall discussion on Ms. C, see Rüger, Text. 12 For the use of the overall construction, see: Strugnell, Cabbages. 13 Three times in Job (6:30; 12:11; 34:3) ‫חיך‬/‫ חך‬is used as a metaphor for the ability of understand­ ing and discerning. The verbal form in the text is ‫( בוחן‬B e Bmg) or ‫( יטעם‬C). With Peters, Liber Iesu, 78, and Lévi, Ecclésiastique, 172, we prefer ‫בוחן‬. 14 ‫ מטעם‬occurs only 8x in the MT: 6x in the history of Jacob blessing (Gen 27:4.7.9.14.17.31) and 2x in Prov 23:3.6. Nevertheless it is used 5x in Ben Sira (30:25; 31:22; 36:19; 37:29; 40:29). 15 Ms. B reports ‫דבר‬, while Bmg and D have ‫זבר‬, that is preferred from the majority of scholars. ‫ זבר‬is rare in the MT, and occurs only 2x in Gen 30:20, to explain the etymology of the name Zab­ ulon. The translation is in some account hypothetical: “delicacies put forward as gift” (Skehan / Di Lella), “les aliments donnés” (Lévi), “die geschenkten Leckerbissen” (Smend and Peters). 16 A similar construction can be found in BS 10:1b. See also BS 33:3. 17 The use of the ‫ עקוב‬referred to ‫ לב‬can be found in Jer 17:9. See also BS 6:20. 18 The construction with ‫ לב‬subject of the verb ‫ נתן‬is not usual: in general ‫ לב‬is the object or is in dative and the subject is God. ‫ יתן עצבת‬occurs only in Prov 10:10. See also BS 38:18. 19 ‫איש ותיק‬, ἄνθρωπος πολύπειρος in Greek, is juxtaposed to the ‫ לב עבוק‬of the previous stich. The term ‫ ותיק‬is hapax in the MT and probably, as suggested form the Lexicon of Zorell, derives from the Arabic watîq, “firmus,” “constans,” and here the whole expression has the meaning of a firm, solid man. See also Sir 21:22, ἄνθρωπος δὲ πολύπειρος or Sir 31(34):9, with the form ὁ πολύπειρος. 20 The yiqtol Hifil of the common verb ‫ שוב‬occurs only 4x in the MT (Isa 14:27; 43:13; Jer 2:24; Prov 19:24).

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

 287

In Ms. B a further verse, partially corrupted is added after BS 36,18ab: 18cd (B)    {‫ }אך יש אשה יפה‬: [. . . . . . . . . . . .]    ‫[ל‬.]‫[ק‬. . .]‫[ל‬.] This verse introduces the topic of the woman, which is present in the text only starting from BS 36:21. The first three verses, BS 36:18–20, do not enter into the detailed aspects of the art of choosing, but remains on a more general level. From the textual point of view, BS 36:18cd is substantially equivalent to Sir 36:26(23), while the Hebrew distich, which on the basis of the distich order, should correspond to Sir 36:26(23), i.e. BS 36:21, is not understandable and has no cor­ respondence in Greek and in Syriac. Also the Latin version, that many times is independent from the Greek version, does not testify to this duplication between BS 36:18cd and BS 36:21. Moreover, BS 36:18cd fits well in the context, though it is now misplaced, as sometimes occurs in Ms. B. The opening verse, BS 36:18ab, is a proverb that at the beginning highlights the relevance of the experience and its relation with the topic that will be dis­ cussed. The term ‫ גרגרת‬is parallel with ‫ חיך‬in BS 36:19, which, also in Job 6,30,21 is used with a metaphorical meaning. In the following verse, BS 36:19, the construction is really expressive, because the same substantive ‫ מטעמי‬22 is used to indicate the taste of the delicacies of a gift and the taste of lies. Also here, starting from the experience, man is required to distinguish truth from falsehood. The positive consequence of this process is clearly stated in the third verse, BS 36:20, and especially in the second stich: the ‫ איש ותיק‬, the man of experience, can prevent the negative consequences of a mean and narrow­minded heart. It is really interesting to state if Ben Sira is simply addressing to pay attention to the human beings whose intentions are bad or if he is suggesting that a wise man should not have a narrow heart.23 Maybe the two possibilities can coexist and a better answer will be done after having studied the whole section, espe­ cially BS 37:7–15.

21 See also Job 12:11; 34:3. 22 In Ben Sira ‫ מטעמי‬is mainly referred to the meals laid at the table of the potents, that is a temptation for the ordinary man, because this does not fit with his social state. In the same way, the lie does not correspond to reality. 23 For this second interpretation Lévi, Ecclésiastique, 174: “doit avoir ici le même sens qu’à l’hemistique precedent.” For the topic of the heart that is the cause of suffering, see also: Sir 3:26.27; 13:25; 31(34):5.6.

288 

 Severino Bussino

3.2 Structure and Message The structure of this introductory section can be easily stated:24 Proverb 36:18ab Application 36:19 Sentence 36:20

‫אך יש אוכל מאוכל נעים‬ ‫ולב מבין מטעמי כזב‬ ‫ואיש ותיק ישיבנה בו‬

‫כל מאכל אוכל גרגרת‬ ‫חיך בוחן מטעמי זבר‬ ‫לב עקוב יתן עצבת‬

The proverb of BS 36:18ab is followed by a concrete application, expressed by means of two nominal sentences that introduce the statement of BS 36:20, struc­ tured around two yiqtols, one in each stich. From the lessical point of view, there is a binding between the three verses, by using synonyms and mot crochet: ‫גרגרת‬ ‫חיך‬

(36:18a) (36:19a)

‫( ולב מבין‬36:19b)

‫חיך‬ ‫ולב מבין‬

(36:19a) (36:19b)

(synonym) (parallelism in the same verse)

‫לב עקוב‬

(36:20a) (mot crochet + antonym)

‫ואש ותיק‬

(36:20b) (parallelism in the same verse + synonym)

The expression ‫ ואש ותיק‬seems to be the end of the path and the reader waits for a further deepening in the following sections. The three verses are carefully structured: BS 36,18 is built around the rhythm of the forms of the root ‫אכל‬, with the preformant ‫ מ‬in chiastic position (‫)מאכל אוכל אוכל מאוכל‬, while BS 36:19–20 is built in parallelism, through the construction and by means of some lessical occurrences. The whole structure appears very dynamics, because of the use of mot crochet and of parallelism, and it is very communicative, pointing to the character of the ‫איש ותיק‬.

4 A Wife Is Precious: BS 36:21–26 4.1 Text and Translation The text of BS 36:21–26 is known from Manuscripts B and C. BS 36:24–26 is testi­ fied also by Manuscript D. We report here only the text of Manuscript B, pointing

24 The text is here hypothetically reconstructed where the Manuscripts are corrupted or disagree.

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

 289

out in footnote form some observation concerning differences among the various witnesses. The main problems concern v. 21, that is very difficult to understand. We propose25 to use here the verse BS 36:18cd(B), that fits with the context and is in good agreement with the Greek version, and to drop v. 21.26 This is the text and its translation: 18cd ‫אך יש אשה מאשה יפה‬ 22 ‫ועל כל מחמד עין יגבר‬ 23 ‫אין ִא ָׁשּה מבני אדם‬ 24 ‫עזר ומבצר ועמוד משען‬ 25 ‫ובאין אשה נע ונד‬ 26 ‫המדלג מעיר אל עיר‬ ‫המרגיע באשר יערב‬ 18cd

[‫]כ[ל ]ז[כר תקבל א]שה‬27 ‫תואר אשה והליל פנים‬ ‫ועד אם יש מרפא לשון‬ ‫קנה אשה ראשית קנין‬ ‫באין גדיר יבוער כרם‬ ‫מי יאמין גדוד צבא‬ ‫כן איש אשר לא קן‬

A woman can accept28 any man as a husband, but one woman is more pleasant than another woman.29

25 For a short discussion, see for example: Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 426–427 and references therein. 26 BS 36:21 (only in Ms. B): ‫כל נבד תאכל חיה אך יש מכה ממכה תנעם‬. For an overall discussion of these two stichs, BS 36:18bc and 36:21, see: Beentjes, With All Your Soul, 198–220 and Strugnell, Of cabbages. 27 For the reconstruction, we follow here Segal, ‫ספר‬, ‫רכט‬. Smend, Weisheit. Hebräisch, 31 and Peters, Das Buch, 78 suggest to use ‫ תנעם‬instead of ‫ יפה‬at the end of the second stich. The first reading is based on the correction in BS 36:18cd, while the second one takes into account the readable ‫ ם‬at the end of BS 36:26 and ‫ נעים‬at the end of BS 36:18ab. The reading with ‫ יפה‬fits better also with the construction of the Greek version, that uses the adjective κρεισσών. The adjective ‫ יפה‬is also used in Genesis, with reference to the beauty of Sara, and widely in the Song of the Songs. For ‫ יפה‬the Lexicon of Zorell suggests also conveniens, and quotes BS 14:16. In Ben Sira the term ‫ יפה‬occurs also in BS 26:16, where it again refers to a woman, in BS 13:22 (here ironic, ‫מהופין‬ ‫ )ודבריו מכוערין‬and in BS 32:6 (‫)דברים יפים‬. 28 The verb ‫ קבל‬occurs 14x in the MT and almost always it expresses the nuance of acceptance or agreement. See for example Job 2:10 and 1 Chr 21:11. 29 Compared with 36:18b and with 37:1b, the first part of this second stich should be ‫אך יש אשה‬ ‫מאשה‬. Lévi, Ecclésiastique, 172, suggests a change of the subject between the first and the sec­ ond stich, “L’homme prend indifféremment n’import quelle femme, . . .,” following the logic of BS 36:18ab.

290 

 Severino Bussino

22

A woman’s beauty30 lights up the face,31 and it surpasses any delight of the eyes.32 And if also there is composure33 in her speech, there is no man like her husband.34 Acquiring a wife,35 beginning of possession,36 help and strength37 and a pillar of support.38 Where there is no hedge, the property is plundered,39 and when there is no wife, “a fugitive and a wanderer.”

23 24 25

30 ‫ תואר‬is the long form of ‫תאר‬, that occurs 15x in the MT and other 7x in Ben Sira (11:2; 16:1; 42:12.25(Bmg); 43:1.9.18). The construction ‫ תואר אשה‬is original of Ben Sira and echoes ‫ ִאיׁש תאר‬in 1 Sam 16:18. 31 The verbal form of Ms. B is ‫ יהלל( והליל‬in Bmg), from ‫( הלל‬I), a rare root that, according to the Zorell’s Lexicon, occurs only 4x in the MT (Isa 13:10; Job 29:3; 31:26; 41:10), and echoes the Arabic halla, jahillu, with the meaning of “to enlighten” and then “to rejoice.” Ms. C, slightly corrupted, seems to have ‫יאיר‬, with the same meaning, but too similar to BS 7:24. ‫( הלל‬I) occurs only here in Ben Sira, because the form in BS 8:7 seems better to fit with ‫( הלל‬II). 32 Cf. Lam 2:4: ‫מחמדי עין‬. See also BS 45:12: [. . ...]‫מחמ‬, ἐπιθυμήματα ὀφθαλμῶν in Greek, with reference to the splendor of Aaron. 33 The term used here is ‫( מרפא‬II), from the root ‫רפה‬, “to leave,” “to desist,” that occurs at least 3x in the MT (Prov 14:30; 15:4; Qoh 10:4). See also BS 43:22, a poetic text where both the forms, ‫( מרפא‬I) and ‫( מרפא‬II), are suitable to the context. 34 Literally “there is (nobody like) her husband among the sons of man.” 35 The form at the beginning of the stich, ‫קנה‬, can be vocalized as an imperative, a participle or an infinitive absolute: see the main commentaries. In Bmg we find the participle ‫קונה‬, that is also required by the Greek version and by the Latin but not the Syriac, that read the form as an imperative. With Smend, Weisheit. Erklärt, 325, we prefer the participle: “Für den Impt. spricht die Parallele Prov 4:7 (. . .) aber das Partizip ist auch in der hebr. Randlesart (und ebenso auch in cod. D) bezeugt und die dann sich ergebende Kostruktion gut hebräisch.“ The same assumption in Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View, 19 and 199 n. 111, and in Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 252, but not in Lévi, Ecclésiastique, 174–175 and Peters, Liber Iesu, 80–81, who prefer the imperative. Alonso Schökel, Proverbios, 275 and Morla, Los manuscritos, 205, choose the infinitive. In BS 6:6 Ben Sira uses a similar construction, in the context of a teaching concerning friendship. 36 Prov 4:7 is very similar to this stich, with three terms in common: ‫קנה‬, ‫ראשית‬, ‫קנין‬. 37 According to Ms. B, the second stich of this verse begins with ‫עזר ומבצר‬, while Mss. Bmg and D have ‫עיר מבצר‬. The reading ‫( עיר מבצר‬cf. Jer 1:18) has no correspondence neither in the Greek version nor in the Syriac one. So we use the text of Ms. B, with Peters, Liber Iesu, 80–81 and Morla, Los manuscritos, 205, but not Lévi, Ecclésiastique, 175. Smend, Weisheit, suggests ‫עזר‬ ‫( כנגדו‬cf. Gen 2:18.20), and Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 427, ‫עזר כעצמו‬, “a help like himself.” 38 ‫ עמוד‬is very common in the MT while ‫ משען‬occurs only 4x in the MT, in 2 Sam 22:19; Ps 18:19; Isa 3:1(2x) In Ben Sira ‫ עמוד‬occurs also in 16:18, while ‫ משען‬is used 2 other times in Ben Sira, as a consequence of good actions in 3:31 and in relation with the fear of God in 40:26. 39 Cf. Some passages of Isaiah (3:14; 4:4; 5:5). In Isa 5:5 occurs also ‫ ֶכ ֶרם‬and ‫גָ ֵדר‬, as in our text.

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

26

 291

Who will trust40 an armed band,41 that skips42 from city to city?43 So too for a man who has44 no nest,45 who lodges wherever46 night overtakes him.

The opening verse shows the same construction used in BS 36:18ab and this sug­ gests both the unity of the whole section (BS 36:18ff) and its organization in two parts (BS 36:18ab­20 and 36:18cd.22–26. In BS 37:1 occurs the same pattern, and this confirms the identification of BS 36:18cd.22–26) as a whole. The text shows some lexical peculiarities. The verb ‫ הלל‬in BS 36:22a comes probably from the Arabic, with original meaning of “to light up,” that in the context means “to rejoice.” Also the verb ‫ גבר‬in the following stich is really expres­ sive, it communicates the idea of a definitive superiority, for example in a battle, in a mythological context (see BS 16:7) or in relation with God or Wisdom (see BS 38:4.6). The word ‫ מחמד‬in the same stich is also very intense, it is related to the most important thing in the scale of desires or values, something that in Lam 1:1 can be sold only for bread in time of drought. The term ‫ מרפא‬in BS 36:23a that we translated with “composure,” expresses something more, because it comes from the verb “to desist,” with the meaning of “benign,” “benevolent,” “mild/gentle.” The term ‫( מרפא‬II), from the root ‫רפה‬, is rare47 and in BS 43:22 it is used, in a strong poetic text, to express the action of God in creation. BS 36:24 is immediate, with the style of a sapiential sentence (see for example Prov 4:5.7) and Ben Sira seems to translate here to the relationship between man and woman what normally is said in connection with Wisdom. Also the form ‫ ראשית‬occurs only 1x more in Ben 40 The verse has the typical structure of a rhetorical question that waits for a negative answer, an “exclamatory question” (cf. Joüon, § 163d). 41 The construction ‫ גדוד צבא‬occurs only 1x in the MT, in 1 Chr 7:4. Ben Sira uses 1x more the term ‫גדוד‬, in 48:9, and other 3x the term ‫צבא‬, in 7:15; 42:17; 43:8. 42 The verb ‫דלג‬, that denotes an aimless movement that has no order, is used only 5x in the MT (2 Sam 22:30, where also ‫ גדוד‬occurs; Ps 18:30; Song 2:8; Isa 35:6; Zeph 1:9) and is not used elsewhere in Ben Sira. 43 Two forms similar to the one used in this stich can be found in 2 Chr 19:5; 30:10. 44 The meaning of the stich is clear, even different in the various Mss. We assume the text ‫איש‬ ‫( אשר אין לו‬Mss. C, D and Bmg), which is more attested and can explain the reading of Ms. B as a transcription error, due to the more common form ‫איש אשר לא‬. So also Smend, Weisheit. He­ bräisch, 32, and Peters, Liber Iesu, 80. Cf. BS 7:6 and 44:9. 45 ‫ קן‬is used in Prov 27:8 to describe the wander (root ‫ נוד‬as in BS 36:25) of a man far from his city. 46 Mss. B and D have ‫באשר‬, while Ms. C has ‫כאשר‬. The reading of ‫ באשר‬seems to be preferred, because it fits with the verb of movement used in the verse and because it is easier to explain the corruption of ‫( ַב ֲא ֶׁשר‬19x in the MT) towards the more common ‫כ ֲא ֶׁשר‬. ַ 47 3x in the MT: Prov 14:30; 15,4; Qoh 10:4. Prov 15:4, ‫מר ֵפא ָלׁשֹון‬ ְ , is similar to our text. ¯

292 

 Severino Bussino

Sira, in BS 15:14(A, Bmg).48 The same intensity can be found in the following verses, where many terms echo the narrative of Genesis: ‫ עזר‬in BS 36:24b as in Genesis 2, when God wants to create an ‫עזר‬, a help for the man. In BS 36:25b ‫ נע ונד‬is a literal quotation, and the only one in the MT, using the same couple of terms found in the story of Cain (Gen 4:12.14). The substantive ‫ עזר‬has also a further and intrinsic strong communicative content, because it is used in situations where the required help is relevant. For example during a battle or when man praises God for a spe­ cific need. The distich shows then a dense structure, with a typically sapiential introduction with ‫ ובאין‬. . . ‫באין‬, the use of an intense vocabulary and reference to the book of Genesis. The text ends with a rhetorical question that waits for a negative answer, again having the experience of the reader as starting point, and involving the dimension of trust, that in Ben Sira often regards the social relation­ ship, the relation within the family and the relationship with God. The verb ‫ דלג‬in BS 36:26b means “to wander” without a direction or a destination. The term ‫ כן‬that opens the following distich, BS 36:26cd, is typical of an application, for example as in BS 12:13–14 and recalls the ‫ מי‬at the beginning of the previous distich. A similar text, with the use of the two terms ‫ דלג‬and ‫ קן‬occurs in Prov 27:8. The verb ‫( רגע‬II), “to lodge” in our translation, is used in the MT when a relation between man and God is involved, for example in a positive perspective (Jer 31:2; 50:34; Isa 51:4) or in a cosmogonic dimension that is the basis for a new hope (Isa 34:14). Also the last verbal form ‫ ערב‬in BS 36:26d is peculiar and very rare, that probably comes from the Accadic erēbu, “to enter,” “to pass (over)” (erēb šamšim, “the going down of the sun”) and is connected to the Arabic gariba, “to be black.”

4.2 Structure and Message This section, devoted to the topic of wife, is structured in seven distichs and organized around the variations of different syntactic constructions: Proverb Positive Sentence Teaching Sentence Negative Sentence

36:18cd 36:22 36:23 36:24 36:25 36:26ab 36:26cd

‫אך יש אשה מאשה יפה‬ ‫ועל כל מחמד עין יגבר‬ ‫אין ִא ָשּה מבני אדם‬ ‫עזר ומבצר ועמוד משען‬ ‫ובאין אשה נע ונד‬ ‫המדלג מאיר אל עיר‬ ‫המרגיע באשר יערב‬

[‫]כ[ל ]ז[כר תקבל א]שה‬ ‫תואר אשה והליל פנים‬ ‫ועד אם יש מרפא לשון‬ ‫קנה אשה ראשית קנין‬ ‫באין גדיר יבוער כרם‬ ‫מי יאמין גדוד צבא‬ ‫כן איש אשר לא קן‬

48 See also BS 31:27(B), where the text of the Ms. is partially corrupt.

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

 293

The two parts of BS 36:26 are strictly connected to one another, with the ‫ כן‬in 26c that explicitly recalls the previous distich, 26ab. We prefer to separate them from BS 36:25, not only because BS 36:26 appears as a whole, but also in order to put in evidence BS 36:25, with the first stich referred to the experience and the second one that reminds the reader to the nature of the human being. From the point of view of the argumentation, the development of the text can be summarized around the teaching of BS 36:24: Proverb Preliminary positive statement based on the experience Teaching Negative motivation based: – on the experience and on the nature of the human being – on the experience and on the involvement of the reader

(BS 36:18bc) (BS 36:22–23) (BS 36:24) (BS 36:25) (BS 36:26)

From a lexical point of view, verses BS 36:18bc.22–25 are really connected one with the other: in 36:18bc occurs three times ‫אשה‬,49 in a typical structure of the proverb used in these sections. The same name occurs also in 36:22a.24a.25b, while BS 36:23b uses the masculine ‫ איש‬with the suffix of third feminine person, in a construct that is phonetically similar to the previous one. The same term ‫ איש‬occurs also in the final distich, 36:26cd. Moreover, the two verses around the teaching of BS 36:24 are constructed in the same way: 36:23 36:25

. . .‫ישּה‬ ָ ‫אן ִא‬ . . . ‫ובאין אשה‬

. . .‫ועד אם יש‬ . . .‫ובאין‬

Finally, we can note how the two distichs in BS 36:26 are connected through the correspondence ‫ מי­כן‬in the first stich and the correspondence ‫ ה‬+ participle in the second stich, creating in this way an assonance in the rhythm of the two distichs. As we have already put in evidence, the use of explicit quotations of Genesis enriches the text of a specific meaning: God, in Gen 2:18.20, wants to give the man an ‫עזר‬, a help, but, after many attempts, He reached His goal only when He creates the woman. In the MT ‫ עזר‬is used when God himself is the help of the

49 We must however remember here that any reconstruction of BS 36:18cd (or 36:21) is tentative, so that the recurrences of ‫ אשה‬in BS 36:18bc are an hypothesis. For example, Peters, Liber Iesu, 78, prefers the substantive ‫בת‬.

294 

 Severino Bussino

people of Israel or of the human being, and also ‫ משען‬in BS 36:24b has the same import,50 with a strength of meaning that now is transferred to the woman.

5 The Choice of a Friend: BS 37:1–6 5.1 Text and Translation The text of BS 37:1–6 is known from Manuscripts B and D. We report here only the text of Manuscript B, pointing out in footnotes some observation concerning the differences among the two Manuscripts. This is the text and its translation: Ms. B 1mg 2mg 3 4 5mg 6 1 2

‫אך יש אוהב שם אוהב‬ ‫רע כנפש נהפך לצר‬ ‫למלא פני תבל תרמית‬ ‫בעת צוקה מנגד יעמד‬ ‫ונגד ערים יחזיק צנה‬ ‫ואל תעזבהו בשללך‬

‫כל אוהב אומר אהבתי‬ ‫הלא דין מגיע אל מות‬ ‫[ו רע שאמר מרוע כן נוצרתי‬.]‫ה‬ ‫מרע אוהב מביט אל שלחן‬ ‫אוהב טוב נלחם עם זר‬ ‫אל תשכח חביר בקרב‬

Every friend can say:51 “I am a friend,” but there are friends who are friends only in name.52 Is it not a sorrow53 that brings54 close to death,55 when an intimate friend56 turns into an enemy?

50 Cf. 2 Sam 22:19; Ps 18:19; Isa 3:1(3x). 51 At the beginning of the stich Ms. B has ‫כל אומר אמר‬, corrected in margin in the form ‫כל אוהב‬ ‫אומר‬, the same reading of Ms. D. The form of Mss Bmg and D seems to be preferred. The participle of ‫אמר‬, as in BS 36:23, has a modal nuance (cf. Joüon, § 121g), that well fits in the context. 52 The second stich opens with a sapiential formula, ‫אך יש‬, strictly connected to the ‫ כל‬in the previous stich (cf. BS 36:23.26 and 37:7). The text can be read only in Mss. D and Bmg. 53 The term in the text (B, Bmg and D) is ‫דין‬, that means “judgment” and never has the wider meaning of “decision,” “suffering,” that well would fit in the context. The original reading could be ‫דון‬, “pain,” “sorrow,” as suggested by Smend, Weisheit. Erklärt, 326, Peters, Liber Iesu, 80–81, Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 428; and by the Lexicon of Zorell. See also BS 38:18. 54 In BS 51:6 occurs the construction ‫ותגע למות‬, very similar to the one used in our text. 55 Ms. B has ‫אל מות‬, corrected in margin as ‫על מות‬, while Ms. D reports ‫עד מות‬. These variations do not alter the meaning of the whole stich. 56 In Ms. B the construction is with suffix, ‫רע כנפשך‬, while Ms. Bmg and D have the simpler form ‫רע‬ ‫כנפש‬. In the MT two similar constructions occur in the history of Samuel and Jonathan, in 1Sam 18:1.3.

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

3 4 566

 295

Alas, the friend who says:57 “Why was I thus formed,58 to cover the face of the earth59 with deceit?”60 Harmful61 is the friend who eyes62 your table,63 but in time of trouble64 he stands aloof.65 A good friend will fight67 against the foreigner, and in front of enemies68 will hold up the shield.69

57 In Ms. B the stich begins with ‫ה]י[ו רע שאמר‬, which in the margin is corrected in the form ‫היו רדע‬ ‫יאמר‬, similar to ̯  the text of Ms. D, ‫היו ַרע יאמר‬. The ‫ ה]י[ו‬of Ms. B seems an error, that the Greek has translated as ὠ πονηρo´ν. For the verb we assume the form of Ms. B, ‫ שאמר‬that gives to the text a good meaning. A similar construction can be found in Ezek 13:3. The second term, ‫רע‬, can have the meaning of “friend” or “evil man.” We assume the meaning of “friend,” as in the previous distich. 58 In the MT the Nifal of ‫ יצר‬occurs only in Isa 43:10, where God is speaking. The Qal ‫ יצר‬is almost always used when God is the logical or grammatical subject, with reference to creation. 59 The expression ‫ פני תבל‬occurs only in Isa 14:21; 27:6, together with the verbal root ‫מלא‬, and in Job 37:12. 60 The term ‫ תרמית‬occurs only 5x in the MT and it is an action­noun coming from the Assirian ramû, “to be unstable” and so, in a translate meaning, “to be wrong,” “to mislead,” “to lead astray,” See: Caplice, Introduction, 64. 61 The verse opens with three participles, ‫מדע אוהב מביט‬. The meaning of the verse is clear, but ‫ מדע‬can be in predicative position, “harmful is the friend that. . .” (so Peters, Liber Iesu, 80–81; Lévi, Ecclésiastique, 178–179; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 254) or can have an attributive value, “the harmful friend. . .” (so Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 425; Alonso Schökel, Proverbios, 275; Morla, Los manuscritos, 207 and 382). In the MT the form ‫ מדע‬never has an attributive value. 62 In the MT the participle Hifil of ‫ נבט‬occurs only in Ps 104:32, where God looks at the earth and it trembles;. In BS 31:14 occurs an image similar to that of our text. 63 Ms. B has ‫מביט אל שלחן‬, while Mss. Bmg and D have ‫מביט על שחת‬, which is more difficult to understand. The term ‫ שלחן‬occurs other 5x in Ben Sira (6:9; 14:10; 31,12; 32:11; 40:29). 64 The term ‫ צוקח‬occurs only 3x in the MT (Isa 8:22; 30:6; Prov 1:27). The synonym ‫ מצוקה‬occurs in BS 35:26, where the rest of the stich is completely corrupted, and it is used in parallel with ‫בצורת‬. 65 Ms. B has ‫ מנגד יעמד‬while Ms. D has ‫ נוב מנוב יעמד‬is a very rare root, whose meaning “to flour­ ish,” “to prosper” seems not to fit very well with the following stative verb ‫עמד‬. The Greek con­ firms the text of Ms. B, καὶ ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως ἔσται ἀπέναντι. Cf. Ps 38:12. 66 In Ms. B this stich is present only in the margin. It is testified also by Ms. D. 67 The term used here is ‫( נלחם‬Mss. B and D), from the verb ‫ לחם‬that usually has the concrete meaning “to fight” during a battle, in war. The text shows an original construction, because the verb is used with a translated meaning, outside the context of a battle, and because of the use of a participle or of a qatal, the two possible vocalizations of the text, followed by an yiqtol. For the value of the participle or of the qatal in this construction, see Joüon, respectively § 121e.h or 112g.i. 68 For the expression ‫ ונגד ערים‬cf. Psa 23:5, where occurs also the term ‫ ֻׁש ְל ָחן‬used in BS 37:4a. The preposition ‫( נגד‬other 5x in Ben Sira: 37:4.9; 39:19; 50:13; 51:3) occurs 3x in this chapter BS 37. 69 The two terms ‫ חזק‬and ‫ צנה‬are common in the MT, but in pair they occur only in Psa 35:2. See also 2 Chr 11:2. Ben Sira uses also here, in analogy to what happened with the occurrence of ‫לחם‬ in the previous stich, a specific lexicon of war to describe the attitude of a faithful friend.

296  6

 Severino Bussino

Do not forget a comrade70 during the battle,71 and do not neglect him72 during your prosperity.73

The text is not only delimited by the new occurrence of a proverb introduced by ‫ כל‬in 37:7, but also by the inner structure: the substantive ‫ אוהב‬is used four times, in 37:1a.b.4a.5a, creating also an inclusion between the first and the last but one distich. Ben Sira uses also the synonym ‫רע‬, used to create a link between v. 2 and v. 4. A third substantive, ‫חביר‬, is used in BS 37:6a to denote the friend: it has a very deep meaning, perfectly fits in the conclusive distich of this passage and pro­ poses a contrast with the verb used in BS 37:2, “to separate” instead of “to join.” So, in each distich it is present a word belonging to semantic field of “friend.” The enemy also is denoted with three synonyms, ‫( צר‬37:2), ‫( זר‬37:5a) and ‫( ער‬37:5b), all recalling phonetically the other, by means of the same ending sound “r.” The opening distich is denoted by the triple repetition of the word ‫ אוהב‬and of a further occurrence of the same root in verbal form. Ben Sira pays particular attention to this topic,74 and in 6:1.7.8.9; 12:8 he stigmatizes the deplorable situ­ ation of a friend that turns into an enemy. The substantive ‫שם‬, which with the meaning of “good name” usually in Ben Sira denotes in a positive way the wise, is here used in a negative way, occurring only once in Ben Sira, so it stresses again the contrast between the friend and the enemy.75 This is the cause of the deep pain in the following distich, described in a vivid way through the image of touching death, the original meaning of the verb ‫נגע‬. The contrast between the 70 Ms. B has the long reading ‫חביר‬, while Mss. Bmg and D prefer the short one, ‫חבר‬. The nominal form ‫ חבר‬occurs other 3x in Ben Sira, in 6:9; 7:12; 41:18. 71 The consonantic Hebrew text is ‫( בקרב‬so in Ms. B), vocalized as ‫ ְב ֶק ֶרב‬in Ms. D. The Greek ᴖ ψυχῃ ᴖ σου, assuming the text of Ms. D and adding the possessive. version translated it as ɛν τῃ The occurrences of ‫ ֶק ֶרב‬+ ‫ ב‬in the MT (51x) are all in construct state, so that the suggestion of Ms. D, even if possible, seems difficult and unusual. Another vocalization is possible, ‫ ַב ְּק ָרב‬or ‫ב ְק ָרב‬, ִ in “battle,” “fight,” as proposed by Margoliouth, Original Hebrew, 26–27, and accepted by all the scholars. The same form occurs also in 2 Sam 17:11, where Absalom was suggested to go to battle in person. Also in this case the Greek did not understand the text and translates ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῷν. The reading of ‫ קרב‬as “battle” is in good agreement with the vocabulary of these distichs. 72 The verb ‫ עזב‬is used 3x in the MT together with a substantive belonging to the same semantic field of “friend,” in Josh 22:3 and Prov 2:17; 27:10. Prov 27:10 proposes a teaching similar to the one that appears here. 73 In the MT the substantive ‫( שלל‬73x) is mainly used with a concrete meaning, for example to indicate the booty after a battle. This term assumes 8x a metaphorical meaning (Gen 49:27; Isa 8:4; 53:12; Ps 119:162; Prov 1:13; 16:19; 31:11; Zech 14:1) to indicate something that is precious, the good situation after having won a battle. In Ben Sira ‫ שלל‬does not occur elsewhere. 74 See for example: Corley, Ben Sira’s teaching. 75 Only in BS 5:16 ‫ שם‬has a negative value, but this meaning is specified by the following term ‫רע‬.

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

 297

friend and the enemy is emphasized by the use, in the same distich, of the two terms ‫ נפש‬and ‫מת‬. The topic of the personal responsibility is discussed in great detail by Ben Sira in chapters 15–18:76 here it is applied to this concrete scenario, to emphasize that there is no reason that justifies a friend who turns into an enemy. In the two following stichs, BS 37, Ben Sira specifies what it means to turn into an enemy and, by contrast, how the behavior of a good friend is different from that of a bad one. The use of many images coming from the context of a battle clearly indicates the intensity of the teaching of Ben Sira concerning friendship. The conclusion, in the last distich, is really surprising: Ben Sira does not advise the disciples to be prudent in choosing friends and in discerning their trust but exhorts them to be faithful friends.77

5.2 Structure and Message The section devoted to the choice of a friend is clearly denoted by the imperative in the last distich, that is the climax of the whole development of this passage: Proverb

37:1

‫אך יש אוהב שם אוהב‬

‫כל אוהב אומר אהבתי‬

Application

37:2 37:3

‫רע כנפש נהפך לצר‬ ‫למלא פני תבל תרמית‬

‫הלא דין מגיע על מות‬ ‫הוי רע שאמר מרוע כן נוצרתי‬

Negative Sentence Positive Sentence

37:4 37:5

‫בעת צוקה מנגד יעמד‬ ‫ונגד ערים יחזיק צנה‬

‫מרע אוהב מביט אל שלחן‬ ‫אוהב טוב נלחם עם זר‬

Teaching

37:6

‫ואל תעזבהו בשללך‬

‫אל תשכח חביר בקרב‬

BS 37:2 and 37:3 are connected by means of the mot crochet ‫רע‬, which is only used here within BS 37:1–6. BS 37:3 has two functions, because it is a motivation for the preceding distich and prepares the negative image that follows. BS 37:4 begins with the same sound ‫רע‬, and this could be interpreted as a word play that creates a link between the application and the two negative sentences. BS 37:4–5 is then connected with the beginning of this part, BS 37:1, by the occur­ rence of ‫אוהב‬.

76 See: Gilbert, God. 77 A similar perspective can be found at the end of the parable of the Good Samaritan, when Jesus answers the question in Lk 10:29, “And who is my neighbor?” exhorting him, in Lk 10:37, to be neighbor, “Go and do likewise.”

298 

 Severino Bussino

The development of the argumentations that point toward the conclusive teaching shows a growing pattern starting from the proverb in BS 37:1: Proverb Involvement of the listener/reader – negative application of the Proverb – false motivation based upon human nature Preliminary statement based the experience – negative – positive Teaching

(37:1) (37:2) (37:3) (37:4) (37:5) (37:6)

The “preliminary statement” in BS 37:4–5, that is a motivation for the teaching in BS 37:6, has two perspectives, one negative and one positive, as in the previ­ ous section, BS 36:26–31. The involvement of the listener is maximized in BS 37:2, where he is directly asked, and has a further apex at the end of the whole part: the last syntactic element, in BS 37:6b, is a suffix of second person. We have already discussed the structure of this part: BS 37:1 is built like the preceding proverbs, BS 36:23.26, and what will follow, BS 37:7. The other distich following the proverbs are crafted with care, using repetition of common roots, synonyms, the presence side by side of terms which suggest movement with others that are static (for example “to eye” vs. “to battle,” “to stand” vs. “to hold,” “battle” vs. “booty”). Also the images in BS 37:5–7 appear very vivid, because they are constructed by means of a specific semantic characterization (‫לחן‬, ‫זנה‬, ‫קרב‬, ‫)שלל‬, not usual to metaphors. In BS 37:4a.5a there is very elegant chiasm: . . . ‫מרע אוהב‬ ‫אוהב טוב‬. Also the last distich is built with great accuracy: the two verbal forms at the beginning of each stich recall one and the other. And also the two substantives, ‫ ללש‬and ‫ברק‬, describe two opposite situations of life, expressing perhaps all the wide spectrum of situations in the human existence through the form of a merism.

6 The Choice of a Counselor: BS 37:7–15 6.1 Text and Translation The text of BS 37:7–15 is known from Manuscripts B and D, with the exception of BS 37:10, which is completely corrupt in Ms. B. A detailed analysis of the two texts

‫‪ 299‬‬

‫ ‪Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing‬‬

‫‪was performed by G. Sauer,78 therefore we will only highlight the most important‬‬ ‫‪point. We propose a translation basically following Manuscript B, but in some‬‬ ‫‪cases using also Manuscripts D or Bmg:‬‬

‫כל יועץ יניף יד‬ ‫מיועץ שמור נפשך‬ ‫]‪ [. . . . . . .‬לנפשו יחשב‬ ‫]‪ [. . . .‬ל]‪ [. . .‬דרכך‬ ‫]‪[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‬ל]‪[. . . .‬‬ ‫עם אשה על צרתה‬ ‫עם סוחר אל תתגר‬ ‫עם איש רע אל תגמל חסד‬ ‫פועל שוא על מלאכתו‬ ‫אך אם יש מפחד תמיד‬ ‫אשר עם לבבו כלבבך‬ ‫וגם עצת לבב הבין‬ ‫לב אנוש יגיד שעיותיו‬ ‫ועם כל אלה עתר אל אל‬

‫אך יש יועץ דרך אל לץ‬ ‫ודע לפנים מה צרכו‬ ‫למה זה אליו יפול‬ ‫וק]‪ [. . . .‬להביט רישך‬ ‫]‪[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‬‬ ‫ומרד אל מלחמתו‬ ‫וממקנה }א{ על ממכר‬ ‫ואכזרי על טוב בשר‬ ‫שומר שוא על מוציא רע‬ ‫אשר תדע שומר מצוה‬ ‫אם תכשל יגיע אליך‬ ‫מי יאמין לך אמן ממנו‬ ‫משבעה צופים על מצפה‬ ‫אשר יכין באמת צעדיך‬

‫כל יועץ אומר חזה‬ ‫מיועץ שמר נפשך‬ ‫כי גם הוא נפשו יחשב‬ ‫ויאמר לך למטיב דרכיך‬ ‫אל תועץ עם חמיך‬ ‫עם אשה על צרתה‬ ‫עם סוחר אל מככ }תתגרו{‬ ‫עם איש רע על גמילות חסד‬ ‫פועל שכיר על מלאכתו‬ ‫אך אם איש מפחד }תמיד{‬ ‫אשר ]‪ [. .‬לבבו כל]‪[. .‬ך‬ ‫וגם עצת לבב]‪ [.‬כך‬ ‫לב אנוש מגיד שעיותיו‬ ‫ועם כל אלה העתר אל אל‬

‫אך יש יועץ דרך עליו‬ ‫ודע לפנים מה ]‪ [. .‬רכו‬ ‫למה זה אליו יפול‬ ‫וקם מנגד להביט ראשך‬ ‫וממקנא העלים סוד‬ ‫ומלוכד על מלחמה‬ ‫ומקונה על ממכרו‬ ‫ואכזרי על טוב בשר‬ ‫שכיר שנה על מוצא זרע‬ ‫[‪]. . .‬ת[‪].‬ע שומר מצוה‬ ‫ואם יכשל יעבר בך‬ ‫כי אם אמן ממנו‬ ‫משבעה צפים על שן‬ ‫אשר יכין באמת צעדך‬

‫‪Ms. B‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬

‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪Ms. D‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬

‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬

‫‪78 Sauer, Freundschaft.‬‬

300  7 8

9 10 11

12

 Severino Bussino

Every counselor can point outward with the hand but there is a counselor who points paths toward himself.79 Watch your back80 with a counselor, and find out first of all what he needs81 because he also take thought for himself,82 “Why should the advantage be his?” He may tell you “Your way is good!,”83 and then stand aside84 to see your impoverishment.85 Do not counsel with your father­in­law,86 and from one that is invidious, keep hidden your intentions. With a woman about her rival, and with a coward about war; with a merchant about business, and with a buyer about a sale, with a miser about generosity,87 and a cruel88 (man) about physical fitness, a lazy89 worker about his task, with a yearly employee about the forthcoming sowing. Instead associate90 with a religious man

79 ‫לץ‬, verbal adjective from, ‫לוץ – ליץ‬, is used for example also in BS 3:28 or 32:18, and denotes an enormis pravitas, according to the Lexicon of Zorell. ‫ ליץ‬occurs also in Prov 1:6: cf. Simian­Yofre, Parabole, 137. We prefer here to follow D and Bmg, ‫עליו‬, in accordance also with the Greek version, εἰς ἑαυτόν. 80 Literally “watch your life.” 81 ‫צרך‬, in the vocalized form ‫צ ֶֹרְך‬, “need,” occurs only 1x in the MT, in 2 Chr 2:15, but is used other 9x in Ben Sira, in 8:9; 10:26; 12:4; 15:12; 32:1.17; 38:1.12; 39:16. In BS 13:6 occurs the form ‫צ ֶֹריך‬. It comes from the Arabic daruka, according to the Lexicon of Zorell. 82 In accordance with D; B is partially corrupted. 83 For a short discussion, see Morla, Los manuscritos, 209 n. 6 and 383 n. 6. 84 Here ‫וקם מנגד‬: cf. 37:4, where a similar expression, ‫מנגד יעמד‬, occurs. 85 In accordance with Ms. B, ‫רישך‬. Mss. Bmg and D suggest ‫ראשך‬, participial form from the same root ‫ריש‬. 86 According to Ms. D, because Ms. B is completely corrupted. 87 Ms. B has ‫תגמל חסד‬, while Mss. Bmg and D suggest ‫גמילות חסד‬, that seems to be preferred. The verbal root is however ‫גמל‬, that comes from the Assirian gamalu and the Arabic gamala. 88 ‫ אכזרי‬occurs 8x in the MT: Prov 5:9; 11:17; 12:10; 17:11; Isa 13:9; Jer 6:23; 30:14; 50:42. 89 Ms B has ‫שוא‬, “lazy,” while Ms. D reports ‫“ שכיר‬day­laborer.” The Greek follows Ms. B with ὀκνηρός. 90 For a short discussion, see: Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 429ff. The form to read is here ‫הסתיד‬. Cf. BS 8:17, ‫עם פותה אל תסתייד‬, or BS 9:3, where ‫ תסתייד‬occurs in the vocalized form ‫ת ְס ַתיָ יד‬. ִ

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

13 14 15

 301

who you know observes the commandment,91 who is like­minded with yourself, if you fall, he will approach you.92 And also heed the counsel of your heart, there is nothing more faithful to you;93 the heart of a human being reveals his intentions,94 better than seven watchers on a watchtower.95 And with all this pray to God, who steadies your steps in truth.

The opening distich is built like the other introductory verses in each part, in the form of a proverb, whose two stichs are characterized by the use of the root ‫יעץ‬, which links the first two distichs, as ‫ אכל‬in 36:18ab, ‫ אשה‬in 36:18bc, ‫ אהב‬in 37:1. The same root ‫ יעץ‬is then used to link together the first two distichs, because it opens BS 37:2a. The last occurrence of ‫ יעץ‬is in BS 37:10a, where it has the function of a mot crochet, to connect the two sections of this part, because in 37:10 there is a clear caesura, marked by the passage from the indicative in the third person to the second person, using the iussive conjugation (v. 10a) followed by the imper­ ative (v. 10b). The link of BS 37:9 with what precedes is signalized by the double inclusion of ‫( דרך‬v. 7b and v. 9a) and ‫( אמר‬v. 7a and v. 9a). Finally, the double occurrence of ‫ נפש‬in BS 37:8a.8c binds together the two stichs 37:8ab and 37:8cd. In what follows, the nominal form ‫ עצת‬occurs in 37:13 and recalls the use of the verb ‫ יעץ‬in the preceding distichs. Also the use of verbs denoting perception and pointing out is structuring the text: at the beginning, in 37:7, the form ‫ יניף‬occurs, while in 37:14 the verb is ‫יגיד‬. The false counselor perceives his own interest (‫ דרך עליו‬in 37:7; ‫ ודע לפנים‬in 37:8) while the godly man feels in harmony with him (‫ לבבו כלבבך‬in 37:12c) and approaches the friend in need (‫ יגיע אליך‬in 37:12d). Finally, the faithful heart of a human being can watch (2x ‫ זפה‬in 37:14: ‫ )צופים על מצף‬and reveal his true attitude. 91 So, in singular, Ms. B and D. Ms. Bmg has ‫מצותיו‬, “commandments.” 92 Ms. B is here more concrete, as in the previous section devoted to friendship, while Mss. D seem to add a psychological touch, using ‫יעבר‬, whose meaning is not clear at all. See Morla, Los manuscritos, 212, n. 4. 93 We follow here Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom 430 and Morla, Los manuscritos, 213, n. 2, who suggest ‫כי אין לך אמון ממנו‬. 94 The Lexicon of Zorell suggests ‫ׁש ִעיָ ה‬, ְ speculatio mentis, that occurs only here and in BS 38:25, with the more appropriate meaning intentio oculorum. 95 Ms. B has ‫מצפה‬, specula, according to the Lexicon of Zorell, that occurs only here in Ben Sira. The repetitions of the same root, here ‫ צפה‬in the same stich or distich, occurs often in the whole text BS 36:18–37:15: 36:18 (‫ ;)אכל‬36:19 (‫ ;)טעם‬37:1a (‫ ;)אהב‬37:1b (‫)אהב‬.

302 

 Severino Bussino

The detailed exemplification of the attitude of a false counselor is built in BS ְ 37:10–11 using the same pattern, ‫ עם‬followed by the character to avoid as an adviser and ‫ על‬followed by the argument to avoid discussion with the wrong counselor. The proposition ‫ על‬binds together BS 37:11a.11b.11d.11f.11g.11h and is also, from a phonetic point of view, echoed by the form ‫ העלים‬in BS 37:10b. A similar phonetic recall is present between BS 37:10b and 37:11d, where the two terms ‫( וממקנא‬37:10) and ‫( וממקנה‬37:11) occur. In the same way, the preposition ‫עם‬ is widely used, in BS 37:10a, at the beginning of each stich in BS 37:11a.11c.11e and probably also in BS 37:12a, where ‫ אם‬appears as an error of the copyist.96 The occurrence of the term ‫ כל‬in BS 37:15 creates an inclusion not only with BS 37:7, the beginning of the part devoted to the counselor, but also with BS 36:18ab, the first distich of the whole section 36:18–37:15. The compactness and the development of this unit is also suggested by the use of the imperative, because within BS 36:15–37:15 the imperative is rare.97 After BS 37:10b, the imperative occurs again in BS 37:12a, to signal the transition to the positive teaching, and in BS 37:15a, where ‫עתר‬/‫ העתר‬marks the final teaching.

6.2 Structure and Message As in the previous sections, devoted to the wife and to the friend, the text can be organized taking into account the forms of the verbs, that clearly split the whole teaching into admonishments, suggestions, descriptions of the real situation: Proverb First Teaching – negative application based upon experience Second Teaching – negative application based upon experience Third Teaching – positive application based upon experience Fourth Teaching – positive application based upon human nature Final Teaching­ God

(37:7) (37:8ab) (37:8cd.9) (37:10) (37:11) (37:12ab) (37:12cd) (37:13) (37:14) (37:15)

96 So, for example, Morla, Los manuscritos, 212 n. 1; Smend, Weisheit. Hebräisch, 33; Peters, Liber Iesu, 82, and Lévi, Ecclésiastique. 97 In BS 37:10 occurs the sequence ‫ אל‬+ Iussive + Imperative. In BS 37:12 the form is Iussive. In BS 36:24 the form ‫ קנה‬could be also an imperative; the vocalization as a participle seemed us to be preferred, as discussed above.

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

 303

The first strophe, after the proverb of 37:7, is denoted by the character of the false counselor, with the verbs in participle or yiqtol, while the passage to the next strophes is indicated by the use of the iussive negative + imperative forms in 37:10 and the iussive in 37:12, which split the teaching in a negative part, 37:10–11, and a positive part, 37:12–15. Within BS 36:18–37:15 the only positive teaching appears here, in 37:12–15, even if in BS 36:24, where the grammatical form of the text is dubious, the text has a positive remark concerning the value of a wife. It is out of doubt that BS 37:12–15 is a wide positive and structured section, five distichs long, unique within BS 36:18–37:15. In a more compact way, the whole text shows a movement from negative to positive situations, pointing to the climax of a fruitful relation with God in prayer. Ben Sira introduces his whole teaching with a Proverb, according to the pattern of the two previous sections, and then proves his teaching on the basis of experi­ ence. The central teaching of BS 37:10, specified in detail in the following distichs (37:11) is within the frame of the other two teachings, one negative that precedes it (37:8–9), and one positive that follows it (37:12–14). This last teaching is organized in two parts: the first one, 37:12, is related to the religious man and the second one, 37:13–14, to the nature of the human being, who can find in himself a faithful answer. Once again the reader or the listener must compare these two double teachings with his personal experience, in relation to the different concrete situations described in 37:11, with a religious man in 37:12 or in a deep investigation of his self intentions in 37:13–14. The exemplifications of BS 37:10–11 cover a wide spectrum of human expe­ rience, starting with the familiar relationships, indicating the negative effects of a bad personality and moving toward the dimensions of business and work. The char­ acters described in BS 37:11 are not able to look outside their close horizon, because they are constrained in a restricted perspective by their way to understand and to interpret life. They cannot express an evaluation or a counsel outside their role, at least when they are asked concerning that aspect that shaped their personality. The climax of this section is toward a faithful relation with God, in the final teaching of 37:15, and was anticipated by a reference to the religious man in BS 37:12. It can also be observed that the text begins with the image of the false counse­ lor, who perceives only his personal advantage and points out the wrong way, the wrong counsel, and reaches an overturn in BS 37:12 with the character of the reli­ gious man, who indicates the right way and can be a faithful counselor. There is a sort of inclusion between BS 37:7b, with the false counselor looking at himself (‫עליו‬ in Ms. D) and BS 37:12d, where the godly man approaches the friend in a difficult sit­ uation (‫ אליך‬in Ms. B). A faithful counselor can be the religious person (37:12), or the disciple himself, following the suggestions of his heart (37:13–14), in a health rela­ tion with God (37:15). Once again, as in many other passages of his instruction, Ben Sira builds a bridge between a religious perspective on life and the teaching that a

304 

 Severino Bussino

wise man can obtain from experience. Many times, for example in Sir 1:26,98 Ben Sira exhorts to observe the commandments as a reference point to obtain wisdom and to be honored. Hypocrisy and a divided mind must be avoided,99 with respect to God and to others. The character of the false counselor described in BS 37:7–11 is a plastic representation of this fundamental approach to life. Gilbert,100 modifying a previous observation of Corley101 and then followed by Balla,102 suggested that BS 37:13–15 can refer to the whole section 36:18–37:15, i.e. to the wife, the friend, the counselor. It is the only positive large part within this whole section: its wide horizon and fundamental perspective is valid for any choice in the life of each human being. “If it is so, the invitation to pray to God to steady our steps of discernment in truth is valid for the three choices analysed by Ben Sira (. . .). This is the only prayer in the Book of Ben Sira which concerns important decisions indi­ viduals have to take in their life about interpersonal relations.”103 An explicit reference to relationships ends in BS 37:12, with the positive char­ acter of the religious man and in BS 37:13–15 the focus is completely on the disci­ ple only, preparing the transition to the following section.

7 The Structure of the Whole Text 7.1 The Inner Organization The structure of the whole section 36:18–37:15 can be summarized in the following form:104

A1 A2 B

36:18ab.19–20 36:18cd.22–31 37:1–6 37:7–15

Introduction The choice of a wife The choice of a friend The choice of a counselor

3 distichs 7 distichs 6 distichs 14 distichs

98 See also, for example: Sir 6:37; 10:19; 15:15; 23:27; 28:6.7; 29:11; 35:23.24(32:27.28); 32(35):1. 99 Cf. Sir 1:28.29. 100 Gilbert, Prayer, 131 (=Gilbert, Ben Sira. Recueil, 279). 101 Corley, Ben Sira’s Teaching, 64 and 69. He proposed that BS 37:12–15 is the conclusion not only of the part devoted to the counselor, but of the whole section BS 36:18–37:15. 102 Balla, Ben Sira, 69. 103 Gilbert, Prayer, 131 (=Gilbert, Ben Sira. Recueil, 279). 104 With regard to the first distichs, we follow here the order of the Greek texts, as discussed in the previous paragraphs. This order gives to the whole text a better coherence and it is accepted from the main commentaries. For a discussion, see: Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 426ff.

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

 305

The link between the different parts is evident, as we tried to show in the preced­ ing analysis, and was mainly due to the use of the construction ‫ אך יש‬. . . . . ‫כל‬, “all. . . but there is. . .,” in the form of a proverb. The proverb is then followed by an application, a teaching or a remark concerning life. The proverbs used a repetition of the same root in the two consecutive stichs (‫ אכל‬in 36:18ab; ‫ אשה‬in 36:18cd; ‫ אהב‬in 37:1; ‫ יעץ‬in 37:7) and this is a further common pattern of the whole section 36:18–37:18. The analysis of the vocabulary of each part confirms their inner unity: i) 36:18cd.22–26 ‫( איש‬36:20 b.23b.26c) and ‫( אשה‬36:18c.18d.22a.24a.25b) does not occur after 37:1 until 37:11c.12a (‫ )איש‬and 37:11a (‫)אשה‬, confirming that 37:1 marks the beginning of a new literary unit, because the two terms ‫ איש‬and ‫ אשה‬are absent in 37:1–7. ‫ אשה‬does not occur, within 36:18–37:15, before 36:18bc.22–26, confirming that 36:18bc is related with what follows. ii) 37:1–6 ‫ אהב‬occurs 5x as a participle in 37:1(3x).4.5, e 1x in Qal qatal in 37:1. ‫ רע‬occurs in 37:2.3. ‫ חביר‬is used in 37:6. Each distich of 37:1–6 shows one or more occur­ rences of a term belonging to the semantic field of “friend.” iii) 37:7–15 ‫ יעץ‬occurs 4x, in 37:7(2x).8.10, and the nominal form ‫ עצת‬is used in 37:13. In Ben Sira the verb ‫ יעץ‬is used only here and in BS 44:3. The study of the vocabulary and of the recurrent proverbial structure in the form “all. . . but there is. . .” showed us the inner organization of the whole section. Further elements can be obtained studying the argumentations, that point out the correlations between each different part, the organization of the whole text and the way of argumentation of Master Ben Sira: i) Proverbs (36:18ab; 36:18bc; 37:1; 37:7) ii) Sentences a) in nominal form (36:19; 36:23; 37:12c) b) in finite form (36:20; 36:22.25; 37:8cd.9; 37:12d.14) c) in mixed form (36:26cd; 37:4; 37:5) iii) Questions105 (36:26ab; 37:2; 37:3) iv) Teachings (36:24; 37:6; 37:8ab.10.12ab.13.15)

105 BS 36:26 is a rhetorical question that implies a negative answer; 37:2 is a rhetorical question that implies a positive answer; 37:3 is a question that contains an attempt to self justify.

306 

 Severino Bussino

These four structures are recurrent in the sections devoted to the wife, the friend and the counselor. It can be noted that in the parts devoted to the choice of the counselor there are no questions. Instead, the long exemplifications of 37:11, with different well known characters, can have the same effect of a rhetorical ques­ tion, inducing the reader to confirm by means of his personal experience, what Ben Sira is saying. This is a common device present in each sections we studied: a proverb, i.e. a direct observation of what can be obvious and crystallized in a popular saying, then a direct involvement of the reader, through questions, effec­ tive or rhetorical, or a long series of examples. Finally, one or more teachings are offered, and they are based on the previous annotations or motivated by what follows. The affinities between 36:21–26 and 37:1–6 are closer, because they have only one teaching and both them use the device of a rhetorical question. The moti­ vations for the teaching are expressed by a series of positive (36:22.23 and 37:5) and negative (36:26 and 37:2.4) statements that have the function of applying the principle described by the proverb or implicit in the question. In both parts there is also a reference to creaturality and to the nature of the human being, in 36:24 and 37:3, besides the questioning of the reader by means of the category of experience, in 36:22–23.26 and 37:4–5). In this sense the two sections devoted to the choice of a wife and of a friend were indicated, in the previous scheme, as A1 and A2: they are more and less of the same length and are built around a common pattern, with some variations that are helpful in enriching the style of the two parts of this diptych. Also the following section, devoted to choice of a counselor, is build around the same basic point of reference: a proverb (37:7), some teachings (37:8ab.10.12ab.13.15), positive (37:12cd.14) or negative (37:8cd.9) applications, a continuous reference to experience (37:8–11) or to the nature of the human being (37:13.14). The direct involving of the reader is present in this section too, requiring the listener to evaluate the long series of examples in 37:11. The occurrence of the word ‫לבב‬/‫ לב‬in 36:19.20; 37:12(2x).13.14 indicates a further clear link between the introduction, and the long section devoted to the counse­ lor, whose conclusion can be applied to the whole teaching, underlining the com­ pactness of this well crafted piece of the Ben Sira teaching, BS 36:18–37:15. The introduction, in BS 36:20, speaks of a narrow heart, that causes grief and echoes the pain due to a betrayal, denoted as “a sorrow that brings close to death,” ‫דין‬ ‫מגיע על מות‬, in BS 37:2. The movement is from the nature of the human being (BS 36:18.19) to the dimension of the positive attitude of the wise person (BS 36:20b and 37:13–15). This movement, that indicates also the evolving from a critical situ­ ation to a possible solution, is clarified and discussed in what follows, concretely speaking around the wife, the friend and the counselor. In this discussion Ben Sira refers always to both aspects of the nature of the human being and of the

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

 307

experience. In the introduction is presented a critical issue intrinsic to the human being, a risk of grief (BS 37:20), which can move toward a positive solution assum­ ing a sapiential attitude, observing the commandments and praying to God. The part devoted to the counselor is also longer than the other two, not only because a long set of exemplification is given, but also because Ben Sira adds here a reference to the religious dimension of the human being and to the need for taking it into account in building a healthy relationship with a counselor, and, as we discussed before, in relation to wives and friends. We could ask why Ben Sira does not mention the same aspect also when he speaks of a friend and above all about a wife. Also in 26:1–4 and 26:13–18 Ben Sira relates about a good wife, but without any reference to her religious personality.106 The long section devoted to the counselor could also be interpreted as an expansion of the previous two, at least of that concerning the friend, and in this way the aspect of godliness and religiosity can put aside loyalty and the courage of the good friend. Also for this reason, besides the different length and the close correspondence between the section devoted to the wife and that devoted to the friend, we prefer to indicate the three sections as A1, A2, and B, avoiding a more obvious but less detailed denomination as A, B, C.

7.2 The Communicative Process The last step of our study concerns the communicative process that Ben Sira establishes with the listener or the reader through the inner dynamics of his text. The verbal form can be classified in two groups. To the first group belong the imperatives or iussive (BS 37:6; 37:8ab.10.12ab.13.15), that are in the second person singular and directly address the listener or the reader. The second group collects the indicative and the participle, which can have different subjects, and in this play among the various characters of the scene the text reaches a very intense communicative effect. At the very beginning (BS 36:20), the first implicit question is around the ‫איש‬ ‫ותיק‬: who is he? And the same question arises in the following: the attractive, ‫( תואר אשה‬36:22), and prudent, ‫( מרפא לשון‬36:23), woman, the false, ‫( מרע אוהב‬37:4), and faithful friend, ‫( אוהב טוב‬37:5). Who are they? The first answer of the reader is to look to other persons, to be prudent in the relation with a woman and in the trust given to a friend, to not be confident in a person that has no family The same

106 See: Gilbert, Ben Sira, 442 (=Gilbert, Ben Sira. Recueil, 264); Bussino / De Zan / Gilbert / Priotto, Sir 25,1–27,3.

308 

 Severino Bussino

behavior is present in the section devoted to the counselor: the betraying counselor is placed next to the religious man, and the listener or the reader is asked to recog­ nize them. After the teachings of BS 37:6, “Do not forget the companion,” the reader is personally involved in the scene, he is required to be faithful and not only to choose a faithful friend. In this sense there is an overturn of the perspective, and the reader reflects also about his personal behavior and attitude: not he, your friend, must be faithful, but you must be faithful! In the following part, devoted to the preciousness of a woman, the rhetorical question in BS 36:26, “who will trust an armed band or a man without a nest?,” in a section where Ben Sira can not invite the male disciple to be a prudent wife or a wife that lights the face of her husband, overturn again the perspective. This question moves the discussion toward the identification of the reader with the character of a wanderer, the disciple must ask himself if he is a wan­ derer or a person without a place where to stay. The same device, even if not so effec­ tive, is present also in BS 37:7–15: not only the disciple must associate with a godly person (37:12), but he himself must be a religious person and pray to God, in the final and solemn teaching of BS 37:15. This attention to the personal involvement of the reader, who must understand all the text, taking into account his personal role and responsibility, suggests us to read also the ‫ איש ותיק‬of BS 36:20 in the direction of a reflexive content. The disciple must be prudent, must have a wise heart in order to fulfill the process that moves from nature to experience and vice­versa, and to be acquainted with the various dimensions of personal relationship, partnership, friendship, and counseling, that are relevant in life. In the communicative process, suggested by the text of Ben Sira, the human being is not a prudent evaluator or judge of some situations, in order to perform a strategical behavior, but he himself is a wise protagonist, in the first person, in this relevant process. A third element that specifies the communicative process of the text, together with the use of the imperative and the shrewd use of the sentences, is given by the presence of some specific grammatical devices,107 such as the possessives in the second person singular. They are a way to directly address the reader and are used in a broad way in the part devoted to the counselor: ‫נפשך‬, “your life” (37:8a), ‫דרכ)י(ך‬, “your way(s)” (37:9a), ‫ראשך‬/‫רישך‬, “your impoverishment” (37:9b), ‫חמיך‬, “your father­in­law” (37:10a), ‫כלבבך‬, “with yourself” (37:12c), ‫אליך‬/‫בך‬, “near you/ with you” (37:12d), ‫לבבך‬, “your heart” (37,13a[D]), ‫לך‬, “to you” (37:13b[B]), ‫צעד)י(ך‬, “your steps/your walk” (37:15b). Also the part devoted to the choice of a friend ends with a suffix of second person singular, ‫בשללך‬, “during your prosperity” (37:6). The wide use of the suffixes of second person in the parts devoted to the

107 For a discussion on this kind of technique, see for example: Levinson, Pragmatics.

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

 309

counselor balances the absence of a direct question, present in the other two parts, and has the same role of the direct question, i.e. to create a direct link with the listener or the reader. Another category of metalinguistic components can be found in the text and it is given by the use of images. Many terms recall the presence and the action of God,108 who at the end of the passage is explicitly named as the truthful guide of a human being, in BS 37:15. Other words or constructions point out the nature of an human being,109 without explicitly further specifying these aspects. But where this rhetorical device plays a more evident role is in the part devoted to the friend. In this section Ben Sira employs, in an original an unusual way, some war metaphors,110 that are also different from the context and the atmosphere of the discussion, devoted to the personal and social relationships within a couple, with a friend and with a counselor. Without explicitly stating that to be faithful in friendship requires a commitment like the one needed in battle, Ben Sira leads the reader or the listener to consider the deep and personal involvement intrinsic in any true friendship. In all these cases the value of each term conveys a message that surpasses their first and immediate meaning.

8 The Message of the Text The study of this well crafted piece of the teaching of Ben Sira showed us how many different perspectives are linked with each other, in order to build a message that challenges the reader to be involved in the three dimensions of the personal relationships that are described here, with a wife, a friend and a counselor. Some specific points can be highlighted: i) This whole dimension is relevant for the life of the disciples Personal relationships structure the life of a human being: the characters of the sapiential books inhabit the landscape of relations, and the traveling com­ panion must be chosen with care. The horizon of this journey is the religious perspective of the human being. In the sapiential world, the social relation­ ships and the instrument of knowledge of the wise are oriented toward and within the faith in the God of Israel. Personal relationships are one element in search for God. For this reason the final teaching of 37:15 is clearly addressed to a faithful relationship with God. 108 ‫ בחן‬in 36:19; ‫ עזר‬in 36:24; the Hifil of ‫ אמן‬in 36:26; ‫ ער‬in 37:5; ‫ שכח‬in 37:6. 109 ‫ מבני אדם‬in 36:23; ‫ עזר‬in 36:24; ‫ משען‬in 36:24; ‫ נע ונד‬in 36:25; ‫ מרוע כן נוצרתי‬in 37:3. 110 ‫ לחם‬and ‫ צנה‬in 37:5; ‫ קרב‬and ‫ שלל‬in 37:6.

310 

 Severino Bussino

ii) The personal involvement of the disciples The personal involvement of the disciples, the listener or the reader, is clearly stated by many communicative devices we analyzed during the study of this long text. The disciples must not only interpret, in a wise way, the proverbs and apply them to their own life, but must be able to ask themselves con­ cerning their personal identity. The answer is not only: “Is he a good friend?” “Can she rejoice my life?” “Is he a faithful counselor?” but also and in the same way “Am I a good friend?” “Can I be stable within relationship?” “Can I listen the true suggestions of my heart and act in accordingly?” This play between the double understanding of the role of the other and of a personal involvement and identity is a continuous movement within the whole text, that requires the disciple to read again and to think many times over about the different questions, in order to understand the quality of his personal relationships from different and complementary points of view. iii) A movement from nature to experience The teaching of Ben Sira, on the threefold dimensions of partnership, friend­ ship and counsel, is based on two intersecting lines, the nature of a human being and the potential knowledge coming from experience. The text shows a continuous movement between these two points of reference. In the intro­ ductive proverb there is an evolution from the observation concerning the nature of a stomach, in the metaphor of the proverb, toward the ability of the human being, that must be wise and clever enough to avoid the bad conse­ quences of a life without reflection, without consideration. Also in each specific part this movement is present: the woman is a pillar, and help for the man, with the strength of the narrative of Genesis; the friend and the counselor must be able to overcome his egoism, the inner heart of a human being, as a penetrating counselor, must be taken into account. Along with these annotations, Ben Sira puts the many aspects related to experi­ ence, to the negative consideration of a false friend or a man without a nest, to what is involved in the long list of examples of unfaithful counselors. Within this process there is also a movement from critical issues to solutions: Ben Sira not only shows the disciples the danger related to the situations he describes, but offers also some solutions, through a clear understanding of the quality of personal relationship and of involvement in them, until reach­ ing a faithful and effective relationship with God. iv) The unity of the teaching The previous analysis of the text showed a strong correlation between the intro­ duction, the development of the text, the remark of BS 37:13–15, can be applied to the whole text. The three parts of the overall teaching must be taken into account as a whole, as a full representation of the value of human relationships.

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

 311

v) A relation with God The sudden reference to God at the end of the part devoted to the counse­ lor, is a common device of Ben Sira, that often, in the same distich, moves the discussion from a horizontal to a vertical dimension, in a global view of the human being. Moreover, Ben Sira often uses patterns that have proven to be useful in the life of human beings also to the dimension of the rela­ tionship with God. The human being must trust in God, as he is able to be a faithful friend and counselor and to trust in a religious man, in a good friend, in a woman that can enlighten his face. In this way, the teaching of 37:15 reveals a double approach: from one side the human being turns toward God in an obvious crescendo from a wife, a friend, a counselor to God, but also, from the other side, he proceeds along this way because he applies also to God the best practices within social relationships, that are crucial in his life.

9 Conclusion In this paper we have tried to show how Ben Sira proposes to his disciples a deep teaching concerning partnership, friendship and counsel. We discovered that the whole text has a inner unity and consistence, and offers to the reader the oppor­ tunity to be involved in the process that Ben Sira describes. Through the whole text of BS 36:18–37:15 the two levels of attention to the nature of the human being and to the relevance of the experience are correlated and intersect one another. The suggestion that we can take care of both these two aspects in social and personal relationships, up until trusting in God, is really a deep and challenging component of the teaching of Master Ben Sira. The reader is directly addressed to question himself around the truth and the consistency of his personality, as a partner, as friend and as a counselor, pointing out the privileged ways to become and to be a ‫ואש ותיק‬, a “man of experience,” in the hope and in the dream of men and women of every age.

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, L., Proverbios y Eclesiastico (LiSa 14), Madrid 1968. Balla, I., Ben Sira on Family, Gender and Sexuality (DCLS 8), Berlin 2011. Beentjes, P. C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & A Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup 68), Leiden 1997.

312 

 Severino Bussino

Beentjes, P. C., Errata et Corrigenda, in: R. Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Ben Sira’s God (BZAW 321), Berlin 2002, 375–377. Beentjes, P. C., “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir 14:20) Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (CBET 43), Leuven 2006. Beentjes, P. C., “With All Your Soul Fear the Lors” (Sir 7:27) Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira II (CBET 87), Leuven 2017. Bussino, S. / De Zan, R. / Gilbert, M. / Priotto, M., Sir 25,1–27,3: le gioie e le insidie nelle relazioni tra uomo e donna e nei rapporti sociali, (forthcoming in RivBib). Calduch-Benages, N., For Wisdom’s Sake. Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (BZAW 499), Berlin 2021. Calduch-Benages, N., Pan de sensatez y agua de sabiduría. Estudios sobre el libro de Ben Sira (AS 1), Estella 2019. Calduch-Benages, N. / Ferrer, J. / Liesen, J., La Sabiduría del Escriba / Wisdom of the Scribe (BM 26), Estella 2003, 20152. Caplice, R., Introduction to Akkadian, Rome 1988. Corley, J., Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship (BJSt 316), Providence 2001. Corley, J., Searching for Structure and Redaction in Ben Sira. An Investigation of Beginnings and Endings, in: A. Passaro and G. Bellia (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction and Theology (DCLSt 1), Berlin 2008, 21–47. Fischer, B., Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, Stuttgart 1969, 19833. Fuss, W., Tradition und Komposition im Buche Jesus Sirach, Diss., Tübingen 1963. Gilbert, M., Ben Sira et la femme: RTL 7 (1976) 426–442. Gilbert, M., Ben Sira. Recueil d’études – Collected Essays (BETL 264), Leuven 2014. Gilbert, M., God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11–18:14, in: R. Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Ben Sira’s God (BZAW 321), Berlin 2002, 118–135. Gilbert, M., Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira: Function and Relevance, in: R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley (eds.), Prayer from Tobit to Qumran (DCLY 2004), Berlin 2004, 117–135. Haspecker, J., Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach (AnBib 30), Roma 1967. Lévi, I., L’Ecclésiastique ou La Sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira. Texte original hébreu édité, traduit et commenté (BEHE.R 10, I-II), Paris 1898, 1901. Levinson, S. C., Pragmatics, Cambridge 1983. Margoliouth, G., The Original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus XXXI.12–31 and XXXVI.22–XXXVII.26: JQR 12 (1899–1900) 1–33. Minissale, A., Siracide (Ecclesiastico), Roma 1980. Morla, V., Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira (ABE 59), Estella (Navarra) 2012. Palmisano, M. C., “Salvaci, Dio dell’universo!” Studio dell’eucologia di Sir 36H1–17 (AnBib 163), Roma 2006. Palmisano, M. C., Siracide. Introduzione, traduzione e commento, Cinisello Balsamo 2016. Peters, N., Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Übersetzt und Erklärt, Münster 1913. Peters, N., Liber Iesu Filii Sirach sive Ecclesiasticus hebraice, Freiburg 1905. Rickenbacher, O., Weisheits Perikopen bei Ben Sira (OBO 1), Freiburg 1973. Reiterer, F. V. (ed.), Freundschaft bei Ben Sira (BZAW 244), Berlin 1996. Reiterer, F. V., The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira, in: A. Passaro and G. Bellia (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction and Theology (DCLS 1), Berlin 2008, 209–231. Rüger, H. P., Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach. Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairorer Geniza (BZAW 112), Berlin 1970.

Ben Sira 36:18–37:15: the Art of Choosing 

 313

Sauer, G., Der Ratgeber (Sir 37,7–15). Textgeschichte als Auslegungsgeschichte und Bedeutungswandel», in: G. Sauer, Studien zu Ben Sira (BZAW 440), Berlin 2013, 54–66. Sauer, G., Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira. Übersetzt und erklärt, Göttingen 2000. Sauer, G., Freundschaft nach Ben Sira 37,1–6, in: G. Sauer, Studien zu Ben Sira (BZAW 440), Berlin 2013, 46–53. Segal, M. Z., ‫השלם ספר בן סירא‬, Jerusalem 1953, 19774. Skehan, P. W. / Di Lella, A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AB 39), New York 1987. Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Erklärt, Berlin 1906. Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Hebräisch und Deutsch, Berlin 1906. Spicq, C., L’Ecclésiastique, in: L. Pirot and A. Clamer (eds.), La Sainte Bible, VI, Paris 1946, 529–841. Strugnell, J., “Of cabbages and kings” – or Queans, in: J. M. Efrid (eds.), The Use of the Old Testament and Other Essays, Festschrift für W. F. Stinespring, Durham 1972. Simian-Yofre, H., Parabole, sarcasmi ed enigmi. L’elogio del sarcasmo (Proverbi 1,6), in: G. Bellia and A. Passaro (eds.), Libro dei proverbi. Tradizione, redazione, teologia, Casale Monferrato 1999, 135–145. Trenchard, W. C., Ben Sira’s View of Woman: a Literary Analysis (BJSt 38), Chico 1982. Xeravitis, G. / Zsengellér, J. / Balla, I. (eds.), Various Aspects of Worship in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2016/2017), Berlin 2017. Ziegler, J., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (S.VTG 12/2), Göttingen 1965, 19802.

Jeremy Corley

The Enigma of the Judges in Ben Sira 46: 11–12 Abstract: Ben Sira’s brief treatment of the judges does not name any judge, despite the Hebrew phrase “each one by his name” (46:11). By praising only the judges whose hearts were not beguiled and did not turn away from God, the sage excludes individuals such as Samson. Most likely, it is the minor judges who deserve praise (Judg 10:1–5; 12:8–15), because they had descendants to continue their name. The Greek text of 46:12 (as well as 49:10) may hint at the afterlife in the wish that their bones may sprout afresh from their burial place, but the predominant perspective of Ben Sira’s Hebrew book is a denial of the afterlife (7:17; 38:21). Hence, in its original context, it is probable that Ben Sira is praying that suitable successors may preserve the name of the God­fearing judges and so continue the good repute of their ancestors. As in 49:10, the mention of the sprouting of bones echoes Ezek 37:1–14 in looking forward to a revival on earth, rather than a future resurrection. Keywords: afterlife, Ben Sira, bones, idolatry, Judges, Praise of the Ancestors

1 Introduction Whereas the figure of David has garnered attention within studies of Ben Sira, the biblical judges have attracted less consideration.1 Several of the judges are men­ tioned in the rewritings of biblical history by Josephus (A.J. 5.3.3–5.8.12 §§182–317) and the Book of Biblical Antiquities (LAB 25:2–43:8). Unlike the narrative retell­ ings, the judges receive only a general reference within Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors (Sir 46:11–12), as Burton Mack observes: “The judges are mentioned as a class without narrative or historical context.”2 Elsewhere, Ben Sira rarely echoes phrases from the Book of Judges, but the praise of the high priest Simeon includes a double echo of Judg 13:19–20, reporting Manoah’s reaction to an angelic announcement of Samson’s conception: “Manoah took the kid goat and the grain­offering, and made the offering on the rock to the LORD – the One who works wonders [cf. Sir 50:22] – as Manoah and his wife were looking. When the flame went up toward heaven over the altar, the angel of the LORD went up in the 1 Xeravits, David, 27–38. 2 Mack, Wisdom, 213. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-019

316 

 Jeremy Corley

flame of the altar, as Manoah and his wife were looking, and they fell on their faces to the ground [cf. Sir 50:17].”3 Ben Sira’s depiction of the judges has several puzzling elements. Ariel Feldman comments: “The lack of details in this passage is striking, especially in comparison to the adjacent elaborate descriptions of Joshua, Caleb, and Samuel.”4 Why does the sage pass over all the heroes of the Book of Judges in merely three bicola? Even though he has the phrase, “each one by his name” (46:11), why does he not identify any judge by name? Which judges are actually meant by the description: “Every one whose heart was not beguiled”? According to Teresa Brown, this is a riddle.5 Perhaps the two most puzzling questions concern the interpretation of the final verse. Is the resurrection implied by the mention of flourishing bones in 46:12? And in the final phrase, what is the exact meaning of the Hebrew term ‫( תחליף‬e.g., substitute, continuator, or successor)?

2 Context of 46:11–12 Within the Praise of the Ancestors, the mini­poem on the judges belongs in the Prophets Section (Sir 46:1–49:10). This section of 120 bicola stretches from Joshua to the Twelve Prophets, reflecting what became the traditional rabbinic order of the books of the Former and Latter Prophets.6 The section includes a major focus on prophetic figures such as Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and Isaiah. Alon Goshen­ Gottstein comments: “Because the judges were not prophetic figures, almost nothing is said of them in 46:11–12. . .. They are not integrated into the governing theme of prophecy.”7 Although Ben Sira could have referred to the prophetic figure of Deborah (Judg 4:4), he omits her, doubtless because she is a woman, and in fact he names no female characters in his Praise of the Ancestors.8 The preceding passage on Joshua and Caleb (46:1–10) introduces the Prophets section with a poem of 18 bicola, which is the same length as the prologue to the Praise of the Ancestors (44:1–15), while the combined poem on the Judges and Samuel has 16 bicola, which is the same length as the subsequent poem on David (47:2–11) and the poem on Solomon (47:12–22). The idiom of 46:11 (“did not turn

3 Mulder, Simon, 177–178, 209. All biblical translations are mine, including Ben Sira. 4 Feldman, Book, 88. 5 Brown, God, 218. 6 Goshen­Gottstein, Praise, 250–251. 7 Goshen­Gottstein, Praise, 250. 8 Calduch­Benages, Absence, 301; Goshen­Gottstein, Praise, 250 n. 37.

The Enigma of the Judges in Ben Sira 46: 11–12  

 317

away from following God”) forms a link with the previous passage on Joshua and Caleb, which twice employs the expression “follow fully after God/the LORD” (46:6, 10). The brief portrait of the biblical judges leads into a passage on the last and most famous judge, Samuel (46:13–20), and Ben Sira echoes biblical prece­ dent (1 Sam 7:15) when he calls Samuel a “judge” (Sir 46:13 HB). The use in 46:11–12 of a three bicola mini­poem for subsidiary characters matches a similar usage in the concise opening portrait of Noah (44:17–18), the doxology after the praise of Phinehas (45:25–26), and the concluding flashback for characters from Enoch to Adam (49:14–16). We shall see that 46:11–12 has several points of contact with the portrait of Josiah (49:1–4), introduced in 49:1 with a mention of Josiah’s name (‫ )שם‬and “his memory” (‫)זכרו‬.9 Josiah’s depiction also says that unlike the judges, “he kept his heart (‫ )לבו‬perfect toward God,” (49:3), and he was not like most of the kings who “abandoned the law of the Most High” (49:4; cf. 46:11 Syriac). Just as Josiah stands out as virtuous among the unrighteous majority of monarchs, so the judges being praised in 46:11–12 stand out from other judges who fell into sinful ways, such as Gideon and Samson.

3 Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, and Latin Texts of 46:11–12 To begin this study, we may consider translations of the Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, and Latin texts of 46:11–12, with 46:12a supplied in the Hebrew by analogy with 49:10b.10 At the end of 46:12, the early versions include material from the begin­ ning of Sir 46:13.11 Hebrew: And the judges, each one by his name, Every one whose heart was not beguiled,12 And it did not turn away from following God – May their memory be for a blessing!

9 Egger­Wenzel, Josiah, 235. 10 Hebrew text from Beentjes, Book, 82 (cf. Segal, Sefer, 318); Syriac from Calduch­Benages, Wisdom, 258; Greek from Swete, Testament, 742; Latin from Weber, Biblia, 1088. 11 Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 444; Morla, Manuscritos, 306; Corley, Difference, 33–34. 12 Greek and Syriac interpret the Hebrew verb in 46:11b as ‫“ נׁשא‬beguile” (Smend, Weisheit he­ bräisch, 73; Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 516), rather than ‫“ נשא‬lift up” (Peters, Buch, 397; Ben­Ḥayyim, Book, 224).

318 

 Jeremy Corley

[May their bones be flourishing instead of them,]13 And may their name be a new growth on the part of their sons.14 Syriac:15 And his judgments. Each man by his name, everyone whose heart did not stray, and it did not turn away from God’s law – may their memory be for a blessing. And may their bones bloom as lilies, and may they leave their good name to their sons, and to all people the praise of them. Greek:16 And the judges, each by his name, whose heart did not commit fornication, and who did not turn away from the Lord – may their remembrance be in blessings. May their bones flourish from their place, and may their name be exchanged for the sons of their glorified ones. Latin: And the judges, each by his name, whose heart was not corrupted, who did not turn away from the Lord – may their remembrance be in blessing, and may their bones sprout from their place. And their name remains for ever – the glory of holy men remaining to their sons.

13 The lack of grammatical consonance (singular verb ‫ תהי‬and plural subject) matches a few other cases of such incongruence (Gen 1:14; Exod 20:3; Ps 57:2). But if we respect the singular verb ‫ תהי‬and discount the Greek and Syriac rendering as “bones,” another possibility would be to understand ‫( עצמתם‬spelt defectively in 49:12) to be a singular form of the noun ‫“( עצמה‬strength, vigor,” as in 41:2 and 46:9a) and to reconstruct the singular participle: “May their vigor be flour­ ishing in place of them,” i.e., may it continue in their descendants. 14 Here Peters (Buch, 396, 398) interprets the word ‫ תחליף‬as a verb with “their name/reputa­ tion” as the grammatical object: “And may they [= their bones] renew their reputation for their sons,” meaning: “May the reputation of the ancestors come to the benefit of the descendants.” He treats this singular word as equivalent to a plural verb, like the preceding singular verb ‫תהי‬. 15 The Syriac takes the first Hebrew word as the conclusion to the section on Caleb: “he fulfilled the law of God and his judgments” (46:10); cf. van Peursen, Language, 60. Hence the Syriac takes 46:11–12 as referring generally to “Jacob’s offspring,” mentioned in 46:10. The final Syriac phrase derives from the opening of the poem on Samuel (46:13); cf. Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 444. Whereas the verb in 46:12a can mean “be bright” (Calduch­Benages, Wisdom, 258), it can also mean “bloom,” especially in this comparison with lilies (cf. Hos 14:6), similar to the cognate Syriac noun zahra (“flower in full bloom”). 16 Note that Ziegler (Sapientia, 343) reconstructs the Greek text to bring it closer to the Hebrew. The final Greek phrase derives from the opening of the poem on Samuel (46:13); cf. Corley, Dif­ ference, 33–34.

The Enigma of the Judges in Ben Sira 46: 11–12  

 319

This Hebrew mini­poem is delimited by an inclusio with the noun ‫“ ׁשם‬name” in 46:11a and 46:12b. End­rhyme indicates the opening of a new passage in 46:11ab (‫“ בשמו‬by his name”; ‫“ לבו‬his heart”), while internal rhyme marks off the conclu­ sion in 46:12 (‫“ עצמתם‬their bones”; ‫“ תחתם‬instead of them”; ‫“ ושמם‬and their name”). In addition, head­rhyme occurs at the beginning of 46:11d (‫ )יהי‬and the reconstructed form of 46:12a (‫)תהי‬. Taking the opening consonant (shin) from ‫“ שופטים‬judges,” 46:11ab has four more cases of the Hebrew letter. Besides the alliteration of the two niphal verbs (‫ נׁשא‬and ‫)נסוג‬, there is also threefold allitera­ tion at the ends of cola (‫“ לבו‬his heart”; ‫“ לברכה‬for a blessing”; ‫“ לבניהם‬for their sons”). The final colon (46:12b) is comparable to 48:8, because it displays the alliteration of ‫“ תחליף‬new growth” with ‫“ תחתם‬instead of them.” It is also note­ worthy that the first three cola convey statements about the past, with two niphal perfect verbs, while the last three cola express a wish for the future, with two jussive verbs, if we reconstruct 46:12a from 49:10b.

4 Naming the Judges Without Giving Their Names (Sir 46:11a) Whereas Ben Sira begins this mini­poem referring to the judges in the style of a scribe recording people’s names (1 Chr 4:41), saying: “each one (‫ )איש‬by his name (‫)בשמו‬,” the Damascus Document legislates for the listing of the names of commu­ nity members: “They shall be inscribed by their names (‫)בשמותיהם‬, each one (‫)איש‬ after his brother” (CD 14:4–5; 4Q267 9.5.8).17 While Judg 8:31 reports Gideon’s naming of his son: “And he set his name (‫)שמו‬, Abimelech,” Judg 13:24 narrates the naming of Samson by Manoah’s wife: “And she called his name (‫ )שמו‬Samson” (Judg 13:24), but ironically, neither of these judges left a lasting dynasty after them. Similarly, the Book of Judges reports the designation of a city to establish the name of one of Jacob’s sons: “They called the name of the city Dan, by the name (‫ )בשם‬of their ancestor Dan, who was born to Israel” (Judg 18:29). In addition, Judg 8:11 also refers to a Transjordanian city called Nobah, previously named after its founder according to Num 32:42: “And Nobah went and captured Kenath and its villages, and Nobah called it by his name (‫)בשמו‬.” Because “a child and a city will establish a name” (Sir 40:19 HB), a person may be remembered through having children to continue the family name or through becoming the ancestor of a city’s inhabitants (16:4). Moreover, one may also be remembered through having a city named after

17 García Martínez / Tigchelaar, Scrolls, 2.573, 603.

320 

 Jeremy Corley

one, since David is remembered from the “city of David” (2 Sam 5:7, 9) and the city name of Alexandria supplies a reminder of the figure of Alexander. In this mini­ poem, however, the concluding mention of the “sons” (46:12) suggests that the sage is thinking of the name being established by producing offspring, rather than by founding a city. When the term “by their names” (‫ )בשמתם‬occurs twice in Genesis (25:13; 36:40), it leads into an enumeration of specific names. Here, however, despite the phrase, “each one by his name” (46:11a), the sage ironically does not consider any judge worthy to be identified by name. Here Ben Sira differs sharply from some narrative retellings of biblical history, since Josephus names several judges from Othniel to Samson (A.J. 5.3.3–5.8.12 §§182–317), and the Book of Biblical Antiqui­ ties names various judges from Othniel’s father Kenaz to Samson (LAB 25:2–43:8). Moreover, Philo mentions Gideon (Conf. 26 §130) and Heb 11:32 names “Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah,” though the surviving Qumran non­biblical texts do not preserve the full forms of the names of Othniel, Ehud, Barak, Gideon, Jeph­ thah, or Samson. Because Ben Sira supplies no individual names here, perhaps we could interpret the word “by his name” (‫ )בשמו‬to mean “personally,” because occasionally ‫ שם‬can mean “person” or “individual” (Exod 23:11; 33:17; Deut 28:58; Jer 15:16), just as the Greek equivalent (ὄνομα) can mean “person” (Acts 1:15; Rev 3:4; 11:13). In fact, the Hebrew phrase “each one by his name” is literally “a man by his name.” Although the Greek and Syriac recognize that the word “man” (‫)איש‬ has a distributive sense here (as in Gen 40:5; 44:13), the deployment of the male term is probably deliberate, since the sage fails to name the female figure of Deborah, who was both a prophet and a judge (Judg 4:4). It is striking that Ben Sira does not actually identify any individual judge by name. Instead, he passes over all the heroes of the Book of Judges in merely three bicola because of their general impiety, since Gideon committed idolatry in his later life (Judg 8:22–28), Jephthah made a rash vow that led to his daughter’s death (Judg 11:29–40), and most clearly Samson broke the terms of his nazirite vow and was led astray by his love of Philistine women and of Delilah (Judg 14:1–16:31). It is also because of a lack of progeny that Ben Sira omits Gideon, whose son Abimelech killed all his seventy other sons except Jotham (Judg 9:56–57), before Abimelech himself was killed (Judg 9:53–54). Ben Sira also misses out Jephthah since he had no male children (Judg 11:34), and he omits Samson because his heart turned away from God and the LORD left him (Judg 16:20). According to the criteria stated in 46:11, only the minor judges are worthy of praise (Judg 10:1–5; 12:8–15), because they produced offspring and remained faithful.18

18 Brown, God, 218.

The Enigma of the Judges in Ben Sira 46: 11–12  

 321

5 The Attitude of the Heart (Sir 46:11b) Because of the Greek and Syriac versions, the interpretation here identifies the passive of the verb ‫“ נׁשא‬beguile, deceive, delude, entice” in the phrase: “Every one whose heart was not beguiled.”19 The idiom appears in Jeremiah’s prophecy against Edom: “The insolence of your heart has beguiled you” (Jer 49:16), while the same niphal verb appears in Isaiah’s oracle on deceptive Egyptian leadership: “The princes of Zoan have become foolish; the leaders of Memphis are beguiled (‫ ;)נׁשאו‬they have led Egypt astray – the cornerstone of its tribes” (Isa 19:13). The hiphil verb form appears in Eve’s statement in Gen 3:13: “The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.” Among the judges being excluded here, there is probably an allu­ sion to Samson, whose heart was indeed beguiled when he fell in love with Delilah (Judg 16:16–20).20 Ben Sira could also be thinking of Gideon, who fash­ ioned a golden ephod that became an object of idolatrous worship (Judg 8:27).21 Indeed, the Greek of Sir 46:11 copies the LXX verb describing Gideon’s idolatry in Judg 8:27, “he committed fornication” (ἐξεπόρνευσεν), and the plural verb occurs in LXX Judg 8:33. Another interpretation of the Hebrew would be possible: “Every one whose heart was not lifted up.”22 If, indeed, the verb comes from the root ‫“ נשא‬lift up,” it could refer to the lifting up of the heart in pride (cf. Ps 131:1). The idiom occurs in a comment on King Amaziah in 2 Kgs 14:10: “You have indeed struck down Edom, and your heart has lifted you up,” and the parallel in 2 Chr 25:19 specifies that the king’s heart was lifted up in boastfulness.23 A comparable phrase appears in the Chronicler’s portrayal of Hezekiah: “His heart was haughty” (2 Chr 32:25), while a similar depiction of Alexander the Great appears in 1 Macc 1:3: “His heart was lifted up.” By way of contrast to these examples of arrogant leadership, we may note Gideon’s initial humble refusal of kingship: “Gideon said to them, ‘I myself will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the LORD will rule over you’” (Judg 8:23).24 Nevertheless, a turning of the heart was accomplished for 19 Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 443; Segal, Sefer, 318; Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 516; Mopsik, Sagesse, 292. We may compare the niphal verb ‫ תנׁשה‬in Sir 42:10 HBmg: “[lest] she be beguiled.” 20 Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 520; Mopsik, Sagesse, 292; Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 443. Ben Sira’s mention of the heart may be a playful allusion to Samson’s revelation to Delilah in Judg 16:17: “And he declared to her all his heart [= his secret] (‫)לבו‬.” 21 Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 443. 22 Ben­Ḥayyim, Book, 224; Peters, Buch, 397. Although the Hebrew text could also mean: “Every one that did not lift up his heart,” the noun “heart” is subject rather than object in both Greek and Syriac versions of 46:11b. 23 Peters, Buch, 397; contra Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 443. 24 Peters, Buch, 397.

322 

 Jeremy Corley

Gideon’s rebellious son Abimelech by his relatives (Judg 9:3): “His mother’s brothers spoke all these words on his behalf in the ears of all the lords of Shechem, and their heart turned to follow Abimelech.” Just as Sir 46:11 refers both to the attitude of the heart and to going astray, so Ps 95:10 says of the Israelites in the desert: “For forty years I felt disgust at the generation, and I said: They are a people erring in heart, and they do not know my ways.” Similarly, 1 Kgs 11:4 explains Solomon’s idolatry in his old age by saying that “his wives made his heart turn away after other gods.” As a result, “the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from being with the Lord, Israel’s God” (1 Kgs 11:9). Within the Praise of the Ancestors, the unfaithful judges contrast with other devout characters: Phinehas “whose heart was willing” (Sir 45:23); David, “loving his Maker with all his heart” (47:8); and Josiah, who “kept his heart perfect toward God” (49:3).

6 Remaining Loyal to God (Sir 46:11c) The grammatical subject of the Hebrew verb in 46:11c is unclear, but logically should be “his heart” from 46:11b.25 Indeed, the plural suffix of ‫“ זכרם‬their memory” (46:11d) contrasts with the preceding singular verb in 46:11c. Whereas the Greek sees the subject as the judges themselves, the Syriac treats it as the singular “heart.” Ben Sira then refers to everyone whose heart “did not turn away (‫)נסוג‬ from following (‫ )מאחרי‬God (‫)אל‬.” Similarly, Zeph 1:6 warns of punishment for “those who have turned away (‫ )הנסוגים‬from following (‫ )מאחרי‬the LORD, and who have not sought the LORD or inquired of him.” Moreover, Ps 44:19 uses a compa­ rable phrase in its lament: “Our heart has not turned away, nor have our steps inclined from your path,” while Prov 14:14 declares: “One turning away [= per­ verse] in heart (‫ )סוג – לב‬will be sated from his ways.” A comparable phrase also occurs in the confession of sins in Isa 59:13: “transgressing, and denying the LORD, and turning away (‫ )נסוג‬from following (‫ )מאחרי‬our God (‫)אלהינו‬.” The idiom is echoed in the Qumran Community Rule, where one who breaks the covenant is cursed “because of his straying (‫ )בהסוגו‬from following (‫ )מאחרי‬God (‫ )אל‬on account of his idols” (1QS 2:16–17).26 The idiom depends on the basic Deutero­ nomic call to walk in God’s ways (Deut 10:12).27 By contrast with those who strayed, Ben Sira’s previous poem has referred to Joshua and Caleb as exemplary 25 Morla, Manuscritos, 306; Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 443. 26 García Martínez / Tigchelaar, Scrolls, 1.73. 27 Mack, Wisdom, 209.

The Enigma of the Judges in Ben Sira 46: 11–12  

 323

followers of the Deity, since 46:6 declares that Joshua (with Caleb) “followed fully after God,” while 46:10 ends the poem by drawing a lesson for Israel: “It is good to follow fully after the LORD.”28 Identifying the minor judges as the ones who did not turn away from follow­ ing God, Teresa Brown declares: “A search in [the Book of] Judges for those who did not worship idols or turn away from God produces sparse results,” and she adds: “It is only by comparing the biblical text about each judge with the criteria for praise Ben Sira establishes that the failures of the judges become apparent.”29 Despite Gideon’s earlier devout acts, for instance, his golden ephod became an object of idolatrous worship (Judg 8:27), and his seventy sons were slain by another son Abimelech, who was himself killed (Judg 9:56). Moreover, Samson broke the stipulations of his nazirite commitment (Judg 13:4–5), by contrast with Samuel (1 Sam 1:11, 22; Sir 46:13).30 Brown draws a lesson from the mistakes of the judges: “Not only were some judges guilty of idol worship, their punishment was the most severe imaginable: when they died, there were no descendants to carry on their name and their memory.”31 Hence Ben Sira intends us to understand that the only judges deserving to be remembered are the minor judges (Judg 10:1–5; 12:8–15), whose hearts did not turn aside from God’s ways. For Ben Sira it is fitting that these faithful judges left descendants after them, so that their name is carried on by their progeny.32

7 A Blessed Remembrance (Sir 46:11d) When the sage exclaims about the faithful judges in 46:11: “May their memory be for a blessing!” (‫)יהי זכרם לברכה‬,” he makes a clear allusion to Prov 10:7: “The memory of a righteous person is for a blessing (‫)זכר צדיק לברכה‬.” Ben Sira’s previ­ ous reference to Moses includes a comparable blessing on his remembrance: “His memory is for good (‫( ”)זכרו לטובה‬Sir 45:1). Other figures in the Praise of the Ances­ tors are well remembered, since Ben Sira exclaims of Josiah: “May his memory (‫ )זכרו‬be as sweet as honey on the palate” (49:1), and the sage says of Nehemiah: “May his memory (‫ )זכרו‬be exalted” (49:13). In addition, the prologue to the Praise of the Ancestors in the Genizah text declares of the loyal forebears: “To eternity

28 Ueberschaer, Weisheit, 233–235. 29 Brown, Sinners, 83, 85. 30 Corley, Difference, 44. 31 Brown, Sinners, 100. 32 Brown, God, 218–219.

324 

 Jeremy Corley

their memory (‫ )זכרם‬will continue, and their righteousness will not be blotted out” (44:13 HB), but the Masada MS preserves an earlier reading: “To eternity their offspring (‫ )זרעם‬will continue, and their honor will not be blotted out.” In fact, Sir 46:11–12 echoes the prologue to the Praise of the Ancestors (44:1–15), with shared vocabulary such as “name” (‫שם‬: 44:8a; 46:12b); “memory” (‫זכר‬: 44:9a; 46:11d); “their sons” (‫בניהם‬: 44:9d; 46:12b): “All these in their generation [were honored], and their splendor was in their days. Among them were those who left a name (‫)שם‬, to be spoken of in their inheritance; but among them were those of whom there is no memory (‫)זכר‬, and they perished whenever they perished. They have become as if they had never existed, they and their sons (‫ )בניהם‬after them” (Sir 44:7–9 HB). Even though 44:7 states that “all these” twelve kinds of persons previously described (44:3–6) gained honor in their own lifetime, 44:8–9 distin­ guishes between those remembered subsequently and those forgotten after their demise. The phrase “those of whom there is no memory (‫( ”)זכר‬44:9) probably refers to the unrighteous who are not worthy to be recalled according to Ben Sira’s theology (10:17 HA). Hence, just as Ben Sira does not name Gideon, Jephthah, or Samson, so elsewhere he deliberately fails to name sinful monarchs such as Saul and Ahab. This procedure is comparable to the Roman custom of blotting out names of disgraced persons from official records (damnatio memoriae).

8 Flourishing Bones (Sir 46:12a) Since this colon is absent from the Hebrew of Genizah MS B, it is here recon­ structed from the Hebrew of 49:10, generally matching Greek and Syriac.33 Here I follow Smend in reconstructing ‫“ תחתם‬instead of them,” as in the Syriac of 49:10.34 The term is not represented in the Syriac of 46:12, which introduces imagery from Hos 14:6: “And may their bones bloom as lilies.” In the Syriac of Sir 39:13, a similar idiom appears in the context of a moral appeal, without any reference to the afterlife: “Listen to me, righteous ones, and your flesh will flourish as lilies.”35 However, Segal reconstructs ‫“ מתחתם‬beneath them,” matching the Greek phrase in both 46:12 and 49:10, ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῶν “from their place.”36 Although the same verb with the preposition ‫ מתחת‬occurs in the Qumran Damascus Document (4Q266 6.1.7// 4Q272.1.15), a different context is present, dealing with the treat­

33 Smend, Weisheit hebräisch, 52; Segal, Sefer, 318; Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 517. 34 Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 443; Hildesheim, Prophet, 208 (for 49:10). 35 Kearns, Text, 242. 36 Segal, Sefer, 318; Morla, Manuscritos, 334.

The Enigma of the Judges in Ben Sira 46: 11–12  

 325

ment of leprosy, where the priest examines whether “the disease has sprouted (‫ )פרח‬from underneath (‫ )מתחת‬the hair.”37 Here, as in 7:17 and 48:11, the Greek wording (“May their bones flourish from their place”) may have introduced a hint at the afterlife not originally present in the Hebrew.38 To be sure, Emile Puech enunciates a minority view, suggesting that even Hebrew Ben Sira is here speaking of the future resurrection: “The wish that the bones of judges and of the twelve prophets flourish again (46:12 and 49:10) can very well be understood in this way, as a hope of the resurrection at the Visitation.”39 However, if the sage were directly referring to post­mortem existence, this would be a strange wish, since many other Ben Sira passages deny a belief in the afterlife (10:11; 14:16; 17:27–28; 22:11; 30:4; 38:21; 41:3–4). Hence it is more likely he wishes that suitable successors may continue their ancestors’ good name. Whereas the judges lived in a time when Israel’s fortunes were at a low ebb, the sage’s hope is that a revival may take place in their biolog­ ical and spiritual successors. In my interpretation of 46:12, Ben Sira wishes their bones to sprout afresh instead of them, rather than from their burial place, and instead of alluding to a future resurrection, the idiom here refers to earthly descendants.40 Whereas a resurrection interpretation of Sir 46:12 presumes an individualistic interpretation of “bones,” the ancient Hebrew author had a more communal understanding. Such a view is evident in the words of the would­be judge, Abime­ lech son of Gideon, who appeals to the entire clan of his maternal relatives: “Which is better for you? Will seventy persons, all the sons of Jerubbaal, rule over you, or will one person rule over you? And you are to remember that I am your bone (‫ )עצמכם‬and your flesh” (Judg 9:2). Israel’s tribal leaders make a similar appeal to David before he is publicly anointed as king: “Behold, we are your bone (‫ )עצמך‬and your flesh” (2 Sam 5:1). Both these texts deploy an idiom found in Adam’s recognition of Eve as “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). In such cases, it is not literally the same bones, but the wording means that the people are closely related biologically. Hence Mopsik offers this paraphrase of Ben Sira’s wish for the judges: “May they have offspring who, taking their place, will regenerate their old dried­up bones,” before explaining that just as after death the only surviving parts of a human body are the bones, so the only surviv­ ing strength of a deceased human person will be his children.41 37 García Martínez / Tigchelaar, Scrolls, 1.589; 1.625. 38 Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 201–2, 534. 39 Puech, Ben Sira, 101 n. 70. 40 Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 444; Sauer, Sirach, 317; Peters, Buch, 398; Mopsik, Sagesse, 293. 41 Mopsik, Sagesse, 293 (my translation).

326 

 Jeremy Corley

In a comparable context of one generation replacing another, Sir 14:18 employs the root “flourish” or “bloom” (‫)פרח‬: “Like the flourishing (‫ )כפרח‬of foliage on a luxuriant tree, of which one withers and another branches out, so are the genera­ tions of flesh and blood: one expires and another matures.” Further Hebrew texts apply the same verb to the flourishing of a person’s memory or name. Thus, Sir 40:19 HB declares: “Animal offspring and a plantation cause a name (‫ )שם‬to flour­ ish (‫)יפריחו‬,” although the Masada MS has as the grammatical object “flesh” or “kindred” (‫)שאר‬. Moreover, 4QInstruction promises: “When you die, your memory will blossom (‫ )יפרח‬for ever” (4Q416 2.3.7), and similarly: “Your name will blossom (‫ )יפרח‬for ever” (4Q417 4.2.3).42 However, the same verb describes the flourishing of people in Hos 14:6 [14:5]: “I will be like the dew for Israel; he will bloom (‫)יפרח‬ like the lily.” Teresa Brown’s discussion of Sir 46:12 mentions two biblical allusions that might underlie the metaphor found here: “Bones take on new life when they come into contact with a prophet, literally as in the story of Elisha [2 Kgs 13:21; Sir 48:13–14], or figuratively, when Ezekiel prophesies to the bones [Ezek 37:1–14].”43 In Sir 46:12 (as in 49:10), the motif of revived bones particularly echoes Ezekiel’s vision of the resuscitation of the dry bones, symbolizing a national resurrection after the Babylonian exile. The mention of bones also alludes to Isa 66:14: “And you [pl.] shall see, and your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish like the grass.”44 The text from Third­Isaiah, echoed in Sir 46:12 (as in 1QH 18:30–31), refers to postexilic national restoration of the living, and does not directly refer to resurrection.45 A later echo of Isa 66:14 (combined with Hos 14:6) appears in the moralistic statement of the Testament of Simeon 6:2, where the patriarch addresses his sons about what will happen after his death: “If you divest yourself of envy and every hardness of heart, my bones will flourish as a rose in Israel, and my flesh as a lily in Jacob.”46 Ben Sira’s other use of the poetic idiom about bones flourishing occurs in Sir 49:10, where the Hebrew text survives (with a possible echo of Hab 3:16–18): “And also, the Twelve Prophets – may their bones be flourishing instead of them – who strengthened Jacob and saved it by [hopeful faith].” In this second passage, we could think of Tobit’s proud declaration to his son Tobiah: “We are the sons of the prophets” (Tob 4:12), which is not meant biologically but rather indicates being

42 García Martínez / Tigchelaar, Scrolls, 2.851. 43 Brown, Sinners, 94. 44 Segal, Sefer, 320; Hildesheim, Prophet, 215. 45 Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 444. 46 Kee, Testaments, 787. Cf. Kearns, Text, 242.

The Enigma of the Judges in Ben Sira 46: 11–12  

 327

heir to the religious heritage of the prophets (cf. Acts 3:25).47 For the so­called minor judges and the so­called minor prophets, because there is little biographi­ cal information that Ben Sira could use for his praise, he simply expresses a generic wish that their descendants will be given renewed strength to follow in their footsteps (46:12; 49:10). In both instances, Ben Sira is dealing with a collec­ tive group and so his words are general. Georg Sauer points out a further curious connection, since in both cases we are dealing with a group of twelve persons, whether judges or prophets.48 The Book of Judges names eleven leaders who are said to “judge” Israel: Othniel, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, and Samson. If we add Ehud, called a “deliverer” (Judg 3:15), we reach a total of twelve judges. In place of the female Deborah, one could add Barak, reckoned as a judge in LXX 1 Sam 12:11 as well as in Heb 11:32.49 To be sure, Sir 46:11 excludes judges guilty of idolatry and sin (Gideon and Samson), those lacking surviving sons (Jephthah), and probably the female judge Deborah.

9 Their Name Continuing in Their Descendants (Sir 46:12b) In concluding this mini­poem, the sage expresses a wish that the biological line of the judges may continue: “May their name be a new growth on the part of their sons.” In fact, 1 Macc 5:62 refers to “the offspring of those men by whose hand salvation was given to Israel,” with a possible linguistic echo of the story of judges such as Samson (Judg 15:18), even though Samson himself had no recorded sons, and Jephthah’s hasty vow cost the life of his only daughter (Judg 11:34–35). Similarly, Gideon’s line was wiped out, since Judg 9:55–56 reports: “When the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead, they went, each to his place, and God had repaid Abimelech for the evil that he had done to his father by killing his seventy brothers,” though Gideon’s son Jotham survived (Judg 9:7–21). Since both Jephthah and Samson left no surviving descendants, presumably Ben Sira refers to those minor judges who had progeny. For instance, Jair the Gilea­ dite had thirty sons (Judg 10:3), Ibzan of Bethlehem had thirty sons as well as thirty daughters (Judg 12:8), and Abdon the Pirathonite had forty sons and thirty grand­ sons (Judg 12:14). There might also be a reference to another minor judge: “Tola

47 Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 444; Skehan / Di Lella, Wisdom, 520. 48 Sauer, Sirach, 316. 49 Brown, God, 218 n. 6.

328 

 Jeremy Corley

son of Puah son of Dodo, a man of Issachar, who lived at Shamir in the hill country of Ephraim” (Judg 10:1). Possibly there is some connection with the sons or descendants of Issachar named Tola and Puah, especially since Tola’s descend­ ants were military men in the time of David, and their number expanded to a figure of 87,000 warriors or perhaps 87 clan groups of warriors (1 Chr 7:1–5). When 46:12 expresses a wish: “May their name be a new growth for [or: on the part of] for their sons,” this could mean: “For their descendants may their [con­ tinuing] name be a substitute or replacement [for them, now that they are dead].” In other words, whereas the faithful judges are no longer alive, may their descend­ ants instead continue to preserve their name biologically. The notion that a person survives through his or her progeny appears in the sage’s declaration about the good son: “The father died, and it is as if he did not die, for after him he left someone like him” (30:4 G). A similar motif appears in the prologue to the Praise of the Ancestors, referring to the descendants of the honored forebears: “With their offspring their prosperity was assured, and their inheritance was for the sons of their sons” (44:11 HB). To be sure, Ben Sira also has the belief that a person can survive death through leaving a good name: “Ephemeral is a human being in his corpse, yet a reputation (‫ )שם‬of loyalty will not be cut off. Be fearful over a reputation (‫)שם‬, since it will accompany you better than thousands of desirable treasures. The benefit of a living person is for a number of days, but the benefit of a reputation (‫ )שם‬is for unnumbered days” (41:11–13 HB/Bm/M). The prologue to the Praise of the Ancestors makes a similar statement about the reputation left by the loyal forebears: “Whereas their corpse was buried in peace, their name lives from gen­ eration to generation” (44:14 HM). In such Ben Sira passages, “name” refers to a person’s reputation, just as Sir 47:16a G says of Solomon: “To distant islands your name (ὄνομά) reached,” while 49:1 HB asserts: “The name (‫ )שם‬of Josiah is like the incense of spices.” But whereas the motif of one’s name in 46:12 could be under­ stood in the sense of reputation (as in 41:12–13), it may in fact refer genealogically to the family name passed on to male descendants (as in 40:19). Although Ben Sira is usually viewed as a teacher of wisdom, he was close to priestly circles (45:6–26; 50:1–24), where legitimate genealogical descent was a major concern (1 Chr 24:1–27:22; Ezra 10:18–44; Neh 11:3–12:26). Thus, the progeny may be not only spiritual heirs but also physical descendants.50 The disputed Hebrew term ‫ תחליף‬is here translated “new growth,” but it may have various senses, such as “substitute, continuator, replacement, renewal, successor.” The rare noun form reflects Aramaic influence in Late Biblical Hebrew,

50 Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 444; Peters, Buch, 398; Kearns, Text, 241.

The Enigma of the Judges in Ben Sira 46: 11–12  

 329

as in “disciple” in 1 Chr 25:8 (‫)תלמיד‬, “mantle” in Esth 8:15 (‫)תכריך‬, and “suffoca­ tion” in Sir 31:20 (‫)תשניק‬. The difficulty in interpreting the noun here derives from the polyvalence of the related hiphil verb ‫החליף‬. As a transitive verb it can mean: “change” (Gen 31:7, 41; 35:2; Ps 102:27); “exchange” (Lev 27:10); “replace” (Isa 9:9); “renew” [strength] (Isa 40:31; 41:1; Sir 43:30 HBmg; 4Q521 2.2.6). However, as an intransitive verb the hiphil verb ‫ החליף‬can mean: “be new” (Job 29:20), “regrow” or “sprout again” (Job 14:7; cf. qal verb in Ps 90:6). Scholarly discussion on the meaning of this noun in its three occurrences (Sir 44:17; 46:12; 48:8) has been surveyed by Wido van Peursen, who notes that interpretations proposed include “ancestor, supplement, substitute, offspring, procreator, compensation, change, reward.”51 Rudolf Smend suggests three translations of the word: “substitute” (Ersatz), “offspring/younger generation” (Nachwuchs), or “successor” (Nachfolger).52 For the Hebrew term Peters supplies “successor” (Nachfolger) in 44:17 and 48:8.53 One major interpretation of ‫ תחליף‬is based on a financial or commercial back­ ground, though such a context is not present in 46:12 HB. Partly matching Aramaic usage of the root ‫חלף‬, the Greek version understands the term as referring to an exchange, replacement, or compensation: “May their name be exchanged (ἀντικαταλλασσόμενον) for the sons of their glorified ones.” A comparable com­ mercial background appears in 3 Macc 2:32: “exchanging (ἀντικαταλλασσόμενοι) possessions for life, they fearlessly tried to save themselves from the registra­ tions.” This interpretation matches the qal verb in Sir 42:25 (“exchange” or “replace”), and the sense of the noun ‫ חלף‬within the phrase “in exchange for their/your work” (Num 18:21, 31), as well as the Aramaic prepositional use of ‫חלף‬ meaning “instead of” (Tg Gen 4:23). Hence Ariel Feldman translates: “And may their names be for their sons instead of them,” and he explains in a footnote: “The English ‘instead’ renders the Hebrew ‫תחליף‬, a ‘replacement,’ implying that one’s name lives with his/her children after that person’s demise.”54 In theory, another possible interpretation of 46:12b might be: “And let their reputation be a replacement for their sons” – referring to sons whom they never had, or who did not survive. We could compare the prologue to the Praise of the Ancestors: “Among them were those who left a name, to be spoken of in their inheritance; but among them were those of whom there is no memory, and they perished whenever they perished. They have become as if they had never existed, they and their sons after them” (44:8–9 HB). The reference in 46:12 could thus be 51 Van Peursen, Word, 134. 52 Smend, Weisheit hebräisch, 68; Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 422. 53 Peters, Buch, 411; cf. Van Peursen, Word, 141. 54 Feldman, Book, 88 and n. 55.

330 

 Jeremy Corley

to judges like Jephthah and Samson who left no surviving descendants. However, such an interpretation goes against the general thrust of the Praise of the Ances­ tors, which seeks to recall only heroes deserving remembrance, and 44:8–9 seems to refer to those who will not be mentioned in the subsequent poem.55 The other main interpretation of the term, based on a biological or botanical context, better fits the context of “flourishing.” Ben Sira’s wording has an echo of Job 14:7–9: “For there is hope for a tree; if it is cut down, then it will still sprout again (‫)יחליף‬, and its shoots will not cease. If its root grows old in the earth, and its stump dies in the dust, at the scent of water it will bloom (‫ יפרח‬hiphil), and it will put produce branches like a plant.”56 Hence the noun ‫ תחליף‬from the same hiphil root may denote “new growth” or “sprouting” (in the sense of offspring), which forms a good parallel with the notion of “blooming” or “flourishing.” The implied sense is one of resurgence or regeneration. From the hiphil verb, we can understand the noun as denoting “new growth,” in the sense of a replacement branch or continued growth or offshoot or outgrowth. In 46:12 Wido van Peursen favors the sense of “shoot, offspring,” but without totally excluding the meaning “substitute.”57 Besides fitting with the use of tree imagery in Sir 50:10, comparing the high priest Simeon to an olive tree, such a meaning also recalls the mention of the olive tree, fig tree and vine in Jotham’s parable (Judg 9:8–15). When Sir 44:17 employs the same term of Noah: “At a time of termination, he was a new growth (‫)תחליף‬,” we may perhaps compare Wis 14:6: “For even in the beginning, when arrogant giants were perishing, the hope of the world, fleeing upon a raft, bequeathed to the world the seed of offspring, having been guided by your hand.” In 44:17, for van Peursen, Noah is not so much the “successor” as a “shoot” that comes up from the stump of humanity.58 As a development of the word’s biological sense, its dynastic meaning of “successor” is clearest in Sir 48:8, where it alludes to Elisha in the alliterative phrase: “a prophet as a successor (‫ )תחליף‬in your place (‫)תחתיך‬.” The wording reflects the divine command to Elijah in 1 Kgs 19:16: “You shall anoint Elisha son of Shaphat of Abel­meholah as prophet in your place (‫)תחתיך‬.” The Hebrew of 48:8 has a singular object, referring to Elisha becoming Elijah’s prophetic succes­ sor, and for van Peursen the notion of successor fits the context of 48:8, matching the Septuagint’s διάδοχος.59 Indeed, the theme of succession is evident in Sirach 44:1–50:24 from the term     ‫( תחליף‬44:17; 46:12; 48:8), as well as διάδοχος (46:1; 55 Corley, Sirach 44:1–15, 171. 56 Van Peursen, Word, 142. 57 Van Peursen, Word, 147. 58 Van Peursen, Word, 146­47. 59 Van Peursen, Word, 140; Mack, Wisdom, 46.

The Enigma of the Judges in Ben Sira 46: 11–12  

 331

48:8).60 In fact, however, the Greek of 48:8 has a plural object: “The one anointing kings as a recompense, and prophets as successors (διαδόχους) after him,” refer­ ring to “prophets” – not just Elisha but perhaps also Jehu, who hears and carries out God’s word (e.g., 2 Kgs 9:26; 10:30). The mini­poem’s final word “for their sons” (‫ )לבניהם‬could be interpreted several ways. It could be possessive (“belonging to”): “May their name be a ‫תחליף‬ belonging to their sons.” More likely in this context (as in Exod 12:16), it could indicate a passive agent: “May their name be a ‫ תחליף‬on the part of [= by] their sons.” In other words, Ben Sira wishes that the ongoing family name of the various minor judges may experience a new growth among their descendants. The importance of progeny continuing the family name and preserving the memory of the departed figures has already appeared in the prologue to the Praise of the Ancestors: “With their offspring their prosperity was assured, and their inheritance was for the sons of their sons. In their covenant their offspring has continued, and so have their descendants because of them. To eternity their off­ spring will continue, and their honor will not be blotted out” (Sir 44:11–13 HB/M).61

10 Conclusion Ben Sira’s brief treatment of the judges (46:11–12) does not mention any judge by name, despite the Hebrew phrase “each one by his name” (46:11). By praising only the judges whose hearts were not beguiled and did not turn away from God, he is excluding individuals such as Samson. Most likely, it is the minor judges who deserve praise (Judg 10:1–5; 12:8–15), because they had descendants to con­ tinue their name. The Greek text of 46:12 (as well as 49:10) may hint at the afterlife in the wish that their bones may sprout afresh from their burial place, but the predominant perspective of Ben Sira’s Hebrew book is a denial of the afterlife (7:17; 38:21). Hence, in its original context, it is probable that Ben Sira is praying that fitting successors may preserve the name of the God­fearing judges and so continue the good repute of these ancestors. The mention of the sprouting of bones echoes Ezek 37:1–14 in looking forward to a revival on earth, rather than a future resurrection. This essay is offered as a grateful tribute to a fine scholar and a generous host, Géza Xeravits. May his memory be for a blessing!

60 Mack, Wisdom, 44­47. 61 Corley, Sirach 44:1–15, 173.

332 

 Jeremy Corley

Bibliography Beentjes, P. C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (VTSup 68), Leiden 1997. Ben-Ḥayyim, Z. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance, and an Analysis of the Vocabulary, Jerusalem 1973. Brown, T. R., God and Men in Israel’s History: God and Idol Worship in Praise of the Fathers (Sir 44–50), in: R. Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham – Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321), Berlin 2002, 214–220. Brown, T R., Sinners, Idol-Worshippers and Fools among the Men of Hesed: Ben Sira’s Pedagogy in Praise of the Fathers (Sir 44–50) (Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate Theological Union), Berkeley, 1998. Calduch-Benages, N., et al., Wisdom of the Scribe: Diplomatic Edition of the Peshitta of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus (Biblioteca Midrásica 26), Estella 22015. Calduch-Benages, N., The Absence of Named Women from Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors, in: J. Corley and H. van Grol (eds.), Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes (DCLS 7), Berlin 2011, 301–317. Corley, J., Sirach 44:1–15 as Introduction to the Praise of the Ancestors, in: G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.), Studies in the Book of Ben Sira (JSJSup 127), Leiden 2008, 151–181. Corley, J., No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13, in: G. Xeravits and G. Schmidt Goering (eds.), Figures who Shape Scriptures, Scriptures that Shape Figures: Essays in Honour of Benjamin G. Wright III (DCLS 40), Berlin 2018, 30–55. Egger-Wenzel, R., Josiah and His Prophet(s) in Chronicles and Ben Sira: An Intertextual Comparison, in: J. Corley and H. van Grol (eds.), Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes (DCLS 7), Berlin 2011, 231–256. Feldman, A., The Book of Judges in Early Jewish Literature, in: G. J. Brooke and A. Feldman (eds.), On Prophets, Warriors, and Kings: Former and Latter Prophets through the Eyes of Their Interpreters (BZAW 470), Berlin 2016, 77–94. García Martínez, F. / Tigchelaar, E. J. C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.), Leiden 1997–1998. Goshen-Gottstein, A., Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers: A Canon-Conscious Reading, in: R. Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham – Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321), Berlin 2002, 235–267. Hildesheim, R., Bis daß ein Prophet aufstand wie Feuer: Untersuchungen zum Prophetenverständnis des Ben Sira (TTS 58), Trier 1996. Kearns, C., The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus: Its Teaching on the Future Life as a Clue to Its Origin (DCLS 11), Berlin 2011. Kee, H. C., Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in: J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, New York 1983, 775–828. Mack, B. L., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (CSHJ), Chicago 1985. Mopsik, Ch., La Sagesse de ben Sira, Lagrasse 2003. Morla, V., Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira (ABE 59), Estella 2012. Mulder, O., Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50 (JSJSup 78), Leiden 2003. Peters, N., Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25), Münster i.W. 1913. Peursen, W. T. van, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira (MPIL 16), Leiden 2007.

The Enigma of the Judges in Ben Sira 46: 11–12  

 333

Peursen, W. T. van, The Word ‫ תחליף‬in Ben Sira, in: J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey (eds.), Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period (STDJ 73), Leiden 2008, 133–148. Puech, E., Ben Sira and Qumran, in: A. Passaro and G. Bellia (eds.), The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLS 1), Berlin 2008, 101–118. Sauer, G., Jesus Sirach/ Ben Sira (ATDA 1), Göttingen 2000. Segal, M. Z., Sefer Ben-Sira Hashalem, Jerusalem 31972. Skehan, P. W. / Di Lella, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York 1987. Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin 1906. Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, hebräisch und deutsch, Berlin 1906. Swete, H. B., The Old Testament in Greek, vol. 2., Cambridge 1907. Ueberschaer, F., Weisheit aus der Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira (BZAW 379), Berlin 2007. Weber, R., Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, Stuttgart 31983. Xeravits, G., The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira: Henoch 23 (2001) 27–38. Ziegler, J., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta 12/2), Göttingen 21980.

Otto Mulder

Bethesda in Sirach 50 revised Abstract: Valid evidence of Bethesda in the building programme of the High Priest Simon II in Sir 50:1–4 remains a crucial issue for archaeological research in the area of the Temple Mount. A historical fact is not only of great interest for the water supply of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in the pre­Herodian period, but also for the interpretation and intertextuality of Sirach 50 and the Gospel of John chapter 5. The present study is an investigation into the reliability of literary ref­ erences to the water pools of Bethesda in the Book of Wisdom of Ben Sira and the Gospel of John, the historical books of Flavius Josephus and the Letter of Aristeas and also, in a broader sense, into the development of Judaism in the Second Temple period. Keywords: Second Temple, high priest, water supply, archaeology, history, inter­ textuality

1 Introduction An excavation of the pre­Herodian Temple in Jerusalem within the Temple court is politically impossible at this juncture. An exception was the building of the El­Marwani mosque in 1996, in the so­called Stables of Solomon at the south­east site next to the Al Aksa Mosque, to create more room for prayer. The question of the factual reality of older stages of the Second Temple is complicated by the witness of Simon II as builder who restored the Temple in his days, described in Sirach 50. Ben Sira mentions the fortification of the inner court with walls and corners, similar to a royal palace. This comparison raises many questions. In his commentary on the Wisdom of Ben Sira, Di Lella invites research­ ers to think about God as the King and he translates “the residence precinct with its temple of the King.” The technological terminology of the building activities is obscure and the textual tradition of Sirach 50 is complicated. Ben Sira’s Book of Wisdom was rejected as a canonical book in the rabbinic tradition. The Greek translation by the grandson became part of the Septuaginta. From 1896 Hebrew fragments were found in the Cairo­Geniza (manuscripts A–F) from the eleventh century, and three little fragments in Qumran (2Q18 and 11QPs ͣ). In 1964 the Masada­scroll was found by Yadin and his critical edition of this Hebrew manuscript (M 39:27–44:17) followed in 1965. In 1997 all these manuscripts https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-020

336 

 Otto Mulder

are published in facsimile and in synopsis by Beentjes.1 Based on these fragments, the Hebrew version is recognised as the primary source for Sirach research. In MsB III–XXI the text is almost complete from Sir 30:11a–51:30. The information about the Second Temple in the historical writings of Jose­ phus is limited, by reason that in his time the Herodian new building of the Temple and the extension of the Temple court covered the remains of the Second Temple, which was rebuilt after the Babylonian exile and restored by Simon II around 200 BCE. An exception in the restoration of the Temple is the reference to a ‫מקוה‬, a water reservoir outside the Temple court in Sir 50:2. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew text the sequence of the building programme is altered and the water reservoir is specified as “a cistern like the sea in magnitude” (50:3). The problems of interpretation of the Hebrew text are mentioned in the Introduction to the translation by the grandson, who published this important book of wisdom in 132 BCE, in the 38th year of the reign of king Euergetes over Ptolemaic Egypt. In the days of Simon II this reservoir was important for the water supply of Jerusalem. The interpretation of 50:2b ‫ִ אׁשיח בם בהמונו‬is complicated. In my disser­ tation Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50 (2000/2003) regarding the question Stroution or Bethesda,2 I proposed Bethesda as the water reservoir “with a wall therein on account of the water flow.” The description ‫“ בהמונו‬in its lively commo­ tion, or turmoil” suggests a connection to Bethesda, with its movement of the water mentioned in John 5:2–4. This addition evokes intriguing exegetical questions in this study of the historical evidence in the Praise of the Fathers and Sirach 50. Archaeological research has been undertaken for more than hundred years at the location of Bethesda near the Church of St. Anne.3 In 1997, I stayed in Jerusalem to undertake field research of the water supply for Jerusalem around 200 BCE, using the cards produced by L. H. Vincent.4 In the summer of 2002 I discovered, in the library of the Ecole Biblique, an article by Pierre Benoit OP published in the Revue Biblique 1987.5 In this article I found a confirmation of my findings in Bethesda, that the double water reservoir appar­ ently at this location pertains to the work of Simon II, “les grands bassins seraient l’oeuvre du grand prêtre Simon dont parle l’Ecclésiastique 50.3.”

1 Beentjes, Text Edition and Synopsis. 2 Mulder, Simon the High Priest, 110–115. 3 Duprez, Jésus 29–33; Gibson, British Archaeological Work, 52. 4 Vincent/Steve, Jerusalem, Planche XXXI. 5 Benoit, Activites archeologiques, 423–424.

Bethesda in Sirach 50 revised 

 337

In the available literature, questions have always remained about valid evi­ dence regarding the building programme of Simon, who as High Priest also acted with kingly authority in 50:1–4. Positive argumentations are limited by priority given to the Greek text of Ben Sira and in the problems of archaeological research of the Pre­Herodian Second Temple. In 1968 A. Duprez argued that both pools were built by Simon II (291–196 BCE). He based his research on the cartography of Vincent and the Greek text of Sirach.6 The last excavation of Bethesda was com­ pleted under the leadership of S. Gibson in 2005.7 In this study “Bethesda in Sirach 50 revised” I will focus on the historical context of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, the archaeological approach concern­ ing Bethesda, the remains of the Pre­Herodian Second Temple, Sirach 50:1–4 revised and Bethesda in the Gospel of John in relation to Sirach 50. With deep respect I want to remember Géza Xeravits and his broad and exten­ sive research concerning the Second Temple literature, connected to the Qumran­ research and his PhD at the University of Groningen. I especially remember his engagement in the publications about many apocryphal books and his fieldwork in Israel for archaeological research in ancient synagogues.

2 A Historical Context of the Second Temple in Jerusalem In Herodian Jerusalem we find eight unroofed water pools in the immediate sur­ rounding of the Temple Mount: 1. the pool of Bethesda, 2. the Birkat Israil or Sheep pool, 3. the twin pool Stroution, 4. the pool of Hezekiah, 5. the pool under Hamam as­Shefa, 6. the Sultan’s pool, 7. a pool in the Kedron Valley and 8. the pool of Siloam. Little is known about the history of each pool from the time before king Herod. The archaeologist, Gurevich suggests a dating for the immense Birkat Israil (109 x 38 m) to the Hellenistic period with ַa possible reference in Sirach (50:1–4). However, based on the Hebrew text Sir 50:2 this reference is not plausible.8 The mentioning of an upper pool in Isa 7:3 and 36:2; 2 Kgs 18:17 at the highway to the Fuller’s Field in Hezekiah’s time of kingship (726–697 BCE) is

6 Duprez, Jésus, 36. 7 Gibson, Excavation at Bethesda, 41. 8 Gurevich, Water Pools, 104.

338 

 Otto Mulder

incorrectly ascribed as Bethesda, because this upper pool is located in the southern part of Jerusalem.9 Von Wahlde points to Bethesda with the problem of the steps, chiselled out of solid stone along the western side for entering the southern pool. In his view, a reference to Sir 50:3 is unlikely and he maintains that the function of this pool is a miqweh from the beginning.10 In the Gospel of John 5, Bethesda refers to a Herodian building of a double pool with 5 porticos. For an argumentation for earlier stages of this water supply we have to look within the context of the Pre­Herodian Second temple. According to Josephus Flavius, after the Babylonian exile, around 520 BCE, Zerubbabel rebuilt the Second Temple with a generous gift of gold and silver, the vessels and all the attributes for the temple service, from the Persian king Cyrus (Ant 11.1–5). From 445 BCE Nehemiah received support from Artaxerxes I to repair the walls to defend the city (Ant 11.179).11 The resistance of the Samarians is expli­ cable under the Persian system of government, as Samaria became politically and economically more important than Jerusalem. In Ant 11.310–312 Josephus describes the break between Jerusalem and Samaria. Manasseh, brother of Jaddua, high priest in Jerusalem, married Nicasso, daughter of Sanballat, who built a temple on Mount Gerizim for his son­in­law based on Neh 13:28. Historically doubtful is Josephus’ description of a visit of Alexander the Great at Jerusalem.12 In the complexity of the five wars of the Diadoches (321–285), Ptolemy I. captured Jerusalem on the Sabbath (312 BCE) and took 100.000 prison­ ers from Jerusalem and Samaria as slaves to Egypt, as mentioned by an unknown historian Agatharchides of Cnidus (Ant 12.4–10). The six Syrian wars (274–168) concerning the conflict between the Ptolemies and Seleucides at first passed Jerusalem until the fourth war, when Antiochus III lost the battle of Raphia in 217 against Ptolemy IV.13 The king of Egypt visited Jerusalem to enter the Temple, but he failed because of the tumultuous protest (3 Macc 1:8–2:24). In the fifth Syrian war in the summer of 200 BCE, the Egyptian army commander Scopas lost the battle at Panion. He recaptured Jerusalem during the winter of that year (Ant 12.132), but this defeat indicates the end of a long period of occupation by the Ptolemies. Josephus wrote about the two letters and the decree regarding the support of the Seleucid king Antiochus III by the high priest Simon II (Ant 12.3.138–153).

9 Simons, Jerusalem, 334. 10 Von Wahlde, The Pool(s) of Bethesda, 122. 11 Sacchi, History, 138. 12 Pummer, Samaritans, 54. 13 Brutti, Development High Priest, 130.

Bethesda in Sirach 50 revised 

 339

He strengthened the historical basis of the rewards of Antiochus, bestowed on the Jewish people for their support and good behavior, with a testimony of the Greek historian Polybius in the 16th book of his History (Ant 12.135–137). Jose­ phus wrote about the abundant gifts of Antiochus for the rebuilding of the citadel, funding for all the Temple sacrifices and the frankincense, twenty thou­ sand pieces of silver, the wood and other tax­free materials for the construction work around the Temple and the porticoes of the depopulated city. Also, an exemption from taxes during three years for the gerousia, the priests, the scribes of the temple and the temple­singers are noted. In his decree Antiochus under­ lined his deep respect for Jewish customs and the tradition of their forefathers (Ant 12.145–147). The inhabitants of Jerusalem obtained special rights and com­ pensations to restore the Temple, to reconstruct the walls with towers, to let refugees return and to free slaves. In his last years Simon II (219–196) started the building project with the restoration of the Temple, and an expansion and set­ tlement of the northern city area including the provision of a new water supply mentioned in Sir 50:1–4.14 In the Letter of Aristeas (83–120) an author from Alexandria gives an impres­ sive picture of Jerusalem in an ideal time, probably after the reign of Simon II around 170 BCE.15 Important is the description of the Temple upon the high hill, towering above all. The supply of water in plentiful natural springs is uninter­ rupted and the wonderful underground reservoirs with channels to join water streams indescribable. He stressed his admiration for the building plan of the reservoirs four stades out of the city, where he listens to the noise at the meeting of the waters. The size of the water conduits became clear. In the fortified citadel with towers and catapults and other engines he understood that protection was effective against revolt and an enemy attack. This exuberant description is beau­ tiful but historically legendary. In the second century the restored walls and the Temple were regularly demolished and restored, for example in 167 BCE by the Maccabees after the reli­ gious oppression by Antiochus IV (Ant 12.316–326).16 Regarding the attack by Pompey (63 BCE), who came from Jericho, Josephus mentions that Jerusalem was strong at every site, except the northern wall, which was not so well fortified and was broken down (Ant 14.57–70).17 In 47 BCE Julius Caesar granted permission to Hyrcanus II and Antipater to repair the Temple and to rebuild this wall (Ant 14.144, 156, 200). Later, from 19 BCE onwards, king Herod 14 Mulder, Simon the High Priest, 105, 281. 15 Charlesworth, Letter of Aristeas, 18–21. 16 Hölbl, Ptolemäerreich, 167. 17 Wightman, Ben Sira 50:2, 282.

340 

 Otto Mulder

completed the new building of the walls and the Temple in 46 years (John 2:20). The buildings at Bethesda were finished in 22 BCE, with a system of steps to access the water of the southern pool.18 According to John 5 Bethesda was impres­ sively surrounded by five colonnaded porticos. In 70 CE the position of Bethesda nearby the Antonia Fortress was decisive in the hopeless defence of the Zealots against the Roman 5th Legion. Josephus des­ cribes the attack of the Romans and mentions the new city Bezatha (Bel 5.246–247) and the position of the army at the so­called Assyrian camp (Bel 5.303–304). In the ruins of the fortress Antonia the Zealots continued their defence. Then the Romans built a wall for a counterattack, opposite the middle of the so­called Stroution, a twin pool for the water supply of Antonia.19 They were able to reach with their fire power the Zealots in the fortress, using black painted stones in order to confuse the defenders, who could only hear the stones and did not see them coming (Bel 5.467 and 270). Behind this wall the Romans were safe and in Bethesda they had a comfortable and advantageous position with a birds eye view on the Temple­court. Josephus described the end of the struggle in detail, when the great and impressive buildings of the Second Temple are destroyed in 70 CE.

3 The Archaeological Approach Concerning Bethesda An excavation of the pre­Herodian Temple in Jerusalem within the Temple court is now impossible. The question of the factual reality of this older stage is compli­ cated by the only witness of Simon II as builder described in Sir 50:1–4. In the ruins at the northern wall of the destroyed Temple court three sets of pools are found, the Birkat Israil at the eastern corner of the Temple Mount, the Stroution under the Convent of the Sisters of Zion and the two Bethesda pools near the church of St. Anne. Bethesda consists of two separate pools with a wall as a barrier, located in the natural bed of the valley in the northern part of the town Bezetha. In the NW direction the slopes of the valley have an overall length of more than 400 m and a fall of 60 m at the compound of the church of St. Anne near the northern wall of the courtyard of the Second Temple. At first sight the archaeological remains of Bethesda and the Temple Mount point to the Herodian

18 Gibson, Excavations, 24. 19 Benoit, L’Antonia, 143.

Bethesda in Sirach 50 revised 

 341

period. The Bethesda Pool was at that time renewed as a well­constructed water system for rainwater supply and for spiritual purification, with the southern pool serving as a ritual bath provided with steps. The northern pool functioned as a water storage (‫)אוצר‬. The rainwater gathered in this otsar filled the southern pool as a ritual bath through a tunnel by lifting a sluice gate. At that moment the water in the southern pool bubbled and John gives in 5:4 the idea of water being “stirred up” by an angel.20 Archaeological research was undertaken from 1865 to 1967 and ended in 2005 with the publication of the general results in the Supplement to Proche­ Orient Chrétien by Gibson.21 He concluded that the double pool was the result of a single pre­planned building programme: “There is no evidence that the Bethesda Pool in its present form predates the Early Roman Period.” Gibson presumes that both pools were built at the same time, based on their overall layout and construction details. In this final report of the excavation of Bethesda he concluded that in combination with the Siloam pool this pool could sustain the majority of all the pilgrims at the time of the feasts, to be purified, so that they may have entered the Temple precinct for services. They used the steps to reach the water on the western site of the southern pool with a length of 53 m. In his view the southern pool is a cleansing bath a miqweh refreshed by a sluice gate in the dam, which separated the northern pool with the requirement to supply living rain water as is prescribed in the Talmud.22 The construction of the trapezoidal formed northern pool (53 x 40 m) was separated by a plastered barrier wall (6,5 m wide and 13,5 m deep) from the southern pool (47 x 52 m) with a capacity of more than 25.000 cubic meters. The high walls of the exca­ vated southern pool descending sometimes to depths of almost 7 to 12 m. are built with large, squared stones.23 Indeed all Herodian buildings on and around the Temple Mount are part of the final phase of the remains. What is hidden under the ruins of old and new buildings from Herod’s time is an intriguing question. Based on the natural cir­ cumstances in the Bethesda Valley it is my opinion that the remains of the double Bethesda Pool from 22 BCE obtained its form from an ancient predecessor from 198 BCE as is well­documented in the report of the ‫ מקוה‬in Sir 50:2a.

20 Von Wahlde, Puzzling Pool. 21 Gibson, Excavations at Bethesda, 17–43. 22 Gibson, Bethesda and Purification, 270–293. 23 Duprez, Jésus, Planche 1.

342 

 Otto Mulder

4 The Remains of the Pre-Herodian Second Temple The remains of constructions in the time before Herod are subsumed in new buildings in the Herodian period. To look for arguments for these remains we assume that most of the pools in Jerusalem were built in a valley to collect water. During the rainy season “fresh” water was added. This physical topography of the location of the pools is in the urban landscape of Jerusalem clearly visible in Bethesda. The reservoir was dug out in the rocks and a dividing wall was built to impede the water flood and to create an artificial reservoir. More large pools in Jerusalem and surrounding areas are constructed in deep ravines to catch run­off water flow, e.g. the pool near the Tomb of the Kings, the Birkat Israil, the Pool of Hezekiah, the Sultan’s Pool and the twin pool in the St. Anne’s Church compound. The majority of them were dug by hewing into the bedrock, and then adding a dam, a masonry­constructed wall that would create an artificial basin. The wall of the Birkat Israil (109x38 m) measures 13,7 m, that of the Pool of Hezekiah 9 m and in Bethesda 6,5 m in thickness.24 The Pre­Herodian Second Temple is newly analysed by the archaeologist J. Patrich. Based on the text of Sirach 50 he focusses on the form of the foundations for an elevated courtyard and an enclosure of the Second Temple by a περιβόλος “an architectural envelope.”25 In his report of 2011, Patrich pictures in a sche­ matic West­East cross­section of the Temple Mount, the square precinct of Simon the Just and in a broader arrangement Herod’s extensive walls. His conclusion is that in addition to a vast water cistern, the building project of Simon the Just included the elevation and leveling of the outer court of the Temple and the enclo­ sure of this court by porticos. The fortification of the outer court extension gradu­ ally took place in the Hasmonean period. The political situation was changed in 175 BCE when Antiochus IV came into power. The legitimate high priest Onias III was murdered in exile (170) and after him the high priesthood of Jason, Menelaus and Alchimus minimized the authority of the high priesthood in Jerusalem. In 170 Antiochus IV gained the victory in the battle of Pelusium in Egypt, however the Romans ordered him to withdraw. Returning, he took Jerusalem without fighting because he was supported by the Hellenistic party. He plundered the town and returned two years later, pillaged the Temple, burnt down the houses, pulled down the walls and built a new citadel. After this disaster, restoration began when the Maccabees freed Jerusalem (164). The Herodian rebuilding of the Temple 24 Gurevich, Water Pools and Pilgrimage, 103–134. 25 Patrich, Pre­ Herodian Temple, 558–574.

Bethesda in Sirach 50 revised 

 343

Mount started in 19 BCE, a project that overshadowed almost all the former ele­ ments of the Second Temple. In his archeological research, Bahat undertakes a restudying of the differentiation between the pre­Herodian and the Herodian Temple Mount, because the eastern retaining wall forms the eastern wall of the older pre­Herodian Mount.26 Patrich ends his article with a mentioning of my interpretation of the ‫ אׁשיח‬as a barrier wall, however, in his opinion the linguistic basis for Bethesda is not sufficient. Finally, he ends with a reference to Simon in Greek 50:3, “who dug out a water reservoir, as immense as the sea.” There is reason for a revision of the textual study of both versions Hebrew and Greek of Sirach 50:1–4.

5 Sirach 50:1–4 Revised Ben Sira describes Simon II as a contemporary, whom he must have known as an eyewitness. This fact is generally accepted and is based on the Prologue to the Greek translation of his grandson, who arrived in Egypt in 132 BCE, the thirty­ eighth year of the reign of king Ptolemy Euergetes. In my view, on a revised linguistic basis of Ben Sira’s description in the Hebrew text of 50:2 and the archae­ ological and geographical research, the Bethesda pool can be localized as lying within the new northern city area of Jerusalem. In 50:1–4 Ben Sira focuses first on the inspection of “the house” (50:1c). The word “house” (‫ )הבית‬is chosen for the necessity to renovate the sanctuary in the town. In Sir 50:2 the reservoir is described. As in 50:1, Ben Sira points to Simon again in 50:4 with a participle of ‫ דאג‬with definite article because “it is he, who takes care of his people against robbery and makes his city stronger than the enemy.” In 50:1–4 Ben Sira describes all the works Simon realized during his min­ istry. After the Temple restoration in 50:1d, he mentions in 50:2a–b the digging of the water reservoir (‫ )מקוה‬with a “dividing wall within on account of a waterflow” (‫)אׁשיח בם בהמונו‬, and thirdly in 50:3 the building of a retaining wall with fortress towers like a citadel, described as a royal palace (‫)היכל מלך‬. By the threefold repetition of ‫ אׁשר ב‬at the beginning in verse 50:1c, 2a and 3a he emphasizes the temporal sequence with a climax in 50.3a and the importance of the three build­ ing projects, temple, water supply and defence work. Therefore, I translate ‫אׁשר‬ ‫ בדורו‬in 1c: “since during his ministry,” in 2a: “since in his time,” and in 3a: ‫אׁשר‬ ‫“ בימיו‬moreover in his days.”27 26 Bahat, Jesus and Herodian Temple Mount, 305. 27 Mulder, Simon the High Priest, 110–119.

344 

 Otto Mulder

Sir 50:1–4 in Hebrew: 1 a–b 1 c–d 2 a–b 3 a–b 4 a–b

‫ׁשמעון בן יוחנן הכהן‬ ‫ובימיו חזק היכל‬ ‫אׁשיח בם בהמונו‬ ‫פנות מעון בהיכל מלך‬ ‫ומחזק עירו מצר‬

1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b

Highly esteemed among his brothers and the glory of his people is Simon, the son of Jochanan, the priest, since during his ministry the house [of God] was inspected. and he, in his days, restored the temple. Since, in his time, a reservoir was dug out, with a dividing wall therein on account of the waterflow. Moreover, in his days, a wall was built. [with] fortress towers for a royal palace. It is he who takes care of his people against robbery. and he makes his city stronger than the enemy.

‫גדול אחיו ותפארת עמו‬ ‫אׁשר בדורו נפקד הבית‬ ‫אׁשר בדורו נכרה מקוה‬ ‫אׁשר בימיו נבנה קיר‬ ‫הדואג לעמו מחתף‬

Sir 50:1–4 in the Greek translation of the grandson in 132 BCE: 1a Σιμων Ονιου υἱὸς ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας, 1b ὃς ἐν ζωῇ αὐτοῦ ὑπέρραψεν οἶκον, 1c καὶ ἐν ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ ἐστερέωσεν ναόν. 2a καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐθεμελιώθη ὕψος αὐλῆς, 2b ἀνάλημμα ὑψηλὸν περιβόλου ἱεροῦ. 3a ἐν ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ ἐλατομήθη ἀποδοχεῖον ὑδάτων, 3b λάκκος ὡσεὶ θαλάσσης τὸ περίμετρον. 4a ὁ φροντίζων τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ πτώσεως, 4b καὶ ἐνισχύσας πόλιν ἐν πολιορκήσει. 1a Simon, the son of Onias, the High Priest, 1b it was he who, in his lifetime, restored the house of [God] 1c and in his days reinforced the temple. 2a And by him the foundations were laid for a high forecourt, 2b the mighty supporting wall of the temple enclosure. 3a In his days a reservoir for water was dug out, 3b a cistern like the sea in magnitude. 4a He protected his people from downfall, 4b and he strengthened the city against a siege.

Bethesda in Sirach 50 revised 

 345

The rare word combination in MsB ‫ אׁשיח בם‬which can be interpreted as “a wall in” or more detailed “a dividing wall therein” is not without textual problems. Though Ben Sira sought undoubtedly an appropriate technical term in this specific context of building, but the word ‫ אׁשיח‬is hapax legomenon in the Mas­ soretic text only used in Jer 50:15 as ‫ אׁשויתיה‬in plural with suffix: “her bull­ works/bastions,” and in the lexica indicated as a loanword from Assyrian asîtu “tower.” However, even this text of Jeremiah is questionable according the crit­ ical apparatus of BHS (884).28 The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew points to ‫ אׁשיה‬in Jer 50:15 and to ‫“ אׁשיח‬reservoir” in Sir 50:3, to ‫“בית אׁשוחין‬house of (two) reservoirs” in the 3QCopper Scroll (3Q15, 5.6, 7.4, 10.5 and 11.12).29 More appro­ priate is the Aramaic word ‫“ אׁשיתא‬wall” in fem., or ‫ אוׁשא‬masc. traces back to the verb ‫“ אׁשׁש‬make firm, or strong.” This word as “wall” is documented in Ezra 4:12, 5:16 as ‫ אׁשיא‬and in the Babylonian Talmud B. Bath 7a, 59a, Ber. 56a, 28a, B. Qam. 50a.30 In the translation of the grandson, we see his solution in Greek with “a cistern like the sea in magnitude” reading ‫ בם‬as ‫“ כים‬like the sea.” In fact, he shows in his prologue to his translation in Greek, with some sense of embarrassment, that he is not well acquainted with the book of his grandfather in Hebrew, certainly in the case of Sir 50:2 with the technical terminology about the water provisions in and around the Temple. Yet his suggestion provides for a surprising solution with “a cistern like the sea in magnitude,” far beyond the clean and appropriate vocabu­ lary of the sofer Ben Sira. The description ‫“ בהמונו‬in its lively commotion” suggest an evident connec­ tion to Bethesda, with its movement of the water, in reference to John 5. Neverthe­ less, my argumentation for Bethesda based on a textual witness with a hapax in the Hebrew text which is strengthened by the Aramaic of Ezra and the Talmud as the linguistic basis for the identification of Bethesda. Furthermore I am convinced after a discussion with Otto Kaiser, who translates Sir 50:2–3 in his new transla­ tion of the book of Ben Sira “Weisheit für das Leben”:31 2. Unter ihm wurde ein Teich ausgegraben mit einer Scheidewand wegen der Wasserwogen, 3. Und in seinen Tagen eine Mauer gebaut mit Festungstoren am Palast des Königs.

28 Baumgartner, Lexikon, 91. 29 Clines, Dictionary I.413; Garcia Martinez/ Tigchelaar, I. 233–239. 30 Levy, Wörterbuch, I. 176–177. 31 Kaiser, Weisheit, 114.

346 

 Otto Mulder

6 Bethesda in the Gospel of John and in Sirach 50 The factual history in the Gospel of John became from the beginning of the twenty­ first century an important issue. A gross error is made in the research of the Gospel of John to assume that John is theological in its tone and ahistorical in its character and origin. On the contrary Anderson argues that John is often more authentic than the Synoptics.32 In 2006, as editor of studies by a broad group of biblical scholars and archaeologists, Charlesworth gives an outline of the most important archaeo­ logical breakthroughs to illustrate this proposition, with Nazareth, the location of the baptism by John the Baptizer, Cana, Bethesda, Bethsaida, Sepphoris, syna­ gogues, Samaria, Jerusalem, Temple, the conviction, and crucifixion.33 Bethesda is one of the most important archaeological discoveries. This pool with five porticos is named differently in John 5:2, however based on important manuscripts preference is mostly given to “Bethesda.” The two pools are located near the Sheep Gate or the pool Birkat Israil. Bultmann, who was in 1968 unfamil­ iar with the excavation results, identifies this with the pool of Siloam.34 Schnack­ enburg, in contrast, presents in 1971 a realistic picture of the construction of five magnificent galleries with pillars during the government of Herod.35 In an exten­ sive article “Jesus and Archaeology” von Wahlde systematically enumerates twenty distinctive references in John. With nr. 11 Bethesda is seen as a miqweh based on the report of Gibson. The northern pool serves to collect rainwater and functions as the otzer for the southern pool, a sizable ritual bath as a large public miqweh, comparable with the Siloam pool.36 In his commentary on the gospel of John, Barrett underlines that John is simply naming the place and not allegorizing it, because there is a tendency to do so in the meaning of ‫“ בית חסדא‬house of mercy” as suitable for other places for healing. The description of a building with five porticos in John 5:2 gives a probable identification based on archaeological findings around and between the twin pools. On the other hand these five porti­ cos are allegorically interpreted as the five groups in Jewish society: Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, John’s youngers, and Essenes, or as the five books of Moses, which would be ineffective for salvation in Christ. Barrett rejects such symbolism in his conclusion: “When John employs symbolism he does so less crudely.”37 32 Anderson, Aspects of History, 588. 33 Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology, 1–695. 34 Bultmann, Evangelium des Johannes, 180. n.7. 35 Schnackenburg, Johannesevangelium, 119. 36 Von Wahlde, Archaeology, 565. 37 Barrett, Commentary John, 211.

Bethesda in Sirach 50 revised 

 347

In the methodology of biblical research, the diachronic­literary critical ap­ proach is inextricably related to the historical­critical paradigm and theological tendenz­criticism. In his non­biblical sourcebook Hayward looks for the inner significance of the Temple with an order of creation in the Temple service. He cites Philo and Josephus to see the Temple symbolic as the cosmos, in parallel the worship as angelic in a heavenly temple and the light as eternal. These universal­ istic and transcendental tendencies are known in the Qumran literature, even more in 1 Enoch and many others pseudo­epigraphical books. In Sirach 50, the high priest is pre­eminently linked to Adam (49:19) and to Aaron in his garments of beauty (45:8) based on Exodus 28. In addition, Hayward discovers a multitude of symbolic language comparing Simon’s splendour with the heavenly bodies and nature with trees and flowers, in different aspects of his acting as high priest in the Temple service, as a reminder to God with offerings and prayers with the highest degree of sanctity.38 Nonetheless, his methodology of exegesis is critical by reading the Hebrew and Greek versions separately. In the case of Sirach 50 the allegoric and spiritualized approach of Fletcher­ Louis is a continuation of Hayward’s research, extended to biblical texts with an ahistorical interpretation of Sir 50:1–4 and the disregarding of the Hebrew and the Greek versions resulting in far­reaching consequences. Explicitly he identifies the water­reservoir (‫ )מקוה‬with the sea. He reads ‫“ כים‬as the sea” in line with the grand­ son in Greek and the commentary of Skehan/ Di Lella,39 instead of Ms B with ‫בם‬. In his concept both versions in Sir 50:2 or 3 are a straightforward recapitulation of the third act of creation in Genesis1:9–10, intertextually related to the bronze basin in Exod 30:17–21 and to the Wisdom in Sir 24:6. In total he gives an intertex­ tual reading of Sirach 50:1–21 with the creation story Genesis 1 in 7 days in combi­ nation with the description of the tabernacle in Exodus 25–30 and Wisdom in Sirach 24. Simon as high priest is taken up in the tumult of the battle against the chaos and the roaring waters in an Israelite Chaoskampf. In fact, a man­made water reservoir Bethesda became an allegory of the sea, spiritualised on account of the Wisdom (3rd p. s. fem.) in 24:6a intertextually related to the bronze basin for washing in Exod 30:17–21, and the sea created in Gen 1:9–10. There are even Greek manuscripts of 50:3 which read λάκκος “cistern” as χάλκος “copper.”40 At the least the high priest is a multiple personality. In his view Simon is not a person, and in Sirach 50 the high priest is only a representative office.41

38 Hayward, Jewish Temple, 5–16, 44–47. 39 Skehan/Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 549. 40 Ziegler, Septuaginta Sirach, 357. 41 Fletcher­Louis, Collected Studies, Vol. 1, 42–46.

348 

 Otto Mulder

Contrasting with this ahistorical, allegorical, and spiritual approach I will first focus on Simon in his days and in his time (Sir 50:1c, 1d, 2a, 3a) to underline the fourfold specific historical situation in the context of the Praise of the Fathers as a rewriting of the history of Israel. Secondly, I focus on the end of Sirach 50, when Ben Sira signs his book by his own name with a blessing to provide his personal engagement and responsibility as the writer of his book of wisdom. In a nutshell he gives the reason for doing so: “happy is the person who is wise and gets insight, for the fear of YHWH is life.” Life is the all­embracing concept of Ben Sira, high­ lighted some forty times from the beginning in 1:11 to the end 51:28 in his book of wisdom. Life is the goal of his teaching wisdom to his students (31:8–11), to all who perform good deeds (44:1–14) from Adam on (49:16).42 The methodology of interpreting the rewriting of Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers in Hebrew and Greek in an ahistorical concept provides for contradiction. Furthermore, the loss of the historical context of the political relationship between Antiochus III and Simon II in 198 BCE results in an uncritical apocalyptic high­ light of a high priest, glorious as Adam (Sir 49:16 and 50:1–24), and the denying of the strained relationship between the restored Second Temple in Jerusalem and the Samaritan sanctuary on the Gerizim (50:25–26). In 170 BCE, after the murder of Onias III the historical reality was changed with the minimization of the high priestly authority before and in the Maccabean Revolt against the oppression of Judaism by Antiochus IV, and during two centu­ ries until 70 CE, with the Roman destruction of the impressive Temple in Jerusa­ lem rebuilt by king Herod.

7 Conclusion The real factual results of archaeological research are challenging for biblical research in the context of old texts within and outside the canonical literature. The pre­Herodian Temple is a new challenge. The hapax legomenon in MsB 50:2b ‫ אׁשיח בם‬is not without textual problems, even with an Aramaic form, which can be interpreted as “a wall in” or more detailed “a dividing wall therein,” used by Ben Sira as an appropriate term in building technique. The addition in 50:2b ‫“ בהמונו‬in its lively commotion” points to Bethesda, with its movement of the water, in reference to John 5:7. The methodology of typology and allegory in biblical tradition results in a loss of realistic life and the individual character of each human, when in the 42 Mulder, La Vie d’ Adam et Ève, 402.

Bethesda in Sirach 50 revised 

 349

historical development through the ages man and woman, known by name, are reduced to a symbol. Some problems with the function of a miqweh in the Bethesda pools remain to be observed: the research for the pre­Herodian stage of the Second Temple and Bethesda; the depth of the southern pool and the accessibility of the steps; and the presence and function of three smaller miqwot for healing at the eastern site of the two large pools. In any event, further research is required.

Bibliography Anderson, P. N., Aspects of History in the Gospel of John: Implications for Investigations of Jesus and Archaeology, in: J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), Jesus and Archaeology, Grand Rapids 2006, 587–618. Bahat, D., Jesus and the Herodian Temple Mount, in: J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), Jesus and Archaeology, Grand Rapids 2006, 300–308. Barrett, Ch. K., The Gospel according to St. John, London 1955. Baumgartner, W., Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3 Auflage, Leiden 1967. Beentjes, P. C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & A Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup 68), Leiden 1997. Benoit, P., Activités Archéologiques de l’École Biblique et Archéologique Française à Jérusalem depuis 1890: Revue Biblique 94 (1987) 397–424. Benoit, P., L’Antonia d’Hérode le grand et le Forum oriental d’Aelia Capitolina: HTR 64 (1971) 135–167. Brutti, M., The Development of the High Priesthood during the pre-Hasmonean Period (JSJSup 108), Leiden 2006. Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (KEK II.19), Göttingen 1968. Charlesworth, J. H. (ed.), Jesus and Archaeology, Grand Rapids 2006. Charlesworth, J. H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2., London 1985. Clines, D. J. A., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 9 vols., Sheffield 1993–2011. Duprez, A., Jésus et les dieux guérisseurs. À propos de Jean V., Paris 1970. Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T., The Cosmology of P and Theological Anthropology in the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira, in: Idem, Collected Works Vol. I.: The Image-Idol of God, the Priesthood, Apocalyptic and Jewish Mysticism, Toddington 2017, 1–60. García Martínez, F. / Tigchelaar, E. J. C., The Dead Sea Scrolls, Study Edition. Vol I-II, Leiden 1997–1998. Gibson, S., The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem and Jewish Purification Practices of the Second Temple Period: Proche-Orient Chrétien 55 (2005) 270–293. Gibson, S., The Excavations at the Bethesda Pool in Jerusalem: Preliminary Report on a Project of Stratigraphic and Structural Analysis (1999–2009): Proche-Orient Chrétien 60 (2010) 17–40.

350 

 Otto Mulder

Gibson, S., British Archaeological Work in Jerusalem between 1865 and 1967. An Assessment, in: K. Galor and G. Avni (eds.), Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City, Winona Lake 2011, 23–57. Gurevich, D., The Water Pools and the Pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Late Second Temple Period: PEQ 149 (2017) 103–134. Hayward, R. C. T., The Jewish Temple. A Non-Biblical Sourcebook, London 1996. Hölbl, G., Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Großen bis zur römischen Eroberung, Darmstadt 1994. Kaiser, O., Weisheit für das Leben. Das Buch Jesus Sirach übersetzt und eingeleitet, Stuttgart 2005. Levy, J., Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim I–IV., Darmstadt 1924 (21963). Marcus, R., Josephus, Jewish Antiquities XII–XV (Loeb 488–489), Cambridge 1963. Michel, O. / Bauernfeind, O., Flavius Josephus De Bello Judaico Der jüdische Krieg. Griechisch und Deutsch, Band I-III, München 1962. Mulder, O., Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50. En Exegetical Study of the Significance of Simon the High Priest as the Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of Israel (JSJSup 78), Leiden 2003. Mulder, O., Adamic tradition in the Wisdom of Ben Sira, in: F. Amsler et al. (eds.), La Vie d’Adam et Ève et les traditions adamiques. Actes du quatrième colloque international sur les littératures apocryphes juive et chrétienne Genève-Lausanne, 7–10 janvier 2014 (PIRSB), Lausanne 2017, 401–420. Patrich, J., The pre-Herodian Temple II: The Building Project of Simon the Just on the Temple Mount: Revue Biblique 118 (2011) 558–574. Pummer, R., The Samaritans. A Profile, Grand Rapids 2016. Sacchi, P., The History of the Second Temple (JSOTSup 285), Sheffield 2000. Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium (HTKNT IV.2), Freiburg 1971. Skehan, P. W. / Di Lella, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York 1987. Vincent, L. H./ Steve, A. M., Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament. Récherche d’Archéologie et d’ Histoire, Paris 1954. Von Wahlde, U. C., Archaeology and John’s Gospel, in: J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), Jesus and Archaeology, Grand Rapids 2006 523–586. Von Wahlde, U. C., The Pool(s) of Bethesda and the Healing in John 5: A Reappraisal of Research and of the Johannine Text: Revue Biblique 116 (2009) 111–136. Von Wahlde, U. C., The Puzzling Pool of Bethesda Where Jesus Cured the Crippled Man: BAR 37 (2011) 40–47. Wightman, G. J., Ben Sira 50:2 and the Hellenistic Temple Enclosure in Jerusalem, in: S. Bourke and J.-P. Descoeudres (eds.), Trade, Contact and the Movement of the Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessy, Sidney 1995, 275–283. Ziegler, J., Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII/2 Sapientia Jesu filii Sirach, Göttingen 1980.

JiSeong James Kwon

Is Wisdom in Baruch 3:9–4:4 Combined with Torah? Abstract: The amalgamation between Wisdom and Torah in Bar 3:9–4:4 along­ side Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon has been claimed due to emphasis on the force of the Torah in Hellenistic Judaism. However, the wisdom discourse of Baruch affirms no more than the traditional concerns of the Israelite instruction genre (Proverbs 8, Job 28, and Sirach 24), rather than the Deuteronomi(sti)c ide­ ology; although Baruch designates the particularism of Jacob­Israel. In this essay, by re­examining specific texts of Baruch (Bar 3:9–14, 15–38; 4:1–4), I will show why the hypothesis of the confluence of Wisdom and Torah is problematic. Keywords: identification of Wisdom­Torah, wisdom discourse, Mosaic Torah, Sirach, Baruch

1 Introduction: The Mosaic Torah and Wisdom in Baruch 3:9–4:4 The confluence between Torah and Wisdom in Intertestamental Literatures has been searched in Bar 3:9–4:4 that allegedly belongs to Jewish wisdom writings in Palestine Jewish community.1 Concerning the relevance of Baruch to the Torah, scholars have claimed that Bar 3:8–4:4 forms a merging point of Wisdom and Torah alongside Sirach (also, the Wisdom of Solomon) and that Bar 3:8–4:4 alludes to Deuteronomy.2 While there are several links with Deuteronomy in

1 Moore, Daniel, 260; Saldarini, Baruch, 933; For English translation of LXX, I refer to Pieters­ ma / Wright, A New English Translation. The English translation of Hebrew text is my own work. 2 The conformation of “older deuteronomic material” “to a new context, concerned explicitly with wisdom.” Sheppard, Wisdom, 93; “Law and wisdom are one in the Mosaic Torah,” see Schnabel, Law; Harrelson, Wisdom; Milani, Rilettura; the equation of “the fountain of wis­ dom” with “the Law of God,” see De Vos, You Have Forsaken, 186; Ballhorn, Weisheit,; “True wisdom” identifiable with the “Torah of Israel,” see Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology, 333; “the identification of Torah obedience as the way of wisdom,” see Hogan, Elusive Wisdom, 158; the subordination of “wisdom to Torah” Grätz, ‘Wisdom’ and ‘Torah,’ 199–200; “the fusion of wisdom with the Deuteronomic Torah,” Henderson, Inter­Textual Dialogue, 48; “divine Wis­ dom” that is “identified with the Law” Calduch­Benages, Baruch Reading, 167. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-021

352 

 JiSeong James Kwon

Baruch,3 complicated intertexts of Baruch with other Jewish writings, however, make it hard for one to consider the Deuteronomic dependence of Baruch. For instance, part of penitential prayer (Bar 1:15–3:8) seems to refer to Pentateuchal materials and the book of Daniel, and “the law of Moses” (esp. Bar 2:2; cf. 2:20, 24, 28) is most likely reframed and reinterpreted in the Jeremianic corpus in which its author notices that laws which Jews have broken are commanded not only by a single prophet but also by plural prophets.4 In the same way, although the scrip­ tural understanding of Bar 3:9–4:4 could make the relevance with Deuteronomy, it could be misleading to deduce that the scriptural authority of Deuteronomy replaced the authority of Wisdom or Wisdom has been embodied under the force of the Torah;5 for example, Schnabel observes that “law and wisdom are one in the Mosaic Torah”;6 Saldarini claims that “the law, especially Deuteronomy, is wisdom itself”;7 Nickesburg maintains that the Deuteronomic scheme was applied into the Wisdom poem of Baruch.8 Johannes Marböck claims more extremely: Bei Baruch gibt es keine von Gesetz und Israel unabhängige Weisheit mehr. ... Bei Baruch ist auch die theologische Weisheit bereits mit dem deuteronomistischen Schema von Sünde, Ruf zur Umkehr, Verstockung und Gericht verbunden, was bei Ben Sira 51 noch nicht der Fall ist.9

Until recently, this predisposition has scarcely been changed. For instance, Sebastian Grätz says that contrary to Alexandrian Judaism “the reception of the Deuteronomistic ideas” “already ascribes and subordinated wisdom to Torah.”10 Karina Hogan suggests that the wisdom poem of Baruch, Sirach, and the later redaction of Deuteronomy are examples of “covenantal wisdom” which develops a synthesis between “the old wisdom tradition” with “the covenantal theology of Deuteronomy.”11 Egbert Ballhorn notices that “Weisheit Israels besteht in seiner 3 In the entire book of Baruch, Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology, 343 argues that “Baruch walked the path that was trodden prior to him by the nomistic editors of the Deuteronomistic History and their successors.” 4 Adams, Reframing Scripture; Adams, Studies on Baruch, 9. 5 Blenkinsopp, Wisdom and Law, 168. 6 Schnabel, Law, 99. 7 Saldarini, Baruch, 960. 8 Nickelsburg, Torah, 229. 9 Marböck, Weisheit, 57. 10 Grätz, ‘Wisdom’ and Torah, 199–200. 11 Hogan, Theologies in Conflict, 71; however, Hogan supposes that while Ben Sira “minimizes the uniqueness of Israel’s experience of God’s acts in history, addressing his instruction to ‘all who seek wisdom’ (24:34; cf. 33:18) rather than to Israel,” in Bar 3:9–4:4 “wisdom language is pressed into the service of Deuteronomic covenant theology” (pp. 98–99).

Is Wisdom in Baruch 3:9–4:4 Combined with Torah? 

 353

Toraausrichtung.”12 Nevertheless, the perception of the Torah in Baruch 3:9–4:4, even if admitting the close relationship between them, would be at best the iden­ tification of Wisdom with the Mosaic Torah,13 not the identification of Wisdom as the Torah. As though combining the sin and restoration of the exile with the cove­ nantal renewal and connecting Moses with Sinaitic laws (Bar 2:2, 28), its author nowhere restricts the term nomos as the Moses’ five books as a canon. Yet, Baruch instead broadens the notion of laws into ways to divine wisdom (Bar 4:1) and of principles about social justice in Deutero­Isaiah (Bar 4:12; Isa 49:21; 51:1, 4; cf. Job 34:27).14 So, the question is: “Can one observe either the transformation of Wisdom to Torah or the confluence of Wisdom and Torah?” In this essay, I argue that the claim about the amalgamation between Wisdom and Torah in Bar 3:9–4:4 is mis­ leading in the given context of Baruch and Deuteronomy.

2 Baruch in Palestinian Context Its literary background on the surface is derived from the national disaster of the Babylonian exilic period as dealing with the confession of the sin of the exiled remnant (Bar 1:15–3:8), the wisdom poem (3:9–4:4), and the encouragement and consolation toward Jerusalemites (4:5–5:9). The compositional provenance of Baruch has without much disagreement been traced to Palestine, in that its author addresses his message toward residents in Jerusalem (ἀνθρώπῳ Ιουδα καὶ τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν Ιερουσαλημ; 1:15) and consoles them with the prophecy of future restoration and glorification (4:9, 30, 36; 5:1, 5).15 The authorship of Baruch has no relevance with the scribe of Jeremiah around 6th century BCE, and the pseudony­ mous writer is named after Baruch son of Neriah as the scribe of the prophet Jer­ emiah who recorded and copied the deity’s oracle about the judgment against Judah during the reign of King Jehoiakim (Jer 36:1–32).16 Interpreters have largely assumed that its author(s) was a Palestinian Jew who was aware of the Israelite literary heritage in the Second Temple literature.17

12 Ballhorn, Weisheit, 275. 13 Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 196. 14 Moore, Daniel, 309. 15 Moore, Daniel, 260; Saldarini, Baruch, 933; Adams, Baruch, 6. 16 Saldarini, Baruch, 933–934. 17 Saldarini, Baruch, 933; Moore, Daniel, 260.

354 

 JiSeong James Kwon

It is hard to determine whether its loosely connected units (Bar 1:1–3:8; 3:9– 4:4; 4:5–5:9) were composed by a single author or by several authors/redactors. While the final author could merge all the divergent elements into a certain level of literary unity (Steck),18 as merging intriguing parts – (1) the introduction of Baruch’s writing (1:1–14), (2) the penitential prayer (1:15–3:8), (3) the wisdom poem (3:9–4:4), and (4) the poem for the consolation of Jerusalemite (4:5–5:9) – the wisdom poem forms the inconsistency with 1:15–3:8 and 4:5–5:9.19 As far as concerned with the absence of consistency in the development of content, Baruch could be regarded as the composite of several authors during different periods. The final composition of Baruch could be dated from 3rd century BCE to st 1 –2nd century AD, ranging different foreign regimes:20 e.g., (1) against the back­ drop of Maccabean revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes’s reign (200–164/100 BCE);21 (2) against the backdrop of the oppression of Roman­Herodian rulers (63 BCE–70 CE);22 (3) in the increasing anticipation of restoration after the destruc­ tion of Temple (70–200 CE).23 It is hardly feasible to determine its compositional date, but one might deduce similarities with other Jewish writings; the first part (Bar 1:15–3:8) makes resemblances with Dan 9:4–19, Jeremiah, and Deuteronomy 28–32, the last part (4:5–5:9) is viewed as being dependent upon “prophetic psalms” (e.g., Isaiah 40–66),24 and its wisdom poem (3:9–4:4) is related to Sirach 24, Job 38, and Deuteronomy.25 As considering the literary relationship including traditional themes in wisdom discourse between Bar 3:9–4:4 and Sirach, Baruch may be dated to have been written at the time of writing of Sirach. I suppose that the final redaction of Baruch would not be dated to 1st–2nd century CE, but would most probably be composed either around 2nd century BCE or in the first half of 1st century BCE.26

18 See Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch; Steck, Baruch. 19 Moore, Daniel, 257–258. points out differences between the preceding prose which is remi­ niscnent of the book of Jeremiah (Bar 2:6–3:8) and the poem of Wisdom (3:9–4:4) that follows the Israelite wisdom text, and that differs from in the poem of consolation in 4:5–5:9 which is similar to Isaiah 40–55 and the Psalms of Solomon. 20 Moore, Daniel, 257; Saldarini, Baruch, 923. 21 Burke, Poetry, 32; Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, 294–303; Steck, Baruch, 22–23. 22 Moore, Daniel, 260, 319. 23 Oesterley, Introduction, 263–264. 24 Xeravits, Biblical Background, 131 argues that “both the techniques for the use of existing scriptural material and the scope of the biblical background argue for the inde­ pendence of the prophetic psalms from the larger Baruchian context.” 25 Steck, Israels Gesetz, 457–471; Henderson, Inter­Textual Dialogue. 26 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 97 says that if “Nebuchadnezzar is a stand­in for Antiochus IV, the book is possible to be dated to 164 B.C.E., five years after Antiochus’s sack of Jerusalem

Is Wisdom in Baruch 3:9–4:4 Combined with Torah? 

 355

Intertextual links in the Book of Baruch are complicatedly placed in pro­ phetic voices of Jeremiah and Isaiah, and it is difficult to determine that some of Baruch texts directly borrow them, and only its author with his agenda interacts with them in created ways.27 For instance, when Baruch as a whole is related to “the form of a report narrating the origins of a prayer book” in the postexilic period, and Bar 1:15–3:8 to “penitential prayer,” those affinities should be under­ stood in a broad literary knowledge of its author(s) in an indecisive way; (cf. Leviticus 26, Deut 4:26–31; 28:15–68; 30, 1 Kgs 8:23–53; Jeremiah 7, 24, 27, 32 and “complaint psalms”).28 Also, the phrase “the law of Moses” (νόμῳ Μωυσῆ) in Bar 2:2 might refer to Decalogue or the Mosaic Law alluding to Deut 28:15–68 (esp. 53),29 but the context of Barch 2:1–5 is associated with the penitential prayer in Dan 9:12,30 not the form of the Mosaic laws. In the same way, when scholars claim the identification of Wisdom as Torah in Bar 4:1, it is necessary to confirm the entire context of the wisdom poem of Baruch (Bar 3:9–4:4). Such a wisdom discourse in a given text could partly be interested in Jewish laws that were transmitted from their forefa­ thers, but it is not something about the priority of Moses’ laws or the abandon­ ment of wisdom.

3 Examining the Relationship between Wisdom and Torah in Baruch 3:9–4:4 As mentioned above, Bar 3:9–4:4 is heterogeneous from prophetic voices in Bar 1:1–3:8 and 4:5–5:9 and appears as existing separately from the entire book of

and after Judas’s purification of the temple.” Adams, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, 4–5 cites the claim of Davila, that Baruch was composed after the composition of LXX­Jeremiah. See Davi­ la, Provenance, 225. 27 Fischer, Simulated Similarities, 21. argues that “there are further distint accents in Baruch, which separate it from Jeremiah and show other interests.” Adams, Jerusalem’s Lament, 75. says that “scholars need to temper some of their statements regarding Baruch’s dependence on Isai­ ah” and that “elements of this messages are shared with Isaiah, Lamentations, and other books of Jewish Scripture, but in none of these works is there a presentation of Jerusalem like that found in Baruch.” 28 Floyd, Penitential Prayer, 52–53. 29 Moore, Daniel, 280. 30 Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology, 327. thinks that such a similarity cannot be the literary reference since “references cannibalism are not typical to Dtr phraseology” (cf. 2 Kgs 6:24–31; Jer 19:9; Lam 2:20; 4:10).

356 

 JiSeong James Kwon

Baruch. Certainly, the characteristics of penitential prayer in the preceding part cease here and it is recognised that Bar 3:9–4:4 then makes similarities with Deu­ teronomy as well as with wisdom texts such as Job 28 and Sirach 24.31 Then a question is: “Does its author confirm the identification of Wisdom as the Torah in adopting the Deuteronomic material and scheme?” The entire section of Bar 3:9–4:4, following major and minor divisions of Codex Vaticanus (B) – major divisions in 3:9, 24, 4:5) and minor breaks in 4:1 – is possibly divided into four parts, Bar 3:9–14, 3:15–23, 3:24–38, and 4:1–4.32 There are noteworthy parallels in Bar 3:29–4:1 with Deuteronomy; e.g., Deut 30:16 and Bar 4:1. Wisdom­related Hebrew words, bı̂nâ, tĕbûnâ, ḥākmâ, are rendered as φρόνησις (“prudence” 3:9, 14, 28), σοφία (“wisdom” 3:12, 23), σύνεσις (“under­ standing” 3:14, 23, 32) and ἐπιστήμη (“knowledge” 3:20, 27, 37). The wisdom dis­ course in Bar 3:9–4:4 stands on the traditional notion of the divine wisdom and Wisdom personified, and the pedagogical practice through laws or instructions in wisdom texts is applied into Baruch’s pedagogy whose students are the Jewish people and whose instructions are laws of Moses.

3.1 Baruch 3:9–14 In Bar 3:9, the fact that ἐντολὰς ζωῆς (“commandments of life”) is presented as identical to φρόνησιν (“prudence”) tell us that Mosaic statues and rules (Deut 4:6, 8) to teach Israel are treated as Israelite aptitude and brilliance The audience of Baruch who resides in the foreign land of Babylon for ages are questioned by their defilement with dead bodies which implies the practice of can­ nibalism or which implicitly means the pollution through idol worships (vv. 10–11; cf. Ezek 20:31).33 In the response to those questions, Baruch tells that the reason why they were exiled in Babylon is that they abandoned πηγὴν τῆς σοφίας (“the spring of wisdom” v. 12), not that they broke the Deuteronomic commandments. The description of wisdom as life “source”/”spring” among LXX is found only in Sir 1:5 from the expanded Greek translation (GII; translated from HTII); it also

31 Sheppard, Wisdom, 93; Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology, 331–334; Nickelsburg, Torah, 229; For a recent work, see Grätz, Wisdom and Torah, 199–200; in his argumentation, wisdom in Baruch is interpreted in the centrality of the Mosaic Torah, in support of the books of Maccabees and in contract to Alexandrian Judaism. 32 See Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, 96; in a different way divides it into Bar 3:9–23 and 3:24–4:4. 33 Adams, Studies on Baruch, 98.

Is Wisdom in Baruch 3:9–4:4 Combined with Torah? 

 357

appears in 2 Esd 14:47.34 Walking in “the way of God” (ὁδῷ τοῦ θεοῦ) in 3:13 which Israelites should have practised and which is the route to eternal peace is another illustration of having “wisdom.” Then, path imagery in the wisdom poem, just as frequently mentioned in Proverbs 1–9, appears as being interrelated to the elected and the unelected in Bar 3:20, 23, 27, 31, 37. The last admonition of finding out where moral virtues such as φρόνησις, ἰσχύς,35 and σύνεσις in v. 14a exist is con­ nected to the commandment of listening to ἐντολὰς ζωῆς and φρόνησις in v. 9, and its purpose of having them is to result in “longevity,” “life,” “light,” and “peace” (v. 14b). If two words φρόνησις (“prudence”) and σύνεσις (“understand­ ing”) are semantically replaced to σοφία, the relation of the acquisition of wisdom with its benefits is similar to the connexion between wisdom and its consequence found in Prov 3:13–18 and 8:32–36.36 Thus, as Ruth Henderson and Grätz claim, there is nothing to tell that the first section Bar 3:9–14 is predominantly Deutero­ nomic and that expressions are particularly drawn from Deuteronomy (Bar 3:9; Deut 4:1–8, 32–40; 30:15–16).37 Marttila argues that the combination of law and wisdom in Bar 3:9 echoes the later Deuteronomis layer in Deut 4:4–6 (cf. 30:15) – ‫“( וׁשמרתם ועשיתם כי הוא חכמתכם ובינתכם לעיני העמים‬keep them and perform them, because it will be your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples” v. 4:6a) – and Ben Sira.38 Although Sirach 24 might have influenced the writing of Baruch, both Sirach 24 and Bar 3:9 are not standing on the Deuteronomic tradi­ tion. More significantly, the mention of wisdom and understanding in Deut 4:6 seems to be linked to the Israelite maturity through the observation of laws before foreign nations: 9 Ἄκουε, Ισραηλ, ἐντολὰς ζωῆς, ἐνωτίσασθε γνῶναι φρόνησιν. 10 τί ἐστιν, Ισραηλ, τί ὅτι ἐν γῇ τῶν ἐχθρῶν εἶ, ἐπαλαιώθης ἐν γῇ ἀλλοτρίᾳ, 11 συνεμιάνθης τοῖς νεκροῖς, προσελογίσθης μετὰ τῶν εἰς ᾅδου; 12 ἐγκατέλιπες τὴν πηγὴν τῆς σοφίας. 13 τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰ ἐπορεύθης, κατῴκεις ἂν ἐν εἰρήνῃ τὸν αἰῶνα. 14 μάθε ποῦ ἐστιν φρόνησις, ποῦ ἐστιν ἰσχύς, ποῦ ἐστιν σύνεσις τοῦ γνῶναι ἅμα, ποῦ ἐστιν μακροβίωσις καὶ ζωή, ποῦ ἐστιν φῶς ὀφθαλμῶν καὶ εἰρήνη. (Bar 3:9–14) 9 Hear, O Israel, commandments of life; give ear to learn insight. 10 Why is it, O Israel, why is it that you are in the enemies’ land, that you became old in a foreign land; 11 you were defiled with corpses, you were counted among those in Hades? 12 You have forsaken the spring of

34 The fountain of life occurs in Prov 13:14, 18:4, Sir 21:13, and Jer 2:13, 17:14. Moore, Daniel, 297–298. 35 Moore, Daniel, 298. notes that ἰσχύς (“strength”) is “not physical, but moral and spiritual strength.” 36 Moore, Daniel, 298. 37 Henderson, Inter­Textual Dialogue, 49–50; Grätz, Wisdom and Torah, 189–190. 38 Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology, 332.

358 

 JiSeong James Kwon

wisdom. 13 If in the way of God you had gone, you would be living in peace forever. 14 Learn where there is insight, where there is strength, where there is intelligence, to know at the same time where there is longevity and life, where there is light for eyes and peace. (NETS; Bar 3:9–14)

3.2 Baruch 3:15–38 Next, while Bar 3:15–38 mainly adopts Job 28 alongside Prov 8:22–31 and Sir 24:4–6,39 interpreters have pointed out that specific texts have been noticed as reminiscent of Deuteronomy. Just as the allusion of Ben Sira to Deuteronomy was suggested, schol­ ars have argued that Bar 3:29–30 alludes to Deut 30:12–13.40 The formulation of ‫­מי‬question, however, does not tell us little about the literary dependence, since those questions asking the answer, “no one,” and the human ignorance about wisdom are prevalent in other texts (Prov 30:2–4; Job 40:12–17; Job 38–42):41 τίς ἀνέβη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν καὶ κατεβίβασεν αὐτὴν ἐκ τῶν νεφελῶν; 30 τίς διέβη πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ εὗρεν αὐτὴν καὶ οἴσει αὐτὴν χρυσίου ἐκλεκτοῦ; 31 οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ γινώσκων τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτῆς οὐδὲ ὁ ἐνθυμούμενος τὴν τρίβον αὐτῆς. (Bar 3:29–31) 29

Who has gone up into the sky and taken her and brought her down from the clouds? 30 Who has crossed over the sea and found her and will bring her in exchange for choice gold? 31 There is no one who is familiar with her way, nor one who thinks much about her path. (NETS; Bar 3:29–31)

29

‫מי עלה־ׁשמים וירד‬ “Who has gone up to heavens and come down?” (Prov 30:4a) ‫ ויקחה לנו‬42‫מי יצלה־לנו הׁשמימה‬ “Who can go up to heavens for us and can fetch it for us” (Deut 30:12b) ‫מי יעבר־לנו אל־עבר הים ויקחה לנו‬ “Who will cross over for us beyond the sea and will fetch it for us” (Deut 30:13b) 39 Saldarini, Baruch, 962; Adams, Studies on Baruch, 101; Henderson, Inter­Textual Dialogue, 44–48. 40 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 96. tells that the “identification of Wisdom and Torah” was “hinted at in the wording of 3:29–30 (cf. Deut 30:11–13).” Henderson, Inter­Textual Dialogue, 54. points out that Bar 3:29–30 is “an allusion to Deuteronomy 30:12–13.” Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology, 332. thinks that rhetorical questions in Bar 3:29–30 were borrowed from Deut 30:11–14. Adams, Studies on Baruch, 110. supposes Baruch reverses the accessibility of the object in Deu­ teronomy. 41 Meinhold, Sprüche, 497; Clifford, Proverbs, 262. 42 While MT renders it as the prepositional phrase ‫הׁשמימה‬, SP reads it as ‫הׁשמים‬.

Is Wisdom in Baruch 3:9–4:4 Combined with Torah? 

 359

In Deut 30:11–14, the divine commandment (‫ )מצוה‬revealed by Moses is not inac­ cessible by Israelites (cf. 29:29) so that anyone can listen to, reach, and observe those laws. To the contrary, the reasoning in Bar 3:29–30 is closer to the sceptical nuance of acquiring Wisdom shown in Prov 30:4 than that of Deut 30:12–13 that assures the possibility of practising Moses’ laws. At the beginning of creation, God did not only invent “all the way to knowl­ edge” (πᾶσαν ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης) but also determined to grant his Wisdom only to Jacob­Israel whom he loved (Bar 3:36–37). After the election of Jacob­Israel, Wisdom in v. 38 is associated with human beings again. Henderson claims that the insertion of Bar 3:36–37 reflects “Deuteronomic covenantal theology” with the displacement of v. 38: Bar 3:36–37 could then be seen as a later insertion between v. 35 and v. 38:43 οὗτος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, οὐ λογισθήσεται ἕτερος πρὸς αὐτόν. 37 ἐξεῦρεν πᾶσαν ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὴν Ιακωβ τῷ παιδὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ Ισραηλ τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ. (Bar 3:36–37)

36

This is our God; no other will be reckoned with him. 37 He discovered the whole way of knowledge and gave her to his servant Iakob and to Israel who was loved by him. (NETS; Bar 3:36–37)

36

Certainly, its monotheistic expression and the use of “his servant” Jacob­Israel implies that it is related to the concern of Deuteronomy. God does not allow Wisdom for non­Israelites such as worldly rulers, foreign nations, and the giants (cf. Gen 6:1–4) to have Wisdom, but non­elected people will perish because of the lack of wisdom (cf. Deut 4:6). However, Bar 3:36 may also be interpreted as the monotheistic comprehension of Yahweh of Israel about prophetic sources such as Isaiah 43:10–11 and 45:5, 18.44 More significantly, a detailed comparison between Job 28 and Bar 3:15–38 tells us that Baruch 3:15ff is adopting Israelite wisdom materials.45 Of course, the entire framework of Bar 3:9–4:4 is not merely explained in the authorial adapta­ tion of Job 28, but also its theme concerning the inaccessibility to Wisdom and the

43 Henderson, Inter­Textual Dialogue, 45. 44 Burke, Poetry of Baruch, 109–110; Adams, Studies on Baruch, 112. Of course, the monotheis­ tic redaction in Deuteronomy 4 and 30 are more dominant than other prophetic texts such as Deutero­Isaiah (54:5) and Zechariah (4:14; 6:5); Deuteronomists during the Persian period in­ tended to adopt this religious idea. Römer, Deuteronomistic History, 172–175. However, this does not mean that the monotheistic idea is restricted only into texts of Deueronomists. “I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me, there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me” (Isa 45:5). 45 Steck, Buch Baruch, 128; Steck, Israels Gesetz; Henderson, Inter­Textual Dialogue, 44–48.

360 

 JiSeong James Kwon

incapability of human beings in finding out Wisdom is based on Israelite wisdom materials. Beginning with a rhetorical question – “Who has found her place, and who entered into her treasuries?” (Bar 3:15) – the poem declares that the way to Wisdom is remote from the sphere of the human world (Bar 3:29–31) and that God is the only Creator who knows the place of Wisdom and who possesses Wisdom from the beginning (3:32–35). Likewise, human knowledge in Job 28 cannot achieve the purpose of reaching into the hidden place of Wisdom: “But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?” (ESV, Job 28:12; cf. v. 20). Although human beings seek out Wisdom and compare her with earthly things, anything else cannot be equal with it (Job 28:13–19), and it is hidden from eyes of all the earthly creatures (28:21–22). It is God who knows the way to Wisdom and who coexisted and co­worked with Wisdom from the begin­ ning of the world (Job 28:23–27). Perhaps, the poem of Wisdom in Job 28 most likely refers to the poem about the birth of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22–31,46 which is based on the formation of Sirach 24. For this link, Walter Harrelson supposes that “Wisdom is a gift of love to God’s beloved people Israel,” and that “God’s gift of Torah is also the gift of divine Wisdom, a Wisdom at once hidden and revealed.”47 Hogan, likewise, notices that the contrast between “the futility of the human search for wisdom” and “human ingenuity” in Job 28 makes the distinctive view with the Wisdom poem of Baruch (Bar 3:16–31) where possessing properties of rulers will lead to the meaningless of life and that Baruch “overturns the traditional sapiential view that the acquisi­ tion of wealth and power is a result of wisdom (e.g., Prov 8:15–18).”48 As Harrelson and Hogan insist, the concept that Yahweh gives his Wisdom to Jacob­Israel does not appear in Job, and the notion of the national election in Job 28 is absent, and further, the futility of nations’ leaders in Bar 3:15–31 might be to some degree akin to the sceptical nuance in Eccl 4:13 and 9:14–17 and Job 28:15–19. However, there is little reason to assume that part of Baruch 3:16–19 reverses the conventional idea of wisdom such as Prov 8:15–18 making similarities with Eccl 4:13, 9:14–17, and Job 28:15–19.49 Even though it is not inappropriate to state that Sirach 24 is interested 46 Although Job 28 underscores the human unawareness and inability more than Proverbs 8, both agree that the limitation of human beings should submit to Yahweh and his instructions (Prov 8:1–21; Job 28:28). 47 Harrelson, Wisdom, 167. 48 Hogan, Elusive Wisdom, 149. 49 Interestingly, two tales about politics in Eccl 4:13–16 and 9:14–17 notice both the powerless­ ness of wisdom and the arbitrariness and oblivion of the public. Yet, this is not observed in Bar 3:15–23 which merely describe that powerful rulers and their descendants end up with their lux­ uary lives without knowing the place of Wisdom. Furthermore, it is hard to understand how Job 28:15–19 represents “a digression from the main topic of the poem” when the entire unit of Job 28

Is Wisdom in Baruch 3:9–4:4 Combined with Torah? 

 361

in the election of Israel among nations and the glorification of Jerusalem Temple, both Ben Sira and Baruch 3 intend to describe the pedagogical function of divine wisdom and Wisdom personified, just as Proverbs and Job do. What Bar 3:15–38 contributes to is that both non­Jewish people and Jewish people cannot attain Her, but only God knows the origin of Wisdom and assigns Her exclusively for Jews. Rulers of nations and their future generations have not known the “path” to “knowledge,” paths of wisdom, and have not possessed Her (vv. 16–21); especially, the way to wisdom was completely hidden from Canaan­ ites and Temanites (v. 22)50 and Ishmaelites (cf. Gen 25:13–25), “the merchants of Merran and Teman” in Arabia, “non­Israelites” who compose stories, and “the seekers for understanding” (v. 23).51 Primaeval giants even perished, since God did not determine to reveal “the way to knowledge” to them, so that they were destroyed by the lack of wisdom (vv. 26–28). Here, Baruch distinguishes the fate of foreign nations from that of the elected Jacob­Israel (vv. 32–37); just as Wisdom resided in Jerusalem Temple in Sirach 24. The idea of the deterministic fate may be observed in Proverbs 1–9 that classifies the foolish who cannot be educated from the wise who will be “increasing in learning” (Prov 9:7–9). Thus, except for the link with Jacob­Israel’s particularity (Bar 3:9–14, 22–28, 36–37), the discourse of Bar 3:9–38 is indeed originated from earlier wisdom materials. For instance, it is correct to tell that the author of Bar 3:36–37 repre­ sents the significance of wisdom to attest Jacob­Israel’s exclusiveness (cf. Deut 4:6), and he indicates that Yahweh who is distinctive from other deities possessed the source of wisdom to grant her to Israel as a gift. However, even though its emphasis on the election of Israel, the concluding part of Bar 3:38 describes how knowledge/wisdom personified appeared on earth and lived among human beings. The same notice can be found in the final statement of Wisdom’s role in

attests the incomparable and inaccessible value of Wisdom (except for Job 28:28). In fact, the same thing may be seen in the description of Wisdom in Prov 8:19 talking about that earthly wealth and rich are inferior to benefits of wisdom. Further, different from Hogan’s “overturning” the traditional sapiential view,” Proverbs sometimes has sceptical views on wisdom, wealth, and humanity, while Ecclesiates dramatizes the world of hebel rejecting the potential success of wis­ dom. Proverbs 10–29 frequently mentions that in a precarious life, unexpected disasters and fate, far from pious virtues of individuals, can happen to anyone. Whybray, Wealth, 24 argues that “the number of warnings about the opposite fate attests in a variety of ways to a deep con­ cern about the extreme precariousness of life.” The same tendency is found in Sirach; see Asen­ sio, Poverty, 151–178; Reiterer, Risks. 50 Wisdom of the Canaanites as the Phoenicians are mentioend in Ezek 28:3–5 (cf. Zeck 9:2–5; 2 Chr 2:7). “Teman” “was an Edomite city famed for its wisdom, as in Jer 49:7.” Moore assumes that “Teman” was drawn from a Temanite Eliphaz in Job 2:11. Moore, Daniel, 299. 51 Adams, Studies on Baruch, 105–106.

362 

 JiSeong James Kwon

creation (Prov 8:22–31) where She in the habitat on earth (Prov 8:31) delights in human beings;52 the residing place of Wisdom in Sir 24:6–12 is indicated as Jerusalem­Zion.

3.3 Bar 4:1–4 Bar 4:1a–b that has a similar formulation that appears in Sir 24:23 has been viewed as another tipping point to indicate the identification of Wisdom as the Torah of Moses.53 Continuing the wisdom poem, Bar 4:1a says: αὕτη ἡ βίβλος τῶν προσταγμάτων τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὁ νόμος ὁ ὑπάρχων εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

(4:1a)

She is the book of the decrees of God and the law that remains forever.

(4:1a)

Baruch found out that the failure of Israel living in the enemies’ land was to forsake the foundation of wisdom which probably refers to “the way of God” or God’s com­ mandments (3:12–13). Divine laws lead Jacob­Israel to the possession of Wisdom that is the precondition or intellectual capability to behave as the elected nation. In Bar 4:1a, to Israel the book of Moses’ commandments, the Pentateuch might be the most significant resource to have wisdom, but it can be neither wisdom herself nor the exclusive way to Her. The demonstrative pronoun, αὕτη (“she” or “it”) in 4:1a might be viewed as being equal to the form of the Mosaic Torah. The subject αὕτη in Bar 4:1a may refer to “Wisdom” the subject of Bar 3:38 whose main verbs are ὤφθη (“appeared”) and συνανεστράφη (“associated”) (3. sg. aorist). Or it in v. 37 could mean either the object, πᾶσαν ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης (“every way of knowledge,” feminine) or αὐτὴν (“her”; 3. fm. sg.) in v. 37 which indicates Wisdom; the object αὕτη in Bar 3:37 is parallel to πᾶσαν ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης. Specific words related to pathway imagery – ὁδός (Bar 3:20, 23, 27, 31, 37) and

52 Bar 3:38 could be seen as “a Christian interpolation” (John 1:4), Saldarini, Baruch, 968. ar­ gues that such a tradition about wisdom personified “goes back to Proverbs 1–9.” Steck, Buch Baruch, 50–51. 53 Moore, Daniel, 302; Schnabel, Law, 99 (“Law and Wisdom are one in the Mosaic Torah”); Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, 153–156 (“Identifikation von Weisheit und Torah”). In most cases, it has been argued that Bar 4:1 is reminiscent of Deuteronomy. Harrelson, Wisdom, 165– 166 (“wisdom identified as God’s Torah”); De Vos, You Have Forsaken, 182 (“an encomium of the Law”); Ballhorn, Weisheit, 274 (“Weisheit letztlich vollständig mit der Tora konvergiert”); Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology, 333 (“based on Sir 24:23 and Deut 4:5–8”); Grätz, Wisdom and Torah, 191–193 (allusions to Deut 4, 6, 11). Henderson, Inter­Textual Dialogue, 50–51 (“the equation of wisdom with Torah; an expansion of the deuteronomic expression”).

Is Wisdom in Baruch 3:9–4:4 Combined with Torah? 

 363

τρίβος (vv. 21, 23, 31) – repeatedly appears in the wisdom poem of Baruch. And the constructive phrase “the way of knowledge” (ὁδὸν δὲ ἐπιστήμης) in 3:20 fre­ quently appears with the notion about granting Wisdom (vv. 20–21, 27–28, 37); see vv. 20, 21, 23, 27, 31, 37 concerning the way(s) of wisdom or knowledge. In Bar 3:23, “the way of wisdom” (ὁδὸν τῆς σοφίας) is exchangeable to her paths (τὰς τρίβους αὐτῆς) and there those “pathways” are to be learned and granted by the Lord. Then, although the subject αὕτη in 4:1a in its context might be interpreted as either “Wisdom” Herself or many pathways to Wisdom, Wisdom as divine wisdom in 4:1a cannot be equal to βίβλος of the Torah or the Pentateuch,54 so that the pronoun “she” is most likely referring to the way (s) to Wisdom. This is similar to what I have claimed in Sir 24:23 – through the expression Ταῦτα πάντα βίβλος διαθήκης θεοῦ ὑψίστου – where all the benefits through having Wisdom, after Wisdom settled down in Jerusalem (24:1–12) are associated with the Moses’ laws. Similarly, that divine wisdom is only revealed to Jacob­Israel as the exclusive gift of the Creator (Bar 3:32–36) is the main topic of the wisdom poem of Baruch. Where many different ways to Wisdom are recorded is seen in a certain form of God’s decrees and laws (ἡ βίβλος τῶν προσταγμάτων τοῦ θεοῦ). Namely, the way of/to Wisdom is most closely interconnected with “the book of the commandment of God” in 4:1, just as listening to “the commandments of life” (ἐντολὰς ζωῆς) is linked with learning the content of “understanding” (φρόνησις) in 3:9. Therefore, there is little clue to suppose that the term βίβλος/ βιβλίον in Baruch which possibly means broad Jewish laws and legal traditions including the Pentateuch is equal to the wisdom that the traditional idea of wisdom is transformed.55 Perhaps, the indication “she is the book of the decrees of God and the law that remains forever” tells that Jewish laws and traditions which are guide­ lines for next generations are the most significant instructions to attain Wisdom. The expression in Bar 4:1a seems to be isolated from the portion of Bar 4:1b–4 which consists of commands (vv. 2–3) and the final exhortation toward Jacob­ Israel (v. 4; “Happy…”). Israel is instructed to choose “life” by holding wisdom, not to choose “death” by forsaking her, (v. 1b) and are commanded to “walk through” “her light” (v. 2b). As Shannon Burkes mentions, when Sirach 24 and Bar 3:9–4:4 talk about torah and wisdom, there are dissimilarities between them. For instance, she argues that while Baruch mentions “all Israel” in crisis and highlights torah, Sirach “addresses the individual and stresses wisdom.”56 Then, 54 Bar 4:1, “she” in the footnotes of NETS means “way of knowledge.” Pietersma / Wright, New English Translation, 930. Sheppard, Wisdom, 98. renders the demonstrative pronoun as “the way of wisdom.” 55  1:1, 3, 14. 56 Burkes, Wisdom, 272.

364 

 JiSeong James Kwon

Burkes concludes that “Ben Sira leans on the individual ‘life’ readily available through wisdom, Baruch on the national ‘life’ of the law.”57 However, her analysis is a quite superficial view. What Bar 4:1b–4 describes “life” and “death” is not distinctive from the dichotomy between “life” (‫)חיִ ים‬ ַ through the obedience to instructions of parents and Wisdom (Prov 3:2, 22; 4:10, 22–23; 9:11; 10:16), and “death” (‫ )מות‬followed by the foreign women and Folly (Prov 2:19; 5:5; 7:27; 9:18). Wisdom is portrayed as the life of disciples (Prov 4:13) and the tree of life (3:18), and whoever meets Her will gain life (8:35a, 9:11). The reason why disciples of wisdom are led to Sheol is that they failed to find out ‫“( ארח חיים‬the path of life,” Prov 5:6). As viewed in Bar 4:2, father’s teachings are metaphorically compared to a lamp and a light, and those disciplines are “the way of life” (‫ )דרך חיים‬in Prov 6:23. The lack of instruction of the wicked will bring forth “death” (Prov 5:23) and whoever hates Wisdom is to love death (8:36). Choosing righteousness or evil will correspondingly result in life or death (e.g. Prov 11:19; 12:28). Such Baruch’s teaching is not far from the notion of life and death in the sentence literature that are consequences of choosing “the teaching of the wise” or of rejecting it (Prov 13:14; 14:27). Then, Baruch seems to adopt the loss of “honour” and “dignity” in Prov 5:9, where the danger of “the strange woman” (‫זרה‬, Prov 5:3–8) is warned, into the command (“do not give your δοξα and your benefits to a foreign nation”) in Bar 4:3:58 ‫פן־תתן לאחרים הודך וׁשנתיך לאכזרי‬ In order that you do not give your glory to others and your dignity59 to the cruel. (Prov 5:9)

Therefore, although Baruch addresses his torah to Jacob­Israel in exile who “turned away from God’s laws” (ἐξέκλιναν ἐκ νόμου θεοῦ; 4:12; cf. 4:13), the way how individuals interact wisdom discourse in the wisdom poem of Baruch is the same as how the author in Proverbs 1–9 recognize his instructions and wisdom. Martilla notices that the phraseology of Bar 4:4 (μακάριοί ἐσμεν, Ισραηλ…) might be similar to the ending of Deuteronomy in Deut 33:29 beginning with ‫אׁש‬ ‫“( ריך ישראל‬Happy are you, O Israel!”) so that Baruch is “alluding to the last words of Moses the transmitter of the divine law.”60 However, while Deut 33:29 elevates

57 Burkes, Wisdom, 275. 58 Weeks, Instruction, 167. 59 For this term, there are two kinds of renderings. It could be read as “dignity,” “honor” (‫;)ׁשנָ ה‬ ָ see Waltke, Proverbs, 303. McKane, Proverbs, 217; Or it could be proposed as “year”; see Mein­ hold, Sprüche, 100; Clifford, Proverbs, 67; Van Leeuwen, Proverbs, 68. 60 Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology, 334.

Is Wisdom in Baruch 3:9–4:4 Combined with Torah? 

 365

the distinctiveness of Israel who is saved by the mighty power of Yahweh, Baruch is gladdened by the fact that the hidden way to wisdom through laws was revealed to his people (ὅτι τὰ ἀρεστὰ τῷ θεῷ ἡμῖν γνωστά ἐστιν; “because what is pleasing to God is known to us”; 4:4). The divine pleasure in Bar 4:4 includes not only practising the Deuteronomic Torah but also following parental instructions and traditional laws to walk through the light of Wisdom which is the representative discourse of Proverbs 1–9. In addition, Sheppard’s claim, that the wisdom poem of Baruch is the case of the sapiential interpretation of non­wisdom texts (e.g., Deut 30:12–13// Bar 3:9ff) presumes at some extent that the author of Baruch, just as its relation is shown in between Proverbs 3:1ff and Deut 30:15, accepted the Torah as a canonical formula and the notion of wisdom merely functions as a framework.61 Nevertheless, wisdom as a hermeneutical tool is not the right understanding of the wisdom poem of Baruch, in that the main theme is wisdom herself, not the Deuteronomic Torah. Also, it is not correct to tell that, to avoid the link with pagan wisdom in the wisdom poem of Baruch, the author cannot help adopting the Torah into the real wisdom of Israel.62 Wisdom either as the divine nature or as an independent entity was not completely neutral from the laws of Israel and Israelite religious rules from its beginning; the book of Proverbs indicates characteristics of Yah­ wistic religion with other maxims from the beginning of formulation.

4 Conclusion While the wisdom poem of Baruch interacts with the exilic setting in the Israelite history and might reflect other Jewish writings, its foremost ethos and ideas are neither Deuteronomic ideology nor the Mosaic Torah but are driven from the tra­ ditional idea in wisdom texts like Job 28, Proverbs 8, and Sirach 24, developing divine wisdom or Wisdom personified for Jacob­Israel. Of course, the nature of wisdom in Bar 3:9–4:4 focuses on the path to the divine wisdom, not Wisdom as an independent entity to be exalted,63 tells wisdom in the angle of particularism, not universalism, and dominantly describes creation order, although lacking the role of wisdom in creation like Proverbs 8. Such as the discourse in Bar 3:9–4:4 projects the typical wisdom discourse of Proverbs 1–9 and Job 28 into the exclu­ siveness of Jacob­Israel (3:9–10; 4:2–4) in exile. On the one hand, foreign nations 61 Sheppard, Wisdom, 98–99. 62 De Vos, You Have Forsaken, 183–184. 63 Calduch­Benages, Inter­Textual Dialogue, 157.

366 

 JiSeong James Kwon

will neither possess divine wisdom nor will know to access Her (Bar 3:20–23, 27–28), and due to the lack of wisdom, foreign nations will be perished at last (3:28). On the other hand, Jacob­Israel will in future know her ways, because God chose to grant Her to them (3:32–4:4). What Bar 4:1 highlight is that approaches to divine wisdom are exclusively possible for those who keep divine commandments and Jewish laws, not that Wisdom is identified as the Mosaic Torah.

Bibliography Adams, S. A., Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on the Texts in Codex Vaticanus, Leiden 2014. Adams, S. A., Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation: Baruch 4:5–5:9 and Its Relationships with Jewish Scripture, in: S. A. Adam, Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception (DCLS 23), Berlin 2016, 61–77. Adams, S. A., Reframing Scripture: A Fresh Look at Baruch’s So-Called ‘Citations,’ in: I. Kalimi et al. (eds.), Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity (DCLS 16), Berlin 2013, 63–83. Adams, S. A. ed., Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception (DCLS 23), Berlin 2016. Asensio, V. M., Poverty and Wealth: Ben Sira’s View of Possessions, in: R. Egger-Wenzel and I. Krammer (eds.), Einzelne Und Seine Gemeinschaft Bei Ben Sira (BZAW 270), Berlin 1998, 151–178. Ballhorn, E., Weisheit, die zur Tora führt. Die Israel-Mahnrede im Buch Baruch (Bar 3,9–4,4), in: U. Dahmen et al. (ed.), Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit: Herrschaft – Widerstand – Identität : Festschrift für Heinz-Josef Fabry (BBB 159), Göttingen 2010, 259–280. Blenkinsopp, J., Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism (OBS), London 1983. Burke, D. G., The Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9 (SCS 10), Chico 1982. Burkes, Sh., Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch: JSJ 30 (1999) 253–276. Calduch-Benages, N., The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9–15; 3:32–4:4), in: Adams, S. A. (ed.), Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception (DCLS 23), Berlin 2016, 153–170. Clifford, R. J., Proverbs: A Commentary (OTL), Louisville 1999. Crenshaw, J. L., Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction, Louisville 2010. Davila, J. R., The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? (JSJSup 105), Leiden 2005. De Vos, J. C., “You Have Forsaken the Fountain of Wisdom. ” The Function of Law in Baruch 3:9–4:4: ZABR/JANEBL 13 (2007) 176–186. Fischer, G., Simulated Similarities: The Intricate Relationship between the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah, in: Adams, S. A. (ed.), Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception (DCLS 23), Berlin 2016, 5–24.

Is Wisdom in Baruch 3:9–4:4 Combined with Torah? 

 367

Floyd, M. H., Penitential Prayer in the Second Temple Period from the Perspective of Baruch, in: M. J. Boda and D. K. Falk (eds.), Seeking the Favor of God. Volume 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism, Atlanta 2007, 51–81. Grätz, S., “Wisdom” and “Torah” in the Book of Baruch, in: B. U. Schipper and D. A. Teeter (eds.), Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of “Torah” in the Wisdom Literature of the Second TemplePeriod (JSJSup 163), Leiden 2013, 187–201. Harrelson, W. J., Wisdom Hidden and Revealed According to Baruch, in: E. C. Ulrich et al. (eds.), Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel, Valley Forge 1995, 158–171. Henderson, R., The Inter-Textual Dialogue between Deuteronomy 4, 30 and Job 28:12–20 in Baruch 3:9–4:4, in: S. A. Adams (ed.), Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception (DCLS 23), Berlin 2016, 43–59. Hogan, K. M., Elusive Wisdom and the Other Nations in Baruch, in: J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow (eds.), The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism, Grand Rapids 2011, 145–159. Hogan, K. M., Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution (JSJSup 130), Leiden 2008. Marböck, J., Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (BBB 37), Bonn 1971. Marttila, M., The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch, in: H. Von Weissenberg et al. (eds.), Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW 419), Berlin 2011, 321–346. McKane, W., Proverbs: A New Approach, London 1970. Meinhold, A., Sprüche Kapitel 1–15 (Zürcher Bibelkommentare: AT 16.1), Zürich 1991. Meinhold, A., Sprüche Kapitel 16–31 (Zürcher Bibelkommentare: AT 16.2), Zürich 1991. Milani, M., Rilettura sapienziale della Legge nel recupero dell’“identità nazionale” di Israele: RSB 15 (2003) 109–131. Moore, C. A., Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions (AB 44), Garden City 1977. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction, London 1981. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., Torah and the Deuteronomic Scheme in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Variations on a Theme and Some Noteworthy Examples of Its Absence, in: D. Sänger and M. Konradt (eds.), Das Gesetz Im Frühen Judentum Und Im Neuen Testament: Festschrift Für Christoph Burchard Zum 75. Geburtstag (NTOA/SUNT 57), Göttingen 2006, 222–235. Oesterley, W. O. E., An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha, London 1953. Pietersma, A. / Wright, B. G. (eds.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title: An Essential Resource for Biblical Studies, New York 2007. Reiterer, F. V., Risks and Opportunities of Wealth and Poverty in Ben Sira’s Wisdom: BN 146 (2010) 55–79. Römer, T., The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction, London 2005. Saldarini, A. J., The Book of Baruch, in: Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books (NIBC 6), Nashville 1994. Saldarini, A. J., The Book of Baruch, in: Introduction to Prophetic Literature, the Book of Isaiah, the Book of Jeremiah, the Book of Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, the Book of Lamentations, the Book of Ezekiel (NIBC 6), Nashville 2001, 927–982.

368 

 JiSeong James Kwon

Schnabel, E. J., Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics, Eugene 1985. Sheppard, G. T., Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament (BZAW 151), Berlin 1980. Steck, O. H., Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (FRLANT 160), Göttingen 1993. Steck, O. H., Das Buch Baruch; Der Brief des Jeremia; Zusätze zu Ester und Daniel (ATD Apokryphen 5), Göttingen 1998. Steck, O. H., Israels Gesetz Statt Fremder Weisheit: Beobachtungen Zur Rezeption von Hi 28 in Bar 3,9–4,4, in: I. Kottsieper (ed.), Wer Ist Wie Du, Herr, Unter Den Göttern?: Studien Zur Theologie Und Religionsgeschichte Israels: Für Otto Kaiser Zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1994, 457–471. Van Leeuwen, R. C., Proverbs, in: Proverbs – Sirach (NIBC 5), Nashville 1994, 217–264. Waltke, B. K., The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15 (NICOT), Grand Rapids 2004. Weeks, S., Instruction and Imagery in Proverbs 1–9, Oxford 2007. Whybray, R. N., Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs (JSOTSup 99), Sheffield 1990. Xeravits, G. G., The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5–5:9, in S. A. Adams (ed.), Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception (DCLS 23), Berlin 2016, 97–133.

Part 4: Cognate Literature

József Zsengellér

Good and Bad Angels in the Vitae Prophetarum Abstract: The collection of the short biographies of the Old Testament prophets, Vitae Prophetarum (Life of the Prophets) has different thematic threads recog­ nized by scholars. This article reveals one more aspect of these general topics, not mentioned before, but contributes to the thematic coherence of the book: angels. Both good and bad angels occur in the booklet. The appearance of the good angels follows a line of development in relation to the status of the prophets. The more activities the angels do, the less role the prophets have. The Vitae Prophetarum displays the process of the angelification of the prophets, which closes the time of the prophets. Keywords: Vitae Prophetarum, Life of the Prophets, good angels, bad angels, angelification

1 Introduction Géza Xeravits did not only study the literature of ancient Israel, but as a profes­ sional scientific tour guide, took people from Hungary to show them the Holy Land where these writings were conceived. During these trips, he led his tour groups into the Qidron Valley of Jerusalem where they could visit the artistically carved Hellenistic tombs dedicated to illustrious figures of Israel’s past, like the tomb of Zechariah. These tangible mementos of biblical and early Jewish protagonists were the foremost influence that inspired Géza to deal with the hag­ iographical collection Vitae Prophetarum (Life of the Prophets).1 He prepared an annotated Hungarian translation of this work and published several English arti­ cles on this topic.2 I as well will contribute to this topic. More specifically, I will pick up his discussion of the general topics of the Vitae Prophetarum which he defined as miracles, the temple of Jerusalem and the Elijah resurrection,3 and I will supplement with the motif of the angels.

1 Cf. the introduction of his Hungarian translation of the Vitae Prophetarum: Xeravits, A próféták élete, 7–14. 2 See Xeravits, Some Remarks; Idem, Wonders of Elijah; Idem, Some Common Themes. 3 Xeravits, Some Remarks. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-022

372 

 József Zsengellér

2 Angels as a Major Topic in the Early Jewish Literature Biblical writings describe angels primarily – among other roles – as the messen­ gers of the Lord who carry messages for the people. Their mission is to transmit the words of God who sent them. Prophets, in this regard, are very similar to angels. Therefore it is not surprising that the major prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible do not contain substantial sections concerning angels. Isaiah does not mention angels as such, only seraphim (ch. 6), hosts of Heaven (24:21), and perhaps Leviathan (27:1) belong this category.4 Jeremiah does not refer to them at all. Eze­ kiel’s sole allusion to angels is the cherubim – which he mentions in his chariot vision (ch. 1). Two books of the Minor Prophets, Haggai and Malachi, equate or identify prophets as the messengers of the Lord (Hag 1:13; Mal 2:7), while Zecha­ riah presents angels in two new roles: as an interpreter of prophetic visions (chapters 1, 4–6),5 and as heavenly advocates (3:1–10). In this same passage of Zechariah, there is another heavenly figure (angel?), satan, who acts as an accuser, having a negative role. On the contrary, the latest prophetic book, Daniel has a very vivid picture of angels. In addition to their main role as angelus interpres (chs. 7–11), there is an angel who has the power to deliver people from deadly situations (fiery furnace 3:28;6 lion’s attack 6:23), and there is another angel who proclaims the verdict of God in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar (4:10–14, 20), while yet another angel reveals the secrets of eschatology (ch. 10–12). The name of the arch­angel is also given: Michael (Dan 10:21; 12:1). It is obvious that the prophetic book of Daniel represents a new kind of pre­ sentation of angelic figures, which continues in the early Jewish literature. From this time on, there are (officially) no more prophets and no more prophetic reve­ lations, and what is more, there is no such thing anymore as the prophetic book. Though the book of Daniel is reworked by Greek scribes and added to, for example, a couple of stories about the young Daniel in which angels also play an important role. In these stories, Daniel is not really a prophet anymore, but a wise man who received his wisdom from God through the intermediation of angels. Later, in early Jewish literature angels are decisive figures. The whole Enoch tradition is based on the acts of angelic figures. In the book of Tobit, the arch angel, Raphael is the companion of Tobit who guides and directs the protagonist

4 Hogeterp, Angels, 381. 5 See the discussion of the role of the angelus interpres in the Old Testament’s prophetic litera­ ture in Schöpflin, God’s interpreter. 6 About angel within the flame of fire see Fischer, Moses, 79–82.

Good and Bad Angels in the Vitae Prophetarum 

 373

of the book. In the sectarian Qumran texts, human can have communion with angels to gain indirect divine knowledge and to transcend the human realm so that they could get closer to God. Apocalyptic topics and atmosphere are exempli­ fied by close encounters between angels and humans in these writings, and this picture is colored by a sharp dualistic tone.7 In light of this intensive presence of angels in the Jewish writings of the Hellenistic­Roman period, it is not surprising that in the last decade more attention has been paid in scholarly works to angels in early Judaism.8

3 Angels in Vitae Prophetarum Although Anne Marie Schwemer discusses all sections of Vitae Prophetarum in detail, she fails to highlight the presence of the angels as an important topic of the text.9 This is obvious from the index of subjects of her book too since the word “angel” is completely absent.10 Xeravits also fails to treat this topic, nevertheless, he made it clear that he would only discuss some of its “common themes.”11 Hare is the only one who points out the importance of angels in the collection.12 Seven portraits of the prophets are connected to angels, which is almost one third of the in total twenty­three descriptions. Therefore we can count this as one of the com­ mon topics which “seems to create a kind of inner thematic coherence of the col­ lection.”13 In view of the loose relationship between prophetic books and angels in the Hebrew Bible mentioned above, it is not surprising that not all of the prophetic figures are involved in the discussion of the book. From the Lives of the Major Prophets of Daniel, from the Minor Prophets of Habakkuk, Haggai and Malachi, plus from the non­writing prophets the Lives of Nathan, Elijah and Zechariah ben Jehoiada are discussed. There are direct mentions of and indirect references to angels or angelic roles in these texts, but we can make an additional distinction which shapes our presentation. That is the types of the angels or angelic roles well known from the early Jewish literature: good angels and bad angels.

7 Wassen, Angels, 519–520. 8 See the publications on this topics in Reiterer/Nicklas/Schöpflin, Angels. 9 Schwemer, Studien, 1:71–87 discusses under the rubric “5. Theologische Themen” only the provenance, the tomb, the wonder, the death and the apocalyptic prophecies of the prophets. 10 Schwemer, Studien, 2:379. 11 Xeravits, Common Themes, 119. 12 Hare, Lives of the Prophets, 382. 13 Xeravits, Common Themes, 119.

374 

 József Zsengellér

3.1 Good Angels The collection attributes positive angelic features to five prophets, three of them belong to the minor writing prophets. The fourth and fifth ones, the Lives of Zechariah ben Joiadah and Elijah contain some clues that could be grouped into the same category.

3.1.1 Habakkuk In contrast to the descriptions of the lives of the other Minor Prophets, the Life of Habakkuk is the longest one, containing fourteen verses. This text could be divided into four parts, the third one containing verses 6–9, and the fourth one containing verses 10–13 which belong to the angelic topics. Though part three seems to con­ tinue with the story in verse 5 about Habakkuk’s family harvesting, the writer takes the opportunity to smuggle in a hidden topic into this peasant idyll. 6 When he took the food, he prophesied to his own family, saying, “I am going to a far country, and I will come quickly. But if I delay, take (food) to the harvesters.” 7 And when he had gone to Babylon and given the meal to Daniel, he approached the harvesters as they were eating and told no one what had happened; he 8 understood that the people would soon return from Babylon.14

The narrative unit “when he took the food” is the continuation of a different story since there is no previous reference to any food to be taken. Thus Ὡς (when) is the Wiederaufnahme of a story in another Habakkuk tale. In the Greek version of the book of Daniel (LXX), there is a short fourth “addition,”15 having incorpo­ rated into the Bel and Dragon. This short word story is the rewriting of Dan 6, when the prophet is thrown in the lions’ den commonly counted as Dan 14:33–40. At the beginning of the tale, Habakkuk is preparing a meal: 33 Now the prophet Habakkuk was in Judea; he had made a stew and had broken bread into a bowl, and was going into the field to take it to the reapers. 34 But the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, ‘Take the food that you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions’ den.’ 35 Habakkuk said, ‘Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den.’ 36 Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head and carried him by his hair; with the speed of the wind he set him down in Babylon, right over the den. 37 Then Habakkuk

14 The English citations of Vitae Prophetarum are from the translation of Hare, Lives of the Prophets. 15 On the problem of the phenomenon Biblical “additions” concerning the book of Daniel see Zsengellér, Addition or Edition, 7–12.

Good and Bad Angels in the Vitae Prophetarum 

 375

shouted, ‘Daniel, Daniel! Take the food that God has sent you.’ 38 Daniel said, ‘You have remembered me, O God, and have not forsaken those who love you.’ 39 So Daniel got up and ate. And the angel of God immediately returned Habakkuk to his own place. (NRSV)

In the case of these two parallel but not identical ancient texts, the question emerges which one of them is the original or the earlier. Schwemer in her basic commentary on Vitae Prophetarum, lists the details which support the original­ ity of Dan 14:33–39 in view of the Life of Habakkuk, and, vice versa, those which support that the story of Daniel 14 was based on the text of the Life of Prophets. As a compensatory conclusion, she proposes that neither of the versions were original, and rather, an older version of the Habakkuk legend was used by both texts.16 The existence of such an Urlegende is an untestable proposal, but since this portion of the Life of Habakkuk contains only fragments of a story, it seems to have been based on some extant text. Similar to the texts of the other pro­ phetic biographies, that of Habakkuk contains only condensed information or those taken out of context.17 Therefore, in my view, the writer recognized the popularity of the original story, and VPr 12:6 continues or rather complements the narrative of Dan 14:35, before the angel takes Habakkuk to Babylon (14:6), and VPr 12:7 finishes Dan 14:39 after the angel took him back to Judea. The two verses comprise the whole tale of Daniel in the lions’ den in Stichwörter, though they are actually separate narrative units. Beyond the fractional storytelling, the separate nature of verses 6 and 7 is made clear by the adverb Ὡς (when) and con­ junctive phrase καὶ γενόμενος (and as being) at the beginning of the verses. For the reader who is familiar with the Daniel story in Bel and Dragon, it is striking that it is precisely the angel, who grabs Habakkuk by his hair to take him away, who is missing from the narrative of verses 6–7.18 However, the writer of the Life of Habakkuk did not make a mistake by failing to mention the celestial figure, rather he or she identified Habakkuk with the angel. The flight of Habakkuk on

16 She lists three arguments on the side of the Bel and Dragon passage and four on the side of the Vitae Prophetarum story. Schwemer, Studien, 2:109–111.136. It is also worth to note that the Life of Daniel does not refer to this story at all. 17 In fact there is one sentence at the center of the two and a half verses: “he (Habakkuk) had gone to Babylon and given the meal to Daniel” (v. 7), but we are not informed about the motiva­ tion of Habakkuk to move, or the way he went to Babylon, and indeed the situation of Daniel, and why he had to have any food. Of the five manuscripts of Vitae Prophetarum, only EP1 con­ tains a short supplement about Daniel’s situation in verse 7: εἰς τὸν λάκκον τῶν λεόντων (in the lions’ den). 18 Schwemer, Studien, 2:111 states that “Die Entrückung den Engel ist eine derart eindrucksvol­ le Szene, dass es schwer erklärbar scheint, dass die VP sie ausgelassen hätten, wenn ihre Vorlage sie enthalten hätte.”

376 

 József Zsengellér

the side of the angel is a well­known motif of this story which was later fre­ quently featured on artistic depictions. It is inconceivable that the writer would ignore it. The linguistic formulation of the story makes it evident that the journey of Habakkuk from Judea to Babylon was very short. The food was already pre­ pared before he left and when he arrived, the harvesters were still eating (ἐπέστη τοῖς θερισταῖς ἐσθίουσι).19 If there was no other method of flying transportation, like an angel – and there was not – , the prophet had to fly by himself. And this could only have happened if he himself was the flying creature – the angel. Consequently, this description of Habakkuk’s journey is an indirect representa­ tion of the flying messenger of the Lord – i.e. an angel. The identification of a prophet with an angel is not exclusively found in the Life of Habakkuk in the Vitae Prophetarum. In the last portion of the Life of Habakkuk, some apocryphal prophecies of Habakkuk are listed concerning the temple of Jerusalem.20 The common tradition about the hiding of the elements of the Jerusalemite cultic realm before the destruction of the Temple,21 has a special unit here in Habakkuk’s prophecy: 12. . . . the capitals of the two pillars will be taken away, and no one will know where they are; 13 and they will be carried away by angels into the wilderness, where the tent of witness was set up in the beginning

No other text of this tradition refers to the capitals of the two pillars (of Yakin and Boaz, cf. 1Kgs 7:15–22), but to smaller movable temple vessels. This is the reason why VPr 12:13 does not speak about human beings who take them away but angels. It describes the transportation by more angels: ὑπὸ ἀγγέλων. In the other versions of the hiding traditions, however, a prophet, mostly Jeremiah is the one who hides the sacred vessels before the catastrophe.22 The role of the prophet is taken over by angels. By using celestial figures the prophecy emphasizes the apocalyptic overtone of the rediscovery of the temple vessels. In this case, angels prepare the last revelation by putting the capitals in their designated place in the desert where the Heilsgeschichte of Israel started. The Life of Habakkuk presents seemingly two opposite situations of the prophet and the angel. In 12:6–7, the prophet takes on the character of an angel by 19 Though it is also logical that Habakkuk could have been away for a shorter time since he asked his family to give the harvesters food if he was late. Cf. Schwemer, Studien, 2:109. 20 On the topic of the Temple in Vitae Prophetarum see Xeravits, Common Themes, 121–126. 21 Cf. 2 Macc 2:4–8; VPr 2:9–15 (Life of Jeremiah); Jos Ant 18.4.1. (Samaritan story); 2 Bar 6:6–9; 4 Bar 3:8–11.18–20), and later in Rabbinic and Samaritan sources. See Kalimi/Purvis, Hiding of the Temple Vessels. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 161–163. 22 The only similar tradition where an angel hides the holy vessels is in 2 Baruch 6.

Good and Bad Angels in the Vitae Prophetarum 

 377

bridging big distances in space in very short time (flying), while in 12:12–13, the traditional function of a prophet is taken over by angels. The outcomes of the two situations are the same: angels or angelic abilities substitute the prophet.

3.1.2 Haggai The Life of Haggai is a very short summary. It contains only one additional detail in comparison to the Biblical book of the prophet: a reference to his death and his place of burial. Most of the prophets in Vitae Prophetarum are introduced by the tribal affiliation of the relevant prophet. In this part of the introduction there is a different description of Haggai: Ἀγγαῖος ὁ καὶ ἄγγελος23

Haggai is defined as a prophet at the beginning of his book (Hag 1:1), and the combination ‫ ַחגַ י ַהנָ ִביא‬is frequent in the book (Hag 1:3,12; 2:1,10), but the name stands also alone in some cases (Hag 2:13,14,20). Therefore it is surprising that in Hag 1:13, another combination is used: ‫חגַ י ַמ ְל ַאְך יְ הוָ ה‬. ַ Scholars generally translate the phrase as “Haggai, the messenger of the Lord,” though it is complemented by another peculiar phrase: ‫ ְב ַמ ְל ֲאכּות יְ הוָ ה‬which could modify the interpretation of the whole verse. ‫ ַמ ְל ֲאכּות‬is a hapax legomenon usually understood as message, or commission,24 and in this combination, “the messenger of the Lord in the com­ mission of the Lord” is a reasonable solution. However Clines in his dictionary equates the two words having the meaning of “messenger.”25 Though by the use of this rare word ‫מ ְל ֲאכּות‬, ַ the “angel” meaning of ‫ ַמ ְל ַאְך‬could be strengthened. The LXX omits this second part and has only: Αγγαιος ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου, which rein­ forces the close connection of the two phrases. Nevertheless, the whole verse seems to belong to the redactional framework of the book of Haggai, meaning that this expression is actually from a later period.26 It is evident that the Life of Haggai makes use of the ambiguous text of Hag 1:13 to introduce the prophet. The first clause of VPr 14:1 is an incomplete nomina­ tive sentence which omits the substantive word as predicate, what is normal in

23 The most important manuscript (Vat gr. 2125) has this reading. MS Ep1 has προφήτης ’proph­ et’ instead of ἄγγελος, while the other three manuscripts have just the name. 24 Following the dictionaries of Gesenius and BDB, Kessler, Book of Haggai, 149. interprets it as “Yahweh’s mandate.” 25 Clines, Dictionary, 290. 26 See the analysis of the redactional layers in Kessler, Book of Haggai, 31–41.

378 

 József Zsengellér

Hebrew, but not in Greek. Therefore ἄγγελος is not a noun meaning simply “mes­ senger” since all the other prophets could be called that as well. On the contrary, the word ἄγγελος appears in an emphatic spot which could imply that Haggai has a special capacity as the angel of the Lord. But this capacity is not a transcendent or celestial one, which is evident from the description of his death and burial. He is more than a prophet but less than a typical angel.27

3.1.3 Malachi The Life of Malachi, which describes the last minor prophet, has two references to angels, both of them are connected to the name of the prophet. The superscription of the book of Malachi has a constant interpretational problem relating to the identification of the protagonist of the prophetic book. Is it a proper noun or a common noun? The LXX translates the Hebrew phrase ‫ ְביַ ד ַמ ְל ַא ִכי‬as ἐν χειρὶ ἀγγελος αὐτοῦ. The Greek text understands the word ‫ ַמ ְל ַא ִכי‬not as a name, but as a common noun which means angel or messenger of God, altering even the suffix of the Hebrew word. Some commentators admit that the appellative of the unknown prophet is produced on the basis of 3:1,28 but the word is taken as the traditional name of the prophet of the book by most of the scholars.29 The Vitae Prophetarum uses the word as a name and entitles the section with it: Μαλαχίας. The shape of the word implies that the writer or compiler of Vitae Prophetarum (16:1) understands this personal name as it would refer to God, not to the proph­ et’s position, because the Greek form is the translation of ‫( ַמ ְל ַא ִכיָ ה‬my messanger/ angel is God). The text of VPr 16:2–3, however, uses the shorter form Μαλαχί, the transcription of ‫מ ְל ַא ִכי‬: ַ 2 And since the whole people honored him as holy and gentle, it called him Malachi, which means “angel”; for he was indeed beautiful to behold. 3 Moreover, whatever he himself said in prophecy, on the same day an angel of God appeared and repeated (it), as happened also in the days of the anarchy as written in Spharphotim, that is, in the Book of Judges.

27 Rabbinical literature discusses the angelic nature of Haggai, e.g. Lev. Rab. 1.1. See the whole discussion in Schäfer, Rivalität, 227. Cf. Schwemer, Studien, 2:143. n. 4. Mach, Entwicklungssta­ dien, 45–48 states that the word “angel” is an honorary title given to prophets and priest (cf. 4Q571, Jub 31:14; T. Levi 2–5; AscMos 11.17). 28 Reddit, Malachi, 161–162. Kessler, Maleachi, 94–95, 100–102. Mal 3:1 runs: “See, I am send­ ing my messenger (‫)מ ְל ַא ִכי‬ ַ to prepare the way before me. . .” 29 Cf. Hill, Malachi, 15–18, 133–145.

Good and Bad Angels in the Vitae Prophetarum 

 379

The text discusses the reason behind his name and finds two ways to interpret it. In VPr 16:2 Malachi is described as “holy and gentle.” The Greek words ὅσιος and πρᾷος are ‫ ַח ִסיד‬and ‫ ָענַ ו‬in Hebrew meaning pious (or merciful) and humble (or poor), and both are well known concepts of religious morality and social behavior in early Judaism.30 But a third attributive is also mentioned: εὐπρεπής – beauty. Beauty is connected to youth (VPr 16:4) and to angels (Acts 6:15). The Life of Malachi tells a story that the name of the prophet was given to him by the people of Israel on the basis of his attributes. The process described here is not without precedent in contemporary literature,31 and it would indicate that the title of the book is not the original personal name of the prophet but an honorary title. The second option also shows that the writer was aware of the nature of the name by which the prophet was called. Here a story is told about the prophetic activity of Malachi involved an angel who retells the proclamation of the prophet. This is not how the interpretative angel (angelus interpres) is usually represented because the angel does not interpret the message, only repeats the prophecy here. A parallel example is also mentioned here from the book of the Judges which actually cannot be found in the known versions of the book. Schwemer tried to identify Judges 13 as the source of this allusion, because the angel of the Lord appears twice to announce the birth of Samson.32 Unfortunately, the verb ἐπιδευτερόω does not occur in Judges 13 and the angel does not repeat the words of a prophet, though he is thought to be a prophet (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ִאיׁש ָה ֱא‬Judg 13:6),33 and his name is “wonderful” (‫ = ֶ ֽפ ִלאי‬θαυμαστόν Judg 13:18). Nevertheless this reference provides a scriptural context for the interpretation. Actually, the story in the Life of Malachi is anchored in the superscription of the prophetic book Mal 1:1 which states that these prophecies were presented “by my angel” (‫ = ְביַ ד ַמ ְל ַא ִכי‬ἐν χειρὶ ἀγγελος αὐτοῦ). VPr 16:3 interprets the sentence in the superscription so that the whole prophetic book – as it stands – was repeated orally by an angel. In the Life of Malachi, the angelic name of the prophet is read in two ways: first, as a result of the correlation of characteristics between the prophet and an angel; and secondly, as a reference to the repetition of the prophetic words by an angel.

30 Pss. Sol. 10:6; tSot 13:3–4; b. Ber. 6b. Schwemer, Studien, 2:181–183. Xeravits, Próféták élete, 97. 31 This correspondence points to an early rabbinic context of the text. Schäfer, Rivalität, 227. who lists several passages of rabbinic literature which form a comparison between prophets and angels. 32 Schwemer, Studien, 186–187. 33 Judg 13:6: “A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like that of an angel of God, most awe­inspiring.” (LXX: ἄνθρωπος τοῦ θεοῦ ἦλθεν πρός με καὶ ἡ ὅρασις αὐτοῦ ὡς ὅρασις ἀγγέλου τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιφανὴς σφόδρα). Here even the shape of the angel is different to that in VPr 16:2.

380 

 József Zsengellér

3.1.4 Elijah The Life of Elijah is one of the longest and most substantial text in this collection. His figure is of special interest to our topic because of the circumstances of his “disappearance.” The biblical narrative refers only to his place of origin, but does not mention the circumstances of his birth. This hiatus is filled in by a legend in VPr 21:2–4: 2 When he was to be born, his father Sobacha saw that men of shining white appearance were greeting him and wrapping him in fire, and they gave him flames of fire to eat. 3 And he went and reported (this) in Jerusalem, and the oracle told him, 4 Do not be afraid, for his dwelling will be light and his word judgment, and he will judge Israel.

The text is a vision of the father of Elijah and the interpretation of this vision is by an oracle. Both parts of the text refer to transcendental situations. All the Greek manuscripts have different conjugation of the first verb, but except for one manuscript, all versions reify that the mother of the prophet has not given birth to the baby. Thus, before he is born, Elijah is welcomed by anthropomorphic figures who shine in white. Angels as white­colored, shining manlike figures is a well­ known combination in Jewish tradition,34 therefore it is not necessary to specify further in the text, but just to be clear, the manuscript Dor reads “angels” instead of “men” as in the four other versions.35 The angelic nature of these figures is rein­ forced by their handling of fire. At this particular point, we experience a dramatic change. It becomes clear that the baby, who is going to be born from an earthly mother, is not a normal human being. He is wrapped in fire and is eating flames of fire. He is both surrounded by fire and filled by it. We find a similar depiction by Ben Sira in his laus patrum on Elijah (Sir 48:1): “Then Elijah arose, a prophet like fire (‫נביא כאש‬/προφήτης ὡς πῦρ).” In Life of Elijah, the prophet is actually an angel, or he becomes an angel, and is prepared for his earthly life by angels. He is immortalized by the fire,36 his mouth is pure and ready to transmit the godly words (Isa 6:6)37 already before his birth.

34 Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 58–59. Schwemer, Studien, 2:235. n. 63. Cf. e.g. the birth­legend of Noah in Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen 3–5). 35 See the textual variants in Schwemer, Studien, 2:63*. 36 Immortality by fire is a common motif in the antiquity: cf. the Hymn of Demeter in Homeric Hymns (2.231–291); Ovidius, Fasti, 4.549–560. 37 On different heavenly foods see LXX Ps 77:24–25; 2 En. 71:21; JosAs 16:1; Wis 19:21. LAB 19:5; VitAd 4,2; Cf. Nicklas, Food of Angels; Zsengellér, Taste of Paradise, 206–216. Xeravits, Some Remarks, 135–136.

Good and Bad Angels in the Vitae Prophetarum 

 381

The second part of the birth legend is about Elijah’s father being asked for an oracle. The answer he receives is about the future. Being or living in light is also connected to angels and immortality. In my view, however, the expression “his dwelling will be light” refers not (only) to his heavenly life, but rather to his earthly life after his birth, which is evident from the words about his earthly prophecies. Consequently, his life is entirely connected to the light which is the sign of his angelification.38 Though Xeravits maintains that the whole situation happened after the birth of Elijah, only the Christian manuscript Ep1 states this, the other versions place the story before the birth of the prophet.39 This prenatal timing transposes the story into the Heavenly realm. Elijah is coming from among the angels and – as the Life of Elijah closes the story according to the biblical narrative (2 Kgs 2:1.11; cf. Ben Sira 48:9) – he is leaving the earthly realm on a chariot on fire. Conse­ quently, the prophet himself is an angel.

3.1.5 Zechariah ben Jehoiada The last piece of the collection of the Vitae Prophetarum is a short presentation of the life, or rather the death of an otherwise unknown son of the high priest. Zech­ ariah was the son of Jehoiada, the high priest in the time of Joash, king of Judah. After the death of this pious high priest, the king is said to have turned away from the path of the Lord in 2 Chr 24:15–18, having been lead astray by his political leaders. They did not listen to the prophets, therefore Zechariah gave a short speech which led to him being stoned in the inner­court of the Temple (2 Chr 24:21). The Life of Zecharia ben Jehoiada recounts the time of this death as a turning point in the spiritual ability of the priesthood. It is written that “portents” (τέρατα) occurred in the Temple, but these are not the kind of miracles or wonders the reader is used to reading in the Vitae Prophetarum, rather they are bad signs. The first of these signs is that the priests were not able to see a vision of angels of God. . . (VPr 23:2)

The long series of accusations against the priests in the book of Malachi does not contain this ability of the priests, though they are described as “messengers of the Lord of hosts” (‫ה־צ ָב ֖אֹות‬ ְ ‫הו‬ ֽ ָ ְ‫ = ַמ ְל ַ ֥אְך י‬ἄγγελος κυρίου παντοκράτορός ἐστιν). The 38 Cf. the situation of Enoch who lives with the angels (1 En 58:3–6; 37:4; 106:7; 1QapGen 2:19–21 and JosAs 6:6). Xeravits, Some Remarks, 134–135. Schwemer, Studien, 2:240. 39 Xeravits, Some Remarks, 133.

382 

 József Zsengellér

motive of a priest seeing an angel in the Temple has parallels in early Jewish liter­ ature. The rewriting of the biblical story of Samuel’s commission (1 Sam 3) in 4Q160 elaborates the story of God’s visit to Samuel which he interprets as a “vision” (‫ ַמ ְר ָאה‬1 Sam 3:15). The Qumran text reads ‫מראה האלהים‬,40 the Greek trans­ lation of which is ὀπτασία ἀγγέλων as it is written in VPr 23:2.41 Our story is also anchored in 1 Sam 3, as it is evident from the similarity between the situation of 1 Sam 3:1 and the result of the inability of the priests in the Life of Zecharia ben Jehoiada. Consequently, the writer of the Life of Zechariah ben Jehoiada compares the “dark” age of the Judges before the appearance of Samuel – when there were almost no visions – to the age of Zechariah – but actually to his own age. The suspending of the ability of the priest to see the angels’ appearances in the Temple seems to continue in the time of the writer too.

3.2 Bad Angels Two biographies referring to angels could be separated on the basis of the charac­ teristics of their angels. These angels represent one figure called Beliar.42 The general usage of the word as ’wickedness’ in the biblical texts changed, and this word became the name of a prominent figure in the context of angels in early Jewish literature. Beliar as the angel of wickedness, he is labeled the ruler of this world (AscIs 2:4; 1QS 2:19), as well as that of the demonic world (AscIs 1:8). In some Qumran documents, Beliar leads the army or troops of the sons of the Darkness against the army of the sons of the Light (e.g. 1QM 1:1; 1QS 2:2). Beliar, the negative figure in the general dualistic milieu of early Judaism is said to be subdued and annihilated by God in the end (1QM 18:1–3; 4QFlor 1:7–9). His name has also a synonym: satan (AscIs 2:2–4). In our discussion, it is the relationship of Beliar to prophets that is relevant. The Jewish part of the Ascensio Isaiah reports on the heated conflict between prophet Isaiah and Manasseh, king of Judah and, who is keyed up by the false prophet Belkira, who came under the influence of Beliar. Thus Beliar seems to be hostile to God’s prophets.

40 On 4Q160 see Feldman, Rewriting, 33–53. 41 Further texts are 2 Macc 3:30; Lk 1:5–23. 42 There is an indirect reference to the wicked angel in VPr 12:14 where the text reads: “they will illuminate those who are being pursued by the serpent in darkness as from the beginning.” The snake of Genesis 3 is identified with the satan in ApMos 16:5; Rev 12:9.

Good and Bad Angels in the Vitae Prophetarum 

 383

3.2.1 Daniel It is striking that in the book of Daniel, angels have a prominent role, but the Vitae Prophetarum does not refer to any of them. Or at least, it does not refer to positive angelic figures, but there appears the worth of the angels, Beliar himself. In the description of the reasons why the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar received his punishment (Dan 4), the text reads: those who belong to Beliar become like an ox under yoke

(VPr 4:6)

In the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:11, there is an angel who commands the abscission and cutting down of the sky high tree. According to Daniel, the explanation of the appearance of the angel and his command is that “the Most High that has come upon my lord the king” (Dan 4:21). The command of the angel is that the king will live and think like an animal. The writer of the Life of Daniel turns the interpretation of the passage upside down, and presents the king as a beast, as a monster, half ox and half lion, like the well­known geniuses, the pro­ tecting figures of the Assyrian­Babylonian art.43 And the only angel mentioned here is the leader of the evil angels, Beliar/l. The text is a word­play on this name since ‫ ְב ִלי ָעל‬means “without yoke” and here the king is under the yoke of the arch evil. The rule of Beliar over wicked people is amply explained in different texts from Qumran,44 although unnamed but the Life of Isaiah (VPr 1:1) also alludes to Beliar by mentioning the sawing into two of the prophet what was carried out by someone under the leading of Beliar in Ascesnio Isaiah (ch. 5). The second appearance of Beliar in the Life of Daniel is in his portending work in the mountains of Babylon. The last of his four signals is blood flowing from the mountain which means that Beliar’s slaughter will take place in all the earth.

(VPr 4:22)

This apocalyptic description places the leader of the wicked angels, the arch enemy at the end of time when a big massacre will take place. A more explicit description of the role of Beliar in the bloody apocalyptic times is in the Testament of Benjamin (7:2), which speaks of seven swords of him.45 The prophecies of Daniel 43 The description of the Tyrants as beasts made up of different animals is common in antique and early Jewish literature. Cf. Plato, Resp 587B–589B; Philo, Praem. 88; T. Abr. 17:13; T. 12 Patr. Schwemer, Studien, 2:333–336. 44  1QSa, DC, 1QM, 4QMMT, T. 12 Patr. 45  “1 So I tell you, my children, flee from the evil of Beliar, because he offers a sword to those who obey him. 2 And the sword is the mother of the seven evils; it receives them through Beliar:

384 

 József Zsengellér

11–12 about the wars of the actual rulers of Babylon provide the context for the writer of the Life of Daniel to mention Beliar as a prominent figure in the course of the end­times. Beliar’s appearance in the two main sections of the Life of Daniel means that the bad angel is a tool for the writer or compiler of the Vitae Prophetarum to connect the two parts of the book of Daniel. But at the same time it verifies the awareness of the writer about the existence and work of wicked angels.

3.2.2 Nathan Next to the standard elements of the prophetic biographies, the Life of Nathan recalls the most emblematic affair of Nathan’s prophetic work in the biblical nar­ rative, the sin of David and Bathsheba (2 Sam 11–12). What we can read here is a real drama. Nathan was aware of David’s intention to commit a sin with Bath­ sheba, and the prophet hastened to prevent him from doing that. But “Beliar hindered him” (VPr 17:2). Thus if he could have reached the king before he had intercourse with the wife of David’s chief officer, everything would have hap­ pened differently. Bathsheba would not have conceived. David would not have been frightened and would not have wanted to kill Uriah. Uriah would not have died. God would not have punished David and Bathsheba, and their son could not have died. But “Beliar hindered him.” Because of the evil angel, two people died, a marriage was broken and many people fell into deep grief. The way Beliar hindered Nathan is nefarious because it exploits the religious commitment and confidence of the prophet. He was stopped on the way to David by a man who was murdered, lying naked on the side of the road. Nathan had to follow the prescrip­ tions of the Torah because of his religiosity, since Deut 21:23 ordains that people must be buried on the same day that they died. The parallel to the book of Tobit is evident, not only from the description of Tobit’s deeds at the beginning of the book (Tob 1–2), even more the self­revelation of Raphael. Here, not only is the pious deed of burying and covering the dead man mentioned (Tob 12:12–13), but the secret intention of the angel is also revealed.46 He was the one who put Tobit to the test according to the will of God. This means that the good angel caused the situation – placing the dead man’s uncovered corpse in the street – to make Tobit perform his pious deeds which led indirectly to his blindness. The same is the The first is moral corruption, the second is destruction, the third is oppression, the fourth is captivity, the fifth is want, the sixth is turmoil, the seventh is desolation.” 46 Schwemer, Studien, 2:201. assumes that „Warscheinlich hat Beliar sogar das Buch Tobit (12,12f vgl 2,2–8) ’gelesen’.” On the passage in Tobit see Xeravits, Self­Revelation, 75–79.84–87.

Good and Bad Angels in the Vitae Prophetarum 

 385

case here. An angel, though a bad one, put uncovered dead corps on the road to stop Nathan which led indirectly to the committing of sin by David. This story makes the acts of the wicked angel(s) clear who not only led people astray into sin, but also hinder them in doing good deeds, alms­deeds by appeal­ ing to someone’s finer feelings and pious attitude in order to obstruct the word of God and the order of the World He created.

4 Conclusion The figures of angels occur sporadically in Vitae Prophetarum. Not all texts of the collection feature or refer to angels – only seven of the in total twenty­three bio­ graphies. This, however, is not surprising, because the biblical prophetic books rarely have allusions to angels. Despite all that, the occurrence of angels seems to form a systematic concept in Vitae Prophetarum. The transformation of the role of prophets is presented in the sequence of the biblical prophets. In its first appear­ ance, in the Life of Habakkuk, the angel or angelic abilities substitute the prophet for a little while. In the Lives of Haggai and Malachi, the personality and exist­ ence of the prophets are in transition. The names and function of the prophets are identified with angels as a result of the correlation of characteristics between the prophet and an angel. Moreover the task of the prophet to pronounce the message of God is partially taken over by an angel through the repetition of the prophetic words. The radical change is in the Life of Elijah where the transformation of the prophetic existence and role into an angelic one happens by relocating it from the earthly realm to the transcendent one so that the prophet becomes an angel already before his birth and receives eternal life. Beyond this process of prophetic angelification, the final biography of the collection, the Life of Zechariah ben Jehoiada shuts the other normal way to communicate with God, and describes the inability of priests to receive revelations in the Temple. Vitae Prophetarum bears witness to the change where the time of prophets becomes the time of angels.47 The angelification of the prophets terminates the figure and role of the prophets from the early Jewish literature. As a companion to this process, the permanent antagonists of the prophets, the false prophets also change their character. They become bad angels, the antag­ onists of the good angels, who not only try to hinder the work and correct interpre­ tation of the word of God like how the false prophets did, but they have more

47 In a wider context see Mach, Entwicklungsstadien.

386 

 József Zsengellér

power over human beings as well to urge them to sin and try to rule the earthly realm through influencing them. Vitae Prophetarum presents the birth, life and death of biblical prophets, but ironically, at the same time, due to the way of its depiction of angels, it also bears witness to the disappearance of prophecy as well.48

Bibliography Clines, D. J. A., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Vol. V., Sheffield 2001. Feldman, A., The Dead Sea Scrolls Rewriting Samuel and Kings: Texts and Commentary (BZAW 469), Berlin 2015. Fischer, A. A., Moses and the Exodus-Angel, in: V. F. Reiterer et al. (eds.), Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (DCLY 2007), Berlin 2007, 79–93. Hanson, P. D., The Dawn of Apocalyptic. The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, Philadelphia 1979. Hare, D. R. A., The Lives of the Prophets, in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudephigrapha. Vol. 2., Garden City 1985, 379–399. Hill, A. E., Malachi. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25D), New Haven 1998. Hogeterp, A. L. A., Angels, the Final Age and 1-2Corinthians in Light of The Dead Sea Scrolls, in: V. F. Reiterer et al. (eds.), Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (DCLY 2007), Berlin 2007, 377–392. Kalimi, I./Purvis, J. D., The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan Traditons: CBQ 56 (1994) 679–685. Kessler, J., The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (SVT 91), Leiden 2002. Kessler, R., Maleachi (HThKAT), Freiburg 2011. Mach, M., Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglauben in vorrabbinischer Zeit (TSAJ 34), Tübingen 1992. Nicklas, T., “Food of Angels” (Wis 16:20), in: G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.), Studies in the Book of Wisdom (SJSJ 142), Leiden 2010, 83–100. Reddit, P. L., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NBC), London/Grand Rapids 1995. Reiterer, F. V.,/Nicklas, T. and Schöpflin, K. (eds.), Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (DCLY 2007), Berlin 2007. Schäfer, P., Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen. Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung (SJ 8), München 1975. Schöpflin, K., God’s Interpreter. Interpreting Angel in the Post-Exilic Prophetic Visions of the Old Testament, in: V. F. Reiterer et al. (eds.), Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (DCLY 2007), Berlin 2007, 189–204. Schwartz, D. R., 2Maccabees (CEJL), Berlin 2008. 48 On the disappearance of prophecy or its metamorphosis into apocalyptic see Hanson, Dawn, 402–409.

Good and Bad Angels in the Vitae Prophetarum 

 387

Schwemer, A. M., Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum, Bd. 1–2. (TSAJ 49–50), Tübingen 1995–1996. Wassen, C., Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: F. V. Reiterer et al. (eds.), Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (DCLY 2007), Berlin 2007, 499–523. Xeravits, G. G., Some Common Themes in the Early Jewish Prophetic Biographies of Vitae Prophetarum, in: R. Egger–Wenzel et al. (eds.), Weisheit als Lebensgundlage (DCLS 15), Berlin 2013, 437–450. Xeravits, G., A próféták élete. Bevezetés, fordítás és jegyzetek (Eulogia), Budapest 2010. (in Hungarian). Xeravits, G. G., Some Remarks on the Figure of Elijah in Lives of the Prophets 21:1–3, in: A. Hilhorst et al. (eds), Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garcia Martinez (SJSJ 122), Leiden 2007, 499–508. Xeravits, G.G., The Wonders of Elijah in the Lives of the Prophets, in: Idem, From Qumran to the Synagogues (DCLS 43), Berlin 2020, 141–147. Xeravits, G. G., The Angel’s Self-Revelation in Tobit 12, in: J. Baden et al. (eds.), Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy (SJSJ 175), Leiden 2017, 1399–1417. Zsengellér, J., Addition or Edition? Deconstructing the Concept of Additions, in: G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.), Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books (DCLS 5), Berlin 2010, 1–15. Zsengellér, J., “Taste of Paradise”. Interpretation of Exodus and Manna in the Book of Wisdom, in: G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.), Studies in the Book of Wisdom (SJSJ 142), Leiden 2010, 197–216.

Karin Schöpflin

“All Is Vanity, Saith the Preacher” A Psalm-like Poetical Abstract of Qohelet in Lord Byron’s Hebrew Melodies Abstract: Lord Byron’s poem is inspired by the Book of Qohelet. He transfers Qohelet’s feeling of life into a psalm, thereby condensing the Biblical material in his own way. He makes Qohelet, whom he conventionally identifies with King Solomon, look back at the happy times in his life. He interprets the Preacher’s resignation and depression by introducing the serpent from Genesis 3; this aspect helps to generalize Qohelet‘s pessimistic outlook on human life. Keywords: psalm, vanity, love, serpent, carpe diem

1 Introduction In 1815 the British poet George Gordon Lord Byron (1788–1824) published a col­ lection of 22 shorter poems entitled Hebrew Melodies. These cover a wide range of Old Testament characters1 and themes.2 They were set to music by two com­ posers mentioned in the advertisement, “Mr. Braham and Mr. Nathan.”3 Lord Byron’s works were most popular at the time; he also plays an important part in the development of the Romantic movement both in England and in Europe. As it is not common in Romanticism to turn to the Bible as a source of inspiration, Byron’s collection of Hebrew Melodies is something special, and therefore worth regarding from a theological point of view. The poem that will be interpreted here focuses on Qohelet. Its title is put in quotation marks as it quotes the central thesis of the book (“all is vanity”),4 1 E.g. Saul, King David, Jephtha’s daughter, Belshazzar. 2 E.g. the destruction of Jerusalem, laments sung by the exiled. 3 Byron, Poetical Works, 77. 4 The quotation is not precise, though; Qoh 1:2 and 12:8 say „Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.” Cf. The Holy Bible, Oxford without year of publication. Byron’s Bible is, of course, the Authorized King James Version. Notes: This is in grateful memory of the inspiring conferences Géza Xeravits organized at Sapientia College in Budapest; apart from other topics, he invited me to read papers on Qohelet and reception history of Susanna and Judith. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-023

390 

 Karin Schöpflin

including a hint to the biblical speaker, the Preacher. Byron’s contemporaries were well­versed enough in the Bible to recognize the reference to Qohelet and the quote of its motto. At the same time Byron’s contemporary readers would associate the catchword “vanity” in the title with the well known tradition of the vanitas motif; from the Middle Ages, it became familiar in painting, for instance. Painters developed a special allegorical iconography for it (e.g. Dance of Death; hour­glass; withered flowers; blown out candle). The motif then served as a memento mori. – Byron takes the traditional outlook on the Preacher for granted, namely that he is to be identified with King Solomon, David’s son and successor, the famous king exceeding in wisdom and wealth. ‘All is Vanitiy, Saith the Preacher’ I Fame, wisdom, love, and power were mine,  And health and youth possess’d me; My goblets blush’d from every vine,  And lovely forms caress’d me; I sunn’d my heart in beauty’s eyes,  And felt my soul grow tender; All earth can give, or mortal prize,  Was mine of regal splendour.

[5]

II I strive to number o’er what days  Remembrance can discover, Which all that life or earth displays  Would lure me to live over. There rose no day, there roll’d no hour  Of pleasure unembitter’d; And not a trapping deck’d my power  That gall’d not while it glitter’d.

[10]

[15]

III The serpent of the field, by art  And spells, is won from harming; But that which coils around the heart,  Oh! Who hath power of charming? It will not list to wisdom’s lore,  Nor music’s voice can lure it; But there it stings for evermore  The soul that must endure it.5

5 Byron, Poetical Works, 80–81.

[20]

“All Is Vanity, Saith the Preacher” 

 391

2 Stanza I. The poem consists of three eight­line stanzas divided into two quatrains each by the rhyme scheme ababcdcd. A first person singular speaker is found here in the poem and in Qohelet as well. In the first stanza the speaker characterizes his life in retrospective (cf. the verb forms set in the past tense). To start with he enu­ merates six key terms: fame, wisdom, love, power, health and youth. Through these, the first two lines merge information taken from the Biblical account of Solomon’s biography given in 1Kings 3–10 with traits deduced chiefly from the memoir in Qoh 1:12–2:26. The chapters in 1Kings emphasize the king’s wisdom, wealth, and fame. 1Kings 3 focuses on wisdom as his regency is based on this. At Solomon’s already wise request God grants him wisdom and adds riches, honour and a long lifespan – so that these appear as consequences of a wise disposition. The account of the lawsuit in 1Kgs 3:16–27 illustrates Solomon’s practical wisdom when he functions as a judge. The king’s exceeding wisdom is mentioned again in 1Kgs 4:29–34, and especially in the episode of the Queen of Sheba, who comes to Jerusalem in order to put Solomon’s wisdom to the test (1Kings 10). Several passages describe Solomon’s abundant possessions: the royal household consists of numerous personnel and is entertained at great expenditure (1Kgs 4:22–28); he erects an expensive royal palace (1Kgs 7:1–12) and has the Lord’s temple made of most exqui­ site material and with choice craftsmanship (1Kgs 6:2–35; 7:13–51). Foreign kings and the Queen of Sheba supply him with costly gifts (1Kgs 10:2, 20, 25); everything in the palace is dipped in gold (1Kgs 10:16–18, 21; cf. 10:14–15, 26–29). As a result, Solomon is famous for his wisdom and his riches (3:28; 4:30–34; 10:1, 23–24). Sol­ omon’s power seems to go nearly without saying – 1Kgs 4:21 mentions it explicitly. As for the King’s love, this is only referred to briefly in 1Kings 11, a later Deu­ teronomist appendix to Solomon’s biography. It says that Solomon loved his wife, the daughter of Pharao, and “many strange women” (1Kgs 11:1), and these non­ Israelite women are the reason why he turns to idolatry (11:3). This is a severe contrast to 1Kgs 3:3, saying “And Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father” as he thus fulfils the commandment in Deut 6:5 “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” The statement in 1Kgs 3:3 sets the tone for the biography in 1Kings 3–10.6

6 Whether his people love Solomon readers of 1Kings 3–10 do not come to know.

392 

 Karin Schöpflin

1Kings does not tell us about Solomon’s health; as he was a blessed man he would most probably have been in good health. As for his youth, he was assum­ edly still rather young when God appeared to him in Gibeon.7 The Preacher’s memoir offers mainly information about his wealth (“great estate,” Qoh 1:16; 2:9) through which he can afford his experiments (Qoh 2:4–8), and about his wisdom (Qoh 1:16; 2:9) and enquiries into it (Qoh 2:12). As he is surpassing all predecessors in Jerusalem (Qoh 2:9) it is implied that he would be a famous man. A close look at the biblical texts indicates that Byron’s initial portrait of the royal speaker relies on 1Kings 3–10 (11) for the main part. The poet shares the traditional exegetic view that the Preacher must be identified with King Solomon which is based on the combination of Qoh 1:1 and 1:12. The order of the four key words in v. 1 is remarkable as “fame” comes first, “wisdom” – Solomon’s most characteristic trait in the Bible – takes the second place; “love” is no prevailing motif in Solomon’s biblical biography, and his “power” is described there chiefly by implication. In 1Kings Solomon’s love has two different aspects, though: it is directed to God in the first place (1Kgs 3:3), and – fatally – to his wife and con­ cubines in the second (1Kings 11). As will become obvious, there is no god in Byron’s poem, so that “love” is restricted to its sexual aspect. Solomon’s riches, an important feature in the biblical account, are dealt with later on in the poem. One might argue that the word “youth” introduces the notion of time that occu­ pies the Preacher’s reflections to a considerable extent.8 The next four lines (vv. 3–6) illustrate the king’s luxurious, maybe even excessive style of life: his wine­cups – according to 1Kgs 10:21 Solomon’s “drink­ ing vessels were of gold” – are filled with red (“blush’d”) wine originating from all over the world (“every vine”),9 an indication of opulence. Beautiful women are with him and touch him tenderly. Both his heart and his soul are affected by these beauties, as the appreciating glances from their beautiful eyes make him feel as if his heart was exposed to the sun, and these heart­warming women provoke affec­ tionate inner (“soul”) feelings. The description contributes to the key word “love” (v. 1), at the same time it alludes to Qohelet’s repeated recommendation to enjoy one’s life by eating and drinking, and in the company of a beloved wife.10 Byron’s

7 In 1Kgs 3:7 Solomon claims that he is only a little child; either he is indeed still very young, or this is a rhetorical means to express modesty. 8 Cf. especially his famous reflection on the right moment (Qoh 3:1–8), and his appeal to the young people to enjoy their youth (Qoh 11:9) and the following illustration of degeneration that accompanies old age (Qoh 12:1–7). 9 Cf. Qoh 2:4: the king owns vineyards. 10 Cf. Qoh 2:24; 3:13; 5:18; 8:15; 9:7 (eating and drinking); 9:9 (the wife).

“All Is Vanity, Saith the Preacher” 

 393

Solomon, however, does not consider the pleasant properties as God’s gifts, as Qohelet does.11 Nevertheless, Qohelet’s carpe diem motif appears to be adopted when Byron’s verses conjure up a feast; but the situation still lacks the tone of resignation that prevails in Qoh, as Qohelet considers his former experience and recognizes the limitations and the transience of human existence; at the same time his quest for understanding turns out to be futile so that his activities result in a sense of frustration. The last two lines of the first stanza sum up the king’s privileged situation: he had everything at his disposal that an earthly life offers or that human beings value highly. That made his royal status magnificent. In stanza I, the king himself depicts autobiographically the legendary King Solomon in retrospect, who enjoys life as a lasting festivity without being affected by affliction and distress.

3 Stanza II. With the second stanza the speaker turns to the present. He is trying hard to count those of the days he has spent in the way described before, and that would be remembered after his death (vv. 9–10). So he wants to find out what will remain. Is there anything within earthly existence that might entice him to live on? (vv. 11–12). Qohelet is also concerned with remembrance, and he is convinced that nothing will remain, according to his maxim that everything is futile (“vain”).12 Considering that Qohelet’s motto is quoted in the poem’s title, it does not come as a surprise that the speaker’s answer here also sounds rather depressing: Every single day, even every single hour he was enjoying the pleasures of life he expe­ rienced a sense of embitterment; at any time he found at least a flaw if not a fault with his seemingly happy situation (vv. 13–14). To say it in simple words: there is no untroubled experience in the world, and there is no state of perfection. The preacher does not tell us here, though, what this embitterment was. The stanza’s last two lines (vv. 15–16) illustrate what this means in terms of his royal status: all insignia of regal rank are just external, superficial, even trifling decorations, that is, they are in fact “vanity.” Though shining splendidly (“glitter’d”), they were really rubbing the skin (“galled”), that is, having a harassing effect on him. This aspect corresponds chiefly to the results of Qohelet’s description of his experi­ ments and his quest for knowledge (Qoh 1:12–2:26), but it also reflects the atmos­ phere of despondency inherent in the biblical book throughout. 11 Cf. Qoh 2:24; 3:13; 5:19. 12 Cf. Qoh 1:11; 2:16.

394 

 Karin Schöpflin

4 Stanza III. In the last stanza the speaker talks about the result these observations have for his notion of life. The first words “the serpent of the field” (v. 17) at once associate the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.13 Traditionally, the serpent’s follow­ ing words (Gen 3:1b, 4–5) were interpreted as the instigation of the Fall, so that the first association is that of a mythological creature causing harm in an existential dimension. Thus, it comes as a surprise that the speaker now refers to the exotic phenomenon of a snake charmer whose art and magic practice (“spell”) succeed in controlling an otherwise potentially dangerous animal, making it harmless. Very probably Byron was inspired by Qohelet himself, who says “Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment” (10:11a), and this detail proves how carefully he had read the biblical book. – But then, the speaker experiences a form of a snake still other than the mythological serpent in Gen 3 and the material snake, namely a metaphorical one: It is twisting metaphorically around his heart; taken liter­ ally, this action would compress this organ and cause an extremely unpleasant anguish. And it is this oppression that spoils any potentially happy moment in life. By the metaphor of the serpent Byron has the first person speaker establish an associative connection with the Fall so that the reader is led to assume that human primeval sin is responsible for the deterioration of the human condition, namely, there is nothing human beings may enjoy without a share of bitterness – be it ever so small. However, it suffices to mar any moment of pleasure. So implic­ itly, King Solomon suffers from the consequences of Adam’s and Eve’s transgres­ sion14 – as every human being does. In a question (vv. 19–20) the speaker utters his wish that someone powerful would charm this metaphorical serpent – as the snake charmer does with a real animal. But the fulfilment of this wish turns out to be unrealistic immediately (vv. 21–22). This special snake does not listen to wisdom’s advice (“lore,” an analogy to the charmer’s “art”), nor does music – as the charmer’s flute does – restrain it. Through the imagery Byron refers to Qohelet’s frustration with wisdom on the one hand, and to sensuous experience (represented by “music” here) on the other.15 So, neither reason nor sensitivity may help to overcome this miserable condition.

13  „Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field“ (Gen 3:1, Italics mine). The serpent is one of these beast, though exceeding them by subtlety. 14 In Qoh 3:19–21 we find allusions to Gen 2 and 3: Humans return to dust cf. Qoh 3:20 and Gen 3:19. Human and animal beings are both made of clay according to Gen 2:19, cf. Qohelet’s view that humans and animals share the lot of being mortal (Qoh 3:19). 15 For the healing effect of music cf. David playing the harp in order to heal Saul’s depression (1Sam 16:23).

“All Is Vanity, Saith the Preacher” 

 395

The serpent constricting the human heart is always and forever present; man has to endure the suffering caused by this boa constrictor (vv. 23–24). Thus the end presents a pessimistic outlook on life as the climax of the poem. It is even more pessimistic than Qohelet’s assessment of the condition humaine.

5 Summary In his short poem Byron gives an extremely condensed rendering of the Book of Qohelet including material from 1Kings 3–10. At the same time the poet offers his personal interpretation of the Preacher’s Book. In comparison with biblical analogies Byron’s short poem offers the following aspects: (1) The first two stanzas confront King Solomon’s happy times as a young ruler (I) with Solomon grown older (II). The older, or rather elderly king obviously feels time going by so that he thinks about what is worthwhile to remember of his lifetime. It is remarkable that Byron integrates Qohelet’s carpe diem motif into both stanzas. In the first stanza it creates an atmosphere of fes­ tivity, namely wine and women, the young king is enjoying. In the second stanza, however, the elderly Solomon finds that in fact every pleasure is infected with at least a tint of anguish. With Qohelet and the quotation in the poem’s title in mind, it is probable that futility and transitoriness bother the preacher. In contrast to Qohelet, who in spite of his frustration finds a solu­ tion in enjoying the gifts of God, Byron’s preacher feels even discontent with the pleasures that life granted him. He remains an utterly unhappy man with a completely pessimistic outlook on life, therefore. It is an important point that Qohelet believes in God as the creator and the giver of all material goods, although God is mysterious and inscrutable to him. In Byron’s poem God is not even mentioned, there seems to be no god at all. This might explain why Byron’s preacher exceeds the Bible’s Qohelet in his air of suffering and pessi­ mism. Thus Byron is catching the depressed mood of the Book of Qohelet and intensifies it – last but not least by eliminating God. (2) Through referring to Gen 3 in the last stanza, Byron succeeds in generalizing the Preacher’s experience and feelings. The Fall instigated by the serpent’s activity concerns the first human couple and hence all mankind. Thus, the speaker of the poem becomes a representative of all men (and women). Tra­ ditional exegesis which is represented by St. Paul,16 for instance, has it that 16 Cf. Rom 5:12.

396 

 Karin Schöpflin

Adam and Eve became mortal because they disobeyed God’s commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. So, to Byron’s preacher transience and mortality are the problem and the reason for the speaker’s state of mind. To him there is no charmer who would control the snake and make it harmless so that he might enjoy pleasures of life without trouble and distress. By the way, the serpent as traditionally interpreted in Satanic terms, is an element appearing in so­called Black Romanticism. Byron was deeply involved in this;17 he was inspired by Milton’s Paradise Lost (1674) and fasci­ nated by Milton’s Satan as an anti­hero. (3) The poem is psalm­like in its similarity to the lament of an individual, a genre that is quite customary in the Psalter. In Psalms laments include descriptions of the psalmist’s suffering. Besides, usually there occurs an appeal to God and prayer for help, sometimes the psalmist utters confidence in God and, after a change of tone, even thanksgiving when God has heard his prayer and saved him from harm. These elements are characteristically not found in Byron’s poem. His preacher concentrates on the lament, and thus indicates that there is no solution to his problem and no way to overcome his frustra­ tion with life. Obviously, for him there is no God he may appeal to. As Byron’s preacher is reflecting on his own situation and also on life in general, the poem could be classified as a wisdom psalm. Qohelet’s enquiry into human existence makes him recognize its ambivalence: because his quest for understanding leads him to the conclusion that human capacity to obtain insight and knowledge is extremely limited he feels resignation. But still he maintains that humans can and ought to enjoy what they have been given. Byron’s preacher’s reflecting, however, results in the statement that living means suffering, and that this suffering is due to primeval sin. Since Byron’s poem as part of Hebrew Melodies does not transcend Qohelet’s Old Testament horizon, humanity represented by the preacher­king has to endure this troublesome, even painful existence. Last but not least Byron’s poem is designed as a text to be sung and accompanied by music; so are psalms as the first lines18 of quite a number of psalms tell us.

17 Cf. Praz, Liebe, Tod und Teufel, 75–89. 18 Cf. e.g. Ps 4–9; 11; 22; 42; 80. These lines are missing, though in the King James Authorized Version.

“All Is Vanity, Saith the Preacher” 

 397

Bibliography Byron, G. G., Poetical Works (Frederick Page ed.). A New Edition Corrected by John Jump, Oxford 1975. Praz, M., Liebe, Tod und Teufel. Die schwarze Romantik, München 1970.

Part 5: Antique Synagogue

Anders Klostergaard Petersen

An Evolutionary Perspective on Temple, Synagogue, and Ekklēsia with Special Focus on Paul A Dialogue with Géza Xeravits (and several other colleagues) Abstract: In dire contrast to a long tradition for claiming an antagonistic rela­ tionship between the Temple, on the one side, and synagogue and ekklēsia, on the other, a new understanding has formed during the past two decades. Criti­ cising the old view for endorsing a Protestant supersessionist stance over and against Judaism (and Roman Catholicism), advocates of the recent perspective argue for a harmonious, complementary, and positive connection between the Temple and synagogue and ekklēsia. The current view represents an advance with respect to the older perspective. Yet, it suffers from some patent omissions as regards crucial questions, which supporters of the understanding neither pose nor reflect upon. The topic is discussed at an individual level only regard­ ing whether members of synagogues or Christ­adherent assemblies considered their membership to stand in opposition or competition to worship in the Temple. The question is never raised at the institutional or evolutionary level despite the fact that both levels of analysis are crucial not only to any in­depth examination of the topic but also to one borrowing influence from the behavioural and life sciences. I discuss the relationship between temple, synagogue and ekklēsia from a bio­cultural evolutionary perspective with a special focus on the transition from the urban type to the kosmos form of religion. When seen through this theoretical lens, one cannot claim a mutually harmonious and complementary relationship between the three. The evolvement of new institutions are adaptive responses to biotic and sociotic changes in the ecology testifying to the fact that the older institutions no longer sufficed to all segments of the population. The emergence of the synagogue and the ekklēsia are part of a grander transition from urban to kosmos types of religion responding to the appearance of empires covering vast areas and comprising a multiplicity of ethnicities. This change began on the Eur­ asian continent in specific cultures, including China, Greece, India, and Israel, from the seventh century and onwards. Keywords: synagogue, Temple, evolution, kosmos type of religion, Israel­religion, Christ­religion

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-024

402 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

1 Introduction A red thread running through the work of Géza Xeravits is his interest in syn­ agogue art. It is seen from his last contribution published posthumously and collecting some of his most important articles on Qumran, apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature, and synagogue art.1 His essays on synagogue art shows his strong interest in the evolvement of the institutions of synagogue and church, and their interactions. ‘Christian’ and ‘Jewish’ iconographic motifs con­ tinued to interweave after the split between the two currents of Israel­religion.2 During late Antiquity, they became largely the two exclusive trajectories of some­ thing, which until the late second and early third century CE had been a signifi­ cantly more multifarious phenomenon consisting of a variety of religious groups each with its distinctive identity. Surely, the religious variety continued. It would be difficult to imagine the situation otherwise; but contrary to the earlier period, the religious heterogeneity now primarily occurred within respectively the Jewish and Christian lines of tradition, neither comprising homogeneous entities. Yet, those forms of the two religions that were not authorised by the predominant types were relegated to the fringes of heretical existence. Similarly, there are differences also with respect to the geographical and sociological level. Cultures always express themselves as distinct manifestations dependent on their specific context. At the level of non­elite forms of religion, variability also existed, but we have little evi­ dence of this apart from what the prevailing types castigate as abhorrent religious practices originating in non­doctrinally accepted forms and what we can see from archaeological finds. By this essay, I want to honor a colleague of blessed memory by taking a renewed look at the topic emblematically triangulated by the terms Temple, Syn­ agogue, and Church.3 I acknowledge that all three terms are contentious. First, there were more than one temple in Israel­religion around the turn of the first century. Temples in Egyptian Heliopolis and Elephantine are known in the Dias­

1 Xeravits, From Qumran. See my review of the volume in JSJ 52 (2021) 155–158. 2 To avoid the impression that contemporary Judaism has a greater legacy of ancient Israel­ religion than, say, Christianity, I avoid terminology like Second Temple Judaism. To maintain such terminology flies in the face of acknowledging that also early Christ­religion was intrinsic part and parcel of ancient Israel­religion. Moreover, nomenclature indicating essential conti­ nuity makes it difficult for students and the greater public to understand that historically we are talking about very different types of religion. Currently, I use the term Israel­religion as the shared taxon that unites all ancient manifestations of religion relying on what eventually became biblical Scriptures into one semantic family. See Petersen, Book Essay. 3 See also Petersen, Unveiling the Obvious; Petersen, Continuity, 92–95.

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 403

pora, and the Samaritans had their temple on Mount Garizim. Here, however, I allow myself to speak of the Temple in singular as referring to the Jerusalem Temple. The Greek term συναγωγή was only one used in Greek for what we now call the synagogue, just as we will see that the synagogue in Antiquity around the turn of the first century CE did not comprise one type only. Nevertheless, I shall use synagogue as a fourth order category to designate what in Greek was called συναγωγή or προσευχή and in Hebrew ‫בית כנסת‬. Church is also a problematic term, since distinct church buildings did not exist in formative Christ­religion. Additionally, the notion obviates the close resemblances to comparable phenom­ ena, wherefore ‘assembly’ or ‘synagogue’ as a fourth order term are better trans­ lations. For conventional reasons, however, I shall retain the category. With the renewed scholarly interest in the emergence of the synagogue in the late 1990’s,4 and some recent important work on the relationship between the Temple and early Christ­religion,5 my subject may appear as flogging dead horses. Yet, I think that the dominant current in contemporary work on the topic is skewed in terms of both theory, method and results emerging from the inter­ pretations of the relevant texts and, concomitantly, the historical reconstructions inferred from them. Others may disagree, but this is my apology for re­intruding on overgrown paths. Additionally, some may question my discussion of the syn­ agogue in this article, since nowhere does Paul discuss the institution, let alone mention the term. He uses temple imagery at several occasions just as he contin­ uously refers to the ekklēsia as the term for the Christ­following group. Despite the absence of references to the synagogue in Paul, it will become evident why I discuss it in the context of Paul in conjunction with the Temple and the ekklēsia. My point is that the emergence of the synagogue in Palestine, and prior to that, in the Diaspora is a result of some of the same selection mechanisms, which gave rise also to early Christ­religion within Israel­religion. This is hardly a controver­ sial point, although, to the best of my knowledge it has not previously been dis­ cussed in evolutionary terms. Poignantly provocative in the argument, though, it is my contention that the emergence of the synagogue as well as the formation of the ekklēsia of early Christ­religion did have an impact on the significance of the Temple. In fact, I argue that this importance was of a negative character with regard to the Temple. This view is not only a neglected, but also a rejected one in current scholarship, in which the assertion amounts to purported supersession­ ism. It has become prevalent to speak of a symbiotic, synergistic, or complemen­ 4 For work on the synagogue and its origin, see Binder, Temple Courts; Kee / Cohick, Evolu­ tion; Runesson, Origins; Runesson / Binder / Olsson, Ancient Synagogue; Levine, Ancient Synagogue 2005; Matassa, Invention. 5 Fredriksen, Paul; Regev, Temple.

404 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

tary relationship between synagogue and church and the Temple with the former two not replacing or substituting the latter, but living in harmony with it. Before immediately launching an attack on me for reviving a dead end type of Protes­ tantism the embarrassing and suppressing consequences of which are all too well known, I ask for at least the generosity to reflect on the argument put forward. I fully agree with the reasons underlying the contemporary scholarly parlance and perspective, which counteracts a previous monolithic Christian (Protestant) supersession of Judaism (and Roman Catholicism). Although advocates of this tradition also saw a dire contrast between what they called Judaism and Christi­ anity, they could unashamedly use the emergence of the synagogue as a precur­ sor in terms of history of religions for the emergence of the church. Similarly, they could appeal to Galilee as the place of origin of the synagogue in Palestine as an attack on the Temple cult and Jerusalem as the epitome of the sacrificial system, whereby Galilee and its purported synagogues came to symbolise lay Christianity over and against priestly Catholicism. This is not the view I try to resuscitate. However, as understandable as it is that a new perspective has been forged to counter supersessionism, I simply think it exaggerates its viable points by down­ playing the inter­ and intra­rivalries and fights within Israel­religion between different types of it. In this way, I argue, there is a reason to the madness in my triangulation of Temple, synagogue, and ekklēsia in the context of Paul. I focus on two related questions. First, what were the causal factors that led to the emer­ gence of new religious institutions?6 Second, whether it is possible to approach this topic from a bio­cultural evolutionary point of view.7 Given the novelty of this approach and the theorising underlying it to most scholars in Biblical and related fields, I need some space to unfold the argument. Far more could be and ought to be said about the intricate historical issues pertaining to the topic, but here I

6 At the risk of offending some colleagues, I find it increasingly noticeable that scholars trained in biblical studies, in the history of religions, and in the humanities in general are very poor to pose questions revolving around the relationship between proximate and ultimate causality in their accounts of historical chains of events. Apart from the fact that scholars in these disciplines have few presuppositions in terms of philosophy of science for distinguishing between different forms of causality and, therefore, may be partly excused for their ability to handle these issues, it is somewhat chocking to see how colleagues can present causal arguments without any ac­ quaintance with evolutionary theory. For a thorough and fine introduction to basic principles in ascertaining different types of causality pertinent also to historical development, see Wood­ ward, Making Things Happen. 7 For detailed discussion of the theoretical perspective underlying my argument, see Turner / Maryanski / Petersen / Geertz, Emergence; Turner / Geertz / Petersen / Maryanski, Ex­ plaining the Emergence; Petersen / Turner / Geertz / Maryanski, Homines Emotionales.

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 405

want to emphasise what may be gained by looking at a vibrantly discussed issue in light of a perspective ultimately coming from the life sciences, but with a strong founding also in the history of religion.

2 The Background for the Present Scholarly Discussion: The Emergence of a New Paradigm During recent years, we have witnessed the emergence of what is occasionally dubbed ‘the radicalised new perspective on Paul’ to differentiate it from the para­ digm which arose with E. P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism – in 1983 coined by James D. G. Dunn as ‘the new perspective on Paul’.8 A major tenet of ‘the Paul within Judaism­perspective’ as it is also called is the view that Paul’s condem­ nation of circumcision and dietary rules pertain to Christ­adherents of a pagan background only, but not to Christ­followers of Judean origin.9 Paul expected the latter to continue observing kasruth and practice circumcision. Although the question of continuous visits to the Temple has not featured largely in the discus­ sion, scholars endorsing the Paul within Judaism­interpretation generally argue that not only did Paul continue to visit the Temple, but that he also expected Christ­adherents of Judean background to do so and that he continued to feel committed to the Temple.10 Moreover, he presumed that Christ­followers of pagan origin would go to the Temple. In fact, the whole idea of the pagans’ compound within the Temple precinct is gentiles’ regular visits to the sacred temenos. The crucial question, however, is, whether Paul expected this tradition to continue for Christ­adherents of pagan background subsequent to their embracement of the new type of religion. To argue as Paula Fredriksen does with reference to Acts does not at all solve the problem with respect to Paul. First, Luke and Acts are composed no earlier 8 Dunn, New Perspective. A revised edition bearing the same title is available from Grand Rap­ ids, Eerdmans 2008. The first coinage of the term originates in an article from 1983 similarly entitled Dunn, The New Perspective. 9 See, for example, Fredriksen’s book mentioned in note 5; Nanos / Zetterholm, Paul; Nanos, Irony; Nanos, Reading Paul; Nanos, Reading Romans; Nanos, Reading Corinthians; and McKnight / Oropeza, Perspectives, 171–218. 10 Although not advocating the Paul within Judaism­perspective per se, some recent works on Paul and the Temple and, thereby, the whole topic of the relationship between the Temple and formative Christ­religion, demonstrate a similar line of thinking as that of the new paradigm, when it comes to the Temple. See, for instance, Lanci, New Temple; Böttrich, Ihr seid; Hoge­ terp, Paul.

406 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

than a generation after Paul, and possibly considerably later, that is, if one sees the Lukan double work as a rewriting also of Matthew.11 Therefore, it is not a relia­ ble source regarding Paul. Second and more important, Acts is a mythopoeic work creating a harmonising picture of the earliest phase of Christ­religion, which further degrades its value as a historical source, if the aim is to use it to recon­ struct past events purportedly taking place at least a generation earlier at the time of the Pauline letters.12 That Luke has representatives of formative Christ­religion converse in the Temple area (2:46; 3:1–4:12; 5:20–21.42; 21:26–30) only shows that the author(s) of Acts thought the Temple as a fitting spatial code for the text’s narrative orchestration of the emergence of early Christ­religion. Moreover, in Acts Luke uses the Temple as a hotspot for confrontations with other forms of Israel­religion, whereby he narratively eliminates the power emanating from the Temple by turning it into a coldspot.13 Ingrained in this discussion, however, is a more profound question revolving around how to conceptualise the relationship between early forms of Christ­religion and other types of Israel­religion. As far as I can see, the premise for the whole discussion revolving around the issue of Paul’s understanding of the Temple rests on a fallacious premise, namely that Paul’s purportedly continuous positive relationship to the Temple is a prerequisite for acknowledging the ‘Jewish’ character of Christ­religion and, hence, to reckon it as part of Judaism. This may well be an outcome of the examination, but surely, it is problematic, when it is given the status of a default assumption. How can it be a premise for the discussion that any Israel­religion subscribes to a positive under­ standing of the Temple?14 I find it difficult to dismiss the impression that this discussion forms a circular argument. Early Christ­religion’s and, hence, Paul’s positive view of the Temple serves as the point of departure for the discussion, which subsequently is demonstrated through textual interpretation; but in this way the default assumption dictates the results of the textual analysis. Most recently, Eyal Regev advocates a view similar to that of Fredriksen. In Paul, crucial texts are, of course, 1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:19–20; and 2 Cor 6:16. Classically, scholars have interpreted these texts – after the publication of the first Qumran texts often supported by reference to parallel ideas in the yaḥad manuscripts – as

11 Goulder, Luke, and Goulder, Is Q a Juggernaut? In recent years, Goulder’s thesis has been taken up by Müller Luke. See also Müller, Acts. 12 For this reason, I wholeheartedly disagree with the view put forward in Becker, Birth, who thinks of early Christ­religious historiography significantly more in terms of modern history writ­ ing than as a form of mythopoiēsis. 13 For the use of hotspot and coldspot as relevant categories in the study of religion, see a forth­ coming issue of Numen and, in particular, in the same issue Petersen, Hotspots. 14 Fredriksen, Paul, 154, 163–165.

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 407

entailing a supersessionist stance on the Temple.15 Paul spiritualises the notion of the temple by replacing the physical temple with the idea of community as con­ stituting a temple.16 Since Paul understands Christ­adherents, individually and collectively, as representing the Temple of God, the physical Jerusalem temple has been replaced by the living community of Christ­followers, so the traditional interpretation. Regev defies this view by arguing that: “Paul does not see Christ and the Temple cult as competing ways of atonement.” In fact, the two are com­ plementary, insofar as for Paul “the Temple becomes the source domain of his cultic metaphors” with the qualifying addition that “for his Gentile readers the Temple cult becomes merely a theoretical model for the new faith.”17 Regev is impressively clear in his delineation of the three basic models for interpreting Paul’s use of the temple metaphor: 1) Paul transforms the category of holiness from the sacrificial system revolving around the Temple to Christ faithfulness, thereby, denying the relevance of the Temple. 2) Paul conveys to his exclusive pagan addressees notions of holiness provided by the Temple metaphorical cluster as a substitute for something in which they cannot participate. 3) Paul transfers notions of holiness and ritual to the life of Christ­followers without any substantial implications for the Jerusalem Temple, to which he remains fully committed.18 Regev hits the nail on the head by asserting that the question needs to be decided on the basis of the thickness of the involved metaphoricity: “The thicker and more detailed the analogy or metaphor is, the more remote from the actual cult the imagery becomes, until it is a substitution.”19 However, I think that Regev (and the majority of advocates of the Paul within Judaism­paradigm) underplays the importance of the metaphorical cluster in the evaluation of the outcome of Paul’s imagery. It is certainly true over and against the older tradition of scholarship that the metaphor does not necessarily imply antagonism towards the Temple. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to understand the use of the metaphor, were it not for a positive relationship between the source and the target domains underlying the metaphorical transfer. Yet, a positive use of the category does not imply continuous commitment.

15 The Qumran texts referred to are often 1QS 8:1–16; 9:3–5; 1QSa 2:3–11; 4QFlorilegium. Repre­ sentative examples of this tradition are Gärtner, Temple, and Klinzing, Umdeutung. 16 Although the idea of spiritualisation already plays a role in the scholarship of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, Wenschekewitz, Spiritualisierung is the first devoting a whole study to the topic. 17 Regev, Temple, 95. 18 Regev, Temple, 55. 19 Regev, Temple, 56.

408 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

3 The Irrelevance or Negligence of the Signifier in Other Forms of Israel-Religion In my view, Regev’s argument rests on a fallacious premise, namely that the pos­ itive use of a source domain with respect to a target domain by necessity entails continuous commitment to the source providing the semantic input to the source domain. In other words, Regev sees the discussion in digital rather than analo­ gous terms. For him it is a matter of an either or rather than different gradations on a continuum. This is particularly evident from his contention that Paul’s use of Temple imagery cannot be isolated from his general approach to Torah and to other forms of Israel­religion. Regev argues that: “The problem is that if Paul rejects the Jewish Law and commandments, if he regards himself and his Gentile addressees as being outside Judaism in the practical sense of the term, why does he use the imagery of Temple and sacrifice?”20 I agree with Regev’s assertion that Paul’s use of the Temple cluster needs to be situated in the wider context of his thinking, but I do not see how this necessarily leads to Regev’s conclusion. In fact, I think that the quotation palpably illustrates the problem, since Regev seems blind to the possibility of having Paul both wanting to have his biscuit and eat it. To explain it more clearly, Regev does not consider the option that Paul disa­ vows the interpretation of Torah in rivalling forms of Israel­religion, while simul­ taneously claiming that his Israel­religion manifests the fulfilment of the Law (see in particular Romans 8:4 and 10:4). In this understanding, there is nothing contradictory about Paul’s argument, when seen from within its own semantic universe. Paul, on the one hand, can claim to subscribe to the Law, while, on the other hand, he can castigate interpretations of the Law with concomitant prac­ tices found in both competing intra­ and inter­forms of Israel­religion. I do not see why this possibility should be excluded at the outset in discussing a correspond­ ing problem, namely that of Paul’s relationship to the Temple. Nowhere does Paul criticize the Temple, but that does not mean that he upholds the significance of the physical temple in Jerusalem. This is exactly the point at which things begin to go wrong in Regev’s argument – as well as the view espoused by advocates of the Paul within Judaism paradigm as regards Paul’s continuous view on other forms of Israel­religion. In my reading of Regev’s otherwise excellent book, one thing really caught my eye. Despite several references to Philo, Regev does not discuss the immensely interesting and for his purpose highly pertinent passage in Philo’s De migratione 20 Regev, Temple, 56–57.

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 409

Abrahami, in which he excoriates a group of radical allegorisers.21 In this treatise, in which Philo allegorically interprets the Genesis narrative of Abraham’s travel from Haran, through Canaan, to Sichem (Gen 12:1–4.6), he vehemently defies a rivalling group of allegorisers in Alexandria who have taken the extent of allegory to a level which for Philo undermines the whole point of Torah. In the first main part of the text (§§1–126), Philo expounds God’s speech to Abraham, while in the second main part he interprets the travel (§§127–225). We meet the excessive symbolists in the first main part of the tractate in §§89–93. Contrary to Philo, these people regard the wording of the laws (τοὺς ῥητοὺς νόμους) as symbols of matters to be captured by the mind (σύμβολα νοητῶν πραγματῶν). While they are fastidious about the latter, they take things easy with respect to the former. Philo on his part accuses them of recklessness (εὐχέρεια). In contradiction to what this group of people think, it is necessary to pay heed to both dimensions “both by meticulous scrutiny of unseen things and unblemished stewardship of seen things” (§89).22 Philo concurs with the allegorisers, when it comes to the allegorical interpretation. For instance, he can say about circumcision that: “to be circumcised shows both the excision of pleasure and all desires as well as the removal of godless delusion, by virtue of which the mind capable of creating on its own” (§92). That, however, does not make the literal practice of the ritual superfluous. Although the allegorical meaning is true, Philo contends, we shall not abolish the law laid down for circumcising. We would neglect the sacredness pertaining to the Temple and myriads other things, if we turn our attention towards things made clear exclusively as inner meanings (δι’ ὑπονιῶν); but it is necessary to think that they resemble the body, and the others the soul. For just as one must take care (προνοητέον) of the body, which is the house of the soul, so one must pay attention (ἐπιμελητέον) το the wording of the laws (τῶν ῥητῶν νόμων). (92–93)

On the contrary, the meaning conveyed by circumcision by virtue of allegory is not accessible without the signifier: “For in obeying these (i.e. the external laws), those things of which they are symbols will be more clearly recognised” (§93). Despite Philo’s harsh criticism of the radical allegorisers, his discussion demonstrates that there were other forms of Israel­religion in which the impor­ tance of the physical temple was diminished. Of course, one could argue that the Alexandrian symbolists were an extreme case within Israel­religion, as has often been the view in scholarship. However, they may not be as aberrant in their

21 For the social context as background for Philo’s allegorisation, see Dawson, Allegorical Read­ ers, 126–127. 22 Translations throughout the article are my own, unless otherwise stated.

410 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

views as one may initially think. The Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates,23 dating presumably to the end of the 2nd century BCE, testifies to similar thoughts.24 By means of the diēgēsis of the historiographical genre,25 the text lauds the type of Israel­religion which it unfolds. It is an impressively fictitious work composed as a panegyric of Israel­religion.26 In §§128–171, Aristeas expounds to the fictive addressee Philocrates “the solemnity and characteristic outlook of the Law” (διὸ τὴν σεμνότητα καὶ φυσικὴν διάνοιαν τοῦ νόμου, §171). Although Aristeas does not take leave with the signifier per se, as do the radical allegorisers of Philo, the text certainly shows a transference of significance from the signifier to the signified understood in terms of the symbolic meaning attributed to the signifier.27 Contrary to Regev’s understanding, types of Israel­religion existed, as the case of the radical allegorisers in Philo and the Letter of Aristeas demonstrate, in which groups exploited the positive power of religious signifiers such as circum­ cision, the dietary laws, and for our purpose most relevant, the Temple and trans­ ferred it to the signified.28 Regev is right in asserting that there is no antagonism between the signified and the signifier in this metaphorical transfer. Yet, I think

23 For my basic understanding of the text, see Petersen, Apologetik. 24 See Bickermann, Datierung, 128, and Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 98–101. 25 Strictly speaking, Aristeas is not a letter in terms of genre, but a diēgēsis as argued by Moses Hadas in his commentary on the text: Hadas, Aristeas, 56–59. This is also the way the text instan­ tiates itself, see Aristeas 1, 8, 322. For the genre of diēgēsis, see Theon who in his Progymnasmata, dating to the second century CE, defines the genre as “discourse expository (λόγος ἐκθετικὸς) of things, which happened or might have happened” (Prog. 78:15; cf. Cicero De invention, 1 27 xix; Rhet. ad Herrenium, 1 4 iii Quintilian Inst., 4 2 xxxi. 26 See Gruen, Herritage, 292–293 (cf. 213–215). A similar understanding is advocated in Honig­ mann, Septuagint, 145–147. Although I agree with Gruen in his criticism of the dominant under­ standing of Aristeas, dating back to Tcherikover (Ideology, and the related article: Jewish Apologetic), that the text be seen as creating a negotiable way forward for Israel­religion in an alien and threating Hellenistic outside world, I think his categorical rejection of apologetic mo­ tives pertaining to Aristeas is overstated. His understanding rests on a very bombastic definition of apologetic with which I disagree. In light of a more nuanced notion of apologetics, there is no reason to deny the apologetic tenor of the text. For a refined category of apologetics, see Petersen, Apologetics, 110–114. As regards this view on Aristeas, see Petersen, Apologetic, 62–65. 27 Artapanus as well as Philo’s whole oeuvre testify to a similar transposition in importance from the signifier to the allegorical meaning conveyed by the signified. 28 Strictly speaking, in Aristeas this only pertains to the dietary rules and neither to the Temple nor to circumcision. The latter is not expounded in Aristeas, while the former is expounded in a lengthy section on the layout of Israel (§§83–120) and in particular the Temple and the parapher­ nalia pertaining to it (§§84–99). Compared to the exposition of the dietary rules, Aristeas does not use allegory in the section on the Temple.

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 411

he (and the line of scholarship propagating the Paul within Judaism­perspective) is wrong in neglecting the downgrading, verging on continuous negligence, of the actual signifier in this relationship apart from its role as constituting the source domain in a metaphorical cluster. The whole point is that Paul and the radical allegorisers surpass or leave behind the relationship between the signifier ‘the temple’ and the signified ‘the Jerusalem Temple’. They condensate them into one signifier ‘the actual Jerusalem Temple,’ which gains a new signified ‘the internal temple.’ In Paul, the latter also comes to signify the assembly of Christ­adherents. The crucial question is, if we can formulate this point in a way, which avoids the supersessionism of classical New Testament scholarship, on the one hand, and moves beyond the problems inherent in the Paul within Judaism­perspective, on the other hand. While the former represents the Skylla of detaching Paul from his historical context by turning him into ‘a Christian’ of the first century, the latter exemplifies the Charybdis of neglecting the polemics and evaluations of other forms of religion,29 which Paul also testifies to – both at the intra­ and the inter­ level of discussion. In my view, the real hermeneutical flaw of the radicalised perspective on Paul and, hence, on formative Christ­religion is the disregard of religious polemics at stake between different forms of Israel­religion. At the core of this polemics lies very different types of religion, which began to emerge from the sixth century BCE and onwards. I now turn to this topic, before in the final part of the essay I resume the discussion of the Temple, synagogue, and ekklēsia seen through a Pauline lens.

29 In recent years, it has become a commonplace to criticise the category of religion, when ap­ plied to pre­modern forms of the phenomenon (for instance, Steve Mason, Brent Nongbri, and Daniel Boyarin). It is usually done on the ground that no notion of religion (second order lan­ guage) existed in pre­modern languages and that, therefore, a scholarly fourth­order category is skewed, when applied to these cultures. Secondly and concomitantly with the first point, it is claimed that religion and culture coalesced and that, therefore, it does not make sense to segment something into religion per se. I have serious problems with both arguments in terms of philosophy of science. Surely, a notion of religion could not evolve prior to the differentiation of culture, characteristic of modernity, into different life forms. This does not make religion as a fourth order category different from, say, sport, economics, law, and entertainment. Obviously, we need notions in order to be able to know what exactly we are talking about. Religion is not one thing, just as the same pertains to the other mentioned life spheres, but that does not make the term useless. We simply have to use it in a general sense and to apply it in specific meanings in order to distinguish between different forms of religion. Again, this is not different from other life forms. For this argument, see my article referred to in footnote two.

412 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

4 The Bio-Cultural Evolutionary Background for the Argument Despite the recent resurgence of evolutionary perspectives on culture and religion, numerous scholars in the humanities in particular, but also in the social sciences continue to question its use based on the fear of imposing one’s own values on other worlds. It is certainly true that this was a prominent feature of evolutionary perspectives of the 19th century that they were also applied to vindicate the supe­ riority of European, Christian, Protestant culture over and against all other cul­ tures; but such views became intellectually obsolete after the Second World War at the very latest.30 When scholars today revitalise evolutionary perspectives, they do it on other grounds. First, no one discusses evolution with respect to either the true or the good. The debate takes place in the context of aesthetics only (i.e. the beautiful), insofar as it is reasonable to differentiate between cultures in terms of their social complexity. It should be uncontroversial to argue that agrarian types of culture and society are more complex than those social groups found among hunter­gatherers. The number of people in the group is indicative of the com­ plexity at play. The assertion does not have any bearing on the intellectual skills or ethical standards of the involved people. It goes without saying that the same argument pertains to the difference between agrarian, urban, kosmos, and global forms of culture. The level of complexity involved in the latter two as regards infrastructure, extent of urbanisation, area of sovereignty of institutional power, density of population, specialisation of labour, level of affluence and literacy, etc. are considerably more complex than in the former two, just as it is noticeably higher in global cultures compared to the kosmos forms. The argument I put forward differs from Bellah’s now well­known revival of the evolutionary perspective. Bellah concentrated on cultural evolution, although he took for granted that the former is built on a more basic biological counterpart. However, I want to sharpen the argument by claiming that cultural evolution is part and parcel of human biology, insofar as natural selection has shaped our 30 When Robert N. Bellah in the late fifties and early sixties turned to the question of evolution of religion, he soon realised that were he to make a career in the American academy, he had to give up this interest. It was in the nineties that Bellah took up this interest again thinking it possible to revitalise evolutionary questions on the basis of Merlin Donalds’s four stage theory of memory. I was in touch with Bellah until some months prior to his death in July 2013. In fact, Bellah gave one of his last lectures at the international centennial conference of Durkheim’s Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse, which I organised in 2012 at Aarhus University. For the late Bellah’s work on evolutionary theory, see in particular Bellah, Religion; and Bellah / Joas, Axial Age.

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 413

psychology by generating adaptations for learning by non­genetic means, which is ultimately what culture is.31 In fact, the constellation of the genetic and the cul­ tural hereditary systems – interacting in the human species – has such character that culture has evolved to become the primary driver in human evolution.32 Propo­ nents of the gene­culture coevolutionary perspective argue that for Homo Sapiens Sapiens and, possibly, as far back as the earliest forms of cumulative culture 1.6 mya with the emergence of Acheulian culture, culture has come to over­determine genetic evolution in the hominin lineage.33 However one dates the earliest forms of cultural governance in the gene­culture conjunction, the role played by culture in Homo Sapiens Sapiens is undoubtable regarding the enormous pace at which culture accrues. Yet, what has all this to do with the Temple, the synagogue, and the ekklēsia one may reasonably ask? Much, indeed, I shall contend. By nature, humans are despotic and self­centred, but this runs against the common assumption that humans are very social animals. As early as Antiquity, ancient writers like Aristotle and Vergil would compare humans to bees and ants, just as a favoured metaphor for human societies in Antiquity was the beehive. However, there is a crucial difference. Ants and bees are genetically determined for their sociality, which biologists designate as eusociality. Humans, conversely, are ultrasocial. They can be culturally honed to act socially, also based on certain biological propensities such as mother­child bonding and predilection for genetic proximates, but at the depth of their biology, they are not very social.34 This is evident, when we compare humans to their closest cousins among the other extant apes, with whom we share almost 99 percent of our genes. Contrary to the other existing apes, our distant ancestors left the arboreal areas some 3.5 mya and moved on to the open grassland. There are good reasons for the reduced level of sociality among the other extant apes, since they would destroy their own habitat, were they to live in larger social groups. Forests and thickets do not provide enough kilojoules for large groups. In order to survive on the savannah, our distant ancestors had to engage in more stable forms of groups. They were challenged by predators, which they could only overcome by engaging in alli­ 31 Henrich, Secret, 34–35. Cf. 263: “Cultural differences are biological differences, but not ge­ netic differences” (see also p. 277). High­fidelity transmission is the clue to the gradually accu­ mulating nature of human evolution. See Laland, Darwin, 182–190. 32 Other hereditary systems are also of prime importance in human evolution such as the epi­ genetic and behavioural systems. For the importance and interactions between all four systems, see Jablonka / Lamb, Evolution. 33 Henrich, Secret, 316. See also Laland, Darwin, 234, who dates the predominance of cultural evolution over the genetic one in the hominin lineage to a considerably shorter period beginning 40.000 years ago. 34 For this whole argument, see Turner, Emergence, 49–74.

414 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

ances with fellows. The same regards finding food to sustain one’s living. Over a long period, natural selection amplified the hominin palette of emotions sig­ nificantly by engendering secondary emotions such as guilt and shame facilitat­ ing a new life form in more permanent small­scale groups (chimpanzees live in fission­fusion groups). Yet, these groups were continuously vulnerable to disso­ lution due to the effervescent character of emotions. First, emotions come and go. Second, the challenge was even greater, since our ancestors possessed as primary emotions three negative ones (fear, anger, and sadness) and only one positive (joy). On such background, odds for persistent groupishness are difficult. Together with Jonathan Turner, Alexandra Maryanski, and Armin Geertz, I argue in numerous co­authored works that the solution to overcoming this problem was the emergence of religion as a by­product or side effect of the enhancement of Australopithecines’ emotional system. Similar to the spandrels of San Marco, famously discussed by Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin,35 religion proved to have an adaptive function over time, although it most likely emerged as an evolutionary exaptation. Our argument is ultimately a Durkheim­ ian point of view, namely that religion engenders and maintains groups over time by creating norms, rules, values and ideals and endows them with an emblematic stabilisation from which the group – both at the collective level and at the level of individuals – can tap energy and, thereby, uphold itself. As soon as the group dis­ perses after cultic gatherings, the energy slowly but inevitably begins to fade away only to disappear, if the battery is not reloaded.36 Moreover, we discuss differ­ ent forms of selection mechanisms, which one needs to take into consideration, when looking at hominin evolution. Natural selection does not suffice to explain human culture but needs to be supplied by other selection mechanisms honed and driven forward by natural selection. Since humans are intentional agents and possess cumulative culture, we need to take social and cultural selection mechanisms into consideration to gain a full grasp on human evolution. I shall not delve on this argument, which readers can acquaint themselves with espe­ cially in Turner, Maryanski, Geertz, and my co­authored book. Rather, I want to highlight the relevance of this discussion for my overall topic. Contrary to genetic change, which is extremely slow, but also very stable  irre­ spective of both mutations and drift, cultural transformation is highly flexible and, therefore, enormously adaptable to sudden changes in the environment – both 35 Gould / Lewontin, Spandrels. 36 Durkheim, Les formes, 499: “La société ne peut reviver le sentiment qu’elle a d’elle­même qu’a condition de s’assembler. Mais elle ne peut tenir perpétuellement ses assises. Les exigences de la vie ne lui permettent pas de rester indéfinitement à l’état de congrégation; elle se disperse donc pour se rassembler à nouveau quand, de nouveau, elle en sent le besoin.”

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 415

biotically and sociotically. The adaptability of culture simultaneously epitomises its fragility. Culture is continuously susceptible to annihilation. It takes consid­ erable effort to uphold culture over time; but this is exactly the point at which religion enters the picture. It enables culture to persist by directing individual members’ attention towards a joint emblem indexically representing the moral of the group. Through this sharedness, the group comes into being. By means of the shared focal point into which individuals may invest their feelings of belong­ ingness to the group and, thereby, counteract the ephemeral character of feelings and, thus, the feebleness of groupishness, the group emerges through the culture defined by its moral (the ideals, values, norms, and rules) and the emblem index­ ically signifying it. In this way, the individuals gathering and directing their attention towards the emblem is conducive to the creation and endurance of the group. Accompanying systems of rewards and punishment serves to minimise the risk of freeriding, deception and other asocial forms of behaviour and thinking.

5 The Emergence of the Kosmos Form of Religion: An Evolutionary Perspective Israelite religion is of an archaic type or urban form of religion. It revolves around the temple institution and the sacrificial system with the ethnic group as the counterpart to the divine pantheon. Israelite religion is one manifestation of Near Oriental religion, which, on its side, belongs to the greater type of urban reli­ gion. Although there are noticeable difference between for example urban Greek, Babylonian, and Israelite religion, there are enough common traits to allow us to place them together as exemplifying the same form of religion. The temples serve as houses of the gods’ presence in the world. Humans are banned from entering the innermost part of the divine house, where the godhead resides. In Israelite religion, the high priest was allowed to enter the abode of YHWH once a year to purify the innermost part of the Temple in order to cleanse it from all the ontolog­ ical impurity transferred upon it and stemming from human cyclicity. Similarly, the sacrificial system built on the raison d’être of upholding the cosmic, onto­ logical distance between gods and humans. By sacrificing, the specific ethnic group proved itself a faithful and loyal recipient of the divine blessings for which they could not repay equally. In this manner, the sacrificial system also served to emphasise the immense distance between humans and gods – both ontolog­ ically, spatially, and hierarchically – and leave humans in the role of perpetual debtors to the gods. The rationale of the sacrificial system is not based on the idea of do ut des, but on the notion of do quia dedisti with humans repaying only a

416 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

small amount for the enormity of goods received. Local urban gods or, eventually, ethnic gods granted the respective groups the subsidies needed for life for which the group expressed its gratitude, loyalty, and hierarchical position with respect to the godhead. Although the exact interrelationship between the causal factors involved in the changes of the seventh century BCE remain unresolved,37 something immensely important took place in the history of society, culture, and religion in some specific regions of the Eurasian continent during this period and onwards.38 We cannot account for this development in terms of historical influence. Rather, the development, which occurred in certain religious currents in the fertile Indus Valley, in China, in Israel, and in Greece, was due to convergent evolution, which is to say that the transformations in these regions were caused by independent evolution leading to parallel traits due to adaptations to corresponding environ­ ments, both sociotic and biotic.39 I refer to the Axial Age debate and, in my termi­ nology, the transition from the urban type to a kosmos form of religion.40 Regardless

37 A key issue in the previous discussion, partly avant la lettre, since the specific ‘Axial Age’ (Achsenzeit) debate only became integral to the argument about a decade ago, whether allegedly ‘big gods’ paved the way for the transition from urban to kosmos forms of religion or a change in socio­material conditions gave rise to ‘big gods’. See Norenzayan, Big Gods; Baumard / Hya­ fil / Morris / Boyer, Increased Affluence; Purzycki / Apicella / Atkinson, Moralistic gods, 327; Purzycki / Ross / Apicella, Material security; Whitehouse / Francois / Savage, Com­ plex societies; Beheim / Atkinson / Bulbulia, Corrected Analyses; Turchin / Whitehouse / Francois, Explaining (pre­print 23.02.20); Hoyer / Reddish, Seshat History; Lang / Purzycki / Apicella, Moralizing gods. 38 See also the role Jürgen Habermas accords this whole discussion in his magnum opus Haber­ mas, Auch eine Geschichte, 307–480. 39 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, 101: “Species that live in similar habitats will experience similar selection pressures from their environment, so they may evolve similar adaptations, or converge, coming to look and behave very much alike even though they are unrelated.” For the distinction between biotic and sociotic habitats, see Petersen, Continuity, 87, 92–95. 40 For several reasons, the nomenclature used by Robert Bellah is infelicitous due to its lack of stringency. Occasionally his terms refer to social composition such as tribal religion (in 1964 called ‘primitive’), at other times to date of origin of the changes at hand such as archaic, early modern and modern, while, finally, it designates as in the Axial Age term a specific era ascribed a world changing character. See Bellah, What Is Axial, and Bellah, Religion. Also for compar­ ative purposes, the terminology is disadvantageous due to its binding historical development to the Western world. In several works, I have suggested to replace it with categories focused on the level of geographical extent of the religion and concomitant group in question, thus: gatherer­ hunters’ (retaining the chronological order of the two rather than reversing it due to acoustics) religion, agrarian religion, urban religion, kosmos religion, global religion. See, for instance, Petersen, A New Take, 477–478, and Petersen, Tangled History, 268.

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 417

of the problems involved in the term,41 I think sufficient evidence has been put forward to warrant the idea of significant changes occurring in some trajecto­ ries of Chinese, Greek, Indian, and Israel­religion from around the 7th century BCE and onwards.42 Obviously, these changes at first involved a limited number of religious, elite currents only, but they gained an increasing and ongoing effect on the subsequent development. In fact, we may see the later development of, for instance, early Buddhism, Christ­religion, and Manichaeism as a democra­ tisation of what initially was an overwhelming elite phenomenon. Furthermore, similar developments may be delineated in other regions in the world from the point, at which these regions evidence some of the same selection pressures that first gave rise to the changes in the four specific Eurasian regions.43 In my view, the most likely reason for the changes in religion during this period is not only the fact that the number of people to be ruled over was increas­ ing,44 but also that the geographical area covered by the state organisation was immensely enhanced with the emergence of the first real empires in human history. States, which cover an enormous geographical area such as Alexander the Great’s empire and that of the later Roman Empire, are challenged by the cor­ rosive forces of ruling over a variety of ethnicities. As an adaptive response to this horizontal problem (controlling a wide area inhabited by numerous ethnicities in constant danger of engaging in violent conflicts over the distribution of goods, ultimately, threating the maintenance of the empire), gods came to be located at a much higher position on the vertical scale. The gods were increasingly attributed the role of cosmic gods and not city divinities. In a mutual process this also led to ‘expansive intensification’ of reward and punishment systems with gods attrib­

41 See Petersen, Tangled History. 42 Some may reasonably object to my understanding by contending that the development in China and Greece was of a philosophical character. I agree, but as I have argued elsewhere, I think several arguments may be adduced for understanding ancient philosophy, from a fourth order perspective, as religion. See Petersen, Plato’s Philosophy, 34–35. 43 See the discussions of West Africa, South America, North America, and Oceania as well as other Eurasian areas in Hoyer / Reddish, Seshat History. Zoroastrianism has already back in the late 18th century been included in the, avant la lettre, Axial Age discussion. Although it is obvious to group it in this context, the late date of the writing down of foundational sources makes it difficult to situate it in this context, see Skjærvø, Avestan Society, 57–60. 44 Sanderson, Religious Evolution, 206–215, emphasises city size and increase in warfare as the two ultimate causes for the changes in religion resulting in the development from urban to kosmos forms of religion. As regards warfare, Sanderson accentuates in continuity of evolu­ tionary attachment theory, how the socially disruptive forces and psychologically distressing elements intrinsic to war gave rise to greater needs for comfort and security conducive to the emergence of kosmos types of religion (212).

418 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

uted the ability of seeing through humans by scrutinising their heart and kidneys and governing their fate in post­mortal life.45 Whereas humans – with the excep­ tion of a few individuals, typically kings – in urban religions were doomed to an anemic, morose existence as shadows in the underworld in afterlife, humans in kosmos religions gained the opportunity of becoming godlike, resulting in some currents of kosmos religion, in the bombastic idea of eternal godly life.46 Cor­ responding to the movements on the horizontal and the vertical axes, the axis of depth also became involved to express the change in worldview and overall ontology.47 Interiority became favored at the cost of exteriority. Humans’ true self resided in that inner part, which corresponded to the divine counterpart and generally was argued to originate with if not even be infused by, the divine. By the idea of the divine inhabiting humans’ inner part, humans came to be split by a similar divide as that characteristic of the categorical ontological difference between humans and gods permeating the worldviews of urban religion. In De senectute, Cicero puts the idea nicely in the mouth of Cato the Elder: “For while we are enclosed in these corporeal structures (in his compagibus corporis), we endure a certain duty determined by necessity and a grave task; for the soul is celestial (animus caelestis) pressed down from its most high home (ex altissimo domicilio) and buried, as it were, in earth, a location contrary to its divine and eternal nature (locum divinae naturae aeternitatisque contrarium). But I believe that the immortal gods sowed souls in human bodies in order that they would watch over the earth and while contemplating celestial order would imitate it (imitarentur eum) moderately and persistently” (xxi 77). Through this process of epistemic shifts, orchestrated on the three axes mentioned, life was changed into a continuous training program (cf. the basic meaning of the Greek term ἄσκησις) for the devotees of the respective world­ view.48 Regarding ancient philosophy, Pierre Hadot has wonderfully captivated the gist of this transition in his formulation of philosophie comme une manière de

45 For the basic argument underlying this discussion, see Johnson, God. As regards the kosmos type of religion, see Petersen, Watching Human. 46 Although foreshadowed in earlier works like the Symposium and Lysis , Plato most explicitly in the Theaetetus 176cd speaks about divine assimilation claiming that escaping from this world consists in “becoming like god [ὁμοίωσις θεῷ], so far as this is possible [κατὰ τὸ δθνατόν]; and to become like God [ὁμοίωσις] is with wisdom to become righteous and holy.” In Plato, however, the idea is confined to the cognitive element only and does not imply an actual bodily transforma­ tion, see Sedley, Ideal of Godlikeness, 314, 323–324. 47 For the correspondence of the movements on these three axes, see Petersen, Use of Histo­ riography, 88–89. 48 See Petersen, New Take on Asceticism, and in particular Petersen, Humans Sacrificing.

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 419

vivre.49 In comparison to the urban type of religion, the bar was set much higher in the demands made on the adherents. Followers of the kosmos form of religion could not carry off with sacrifices testifying their faithfulness to the gods. Sacri­ fices changes from a transitive to a reflexive character. Humans had to sacrifice themselves by devoting their whole life to undergoing processes of increasing divinisation. In the context of this article there are four elements in particular, I want to highlight as significant for the kosmos form of religion: 1) the develop­ ment towards respectively henotheism, monotheism, or the emphasis on one god to whom the adepts had to be exclusively loyal; 2) the idea of liberating oneself from elements pertaining to corporeal and earthly life through programs of ascet­ icism, whether they be of a wholly cognitive nature or also including a variety of bodily exercises, in order to approach the divine world; 3) the rupture with the city inhabitants or the ethnic group as constituting the limits of the communi­ ty,50 and 4) concomitant with these changes, there is typically also an emphasis placed on the equality of the members of the group.51

6 The Kosmos Type of Religion in the Context of Israelite Religion I shall not delve on the emergence of the kosmos form of religion in the context of ancient Israelite religion. The books of Job and Qoheleth are representative of this new type of religion, but these are both comparatively late texts of the Tanakh, which may be a reason for questioning the argument presented above by referring to possibly Hellenistic influence on both works. Although Karl Jaspers was happy to include the greater prophets in his understanding of Axial Age reli­ gion, I do not see them as such despite the fact that I understand Jaspers’ reasons for including them.52 Inasmuch as one sees the emergence of the kosmos form of religion as particularly consisting in criticism of time­honoured traditions, there 49 Hadot, Philosophie. In passing, it was not least this idea that came to have a lasting influ­ ence on volume two and three of Foucault’s Histoire de la sexualité in which Foucault scrutinised the regimes of power implied in spiritual exercises. 50 This has often been described as the transition from particularism to universalism, which is true insofar as the new type of community in principle may include a far greater group of sub­ jects; but it is of course no less particularistic. It is, ultimately, pure and simple a matter of how the boundaries are drawn. 51 The (charismatic) leader is often situated in a position on his own. Among other members of the community, though, there is an egalitarian relationship. 52 Jaspers, Vom europäischen Geist, 8, Jaspers, Vom Ursprung, 20.

420 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

is certainly a strong element of the phenomenon at play in Isaiah and Jeremiah. This way of looking at the problem is connected, of course, to the longstanding debate about the change from mythos to logos. I will not dwell on this discussion here. It must suffice to say, that I think this discussion is related to the question of the emergence of the kosmos type of religion. However, the transformation in discursive conditions of authority expressed in the shift from mythos to logos does not lie at the centre of the transition, nor are the terms particularly felicitous.53 In my view, the earliest example of the transition towards the kosmos type of religion  – found in the context of ancient Israelite religion – are Deuteronomy and D­theology in general.54 This thinking not only permeated Deuteronomistic history per se (Deuteronomy to 2 Kings), but also exerted its influence on a variety of other important books including Chronicles and its repercussions in Ezra and Nehemiah. It also influenced specific Psalms (e.g. Ps 78; 105–106), and some important work of the prophetic literature, Jeremiah and Hosea in particular.55 What makes Deuteronomy and D­theology so apt to discuss in terms of an incipient kosmos religion is the weight it places on a shared worldview.56 Israel­ ites are not the ones who share an Israelite descent, but the group who adhere to a specific worldview with a concomitant ethos directed towards a particular emblem as it is stated in the Sh’ma Yisrael (Deut 6:4–9): “Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” This does neither imply monotheism nor henotheism, but certainly a move towards the idea that Israel shall obey YHWH alone and no other gods. The most remarkable fact about the Sh’ma, though, is what Gersten­ berger aptly designates as characteristic of YHWH religion, that it constitutes a Glaubensgemeinschaft.57 It is not the ethnic group, which constitutes the commu­ nity, but the ones who assemble to hail YHWH as their exclusive god. They are

53 For an astute criticism of the debate in the context of Greek religion, see Lloyd, Demystifying Mentalities. 54 For an elaboration of this argument, see Petersen, From Torah. For the present essay, I also draw on a similar argument put forward by my colleague Jensen Enklave­mentalitet. 55 See Jensen Enklave­mentalitet, 114. 56 I do not consider Deuteronomy a uniform text. I think Eckart Otto in his impressive four volumes commentary on Deuteronomy has documented its enormously complicated history of redaction. See especially Otto, Deuteronomium 1,1­4,43, 231–280. In my brief assignment of Deu­ teronomy as an incipient type of kosmos religion, I only look at Deuteronomy in terms of its final redaction dating it sometime around the end of the seventh century and beginning of the sixth century. 57 Gerstenberger, Theologien, 176–177. Were I to express one word of criticism against Gersten­ berger’s notion, it is that Glauben is not the most adequate term for Hebrew ‫ה ֱא ִמין‬. ֽ ‫ ׇ‬I would prefer ‛community of faithful’ (Gemeinschaft der Treuen).

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 421

the ones instituting Israel. No wonder, then, that the cardinal sin of Deuteronomy and D­theology in general is oblivion pertaining to remembering YHWH as the sole god of Israel (cf. 4:9; 6:12; 8:11, 18–20; 11:19–21). Concomitant with the empha­ sis placed on oblivion is the accentuation of faithfulness and loyalty (cf. 1:31–33, 36; 4:1–7, 39–40; 5:1; 6:24–25; 7:9–12; 8:18; 11:1–9, 13–14, 18–21; 30:1–3, 15–20). At the same time, though, Deuteronomy exemplifies a blend with the urban type of religion. The sacrificial system is maintained with a variety of different sacrifices being enumerated at various places (e.g. 12:5–6, 13–14, 26–27; 16:2, 6; 18:3–5; 26:1; 27:6–7) as is the institution of priesthood (10:8–9; 18:1–8). Significantly, though, the text does not explicitly mention a temple, but restricts itself to mention the place (‫ה ׇמקום‬, ַ 12:5; cf. 14:23) at which the sacrifices will be offered.58 This has, of course, given rise to a debate about whether it is the Temple and Jerusalem which are referred to; but importantly the text does not explicate it.59 The only specific location given at which an altar shall be erected and sacrifices offered is the Mountain of Ebal and the Mountain of Garizim in Deut 27 (cf. 11:29–30). The tradition is in line with the Samaritan Pentateuch, one Qumran fragment (4QDeutf), and the LXX, but this need not bother us here. The important point is that neither Jerusalem nor its temple is in focus. In general, the emphasis of Deuteronomy is placed on the land. Another issue characteristic of the kosmos type of religion and closely con­ nected to the idea of covenantal loyalty is the textual emphasis on violence. Again and again, the Israelites are enjoined to violence in tandem with YHWH against the people who are in possession of the lands the Israelites traverse on their way to the promised land (e.g. 2:24–25, 31–37; 3:1–10; 7:1–10, 16–27; 9:1–6; 12:29–31). Jan Assmann has reasonably pointed out this aspect as inherently connected to The Mosaic Difference, that is to say, that religious violence is connected intrinsically to monotheism.60 Although one may problematise Assmann’s use of the term monotheism in this context (monolatry is more suitable), he is essentially right with one important qualification. Religious violence does not pertain specifically to the Israelite context. It is integral to the kosmos type of religion, which – due to its (principally) total interpretation of the world – can neither accept rivalling forms of kosmos religion, nor can it tolerate the predominant prevailing culture, which it typically castigates on account of its lack of knowledge and depraved 58 In 22:9, the text prohibits the Israelite to sow twice vineyard fields. If the Israelite transgresses the injunction, all his harvest shall be allotted to something declared sacred (‫)ת ְק ַּדׁש‬, ִ which most likely is the Temple, but again, the text does not spell it out. For discussion, see Otto, Deuter­ onomium 12,1–23,15, 1701–1702. 59 For the recent discussion, see Otto, Deuteronomium 12,1–23,15, 1173–1776. 60 Assmann, Mosaische Unterscheidung.

422 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

form of culture/religion. Admittedly, this argument may not appear compelling. What is the extent of aggression involved in, for example, Platonism or Confu­ cianism? I do not contend that all kosmos forms of religion are violent, just as any type of monotheism per se is not violent. What I do argue, though, is that kosmos types of religion by virtue of their aspiration to give a total account of the world is likely to enter into conflict with other forms of religion/culture, including competing forms of the same type. This is markedly different with urban types of religion in which the gods of the other people and other cities were considered to be basically the same ‘as ours’, although the others had given them different names and arguably did not honour them in the same superior way as the ‘we’. There is one last thing I shall emphasise as significant for attributing the text to an incipient kosmos form of religion. Apart from the fact that the Book does not make use of circumcision as a token of covenantal remembrance, it metaphor­ ically circumscribes circumcision to a matter of interiority. Israel shall circum­ scribe the foreskin of its heart and no longer be stiff­necked (10:16; cf. 30:6). More elements could be adduced as exemplary of an emerging type of kosmos religion, but the ones mentioned will have to suffice. At the same time, though, there are certainly features that pull in the entirely opposite direction of the urban form of religion. At various places, Deuteronomy is representative of a typically urban religion founded on the basic principle of sacrificial exchange between godhead and adepts: Damus, quia dedisti. YHWH will reward Israel for its cove­ nantal loyalty by supplying it with corn, wine, oil, abundance of offspring from oxen and sheep (7:13; cf. 28:1–14; 30:9). Israel shall have an abundance of boun­ ties like wheat, barley, vines, fig trees, pomegranates, oil, and honey. Addition­ ally, the land shall be full of fresh water (8:7–8). There are several elements in Deuteronomy, which preserve the urban type of religion. Despite Deuteronomy’s evocation of the culturally founded community united by the sharing of the Sh’ma, there are strong ethnic elements in the text. Moreover, I have emphasised that the sacrificial system continues to play an important role in Deuteronomy, just as we have seen that there is some emphasis on the place at which YHWH shall be worshipped. In addition to this, there is also in Deuteronomy mention of various religious feasts involving pilgrimage (Deuteronomy 16 mentions Pesach [16:1–8, 16–17]; Shavuot [16:9–12, 16–17], and Sukkot [16:13–15, 16–17]). However, my argument here has not been to place weight on the ambivalent character of Deuteronomy, but to accentuate it as a kosmos form of religion, although one having an emergent status. There are other texts – originating in the sapiential tradition – which more fully exemplify the kosmos type of religion such as Job and Qoheleth. My argu­ ment here, however, is that the formation of the synagogue and the emergence of early Christ­religion and its institutional articulation in the ekklēsia be thought of

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 423

– in terms of both philosophy of religion and history of religion – as an outgrowth of Deuteronomy and Deuteronomian religion. The layman religion of Deuteron­ omy – with its emphasis on fathers and sons – exemplifies a ‘democratisation’ of the urban cultic religion characterised by priestly authority and power.

7 A New Look on the Formation of Synagogue and Ekklēsia in Relation to the Temple We do not know the circumstances under which the synagogue emerged. In fact, the question continues to constitute a historical enigma both as regards the institution per se and the question of a distinct type of architecture,61 which was recognisable across larger geographical areas. We cannot take for granted that all synagogues from the point at which they also exemplified a specific type of building necessarily looked the same, but it is reasonable to assume that within a given area (for instance, Upper Egypt), they are likely to show architectural com­ monalities. Although the exact origin of the institution thus fades away into a conundrum, we are on a relatively safe ground when asserting that this type of religious organisation was prevalent sometime in the 2nd century BCE in the Dias­ pora and slightly later in Palestine,62 although the later dating of the institution to Palestine is also considered moot by some scholars. It may well be that the tradition ultimately dates back to the type of readings of Torah mentioned in the Book of Nehemiah (8:1–12; 9:3–10:40), but again we have not the slightest idea of the exact background, wherefore I refrain from the type of speculation one may find in some scholarship on the origin of the synagogue. I prefer to stay on safe historical ground and date the institution to the later Hellenistic period both as regards the Diaspora (again with regional differences which we unfortunately know so little of) and Palestine, although Northern Palestine presumably with some postponement and even more so in the Jerusalem area. Before turning to my key question relating to a possible rivalry between synagogue and the Jerusalem Temple and in, at least, the Egyptian Diaspora to other Israelite temples such as

61 The latter point is poignantly emphasised in Matassa’s posthumously published revised (in process) dissertation, see footnote four. It is tragic that the author did not have the opportunity to finalise the manuscript (see my review of it in JSJ). Despite its unfinished character, Matassa’s points are judicious and important. 62 There is, of course, the additional problem that synagogē does not designate a specific in­ stitution, but is a general term in Greek for any assembly, as is also ekklēsia. This point is well emphasised by Kloppenborg, Christ’s Associations, 19–20.

424 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

the one in Leontopolis and the one in Elephantine, one important qualification remains. During recent years, several scholars have pointed to the importance for further differentiation. Rather than thinking uniformly about synagogue, it is rea­ sonable to distinguish between different types. Anders Runesson, for instance, differentiates between two basic models. The one is the public or civic Jewish (Judean in my terminology) institution and the other the association type.63 Other scholars like Richard Ascough, Philip Harland, and Erich Gruen to name just a few have elaborated upon the resemblances between the association type of syn­ agogue and a variety of associations in the Graeco­Roman world placed on a con­ tinuum from voluntary clubs and guilds to more institutionalised organisations.64 Often, these discussions have been conducted in tandem with debates about the early Christ­religious ekklēsia.65 The relevance of the current scholarly discussion is obvious. It has contrib­ uted to dissolve a far more rigid and standardised version of the synagogue with limited basis in the pluriformity disclosed by the institution. At the same time, though, as recent scholarship has been exemplary in criticising a monolithic understanding of the synagogue, it has been disappointing in ignoring simple questions pertaining to selection. This, of course, has to do with the fact that traditionally trained scholars in the humanities are not familiar with research in the life and behavioural sciences. Yet, one would think – on the background of now more than 25 years of cognitive science of religion and, in recent years, also the inclusion of evolutionary studies – that questions posed by these disciplines would slowly begin to exert influence on more traditional humanities. In fact, it would be advantageous for the discussion to consider these perspectives. I think it is very likely that no individual member of any synagogue thought of it as being in competition or rivalry with the Temple in Jerusalem. This seems a fair assumption; but the fallacy of traditional scholarship on the topic, also recent ones, is the confinement of the discussion to this analytical level only. To the best of my knowledge, none of this scholarship has posed the question about the institutional and societal level. Some scholars may disagree with this objection and argue that we cannot pose the question at this level, but I think we

63 Runesson, Origins of the Synagogue, 479–480. 64 See in particular Harland, Associations; Ascough, What Are They Saying; Gruen, Syna­ gogues; Ascough, Methodological Reflections. 65 For an extensive discussion of the latter in the context of Greek associations, see in particular Kloppenborg, Christ’s Associations.

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 425

need to.66 Why would anyone invent a new form of worship if the traditional one sufficed? What were the attractions which led to the formation of the synagogue as an alternative to the Temple? Even if we consider it supplementary or comple­ mentary to the Temple cult, one cannot avoid the conclusion at the institutional level that Temple worship per se did not meet the requirements of the YHWH adherents. Surely, one may criticise this argument because of its implied aspect of deprivation. But even if one were to pose such criticism, one is left with the ques­ tion what prompted the emergence of the new institution. One option is to return to the old model of contending that it was the lack of proximity to the Temple that gave rise to the synagogue, but in that case the existence of synagogues close to and in Jerusalem posit a challenge. I do not see that one can avoid endorsing a dimension of deprivation at some level or other in order to be able to account for the evolution of changes eventually stabilising themselves in the form of a new institution. As should be evident from my argument about the difference between the urban and the kosmos type of religion, I think the factor needed to explain the rise of the synagogue is, in fact, the transition to the kosmos form of religion. This is prefigured in Deuteronomy with its emphasis on Torah, faithfulness towards a particular shared cultural frame, i.e. the one emblematised in the S’hma, that in principle Israel is not based on a biological genealogy as in the traditional urban form of religion, but on a specific worldview coming into existence, when the assembly gathers to join in the S’hma. For the very same reasons, I disagree with scholars like Paula Fredriksen and Eyal Regev and a great many other contemporary voices in their playing down the conflictual aspect between the Christ­religious ekklēsia and the Temple. Again, I do not doubt that a great many Christ­adherents, especially of an ethnic Judean background, did not necessarily see a competition between temple and Christ­ assembly. Once again, though, I think that to discuss the topic at this analytical level only severely hampers the examination. I accentuate the need for paying heed to the institutional collective level in the reflections upon the topic. What factors within Israel­religion gave rise to the emergence of early Christ­religion? What attractors made it an appealing option to Judeans of the first century CE? In what way did it offer new opportunities adaptive to a biotic and especially soci­ otic ecology under drastic change?

66 For a full discussion of the importance of including institutional selection mechanisms, see Turner / Maryanski / Petersen / Geertz, Emergence; Turner / Geertz / Petersen / Maryanski, Explaining the Emergence;

426 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

If one raises the question about the relationship between the Temple, the syn­ agogue, and the ekklēsia in this way, the consequence is hardly an understanding of the three as standing in a reciprocal, mutual, harmonious, and complementary relationship to each other. The Temple is – together with the sacrificial system – an epitome of the urban form of religion. Assuredly, it lived on in terms of archi­ tectural influence – exemplified by different zones of sacredness – as one may see by entering most synagogues or churches today, but its architectural persistence does not entail an essential continuity. On the contrary, the whole raison d’être of the Temple disappeared with demise of urban religion at the end of late Antiquity in the Western world. The emergence of Christ­religion and its institutional embodiment in the ekklēsia may be understood as a democratisation of the kosmos form of religion. This is not particular to Christ­religion. The same pertains to, for instance, Buddhism; but it is characteristic of formative Christ­religion that compared to earlier forms of kosmos religion, it embraced far greater masses than say Platonism or Confucian­ ism directed as they were towards a more exclusive segment of people. Certainly, it was not by chance that Nietzsche in Jenseits von Gut und Böse could characterise early Christ­religion as Platonism for the masses: “Denn Christentum ist Platonis­ mus für’s Volk.”67 The people coming together in the early Christ­religious ekklēsia were – in its Pauline version – enjoined to present their bodies a living sacrifice, sacred, pleasant to God, their reasonable service. In fact, they are inculcated not to conform themselves to this world, but to renew their minds in order to see, what is the good, pleasant, and perfect will of God (Romans 12:1–2). The ascetic ideal – implied in this paraklesis – is typical of the kosmos form of religion. Christ­followers are incarcerated in the world as well as their carnal bodies. Through a continuous program of training (the basic meaning of askēsis in Greek), they shall undergo a process of divinisation through which they will increasingly come closer to God. To be able to do so, they have been granted the pneuma – a mythic circumscription of the modalities knowing and being able to do – which, similar to YHWH’s glory in the innermost part of the Temple, have been infused into their interior. Both as selves and as an assembly,68 Christ­adherents realise the Temple of God as regards their interior of which the Spirit inhabits (cf. 1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16). In fact, the paraenesis of the Pauline letters functions to form Christ­followers into the sacrificial objects worthy to be received by God.69 This way of instantiating Christ­ adherents is a perfect illustration of the change from an urban to a kosmos form of 67 Nietzsche, Jenseits, 156. 68 I agree with Martin, Corinthian Body, who emphasises both the indivual and collective as­ pects of the metaphor. 69 See Petersen, Paraenesis, 284–293.

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 427

religion. It exemplifies the transition from a transitive to a reflexive type of sacrifice. Christ­adherents are called to sacrifice themselves in terms of the life they are living as an enduring ascetic program enabling them to casting off the garments of this world and its carnality and to induce themselves into a pneumatic robe made of the same substance as God. This, in fact, is the manière de vivre comparable to what Pierre Hadot spoke about in the context of the Greek philosophical schools. Sacri­ fices offered on their behalf (transitive ones) do no longer suffice. They are enjoined and required to give themselves – a thinking that comes to full blossom in the idea of martyrdom so prevalent of 2nd century CE types of Christ­religion and forged on the model of 2 and 4 Maccabees.

8 Conclusion The aim of this chapter – in honour of a great scholar and admirable human, Géza Xeravits – has been to take issue with the recent prevalent trend in scholarship to argue that no opposition existed between the Temple, on the one side, and the synagogue and the ekklēsia, on the other side. True as this may be with respect to individuals who – most likely – would visit both institutions without thinking about any antagonism or rivalry between them. I think it a serious flaw of current scholarship not to pose the question on the institutional, collective level of ana­ lysis. In order to be able to account for cultural, religious, and social changes, one needs to raise the question about the selection pressures underlying them and the adaptions to which they responded. In this way, I do not think there is a great difference between the mechanisms relating to natural selection per se and the more inclusive type of natural selection found in the human species, which encompasses an additional number of selection mechanisms. This is because humans are a species with a high degree of intentionality, both at the individual and the collective, institutional level, wherefore natural selection, as tradition­ ally understood in terms of ‘the modern synthesis’ does not suffice to account for human behaviour and evolution. In particular and in close continuity with the previous point, I have high­ lighted the importance of the transition from urban forms of religion to the kosmos types of religion as a model for understanding the relationship between the Temple vis­à­vis the synagogue and the ekklēesia. This change is most easily accounted for in terms of the selection pressures stemming from the rise of the first empires from the 7th century BCE and onwards. The core argument has been that any change needs to be seen as a response to environmental changes – be they a result of either the sociotic or biotic ecology or both. Within such a per­

428 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

spective, which any scholar in the life and behaviour sciences would think inevi­ table, one cannot claim a harmonious, complementary relationship between the Temple, the synagogue, and the ekklēsia. In fact, the rise of the latter two insti­ tutions are due to selection pressures, which the temple – infinitely connected to the urban form of religion – could not provide. Any one formulating him­ or herself in such language is likely to be met with the objection by scholars in the humanities that this is a new form of supersession­ ism ultimately relapsing into deeply problematical schemes of thinking. I disagree. The argument is not a resuscitation of older Protestant ways of claiming superiority over Judaism and Roman Catholicism. I do not draw any conclusions about which type of religion is the truest or the best. How could I – within a scientific perspec­ tive? What I do argue, though, is that the forms of religion presented are adaptive responses to different types of societies. This is an argument conducted in the realm of aesthetics, in which we are examining different types of societal complexity. And surely, a society comprising a multiplicity of ethnicities and a much greater popula­ tion is more complex in terms of organisation than one confined to the city and the relatively homogenous group of people inhabiting the city. Finally, I contend that the type of questions and line of argument put forward here need to be integrated in future studies on such complex issues as the relation­ ship between the Temple, synagogue, and ekklēsia, if we want a full picture of the historical processes. To confine the question to a matter of textual interpretation and posing the question of individual propensities for either of the institutions is a very limited way of approaching the topic. For a full understanding (and expla­ nation), one needs also discuss the issue in basic evolutionary and societal terms. Looked upon in this way, the Temple obviously did not enjoy the same status as it had, when it constituted the sole source of religious power. The more so, because the temple and the sacrificial system – the essence of urban forms of religion – ulti­ mately became superfluous and desolate within the kosmos type of religion. Sac­ rifices given on one’s own behalf cannot accomplish very much, when the divine demands made require that one sacrifices oneself. Similarly, temples as the abode of the god cannot fulfil very much, when the god resides in one’s interior.

Bibliography Ascough, R. S., What Are They Saying about the Formation of the Pauline Churches?, Mahwah 1998. Ascough, R., Methodological Reflections on Synagogues and Christ Groups as “Associations”. A Response to Erich Gruen: Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting 4 (2017) 118–126.

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 429

Assmann, J., Die mosaische Unterscheidung oder der Preis des Monotheismus, Munich 2003. Baumard, N. / Hyafil, A. / Morris, I. / Boyer, P., Increased Affluence Explains the Emergence of Ascetic Wisdoms and Moralizing Religions: Current Biology 25 (2015) 1–6. Becker, E.-M., The Birth of Christian History. Memory and Time from Mark to Luke-Acts (AYBRL), New Haven 2018. Beheim, B. / Atkinson, Q. / Bulbulia, J. et al., Corrected Analyses Show That Moralizing Gods Precede Complex Societies but Serious Data Concerns Remain: PsyArXiv (2019) doi:10.31234/osf.io/jwa2n. Bellah, R. N. / Joas, H. (eds.), The Axial Age and Its Consequences, Cambridge 2012. Bellah, R. N., Religion in Human Evolution. From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age, Cambridge 2011. Bellah, R. N., What Is Axial about the Axial Age?: Archives Européennes de Sociologie 46 (2005) 69–89. Bickermann, E., Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas, in: E. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Volume One, Leiden 1976, 109–136. Binder, D. D., Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period (SBL DS 169), Atlanta 1999. Böttrich, Ch., ‘Ihr seid der Tempel Gottes.’ Tempelmetaphorik und Gemeinde bei Paulus, in: B. Ego et al. (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel – Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, Antiken Judentum und Frühen Christentum (WUNT 219), Tübingen 1999, 411–425. Collins, J. J., Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (BRS), Grand Rapids 2000. Coyne, J. A., Why Evolution Is True (Oxford Landmark Science), Oxford 2009. Dawson, D., Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria, Berkeley 1992. Dunn, J. D. G., The New Perspective on Paul (WUNT 185), Tübingen 2005. Dunn, J. D. G., The New Perspective on Paul: BJRL 65 (1983) 95–122. Durkheim, É., Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse. Le système totémique en Australie, Paris 1912. Fredriksen, P., Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle, New Haven 2017. Gärtner, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament (SNTS MS 1), Cambridge 1965. Gerstenberger, E., Theologien im Alten Testament: Pluralität und Synkretismus alttestamentlichen Gottesglaubens, Stuttgart 2001. Gould, S. J. / Lewontin, R., The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme: Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 205/1161 (1979) 581–598. Goulder, M. D., Is Q a Juggernaut?: JBL 115 (1996) 667–681. Goulder, M. D., Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20), Sheffield 1989. Gruen, E. S., Herritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (HCS 30), Berkeley 1998. Gruen, E. S., Synagogues and Voluntary Associations as Institutional Models. A Response to Richard Ascough and Ralph Corner: Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting 3 (2016) 125–131. Habermas, J., Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie. Band 1–2, Frankfurt am Main 2019. Hadas M., Aristeas to Philocrates (JAL 2), New York 1951.

430 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

Hadot, P., La philosophie comme une manière de vivre. Entretiens avec Jeannie Carlier et Arnold I. Davidson, Paris 2001. Harland, Ph. A., Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society, Minneapolis 2003. Henrich, J., The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter, Princeton 2016. Hogeterp, A. L. A., Paul and God’s Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence (BTS 2), Leuven 2006. Honigmann, S., The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas, London 2003. Hoyer D. / Reddish, J. (eds.), Seshat History of the Axial Age, Chaplin 2019. Jablonka, E. / Lamb, M. J., Evolution in Four Dimensions: The Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life (Bradford Books), Cambridge 2005. Jaspers, K., Vom europäischen Geist. Vortrag gehalten bei den Recontres Internationales de Genève September 1946, Munich 1947. Jaspers, K., Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte, Munich 1949. Jensen H. J. L., Enklave-mentalitet og pietisme, vold og visdom: Teologiske strømninger i Deuteronomium, in: J. Dietrich et al. (eds.), Gud og os: Teologiske læsninger af Det Gamle Testamente i det 21. århundrede, Copenhagen 2021, 113–144. Johnson, D., God Is Watching You: How the Fear of God Makes Us Human, Oxford 2015. Kee, H. C. / Cohick, L. H. (eds.), Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress, Harrisburg 1999. Klinzing, G., Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im NT (SUNT 7), Göttingen 1971. Kloppenborg, J., Christ’s Associations: Connecting and Belonging in the Ancient City, New Haven 2019. Laland, K., Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind, Princeton 2017. Lanci, J. R., A New Temple for Corinth: Rhetorical and Archaeological Approaches to Pauline Imagery, New York 1997. Lang, M. / Purzycki, B. G. / Apicella, C. L. et al., Moralizing Gods, Impartiality and Religious Parochialism Across 15 Societies:, PRSB 286/20190202 (2019) 1–10. (https://doi. org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0202). Levine, L. I., The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, New Haven 2005. Lloyd, G., Demystifying Mentalities (Themes in Social Sciences), Cambridge 1990. Martin, D. B., The Corinthian Body, New Haven 1995. Matassa, L. D., Invention of the First-Century Synagogue, [J. M. Silverman and J. M. Watson (eds.)], Atlanta 2018. McKnight, S. / Oropeza, B. J. (eds.), Perspectives on Paul: Five Views, Grand Rapids 2020. Müller, M., Acts as Rewriting of the Gospels and Paul’s Letters, in: M. Müller and J. Tang Nielsen (eds.), Luke’s Literary Creativity (LNTS), London 2016, 96–117. Müller, M., Luke – the Fourth Gospel? The “Rewritten Bible” Concept as a Way to Understand the Nature of the Gospels, in: S.-O. Back and M. Kankaanniemi (eds.), Voces Clamatium in Deserto: Essays in Honor of Kari Syreeni, Åbo 2012, 231–242. Nanos, M. D. / Zetterholm, M., Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle, Minneapolis 2015. Nanos, M. D., Reading Corinthians and Philippians within Judaism (Collected Essays of Mark D. Nanos. Vol. 4), Eugene 2017.

An Evolutionary Perspective 

 431

Nanos, M. D., Reading Paul within Judaism (Collected Essays of Mark D. Nanos. Vol. 1), Eugene 2017. Nanos, M. D., Reading Romans within Judaism (Collected Essays of Mark D. Nanos. Vol. 2), Eugene 2018. Nanos, M. D., The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context, Minneapolis 2002. Nietzsche, F., Jenseits von Gut und Böse. Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft. Friedrich Nietzsche Werke in Vier Bänden. Band IV, Salzburg 1985. Norenzayan, A., Big Gods. How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict, Princeton 2013. Otto, E., Deuteronomium 1,1–4,43 (HThKAT), Stuttgart 2012. Otto, E., Deuteronomium 12,1–23,15 (HThKAT), Stuttgart 2016. Petersen, A. K. / Turner, J. H. / Geertz, A. W. / Maryanski, A., Homines Emotionales and Religion as an Evolutionary Exaptation. A Response to Leonardo Ambasciano: Journal of Cognitive Historiography 2020 (forthcoming). Petersen, A. K., A New Take on Asceticism: Asceticism as Training and Secession Suspended between Individuality and Collectivity: Numen 66 (2019) 465–498. Petersen, A. K., Apologetics, in: R. A. Segal and K. von Stuckrad (eds.), Vocabulary for the Study of Religion. Volume One. A-E, Leiden 2015, 110–114. Petersen, A. K., Apologetik i Aristeas, in: A. Klostergaard Petersen et al (eds.), Perspektiver på jødisk apologetic, Copenhagen 2007, 45–67. Petersen, A. K., Book Essay. How to Understand Ancient Judaism?: JSJ 52 (2021) 105–125. Petersen, A. K., Continuity as a Core Concept for a Renewed Science of Religion, in: Petersen, Anders Klostergaard et al (eds.), Evolution, Cognition, and the History of Religion: A New Synthesis. Festschrift in Honour of Armin W. Geertz (Supplements to Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 13), Leiden 2019, 81–99. Petersen, A. K., Paraenesis in Pauline Scholarship and in Paul – an Intricate Relationship, in: J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (BZNW 125), Berlin 2004, 267–296. Petersen, A. K., Plato’s Philosophy – Why not just Platonic Religion?: in: A. Klostergaard Petersen / G. van Kooten (eds.), Religio-Philosophical Discourses in the Mediterranean World. From Plato, through Jesus, to Late Antiquity (APhR 1), Leiden 2016, 9–36. Petersen, A. K., The Tangled Cultural History of the Axial Age: A Review of Jan Assmann’s Achsenzeit (2018): Journal of Cognitive Historiography 4 (2017) 257–271. Petersen, A. K., The Use of Historiography in Paul: A Case-Study of the Instrumentalisation of the Past in the Context of Late Second Temple Judaism, in: B.-Ch. Otto et al (eds.), History and Religion. Narrating a Religious Past (RVV 68), Berlin 2015, 63–92. Petersen, A. K.., Unveiling the Obvious – Synagogue and Church: Sisters or Different Species? in: J. H. Ellens et al (eds.), Wisdom Poured Out Like Water. Studies on Jewish and Christian Antiquity in Honor of Gabriele Boccaccini (DCLS 36), Berlin 2018, 575–592. Petersen, A. K., Hotspots, Coldspots, Luke-Warm, and Cold-Warm Spots: On the Usefulness of a New Category: Numen (2021) (forthcoming). Petersen, A. K., From Watching Human Acts to Penetrating Their Souls, in: B. Purzycki and Th. Bendixen (eds.), The Minds of Gods – A Cross-Disciplinary Survey, London (forthcoming). Petersen, A. K., From Torah to Torahization: a Biocultural Evolutionary Perspective, in: W. Schniedewind et al (eds.), Torah: Functions, Meanings, and Diverse Manifestations in Early Judaism and Christianity, Atlanta (forthcoming).

432 

 Anders Klostergaard Petersen

Petersen, A. K., From Humans Sacrificing to Humans Sacrificing Themselves, in: M. Walsh et al (eds.), Human Sacrifice and Value, Oxford (forthcoming). Purzycki, B. G. / Apicella, C. / Atkinson, Q. D. et al., Moralistic Gods, Supernatural Punishment and the Expansion of Human Sociality: Nature 530 (2016) 327–330. Purzycki, B. G. / Ross, C. T. / Apicella, C. et al., Material Security, Life History, and Moralistic Religions: A Cross-Cultural Examination,” PLOS ONE 13/3 (2018), e0193856 (https//doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0193856. Regev, E., The Temple in Early Christianity, New Haven 2019. Runesson, A. / Binder, D. D. / Olsson, B., The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 C.E.: A Source-Book (AJEC 72), Leiden 2010. Runesson, A., The Origins of the Synagogue: A Socio-Historical Study (Coniectanea biblica 37), Stockholm 2001. Runesson, A., The Origins of the Synagogue: A Socio-Historical Study, Stockholm 2001. Sanderson, S. K., Religious Evolution and the Axial Age: From Shamans to Priests and Prophets (SSRIE), London 2018. Sedley, D., The Ideal of Godlikeness, in: G. Fine (ed.), Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Plato 2. Ethics, Politics, Religion, and the Soul, Oxford 1999, 309–328. Skjærvø, P. O., Avestan Society, in: T. Daryaee (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History, Oxford 2012, 57–119. Tcherikover, V., Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered: Eos 48 (1956) 169–193. Tcherikover, V., The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas: HTR 51 (1958) 57–85. Turchin, P. / Whitehouse, H. / Francois, P. et al., Explaining the Rise of Moralizing Religions: a Test of Competing Hypotheses Using the Seshat Databank: Social ArcXiv (2020) 1–27 (pre-print 23.02.20); Turner, J. H. / Geertz, A. W. / Petersen, K. A. / Maryanski, A., Explaining the Emergence of Religion: a response to commentators: RBB 10 (2020) 100–114. Turner, J. H. / Maryanski, A. / Petersen, K. A. / Geertz, A. W., The Emergence and Evolution of Religion: By Means of Natural Selection, New York 2018. Wenschekewitz, H., Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe: Tempel, Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament (Beihefte Angelos 4), Leipzig 1932. Whitehouse, H. / Francois, P. / Savage, P. E. et al., Complex Societies Precede Moralizing Gods Throughout World History: Nature 568 (2019) 226–229. Woodward, J., Making Things Happen. A Theory of Causal Explanation, Oxford 2003. Xeravits, G., From Qumran to the Synagogues: Selected Studies on Ancient Judaism (DCLS 43), Berlin 2019.

Bibliography of Géza G. Xeravits 1 Books 1.1 English and German Books 2019 2015a 2015b 2003

From Qumran to the Synagogues. Selected Studies on Ancient Judaism. (edited by Ádám Vér) DCLS 43. Berlin: De Gruyter. [ISBN: 978-3-11-061561-6] “Take Courage, O Jerusalem….” Studies in the Psalms of Baruch 4–5. DCLS 25. Berlin: De Gruyter. [ISBN: 978-3-11-041200-0] Einführung in die Qumranliteratur. (co-writer with Peter Prozig) De Gruyter Studium. Berlin: De Gruyter. [ISBN: 978-3-11-038756-8] King, Priest, Prophet. Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library. STDJ 47. Leiden: Brill. [ISBN: 978-9-00-412892-7]

1.2 Hungarian Books 2020 2018 2017 2016 2010 2009a 2009b 2008a 2008b 2006 2004 2003

2001

Bevezetés a deuterokanonikus könyvek keletkezés- és irodalomtörténetébe. (edited Miklós Szabó) Budapest: Kairosz. [ISBN: 978-963-514-059-6] “Sebeiben van gyógyulásunk.” (co-writer György Heidl) Budapest: Kairosz. [ISBN: 978-9-63-662990-8] Egy nap Jézus nyomában: Az Olajfák hegyétől a Szent Sírig. Budapest: Agra. [ISBN: 978-963-12-8575-8] Zsidó és keresztény szent helyek a késő-ókori Palesztinában. Budapest: Ráday Gyűjtemény Bibliamúzeum [ISBN: 978-963-82-9913-0]. A próféták élete. Bevezetés, fordítás és jegyzetek. Eulogia 3. Budapest: L’Harmattan. [ISBN: 978-963-23-6321-9]. Morzsák Dánieltől Bárukig. Újabb tanulmányok a korai zsidóság irodalmából. Budapest: Sapientia Szerzetesi Hittudományi Főiskola. [ISBN: 978-963-88-3560-4] Krisztus köztünk...! Gondolatok a Szentírásról. Budapest: Sapientia Szerzetesi Hittudományi Főiskola. [ISBN: 978-963-23-6222-9] Könyvtár a pusztában. Bevezetés a holt-tengeri tekercsek nem-bibliai irodalmába. Deuterocanonica 3. Pápa–Budapest: PRTA–L’Harmattan. [ISBN: 978-963-97-7904-4] A deuterokanonikus könyvek. Bevezetés keletkezés- és irodalomtörténetükbe. Deuterocanonica 4. Pápa–Budapest: PRTA–L’Harmattan. [ISBN: 978-963-97-7909-9] A Zarándokénekek. Zsoltártanulmányok, első kötet (Zsolt. 120–134). Lectio Divina 3. Bakonybél: Szent Mauríciusz Monostor. [ISBN: 963-7343-75-X] Tanulmányok az ókori Izrael kultuszáról. Simeon Könyvek 2. Pápa: Pápai Református Teológiai Akadémia. [ISBN: 963-8645-81-4] Átalakuló hagyományok. Tanulmányok a qumrani Közösség, a korai zsidóság és a születő kereszténység irodalmából. Coram Deo. Budapest: L’Harmattan. [ISBN: 963-9457-36-1] A qumrâni közösség szentírásértelmezése. Folyamatos pešerek. Acta Theologica Papensia 5. Pápa: Pápai Református Teológiai Akadémia. [ISBN: 963-0068-17-6]

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-025

434  1995

 Bibliography of Géza G. Xeravits

Szentírás-értelmezés Qumrânban. Folyamatos pešerek. Fordítás és magyarázat. KRE HTK Bibliai és Judaiszikai Kutatócsoport Kiadványai. Budapest: Budapesti Református Teológiai Akadémia. [ISBN: 978-963-8392-16-9]

2 Edited Volumes 2.1 English Volumes 2018

2017

2015 2014a

2014b 2013 2012 2010a

2010b 2010c 2010d 2008

2007a 2007b

2005

Figures Who Shape Scriptures, Scriptures that Shape Figures. Essays in Honour of Benjamin G. Wright. (co-editor with Greg Schmidt Goering) DCLS 40. Berlin: De Gruyter. [ISBN: 978-3-11-059637-3] Various Aspects of Worship in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. (co-editor with József Zsengellér and Ibolya Balla) DCLY 2016/2017. Berlin: De Gruyter. [ISBN: 978-3-11-046656-0] Religion and Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments. DCLS 28. Berlin: De Gruyter [ISBN: 978-3-11-041009-9] Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals. Papers of the Jubilee Meeting of the International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books. (co-editor with József Zsengellér and Xavér Szabó) DCLS 22. Berlin: De Gruyter [ISBN: 978-3-11-039254-8] Political Power and Ideology in Early Judaism. in: Biblische Notizen 161. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. [ISSN: 0178-2967] Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. (co-editor with Tobias Nicklas and Isaac Kalimi) DCLS 16. Berlin: De Gruyter. [ISBN: 978-3-11-029553-5] A Pious Seductress. Studies in the Book of Judith. DCLS 14. Berlin: De Gruyter. [ISBN: 978-3-11-027998-6] The Stranger in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Tradition: Papers Read at the First Meeting of the JBSCE, Piliscsaba, 2009. (co-editor with Jan Dušek) DCLS 4. Berlin: De Gruyter. [ISBN: 978-3-11-022204-3] Dualism in Qumran. LSTS 76. London: T&T Clark. [ISBN: 978-0-56-723435-3] Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books: Selected Studies. (co-editor with József Zsengellér) DCLS 5. Berlin: De Gruyter. [ISBN: 978-3-11-024053-5] Studies in the Book of Wisdom. (co-editor with József Zsengellér) JSJSup 142. Leiden: Brill. [ISBN: 978-9-00-418803-7] Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18-20 May, 2006. (co-editor with József Zsengellér) JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill. [ISBN: 978-9-00-416906-7] Reflecting Diversity. Historical and Thematical Perspectives in the Jewish and Christian Tradition. (co-editor with Péter Losonczi) IS 1. Wien: LIT. [ISBN: 978-3-82-580508-1] The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology: Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9-11 June, 2005. (co-editor with József Zsengellér) JSJSup 118. Leiden: Brill. [ISBN: 978-9-04-741893-1] The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20-21 May, 2004. (co-editor with József Zsengellér) JSJSup 98. Leiden: Brill. [ISBN: 978-9-00-414376-0]

3 Articles, Book Chapters and Lexicons Articles 

 435

2.2 Hungarian Volumes Szent helyek, szent körzetek: Tibettől Etiópiáig. (co-editor with Elek Nagy) Budapest: L’Harmattan. [ISBN: 978-963-236-579-4] 2011a Angyalok az ókortól Szent Tamásig. (co-editor with Balázs Tamási and Miklós Xavér Szabó) Bibliatudomány Tanszék Kiadványai 7. Budapest: Sapientia Szerzetesi Hittudományi Főiskola. [ISBN: 978-963-236-459-9] 2011b Az igazságról. (co-editor with Miklós Papp) Sapientia Füzetek 19. Budapest: Vigilia. [ISBN: 978-963-992-020-0] 2010 Izsák megkötözése. Történet és hatástörténet. Bibliatudomány Tanszék Kiadványai 3. Budapest: Sapientia Szerzetesi Hittudományi Főiskola. [ISBN: 978-963-88356-2-8] 2008 A liturgiáról ökumenikus megközelítésben. Horizontok 4. Pápa: Pápai Református Teológiai Akadémia. [ISBN: 978-963-9779-03-7] 2005a Tobit/Tóbiás könyve. Szöveg – hagyomány – teológia (co-editor with József Zsengellér) Deuterocanonica 2. Pápa: Pápai Református Teológiai Akadémia. [ISBN: 963-86763-0-2] 2005b Ikonográfia ökumenikus megközelítésben. Horizontok 1. Pápa: Pápai Református Teológiai Akadémia. [ISBN: 963-9457-93-0] 2005c Elmélet és gyakorlat a zsidó-keresztény gondolkodás történetében. (co-editor with Balázs Ódor) Horizontok 2. Pápa: Pápai Református Teológiai Akadémia. [ISBN: 963-9457-94-9] 2005 A remeteélet iskolájában. Válogatott források és tanulmányok. (co-editor with Izsák Baán) Lectio Divina 2. Bakonybél: Szent Mauríciusz Monostor. [ISBN: 963-7343-22-9] 2004 Vita és párbeszéd. A monoteista hagyomány történeti perspektívában. (co-editor with Péter Losonczi) Dialogos. Budapest: Goldziher Intézet. [ISBN: 963-9457-78-7] 2012

3 Articles, Book Chapters and Lexicons Articles 3.1 English, German and French Articles 2019 2018

2018 2017a

2017b

“David in the Dura Synagogue,” in David in Cultural Memory. Ida Fröhlich, ed. CBET 93. Leuven: Peeters, 163–170. “The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art,” in Figures who Shape Scriptures, Scriptures that Shape Figures. Essays in Honour of Banjamin G Wright III. Géza Xeravits and Greg Schmidt Goering eds., DCLS 40. Berlin: De Guyter, 71–90. “Lives of the Prophets,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Volume 16. Berlin: De Gruyter, 956–957. “The Figure of Moses in Ancient Synagogue Art,” in Mosebilder. Gedanken zur Rezeption einer literarischen Figur im Frühjudentum, frühen Christentum und der römisch-hellenistischen Literatur. Michael Sommer et al., eds. WUNT 390. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 415–428. “Remarks on the emergence of Daniel 1,” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 56 (2017) 151–156.

436  2017c

2017d 2017e 2017f 2017g 2016a

2016b

2016c

2016d 2015a

2015b

2013a 2013b 2013c 2013d 2013e

2012 2011

2010a

 Bibliography of Géza G. Xeravits

“Temple and Synagogue in Late Antiquity,” in Various Aspects of Worship in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Géza Xeravits, József Zsengellér and Ibolya Balla, eds. DCLY 2016/2017. Berlin: De Guyter, 341–364. “The Message of the West Wall of the Dura Synagogue,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 167 (2017) 111–125. “Goddesses in the Synagogue?,” Journal for The Study of Judaism 48 (2017) 266–276. “The Angel’s Self-Revelation in Tobit 12,” in Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls : John Collins at Seventy. Joel Baden et al., eds. JSJSup 175. Leiden: Brill, 1399–1417. “Joppa,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, Vol. 14. Berlin: De Gruyter, 635–637. “A Possible Greek Bible Source for Late Antique Synagogue Art,” in Construction, Coherence and Connotations: Studies on the Septuagint, Apocryphal and Cognate Literature. Pierre J. Jordan and Nicholas P. L. Allen, eds. DCLS 34. Berlin: De Guyter, 233–248. “The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5–5:9,” in Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception. Sean A. Adams, ed. DCLS 23. Berlin: De Gruyter, 97–134. “The Crossing of the Sea in Pseudo-Philo,” in Exodus: Rezeptionen in deuterokanonischer und frühjüdischer Literatur. Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz, eds. DCLS 32. Berlin: De Gruyter, 289–298. “Die Frage der positiven eschatologischen Hauptgestalten in Qumran,” Biblische Zeitschrift 60 (2016) 28–51. “The Figure of Daniel in Late Antique Synagogue Art,” in Propheten der Epochen = Prophets during the Epochs : Festschrift Für Istvan Karasszon Zum 60. Geburtstag. Viktor Kókai Nagy and Sándor László Egeresi, eds. AOAT 426. Münster: Ugarit, 217–231. “Metaphors in the Closing Verses of the Book of Baruch,” in The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Makcus Witte and Sven Behnke, ed. DCLY 2014/2015. Berlin: De Guyter, 345–353. “The Praise of the Widow?,” in Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Angelo Passaro, ed. DCLY 2012/2013. Berlin: De Gruyter, 273–281. “Eschatology III. Judaism,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Volume 7. Berlin: De Gyruter, 1160–1164. “Elijah III. Judaism A. Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Volume 7. Berlin: De Gruyter, 690–691. “‫נבא נביא נבואה‬,” in Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten. Band 2, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 847–852. “Some Common Themes in the Early Jewish Prophetic Biographies of Vitae Prophetarum,” in Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage: Festschrift für Friedrich V. Reiterer Zum 65. Geburtstag. Renate Egger-Wenzel et al., eds. DCLS 15. Berlin: De Gruyter, 437–449. “The Supplication of Judith (Judith 9:2–14),” in A Pious Seductress. Studies in the Book of Judith. Géza G. Xeravits ed., DCLS 14. Berlin: De Gruyter, 161–178. “Conflicting Ideas about the Temple in 2 Baruch 4 and 6,” in Judaism and Crisis. Crisis as a Catalyst in Jewish Cultural History, Armin Lange et al., eds. SIJD 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 153–164. “‘Stranger in a Strange Land:’ Tobiah’s Journey,” in The Stranger in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Tradition: Papers Read at the First Meeting of the JBSCE, Piliscsaba, 2009. Géza G. Xeravits and Jan Dušek, eds. DCLS 4. Berlin: De Gruyter, 86–94.

3 Articles, Book Chapters and Lexicons Articles 

2010b 2010c 2009a

2009b

2007a

2007b

2007c

2005 2003a 2003b

2001a 2001b 2000a 2000b 1999 1997

 437

“Son of God,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1248a–1249b. “Rule of the Congregation,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1171b–1172b. “Remarks on the Miracles of Elisha in the Lives of the Prophets 22:5–20,” in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich, Károly Dobos and Miklós Kőszeghy, eds. HBM 21. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 360–364. “The Wonders of Elijah in the Lives of the Prophets,” in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Hermann Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittmann-Richert, eds. DCLY 2008. Berlin: De Gruyter, 231–238. “From the Forefathers to the ‘Angry Lion,’” in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, eds. JSJSup 118. Ledien: Brill, 211–221. “Interreligiosity as a Literary Fiction in the ‘Court Tales’ of the Old Testament,” in Historical and Thematical Perspectives in the Jewish and Christian Tradition. Géza G. Xeravits and Péter Losonczi, eds. IS 1. Wien: LIT, 1–11. “Some Remarks on the Figure of Elijah in Lives of the Prophets 21:1–3,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, Anthony Hillhorst et al., eds. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 499–508. “Poetic Passages in the Aramaic Part of the Book of Daniel,” Biblische Notizen 124 (2005) 29–40. “Moses Redivivus in Qumran?,” The Qumran Chronicle 11 (2003) 91–105. “Wisdom Traits in the Qumranic Presentation of the Eschatological Prophet,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, Florentino García Martínez, ed. BETHL 168. Leuven: Peeters, 183–192. “Does the Figure of ‘Son of Man’ Have a Place in the Eschatological Thinking of the Qumran Community?,” Louvain Studies 26 (2001) 334–345. “The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira,” Henoch 23 (2001) 27–38. “Considerations on Canon and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Qumran Chronicle 9 (2000) 165–178. “The Early History of Qumran’s Messianic Expectations,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 76 (2000) 113–121. “Précisions sur le texte original et le concept messianique de CD 7:13-8:1 et 19:5-14,” Revue De Qumran 73 (1999) 47–59. “Notes sur le 11QPsa Créat. 7–9,” Revue De Qumran 69 (1997) 145–148.

3.2 Hungarian Articles 2019a 2019b 2019c

“Mindenem él,” Embertárs 17 (2019) 203–210. “Manasszé imája: szerkezet és biblikus háttér,” Antik Tanulmányok – Studia Antiqua 63 (2019) 231–240. “Mózes alakja az ókori zsinagógaművészetben,” (co-writer with A. Egyed) Ókor 18 (2019) 54–61.

438  2019d 2018 2017a 2017b 2016 2014 2013 2012a 2012b

2012c 2012d 2012e 2011a 2011b 2011c

2011d

2011e 2010

2009a 2009b 2009c

2007a 2007b 2006 2005a 2005b 2005c

 Bibliography of Géza G. Xeravits

“Az angyalok neme,” Studia Biblica Athanasiana 20 (2019) 163–172. “Juszuf bácsi Palesztinában,” (co-writer with József Zsengellér) Historia Ecclesiastica 9 (2018) 263–274. “Japhi’a mozaiktöredéke: törzsek vagy állatöv?,” Antik Tanulmányok – Studia Antiqua 61 (2017) 103–112. “Dániel alakja és az ókori zsinagóga,” Axis 3 (2014) 71–83, 2017. “Istennők a zsinagógában?,” Ókor 15 (2016) 75–81. “A jeruzsálemi Templom továbbélése az ókori zsinagógában,” Ókor 13 (2014) 27–37. “Dávid király ábrázolásai késó ókori zsinagógákban,” Ókor 12 (2013) 24–31. “A durai zsinagóga nyugati falképciklusának vallási és politikai üzenete,” Antik Tanulmányok – Studia Antiqua 56 (2012) 257–276. “JHWH vitabeszéde Izraellel (Iz 40,12–31),” in “A szívnek van két rekesze,” Tanulmánykötet Prof. Dr. Schweitzer József tiszteletére, 90. születésnapja alkalmából, Koltai Kornélia, ed. Studia Hebraica Hungarica 2. Budapest: Magyar Hebraisztikai Társaság, 69–81. “A kő marad...,” Ókor 11 (2012) 80–84. “A jamniai zsinat mítosza,” Vigilia 77 (2012) 402–409. “Jeruzsálem – a Föld köldöke,” in Szent helyek, szent körzetek: Tibettől Etiópiáig, Géza Xeravits and Elek Nagy, ed. Budapest: L’Harmattan, 35–48. “‘Ne félj, én megsegítelek,’” Sapientiana 4 (2011) 14–26. “‘Ecce nunc advenit tempus perditionis nostre...,’” Ókor 10 (2011) 59–64. “Esettanulmány: Ráfáél önmeghatározása Tóbit könyvében,” in Angyalok az ókortól Szent Tamásig, Géza Xeravits, Balázs Tamási and Miklós Xavér Szabó, Bibliatudomány Tanszék Kiadványai 7. Budapest: Sapientia Szerzetesi Hittudományi Főiskola, 157–177. “Ráfáél, a multifunkcionális angyal (Tób 12:6–20),” in Utolérnek téged a szavak. A hetvenéves Sulyok Elemér köszöntése, Pannonhalma: Pannonhalmi Főapátság, 384–398. “‘Vigasztaljátok népemet...,’” in Minden kegyelem! A 65 éves Jakubinyi György köszöntése, József Marton and Zoltán Oláh, eds. Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 40–50. “Ábrahám próbatétele (Genesis 22) a korai zsidóság irodalmában,” in Izsák megkötözése, Géza Xeravits, ed. Bibliatudomány Tanszék Kiadványai 3. Budapest: Sapientia Szerzetesi Hittudományi Főiskola. 25–48. “Egy újabb kísérlet Izrael hellenisztikus kori történetének értelmezésére,” Sapientiana 2 (2009) 70–78. “Költészet és teológia Judit könyörgő imájában,” Katekhón 6 (2009) 207–229. “Bölcsesség és apokaliptika – egy qumráni példa,” in Hebraisztikai tanulmányok, József Schweitzer and József Zsengllér, eds. Studia Hebraica Hungarica 1. Budapest: Magyar Hebraisztikai Társaság, 27–37. “Spiritualitás a beteg ember zsoltáraiban,” Embertárs 5 (2007) 40–51. “Egy gazfickó ifjúkora,” Katekhón 4 (2007) 283–299. “A Templom pusztulásának krízisére adott válaszok Báruk 2. könyvében,” Katekhón 3 (2006) 66–81. “Inspirált írásértelmezés,” Vigilia 70 (2005) 221–228 “Illés születése a Próféták élete című műben,” Studia Biblica Athanasiana 8 (2005) 33–41. “Szemelvények a Tóra cselekedeteiből,” in Elmélet és gyakorlat a zsidó-keresztény gondolkodás történetében, Géza Xeravits and Balázs Ódor, eds. Horizontok 2. Pápa: Pápai Református Teológiai Akadémia, 76–85.

3 Articles, Book Chapters and Lexicons Articles 

 439

2005d John J. Collins: Tobit könyvének zsidósága,” (translation) in Tobit/Tóbiás könyve. Szöveg – hagyomány – teológia, Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér, eds. Deuterocanonica 2. Pápa: Pápai Református Teológiai Akadémia, 39–59. 2004a “Zsidóság és hellenizmus,” Vigilia 69 (2004) 256–263. 2004b “Izajás könyvének szerepe a qumráni Közösség eszkatológikus irodalmában,” Studia Biblica Athanasiana 7 (2004) 91–104. 2004c “Bölcsességirodalom Qumránban,” Református Szemle 97 (2004) 21–33. 2004d “Pozitív eszkatológikus főszereplők a qumráni könyvtár anyagában I,” Jeromos Füzetek 56 (2004) 17–22. 2004e “Deuterokanonikus könyvek: alapvető kérdések,” in Szövetségek erőterében. A deuterokanonikus irodalom alapvető kérdései, Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér, eds. Deuterocanonica 1. Pápa: Pápai Református Teológiai Akadémia, 1–14. 2004f “Néhány megjegyzés a papság ószövetségi képéről,” in Keresztény-Zsidó Teológiai Évkönyv 2003, József Szécsi, ed. Budapest: Keresztény-Zsidó Társaság, 162–175. 2004g “Interreligiozitás, mint irodalmi fikció az Ószövetség ‘udvari elbeszéléseiben,’” in Vita és párbeszéd. A monoteista hagyomány történeti perspektívában. Géza Xeravits and Péter Losonczi, eds. Dialogos. Budapest: Goldziher Intézet, 11–23. 2003a “Költői szakaszok Dániel könyve arám nyelvű részében,” Studia Biblica Athanasiana 6 (2003) 91–101. 2003b “A ‘békesség angyalának’ alakja a korai zsidóságban,” Athanasiana 17 (2003) 203–208. 2003c “Az angyali Melkizedek alakja Qumrânban,” in Az Ige szolgálatában. A 60 éves Tarjányi Béla köszöntése, Huba Rózsa, ed. Budapest: Szent István Tásrulat, 396–407. 2003d “Dávidnak tulajdonított korai zsidó apokrif zsoltárok,” in “Tisztán tisztát,” Ünnepi kötet Dr. Márkus Mihály püspök-professzor 60. születésnapja tiszteletére. Gábor Vladár and József Zsengellér, eds. Pápa: Pápai Református Teológiai Akadémia, 165–181. 2003c “Áron és Izrael Felkentjei,” in ‫ ספר לכבוד‬Tanulmánykötet Marjovszky Tibor 50. születésnapja alkalmából, Judit Morvai and Mária Kun, eds. Budapest: B&V Bt, 247–256. 2002a “Néhány adalék Illés redivivus alakjának korai zsidó bemutatásához,” Athanasiana 14 (2002) 133–142. 2002b “Bibliográfiai segédlet a holt-tengeri tekercsek kutatásához,” Studia Biblica Athanasiana 5 (2002) 91–111. 2002c “Adalékok a Hasmoneus-dinasztia qumrâni fogadtatásához,” Studia Biblica Athanasiana 5 (2002) 63–75. 2002d “Megjegyzések az ‘Emberfia’ alakjának egyes korai zsidó értelmezéseihez,” Pannonhalmi Szemle 10 (2002) 34–43. 2002e “Mózes redivivus Qumrânban?,” in Széfer Jószéf. A tanítványok tanulmánykötete a tanítómester (Rabbi), Prof. Dr. Schweitzer József tiszteletére, 80. születésnapja alkalmából, József Zsengellér, ed. Budapest: Open Art, 23–38. 2001a “Herbert Niehr: A halott megítélésének változása a fogság utáni Júdában,” (translation) Studia Biblica Athanasiana 4 (2001) 21–38. 2001b “Margreet Steiner: Az ókori Jeruzsálem régészete,” (translation) Studia Biblica Athanasiana 4 (2001) 57–75. 2001c “Rainer Albertz: A megakadályozott helyreállítás,” (translation) Studia Biblica Athanasiana 4 (2001) 5–19. 2001d “H. Wolter Rose: Messiási váradalmak a kora fogság utáni korban,” (translation) Studia Biblica Athanasiana 4 (2001) 39–56.

440  2001e 2000a 2000b 2000c 2000d 1999a 1999b 1999c 1999d 1999e

1998a 1998b 1998c 1997a 1997b 1997c

1996a 1996b 1995a 1995b 1994

 Bibliography of Géza G. Xeravits

“A ‘Gyülekezet Szabályzatának’ (1Q28a) messiásképe,” Athanasiana 12 (2001) 145–153. “Johan Lust: Ezekiel LXX-szövegének messiásképe,” (translation) Studia Biblica Athanasiana 3 (2000) 11–22. “Qumrân messianisztikus elképzelései és a korai kereszténység,” (co-author with Eszter Andorka) Pannonhalmi Szemle 8 (2000) 20–42. “Qumrân messiási képzetei a Közösség történetének kezdeti szakaszában,” Studia Biblica Athanasiana 3 (2000) 23–24. “Jeremiás-apokrifa Qumrânból,” Athanasiana 10 (2000) 83–95. “John J. Collins kommentárja Dániel könyvéhez,” Studia Biblica Athanasiana 2 (1999) 165–171. “A Tell Dan-i sztélé,” Athanasiana 9 (1999) 23–36. “Az Ámosz-Számok midráš a Damaszkuszi Iraton,” Studia Biblica Athanasiana 2 (1999) 59–78. “Biblikus tárgyú könyvek a Szent Atanáz Görög Katolikus Hittudományi Főiskola Könyvtárának antiqua anyagában,” Athanasiana 8 (1999) 33–39. “Intertestamentális modellek a Boldogmondások irodalmi formájához,” in Hagyomány és előzmény. (Intertestamentális tanulmányok), József Zsengellér, ed. Acta Theologica Papensia 2. Pápa: Pápai Református Teológiai Akadémia, 77–90. “Az Üdvösségközvetítő születésének témája Qumrânban,” Theologiai Szemle 41 (1998) 336–338. “A Filippi 2,6–11 Krisztus-himnusza,” Studia Biblica Athanasiana 1 (1998) 65–79. “Pseudo-dánieli iratok Qumrânból,” Athanasiana 6 (1998) 41–60. “A Messiás, mint a végső idők előfutára (4Q521) – Fordítás és magyarázat,” Athanasiana 5 (1997) 127–147. “Három himnusz Qumrânból,” Vigilia 62 (1997) 285–288. “A 151. zsoltár magyarázata,” in “Fölbuzog szívem szép beszédre,” Tanulmányok D. Dr. Tóth Kálmán tiszteletére 80. születésnapja alkalmából, Sándor Tenke and István Karasszon, eds. Budapest: Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem, 199–230. “A ruah fogalma és dualisztikus értelmezése Qumrânban,” Teológia 30 (1996) 61–75. “Himnusz a Teremtőhöz Qumrânból,” Jeromos Füzetek 23 (1996) 17–20. “Öt apokrif zsoltár,” Vigilia 60 (1995) 694–700. “A holt-tengeri tekercsek,” Vigilia 60 (1995) 650–661. “Megjegyzések Mk 1,22p exegéziséhez,” Jeromos Füzetek 15 (1994) 17–19.

List of Contributors Pancratius C. Beentjes, Tilburg University (Netherland) Stefan Beyerle, University of Greifswald (Germany) Lucas Brum Teixeira, Ruhr-University of Bochum (Germany) Maria Brutti, independent scholar, Rome (Italy) Severino Bussino, Roma Tre University, Rome (Italy) Nuria Calduch-Benages, Gregorian University, Rome (Italy) John J. Collins, Yale Divinity School, New Haven, CT (USA) Jeremy Corley, St Patrick College, Maynooth (Ireland) Beate Ego, Ruhr-University of Bochum (Germany) Réka Esztári, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest (Hungary) Matthew Goff, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL (USA) Thomas Hieke, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz (Germany) John Kampen, Methodist Theological School, Delaware, OH (USA) JiSeong James Kwon, University of Lausanne (Switzerland) Francis Macatangay, University of St. Thomas, Houston, TX (USA) Otto Mulder, independent scholar, Balk (Netherland) Tobias Nicklas, University of Regensburg (Germany) Angelo Passaro, University of Palermo (Italy) Anders Kloostergard Petersen, Aarhus University (Denmark) Peter Porzig, Georg-August-Universität of Göttingen (Germany) Friedrich V. Reiterer, University of Salzburg (Austria) Karin Schöpflin, Georg-August-Universität of Göttingen (Germany) Balázs Tamási, Jewish Theological Seminary – University of Jewish Studies, Budapest (Hungary) Benjamin G. Wright III., Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA (USA) József Zsengellér, Jewish Theological Seminary – University of Jewish Studies, Budapest (Hungary)

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-026

Index of Modern Authors Abusch, Tz. 119, 128, 145, 146 Adams, S. A. 352, 353, 355, 356, 358, 359, 361, 366 Aitken, J. A. 216, 220 Albertz, R. 134, 146 Alexander, Ph S. 63, 64, 67, 73 Alonso Schökel, L. 256, 257, 258, 263, 272, 277, 278, 279, 285, 290, 295, 311 Al-Rawi, F. N. H. 125, 127, 147 Alter, R. 45–59 Amos, C. 49, 59 Anderson, G. A. 163, 174 Anderson, P. N. 346, 349 Apicella, C. L. 416, 430, 432 Argall, R. A. 233, 256, 263 Ascough, R. S. 424, 428 Asensio, V. M. 361, 366 Assmann, J. 421, 429 Atkinson, Q. 416, 429, 432 Auffret, P. 13, 14, 26 Avemarie, F. 181, 187 Bahat, D. 343, 349 Bainbridge, W. S. 79, 80, 83, 84, 90 Bakker, A. 64, 73, 80, 86, 88 Balentine, S. 192, 205 Balla, I. 247, 248, 253, 269, 272, 274, 276, 278, 279, 284, 304, 311, 313 Ballhorn, E. 351, 352, 353, 362, 366 Barbiero, G. 259, 263, 377, 279 Barr, J. 71, 73 Barrett, Ch. K. 346, 349 Baslez, M.-F. 180, 186 Bauckham, R. 204, 205 Bauernfeind, O. 350 Baumard, N. 416, 429 Baumgarten, A. I. 78, 79, 80, 88 Baumgarten, J. M. 70, 73 Baumgartner, W. 241, 242, 243, 345, 349 Beauchamp, P. 258, 260, 263 Becker, E.-M. 406, 429 Beckman, G. M. 121, 144, 146 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-027

Beentjes P. C. 223, 228, 233, 235, 236, 238, 245, 247, 254, 270, 283, 284, 289, 311, 312, 317, 332, 336, 349 Beheim, B. 416, 429 Behnke, S. 265, 281 Bellah, R. N. 412, 416, 429 Bellia, G. 257, 262, 263 Ben-Ḥayyim, Z. 317, 321, 332 Benirschke, K. 130, 146130, 149 Benjamin, W. 98, 103 Benoit, P. 336, 340, 349 Bensley, R. E. 201, 204, 205 Bergmann, E.  Beriger A. 160 Bickermann, E. 410, 429 Bielefeld, P. 15, 24, 26 Binder, D. D. 403, 429, 432 Blenkinsopp, J. 94, 103, 352, 366 Bogaert, P.-M. 32, 35, 41 Bolle, H. M. 266, 279 Borger, R. 146 Bottero, J. 124, 146 Box, G. H. 267, 279 Boyer, P. 416, 429 Bowker, J. W. 197, 205 Böck, B. 125, 132, 135, 146 Böttrich, Ch. 405, 429 Brand, M. T. 69, 72, 73 Brettler, M. Z. 190, 205 Brodersen, A. 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 23, 24, 27 Brooke, G. J. viii, 55, 60, 94, 103, 108, 110, 116 Broshi, M. 115, 116 Brown, T. R. 316, 320, 323, 326, 327, Broznick, N. 211, 220 Brutti, M. 195, 202, 203, 205, 338, 349 Brüning, Ch. 8, 11, 13, 15, 24, 26, 27 Bryce, G. E. 241, 242, 251, 254 Buckser, A. S. 125, 146 Bulbulia, J. 416, 429 Bultmann, R. 346, 349 Buren, E. D. van 125, 146 Burke, D. G. 354, 359, 366

444 

 Index of Modern Authors

Burkes, Sh. 363, 364, 366 Busta Saiz, J. R. 36, 42 Byron, G. G. 389, 390, 397 Cagni, L. 128, 147 Calduch-Benages, N. 244, 254, 265, 266, 268, 270, 272, 274, 279,280, 283, 285, 312, 316, 317, 318, 332, 351, 365, 366 Camp, C. V. 272, 274, 276, 280 Carr, D. M. 50, 60 Cashell-Moran, H. 80, 89 Cavigneaux, A. 125, 127, 147 Chalcraft, D. 77, 78, 88, 89 Charles, R. H. 199, 205 Charlesworth, J.H. 65, 70, 73, 74, 111, 117, 339, 346, 349 Christian, M. 65, 67, 73 Cimosa, M. 191, 192, 205 Civil, M. 133, 135, 147 Claassens, L. J. M. 48, 60 Clifford, R. J. 358, 364, 366 Clines, D. J. A. 345, 349, 377, 386 Cohen, M. E. 131, 133, 147 Cohen, Y. 125, 147 Collins, J. J. 257, 263, 410, 429, 96, 103 Corley, J. 217, 221, 265, 280, 284, 285, 296, 304, 312, 317, 138, 323, 330, 331, 332 Couto-Ferreira, E. M. 119, 130, 132, 134, 136, 147 Coyne, J. A. 416, 429 Crawford, S. (White) viii, 77, 78, 89, 115, 117, 120, 147 Crenshaw, J. L. 353, 366 Cunningham, G. 119, 132, 147 Dávid, N. 166, 167, 174 Davila, J. R. 355, 366 Dawson, D. 409, 429 De Jong, A. 68, 69, 70, 73 De Vito, R. A 165, 174 De Vos, J. C. 351, 362, 365, 366 Dijk, J. van 131, 132, 134, 147 Di Lella, A. A. 210, 217, 221, 227, 232, 236, 239, 243, 246, 249, 252, 254, 258, 263267, 270, 272, 274, 276, 277, 285, 286, 289, 290, 294, 295, 300, 301, 304, 313, 317, 321, 324, 325, 327, 333, 335, 347, 350

Dimant, D. 55, 57, 60, 75, 76, 77, 89, 95, 96, 97, 103 Di Tommaso, L. 202, 203, 204, 205 Dochhorn, J. 69, 73 Domazakis, N. 177, 186 Doniger, W. 72, 73 Doran, R. 194, 195 Dorie Mansen, F. 167, 170, 174 Douglas, M. 125, 147 Duesberg, H. 269, 280 Duhaime, J. 70, 73 Duhm, B. 30, 31, 41 Dunn, J. D. G. 405, 429 Duprez, A. 336, 337, 341, 349 Durkheim, É. 412, 414, 429 Ebeling, E. 119, 133, 141, 147 Eder, S. 159, 160 Efthimiadis-Keith, H. 164, 174 Egger-Wenzel, R. viii, 165, 168, 174, 269, 272, 280, 317, 332 Ego, B. 159, 160, 185, 186 Eichhorn, J. G. 30, 32, 41 Elgvin, T. 81, 82, 89 Ellis, T. A. 269, 272, 274, 276, 280 Engel, H. 31, 32, 41 Eshel E. 114, 115, 116 Estes, D. J. 4, 17, 18, 24, 27 Eynichel, E. 192, 206 Farber W. 129, 130, 131, 132, 139, 145 Feldman, A. 316, 329, 332, 382, 386 Fernandez Marcos, N. 36, 39, 42 Ferrer, J. 254, 266, 280, 283, 312 Finkel W. 131, 147 Finsterbusch, K. 39, 42 Fischer, A. A. 372, 386 Fischer, B. 283, 312 Fischer, G. 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 355, 366 Fitzmyer, J. A. 169, 174, 153, 157, 160, 169, 174 Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. 347, 349 Floyd, M. H. 355, 367 Foster, B. R. 130, 134, 137, 147 Foucault, M. 99, 104, 419 Fraade, S. D. 65, 71, 73 Frahm, E. 128, 133, 145, 147 Francois, P. 416, 432

Index of Modern Authors 

Fransen, I. 269, 280 Fredriksen, P. 402, 405, 406, 425, 429 Freedman, H. 271, 280 Frey, J. 67, 71, 73 Fröhlich, I. 94, 104 Fuss, W. 285, 312 Fürst, A. 153, 160 Gabbay, U. 133, 147 Gallagher, E. L. 94, 104 Galambush, J. 48, 51, 57, 60 Gamberoni, J. 153, 160 Garcia Martinez, F. 93, 96, 104, 113, 116, 319, 322, 325, 326, 332, 345, 349 Gardiner, A. H. 22, 27 Gärtner, B. 407, 429 Gauthier, R. X. 8, 22, 27 Geertz, A. W. 404, 414, 425, 431, 432 Geller, M. J. 121, 125, 137, 144, 148 Geller, S. A. 47, 60 Genette, G. 207, 208, 210, 213, 218, 221 George, A. R. 119, 127, 128, 130, 148 Gerstenberger, E. 420, 429 Gibson, S. 336, 337, 340, 341, 346, 349, 350 Gilbert, M. 255, 256, 263, 284, 297, 304, 307, 312 Ginzberg, L. 270, 280 Glare, P. G. W. 154, 160 Goff, M. 55, 60, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 88, 89 Goldstein, J. A. 182, 186 Goshen-Gottstein, A. 316, 332 Gould, S. J. 414, 429 Goulder M. D. 406, 429 Grätz, S. 351, 352, 356, 357, 362, 367 Greenfield, J. C. 114, 115, 116 Griffiths, J. G. 68, 73 Gruen, E. S. 178, 186, 410, 424, 429 Gurevich, D. 337, 342, 350 Habermas, J. 416, 429 Habicht, B. C. 182, 186 Hadas M. 410, 429 Hadot, P. 418, 419, 427, 430 Hallo, W. W. 125, 148 Halpern-Amaru, B. 55, 56, 60 Hamid, M. 161, 162, 174 Hanhart, R. 155, 160, 255, 263

 445

Hanson, P. D. 386 Hardmeier, Ch. 36, 42, 158, 160 Hare, D. R. A. 373, 374, 386 Harland, Ph. 424, 430 Harrelson, W. J. 351, 360, 362, 367 Harrington, D. J. 82, 89, 90 Hart, J. H. A. 239, 246, 254 Haspecker, J. 250, 252, 254, 256, 263, 285, 312 Hayward, R. C. T. 347, 350 Hecke, P., van 265, 280 Heger, P. 69, 73 Heimpel, W. 124, 148 Hempel, Ch. 63, 66, 73, 96 Henderson, R. 351, 354, 357, 358, 359, 362, 367 Hengel, M. 357, 263, 219, 221 Henrich, J. 413, 430 Herrmann, S. 30, 31, 42 Hicks-Keeton, J. 159, 160 Hieke, T. 3, 4, 27 Hildesheim, R. 324, 326, 332 Hill, A. E. 37, 8, 386 Hillen, M. 160 Hillers, D. R. 5, 6, 16, 22, 27 Himmelfarb, M. 114, 117 Hogan, K.M. 351, 352, 360, 367 Hogeterp, A. L. A. 372, 386, 405, 430 Honigmann, S. 410, 430 Hoyer D. 416, 417, 430 Hölbl, G. 339, 350 Hubmann, F. D. 31, 42 Hultgren, S.65, 71, 73 Hyafil, A. 416, 429 Iwanski, D. 192, 206 Jablonka, E. 413, 430 Jacoby N. 39, 42 Janzen, J. G. 32, 42 Japhet, S. 37, 42 Jaspers, K. 419, 430 Jassen, A. P. 112, 117 Jean, C. 131, 148 Jefferies, D. F. 76, 89 Jensen H. J. L. 420, 430 Jeyes, U. 132, 148 Joas, H. 412, 429

446 

 Index of Modern Authors

Johnson, B. 78, 89 Johnson, D. 418, 430 Jokiranta, J. 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 88, 89, 91 Justnes, A. 93, 96, 97, 98, 104 Kaiser, O. 345, 350 Kalimi, I. 376, 386 Kampen, J. 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 89, 90 Kato, T. 104 Katz, D. 124, 140, 148 Kaufmann, P. 130, 146 Kawashima, R. S. 47, 60 Kearns, C. 324, 326, 328, 332 Kelly, J. N. D. 153, 160 Kee, H. C. 326, 332, 403, 430 Kessler, J. 377, 386 Kessler, R. 3789, 386 Kiel, M. D. 163, 169, 174 Kilmer, A. D. 132, 148 Kister, M. 76, 90, 94, 104 Klijn, A. F. J. 204, 206 Klinzing, G. 407, 430 Kloppenborg, J. 423, 424, 430 Knibb, M. 64, 73 Kobelski, P. J. 72, 73 Koch, K. 30, 42, 67, 72, 74 Köcher, F. 133, 148 Kohn, R. L. 104 Kraft, R. A. 204, 206 Kratz, R. 67, 74, 94, 96, 101 Kraus, W. 239 Krebernik, M. 130, 148 Krecher, J. 130, 148 Kugel, J. L. 47, 49, 52, 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 108, 117 Kugler, R. A. 108, 109, 114, 117 Kuhn, K. G. 71, 74 Kulemann-Ossen, S. 128, 148 Labat, R. 129, 148 Labendz, J. R. 211, 221 Laland, K. 413, 430 Lamb, M. J. 413, 430 Lambert, D. 54, 60 Lambert, W. G. 124, 134, 135, 136, 148 Lanci, J. R. 405, 430 Lang, M. 416, 430

Lange, A. 30, 31, 32, 42, 64, 67, 71, 74, 81, 90, 94, 104 Le Breton, D. 278, 280 Le Déaut, R. 190, 191, 192, 195, 197, 206 Lejeune, Ph. 208, 221 Le Moigne, Ph. 177, 187 Leonhardt-Baltzer, J. 70, 74 Lessa, I. 99, 104 Levenson, J. D. 165, 174 Lévi, I. 286, 287, 289, 290, 295, 302, 312 Levin, Ch. 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42 Levine, L. I. 403, 430 Levinson, S. C. 308, 312 Levy, J. 345, 350 Lewontin, R. 414, 429 Lichtenberger, H. 178, 187, Lichtheim, M. 23, 27 Liddell, H. G. 239 Lieberman, S. J. 145, 148 Liesen, J. 254, 266, 270, 280, 283, 312 Lim, T. H. 104 Littman, R. J. 166, 174 Llewelyn, S. R. 266, 279 Lloyd, G. 420, 430 Luomanen, P. 78, 90 Lyonnet, S 192, 206 Macaskill, G. 79, 81, 90 Macatangay, F. M. 159, 160, 163, 165, 167, 168, 169, 174 Mach, M. 378, 380, 385, 386 Mack, B. L. 219, 221, 315, 322, 330, 331, 332 Mallowan, M. Sir 129, 150 Marböck, J. 227, 239, 267, 280, 352, 367 Marcus, R. 350 Margoliouth, G. 286, 296, 312 Martin, D. B. 426, 430 Marttila, M. 351, 352, 355, 356, 357, 358, 362, 364, 367 Maryanski, A. 404, 414, 425, 431, 432 Matassa, L. D. 403, 423, 430 Maul, S. M. 130, 142, 145, 148 Mayer, W. R. 259, 263 McCaine, B. R. 174 McKane, W. 34, 35, 36, 42 McKechnie, P. 219, 221 McKinlay, J. E. 278, 280

Index of Modern Authors 

McKnight, S. 405, 430 Meinhold, A. 358, 364, 367 Menn, E. M. 52, 53, 57, 60 Metso, S. 64, 74, 96 Michel, O. 350 Milani, M. 351, 367 Milgrom, J. 108, 109, 117 Millard, A. R. 136, 148 Miller, G. D. 173, 175 Minissale, A. 265, 272, 281, 285, 312 Mirsky, M. J. 220 Mittmann-Richert, U. 94, 104 Moore, C. A. 169, 175, 351, 353, 354, 355, 357, 361, 362, 367 Moore, R. 104 Mopsik, Ch. 321, 325, 332, 267, 268, 274, 275, 276, 277, 281 Morla, V. 266, 274, 275, 276, 277, 281, 290, 295, 300, 301, 302, 312, 317, 322, 324, 332 Morris, I. 416, 429 Mroczek, E. 47, 54, 60, 207, 209, 219, 220, 221 Mulder, O. 316, 332, 336, 339, 343, 348, 350 Murphy, R. E. 242, 250, 254 Müller, M. 406, 430 Naiden, F. S. 190, 206 Najman, H. 47, 54, 60, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 207, 208, 221 Nanos, M. D. 405, 430, 431 Neumann, F. 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 Newsom, C.A. 66, 67, 68, 70, 73, 74, 94, 104 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 178, 187, 352, 354, 356, 358, 367 Nicklas, T. 373, 380, 386, 177, 178, 183, 184, 186, 187 Nietzsche, F. 421, 431 Noegel, S. B. 145, 148 Norenzayan, A. 416, 431 Novak, M. 128, 148 Niditch, S. 48, 49, 60 Nitzan, B. 76, 90 Novick, Tz. 101, 104 O’Connor, M. 39, 43, 96 Oesterley, W. O. E. 248, 254, 267, 279, 354, 367

 447

Ogden, G. 241, 250, 254 Opificius, R. 125, 148 Oropeza, B. J. 405, 430 Oswald, R. 232, 239 Otto, E. 420, 421, 431 Öhler, M. 184, 187 Paganini, S. 198, 206 Pakkala, J. 40, 42 Palmisano, M. C. 267, 272, 281, 284, 285, 312 Paoletti, P. 125, 128, 130, 148 Parker, S. 190, 206 Parry, D. W. 94, 105, 257, 260, 262, 263 Passaro, A. 257, 260, 262, 263 Patrich, J. 342, 343, 350 Pedersén, O. 133, 149 Peirano, I. 220, 221 Penar, T. 250, 254 Penner, J. 81, 90 Person, Jr. R. F. 34, 36, 39, 42 Peters, N. 234, 239, 285, 286, 289, 290, 291, 293, 294, 295, 302, 312, 317, 318, 321, 325, 328, 329, 332 Petersen, K. A. 402, 404, 406, 410, 416, 417, 418, 420, 425, 426, 431, 432 Peursen, W. T. van 318, 329, 330, 332, 333 Pietersma, A. 211, 221, 351, 363, 367 Polonsky, J. 149 Popović, M. 72, 74 Porada, E. 125, 149 Portier-Young, A. E. 64, 67, 172, 175 Porzig, P. 67, 74, 93, 105 Prato, G. L. 256, 258, 263 Praz, M. 396, 397 Puech, E. 325, 333 Pummer, R. 338, 350 Purzycki, B. G. 416, 430, 432 Qimron E. 65, 74, 97, 105, 11, 113, 117 Rabenau, M. 169, 175 Rahlfs, A. 181, 223, 239, 255, 263, 281, Ragavan, D. 124, 149 Raurell, F. 259, 263 Rautenberg, J. 167, 168, 175

448 

 Index of Modern Authors

Reddit, P. L. 378, 386 Reddish, J. 416, 417, 430 Reed, A. Y. 53, 60, 64, 72, 74 Regev, E. 403, 407, 408, 432 Reif, S. viii, 110, 117 Reiss, M. 53, 60 Reiterer, F. V. 193, 206, 224, 232, 236, 239, 284, 285, 312, 361, 367, 373, 386 Rendtorff, R. 46, 60 Rey, J.-S. 214, 221 Reymond, E. D. 242, 245, 349, 254 Rickenbacher, O. 285, 312 Rossetti, M. 247, 254 Ross, C. T. 416, 432 Rossi, B. 191, 206 Rossier, F. 190, 191, 206 Rotasperti, S. 266, 281 Rothstein, D. 56, 57, 60 Röllig, W. 132, 134, 149 Römer, T. 259, 367 Römer, W. H. Ph. 149 Rudolph, W. 31, 35, 42 Runesson, A. 403, 424, 432 Ruppert, L. 11, 15, 20, 22, 23, 27 Rüger, H.-P. 247, 254, 286, 312 Ryssel, V. 272, 281 Sacchi, P. 338, 350 Sabourin, L. 192, 206 Saldarini, A. J. 351, 352, 353, 354, 358, 362, 367 Sallaberger, W. 145, 149 Sanderson, S. K. 417, 432 Sauer, G. 269, 281, 283, 285, 290, 295, 299, 313, 325, 327, 333 Savage, P. E. 416, 432 Scaiola, D. 13, 20, 24, 27 Schäfer, P. 378, 379, 386 Schiffman, L. H. 82, 90, 108, 113 Schmid, K. 35, 38, 42 Schmidt, A. J. 239, 275, 281 Schmitz, B. 178, 187 Schmutzer, A. J. 8, 22, 27 Schnabel, E. J. 351, 352, 362, 368 Schnackenburg, R. 346, 350 Schneider, T. J. 48, 49, 60 Schnocks, J. 184, 187

Schöning, B. 4, 27 Schöpflin, K. 224, 239, 372, 373, 386 Schreiner, J. 267, 272, 277, 281 Schuster-Brandis, A. 149 Schwartz, D. 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 193, 195, 201, 205, 206, 376, 386 Schwemer, A-M. 373, 375, 376, 378, 379, 380, 381, 383, 384, 387 Schwemer, D. 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 149 Scolarick, R. 234, 239 Scott, I. 65, 74 Scott, R. 239 Scurlock, J. 119, 124, 130, 133, 134, 136, 144, 149 Sedley, D. 418, 432 Segal, M. 57, 60, 246, 251, 254, 289, 313, 317, 321, 324, 326, 333 Seux, M-J. 149 Sheppard, G. T. 351, 356, 363, 365, 368 Sievers, J. 203, 206 Simian-Yofre, H. 300, 313 Simon, M. 271, 280 Singh, J. S. 49, 60 Sjöberg, A. W. 130, 149 Skehan, P. W. 210, 217, 221, 230, 236, 239, 243, 246, 249, 252, 254, 258, 263, 267, 270, 272, 274, 276, 277, 281, 285, 286, 289, 290, 294, 295, 300, 301, 304, 313, 317, 321, 324, 325, 327, 333, 347, 350 Skemp, V. T. M. 153, 160, Skjaervø, P. O. 417, 432, 68, 69, 74, 417, 432 Slomovic, E. 10, 27 Sloz, M. B. 266, 281 Smend, R. 272, 276, 281, 285, 286, 289, 290, 291, 294, 302, 313, 317, 318, 321, 322, 324, 325, 327, 328, 329, 333 Sneed, M. R. 79, 90 Soll, W. 165, 175 Speiser, E. A. 50, 54, 60 Spicq, C. 285, 313 Spieckermann, H. 226, 239, 240 Stackert, J. 108, 113, 117 Stallman, R. C. 108, 117

Index of Modern Authors 

Stark, R. 79, 80, 83, 84, 90 Steck, O. H. 354, 356, 359, 362, 368 Stegemann, H. 67, 74 Steinert, U. 125, 128, 130, 131, 138, 144, 148 Stern, K. B. 170, 175 Stern D. 220 Steve, A. M. 336, 350 Stewart, T. A. 196, 206 Stipp, H.-J. 32, 40, 41, 42, 43 Stol, M. 125, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 144, 149 Stone, M. E. 109, 114, 115, 116, 117, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 Stökl Ben Ezra, D. 93, 105 Strommenger, E. 128, 149 Strugnell, J. 82, 90, 95, 105, 243, 244, 245, 254, 286, 289, 313 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 81, 90 Swete, H. B. 317, 333 Tambiah, S. J. 144, 145, 149 Tcherikover, V. 410, 432 Theissen, G. 34, 43 Thiel, W. 33, 38, 43 Tigchelaar, E. viii, 63, 65, 68, 72, 74, 82, 87, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 103, 105, 319, 322, 325, 326, 332, 345, 349 Tomabechi, Y. 125, 150 Toorn, K. van der 125, 128, 130, 150 Tov, E. 32, 43, 94, 95, 105 Trebolle Barrera, J. 36, 43 Trenchard, W.C. 243, 248, 254, 266, 267, 269, 272, 273, 276, 277, 281, 284, 290, 313 Trunbower, J. A. 200, 206 Tsukimoto, A. 141, 142, 150 Turchin, P. 416, 432 Turner, J. H. 413, 414, 431, 432 Ueberschaer, F. 323, 333 Ulrich, E. viii, 96, 105 VanderKam, J. C. 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 115, 117, 198, 199, 206 van Henten, J. W. 179, 180, 181, 187 van Hooff, A. J. L. 179, 187 Van Leeuwen, R. C. 364, 368

 449

Van Seters, J. 259, 263 Vattioni, F. 223, 240, 246, 254 Vayntrub, J. 208, 209, 213, 220, 221 Veldhuis, N. 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 145, 150 Verderame, L. 141, 147, 150 Vermes, G. 64, 741 Volk, K. 129, 130, 144, 150 Von Wahlde, U. C. 338, 341, 346, 350 Vincent, L. H. 336, 337, 350 Viviers, H. 25, 27 Wagner, Ch. 272, 275, 276, 281 Waltke, B. K. 39, 43, 364, 368 Wassen, C. 78, 88, 91, 373, 387 Weber, R. 317, 333 Weeks, S. 364, 368, 163, 175 Wehrle, J. 243, 245, 246, 247, 254 Weigl, M. 168, 175 Weitzman, S. 46, 47, 60 Wells, Jr, R. D. 33, 43 Wénin, A. 256, 256, 260, 261, 263 Wenschekewitz, H. 407, 432 Werman, C. 55, 56, 57, 60, 108, 109, 117 Wernberg-Moller, P. 64, 65, 74 Whitehouse, H. 416, 432 Whybray, R. N. 361, 368 Wicke-Reuter, U. 256, 263 Wightman, G. J. 339, 350 Wilhelm, G. 150 Wills, L. 79, 91, 165, 175 Wilson, B. 78, 91 Winter, I. J. 133, 150 Witte, M. viii, 233, 240, 265, 281 Woodward, J. 404, 432 Woolley, L. Sir 129, 150 Wright, B. G. III. 79, 91, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 219, 221, 239, 351, 363, 367 Würthwein, E. 39, 43 Xeravits, G. G. vii, viii, 3, 45, 46, 63, 73, 74, 90, 93, 103, 105, 107, 117, 164, 175, 186, 187, 207, 236, 240, 255, 279, 315, 331, 332, 333, 337, 354, 368, 371, 373, 376, 379, 380, 381, 384, 386, 387, 389, 401, 402, 427, 432, 433–440

450 

 Index of Modern Authors

Yadin, Y. 244, 245, 248, 249, 254 Yassif, E. 211, 221 Zaehner, R. C. 68, 74 Zahn, M. M. 95, 105 Zenger, E. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27

Zetterholm, M. 405, 430 Ziegler, J. 211, 212, 221, 223, 226, 227, 240, 246, 254, 255, 263, 266, 270, 281, 283, 313, 318, 333, 347, 350 Zimmerli, W. 241, 254 Zsengellér J. 107, 207, 374, 380, 387 Zucker, D. J. 53, 60

Index of Sources Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Gen 1–50 Gen 1–2 Gen 1 Gen 1:1–2:3 Gen 1:1 Gen 1:9–10 Gen 1:14 Gen 1:21 Gen 1:26–28 Gen 1:29–30 Gen 2 Gen 2:1–3 Gen 2:2 Gen 2:4 Gen 2:7 Gen 2:17 Gen 2:18 Gen 2:20 Gen 2:23 Gen 3 Gen 3:1 Gen 3:4–5 Gen 3:9 Gen 3:13 Gen 3:19 Gen 4:12 Gen 4:14 Gen 6:1–4 Gen 7:7 Gen 7:13 Gen 12:1–4 Gen 12:6 Gen 13:8 Gen 15:15 Gen 16:4–6 Gen 19:28 Gen 19:32–34 Gen 25:8 Gen 25:13–25 Gen 25:13 Gen 27:4 Gen 27:7

198 255, 256, 257, 259, 261 10, 15, 18, 20, 24, 260 15 15, 16 347 318 17 259 259 260, 292, 394 260 260 15 259 257, 260 290, 293 290, 293 325 389, 394, 395 394 394 259 321 394 292 292 359 54 54 409 409 226 167 272 6 273 167 361 320 286 286

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-028

Gen 27:9 Gen 27:14 Gen 27:17 Gen 27:23 Gen 27:31 Gen 30:1 Gen 30:20 Gen 31:7 Gen 31:41 Gen 32 Gen 33:18–20 Gen 35:2 Gen 36:40 Gen 37–50 Gen 37–38 Gen 37 Gen 37:26–27 Gen 37:27–28 Gen 37:31 Gen 37:32 Gen 37:33 Gen 37:36 Gen 38 Gen 38:11 Gen 38:16–18 Gen 38:17 Gen 38:24–25 Gen 38:24 Gen 38:25 Gen 38:26 Gen 39 Gen 39:1 Gen 39:2 Gen 39:15–18 Gen 40:5 Gen 41 Gen 41:50–52 Gen 41:53 Gen 44 Gen 44:13 Gen 46

286 286 286 51 286 272 286 329 329 54 167 329 320 50 51 49, 50, 51, 52, 55 50 54 51 52 50 49 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58 48, 56 49 51 49 49 49, 50, 52 50, 51 49, 50, 55 49 271 51 320 55 58 58 51 320 58

452 

 Index of Sources

Gen 49:27 Gen 49:29–32 Gen 50:24–26

296 167 167

Exod 1–24 Exod 3:15 Exod 3:20 Exod 6:2–3 Exod 7:9 Exod 7:10 Exod 7:12 Exod 9:14 Exod 12:16 Exod 13:19 Exod 14:15 Exod 15:18 Exod 19–20 Exod 19:5–6 Exod 20:3 Exod 20:8–11 Exod 22:21 Exod 23:11 Exod 25–30 Exod 25 Exod 25:31 Exod 25:37 Exod 28 Exod 30:10 Exod 30:17–21 Exod 31:13–17 Exod 33:17 Exod 34:6–7

198 236 154 236 17 17 17 244 331 167 197 11 257 26 318 261 235 320 347 34 276 276 347 229, 231 347 260 320 234

Lev 4:20 Lev 4:26 Lev 4:31 Lev 4:35 Lev 5:6 Lev 5:10 Lev 5:13 Lev 5:16 Lev 5:18 Lev 5:26 Lev 7:7 Lev 12:7–8 Lev 14:18–20 Lev 14:29

229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229

Lev 14:31 Lev 14:53 Lev 15:15 Lev 15:24 Lev 15:30 Lev 16:6 Lev 16:11 Lev 16:16–18 Lev 16:24 Lev 16:30 Lev 16:32–33 Lev 17:11 Lev 18:5 Lev 18:15 Lev 19:18 Lev 19:22 Lev 19:23–25 Lev 19:34 Lev 20:12 Lev 20:14 Lev 21:9 Lev 23:27–28 LXX Lev 26 Lev 26:33 Lev 26:45 Lev 27:10

229 229 229 273 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 26 56, 57 231 229 54 231 57 49, 57 49 201 355 171 26 329

Num 5:8 Num 6:11 Num 7 Num 8:1–3 Num 15:25 Num 15:28 Num 18:8–20 Num 18:21 Num 18:31 Num 32:42

229 229 34 276 229 229 112 113, 329 329 319

Deut 1:31–33 Deut 1:36 Deut 2:24–25 Deut 2:30 Deut 2:31–37 Deut 3:1–10 Deut 4 Deut 4:1–8 Deut 4:1–7

421 421 421 38 421 421 362 357 421

Index of Sources 

Deut 4:4–6 Deut 4:5–8 Deut 4:6 Deut 4:8 Deut 4:9 Deut 4:26–31 Deut 4:32–40 Deut 4:39–40 Deut 5:1 Deut 6 Deut 6:4–9 Deut 6:12 Deut 6:24–25 Deut 7:1–10 Deut 7:9–12 Deut 7:13 Deut 7:16–27 Deut 8:5 Deut 8:7–8 Deut 8:11 Deut 8:18–20 Deut 8:18 Deut 9:1–6 Deut 10:8–9 Deut 10:12 Deut 10:16 Deut 10:19 Deut 11 Deut 11:1–9 Deut 11:13–14 Deut 11:18–21 Deut 11:19–21 Deut 11:29–30 Deut 12:5–6 Deut 12:5 Deut 12:13–14 Deut 12:26–27 Deut 12:29–31 Deut 14:23 Deut 14:29 Deut 15:7 Deut 16:1–8 Deut 16:2 Deut 16:6 Deut 16:9–12 Deut 16:13–15 Deut 16:16–17

357 362 356, 357, 359, 361 356 421 355 357 421 421 362 420 421 421 421 421 422 421 197 422 421 421 421 421 421 322 422 231 362 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 231 38 422 421 421 422 422 422

Deut 18 Deut 18:1–8 Deut 18:3–5 Deut 21:23 Deut 22:13–22 Deut 26:1 Deut 27 Deut 27:6–7 Deut 27:23 Deut 28–32 Deut 28:1–14 Deut 28:15–68 Deut 28:26 Deut 28:58 Deut 29:29 Deut 30 Deut 30:1–3 Deut 30:6 Deut 30:9 Deut 30:11–14 Deut 30:11–13 Deut 30:12–13 Deut 30:12 Deut 30:13 Deut 30:15–20 Deut 30:15–16 Deut 30:15 Deut 30:16 Deut 32:1–3 Deut 32:33 Deut 33:17 Deut 33:29

112 421 421 166, 171, 384 49 421 421 421 57 354 422 355 170 320 359 353 421 422 422 359 358 358, 359, 365 358 358 261, 421 357 357, 365 356 20 17 22 364

Josh 1 Josh 3:5 Josh 10:26–27 Josh 22:3 Josh 24:32

96, 97 154 166 296 167

Judg 3:15 Judg 4:4 Judg 6:13 Judg 8:11 Judg 8:22–28 Judg 8:23 Judg 8:27 Judg 8:27 LXX

327 316, 320 154 319 320 321 321, 323 321

 453

454 

 Index of Sources

Judg 8:31 Judg 8:33 LXX Judg 9:2 Judg 9:3 Judg 9:7–21 Judg 9:8–15 Judg 9:53–54 Judg 9:55–56 Judg 9:56–57 Judg 9:56 Judg 10:1–5 Judg 10:1 Judg 10:3 Judg 11:29–40 Judg 11:34–35 Judg 11:34 Judg 12:8–15 Judg 12:8 Judg 12:14 Judg 13 Judg 13:4–5 Judg 13:6 Judg 13:6 LXX Judg 13:19–20 Judg 13:24 Judg 14:1–16:31 Judg 15:18 Judg 16:4 Judg 16:16–20 Judg 16:17 Judg 16:20 Judg 18:29

319 321 325 322 327 330 320 327 320 323 315, 320, 323, 331 328 327 320 327 320 315, 320, 323, 331 327 327 379 323 379 379 315 319 320 327 319 321 321 320 319

Ruth 4:18–22

49

1 Sam 1:6 1 Sam 1:11 1 Sam 1:22 1 Sam 2:1 1 Sam 2:10 1 Sam 2:22 1 Sam 3 1 Sam 3:1 1 Sam 3:15 1 Sam 12:11 LXX 1 Sam 16:18

272 323 323 22 22 273 382 382 382 327 290

1 Sam 16:23 1 Sam 18:1 1 Sam 18:3

394 294 294

2 Sam 5:1 2 Sam 5:7 2 Sam 5:9 2 Sam 11–12 2 Sam 17:8 2 Sam 17:11 2 Sam 20:3 2 Sam 22:19 2 Sam 22:30

325 320 320 384 271 296 274 290, 294 291

1 Kgs 3–10 1 Kgs 3 1 Kgs 3:3 1 Kgs 3:7 1 Kgs 3:16–27 1 Kgs 3:28 1 Kgs 4:21 1 Kgs 4:22–28 1 Kgs 4:29–34 1 Kgs 4:30–34 1 Kgs 6:2–35 1 Kgs 6:5 1 Kgs 6:16 1 Kgs 6:19–21 1 Kgs 7 1 Kgs 7:1–12 1 Kgs 6:2–35 1 Kgs 7:13–51 1 Kgs 7:13–14 1 Kgs 7:15–22 1 Kgs 7:25 1 Kgs 7:40 1 Kgs 7:44 1 Kgs 7:45 1 Kgs 7:49 1 Kgs 7:50 1 Kgs 8:23–53 1 Kgs 8:41–43 1 Kgs 10 1 Kgs 10:1 1 Kgs 10:2 1 Kgs 10:14–15

391, 392, 395 218 391, 392 392 391 391 391 391 208, 391 391 391 275 275 275 34 391 391 391 34 376 34 34 34 34 34 34 355 236 391 391 391 391

Index of Sources 

1 Kgs 10:16–18 1 Kgs 10:20 1 Kgs 10:21 1 Kgs 10:23–24 1 Kgs 10:25 1 Kgs 10:26–29 1 Kgs 11 1 Kgs 11:3 1 Kgs 11:4 1 Kgs 11:9 1 Kgs 14:11 1 Kgs 19:16 1 Kgs 21:8

391 391 391, 392 391 391 391 391, 392 391 322 322 170 330 234

2 Kgs 2:1 2 Kgs 2:11 2 Kgs 6:24–31 2 Kgs 9:10 2 Kgs 9:22 2 Kgs 9:26 2 Kgs 10:30 2 Kgs 13:21 2 Kgs 13:23 2 Kgs 14:10 2 Kgs 17:14 2 Kgs 17:20 2 Kgs 18:17 2 Kgs 20:21 2 Kgs 24 2 Kgs 24–25 2 Kgs 24:19–20 2 Kgs 24:19 2 Kgs 24:20 2 Kgs 25

381 381 355 170 39 331 331 326 39 321 38 39 337 167 38 29 37, 38 38 38, 39 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 35 41 34 35 35 36 35 33, 34, 35, 36, 41 37 36, 37 37 37

2 Kgs 25:4 2 Kgs 25:6–7 2 Kgs 25:6 2 Kgs 25:10 2 Kgs 25:11–18 2 Kgs 25:11 2 Kgs 25:12 2 Kgs 25:13–17 2 Kgs 25:14 2 Kgs 25:16 2 Kgs 25:18 2 Kgs 25:20

2 Kgs 25:22–23 2 Kgs 25:27–30

34 40

1 Chr 2:3 1 Chr 4:41 1 Chr 7:1–5 1 Chr 7:4 1 Chr 16:9 1 Chr 16:12 1 Chr 16:24 1 Chr 21:11 1 Chr 24:1–27:22 1 Chr 25:5 1 Chr 25:8

56 319 328 291 154 154 154 289 328 22 328

2 Chr 2:7 2 Chr 2:15 2 Chr 11:2 2 Chr 19:5 2 Chr 24:15–18 2 Chr 24:21 2 Chr 25:19 2 Chr 30:8 2 Chr 30:10 2 Chr 32:25 2 Chr 33:23 2 Chr 36 2 Chr 36:7 2 Chr 36:10 2 Chr 36:12–13 2 Chr 36:14–16 2 Chr 36:18 2 Chr 36:21 2 Chr 36:22–23 2 Chr 36:23

361 300 295 291 381 381 321 38 291 321 37 29, 38, 39 34 34 37 38 34 38 33 34

Ezra 4:12 Ezra 5:16 Ezra 10:18–44

345 345 328

Neh 8:1–12 Neh 9:3–10:40 Neh 9:6 Neh 9:16–17 Neh 9:17 Neh 11:3–12:26 Neh 13:28

423 423 20 38 154 328 338

 455

456 

 Index of Sources

Esth 2:7 LXX Esth 2:20 LXX Esth 8:15

181 181 328

Job 2:10 Job 2:11–13 Job 5:9 Job 6:30 Job 7:12 Job 9:10 Job 12:11 Job 14:7–9 Job 14:7 Job 28

289 227 154 286, 287 17 154 286, 287 330 329 351, 356, 358, 359, 360, 365 360 360 360 360 360 360, 361 290 235 329, 360 290 286, 287 353 295 358 20 354 17 358 290

Job 28:12 Job 28:13–19 Job 28:15–19 Job 28:21–22 Job 28:23–27 Job 28:28 Job 29:3 Job 29:12 LXX Job 29:20 Job 31:26 Job 34:3 Job 34:27 Job 37:12 Job 38–42 Job 38–39 Job 38 Job 38:41 Job 40:12–17 Job 41:10 Ps 1 96, 97 Ps 1:1–2 Ps 1:2b Ps 2:10 Ps 4–9 Ps 8:2 Ps 8:5 Ps 9:2 Vg Ps 9:6 Ps 9:37(10:16) Ps 11396 Ps 18:19

97 81 21 396 21 259 154 11 11 290, 294

Ps 18:30 Ps 19 Ps 19:1–6 Ps 19:7–14 Ps 20(21):5 Ps 21:29 LXX Ps 22 Ps 23:5 Ps 24:2 Ps 28:2 Ps 30 Ps 32(33) Ps 32:8–9 LXX Ps 32(33):9 LXX Ps 32(33):12 LXX Ps 33:6–9 Ps 33:9 Ps 35:2 Ps 38:12 Ps 42 Ps 44(45):18 Ps 44:19 Ps 47:9–10 Ps 47(48):15 Ps 49(50):8–13 Ps 49(50):16 Ps 49(50):18–20 Ps 49(50):23 Ps 50(51):18–19 Ps 51(52):10, Ps 52:11 Ps 57:2 Ps 71:9 LXX Ps 72:7 LXX Ps 72:12–13 Ps 74:13 Ps 75:11 Ps 76:12 Ps 76:15 Vg Ps 77:12 Vg Ps 77:24–25 LXX Ps. 77:32 Vg Ps 78 Ps 79:2–3 Ps 80 Ps 89:18 Ps 89:25

291 20 20 20 11 183 396 295 21 275 158 10 10 10, 21 10 20 21 295 295 396 11 322 21 6 231 230 230 230 231 11 236 318 183 183 235 17 22 154 154 154 380 154 420 170 396 22 22

Index of Sources 

Ps 90:6 Ps 92:11 Ps 95:3 Vg Ps 95:10 Ps 96–98 Ps 96:6 Ps 97:1 Vg Ps 102:16–17 Ps 102:23 Ps 102:27 Ps 103 Ps 103:20–22 Ps 103:22 Ps 104 Ps 104:1 Ps 104:5 Ps 104:21 Ps 104:30 Ps 104:32 Ps 105–106 Ps 105 Vg Ps 108(109):10 Ps 112:9 Ps 117 Ps 119:18 Ps 119:83 Ps 119:90–91 Ps 119:162 Ps 120 Ps 121 Ps 127:5 Ps 131:1 Ps 133(132):1 Ps 137 Ps 138:4–5 Ps 138:4 Ps 138:5 Ps 145 Ps 145 LXX Ps 146–150 Ps 146 Ps 146:1–11 LXX Ps 146:7 Ps 147–149 Ps 147 Ps 147:1 Ps 147:6 LXX

329 22 154 322 20 21 154 21 21 329 20 20 20 14, 22 21 21 17 16 295 420 154 244 22 19 81 6 21 296 6 6 225 321 226 21 21 21 21 21 10 11, 21, 22, 23 6 10 8 19 11, 16, 17, 23, 24 23 11

Ps 147:12–20 LXX Ps 147:13 Ps 147:16 Ps 147:17 Ps 147:18 Ps 147:19–20 Ps 147:19 Ps 148 Ps 148 LXX Ps 148:1–14 Ps 148:1–13 Ps 148:1–12 Ps. 148:1–6 Ps 148:1–5 Ps 148:1–4 Ps 148:1–2 Ps 148:1 Ps 148:2 Ps 148:3 Ps 148:3 LXX Ps 148:4 Ps 148:5–6 Ps 148:5 Ps 148:5 LXX Ps 148:6–10 Ps 148:6 Ps 148:6 LXX Ps 148:7–14 Ps 148: 7–13 Ps 148:7–12 Ps 148:7 Ps 148:8 Ps 148:8 LXX Ps 148:9–12 Ps 148:9–10 Ps 148:10 Ps 148:11–13 Ps 148:11–12 Ps 148:11 Ps 148:12 Ps 148:13–14 Ps 148:13 Ps 148:14 Ps 148:14 LXX

 457

10 18 17 11, 17 17 18, 23, 24 8, 16 3–26 9 5, 7, 9 11, 15 6 11, 13, 14, 16, 19 12 13 20 5, 6, 13, 16 6 6, 14 10 6 13, 14, 16, 19 6, 10, 13, 19, 21, 24 10 15 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26 10 13, 17 11, 12, 14 13, 14, 19 13, 14, 17 6, 14, 17 11 14 17 14 18 11, 18 14, 21 14 13 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 24, 25 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26 11

458 

 Index of Sources

Ps 149 Ps 149:1 Ps 149:2 Ps 149:3 Ps 149:4 Ps 149:9 Ps 150

11, 23 24 18 24 18 8 23

Prov 1–9

357, 361, 362, 364, 365 208 300 296 295 296 364 365 364 357 21 364 290, 291 364 364 364 291 364 364 364 300, 364 274 364 364 235 364 351, 365 360 247 360 361 358, 360, 362 362 357 364 364 361 364

Prov 1:1 Prov 1:6 Prov 1:13 Prov 1:27 Prov 2:17, Prov 2:19 Prov 3:1–3 Prov 3:2 Prov 3:13–18 Prov 3:19 Prov 3:22 Prov 4:7 Prov 4:10 Prov 4:13 Prov 4:22–23 Prov 5 Prov 5:3–8 Prov 5:5 Prov 5:6 Prov 5:9 Prov 5:15–18 Prov 5:23 Prov 6:23 Prov 7:2 Prov 7:27 Prov 8 Prov 8:1–21 Prov 8:11 Prov 8:15–18 Prov 8:19 Prov 8:22–31 Prov 8:31 Prov 8:32–36 Prov 8:35 Prov 8:36 Prov 9:7–9 Prov 9:11

Prov 9:17 Prov 9:18 Prov 10–29 Prov 10:7 Prov 10:16 Prov 11:17 Prov 11:19 Prov 12:9 Prov 12:10 Prov 12:28 Prov 13:14 Prov 14:14 Prov 14:27 Prov 14:30 Prov 15:4 Prov 15:16 Prov 15:17 Prov 16:8 Prov 16:19 Prov 16:32 Prov 17:1 Prov 17:11, Prov 17:12 Prov 18:4 Prov 19:1 Prov 19:22 Prov 19:24 Prov 21:9 Prov 22:1 Prov 23:3 Prov 23:6 Prov 25:24 Prov 27:3 Prov 27:5 Prov 27:8 Prov 27:10 Prov 28:6 Prov 30:2–4 Prov 30:4 Prov 30:20 Prov 31:11 Prov 31:23 Prov 31:28

274 364 361 323 364 300 364 248 300 364 357, 364 322 364 290, 291 290, 291 248 248 248 296 251 247, 251 300 271 357 247, 251 244 286 247 251 286 286 247, 251 249 244 291, 292 244, 296 247 358 358, 359 273 296 271 271

Qoh 1:1 Qoh 1:2 Qoh 1:11

392 389 393

Index of Sources 

Qoh 1:12–2:26 Qoh 1:12 Qoh 1:16 Qoh 2:4–8 Qoh 2:4 Qoh 2:9 Qoh 2:12 Qoh 2:16 Qoh 2:24 Qoh 3:12 Qoh 3:13 Qoh 3:19–21 Qoh 3:19 Qoh 3:20 Qoh 3:22 Qoh 4:13–16 Qoh 4:13 Qoh 5:18 Qoh 5:19 Qoh 8:15 Qoh 9:7 Qoh 9:9 Qoh 9:14–17 Qoh 10:4 Qoh 10:11 Qoh 11:9 Qoh 12:1–7 Qoh 12:8

391, 393 392 392 392 392 392 392 393 250, 392, 393 250 392, 393 394 394 394 250 360 360 392 393 250, 392 392 392 360 290, 291 394 392 392 389

Songs 2:8 Songs 5:15

291 277

Isa 2:1–5 Isa 3:1 Isa 3:14 Isa 4:4 Isa 5:5 Isa 6 372 Isa 6:6 Isa 7:3 Isa 8:4 Isa 8:16 Isa 8:22 Isa 9:9 Isa 12:4 Isa 13:9 Isa 13:10

21 290, 294 290 290 290 380 337 296 234 295 329 21 300 290

Isa 14:21 Isa 14:27 Isa 19:13 Isa 24:17 Isa 24:21 Isa 27:1 Isa 27:6 Isa 30:6 Isa 34:14 Isa 35:6 Isa 36:2 Isa 40–66 Isa 40–55 Isa 40:31 Isa 41:1 Isa 43:10–11 Isa 43:10 Isa 43:13 Isa 44 Isa 44:23 Isa 45:5 Isa 45:18 Isa 49 Isa 49:13 Isa 49:21 Isa 51:1 Isa 51:4 Isa 51:9 Isa 53:12 Isa 54:5 Isa 54:11–12 Isa 55:24 Isa 59:13 Isa 66:14

295 286 321 112 372 17, 372 295 295 292 291 337 354 354 329 329 359 295 286 20 18 359 359 20 18 353 353 292 17 296 359 157 197 322 326

Jer 1:11 Jer 1:18 Jer 2:13 Jer 2:24 Jer 3:25 Jer 6:23 Jer 7 355 Jer 7:26 Jer 7:33 Jer 8:15 Jer 9 Jer 10

236 290 357 286 38 300 38 170 250 32 32

 459

460 

 Index of Sources

Jer 14:16 Jer 14:20 Jer 15:15–16 Jer 15:16 Jer 17:9 Jer 17:14 Jer 17:23 Jer 19–20 Jer 19:9 Jer 19:14–15 Jer 19:15 Jer 21:10 Jer 22:19 Jer 24 Jer 25:13 Jer 25:15–38 Jer 27 Jer 27:16–22 Jer 27:18–22 Jer 27:19 Jer 27:20 Jer 27:21–22 Jer 27:22 Jer 30:14 Jer 31:2 Jer 32 Jer 32:37 Jer 33:14–26 Jer 34:5 Jer 36:1–32 Jer 37–38 Jer 37:1–2 Jer 38:2–3 Jer 38:7–13 Jer 39 Jer 39:4–13 Jer 39:4–8 Jer 39:5–7 Jer 39:5 Jer 39:8 Jer 39:9–11 Jer 39:13 Jer 39:16 Jer 40:1 Jer 40:7–41:18 Jer 41:10 Jer 43:6

170 38 236 320 286 357 38 38 355 38 38 35 170 35, 355 30 30 34, 355 34 33 33 33 33 34 300 292 355 33 30 40 353 40 40 36 35 29, 32, 35, 36, 41 29 35 41 34 35 37 37 35 37 34 37 37

Jer 44:27 Jer 45 Jer 46–51 Jer 47 Jer 47:1 LXX Jer 49:7 Jer 49:16 Jer 50–51 Jer 50:6 LXX Jer 50:15 Jer 50:34 Jer 50:42 Jer 51:34 Jer 51:44b–49a Jer 52 Jer 52:2–3 Jer 52:7 Jer 52:9–11 Jer 52:9 Jer 52:12 Jer 52:13 Jer 52:15–16 Jer 52:15 Jer 52:16 Jer 52:17–23 Jer 52:18 Jer 52:19 Jer 52:20 Jer 52:24 Jer 52:26 Jer 52:27b–30 Jer 52:30 Jer 52:31–34

35 30 29 30 37 361 321 30 37 345 292 300 17, 30 30 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 38, 40 35 40 34, 36 37 35 37 36 35 33, 34, 35 34 34 34, 36 37 37 30 37 40

Lam 1:1 Lam 2:4 Lam 2:20 Lam 4:10

291 290 355 355

Ezek 1 Ezek 13:3 Ezek 16:25 Ezek 17:19 Ezek 20:31 Ezek 28:3–5 Ezek 29:3

372 295 272 37 356 361 17

Index of Sources 

Hag 1:1 Hag 1:3 Hag 1:12 Hag 1:13 Hag 2:1 Hag 2:7–9 Hag 2:10 Hag 2:13 Hag 2:14 Hag 2:20

377 377 377 372, 377 377 21 377 377 377 377

Zech 1 Zech 2:8–9 Zech 3:1–10 Zech 3:7 Zech 4–6 Zech 4:14 Zech 6:5 Zech 8:20–23 Zech 8:21 Zech 9:2–5 Zech 14:1

372 235 372 195 372 359 359 21 10 361 296

Mal 1:1 Mal 1:1 LXX Mal 2:6 Mal 2:7 Mal 3:1

378, 379 378, 379 66 372 378

 461

Ezek 29:5 Ezek 31:15 Ezek 32:7–8 Ezek 37:1–14

170 271 271 326, 331

Dan 3 Dan 3:28 Dan 3,38–40 LXX Dan 3:52–90 Dan 4 Dan 4:10–14 Dan 4:11 Dan 4:20 Dan 4:21 Dan 6 Dan 6:18 Dan 6:23 Dan 7–11 Dan 7 Dan 8:12 Dan 9:4–19 Dan 9:12 Dan 10–12 Dan 10:21 Dan 11–12 Dan 12:1 Dan 14 LXX Dan 14:33–40 LXX Dan 14:35 LXX Dan 14:39 LXX

229 372 229 20 383 372 383 372 383 374 234 372 372 64 65 354 355 372 372 383 372 375 374, 375 375 375

Hos 13:8 Hos 14:3 Hos 14:5 Hos 14:6

271 230 326 318, 326

Matt 5:24 Matt 21:15 Matt 25:31

185 154 227

Amos 9:4

35

Mark 5:21–24 Mark 5:35–43

184 184

Jonah 4:11

17

Mic 4:1–5 Mic 7:5

21 273

Luke 1:5–23 Luke 10:29 Luke 10:37

382 297 297

Hab 3:16–18

326

Zeph 1:6 Zeph 1:9

322 291

John 1:4 John 2:20 John 5 John 5:2–4

362 340 334, 338, 340, 345 336

New Testament

462 

 Index of Sources

John 5:2 John 5:4 John 5:7

346 341 348

Acts 1:15 Acts 2:46 Acts 3:1–4:12 Acts 3:25 Acts 5:20–21 Acts 5:42 Acts 6:15 Acts 21:26–30

320 406 406 327 406 406 379 406

Rom 1:25–26 Rom 5:12 Rom 7:1–6 Rom 8:4 Rom 10:4 Rom 12:1–2

181 395 204 408 408 426

1 Cor 3:16–17 1 Cor 6:19–20 1 Cor 6:19

406, 426 406 426

2 Cor 6:16

406, 426

Heb 11:32

320, 326

Rev 3:4 Rev 11:13 Rev 12:9 Rev 15:3 Rev 21

320 320 382 154 159

Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint Tob 1–3 Tob 1–2 Tob 1:3–8 Tob 1:3 Tob 1:8 Tob 1:17 Tob 1:18 Tob 2:1–10 Tob 2:2–8

172 384 172 162, 168 169 163 163 163 384

Tob 2:2 Tob 2:4 Tob 2:7 Tob 2:8 Tob 2:9 GI Tob 2:14 Tob 3:1–6 Tob 3:3–4 Tob 3:5 Tob 3:6 Tob 3:16–17 Tob 4–12 Tobit 4 Tob 4:1–5:17 Tob 4:3 Tob 4:4 Tob 4:5–20 Tob 4:6 Tob 4:12 Tob 4:14 Tob 4:17 Tob 5:18–6:1 Tob 6 Tob 6:14–15 Tob 6:15 Tob 6:18 Tob 7:2 Tob 8:14 Tob 8:18 Tob. 8:9–18 Tob 10:4–7a Tob 11:16 Tob 11:18 Tob 11:19 Vg Tob 11:20 Vg Tob 12:1–2 Vg Tob 12:3 Vg/GII Tob 12:6–7 Tob 12:11 Tob 12:12–13 Tob 12:17 Tob 12:18 Vg Tob 12:20–22 GII Tob 12:20–22 Vg Tob 12:20 Vg Tob 12:20 GII Tob 12:22

169 163, 166 166 163 165 169 162, 171 172 172 172 155 155 173 155 164, 166 164 168 169 168, 326 168 165, 169 169 153 48 164 164 168 164 164, 166 48 169 158 168 159 159 156 156 155 155 163, 384 155 157 156 156 153, 154, 157, 159 155, 156 155

Index of Sources 

Tob 12:22 Vg Tob 13–14 Tob 13 Tob 13:1–22 Vg Tob 13:1–8 Tob 13:2–3 Vg Tob 13:4 Vg Tob 13:5–6 Vg Tob 13:8 Vg Tob 13:9–14:1 Tob 13:12–13 Vg Tob 14:2 Tob 14:4 Tob 14:5 Tob 14:11–13 Tob 14:12

156, 159 173 158, 159 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 164 162 162 164 164

Jdt 13:2

183

Wis 14:6 Wis 19:21

330 380

Sir Prol Sir Prol 1–2 Sir Prol 5–6 Sir Prol 7–10 Sir Prol 7 Sir Prol 11–14 Sir Prol 15–25 Sir Prol 27–35 Sir 1:1–23:27 Sir 1:1–4:10 Sir 1 218 Sir 1:1–20 Sir 1:5 GII Sir 1:10 Sir 1:11 Sir 1:25 Sir 1:26 Sir 1:28 Sir 1:29 Sir 2:11 Sir 2:15 Sir 2:18 Sir 3:12 HB Sir 3:12 Sir 3:14

211 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 217 252 83 356 325 348 233 304 304 304 234 235 234 210 212, 232 232

Sir 3:17 HB Sir 3:17 Sir 3:20 Sir 3:26 Sir 3:27 Sir 3:28 HB Sir 3:30 Sir 3:31 Sir 4:1 HB Sir 4:1 Sir 4:10 Sir 4:11–6:17 Sir 4:21 Sir 5:1–8 Sir 5:5 Sir 5:6 Sir 5:12 Sir 5:16 HB Sir 6:1 HB Sir 6:5–17 Sir 6:7 HB Sir 6:8 HB Sir 6:9 HB Sir 6:18–14:19 Sir 6:18 HB Sir 6:18 Sir 6:20 HB Sir 6:23–31 Sir 6:26–27 Sir 6:37 Sir 7:10 Sir 7:12 HB Sir 7:15 Sir 7:17 Sir 7:17 HB Sir 7:19 Sir 7:21 Sir 7:24 HB Sir 7:30 Sir 7:32–35 Sir 7:32 Sir 7:33 Sir 7:35 Sir 8:3 Sir 8:7 HB Sir 8:9 HB Sir 8:16

210 212, 226 234 287 287 300 228, 231 227, 290 210 212 235 252 226 233 233 233 226 296 296 217 296 296 295, 296 252 210 212 286 218 218 304 224 296 291 325, 331 315, 325 267 231 290 235 227 225 225 227 228 290 300 217

 463

464 

 Index of Sources

Sir 8:17 HB Sir 9:1–9 Sir 9:3 Sir 9:3 HB Sir 9:4 Sir 9:5 Sir 9:6–7 Sir 9:8 Sir 9:9 Sir 9:17–10:18 Sir 10:1 HB Sir 10:7 HB Sir 10:11 Sir 10:13 Sir 10:19–31 HB Sir 10:19 Sir 10:26 HB Sir 10:27 HB Sir 10:27 Sir 10:28 HB Sir 10:28 Sir 11:2 HB Sir 11:10 HB Sir 11:10 Sir 11:28 Sir 11:29–34 Sir 12:3 Sir 12:4 HB Sir 12:8 HB Sir 12:13–14 HB Sir 13:1–7 Sir 13:6 HB Sir 13:15 Sir 13:25 Sir 13:26 Sir 14:10 HB Sir 14:16 Sir 14:18 HB Sir 14:20–23:27 Sir 15–18 Sir 15:11 Sir 15:12 HB Sir 15:14–17 Sir 15:14–15 Sir 15:14 HB Sir 15:15 Sir 15:16

300 217, 267 267, 268 300 274, 279 267 268 267 268, 272 250 286 250 325 228 248 304 300 248 242, 251, 252, 253 210 212 290 210 212 170, 174 217 233, 250 300 296 292 217 300 224 271, 287 271 295 325 326 252 297 256 300 255 64 292 304 228

Sir 15:17 Sir 15:20 Sir 16 Sir 16:1 HB Sir 16:3 Sir 16:5 Sir 16:7 HB Sir 16:11 Sir 16:12 Sir 16:14 Sir 16:17 Sir 16:20–22 Sir 16:22 GII Sir 16:24–30 Sir 16:24–25 Sir 16:26–17:14 Sir 16:26–17:4 Sir 16:26–28 Sir 16:29–17:4 Sir 17:1 Sir 17:2–4 Sir 17:2–3 Sir 17:2 Sir 17:3 Sir 17:4 Sir 17:6–10 Sir 17:6 Sir 17:7–8 Sir 17:7 Sir 17:8 Sir 17:11–14 Sir 17:11–12 Sir 17:11 Sir 17:14 Sir 17:22 Sir 17:27–28 Sir 17:29 Sir 17:30 Sir 18:9–10 Sir 18:11 Sir 18:13 Sir 18:14 Sir 18:16–17 Sir 18:16 Sir 18:18 HB Sir 19:2

228 228 261 290 242, 246, 247, 251, 252, 253 212 291 233 234 235 255, 256, 257 255, 257 233 83 258 255, 257 258 258 258 259 259 258 260 224 257, 259 258 224, 257, 260 224, 257 260 260 258 258 261 258, 261 234 325 234 233, 234 233 234 226, 234 256 225 242, 251, 252, 253 290 272

Index of Sources 

Sir 19:24 Sir 20:4 Sir 20:13 Sir 20:25 Sir 20:31 Sir 20:32 Sir 21:3 Sir 21:13 Sir 21:16 Sir 21:22 Sir 22:4 Sir 22:11 Sir 23:23–26 Sir 23:27 Sir 24:1–33:18 Sir 24 Sir 24:3 Sir 24:4–6 Sir 24:6 Sir 24:10–11 Sir 24:10 Sir 24:15 Sir 24:23 Sir 24:30–34 Sir 24:34 Sir 25–26 Sir 25:1–11 Sir 25:5 Sir 25:7–11 Sir 25:9 Sir 25:10–11 Sir 25:10 Sir 25:11 Sir 25:12 Sir 25:13–26 Sir 25:13–16 Sir 25:13 Sir 25:15–16 Sir 25:16 Sir 25:17–23 Sir 25:17–18 Sir 25:17 Sir 25:18 Sir 25:19

242, 247, 251, 252, 253 266, 279 227 242 242, 243, 244, 246, 251, 252, 253 242, 251, 252, 253 266 357 225 286 267 325 278 242, 250–251, 252, 253, 304 252 214, 268, 351, 354, 356, 357, 363, 365 277 358 347 277 218, 277 277 362 213, 218 352 265, 266, 268 266 272 249 272 272 272 272 272 268, 269, 272 269 269 266 241, 242, 246, 252, 253 269 265, 269, 270 266, 269, 270, 278 270, 271 269

Sir 25:20 Sir 25:23 Sir 25:24–26 Sir 25:24 Sir 25:25 Sir 25:26 Sir 26:1–4 Sir 26:1–3 Sir 26:3–18 Sir 26:3 Sir 26:5–12 Sir 26:5–6 Sir 26:6 Sir 26:7 Sir 26:8 Sir 26:9 Sir 26:10–12 Sir 26:10–11 Sir 26:11 Sir 26:12 Sir 26:13–18 Sir 26:13–15 Sir 26:13 Sir 26:15–17 Sir 26:15 Sir 26:16–18 Sir 26:16–17 Sir 26:16 Sir 26:17–18 Sir 26:17 Sir 26:18 Sir 26:19–27 Sir 26:25 GII Sir 26:28–29 Sir 28:3 Sir 28:4 Sir 28:5 Sir 28:6 Sir 28:7 Sir 28:10 Sir 28:12–26 Sir 28:14 Sir 28:18 Sir 29:1 Sir 29:8 Sir 29:11 Sir 29:21

 465

267 269, 271 269 269 269, 274 270 268, 272, 275, 307 273 272 267 268, 272, 273, 275 272 266, 279 267 272 266, 279 272 273 266, 279 265, 272, 273, 274, 278 268, 275, 307 275 273, 278 273 274 265, 275, 278 275 275 277, 278 275, 276 276, 277 266 267, 272 268 233 233 233 304 304 228 217 217 217 224 225 304 285

466 

 Index of Sources

Sir 29:22 Sir 30:3 Sir 30:4 Sir 30:6 Sir 30:11a–51:30 HB Sir 30:14 Sir 30:16 Sir 30:17 HB Sir 30:20 Sir 30:25 Sir 30:30 Sir 31:5–6 Sir 31:8–11 Sir 31:9 Sir 31:10 Sir 31:11 Sir 31:12 HB Sir 31:14 HB Sir 31:15 Sir 31:20 HB Sir 31:22 Sir 31:27 HB Sir 32:1 HB Sir 32:11 HB Sir 32:13 Sir 3217 HB Sir 32:18 HB Sir 32:24–33:1 Sir 32:27 Sir 32:28 Sir 33:3 HB Sir 33:18 Sir 33:19–38:23 Sir 33:22 HB Sir 33:22 Sir 34:12–13 Sir 34:19 Sir 35:1–5 Sir 35:1–4 Sir 35:1 Sir 35:2 Sir 35:3 Sir 35:4 Sir 35:5 Sir 35:17 Sir 35:23

242, 245, 251, 252, 253 271 325, 328 227 335 242, 248, 251, 252, 253 250 243, 246, 252, 253 266, 279 286 245, 246 287 348 286 227 227 295 295 226 329 286 292 300, 304 295 223 300 300 217 304 304 286 352 252 245, 246 243, 252, 253 213, 218 235 232 230 230 230 230, 231 230, 231 231 235 304

Sir 35:24 Sir 35:26 HB Sir 36 Sir 36:1–17 HB Sir 36:1 Sir 36:11 Sir 36:15–37:15 HB Sir 36:16 HB Sir 36:17 Sir 36:18–37:15 Sir 36:18–20 HB Sir 36:18 HB

Sir 36:19 Sir 36:19 HC Sir 36:19 HB Sir 36:20 HB Sir 36:21–26 HB Sir 36:21 HB Sir 32:22–36 Sir 36:22–26 Sir 36:22 HB

Sir 36:23 Sir 36:23 HB

Sir 36:24–37:15 Sir 36:24–26 HC Sir 36:24–25 Sir 36:24 HB Sir 36:25 HB 309 Sir 36:26–31 HB Sir 36:26 HB

Sir 36:26 Sir 36:28 Sir 37 Sir 37:1–6 HB

304 295 283 284 236 236 302 285 284 283, 284, 301–306, 311 286–288, 291 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 292, 293, 301, 304, 305, 306 284, 286, 301 286 286, 287, 288, 304, 305, 306, 309 286, 288, 304–308 288–290, 306 285, 287, 289, 293 304 284, 291, 305 278, 285, 289, 291, 292, 293, 305, 306, 307 243, 266, 284, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 298, 305, 306, 307, 309 284 288 267 291, 292, 293, 302, 303, 305, 306, 309 291, 292, 293, 305, 298 284, 287, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 298, 305, 306, 308, 309 243 279 283, 295, 297 283, 285, 294, 297, 304, 305, 306

Index of Sources 

Sir 37:1 HB Sir 37:2 HB Sir 37:3 HB Sir 37:4–5 HB Sir 37:4 HB Sir 37:5 HB Sir 37:6 HB Sir 37:7–15 HB Sir 37:7 HB

Sir 37:7 Sir 37:8 HB Sir 37:9 HB

Sir 37:10 HB Sir 37:11 HB Sir 37:11 Sir 37:12 HB Sir 37:13 HB Sir 37:14 HB Sir 37:15 HB Sir 37:16–18 Sir 37:19–26 Sir 37:20–24 HB Sir 37:20 HB Sir 37:29 Sir 38:1 HB Sir 38:12 HB Sir 38:18 HB Sir 38:21 HB Sir 38:24–43:33 Sir 38:25 HB Sir 38:34–39:11 Sir 39 Sir 39:10–11

285, 289, 291, 294, 296–298, 301, 305 285, 294, 296–298, 301, 305, 306 285, 294, 297, 298, 305, 306, 309 297, 298, 306 285, 294, 295–298, 305, 306 285, 294, 296–298, 305, 306, 309 294, 297, 298, 305, 307, 308, 309 283, 285, 287, 298, 304, 305, 308 294, 295, 296, 298, 299, 301, 302, 303, 305, 306 285 299, 301, 302, 303, 305–308 285, 295, 299, 301,302, 303, 305, 306, 308 298, 299, 301, 302, 303, 305–308 299, 302, 303, 306 284 285, 299, 302–308 285, 299, 302–308, 310 285, 299, 301–306 285, 299, 302–311 285 285 285 307 286 300 300 286, 294 315, 325, 331 252 301 213 212 213

Sir 39:13 Syr Sir 39:16 HB Sir 39:19 HB Sir 39:24 HB Sir 39:27–44:17 HM Sir 39:29 Sir 40:17 Sir 40:18–27 Sir 40:18–26 HB Sir 40:18–26 Sir 40:18–19:1 HM Sir 40:18 HB Sir 40:19 HB Sir 40:24 Sir 40:26 HB Sir 40:26–27 Sir 40:28 HB Sir 40:28 Sir 40:29 Sir 41:2 HB Sir 41:3–4 HB Sir 41:11–13 HB Sir 41:12–13 Sir 41:15 HB Sir 41:15 Sir 41:18 HB Sir 42:1 Sir 42:10 HB Sir 42:11 Sir 42:12 HB Sir 42:14 HB Sir 42:15 Sir 42:16 Sir 42:17 HB Sir 42:25 HB Sir 43:1 HB Sir 43:2–5 Sir 43:5 Sir 43:8 HB Sir 43:9 HB Sir 43:18 HB Sir 43:22 HB Sir 43:30 HB Sir 44–50

 467

324 300 295 244 335 249 224 241, 253 249 241, 243, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253 249 249 319, 326, 328 225 249, 252, 290 250 244 243, 244, 251, 252, 253 286, 295 318 325 328 328 245 242, 243, 251, 252, 253 296 227 321 272 290 243, 247, 251, 252, 253 262 276 291 290, 329 290 276 234 291 290 290 290, 291 329 212, 220, 252, 330

468 

 Index of Sources

Sir 44:1–15 Sir 44:1–14 Sir 44:1 Sir 44:3–6 Sir 44:3 HB Sir 44:7–9 HB Sir 44:7 HB Sir 44:8–9 HB Sir 44:8 HB Sir 44:9 HB Sir 44:11–13 HB Sir 44:11 HB Sir 44:12 HB Sir 44:13–15 HB Sir 44:13 HB Sir 44:14 HB Sir 44:17–18 Sir 44:17 HA Sir 45:1 HB Sir 45:6–26 Sir 45:8 Sir 45:9 Sir 45:12 HB Sir 45:23 Sir 45:25–26 Sir 46:1–49:10 Sir 46:1–10 Sir 46:1 Sir 46:6 Sir 46:9 HB Sir 46:10 Sir 46:10 HB Sir 46:11–12 Sir 46:11 HB Sir 46:11 Syr Sir 46:12 HB Sir 46:12 Sir 46:12 Syr Sir 46:13–20 Sir 46:13 HB Sir 47:2–11 Sir 47:3 Sir 47:8 Sir 47:12–22

316, 324 348 220 324 305 324 324 324, 329, 330 324 291, 324 331 328 324 220 324 328 317 324, 329, 330 323 328 347 276 290 322 317 316 317 330 317, 323 318 317, 318 319, 323 315, 316, 317, 318, 324, 331 315, 316, 317, 319, 320, 322, 323, 331 317 316, 317, 318, 319, 324–330 315, 324, 331 324 317 317, 318, 323 316 271 235, 322 316

Sir 47:16 Sir 47:22 Sir 48:1 Sir 48:8 HB Sir 48:8 Sir 48:9 HB Sir 48:11 HB Sir 48:11 Sir 48:13–14 HB Sir 48:20 Sir 49:1–4 Sir 49:1 HB Sir 49:3 HB Sir 49:4 HB Sir 49:10 Sir 49:13 HB Sir 49:14–16 Sir 49:16 Sir 50 Sir 50:1–24 Sir 50:1–21 Sir 50:1–4 Sir 50:1–4 HB Sir 50:1 HB Sir 50:2 HB Sir 50:3 HB Sir 50:3 Sir 50:6–10 Sir 50:7 Sir 50:10 HB Sir 50:13 HB Sir 50:17 Sir 50:19 Sir 50:22 Sir 50:24 Sir 50:25–26 Sir 50:27–29 Sir 50:27 HB Sir 50:27 Sir 50:28–29 Sir 51

328 236 380 329, 330, 331 331 291, 381 325 325 326 197, 236 317 317, 323, 328 317, 322 317 315, 324, 325, 326, 327, 331 323 317 347, 348 334, 336, 337, 342, 347, 352 328 277, 347 334, 337, 339, 342, 343, 344, 347 344 343, 348 336, 337, 341, 342, 343, 345, 347, 348 336, 338, 343, 345, 347, 348 343, 347 249 276 330 295 316 237 237, 315 237 348 216, 217 209, 211, 220 209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 220 214 214, 216, 217, 218, 219

Index of Sources 

Sir 51:1–12 Sir 51:3 Sir 51:4 Sir 51:6 HB Sir 51:8 Sir 51:13–30 Sir 51:13–22 Sir 51:13–20 Sir 51:14 HQ Sir 51:16 HQ Sir 51:18–19 HQ Sir 51:19–20 HQ Sir 51:19 Sir 51:22 Sir 51:23–30 Sir 51:23 Sir 51:25 HB Sir 51:28 Sir 51:29 Sir 51:30 HB

216 237, 295 228 294 236 217 216 216 218 218 218 218 262 218 216 223 218 348 237 214

Bar 1:1–3:8 Bar 1:1–14 Bar 1:1 Bar 1:3 Bar 1:14 Bar 1:15–3:8 Bar 1:15 Bar 2:1–5 Bar 2:2 Bar 2:6–3:8 Bar 2:20 Bar 2:24 Bar 2:28 Bar 3:8–4:4 Bar 3:9–4:4

353, 355 354 363 363 363 352, 353, 354, 355 353 355 352, 353, 355 354 352 352 352, 353 351 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 359, 363, 365 361 356 351, 356, 357, 361 356, 357, 363, 365 356 356 357 356, 357 351, 358, 359, 361 356, 359, 360, 361

Bar 3:9–38 Bar 3:9–23 Bar 3:9–14 Bar 3:9 Bar 3:10–11 Bar 3:12 Bar 3:13 Bar 3:14 Bar 3:15–38 Bar 3:15–23

Bar 3:15 Bar 3:16–31 Bar 3:20–21 Bar 3:20 Bar 3:21 Bar 3:22–28 Bar 3:22 Bar 3:23 Bar 3:24–38 Bar 3:24 Bar 3:26–28 Bar 3:27–28 Bar 3:27 Bar 3:28 Bar 3:29–4:1 Bar 3:29–31 Bar 3:29–30 Bar 3:31 Bar 3:32–4:4 Bar 3:32–37 Bar 3:32–36 Bar 3:32–35 Bar 3:32 Bar 3:35 Bar 3:36–37 Bar 3:36 Bar 3:37 Bar 3:38 Bar 4:1–4 Bar 4:1

 469

Bar 4:2 Bar 4:3 Bar 4:4 Bar 4:5–5:9 Bar 4:5 Bar 4:6 Bar 4:9 Bar 4:12 Bar 4:13 Bar 4:30 Bar 4:36 Bar 5:1 Bar 5:5

360 360 363 356, 357, 362, 363 363 361 361 356, 357, 362, 363 356 356 361 363, 366 356, 357, 362, 363 356 356 358, 360 358, 359 357, 362, 363 366 361 363 360 356 359 359, 361 359 356, 357, 362, 363 359, 361, 362 351, 356, 362, 363, 364 353, 355, 356, 362, 363, 366 363 364 363, 364, 365 353, 354, 355 356 357 353 353, 364 364 353 353 353 353

1 Macc 1:3 1 Macc 1:22

321 276, 277

470 

 Index of Sources

1 Macc 4:49–50 1 Macc 5:62 1 Macc 13:23–30

276 327 167

2 Macc

177, 178, 189, 192, 202, 427 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 376 195 183 202 183 382 194 194 194 184 195 181, 182 195 181 178 181, 182 184 170 184 170 196 186 181 178, 181 179, 196 178 181 178 180, 181, 184 196 181 178, 182, 183, 196 178, 181, 182 196

2 Macc 1:2–6 2 Macc 1:2 2 Macc 1:4 2 Macc 1:5 2 Macc 1:7 2 Macc 1:9 2 Macc 1:39 2 Macc 2:4–8 2 Macc 3:1 2 Macc 3:6 2 Macc 3:26 2 Macc 3:27 2 Macc 3:30 2 Macc 3:31–33 2 Macc 3:32 2 Macc 3:38 2 Macc 3:39 2 Macc 4:2 2 Macc 4:7 2 Macc 4:12 2 Macc 4:37 2 Macc 4:47 2 Macc 5:5 2 Macc 5:8 2 Macc 5:9–10 2 Macc 5:9 2 Macc 5:10 2 Macc 6–7 2 Macc 6:18–31 2 Macc 6:18–22 2 Macc 6:19 2 Macc 6:21 2 Macc 6:22 2 Macc 6:25 2 Macc 6:26 2 Macc 6:27 2 Macc 6:28–31 2 Macc 6:28 2 Macc 6:30 2 Macc 6:31 2 Macc 7:1–42

2 Macc 7:2 2 Macc 7:5 2 Macc 7:6 2 Macc 7:7 2 Macc 7:9 2 Macc 7:12 2 Macc 7:13 2 Macc 7:14 2 Macc 7:16 2 Macc 7:18 2 Macc 7:20 2 Macc 7:21 2 Macc 7:28 2 Macc 7:29 2 Macc 7:33 2 Macc 7:36 2 Macc 7:37 2 Macc 7:40–41 2 Macc 7:40 2 Macc 7:41 2 Macc 8:5 2 Macc 8:19 2 Macc 8:20 2 Macc 8:21 2 Macc 9:7 2 Macc 9:9 2 Macc 9:10 2 Macc 9:18 2 Macc 9:28 2 Macc 10:4 2 Macc 10:9 2 Macc 10:18 2 Macc 10:23 2 Macc 10:29–30 2 Macc 11:8 2 Macc 11:23 2 Macc 12:6–7 2 Macc 12:6 2 Macc 12:9 2 Macc 12:22 2 Macc 12:24 2 Macc 12:32–45 2 Macc 12:32–37 2 Macc 12:34 2 Macc 12:39–40 2 Macc 12:39 2 Macc 12:40

178, 179 182, 183 196 181, 182, 178, 179 196 181, 182 181, 182, 183 196 178, 179 184 180, 196 196 178, 196 196, 197 183 185, 197 185 181, 182 182, 183 180 184 184 178, 179 183 185 185 185 185 183, 196 183 185 183 202 202 185 201 201 184 202 178 183, 201 180 183 201 183 180, 183

Index of Sources 

2 Macc 12:42 2 Macc 12:43–45 2 Macc 12:44–45 2 Macc 12:44 2 Macc 12:45 2 Macc 13:7 2 Macc 13:8 2 Macc 13:14 2 Macc 14:37 2 Macc 14:42 2 Macc 14:43 2 Macc 14:46 2 Macc 15:2 2 Macc 15:12 2 Macc 15:15–16 2 Macc 15:16 2 Macc 15:27 2 Macc 15:28 2 Macc 15:39

183, 201 201, 203 201 183 180, 184 180 178, 185 178, 179 180 178 180 181, 182 184 195 195 195 202 183, 184 182

3 Macc 3 Macc 1:8–2:24 3 Macc 1:16 3 Macc 2:32

177 338 183 329

4 Macc

177, 427

1 Esd 1:31

181

2 Esd 14:47

357

Pseudepigrapha

2 Bar 85:2 2 Bar. 85:12

203 203

4 Bar 3:8–11 4 Bar 3:18–20

376 376

1 En. 64 1 En. 37:4 1 En. 58:3–6 1 En. 91–107 1 En. 98:12–13 1 En. 106:7

381 381 171 170 381

2 En. 71:21

380

4 Ezra 4 Ezra 1–3 4 Ezra 3:1–9:25 4 Ezra 3 4 Ezra 7 4 Ezra 7:28 4 Ezra 7:47 4 Ezra 7:82 4 Ezra 7:102–103 4 Ezra 7:102 4 Ezra 7:104–105 4 Ezra 7:104 4 Ezra 7:105–115 4 Ezra 7:105 4 Ezra 7:110 4 Ezra 7:111 4 Ezra 7:115 4 Ezra 7:132–140 4 Ezra 8:1 4 Ezra 9:11–12 4 Ezra 34:6–7

189, 202 199 202 200 200 204 200 200, 201, 204 200 204 201 200 201 200 200 200 200 200 200 201 200

 471

Apoc. Mos. 16:5,

382

Apoc. Pet. 14

203

Asc. Isa. 1:8 Asc. Isa. 2:2–4 Asc. Isa. 2:4 Asc. Isa. 5

382 382 382 383

Jos. Asen. 6:6 Jos. Asen. 16:1

381 380

Jub

Asc. Mos. 11.17

378

2 Baruch 6 2 Bar 6:6–9

376 376

Jub 1:5 Jub. 1:7 Jub. 1:1–18 Jub. 1:15–18 Jub. 1:19–21

45, 48, 53, 54, 101, 103, 114 199 199 198 198 198

472 

 Index of Sources

Jub. 1:26 Jub. 1:27 Jub. 2:1 Jub. 5:23 Jub. 7:1–2 Jub. 12:27 Jub. 22:16 Jub. 23:32 Jub. 30:12 Jub. 30:21 Jub. 31:14 Jub. 32:11 Jub. 33:8–9 Jub. 33:18 Jub. 34:11 Jub. 34:20 Jub. 38:12 Jub. 41 Jub. 41:1 Jub. 41:7–10 Jub. 41:7 Jub. 41:8 Jub. 41:21–22 Jub. 41:23 Jub. 41:24 Jub. 41:25–28 Jub. 41:25 Jub. 41:27 Jub. 42:1 Jub. 45:24 Jub. 50:6 Jub. 50:13

199 198 199 54 53 53 115 199 199 199 115, 378 113 56 199 54 56 56 55 55 55 56 55 57 56 56 57 57 57 58 58 199 199

LAB 9:5–6 LAB 19:5 LAB 25:2–43:8

53 380 315, 320

Let. Aris. §1 Let. Aris. §8 Let. Aris. §83–120 Let. Aris. §84–99 Let. Aris. §128–171 Let. Aris. §171 Let. Aris. §322

410 410 410 410 410 410 410

Pss. Sol. 2:27–29 Pss. Sol. 10:6

170 379

Sib. Or. 2

203

T. Ab. 17:13

383

T. Jud. 10–13 T. Jud. 12:3 T. Jud. 12:5 T. Jud. 13:3 T. Lev. 2–5 T. Sim. 6:2 T. 12 Patr.

53 56 56 56 378 326 383

Vit. Ad. 4,2

380

Qumran 1QapGen 1QapGen 2:19–21 1QapGen 3–5 1QHa 1QHa 6:11–12 1QHa 7:37–38 1QHa 7:38 1QHa 9:28 1QHa 10:36 1QHa 13:16 1QHa 13:22 1QHa 18:30–31 1QHa 20:13 1QHa 21:32 1QHa 22:34 1QHa 25:33 1QM 1QM I 1 1QM II 1QM II 1 1QM III–IX 1QM VII 10 1QM VII 12–14 1QM X 1QM XI–XIX 1QM XI 1 1QM XVIII 1–3 1QpHab 1Q22 (Words of Moses)

102 381 380 65, 76, 86 70 76 65 76 86 86 86 326 76 76 76 76 70, 76, 108, 116, 383 382 100 111 100 109 111 100 100 171 382 101 108

Index of Sources 

1QS 1QS I–III 1QS I 1 6 23 1QS I 4 1QS I 7 1QS I 10 1QS I 11 1QS I 15 1QS I 16 1QS II 1 1QS II 2 1QS II 3–11 1QS II 16–17 1QS II 19 1QS II 24 1QS II 26 1QS III–IV (Treaties on the Two Spirits)

65, 67, 68, 76, 94, 102, 106, 108, 116; 383 111 109 84 81 84 71 71 111 111 382 407 322 382 71 71

1QS III 13 – IV 26 1QS III 13–15 1QS III 18–19 1QS IV 1QS IV 1 1QS IV 22 1QS IV 24 1QS V–XI 1QS V–IX 1QS V 2 1QS V 5–6 1QS VIII 1–16 1QS VIII 5–6 1QS IX 3–5 1QS IX 7 1QS XI 1QS XI 3–4 1QS XI 7–8 1QSa (28a) 1QSa I 1 1QSa l 6 1QSa I 7 1QSa I 23 1QSa II 3–11

63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 71, 94, 102 71 64 64 65 84 67 84 71 66, 67 66 66 407 109 407 109 86 86 86 76, 383 109 109 81 109 407

2Q18

335

3Q15 5 6 3Q15 7 4 3Q15 10 5 3Q15 11 12 4Q1 97 4Q2 97 4Q3 97 4Q33 4Q71 4Q158 4Q160 4Q176 4Q176 I 7–9 4Q213 (Levi ar) 4Q213 V 1–V 8 4Q213 VI 3 4Q247 (Ap. of Weeks) 4Q258 (Sd) 4Q266 4Q266 6 I 7 4Q267 9 V 8 4Q272 I 15 4Q286–290 (Berakhot) 4Q299 4Q223–224 3 II 4Q364–367 (Reworked Pent) 4Q394 (4QMMT) 4Q394 1–2 IV 8 4Q400 4Q415 II 1 4Q415 2 II 3 4Q416 I 4Q416 I 10–15 4Q416 I 10 4Q416 I 13–14 4Q416 I 14 4Q416 I 15 4Q416 I 9–16 4Q416 II 4Q416 2 II 8–9 4Q416 2 II 14 4Q416 2 III 4Q416 2 III 7 4Q416 2 III 8–12

345 345 345 345

421 32 95 382 407 382 113, 114, 116 115 115 67, 72 67 69, 70 324 319 324 111 65 55 95 101, 383 109 70, 115 86 86 79 80 76 66, 80 65 80 85 84 84 84 66 326 87

 473

474 

 Index of Sources

4Q416 2 III 14–19 4Q417 (Instruction) 4Q417 1 I 4Q417 1 I 6–8 4Q417 1 I 8 4Q417 1 I 10–12 4Q417 1 I 12 4Q417 1 I 15–18 4Q417 1 I 16–19 4Q417 1 I 16 4Q417 1 I 17 4Q417 1 II 5 4Q417 4 II 3 4Q418 2 I 2–5 4Q418 2 VI 4Q418 43–45 I 6 4Q418 55 3 4Q418 55 8–12 4Q418 55 8–11. 4Q418 69 II 9–15 4Q 418 69 II 10 4Q418 81 4Q418 81a 1–3 4Q418 172 4 4Q418 222 4Q418 221 4Q418 238 4Q423 23 1 4Q491–496 4Q493 (Mc) 9–10 4Q494 4 4Q521 2 II 6 4Q525 5 12 4Q543–548 4Q571

81 63, 65, 67, 72, 76, 77, 79 81 80 65, 76 81 86 82 82 81 87 86 326 85 65 76 81 87 86 87 76 82, 83, 84, 85, 87 83, 84, 87 86 87 87 87 83 70 111 111 329 81 72 378

11Q5 (11QPsa) 11Q13 11Q19 (Temple Scroll) 11Q19 VII 11–15 11Q19 XXI 1–5 11Q19 XXII 8–14 11Q19 L 10–12 11Q19 LI 6–11 11Q19 LX 9–11

5, 6, 217, 335 101 102, 109, 112, 116 113 113 113 119, 120 113 113

CD CD I 15 CD II 2–13 CD IV 17–18 CD V 17–19 CD VI 3–4 CD VII 18 CD X 6 CD XIII 2 CD XIII 3 CD XIV 4–5 CD XIV 8 CD XIX 31

76, 101, 108, 112, 115, 116, 383 84 70 115 70 81 84 81 81 112 319 81 84

Philo Conf. 26.130

320

Migr. 1–126 Migr. 89–93 Migr. 89 Migr. 92 Migr. 93 Migr. 127–225

409 409 409 409 409 409

Praem. 88

383

Josephus A.J. 2.35–40 A.J. 5.182–317 A.J. 11.1–5 A.J. 11.179 A.J. 11.310–312 A.J. 12.4–10 A.J. 12.132 A.J. 12.135–137 A.J. 12.138–153 A.J. 12.145–147 A.J. 12.316–326 A.J. 14.57–70 A.J. 14.144 A.J. 14.156 A.J. 14.200 A.J. 18.85–87

55 315, 320 338 338 338 338 338 339 338 339 339 339 339 339 339 376

Index of Sources 

B.J. 5.246–247 B.J. 5.270 B.J. 5.303–304 B.J. 5.467

340 340 340 340

m. Sanh.10:1 m. ˋEd. 2:10, m. Chul 4:1 m. Chul 4:3

53 203 120 120

Vitae Prophetarum

t. Sot. 13:3–4

379

VPr 1:1 (Life of Isaiah) VP 2:9–15 (Life of Jeremiah) VPr 4 (Life of Daniel) VPr 4:6 VPr 4:22 VPr 12 (Life of Habakkuk) VPr 12:5 VPr 12:6–9 VPr 12:6–7 VPr 12:6 VPr 12:7 VPr 12:10–13 VPr 12:12–13 VPr 12:14 VPr 14 (Life of Haggai) VPr 14:1 VPr 16 (Life of Malachi) VPr 16:1 VPr 16:2 VPr 16:2–3 VPr 16:3 VPr 16:4 VPr 17 (Life of Nathan) VPr 17:2 VPr 21 (Life of Elijah)

b. Ber. 56a b. Ber. 28a b. Shabb. 33b b. Sukkah 14a b. Sukkah 41b b. Rosh Hash. 17a b. Ned. 39b b. B. Qam. 100a b. B. Qam. 50a b. B. Bat. 7a b. B. Bat. 59a

345 345 204 203 227 204 227 227 345 345 345

y. Hag. 2:1

211

Tg. Onq. Gen 4:23 Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 38:26 Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 14:15 Tg. Neof. Exod 14:15

329 52 197 197

Gen. Rab. Gen. Rab. 8:2 Gen. Rab. 33:3 Gen. Rab. 42:3 Gen. Rab. 61:1 Gen. Rab. 85:11 Gen. Rab. 84:7 Gen. Rab. 87:4 Gen. Rab. 95:3 Exod. Rab. 42:1 Lev. Rab. 1.1 Deut. Rab. 3:15

45 211 203 271 54 52 271 271 54 203 378 203

Pesiq. Rab. 53:2

204

Josippon

205

Alphabet of Ben Sira

211

VPr 21:2–4 VPr 23 (Life of Zechariah) VPr 23:2

383 376 373, 383, 384 383 383 373, 385 374 374 375, 376 375 375 374 376, 377 382 373, 374, 375 377 373, 378 378 379 378 379 379 373, 384 384 373, 374, 380, 381, 385 380 373, 374, 381, 385 381, 382

Rabbinic Literature m. Qidd. 4:14 m. Sanh. 9:1

54 57

 475

476 

 Index of Sources

Greek and Latin Auctors Cicero, De or. III. 59.221 Cicero, Inv. 1 27 XIX Cicero, Sen. XXI 77

Gilgameš (Akkadian) VII 184–190 278 410 418

Herodotus, Hist. 1,112 Homerus Il. 6.208 Homerus Il. 11.784 Homerus, Od. XXII, 354–360

227 227

Homeric Hymns 2.231–291

380

Jerome, Adv. Vig. Jerome, Prol. Tob. 10–13

204, 206 153

Ovidius, Fast. 4.549–560

380

Plato, Lysis Plato, Resp. 587B–589B Plato, Symp. Plato, Theaet. 176cd

418 383 418 418

Polybius, Hist. 2,1,9 Polybius, Hist. 2,4,7 Polybius, Hist. 2,41,2 Polybius, Hist. 2,44,2 Polybius, Hist. 2,71,3

182 182 182 182 182

Quintilian, Inst. 4 2 XXXI

410

Rhetorica ad Herrenium 1 4 III

410

Theon, Prog. 78:15

410

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Akkadian Medical Instructions SpTU 4 153 obv. 21‒25

144

Atrahasis I, S iv 51

136

128

Gilgameš, Enkidu and the Netherworld (Šumerian) ETCSL 1.8.1.4 (298‒299) 127 Me-Turan, Segm. B (= H 157) 62–64 127 Hattuša Incantation Text KBo XXXVI 29 KBo XXXVI 29 obv. 9’-17’: KBo XXXVI 29 18–27 KBo XXXVI 29 obv. 33 KBo XXXVI obv. 34’‒35’

119, 121, 122 137–138 123 142 143

Hittite Birth Ritual Text KUB IX 22 lines 12‒14

144

Late Akkadian Ritual Text SpTU 5 248 obv.13‒16

136

Middle Assyrian Ritual Text KAR 91 Rv. 18‒20

142

New Assyrian Incantation from Aššur KAR 196=BAM 249 133 BAM 248 obv. ii 54– iii 6 133–134 Old Babylonian Baby Incantation BM 122691 Rv. 1‒3

129

Ritual Texts form Aššur LKA 79 KAR 245

141–142 141–142

Sumerian Baby Incantations BM 97093 MLC 1207 AUAM 73.3094 E47.190

131 131 131 131

Ur III Incantation Text UM 29-15-367

132, 133

Index of Subjects Aaron 70, 231, 290, 347 Aaronides 109 Abraham 54, 114, 115, 167, 168, 193, 200, 236, 409 Adam 317, 347, 348, 348, 394, 396 Afterlife 184, 315, 324, 325, 331, 418 Ahiqar 159, 168 Akkadian ritual text 119, 121 Alexander the Great 320, 321, 338, 417 Alexandria 196, 320, 339, 352, 356, 409 Angel(s) viii, 7, 9, 14, 14, 16, 19, 20, 54, 56, 57, 82, 86, 87, 115, 154–160, 163, 164, 198–200, 202, 204, 315, 341, 347, 371–386 – Angel of Darkness 67 – Angelic spirit 70 – Angelus interpres 372, 379 – Angelology 72, 202 – Good angels 371, 373, 374, 384, 385 – Bad angels 371, 373, 382–385 Angelification 371, 381, 385 Apocrypha(l) 46, 97, 100, 204, 337, 376, 402 Archaeology 335, 346 Aristeas 335, 339, 410 Apocalyptic 79, 100, 101, 202, 204, 348, 373, 376, 383, 386 Aristotle 413 Augustine 24, 26, 203

319–325, 327, 328, 331, 335, 337, 343, 345, 348, 352, 357, 358, 361, 364, 380, 381, Bones 167, 315, 316, 318, 319, 325, 326, 331 Burial 124, 128, 142, 161–167, 170, 171, 174, 378 – Place of 315, 325, 331, 377

Babylon(ian) 11, 17, 22, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 72, 121, 125, 126, 129, 131, 133, 137, 190, 326, 345, 353, 356, 374, 375, 376, 383, 384, 415 Baruch vii, 351–365 Belial/Beliar 63, 67, 70, 110, 111, 112, 115, 171, 198, 382, 383, 384 Benefit 82, 96, 184, 215, 223, 318, 328 Benevolence 168, 223, 224, 225, 227, 229, 232, 234, 235, 238 Ben Sira 64, 83, 85, 86, 109, 207–220, 223, 229, 230, 232, 241, 242, 243, 247–253, 257, 259–262, 265–270, 272, 274–276, 278, 279, 283, 284, 286, 287, 289–292, 295–297, 301, 303–311, 315–317,

David 34, 49, 154, 200, 208, 315, 316, 320, 322, 325, 328, 384,385, 391, 394 Dead Sea Scrolls vii, 6, 32, 46, 53, 55, 59, 63, 65, 72, 93, 96, 103, 155 Death (and dying) (Tod) 3, 49, 57, 68, 127, 128, 130, 134, 143, 161, 164–166, 170, 172, 173, 177–185, 194, 196, 200–204, 207, 213, 228, 233, 246, 252, 253, 259, 267, 274, 294, 296, 306, 320, 325, 326, 328, 363, 364, 373, 377, 378, 381, 386, 387, 393 Dead (Toten) 48, 50, 51, 120, 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 139, 140, 141, 142, 161–167, 170–173, 178, 180, 184, 197, 201, 202, 204, 327, 328, 356, 372, 384, 385, 404

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110768534-029

Calendar 114, 193 Canaan 167, 409 – Canaanite 56, 361 Carpe diem 389, 393, 395 Charity (Wohltat) 161–165, 169, 223, 224, 225, 227, 229, 232, 234, 235, 238 Chronology 55 Church fathers 30, 189, 203, 204, Compassion (Mitgefühl) 223, 233, 236, 237 Composite text 58, 131, 144 Covenant(al) 26, 63, 67, 70, 71, 101,107, 110, 111, 116, 170, 171, 172, 193, 198, 204, 230, 255, 258, 260, 322, 331, 352, 353, 359, 421, 422 Creation 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14–20, 23–26, 53, 54, 63, 65, 66, 83, 195, 218, 224, 235, 255–262, 291, 295, 347, 359, 362, 365, 415 Crisis 3, 4, 202, 363 Cyrus 33, 34, 338

478 

 Index of Subjects

Deadly spirit 127, 142, Demon(s)/ghost 69, 121, 129, 139, 140, 155, 156, 164, 382 Deuteronomistic – Redaction 36–39, 420 – Theology 37, 38, 40, 161, 162, 171, 172, 173, 204, 352 Deuterocanonical 20, 46, 174, 241, 252 Diaspora 22, 157, 196, 403, 423 Discourse 76, 93, 99–102, 158, 164, 168, 170, 198, 207, 213, 220, 251, 261, 268, 351, 354–356, 361, 364, 365, 410 Donation (Gabe) 122, 225, 229, 230, 235 Doubt 19, 200 Dualism 63, 68, 69, 70 Early Judaism see Judaism Earth(ly) 3, 7, 9–25, 33, 64, 87, 115, 120, 127, 128, 130, 156, 258, 259, 295, 315, 325, 330, 331, 360, 361, 362, 380, 381, 383, 385, 386, 390, 393, 418, 419 Egypt(ian) 17, 22, 26, 30, 45, 49, 50, 51, 55, 58, 70, 154, 167, 170, 193, 198, 216, 219, 242, 250, 321, 336, 338, 342, 343, 402, 423 Elijah 200, 316, 330, 371, 373, 374, 380, 381, 385 Endogamy 168 Enoch 101, 171, 317, 372, 381 Eschatology 64, 372 Eschatological 11, 21, 67, 80, 100–102, 110, 111, 113, 116, 157, 159, 165, 203, 372 Eternity (Ewigkeit) viii, 10, 16, 115, 119, 120, 198, 233, 323, 324, 331 Ethical (ethisch) 3, 4, 22, 230 412 Exile 11, 22, 29, 32, 34, 36, 37, 41, 155, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 167, 170–173, 326, 336, 338, 342, 353, 364, 365 Exegesis 3, 4, 23, 29, 30, 45, 47, 52, 53, 57, 59, 347, 395 Evolution 401, 403, 404, 412–414, 416–417, 424, 425, 427, 428 Falsehood 63, 66, 69, 287 Female body 265, 268, 278, 279 Female imagery 265, 266–268 Female sexuality 265, 278

Festivals 80, 198 Friend (Freund) 194, 200, 217, 224, 227, 271, 283–285, 290, 294–297, 301–311 Friendship (Freundschaft) 226, 237, 283, 284, 290, 297, 301, 308–311 Funeral 161, 164, 166, 170 Genealogy 49, 64, 168, 171, 425 Genesis 45, 47, 50–59, 63, 67, 72, 102, 255–258, 260, 289, 292, 293, 310, 320, 409 Genre (Gattung) 19, 29, 76, 79, 85, 93–95, 97, 99, 107, 112, 116, 157, 202, 208, 220, 241, 243, 253, 269, 351, 396, 410 Gerizim 338, 348, 403, 421 Gilgamesh 127, 128 God – Works of God viii, 26, 65, 260 – God of Israel 33, 35, 37, 39, 67, 154, 178, 186, 194, 309, 421 Hallel 3, 8, 27 Hasmonean period 53, 70, 342 Hebrew Bible 4, 20, 22, 24, 29, 30, 32, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52, 65, 66, 95, 98, 100, 103, 190, 191, 198, 233, 241, 250, 253, 372, 373 Hebrew text 5, 8–11, 30, 33, 38, 39, 40, 72, 113, 115, 209, 215, 216, 242, 246, 267, 269, 270, 275, 276, 283, 284, 285, 296, 317, 321, 326, 336, 337, 343, 345, 351 – Hebrew version (hebräische Vorlage/ Version) 31, 32, 33, 35, 223, 199, 242, 245, 336, Heaven (Himmel) 3, 7–9, 11–16, 18–21, 23, 25, 33, 52, 68, 86, 87, 114, 115, 157, 158, 163, 230, 236, 275, 276, 315, 347, 358, 372, 381 Hellenistic – Author 70 – Culture 180, 189, 410, 419, 226, 227 – Education 196 – Judaism 351 – King 194 – Party 342 – Period/Age 64, 68, 72, 337, 373, 423 – Source 72, 181, 194

Index of Subjects 

 479

– Tombs 371 Herodotus 190 High Priest 111, (Hohenpriester) 181, 184, 185, 189, 194–195, 276, 277, 315, 330, 335, 337, 338, 342, 344, 347, 348, 381, 415 Historiography 29, 406 History 26, 58, 98, 109, 154, 160, 167, 198, 201, 255, 261, 294, 315, 320, 335, 337, 346, 348, 352, 365, 416, 417 – History of tradition 22, 101 – Text(ual) history 29, 30, 31, 32, 96, 155, 204, 286, 420 – History of scholarship 46, 78 – Religious history 108, 404, 405, 423

391, 392, 403, 404, 407, 408, 411, 421, 423, 424, 425 – Heavenly (‘new’) Jerusalem 25, 157, 159 Joseph 45, 49–52, 54, 55, 58, 167, 271 Josephus 55, 194, 205, 315, 320, 335, 336, 338, 339, 340, 347 Judaism 47, 54, 64, 67, 69, 96, 205, 348, 401, 402, 404–408, 411, 428 – Diaspora Judaism 22 – Early Judaism 110, 177, 373, 379, 382 – Hellenistic Judaism 351, 352, 356 – Rabbinic Judaism 47, 54, 83, 102, 205 – Second Temple Judaism 75, 81, 88, 189, 202, 335, 402 Judges 315–328, 330–332, 382

Identity 48, 50, 51, 56, 79, 100, 155, 161, 165, 168, 172, 173, 189, 195, 205, 271, 310, 402 Idolatry 201, 315, 320, 321, 322, 323, 327, 391 Immortality (Unsterblichkeit) 233, 380, 381, 418 Illness (Krankheit) 178 Instruction 64, 80, 82, 87, 88, 114, 144, 158, 163, 166–169, 173, 207–220, 262, 267–269, 272, 275, 278, 303, 351, 352, 356, 360–365 Intelligent reading 45, 51, 52, 55, 58, 59 Intercession (Fürbitte) 184, 189–197, 199–201, 203–205 Instercessory prayer 189, 193, 198, 205 Intertextuality 335 Isaac 51, 114, 127, 168, 193, 236

Levi 66, 107, 109, 112, 114–116 Levirate marrige 48, 49 Levites 107, 108–116 Literary approach 45, 46, 48, 55, 58, 59 Literary criticism 29 Love (Liebe) 3, 66, 111, 120, 161, 164, 170, 171, 202, 204, 207, 215, 219, 223, 226–232, 234, 235, 237, 238, 262, 267, 277, 320, 321, 359, 359, 360, 364, 375, 389–392

Jacob 16, 18, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 58, 115, 165,167, 168, 193, 236, 286, 318, 319, 326, 351, 359–366 Jeremiah 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 100, 195, 353, 355, 372, 376 Jerome (Hieronymus) 30, 153, 154, 156, 204, 206 Jerusalem 10, 23, 33, 34, 36, 39, 109, 112, 114, 157, 159, 163, 193, 194, 201, 202, 209, 211, 216, 219, 272, 275, 276, 277, 335–340, 342, 343, 346, 348, 353, 354, 355, 361, 362, 363, 371, 376, 380, 389,

Maccabees 195, 339, 342 – Judas 179, 180, 195, 195, 201, 355 – Jonathan 167 – Simon 167 Massoretic text 5 6, 12, 29–32, 36, 54 – MT 6, 8, 9, 16, 30, 34, 37, 39, 54, 55, 286, 289–296, 300, 358 Marriage 48, 49, 56, 139, 141, 164, 168, 173, 278, 384 Martyr 177, 179, 180, 182, 185, 196, 197, 203 Martyrdom (Martyrium) 184, 186, 203, 205, 427 Maskil/maśkyl 64, 82, 84, 86, 87 Memory 161, 172, 173, 196, 212, 220, 317, 318, 322–324, 326, 329, 331, 412 Mesopotamia 22, 119, 121, 125, 127, 128, 131, 133, 143, 145 Messiah 204 Messianic 114

480 

 Index of Subjects

Mercy (Barmherzigkeit) 48, 65, 155, 157, 162, 168, 169, 172, 173, 197, 198, 200, 203, 204, 223, 227, 229, 231, 233, 238, 346 Midrash 34, 45, 47, 48, 51–55, 57, 58, 200, 271 Miracles (Wundergeschichte) 153, 154, 156, 158, 211, 371, 381 Mirabilia 153–160 Myth 64, 69, 71, 420 Mythological 291, 394, 426 Moral 51, 55, 56, 66, 232, 255, 256, 260, 285, 324, 326, 357, 379, 384, 415 Moral action 66, 255, 257 Mosaic 100, 101, 102, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356, 362, 365, 366, 421 Moses 53, 70, 99, 108, 112, 167, 197–199, 209, 323, 346, 352, 353, 355, 356, 359, 362–364

– Prophetic ministry 191, 379, 384 – Prophetic speech 33, 102, 169, 355, 379 – Prophetic tradition 35, 97, 100, 101, 102, 212, 354, 359, 375, 420 – Prophetic vision 157, 372 Poverty (Armut) 84, 85, 87, 162, 225, 252

Non-sectarian 75, 79, 83, 93, 95, 98

Rabbinic 45, 47, 52–54, 59, 83, 102, 103, 189, 197, 203, 205, 211, 316, 335, 376, 378, 379 Raphael 155–157, 163, 164, 372, 384 Religion 65, 69, 78, 120, 163, 178, 401, 402, 404, 405, 406, 411, 412, 414–428 – Jewish religion 230 – Israel-religion 401, 402, 404, 406–411, 417, 425 – Christ-religion 401, 403, 405, 406, 411, 417, 422, 425–427 – Yahwistic religion 365, 420 Remembrance 161, 171, 173, 174, 220, 318, 323, 330, 390, 393, 422 Restoration 22, 33, 165, 172, 173, 326, 336, 339, 342, 343, 353, 354 Resurrection (Auferstehung) 178, 184, 201, 203, 315, 316, 325, 326, 331, 371 Revelation 80, 81, 83, 112, 158, 199, 211, 212, 215, 218, 262, 321, 372, 376, 384, 385 Righteous (gerecht) 80, 99, 111, 155, 157, 161, 163, 167–173, 178, 185, 200, 202, 203, 218, 323, 324, 418 – Unrighteous 111, 116, 171, 172, 185, 200, 317, 324 Righteousness (Gerechtigkeit) 65, 66, 110, 115, 162, 163, 164, 168–173, 200, 217, 324, 364

Paideia 189, 196, 197 Paul 204, 395, 401, 403, 405–408, 411, 426 Peshitta 5 Priest (Priester) 38, 109–116, 121, 133, 145, 189, 192, 194, 229, 231, 325, 329, 342, 344, 378, 381, 385, 382 Priesthood 88, 114, 115, 342, 381, 421 Priestly 100, 101, 107–110, 112–116, 259, 328, 423 Proverbs 208, 210, 213, 241, 242, 250, 251, 253, 269, 287, 288, 292, 293, 296–298, 301–303, 305, 306, 310 – „Better”-proverbs 241–253 – Numerical proverb 272 Psalm vii, 3–6, 10–13, 15–21, 25, 26, 98, 99, 100, 157, 158, 170, 217, 231, 259, 354, 355, 389, 396, 420 Psalmist 10, 99, 259, 396 Praise of God 3, 18, 24, 25, 26, 158, 168 Praise of the Ancestors 220, 315, 316, 322–324, 328–331 Prophecy 33, 34, 41, 157, 316, 321, 353, 376, 378, 379, 386 Prophetic – Prophetic book 30, 112, 372, 373, 378, 379, 384, 385, 420 – Prophetic figure 316, 330, 373

Qumran 31, 32, 35, 40, 53, 55, 61, 72, 75–79, 88, 93–98, 100–102, 107–116, 119, 120, 171, 210, 217, 218, 322, 324, 335, 337, 347, 373, 382, 382, 383, 402, 406, 407, 421 – Qumran community 76, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115, 119, 322 – Qumran literature 93, 102, 347 – Qumran text 93, 97, 100, 120, 373, 382, 406, 407

Index of Subjects 

Sabbath 15, 198, 201, 260, 261, 338 Sacrifice (Opfer) 51, 107, 108, 110, 112–116, 138, 180, 183, 185, 194, 201, 229, 230, 231, 339, 408, 419, 421, 426, 427, 428 Samaritan 297, 346, 348, 376, 403, 421 Sapiential (weisheitlicher) 67, 70, 76, 233, 235, 261, 279, 284, 291, 292, 294, 307, 309, 360, 361, 365 Seraphim 372 Second Temple 34, 109, 335, 336, 337, 338, 340, 342, 343, 348, 349 – Second Temple Judaism 75, 78, 81, 88, 189, 202, 402 – Second Temple period 79, 81, 88, 108, 109, 113, 164, 335 – Second Temple literature 81, 114, 337, 353 Sect 75, 76, 77, 78, 84 Sectarian 63, 67, 70–72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 85–88, 93–98, 109, 111, 113, 114, 116, 373 Semantics 8, 11, 177 Serpent 266, 269, 321, 382, 389, 390, 394–396 Septuagint 5, 8, 9, 11, 21, 29–33, 36, 39, 41, 177, 192, 229, 233, 236, 330, 335 – Greek Bible 3, 4 – LXX 6, 8–11, 22, 35, 37, 40, 154, 177, 178, 180–185, 191, 192, 194, 232, 275, 276, 321, 327, 351, 355, 356, 374, 377, 378, 379, 380, 421 Simon the High Priest 276, 277, 335–340, 342–344, 347, 348 Simplex form/type 232, 241, 243, 245, 244, 245, 253 Sirach 221, 250, 255, 257, 262, 265,267, 351, 352, 354, 361, 363 Sociological 75, 77–79, 83, 85, 87, 88, 402 Sofer 345 Solomon 34, 36, 85, 101, 102, 200, 208, 209, 211, 213, 218, 316, 322, 328, 335, 389–395 Stillborn foetus 119, 120, 122 Synagogue viii, 337, 346, 401–404, 423–428 Taxonomy 93, 98, 103 Temple (Tempel) 33–37, 41, 88, 107–116, 123, 130, 159, 193, 194, 202, 218, 231,

 481

275–278, 335–348, 354, 355, 361, 371, 376, 381, 382, 385, 391, 401–411, 413, 415, 421, 423–428 – Temple of/in Jerusalem 34, 109, 112, 192, 275–277, 346, 348, 361, 371, 376, 403, 407, 408, 411, 423, 424 – Herodian temple 335, 336, 340–343 – Solomonic temple 34 – Zerubbabel’s temple 277, 338 Tension (Spannung) 11, 12, 75, 78, 79, 83, 86, 87, 88, 108, 109, 159, 162, 164, 167, 171, 172, 234 Textual history 29, 32, 96, 155 Theophany 257 Theodicy 200, 201 Tobit 153–160, 161–174, 326, 372, 384 Torah 8, 53, 54, 57, 63, 67, 72, 81, 83, 99, 101, 107, 109, 113, 114, 116, 158, 162, 163, 168, 171, 173, 194, 217, 218, 257, 262, 351–353, 355, 356, 358, 360, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 384, 408, 409, 423, 425 – Mosaic Torah 351, 352, 353, 356, 362, 365, 366 Today’s reading, 3 Truth viii, 63–69, 71, 72, 80, 82, 86, 95, 162, 168, 169, 172, 173, 200, 259, 287, 301, 304, 311 Uriel 200–203 YHWH (JHWH) 4–8, 10, 12–22, 24–26, 38, 39, 99, 229, 236, 259, 348, 415, 420–422, 425, 426 Vanity 389, 390, 393 Wedding 48, 167, 165, 166 Vision 35, 64, 71, 75, 81, 82, 107, 114, 138, 157, 166, 199, 200, 202, 326, 372, 380–382 Vulgate (Vulgata) 153–158, 178, 203, 211, 212, Water supply 335, 336, 338–341, 343 Wealth 30, 84, 115, 193, 248, 249, 266, 278, 360, 361, 390, 391, 392 Wife 51, 56, 57, 120, 155, 156, 158, 166, 167, 168, 252, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 276, 283, 284, 290, 292, 302, 303,

482 

 Index of Subjects

304, 306–309, 311, 315316, 319, 384, 391, 392 – Good wife 219, 265, 267, 268, 274–279, 288, 307, 308 – Bad wife 265, 266–270, 272, 273, 275, 278, 279 Wisdom (Weisheit) 21, 22, 23, 63, 64, 65, 66, 72, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 100, 101, 137, 163, 168, 202, 211–216, 218–220, 226, 233, 235, 237, 245, 250, 252, 253, 255, 260–262, 268, 277, 285, 291, 304, 328, 336, 347, 348, 351–366, 390, 391, 392, 394, 396, 418

Wisdom discourse 102, 168, 351, 354, 355, 356, 364, 365 Worship (Verehrung) 20, 25, 107, 108, 110–112, 114–116, 157, 232, 233, 321, 323, 347, 356, 401, 422, 425 Zadokite 109, 116 Zion 21, 277, 340, 362 Zoroastrianism 63, 68, 69, 70, 417 Zoroaster 69