The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation

Transcription

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
14
Editor
James H. Charlesworth
Associate Editors
Philip R. Davies
James R. Mueller
James C. VanderKam
STUDIES IN SCRIPTURE IN EARLY JUDAISM
AND CHRISTIANITY
Series Editors
Craig A. Evans
James A. Sanders
JSOT Press
Sheffield
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
edited by
and
Craig A. Evans
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
Supplement Series 14
Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 2
Copyright © 1993 Sheffield Academic Press
Published by JSOT Press
JSOT Press is an imprint of
Sheffield Academic Press Ltd
343 Fulwood Road
Sheffield SIO 3BP
England
Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press
and
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain
by Biddies Ltd
Guildford
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Dau
Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical
Interpretation.—(JSP Supplement Series,
ISSN 0951-8215; No. 14)
I. Charlesworth, James H. II. Evans,
Craig A. III. Series
220.8
ISBN 1-85075-443-8
CONTENTS
Preface
Abbreviations
List of Contributors
7
8
11
JAMES A. S A N D E R S
Introduction: Why the Pseudepigrapha?
13
T H E PSEUDEPIGRAPHA A N D JEWISH EXEGESIS
JAMES H .
CHARLESWORTH
In the Crucible: The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Interpretation
20
H O W A R D CLARK KEE
Appropriating the History of God's People: A Survey of
Interpretations of the History of Israel in the Pseudepigrapha,
Apocrypha and the New Testament
44
GORDON Z E R B E
'Pacificism' and 'Passive Resistance' in Apocalyptic Writings:
A Critical Evaluation
JAMES C.
65
VANDERKAM
Biblical Interpretation in 1 Enoch and Jubilees
96
T H E PSEUDEPIGRAPHA A N D THE N E W TESTAMENT
DAVID E. AUNE
Charismatic Exegesis in Early Judaism and Early Christianity
126
B R U C E D . CHILTON
God as 'Father' in the Targumim, in Non-Canonical Literatures
of Early Judaism and Primitive Christianity, and in Matthew
151
CRAIG A . E V A N S
Luke and the Rewritten Bible: Aspects of Lukan Hagiography
170
6
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
D A V I D P. M O E S S N E R
Suffering, Intercession and Eschatological Atonement:
An Uncommon Common View in the Testament of Moses and
in Luke-Acts
202
PETER H . D A V I D S
The Use of the Pseudepigrapha in the Catholic Epistles
228
PEDER BOROEN
Heavenly Ascent in Philo: An Examination of Selected Passages 246
RICHARD J. BAUCKHAM
Resurrection as Giving Back the Dead: A Traditional Image of
Resurrection in the Pseudepigrapha and the Apocalypse of John 269
Index of Ancient Writings
Index of Modern Authors
292
315
PREFACE
The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation is a collection
of essays dedicated to the comparative study of the presence and function of Scripture in the Pseudepigrapha (and other Jewish literature)
and the New Testament. One purpose of this collection is to draw the
Pseudepigrapha more fully into the discussions of the meaning,
function, and place of 'Scripture' in the period from circa the third
century BCE to the second century CE.
This volume is the second in a series of related studies that are
appearing under the sub-title of Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism
and Christianity (SSEJC), edited by C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders.
The series is an outgrowth of the work that is being undertaken by
members of the Society of Biblical Literature who are working in a
program unit of the same name.
We extend our appreciations to the contributors to the present
volume for their understanding and cooperation. Appreciations are
also extended to Scholars Press of Atlanta for permission to publish
sections of 'The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', which appeared
in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William
Hugh Brownlee, edited by C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring, and to
Uitgeversmaatschappij J.H. Kok of Kampen, the Netherlands, for
permission to publish portions of 'Biblical Interpretation: The Crucible
of the Pseudepigrapha', which appeared in Text and
Testimony:
Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honor of
A.F.J. Klijn, edited by T. Baarda etal.
J.H. Charlesworth
Princeton Theological Seminary
C.A. Evans
Trinity Western University
ABBREVIATIONS
AB
AGJU
AnBib
ANRW
APOT
BA
Bib
BNTC
BO
BWANT
BZNW
CBQ
CBQMS
ConBNT
CRINT
CSCO
DBSup
EncJud
ETR
ExpTim
FRLANT
GCS
HAT
HDR
HSM
HTR
HTS
HVCA
ICC
IDB
JAOS
JBL
JETS
Anchor Bible
Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchrislentums
Analectabiblica
Aufsrieg und Niedergang der rSnuschen Welt
R.H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament
Biblical Archaeologist
Biblica
Black's New Testament Commentaries
Bibliotheca orientalis
BeitrSge zur Wissenschaft vom Alien und Ncucn Testament
BeiheftezurZWW
Catholic Bibiical Quarterly
Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
Coniecianea biblica. New Testament
Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum
Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium
Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement
Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971) Etudes theologiques et religieuses
Expository Times
Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
Griechischechristliche Schriftsteller
Handbuch zum Allen Testament
Harvard Dissertations in Religion
Harvard Semitic Monographs
Harvard Theological Review
Harvard Theological Studies
Hebrew Union College Annual
International Critical Commentary
G.A. Buttrick (ed.). Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Journal of Biblical Literature
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Abbreviations
Mom
Journal of Jewish Studies
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Jewish Quarterly Review
W.G. Kummel et at. (eds.), JUdische Schriften aus
hellenistisch-rdmischerZeii (Giiietslcii: Mohn, 1973-)
Journalfor the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and
Roman Period
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement
Series
Journal of Semitic Studies
Journal cf Theological Studies
Loeb Classical Library
H. A.W. Meyer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar uber das
Neue Testament
Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums
MNIC
NCB
Neot
NICNT
NIGTC
NovTSup
NTS
OIL
OTP
PAAJR
RB
Rel
RevQ
RHPR
RSR
SBLASP
SBLSCS
SBLDS
SBT
SC
SJT
SNT
SNTSMS
SPB
ST
SVTP
Moffatt NT Commentary
New Century Bible
Neotestamentica
New International Commentary on the New Testament
The New Iniemational Greek Testament Commentary
Novum Testamentum, Supplements
New Testament Studies
Old Testament Library
J.H. Charlesworth (ed.). The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research
Revue biblique
Religion
Revue de Qumran
Revue d'historie et de philosophie religieuses
Recherches de science religieuse
SBL Abstracts and Seminar Papers
SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies
SBL Dissertation Series
Studies in Biblical Theology
Sources chrdtiennes
Scottish Journal of Theology
Studien zum Neuen Testament
Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Scries
Studia postbiblica
Suidia theologica
Studia in Veteris Testament! pseudepigrapha
JJS
JNES
JQR
JSHRZ
JSJ
JSNT
JSOT
JSOTSup
JSPSup
JSS
JTS
LCL
MeyerK
10
TDNT
TDOT
TNTC
TZ
VT
VTSup
WBC
ZA W
ZNW
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.). Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament
O.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.). Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
Theologische Zeitschrift
Vetus Testamennm
Vettts Testamentum, Supplements
Word Biblical Commentary
Zeitschrift ftir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
Zeitschrift ftir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
David E. Aune, Professor New Testament and Christian Origins,
Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinios, USA
Ricard Bauckham, Professor of New Testament Studies, University of
St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland, UK
Peder Borgen, Research Professor of New Testament, University of
Trondheim, Dragvoll, Norway
James H. Charlesworth, Georgre L. Collord Professor of New
Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological
Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
Bruce Chilton, Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion, Bard
College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York, USA
Peter H. Davids, Researcher and Theological Teacher, Langley
Vineyard Christian Fellowship, Langley, British Columbia,
Craig (Sanfikins, Professor of Biblical and Intertestamental Studies,
Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Howard Clark Kee, Aurelio Professor of Biblical Studies, Emeritus,
Boston University, Boston, Massachussetts, USA; Senior
Research Fellow, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA
David P. Moessner, Associate Professor of New Testament, Columbia
Theological Seminary, Decatur, Georgia, USA
James A. Sanders, Professor of Intertestamental and Biblical Studies,
School of Theology at Claremont, Claremont, Claifornia, USA
James C. VanderKam, Professor of Hebrew Scriptures, University of
Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Gordon M. Zerbe, Assistant Professor of New Testament, Canadian
Mennonite Bible College, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
INTRODUCTION: WHY THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA?
James A. Sanders
Like many important terms the word Pseudepigrapha is difficult to
define. A pseudepigraphon is a discrete piece of literature attributed
by its unknown author, or by subsequent community tradition, to a
bygone name well-known and highly respected in that community.
In this sense the world's literature is replete with pseudepigrapha;
indeed, the Bible itself is largely made up of pseudepigrapha. That is,
most of the literature in the Bible is anonymous either in initial composition or at points of community transmission; then, it is often
attributed to one or another great, recognizable name in antiquity—
such as the whole of the Pentateuch to Moses, the whole of the Psalter
to David, or all the 'Pauline' letters to the Apostle Paul. In this
manner unidentifiable individuals, even authors of truly great literary
compositions, were caught up into community identity at the expense
of their own. While this may be baffling to the Western mind which
stresses the importance of the individual, especially in terms of genius
and concepts of inspiration, it was very common, and even a mark of
piety, in the social and cultural milieux from which the Bible and
Early Jewish and Christian literature derive. The Bible was formed in
cultures of orality, not literacy, and was shaped to be read aloud in
community; the focus at all stages was primarily on the community.
What is meant by Pseudepigrapha in this volume is more limited in
scope and yet more indeterminate. It is an inept term diat has come
since the early eighteenth century to mean roughly the following: the
Early Jewish literature (largely in the 200 BCE to 200 CE period) that
resembles the Apocrypha or deuterocanonical literature but is not
included in the Jewish or Western Christian canons, or in rabbinic
literature.' But even that is not a definition, since there are Jewish
1. There are a few of the so-called Pseudepigrapha that are in the Greek and
Slavonic Bibles and/or the Appendix to the Vulgate—some of the Esdras literature.
14
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
literary works from the period, such as the pes ha rim and other
distinctly denominational literature from Qumran, which do not comfortably fit the mix, while there are others from Qumran that do fit.
And the question of fit in those instances is not related to anonymity
or pseudepigraphy but rather to certain literary characteristics. No
one in the field has found another term that has gained acceptance to
designate this important body of literature which has in this century
alone grown dramatically by discovery and recovery.^
Why are the Pseudepigrapha, in the sense described, important?
First and foremost, they provide us with an immeasurable treasure of
primary sources, beyond the Apocrypha, for the intellectual and social
history of late Early Judaism. They prove that earlier views of there
having been an orthodox, pre-rabbinic (early Pharisaic) Judaism, on
the one hand, and a heterodox Judaism, on the other (the consensus
until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls), were false. While a few
scholars still speak and write of 'normative Judaism' in this period,
most now do not. The history of Early Judaism is now seen to have
been highly diverse from the early post-exilic days until the fall of
Jerusalem in 70 CE. The older tendency to speak of four or five
'parties' in the Early Jewish period is no longer appropriate; there
were many, diverse groups whose several contours are evidenced in
the Pseudepigrapha and other Jewish literature of the period.
The older tendency to speak or write of Palestinian Judaism over
against Hellenistic Judaism is no longer appropriate; the former is
now seen as variously hellenized in various parts of Palestine, and the
latter is now seen as unlimited by geographic bounds in themselves. It
is important now also to allow for there having been so-called orthodox Jewish communities scattered throughout the diaspora in the
period in question. And though we do not yet know enough about the
diverse denominations and groups to identify any pseudepigraphon
3 and 4 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151 (and Psalms of
Solomon in Alexandrinus); the Armenian lacks 4 Maccabbees. It is difficult to speak
of a widely accepted canon, in the narrow sense (norma normata) of the Greek Old
Testament in antiquity since the contents and orders of books differ after Genesis to 4
Kingdoms in the early, more complete LXX manuscripts.
2. See the comments by James H. Charlesworth in the introduction to The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, I, D (= OTP) (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983, 1985),
pp. xxiv-xxv, and in A. Caquot (ed.). La Litterature intertestamentaire (Paris:
Presses universitaires de France, 1985), pp. 11-28.
15
with one or another of them, the Pseudepigrapha provide a glimpse
into internal divisions and strifes between these differing expressions
of the Judaism of the period.
One common feature of the pluriformity within Judaism that emerges
with clarity is the pervasive and radical influence of Scripture on
Judaism. While the third section of the Jewish canon was not closed
until well after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the separation of
Christianity from its Jewish matrix, the influence of the Torah and
Prophets, and some of the early Writings (the third and final section
of the Jewish canon), on subsequent Jewish and Christian literature
was immense. All of the literature of the period was written Scripturally in one sense or another, and to one degree or another. The depth
and extent of Scriptural intertextuality in this literature is perhaps its
most marked common feature. Not only is most of it attributed to
great names in Scripture, but it was variously composed in the manner
of and in the light of various parts of Scripture. That was how
important these anonymous writers felt what they had to communicate
was; they were fully willing to lose their own individualities and egos
in the convictions their writings reveal.
But ultimately, the salient observation is not that they attributed
their convictions to earlier well-known figures from biblical history;
the important observation that emerges from close study of the
scriptural intertextuality manifest in all this literature is that they were
so convinced of what they felt they had been given to say that they
wrote it in scriptural phrases, shapes, tones and cadences. There are
clear citations of the Hebrew Bible or Septuagint, uncounted paraphrases and weavings of scriptural phrases into the fabric of the
newer compositions, many allusions to passages, figures and episodes,
and untold echoes of Scripture passages in various combinations; and
through them all there was the desire as well to write scripturally in
form and structure. Scripture was slowly coming to various forms of
closure, and the sorts of inspiration attributed to past authors of
Scripture (itself largely pseudepigraphic in the broader sense) were no
longer being claimed; there was a tt'adition being handed down that
'prophecy had ceased' in the time of Ezra. But such a tradition could
not alter the conviction of these anonymous authors that they had
something important to say to their communities and to their day,
indeed that they were inspired and impelled to do so. Undeserved
suffering inflicted upon Jews by non-Jewish forces, and by internal
16
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
strife and conflict, needed to be addressed if Judaism was to survive
and belief in the biblical God of justice and mercy to endure. Some of
it to us sounds fanatic and overdrawn, and we may well breathe sighs
of relief that parts of it did not make it into any current canon of
Scripture;^ but its importance for understanding Early Judaism and
the matrix of Early Christianity would be difficult to overstate.
If one wants to get a true perspective on the formation of the New
Testament and to understand its arguments and claims, one should start
at the beginning of Christian canonical literature, the Torah. The perspective one gains by focusing on the cross-cultural and intertextual
dimensions of biblical literature at all its stages of development and
formation provides the framework in which to understand the New
Testament."
Such a focus begins with what my teacher, Samuel Sandmel, called
haggadah within Scripture—another way of speaking of its intertextuality; but it also begins with Scripture's pervasive cross-cultural
aspects from the Bronze Age, through the Iron Age, the Persian
Period, and the Hellenistic-Roman Era. No one period is more important or more problematic than another, and they all together provide a
paradigm in sequence for seeing how the traditioning process moves
from the earliest to the latest literature in the Bible.
Each cultural period deposited its peculiar characteristics in the
literature it produced. If one moralizes on first reading any of it, one
thereby puts the mores and cultural traps and trappings of each period
into a false perspective of prominence. If one instead monotheizes
3. Just as many current communities of faith ignore considerable portions of
canonical Scripture. There has always been a tendency to focus on favorite parts of
Scripture, adopting a kind of canon within a traditional canon; such foci often
provide the bases of the various denominations which otherwise claim their identity
in the same canon.
4. The intertextual mode of reading the NT is gaining ground. Two recent, fine
examples are Richard B. Hayes' Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) and Gail R. O'Day, 'Jeremiah 9.22-23 and
1 Corinthians 1.26-31: A Study in Intertextuality', JBL 109/2 (1990), pp. 259-67.
If such examples are read along with Michael Fishbane's intertextual mode of
reading the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature, they become all the more
compelling and powerful; see now Fishbane's beautifully wrought The Garments of
Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press,
1989), esp. pp. 33-46 and 121-33. Unfortunately Fishbane himself does not do the
reverse; see the writer's forthcoming review in Theology Today.
17
while reading all its parts, along with the developing theocentric and
monotheizing hermeneutic thrust of Scripture, one does not stumble
over the modes and expressions of polytheism, even tribalism, that
pervade the Bible from inception through the NT; they were legion.
If one gains that canonical hermeneutic perspective through the
Torah and the Prophets and moves with it on through the Writings,
the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran literature and Philo,
the NT takes its rightful place in the Jewish-Christian canonical mix.
Each historical period has its own characteristics which frame the
texts; but the cultural traps and trappings need not be the focus of
reading. One might ask, why include the Pseudepigrapha in such a
diachronic reading? Other bodies of Hebraic and Jewish literature
(variously influenced by many cultures including the Hellenic and
Hellenistic) form parts of current canons of Scripture.
So why the Pseudepigrapha? Canon in this functional sense is a
paradigm, and not a 'box' with rigid boundaries. Some of the writings
that we call Pseudepigrapha actually functioned as canon for some
Early Jewish communities, and some are included in current canons;
others of them may possibly have done so in antiquity. After all, we
inherit no autographs of any of them but only apographs (copies of
copies), or ancient translations from the original-language copies,
which means that some Early Jewish and then Early Christian
communities must have thought highly enough of most of them to
share them that widely. To include the Pseudepigrapha in the reading
is to witness the process in its fullest extent, and especially in its full
Hellenistic-Roman guise.'
The canonical process was not a smooth development, far from it.
On the contrary, it exhibits the various degrees in which cultural givens
shaped the literature. But to monotheize, or perceive the integrity of
Reality through these texts, was no easier or less rough in the Iron
5. To imagine that limiting the quantity of literature to a shorter canon, such as
the Jewish or Protestant, makes the exercise easier or more manageable (manipulable?)
is to attempt to repress and deny the considerable pluralism and dialogue inherently
present in those canons. Attempts to harmonize Scripture are basically political
efforts to co-opt Scripture (and God) for one point of view (a violation of the Third
Commandment) and result in denying the depths of riches any canon contains. To
view canon, instead, as basically a hermeneutic paradigm by which to read Scripture
and life, and to read subsequent efforts (theologies) to understand Reality, is to
affirm its ongoing relevance in ever-changing situations of the human experiment.
18
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Age or Persian period than in Hellenistic and Roman times. The first
three commandments of the Decalogue (no polytheism, no idolatry
and no co-opting of God's name for one theology, ideology, agenda or
point of view) have been humanity's greatest challenge through the
ages to the present, whatever the cultural frame.
Arguably (and minimally) only the Book of Jude in the NT exhibits
direct intertextuality with any of the Pseudepigrapha (7 Enoch). That
is not the point. If one studies all of the literature, Hebraic and Jewish,
in whatever language available, from its beginnings through the NT,
including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, both intertextually and
with the theocentric/monotheizing thrust of the whole (if not of each
of die parts), one then comes to the NT with no more nor less than the
same necessary cross-cultural and intertextual task for understanding
and perception. One gains a perspective it is impossible to gain if one
attempts to understand the NT only from its own literature alone, or
from its synchronic position in the Hellenistic/Roman world of the
first century alone, or, indeed, from a current (and denominationally
restricted?) canonical context alone.*
Study of the NT is commonly done synchronically, focusing on its
own and contemporary literature, and often with a moralizing
hermeneutic that puts the mores and cultural givens of the first-century
Hellenistic world in a privileged position and a distorted perspective.
It is another way to decanonize the NT. It takes it out of any canon
whatever, ancient or current, all of which begin with Genesis and the
late Bronze Age paradigm and process, which initiates the task that
continues through the N T and beyond to today. The same cultural
traps and trappings evident in the NT would already have been dealt
with by the time one reaches the NT, if its problems are tackled in the
light of the intertextual canonical process that continues through Early
Judaism and into Early Christianity, even in the literature which may
have been included in no widely recognized canon of which we are
aware.
6. Richard Simon in his Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (Rotterdam:
Leers, 1685; Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1971) stressed that it is impossible fully to
understand Christianity without knowledge of Judaism and its history. In addressing
the issue of the value of consulting Early Jewish literature and understandings of
Scripture, Simon boldly stated that the authority God had given the Hebrew Republic
through Moses and the judges he appointed had never been withdrawn (see 'La
preface de I'auteur' and pp. 6 , 9 et passim).
19
One can then perceive with sharp clarity the truly canonical nature,
for the Christian, of the NT. The NT seems quite late in biblical-historical terms, and it is written in a strange, vulgar Greek. But if it is
read intertextually, with a monotheizing hermeneutic, the NT finds its
true place in the full canonical paradigm by which Christians may know
who they really are and what they stand for. They may also learn how
they should continue the canonical, traditioning process, theologizing
and moralizing (preaching), in their own day and within their own
cultural traps and trappings, which is by and large what the authors
and communities of the various canons, and of the Pseudepigrapha,
did in their day.
IN THE CRUCIBLE:
T H E PSEUDEPIGRAPHA AS BiBUCAL INTERPRETATION
For much of my professional life I thought the clash of cultures
(Kulturkampf)
adequately explained the origin of the writings contained in the Pseudepigrapha. For example, the origin of the Jewish
struggle over the proper calendar, either the lunar or solar calendar,
was thought to be caused by the imposition of the Seleucid lunar
calendar on the Palestinian Jews. Thus, in part, it prompted the
Maccabean revolution. Now I doubt that explanation. The Qumran
Aramaic fragments of so-called / Enoch show that chs. 72 to 82 predate the Maccabean rebellion; and they contain a polemic against the
lunar calendar (see / En. 75.1-9 and 82.1-20). According to this
section the 'sinners' are identified as 'the people that err' in 'the computation of the year...The year is completed in three hundred and
sixty-four days' (7 En. 82.5-6). This calendrical struggle must be
traced back to at least the third century BCE.
Thus something formative in the shaping of the Pseudepigrapha
antedates the Maccabean rebellion. Surely biblical exegesis is part of
that unknown phenomenon; it certainly helped to shape other Jewish
writings, especially those by Philo and Josephus.' I shall attempt in
1. Philo and Josephus, despite some claims to the contrary, are both exegetically
influenced by the Old Testament. H.W. Attridge has persuasively argued that
Josephus intcrpretatively presents scriptural narratives. His 'theology is very much
an apologetic one, which reworks Jewish u-adition in categories derived from and
comprehensible to a Greco-Roman public'. See Attridge, The Interpretation of
Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR, 7;
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), p. 17. Likewise, as R.D. Hecht has attempted
to show, Philo is 'exclusively engaged in deducing the reasonableness of the Law'.
See Hecht, 'The Exegetical Contexts of Philo's Interpretation of Circumcision', in
F.E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgertand B.L. Mack (eds.). Nourished with Peace: Studies in
Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Scholars Press Homage Series;
C H A R L E S W O R T H In the Crucible
21
this essay to demonstrate that the crucible of the Pseudepigrapha was
biblical exegesis—perhaps the Kulturkampf, which dates at least from
the time of Alexander the Great, was the fire of die crucible. But what
is meant by this imagery.
'Crucible' defines a vessel in which a substance takes definite shape
due to the melting of selected materials. The term 'crucible' is used
metaphorically to denote the shaping of ideas, writings, people, and
collectives of wide-ranging meaning. It is an appropriate image,
therefore, to focus our thoughts and ask the following: What is the
crucible in which the early Jewish Pseudepigrapha were shaped?
In revering Torah and struggling to understand its abiding efficacious force, the early Jewish pseudepigrapha were fashioned in Early
Judaism. The heat from this struggle melted the deposits of all the
contiguous cultures, including especially the Persians, Parthians,
Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and Syrians. The crucible of the Pseudepigrapha was Torah interpretation. After considering six misconceptions that have hindered this understanding, five categories and five
perspectives will be used to illustrate this point.
Six
Misconceptions
Six misconceptions hinder the perception of the Pseudepigrapha as
exegetical works.
First, biblical exegesis during die period of Early Judaism, or circa
150 BCE to 200 CE, was once Uiought to be primarily reflected in the
Targumim and Midrashim;^ but then we learned that each of these is
Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 51-79 (79).
2. Even Emil Schiirer, the erudite late nineteenth-century and early twentiethcentury expert on Early Judaism, succumbed to this tendency. In his justly famous A
History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ he tended to U-eat early
Jewish exegesis in isolation from the study of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha
and, for example, contended that the Targumim in their present form were only
'about one hundred years after the time of Christ' (div. I, vol. I, p. 118). Schiirer
unduly restricted his ueatment of Jewish exegesis to haggadah and halakhah, which
were too narrowly defined (cf. div. 2, vol. I, section 25). It is now slowly becoming
clear that to study the pseudepigrapha is to examine Jewish exegetical work on
Tanach. Only to a minor extent did Schiirer observe this insight (cf. div. 2, vol. Ill),
and he failed to integrate into his study of early Jewish exegesis the Jewish pseudepigrapha he labeled as 'sacred legends' (namely Jubilees and the Martyrdom of
Isaiah). These pseudepigrapha are not adequately categorized as 'modes of enriching
22
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
too late to help us understand the Jewish interpretation of die 'Old
Testament' prior to die destruction of die Temple in 70. Witfi die discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we turned our attention to an attempt
to understand the Pesharim and a re-examination of die possibly early
nature of Aramaic translations and interpretations of the Scriptures,
thanks to the recovery of Targumim in die Qumran caves. A study of
Qumranic biblical text types awakened us to the reality that the adjective 'Septuagintal' must no longer be used only to refer to Greek variants, but may also refer to very early Hebrew traditions that are not
reflected in the Biblia Hebraica.
We are now in a totally new era in the study of biblical exegesis in
Early Judaism. Interpretation begins not widi die writings separate
from the Old Testament; it does not even begin with the pointing of a
text. It begins with die choosing of consonants in Semitic manuscripts.
The subsequent expansions or deletions in the Hebrew text of the Bible
itself is unexpected and impressive, and is not limited to the Qumranic
fragments of Jeremiah and Samuel.^
It is now widely recognized that the Jewish pseudepigrapha that
antedate c. 135 CE represent a chapter in early Jewish biblical exegesis."*
The early Jewish writings collected in the Pseudepigrapha are
chronologically much closer to die commencement of Jewish exegesis
dian post-70 Jewish rabbinic works. As E.P. Sanders recently pointed
the sacred story' (div. 2, vol. Ill, p. 134); they are interpretations of Torah by
reciting and expanding the stories, and thereby making them more meaningful and
paradigmatic for daily life.
Some pseudepigrapha probably did rival and replace canonical works in some
communities, for example in the groups that produced the Books of Enoch (cf. also
I IQTemple and IQpHab); but the pseudepigrapha should not be portrayed as rivals
of canon. They are supporters of it. Random comments by Schurer indicate that he
may well have agreed with this insight; but he did not adequately integrate his
voluminous and (at times) brilliant reflections. Of course, the precursor is seldom the
perfector.
3. See the brilliant discussions by P.M. Cross, not only in his classic woric The
Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1961 [rev. edn] and recently reprinted) but also in his articles in Bible
Review. In 'New Directions in Dead Sea Scroll Research: Original Biblical Text
Reconstnicted from Newly Found Fragments' (Bible Review I [1985], pp. 26-35),
Cross demonsu-ates dramatically that '4QSam preserves lost bits of the text of
Samuel' (p. 26).
4. See especially the chapters in the present book by J.A. Sanders, H.C. Kee,
J.C. VanderKam, C.A. Evans and R.J. Bauckham.
23
out, the study of Scripture was a regular feature of so-called common
Judaism: 'Jews were generally well educated in the Bible, and diis is
attributable to the practice of attending the synagogue, where the
scripture was read and expounded'.'
Secondly, the Pseudepigrapha are still claimed by some scholars to
be the literary products of groups on the fringes of a 'Normative
Judaism'. Usually this understanding is evident as presupposition,
never exposed and examined, that miscasts the Pseudepigrapha. It can
be seen, for example, in Leonhard Rost's advice to students diat the
Pseudepigrapha, unlike the Apocrypha, are 'judisches Schrifttum, das
nur innerhalb einzelner Gruppen Geltung gehabt hat, obwohl es
beinahe dem gleichen Zeitraum wie die Apokryphen entsprungen ist'.*
The Pseudepigrapha were not important only in some groups, but
were significant in many groups, and are essential sources for any
attempt to portray early Jewish life and dieology.
To be dismissed from scholarly works is the use of the terms
'normative' and 'orthodox' in descriptions of p r e - 7 0 Jewish life and
thought. It is amazing to read in distinguished journals such ideas as
die following one:
The present separation of Judaism and Christianity is explicable historically only if one recognizes that there existed a firmly accepted Jewish
orthodoxy in the first century and that this was even then a
definable belief (actually expressed in part in the s'ma') which was
accepted by all who called themselves Israelites.^
The Qumran group, the Samaritans, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and
virtually every group in Early Judaism (c. 2 5 0 BCE to 2 0 0 CE) of
which we have any knowledge, thought of themselves as 'Israelites*.
Each would have described their own peculiar thoughts as the only
right belief. They are so diverse that one cannot describe them as
5. E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-63 CF. (London: SCM;
Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), p. 197. Also see Sanders's Jewish
Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press
International, 1990).
6. L. Rost, Einleitung in die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen einschliesslich der grossen Qumran-Handschriften (Heidelberg, 1971), p. 22.
English translation: Judaism outside the Hebrew Canon (trans. D.E. Green;
Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), p. 30.
7. N.J. McEleney, 'Orthodoxy in Judaism of the First Christian Century', JSJ
4 (1973), pp. 19-42 (20).
24
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
representing a common ortiiodoxy.* The interpretation of the Shema
was not according to some set pattern, and we must confess real
problems in discerning what this common confession meant in Early
Judaism. To define this belief has produced so many difficulties that
scholars have called for a moratorium on assuming one can talk about
an essence to Early Judaism. Long ago W.D. Davies wisely emphasized 'die variety, complexity and transitional character of Jewish
religion in die time of Jesus'.'
This misunderstanding of Early Judaism results in a failure to grasp
the historical, sociological and theological importance of the Pseudepigrapha. If we wish to understand the Pseudepigrapha we must dismiss any residue left by the once dominant contention that they were
insignificant products of Jewish groups on the fringes of a Normative
Judaism.
Thirdly, some well-informed scholars have assumed or argued that
die Pseudepigrapha were just like all the other sacred writings in pre70 Judaism. They righUy point to die fact that the canon was not yet
closed; but they err in assuming that at that time there was only an
amorphous collection of sacred books. Some scholars point to the
Hebrew script used at Qumran, and claim that, since the same script
was used to copy the Torah books as well as the new Qumranic compositions, there was no perception at Qumran of the contours of die
Torah. Again we can cite Rost, who argued that at Qunmui 'there was
no sharp distinction between holy scriptures and those reckoned less
holy' because, inter alia, 'die same esteemed form of script (was) used
to copy Isaiah or Genesis to copy Sirach, Enoch, die Book of Jubilees'
and other writings not in the Tanach."
8. As Morton Smith stated long ago, i f there was any such thing, then, as an
"orthodox Judaism", it must have been that which is now almost unknown to us, the
religion of the average "people of the land". But the different parts of the country
were so different, such gulfs of feeling and practice separated Idumea, Judea,
Caesarea, and Galilee, that even on this level there was probably no more agreement
between them than between any one of them and a similar area in the Diaspora'
(M. Smith, 'Palestinian Judaism in the First Century', in M. Davis [ed.], Israel: Its
Role in Civilization [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1956J,
p. 8 1 .
9. W.D. Davies. 'Contemporary Jewish Religion', in M. Black and
H.H. Rowley (eds.), Peake's Commentary on the Bible (London: Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1961), pp. 705-11 (705).
10. Rost, Judaism outside the Hebrew Canon, p. 22.
25
More than one Hebrew script was used at Qunnran, and each of
these were used because they were perceived to be sacred." The
ancient and hallowed language of Israel was Hebrew.
The Torah's scripts were the most sacred form of writing. It was
only proper, therefore, in light of die powerful influence of the Torah
at Qumran to continue the use of this script. The publication of the
Leviticus Scroll amply illustrates the presence of paleo-Hebrew at
Qumran.'^ The claim that the Holy Spirit continued to be alive in the
Qumran community, and that the secrets of a prophet's words were
disclosed only to die Moreh Has-sedek (see especially IQpHab 7) illustrates the high regard for the Torah felt at Qumran. According to the
Rule of the Community die Torah was to be read throughout the day
and night. The so-called 'new' laws and ordinances were considered
ancient, and derivative from the quintessential and primary importance of the Torah. The new was an exegesis of die old; the latter elevated die former. I am convinced die same phenomenon characterizes
die Pseudepigrapha.
Fourthly, from the foregoing general misunderstanding some
scholars tend to suggest that the Pseudepigrapha were produced to
replace the Tanach. The impression is sometimes given that the socalled extracanonical works were used in some early Jewish groups as
anti-canonical works. This confused idea seems to be present in
Solomon Zeitlin's contention that a large portion of the Pseudepigrapha, namely the apocalypses, were composed 'in opposition to
riormative Judaism. Normative Judaism regarded the Apocalyptists as
destructive.'"
I shall try to demonstrate that the Pseudepigrapha are not anticanonical works. Many documents in die Tanach represent vast differences in the interpretation of data and traditions. This healthy debate
continues among die Pseudepigrapha. There are no neat literary categories, like pre-rabbinics and anti-rabbinics. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,
among many other writings, reflect the origins of Rabbinic Judaism,
which is die type of Judaism Zeitlin labeled 'normative'. Likewise, the
11. The Greek copies of the Septuagint were most likely brought to Qumran.
12. See D.N. Freedman and K.A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew
Leviticus
Scroll (UQpaleoLev) (with contributions by R.S. Hanson; American Schools of
Oriental Research; distributed by Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN, 1985).
13. S. Zeitlin, 'Jewish Apocryphal Literature', Studies in the Early History of
Judaism (New York: Ktav, 1974), II, p. 241.
26
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
appearance of apocalyptic elements, ideas, symbols and passages in
rabbinic literature indicate the frequently close intertwining of
pseudepigraphic and earliest rabbinic diought in pre-70 CE Judaism.
Fifthly, some scholars have claimed that the eyes of the audiors of
the Pseudepigrapha were not on God's will, nor on sacred and ancient
Jewish traditions, nor on Torah scrolls. For such scholars the
Pseudepigrapha were contaminated by non-Jewish ideas. Hugo Fuchs,
for example, in Judisches Lexikon, described the Pseudepigrapha as
follows: 'Da ihr Inhalt aber als halbheidnisch empfunden wurde,
verwarf, sie sowohl das offizielle J.-tum wie auch das offizielle
Christentum'.''' This interpretation fails both by perpetuating the old
myth that there were no foreign influences in so-called official
Judaism, and by caricaturing the Pseudepigrapha as unworthy, because
they are un-Jewish.
Sixdily, a wide tendency of scholars is to emphasize too much the
visionary aspect of the Pseudepigrapha. These scholars stress that the
pseudepigraphical books are preoccupied with revelatory tilings. The
vision of the authors is only of the future age or the heavens above.
Yehoshua M. Grintz, for example, in the famous
Encyclopaedia
Judaica wrote that the Pseudepigrapha are 'visionary books attributed
to the ancients, characterized by a stringent asceticism and dealing
with the mysteries of creation and working out of good and evil from
a gnostic standpoint'." This statement is fraught with so much misinformation as to cause many to wonder how it was ever passed by the
editors. Suffice it only to state that the Pseudepigrapha are not to be
branded and discarded as visionary works; as we shall see, they are
part of the rich exegetical tradition of Early Judaism.
Why then have the pseudepigraphical writings been systematically
neglected in the study of early Jewish exegesis? One reason may be
found in die words of Michael E. Stone: 'None of die apocryphal and
pseudepigraphical books written in Hebrew or Aramaic was composed
as biblical exegesis citing and expounding verses*.'* This statement is
potentially misleading, and was written in the context of contrasting
14. H. Fuchs, 'Pseud(o)epigraphen'. in Judisches Lexikon (Berlin: Judischer
Verlag, 1927; repr. 1982), IV/I, col. 1175.
15. Y.M. Grintz in EncJud (1971). III. col. 182.
16. M.E. Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Compendia
Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, section two, volume II; Assen: Van
Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. xxi.
27
the Pseudepigrapha and Rabbinics. Isolated and examined as a
description of the relation of the Pseudepigrapha to the Tanach it is
misleading. What Stone seems to be trying to clarify is that the
Pseudepigrapha have a 'different attitude to scriptural authority' than
die rabbinic writings. Yet, it is unfortunate that so many scholars have
focused too narrowly on die use of the Tanach in Early Judaism, and
have assumed incorrectly that since the Pseudepigrapha have not
expounded verses from the Tanach they are not to be seen in terms of
primary or secondary exegetical compositions. Moreover, one must
not even give the impression that the authors of the Pseudepigrapha
never quoted a verse of Scripture. A look at the italics in The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha discloses that diese authors did quote from
the books collected into the Tanach. There is no question that die
author of the Testament of Job had memorized the canonical Job. For
example, in ch. 2 4 he quotes verses from Job 2.8b-9d; in ch. 2 8 he
cites Job 2 . 1 1 - 1 3 .
D.S. Russell righUy demonstrates die biblical and exegetical nature
of the Pseudepigrapha. He offers the opinion that the purpose of his
book, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Patriarchs and Prophets in
Early Judaism,
is to demonstrate from the books generally called 'the pseudepigrapha' the
considerable developments that took place in early Judaism relating to the
character and function of the patriarchs and prophets in whose names
many of them were written.
Russell succeeds in demonstrating the exegetical link between the
Tanach and the Pseudepigrapha. The Pseudepigrapha shine light on
the centrality of the Tanach in Early Judaism. Many of the writings
were written under the name of one of the biblical 'saints' thus emphasizing the paradigmatic importance of the Bible.
Criteria
How should one begin to comprehend die Pseudepigrapha as a type of
early Jewish biblical exegesis? How should die data be organized?
George W.E. Nickelsburg in 'The Bible Rewritten and Expanded'
opts for the criteria of dividing die documents into those which are
17. D.S. Russell, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Patriarchs and Prophets
in Early Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), p. xi.
28
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
very loosely connected to the biblical traditions and diose which are
'closely related to the biblical texts'.'* Among the documents only
loosely connected to the Bible are the following:
Daniel 1-6
The Prayer of Nabonidus
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Tobit
Judith
Martyrdom of Isaiah
The Lives of the Prophets
The Testament of Abraham
Joseph andAseneth
Paraleipomena ofJeremiah
Epistle ofAristeas
and 3 Maccabees.
Among the documents closely linked widi die Bible are diese:
/ Enoch and the Book of the Giants
Jubilees
The Genesis Apocryphon
The Book of Biblical Antiquities
The Apocalypse of Moses
The Life of Adam and Eve
Philo the Epic Poet
Theodotus the Epic Poet
Ezekiel the Tragedian
The Story of Darius' Bodyguards
Additions to the Book of Esther
David's Compositions
Baruch
The Episde of Jeremiah, and
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men.
I agree with Nickelsburg that the 'tendency to follow die ancient texts
more closely may be seen as a reflecdon of their developing canonical
status' (p. 89).
Rather than be seen as writings oblivious or antagonistic to die
Tanach, die Pseudepigrapha witness to the centrality of Tanach among
early Jews and its movement to a canonical status. The audior of 4 Ezra
18. G.W.E. Nickelsburg in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period; see
esp. p. 89.
29
celebrates the 2 4 revelatory books that are published, and the 7 0
additional books that are kept secret. As Rost rightly states, 'there can
be no question that he is referring to the twenty-four books of the
Tanach, consisting of Torah, Nevi'im, and K e t u v i m ' . " This point is
important; and it is equally necessary to emphasize diat according to
the author of 4 Ezra the 7 0 are related to and continuous with the 2 4 .
The Pseudepigrapha are part of die latitudinous ways Jews interpreted
die Bible.
The Pseudepigrapha are shaped widiin the crucible of biblical exegesis. The early Jewish Pseudepigrapha, that is those which are Jewish
and antedate the codification of the Mishnah in 2 0 0 CE, may be provisionally studied under five categories, which may be briefly listed:^"
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Inspiration. The Old Testament serves primarily to inspire
the author, who then evidences considerable imagination, perhaps sometimes under influences from nonbiblical writings
(ranging from the Books of Enoch to the Arda Viraf).^^
Framework. The Old Testament provides the framework for
the author's own work. The original setting of the Old
Testament work is employed for appreciably other purposes.
Launching. A passage or story in die Old Testament is used to
launch another, considerably different reflection. The original
setting is replaced.
Inconsequential. The author borrows from the Old Testament
only the barest facts, names especially, and composes a new
story.
Expansions. Most of these documents, in various ways and
degrees, start with a passage or story in die Old Testament,
and rewrite it, often under the imaginative influence of oral
traditions linked somehow to the biblical narrative.
Each of these five categories emerge from and serve to illustrate the
exegetical nature of the Pseudepigrapha.
19. Rost, Judaism outside the Hebrew Canon, p. 23.
20. These categories as first proposed by me, which are now expanded, are
included in C.A. Evans, Non-Canonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992). p. 46.
21. See J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1976), and
M. Haug, 'The Book of Arda Viraf, in C F . Home (ed.). Ancient Persia (Sacred
Books and Early Literature of the East, 7; New York: Parke, Austin & Lipscomb,
1917), pp. 185-207.
30
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Inspiration
Many Pseudepigrapha were written by Jews who were primarily
inspired by the Tanach, but were also free to think creatively under
die influence, at times, of the insights and advances in the contiguous
world cultures. The best example of this exegetical method is found in
the category labeled 'Prayers, Psalms and Odes'. The 'More Psalms of
David' are structured according to the poetry of the Davidic Psalter,
and are frequently indistinguishable from diem. The Psalms are the
inspiration for these additions to it. Psalm 151A also evidences the
characteristic of the second category; it uses 1 Samuel 16 and 17 as die
framework for four verses. Note the following translation of the
Hebrew (11 QPs 151):
I was the smallest among my brothers,
and the youngest among the sons of my father;
and he made me shepherd of his flocks,
and the ruler over his kids. (151 A. 1)
He sent his prophet to anoint me,
Samuel to make me great;
(151A.5)
But he [God] sent and took me from behind the flock,
and he anointed me with holy oil,
and he made me leader for his people,
and ruler over the sons of his covenant. (151 A.7)
These hues are based upon 1 Sam. 16.1-11, 17.14 and 2 Sam. 7.8, and
perhaps also on Pss. 78.70-71 and 89.20. It is understandable why die
Hebrew of this psalm contains the title 'A Hallelujah of David the Son
of Jesse'.^^
The next psalm, 151B (11 QPs 151), is also based on die Davidic
Psalter, and on another episode in the life of David, one which is
recorded in 1 Sam. 17.8-25. A translation from the Hebrew is as
follows:
Then I s[a]w a Philistine
who was uttering taunts from the ra[nks of the
enemy...].
22. The translations are by Charlesworth and are printed in OTP, 11, ad he.
31
The Syriac recension is not so fragmentarily preserved:
I went out to attack the Philistine,
and he cursed me by his idols.
But after 1 unsheathed his sword, I cut off his head;
and I removed the shame from the sons of Israel.
Other verses in the additional psalms, or Psalms 151 through 155, are
also inspired by the Davidic Psalter and by episodes in the life of
David.
The Prayer of Manasseh, one of the most beautiful penitential
psalms ever written, was composed in the century before the destiiiction of the Temple by a devout Jew who wished to supply the prayer
of Manasseh described in 2 Chronicles 33. Note this comparison:
2 Chronicles 33
I
Prayer of Manasseh
I provoked
[Manasseh]. . . provoking
his (Yahweh's] anger
[Mana.sseh]. . . placed
. . . the i d o l . . . in
the Temple
Manasseh with hooks
. . . in
chains...
humbling himself
deeply
before
the God of his ancestors
your fury (or anger)
I set up
idols
I am ensnared
I am bent by a multitude
of iron chains
I am bending
the knees of my
heart before you
God of our fathers.
Here we confront a prayer composed pseudonymously to provide the
prayer mentioned in 2 Chron. 33.11-13. The Prayer of Manasseh,
dierefore, is an exegesis of an Old Testament passage using the model
of bodi inspiration, because it is sOTictured according to die style of
die Psalter and otiier Hebraic poems, and framework, because it intends
to use the story in 2 Chronicles to compose a new psalm or prayer.
Framework
Framework is a type of exegesis in which the Tanach provides the
setting for a work that has a different purpose. A story in the Tanach
provides the basis, or framework, for a considerably different narrative. The best examples of the type of exegesis called 'Framework' are
found in the Fourth Book of Ezra, 2 Baruch, and in die Testaments
32
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
collected in die Pseudepigrapha. In each of diese documents an Old
Testament passage provides the basis, or framework, for an entirely
different story. The apocalypse in 4 Ezra begins as follows:
In the thirtieth year after the desuiiction of our city,
I, Salathiel, who am also called Ezra, was in Babylon.
I was U'oubled as I lay on my bed, and my thoughts
welled up in my heart, because I saw the desolation of
Zion and the wealth of those who lived in Babylon {4 Ezra 3.1-2).^
The author has used the framework of the story of the destruction of
Jerusalem, Zion, by the Babylonians in the sixth century BCE to tell
the story of the devastation wrought by the Romans in the first century CE. The audior of this passage knew well die traditions related to
and based exegetically in 2 Kings 25, according to which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, attacked and conquered Jerusalem.
The same source, combined widi Jeremiah traditions, produced the
apocalypse called 2 Baruch. Note in particular ch. 6.1-2.
Now it happened on the following day that, behold, an army of the
Chaldeans [= Babylonians] surrounded the city. And in the evening I,
Baruch [= Jeremiah's scribe], left the people, went outside, and set
myself by an oak. And I was grieving over Zion and sighed because of
the captivity which had come upon the people.^*
Scholars often explain the use of 'Babylon* for 'Rome' because of the
need of die Jews to hide their anti-Roman polemic from them. This
attractive suggestion does not exhaust die possibilities or reasons for
such pseudepigraphical writing. In my opinion, an equally important
one is the powerful paradigmatic force of the biblical text and the
ti'aditions related to it. By using an exegesis of 2 Kings and Jeremiah
as the framework for articulating the search for meaning in a new
day, it _was possible to stress diat as once growdi sprang up from the
ruins of 587 so it will be possible—indeed certain in light of the
vision revealed to Baruch—for the new to begin again, thanks to the
fact that God was indeed in control of the destruction of his Temple
and is about to bring in die promised eschaton.
The source for the testamentary literature is the account of Jacob's
last word, or testament, to his sons; and in particular the record of
diat scene described in Genesis 49.
23. Trans, by B.M. Metzger in OTP, I. p. 528.
24. Trans, by A.F.J. Klijn in OTP, I, p. 622.
33
Then Jacob called his sons, and said, 'Gather yourselves together, that I
may tell you what shall befall you in days to come.
Assemble and hear, O sons of Jacob,
and hearken to Israel your father' (Gen. 49.1-2, RSV).
A Jewish docuitient, probably composed around 100 BCE and redacted
by a Christian sometime in the second century CE,^' reflects this
memorable story in Genesis 49. A Jew composed testaments for each
of the twelve sons of Jacob by using the account of how Jacob called
his twelve sons around his death bed and exhorted and blessed them.
Genesis 49 was the framework for composing testaments for each of
Jacob's twelve sons. What Jacob had done on his death bed for his
sons, each of diem did for their sons, but the content shifted markedly
in the direction of thought so prevalent in Early Judaism; large
25. There is considerable controversy over the Jewish or Christian origin of the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. It is clear that at least two testaments, one
attributed to Levi and the other to Naphtali, are Jewish and pre-Christian, since fragments of each were found in medieval manuscripts in the Cairo Geniza and also in
Cave IV at Qumran. It is also clear that these testaments are not identical to the Greek
testaments in the critical text of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The crucial
question is now whether a document of twelve testaments was composed by a Jew or
a Christian. Acknowledging that the distinctions between 'Jewish' and 'Christian'
are now blurred, and that the Jewish fragments mentioned above are not identical
with the critical text of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, M. de Jonge and I
have tended to differ on assessing the origin of the document. He continues (since
1953) to favor the possibility that a Christian conceived the idea of twelve testaments
in the second century. He is certainly correct to stress that with the Greek document
we are faced not with interpolations but with redactions, with extensive deletions as
well as additions, of the Jewish sources; I, however, am more convinced that the
Jewish strata is far more extensive than he thinks and that it is found behind each of
the twelve testaments. My conviction that a Jew composed a document that contained
twelve testaments may now be confirmed, in part at least, by the discovery of a
Testament of Judah among the fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This discovery
was presented to specialists in Cambridge and Uppsala and will be published in the
near future.
The most recent publications on this debate are the following: M. de Jonge,
'The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs', in H.F.D. Sparks (ed.). The Apocryphal
Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), pp. 505-12; H.C. Kee,
'Testaments of the Twelve Pauiarchs', in OTP, I, pp. 775-80; J.H. Charlesworth,
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Prolegomena for the
Study of Christian Origins (SNTS, 54; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1985); M. de Jonge, Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (NovTSup, 63; Leiden: Brill, 1991).
34
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
apocalyptic sections filled out the brief statement by Jacob 'diat I may
tell you what shall befall you in days to come' (Gen. 49.1).
Both the old framework and the new content is pellucidly represented in the Testament of Levi; note die following excerpts:
A copy of the words of Levi: the things that he decreed to his sons concerning all they were to do, and the things that would happen to them until
the day of judgment. He was in good health when he summoned them to
him, but it had been revealed to him that he was about to die. When they
all were gathered together he said to them: (1.1-2)... 'At this moment the
angel opened for me the gates of heaven and I saw the Holy Most High
sitting on the throne. And he said to me, "Levi, to you I have given the
blessing of the priesthood until I shall come and dwell in the midst of
Israel- (5.1-2).^*
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs thus evolves out of the Old
Testament narrative, especially Genesis 47 through 50, and in that
sense belongs widiin die broad study of exegesis widiin Early Judaism.
The Testament of Job, which was written in the century before the
destrucdon of Jerusalem, also evolves out of an exegesis of Jacob's
testament. As R.P. Spitder perceives, die Old Testament provided for
the composition of the Testament of Job the following framework
features:
the blessing from father to sons (Gen. 47.29-50.14):
an ill father (Gen. 48.1),
who is near death (Gen. 47.29),
and on his death bed (Gen. 47.31).
calls his sons (Gen. 49.1),
disposes of his possessions (Gen. 48.22),
and issues a forecast of future events (Gen. 49.1).
The father dies (Gen. 49.33),
and a lamentation completes the framework
of the .story (Gen. 50.2-14)."
This framework provides the basis for the genre, loosely defined, diat
unites the Jewish testaments, namely the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, the Testament of Job, and to a lesser extent die Testament
of Abraham and the Testament of Moses (cf. also I En. 91.1-19, Tob.
14.3-11, Acts 20.17-38, I Tim. 4.1-16 and Jn 17.1-26). Here is die
opening to die Testament of Job (which is extant in Greek):
26. Trans. H.C. Kee in OTP, I, pp. 788-89.26.
27. See Spiuler's discussion in OTP. I, pp. 831-32.
C H A R L E S W O R T H in the Crucible
35
Now on the day when, having fallen ill, he [Job] began to settle his
affairs, he called his seven sons and his three daughters [cf. Job 1.2]...
And when he had called his children he said, 'Gather round, my children.
Gather round me so that I may show you the things which the Lord did
with me and all the things which have happened to me' (1.2-4).^
As can be surmised from the last clause, 'that I may show you the
things which the Lord did with me and all the things which have
happened to me', this testament is basically a recital of Job's life. It,
therefore, contrasts with the Testament of Levi, and constantly returns,
after expansive narratives, to the biblical framework and book of Job.
In essence, the Testament of Job is an imaginative exegesis and
legendary expansion of the biblical book. For example. Job's wife has
a speech of only two lines in the Hebrew text, which is expanded in
the Septuagint to a full paragraph; in the Testament of Job she is
named—Sitis—and shares a rather lengthy dialogue with Job. As I
stated long ago, the Testament of Job is a type of midrash in the form
of a testament on the canonical book.^' It is an example of the early
phases of what will later be called midrashim.
The Testament of Abraham (extant only in Greek) continues in the
direction taken by the author of the Testament of Levi and away from
that followed by the author of the Testament of Job. It does not
expand on the life of Abraham; it describes how Abraham refuses to
die. Michael is sent by God to help Abraham prepare for death and to
write a testament; eventually Michael is to collect his soul. Abraham,
however, refuses to die and forces Michael to take him on a celestial
journey (somewhat reminiscent of the journeys of Enoch). In contrast
to the Testament of Job, as E.P. Sanders states, virtually nothing from
die Old Testament is found in the Testament of Abraham, other than
the obvious and relatively insignificant references which can be traced
back to Genesis.'" Surprisingly, in light of the vast iconographical and
documentary evidence, there is no clear reference to Abraham's
attempt to sacrifice Isaac. With the authors of many apocalypses and
apocalyptic writings the author of the Testament of Abraham is interested in the cosmic dimensions of Jewish theology.^'
28. Trans. R.P. Spittler in OTP, I, p. 839.
2 9 . Charlesworth, 'Testament of Job', in The Pseudepigrapha and Modem
Research with a Supplement (SBLSCS, 7; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), p. 135.
30. Sanders, 'Testament of Abraham', in OTP, I, p. 879.
3 1 . See Charlesworth, 'The Cosmic Theology of Early Judaism', in The OU
36
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
The Testament of Moses (extant in only one Latin palimpsest)
received its present form in the first half of the first century CE. It is
similar to the Testament of Abraham and the Testament of Levi, in
that it does refer to the future acts of God, but it is more similar to
die Testament of Job in that it also concentrates not upon die predicuons of the future but on a recitation of the past history of God's
people. In a farewell discourse to Joshua, Moses describes the history
of Israel and the Jews from the time of the conquest of Palestine
dirough the rebuilding of the Temple after the sixth-century exile to
die subsequent apostasy (perhaps due to the hellenizing priests or the
'kings' of the late Hasmoneans). The work, as extant in its fragmentary form, continues with an eschatological hymn that celebrates the
destiuction of the evil one by Israel's guardian angel, and the final
exaltation of Israel.
The close relationship between the Testament
of Moses and
Deuteronomy, especially chs. 31 dirough 34, leads J. Priest to suggest
diat it is
a vinual rewriting of them. This is true not only with respect to general
ouUine but also regarding specific allusions and theological perspective.
Deuteronomy 31-34 is clearly the author's model, though he has recast
his own work in light of the history of the people from the conquest to his
own day and through the prism of his own apocalyptic outlook.'^
^
What Priest calls 'model' I have been referring to as 'framework'; yet
die Testament of Moses shares much with the apocalyptic dimensions
of the Testament of Levi and another model of exegesis, namely
'Expansions of the "Old Testament" and Legends'. Each of diese are
different methods used by the early Jews to comprehend and make
contemporary the biblical message.
Launching
Launching is a type of Jewish exegesis by which a passage or story in
die Tanach is used to produce, or launch, another different story. The
best examples of using a passage in the Old Testament for launching
forth into a new setting are die Books of Enoch. The books gadiered
together now into what is called / Enoch and 2 Enoch are based upon
two verses in Genesis 5:
Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament, pp. 65-67.
32. J. Priest, 'TesUment of Moses', in OTP, I, p. 923.
37
Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.
Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him (Gen. 5.2324, RSV. See also Sir. 44.16).
From these brief comments the early Jews developed exegetically the
ideas that Enoch must be somehow associated with die solar calendar
of 365 days, that he was perfecdy righteous, and that he did not die,
but is with G o d . ' ' Since Enoch then tends to transcend time and
place—his place is either unknown or hidden (cf. 1 En. 12.1-2)—he is
the perfect candidate for ascending through the heavens and viewing
the world below, its history, and the future ages.
According to I Enoch (extant in its full form only in Ethiopic,
although early Aramaic Qumran fragments have been found) he
receives from the angels a vision and says, 'I heard from them everything and I understood. I look not for this generation but for the distant one that is coming (1.2)'.''' Enoch falls asleep and has a dream
and visions, according to I En. 13.8. According to 2 Enoch (extant
only in Slavonic) he is awakened from his sleep and guided by 'two
huge men' (2 En. 1.4). Subsequently in both works Enoch journeys
dirough the heavens.
Another passage in the Old Testament has significandy influenced
the diought of the authors of / Enoch and 2 Enoch. It is the story of
the fall of the watchers found in Gen. 6.1-4. In 1 Enoch 1-36 this
story is considerably reworked and expanded. In 2 Enoch 18 [J] the
fallen angels are seen being punished in the fifth heaven and others are
in die second heaven, 'imprisoned in great darkness'."
Another passage in Genesis—which is exceedingly important for
understanding early Jewish exegesis, because of a Qumran scroll,
Philo, Josephus, and Hebrews—has considerably shaped die ending of
2 Enoch, which unfortunately was excised by R.H. Charles. 2 Enoch
71-72 describes die miraculous birdi of Melchizedek; these chapters,
like 11Q Melchizedek, are similar to the early midrashim and to the
'Expansions of the "Old Testament" and Other Legends'. They are an
exegesis with fantastic expansions of Gen. 14.17-24, according to
33. A careful study of the origin of apocalyptic thought and the role of Enoch in
its development is J.C. VanderKam's Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic
Tradition (CBQMS, 16; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984).
34. E. Isaac, '1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse oO Enoch', in OTP, 1, p. 13.
35. See F.I. Andersen, '2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch', in OTP, I, pp. 13032.
38
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
which a mysterious individual, Melchizedek, King of Salem, priest of
God Most High, offers bread and wine to Abraham and blesses him.
Abraham subsequently gives him a tenth of his spoils from battle.
Inconsequential
Some pseudepigrapha have only an inconsequential relation to the Old
Testament. They have inherited from the Tanach only the personae,
or other details, in order to create a new story. The link with the
Tanach is clear and seminal; but it is inconsequential in contrast with
die other three types of exegesis found in the Pseudepigrapha.
The Sibylline Oracles are not essentially shaped or created by
biblical exegesis, even diough the third book is influenced by Psalms
2 and 48, Isaiah 11, and the traditions about the pilgrimage of the
gentiles to Jerusalem in the eschaton (cf. Isa. 2.1-4; Mic. 4.1-4; 2fech.
14.16-21). Likewise, books four, five and eleven are only marginally
influenced by the Old Testament. To understand the Third Sibylline
Oracle it is important to understand die exegetical base for some
verses, but it is more important to comprehend developments in nonJewish cultures, especially in Greece, Italy and Egypt.
Similarly the Treatise of Shem and Hoe Apocalypse of Adam received
from the Old Testament little more dian the name pseudepigraphically
linked with the document. In fact the astrological interest of the
former and the present gnostic nature of the latter expose the vast
differences between these two pseudepigrapha and die Old Testament,
even if the Old Testament is a library of widely differing documents.
Also related to the Tanach in only a relatively inconsequential way
are the documents that belong under the category of 'Wisdom and
Philosophical Literature'. The Wisdom books in die Tanach are Jewish,
but they are profoundly shaped by humanity's common treasury of
universal wisdom and morality. Developing later out of diis Wisdom
tradition—but certainly not an exegesis of it—are 3
Maccabees,
4 Maccabees, Pseudo-Phocylides and Syriac Menander.
Expansions
The most important category of the Pseudepigrapha for our present
purposes is the expansion of the biblical narrative. Here the biblical
story has been told and retold until it is discussed and questions arise.
39
What was life like in Paradise before Eve and Adam disobeyed God?
What were their reactions to the first experience of death and sickness? What was the name of Jepthah's daughter, and what was her
reaction to her father's vow? What was Asenedi, Joseph's wife, like,
and how was it possible for him to marry an Egyptian who worshipped idols? Who were Jannes and Jambres, and Eldad and Modad?
The answers given to these questions and the lore that developed from
retelling the biblical stories produced the expansions of them found in
the Life of Adam and Eve, Pseudo-Philo, Joseph and Aseneth, Jannes
and Jambres and Eldad and Modad.
Exegesis by expansion is stunning evidence that the Pseudepigrapha
were often produced within the crucible of biblical interpretation. The
biblical stories were memorized; they were taken seriously, as bruta
facta, as revealed truths; but to speak to the curiosities and needs of a
later time die stories needed to be retold and completed widi details.
All die evidence seems to suggest diat what we call additional facts and
details were considered by the early Jews who revered these Pseudepigrapha to be part of the true story. Now they were revealed to serve
the curiosities and needs of later generations.
The following are the Pseudepigrapha that are 'Expansions of die
Old Testament' in one column and the portion of the Tanach that is
expanded in die second column:
Jubilees
Martyrdom of Isaiah
Joseph and Aseneth
Life of Adam and Eve
Pseudo-Philo
Lives of the Prophets
Ladder of Jacob
4 Baruch
Jannes and Jambres
History of the Rechabites
Eldad and Modad
Genesis 1.1-Exodus 12.50
1, 2 Kings
Genesis 37-50
Genesis 1 - 6
Genesis to 2 Samuel
Kings, Clironicles, Prophets
Genesis 28
Jeremiah, 2 Kings
2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah
Exodus 7-8
Jeremiah 35
Numbers 11.26-29
Like die Dead Sea Scrolls and die documents collected into die New
Testament, the Pseudepigrapha tend to treat the Tanach in ways that
are shockingly cavalier to modern biblical critics. It seems obvious that
die text was considered divine, but the spirit for interpretation allowed
the Jewish exegete to alter, ignore, expand, and even rewrite the
sacred Scripture. Pneumatic exegesis was a phenomenon which at once
40
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
was shaped by and in turn shaped the received text and accompanying
tradition. The study of the use of the Tanach in the Pseudepigrapha
accentuates a major insight brilliantly expressed by Edward
Schillebeeckx: scholars too often forget that in Early Judaism the
Tanach 'was not functioning per se or in isolation but in the context of
late Jewish piety as diat had since been developing. One cannot with
impunity skip over die time that had elapsed between the great
prophets and Jesus.''*
Essential
Perspectives
To grasp the ways the Pseudepigrapha were fashioned by biblical
interpretation five perspectives are essential. First, we must leave
behind the once dominant conceptions of pre-70 Judaism. It was not
categorized by a clear separation of Palestinian Judaism from Diasporic
Judaism, by a monolidiic closed and 'normative Judaism', by the
continuing purity of an indigenous well-defined Judaism, or by some
identifiable and wide spread orthodoxy. Once these modern mydis are
removed, it is possible to see diat the Pseudepigrapha are the products
of many divergent groups within Early Judaism. Some, like I Enoch,
Jubilees smA the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, move us close to
the various types of Essenes. The Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra and
2 Baruch show us some movements in die direction of Pharisaism and
early rabbinic thought. 4 Baruch and Pseudo-Eupolemus
show us
affinities with the Samaritans. The Testament of Moses and Psalms of
Solomon 17 and 18 reveal what might be polemics against the earliest
phases of the Zealots. But most importandy, the Pseudepigrapha warn
us not to think about Judaism as divided into four sects. There were
more than a dozen groups and many more subgroups.
Secondly, the tendency of the audiors of the Pseudepigrapha was not
to replace but to heighten Torah. This well known phenomenon,
dianks to die recovery of die Temple Scroll, is most clearly evident in
Jubilees, sometimes called the 'Littie Genesis'. The audior of 2 Baruch
especially elevated the Torah. Recall Klijn's translation of 2 Baruch
77.15-16, which reads as follows:
36. E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (trans. H. Hoskins;
New York: Crossroad, 1974), p. 257.
C H A R L E S W O R T H in the Crucible
41
Shepherds and lamps and fountains came from the Law, and when we go
away, the Law will abide. If you, therefore, look upon the Law and are
intent upon wisdom, then the lamp will not be wanting and the shepherd
will not give way and the fountain will not dry up (OTP, 1, p. 647).
Along with the same trend came the elevation of biblical heroes.
Some, like Jacob, were accorded angelic and divine status, as Mardn
Hengel in Germany,'^ James D.G. Dunn,'* Christopher R o w l a n d "
and D.S. Russell*" in England, and G. Nickelsburg,"' odiers, and I
myself^ in the USA have attempted to illustrate. The interpretation of
die status of the biblical saints, which is exegesis of Scripture, was the
crucible in which the Pseudepigrapha were fashioned. These so-called
extra-canonical writings shine light on the importance of Tanach, or
the canonical Scriptures.
Thirdly, early Jewish lore deposited in the Pseudepigrapha reveal
how much Palestinian Jews cherished die biblical tales. One diat must
have been popular, judging from the Apocalypse of Abraham, was the
altercation between Terah, the idol maker, and his son, Abraham, to
whom the Jews allocated die belief in one and only one God. Many
works in the Pseudepigrapha—especially the Apocalypse of Abraham,
the Testament of Job, the Lives of the Prophets and
Pseudo-Philo—
attest to folk tales developing around the Tanach. They show how
Torah permeated the far reaching corners of Early Judaism and
helped produce die Pseudepigrapha.
Fourthly, we have learned to see how sociologically conditioned are
the documents in the Pseudepigrapha, reflecting consecutively the
crises of the Maccabean era, and the growing stranglehold on Palestine
by the Romans, beginning with Pompey's entrance into the Temple in
63 BCE and culminating with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.
Now, we need to perceive the exegetical dimensions that have also
37. M. Hengel in The Son of God (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1976), pp. 47-48.
38. J.D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (London: SCM; Philadelphia:
Westminster Pi«ss, 1970), p. 17.
39. C. Rowland, Christian Origins: From Messianic Movement to Christian
Religion (London: SPCK; Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1985), pp. 17-38.
40. D.S. Rus,sell, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, pp. 1-8.
41. G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.J.Collins (eds.). Ideal Figures in Ancient
Judaism (Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 12; Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 1980).
42. J.H. Charlesworth, 'The Portrayal of the Righteous as an Angel', in Ideal
Figures, pp. 135-51.
42
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
produced the Pseudepigrapha. Louis H. Feldman rightly stressed that
the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Psalms of Solomon and
die Prayer of Manasseh, as well as many of the Qumran Scrolls and
some of the Apocrypha, 'are generally conscious imitadons of biblical
b o o k s . . . " " Imitating is certainly a form of interpreting. In some cases
it is clear exegesis.
The reviews of history in many of the apocalypses in die Pseudepigrapha are exegetical reflections on die histories in the Tanach. To
retell die drama of salvation from protological time to the eschatological age is to interpret the Tanach. This exegetical component of the
apocalypses has not been perceived in die examination of the reviews
of history.
Fifth, the works in the Pseudepigrapha are not fully or adequately
represented by the contention diat they are visionary writings. Studies
of the ethical sections of 2 Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs reveal the strong paradigmatic links widi God's commandments recorded in the Torah, and the ethical teachings of the great
prophets. To study the descriptions of die heavenly tablets. Paradise,
the coming of God's messenger or Messiah, and God's holy dwelling
in the Temple is to be drawn to the large swirling pool of biblical
interpretation that permeated all groups in Early Judaism.
Conclusion
A change has occurred in the study of pre-70 Palestinian Judaism. In
the last twenty years the Pseudepigrapha have come into their own.
Now diese writings are accorded some respect, and it is generally and
internationally recognized that the history of pre-70 Judaism must
depend upon diem in describing the fluid and vibrant culture known as
Early Judaism.
If we desire to understand the origins and sociological functions of
the Pseudepigrapha, we must now recognize that diey were fashioned
in the crucible of biblical interpretation. They point to the importance
of Torah in the daily life of the religious Jew, especially in Palestine
before the destruction of die nation in 70. As die late Samuel Sandmel
stated in a very popular article on die Pseudepigrapha,
43. L.H. Feldman, 'Judaism, History o f ,
Britannica, Macropaedia (1974), X, p. 314.
in The New
Encyclopaedia
43
Without a Genesis, there could never have been a 'Jubilees'. Indeed, had
there not already been a Bible, there could have been no Pseudepigrapha
for, in one way or another, these books all derive from the Bible."'*
Biblical exegesis is the crucible of the Pseudepigrapha. In it ancient
humanity's wisdom, scientific observations, and speculations were
melted down and shaped to reappear as Jewish tradition.
44. S. Sandmel, 'The Books That Were Left Out', Keeping Posted (February,
1973), pp. 19-23 (23).
APPROPRIATING THE HISTORY OF G O D ' S PEOPLE:
A SURVEY OF INTERPRETATIONS OF THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
IN THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, APOCRYPHA A N D THE
N E W TESTAMENT
Howard Clark Kee
Claims made by post-exilic Jews and by early Christians that they were
the true heirs of the covenant promises to Abraham, Moses, David and
the prophets required them to develop a framework for interpreting
and appropriating that central strand in the biblical tradition.
Inevitably, the dominant conceptual framework of the dme and culture
of each specific segment of the religious communities had a determinative effect on how this tradition was perceived and appropriated.'
Comparative analysis of these interpretative phenomena requires
more than merely noting which historical figures or events were
highlighted by the different groups in this process of appropriadon of
die tradition. By looking at die larger context and the specifics of the
world-view of each document under analysis, the interpreter must ask
what are die dominant features implicit and explicit widiin die wridng
concerning such basic features as the view of reality, the nature of
knowledge, the mode of interpretation of Scripture, and the idendty
of the social group making the claims to be heirs of this tradition. In
abstract terms, the modern interpreter must consider ontological,
epistemological, hermeneudcal, cultural and sociological factors in
analyzing the relevant texts.
That treatment of the early history of die covenant people was an
important ingredient in very different documents within the biblical
tradition is not surprising, since basic to the claim of participation in
die people of God was the affirmation diat God called and guided the
1. The methodological principles on which this essay is based are set out in my
book. Knowing the Truth: A Sociological Approach to New Testament Interpretation
(Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1989).
K E E Appropriating
the History of God's People
45
patriarchs from the period of dieir earlier nomadic existence and their
experience of slavery in Egypt undl their settlement in the land of
Canaan. It was in that land that the formerly mobile, portable presence of God in die covenant box was given a fixed location, although
the tradition is in disagreement as to whedier die holy place should be
Bethel, Shechem or Jerusalem. Central in all diese corporate, historical experiences are the leaders called and empowered by God, since
through them die purpose of God is disclosed and effected in behalf of
God's people. As scholars have long noted, in ancient Israel the
equivalent of die creeds is the recital of what God has done to call and
constitute his covenant people, as in Deut. 26.1-11. In Deuteronomy,
following that confession, is an ostensibly predictive description of die
establishment of the central sanctuary at Shechem (Deut. 27) and of
the monarchy, its failure and the exile (Deut. 28), followed by the
restoration of the people in the land (Deut. 30). Obviously, there is
almost universal scholarly agreement that the closing chapters of
Deuteronomy were written centuries after Israel had in fact settled in
die land. Clearly essential to die maintenance of the covenant relationship and of the special place of the people in the purpose of God is
dieir obedience to the commandments (Deut. 30.19-20):
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set
before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that
you and your descendants may live, loving the LX>RD your God, obeying
his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you, and length of
days, that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your
fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.
That Israel was to identify with its history, with covenant promises
and responsibilities, is obvious. The process and the differences in
appropriation of diat historical tradition are also obvious when it compares documents produced before, during and shortly after the exile:
Deuteronomy, the books of Samuel and Kings; die books of Chronicles.
But, given the more radically changed and changing circumstances of
the post-exilic period, how was the community to understand and
appropriate its history and perceive its future? Far more than a
conceptual, theological issue was involved in Deuteronomy: the
promises were made to die twelve tribes, but apparendy after the exile
Judah alone remained as an identifiable entity. Initially, following the
return from the exile, die sanctuary was operated under what seem to
have been the generous policies of the Persian government, but by the
46
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Hellenistic era Jews were under enormous pressure culturally and
politically to conform to the patterns of Hellenistic life and thought.
By the Roman period, the century of autonomy under the Maccabees
had passed, with its odd blend of royal and priestly authority characterized by internecine conflict and courting the favor of Rome. By die
middle of the first century BCE, both the monarchs and priests who
ruled die people of Israel did so only by authorization of the Roman
emperor and senate. How, during these times of major political, social
and cultural change, was the covenant relationship to be defined? How
was it to be tangibly expressed in terms of social structures? What
were to be die qualifications for participation in it?
From Jewish and early Christian sources, it is evident that during
die Hellenistic and Roman periods, a variety of answers to diese questions were being offered, several of them building explicitly on the
biblical traditions of die history of the covenant people, and some of
them clearly influenced by the concepts and axioms of Hellenistic
culture. Accordingly, analysis of representative documents shows how
central it is to the present-day interpretation of each that attention be
given to the cultural context and worldview represented by die writer
and original readers who stand behind these materials. The writings
we examine in relation to diese interpretative issues include two from
the Jewish wisdom tradition—the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom
of Solomon—one from the apocalyptic tradition of Judaism—
/ Enoch—and two from the early Christian tradition: Acts and the
Letter to die Hebrews.
1. The Wisdom of Sirach
The prologue of die Wisdom of Sirach states the dual aim of reading
die Scriptures: to gain learning and wisdom, and to live according to
the law. The first 15 chapters of die work deal mostly widi generalized
wisdom, as in 8.8, where following the advice of die sages and their
maxims is encouraged. Yet there are repeated references to the
importance of obedience to the law, as die expression of die wisdom
of God. This involves both the cultic and the moral features of the
law: support and participation in the priesUy process (7.29-31) and
obedience to the commandments (11.19). To define the one who is
wise, Sirach asserts, 'Whoever holds to the law will obtain wisdom'
(14.20-27).
K E E Appropriating
ATI
Beginning in Sirach 16-17, however, another ingredient is present
with respect to the law: the wisdom of God is evident in the creation.
17.11-12 reads, 'He bestowed knowledge upon them, and allotted to
them the law of life. He established with them an eternal covenant, and
revealed to them his decrees'. Initially this sounds like a return of
Prov. 8.22-31, where wisdom is pictured as God's companion while
the process of creation unfolds. But in what follows one can detect the
influence of the Stoic notion of natural law, as active agency in the
creation and ordering of the world, and as an essential factor in
human beings, guiding them to moral order as they conform their
lives to this inherent moral system.
This inference is confirmed by the fact that the technical language
and basic concepts of Stoicism appear in the Greek text of Sirach. In
18.30, as introduction to a series of injunctions about controlling one's
desires and restraining one's appetites, there appears the technical
term, egkrateia. In 19.17 there is advice to 'let die law of the Most
High take its course' in order to arouse a sense of moral responsibility. Or again, in 21.11, 'Whoever keeps the law controls his
dioughts'. The process of disciplined instruction in die Greek tradition
is made explicit in 23.7, where paideia appears in die section title
according to some of the best manuscripts (B, S, A).
All of this attention to die philosophical and paideutic context prepares for the declaration in 24.1-22 diat Wisdom, whose origin is
divine and whose role has been the ordering of die universe, is now
established in Jerusalem, embodied in 'die covenant of die Most High,
die law diat Moses commanded us' (24.23). Resuming die mixture of
proverbial wisdom and specifics of the commandments in the law,
Sirach observes that 'die one who seeks God will accept his paideia...
die one who seeks the law will be filled with it' (32.14-15). Ordinary
workers and artisans are precluded by dieir occupations from being
wise, aldiough 'diey maintain the fabric of the world' (38.24-34). But
it is die scribe who studies the law, who seeks out die wisdom of die
ancients, who will be shown by the Lord what wisdom is, and will
'glory in the law of the Lord's covenant' (39.1-11).
Wisdom will show diat God is in control of die whole of time, from
beginning to end (39.16-21), and works dirough the forces of nature
(wind, hail, fire, famine, wild animals) to accomplish his purposes
(39.28-31), so that 'everything proves good in its appointed time'
(39.34) and all the universe operates in accord with his plan and
48
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
purpose (43.13-16). God bestows this wisdom tois eusebesin (on those
who are pious). Sirach, having made the case for the basic congruity
of immanent divine order and purpose with the law of the covenant,
proceeds to 'sing the praises of famous men* (44.1-50.21), most of
them described in Scripture, who were both wise and righteous in
their obedience to God*s commandments.
'Everlasting covenants* were made by God with Noah, who is described as dikaios and teleios (44.17-18). Abraham 'kept the law of the
Most High, and entered into a covenant with him' (44.20). Likewise,
Isaac and Jacob shared in the covenant (44.22). Moses' crucial role
was to receive from God 'the commandments, the law of life and
knowledge, so that he might teach Jacob the covenant* (44.1-5).
Clearly this role of Moses is described with conscious or unconscious
references to a correlation between the all-permeating law of nature
and the revealed law of the covenant with Israel. The interrelation
between law and covenant is evident in the descriptions of the roles of
Aaron and Phineas (45.6-22), in diat the establishment of the covenant
gave them both priestly and educational duties. Thus Aaron was
granted 'authority and statutes and judgments to teach Jacob die testimonies, and to enlighten Israel with [God*s] law* (45.17), while
Phinehas, widi whom God established 'a covenant of friendship*, will
through his descendants 'have the dignity of the priesthood-forever*
(45.23-24). God*s control of the forces of nature is dramatically
evident in two incidents in die time of Joshua: the sun standing still,
and the hailstones that strike down the enemy of Israel (46.4-5). Yet
the role of Joshua and Caleb in fostering obedience and piety is shown
whenone reads that they actively 'restrained the people from sin and
stilled their wicked grumbling* (46.7). David is instrumental in establishing order in the life of God's people, not only in a military and
political sense, by defeating dieir enemies (47.4-7), but by instituting
the proper worship of God through singers and their psalms of praise,
and in establishing the annual cycle of festivals (47.8-10). God
honored David for these modes of ordering the life and worship of
Israel, in that he 'gave him a covenant of kingship and a glorious
throne in Israel' (47.11). Although Solomon's sexual promiscuity
brought subsequent judgment on Israel and the dividing of the
kingdom, he did reign 'in an age of peace' and built a house for God,
'a sanctuary to stand forever' (47.13). His wisdom was embodied in
the songs, proverbs and parables, which 'astounded the nations' and
K E E Appropriating
49
left an enduring heritage in Israel (47.15-17).
Solomon's violations of the law of the covenant, and those of
Rehoboam and Jeroboam, brought ruin and exile on the nation,
thereby demonstrating how interconnected are conformity to the
divine law and maintenance of social order in history (48.23-25). God
sent messengers to recall the people to obedience, Elijah and Elisha,
but most were disobedient, with the result that diey were 'carried off
as plunder from their land and were scattered over all die earth'. Yet
God's purpose continues, for there remained 'a ruler from the house
of David' (48.15), and die promise of a return of Elijah 'to restore the
tribes of Jacob' (48.10; cf Mai. 4.5-6). On die positive side, Hezekiah
maintained the integrity of Jerusalem and supplied it with water
(48.17), in return for which the Lord destroyed die invading Assyrians:
For Hezekiah did what was pleasing to the Lord,
and he kept firmly to the ways of his ancestor David,
as he was commanded by the prophet Isaiah,
who was great and trustworthy in his visions.
Isaiah's prophetic spirit enabled him to see 'what was to occur to the
end of time, and the hidden things before they happened' (48.23-25).
The prophet is attuned to the divine purpose and power that are
invisibly but inexorably at work to fulfil the covenant promises.
Similarly, Josiah reformed the people by keeping 'his heart fixed on
the Lord', widi the result that 'in lawless times' (en hemerais anomon)
he made eusebeia prevail (49.2-3). Conversely, die ruin of Judah and
of the sanctuary in Jerusalem were die consequence of die abandonment by the kings of 'the law of the Most High' (49.4-7). Moving
beyond the events reported in the scriptural narratives, Sirach offers
extended praise of Simon, son of Onias, who as king and priest
restored the temple, provided a water supply for die city, and led the
priests and die people in dignified, orderly worship of God (50.1-21).
Following this review of the history of God's people, Sirach describes what he has done in terms that derive from the traditions of
popular Greek philosophy: he has written down instruction, or training
(paideia) in understanding (sunesis) and knowledge (episteme). Those
who 'lay them to heart will become wise*, and those who 'put them
into practice* will be ready for anything that life may bring (50.2729). In the concluding autobiographical poem, Sirach describes how
he sought and gained wisdom through much disciplined instruction
(pollen paideian). He appeals to those who are untrained (apaideutoi)
50
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
to take up residence in the house of instruction (paideia) (51.20-23).
In the closing lines there are yet additional appeals to his readers to
receive paideia (51.26-28). One might argue that the Greek text of
Sirach is only a translation of the Hebrew original, so that the use of
technical terms in Greek is irrelevant to the intention of the original
author. But the very fact that the translator of this document was persuaded that this terminology with its philosophical connotations was
the appropriate way to convey the meaning of the text to the readers is
profoundly significant. This language conveys for him the basic
meaning of the text. What Sirach sees as involved in the recollections
of the history of God's people is the concrete exemplifying of the
purpose of God in creation and history in behalf of his covenant
people. The law gives expression to the demands that this overarching
purpose places on those who claim to be God's people. The basic
understanding of the law is shaped by two factors: (1) the old legal
traditions of Israel, and (2) the philosophical concept of natural law as
pervading the universe. The vocabulary for describing communication
of diese insights and for embodiment of them in the life of God's
people also derives specifically from the intellectual traditions of
Hellenistic philosophy.
2. The Wisdom of Solomon
There are many points of basic similarity between the world-view
expressed in Sirach and that set forth in the Wisdom of Solomon, as
well as some distinctive features in die latter document. The Spirit of
God not only pervades the world (as does the law of nature), but is
'that which holds all things together' (1.7). After denouncing die
hedonism and self-serving Hfestyle of the wicked (1.16-2.20), the
author notes that they did not know die mysteries of God (mysteria
theou) (2.22), and failed to realize that God created human beings 'in
the image of his own eternity' (2.23). In die present, as described in
Stoic thought, they undergo testing and discipline (3.5), but 'those
who trust him will understand truth, and the faithful will abide in his
love' (3.9). The highest value is virtue, arete, in recollection of which
is immortality, athanasia, the guarantee of dieir future (4.1).
Unlike Sirach, but resembling cultural and conceptual developments
in the Hellenistic world, the relationship with wisdom is pictured in
mystical terms which use sexual imagery to represent the union of the
K E E Appropriating
51
seeker and wisdom. In 6.17-20, the yearning for wisdom is described
as the most authentic (alethestate) desire (epithumia) for wisdom. Love
of her is devotion to paideia, which manifests itself in 'the keeping of
her laws'. That leads to immortality, which 'brings one near to God'.
It is 'desire for wisdom' diat leads to a share in the kingdom. What
God communicates to those who are devoted to wisdom is
unerring knowledge of what is (ton ontdn), to know the suiicture of the
world (sustasin kosmou) and the activity of the elements (energeian
stoicheidn), the beginning and end and middle of times, the alternations of
the solstices and the changes of the seasons, the cycles of the year and the
constellations of the stars, the natures of animals, and the tempers of wild
animals, the powers of spirits [or winds] and the thoughts of human
beings, the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots (7.17-22).
In short, the subject matters of Greek ontology, physics, astronomy,
zoology, botany, cosmology, and theories about human nature. In a
splendid poetic description of wisdom (7.24-8.1), die author pictures
her as a transcendant reality, superior to all human or physical limitations, as 'a breath of the power of God'. This depiction of wisdom
culminates in a series of abstract or philosophical terms which show
the influence of Platonic diought: God as ultimate reality is not visible
to human eyes, but wisdom 'is a pure (eilikrines) emanation (aporroia)
of the glory of die Almighty (pantokrater)...a
rejection
(apaugasma)
of eternal light, an immaculate (akelidoton) reflection {esoptron) of
die divine activity {tes tou theou energeias)'.
In 8.2 the dieme of mystical union with wisdom resumes, only this
time the sexual imagery is even more explicit: 'I loved her and sought
her from my youth; I desired to take her to myself as a bride, and I
became enamored of her beauty'. She enjoys symbiosis widi God, and
is loved by God (8.3), but she is also a mystical initiate (mustis) into
the knowledge (epistemes) of God (8.4). Her labors are virtues (aretai),
and she teaches self-control {sophrosune) and prudence (phronesis),
justice (dikaiosune) and courage (andreian).
Through the training
experience which she provides (suggymnasia) one may gain understanding (phronesis). So desirable is wisdom diat die author declares,
"I went about seeking how I might take her to m y s e l f (8.18).
Speaking as Solomon, in 9.8 the author recalls God's command to
build the temple on the holy mountain, 'and an altar in the city of
[God's] habitation', which he then describes in unmistakably Platonic
terms as 'a copy (mimema) of the holy tent'—the heavenly archetype
52
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
that God had prepared from the beginning.
In more abstract terms, the role of wisdom is summarized in 9.9:
With you is wisdom, she who knows your works and was present when
you made the world;
she understands what is pleasing in your sight and what is right (euthes)
according to your commands.
This role of wisdom corresponds closely to that of logos in the
Republic of Plato, establishing the perfect universal commonwealth,
achieving ultimate justice through universal law, and thereby disciplining human passions. It is wisdom in these capacities who is
pictured at work in human history, through whom 'the paths of those
on earth were set right, and people were taught what pleases you, and
were saved by wisdom' (9.18).
The author proceeds to specify how wisdom was operative in the
historical experiences of Israel, delivering die righteous and punishing
die wicked. It is significant that personal names are not used in these
summaries of the biblical narratives, since what is essential for the
writer is the operation of the wisdom principle rather than the
specifics of historical individuals or experiences. Wisdom cared for
'die first-formed father of the world (kosmos) and gave him strength
to rule all things' (10.1-2), but she also effected punishment on the
'unrighteous man' who killed his brother (10.3). She provided for the
survival of 'die righteous man by a paltry piece of wood' (10.4), and
was the motivating force as well as the source of insight for the patriarchs who are here anonymous (10.5-14). She effected deliverance for
'a holy people and blameless race' (10.15), disciplining them and
instructing them until they came to recognize their leader and their
experiences as the working of God in their behalf (11.1-14). At the
same time, wisdom brought fierce punishment on the foolish, who
worshipped 'irrational serpents and worthless animals' (11.15), in diat
diey failed to realize that God's hand which 'created the world out of
formless matter' was in control of it and of the destiny of human
beings (11.16-20). The mathematical dimensions of the world are
manifestations of God's purpose, since he has 'arranged all things by
measure, number and weight'. Clearly, the physical details of the
creation are of prime importance to the author of this work: God's
'immortal spirit is in all tilings' (11.26).
After detailing the divine judgments that fell on the unnamed
Canaanites (12.3-11) and reaffirming die sovereignty of God (12.12-
K E E Appropriating
53
18), the author asserts that these experiences toolc place as disciplinary
learning for Israel (12.19-23). The error of the neighboring nations
which refused to recognize the God of Israel was that in their idolatry
they worshipped the created things rather than the Creator (12.27;
13.1-3). What they failed to recognize is the cosmological argument
for the existence of God: 'From the greatness and beauty of created
things comes a corresponding (analogos) perception of their Creator
(genesiourgosY
(13.5). The folly of idolatry is spelled out in 1 3 . 1 15.17. Examples of the consequences of idolatry are recalled—without specifying the culprits—in relation to Israel's worshipping the
brass serpent in the wilderness (15.18-16.14) and the Egyptians'
punishment in the form of the plagues (16.15-19). Conversely, God
supplied his people with bread from heaven.
For creation, serving you who made it, exerts itself to punish the
unrighteous,
and is kind through good actions on behalf of those who Uiist in you.
The plague of darkness (on the Egyptians presumably; 17.1-21) is
contrasted with the light that floods God's people (18.1-4), 'through
whom the imperishable light of the law was to be given to the world
{aiony. When the death of the first-born fell on Egypt, Israel was
delivered because they 'agreed with one accord to the divine law'
(18.9). It was God's all-powerful word (pantodunamos
logos) that
leapt from heaven and accomplished the divine purpose. As the
instrument of God, Moses (also unnamed) wore (1) a robe on which
was depicted the whole kosmos, (2) four rows of stones symbolizing
die 'glories of die ancestors', and (3) a diadem which represented the
majesty (jnegalosune) of God (18.24). Aldiough most historical details
are lacking, 19.1-21 describes the acUon of God at the Red Sea as
cosmic in its import: 'For the whole creation in its nature was
fashioned anew, complying with your commands'. The result of die
plagues and the deliverance of Israel at the sea was that 'the elements
(stoicheia) changed places widi one anodier':
For land animals were tfansformcd into water creatures,
and creatures that swim moved over to land.
Fire even in water retained its normal power,
and water forgot its fire-quenching nature.
54
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Flames, on the contrary, failed to consume
the flesh of perishable creatures that walked among them,
nor did they melt the crystalline, quick-melting kind of
heavenly food.
God's ordering of die creation in accord widi his will is an ongoing
process, according to this author, not an accomplished action in the
past. These divine activities are not arbitrary or frivolous, however:
For in everything, O Lord, you have exalted and glorified
your people,
and you have not neglected to help them at all times
and in all places.
For the author of die Wisdom of Solomon, the point in retelling these
stories of die history of Israel is not a romantic recalling of the past
nor is it historic legitimation for the legal and cultic institutions of
Israel. Instead, these depersonalized accounts serve as concrete illustrations of the Creator's ordering of die universe for the welfare of
diose who conform to die divinely established cosmic laws and for die
punishment of those who do not.
3. The Book of Enoch
1 Enoch 1-36 has the features of a typical apocalyptic document:
written by a worthy and faithful member of God's people in the past,
who foresees the day of tribulation that is to come in the future when
God will destroy the wicked and purge the earth, and then renew it
and all of creation for the benefit of the elect. In that time of
fulfilment, the righteous will have the light of the knowledge of God,
will receive wisdom, and will be enabled to live out dieir lives in
peace and happiness (5.8-10). The wicked angels face disaster, however (6.1-9.11), and Enoch's intercession with God in their behalf is
in vain (12.1-13.10). God has given him his insights into the future
(14.1-7), and has taken Enoch up into his presence. From there he can
see how the universe operates, widi the winds turning die heavens and
moving the stars (17.1-19.3), as well as the future destiny of the
fallen stars (21.1-22.14), and the blessed, peaceful, eternal abode of
die righteous (24.1-36.4). There they can 'see die effect of his power,
and praise him in respect to the great work of his hands'.
There is a picture of divine order here in 1 Enoch, but it is not the
manifestation of a structured cosmos operating in accord with an
K E E Appropriating
55
immanent law. Rather, the direct exercise of God's sovereign will is
in control of all that occurs. The major focus is on the future, when
God settles accounts with his creatures.
Similarly, in the Similitudes of Enoch (chs. 37-71) there are pictures
of the coming judgment of the wicked (38) and of the resting place of
the blessed with the Lord of Spirits (39). Wisdom can find no place to
dwell among humans, although her opposite number. Iniquity, does
(42). The agent through whom God defeats the powers of evil and
vindicates the faithful is 'one like a human being' = Son of Man, also
referred to as the Messiah (46-50). This apocalypse purports to be
speaking from the distant past, but there is mention that the land of
God's people will be invaded by the Parthians and the Medes (56.5-8),
which clearly reflects the post-exilic period, or may even point to the
recurrent fear in the Roman period that these people would invade the
eastern provinces of the empire. What is significant is that the literary
stance in the past is of no material importance except that it provides
the platform for the description of the future. In 7 En. 6 5 - 6 9 that
future is depicted through the medium of information which Enoch
provides to Noah concerning the doom of the wicked described in
Genesis 6, where the 'sons of God' (understood to be fallen angels)
took human wives, thereby violating the divinely intended orders of
existence. The result as Enoch describes it (65.6-10) was that this
wicked disclosure of angelic secrets led to the oppressive deeds of
Satan, the exercise of occult powers and the practice of idolatry, and
the exposure to humans of divine knowledge. Noah detests these secret
things (65.11), but what he receives concerns the future; he is
promised that from his descendants will come the kingship of God's
people, and 'a fountain of the righteous and holy ones without number
forever'. The flood will destroy not only wicked humanity but also the
fallen angels as well (67-69). Thus what is presented as a prediction
from Enoch's standpoint is in this document a prophecy of the destruction of the wicked in the end time and the vindication of the faithful remnant. Similarly, the poetic elaboration of the creation story in
69.16-25 is an oracle of the fulfilment of God's purpose in the end of
the age.
The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries (7 En. 72-82) is chiefly concerned with the divine order as evident in the created world, with its
four directions, seven mountains and seven rivers (77-79), the pattern
of the seasons (80), and the disclosure of the divine order in relation
56
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
to astronomy and the calendar. Unlike the concept of natural law,
these evidences of divine order are described in order to give the
reader assurance that God is so completely in control of the universe
that he will bring to fulfilment his promise of punishment for the
wicked and peace for the righteous.
In die Dream Visions (I En. 83-90) there is a series of veiled references to the stages in the history of Israel. Through four heavenly
beings, Enoch is enabled to see the punishment of die fallen stars and
die ultimate destiny of God's people (87-88). The historical process
diat will lead to this outcome is then sketched in veiled symbolic and
metaphorical language, beginning with die flood and moving to the
exodus (89.1-27), proceeding from the exodus to die entrance into the
land of Canaan (89.28-40); from the period of the judges to the
building of the temple (89.41-50); the period of the two kingdoms and
the destruction of Jerusalem (89.51-67); from the exile to the return
and die rebuilding of die temple (89.68-72). Israel is referred to
under the metaphor of die 'sheep', and the temple is a 'lofty building'
or simply a 'house'. Beginning with the return from the exile, however, the descriptions become more detailed. The dispersion of the
sheep among the wild beasts and their harrassment by vultures and
wild birds (89.73-77) obviously depict the dispersion of Jews in
hellenistic times and die difficulties suffered by diem diroughout the
hellenistic world. The final segment (90.6-42) describes in symbolic
language the period from the time of die Maccabees to the taking over
of the land by the Romans and then moves quickly to a portrayal of
the ultimate defeat of the hostile powers and the building of die new
temple, with God's people led by die Messiah, who is pictured as a
snow-white bull widi huge homs and who presides over die herd.
The concluding section of 1 Enoch (91-108) begins widi a typical
apocalyptic description of the growing wickedness of the world which
will lead up to a final judgment and the vindication of the righteous.
Included in this section are fragments of apocalypses that depict the
history of the world as a succession of 'weeks', or ordered epochs. A
brief but complete Apocalypse of Weeks (93) devotes about one verse
to each week, with the result diat none of die historical events depicted
in die epochs can be identified widi certainty. Probably Week 5, which
speaks of 'the completion of glory, a house and a kingdom shall be
built', refers to the Maccabean period. The sixth week in which the
'house of the kingdom is burnt' may come from the post-70 C E
K E E Appropriating
57
destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. The rest of this section of
7 Enoch is taken up with exhortations to the elect to remain faithful
and warnings of the doom of the wicked. Highlighted is the role of
Noah (106-107), whose insight and foresight led him to prepare the
ark for the deliverance of the faithful from judgment. Noah serves as
prototype and symbol of die final salvation of die elect from die endtime judgment diat is soon to fall on die world. The final chapter, 108,
which identifies itself as 'anodier Book of Enoch' simply repeats the
message of encouragement to the faithful to endure to the end of the
age.
In spite of the different times and different audiors from which the
collection we know as the 7 Enoch emerged, its attitude toward die
history of Israel is uniform. The discerning elect, illumined by the
apocalyptic visions that God has granted to chosen instruments, are
able to see the pattern of God's purpose for his people and for the
creation. Special revelation to die elect enables them to understand
what God is doing, to withstand the pressures to disobey God out of a
false sense of gaining advantages by illicit means, and to remain faidiful until the time of God's deliverance of his own. The historical
events are in themselves of no special importance. What is crucial is
the divinely-granted insight into the will and purpose of God.
4. The Acts of the Apostles
Three of the speeches in Acts deal directly with the question how
those who regard Jesus as the Christ are to understand the history of
God's people Israel. The claim of fulfilment of Scripture is present
from the opening chapter, with reference to the outpouring of the
Spirit (announced in 1.4, 8 and fulfilment claimed in 2.17-20, where
Joel 2.28-32 is quoted) and to the defection of Judas from the twelve
(1.15-20; with a paired quotation from Pss. 69.25 and 109.8). Peter's
Pentecost sermon quotes scriptures that he declares to have been
fulfilled by the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus (2.22-34; cf. Pss.
16.8-11; 110.1). It is in Peter's address in the portico of Solomon,
however, that the significance of Jesus is placed within the framework
of the history of Israel, understood from an eschatological perspective
(3.12-26).
The God who is at work dirough Jesus is initially identified as 'the
God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fadiers'
58
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
(3.13). It is he who has raised up from the dead the one whose
sufferings 'God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets' (3.18).
Repentance on the part of those who rejected him is essential in order
that God can inaugurate the new epoch that is in store for his people:
'So that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord'
(3.19). Meanwhile, 'heaven must receive' Jesus 'until the time for
establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of all his holy prophets
from old' (3.21). Both the coming of diis ultimate prophet and the
dire consequences of failure to heed him and his message were foretold in die Scriptures (Deut. 18.15-16, 19; Lev. 23.29). Response to
him is the ultimate criterion for identity of God's people. Peter tells
his hearers diat they stand in the tradition of die prophets and especially of God's covenant with Abraham ('You are the sons of the
prophets and of die covenant which God gave to your fadiers'), but
die potential participants in the benefits of diis covenant are the entire
human race, since God said 'to Abraham, "In your posterity shall all
die families of die earth be blessed'" (3.25; Gen. 22.18). The genetic
descendants of Abraham are diose to whom God has sent his messenger 'first' (3.26). In short, Jesus is die criterion by which participation
in the eschatological purpose of God is decided. The community of
faith consists of all diose—Jews or Gentiles—who see in die crucified
and risen Jesus the agent of God for renewal of his people and of the
creation. What impact does this conviction have on the interpretation
of die history of Israel?
The first and most detailed address on this theme is the speech of
Stephen (Acts 7.1-51). Abraham was shown die land of promise by
God, but was never able to possess 'even a foot's length' of it (7.5).
His offspring through Isaac, Jacob and the twelve patriarchs were illtreated by die Egyptians for 400 years (Gen. 15.13-14; Exod. 12.40).
Yet die fulfilment of die covenantal promise to Abraham was affirmed
in spite of the seeming delays, and Abraham's response to the covenant
was given concrete expression in the distinctive sign, circumcision
(Acts 7.8). The future orientation of the covenant is expressed in 7.17,
where Stephen remarks that 'as die time of promise drew near, which
God had granted to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied' until
the Egyptians began the oppression of the Israelites that led to their
deliverance by God in die events of the exodus. Even as these divine
actions were being readied, die covenant people 'did not understand...
that God was giving them deliverance by his hand' (7.25). The
K E E Appropriating
59
promise of deliverance was made explicit to Moses (7.32-34): 'I have
come down to deliver them', but Moses' leadership under God as both
'ruler and deliverer' was refused by the people (7.35). Stephen recalls
that Moses had promised that God would raise up for them a prophet
as he had raised up Moses (7.38; Deut. 18.15). When the 'living
oracles' of the law were delivered to Moses by God on Mt Sinai, the
people 'refused to obey him', asking instead that Aaron provide them
with gods (7.39). God allowed them to 'worship die host of heaven'
(7.42), as Amos had subsequently noted (Amos 5.25-27). Although the
people had the visible sign of God's presence with them in the tent
which Moses was instructed to make, which Joshua took into the land
of promise, which David proposed to replace with a permanent house
of God and which Solomon actually erected, Stephen notes that 'the
Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands', and quotes
Scripture (Isa. 66.1-2) to support his point. In short, die history of
Israel is one of persistent misunderstanding and refusal to wait until
God's time for the fulfilment of the covenant promises. Even the
people's continuation of the practice of circumcision is a matter of
self-deceit on their part, since they are 'uncircumcized in heart and
ears' (7.51; Exod. 33.3, 5; Jer. 9.26). That is, dieir wills are predisposed against the purposes of God and they are unable to hear and
heed his message to them. Their history is one of rejection of God's
message and the murder of God's agents and messengers—a hostile
stance diat has reached its climax in their rejection of Jesus (7.52-53).
It is wholly appropriate diat Stephen declares the ultimate confirmation of diis critical assessment of die history of Israel by his vision of
Christ exalted as Son of Man at die right hand of God, in fulfilment of
Psalms 8 and 10.
A much gentler version of this thesis of Stephen about Israel's
history is offered by Paul in his sermon at the synagogue in Antioch
of Pisidia in Acts 13. God is seen as having chosen the covenant
people and made diem great during their stay in Egypt (13.17), and as
having bom with them and cared for them during the forty years in
die wilderness (13.18). He provided diem widi the land, and with
judges and finally a king to rule over diem there (13.19-20). It is an
heir of David whom God has now sent to them as a savior, yet the
people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize him nor
understand the utterances of the prophets concerning him which they
had heard read weekly. In condemning him, they fulfilled the
60
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Scriptures and brought about what God had promised to the fathers
(13.23-32). The message that Paul brings to them he identifies as 'what
God promised to the fathers', and then proceeds to declare it to have
been fulfilled by the resurrection of Jesus (Ps. 2.7; Isa. 55.3; Ps. 16.10).
These promises were not fulfilled by David, who died and whose body
decayed. Rather, forgiveness of sins is available for all who trust in
Jesus, as is freedom, which the law of Moses cannot provide (7.3639). Even the hostile response of some of his hearers is in fulfilment
of Scripture, Paul declares, quoting Hab. 1.5 and then Isa. 49.6 to
justify the extension of the invitation to Gentiles to share in the light
of the knowledge of God's purpose through Jesus (7.47). In the purpose of God, Jews were to be the first to hear this message, but now
they reject it and judge themselves 'unworthy of eternal life'. It is
those who 'were ordained to eternal life' who believe the message
(7.48), just as it is the Lord's command that Paul and his associates
now 'turn to die Gentiles'.
What Acts reports Paul as saying here is not a rejection of the
Scriptures or of the covenantal tradition that is embodied in it, but
stands rather in the later prophetic tradition of Israel, with its emphasis on eschatological expectation of fulfilment of the divine promises
to Israel. Paul here declares diat diose who claim to be the people of
God have failed to comprehend the full range of what God promised
to their ancestors and what he has now done through Jesus in fulfilment of diose promises. The extension to die Gentiles of the invitation
to share in God's people is not a radical innovation but is instead the
culmination of what God announced beforehand through die prophets.
The problem is with the failure of diose who see themselves as heirs
of the covenant to heed and accept what God has told them. Paul's
message assumes the unity and continuity of God's purpose as
disclosed through the Scriptures throughout die history of Israel.
5. The Letter to the Hebrews
In the opening lines of die Letter to die Hebrews, the author discloses
two factors of primary importance for the subject of our research:
(1) he asserts the basic continuity between the self-disclosure of God
to his people in the ancient times ('of old') and the revelation in his
'Son* (1.1-2). (2) He uses technical terms from Greek philosophy in
his description of die relationship of Jesus to God, thereby disclosing
K E E Appropriating
61
to the reader his ontological and epistemological assumptions. The Son
is the effulgence (apaugasma)
of the divine glory and the distinguishing visible evidence (character) of the divine essence. This philosophical understanding of reality is further specified in 8.1-5, where
the role of the earthly priest is contrasted with that of Jesus as the
archetypal high priest, in that the former deals with earthly, physical,
temporally limited copies of the eternal, primary model of the sanctuary in heaven. The distinction tiie author is making in the Platonic
tradition between eternal archetypes and ephemeral copies could
scarcely be more explicit. The same distinction is made widi regard to
Jesus' offering of himself in the heavenly sanctuary, in contrast to the
repeated sacrifices made by die priests in die earthly shrine (9.23-24).
Similarly, the law—important as it is—is only the 'shadow of the
good things to come' (lO.I). What die author has done is to combine
Platonic ontology, which distinguishes between timeless archetypes
and timebound copies, with an eschatological view that contrasts
historical past and present with future fulfilment of the divine purpose. Hence it is not the repeated offerings of the temple cultus but the
once-for-all sacrifice of Christ which brings perfection to his people
(10.11-14).
Faidi dierefore is the ability to perceive the ultimate, timeless realities which God has disclosed through Jesus. They must be sharply
differentiated from the imperfect, ephemeral copies which the historic
sacrificial system of Israel embodied. In 11.1-2 die author defines
faith as the self-existent, basic substance of what is hoped for, and the
demonstration or proof of things which are not seen—either not yet,
or archetypal and hence invisible to mortal eyes. That point is
confirmed when he writes that in creation the word of God effected
the change from the eternal archetypes to the temporal copies of
earthly phenomena, 'so diat what is seen [by human eye] was made out
of things which are not visible [i.e., the eternal form]'. It is against
this ontological and epistemological set of assumptions that die author
goes on to describe the faidi of worthies from Israel's past.
God's acceptance of Abel's sacrifice is not only a fact of die past but
is a continuing witness, so that 'through his faidi [Abel] is still speaking*, diereby attesting to the eternal reality of true sacrifice (11.4).
Enoch's having been taken up to God without die experience of deadi
shows how essential faith is, since one must 'believe that he exists' in
spite of the lack of any tangible, physical evidence, and that 'he
62
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
rewards diose who seek him' across die boundaries that separate the
transitory world from die realm of eternity (11.5-6). Similarly, Noah
trusted what God told him about the future, even though diere there
was no human basis for such an expectation. His action in building the
ark was a negative judgment on this ephemeral, material world and an
act of faith through which he participated in the transcendent reality
(11.7). Abraham left his native land and went to live a humanly
uncertain but divinely assured way of life in 'the land of promise',
where his descendants, Isaac and Jacob, also resided. Their confidence
was not in what they possessed, but in what God had said. Abraham
did not seek to establish a human society or governmental system, but
looked to God to built his polls (11.8-10). Similarly, Sarah had no
human basis for expecting offspring, but by trust in the divine promise there came from her one whose progeny are innumerable (11.12).
Moses refused to accept the humanly-proffered position of power as
Pharaoh's son, preferring 'to share ill-treatment with the people of
God' and to embark on die journey of faidi. He was enabled to do so
because he 'endured as seeing him who is invisible' (11.23-27).
It was this sort of faidi diat enabled the Israelites to cross die Red
Sea, to capture the walled city of Jericho and to accomplish all the
other marvels that are summarized in 11.32-38. In each case they
were able to see beyond die immediate situation and die merely human
resources. The author summarizes, 'These, though well attested by
dieir faidi, did not receive what was promised, since God had foreseen
something better for us' (11.39). That 'something' was Jesus, who is
described as the prototype or primary model (archegos) and the one
who completes and accomplishes God's purpose, the (teleidtes) 'of our
faith'. He persevered through suffering and death, and has already
attained the place of highest honor 'at the right hand of the throne of
God' (12.1-2). By faith, God's new people need no longer merely
look forward in hope to the fulfilment of God's purpose. They have
already 'come to Mount Zion and to the city of die living God, the
heavenly (epoMran/os) Jerusalem...to the assembly of the first-born
who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, to the
spirits of the righteous who are now made complete (teleios), and to
Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant...' (12.22-24). Proleptically,
die new community of faith has access to and in the present age is
already living widiin the context of eternal reality. The experiences of
men and women of faith in the days of ancient Israel anticipated diat
K E E Appropriating
63
ideal context and reladonship, and the stories of them are to be
understood accordingly. What characterizes all these figures from the
ancient history of Israel is that they 'all died in faith, not having
received the things that were promised, but having seen and greeted
diem from afar, they acknowledged their existence as aliens and exiles
in the earth' ( 1 1 . 1 3 ) . They sought a homeland (patris), and desire one
diat is better than the geographic, terrestrial space where they resided:
namely a celesdal realm, a polls prepared for diem by God. The
dimensions of this faithful hope are a blend of die ontological and die
eschatological, of ultimate reality and divinely fulfilled promises
which together are seen as constituting a new order for God's people.
6. Conclusion
Although the five writers reviewed in this essay drew upon the same
basic biblical material—die stories of die patriarchs and die exodus, of
die conquest of Canaan and the establishment of die monarchy—diey
each interpret the stories in ways they serve their own distinctive ends
in their own specific time and cultural circumstances. In each case
there are overarching assumptions about God and the creation, about
human knowledge, about divine purpose for the creation, and for
God's people. In each case cultural and social conditions of the
writer's time influence directly and pervasively the ways in which the
biblical material is understood and its meaning inferred.
At the height of the epoch when Hellenistic culture was having
maximum and widespread influence on Jewish thinking, the assumptions of Sirach about reality and the work of God in die world were
powerfully shaped by the dominant philosophy of that time: Stoicism.
Immanent law is seen as the divine force at work within the created
order, and its oral dimensions are evident in die Mosaic law, to which
God's people are called to obedience. When the system of Platonic
ontology becomes a significant cultural force in the Roman period, the
nature of creation and die sense of the divine movement within history
as exemplified by the history of Israel are perceived as temporal
manifestations in human experience of ultimate reality which remains
hidden from ordinary view in the eternal sphere. This way of diinking
is apparent in the interpretation of Israel's history in the Jewish
Wisdom of Solomon and die Christian Letter to the Hebrews.
The theme of eschatological fulfilment of the prophetic promises of
64
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
God shapes the thought of the sermons in Acts. The future of God's
people has been foreseen by the prophets, and God is asserted to be at
work through Jesus effecting the fulfilment of that plan for the
renewal and vindication of his people. What God has purposed was
announced through the prophets, but its implications involve alt
human beings who see in Jesus the agent of God to bring that purpose
to fhiition. Stephen emphasizes the judgmental aspects of this point of
view, on condemning the insensitivity and unbelief of historic Israel,
while Paul underscores the inclusive potential of the message about
what God has begun to do through Jesus.
Reaction to aggressive pagan culture and to the determined efforts
of Hellenistic rulers to conform Jewish life and diought to die GrecoRoman patterns is the potent force that contributed to the rise of
apocalyptic, as is evident in such writings as Daniel and I Enoch.
God's will for and through his people can triumph only beyond cataclysmic judgment which will bring to an end the present dominant
socio-cultural order. With the end of that structure and the political
power that seeks to impose it on God's people, the faithful elect community will be vindicated. To them alone has God granted insights
into his past and present activity in behalf of his own people.
Thus it is not the choice of biblical material for interpretation and
application that is determinative, but the life-world of assumptions and
values which are operative in the minds of interpreters and their
intended readers.
'PACIFISM' A N D 'PASSIVE RESISTANCE' IN
APOCALYPTIC WRITINGS: A CRITICAL EVALUATION
Gordon
Zerbe
Numerous early Jewish and New Testament writings emerged in
response to the specific crises of violent persecution at the hands of
oppressive foreign and/or imperial rule. In recent scholarship four
apocalyptic writings in particular, namely Daniel, the Testament of
Moses, Revelation and 2 Baruch, have been identified as promoting
the stance of 'passive resistance' or 'pacificism' in response to this
situation.' These writings express a fervent hope for the final defeat
and punishment of these oppressors and lack any explicit rejection of
military resistance. Nevertheless, it is argued that they recommend
deferring diis vengeance to God and God's special agents, oppose the
opdon of armed resistance, and favor the stance of endurance, suffering
and martyrdom.
The purpose of diis essay is to review the evidence in favor of diis
interpretation, given the presence of ambiguous evidence and alternative explanations. This essay, therefore, will contribute to the question of whether or not there is continuity in the political perspective
between certain apocalyptic writings of Early Judaism, including the
Pseudepigrapha, and those of the New Testament.
Before we examine the evidence of these particular documents,
however, some questions must be raised regarding the meaning and
descriptive adequacy of terms such as 'pacifism' and 'passive resistance' to characterize the political perspective of groups or the
writings in question. In the literature on the writings under investigation, 'pacifism' and 'passive or nonviolent resistance' are generally
1. See esp. J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM,
16; Missoula. MT: Scholars Press, 1977), pp. 191-222; A. Yarbro Collins, 'The
Political Perspective of the Revelation to John', JBL 96 (1977), pp. 241-56;
F.J. Murphy, '2 Baruch and the Romans', JBL 104 (1985), pp. 663-69.
66
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
used interchangeably. This leads to some unclarity. In common usage,
'pacifism' entails the principled rejection of violent or armed resistance,^ To describe a perspective as 'advocating passive resistance',
however, is less precise and somewhat misleading. First, the action of
people whose stance is so described may not be strictly passive,
possibly entailing ideological resistance through pedagogy (the
maskilim of Daniel), non-cooperation, or non-violent protest.' Thus
the language of 'non-violent resistance' is perhaps more apt. Secondly,
this perspective may entail the preference for or use of non-violent
forms of resistance, not necessarily the categorical rejection of armed
resistance. Thus in the discussion to follow, it will be necessary to ask
not merely if a given document advocates 'passive or nonviolent resistance', but also if it goes so far as to advocate 'pacifism'.
In this connection, the language of 'quietism' and 'non-resistance'
must also be evaluated, since these terms are also used to describe the
perspective of some of the writings under investigation. These terms
focus on the response of withdrawal and passivity, and do not necessarily describe a form of resistance. While such stances might be
motivated by a 'pacifistic' ideology, this is not necessarily so. Sometimes such a perspective is motivated on pragmatic grounds, for
instance, by the interest of 'taming' unconquerable and ruthless power
instead of provoking certain destruction."
We turn, then, to consider the four writings identified.
The Book of Daniel
The book of Daniel was most likely produced in the circles of certain
maskilim, 'wise teachers', who were leading the faithful in resisting
the Hellenizing reforms instituted under Antiochus IV Epiphanes.'
2. In this discussion, we are limiting ourselves to a discussion of options from
the perspective of responding to oppressive powers, and are not referring to the
possible use or rejection of arms for purposes other than resistance to such powers.
3. For examples of non-violent protest by individuals or groups in first-century
Palestine, see esp. R.A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish
Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco; Harper & Row, 1987), pp. 61-120.
4. This is Philo's perspective, as evident esp. in Somn. 2.78-92. See further
G. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical
Themes in Social Contexts (JSPSup, 13; Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), ch. 2.
5. Collins. Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 207-14; idem, Daniel with an Introduction
to Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 36-38.
Z E R B E 'Pacificism'and'Passive
Resistance'
67
Among the faithful who stand firm and take action' (11.34), these
maskilim are described as 'giving understanding to many' (11.33),
'leading many to righteousness' (12.3), and 'falling by sword and
flame, by captivity and plunder' (11.33).* Through the publication of
the book of Daniel, the maskilim exhort their fellow Jews to remain
steadfast to the covenant in the face of persecution, especially by
helping them understand their situation in broad apocalyptic perspective. The readers are assured of the imminent and final victory of God
and his heavenly army over the forces of evil.
The interpretation that Daniel also promotes the stance of passive
resistance in direct opposition to the armed resistance of the
Maccabees is based variously on the following lines of evidence. First,
some who take this view argue that the reference to 'little help' that
the persecuted faithful receive in 11.34 represents an ironic and disparaging comment regarding the Maccabees.'' Secondly, the supposed
derivation of Daniel from the circles of the Hasidim, interpreted as a
peace-minded group during the Hellenistic crisis, is used to support
die pacifisdc interpretadon.* Thirdly, 11.14 is seen as a disparagement
of violent mediods: 'sons of violence {b'ne parisim) among your own
people shall rise u p to establish a vision {I'ha '"mid hazon); but they
6. There is some ambiguity in 11.32-35 and 12.3, 10 as to the precise
description of the maskilim in relation to the rabbim, 'the many*, whom they teach.
Dan. 11.33-35 and 12.3 seem to describe the maskilim as a specific group, while
12.10 seems to identify the maskilim with the 'many' who understand. Moreover,
there is ambiguity in the third person pronouns in 11.33-34. It is uncertain whether
those who fall are limited to the maskilim or inclusive of 'the many'; and it is unclear
whether those who die are to be identified as the masklim and/or as the faithful
'many' (cf. 12.10).
7. E.g. J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book
of Daniel (ICC; New York: Scribner's, 1927), p. 458; A. Bentzen. Daniel (HAT, 19;
Tubingen: Mohr. 2nd edn, 1952), p. 87; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 11
(trans. D. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row. 1965), p. 315; G.W.E. Nickelsburg,
Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1981), pp. 90, 94; D.S. Russell. Daniel (Philadelphia: Westminster Pi«ss, 1981),
pp. 208-209; A. Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (tfans. D. Pellauer; Atlanto: John
Knox, 1979),p. 230 n.50;K. Koch. DoiS«c/i Don/W(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft. 1980), p. 165.
8. E.g. O. Ploger. Theocracy and Eschatology (tfans. S. Rudman; Richmond,
VA: John Knox. 1968). pp. 14-17; M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I (trans.
J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), pp. 176-78; Lacocque. Daniel,
pp. 7-8, 230.
68
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
shall fall'.' Fourthly, and foremost in recent treatments, it is argued
that the description of the final drama shows that the book 'opts for a
purely passive role vis-a-vis the oppressive power'.'" (a) The depiction of the final apocalyptic drama represents a distinctive appropriation of the holy war tradition. The author does not bring to mind the
historic battles of Joshua and David, but uses the ancient combat myth
to interpret the current situation and to point to its imminent resolution, (b) The emphasis is on the direction acdon and intervendon by
God (7.10-11, 26; 8.25; 9.27) and die heavenly annies (11.45-12.1).
The reference to God's deliverance 'by no human hand' (8.25; cf.
2.34, 45) in particular is seen as having 'a polemical ring to it, given
die historical context'." (c) The elect do not play an active role in die
final batde. Since the activity of Judas Maccabeus was contemporaneous with the writing of Daniel, such an omission is seen as 'an
expression of opposition to die Maccabean revolt'.'^ The proper role
of the elect includes 'standing firm' (which means keeping the
covenant, 11.32), 'making many wise' (11.33), suffering (11.35) and
'waiting' (12.12). The stance recommended to the elect, then, is that
of endurance and waiting (12.12); diere is no call to armed resistance.
In response to the first argument, it must be observed that Dan. 11.34
is actually rather o b s c u r e . " J.J. Collins argues, against the majority of
interpreters, that the 'little help' refers not to the Maccabees, but to
those few among the 'many' who respond to instiiiction and join the
efforts of die maskilim (11.33a, 34b)."' While the 'little help' probably refers to the Maccabees, as the majority of interpreters hold,
there is no reason to suppose diat diis reference reflects a disparagement because of their violent methods. H.H. Rowley considers the
reference an indication diat the author actually supports the Maccabean
9. My translation. For tiiis interpretation, see e.g. J.A. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees
(AB, 41; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 43-44.
10. Yarbro Collins. 'Political Perspective', p. 243; similarly Collins,
Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 191-222; Lacocque, Daniel, p. 230 n. 50.
11. Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 244.
12. Yarbro Collins. 'Political Perspective', p. 244.
13. Yarbro Collins ('Political Perspective', p. 244) concedes this. For a review
of proposals regarding the meanings of various parts of this verse, see
V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (trans. S. Applebaum; New
York: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959; repr. New York: Atheneum,
1982). p. 477; Lacocque, Daniel, p. 230.
14. Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, p. 207.
ZERBE 'Pacificism'and'PassiveResistance'
69
uprising while not building his hopes on i t . " Arguing similarly,
V. Tcherikover claims diat 11.34 reflects the fact that the Hasidim,
whom he sees as a scribal group and the circle from which the book
of Daniel emerged, were the main leaders in the resistance to
Andochus and diat die Maccabees provided diem with some support.'*
Dan. 11.34 remains somewhat obscure and hence cannot be used as
clear evidence that the book of Daniel promotes a pacifisdc stance in
opposition to the resistance of the Maccabees.
The supposed derivation of Daniel from the circles of the Hasidim
also cannot be used to support a pacifistic reading of Daniel. First,
recent research has shown tiiat the scanty information on the Hasidim
makes it nearly impossible to reconstruct a useful profile of this group,
if indeed it can be considered a well-defined g r o u p . " Secondly, the
available texts cannot sustain the traditional reconstruction that the
Hasidim were a peace-minded group who joined with the Maccabees
reluctantly and withdrew from the alliance as soon as religious
freedoms were established.'* 2 Mace. 14.6 refers to the Hasidim as
rebellious Jews in general, whose leader was Judas Maccabeus.
1 Maccabees distinguishes the Hasidim from the Maccabees, apparendy to glorify the role of the Maccabees in the resistance, but still
sees them as 'mighty warriors (ischuroi dunamei) of Israel' who
fought alongside die Maccabees (2.42). The account of die Hasidim's
peace mission in I Mace. 7.8-17, which must also be read in terms of
its likely Hasmonean bias," explains die pursuit of peace as emerging
from the Hasidim's acceptance of die priestly credentials of Alcimus,
not from any rejection of fighting. Thirdly, the identification of the
15. H.H. Rowley. The Relevance of Apocalyptic (tiew York: Association
Press, 3rd edn, 1963), pp. 21, 108; see also Russell, Daniel, p. 209.
16. Tciierikover, Hellenistic
Civilization,
pp. 198, 477 n. 37. H. Sahlin
('Antiochus IV Epiphanes und Judas MakkabSus*, 5T23 [1969], pp. 41-68) makes
Daniel a supporter of the Maccabean resistance by going too far in identifying Judas
the 'son of man*.
17. See esp. P. Davies, 'Hasidim in the Maccabean Period', JJS 28 (1977).
pp. 127-40; similarly Horsley, Spiral of Violence, pp. 66-68.
18. See e.g. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, pp. 196-98; W.R. Farmer,
'Hasideans', IDB, II, p. 528; Horsley, Spiral of Violence . pp. 66-67.
19. In the parallel account in 2 Mace. 14. Judas participates in the negotiations,
something which I Maccabees may have wanted to suppress; see e.g. Davies,
'Hasidim', pp. 137-38; Horsley, Spiral of Violence, pp. 66-67; cf. Goldstein,
7 Maccabees, pp. 88, 330-36.
70
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Hasidim with the refugees in the caves who were slaughtered on the
Sabbath because of their refusal to fight (1 Mace. 2.29-41) cannot
contribute to a pacifistic profile of the Hasidim. This identification has
no textual basis;^" and the refusal of the refugees to fight was based on
their Sabbath convictions, a feature of their zeal for the Law.^' As
Tcherikover puts it, 'The very fact that the soldiers saw fit to attack
them on the seventh proves convincingly that on any other day they
could have expected stiu-dy resistance'."
The reference in 11.14 to 'sons of violence' who rise up alludes to
aid that certain Jews gave Antiochus during the uprisings against the
Egyptians during the reign of Ptolemy V, which culminated in the
defeat of the Egyptians by the Seleucids at Paneas around 200 BCE
(11.15-16).^' Little is known of this Jewish uprising. It was probably
led by a pro-Seleucid and Hellenizing faction which had hopes of
completely throwing off the foreign yoke and thus of fulfilling the
prophetic predictions ('to estabHsh a vision', 11.14).^" The author
identifies this group as 'son of violence', either as a disparagement of
the character of this group as opportunists and Hellenizers or because
of their violent rebellious activity. While this text may reflect an
opposition to armed resistance as a matter of principle and faith, it
remains somewhat obscure.
The primary evidence for the pacifistic interpretation, as hi. Collins
and A. Yarbro Collins concede,^' rests in the depiction of the final
drama and the role of the elect in it. On the positive side, the presentation of Daniel is indeed striking when it is contrasted with the military,
synergistic ideology of other groups and writings, particularly those
that are apocalyptic in character. Accounts or depictions of the
Hellenistic crisis that exhibit a synergistic ideology, in which human
military action works in concert with the divine and heavenly action.
20. See esp. Davies, 'Hasidim', pp. 133-34.
21. On the restriction against making war on tlie Sabbath, cf. Jub. 50.12; 2
Mace. 6.11. For the refusal of some militants to fight on the Sabbath, see Josephus,
War 2.16.4 §392; Ant 14.4.2 §63; R. North, 'The Maccabean Sabbatical Years',
Bib 34 (1953). pp. 501-15.
22. Tcherikover. Hellenistic Civilization, p. 198.
23. See Josephus, Ant. 12.3.3 §129-44; Ucocque, Daniel, p. 224.
24. See e.g. Lacocque, Daniel, p. 224. He points to Ezek. 13.6-7, which speaks
about the 'vision of falsehood' (mah'zeh-saw'') perpeuated in the name of God.
25. See above, n. 10.
Resistance'
71
are evident in 1 Maccabees,^* 2 Maccabees," Judith,^* Jubilees 2 3 , ^ '
the Animal Apocalypse
(1 En. 8 5 - 9 0 ) , ' " and the Apocalypse
of Weeks
(1 En. 9 3 . 1 - 1 0 ; 9 1 . 1 1 - 1 7 ) . "
26. Divine vengeance is enacted by human agents (1 Mace. 2.40,50,66-68; 3.38,43-44), even though the victories are possible only through God's help (3.18-22;
4.8-11). i t is not on the size of the army that victory in battle depends, but strength
comes from Heaven... [Heaven] will crush them before us' (3.19,22, RSV). For the
specific ways in which the exploits of Judas are based on Old Testament paradigms
of holy war, see Yarbro Collins, "Political Perspective', pp. 242-43; Collins,
Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 195-97. On the motif of decisive help from God/Heaven,
cf. IQM 11.1-6, 17; 12.4-10; 13.14-16; 18.13-19.2. A long-standing view at
Qumran is that the elect must take the stance of passivity, subservience and nonretaliation in relation to oppressors in the present order of time, but will take an active
role in the battle against the enemies of God once the final day of vengeance arrives
(1QS9.12-23, 25; 10.17-21; II.1-2; IQM). For a discussion of this perspective, see
Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, ch. 3.
27. The Maccabean victory comes through the manly fighting of Judas and his
warriors (2 Mace. 2.19-22; cowards desert, 8.13), but only because aid came from
God (2.21; 5.1-4; 8.16-20, 23-24. 34; 9.4, 8; 10.29-31; 15.21-23) who was moved
from anger to mercy (2.22; 5.20; 7.33, 38; 8.5, 29). Although the calamity came
because of Israel's sins (6.12-17; 7.18, 32), God was moved because of the blood
of the martyrs and their appeal for vengeance, because of the Temple, and because of
the deeds of blasphemy (7.17, 19, 29, 31, 35-37; 8.2-4).
28. Judith stresses that military victory depends on help from God, not military
might. Its central assertion is apparent in Judith's prayer: 'For your power depends
not upon numbers, nor your might upon men of strength. For you are God of the
lowly, helper of the oppressed, upholder of the weak, protector of the forlorn, savior
of those without help" (9.11, RSV).
29. Jub. 23 supports the use of the sword against apostates (23.20; cf. 1 Mace.
2.44; 3 Mace. 7.10-15; / En. 91.11-12) and claims that time of peace will arrive
when the people 'will drive out their enemies' with God's help (23.30-31). On
internal grounds, Jub. 23 dates to around 168 BCE; and the entire book probably
dates between 161 and 140; see O.S. Wintermute, OTP, II, p. 44.
30. Judas is celebrated as a mighty warrior (90.9, 10, 13) who is helped by
Michael (90.14, 17) and by the Lord himself who comes in wrath against Israel's
enemies (90.15, 18). The final victory comes when the people are given 'a great
sword' in order to destroy all their enemies (90.19, 34). On internal grounds the
Animal Apocalypse can be dated between 164 and 160 (Nickelsburg, Jewish
Literature, p. 93) or before the recapture of Jerusalem and the rededication of the
Temple (M. Black, 77ie Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP, 7; Uiden: Brill. 1985),
p. 2 0 ) .
31. The faithful during the Antiochian crisis will destroy sinners and cut off the
roots of oppression (91.11a). 1 £n. 91.1 lb, where it is said that the elect destroy
72
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
On the other hand, there are serious Hmitations to this evidence.
First, the argument is mainly one from silence, insofar as it is the lack
of synergistic militant ideology, particularly the lack of any role for
the elect in final battle, that is noted. It is argued that the historical
context, namely the contemporaneous activity of Judas Maccabeus,
makes this omission significant. In response, however, one can argue
that the author may in fact see a certain limited value in armed resistance (11.34). Moreover, one can argue that if indeed the author is
attempting to demarcate alternative methods of resistance and to reject
armed mediods in particular, one would expect a more explicit rejection of violent resistance (cf. Mt. 26.51-53; Jn 18.36). That is, die
omission of any rejection of armed resistance is probably more
significant than the omission of any active role for the elect in die final
apocalyptic drama. The alternative, of course, is that the author
simply favors 'passive resistance' and does not reject armed resistance.
Secondly, the emphasis on the transcendent power of God who
accomplishes his purpose 'by no human hand' need not represent a
polemic against the Maccabees. The author may not be condemning
armed resistance as such, but may be claiming that real help is with
God, and for this reason also calls the action of the Maccabees 'little
help' (11.34). Similarly, the focus on Michael as the supreme deliverer
(12.1) may not be intended to rule out human participation in the
conflict. Indeed, the two-storey conception which affirms that the
decisive batdes are waged in die heavenly arena is also characteristic
of writings that display a synergistic, military ideology'^ and so does
not specifically indicate a pacifistic perspective.
Thirdly, the emphasis of the posture of the elect as remaining faidiful to the covenant and being willing to die on its behalf expresses a
theme that was also fundamental to the Maccabean movement.'' The
sinners and oppression with the sword, is lacking in 4QEn^ and may be a later
expansion; see Black, / Enoch, p. 292. The final victory comes when the faithful are
given a sword for the destruction of sinners and oppressors (91.12). Black (/ Enoch,
pp. 20, 293) supposes that the Apocalypse of Weeks should be dated to before the
rededication of the Temple; J.J. Collins {Apocalyptic Imagination [New York:
Crossroad, 1984], p. 49) dates it before 160. Cf. also / En. 95.3; 96.1; 98.12 for
synergistic holy war motifs. Collins (Apocalyptic, pp. 55-56) notes that the Animal
Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks affirm a 'militant role for the righteous*.
32. On the two-storey conception of military conflict, see e.g. Isa. 24.21-23;
1 Mace. 7.41-42; 2 Mace. 2.21; 5.1-4; 10.29-31; 15.8-16. See further nn. 26-28.
33. See esp. I Mace. 1.62-63; 2.19-68, esp. 2.50.
Resistance'
73
belief that martyrdom on behalf of the covenant would have an
atoning effect for the community and the individual (11.35; 12.10)
was also held by those who favored military resistance.'*
Fourthly, it is not entirely accurate to say that the role of elect in
die final conflict is purely passive. Instead, die faithful 'stand firm and
take action' (11.32). This reference is also rather ambiguous. While
die language of 'standing firm' seems to refer especially to remaining
faithful to die covenant (cf. 11.30-32a)," 'taking action* is inappropriately limited to the task of instruction.'* 'Taking action' refers to the
response of all the faithful, while instruction is the special vocation of
die maskilim (11.33; 12.3). Indeed, since die language of 'taking
action' i'sh) throughout the visions refers especially to military
action,'^ it seems unwarranted to rule out the possibility that 'taking
action' might include military resistance. Fidelity to die covenant and
armed resistance are closely related in contemporaneous texts.'*
The preceding rejoinders point to the ambiguous nature of the
evidence. T w o final features of the text, however, must also be
assessed: a possible allusion in 12.12 to die Isaianic tradition of taking
the stance of trust and waiting in view of God's exclusive prerogative
for security and defense; and the modelling of the action and fate of
the maskilim on diat of the suffering servant of Isaiah.
A makarism placed nearly at the end of die book affirms: 'Blessed
i'asre) is the one who waits (hamhakeh) and comes to the thousand
diree-hundred and thirty-five days' (12.12, RSV). This blessing seems
to recall die language of Isa. 30.18: 'Blessed i'asre) are all diose who
wait {kol hoke) for [ Y a h w e h ] ' . " In Isaiah, diis blessing functions to
34. See e.g. 2 Mace. 6-8. In 1 Maccabees what stays God's wrath (e.g. 1.64)
are Mattathias's 'zeal for the Law' (2.23-26; Nickelsburg, Jewish
Literature,
pp. 114-15) and the military action of Judas (3.3-8). For martyrdom among the
'Zealots', see M. Hengel, Die Zeloten (AGJU, 1; Uiden: Brill. 1961), pp. 261-76
('Die Bereitschaft zum Martyrium').
35. Thus Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 244.
36. Contra Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 208, 213.
37. See esp. 8.4, 12, 24; 11.3. 7, 16. 24, 39. The combination of 'standing
firm' (hzjq) and 'taking action' to refer to military activity is apparent in 11.5, 6, 7;
with different terms for 'standing', cf. 8.4. 12; 11.16. God's deliverance is denoted
with the verb 'to take action' in 9.4,19.
38. See esp. I Mace. 2.19-68.
39. The parallels in Pss. 34.8; 84.12; Jer. 17.7-8 are not quite as close to Dan.
12.12 as that of Isa. 30.18.
74
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
close a passage which claims that the strength of the elect is their
repentance, quietness and trust, not their military might (30.15-18). It
is tempting, therefore, to see here a reference to an old Israelite
tradition that favors the passive stance of mist and opposes the reliance on military might on the basis of Yahweh's elusive prerogative
for defense and security.*" Attributing such a meaning to Dan. 12.12,
however, probably reads too much into the text. The verse was probably added immediately prior to the publication of the book after
calculations for the time of the end were adjusted and is primarily an
encouragement for the faithful to accept some delay in the arrival of
the end.*'
A feature that might provide a more significant indication of a
pacifistic tradition is the use of the image of the suffering servant
from Isaiah 52-53 to express the action and fate of the maskilim.*^
The action of the maskilim in relation to 'the many' parallels that of
the servant in relation to 'the many' (Isa. 53.11, 12). In particular, the
references to the maskilim 'making many understand' (yabtnH larabbim,
11.33) and 'making many righteous' {masdtqe harabbim, 12.3) allude
direcdy to Isa. 53.11: 'by his knowledge my righteous servant will
make many righteous' (b'da'td yasdlq sadiq 'abdi larabbim). The
atoning character of the deadis (Dan. 11.34; 12.10), then, appears to
be based on the model of the suffering servant. Similarly, the exaltation of the servant (Isa. 52.13; 53.10-12) is a model for the maskilim
and martyrs (12.2-3).*' Finally, the usage of the term maskilim is
probably adapted from the first line of the poem: 'See, my servant
will act wisely (yasktl 'abdi, Isa. 52.13). It would seem very likely,
dien, that die servant's pattern of non-retaliation and passive acceptance
of suffering (53.7; cf. 50.4-11) also provided the maskilim a model
for proper action.
40. On this tradition, whicli appears in certain Psalms (20; 30; 44; 118), Hosea
and Isaiah, and which contrasts with the royal ideology, see B.C. OUenburger.
Zon, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cub
(JSOTSup, 41; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1987), pp. 81 -144.
41. E.g. Lacocque. Dani'e/, p. 250.
42. On Daniel's use of suffering servant text, see esp. H.L. Ginsberg, 'The
Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant', VT3 (1953). pp. 400-404.
43. For another use of this tradition of suffering and exaltation, see Wis. 2.1220; 3; 4.20-5.14 (compare esp. Dan. 11.32, 35; 12.3 and Wis. 2.13; 3.6-7) and 1
En. 62-63. See Lacocque. Daniel, p. 230; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, pp. 89,
178-79, 219-20.
Z E R B E 'Pacificism'and'PassiveResistance'
75
What can be concluded, then, in regard to the perspective of Daniel
on the proper response of the elect to persecution at the hands of
illegitimate foreign rule? It is clear that Daniel should be identified as
a piece of resistance literature."'' But while it is probable that Daniel
promotes passive resistance, it is merely possible that Daniel additionally rejects military action categorically and thus represents a
pacifistic perspective.
The maskilim who produced Daniel certainly envisioned a salvation
much more grand and cosmic than that offered by tiie Maccabean
freedom-fighters. The focus is on the cataclysmic intervention of God
into history, the time of the 'end' which the elect must await ( 1 1 . 3 5 ;
1 2 . 6 , 1 3 ) . While the maskilim, dierefore, probably did not put their
hopes in the Maccabean movement, it is not certain that diey rejected
the limited value of military action against the powers of evil. The
focus on God's action and the lack of a role for the elect in the depiction of the final drama do not specifically indicate a pacifistic posture.
Moreover, it is not clear that the action of the faithful in 'taking
action' ( 1 1 . 3 2 ) excludes military action; and it is probable that 1 1 . 3 4
acknowledges die limited value of armed resistance.
The maskilim, however, seem to favor the stance of passive resistance. Their action focuses on teaching, 'helping many understand'
( 1 1 . 3 3 ) . Even this detail is somewhat inconclusive. It is not clear
whedier this action derives from a commitment to passive resistance
as a matter of principle, or whether it reflects the typical activity of
the intellectual leaders of a people.*' The most significant evidence
which indicates that passive resistance is the favored stance of the
maskilim is die use of the model of die suffering servant to describe
their action and fate.
The Testament of Moses
The present form of the Testament of Moses (T. Mos.) was probably
produced in Palestine"* between 4 BCE and 3 0 CE, although it may
44. Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 191-93.
45. Horsley, Spiral of Violence, p. 66.
46. T. Mos. is extant in only one incomplete and corrupt MS of a Latin translation
of a Greek version, which in turn was probably based on a Hebrew or Aramaic
original. See R.H. Charles, The Assumption of Moses (London: Black, 1897),
pp. xxvi-xlv; D.H. Wallace, 'The Semitic Origin of the Assumption of Moses', TZ
11 (1955), pp. 321-28.
76
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
represent an earlier edition composed during the Maccabean revolt
and interpolated or re-edited in the early first century."^ The T. Mos.
is set as a farewell exhortation and prediction by Moses to Joshua and
has been apdy described as 'a rewriting of Deut. 31-34'.'** Its primary
message is to exhort readers to follow the commandments (9.4, 6;
12.10) and to assure them diat God will speedily answer the cry of die
righteous and deliver the elect (12.12). The question now is whether
the T. Mos. additionally 'advocates a policy of nonviolence',"*' displays
a 'pacifistic ideology','" or 'implies a program of non-resistance' or
'passive resistance'."
The major portion of the document consists of a predictive delineation of the history of Israel from die entry into Canaan until die end
of days (2.1-10.10). The final eschatological drama begins with the
rule of destructive and godless men who claim to be righteous (7.110) and continues with the worst punishment and wradi (persecution)
that Israel has experienced since creation, at the hands of a 'king of
47. Arguing tiiat the entire document emerged in the first century are Charles.
Assumption of Moses, pp. Iv-lvii; Rowley, Relevance, p. 108; E.-M. Laperrousaz,
Le Testament de Mo'ise (Paris: Librarie d'Amerique et d'Orient, 1970), J.J. Collins,
"The Date and Provenance of the Testament of Moses', in G.W.E. Nickelsburg
(ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses (SCS, 4; Cambridge, MA: Scholars Press,
1973); E. Brandenburger, 'Himmelfahrt Moses', JSHRZ,\I2, pp. 59-60; J. Priest,
'The Testament of Moses', OTP, I, pp. 920-21. Preferring a second-century date,
but with differing views as to the extent of the redaction, are J. Licht. 'Taxo, or the
Apocalyptic Doctrine of Vengeance', JJS 12 (1961), pp. 95-103; Nickelsburg,
Jewish Literature, p. 80; J. Goldstein, 'The Testament of Moses: Its Content, its
Origin, and its Attestation in Josephus', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the
Testament of Moses, pp. 44-47; Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, p. 199; A. Yarbro
Collins, "The Composition and Redaction of the Testament of Moses 10', HTR 69
(1976), pp. 179-86.
48. D.J. Harrington, 'Interpreting Israel's History: The Testament of Moses as a
Rewriting of Deut. 31-34', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of
Moses, pp. 59-70; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, pp. 80-82.
49. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 103; cf. idem, 'Date and Provenance',
pp. 23, 26, 30; 'it set the model of pacifistic piety'.
50. Nickelsburg. Jewish Literature, p. 213.
51. D.M. Rhoads, 'The Assumption of Moses and Jewish History: 4 BC-AD
48', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, p. 56. Also taking
this general position are Charles, Assumption, pp. li-lii (it represents 'Pharisaic
Quietism'); S. Zeitlin, 'The Assumption of Moses and the Bar Kockba Revolt', JQR
38 (1947-48), pp. 1-45; Yarbro Collins, 'Political PerspecUve', pp. 244-45.
77
kings of the earth' who has supreme authority (8.1-5).'^ In the midst
of this p e r s e c u t i o n / ' a Levite named T a x o ' " will come. He speaks to
his sons, nodng first die severity of die persecution and its apparent
injustice (9.2-3). He continues:
(4) Now, therefore, sons, heed me. If you investigate, you will surely
know that never did (our) fathers nor their ancestors tempt God by transgressing his commandments. (5) Yea, you will surely know that this is
our stfength. Here is what we shall do. (6) We shall fast for a three-day
period and on the fourth day we shall go into a cave, which is in the open
country. There let us die rather than transgress the commandments of the
Lord of Lords, the God of our fathers. (7) For if we do this, and do die,
our blood will be avenged before the Lord (9.4-7)."
Immediately following this exhortation is a hymn describing the
coming salvation (10.1-10). After an introductory statement (lO.I),
die arrival of die kingdom is described in three stages or pictures.
( I ) The angel {nuntius),
identical or analogous to M i c h a e l , " 'will
52. Although in an eariier edition ch. 8 may have referred specifically to the
Antiochian persecution, in its present form it takes the form of a generalized
'eschatological tableau'; so Collins, 'Date and Provenance', pp. 18-22; Laperrousaz,
Testament, pp. 122-24; Brandenburger, 'Himmelfahrt Moses' p. 60. The displacement theories whereby both chs. 8 and 9 (Charles) or ch. 8 alone (Rowley,
Relevance, p. 107) are (re)placed before ch. 6 break the obvious flow of the
eschatological drama.
53. The text has illo dicenle ('while he was speaking'. Priest, OTP), which
would constitute a major aporia between chs. 8 and 9. Brandenburger ('Himmelfahrt
Moses', p. 75) favors the emendation illo ducente ('while he (the king] was ruling')
instead of the emendations illo edicente ('he (the Lord] was decreeing/ordaining') and
illo die erit ('in that day', Charles).
54. Interpretations of the meaning of the name Taxo and of his historical or
eschatological identity are legion and the reference remains obscure. See Charles,
Assumption, pp. 35-36; Rowley, Relevance, pp. 149-56.
55. Citations from Priest in OTP. Similar martyr and cave stories occur in the
Maccabean literature and may provide the basis for the present story: I Mace. 1.53;
2.29-38; 2 Mace. 6.11-7.40; 10.6; Josephus. Ant. 12.6.2 §§268-78; 14.15.5
§§420-30. See Charles, Assumption, pp. 33-34. On T. Mos. 9.6-7 cf. esp. I Mace.
2.37;
2 Mace. 7.2, 6, 14, 17, 19, 34-37.
56. T.W. Manson ('Miscellanea Apocalyptica', JTS 46 (1945], p. 43) argues
that since an angelic messenger is usually U^slilerated from angelos as angelus, here
nuntius designates a human messenger (Elijah). At most, this argument can show
that the Latin tfanslator had a human messenger in mind. Most interpreters
78
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
avenge them of their enemies* (10.2). (2) God himself will go forth
from his dirone with wrath on behalf of this people (10.3), effecting
cosmic upheavals (10.4-6), and 'alone*" will work 'vengeance on the
nations* (10.7). (3) Israel will be raised to the heights of heaven and
will enjoy bliss (10.8-10).
The pacifistic interpretation of the T. Mos. is based primarily on the
following three factors: (1) the character of the action by the hero
Taxo (ch. 9); (2) the manner in which the final victory emerges
(ch. 10); and (3) the implied connection between these two.'*
It is difficult to deny the paraenetic intention of the model and
exhortation of the end-time hero Taxo for the readers, particularly in
view of the testamentary form of the exhortation." The exhortation
(9.4-7) implies a passive stance in relation to persecutors. Taxo emphasizes that their strength {vires, power, might) is to keep the conunandments, implicitly not to display military prowess (9.4). Accordingly,
Taxo prepares himself and his sons for possible martyrdom, committing his cause to God. The interpretation diat the course of martyrdom
was deliberately sought,*" however, goes beyond the textual evidence.
understand nuntius as the archangel Michael. So Charles, Assumption, pp. 39-41;
Priest, OTP, I, p. 932.
57. Taking solus adverbially (= Hcb. Pbaddo) as modifying the verb 'will surge
forth' (with Charles, Assumption,
p. 41; Priest, OTP, I. p. 932) instead of
adjectivally as modifying 'eternal one' (Brandenburger, 'Himmelfahrt Moses').
58. Charles {Assumption, pp. li-lii) also suggests that the author's silence on the
Maccabean uprising in the face of his obvious knowledge of the movement is
'impressive' and 'an emphatic censure of their appeal to arms'. While opposition to
the Hasmoneans is also evident (6.1), neither of these factors specifically indicates
that die T. Mos. rejects armed resistance.
59. See e.g. Charles, Assumption,
p. 34; Rhoads, 'Assumption', p. 56;
Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 82.
60. E.g. Collins ('Some Remaining Traditio-Historical Problems in the
Testament of Moses', in Nickelsburg [ed.]. Studies on the Testament of Moses,
p. 42) argues that this is evident from the fact that the resolve to die is made at a
point when Taxo and his sons are not yet prisoners, in contrast to the case of the
martyrs in 2 Mace. 7. It should be noted, however, that what is expressed here is the
readiness to die, not the resolve to die. The text is not clear as to the purpose of the
move to the cave. The motivation is probably the same as described in I Mace, and 2
Mace, where the movement to caves is motivated in order to escape persecution and
in order to keep the commandments, especially the Sabbath, secretly (I Mace. 1.53;
2.29-30; 2 Mace. 6.11).
Resistance'
79
While Taxo does not expliciUy reject armed resistance as a matter of
principle, his acdon shows a preference for a non-violent response.
Also supporting a pacifistic interpretation of the T. Mos. is the
character of die final drama in ch. 10. There is no Messianic warfare,
nor any military activity on die part of God's people.*' This omission
does not specifically indicate a pacifistic perspective. More decisive is
the fact that the kingdom is ushered in and vengeance is wrought by
the direct intervention of the angel and God. It is stressed that
vengeance is die work of God 'alone' ( 1 0 . 7 ) . Given the dependence of
chs. 9 and 1 0 on Deuteronomy 32,*^ it is probable that this notion
derives from Deut. 32.35, 'Vengeance is mine, and recompense'.*' If
this is so, the T. Mos. interprets Deut. 32.35 to mean not only that
God will indeed bring vengeance, but also that vengeance is God's
exclusive prerogative and should be deferred to him.
Another argument used to support the pacifistic perspective of
the T. Mos. is the implied connection between ch. 9 (purification and
martyrdom) and ch. 1 0 (salvation and vengeance), particularly die
notion that martyrdom is deliberately sought as the means to hasten
God's vengeance against the persecutors. The flow of die drama does
suggest diat Taxo's action indeed precipitates the divine vengeance that
inaugurates the end-time,*" so that the two chapters are not merely
unrelated stages in the final drama.*' Chapter 9 concludes with Taxo's
resolution to be ready to die rather than transgress the Law ( 9 . 6 ) and
61. Emphasized by Charhs, Assumption, p. Hi; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature,
p. 82. Charles (APOT, II. p. 412) explains the lack of a Messiah figure as due to
the increasingly military conception of the Messiah; while this interpretation is
enticing, there are no proofs for it.
62. T. Mos. 9.7 echoes Deut. 32.43; 10.8 Cbome aloft on an eagle') uses the
imagery of Deut. 32.11-13; the pervasive language of 'vengeance' in DeuL 32.35-43
may have influenced 10.2, 7; the destruction of idols in 10.7 may be from Deut.
32.37-39. The fact that the entire testament is a rewriting of Deut. 31-34 also
supports the use of Deut. 32 here.
63. Cf. the emphatic emoi and ego in the textual addition of Deut. 32.35 cited by
Paul in Rom. 12.19. Collins (Apocalyptic
Vision, p. 200) observes that Deut.
32.32-43 supplied the paradigm for the author's perspective.
64. See esp. Licht, 'Taxo', pp. 95-103; followed by Nickelsburg, Jewish
Literature,
p. 82; Collins, 'Traditio-Historical Problems', p. 42; Rhoads,
'Assumption', pp. 56-57; Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 245.
65. Contra J. Priest, 'Some Reflections on the Assumption of Moses",
Perspectives in Religious Studies 4 (1977), pp. 92-111; idem, OTP, I, p. 923.
80
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
with his expectation that such innocent death will arouse G o d ' s
vengeance (9.7). This expectation is based directly on Deut. 32.43:
'for he avenges the blood of his servants, and takes vengeance on his
adversaries'.** The coming of the kingdom is described immediately
following this resolve and expectation, and the reader is apparently to
infer tfiat Taxo and his sons act in accordance with Taxo's exhortation, and that it is specifically these innocent deaths that trigger the
wrath of God and precipitate the onset of the eschatological age.*' The
repetition of the theme of vengeance in 10.2 and 10.7 indicates that
die expectation of Taxo will be fulfilled specifically.** In die perspective of the T. Mos., then, it is especially martyrdom that provokes
divine wrath. To suggest, however, that Taxo deliberately
seeks
martyrdom and that the T. Mos. promotes martyrdom as the proper
human contribution in the holy war against the enemies of God*'
seems to go beyond die evidence.
In summary, it must be admitted diat there is no outright rejection
of the sword or armed resistance and that accordingly it is impossible
to say that the T. Mos. rejects armed resistance as a matter of
principle. Neverdieless, die ideal of passive resistance is evident in die
resolve of the end-time hero Taxo, who instructs his sons (and the
readers) diat purification, strict observance of the Law and readiness
to die on behalf of the Law are the 'strength' of the righteous. While
the author seems to indicate that it is innocent deadi in particular diat
triggers the eschaton, it is not clear that the author promotes
martyrdom as the primary contribution diat the elect make in die final
battle. The T. Mos. does present the notion, however, based on an
exegesis on Deut. 32.35, that vengeance is God's prerogative and
should be deferred to him.
66. Similarly. 2 Mace. 7.6 cites Deut. 32.36 and shares the expectation of divine
vengeance for martyrdom. Cf. also 1 Mace. 2.37; and the allusion to Deut. 32.43 in
Rev. 19.2.
67. Licht. 'Taxo'. p. 98.
68. So also Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 82.
69. See e.g. Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, p. 200; idem, 'Traditio-Historical
Problems', p. 42. Rhoads ('Assumption', p. 57) observes that the author exhorts
'obedient death as the way to guarantee vengeance against the enemy'.
ZERBE 'Pacificism'and'Passive
Resistance'
81
Second Baruch
The present Syriac version of 2 Baruch probably derives, through a
Greek translation, from a Semitic original written in Palestine at the
end of the first century C E or in the first two decades of the second
century CE.™ F. Murphy, in his recent dissertation,'' argues that
in general... the intention of the author is to draw the attention of the
people away from the loss of Zion and away from a preoccupation with
the punishment of the desU-oyers of Jerusalem. Through references to the
Mosaic covenant, and by paralleling Baruch with Moses, the author seeks
to recall the people to covenantal obedience. In his use of die two-world
scheme, he manages to relaiivizc the importance of the Temple and land in
Judaism and to reorient the People away from a this-worldly attitude to an
other-worldly one.
Murphy also suggests that the author may have wished to discourage a
growing resistance movement against Rome, so that he represented a
'quietistic' group in opposition to a 'militant* group within the nascent
rabbinic movement.'^ Murphy develops this notion further in an
article'' in which he contends that
the author of 2 Baruch deliberately urged pacifism on his contemporaries.
In so doing, he was careful to assure his readers that those who had desU-oyed the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in 70 CE would be punished,
but at the same time he conveyed the idea that punishment was entirely die
business of God. It should play no role in the thought or action of Israel
itself. Instead of concerning itself with revenge or with the judgment of
the destroyers of Zion, the people should turn their attention to the other
world and concern themselves with the salvation of their souls.
The notion that the righteous should be preoccupied with the
rewards and punishments of the age to come and that punishment is
God's business appears explicidy in three passages. The first is in
Section II (chs. 10-20).''' Toward the end of die opening lament over
die loss of Zion (10.6-12.5), Baruch asks, 'who will judge over diese
70. For diis general scholarly consensus, see A.F.J. Klijn. '2 Baruch', in OTP,
I. pp. 616-17.
71. F.J. Murphy. 77i<> Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch (SBLDS, 78;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). p. 28.
72. Murphy, Second Baruch, pp. 136-42.
73. Murphy, '2 Baruch and the Romans*, p. 663.
74. For the outline followed here, see Murphy, Second Baruch, pp. 11-13.
82
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
things' (11.3), complains about the injustice (11.4-7), and expresses
his hope for the punishment of the Romans: 'surely wrath will arise
against you in its own time' (12.4).'' God answers by acknowledging
that the enemies of Israel will be punished, though this retribution is
widened to be against 'the nations' for their general wickedness, not
for the specific act of destroying Jerusalem (ch. 13).'* Baruch and
God continue to engage in dialogue on the subject of retribution
(14.2) and of the plight of the wicked in relation to the righteous in
the future world. God corrects Baruch's reasoning about the judgment
awaiting sinners (15.1). This culminates in a passage that answers
Baruch's question, 'who will j u d g e ? ' " and establishes die fact diat die
judgment of enemies is God's business:
And I judge everything that exists. You, however, should not diink about
this in your heart and you should not be afflicted because of the things
which have been (l9.3b-4).
Immediately following this statement, God goes on to say that the end
of all things is near when God will judge sinners and reward the
righteous, and diat the sorrow and evils of the present life, including
die destruction of Zion, are irrelevant in comparison to true happiness
in die new aeon (19.5-20.6).
A second critical passage occurs in Section V (chs. 48-52). Here a
dialogue between God and Baruch focuses on the ultimate fate of the
righteous and the wicked in die coming aeon. The decisive factor, as
throughout 2 Baruch, is the way in which one obeys die Law.'*
Indeed, it is the Law diat will 'repay' die wicked on the day of judgment
(48.47). At die end of the dialogue, there is a transition to the second
75. Citations are from Klijn in OTP. Murphy ('2 Baruch', p. 664) argues that
die introductory 'but I shall say as I think' (12.1) indicates that the author intends the
proclamation of vengeance as Baruch's early and unenlightened attitude.
76. Cf. chs. 82-83. 2 Bar. nowhere states that the enemies will be punished
specifically for the desuiiction of Jerusalem. Indeed 2 Bar. seems to take away the
desuiiction of Jerusalem as a pretext for seeking vengeance against the Romans by
arguing that the destruction was God's own work on account of the sins of Israel.
See Murphy, Second Baruch, p. 137; idem, '2 Baruch', pp. 665-66. It should be
noted, however, that oUier documents that hope explicidy for vengeance against the
oppressors also explain die suffering as being on account of Israel's sins; e.g.
1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Testament of Moses.
77. For the notion diat 19.3 answers 11.3, see Murphy, Second Baruch, p. 15.
78. For references, see Klijn, OTP, I, p. 619.
Resistance'
83
person, as Baruch addresses his listeners with a summary of what he
has just learned:
Enjoy yourselves in the suffering which you suffer now. For why do you
look for die decline of your enemies? Prepare your souls for diat which is
kept for you, and make ready your souls for the reward which is
preserved for you (52.6-7)."
A third passage reflecting 2 Baruch's perspective on the enemies of
Israel can be found in Section VII ( 7 7 . 1 8 - 8 7 . 1 ) , the letter of Baruch
to the dispersed tribes. This passage is a summary of some of the
more important themes of the entire document. First, Baruch
indirectly reminds his readers that the present distress was caused by
their own sins and that reflection on the situation should aid their
preparation for the final judgment (ch. 7 8 ; cf. 7 7 . 1 - 1 7 ) .
Baruch
moves to a word of consolation and asserts that vengeance will indeed
come against their enemies (ch. 8 2 ) . But this poem of judgment
against the enemies turns into a consideration of the hidden sins of all
individuals ( 8 3 . 1 - 3 ) and culminates in a command to look away from
the present distress and desire for vengeance:
Therefore, noUiing of the present things should come into your heart but
they should, on the conuary, be expected, since that which was promised
will come. And we should not look upon the delights of the present
nations, but let us think about that which has been promised to us regarding the end... The end of the world will then show the great power of our
Ruler since everything will come to judgment. You should, therefore,
prepare your hearts for dial which you have believed before, lest you
should be excluded from both worlds (83.4-8).
As is the case throughout 2 Baruch, the focus of judgment is on the
individual, not the national enemies of Israel.***
The perspective of these three passages with their focus on the new
aeon, however, stands in some tension with the Messianic passages
which present the hopes of a nationaHstic eschatology ( 2 9 . 2 - 3 0 . 1 ;
3 9 . 7 - 4 0 . 2 ; 7 0 . 9 ; 7 2 . 2 - 6 ) . These latter texts seem to maintain a hope
79. For the motif of preparation, see also 32.1-7; 44.2-8; 46.5-6; 83.7; 85.11.
80. Some interpreters argue diat in the judgment die distinction between Israel
and die Gentiles is somewhat blurred because it involves a separation between the
righteous and the wicked within Israel (chs. 41-42; 51; 54.22); so e.g. Murphy,
Second Baruch, p. 137; idem, '2 Baruch', pp. 666-67 n. II. But in response, it
should be observed that a purification of Israel does not mean a blurring of the
distinctions between true Israel and the Gentiles.
84
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
for a national restoration in Palestine through the Messiah's military
victory over the Romans.*' Many recent interpreters downplay the
significance of the nationalistic messianic eschatology for the author's
perspective.*^ But counterbalancing arguments can be adduced.*' The
Messianic passages play an important role in the entire document.
They function to enlighten the people regarding the 'course of times'
so that they will know how to act in the final days (e.g. 28.1; 46.5-6)
and to assure them that vengeance will come to their enemies and that
times of bliss will arrive (e.g. 24.4). While the predominant focus of
2 Baruch is on the rewards and punishments of the new aeon itself, so
that the Messianic era is not emphasized and Messianic speculation is
81. Although the Messiah appears to play a passive role in 29.2-30.1, he appears
expliciUy as warrior and judge in die 3 9 . 7 ^ . 2 and 70.9; 72.2-6. The advent of the
Messiah's dominion will mean the demise of Rome (die fourth world dominion); the
Messiah will destroy the last rulers' entire host and will bring him bound to Zion for
judgment and execution (39.7-40.2). All three passages affirm that at the height of
die Uibulation die inhabitants of die holy land will be protected by the Messiah (29.2;
40.2; 71.1), and that die rule of the Messiah will have a limited duration as the
penultimate stage before the establishment of die new aeon at die end (30.1-5; 40.3;
73.1-74.4).
82. See e.g. P. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch: Introduction, traduction du
Syriaque et commentaire (SC. 144. 145; Paris: Cerf, 1969), I, pp. 413-19;
A.F.J. Klijn, 'The Sources and the Redaction of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch',
JSJ 1 (1970), pp. 74-76; Murphy, Second Baruch, pp. 31-116, esp. pp. 66-67.
The following arguments are adduced. (I) The diree passages are inconsistent wiUi
each odier and simply appropriate traditional materials. (2) The duration of the
Messianic era is limited as the penultimate stage before the final consummation and
belongs to the present world of corruption. (3) The passages do not play an
important role in the presentation of 2 Baruch as a whole and do not always
constitute the focus of die larger passages in which diey appear.
83. (I) The diree messianic passages, while presenting somewhat different
pictures, are not actually 'contradictory'; see Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination,
p. 172. The traditional character of the material does not diminish its importance for
die author. The fact that this material was used, even if modified, means diat it was
accepted by the author. (2) Even if the Messianic era is limited in duration (but cf.
40.3, it lasts 'forever'), it is still an essential part of die eschatological scenario as an
intermediate hope for a national victory in Palestine. While there may be a relative
subordination of the Messianic era, there is no absolute 'rejecUon' or 'correction' of
diis hope. (3) The thrust of the larger passages is indeed on die faithfulness to the
law as die means to membership in die future world (31-32; 41-44; 77.1-17). But
diis is complementary to die eschatological presentation, not in opposition to it.
ZERBE 'Pacificism' and 'Passive Resistance'
85
absent or even discouraged.*'* it is clear that die author still hopes for
a Messianic interregnum.
Murphy proposes that the Messianic passages present no difficulty
for the pacifistic interpretation since the Messiah is the sole agent of
judgment and punishment—tiie people or army of the Messiah play no
role in the battle.*' But tiiis argument from silence is ratiier inconclusive.'* If the author was actually opposing tiie rising resistance movement one would expect a much stronger statement against military
activity or ideology.
In conclusion, then, the primary interest of the autiior of 2 Baruch
is the arrival of the new aeon and its implications. In the light of its
coming, the primary concern of tiie people should be the preparation
of tiieir souls dirough obedience to the Law. Focusing on tiie rewards
and punishments of die age to come, the people should desist from
preoccupation widi die punishment of the enemies of Israel, especially
Rome ( 1 9 . 3 - 4 ; 5 2 . 6 - 7 ; 8 3 . 4 - 8 ) . Vengeance and judgment are the
business of God and the Messiah in die appropriate future time.
On the odier hand, however, there are no explicit commands against
armed resistance, and the author does express hope for a national
restoration in Palestine and die punishment of the oppressors dirough
the leadership of the Messiah. The author remains silent on whether
or not he expects the people to join in battle with die Messiah against
dieir enemies. While the author may well represent a 'quietistic' posture, to say that he 'deliberately urged pacifism' seems to go beyond
die evidence.
The Revelation to John
The Revelation to John was probably written toward die end of die
reign of Domitian (c. 9 0 - 9 6 C E ) to fellow Christians engaged in a
84. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 178.
85. Murphy. '2 Baruch', p. 667.
86. One might compare this presentation of the Messiah with Pss. Sol. 17, where
the Messiah destroys the Gentiles militarily (vv. 22-24) but also, somewhat
conu-adictingly, without weapons of war (vv. 33-35); and widi 4 Ezra 13, where die
Messiah will desffoy the enemies without 'weapons of war' (vv. 9-10, 28), 'widiout
effort by the law' (v. 38). These two passages also lack any reference to
participation by the people or an army, aldiough die picture o(Pss. Sol. 17, in which
die Messiah rules 'with a rod of iron', implies the presence of an army.
86
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
religio-political conflict with the Roman principate and its administrat i o n . " Employing the genre, themes, and possibly sources of Jewish
apocalyptic literature,'* the author sought to console his readers and
to encourage them to remain faithful by assuring them that the outcome of the conflict was certain, namely that the Lamb will conquer
the kings of the earth and avenge the injustice of persecution.
A. Yarbro Collins has made the case that the political perspective
of Revelation stands in continuity with the Jewish tradition of passive
resistance of the synergistic type (as represented by the Testament of
Moses) in which the elect contribute to the final victory, not by their
military resistance, but by their faithfulness and martyrdom. Martyrdom hastens the end by provoking God's vengeance. Two main lines
of evidence are used to support this interpretation: the depiction of die
final batde and victory, in which the Messiah and his heavenly army
conquer the kings of die earth without the assistance of human agents,
and the action of the elect diat is described or exhorted, which focuses
on faidifiilness, endurance and martyrdom."
Yarbro Collins argues that Revelation's use of the holy war tradition, particularly diat of cosmic dualistic conflict, reinforces a certain
pattern of resistance. 'The holy was imagery is used in such a way as
to encourage a passive acceptance of suffering in the eschatological
conflict'.'" In 19.11-26 the heavenly Messiah comes as a military
victor: he appears on a white horse with a sword in his moudi and a
'rod of i r o n ' " in his hand and is joined by 'the armies of heaven*
(19.14).'^ In 20.1-3 an angel seizes the Dragon and binds him for one
87. For this scholarly consensus, see e.g. A. Yarbro Collins, Crisis and
Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Wesuninster Press, 1984),
pp. 25-83; E. Schiissler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 181-203.
88. For a review of proposals regarding die sources and redaction of Revelation,
see e.g. Schiissler Fiorenza, Revelation, pp. 159-80.
89. W. Klassen ('Vengeance in the Apocalypse of John', CBQ 27 [1966],
pp. 300-11) also highlighu these two features, although he excessively softens the
notion of vengeance, claiming diat the author wrote to bring all to repentance by
warning them of the consequences of dieir actions (p. 304).
90. Yarbro Collins, 'Polidcal Perspective', p. 247.
91. Cf. 2.16; 12.5; Pss. Sol. 17.23-24. This motif is based on Ps. 2.9.
92. This text refers to die angelic armies. In 15.6 angels have a similar attire; and
parallels wiUi oUier apocalyptic texts also suggests this (Zech. 14.15; Mk 8.38;
13.27; 1 Thess. 3.13; Mt. 26.53). R. Mounce (The Book of Revelation [Grand
ZERBE 'Pacificism' and 'Passive Resistance'
87
thousand years in the bottomless pit. In 20.7-10 the final onslaught of
chaos against 'the camp of the saints and the beloved city', orchestrated by the released Dragon, is crushed by fire from heaven. In the
cycles of visions leading up to the final battle, it is angels who herald
and pour out wrath on the evil earth rulers and dwellers." In ch. 12,
which is paradigmatic for the elect's situation and fate, an initial
defeat of the Dragon is accomplished by Michael and his angels on
behalf of the elect, after which the Dragon is thrown down from
heaven. Yarbro Collins finds it decisive that in these scenes there is no
role for the elect, no attempt to promote 'a program of active resistance or even self-defense'.'" Rather, the author in these scenes seeks
to awaken trust in the power of heaven to avenge and to effect final
victory.
Yarbro Collins admits, however, that the author provides glimpses
of the idea diat the elect would fight in the last baUle (14.4; 17.14),
aldiough diese 'are not at all emphasized'." In 17.14, which seems to
compress 19.11-21 and which refers to the Lamb's victory in the
batde widi the beast, we read that 'and diose with him [the Lamb] are
called and chosen and faithful' {kai hoi met' autou kletoi kai eklektoi
kai pistol). This triad apparently refers to human followers of die
Lamb, not to angels.'* Neverdieless, the author has left it ambiguous
as to whether diey play an acdve military role in die batde or share in
the victory, benefiting from die Messiah's warfare and protection."
This group with the Lamb brings to mind also the 144,000 who stand
with the Lamb on Zion (14.1) and 'follow the Lamb wherever he
goes' (14.4). These 144,000, who sing a song of victory (14.2-3; cf.
15.2-4), are pictured as morally upright soldiers who have maintained
their chastity in accord with the purity regulations for holy w a r . "
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977]. p. 346) suggests that the reference in 17.14 (see below,
n. 96) suggests that the martyrs who now stand in God's presence (cf. 7.9-17)
should be included in die group.
93. See 8.3-5; 8.6-9.21; 14.14-20; 16.1-21.
94. Yarbro Collins. 'Political Perspective', p. 247.
96. Kletos and eklektos occur only here in Revelation, but clearly indicate the
elect of humanity; pistos occurs elsewhere of Christ (1.5; 3.14; 19.11), of the words
of John's revelation (21.5; 22.6). and of Christians in the context of dying for die
faidi (2.10, 13).
97. See Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 248 n. 37.
98. Seeing a military reference in 14.4a are e.g. E. Lohmeyer. Die Offenbarung
88
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
The author does not make it clear, however, whether he supposes that
the elect will actually participate in the final battle or uses this
imagery primarily as a symbol of the abstention from adultery with
Babylon (cf. 14.8).
While the author leaves it somewhat ambiguous whether the elect
will participate militarily in the final battle, he is quite clear that the
elect will participate in the final judgment and rule over their persecutors. This is indicated by the references to their participadon in die
Messianic rule and judgment'' and the probability that in 20.4 it is the
resurrected martyrs who are given thrones for judgment.'""
With Yarbro Collins, dien, one can agree diat die dominant emphasis
is on the direct agency of the Messiah and the heavenly armies to
effect eschatological victory. Nevertheless, one must admit that there
is some ambiguity as to whether or not the elect play any role in the
final battle and that the elect will participate at least in the judgment of
the world. The use of the holy war tradition by itself, then, does not
seem to categorically exclude the possibility of armed participation
with God on the final day.
What does Revelation specifically counsel, however, as to the proper
conduct and stance of believers in persecution? To ascertain this, we
begin by observing tiie language of 'conquering' (nikan) as applied to
die elect. In die messages to die seven churches (2.7, 11, 17, 2 6 - 2 8 ;
3.5, 12, 21) and in the conclusion (21.7) various promises are held out
for 'those who conquer'. In some passages the 'conquerors' are identified especially as diose who remain faithful.'"' But more significandy.
des Johannes (HNT, 16; Tubingen: Mohr, 1926), p. 120; G.B. Caird, The
Revelation of St John the Divine (London: Harper & Bros.. 1966); G.R. BeasleyMurray, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 223; Yarbro Collins,
'Political Perspective', p. 248. For OT references to purity regulation for war, cf.
Deut. 23.9-10; 1 Sam. 21.5; 2 Sam. 11.11. For such regulations at Qumran, see
F. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (Garden City: Doubleday, rev. edn,
1961), pp. 98-99.
99. See esp. 2.26-27 in relation to 19.15. Cf. die future tense ofbasileud for the
elect: 5.10; 22.5.
100. BasedonDan.7.9-10, 22.See e.g.Beasley-Murray,/?eve/arion, pp. 292-93.
101. E.g. die promises for rewards to die 'conquerors' in die messages follow
immediately upon call to obedience and/or repentance; in 21.7 the rewards for
'conquerors' are contrasted with those for the 'cowardly, faithless' (deilois,
apistois), implying that the 'conquerors' are specifically die faidiful; and in 2.26 the
'conqueror' is identified as the one 'who keeps my word until die end' (2.26).
Resistance'
89
the 'conquerors' are seen specifically as those who remain faithful unto
death.'"^ Rev. 1 2 . 1 1 clarifies die basis for the victory by the elect:
And diey [our brediren] have conquered him [die accuser] by die blood of
the Lamb and by die word of dieir testimony (marmria), for diey loved not
their lives even unto deadi (RSV).
The Lamb's martyrdom and vindication by resurrection to God's
tiwone is the basis for the elect's victory (cf. 1.6; 5 . 5 - 1 0 ) . Likewise,
tiie saints conquer by tiieir 'faitiiful witness' unto deafli'*" just as Jesus,
the pre-eminent 'faithful witness' unto death, conquered.'*" Those
who remain faithful unto deadi come out victorious and ultimately
share in die U m b Messiah's rule ( 1 . 6 ; 2 . 2 6 - 2 8 ; 3 . 2 1 ; 5 . 9 - 1 0 ; 2 0 . 4 - 6 ) .
The 'conquering' of the elect, dierefore, is described in noticeably
non-violent ways. 'To conquer' is to remain faithful unto death,
diereby sharing in die ultimate victory of die Lamb.
Related to the theme of faidifulness unto the end is that of
'endurance'. The seven messages contain a repeated emphasis on the
virtue of hupomone
( 2 . 2 , 3 , 1 9 ; 3 . 1 0 ; cf. 2 . 1 0 , 1 3 , 1 9 , 2 5 ; 3 . 8 . 1 0 - 1 1 ) ,
and at the outset in 1.9 this dieme is linked specifically with suffering.
In Revelation, hupomonS is not just a general characteristic of faith,
but a particular stance in persecution that implies both passively
accepting suffering and remaining steadfast.'*" In the middle of ch.
13, which describes the beast and its oppression of die saints ( 1 3 . 7 , 1 5 ;
cf. 1 2 . 1 7 ) , the author emphasizes die necessity of endurance:
ei lis echei ous akousatd.
ei tis eis aichmaldsian,
eis aichmaldsian hupagei.
ei tis en machaire apoktanthenai,
auton en machaire apoktanthinai.
hode estin he hupomone kai he pistis ton hagidn.
102. In 2.10 'conquering' is equated widi being 'faidiful unto death'; in 15.2-4
'those who had conquered die beast and its image' are apparendy martyrs (13.7, IS)
who now stand in God's presence (cf. 7.9-17); and those who have remained
faidiful unto death in 12.11 are said to have 'conquered' Satan.
103. For martyr and martyria as applied to die elect, see 2.13; 6.9; 11.3, 7, 12;
12.11; 17.6; 20.4; cf. 1.2,9; 12.17; 19.10.
104. See 1.5; 3.14; cf. 19.11.
105. See Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 249; F. Hauck,
'hupomend', TDNT, IV, p. 688.
90
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
If any one has an ear, let him hear:
If any one is to be taken captive,
to captivity he goes;
if any one is to be slain with the sword,
widi die sword is he to be slain.
Here is die endurance and faidi(-fulness) of die saints (13.9-10. my
trans.).
While an alternative reading of this text might be interpreted as an
explicit promotion of a pacifistic stance, the most likely reading highlights the inevitability of captivity or martyrdom for some as the
occasion for maintaining endurance."'*
Martyrdom, however, is not just inevitable. It also plays a central
function in the book as a whole, particularly as that which will arouse
die vengeance of God. The question, however, is whether Revelation
promotes, as Yarbro Collins argues, a kind of synergism in which
martyrdom in particular is the contribution that the elect make in the
final conflict to hasten die final day,"" or whedier it intends to console
its readers by its association of martyrdom and God's vengeance, not
to encourage martyrdom as such. Five passages must be considered.
1. In die vision of the souls under the altar who cry for vengeance
(6.9-11), the fact that the souls are associated with the altar seems to
imply that die deaths are conceived as sacrifices. Two important ideas
are implied here: that God will avenge innocent blood, and diat there
106. For the case in favor of this textual reading (Alexandrinus) of the couplets
on captivity and the sword, based on Jer. 15.2 and 43.17, see R.H. Charles, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St John (ICC; New York:
Scribner's, 1920), I. pp. 355-57; B.M. Metzger. A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 749-50. On this
reading, bodi couplets refer to the plight of the persecuted and dius suit die context of
persecution and endurance. On the various readings with apokte(i)nei...dei
in the
second couplet ('if any one slays with the sword, with the sword must he be slain',
R S V ) the text could refer either to the persecutors, expressing die inevitable
reuibution coming to them, or to die persecuted, proscribing die use of arms (in
continuity with the adaptation of Jer. 15.2 in Mt. 26.52). While this last
interpretation is attractive in diat it would entail 'an explicit rejection of die militant
option' (Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 247), on external and contextual
grounds it is not Uie best reading. Also secondary are die readings that have apagei in
the first half of the first couplet ('if any one leads into captivity, to captivity he
goes'), in which case both couplets would refer to the final lot of the persecutors.
107. Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', pp. 249-52, 256.
Resistance'
91
is a fixed number of souls that must be killed before the end should
come.'"* Yarbro Collins concludes that in Revelation
the role of the elect is not purely passive; rather there is the possibility of a
kind of synergism. Each martyr's deadi brings the eschaton closer.'*"
While it is true that each death brings the eschaton closer, it seems
unwarranted to conclude that Revelation promotes martyrdom as such
as that which they can synergistically contribute to the final outconne.
The notion of the fixed number of martyrs ( 6 . 1 1 ) explains why the
end has not yet arrived; it does not encourage martyrdom per se. The
author does affirm that the cry of the martyrs is heard; immediately
following is a proleptic description of the final battle against the kings
of the earth ( 6 . 1 2 - 1 7 ) .
2 . T h e prelude to the seven trumpets ( 8 . 3 - 5 ) also indicates that
vengeance upon the earth is the response to the prayers of the
martyrs. An angel comes to a golden altar before the throne and
mingles incense with the prayers of the saints to God. The prayers of
the saints and the altar here recall the vision of the fifth seal. After
offering the prayers to God, the angel takes fire from the altar and
throws it on the earth, which represents the answer to the prayers of
the (martyred) saints for vengeance.
3 . When the third bowl of wrath is poured upon the earth, the
rivers and fountains of water become as blood ( 1 6 . 4 ) . The commentary that follows explains the significance of this scene:
And I heard die angel of die waters say, 'You are just, O Holy One, who
are and were, for you have judged {ekrinas) diese diings; because they
shed die blood of die saints and prophets, you gave them blood to drink.
It is what diey deserve (axioi eisin)'. And I heard die altar respond, 'Yes,
O Lord God, die Almighty, your judgments are true and just' (16.5-7,
NRSV).
This one aspect of cosmic destruction is interpreted specifically as
vengeance for the blood of the martyrs. The reference to the altar
recalls the vision of the souls under the altar ( 6 . 9 - 1 1 ; cf. 8 . 3 - 5 ) and
expresses their satisfaction for this act of vengeance.
4 . In the Babylon interlude ( 1 7 . 1 - 1 9 . 5 ) , among Babylon's most
heinous sins is the execution of the saints ( 1 7 . 6 ; 1 8 . 2 4 ) . In the judgment
108. For references to diese modfs in other apocalyptic writings, see Yarbro
Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 249.
92
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
doxology that begins the final heavenly liturgy celebrating the fall of
Babylon (19.1-8), Babylon's destruction is interpreted as judgment for
her 'fornication' and as vengeance for the execution of the martyrs:
he has judged (ekrinen) die great harlot who corrupted die earth with her
fornication, and he has avenged (exedikesen) on her the blood of his
servants (19.2, RSV).
Here we have the final answer to the martyr's cry in 6.10:
Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge
(krineis) and avenge (ekdikeis) our blood on the inhabitants of die earth
(NRSV).""
5. Finally, the description of the millennium (20.4-6) illustrates the
special role for the martyrs in Revelation. Even if participation in the
millennium is not limited to the martyrs,"' it is clear that they are
singled out for special emphasis.
Martyrdom, then, is specially tied to God's vengeance in Revelation.
It arouses God's wrath and will ultimately be requited. This theme,
however, seems to function primarily to console the elect in their
struggle; there is no clear evidence that the author encourages
martyrdom as such as the synergistic contribution which the elect
make in the final drama {contra Yarbro Collins).
In conclusion, in Revelation the primary action recommended of the
elect is that of faithfulness, endurance (which implies passively accepting suffering) and testimony, for which many will suffer death. The
elect 'conquer' by maintaining faitiiful witness unto death; tiiere is no
encouragement to take up arms against the oppressors. Martyrdom is
seen as arousing God's vengeance; but tiiere is no encouragement of
martyrdom as such as as the synergistic contribution that the elect
make in the final conflict. While diere are some glimpses of the notion
that the elect will play a military role in the final battle,"^ the
110. Bodi 6.10 and 19.2 allude to Deut. 32.43 (cf. 2 Kgs 9.8; Ps. 79.10) just as
die Testament of Moses docs when it anticipates vengeance on account of the martyrs
(see above, n. 62).
111. The hoitines in 20.4 might be taken eidier as an ordinary relative, dius
qualifying 'die souls of diose who had been beheaded', or in its classical usage, thus
signifying a wider group dian die 'beheaded'.
112. If so, we see here a perspective much like diat of Qumran (see above,
n. 26). While vengeance is proscribed for the present, penultimate hour and deferred
to God, the elect can anticipate their own participadon in die conquest and judgment
93
emphasis is on God, his Messiah, and die heavenly armies as the
primary agents of vengeance and vindication. Revelation, then, seems
to represent the perspective of 'passive resistance', aldiough diere is
insufficient evidence to claim that it is 'pacifistic'."'
Conclusion
This essay has sought to determine if four apocalyptic writings, namely
Daniel, the Testament of Moses, 2 Baruch and Revelation, promote
the stance of 'passive, non-violent resistance' and/or 'pacificism* in
relation to illegitimate and oppressive rule. All four writings seem to
encourage the response of 'passive resistance*. None contains a call to
military resistance; all emphasize that victory and vengeance will
come through the direct action of God and his special agents; none
indicates that the elect will participate in the final battle against the
enemies. The action that is characteristic or recommended of the elect
represents non-military forms of resistance, primarily faithfulness and
endurance.
Do these writings, however, also display a 'pacifistic* perspective?
The evidence remains somewhat ambiguous. The primary evidence
for die perspectives of both 'passive resistance' and 'pacificism' consists of the emphasis on the direct action of God and his special agents
in the final victory, on the one hand, and the lack of any explicit
participation by the elect in the final batUe, on the other. This sort of
depiction does indeed contrast sharply from those writings, apocalyptic and non-apocalyptic, which express an overtly synergistic,
military ideology ( 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Jubilees 23, Animal
Apocalypse
[1 En. 8 5 - 9 0 ] , Apocalypse
of Weeks [1 En.
93.1-10;
9 1 . 1 1 - 1 7 ] ) . But there are also other apocalyptic writings diat focus on
the direct intervention of God and lack any reference to the synergistic participation of the elect in die final battle, some of which even
contain rhetoric against the weapons of war. One can note here the
Wisdom of Solomon,"" the Psalms of Solomon,^
4 Ezra"* and the
of persecutors in the final hour. If this is the author's view, it is very muted.
113. On 13.10, die one text which might indicate an explicit rejection of armed
resistance, see above, n. 106.
114. The Wisdom of Solomon promotes the stance of forbearance (epieikeia,
2.19), endurance of evil (anexikakia, 2.19), non-retaliation (18.1-2), and prayer
versus force of arms (18.22) in response to abuse from foreign oppressors. The
94
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Sibylline Oracles 3 - 5 . " ' While some of these seem to reflect the
persp)ective of passive resistance (Wisdom of Solomon) or quietism
(Psalms of Solomon, but not pacifistic), others cannot be so clearly
identified. It is mediodologically somewhat dubious, dien, to suppose
agents of deliverance and vengeance are 'wisdom', God's hand, word and warfare,
and die forces of creation. Instances of armed warfare in Israel's history appear to be
downplayed. See, further, Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, ch. 2.
115. In Pss. Sol. 17 the Davidic 'Lord Messiah will destroy the Gentile
oppressors 'with an iron rod' and 'widi die word of his moudi' (vv. 24, 35, 36; cf.
Ps. 2.9; Isa. 11.2-4). There is a polemic against relying on die weapons of war or
numbers in battle (17.33-34a) and die su^ngdi of the Messiah is seen especially in
his word and character. There is no reference to any role on the part of die devout in
die desuiicdon of the oppressors, although die expectation is diat die devout will be
the beneficiaries of the Messiah's victory. R.B. Wright ('Psalms of Solomon',
OTP, II, p. 643) asserts diat members of the group diat produced die psalms 'were
not political pacifists, and appear as quietists only because they have no opportunity
to be activists'.
116. 4 Ezra is concerned with the future release of Israel from the tyranny of
Rome. The Davidic Messiah will conquer, judge and destroy the Romans (11.3612.3; 12.31-33) and establish the kingdom in security (12.34). In 4 Ezra 13 the
Messiah will destroy die nations assembled to conquer Israel, but widiout 'a spear or
any weapons of war' (13.9, 28). RaUier, he will conquer by a stream of fire, a
flaming breath, and a storm of sparks issuing from his moudi, which will bum up
the multitude (13.10-22,27). The three discharges symbolize die Messiah's reproof
of the nations for their ungodliness, his reproach of them, and his destruction of
them 'without effort by the law' (13.38). There is no reference to any synergistic
participation by the elect; the Messiah will defeat the oppressors of Israel
miraculously widiout reliance on military might
117. According to Sib. Or. 3, God uses human agents, even foreign kings, to
achieve his purposes in history (352. 356, 366). But in the final conflict, God will
direcUy intervene to judge die nations gathered against Israel (669-701) and will
usher in an age of peace. Cosmic catastrophes, including fire and fiery swords from
heaven (672-73, 689-91, 798) will destroy the enemies of Israel. Then Israel will
live in peace, free from war, 'for [the Lord] alone will shield diem... The Immortal
himself and die hand of the Holy One will be fighting for them' (702-13; Collins in
OTP). Weapons of war will be gathered and used to fuel fires (727-31) and
'prophets of the great God will take away die sword' (781). In Sib. Or. 4, God will
also intervene to judge die Romans (135-36) and die whole earth (159-61) widi a
great conflagration, especially dirough fire from heaven (171-78). In Sib. Or. 5, a
savior figure with a scepter will come from heaven to destroy die enemies of Israel
and to restore Jerusalem (414-25). The destruction will occur especially by fire from
heaven (274, 299, 325, 375-80). None of die Oracles refer to any synergistic
participation by the elect in die present or future conflicts.
ZERBE 'Pacificism'and'PassiveResistance'
95
that the presence of an eschatological drama that focuses on God's
direct action and lacks a reference to participation by the elect in the
final battle specifically indicates the perspective of 'passive resistance',
let alone that of 'pacificism*. For this reason, and because there is no
explicit rejection of armed resistance in these writings, it is perhaps
best not to term die perspective of any of these documents as 'pacifistic*.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN 1 ENOCH AND JUBILEES
James C. VanderKam
I.
Introduction
The subject of this essay is the large topic of biblical interpretation in
1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. These two extended works are
among the very earliest of the Jewish pseudepigraphs from the Second
Temple period, and their andquity raises at least two problems in connection widi their relation to die Hebrew Bible. The book of / Enoch,
as commentators have long noted, consists of five major parts, each of
which appears to have been written at a different time. The oldest
section—the Astronomical Book (chs. 72-82)—dates from no later
than the third century BCE, while the Book of Watchers (chs. 1-36)
may come from approximately the same time' and the Epistle of
Enoch (chs. 91-107) from perhaps 170 BCE.^ If these dates are
correct, then all three compositions predate the second half of Daniel
(chs. 7-12) which is commonly assigned to ca. 165 BCE. It has also
been argued that Jubilees, too, is earlier than the last six chapters of
1. The dates for the Astronomical Book and Book of Watchers are based
primarily on paleographical considerations. J.T. Milik (The Books of Enoch:
Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1976], p. 7) dates die
oldest cave 4 MS of die Astronomical Book to die late diird or early second century
BCE, while die oldest copy of die Book of Watchers ' . . . is connected widi die semicursive scripts ('semi-formal') of the diird and second centuries BC. Our manuscript
probably datesf from die first half of die second century' (p. 140).
2. It has been customary to date the Epistle to die end of the second century, but
for the earlier date see now G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the
Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 149-50; and
J.C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS, 16;
Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984), pp. 142-49.
VANDERKAM Biblical Interpretation in 1 Enoch and Jubilees
97
Daniel,' but the case has not been made in a convincing way." The
result is, nevertheless, that a substantial part of the Enochic corpus is
more ancient than one section of what became Scripture; these
booklets belong to what might be called the biblical period. They,
along with books such as 1-2 Chronicles, provide other witnesses to
the fact that older biblical books were being interpreted already in the
age that produced the Hebrew Bible.
A second problem is that at the early times in which the various
parts of 1 Enoch and the unified Book of Jubilees were written, the
term 'biblical' would not have had the precision that was later given to
it. Contrary to the view of R. Beckwith, it seems highly unlikely that
the Hebrew canon had been closed in the time of Judas Maccabeus;'
1 Enoch and Jubilees diemselves and the popularity of bodi at Qumran
are eloquent testimony to the fact that other works billed themselves
as revelations and tiiat their claims were accepted by at least some
ancient Jews. Which works the authors of diese books may have considered authoritative is not entirely clear, although it is obvious tiiat
Genesis had a special appeal for them and diat they valued many
others. Thus the Enochic pamphlets and the Book of Jubilees provide
windows into die processes of interpreting older authoritative compositions at a time when the bounds of the Hebrew Scriptures were not
set and when other writers were making revelatory claims for their
literary efforts.
Though they are very different kinds of books, 1 Enoch and
Jubilees are righUy treated together in a study of this kind. The parts
of / Enoch focus on the eschatological judgment that will separate and
reward the righteous and the evil and formulate admonitions on the
basis of it, while Jubilees, as it retells the biblical account from
creation to Sinai, is a prime example of the so-called 'Re-written
3. So Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, pp. 77-79; J. Goldstein, "The Date of
die Book of Jubilees'. PAAJR 50 (1983), pp. 63-86.
4. See J.C. VanderKam, 'Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and Other SecondCentury Sources', SBLASP (1978), I, pp. 229-51; diere it is argued diat die audior
of Jubilees knew die Enochic Book of Dreams which was not written before 164
BCE.
5. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background
in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985). For a more plausible view
about an open 'canon' in this period, see J. Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of
Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986),
pp. 1-95.
98
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Bible'.* But behind the obvious differences between the two in form
and content, there lie some shared beliefs and practices. Among the
common views of the writers are the importance of the story about
heavenly angels who descended and married women, the revealed
character of the 364-day solar calendar, and the firm conviction that
there would be a time of ultimate reckoning. The authors articulated
these shared beliefs through interpretation of and reflecdon on earlier
authoritadve religious texts, many of which are now found in the
canon of Hebrew Scripture.
The plan of die paper is first to study die uses of earlier Scriptures
in the five secdons of / Enoch (arranged chronologically) and second
to do the same for Jubilees. The size of the two books makes an
exhaustive study impossible within the confines of a single essay; consequendy, a selection has been made of what were judged to be
especially instructive cases. Obviously, other examples than those
found below could have been selected, but die ones chosen are important instances of biblical uses and should give the reader a good
impression of how the various authors operated. Before turning to the
texts, one important observation should be made: the different
Enochic authors (and die writer of Jubilees to a certain extent), even
in diose places in which they are not quoting or reworking a specific
passage, resort to what might be called a biblically saturated language.
The rhetoric of the writers was manifestly conditioned by die ancient
texts of their nation and faidi, and they expressed this indebtedness
repeatedly both in die pericopes that will be studied here and in other
sections of their works.
II. Biblical Interpretation
in 1 Enoch
Scholars now divide the book into five sections. In chronological
order they are: the Astronomical Book (chs. 72-82); the Book of the
6. The phrase comes from G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism:
Haggadic Studies (SPB, 4; Leiden: Brill, 2nd rev. edn, 1983), pp. 67-126. There is
some dispute about precisely which books to include in the category, but some
scholars place / Enoch 6-11 in it. Cf., for example, G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 'The
Bible Rewritten and Expanded', in Jewish Writings of the Second-Temple Period
(CRINT, 2.2; Assen. The Nedierlands: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: ForU«ss Press,
1984), pp. 89-156; D. Dimant, 'Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha
and Pseudepigrapha', in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra (CRINT, 2.1; Assen, The
Nedierlands: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 379-419.
V A N D E R K A M Biblical Interpretation
in 1 Enoch and Jubilees
99
Watchers ( 1 - 3 6 ) ; the Epistle of Enoch ( 9 1 - 1 0 7 ) ; the Book of Dreams
( 8 3 - 9 0 ) ; and the Book of Parables ( 3 7 - 7 1 ) . J.T. Milik has shown that
the Book of Parables did not form an original part of the Enochic
coUecdon of texts; radier, the Book of the Giants occupied its place.'
For the piuposes of this essay, however, the five components of die
present book of 1 Enoch will be studied. It should be added that each
of the five secdons of I Enoch may be further subdivided into originally discrete units, but it would add litde to die present discussion to
analyze each of these in isolation.
A. The Astronomical
Book (= AB, chs. 7 2 - 8 2 )
The first verse offers a sketch of some of the book's contents.
The Book of the Itinerary of the Luminaries of Heaven: the position of
each and every one, in respect to dieir ranks, in respect to dieir auUiorities,
and in respect to dieir seasons; each one according to their names and dieir
places of origin and according to dieir mouths, which Uriel, the holy
angel who was with me, and who (also) is their guide, showed me—just
as he showed me all dieir treatises and die nature of the years of die world
unto eternity, till die new creaUon which abides forever is created (72.1;
cf. 80.1).
In diis sense, the book is presented as a revealed scientific treatise, and
it provides the expected technical material from ch. 7 2 through
ch. 7 9 . Then, in 8 0 . 2 - 8 and 8 1 other concerns predominate, while in
8 2 the more scientific interests resurface. The text was originally
written in Aramaic but later translated into Greek and from Greek
into Ethiopic—the only version preserved in full form at present.
However, a comparison of the Qumran Aramaic fragments of the
book with die Ethiopic text shows that in the comparable sections the
original was much longer than the current Ethiopic text.*
Consequently, inferences drawn from the Ethiopic text may not be
valid for the now lost original version.
There is nothing comparable to the AB in die Hebrew Bible; in fact,
die book shows almost no evidence of any but the most general
influence from or interaction widi the biblical text. To tiiis statement
diere are only a few exceptions. Enoch himself, is, of course, a biblical character, and his role in the book shows that die autiior accepted a
7. Milik, Books of Enoch, pp. 89-98. His conclusions about the date of die
Book of Parables are quite unlikely to be correct
8. Milik, Books of Enoch, pp. 7-8.
100
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
particular interpretation of Gen. 5.22: 'Enoch walked with God
(D-n'jKn n « -[m -pnm) after the birth of Methuselah three hundred
years'. He understood the phrase 'Enoch walked with God' to mean
that he spent time with the angels. That is, in 5.22 (and 24) the definite
noun D-n'jKn meant for him 'the angels', whereas the anarthrous form
u-T\^*. at the end of 5.24 he read as 'God'. As a consequence, it was
believed diat Genesis credited Enoch with a 300-year stay in the company of angels before God eventually took him for his eternal sojourn
with him and his heavenly rednue. While Enoch was with these
celestial beings he learned die secrets contained in die AB. The AB
also presupposes die biblical information diat Enoch was die father of
Mediuselah (76.14; cf. 81.5-6; 82.1). To him Enoch transmitted die
revealed data that he alone had received, and Methuselah in turn
passed tiiem to future generations (81.5-6; 82.1). / En. 81.6 suggests,
moreover, tiiat the biblical chronology underlies it: Genesis gives
Enoch's age as 65 when Methuselah was born; the next 300 years
Enoch is with the angels; and after diis period he has one year widi his
son before God removed him.
Beyond these biographical details die AB has at best a tenuous relaition with scriptural works. Even Uriel, the angel who discloses the
astronomical information to Enoch, is not mentioned in the Hebrew
Bible. The name is a scriptural one, but it is never given to an angel
(1 Chron. 6.9 [Eng. 6.24]; 15.5, 11; 2 Chron. 13.2). The name was
chosen for Enoch's angelic guide because its meaning was appropriate
to his role in die book: God is my light (see also 74.2; 75.3, 4; 78.10;
79.6; 80.1; 82.7).
R.H. Charles claimed a stronger connection witii scriptural givens
for the AB: 'In this treatise the writer attempts to bring the many
utterances in the OT regarding physical phenomena into one system,
and puts this forward as the genuine and biblical one as opposed to all
other systems'.' It is, however, difficult to see how this statement could
be true. To be sure, tiiere are echoes of scriptural notions. For example,
die audior speaks of a new creation (72.1)—an idea that is expressed
in Isa. 65.17; 66.22. In the AB the new or second creation serves as a
terminus to mark the end of die period during which die book's astronomical laws are valid. Beyond diis correspondence, there appears to
be a near quotation or at least an allusion to Isa. 30.26 in 72.37. In the
9. R.H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1912; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1973), p. 147.
V A N D E R K A M Biblical Interpretation in I Enoch andJubilees
101
Enochic passage the writer says of the sun: 'As for the intensity of its
light, it is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; nevertheless (the
sun and the moon) are equal in regard to their (respective) sizes'. Isa.
3 0 . 2 6 predicts (referring to a time of divine grace on God's people,
cf. V. 2 3 ) :
Moreover ihe light of the moon will be as the light of the sim, and die light
of the sun will be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in die day when
the Lord binds up die hurt of his people, and heals die wounds inflicted
by his blow.
Where the biblical passage has an eschatological frame of reference,
the AB uses the ratio of 7:1 as describing the comparative brightness
of the two luminaries in die time between the first and second
creations. Apart from this passage, the astt'onomy and geography of
die book do not appear to be based on scriptural texts. In addition, no
exegetical basis is given for any of the calendrical calculations. It
seems accurate to say diat the audior derives his views, not so much
from biblical texts, as from lore that can be found in different sorts of
Mesopotamian documents that depict rather primitive levels of
scientific development.'"
B. The Book of Watchers (= BW, chs. 1 - 3 6 )
Although there is some reason for believing that the AB is composite
( 8 0 . 2 - 8 1 . 1 0 may be an addition), a stronger case can be made that the
BW has been constructed from disparate units. Chapters 1 - 5 serve as
an introduction to the treatise, 6 - 1 1 present the story of the angels
who descended to earth and die aftermath of dieir sin, 1 2 - 1 6 connect
Enoch with the story about die angels, and 1 7 - 3 6 describe two journeys ( 1 7 - 1 9 and 2 0 - 3 6 ) on which angels conducted Enoch through the
created o r d e r . " These 3 6 chapters in varying degrees are the first
Enochic writings that exhibit a close relation with parts of the Hebrew
Bible. In general it may be said that in the different units a wide
variety of earlier texts are laid under contribution; that is, die writer
or writers employ a vocabulary diat is thoroughly indebted to biblical
language. There is no point in documenting all of these cases. Rather,
in the sections diat follow, attention will be focused on a few cases in
10. See VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic
pp. 89-104.
11. As an example, see Charles, The Book of Enoch, pp. 1-2.
Tradition,
102
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
which specific biblical passages are borrowed and exploited at greater
length.
I. / Enoch 1-5. These chapters begin by introducing Enoch with words
that are reminiscent of Deut. 33.1 (Moses' blessing of the tribes) and
Numbers 2 2 - 2 4 (the Balaam chapters) and by establishing the
eschatological content of his message. Thus, his words are characterized as a blessing for 'the elect and the righteous who would be
present on the day of tribulation at (the time of) the removal of all the
ungodly' ( I . I ) . Consequently the words of Enoch are predictive in
harmony with the biblical passages on which they drew. Even Balaam,
after all, had prefaced a message to Balak widi the words, 'And now,
behold, I am going to my people; come, I will let you know what this
people will do to your people in the latter days' (Num. 24.14; cf.
V. 17). The phrase 'the latter days* no doubt proved attractive to the
author of the BW for whom it had eschatological meaning. Here, then,
one meets a case in which a biblical text, whose future referent was
perhaps more modest in extent,'^ has been transformed to fit the
eschatological setting of a different composition.
7 Enoch 1.3b-9 presents a theophany which is expressed in
thoroughly Q-aditional, biblical language; this is followed by words of
judgment for sinners and blessing for the righteous (chs. 2-5). These
secti(j)ns have received much scholarly attention and have been shown
to be a pastiche of biblical phrases and images—all now set within an
eschatological context. Especially noteworthy is the work of
L. Hartman, who, in his exhaustive search for more and less certain
scriptural sources, has offered valuable insights into the uses of
biblical texts and motifs in these chapters. He and odiers have shown
that the theophany in l.3b-9 borrows principally from Mic. 1.3-4
(and to a lesser extent from Hab. 3) and that the writer has woven into
the Micah passage a variety of words, phrases and images that come
from other biblical accounts of dieophanies The words of blessing in
1.8 are related to Num. 6.24-26, while 1.9, widi its description of die
Lord*s arrival for judgment, draws upon Deut. 33.2. By employing a
rich mixture of biblical language and images, the author has succeeded
12. M. Noih. Numbers (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 192.
He suggests that the phrase D O T H'TTTHD means 'in time to come' or 'at a later dme'.
V A N D E R K A M Biblical Interpretation in l Enoch and Jubilees
103
in fashioning an impressive picture of the awesome appearance of the
eschatological Judge."
Hartman has also shown diat die repeated references in chs. 2 - 5 to
how nature obeys the laws set by its maker and how human beings
habitually violate divine law are a development of the covenantal
dieme of calling on heaven and earth as witnesses against Israel widi
regard to its pact widi God (see Deut. 3 0 . 1 9 ; 3 2 . 1 ) . About I Enoch 25 he observes:
Beyond any doubt the text as a whole—except for the details of 2.1-5.3
(on the order of nature)—grows out of a soil consisting of an interpreted
OT. The texts which have especially inspired our author are the PriesUy
Blessing of Nu 6 and the Farewell Speech of Moses in Dt 28ff. Several
times diere has been every reason to assume that these biblical connections
are guided by a wider frame of reference, which has to do with the
concepts of blessing, malediction and covenant"
In fact, Hartman sees bodi die theophany passage and die rib or dispute
chapters ( 2 - 5 ) as belonging 'in a field of covenant associations, visible
also in the ways in which different Jewish texts deal with motifs
contained in our 1 En passage'."
2. 1 Enoch 6-II. When one moves from die introductory chapters,
which set fundamental diemes for die remainder of the book, one immediately encounters a more detailed and sustained use of an antecedent
text. I Enoch 6 - 1 1 relates the core myth of the Enochic books: die
story of the heavenly angels who descended to earth, married
whichever women they chose, and fatJiered from them evil offspring.
In tiiis case one biblical pericope provides die primary inspiration or
at least the framework for the story—Gen. 6.1-4—although it is
evident that the author has greatly expanded the base text.'* It has
13. L. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish
Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 par. (ConBNT. I;
Uppsala: Gleerup. 1966); idem. Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1-5
(ConBNT, 12; Lund: Gleerup, 1979). Cf. also J.C. VanderKam. 'The Theophany
of Enoch i. 3b-7, 9', VT23 (1973). pp. 129-50.
14. Haitman, Asking for a Meaning, pp. 37-38.
15. Harmian, Asking for a Meaning, p. 97. In his book he has accumulated a
wealdi of comparative material about diis matter.
16. There have been many studies of diese chapters in recent times, but for
analyses which deal more specifically with their relation to the biblical text see
Nickelsburg, 'The Bible Rewritten and Expanded', pp. 90-92; and Dimant 'Use
104
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
been argued that in fact Genesis embodies a compressed form of the
more ancient, fuller account in 1 Enoch, but that thesis, which would
reverse the direction of influence, has hardly been p r o v e d . " According
to the angel story, the sin of the watchers and their children led to
judgment for all who were guilty.'* The flood, which was one of the
punishments meted out to the malefactors, then functions as a
hortatory example which is repeatedly adduced throughout / Enoch.
The close relation of and differences between the biblical and
Enochic versions can be seen by setting them in parallel c o l u m n s . "
and Interpretation of Mikra', pp. 402-406. The most diorough study of 1 Enoch 6 11 remains Dimant's unpublished dissertation, "The Fallen Angels" in die Dead Sea
Scrolls and in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Books Related to Them'
(Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1974 [Hebrew]), pp. 23-72.
17. So Milik, The Books of Enoch, pp. 30-32; P.R. Davies, 'Sons of Cain' in
J.D. Martin and P.R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of
William McKane (JSOTSup, 42; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), pp. 46-50.
18. It is generally agreed diat diere are two versions of die angel story in chs. 6 II: one that centers about Shemihazah and one that focuses on Asael. On this
distincdon. see die familiar essays of G.W.E. Nickelsburg ('Apocalyptic and Mydi in
1 Enoch 6-1 r , JBL 96 [1977], pp. 383-405) and P.Hanson ('Rebellion in
Heaven, Azazel and Euhemeristic Heroes in I Enoch 6-11', JBL 96 [1977],
pp. 197-233). Dimant ('"The Fallen Angels'", pp. 23-72) finds evidence of a diird
version and distinguishes the three as follows (see the summary on pp. 64-65): I.
die Shemihazah version involves the story of the angels who defiled diemselves widi
women, fathered giants and thus sinned; diis is an interpretation of Gen. 6.1-4 but
without any connection widi die flood. 2. a story about angels who taught divinadon
and other secrets to mankind, thus leading them astray. They, too, had children. This
is an interpretadon of Gen .6.1-4 diat is connected with die flood as a punishment on
sinful mankind. 3. the story of Asael who taught various arts to mankind and in this
way led diem into sin. The account is an interpretation of Gen. 6.11-12 and explains
the destrucdon that transpired before die flood and also die reason for die punishment
of the flood.
The additional question whedier Lev. 16 with its goat for Azazel has
influenced the text (Hanson ['Rebellion in Heaven', pp. 220-25] makes much of
diis) is complicated by die fact that die name is spelled Asael in die Aramaic
fragments, noi Azazel as it is in Lev. 16. But Lev. 16 may have played some role in
the formation of die BW; see the comment of D.J. Halperin, The Faces of the
Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel's Vision (Texte und Studien zum
Andken Judentum, 16; Tubingen: Mohr, 1988), p. 82 (regarding / Enoch 14).
19. The very literal translations of the Genesis and 7 Enoch passages are mine;
diey have been worded to accent die points of agreement and similarity between the
two texts.
VANDERKAM Biblical Interpretation
Genesis 6.1-4
And it was when mankind began to
multiply on the face of the ground
daughters were bom to diem, and the
sons of the elohim saw the daughters
of mankind that they were good, and
they took for themselves women from
all whom diey chose.
in 1 Enoch andJubilees
105
7 Enoch 6.1-2: 7.1-2
And it was when the sons of mankind
multiplied, in those days diere were
born to them beautiful and lovely
daughters, and the angels, the sons of
heaven, saw them and desired them,
and they said among themselves,
'Come on, let's choose for ourselves
women from die children of mankind,
and let's bear sons for ourselves.
At this juncture each text has material that is not reflected directly in
the other. Gen. 6.3 speaks of the divine decision to limit life to 120
years, while 1 En. 6.3-8 tells about Shemihazah, the leading angel, and
his companions who swore to carry out the resolve they had just
made. The text also lists the names of die 20 chief angels. Once die
additional lines are given in the two works, they resume paralleling
one another.
The nephitim were in the eardi in diose
days, and also afterwards when (?) die
sons of the elohim came into die
daughters of mankind, and they bore
for diem. They are the gibborim who
were from eternity, the men of the
name.
And all the others with them. And
diey took for themselves women, and
each one chose one for himself. And
they began to come into them, and
they were promiscuous with them.
And they taught them...And they
became pregnant and gave birth to
great giants, and the height of each
one was 3000 cubits.
A comparison of the two shows that the author of 1 En. 6-11 has
nuanced die biblical text in many minor ways (e.g. moving 'in diose
days' to the beginning of the story, whereas Genesis has it in v. 4 in
connection with the nephilim). One noteworthy change, apart from
labeling the 'sons of the elohim' as 'angels', is that the wording in
Enoch highlights the physical, lustful side of the angels' action by
using two adjectives to describe the women (beautiful and lovely),
only one of which comes from Genesis; and by using two verbs (saw
and desired), where Genesis has one (saw).^" Also, the author wished
to stress that the angels' decision was not based upon a momentary
passion but was deliberate and its implications clearly understood.
20. Dimant, 'Use and Interpretation of Mikra', pp.404-405; '"The Fallen
Angels'", pp. 33-34.
106
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
This appears to be the purpose of the additional section regarding the
etymological oath on Mt Hermon:
And Semyaz, being their leader, said unto them: 'I fear that perhaps you
will not consent that this deed should be done, and I alone will become
(responsible) for dtis great sin'. But they all responded to him, 'Let us all
swear an oath and bind everyone among us by a curse not to abandon this
suggestion, but to do the deed'. Then they all swore together and bound
one anodier by (die curse) (6.3-4).
Only after inserting this and other material does the writer return to
his terse base in Genesis 6.
It should also be noticed that I Enoch specifies the purpose of the
angels' cohabiting with women. Gen. 6.2 relates only that 'they took
for themselves women from all whom they chose'. I En. 6.2 has the
angels say to one another: 'Come on, let us choose wives for ourselves
from among the daughters of man and beget us children'. This addition is of considerable interest because it seems related to the omitted
words of Gen. 6.3 {Jub. 5.7-8 associates them explicitly): 'Then the
Lord said, "My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh,
but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years'". The issue of length
of life for the offspring of the angels recurs in several passages in
1 Enoch. It appears diat the watchers wished long life on the earth for
their children. Gabriel is commanded:
Proceed against die bastards and die reprobates and against the sons of die
fornicators, and destroy the sons of the fornicators and the sons of the
Watchers from amongst men. And send diem out, and send diem against
one another, and let them destroy themselves in battie, for they will not
have lengdi of days. And they will all petition you, but Uieir fathers will
gain nothing in respect of them, for they hope for eternal life, and dial
each of diem will live life for five hundred years (10.9-10).^'
Rather than enjoying extended life, the children of the angels will kill
one another in the presence of their fathers. Then the fathers
diemselves will be bound for 70 generations until tiie final judgment,
when their sentence will last forever (a word from Gen. 6.3; see 1 En.
10.11-14). It seems that the author has interpreted the word 'flesh' in
Gen. 6.3 to refer to the gigantic children of the angels and has dius
21. Translation of M. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the
Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978).
V A N D E R K A M Biblical Interpretation in I Enoch andJubilees
107
incorporated thoughts from this verse into his more complicated
account.
The union of the sons of God widi the daughters of men receives no
moral evaluation in Genesis; it is simply recounted. / Enoch, however, makes a specific judgment on the matter: 'And they began [for
the verb, cf. Gen. 6 . 1 ] to go in to them and were promiscuous with
tiiem. And they taught d i e m . . . ' ( 7 . 1 [Knibb]). The later account also
supplies more detail about the children bom to heavenly fathers and
earthly mothers. Gen. 6 . 4 mentions the presence of the nephilim, but
after the sexual union of angels and women it names tiie children 'die
gibborim who were from eternity, die men of the name'. In 7 En. 7 . 2
the women gave birth to great giants, each standing some 30(X) cubits.
One does not meet here the later identification of three generations of
offspring (though Syncellus offers it at this point): large giants,
nephilim, and elioud (see 7 En. 8 6 . 4 ; 8 8 . 2 ; Jub. 7 . 2 2 ) , but die names
and descriptions in Gen. 6 . 4 seem to be behind them.
3 . 7 Enoch 12-16. In this section which first introduces Enoch, the
seventh antediluvian father, into the angel story, the writer begins by
working again with die information in Gen. 5 . 2 2 , 2 4 .
And before eveiydiing Enoch had been hidden, and none of die sons of
men knew where he was hidden, or where he was, or what had
happened. And all his doings (were) widi die Holy Ones and with the
Watchers in his days (12.1-2 [Knibb]).
Here, as in die AB (see above), one meets die notion diat Enoch spent
time with die angels. Where the Ethiopic text twice uses the verb 'to
be hidden' (takabta, a form found in some MSS of Ethiopic Gen.
5 . 2 4 ) , the Greek translation contains 'to be taken' (eXfintpOii) which
reflects the reading of die MT npb in Gen. 5 . 2 4 . Furthermore, die fact
diat no one knew the whereabouts of Enoch seems to be a clarification
of Genesis' cryptic 'and he was not*. The language, then, is closely
tied to Gen. 5 . 2 4 , but it is not impossible (widiin die chronology of
Genesis) that die first of Enoch*s two removals to angelic company is
here under consideration.^^ According to 7 En. 1 2 . 1 , his removal
occurred before the events which had just been narrated.
The only other passage in tiiese five chapters with especially close
22. See the discussion in VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic
Tradition, pp. 130-31.
108
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
scriptural ties is 14.8-25, the story of Enoch's vision of and ascent to
the divine throneroom. It has often been observed diat diese verses are
heavily dependent upon the various scriptural throne visions;
examples are Isaiah 6; 1 Kgs 22.19-23 (widi die parallel in 2 Chron.
18.18-22); Ezekiel 1, 10; and Dan. 7.9-14. Mention of Daniel 7 raises
a special problem because, though there are marked similarities
between it and some of the wording of Enoch's description, Daniel 7
is supposed to be later tiian die BIV, in which case die borrowing (if
diere was any) would have been from / Enoch 14 to Daniel 7 and not
from Daniel 7 to / Enoch 14.
Somediing of die nature and extent of the writer's borrowing from
biblical models may be gleaned from the following list (the parallels
are not exact in every case, and the Daniel references are given widiout claiming diat diey were the source of Enoch's imagery):"
14.8 (cf. 14.14): vision (Ezek 1.1; Dan. 7.1, 2)
clouds (Ezek. 1.4, 28; 10.3-4; Dan. 7.13)
ligliming (Ezek. 1.13-14)
winds (Ezek. 1.4; Dan. 7.2)
lifted me up (Ezek. 8.3; 11.1 [but not, as widi Enoch, into heaven])
Enoch then proceeds to describe his vision of heaven in more detail
and with less familiar features (wall of hailstones surrounded by a
tongue of fire, a large house built of hailstones with a snow floor),
though some expected items do occur (e.g. fire [Ezek. 1.4, 13, 27;
10.2, 6-7; Dan. 7.9-10; cf. Isa. 6.4, 6] and cherubim [Ezek. 9.3; 10.122]). Enoch's fear, trembling and prosU-ation (14.13-14) remind one
of the seer's reaction in other accounts of this kind (Isa. 6.5; Ezek.
1.28; Dan. 7.15, 28). When one reaches the point at which he
describes G o d ' s heavenly throne, the writer's language becomes
heavily traditional:
14.18 high Uirone (1 Kgs 22.19; Isa. 6.1; Ezek. 1.26; 10.1; Dan. 7.9
cherubim (Ezekiel 10 [cf. 9.3])
wheel (Ezek. 1.15-16,19, 20, 21; 10.2; Dan. 7.9)
14.19 rivers of burning fire (Ezek 1.4 [cf. v. 29]; Dan. 7.10)
23. For bibliography on the passage, cf. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of
an Apocalyptic Tradition, p. 134 n. 85. To diat list should be added M. Black, The
Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition (SVTP, 7; Uiden: Brill, 1985),
pp. 146-52; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 'Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation
in Upper Galilee', JBL 100 (1981), pp. 576-87.
in I Enoch andJubilees
109
14.20 Great Glory sat on the throne (Ezek. 1.28 [see 3.23; 9.3]; 10.4 [cf.
43.4; 44.4])
bright raiment (cf. Ezek. 1.27-28; Dan. 7.9)
14.21 could not look at his face (Isa. 6.2; cf. Targ. Ezek. 1.27)
14.22 10,000 times 10,000 were before him (Dan. 7.10; odier texts mendon die heavenly rednue but not the number [1 Kgs 22.19; Isa.
6.2])
14.23 holy ones near him did not leave by night or day (cf. Ezek. 1.1921; 10.16-17; Rev. 4.8)
14.24-25 die deity calls widi his moudi (Isa. 6.6-13; 1 Kgs 22.21-22;
Ezek. 1.28; 2.2).
Since the antecedent biblical throne visions (and not Daniel 7) function
as the settings in which prophets receive their commissions, it is not
surprising that the same happens on this occasion for Enoch.
The end puipose of Enoch's ascent is to be commissioned by God to play
die role of prophet His approach to God's dirone room is prelude to this
commission, and, conversely, the message he is commissioned to deliver
is the climax of the vision.^"
Yet, despite the author's heavy reliance upon traditional language and
models, he departs from them in important respects: Enoch is
summoned to speak words of judgment to the angelic watchers, and he
not only sees the heavenly throne room in his vision but he actually
ascends to that forbidden place, into the celestial temple.^^ Thus, in
this case, various biblical models are exploited to produce a new text
which is closely tied to larger themes in the books of Enoch: a
righteous man condemns the primordial sinners and speaks from the
ultimate position of authority.
C. The Epistle of Enoch (= EE, chs. 91-107)
The rhetoric of / Enoch 91-107 is replete with scriptural language as
the writer contrasts the sinners/rich/mighty with the righteous/poor/
weak. Yet, he seldom treats a particular passage more fully than
simply by repeating a word or two (98.15-16 and Jer. 23.32 are an
example),^* although the material in ch. 104 and Dan. 12.1-3 show
24. Nickelsburg, 'Enoch, Levi, and Peter', pp. 576-77.
25. Nickelsburg, 'Enoch, Levi, and Peter', p. 578; Halperin, The Faces of the
Chariot, pp. 81-82.
26. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 'The Episde of Enoch and die Qumran Literature',
JJS 33 (1982), pp. 336-38.
110
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
strong resemblances.^' The two major exceptions to the rule figure
near the beginning and at the end of the epistle: the Apocalypse
of
V/eeks (93.3-10; 91.11-17) and the story of the Birth of Noah ( 1 0 6 107). It may be the case that these two sections are independent
compositions that were incorporated into the Epistle, but, whatever
their origin, diey were present in the work at an early d m e and are
now integral parts of it. These two radier different texts should now
be examined.
1. The Apocalypse of Weeks (= AW). The A W may be die oldest
Jewish apocalypse diat includes a historical survey.^* The writer, in
his cryptic account, introduces Enoch in language drawn (as in ch. 1)
from the Balaam stories and then divides biblical history into units of
unequal length that he terms weeks. For each of the first six, he
alludes to at least one event diat allows one to locate the point in the
biblical storyline diat he has reached. The first six weeks and perhaps
part of the seventh reproduce the biblical period, while the last three
depict different stages of die final judgment.
Weekl:
Week 2:
Week 3:
Week 4:
Week 5:
Week 6:
Enoch's birth
Evil causes the flood after which wickedness increases again
The election of Abraham
Revelation of die law
The eternal dynasty and kingdom of David are established
Evil abounds, Elijah ascends, the Judean kingdom ends, and
die dispersion begins
Week 7: An apostate generation arises, and die elect receive instruction
Week 8: Judgment of die wicked by die righteous and a house built for
the great King
Week 9: Judgment of the world and die godless
Week 10: Judgment on die angels and die new heaven appears.
27. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in
Intertestamental Judaism (HTS, 26; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972),
p. 122.
28. The date of die AW is debated, but die range of suggestions is very narrow;
The one selected depends upon die place where one finds the time of the audior in die
scheme of 10 weeks. For a recent defense of an early Maccabean dating, see
F. Dexinger. Henochs Zehnwochenapokalypse
und offene Probleme
der
Apokalyptikforschung (SPB, 29; Leiden: Brill, 1977), pp. 137-40. For a date of ca.
170, see J.C. VanderKam, 'Studies in die Apocalypse of Weeks (I Enoch 93.1-10;
91.11-17)'. CBQ 46 (1984), pp. 521-23.
in I Enoch and Jubilees 1 1 1
After these ten will follow innumerable weeks.
This little apocalyptic text shows that the author knew the biblical
storyline that is familiar from the narrative books of the Hebrew
Bible, but it also shows, as one would expect in an Enochic work, a
familiarity with the story of the angels who sinned and who will be
judged (in the tenth week). All of diiis material is incorporated into a
single scheme without differentiation in levels of authority. The
writer seems to have selected a minimal number of key events in the
biblical drama around which to center his structure (he does not,
however, mention so prominent an event as the Exodus). Moreover,
he clearly sees a pattern to sacred history—a history that, in its
seventh week, extends beyond the scriptural time limit. While his
'weeks' may be of varying length,^' they fit within a balanced pattern
in which the righteous eventually prevail and the three kinds of
evildoers are obliterated. In diis text it is possible to see that die
author regards his own 'week'—the seventh or sabbatical week—as
the one tiiat precedes die beginning of die diree-part judgment. By
placing the entire survey in the mouth of Enoch (the seventh
patriarch) who lived in the first week, he furnishes a classic example
of vaticinia ex eventu.
The choice of the distinctively biblical term 'weeks' and the predominance of the number seven in the AW point one toward another
way in which die scriptural text has influenced the writer of the EE. It
may be that he divided die period from die beginning of history to the
end of the judgment into ten units of seven in imitation of Jeremiah's
prophecy tiiat the exile would last 7 0 years (Jer. 2 5 . 1 1 - 1 2 ; 2 9 . 1 0 ) .
Daniel 9 , of course, reinterprets Jeremiah's number to mean 7 0 times
seven or 4 9 0 years (vv. 2 5 - 2 7 ) . In the AW, however, tiie 7 0 units are
made to cover all of history and of the judgment. It is also likely diat
the writer, who lived toward the end of what he considered the
seventh week, had in mind the biblical theme of die jubilee—the year
diat followed the sevendi sabbatical year, the year of redemption and
release (see Lev. 2 5 . 1 8 - 5 5 ; Isa. 1 6 . 1 - 2 ) . He himself, dius, would be
characterizing his time as the one which lay just before tiie great year
of the Lord's favor for his people, the year of freedom.'"
29. K. Koch ('Die mysteridsen Zahlen der judaischen Konige und die
apokalyptischen Jahrwochen", VT 28 [1978], pp. 439-40) maintains diat each one
of weeks 4-7 covers 490 years.
30. On these points, see VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic
112
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
2. The Birth of Noah. The story of Noah's miraculous birth is related
in 1 Enoch 106-107 and in the Genesis Apocryphon 2. It is a tale tfiat
shares some traits with accounts of other heroes' births," but it is also
a unique composition. In 7 Enoch 106-107 it is told from the perspective of Enoch himself. There appears to be no way that the writer
of this remarkable story could have drawn most of the details about
the circumstances of the birth and the extraordinary appearance and
ability of Noah from the sparse biblical givens about him. Yet, diough
diere is great disparity with the scriptural givens about his birth (Gen.
5.28-29), the connection between the two may not be so loose as it
first appears. It is obvious from the Enochic version of the story that
the writer is using Genesis' genealogy of the prediluvian patriarchs.
He mentions Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah—patriarchs
six through ten in the list of Genesis 5. In tiiis respect he is simply
following scriptural givens about how diese five were related to one
another. He also shows, by placing Enoch far away from human
habitation and widi die angels, diat he works with the interpretation of
Gen. 5.21-24 that is found throughout the Enochic corpus: he spent
time witii the angels. In diis case, chronology demands diat Enoch be
placed in the last phase of his career; he is now communing widi the
angels for the second time, after completion of his 365 years. That is,
he is in tiie stage depicted in Gen. 5.24, not diat of 5.22. The text of
7 Enoch 106-107, especially as it has been clarified by die Aramaic
fragments and the parallel in the Genesis Apocryphon, indicates that a
series of puns on the names of the principal characters—apart from
Enoch—underlies the story.
Jared: descent (if) of die angels (106.13; cf. 6.6)
Enoch:
Mediuselah: he is sent (n":© from die second part of his name) to and from
Enoch; in GA 2.23 he traverses the land (no) of Parvaim. dius giving an
etymology for die first part of die name
Tradition, pp. 156-57; 'Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks', pp. 520-21; and
P. Grelot, 'Soixante-dix semaines d ' a n n ^ ' . Bib 50 (1969). pp. 169-86.
31. A. Hultgird, for example, has shown that die story has significant parallels
widi the account of Zaradiustra's birth ('Das Judentum in der hellenistisch-romischen
Zeit und die iranische Religion—ein religionsgeschichUiches Problem', ANRW,
11.19.551).
in 1 Enoch and Jubilees
113
Lamech: low indeed (Greek and Aramaic of 106.1), a reference to
conditions at his time'^
Noah: left (on the eardi; 106.16, 18); holy (106.18. from n'3?); saved
(106.16. from era in its Eastern Aramaic sense?).''
Working with these playful etymologies and building upon the lore
about Enoch's residing far away with the angels, the author fashions a
picture of Noah and the circumstances of his birth that is related to
biblical data but only in a loose sense. He has packed extra-biblical
traditions about Enoch and about the appearances of heroes at birth
into the sparse frame provided by his biblical source.
D. The Book of Dreams (chs. 83-90)
Within this section the author has placed two apocalypses. The shorter
one (93.3-11) predicts cataclysmic destruction of the earth; it envisages the coming flood, though true to the biblical chronology, it is to
come only after Enoch's 365 years. The second and much longer
apocalypse—the Animal Apocalypse—is found in chs. 85-90. As its
name suggests, it uses the imagery of various kinds of animals (and of
human beings) to depict the events of the biblical storyline and of the
immediate postbiblical period until die time of tiie autiior. It is likely
that tiie writer carries his account into tiie early Maccabean period;'''
thus he, too, like the author of the A W, does not distinguish in his
survey between biblical and postbiblical events. Since he normally
follows the scriptural text so carefully, the presence of extrabiblical
material (e.g. the angel story in 86-88) in the apocalyptic survey
raises acutely the question of what constituted die corpus of audioritative literature or tradition for this scholar. Enoch himself, from his
vantage-point before tiie flood, sees the symbolic unfolding of the
entire drama in a dream (85.1-2; 90.40-42).
32. The longer Greek text at diis point is supported by die fragmentary remains of
4QEn<= (Milik. The Books of Enoch, pp. 207-208), and it is the text dial puns on
Lamech's name. Milik {ibid.) suggests that the paronomasia involved the words
no, but Black {The Book of Enoch, p. 320) prefers -\a th. For diis etymology of
Lamech's name in odier texts, see Milik, ibid., p. 215; L. Grabbe, Etymology in
Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Nantes in Philo (BJS, 115; Atlanta:
Scholars, 1988), pp. 177-78.
33. For Uiese suggestions, see Milik, The Books of Enoch, pp. 213, 209, 214;
cf. Grabbe, Etymology, pp. 192-93. Gen. 5.29 also offers a play on his name.
34. For the date, see Milik, TTie Books of Enoch, pp. 42-44. He argues that the
BatUe of BeUi-Zur, which occunwl in 164, is reflected in 90.13-15.
114
The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical
Interpretation
If one is familiar with the biblical storyline, there is no difficulty in
deciphering what the author expresses dirough his imagery. He begins
with Adam, Eve and their children, and uses the symbol of bulls for
the males in the padiarchal period. Moral evaluation is provided by
the color given to diem (Adam, Seth, and his line through Isaac are
white bulls; Cain, his line, and Ham are black; intermediate characters—Abel and Japheth—are red). In the case of Noah, however, his
special status is highlighted by the fact that he was bom a bull but
became a man (89.1)—a term elsewhere reserved for angels. In the
survey of the early biblical period, one meets again the story of the
angelic descent, described in unique fashion: stars descend from
heaven and become bulls who pasture with cows and fadier elephants,
camels and asses (86.1-88.3). The era introduced by Jacob calls for a
new set of symbols: Jacob is a white sheep (89.12) who begets twelve
sheep. The enemies of Israel are represented as the natural foes of
sheep: the Egyptians are wolves, for example. Moses is a sheep or ram
who also becomes a man (89.36). The biblical history continues into
the period of the judges and the monarchy with Israel always being
represented as a flock of sheep and its apostasy as blindness and
straying. At 89.59, with the introduction of the image of the 70 shepherds who supervise the destruction of the flock, one encounters
another biblical figure but also departure from the familiar form of
die biblical storyline. The period during which the 70 shepherds lead
die flock is divided into 70 sections (89.72; 90.1; 90.5; 90.17) and
seems to cover the immediate pre-exilic, exilic, and post-exilic periods
of Israel's history, all of which stand under a cloud of divine anger
and punishment of his people. The only recognizable biblical events
mentioned during tiiis era are tiie return from exile and rebuilding of
die temple, but the cult of the second temple, too, is condemned
(89.72-73). This age ends only witii the final judgment (90.17-24),
when the shepherds are punished for their excesses.'^ It has been
shown that the pastoral imagery and the 70 units are derived from
Jeremiah 25: die period of die 70 shepherds (humans are angels in this
vision) symbolizes the divine judgment of delivering Israel to the
35. For the symbolism, see Dimant, 'History according to the Animal Vision
(Ediiopic Enoch 85-90)', in Jerusalem Studies in the Thought of Israel 2 (1982),
pp. 18-37 (Hebrew); and 'Jerusalem and die Temple in the Animal Vision (Ethiopic
Enoch 85-90) in Light of die Views of die Dead Sea Sect', Shnaton 5-6 (1981-82).
pp. 177-93 (Hebrew).
in I Enoch and Jubilees 1 1 5
hands of the nations; the condemnation of the shepherds has also been
pre-ordained.'* Of interest in this apocalypse is also the detailed
picture of the end in which one finds not only the expected punishment
of die wicked and reward of die righteous, but also a new Jerusalem
( 9 0 . 2 8 - 3 3 ) and a figure—a white bull—who recalls die imagery of the
patriarchal period and may be a messiah, though he is not called one
( 9 0 . 3 7 - 3 8 ) . In fact, all are transformed into white bulls in imitation of
die primordial age ( 9 0 . 3 8 ) .
E. The Book of Parables (chs. 3 7 - 7 1 )
As in all the other sections of the book, the author of the Parables,
which derives its name from the fact diat most of tiiis section is presented as three parables ( 3 8 - 4 4 , 4 5 - 5 7 , 5 8 - 6 9 ) , writes in a biblical
language. But he, too, at times shows a greater interest in a particular
biblical figure or passage and develops such material to produce a
compelling case of his own. For example, God is often called 'die
Lord of the Spirits' which is his version of the biblical 'Lord of Hosts'
as I En. 3 9 . 2 compared widi Isa. 6 . 3 shows." The scene in chs. 6 2 - 6 3
appears to use the exaltation imagery of Isaiah 5 2 - 5 3 , ' * while the
material in 5 4 . 1 - 5 6 . 4 ; 6 4 . 1 - 6 8 . 1 has been called a midrash on Isa.
2 4 . 1 7 - 2 3 . " The biographical situations of Enoch in diis section run
from beginning to climax of his career (see 3 7 . 1 ; 3 9 . 2 - 3 ; chs. 7 0 - 7 1
speak of his final removal), but the type of biblical interpretation that
will be die focus of diis section is tiie composite picture that die audior
paints of die leader at the end of time. He is given four epithets in die
Parables:
the righteous one, the chosen one, the anointed one
(messiah), and die son of man. All of these descriptions have biblical
bases and all have been combined into one eschatological leader who is
identified witii Enoch himself in 71.14.""'
36. Cf. the summary and bibliography in VanderKam. Enoch and the Growth of
an Apocalyptic Tradition, pp. 164-67.
37. As noted, for example, by Nickelsburg, Resurrection, p. 215;cf.p.227 n. 13.
38. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, pp. 70-74.
39. D.W. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch (SBLDS,
47; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 1-2. 39-72, 107-23.
40. In the following paragraphs I draw heavily on my study 'Righteous One,
Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in I Enoch 37-71', in J.H. Charleswordi
(ed.). The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (The First
Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Chrisdan Origins; The AB Reference Library;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 169-91.
116
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
An eschatological leader is called 'the righteous one* once (53.6),
and in this passage he is also termed 'the chosen one*. On two other
occasions an individual is designated 'the anointed one* (48.10; 52.4).
But the most frequent epitheu for a leader of the end time are 'chosen
one* (15 or 16 times, with occurrences in all three parables, but not
after 62.1) and 'son of man' (using three different Ethiopic phrases;
the three figure a total of 16 times, beginning in the second parable—
46.2—and continuing to 71.14). The writer is careful to provide
enough information in the text to demonstrate that he is referring
through these designations to only one, not four individuals. In 53.6
the righteous one and the chosen one are identified; 52.4, 6 indicate
diat die anointed and chosen are die same individual; and 48.6; 62.1,
5, 7 prove that the son of man and chosen are also identified with one
another. Moreover, 1 En. 62.5, 7 show the different ways of
expressing 'son of man' refer to the same character (cf. also 48.2).
The writer has assembled diis collection of epithets for the eschatological leader from a variety of biblical sources and may also have
been influenced by the picture of Enoch in 1 Enoch 14 for this
remarkable portrait of him. His two major biblical sources were
Second Isaiah and Daniel 7, although the title 'anointed one' derives
more directly from Ps. 2.2, as the wording of 7 En. 48.10 shows.
From Second Isaiah die writer has taken the epithet 'chosen one' (Isa.
41.8. 9; 42.1; 43.10, 20; 44.1, 2; 45.41; 49.7) which is a designation
for the servant of the Lord. From the same section of Scripture he has
taken the familiar characterization of the servant as a 'light to the
nations' (Isa. 42.6; 49.6), aldiough he has, curiously enough, applied it
to the son of man in 48.4. He may also have derived die dieme of die
concealment of die son of man from a passage such as Isa. 49.1, and
'the righteous one' may come from Isa. 53.11. From Daniel 7 the
author has taken die phrase 'the son of man' and other imagery of that
chapter such as 'the head of days' and the judgment scene (e.g. in
55.1-4). However, while the biblical sources for these and other
aspects of the eschatological hero and scene can be identified, it is
evident diat the writer has transformed his biblical sources. He has
interpreted both die servant (die chosen one) of Second Isaiah and the
son of man of Daniel 7—bodi of which are symbols for God's people
in dieir biblical settings—as an individual. Moreover, he has made of
diis individual an eschatological judge, whereas neither the servant
nor the son of man has that function in Scripture. Moreover, he has
V A N D E R K A M Biblical interpretation
in I Enoch andJubilees
117
chosen not to attach the theme of suffering, so prominent in the
servant passages of Second Isaiah, to his chosen one/son of man.
In summary, the highly composite book of / Enoch exhibits a
variety of ways in which its writers used earlier Scriptures—which do
not always appear to be identical with the ones that were later to be
categorized as canonical—and applied them to new situations. It seems
fair to say that the ancient texts are never explored as an interesting
exercise in and of itself; rather, the concern is with what they have to
say to the writer's day—whether by showing the course of history and
its impending end (the apocalypses and the Parables) or by serving as
moral examples of die need to live righteously now in order to avoid
die kind of divine judgment that had come widi die flood. The writers
could make their points by concentrating on a single passage (as in
chs. 6 - 7 ) or, more often, by creating a full, rich text from a variety
of biblical and extra-biblical models. The Book of Jubilees illustrates
radier different ways of using and interacting with the biblical text,
but it, too, is constantly alert to tiie message of die ancient texts for
die present time of the writer.
III. Biblical Interpretation
in the Book of Jubilees
As noted at tiie beginning of the paper, Jubilees belongs in that category of literature which is often called the Rewritten Bible. Works of
tills kind are very closely related to the biblical text which they represent, but they do not explain it (at least not in most cases) in commentary fashion—diat is, by clearly separating the biblical text from its
exposition. Jubilees makes the same claim to revelatory status that the
Mosaic material of the pentateuch does; in fact, it advertises itself as
God-sent revelation to Moses on Mt Sinai. Thus, Genesis and Exodus
do not outrank tiiis work. The author does, however, distinguish his
composition from the narratives of Genesis and Exodus by referring
to them as 'die first law' ( 2 . 2 4 ; 6 . 2 2 ) or 'die law' ( 3 0 . 1 2 ) ; presumably, dien, Jubilees is die second law. It uses die storyline of GenesisExodus as die foundation of its narrative, but it brings die message of
that sacred history home to the needs of its readers dirough various
kinds of interaction widi tiie text. In die following paragraphs, several
of these types are named and explained.
118
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
A. Quotation
Jubilees is such a close retelling of the biblical stories that in many
places it simply quotes from a Hebrew Bible. The first chapter is an
exception. It sets the stage for the action and draws upon a wide
variety of scriptural passages as it places Moses on Mt Sinai and has
the deity predict to him Israel's apostasy, repentance, and the renewed
divine favor that would eventuate in a second creation. An angel of
the presence is then commanded to reveal to Moses the remaining
material of the book. Chapters 2 - 5 0 retell the biblical stories from
Genesis 1-Exodus 20. The version in which the stories are presented
is so frequently a quotation or near-quotation of the text that Jubilees
is an extremely valuable witness to a form of the Hebrew Bible in the
second century BCE. The writer does not, of course, merely cite; he
makes innumerable changes in die text. But enough precise evidence
remains to demonstrate that die biblical text diat lay before die writer
was not identical with the Masoretic Text which later became the
normative Hebrew version."'
B. Creative Rendering
When the text deviates firom the Bible's version, it does so in a variety
of ways. They may be distinguished as in the list below, though some
of the categories overlap.
1. Problem-Solving.
The biblical narratives have always posed some
difficulties for tiie careful reader, and die author of Jubilees was no
exception. His composition includes several examples of how he
resolved them.
a.
Creation of die angels: Genesis does not mention the creation
of angels but they are on die scene at very early stages in the
story (e.g. Gen. 1.26; 3.22-24). Jubilees locates their creation
on the first day and seems to base its inference on Gen. 1.1-3.
These verses name heaven and earth and report that 'the Spirit
(nn) of God was moving over the face of the waters'. Jub.
2.2 reproduces these elements but indicates that the author
has understood the word nn in die sense of a spirit or angel:
41. For studies of this issue, see J.C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical
Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM, 14; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977),
pp. 103-205; and "Jubilees and die Hebrew Texts of Genesis-Exodus*. Textus 14
(1988), pp. 71-85.
b.
c.
in I Enoch and Jubilees
119
'For on the first day he created the heavens, which are above,
and the earth, and the waters and all of the spirits which
minister before h i m . . . ' The text then proceeds to enumerate
the sundry types of angels or spirits. Thus, angels were among
the seven classes of works that God created on the first day."^
The deaths of Adam and Eve: According to Gen. 2.16-17,
'And the Lord God conunanded the man, saying, "You may
freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day
that you eat of it you shall die"'.The first pair do, of course,
eat the fruit but diey do not die on that very day. Rather, they
continue to Uve for a long time afterward, apparendy for
centuries. Genesis never deals with this conflict, but Jubilees
does. When it relates the death of Adam after a life of 930
years, it says: 'And he lacked seventy years from one diousand
years, for a thousand years are like one day in the testimony
of heaven and therefore it was written concerning the tree of
knowledge, "In the day you eat from it you will die".
Therefore he did not complete the years of this day because
he died in it' (4.30). The writer's approach is obvious: he has
applied the teaching of Ps. 90.4 ('For a thousand years in thy
sight are but as yesterday when it is past'; cf. 2 Pet. 3.8) to
the problem. The psalmist impUed that with the Lord KXK)
years and one day were die same. Hence, he concluded tiiat
the word 'day' in Gen. 2.17 meant 1000 years. As Adam died
before ICXX) years had passed, die divine warning held true.""
Gen. 2.2 suggests diat God worked on the first sabbath: 'And
on die sevendi day God finished his work which he had done,
and he rested on the sevendi day from all his work which he
had done'. Jubilees rephrases the text (with other ancient
witnesses) in order to preclude this inference: 'And he completed all of his work on the sixth day, everything which is in
the heavens and die eardi and the seas and the depdis and in die
light and in the darkness and in every place' (2.16; cf. 2.25).'*"
42. See Charles. The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (Oxford: Clarendon
Press. 1902; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1972), pp. 11-12; O.H. Steck.'Die Aufnahme
von Genesis 1 in Jubilaen 2 und 4. Esra 6', JSJ 8 (1977). pp. 157, 163-64.
43. See Charles, The Book of Jubilees, p. 41, for parallels.
44. In reading 'sixdi' instead of 'seventh' Jubilees agrees widi the Samaritan
120
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
2. Expansions. At a number of points Jubilees enlarges the biblical
text considerably by inserting haggadic and other sorts of elements,
drawn from extrabiblical sources (usually unknown today), into the
scriptural framework. It is significant that the book presents these
expansions as parts of the same divine revelation that included the
'biblical' sections of the narratives. The author made no distincdon in
authority between the two kinds of material. Some of the more
prominent expansions are: (a) the section about the angels who mated
with women and produced gigantic offspring (S.I-2, 6 - 1 1 ; 10.1-14);
here heavy influence from I Enoch is evident, aldiough Jubilees has
some elements that are not from this source (e.g. that God had sent the
angels [5.6]);"' (b) the account about the division of the earth among
die descendants of Noah (8.8-9.15; 10.27-35); it parallels in general
die presentation in the Genesis Apocryphon (at least columns 16-17);'**
(c) stories regarding Abram's youth (11.14-12.21); (d) testaments (e.g.
2 0 - 2 2 ; 31.4-29; 36.1-17); (e) Rebecca and her relations widi her
beloved son Jacob (e.g. 25.1-23);"' ( 0 die wars of Jacob's sons (34.19; 37-38); some material similar to the first also appears in the
Testament of Judah 3-7 and parallels to the second are found in
Testament of Judah 9."* Little more can be said about the sources of
diese expansions, other than that they were in part triggered by biblical texts (e.g. Jub. 34.1-9 perhaps by Gen. 48.22). Where die audior
found the specific details is unknown.
Pentateuch, the LXX, the Peshitta. the Old Latin, and Josephus. Epiphanius's citation
of Jub. 2.16 confirms die reading of die Ethiopic text. For die texts, see VanderKam,
The Book of Jubilees (2 vols.; CSCO, 510-11, Scriptores AeUiiopici, 87-88;
Louven: Peeters, 1989).
45. See Dimant, "The Fallen Angels"', pp. 92-103 for an analysis of these
sections.
46. On this material, see P.S. Alexander, 'Notes on the "Imago Mundi" of the
Book of Jubilees', JJS 33 (1982), pp. 197-213; 'Retelling die Old Testament', in
D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.). It is Written: Scripture Citing
Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 1988). pp. 102-103.
47. J. Endres {Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees [CBQMS, 18;
Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1987], pp. 51-84) has studied this and
related sections in detail.
48. For parallels and analysis, see Charles, The Book of Jubilees, pp. 200-204.
214-22.
121
3. At other places the Tendenz of the writer comes to expression in
other sorts of expansive interpretations and sermonic
elaborations.
a. Expansive Interpretations:
1. Gen. 2.1-3 does mention that God
rested on the seventh day, but one must wait until the revelation on
Sinai for the first biblical elaboration of laws for hallowing the
Sabbath. Jubilees, however, takes the occasion of the initial Sabbath to
attach a section that highlights the importance of the day and details
legislation for keeping it (2.17-33). Not only die first chapter of die
biblical retelling teaches the significance of die Sabbath; the last chapter, too, focuses on the seventh day, dius creating an inclusio of sorts
around the biblical paraphrase. Much of the Sabbath legislation derives
from other biblical passages, but much also goes beyond scriptural
givens. It would be difficult for a reader to avoid die testimony of this
writer to the absolute centrality of Sabbatii-keeping to tiie proper
service of God.
2. Several festivals which are first named in Mosaic legislation in
the Bible are traced to the time of the patriarchs or to an earlier age
still. Like the Sabbath sections, these paragraphs were meant to sd'ess
die importance of the holidays and to show diat they had been part of
revealed religion from earliest times. It is important to acknowledge
that the author was not completely arbitrary in his attempts to find a
patriarchal origin for the festivals; in each case one can pinpoint a
scriptural peg for the material that he hangs there. One example is the
festival of weeks. The Bible first mentions it in Exodus (23.16; 34.22),
but Jubilees finds it already in the time of Noah and claims that its
celebration went back to creation. One element in the text of the flood
story diat permitted the writer to introduce the festival was die fact
diat Noah and God made a covenant just after die flood ended. Noah
left the ark no earlier than the twenty-seventh day of the second
month according to Gen. 8.14 and the covenant followed soon thereafter. Jubilees says diat die animals left die ark on 2/27 (5.32) but diat
Noah himself did not exit die boat until 3/1 (6.1). The latter date
allowed the author to associate the Noachic agreement with Exod.
19.1 ('On the third new moon after die people of Israel had gone
forth out of the land of Egypt, on diat day they came into the wilderness of Sinai*) which dates die sinaitic covenant to the tiiird montii (see
Jub. 6.10-11, 15-19), die very time when die festival of weeks is to be
celebrated ( U v . 23.15-16).
122
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
More specific support for patriarchal observance of the holiday was
spotted in the stories about Isaac's birth. Jubilees dates the festival to
3/15 (e.g. 15.1) and makes this Isaac's birthday (16.13). Evidence for
this spring holiday was found in Gen. 17.21; 18.14; 21.2 which state
that Isaac's birth would occur at the nvio. The biblical writer seems to
have meant by this word something like 'specific time', but Jubilees
seizes on the fact that it is the word for a festival (including weeks, as
Lev. 23.2, 37 show). The festival had to take place in the spring
because Isaac's birth was to be rm n»D (Gen. 18.10, 14), that is, at the
time of new life or in the spring. Thus, weeks was naturally the festival on which Isaac would be bom.
Something similar seems to have happened with the festival of
tabernacles. The writer, it appears, uses the theme of joy to relate the
happiness of Abraham and Sarah that they would have a son with the
festival of the seventh month which is likewise associated with joy
( U v . 23.40; Deut. 16.14-15; Neh. 8.17; Jub. 16.19. 20, 25, 27, 29; cf.
17.17). The connection of the birth announcement with the autumn
holiday followed from chronological considerations: if Isaac was bom
on 3/15, then his mother became pregnant in the sixth month of the
preceding year (16.12)—a fact which would have been known by the
seventh month (see 16.16). The festival, then, began on this
auspiciously happy occasion.
Finally, the day of atonement, too, is given a patriarchal origin. The
Bible mentions it in the Mosaic legislation (Lev. 16 and 23.26-32),
while Jubilees attaches it to the time when Jacob learned of the 'death'
of Joseph (34.12-19). The biblical impetus for the author's conclusion
was twofold: in Gen. 37.31-35 the sins of Jacob's children and the
slaughter of a goat (whose blood plays an important part) led the
writer to associate this event with the description of the day of
atonement in Leviticus 16.'"
3. Another sort of expansion in which the priestly writer betrays his
chief interests is that set of passages in which he highlights the priesthood already in patriarchal times. Levi's reputation in particular
receives a tremendous boost in Jubilees vis-^-vis Genesis. In Genesis
his only role is in the massacre at Shechem—an effort for which his
49. The material about these holidays is examined in J.C. VanderKam. 'The
Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees', in G.J. Brooke (ed.). Temple Scroll
Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll,
Manchester. December 1987 (JSPSup, 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1989), pp. 219-21.
V A N D E R K A M Biblical interpretation
123
father curses him (Gen. 34; 49.5-7). However, Jubilees, which knows
of him as the ancestor of all priests, applauds his role at Shechem and
has him officiate as priest already during the time of his father. Jub.
28.14 highlights his importance by putting his birth on 1/1. His role at
Shechem is interpreted favorably as implementing the law against
mixed marriages in Deut. 7.2-4. Not only was he, therefore, applauded
for his efforts, but his zeal became a cause for his elevadon to the
priesthood (30.5, 17, 18-20). In order to draw this conclusion the
writer used passages such as Exod. 32.25-29 (the levites are ordained
to the Lord's service for their zeal in killing those guilty of the sin of
die golden calf), Num. 25.1-13 (the eternal covenant of the priesthood
with Phinehas for his zeal in slaying the couple who engaged in an
illicit union) and Mai. 2.7 (which speaks, like Num. 25.12, of a
covenant of peace, but in this case with Levi). Also, he found
significance in the fact diat Levi was die third of 12 sons. In Jub. 32.19 he relates a dream diat Levi had about his being priest and informs
the reader that Jacob then counted his sons in reverse order so that
Levi turned out to be the tenth (Benjamin had just been conceived).
Thus, Levi, who was himself a kind of ddie, was die one worthy to
receive his father's ddies. Again there is a scriptural base: In Genesis
35 the scene takes place at Bethel—a city where, when he came to it
for the first dme, Jacob had vowed to give a tenth to the Lord (Gen.
28.22; Jub. 27.27). Genesis fails to mention whether he implemented
his vow, but Jubilees exploits die dieme and relates it to another tidiing
passage—Gen. 14.18-20—by referring to Levi as priest of God most
high (32.2). The special blessing diat Isaac gives to Levi in 31.12-17
has some parallels widi die blessing of Levi in Deut. 33.9-11.'°
b. The writer of Jubilees has also written some sermonic
elaborations
of his biblical base, at times to stress certain points of religion and at
others to solve problems diat the text presents.
1. In die first category one could mention die eschatological expansion which is tied to the indication of Abraham's age at his death.
Though he was a man of such astonishing qualities, he lived a mere
175 years (Gen. 25.7), far fewer tiian patriarchs of tfie more remote
past. This fact led the writer to elaborate a picture of die increasing
wickedness of humanity which was reflected, from die flood on, in a
50. Cf. Endres, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 120-54, 158-68; J.C. VanderKam,
'Jubilees and the PriesUy Messiah of Qumran', RevQ 13 (1988), pp. 359-65.
124
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
diminution of their ages. From Moses' time and beyond, all will age
more quickly (he draws upon Ps. 90.10 here) and times will be
terrible until the great punishment comes. Only when the children
begin to study the law will the process be reversed, and once more
ages will increase until they approach 1000 years again (23.8-31).
A similar phenomenon figures in ch. 6 where the writer has concentrated his teachings about the revealed calendar of 364 days. He has
exploited the fact that the biblical text supplies a relative abundance of
dates in its account of the flood. Using these, the author of Jubilees
elaborates the calendar and the festival of weeks which, as seen above,
he also tied to the flood dates (6.15-38). The same happens with the
Sabbath in ch. 2 and with die mention of tidies in ch. 32 (see above).
2. Sermonic elaborations that have the purpose of solving difficulties
may be illustrated by two cases. The first has to do with Reuben and
Bilhah, Jacob's concubine. Genesis mentions Reuben's lying with
Bilhah, reporting only the fact and that Jacob learned of it (Gen.
35.22); in 49.4 Jacob curses his son for it. Jubilees devotes much more
space to the incident (33.2-20), most of which is a condemnation of
various kinds of forbidden marriages. However, the problem that
requires resolution is that Reuben and Bilhah should have died for the
offense according to Lev. 20.11 ('The man who lies with his father's
wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of diem shall be put to
deadi, their blood is upon them'). Knowing this law (see Jub. 33.10),
die audior explains to anyone who objects tiiat Reuben and Bilhah
were allowed to live because the law of Lev. 20.11 had not yet been
revealed in their time (15-16). Now that it has been revealed, it is
eternally valid; Reuben and Bilhah should not, then, serve as a
convenient example for others to imitate."
Anodier such sermonic passage occasioned by a problem in die text
concerns Judah and Tamar (Jub. 41.8-28; Gen. 38.12-26). Judah is
one of the heroes in Jubilees, and in the Bible he is, of course, the
ancestor of the dominant tribe and of David and the other kings. He
unwittingly used his daughter-in-law Tamar as a prostitute and
according to Lev. 20.12 both should have been executed. Here die
explanation for their survival is different, however, than in the case of
Reuben and Bilhah: Judah was forgiven because he acknowledged his
51. See the discussion in Charies. The Book of Jubilees, pp. 197-99; Alexander.
'Retelling the Old Testament*, pp. 103-104. The term 'sermonic' for passages of
this kind is Alexander's.
125
sin (which he had committed in ignorance), and had wished to carry
out the law against prostitutes when he heard that Tamar had become
a harlot. The author also notes that the marriages of his two sons to
Tamar had not been consununated. The obvious message is, however,
that this sort of thing is not to be done again ( 4 1 . 2 3 - 2 8 ) . "
A full study of Jubilees' many forms of interaction with the biblical
text would have to consider numerous other passages and some other
types of interpretation. These should suffice, however, to show that
tiie writer, who normally reproduced his biblical model, was a careful
reader of that text and ti'ied to solve problems in it and to defend its
characters. Aldiough he indulged his biases by reading his own views
into the text, yet when he did so there was always some trigger there
that allowed him to expound what he felt his contemporaries should
hear."
52. Cf. Charles. The Book of Jubilees, pp. 228-31.
53. Endres {Biblical Interpretation, pp. 196-225) has written a helpful summary
o( Jubilees' exegeUcal procedures.
CHARISMATIC EXEGESIS IN E A R L Y JUDAISM
A N D EARLY CHRISTL\NITY
David E. Aune
I.
Introduction
'Charismatic exegesis' is one of several terms that have been used in
recent years to describe various types of Biblical interpretation practiced in early Judaism and in early Christianity,' whose distinctive
feature is the implicit or explicit claim diat die interpretation itself has
been divinely revealed. The phrase 'charismatic exegesis' itself was
coined by H.L. Ginsberg, in conversation with William Brownlee, to
describe the type of biblical interpretation practiced in the Qumran
Community by the author of the Habbakkuk commentary (IQpHab).^
Despite the fact diat 'charismatic exegesis', or one of its aliases, is frequendy referred to in scholarly discussion, there are many misconceptions about it diat require clarification.' One of the results of diis
discussion will be to suggest diat 'charismatic exegesis' is an infelicitous umbrella term used to designate a wide variety of claims that share
the common conviction that the interpretation of sacred or revealed
texts carries divine authority. The main problem with the term
1. Other essentially synonymous terms include 'inspired eschatological
exposidon' (E.E. Ellis, '"Spiritual" Gifts in the Pauline Community', Prophecy and
Hermeneutic in Early Christianity [Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 26), and
'spiritual exegesis', i.e., 'ex^gfese spirituelle'(L. Cerfaux, 'L'ex^gfese de I'Ancien
Testament par le Nouveau Testament', in P. Auvray (ed.), L'Ancien Testament et les
Chretiens [Paris: Editions du Cerf. 1951]. p. 138).
2. W.H. Brownlee, 'Biblical Interpretation among die Sectaries of die Dead Sea
Scrolls', BA 14 (1951). p. 61 n. 4.
3 . For an earlier attempt to grapple with this issue, see D.E. Aune, Prophecy in
Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1983), pp. 339-46: 'Appendix: Christian Prophecy and Charismatic
Exegesis'.
A U N E Charismatic
Exegesis
127
'charismatic exegesis' is its individualistic, psychological focus which
limits its application to the phenomenon of an inspired interpreter
through whom God reveals the true meaning of die sacred text.
Most scholars would agree that charismadc exegesis exhibits several
characteristics: (1) it is commentary, (2) it is inspired, (3) it has an
eschatological orientation, and (4) it was a prevalent type of prophecy
during the Second Temple period. At diis point I wish to unpack each
of these points briefly and to point out some of the main problematic
issues that must be examined in more detail in the rest of this paper.
1. As commentary on Scripture, die practice of charismatic exegesis
implies the primary religious autiiority of the biblical books.* Yet diis
commentary is not characterized by the consistent application of
particular methods or procedures of biblical interpretation (such as
the seven rules of Hillel, the diirteen rules of R. Ishmael, or the thirtytwo rules of R. Eliezer ben Jose Ha-Gelili).' Nor is such commentary
restricted to particular literary genres, diough the biblical texts
interpreted are usually considered neither halakah nor haggadah but
eschatological prophecy. Further, as commentary, the interpreter's
understanding of the text is not confused widi die text itself (though
the text can be altered to reflect the particular interpretation tiiat is
being imposed on it), but is separated from the text. Further, the
interpretation of the text, despite its revealed character, is not
regarded as equal in authority to die text being interpreted.
2. Certainly the sine qua non of charismatic exegesis is the belief or
claim that the interpretation is ultimately based on divine inspiration.
Yet here we enter into a problematic area, for while early Judaism
presupposed the divine authority of die Torah and the Prophets (even
diough the latter was not strictly defined until the first or second
century CE), there was no widely shared theory or explanation of how
4. H.M. Oriinsky has emphasized die fact diat books of die Hebrew Bible were
canonized, not texts ("The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text*. The Cambridge History
of Judaism [4 vols.; Cambridge: The University Press. 1984-]. II, pp. 557-62).
Therefore the phenomenon of the alteration of the sacred text, or the conscious
selection of particular variant readings to bring the text more into line with the
interpreter's understanding of the text, occurs both in eariy Judaism and early
Christianity and does not conu^dict the sacred status of such biblical books.
5. Many of these exegetical procedures, which are often associated with
midrash. were practiced during die late second temple period even diough diey did
not have fonnal labels; diis is convincingly demonstrated for die Qumran literature by
Brooke. Exegesis at Qumran, pp. 166-67, 279-323.
128
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
divine inspiration actually worked.* Though there is ample evidence
that the Qumran Conununity believed that God revealed the truth to
diem, there is precious little evidence to suggest how they diought that
die Spirit revealed truth.' There is dierefore die danger that phrases
like 'divine inspiration' and 'Holy Spirit',' which can mean and have
meant many different things, will be defined in a syndietically uniform
or even anachronistic manner, perhaps even in ways ultimately derived
from, or at least influenced by. Christian dogmatics. If some kind of
claim for die divine autiiority of an interpretation is not implicitly or
explicidy present in the text, there is no way to be sure that we are
dwelling with charismatic exegesis. The claim for inspired interpretation, in turn, often implies a particular hermeneutical approach to the
text in which its true meaning is not evident, but requires a certain
perspective or insight not shared by all who revere the same sacred
text. There is, however, a generic sense in which Judaism regarded the
interpretation of Scripture to be revelatory.'
3. Finally, charismatic exegesis may be eschatological,
a characteristic exhibited in both the midrash pesher commentaries from
Qunu-an, and in certain phases of early Christianity. What this means
in practice is that the interpreter is convinced that he is living in the
last days and that die particular scenario of events in die immediate
past, present and future, were predicted by the biblical writers.
4. In light of the Jewish view that prophecy ceased in Israel with the
activity of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi {b. Sot. 48b), some scholars
have argued that charismatic exegesis was a form of prophecy widely
found in Judaism during the Second Temple period,'" or more
cautiously expressed that one strand of prophecy in early Judaism
followed an interpretive-exegetical t r a d i t i o n . " It is possible to
6. J. Barton, The Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel
after the Exile (New Yoik and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 116-28.
7. O. Betz. Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (Tiibingen:
J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]. 1960), pp. 137-38.
8. See A.E. Sekki. ne Meaning of RUAH at Qumran (SBLDS, 110; Adanta:
Scholars Press, 1989).
9. Daniel Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine (SBLDS. 22; Missoula.
MT: Scholars Press. 1975), p. 7.
10. Hengel, Zealots, pp. 234-35.
11. G. Dautzenberg. Urchristliche Prophetie: Ihre Erforschung, ihre Voraussetzungen im Judentum und ihre Structur im ersten Korintherbrief (Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1975), pp. 43-121.
A U N E Charismatic
Exegesis
129
understand prophecy in early Judaism in at least two ways: (1) the
direct inspiration of the prophet, or (2) the indirect inspiration of the
prophet, that is, inspiration as mediated through the sacred text.
n. Biblical Interpretation
in Early
Judaism
The sanctity of the Torah and the Prophets was a central and unifying
feature of early Judaism. Yet the Bible, like all sacred foundational
texts (whether oral or written), was subject to manipulation through
interpretation. Different understandings of the same sacred texts served
to legitimate die often conflicting views held by diverse groups. While
there were many formal and informal principles and procedures used
to interpret Scripture in early Judaism, the written product of these
mediods was expressed in a variety of literary f o r m s . S o m e , though
not all, of these were adopted by early Christians, who tended to see
Scripture either in terms of eschatological prophecy or in terms of
typological anticipations of the Christian dispensation.
These forms include:" 1. Paraphrastic translation, in which particular understandings of tiie text are folded into a translation (Aramaic
Targumim, the earliest examples of which are 4QtgLev, 4QtgJob and
l l Q t g J o b , ' * and the Septuagint).'* 2. Rewritten Scripture, whereby
portions of the Hebrew Bible were understood in new or different
ways through additions, deletions and modiflcations (intracanonical
example: 1-2 Chronicles; extracanonical examples: Jubilees, Ps.-Philo,
Liber Antiquitatem Biblicarum, tiie Genesis Apocryphon or IQapGen;
tiie Temple Scroll or 1 IQTemple; Philo, De vita Mosis; Josephus,
Jewish Antiquities). 3. Anthological style, in which the biblical text is
12. Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic.
13. All of the following literary forms are subsumed under die broad definition of
midrash advocated by R. Bloch, 'Midrash', DBSup, V, cols. 1263-81, who regards
it as an approach to Scripture radier dian as a literary fonm.
14. E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175
BC—AD 135) (3 vols.; rev. G. Vermes and F. Millar; Edinburgh: T & T. Clark,
1973-87), pp. 99-114; R. Le Dût, Introduction i la litterature targumique (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966); idem, "The Targumim'. in W.D. Davies and
L. Finkelstein (eds.). The Cambridge History of Judaism (4 vols.; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 1984-). H. pp. 563-90.
15. R. Bloch ('Midrash', DBSup, V, col. 1278) argues that die Septuagint and
other early versions should be analyzed not only from the standpoint of textual
criticism but also from die perspective of die history of exegesis.
130
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
not explicitly cited and commented upon but is woven into the style of
the composition (IQH, apocalypses).'* 4. Commentaries, in which the
biblical text is quoted and interpreted (pesharim, midrashim; many of
Philo's works including Legum allegoriae, De cherubim, e t c . ) , "
which can again be subdivided into verse-by-verse commentary or
thematic commentary. There are examples of all four of these genres
which are attributed to divine revelation. One way of viewing these
various Hterary forms of biblical interpretation is in terms of their
degree of proximity or distance from the biblical text: paraphrastic
translations present themselves as the sacred text, rewritten Scripture
is at once more distant from the biblical text, yet may be intended to
replace that text, the anthological style links a new composition in
often very subtle ways to biblical texts, while commentaries carefully
distinguish the text fi-om the interpretation.
By the second temple period, the Jewish concern with the study of
the Torah was increasingly expressed in terms of the necessity for
receiving divine enlightenment to understand it. This theme is reiterated in Ps. 119 (vv. 12, 18-19, 27, 33-35, 73); v. 18 is typical: 'Open
my eyes, tiiat I may behold wondrous things out of diy law'. This
motif is also evident in die famous description of vocation of die sage
in Sir. 39.1-11, esp. 39.6-7 (NRSV):
If the great Lord is willing, he will be filled widi the spirit of understanding (Ttvevnaxi ODveoeo)? enjtXtioGrioeToi); he will pour forth
words of wisdom and give dianks to die Lord in prayer. He will direct his
counsel and knowledge aright, and meditate on his secrets (ev xoii;
d)tOKpw<poii;).
In part tiiis may be based on the association and even identity of Torah
and Wisdom. Sir. 24.1-33, entitled Aivicic,
Zotpiaq, 'Praise of
Wisdom' in the three great Greek uncial manuscripts, identifies
Wisdom widi Torah in v. 23: 'All this is die book of die covenant of
the Most High God, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for die congregations of Jacob' (see also Wis. 6.18; Bar. 3.2916. A. Robert, 'Les attaches litt^raires bibliques de Prov I-IX', RB 43 (1934).
pp. 42-68, 172-204, 374-84; 44 (1935), pp. 344-65, 502-25; cf. idem, 'Litt^raires
(Genres)', DBSup, V, col. 411: the anUiological procedure is 'remployer,
littêment ou 6juivalemment, les mots ou foimules des Ecritures ant^rieures'.
17. P. Borgen. 'Philo of Alexandria', Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period (CRINT. 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
pp. 233-41.
AUNE Charismatic
Exegesis
131
4.4).'* A similar view is frequently expressed by the author of the
Hodayot: '[How] shall I look, unless Thou open my eyes? Or hear,
[unless Thou unstop my ears]?* (IQH 18.19; trans. Vermes); 'These
things have I known because of your understanding; for you have
uncovered my ear to marvelous mysteries' (1.21); 'the man by whose
mouth you have established the teaching and within whose heart you
have set understanding' (2.17-18)." The result of this early Jewish
convicdon that God himself must reveal the true significance of his
Torah is perhaps the implicit supposition behind the Jewish belief that
Torah is not limited to die Pentateuch, nor even to die entire Hebrew
Bible, but presupposes die unity and audienticity of die oral as well as
the written Torah and therefore includes the interpretation of the
sages right up to the present day.^° There is therefore some truth to
the notion that in early Judaism, all biblical interpretation involves
'charismatic exegesis' in its broadest sense, that is, divinely gifted
insight into the meaning of Torah.
Just as the gift of divine wisdom is necessary to understand and
obey Torah, so the insight of the sage, also a gift from God, is necessary to interpret dreams and visions (e.g. Joseph in Gen. 4 0 - 4 1 , and
Daniel in Dan. 2, 4 - 5 ) . This 'mantic wisdom' (as distinct from
'proverbial wisdom', with which it is closely related),^' Links the
techniques and terminology of dream interpretation (a major form of
divination), the pesher interpretation of the Qumram Hoyayot, and the
explanations of the meanings of visions by the angelus interpres in
18. The identification of Wisdom and Torah is made elsewhere in Sirach, though
less forcefully (1.11-30; 6.32-37; 15.1; 19.20; 21.6; 23.27); see G.T. Sheppard,
'Wisdom and Torah: The Interpretation of Deuteronomy Underlying Sirach 24.23',
in G.A. Tuttle (ed.). Biblical and Near Eastern Studies (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 166-76.
19. For further references, see 10.5-7; 11.4-5, 9-10, 16-17; 12.11-14, 32-34;
13.18-19; 18.10-11, 19-21. Knowledge, often equated with enlightenment is
extremely important in the (Jumran literature; see H. Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963). pp. 114-20.
20. E.E. Urbach, TTie SajM (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987),
pp. 286-314; J. Neusner, The Way of Torah (Belmont: Wadswordi Publishing, 4di
edn, 1988). pp. 81-85.
21. H.-P. Miiller, 'Mantische Weisheit und Apokalypdk', in J.A. Emerton et al.
(eds.). Congress Volume, Uppsala 1971 (VTSup, 22; Leiden: Brill, 1972),
pp. 283-85.
132
Interpretation
Jewish apocalyptic literature." Three important terms, n ('mystery').
Thy ('disclose', 'reveal') and l o s ('interpretation') occur together in
Dan. 2.30, where Daniel, after telling the king that the future has been
revealed to him in a dream by 'the revealer of mysteries [MT: w n vbr,
LXX: 6 dvaKaXwjcTmv (ivotfjpia]', that is, God, explains (NRSV):
But as for me, this mystery [MT: » n ; LXX; x6 jiwoTtfipiov] has not been
revealed [MT: '*?:; LXX: eê<pav6ii] to me because of any wisdom that I
have more dtan any other living being, but in order that dte interpretation
[MT: BIBS; LXX: tow SnXooetivai] may be known to die king and diat
you may understand die thoughts of your mind.
In the Aramaic part of Daniel, n ('mystery') is regularly the object of
n'75 (2.19, 28-30, 47), with a single exception (2.22); the means
whereby God reveals mysteries is through night visions (2.19).
The terms n ('mystery') and neis ('interpretation') are used in
similar ways in both Daniel and the Qumran pesharim,^' and it
appears diat there is more similarity between the methods of exegesis
in Daniel and the pesharim than between the pesharim and later
rabbinical midrashim.^'' It is likely that the final redaction of Daniel
during the mid-second century BCE was contemporaneous with the
earlier literary activity of the Qumran community. While the Genesis
narrator presents various people who relate their dreams to Joseph
(Gen. 40-41), Daniel must know both die dream and its interpretation
(Dan. 2.17-45), a feature that suggests the close connection between
charismatic exegesis and prophecy.^'
22. A. Finkel. 'The Pesher of Dreams and Scripture", RevQ 4 (1960). pp. 35770; L.H. Silberman, 'Unriddling die Riddle: A Study in the Stfucture and Language
of die Habakkuk Pesher', RevQ 5 (1961), pp. 323-64; K. Elliger, Studien zum
Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
1953). pp. 154-57.
23. F.F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rapids. MI:
Eerdmans, 1959), pp. 7-17; Silberman, 'Unriddling die Riddle', pp. 323-64.
24. Elliger. Studien zum Habakkuk-Kommentar, p. 164; cf. A. Szordnyi, 'Das
Buch Daniel, ein kanonisierter Pescher?'. in J.A. Emerton et al. (eds.). Congress
Volume. Geneva 1965 (VTSup, 15; Leiden: Brill, 1966), pp. 278-94.
25. J.L. Kugel and R.A. Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation
(Philadelphia:
Wesuninster Press, 1986), pp. 58-59.
A U N E Charismatic
ni. The Qumran
Exegesis
133
Pesharim
Several types of biblical interpretation are evident in the surviving
literature from Qunnran.^* One of the more significant types of interpretadon is represented by the biblical commentaries or pesharim.
Following Carmignac and Dimant, we distinguish three types of
pesharim: {I) 'Continuous pesharim' (i.e. verse-by-verse commentaries on entire books, e.g., IQpHab), (2) "Thematic pesharim* (i.e.
quotations from various biblical books grouped around a tiieme, e.g.,
4QpIsa«; 4 Q F l o r 1-2 i 14; l l Q M e l c h 12, 17), and (3) Isolated
pesharim, tiie use of one or two verses from the Hebrew Bible interpreted using the pesher method and terminology, but within the
framework of a larger composition (e.g. CD 19.5-13 on Zech. 13.7;
IQS 8.13-15 on Isa. 40.3).^' Fragments of at least eighteen commentaries on portions of the Hebrew Bible have been found at Qumran,^*
including fourteen on die prophets,^' and tfiree on the Psalms,'" and
one which is unidentified." In two passages in IQpHab, the author
articulates the basic presuppositions which informed his understanding
26. G. Vermes ('Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature*. JSS 34 (1989].
pp. 493-508) enumerates four categories of proof-texts: (1) eschatological actualization. (2) direct proof (widiout explanation). (3) reinforced proof (widi explanation),
and (4) proof of historical fulfilment.
27. J. Carmignac, 'Le document de Qumran sur Melkis^deq', RevQ 1 (196970). pp. 360-61; D. Dimant. 'Qumran Sectarian Literature', in M.E. Stone (ed.),
Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum;
Philadelphia: Foru-ess Press, 1984), pp. 504-505.
28. A careful critical examination of each of these texts is available in
M.P. Horgan. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS. 8;
Washington, DC: Cadiolic Biblical Association of America, 1979); cf. idem, 'The
Bible Explained (Prophecies)', in R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.).
Early Judaism and its Modem Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Adanta:
Scholars Press, 1986), pp. 247-53.
29. IQpHab, IQpMic (1QI4), IQpZeph (1Q15), 3QpIsa (3Q4). 4QpIsa«
(4Q161), 4QpIsa'' (4Q162), 4QpIsa'= (4Q163). 4QpIsa<' (4Q164). 4(3plsa« (4QI54).
4QpHos'' (4Q166). 4QpHos'> (4QI67). 4QpMic (4QI68), 4QpNah (4Q169),
4(5pZeph (4QI70).
30. IQpPs (1QI6). 4(3pPs* (4Q171). 4QpPs'' (4Q173).
31. 4(3pUnid (4Q172).
134
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
of the bibhcal text. The first statement is found in IQpHab 2.7-10
(trans. Vermes):'^
They, the men of violence and the breakers of the Covenant, will not
believe when diey hear all diat [is to happen to] die final generation from
the Priest [in whose heart] God set [understanding] that he might interpret
(niOB*?) all the words of His servants die prophets, through whom he
foretold all diat would happen to His people and [His land].
The second passage is found in IQpHab 7.1-5 (trans. Vermes):
And God told Habakkuk to write down diat which would happen to the
final generation, but He did not make known to him when the time would
come to an end. And as for dial which He said. Thai he who reads may
read it speedily: interpreted (nos) Uiis concerns die Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known (wiin) all the mysteries Cn) of
His servants the Prophets.
There are several presuppositions expressed in these t e x t s : ' ' 1. The
events of the final generation have been predicted beforehand by God
through the biblical prophets. 2. The true meaning of the Biblical text
relates primarily to that period in which the text is being interpreted,
that is, it refers to historical events that have occurred or will occur in
the 'final generation','* which center not on world or national history,
but on the opposition experienced by the community." 3. The words
of the prophets are mysteries ( c n ) , the meaning of which God has
revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness (probably identical with the
Priest,'* cf. 4QpPs* 3.15). Though several scholars subsume the
32. G. Vermes. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Books, 3rd
edn, 1987).
33. Horgan, Pesharim, p. 229.
34. The relationship between die pesharim and die historical tiaditions they may
contain remains a problematic issue which has yet to be adequately investigated; see
P.R. Davies, 'Eschatology at Qumran", JBL 104 (1985), p. 48. Outside die
pesharim, there is no uace of a confrontation between the Teacher of Righteousness
and the Man of the Lie. The probability is dial diere was no single Wicked Priest or
Man of Lies but rather a series of such figures; cf. A.S. van der Woude. 'Wicked
Priest or Wicked Priests? Reflections on die Identification of die Wicked Priest in die
Habakkuk Commentary", JJS 33 (1982). pp. 349-59; W.H. Brownlee, 'The
Wicked Priest, the Man of Lies, and the Righteous Teacher—The Problem of
Identity", JQR 73 (1982). pp. 1-37.
35. E. Jucci, 'Interpretations e storia nei pesharim qumranici', BO 29 (1987),
pp. 163-70.
36. B.E. Thiering. 'Once More the Wicked Priest". JBL 97 (1978), pp. 191-
A U N E Charismatic
Exegesis
135
Qumran commentaries under the rubric of ' m i d r a s h ' , ' ' and Vermes
has even categorized them as t a r g u m i c , " there is a prevailing
tendency to regard the pesharim as constituting a distinct literary
g e n r e . " The structure of the pesharim is consistent and exhibits the
following pattern: 1. a series of brief secdons (varying from a phrase
to live verses), that is, lemmata, are quoted from a particular biblical
book in order, followed by 2. the interpretation of the biblical passage
introduced by tiie term nDB.*" In virtually every instance of the use of
the term n o s in the literature from Qumran, the term is used as a
stereotyped formula to introduce the interpretation of a biblical text.
Analyses of the lemmata of the pesharim suggests that the authors
have altered the biblical text to bring it more into line with their
understanding of the true meaning of the text."*'
205; W.H. Brownlee. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (Missoula. MT: Scholars
Press. 1979), p. 57.
37. Bloch. 'Midrash'. cols. 1276-78; Bloch, who provides a broad definition of
midrash, finds a close relationship between midrash and apocalyptic (the latter is a
type of the former), and dierefore between midrash and IQpHab (col. 1277): 'Le
Commentaire d'Habacuc, qui est une paraphrase actualisante des deux premiers
chapitres d'Habacuc, met en oeuvre tous les proc^d6s midrashiques connus'.
A.G. Wright considers IQpHab to be haggadic midrash ('The Literary Genre
Midrash", CBQ 28 [1966]. pp. 418-22). G. Brooke argues diat die pesharim constitute a type of midrash. but that to regard them as an independent genre unnecessarily multiplies generic categories ('Qumran Pesher: Towards die Redefinition of a
Genre", RevQ 10 [1981], pp. 483-503).
38. G. Vermes, 'A propos des commentaires bibliques dôuverts k QumrSn".
RHPR 35 (1955), pp. 96-102.
39. Horgan, Pesharim, pp. 229-59; I. FrOhlich, 'Le genre litt^raire des
pesharim de QumrSn", RevQ 12 (1986), pp. 383-98.1. Rabinowitz argues diat the
pesharim
are not midrashim. but have a closer affinity with apocalyptic
CPesher/Pittaron. Its Biblical Meaning and its Significance in die Qumran Literature',
RevQ 8 (1973), pp. 219-32. See also K.G. Friebel, 'Biblical Interpretation in the
Pesharim of die Qumran Community', Hebrew Studies 22 (1981) pp. 13-24.
40. The term nos occurs within several stereotyped phrases: '7V lain itis ('die
interpretation of passage concerns').
nioQ ('its interpretation concerns'), ned* ITDB
('its interpretation is diat'). widi variations (Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, p. 23;
Horgan. Pesharim, pp. 239-44).
41. T.H. Kim, 'Eschatological Orientation and die Alteration of Scripture in die
Habakkuk Pesher'. JNES 49 (1990). pp. 185-94. The audior cites IQpHab 12.1-10
and 5.8-12 as specific examples. See also the alterations of Isa. 6.9-13 in IQIsa*
6.2-10 discussed by C.A. Evans, 'I Q Isaiah" and die Absence of Prophetic Critique
at Qumran', RevQ 11 (1984), pp. 537-42.
136
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
For the purpose of this essay, of course, the crucial issue is the claim
that the pesharim preserved revealed interpretations of Scripture.
Here it must be observed that the author of IQpHab does not claim
divine insight into the meaning of Scripture for himself, but rather
attributes such insight to the founder or leader of the Community."^
Further since the claim that the true meaning of the mysteries of
Scripture have been revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness occurs
just twice in the pesharim, such a claim cannot be considered a generic
feature of diese commentaries.*' The revealed character of this interpretation is evident in IQpHab 2.8, where the Teacher of
Righteousness is described as:
The priest into whose heart God placed understanding to interpret all the
words of his servants die prophets.
The idiom
]n3, 'to put into the heart', occurs in Neh. 2.12 and
7.5 where it refers to die divine guidance of Nehemiah's plans for
Jerusalem (the same idiom occurs in Greek in Rev. 17.17).'*'' A
similar gift of divine understanding is claimed for the Teacher of
Righteousness in 4QpPs* 4.27, and recurs several times in the
Hodayot, of which he may have been tiie autiior (IQH 2.13; 4.27-29;
7.27; 14.8).*' A special revelation of the meaning of the Torah that
42. This implies diat die interpretations in the pesharim had dieir origin in some
form of communal study of the Scriptures at which die Teacher of Righteousness
presided. Some suggestions regarding the Sitz im Leben of the pesharim have been
made by J.T. Milik. 'Fragments d'un midrash de Michfe dans les manuscrits de
Qumrin'. RB 59 (1952). p. 418: during die daily watch when a group probably read
and interpreted a biblical book verse by verse (cf. IQS 6.6-8). Elsewhere Milik
suggested that die commentaries might be linked to interpretations of Scripture
presented during community meetings for worship {Ten Years of Discovery in the
Wilderness of Judaea [uans. J. Sttugnell; London: SCM Press, 1959], p. 41).
43. Thus die claim by F. Garcia Martfnez ('El pesher: Interpretaci6n prof^tica de
la Escritura'. Salmanticensis 26 [1979]. pp. 125-39). that the chief distinction
between pesharim and midrashim is diat the former claims to be divinely revealed,
must be tieated with caution. Similarly, M. Horgan has called them 'revealed interpretations of revealed mysteries concerning history' ('The Bible Explained
[Prophecies]', p. 251).
44. For parallels to diis idiom, see G. von Rad, 'Die Nehemia-Denkschrift'.
Z4W 76(1964). pp. 176-87.
45. The identification of the Teacher of Righteousness as die author of the
AUNE Charismatic
Exegesis
137
has been granted to the community is mentioned in IQS S.8-10 (trans.
Knibb):"*
He [initianis] shall undertake by a binding oadi to return to the law of
Moses with all his heart and soul, following all that he has commanded,
and in accordance widt all diat has been revealed from it (njDO n^>an Vo'j)
to Ihe sons of Zadok, die priests who keep the covenant and seek his will,
and to the multitude of the men of dieir covenant who togedier willingly
offer themselves for his truth and to walk according to his will.
This is one of several statements in I Q S reflecting the belief that the
community's interpretation of Scripture was given by revelation (IQS
1.9; 8.15; 9.13).'" While is true that the verb n*?: in the Dead Sea
Scrolls is used only of the community's understanding of the Hebrew
Bible, not of the Bible itself, the former was certainly presupposed.**
The revelation granted to the community is the focus of I Q S 8.15
(trans. Knibb):
This (way) is the study of die law [which] he commanded dirough Moses,
diat diey should act in accordance widi all diat has been revealed from dme
to time (nra n» HÔT VOZ) and in accordance widi what the prophets
revealed by his holy spirit (unnp nra crran t>i).
The phrase n»3 ru? nân biso, 'according to all that has been revealed
from time to time', which occurs again in IQS 9.13, suggests that the
insight into the true meaning of Scripture was not based on a single
revelation, but rather on a continuing series of revelatory insights.
Further, while the Holy Spirit is never mentioned in connection with
the charismatic interpretation of Scripture, it is mentioned here as the
instrument of prophetic revelation. There is no indication, however,
that the revealed interpretation of Scripture, whether disclosed to the
Teacher of Righteousness or to the 'sons of Zadok' or perhaps other
members of the community, is linked to particular exegetical
techniques.'"
Hodayot is disputed by D. Dombkowski Hopkins, 'The Qumran Community and
I Q Hodayot: A Reassessment', RevQ 10 (1981), pp. 323-64.
46. M.A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1987).
47. Josephus claims diat some Essenes profess to predict the future, an ability
apparendy based on their study of die Hebrew Bible, but he does not claim that their
predictions are inspired (War 2.8.12 §159).
48. Contra H.-J. Zobel, TDOT, II, p. 487.
49. This is the view of G.J. Brooke, but it is based only on inference:
138
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
rv. Josephus and Charismatic
Interpretation
Exegesis
Josephus preserves important information about prophecy in Judaism
during the Hellenistic and Roman p e r i o d s . ' " He may have been
particularly interested in the subject because he considered himself as
a prophet, though perhaps not equal in status or authority with the
biblical p r o p h e t s . " Understandably sensitive about his surrender to
the Romans, he presents a brief apology for his actions in War 3.8.3
§§351-54 (trans. Thackeray in LCL):
He [Josephus] was an interpreter of dreams (jtepi Kpioeii; oveiptov) and
skilled in divining die meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity [ta
aH<pip6X(i)^ vno TOV 6e(ov XeYoêva); a priest himself and of priesUy
descent, he was not ignorant of die prophecies in die sacred books. At diat
hour he was inspired (evGow? yevonevo?) to read their meaning, and.
recalling the dreadful images of his recent dreams, he offered up a silent
prayer to God. 'Since it pleases thee', so it ran, 'who didst create the
Jewish naUon. to break thy work, since fortune has wholly passed to the
Romans, and since thou hast made choice of my spirit to announce the
things that are to come [ t o neXA-ovto eijteiv], I willingly surrender to the
Romans and consent to live; but I take thee to wimess diat I go, not as a
traitor, but as diy minister'.
This text suggests a number of important features of Josephus' view of
p r o p h e c y : " 1. the revelatory value of some dreams (a universal belief
'Inspiration, if any. does not lie in the result of the exegesis as such, in its content,
but radier in die ability of any member of die community and especially die Teacher
of Righteousness to interpret scripture through die correct application of exegetical
techniques' (Exegesis at Qumran, pp. 43-44). E. Slamovic has also argued that
rabbinic mediods of exegesis are present in Qumran literature in 'Toward an Understanding of die Exegesis in die Dead Sea Scrolls', RevQ 7 (1969-71), pp. 3-15.
50. Despite the rabbinic view dial prophecy had ceased with the activity of
Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. early Judaism was extremely diverse, and there is
abundant evidence to suggest that prophecy continued in altered forms to die end of
the second temple period; see Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, p. 103-106,
R.A. Horsley, 'Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus. Their Principal
Features and Social Origins', JSNT 26 (1986). pp. 3-27. and J.-C. Ingelaere,
'L'inspiration prophdtique dans le judaj'sme: le t^moignage de Ravius Josfephe', ETR
62 (1987), pp. 237-45.
51. J.L. Blenkinsopp, 'Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus', JJS 25 (1974),
pp. 239-62, and L.H. Feldman, 'Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus', in D.J. Lull
(ed.), SBLSP 1988 (AUanta: Scholars Press, 1988). pp. 424-41.
52. Ingelaere, 'L'inspiration proph^tique', p. 240.
A U N E Charismatic
Exegesis
139
in the ancient world), 2 . revelation can be ambiguous, 3 . the possible
link between priesthood and prophecy, 4 . the importance of a knowledge of biblical prophecy, 5 . inspiration enables an interpreter to
understand dreams and prophecies correctly. The passage is particularly important because of the parallel between the interpretation of
dreams and the interpretation of Scripture, a parallel which a number
of scholars have recognized between the O T tradition of dream interpretadon and the terminology of the Qumran pesharim (see below).
Though die language of inspiration is Hellenistic (e.g. the term
evOeoq), it is quite clear that Josephus claims, perhaps because of his
priesdy descent, that his understanding of the true meaning of both
dreams and Scriptures was based on divine insight,'' like that of
Joseph or Daniel of old.
Martin Hengel, who holds that the charismatic interpretation of
Scripture was characteristic of prophecy in the Judaism of die
Hellenistic and Roman periods, has argued diat Zealot prophecy during die first century CE (like prophecy in early Judaism generally) had
diree characteristics: 1. the charismatic interpretation of Scripture,
2 . the eschatological possession of the Spirit, and 3 . a historical and
political orientation.'* Hengel refers to Josephus War 6 . 5 . 4 § § 3 1 2 - 1 3
(trans. L C L ) : "
But what more than all else incited diem to war was an ambiguous oracle
(Xpnoitoi; djKpipoXoi;), likewise found in their sacred scriptures (ev toi<;
iepoi? ewptiHevoi; Yponnooiv), to the effect that at that lime one from
their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to
mean someone of dieir own race, and many of dieir wise men (noXXoi
x&v ooqxDv) went astray in dieir interpretation of it
While this enigmatic passage suggests that, in Josephus's view, scholars
called ootpoi, 'sages', occupied diemselves widi die interpretation of
diis oracle. Despite die educated guesses of Hengel and odiers,'* very
53. When he speaks of die inspiration of die biblical prophets, he uses die phrase
Ti ejtijtvoiav fi otJto tow 6eow (Apion 1.7 §37), but he does use die term evGeo? of
Saul when he prophesies (Ant. 6.4.2 §56), and of Elijah (Ant. 8.13.6 §346); cf.
Feldman, 'Prophets and Prophecy', p. 436.
54. M. Hengel, The Zealots (U-ans. D. Smidi; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989),
pp. 233-45.
55. Hengel, Zealots, p. 237. The same ambiguous prophecy is referred to in
Tacitus Hist. 5.13 and Suetonius Ves. 4.5.
56. This passage is discussed in some detail by Hengel, Zealots, pp. 236-40.
140
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
little more can be said with any certainty about this passage, which is
probably not less ambiguous than the oracle to which it refers. There
is no clear indication that this oracle was circulated in Zealot circles.
There is no clear indication that the 'ambiguous oracle' referred to
Num. 24.17 (or even Dan. 7.13-14). Nor is there any evidence that a
'prophetic charism* was involved in the interpretation of diis oracle.
While littie can be said about charismatic exegesis in Zealot circles,
it appears clear that Josephus himself was a charismatic exegete in the
sense that he regarded his ability to understand and interpret bodi
revelatory dreams and Scripture as die product of divine enlightenment.
V. 'Charismatic Exegesis' in Other Phases of Early Judaism
Recent scholarship has made it increasingly clear that a long process
of explanation and adaptation is already reflected in the Hebrew Bible
in the form of intracanonical interpretations that have become part of
die biblical text itself.'' One of the central convictions that permeated
early Judaism was that the sacred texts of the past have a direct
bearing on the present." This conviction is reflected in the various
literary genres in which various types of biblical interpretation find
expression.
In many respects the Septuagint, die Old Greek translations of the
Hebrew Bible (with additions from various sources), is also a subtie
interpretative rendition of die Hebrew text." Sometimes die additions
to the Hebrew text are hot so subtle, as in the extensive additions to
Esther and Daniel found only in Old Greek translations.*" Since this
interpretative translation as coextensive with die biblical text itself, the
'claim' for die divine inspiration and autiiority of this complex collection exegetical subtieties is implied rather dian expressed. One result
57. Bloch. 'Midrash', col. 1270; Michael Fishbane. 'Revelation and Tradition:
Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis', JBL 99 (1980), pp. 343-61. idem. Biblical
Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1985).
58. Kugel and Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation, p. 38.
59. E. Tov. 'Die griechischen Bibel iibersetzungen'. in Wolfgang Haase and
Hildegard Temporini (eds.), ANRW 2.II.20.1 (Beriin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987),
pp. 143-45, 147-51; S. Jellicoe. The Septuagint in Modern Study (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 318-24.
60. Septuagint manuscripts often differ among diemselves; die version of Tobit
found in codex Sinaiticus (»). for example, is more paraphrastic dian the versions of
Tobit in die codices Alexandrinus (A) and Vaticanus (B).
A U N E Charismatic
Exegesis
141
of this implicit claim is the canonical status of the Septuagint in
Eastern Orthodoxy. By the late second century BCE, the Septuagint
was provided widi a legend supporting its divine origin in the letter of
Aristeas.*' Similarly, die Targums are presented as the biblical text,
yet since they have a paraphrastic character resulting from the
amplification of the Hebrew text, frequendy including traditions witii
a popular character." The Targums vary in die degree to which they
amplify the underlying text; even the Targum Onqelos, which sticks
closer to the Hebrew text than the various fragmentary Palestinian
Targums, includes material not found in the underlying text.*'
Targums, then, must also be categorized as interpretations that present
diemselves as having an implicidy inspired character.
One of the techniques of apocalyptic writing often involved the
attiibution of predictions about tiie recent past, as well as the present
and future, to ancient Israelite sages or angelic revealers. That is, bodi
die visions and interpretations provided by supernatural revealers are
part of a complementary revelatory process. Apocalypses use biblical
texts in a complex variety of ways. In die partial texts of some apocalypses, prophetic books of the Jewish Scriptures are used as structural
models, thereby legitimating new elements by dressing them in familiar garments.** Apocalypses also make frequent use of the 'anthological style' in which Scripture is echoed in allusions placed within an
interpretative framework, not formally quoted and matched with a
separate commentary.*' Apocalypses virtually never present formal
61. The author of the Epistle of Aristeas clearly regarded the Septuagint
translators as inspired; see the recent arguments of Oriinsky. 'The Septuagint and its
Hebrew Text'. II. pp. 542-48; see also D. Georgi. The Opponents of Paul in
Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1986), pp. 110-11. The
inspiration of die Septuagint translators is emphasized in Philo {Vit. Mos. 2.37.40;
he is familiar with Epistle of Aristeas), who claims diat the tfanslators of the
Septuagint wrote 'as though divinely inspired' (icaSajtep evGowoiwvte^). and were
not simply translators but hierophants and prophets (ovx ep(iTivEa<; eKeivov<; aXX'
iepo<pdvta(; KOI )tpo<pf|xo(;).
62. R. Le Dâut, The Message of the New Testament and the Aramaic Bible
(Targum) (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982). pp. 13-15.
63. J.W. Bowker. 'Haggadah in the Targum Ongelos',755 12 (1967).pp. 51-65.
64. See J.-P. Ruiz. Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic
Language in Revelation 16,17-19,10 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 1989).
65. D.W. Suter (Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch
[SBLDS. 47; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979]) analyzes die 'midrashic' use of
142
The Pseudepigrapha
arui Early Biblical
Interpretation
interpretations of biblical texts separated from the text itself.
The book of Jubilees, written during the second century CE, is
essentially a revised version of Genesis 1-Exodus 14, including many
additions and deletions, all presented as a revelation transmitted to
Moses by an angel on Mount Sinai (Jub. 1.1-6, 26-29). This retelling
includes many features that are not found in the Pentateuch itself, but
which are free compositions by the author.*' Two examples are the
elaborate explanation of why God had called Abraham (Jub. 11.1412.21), and the explanation of why God decided to test Abraham by
ordering him to sacrifice his son Isaac (Jub. 17.15-18). The fact that
the author altered the text in so many ways makes it obvious that his
conception of 'sacred text' was not identical with the modern
conception of a 'fixed text'. It is clear diat die author is consciously
presented his work as an inspired interpretation of much of the
narrative portion of the Pentateuch."
The Temple Scroll (1 IQTemple), dating to die second century BCE,
presents itself as a book of authoritative religious law which, like the
five books of the Pentateuch, was regarded as having been given by
God to Moses on Mount Sinai.** One of die more striking features of
I IQTemple is the frequent introduction of first-person speeches
attributed to God, thereby making the entire composition the revealed
word of God.*' The creation of the Temple Scroll is virtually
identical to diat postulated for the creation of the Torah itself.™
This brief consideration of the Septuagint, the Targumim and
Isa. 24.17-23 in / En. 54.1-56.4 and 64.1-68.1. Suter uses die term midrash
incorrectiy, however, for no distinction is made in / En. 37-71 between text and
interpretation, and such a distinction is a sine qua non of midrash.
66. J.C. Endres has identified 25 pericopes freely composed by the author in
Jub. 19-45 (Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees [CBQMS, 18;
Washington, DC: Cadiolic Biblical Association of America. 1987], pp. 197-98).
67. Kugel and Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation, pp. 60-61.
68. Y. Yadin, 'Is the Temple Scroll a Sectarian Document?*, in G.M. Tucker
and D.A. Knight (eds.). Humanizing America's Iconic Book: SBL Centennial
Addresses 1980 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 153-69.
69. H.-A. Mink has characterized the Temple Scroll as 'pseudepigraphic
halakah' in 'The Use of Scripture in die Temple Scroll and die Status of die Scroll as
U w ' , SJOT 1 (1987), pp. 20-50.
70. A.M. Wilson and L. Wills, 'Literary Sources of die Temple Scroll', HTR
75 (1982). pp. 275-88; G. Brin, 'Concerning Some of die Uses of die Bible in die
Temple Scroll'. RevQ 12 (1987). pp. 519-28.
AUNE Charismatic
Exegesis
143
several pseudepigraphic compositions emanating from early Judaism
(apocalypses, Jubilees, die Temple Scroll) has complicated the conventional conceptions of 'charismatic exegesis'. All of these compositions
are vehicles for presenting various forms of biblical interpretation.
The Septuagint and tiie Targumim blend exegetical traditions witii the
biblical text in such a way that the new amalgam implicitiy presents
itself as Scripture. Jubilees and 1 IQTemple are two of many examples
of 'Rewritten Scripture' in early Judaism, yet differ from the
Septuagint and tiie Targumim only in the more extensive degree to
which nonbiblical traditions are assimilated to a new presentation of
tiie biblical text. It is not possible to determine whedier these representations of biblical texts were intended by dieir unknown authors to
supplement or to replace their canonical counterparts. Of the genres
discussed in this section, certainly the apocalypses present interpretative traditions that make no pretense of being identified with portions
of tiie biblical canon. Here die technique is quite different. Exegetical
traditions (along with a pastiche of various types of cosmological and
eschatological lore) are presented as divine revelation communicated
to a seer by a supernatural revealer. All of these forms of biblical
interpretation legitimate biblical interpretation eitiier by linking it to
texts already recognized as sacred, or by claiming fresh revelations.
VI. Charismatic Exegesis in Eariy
Christianity
The interpretation of die Jewish Scriptures was one of the central preoccupations of early Christianity. The focus of tiiis interpretative
activity was largely christological, that is, it centered on die interpretation of eschatological prophecies diat demonstrated diat Jesus was
die Messiah and that his life, deadi and return were all anticipated in
Scripture." This focus on the eschatological significance of the Old
Testament has close similarities with the concerns of early Judaism,
71. Some of the more important treatments of this subject include C H . Dodd.
According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology
(London: James Nisbet. 1952); K. Stendahl, The School of St Matthew and its Use
of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968 [1954]); B. Lindars, New
Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of Old Testament Quotations
(London: SCM Press, 1961); D. Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1988).
144
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
particularly the Qumran Community. Yet there is no real parallel in
early Christianity to the verse-by-verse commentary found in the
Qumran pesharim.'^ Indeed, until at least the ntiid-second century AD,
there is no evidence to suggest that early Christians adopted the genre
of the verse-by-verse commentary on sacred b o o k s . ' ' At most, one
finds examples of what was designated above as 'isolated pesharim' in
both narrative and expository discourse in the New Testament, in
which an Old Testament passage and its interpretadon are juxtaposed
but not blended. An example from nartadve discourse is the series of
Old Testament quotations widi die distinctive ivaJonox; nXripa^
or
nXtipcbOii formulas found at the conclusion of narrative episodes in
Mattiiew (1.22; 2.15, 17, 23; 4.14; 8.17; 12.17; 13.35; 21.4; 27.9).'"
Examples of the use of Old Testament quotations in expository discourse are found throughout the genuine Pauline letters, though only in
die so-called Hauptbriefe, widi the greatest concentration in R o m a n s . "
Christians believed, as did die Judaism from which they emerged,
that because they were the people of God they had received special
wisdom and insight from God (1 Cor. 1.18-31; Eph. 1.9; Barn. 5.3;
Ignatius Eph. 14.1; Polycarp Phil. 12.1). This special insight was
often attributed to the revelatory influence Spirit of God, believed to
be present as the eschatological gift of God in tiie midst of the
72. J.J. Collins, 'Prophecy and Fulfillment in the Qumran Scrolls*. JETS 30
(1987), pp. 267-78.
73. The first Christian known to comment on an enUre biblical book was
Heracleon, a Valentinian Gnostic whose activity was centered at Rome, ca. 170 CE.
Fifty-one fragments of his comments on the gospels are preserved, largely in
Clement of Alexandria. Eel. 25.1 and Strom. 4.71-72, and Origen, Comm. in Joh.
13 (trans, in Werner Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts [Oxford:
Clarendon Press. 1972], I, pp. 162-83). Earlier (ca. 160 BC). the Valentinian
Ptolemaeus had commented on the prologue to the Gospel of John (fragments in
Irenaeus. i4Jv. haer. 1.8.5).
74. K. Stendahl. The School of St Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, new edn. 1968). pp. 194-202 (where die similarities
between (^mran pesher methods and Matdiaean formula quotations are emphasized).
Nowhere does Stendahl find it useful to apply terms like 'charismadc exegesis' to
early Chrisdan biblical interpretation.
75. E.E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the OU Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1957). On pp. 139-47, Ellis argues for die similarity between 'midrash pesher' (an
interpretative reshaping of the text from an apocalyptic perspective) and Paul's
exegedcal technique.
A U N E Charismatic
Exegesis
145
believing community (1 Cor. 2.6-16; 1 Jn 2.20, 27).'*
Various phases of early Christianity understood this gift of divine
insight in very particular ways. The Johannine community, for
example, was convinced the Spirit enabled them to understand the true
meaning of the words of Jesus (Jn 14.26; 16.12-15; cf. 2.22; 12.16)."
Here 'charismatic exegesis' focuses on the oral transmission of Jesus
traditions, presumably to legitimate the particular understanding of
that tradition cherished by the Johannine church. For Paul and the
author of Luke-Acts, this supernatural insight could be applied to the
Old Testament (2 Cor. 3.14-18; Lk. 24.45)." In 1 Cor. 2.6-16,'» Paul
claimed that the Spirit of God enabled Christians to understand the
secret and hidden wisdom of God (i.e., the gospel of Jesus Christ)
which had been concealed for ages but was now revealed to diose who
had received the Spirit. The notion of a 'mystery of God hidden for
ages but now revealed' has been designated the 'revelation schema*,*"
and occurs widi some frequency in Pauline and Deutero-Pauline literature (Col. 1.26-27; Eph. 3.5, 9-10; Rom. 16.25-26; cf. 2 Tim. 1.9-10;
Tit. 1.2-3; 1 Pet. 1.20). This 'revelation schema' is specifically linked
to die Christian understanding of die OT in Rom. 16.25 (NRSV):
Now to God who is able to suengdien you according to my gospel and
die proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery (dnoKdXuyiv ^voxiipiou) diat was kept secret for long ages but is
now disclosed (<pavepa)8EVTo<;). and through the prophetic writings is
made known to all die Gentiles.
Here the Greek term translated 'disclosed' is in die passive voice, which
functions here as a passivum divinum, tiiat is, as a circumlocution used
76. See D.E. Aune, The Presence of God in the Community: The Eucharist in
its Early Christian Cultic Context'. 5 / 7 2 9 (1976), pp. 451-59.
77. M.E. Boring, 'The Influence of Christian Prophecy on the Johannine
Portrayal of die Paraclete and Jesus', NTS 25 (1978), pp. 113-23.
78. Cerfaux. ' L ' e x ^ g ^ de I'Ancien Testament', p. 138.
79. P. Stuhlmacher. 'The Hermeneutical Significance of 1 Cor. 2.6-16', in
G.F. Hawthorne (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in
Honor of E. Earle Ellis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 1987). pp. 328-47; see also K.O. Sandnes. '"Paul—One of the
Prophets"?A Contribution to the Apostle's Self-Understanding' (Stavanger: Sandnes,
1987). pp. 79-119 (now published in Tubingen by J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck].
1990).
80. D. Luhrmann, Die Offenbarungsverstdndnis des Paulus und in paulinischen
Gemeinden (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Veriag, 1965). pp. 113-17.
146
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
to avoid mentioning God as subject of a finite v e r b , " and can
therefore be translated 'God has disclosed*. The widespread use of the
'revelation schema*, with its hidden-revealed dialectic, suggests that
early Christians perceived that their understanding of the christological significance of the Old Testament was radically different from
Judaism. It is further likely, diough scarcely demonstrable, diat early
Chrisdan biblical interpreters shared the view that their understanding
of the Old Testament was, in a general sense, the product of divine
enlightenment. To go beyond this and to claim that early Chrisdan
interpreters considered diemselves divinely inspired is to exceed the
evidence.
The term 'Christian prophet*, however, is ambiguous, for it can
refer to a role played by particular individuals, perhaps even an office
(Acts 13.1-3; 1 Cor. 12.10), but can also refer to those who prophesy,
whedier just once, a few times, or regularly (1 Cor. 14.1). Gerhard
Dautzenberg has demonstrated the extent to which prophecy in early
Judaism and early Christianity was, at least in part, an interpretative
phenomenon.*^ Glossolalia, clearly a type of prophetic activity, was
(at least occasionally) subject to another type of prophetic gift, the
epiiEveia Y X X O O O C O V , 'interpretation of tongues' (1 Cor. 12.10; 14.2728). Similarly, prophetic speech was also subject to interpretation
(1 Cor. 14.29; perhaps to be identified with the gift of 5iaKpioei<;
jivevudToiv, mentioned in 1 Cor. 12.10)."
One important issue to consider is whether or not Christian
prophets were charismatic interpreters of Scripture.'* The connection
81. J. Jeremias, Neutestamentliche
Theologie. I. Die Verkiindigung Jesu
(Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971). pp. 20-24. In die Targumim the passive voice is
frequendy used to replace the acdve voice when God is die subject of verbs in die
Hebrew text (cf. Targ. Jer. 3.8; 8.4; 11.20; 16.17).
82. Dautzenberg, Urchristliche Prophetie, pp. 43-121.122-48.
83. Dautzenberg, Urchristliche Prophetie, pp. 122-48; W.A. Grudem. The Gift
of Prophecy in I Corinthians (Washington. DC: University Press of America, 1982).
pp. 263-88 (an attempt to refute Dantzenberg's view that SiaKptoei; )tve\)^dT(ov in
1 Cor. 12.10 is another way of describing die 5iaicpiv£iv of prophetic speech in
ICor. 14.29); Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, pp. 217-29 (in which
Dautzenberg's views are qualified).
84. Scholars who have emphasized the role of Christian prophets as interpreters
of Scripture include E.G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St Peter (London: Macmillan,
1946), p. 134; L. Gaston. No Stone on Another (NovTSup. 23; Leiden: E.J. Brill.
1970). pp. 50-51; E. Cothenet. 'Les prophStes Chretiens comme ex^gStes
AUNE Charismatic
Exegesis
147
between prophets and Old Testament interpretadon is often argued in
the following way. 1. Prophecy played an important role in paraenesis, that is, moral exhortation, in early Christianity (Acts 4.36; 9.27;
13.15; 15.32; 1 Cor. 12.7; 14.3)." 2. Furdier, exhortation is clearly
associated widi die exegesis of Scripture in Rom. 15.4: 'For whatever
was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by
steadfastness and by the encouragement (napaKX-fjoeox;) of the
Scriptures we might have hope'. 3. One could therefore conclude with
E. Earle Ellis that 'The interpretation of Scripture was indeed
regarded, under certain conditions, as prophetic activity'.** Yet the
evidence he adduces is inadequate to establish his diesis. The flaws in
this line of reasoning are that paraenesis was never the exclusive
province of either prophecy or biblical interpretation in the early
church, and that prophets are never explicidy linked to the task of
biblical interpretation. There is little evidence to substantiate die view
that one of the major preoccupations of Christian prophets was the
inspired exegesis of the Old Testament.
Since Paul probably regarded himself as a Christian prophet," and
frequently interprets the Old Testament in his main letters, it is
appropriate to ask whether or not it is appropriate to regard him as a
charismatic exegete. Winfield Hall has focused on diis problem. While
many scholars have used the term 'charismatic exegesis' in vague
ways, Winfield Hall has proposed diat it has diree characteristics tiiat
reflect the form, content and function of this inspired exegetical
activity:** 1. die use of formulas such as 'die Lord says* or 'that it might
be fulfilled*, which suggest that the interpreter is emphasizing the
inspiration of die oracle quoted (form), 2. the tendentious alteration
charismatiques de rEcriture*. in J. Panagopoulos (ed.). Prophetic Vocation in the
New Testament and Today (NovTSup, 45; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977). pp. 77-107;
reprinted with some changes in E. Codienet. Exegese et Liturgie (Lectio Divina,
133; Paris: Les Editions du Cerf. 1988). pp. 63-96; E.E. Ellis. 'The Role of die
Christian Prophet in Acts', Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). pp. 137-38; W.S. Hall. Paul as a Christian Prophet in
his Interpretation of the Old Testament in Romans 9-11 (ThD dissertation. Ludieran
School of Theology at Chicago; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. 1982).
85. Ellis. Prophecy and Hermeneutic, pp. 130-38.
86. EWis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic, p. 138.
87. Aune. Prophecy in Early Christianity, pp. 28-62. Most recenUy. see
Sandnes, Paul.
88. Hall. Paul as a Christian Prophet, pp. 133-48.
148
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
of the text of Scripture to fit the situation of the interpreter (content),
and 3. the O T prophecy is regarded by the interpreter as directly
applicable to his or her own situation (function). Since Hall does not
mention the sine qua non of charismatic exegesis, that is, the explicit
or implicit claim that the interpreter or the interpretation has been
divinely revealed, his diree criteria are inadequate. Hall attempted to
demonstrate that Paul was a charismatic exegete tiirough a careful
analysis of the way in which he interprets the Old Testament in
Romans 9 - 1 1 . In many ways, Romans 9-11 is ideally suited for such a
task: 1. It is die single passage in die Pauline letters widi the highest
concentration of OT quotations and allusions. 2. It is a unit of text that
concludes in Rom. 11.33-36 with a literary form consisting of a
prayer of praise and dianksgiving following a divine revelation.*' 3. It
occurs within a composition diat concludes with a 'revelation schema'
in Rom. 16.25 (quoted above), which links the hidden-revealed
dialectic with the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament.
Unfortunately, however, since the author's three characteristics of
apply to much of early Jewish and early Christian biblical interpretation and are incapable of distinguishing 'charismatic exegesis' from
any other form of interpretative activity, his informative discussion of
Romans 9-11 falls short of demonstrating that Paul regarded himself
as a charismatic exegete. Yet, in light of Paul's overall hermeneutic
perspective (1 Cor. 2.6-16), and with specific reference to his
articulation of the 'revelation schema' in Rom. 16.25, and the role of
Rom. 11.33-36 as a prayer of tiianksgiving following a divine revelation, it is appropriate to use die term 'charismatic exegesis' of Paul's
interpretation of die Old Testament. However, 'charismatic exegesis'
here is not used in the sense of die immediate inspiration of die interpreter, but rather with the more general meaning that the Christian
community's insights into the christological significance of the Old
Testament is the product of divine enlightenment.
VII. Conclusion
The foregoing discussion suggests that 'charismatic exegesis' is an
extremely complex phenomenon which (at least for early Judaism and
89. Examples of this literary form: 2 Chron. 20.18-19; Dan. 2.20-23; / En.
90.40; 4 Ezra 13.57-58; 2 Bar. 75.1-8; Josephus, War 3.8.3 §354; Corpus
Hermeticum 1.31-32; Mt. 11.25-27 (and par. Lk. 10.21-22); Hermas, Vis. 2.1.1-2.
AUNE
Charismatic
Exegesis
149
early Christianity) appears to be rooted in the belief that the Torah
can only be properly understood if God himself grants divine insight
to his people. Charismadc exegesis does not consist of a particular
type of interpretation identifiable on the basis of its distinctive
form, content or function. Rather, charismsatic exegesis is essentially
a hermeneutical
ideology that provides divine legitimation for a
particular understanding of a sacred text which is shared with others
who understand tiie text differently. Yet charismatic exegesis must be
understood in an even broader and more comprehensive way, since
the phenomenon of 'prophecy by interpretation' is not found only in
early Judaism and early Christianity but is more widespread and can
apparently occur under certain conditions in other religions and
cultures.'"
In conclusion let me suggest that 'charismatic exegesis', or 'revealed
interpretation', exhibits the following morphological features: 1. it is
a procedure applied to dreams, visions, oral communications or
relatively stable and authoritative written texts that are regarded as
having a divine origin. 2. These dreams, messages or texts are regarded
as puzzling or enigmatic, as indeed revelatory communications are
90. The interpretative procedures of die Qumran pesharim (discussed in more
detail below), for example, are closely paralleled in the late third-century BCE
Egyptian Demotic Chronicle, or the 'Patriotic Oracles with Interpretation'
(J. Bergman, 'Introductory Remarks on Apocalypticism in Egypt*, in D. Hellholm
[ed.], Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East [Tiibingen:
Mohr-Siebeck. 1983]. pp. 54-55); cf. F. Daumas, 'Litterature proph6tique et
ex^g^tique 6gyptienne et commentaries essSniens', in M. Jourjon et al. (eds.), A la
recontre de Dieu: Memorial A. Gelin (Le Puy: Editions Xavier Mappus, 1961).
pp. 203-211; J.J. Collins. 'Jewish Apocalyptic against its Hellenistic Near Eastern
Environment', BASOR 220 (1975). pp. 27-36. An example of die use of lemmata
followed by an explanation of the text may be taken from die Demotic Chronicle, col.
3, II. 1-2 (based on W. Spiegelberg. Die sogennante Demotische Chronik [Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs. 1914]. p. 16):
'Rejoice. Uien, Prophet of Harsaphes!"
This means: The Prophet of Harsaphes rejoices concerning Ihe Greeks, for they became
rulers in Hngs.
'May tie open the furnaces! I have given him the catde'—
This means: The ruler, who will come, opens [the doors) of Ihe temple and allows
sacrifices to again be brought lo the gods.
For an examination of the parallels between the Qumran pesharim and the Gnostic
Pistis Sophia, see J. Carmignac, 'Le genre litt^raire du "pesher" dans la PistisSophia', RevQ 4 (1963-64), pp. 497-522.
150
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
frequendy held to b e , " and dierefore diey stand in need of interpretadon, clarificadon, updating and actualization.'^ 3. This interpretation
can be presented orally, or fused with the text through revision (i.e.
the incorporation of interpolations into the text during the process of
recopying), or can be kept separated from the text itself. 4. This
explication often exhibits a marked sectarian orientation, and the
thrust of the interpolated or interpreted text serves to reinforce or
legitimate the group's particular view of the present or program for
the future.'^ 5. The interpretation is regarded as having a divine
origin, eidier dirough the immediate inspiration of the interpreter, tiie
consciousness of die interpreter that he or she participates in a tradition of revealed interpretation, or through the attribution of the interpretation ultimately to supernatural beings or God himself. 6. Since
the interpretation has a divine origin, it has the potential of rivalling
the original message of text in autiiority, though it usually continues to
be regarded as qualitatively subordinate to the original revelatory
communication.
91. G. van der Leeuw. Religion in Essence and Manifestation (2 vols.; trans.
J.E. Turner; New York: Harper & Row. 1963), II. pp. 564-65.
92. J.Z. Smith. 'Wisdom and Apocalyptic'. Map is not Territory: Studies in the
History of Religions (SJLA. 23; Uiden: E.J. Brill, 1978). pp. 74-85. An example
is found in Dan. 9.2,24-26, in which Jeremiah's prophecy that the exile would last
seventy years (Jer. 25.11-12; 29.10) is expanded to mean 70 weeks of years, i.e.,
490 years, since the author lived in die second, rather dian the sixdi, century BCE; see
P. Grelot, 'Soixante-dix semaines d'anuses'. Bib 50 (1969), pp. 169-86.
93. Kugel and Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, pp. 37-39.
GOD AS 'FATHER' IN THE TARGUMIM, IN NON-CANONICAL
LITERATURES OF EARLY JUDAISM AND FRIMMVE
CHRISTIANITY, AND IN MATTHEW
Bruce Chilton
Interest in what has come to be called 'midrash' in contemporary
scholarship has corresponded and contributed to a program to locate
Christianity within early Judaism. That program is not simply a
matter of treating Judaism as a 'background', as if it were a static
frame witiiin which the dynamics of Christian faith emerged. Radjer,
our period has seen the possibility emerge of treating Christianity and
Judaism together, both sympathetically and critically, as mutually
explicating, if definitively distinctive, variants of biblical religion.
Indeed, some of us would insist diat their relationship is so close as to
require that both be understood if either is to be comprehended.
Because Scripture is a vital force within both religious perspectives,
and because the contents of what they call tiie book or 'Bible' are
largely shared, a natural point of departure is the simple question
'how is die Bible read widiin each of die systems of belief?' Aldiough
that question is simple, to answer it is not, and there is the further
complication that modern scholars have chosen to refer to the issue
under the ancient category, 'midrash'. The common approach is to
point out that die noun D i n o refers to anydiing tiiat one 'searches out',
and dierefore to what one might call the inquisitive use of Scripture.
That definition is a hybrid of ancient etymology and modern
hermeneutics, but it has nonetheless won a place for itself in current
parlance. Within early Judaism, 'midrash' refers to the deliberate
exposition of Scripture. If such exegesis is not at issue, the term in its
ancient sense cannot appropriately be applied. But some of my contemporaries also use the noun to refer to tiie process of thought that
stands behind midrash (which I should call interpretation), and to the
152
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
subsequent use made of what an exposition states (which I should call
a history of thought).
The desire to characterize the use and influence of Scripture in
broad terms is understandable, because the fact is that Scripture is
deeply implicated in die visions of God diat Judaism and Christianity
convey. But it is as well to be clear diat, when a statement is made
about God by means of a biblical text, what is said may reflect the
speaker's theological conviction more than his or her comprehension
of the text or adherence to exegetical norms. For diat reason, a comparison of religious systems must not be limited to an evaluation of
dieir 'midrash*, because the danger emerges diat we will mistake properly dieological differences for happenstances of exegetical policy.'
Reference to God as 'fatiier' in primitive Christianity and early
Judaism is a likely point of comparison, and one which will shortly
take us to die heart of a properly comparative study of distinct religious systems. But before the material can do that for us, we need to
clear away some undergrowtii tiiat has been left us by recent discussion.
Joachim Jeremias is still widely cited, in die literature and in classrooms, for his analysis of die place of God*s fadierhood in Jesus*
teaching. Jeremias held that, among die rabbis, 'Johanan b. Zakkai, a
contemporary of die apostles, who taught c. AD 50-80, seems to be
die first to use the designation "heavenly Father*' ("our heavenly
Fatiier**, or "IsraePs heavenly Fatiier**) for God*,^ and diat Jesus*
direct address of God as 'Abba* was unique.' He pointed out that,
within rabbinic literature, the reference could not be found in a
1. Cf. B. Chilton. 'Commenting on the Old Testament (widi Particidar Reference
to the Pesharim, Philo, and the Mekilta', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson
(eds.). It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas
Lindars, SSF (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 122-40;
'Variedes and Tendencies of Midrash: Rabbinic Interpretations of Isaiah 24.23', in
R.T. France and D. Wenham (eds.). Gospel Perspectives, III (Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1983), pp. 9-32.
2. Trans. J. Bowden and C. Burchard, The Prayers of Jesus (SBT, 6;
London: SCM Press. 1967), p. 16. Jeremias immediately explains, however, that he
has in mind only that Yohanan popularized the usage. After all. the conception itself
is rooted in the Hebrew Bible, cf. Jeremias. Prayers of Jesus, pp. 12-15, and Deut.
32.6; 2 Sam. 7.14; Pss. 68.5; 89.26; Isa. 63.16; 64.18; Jer. 3.4, 19; 31.9; Mai. 1.6;
2.10.
3. Jeremias. Prayers of Jesus, pp. 53-65, and above all, p. 57, for its famous
reference to 'ipsissima vox Jesu'.
CHILTON God as 'Father'
153
passage datable prior to Yohanan.* The obvious problem in Jeremias's
analysis is that passages in rabbinica are generally difficult to date
prior to Jesus, owing to the chronology of the documents themselves.
When one considers the number of references to God's fatherhood in
rabbinica, and takes into account die improbability that Jesus' usage
somehow stands behind them, it is far more likely, as Gottlob Schrenk
concluded, that the reference was conventional within the first
century. Schrenk's analysis is supported by his citation of passages in
Jubilees, the Sibylline Oracles, 3 Maccabees, Tobit, tiie Apocalypse of
Moses, and the Testament of Judah; his point is that rabbinica and the
Pseudepigrapha together (along with Philo) attest a usage tiiat was
widespread within early Judaism.' Schrenk is concerned also to forestall any attempt to suggest that Jesus was unique in imputing a
particular sense or emphasis to tiie locution.* The first volume of the
Wdrterbuch,
in an article on aPPa, takes a similar line, and it is
telling that neither editor, Kittel or Friedrich, invited Jeremias to
contribute an article relevant to 'Abba', a topic upon which his reputation in Anglo-Saxon circles is largely built, although Jeremias did,
of course, make other contributions to the Wdrterbuch.
The published findings of the Wdrterbuch make it unmistakably
clear that Jeremias's perspective was not shared by the editors, who in
fact saw to it it diat it was refuted. That point is worth recognizing,
because in his work on die subject 'Abba', Geza Vermes has claimed
that Jeremias's position has been dominant in die study of the New
T e s t a m e n t , ' and that the Wdrterbuch
is to be associated with the
4. Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, pp. 16, 17.
5. G. Schrenk, 'Der Vaterbegriff im Spatjudentum', TWNT, V, pp. 974-81.
The English version appears as 'The Fadier Concept in Later Judaism', TDNT, V.
pp. 974-82.
6. Schrenk concludes ('Der Vaterbegriff, p. 980): 'Die individuelle Fassung
der Beziehung zum himmlischen Vater uiu also keineswegs erst bei Jesus auf...'.
The English rendering of the statement appears more reserved by comparison,
'Certainly die individual version of relationship to die heavenly Father does not
appear for die first time in Jesus...'
7. G. Vermes. Jesus and the World of Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1984), pp.41, 42. It should be observed that, at one, crucial point. Vermes
misrepresents Jeremias's position. He claims diat Jeremias regarded otPPa as 'the
"chatter of a small child'" (p. 42), and then adduces examples where the term is
used among adults. But what Jeremias wrote (p. 62, and cf. p. 16 n. 9) was: 'One
often reads (and I myself believed it at one time) that when Jesus spoke to his
154
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
ideology of the Third Reich.' The first contention has already been
shown to be false. The second is more difficult to refute, because it
relies on the old technique of imputing guilt by association: because
Kittel was sympathetic with National Socialism, anti-Semitism is
attributed to contributors to the Wdrterbuch. Vermes is interested in
claiming that his own perspective is original, according to which
'Abba' was particularly used as an address to God among people he
calls charismatic Hasids.' Two specific figures are in Vermes's mind,
Honi, known as die circle drawer, and Hanina ben Dosa. A story is
told according to which a grandson of Honi, named Abba Hilkiah, was
approached by children during a drought, saying 'Abba, Abba, give us
rain!' He then prayed to the 'Lord of the universe', to help those who
did not know the difference between the Abba who gives rain and the
Abba who does not.'"
Vermes's solution is troubled by many of the same problems that
afflict Jeremias's. The focus, first of all, is too narrowly resbicted to
rabbinica, and even dien, die instances widiin rabbinica are misconstrued. The examples of Honi and Hanina do not, as Vermes maintains, establish a type of charismatic Hasid. The fact is that both of
them are referred to within rabbinica as among rabbis, and, as
George Foot Moore pointed out, Aqiba also (and effectively) prayed
for rain, so that tiie ability is scarcely a unique charism." That Aqiba
heavenly Father he took up the chatter of a small child. To assume diis would be a
piece of inadmissible naivety'. Jeremias elsewhere (cf. pp. 58-62) gives a much
fuller linguistic discussion of the usage among adults than Vermes does, and to see
some of the same evidence marshaled against Jeremias by Vermes is what might be
called an exercise in creative midrash.
8. Vermes, Jesus and World of Judaism, pp. 64-66. On p. 65, Vermes
remarks that scholars of die New Testament treat the Wdrterbuch 'as a gospel Uiith
above all criticism'.
9. Cf. G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels
(London: Collins, 1973). pp. 69-82.
10. Vermes. Jesus the Jew, p. 211; Jesus and the World, p. 42. on both
occasions citing b. Ta'an. 23b. In neither book does Vermes mention diat Jeremias
cites the passage in full and discusses it (pp. 61. 62), and also gives credit for the
reference to J. Leipoldt in Jesu Verhaltnis zu Juden und Griechen (Leipzig:
G.Wigand, 1941). pp. 136-37.
11. G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, II
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), p. 235. Moore's presentation
of stories about Honi and Hanina (pp. 222.235-36)—which Vermes does not cite—
makes it plain that efficacious prayer did not constitute die line of demarcation of a
155
was associated with powers to pray for divine aid in the course of
nature did not in any way reduce his status as a teacher, or demand
anodier category for him. Even if die existence of such a category be
granted, for the sake of argument, Hilkiah's paternity would by no
means demonstrate he belongs within it. Further, as we will shortly
see, God could be appealed to as 'father', by those outside the circle of
rabbinic teachers. In any case, Jeremias observed that Abba Hilkiah
does not address God as 'Fadier', even diough he knows he is as a
fadier. He calls him 'Lord','^ a change from 'Father' which is also
made in Targum Jeremiah.'' Although Vermes's purpose is comprehensively to refiite Jeremias' posidon, he in fact only aggravates die
mediodological weaknesses of the latter's approach, by limiting his
survey of the evidence of Judaism to late, rabbinic sources, and by
attempting to justify a christological reading of Jesus. Vermes' charismatic Hasid is certainly less orthodox than Jerenuas' unique Jesus,
peculiarly conscious of a filial relationship with God, but both
represent tiie sort of effort at Christology which is appropriate only
after evidence has been adduced, not at the foundational stage of inquiry.
The Pentateuchal Targumim called Neofiti, the
Fragmentary
Targum, and Pseudo-Jonathan, widi their expansive, often innovative
readings, provide clear evidence of an understanding of God as father
widiin Judaism. For die present purpose, only Pentateuchal Targums
may be considered,''' and Onqelos, the most literal of die Targumim,
is excluded from consideration here precisely because, as the most
accurate translation of the Hebrew text, it is the least obviously
special group among or apart from the rabbis, although it did mark out certain
teachers as especially favored.
12. Jeremias. Prayers of Jesus, pp. 61. 62.
13. Cf. 3.4,19, cf. 31.9 (widi die MasoreUc Text, in each case), and R. Hayward,
The Targum of Jeremiah (Aramaic Bible, 12; Wilmington: Glazier, 1987).
14. The development of a more circumspect approach to God's fadierhood is
evident in the Targumim to Isaiah (63.16; 64.8), Jeremiah (3.4. 19; 31.9), and
Malachi (1.6; 2.10). Cf. B.D.Chilton, 77ie Isaiah Targum (Aramaic Bible, 11;
Wilmington: Glazier. 1987); Hayward, Jeremiah; K.J. Cadicart and R.P. Gordon,
The Targum of the Minor Prophets (Aramaic Bible. 14; Wilmington: Glazier, 1989).
In aggregate, what the readings demonstrate is that a more reverential approach to
God was probably current, at least linguistically, among the rabbis as compared to
some circles of Judaism during the first century. Bodi Jeremias and Vermes attempt
to employ a nuance of usage in order to posit a categorical distinction of Jesus, when
a model involving gradations of usage would be more productive.
156
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
reflective of the rabbinic ethos. Commonly, and even in recent critical
introductions, the expansive Targumim to the Pentateuch are held to
reflect a definite 'Palestinian Targum', datable within die first century."
The fact of die matter is that the freer, more paraphrastic Targumim
are called 'Palestinian' because tiiey are more expansive tiian and
exegetically distinct from Onqelos, which was accepted in Babylon,
and their dialect of Aramaic is different. We may not conclude that
diey all derive from a common written source, nor that such a source
is to be located in Palestine, much less in die first century. As the texts
stand, they reflect the perspectives of later periods: Neofiti derives
from the third century, Pseudo-Jonathan from the seventh, and the
Fragments Targum from no earlier dian die Middle Ages. We will consider die question of tiieir relevance for tiie study of die New Testament
after their vision of the divine fatherhood has been considered.
Neofiti constitutes the most convenient point of departure, because
its references (inclusive of die margins) are die most typical. Each
reference provides a distinctive point of view. At the close of Genesis
2 1 , it is said in the margin of Neofiti that Abraham, having given
hospitality to strangers, and being offered something in return,
insisted:
Pray before your father in heaven, from whose hands you have eaten and
from whose hands you have drunk.'*
Abraham proceeds in the passage to proselytize the grateful foreigners,
teaching them to worship. The recognition of God as father, in the
sense of die one who provides sustenance, is dierefore taken to be the
incipient point of correct faith, and potentially the beginning of a
fruitfiil, prayerful relationship with God.
Quite a different situation is presumed in Exod. 1.19. There, the
Egyptian midwives describe to Pharaoh why they fail to kill the male
children of Israel at birth. As in the Masoretic Text, the problem is
tiiat they actually bring forth before tiie midwives arrive, but tiie
reason for their vitality is given:
15. Cf. R. Le Ddaut. "The Targumim', The Cambridge History of Judaism. II.
The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 563-90,
cf. p. 578 and p. 581 in particular. Unfortunately, die article as a whole simply fails
to take account of recent research, and criticism of the stance Le Ddaut has
championed for some diirty years.
16. Cf. A. Dfez Macho, Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense Ms de Ui Biblioteca
Vaticana, I (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigadones Cientfficas, 1968).
157
They pray before their father in heaven, and he answers them and they
deliver."
In the present case, the conception of fatherhood is narrower dian in
Gen. 2 1 . 3 3 of Neofiti, in that the pregnant Israelites pray to their
father, and he responds to their particular need by giving them the
force to bring forth.
The particularity with which divine fadierhood might be depicted is
especially plain in Neofiti at Num. 2 0 . 2 1 . Edom refuses Israel die
freedom to pass dirough its territory, but Israel does not attack:
diey were ordered by dieir father in heaven not to form up against them in
the formations of war."
The underlying notion at this point is that some definite revelation
attends Israel's relationship to God as father. The particularity of diat
relationship is emphasized in a clever rendering at Deut. 3 2 . 6 :
Is he not your father, who acquired you and who created you and
perfected you?
It will readily be seen that the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy already
has God as the father who 'created you, made you, and established
you'. The first verb, translated 'created', is nap, and wp is what appears
in Neofiti. But in Aramaic, die term means 'acquire' more than ' a e a t e ' ,
so that the redundancy of expression in the Masoretic Text is avoided,
and a much more directiy particularistic impression is conveyed."
At Deut. 3 3 . 2 4 Neofiti would appear to offer a conception of that
link that is foundational for Israel's existence, and which requires
Asher's intercession, when it falls into disrepair:
Blessed above sons. In the tribes, he shall interpose his pasture (n'ono)
between his brothers and dieir father who is in heaven, and his land shall
be washed by die waters, and he shall badie his feet in oil.
The manuscript of Fragments Targum in the Vatican has Asher providing pasture to his brothers during sabbatical years. That is probably the sense here, as well,^** although it is notable that in Midrash
17. Dfez Macho, Neophti I, U (1970).
18. Cf. Dfez Macho. Neophti 1, IV (1974).
19. Cf. the fine note in B. Grossfeld. The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy
(Aramaic Bible. 12; Wilmington: Glazier, 1988). p. 91.
20. Dfez Macho, Neophyti 1, V (1978). however, renders the passage
differenUy. For die edition of die Fragments Targum, see n. 23.
158
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Kabbah, Asher is credited with an ancillary role in the Temple (or in
the camp in the wilderness): he provides light from the oil of his land
{Num. R. 2.10 [on Num. 2.3]), or oil of anointing {Gen. R. 97 [on
Gen. 48.1]), or daughters for anointed priests (Gen. R. 71.10 [on Gen.
31.13], cf. 98.16 [on Gen. 49.20]).2'
Neofiti offers, then, a coherent conception of God's fatherhood: it is
mediated to die Gentiles, as a fact of creation, by Abraham, but is die
central feature of Israel's particular appeal to God, to God's answer to
Israel, and in fact to the essential link between Israel and its God. But
before we proceed further, it is crucial to recognize, and to appreciate, that the coherence of the Targumim in the matter of God's fatherhood is deceptive. Witiiin Neofiti itself, we have already observed diat
die reading at Gen. 21.33 appears in a marginal gloss, not widiin the
main text of the MS, and such glosses appear to have been quite consciously added, as alternatives, perhaps when the document was copied
during die sixteendi century." Moreover, at Exod. 1.19, 'die L O R D '
replaces 'their father' in an interlinear gloss within the MS itself, a
location that may suggest greater antiquity as a reading of Neofiti than
a marginal gloss. Although it seems best, on die whole, to accept the
reading of 'father' at Exod. 1.19, and to reject it at Gen. 21.33 (diat
is, as the text of Neofiti),
the crucial point (from the present
perspective) remains that tiiere is textual instability in the attestation,
and that 'father' was a designation subject to correction during the
course of the transmission of Neofiti.
The likely source of Neofiti's reading at Gen. 21.33 is the Fragments
Targum, a collection of variants to Targumic readings that was
compiled during die elevendi to the diirteenth centuries.^' Taking the
21. Cf. J.J. Slotki, Numbers: Midrash Kabbah (London: Soncino, 1983);
H. Freedman. Genesis: Midrash Rabbah (London: Soncino, 1983). A comparison
might be made widi die teaching ascribed to Yohanan ben Zakkai, that die stones of
die altar, upon which no iron tool was to be lifted, establish peace between Israel and
'their fadier in heaven'. By using die argument kai vahomer, he reasons diat a person
who establishes peace is to be protected. Cf. Mek. on Exod. 20.21-23 (Bahodesh
§11) in J.Z. Lauterbach. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1933), n, p. 290.
22. Cf. S. Lund and J. Foster, Variant Versions of Targumic Traditions within
Codex Neofiti I (SBL Aramaic Studies, 2; Missoula, MA: Scholars Press. 1977).
Lund and Foster argue for the affinity between the Fragments Targum and at least
one of die versions reflected in the marginalia.
23. Cf. M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to their
159
MS of the Bibliothûe Nationale of Paris (a document of die fifteendi
century) as our basis, we find an interpretadon cognate with that of
the margin of Neofiti, also at Gen. 2 1 . 3 3 . The case is similar at Exod.
1.19; Num. 2 0 . 2 1 ; Deut. 3 2 . 6 . In addition, tiie Fragments
Targum
includes additional references to God as 'father', which fill out the
usage we have already typified on the basis of Neofiti, witiiout altering
its essentials. At Exod. 1 7 . 1 1 , it is said diat Israel was victorious in
batde when Moses prayed witii arms outstretched to his father in
heaven; presumably, such a positive understanding of God's military
support is the background of the usage in Num. 2 0 . 2 1 , where it is
assumed that God can also give an order not to attack. When, in the
Fragments Targum, turning towards the bronze serpent is coordinated
with Israel's prayer for healing to God as 'father' (Num. 2 1 . 9 ) , that
fills out the sort of usage one can see at Exod. 1.19, both in Neofiti
and die Fragments Targum, and die promise of 'good reward' (no •»»)
to the righteous at Num. 2 3 . 2 3 may also be held to be consistent with
die usage. But a highly imaginative rendering at Exod. 1 5 . 1 2 pictures
the very earth as afraid to receive the Egyptian dead of the Exodus,
for fear the acceptance of them would tell against it in the world to
come at die judgment by its fadier in heaven."
The last usage is a vivid reminder that die Fragments Targum may
on occasion provide, not just die background of a usage in Neofiti (as,
perhaps, at Exod. 1 7 . 1 1 ) , or further examples of tiie same usage (as at
Num. 2 1 . 9 ; 2 3 . 2 3 ) , but conceptions of a different order altogether,
which probably reflect its later date. After all, die Fragments Targum
was consciously composed as a collection of variants, by rabbis whose
primary language (and whose community's primary language) had
ceased—essentially since the Arabic conquests—to be Aramaic. It
would be odd not to find later (sometimes esoteric) conceptions
developed within it. On the other hand, we also may not assume tiiat
the Fragments Targum simply inflates prior developments such as are
reflected in Neofiti, since the reference of Deut. 3 3 . 2 4 does not appear
Extant Sources (AnBib, 76; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), p. 25; Moses
Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum (Berlin: Calvary, 1899).
24. Cf. also the MSS from the Cairo Geniza presented in M.L. Klein. Genizah
Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, I (Cincinatd: Hebrew Union
College Press. 1986). pp.240, 241, 244, 245. Although the substance of die
haggadah is given in boUi fragments, so diat its existence c. AD 1000 is established,
neither refers to God as 'fadier'.
160
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
there, although the haggadah does (in the Vatican MS). In the same
connection, it should be pointed out that the Targum called PseudoJonathan, from the seventh century, does not preserve most of the
references cited above, although it does present analogous renderings
at Exod. 1.19; Deut. 32.6, and an innovative usage at Deut. 28.32, 33,
where it is a question of praying to God with good works (ffao vros)
in one's hands for release in judgment.^' Clearly, as we come to later
sources, there is a tendency both to embellish and to qualify the notion
of God as 'father'.
Given that the Targumim reflect a rich conceptual development of God
as 'father', and do so in a way that ntakes it impossible immediately to
characterize what the usage of the first century might have been, the
' P s e u d e p i g r a p h a ' — n o n - c a n o n i c a l literatures of Judaism and
Christianity—are potentially of great usefulness. Although their
chronology as a collection is no more unequivocally pre-Christian
than that of the Targumim, they do hold out the prospect of enabling
us to determine elements of conunonality with the Targumim that may
be held to evidence a datable consensus concerning God's fadierhood
within Judaism and Chrisdanity. Any analysis is, however, complicated further by the fact that geographically and theologically the
provenience of die 'Pseudepigrapha' is almost always quite other than
that of rabbinic literature. For that reason, even documents of
approximately die same period may reflect quite a different concept of
die divine fadierhood. Indeed, it must be stated at die outset diat the
'Pseudepigrapha' generally—especially die non-canonical documents
of Judaism—are far more parsimonious in their usage of the
theologoumenon than either the New Testament or the Targumim.
T h e Testament of Job nonetheless stands out as an instance of a
document of early Judaism in which the designation of God as 'father'
25. The analogy to the reading at Exod. 15.12 in the Fragments Targum is
evident, and further suggests that die forensic reference to God as 'father' is
relatively late within the Targumim. For editions of Pseudo-Jonathan, cf.
B. Walton, Triplex Targum: Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, IV (London: Roycroft, 1657);
M. Ginsburger. Pseudo-Jonathan (Olms: Hildesheim, 1971); D. Rieder, PseudoJonathan (Jerusalem: Salmon, 1974); E.G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the
Pentateuch (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1984). Until die Targum is published in 'The
Aramaic Bible', we have recourse for a translation only to J.W. Edieridge, The
Targums ofOnkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch (New York: Ktav,
1968), reprinted from the last century.
161
occupies an important place. In his fine introduction to the translation
of the document, R.P. Spittler places the Testament within the first
century BC or A D , and ascribes it to the Therapeutae, the Egyptian
wing of the Essenes.^* But the evocative date of the Testament is only
part of its appeal from the present point of view: it also presents an
unusually high number of references to God as 'father' among the
non-canonical documents of Judaism.
The references in question, however, are quite different, at first
acquaintance, from what die Pentateuchal Targumim have accustomed
us to. At 33.3, Job says in response to the lament of Eliphas:
My throne is in the upper world (vitepKooûo), and its glory and dignity
come from die right hand of die fadier.^'
'Fadier' is die reading only in die MS of die Bibliodifeque Nationale,^*
which suggests diat a similar tentativeness accompanied the designation among the scribes of Hellenistic Judaism as is evidenced among
die meturgemanin and scribes of the Targumim. But the most stiiking
feature of the reference is its originality, as compared to die usage of
die Targumim. In die Testament, the initial usage describes the provenience o f die glory and dignity which attend Job's heavenly throne.
Similarly, Job claims in 33.9 diat his kingdom is possessed o f a glory
and dignity installed in 'the chariots of die father' (ev xolq apîaoiv
zov J t a t p l o q ) , a phrase obviously inspired from Ezekiel 1, and an
early example of speculation concerning the divine chariot as the
cosmological locus o f God. In 40.2, the usage and its cosmological, or
visionary, meaning achieves a climax, when Job replies to his wife's
disconsolation for her dead children by acknowledging God as 'father'
( K t t l TOTE otaOeic; tfyi)\ioXoyr\aa\iT[v Kpb<; tov T t a t e p a ) , and then
conveying a vision of his children crowned with divine splendor
(40.3).
Just here, however, when d i e usage might seem to be quite distant
from that of the Targumim, it becomes unmistakably plain that the
cosmological and visionary reference of the divine fadierhood is
rooted in the understanding that God as 'father' is first and foremost
die object of prayer. Job first acknowledges God as 'father', and then
26. Cf. R.P. Spittler, Testament of Job', OTP, I, pp. 829-38.
27. Cf. S.P. Brock, Testamentum lobi (Pseudepigrapha Verteris Testamenti
Graece; Uiden: Brill, 1967).
28. Cf. Spitder. 'Job', p. 855 n. 'g'.
162
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
conveys his vision; moreover, he is said to speak of his vision (40.3)
after he has acknowledged God as 'father* (40.2), and his acknowledgment is called a prayer (KOI iitm zr[v ewxnv, 40.3). Quite evidently,
although the Testament of Job does not directly refer to God's fatherhood as a locution of prayer, as in the Targumim, it does presuppose
that such a reference is conventional. The particular references of the
Targumim that refer to God as 'father' in the context of prayer are,
of course, not shown to be pre-Christian for that reason, but the usage
in itself is presupposed by the reading of the Testament of Job.
The two further instances in the Testament of Job represent further
developments, quite unlike what we read in the Targumim, of the
association of divine fatherhood and efficacious prayer. In 47.11, Job
provides his daughters widi what he calls a 'phylactery of the father'
((pvXaK-tfipiov eoxiv xox> naxpoc;), in order that they might see the
heavenly beings who come to take Job's soul.^' The association of
phylacteries with prayer is normative within the period, and the usage
of 'father' is entirely natural within the context of the
Testament.
Nonetheless, die magical effect imputed to the phylactery (which is
actually rendered 'amulet' by Spittler), is a reminder that prayer is
understood within a particular context in the Testament. The resulting
vision of one of the daughters is referred to as of 'the paternal glory'
(xf\q jiaxpiiai<; 56îi(;) in 50.3; clearly, there is a coherent conception
with the Testament of Job, according to which prayer to God as
'fatiier'—sometimes assisted with mediatory objects—^leads to a vision
of his throne and what is associated witii it. A later, one might say
vulgarized, development of that conception is represented by The
Prayer of Jacob, from Egypt in the fourth century, in which God is
actually invoked as the cosmological father, with the aim that the
petitioner might become angelic in his wisdom (18, 19).'"
29. My interpretation liere differs from SpitUer's, who takes die 'fadier' to be Job
himself (aldiough he capitalizes the iniUal letter in his translation). As he himself
observes, however ('Job', p. 865 n. 'j'). the MS at Messina and Rome read 'die
Lord', much as diey do at 40.2. so diat his exegesis would appear unnatural.
30. Cf. K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, II (Sammlung WissenschafdicheCommentare; Stuttgart:Teubner. 1974), pp. 148,149; J.H. Charleswordi,
'Prayer of Jacob*, OTP, II. pp. 715-23. Charleswordi's contention that die prayer is
neidier 'peculiarly gnostic' nor 'a charm' (p. 718) is well taken; on the odier hand,
his attempt to back die dating up to as eariy as die first century is tendentious. It is
partially based on an alleged similarity to die 'Prayer of Joseph', which must be
eariier dian die third century, when it was quoted by Origen. but die range of parallels
163
T h e Testament of Abraham presents but pale reflections of an
understanding of God as 'father'. Abraham tells Sarah she is blessed
by God, even the father, for her recognition of an angelic visitor
(6.6), and the angels are described in 20.12 as bringing Abraham to
heaven, for the worship of God, the father (ei? rcpooKwrioiv t o u
0eow Kttl rcatpo?)." In bodi cases, die divine fadierhood appears to
be linked to God's cosmological grandeur. Sanders's opdon, which
places the Testament of Abraham in Egypt around 100 CE, would
appear to be confirmed by die usage in respect of God as 'father': it
simply picks up, without developing, the thronal imagery of the
Testament of Job. Indeed, die reladonship between die two documents
might be taken to support the contention of Matthias Delcor, that the
Testament of Abraham intentionally tt'ansfers to its hero the virtues
depicted in the Testament of Job, and diat dierefore a date widiin die
second century is preferable.'^
The picture that has so far emerged is one in which the Targumim,
from a period later than the New Testament, present a coherent usage
of the divine fadierhood, one which is partially confirmed as a Judaic
usage of the first century by non-canonical Jewish documents. On die
other hand, those documents, while earlier in aggregate, are also to
some extent representative of a visionary, sometimes magical, version
of Judaism, which is unlike the ethos of the Targumim (and, perhaps,
of the New Testament). The question remains whether it is possible to
discern a type of usage that may reasonably be held to have been a
part of the milieu in which the Gospels emerged.
to the angelology of its few lines certainly do not support Smith's confident
ascription of it to die first century (cf. J.Z. Smith, 'Prayer of Joseph', APOT, II,
pp. 699-714). Charlesworth himself acknowledges 'parallels' widi documents of the
second century, and he nowhere addresses the central point of Preisendanz's
chronology; in form and function, die 'Prayer of Jacob' comports well widi odier
incantations of the fourdi century, which also were designed to summon deities.
31. Cf. M. Rhodes James, The Testament of Abraham (Texts and Studies,
11.2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892); E.P. Sanders. 'Testament of
Abraham'. APOT, I, pp. 871-902.
32. Cf. M. Delcor, Le Testament d'Abraham (Studia in Veteris Testamenti
Pseudepigrapha; Leiden: Brill, 1973), p. 49; B. Chilton, '"Amen": An Approach
dirough Syriac Gospels', ZNW 69 (1978), pp. 203-11. and Targumic Approaches
to the Gospels (Lanham. MD: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 15-23.
164
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Around 100 CE,'' or somewhat later during the second century,'* the
Odes of Solomon were composed in Edessa" (or perhaps Antioch'*);
they utilize the address of God as 'father' more frequently, and with
far greater density, than any of the documents adduced above. That
feature of the usage of the Odes is easily explained on the basis of
their Christian provenience, and some of the usages in fact join the
evidence which indicates that is their provenience. After the unambiguously Christian statement, 'you are saved in him who was saved'
(8.21c), the Odes go on to speak of being found incorrupt 'on account
of the name of your father' (]-oi3»i noob, 8.22)." The Christian idiom,
'God the father', on the way towards becoming trinitarian, is also
evidenced (cf. 9.5; 14.1, cf. v. 8), as when Christ calls God 'my fadier'
(cf. 10.4). But that doctrinal development becomes most explicit at
19.1, 2:
A cup of milk was offered to me,
and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord's kindness.
The Son is die cup.
die Fadier is he who was milked;
and die Holy Spirit is she who milked him."
The incipient trinitarianism as well as the vivid imagery of the passage, which goes on to speak of die virginal conception of Jesus (vv. 67), marks it out as characteristic of die devotional purpose of die Odes.
From die point of view of die sources discussed earlier, the Odes
are distinct in provenience, geographically, to some extent chronologically, and above all theologically. Their correspondence with types
of usage current within early Judaism is therefore all the more
striking. In 7.11, God is described as 'die perfection of the worids
(mbsri wo"?!©) and tiieir fadier', because he provides for die benefits of
33. So J.H. Charleswordi, 'The Odes of Solomon', APOT, II, pp. 725-71, 727.
34. Cf. R. Harris and A. Mingana, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon (2 vols.;
Manchester University Press, 1916. 1920). II, p. 64.
35. Cf. Harris and Mingana, Odes, pp. 36-40, 42-47, 64, 68, 69.
36. So Charleswordi, 'Odes', p. 727, aldiough Ignatius' knowledge of the Odes
can scarcely be used as evidence of their origin; it only shows they were widely
disseminated. Given the u-aditions of wisdom at Edessa (evidenced in the Thomaean
corpus), and the tradition of hymnody there, above all in the case of Bardaisan. an
Edessene origin is more probable.
37. Cf. die Syriac text in Harris and Mingana, Odes, I.
38. Thetianslationand die capitalizations are Charlesworth's.
165
sacrifice (cf. 7.10). The link by means of the term 'father' between the
notions of God's cosmological power and of the acceptable worship of
God is reminiscent of the Testament of Job. Of course, the reminiscence we can observe is a matter of a pattern of usage, not dependence
(literary or otherwise), but it does tend to confirm that God's fatherhood was connected with his cosmological grandeur and his availability
through worship within the first century. The same chapter of the
Odes also presents an innovative usage, in comparison to what we
have seen so far, in which God's fatherhood is related specifically to
his wisdom (7.7):
The father of knowledge is die word of knowledge.
By itself, that aphorism need not refer to God. In isolation, it could
mean, 'The principle of knowledge is the expression of knowledge'.
But in fact, the passage goes on to speak of the creation of the speaker
by God (7.9), so diat the reference to the divine fadierhood in context
is unmistakable. It would appear diat, just as in Egypt die cosmological usage was developed in the idiom of vision, above all in the
Testament of Abraham, in Syria the key was that of wisdom.
The last usages in the Odes refer to the father's vindication of
C h r i s t . " Christ is in view (cf. v. 1) when it is said that his face was
justified by the father (31.5); that justification corresponds to power
over darkness and error (vv. 1, 2), as well as to graceful speech
(v. 3) and the offering back to God of 'those who had become sons
through him' (v. 4). The identity of the speaker as Christ is even
more obvious at 41.9, where he says:
The father of truth remembered me. he who acquired me from the
beginning.
Given die Christian stance of the Odes, that statement is not surprising
in die mouth of one who says diat God begat him widi his riches and
his thought (v. 10). But it is startling that Christ says that God
'acquired me from the beginning' (n'ona p '33pi in), when diat is what
Neofiti says emphatically of Israel in its clever rendering of Deut.
32.6. It is apparent that the tradition that, when they are in distress,
the 'father' would answer the prayers of the people he acquired has
been applied particularly to Christ in the Odes in respect of his cosmic
39. The idendty of the speaker with Christ in each of the examples to be cited is
also asserted by Charlesworth.
166
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
triumph, a triumph whose cosmic aspect also corresponded to another
association in the designation of God as 'father* within the first
century.
The usages of the Pseudepigrapha and the Targumim in aggregate
suggest that, within early Judaism, God was known as 'father* particularly 1. for the purposes of prayer, especially prayer in straits, 2. in
reference to the vision or revelation that such a prayer might involve,
3. because he responds to prayer, 4. in view of his power over the
entire creation, and 5. in respect of the peculiar relationship between
God and his people. For the most part, it will readily be seen that the
usage of Jesus, as atdibuted to him in the Synopdc Gospels,*" is quite
conventional. Matthew is the best text to illustrate the usage, since
Matthew attributes it more to Jesus tiian any otiier Synoptic Gospel,
and die most crucial usages in Matdiew are paralleled in otiier Gospels.
The prayer attributed to him addresses God in the usual way,
although the direct connection with the kingdom is innovative (Mt.
6.9, lO),*' and the many Matthaean passages tiiat refer to God as
'father* in the context of prayer belong to the first category. Several
of them refer explicidy to the manner in which prayer as instructed
by Jesus should be offered (6.6,*^ 8), but diere is also an insistence
upon the place of forgiving others within prayer (6.14, 15; 18.35).
The latter aspect is without question unusual, but die point at issue is
by no means the address of God as 'father*, but the nature of prayer as
taught by Jesus. Towards die close of die Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as
addressing God fervendy and intimately in his time of greatest need
(26.39,42,53), as we should expect on die basis of early Judaic usage.
Similarly, Jesus* statements of die fadier*s revelation in Mattiiew are
consistent with the second category of usages we have considered, and
it is notable that in 11.25-27, a pivotal passage widiin the development
of Christology, Jesus 'acknowledges* (eônoX-ovnai) the father*s
40. Considerations of space preclude a consideration of John here.
41. The qualiiication must be registered, however, that the address of God as
'our fadier. our king' became conventional in rabbinic prayer (cf. Jeremias, Prayers
of Jesus, pp. 24-26). Moreover, in Tob. 13.1, praise is directed to God and his
kingdom, and he is called 'fadier' in v. 4.
42. The present usage also refers to die reward of prayer, and might dierefore be
included in the third category. For die purpose of the present invesUgaUon, only die
most obvious category for each usage will be observed, in order to avoid inflating die
apparent number of instances.
167
grandeur, just the verb used in the Testament of Job 40.2 (see also
Tob. 13.3). Peter is also said to benefit from God's revelation (16.17)
and 'little ones' are said to have 'angels' that see the 'father' (18.10),
in a manner also somewhat reminiscent of the angelology of the
Testament. The 'father' is held to retain certain specific knowledge
(20.23; 24.36), but the surprise is more the nature of the knowledge
than the designation 'father', much as is the case {mutatis
mutandis)
within the first category.
The idea of God's response to prayer (category 3) is consistent with
die focus upon reward in Matthew (6.1, 4, 18), but diere is also a
more direct appeal to the imagery of fadierhood in order to express
God's merciful response in prayer (7.11). Much more startlingly,
Matthew's Jesus claims diat God will respond, as 'fadier', whenever
two petitioners agree (18.19), and that promise is made in the context
of one of the imperatives for forgiveness (18.18). It seems clear that a
distinctive view of prayer is being promulgated by Matthew's Jesus,
but it remains most unclear diat any unusual idiom of God as 'fadier'
is die precedent. The appeal to die cosmological fadier is, on die odier
hand, quite as direct as we find in the Pseudepigrapha (in category 4).
The images are sometimes striking (6.26; 10.29), but one of the
usages under the fourth category can only be described as banal
(18.14). The idea of election, as compared to the gentiles (6.32), is
also unexceptional, but the distinction from those who call people
'father' is unusual (23.9). There, too, however, as in the cases of
forgiveness in prayer and the father's apocalyptic knowledge,
category 5 is not notable for tiie usage of 'fatiier' in respect of God,
but for what is said by means of tiiat Judaic idiom.
Many usages widiin Matthew do not fall into the categories developed
above. In the case of the final instance in the Gospel, where the risen
Jesus calls for die disciples to baptize all nations in the name of die
fadier, die son, and the holy spirit (28.19), die Christian provenience
of tiie usage is obvious, and comports well with the Odes of Solomon.
The odd reference to 'die kingdom of my fatiier' in 26.29 is another
such instance,"" and the confidence that the father will provide the
disciples with the holy spirit when they are under duress (Mt. 10.20)
might come direcdy from the Odes. The passages are a reminder that
die whole of Matthew represents signal developments of Jesus' message,
43. The parallel in Mk 14.25, and the more distant echo in Lk. 22.18, confirm
the suspicion.
168
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
although the present investigation is not in the least concerned to
disentangle Jesus from Matdiew. The issue is solely Matthew's Jesus,
and how his reference to God as father might be illuminated in the
light of the Targumim and the Pseudepigrapha.
Two sorts of usage widiin Matdiew remain to be discussed, however. In die first, the 'fadier' features particularly in die context of the
final judgment, a characteristically Matthaean concern. The scene
might be the angelic assize (10.32, 33), the brilliance of vindication
(13.43), the destruction of what is not God's (15.13), or die coming of
die son of man (16.27). In all such cases, however, it is clear diat the
issue is more than God's response, vindication or cosmological power:
diere is a specifically apocalyptic tiirust to his fatiierhood. It might be
remembered, in this connection, that the Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan,
for all that the document itself is late, does present the 'father* under
the particular aspect of judgment (Deut. 28.32, 33, cf. also Num.
23.23 in the Fragments Targum).
Similarly, altiiough die idea of doing good works so diat God might
be glorified by odiers (Mt. 5.16) is not a category of usage established
above as current within the first century, it is precisely what Abraham
did at Beersheba, and Neofiti at Gen. 21.33 associates his proselytism
with God's fatherhood. Tobit's prayer at Tob. 13.4, moreover, directs
diat God, as 'father', should be exalted among the gentiles. But
Mt. 5.16 is only one of some half dozen usages in Matthew in which
die divine fatherhood is held immediately to make ediical demands of
disciples, to become duly his sons (5.45, 48), by doing his will (7.21;
12.50; 21.31; 25.34, 41). Aldiough there is no question of a category
of such usage having been established within die first centiiry, die fact
is diat Pseudo-Jonathan at Lev. 22.28 presents die innovative command:
My people, children of Israel, since our fadier is merciful in heaven, so
should you be merciful upon earth.**
Given that the bulk of die usages of Mattiiew's Jesus fall within tiie
norms of early Judaism, in the light of the readings of
PseudoJonathan and Neofiti, late though they undoubtedly are, it is historically dubious to use the distinctiveness of the Matdiean usage to argue
diat Jesus was 'unique', 'radical', or diat he in some way 'transcended'
44. Jeremias. Prayers of Jesus, p. 19, also discusses die teaching ascribed to
Judah in b. Qid. 36a, diat 'If you behave like children, you are called children; if you
do not behave like children, you are not called children'.
169
Judaism. To argue that his talk of God as 'father' somehow put him in
a special category of Judaism is simply specious.
The present essay, it must be stressed, is by no means a full account
of references to God as 'father' in the relevant literatures. There are
sporadic references in the Apocrypha, elsewhere in the Pseudepigrapha,
and in a score of rabbinic documents (particularly within prayers and
parables). Documents have been considered here that present clear
profiles of usage, for the sake of comparison. That comparison leads
to a simple finding: Matthew's Jesus does not say anything radically
new about God in calling him 'father'. He simply prays, enjoys or
speaks of the visions and revelations of prayer, anticipates G o d ' s
response, praises him as tiie fatiier of all and of his follows particularly. That he also stresses the judgment of the 'father' and his demand
for ethical conduct is unusual, but hardly unprecedented. The
persistence and character of the usage in Mattiiew is distinctive, but no
mystery; and tiie usage of Matthew is a suitable starting point for proceeding to discover tiie usage of Jesus, which may well emerge as
distinctive, but hardly unique or esoteric.
LUKE AND THE REWRITTEN BIBLE:
ASPECTS OF LUKAN HAGIOGRAPHY*
Craig A. Evans
In a sense, exegesis precedes Scripture, for the latter is largely the
product of the former. It is true that great events and great people of
history spawned die songs, prayers, laws, parables and stories that lie
at the heart of much of Scripture, but it has been die interpretadon of
countless generations of the people of faith that has given Scriptiu-e its
shape and focus. Long before a 'canon' of Scripture emerged, exegesis
had taken place. The interpretative task had been carried on by
prophets and the wise, by persons of bold faith and quiet hope. The
evidence of this interpretative process within the canon is seen everywhere. Some of the stories of the patriarchs are pondered and presented in more than one form (die so-called 'doublets').' The prophets
appeal to sacred tradition, interpreting it in new and unexpected ways
(see Isa. 28.21).^ Deuteronomy reinterprets Torah, and die Chronicler
reinterprets the Deuteronomistic history. A given tradition, such as
the Davidic covenant, may be interpreted in more than one way
(compare 2 Sam. 7.5-16 with Pss. 89 and 132.11-12).'
*
Portions of this chapter have been read at various regional and national
meetings of die Society of Biblical Literature.
1. See S.Sandmel. 'The Haggada widiin Scripture', JBL 80 (1961). pp. 105-22.
2. See J.A. Sanders. 'Hermeneutics in Trueand False Prophecy', in G.W.Coats
and B.O. Long (eds.). Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and
Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1977). pp. 21-41; repr. as 'Canonical
Hermeneutics: True and False Prophecy', in J.A. Sanders. From Sacred Story to
Sacred Text: Canon as Paradigm (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1987), pp. 87-105.
3. For further discussion see J.A. Sanders. Torah and Canon (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1972); idem, 'Adaptable for Life: The Nature and Function of
Canon', in F.M. Cross et aL (eds.). Magnolia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God
(G.E. Wright Festschrift; Garden City. NY: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 531-60; repr. in
Sanders. Fwm Sacred Story to Sacred Text, pp. 9-39; M. Fishbane,'Revelation and
EVANS Luke and the Rewritten Bible
171
As the canon became increasingly stabilized, and as there arose the
sense that the spirit of prophecy had ceased in Israel (see 1 Mace.
4.46; 9.27), exegesis as something other dian sacred tradidon began to
emerge. Prophets were no longer speaking in their own names.
Theologians, preachers and apocalypdcists of the intertestamental
period spoke in the names of die wordiies of the past. There were
several who spoke in die name of die mysterious Enoch. Others spoke
in die names of the twelve patriarchs, or in die name of Moses or
Elijah.* In some cases, biblical history was simply retold. This is seen
in Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon
and Pseudo-Philo's Liber
Antiquitatum
Biblicarum. In these writings biblical exegesis is primarily implicit. That is, the text is not cited and then interpreted in a
conscious manner (though sometimes that happens). The text is
rewritten. In fact, the text as text is not primarily in view. It is the
story that is in view, and it is retold. Concern with die wording of the
text comes later. As die text itself came increasingly to be viewed as
canonical, implicit interpretation appeared in the form of translation
and paraphrase. Indeed, in most of this, it is likely that the translators
did not even view themselves as interpreters. They probably saw
diemselves as doing nodiing more dian preserving die 'correct' sense
of die text.
When we moderns diink of biblical interpretation, we usually diink
of text and exegesis. This is explicit interpretation. Explicit interpretation is characterized by the author's conscious distinction between
the text and its interpretation. The integrity of the text is respected.
The text cannot be altered, the story cannot be rewritten. (If it is
altered or rewritten, it is done so out of a conviction that the original
reading is thereby restored.) The text is to be interpreted, whether we
are talking about midrash, pesher, typology or allegory. But not all
interpretation is explicit. Some interpretation is implicit. When interpretation is implicit, the author's interpretation is interwoven with the
text. Interpretation and story are merged.
Implicit biblical interpretation manifests itself in tiiree basic ways.
Tradidon: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis'. JBL 99 (1980), pp. 343-61.
4. The pseudepigraphers were, in a sense, attempting to tap into the audiority of
those persons celebrated in the canon who had gotten die closest glimpses of heaven
(such as Enoch. Moses and Elijah). Since diese writings did not possess inherent
authority, most did not find dieir way into the canon. For what diey had borrowed
was not sufficient to overcome dieir deficiencies.
172
1.
2.
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Translation.
When the Hebrew text is translated, it is
interpreted. This interpretation ranges from negligible to
extensive. The earliest example is the Greek translation, the
LXX (200 BCE to 50 C E ) . ' here are also the recensions of
Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, variously viewed as
improvements or corrections.* Another important translation
is the Aramaic tradition, the Targums.' Targums range from
the first century to the Middle Ages. Among these, Onqelos
tends to be quite literal, while Pseudo-Jonathan, Neofiti, the
Fragmentary
Targum, and the various targums of the
prophets and Hagiographa are often quite paraphrastic. In all
of these translations the biblical text has been interpreted.
Obscure or obsolete terms are either replaced or explained.
Statements that do not fit prevailing beliefs or practices are
often modified, while passages that touch on popular
doctrines are often embellished or made more explicit (see
Targ. Isa. 53). But these modifications are customarily
rooted in the text itself; they are not arbitrary.*
Revocalization. Revocalization involves pronouncing the consonants of the Hebrew text in new ways. Often this is what
probably underlies translations in the LXX or the targum when
they do not agree with the Masoretic Text. There are, of
course, many instances of revocalization found in the Masorot.
Sometimes the competing vocalizations represent scribal
confusion; sometimes they represent interpretative interests.'
5. See E. Tov, 'The Septuagint', in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism cmd Early
Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum,
1988), pp. 161-88, esp. 169-74; and S.P. Brock, 'Translating die Old Testament',
in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.). It is Written: Scripture Citing
Scripture (B. Lindars Festschrift; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988),
pp. 87-98.
6. See Tov, 'The Septuagint', pp. 181-87.
7. See P.S. Alexander. 'Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures',
in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 217-54. esp. 225-41.
8. For a competent example of die work diat needs to be done in order to begin
die exegesis of a targum. see B.D. Chilton. The Glory of Israel: The Theology and
Provenience of the Isaiah Targum (JSOTSup. 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1982).
9. See M.J. Mulder, 'The Transmission of die Biblical Text', in Mulder (ed.),
Mikra, pp. 87-135, esp. 104-13.
EVANS Luke and the Rewritten
Bible
173
There are some interesting examples in Qumran.'" In the
Great Isaiah Scroll Isa. 6.9-10 becomes, through revocalization, an injunction to the pious to avoid s i n , " while in
another text, Isa. 52.7, not only promises 'peace' (shalom) to
the righteous, but 'retribudon' (shillum)upon
the wicked.'^
There are many examples of this in the commentaries of
Qumran."
3.
Radical Paraphrase. 'Radical paraphrase' is not translation
(though translation is often involved). Radical paraphrase
involves the retelling of die biblical story. I do not, however,
have in mind those apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings
that take off on a biblical event or character (such as
7 Enoch).^* I am thinking of those writings tiiat rewrite the
10. See W.H. Brownlee. The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. 155-246; M. Fishbane. 'Use,
Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at (^mran', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 33977. esp. 366-75; D. Dimant, 'Qumran Sectarian Literature', in M.E. Stone (ed.).
Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Assen.
The Nedierlands: Van Gorcum, 1984), pp. 483-550, esp. 503-22; and T.H. Kim,
'Eschatological Orientadon and the Alteration of Scripture in the Habakkuk Pesher',
JNES 49 (1990). pp. 185-94.
11. See C.A.Evans, 'IQIsaiah'and the Absence of Prophetic Critique at
CJumran'. RevQ 11 (1984). pp. 537-42.
12. See llQMelch9-16.
13. See G.J. Brooke, 'The Biblical Texts in die Qumran Commenuries: Scribal
Errors or Exegetical Variants?' in C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring (eds.). Early
Jewish and Christian Exegesis (FS W.H. Brownlee; Homage, 10; Adanta: Scholars
Press, 1987). pp. 85-100; M.P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of
Biblical Books (CBQMS, 8; Washington. DC: Cadiolic Biblical Association, 1979).
14. In a recent study J.H. Charlesworth ('The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical
Exegesis', in Evans [ed.]. Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis, pp. 139-52) has
suggested that the pseudepigraphal writings that bear only a general relationship to
die Old Testament fall into four categories: (I) Inspiration, whereby the OT inspires
the writer to develop a story or dieme (such as the various Prayers, Psalms and
Odes); (2) Framework, whereby the OT provides the setting for die pseudepigraphal
story (4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, most of the Testaments); (3) Launching, whereby the OT
launches a new story that departs from die original OT setting (Books of Enoch); and
(4) Inconsequential, in which die pseudepigraphal writings borrows only the barest
facts, usually names, from the OT (Sibylline Oracles, Treatise of Shem and the
Apocalypse of Adam). See now his updated and expanded version of this paper, and
see also J.C. VanderKam. 'Biblical Interpreution in I Enoch and Jubilees', in this
volume.
174
Interpretation
biblical narrative either through expansion or abridgement.
Among these J.H. Charlesworth cites Jubilees (Gen. 1.1-Exod.
12.50), Martyrdom of Isaiah (1, 2 Kings, esp. 2 Kgs 21.16),
Joseph and Asenath (Gen. 37-50), Life of Adam and Eve
(Gen. 1-6), Pseudo-Philo's Uber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum
(Genesis-2 Samuel), Jannes and Jambres (Exod. 7 - 8 ) ,
and o t h e r s . " Because these are efforts to retell the biblical
story, or at least to extend it, they are part of what may be
called the hagiographa. That is, these writings are not
commentaries, not anthologies, nor actual histories. They are
literary contributions to the sacred story. They might be
regarded, as some of their authors no doubt intended, as
semi-Scripture. Some of them made it into the canon (such as
the pseudepigraphal writings among the deutero-canonical
books), others almost did so (such as 1 Enoch)}^ PostNew Testament writings such as the apocryphal gospels,
acts, epistles and apocalypses are Christian examples of this
genre.
Among the pseudepigraphal writings cited above. Jubilees and Liber
Antiquitatum Biblicarum follow the biblical story the closest. For
reasons that will become clear later, these writings will serve as the
basis of comparison. It might also be pointed out that aldiough diey
are examples of implicit biblical interpretation, they contain, as do
many of the other pseudepigraphal writings, examples of explicit
interpretation."
15. Charlesworth, 'Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', pp. 150-51. For
similar classifications, see G.W.E. Nickelsburg. 'The Bible Rewritten and
Expanded', in Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings, pp. 89-156; and P.S. Alexander.
'Retelling the Old Testament", in Carson and Williamson (eds.). It is Written,
pp. 99-121.
16. In some cases, pieces of a tradidon appear at every level in relation to the
canon. For example, Hebrew-Aramaic Daniel made it into the Jewish (and Christian)
Bible, but the Greek additions only made it into the deutero-canon of die Cadiolic and
Eastern Churches. Fragments of unknown Danielle U-adition found at Qumran. however, demonstrate that not all of this tradition made it into one canon or another.
17. For an essay diat compares explicit and implicit biblical interpretation in the
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, see D. Dimant, 'Use and Interpretation of Mikra in
die Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 379-419.
Legitimacy of Viewing Luke as Part of 'Historical
175
Hagiographa'
Luke's work is an example of the 'historical hagiographa' (i.e. sacred
history or historical Scripture),'* a genre that is part of die Jewish
rewritten Bible. Methodologically his predecessor is Jubilees. His
contemporaries are Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum,
Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, and of course the Gospel of Matthew.
But should Luke be compared to the Jewish 'rewritten Bible'? I
believe that it is appropriate to do so for three reasons: 1. the evangelist has a noticeable interest in and familiarity with Judaism; 2 . die
motivation and techniques in biblical rewriting not only parallel the
techniques observed in the aforementioned examples of the rewritten
Bible, but are remarkably similar to what redaction criticism has
taught us with regard to the evangelists' use of their traditions; and
3 . as was true of the Jewish rewriters of biblical narrative, the evangelist Luke in all likelihood viewed die gospel story as sacred tradition, if not in some sense as Scripture itself. Let us examine each of
these reasons.
Ijtke's Interest in and Familiarity with Judaism
Luke's interest in and orientation toward Judaism are seen in a variety
of ways. Three of the most obvious shall be mentioned briefly.
1. Luke seems particularly interested in the synagogue (Lk. 4 . 1 4 - 1 5 ,
1 6 - 3 0 ; 7 . 5 ; 1 3 . 1 0 ; Acts 9 . 2 0 ; 1 3 . 5 , 1 4 ; 1 4 . 1 ; 1 5 . 2 1 ; 1 7 . 1 , 1 0 ; 1 8 . 4 , 1 9 ;
1 9 . 8 ) ; " 2 . he is also interested in die fulfilment of the Jewish
Scriptures, particularly with respect to the promises to Abraham and
tiie patriarchs (Lk. 1 . 1 6 - 1 7 , 3 2 - 3 3 , 5 4 - 5 5 , 6 8 - 7 9 . 2 . 2 9 - 3 2 ) ; ^ " and 3 .
he demonstrates a favorable attitude toward tiie Law (Lk. 2 . 2 2 - 2 4 , 2 7 ,
39;
1 6 . 1 7 ) ; 2 4 . 2 7 , 4 4 ; Acts 2 1 . 2 0 ; 2 4 . 1 4 ; 2 5 . 8 ; 2 8 . 2 3 ) . ^ ' For tiiese
18. See H.W. Auridge. 'Historiography', in Stone (ed.). Jewish
Writings,
pp. 157-84. esp. die discussion on 1 Esdras on pp. 157-60.
19. It is interesting to note that Lk. 4.16-30 is 'the oldest known account of a
synagogue service'; I.H. Marshall, Commentary on Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids.
MI: Eerdmans, 1978). p. 181.
20. N.A. Dahl. 'The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts', in L.E. Keck and
J.L. Martyn (eds.). Studies in Luke-Acts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), pp. 13958; Marshall. Luke, p. 85; J.A. Fitzmyer. Luke I-IX (AB, 28; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1981). pp. 188-92. 369.
21. The fact that the Law cannot be easily set aside is seen in Acts 15. See
176
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
reasons and for others some scholars have concluded that in all probability the evangelist had been a member of the synagogue, either as a
proselyte or, as is more likely, as a 'God-fearer'.^^ If this conclusion
is correct, it is reasonable to assume that the evangelist Luke had been
exposed to the rewritten Bible within this context. Regardless of what
exposure he may have had to Hellenistic literature, his exposure to the
s y n a g o g u e ^ ' and to the Greek Bible of the Diaspora must not be
underrated. When the evangelist's exposure to Judaism is appreciated,
one has all the more reason to expect his writing to reflect the
literature of the Judaism of his day.
Coherence with Redaction-Critical
Observations
Another reason that supports my suggestion that Luke ought to be
viewed as an instance of rewritten Bible is that the purposes of Jewish
biblical rewriting are remarkably in line with assumptions usually
held in redaction criticism. Many of the statements used to describe
the motivation and purpose of the rewritten Bible apply equally well
to what redaction critics usually say about the evangelist. Consider,
for example, the following statements made by J.L. Kugel with
regard to biblical rewriting seen in haggadic midrash:
...it was precisely the intermittent obsession with past events and the
necessity of having them bear on the present that gave interpretation of all
kinds its urgency...Yei
one aspect of biblical exegesis did remain
constant... It is precisely the belief that sacred texts have a bearing on the
present.^*
J. Jervell, 'The Law in Luke-Acts', in idem, Luke arui the People of God: A New
Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), pp. 133-51. According to
S.G. Wilson (Luke and the Law [SNTSMS. 50; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 1983]). Luke's view toward the law is inconsistent. He thinks diat only in
reference to Paul is the evangelist concerned to show dial die law is respected.
22. See Fitzmyer. Luke I-IX, pp. 35-47. Although the evangelist sharply
polemicizes against Jewish rejection of Christianity, I diink diat accusing him of antiSemitism, as does J.T. Sanders (The Jews in Luke-Acts [Philadelphia: Fortress
Press. 1987]), is a gross misreading. A better assessment is offered by
R.L. Brawley. Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation
(SBLMS, 33; Adanta: Scholars Press. 1987).
23. M. Smidi ('A Comparison of Early Christian and Eariy Rabbinic Tradition',
JBL 82 [1963], pp. 169-76) has remarked: 'Their [the gospels'] Sitz im Uben
seems to have been the synagogue...' (p. 173).
24. J.L. Kugel, Early Biblical Interpretation (widi R.A. Greer; Library of Early
177
The basic assumption of redaction criticism is that the evangelists
viewed the Jesus tradition as sacred and as relevant for their situation,
a view not unlike the Jewish view of the Old Testament. The very Sitz
im Leben of the evangelist and his community is deduced, at least
tentatively, from the evangelist's editorial activity. Indeed, Kugel goes
on to say.
In such diverse woiks as the Book of Daniel and the Book of Jubilees...
we encounter die clear feeling for time being dealt out like a hand of cards,
and an interest in arranging dme into sub-groups and corresponding units,
for such arranging of dme not only made recent history more manageable
. . . but made it partake of (indeed, be continuous with) that comforting
world of biblical history in which events made sense.^
Is this not what Luke has done in his own distinctive chronological
presentation in which we have the period of Israel, the period of
Jesus, and the period of the Church?^*
Redaction criticism, moreover, assumes the existence and utilization
of various written and oral sources. This is also the case in the examples of biblical rewriting that will be surveyed below. But do the
evangelists view their sources the same way that the Jewish rewriters
and retellers of biblical narrative view theirs? To this question we
now turn.
Utilization of Sacred Tradition
The rewritten Bible, of course, is based upon sacred tradition.
Therefore, if we are to talk about Luke as a rewriting or telling of
the Jesus story, in a way that is truly analogous to the Jewish
rewriting of biblical narrative, we must first conclude that the Lukan
evangelist viewed the Jesus story as sacred d-adidon. That he did so
seems quite likely for three reasons. First, within the Lukan corpus
itself we find frequent reference to Jesus' teaching as 'the Word of
God" or simply 'the Word' (cf. Lk. 4.32; 5.1; 8.11-21; 10.39; 11.28;
21.33; 24.19; Acts 18.11; 20.32). This Lukan usage is reminiscent of
the similar OT expression dabar Yahweh. At dmes in Luke-Acts these
expressions seem to refer to 'die word of God' in a sense virtually
equivalent to 'Scripture', while at other dmes the reference is to the
Christian kerygma (Acts 4.4, 29, 3 1 ; 6.4, 7). Perhaps one of the most
Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), p. 38 (his emphasis).
25. Kugel, Early Biblical Interpretation, p. 46.
26. See Fitzmyer, Luke-IX, pp. 179-92, esp. 185. See Lk. 16.16.
178
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
instructive examples is the parallel in Lk. 24.19 and Acts 7.22. In the
former passage Jesus is described as 'a prophet mighty in deed and
word' (jtpo(pr|xii(; Suvatot; ev epYtp K A I Xôytp), while in the latter
Moses is described as 'mighty in his words and deeds' ( S w a x o q ev
"KoTioxc, KTTL E P Y O K ; avxow). Because Jesus' word is likened to that of
Moses, the most significant contributor to Scripture, it seems quite
likely that the evangelist Luke would have viewed the words of die
mighty prophet Jesus as at least equal in authority to those of the
lawgiver himself. Secondly, within a generation of Luke's writings
there are strong indications diat Christians viewed some of the New
Testament writings as Scripture. In 1 Tim. 5.18 a verse firom the Old
Testament (Deut. 25.4) and a saying fi-om Q (Lk. 10.7; cf. Mt. 10.10)
are introduced as 'the Scripture' (fj YPa<PT|)- I" 2 Tim. 3.16 the
reference to 'all Scripture' ( M O A Ypacpri) probably includes both Old
Testament writings and some New Testament writings, for the
expression 'sacred writings' ( I E P A Y p d n n a t a ) in v. 15, with which
the more inclusive 'all Scripture', contrasts, probably refers only to
the Old Testament. In 2 Pet. 1.16-21 die heavenly voice of die New
Testament Transfiguration event is called a 'prophetic word'
(repotpiitiKov XoYOv), after which the author states that 'every
prophecy of Scripture' (jtaoa J t p o 9 T | T E I A ypo.<pr[c,) is the result of
God's activity. Finally, in 3.15-16 the Petrine author classifies Paul's
letters with 'the other Scriptures' (xat; X.oiita(; YP«<pa<;) which the
ignorant and unstable twist, an expression that clearly has in mind the
Old Testament writings as well. It is not likely that such sentiments
represent completely novel Christian views, but are likely extensions
of the implicit authority in much of the dominical tradition itself (Lk.
9.26: 'Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will die
Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory'; 11.32: '...they
repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater
than Jonah is here', a saying that implies that Jesus' word carries more
weight than Jonah's; Mt. 24.35: 'Heaven and eardi will pass away, but
my words will not pass away', an utterance that approximates the
eternal validity of the Law in Mt. 5.18 [compare also Isa. 55.10-11])
and the explicit authority sometimes found in Paul (1 Thess. 2.13,
where the gospel is described as the 'Word of God'; 1 Cor. 14.37,
where the prophet or spiritual person will recognize that Paul's word
is 'die command of the Lord'; Gal. 1.11-12, where Paul claims tiiat
179
his gospel 'came through a revelation of Jesus Christ').^^
It is concluded then that there is sufficient evidence that Luke probably regarded the Jesus tradition as sacred tradition^* and that his
redaction of diis tradidon would in all probability reflect some of die
principles of scriptural rewriting widi which, again in all probability,
the evangelist would have been familiar. We turn now to the phenomena of biblical rewriting of the first century.
Rewriting the Bible in the Historical
Hagiographa
We turn now to a brief survey of the phenomena of rewriting and
retelling the biblical narrative. Chronicles, 1 Esdras, Jubilees, Liber
Antiquitatum Biblicarum, and Josephus's Jewish Antiquities will be
examined. In my judgment diese writings exemplify what I have called
'radical paraphrase' (as opposed to midrash or to the translations of
the LXX and targum).^' I believe tiiat their methods of editing,
abridging and augmenting the biblical story approximate the editorial
activity of the evangelists, especially Luke.
Chronicles
The Chronicler rewrites the Deuteronomistic history (mosdy SamuelKings), recasting this history in a manner that will advance post-exilic
reform and renewal. His work has been described as 'targum',"*
27. I concur with the judgment of E.E. Ellis (Paul's Use of the Old Testament
[Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957], p. 36). who says the 'sayings of Christ were
regarded as the Word of God by Paul'.
28. So R. Le D6aut, 'Apropos d'une definition du Midrash'. Bib 50 (1969),
pp. 395-413, esp. 408 n. 3. According to L.C. Crockeu ("The Old Testament in
Luke with Emphasis on die Interpretadon of Isaiah 61.1-2' (PhD dissertation. Brown
University, 1966], p. 334). 'Luke read[s] Mark in a way that is analogous to die
way he reads the Old Testament'. I am not sure, however, if Luke actually viewed
Mark as sacred text, as he undoubtedly viewed die dominical tradidon in particular
and the Jesus story in general.
29. The 'radicalness' of the paraphrase of each writing varies, of course.
1 Esdras and Josephus are quite conservative; Chronicles less so. with Jubilees and
Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum taking the greatest liberties. For further discussion,
see C.A. Evans, 'The Genesis Apocryphon and the Rewritten Bible', in F. Garcfa
Martfnez and E. Puech (eds.). Memorial Jean Carmignac: Etudes Qumrdniermes
(RevQ 13 [1988]). pp. 153-65.
30. W.E. Barnes. 'Chronicles a Targum', ExpTim 8 (1897), pp. 316-19.
180
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
'midrash'," and recently 'exegesis'.'^ Although the exegetical dimension is an important one, H.G.M. Williamson's description of the
Chronicler's work as 'retelling' is probably closer to the mark.'' His
editorial work falls into seven basic categories.
1. Genealogies.
The first nine chapters consist of genealogies. The
piupose of the genealogies is to re-establish the twelve tribes and to
emphasize the original geographical boundaries of these tribes. The
Chronicler has presented an idealistic picture of a restored nation, one
which if united and loyal to God and to the house of David will prosper and enjoy the blessings that result from obedience to the covenant.'*
2. Qualification. Frequently the Chronicler qualifies his tradition. It is
here that his editing skills are put to their greatest test. He does this by
rephrasing the tradition through substitution, omission or addition of
words or phrases. (Major additions and omissions are treated as
individual categories.) According to 1 Sam. 31.6, 'Saul died, and his
three sons, and his armor bearer, and all his men'. But according to
1 Chron. 10.6, 'Saul died, and his three sons; and all his house died
together'. The more inclusive 'all his house died together' is meant to
underscore die posidon that there can be no successor to S a u l . "
According to 2 Sam. 5.3, 'they anointed David king over Israel'. In
1 Chron. 11.3 David's coronation is carefully qualified, 'tiiey anointed
31. R. Bloch, 'Midrash', DBSup, V. cols. 1263-81; I. Benzinger, Die BUcher
der Chronik (Kiirzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament, 20; Tiibingen: Mohr,
1901), p. x: 'Der Chr(oniker]...ist nicht Historiker, sondem Midraschist'.
32. T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen
Gestaltung der historischen Oberlieferung Israels (FRLANT, 106: Gdttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). pp. 48-189; see also P. Ackroyd, 'The
Chronicler as Exegete'. JSOT 2 (1972). pp. 2-32.
33. H.G.M. Williamson. I and 2 Chronicles (NCB; London: Marshall. Morgan
& Scott, 1982), pp. 21-23. Williamson's point is diat die Chronicler is no slave of
his sources, as is a mere exegete. but the master of his story. He dierefore views the
Chronicler's work as 'retelling [Israel's] sacred history' (p. 23).
34. Williamson. / and 2 Chronicles, pp. 38-40.
35. This suspicion is confirmed when it is noted that the Chronicler later omits
the account of the coronation of Saul's son Ish-bosheth (2 Sam. 2.8-11). the ensuing
civil war (2 Sam. 2.12-3.39). die assassination of Ish-boshedi (2 Sam. 4.1-12), and
die murder of Saul's grandsons (2 Sam. 21.8-9). Also omitted is the account of
David's kindness to Mephiboshedi (2 Sam. 9.1-13; 21.7).
181
David king over Israel, according to die word of the Lord by the hand
of Samuel'. The Chronicler's addition is inspired by 1 Sam. 16.1, 3,
12, 13 and is intended to show that David's coronation was in keeping
witii prophetic utterance. According to 2 Sam. 5.6, 'the king and his
men went to Jerusalem'. But in 1 Chron. 11.4 ' David and all Israel
went to Jerusalem'. The Chronicler replaces 'his men' with 'all Israel'
in order to emphasize the unity of the nation behind David. According
to 2 Sam. 5.21, '[The Philistines] left their images diere, and David
and his men took diem away'. 1 Chron. 14.10-12 reads: 'They left
their gods there; and David gave commandment, and they were
burned with fire'. The Chronicler wishes to remove any doubt about
what David did with the 'gods' that he had captured. According to
2 Sam. 24.1, 'The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he
moved David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah"'.
But 1 Chron. 21.1 reads: 'And Satan stood up against Israel, and
moved David to number Israel'. The Chronicler is reluctant to have
Yahweh incite David to sin, so he mentions Satan instead. The substitution is likely to have been inspired by, and probably was understood
as justified by, the parallel in Job 2.3 where Satan 'moved' God
against Job.'*
3. Additions. The Chronicler sometimes adds new stories or details
that go beyond the mere qualification of the tradition. But even in
these cases, the Chronicler builds upon the story contained in his
sources. The Chronicler makes an important addition to the account of
the first attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6.1-11 //
1 Chron. 13.1-14): 'Let us bring the ark of God...for we sought it not
in the days of Saul'. Moreover, die Chronicler notes that David's wish
seemed 'right in the eyes of all the people'. This addition mitigates the
failure of David's first attempt. Levites are added to the description of
the second attempt (1 Chron. 15.1-15; compare 2 Sam. 6.12-19).
Anodier such example is seen in 1 Chron. 21.26b-30, an addition to
2 Sam. 24.18-25. The fire that rained down from heaven offers
dramatic evidence that David has been reconciled with God and that
the altar and its new location are now confirmed as the 'focus of the
nation's worship'.'^
36. Williamson. / and 2 Chronicles, p. 143.
37. Williamson. 1 and 2 Chronicles, p. 151.
182
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
4. Omissions.
The Chronicler omits 2 Sam. 6.20-23, leaving the
impression that Michal, daughter of Saul and wife of David, had
despised David for caring for the ark (compare 2 Sam. 6.16 //
1 Chron. 15.29).'* 1 Chron. 18.2 omits reference to David's execution
of two thirds of the Moabites (cf. 2 Sam. 8.2). The omission may have
been prompted by a reluctance to portray David as unnecessarily
ruthless. The Chronicler omits numerous episodes of moral failure
and tragedy in David's family. These would include David's adultery
widi Badisheba (2 Sam. 11-12), die rape of Tamar and murder of
Anunon (2 Samuel 13), Absalom's rebellion (2 Sam. 14-15), David's
flight from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 16), civil war and Absalom's death
(2 Sam. 17-18), David's restoration (2 Sam. 19-20), and die murder
of Saul's grandsons (2 Sam. 21).
5. Summaries. Summary statements are added, either to make up for
material diat has been omitted, or to make more obvious the writer's
editorial tendency. Widi a summary statement die Chronicler explains
why Saul died:
So Saul died for his unfaidifulness; he was unfaidiful to the Lord iti that
he did not keep the command of die Lord, and also consulted a medium,
seeking guidance, and did not seek guidance from die Lord. Therefore,
the Lord slew him. and turned the kingdom over to David die son of Jesse
(1 Chron. 10.13-14)."
This addition explains why Saul died and justifies tfie ti-ansference of
the throne to the family of Jesse. For it was Yahweh who 'turned
over' the kingdom."*"
6. Biblical Enrichment. Biblical traditions are sometimes called upon
to enrich die edited narrative. For example, the description of David's
mighty men in 1 Chronicles 12 has been enriched by earlier traditions
(compare esp. v. 2 with Judg. 3.15; 20.15-16; vv. 8-15 witii Deut.
33.20-21; v. 14 with Deut. 32.30; v. 18 with Judg. 3.10; 6.34).
David's song celebrating the arrival of the Ark (1 Chron. 16.8-36),
itself a major addition, is appropriately drawn from the Psalter
(compare vv. 8-22 widi Ps. 105.1-15; vv. 23-33 witii Ps. 96.1-13;
38. Williamson. I and 2 Chronicles, p. 127.
39. Williamson (/ and 2 Chronicles, p. 94) says that diis summary stotement is
'undoubtedly the Chronicler's own composition'.
40. Ackroyd. 'The Chronicler as Exegete'. pp. 7-9.
183
vv. 34-36 with Ps. 106.1. 47-48). The fire that rained down from
heaven (1 Chron. 21.26b-30) probably reflects the similar accounts in
Lev. 9.24 and 1 Kgs 18.38. David's giving of instructions regarding
the temple (1 Chron. 28.2-10) alludes to Scripture at many points
(compare v. 2 with Ps. 132.1-8; vv. 6-8 with Deut. 4.5; vv. 9-10
with Deut. 4.25-31).
7. Modernization.
The obscure 'Metheg-ammah' in 2 Sam. 8.1 is
altered in 1 Chron. 18.1 to 'Gath and her towns'. In 1 Chron. 21.15
' O m a n ' replaces 'Araunah' of 2 Sam. 24.18. The modest price for
Oman's threshing floor increases from fifty shekels of silver (2 Sam.
24.24) to six hundred shekels of gold (1 Chron. 21.25). This exaggeration, of course, is not simply a modernization; it is a theological
statement intended to underscore David's sense of tiie great value of
the site where the Ark would rest.
1 Esdras
Following its sources much more closely, 1 Esdras is a retelling of
biblica] history from Josiah (2 Chron. 35.1-27) to Ezra's public
reading of the Law (Neh. 7.73-8.12). The writing emphasizes the
roles of Josiah, Zerubbabel and Ezra in the reform of Israelite
worship."*' This emphasis becomes apparent when 1 Esdras is compared to its biblical parallels. Josiah. Whereas according to 2 Chron.
35.1, 'Josiah kept a passover to the Lord in Jerusalem; and they killed
tiie passover lamb', 1 Esd. 1.1 says, 'Josiah kept the passover to his
Lord in Jerusalem; he killed the passover l a m b . . . ' 1 Esdras says that
it was Josiah himself who observed die feast (rather than 'diey').
According to 1 Esd. 1.3 Josiah enjoined the Levites to sanctify themselves (compare 2 Chron. 35.3). Zerubbabel. The only major addition
in 1 Esdras is the story of the three young men in die court of Darius
(1 Esd. 3.1-5.6), a story tiiat is widiout parallel in the Old Testament.
One of die young men is identified as Zerabbabel (4.13). Because of
his wise answer (4.14-41), Darius grants Zerubbabel his wish to have
Jemsalem and the temple rebuilt (4.42-63). This story enhances
Zembbabel's reputation. In keeping with his prominence, Zerubbabel's name is added to Sissinnes' letter (compare I Esd. 6.18 with
Ezra 5.14) and to Darius's reply (compare I Esd. 6.27 widi Ezra 6.7).
41. See J.M. Myers. I &H Esdras (AB, 42; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1964), pp. 1-6. 16-19.
184
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Ezra. According to Ezra 7.10, 'Ezra had set his heart to study the law
of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach his statutes and ordinances in
Israel'. The parallel in 1 Esd. 8.7 emphasizes Ezra's knowledge and
teaching: 'Ezra possessed great knowledge, so that he omitted nothing
from die law of die Lord or the commandments, but taught all Israel
all die ordinances and judgments'. In order not to lose sight of Ezra,
1 Esdras omits Neh. 1.1-7.72, where the narrative continues with the
story of Ezra reading die law (Neh. 7.73-8.12). In 1 Esd. 9.39 Ezra is
called 'chief priest', whereas in Neh. 8.1 he is Ezra the 'scribe' (and
'priest' in 8.2). Although 1 Esdras follows the Hebrew text closely, it
is still an example of 'radical paraphrase'. For it has selected only
portions of the biblical story, adding one apocryphal story, and
omitting a large section of Nehemiah.
Jubilees
In his summary of the relationship of Jubilees to die biblical narrative,
O.S. Wintermute has noted diat in retelling the biblical narratives, the
author has freely condensed (e.g. the story of plagues on Pharaoh,
Exod. 7-10 = Jub. 48.4-11), omitted (e.g. tiie blessing of Ephraim and
Manasseh, Gen. 48.1-20), expurgated (e.g. the notice of Abraham's
presenting his wife to foreign rulers as his sister. Gen. 12.10-20;
20.2-7), explained (e.g. Reuben's apparent incest. Gen. 35.22 = Jub.
33.2-20), supplemented (e.g. tales of Abraham's youtii, Jub. 12.1-9,
12-13, 16-21, 25-27), and sometimes radically reshaped tiie biblical
episodes (e.g. Isaac's covenant widi Abimelech, Gen. 26.31-33 = Jub.
24.21-33).*^ Wintermute believes tiiat tiie activity of tiie author may
be described as 'midrash'.*' J.H. Charlesworth agrees, stating that
Jubilees 'is a type of midrash on Gen. 1.1 tiirough Exod. 12.50. It
rewrites tiiese portions of tiie Tanach from a different perspective.'**
Years ago, R.H. Charles called Jubilees an 'enlarged targum on
Genesis and Exodus'.*' In a recent study J.C. Endres, however, has
described the activity of the author of Jubilees as 'retelling' and his
42. O.S. Wintermute, 'Jubilees', in OTP. n, p. 35.
43. Wintermute, 'Jubilees', pp. 39-41.
44. Charlesworth. 'The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', p. 141.
Charlesworth further avers that 'most of the Jewish pseudepigrapha... are related
because d»ey are exegedcally rooted in die Old Testament' (p. 141).
45. APOT, II. p. 1.
185
writing as an instance of 'Rewritten Bible', not midrash or targum.** I
believe that Endres* descripdon is more accurate. Jubilees does not
attempt to paraphrase die text (as does a targum), not does it comment
on the text (as does midrash). It simply retells die story and is an
instance of what I would call radical paraphrase. Let us consider a few
more examples fi-om the life of Abraham.
The author of Jubilees attempts often to solve what he perceives to
be problems. In Jub. 19.15 we are told diat it was Abraham, instead of
Rebecca, who loved Jacob (Gen. 25.28). This substitution is part of a
major haggadic rewriting of Gen. 25.19-26 that more fully explains
why Jacob was to supersede his older brother. Elsewhere the writer
explains that God tested Abraham is commanding him to sacrifice
Isaac because of the prompting of Mastema, die Prince of evil (17.1518; 18.9, 12; cf. Gen. 22.1), an explanation tiiat likely reflects die Job
tradition (cf. Job 1.6-12). Like the Chronicler before him (in reference to David's census), the author of Jubilees is reluctant to cast God
in the role of tempter.
Many halakic concerns are in evidence in Jubilees. There is concern
widi die calendar. There is concern to show diat die patriarchs properly observed Torah and that the halakic traditions of the author
derive from the patriarchs themselves. G.W.E. Nickelsburg has drawn
our attention to several examples:
nakedness is prohibited (3.31); feasts are to be observed according to the
solar calendar (6.17-22); blood must not be consumed (7.28-33);
circumcision must be performed, and only on the eighth day (15.25-34);
one must not marry a foreign spouse (30.7-23); incest is forbidden
(33.10-20; 41.23-27).*'
The author of Jubilees often inserts conversation or longer speeches.
While Gen. 13.4 only states that 'Abram called on the name of the
Lord', Jub. 13.16b provides what the patriarch might have said. Jub.
20.6-10 provides us with Abraham's farewell speech to his family (cf.
Gen. 25.5-6 where diere is no utterance mentioned), a speech diat
draws upon elements from various biblical texts (Gen. 12.2; Exod.
20.5; Deut. 7.13; 27.15; 28.8; Isa. 65.15; Jer. 29.18). Jub. 21.1-26
provides us with yet another farewell speech, this one to Isaac, again
46. J.C. Endres. Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQMS, 18;
Washington, DC: Cadiolic Biblical Association, 1987), pp. 196-225. see esp. 196.
47. Nickelsburg. T h e Bible Rewritten*, in Stone (ed.). Jewish Writings,
pp. 97-104 (98).
186
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
drawing upon virtually the same biblical texts (Gen. 12.2; 38.24;
Exod. 20.5; Lev. 20.10; 21.9; Deut. 7.13; 22.23; 27.15; 28.8; Isa. 1.9;
65.15; Jer. 29.18; Ezek. 16.40). Jub. 22.10-24 provides yet a third
farewell speech, this one a blessing to grandson Jacob. As in the case
of the others, this one too draws upon various, but different, biblical
passages (Gen. 14.19; 27.29; 28.1; Num. 24.17; Deut. 26.14; Isa.
52.11; Ps. 106.28). Finally, Jub. 22.25-30 is an account of a second
blessing pronounced upon Jacob, a blessing that echoes diverse biblical
texts (Gen. 15.7; 1 Kgs 8.29, 52; Neh. 1.6; 9.6-7; Dan. 9.18). From
these examples, it is quite evident that the author of Jubilees enriches
his material by freely drawing upon Scripture.
Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum
D.J. Harrington dates this work to the early part of the first century
CE.** Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum is not text and
conmientary, but another instance of the rewritten Bible. Harrington
comments:
Pseudo-Philo does not treat Scripture in the same way as the compilers of
the later Jewish Midrashim do. Rather than making a clear distinction
between the biblical text and its interpretation, Pseudo-Philo interweaves
the two.*'
In fact, Harrington suggests that the author of Pseudo-Philo may have
taken Chronicles as his model. He concludes that this writing is 'an
example of an imaginative retelling of the biblical story that joins the
Old Testament text and legendary material' and that it may be likened
'to Jubilees, the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon, and Josephus'
Antiquities'
Charlesworth describes this book as 'something like a
haggadic midrash on Genesis through 2 S a m u e l ' . " (But again, as in
the case of Jubilees above, 'retelling' is probably more accurate than
48. D.J. Harrington, 'Pseudo-Philo'. OTP, II. p. 299.
49. Harrington. 'Pseudo-Philo'. p. 301.
50. Harrington, 'Pseudo-Philo'. p. 302. R. Bauckham ('The Liber
Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels as "Midrash"'. in
R.T. France and D. Wenham [eds.]. Studies in Midrash and Historiography
[Gospel Perspectives. 3; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983], pp. 33-76) comments:
'[Pseudo-Philo] is an example of the genre of "midrashic" writings which is
sometimes called "dte rewritten Bible", a genre which also includes Jubilees, the
Genesis Apocryphon. and Josephus' Jewish Antiquities' (p. 33).
51. Charlesworth. 'The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', p. 141.
187
'midrash'). God, the Law, angels, and future judgment are major
themes in Pseudo-Philo, and the biblical narratives are retold with
these concerns in mind. Nickelsburg, moreover, has observed that
Pseudo-Philo views sacred history in terms of the cycle of sin, punishment and deliverance, the cycle that is so well known in Judges.'^
In a recent study R. Bauckham assesses the manner in which
Pseudo-Philo retells biblical narrative.'' I shall draw upon a few of
his examples.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Pseudo-Philo adds names and genealogical details. Cain's
wife's name is Themech (LAB 2.1-2), Jephdiah's daughter is
Seila (40.1), Samson's mother is Eluma, daughter of Remac
(42.1), and so forth. Full genealogies are provided for Caleb,
Joshua and Manoah (LAB 15.3; 52.1).
Problems are explained. LAB 16.4 explains why the sons of
Korah did not die, while God's speech in 36.4 explains why
Gideon was not punished for his idolady. LAB 64.1 explains
why Saul, who otherwise showed litde regard for G o d ' s
commands, opposed witchcraft.
Pseudo-Philo often creates new connections and transitions.
He seems to assume that tiie sequence of the biblical narrative
implies a cause and effect relationship (an assumption that
frequendy lies behind rabbinic exegesis). Therefore, when
the biblical narrative, in his view, seems to lack transition,
Pseudo-Philo will supply tiie missing link. For example,
since the law of tassels in Num. 15.37-41 immediately
precedes die story of Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16, LAB
16.1 explains that the rebellion was occasioned by die law of
the tassels. The stories of the building of the tower of Babel
(Gen. 11) and God's call of Abram (Gen. 12) are linked in
LAB 6 - 7 .
Pseudo-Philo often rewrites speeches and conversations.
Sometimes it is a brief summary (LAB 3.4; 22.3-4), sometimes it is an expansion (LAB 3.9; 7.2), often it is a free
rewriting (LAB 10.2; 15.5-7; 31.1). He often adds speeches
52. Nickelsburg. The Bible Rewriuen'. in Stone (ed.). Jewish
pp. 107-10.
53. Bauckham. "The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo'.
Writings,
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
that emphasize certain teachings. Often these speeches are
farewell exhortations placed on the lips of Israel's leaders
{LAB 28.1-2; 29.4; 33.1-5).
Pseudo-Philo often adds psalms and lamentations {LAB 24.6,
a lament for Joshua; 33.6, a lament for Deborah; 40.4-7, a
lamentation for Jephthah's daughter; 59.4 and 60.2-3, two
new psalms of David) and apocalyptic revelations {LAB
23.6-7; compare Gen. 15.13-21).
Pseudo-Philo sometimes modernizes the biblical narrative.
Micah's money in Judg. 17.2 is made into an appropriate sum
for Pseudo-Philo's time (LAB 44.2). The 'golden nymphs of
the Amorites' probably reflect the type of idolatry with
which Pseudo-Philo was familiar (Judg. 17.5; LAB 25.10;
44.5).
Pseudo-Philo often draws upon parallel accounts in order to
enrich the retelling of the biblical narrative. When the
daughter of Jephthah faces death because of her father's vow,
she alludes to Isaac's willingness to be sacrificed {LAB 40.2).
Similarly, Samuel's avowal of innocence alludes to Moses'
response to the accusations of Korah {LAB 57.2; 1 Sam.
12.3; Num. 16.5). Pseudo-Philo's story of Abram's experience in die fiery furnace is in part inspired by the experience
of the three friends in Daniel 3. Pseudo-Philo's retelling of
the crossing of the Red Sea is enriched with allusions to Pss.
18.15 and 106.9, while his descripdon of dissension and
division among the tribes {LAB 10.3) has been influenced in
part by Judg. 5.15-16. The descripdon of the events at Sinai
is also influenced by allusions to other parts of Scripture. The
account of die life of Kenaz in LAB 25-28, Pseudo-Philo's
lengthiest departure from the biblical narrative, is heavily
influenced by Scripture. Bauckham cites some two dozen
biblical passages diat are instrumental in shaping die story.'*
Pseudo-Philo also seems to have a tendency to embellish birth
narratives, and this embellishment invariably reflects a
variety of biblical passages and themes. We see this in the
birth narratives of Noah, Serug (the great-great-grandfather
of Abraham), Isaac, Moses, Samson and Samuel.
Bauckham. "The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo', pp. 40-
8.
189
Pseudo-Philo views early biblical material as prophetic in
nature and often shows how this material was fulfilled in the
later biblical narrative. For example, setting the human lifespan at 120 years (Gen. 6.3) is fulfilled in the length of
Moses' life (LAB 9.8; Deut. 34.7), while making the golden
calf (Exod. 32) fulfills God's predictions in Gen. 11.6 that
humans will go from bad to worse (LAB 12.3). Bauckham
believes that at many points Pseudo-Philo's retelling of biblical history parallels the manner in which the Matthean and
Lukan evangelists retell the Jesus story as they find it in the
Gospel of Mark and in other traditions.*'
Josephus
In his story of Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, H.W. Attridge has concluded that Josephus redefined Jewish history and tradition so that they
would become 'relevant, comprehensible and attractive in a new
environment'.'* Josephus, writing in the aftermath of Jerusalem's destruction and the disappointment of Jewish expectations, believed that
God's covenant with the Jewish race was still valid and that Jewish
history yielded enduring value and meaning. This conviction, tempered by his personal experience during the Jewish war with Rome,
appears to be a major, if not controlling, factor in his retelling of
biblical history.
F.G. Downing has compared Josephus's rewriting of the JoshuaJudges narratives in Jewish Antiquities to L u k e . " He observes five
basic ways in which Josephus rewrites the biblical narrative.
1. Josephus omits material to avoid discrepancies in multiple accounts,
to avoid repetition, to avoid interruptions in the flow of the story, to
avoid miraculous and magical details, to excise inappropriate theology, and to excise apologetically awkward material. 2. Josephus adds
material to promote harmony and continuity in the narrative, to
53. Bauckham, 'TheLiber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo'.pp. 62-68.
56. H.W. Atu-idge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates
Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR. 7; Missoula. MT: Scholars Press. 1976),
pp. 181-84 (181). Also see idem, 'Josephus and his Works', in Stone (ed.), Jewish
Writings, pp. 185-232; and L.H. Feldman, 'Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra
in the Writings of Josephus', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 455-518.
57. F.G. Downing, 'Redaction Criticism: Josephus' Antiquities and the
Synoptic Gospels'. JSNT 8 (1980). pp. 46-65; 9 (1980). pp. 29-48.
190
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
advance his view of divine providence and prophetic fulfilment, to
emphasize tiie piety of major biblical characters, to promote Jewish
apologetic, and to clarify and stimulate interest in the biblical story.
3. Josephus rearranges materials to promote harmony and continuity
in tiie biblical narrative. 4. Josephus assembles and compiles his
materials so as to unify tiie narrative around specific themes and
verbal similarities. 5. Finally, Josephus conflates parallel accounts to
promote harmony and continuity. When parallel accounts differ
greatiy, however, he often abandons conflation and opts, instead, to
write a fresh account. Downing concludes that Luke's rewriting of
Mark corresponds almost exactiy to Josephus' rewriting.
Luke's Rewriting of the Jesus
Tradition
I shall now attempt to show how Luke's retelling of Mark'* in many
ways appears to be modeled after the retelling techniques or categories of some of the biblical and pseudepigraphal books and is apparendy motivated by some of die very concerns diat motivate much of
die retelling in these writings. Because of the problematic nature of Q,
only Mark, a source which is extant apart from the Lukan and
Matthaean Gospels, will be considered.
Genealogies
Luke supplements his Markan source witii a genealogy of Jesus (3.2338). It is likely that Luke traces Jesus' genealogy back to Adam in
order to underscore Jesus' relevance for the entire human race, not
simply for Israel (as the Matthaean genealogy possibly implies).
Moreover, by tracing die genealogy in descending order, Luke is able
to conclude with Adam, 'the son of God' (3.38), whom the evangelist
probably wishes to contrast witii Jesus, tiie second 'son of God' who
successfully widistands tiie Devil's temptations (4.1-13). Genealogical
details are provided elsewhere (1.5, 27; 2.36).
Qualifications
The Lukan evangelist typically qualifies his Markan source where
Jesus seems to be tt-eated witii disrespect or where die disciples suffer
58. I am. of course, assuming Marcan priority. Should Matthew (or Luke) be
judged to be prior, the retelling categories would sdll be present, diough obviously
die synopdc parallels would have to be explained quite differendy.
191
miserable failure. According to Mk 1.45 the healed leper disobeys
Jesus' injunction to silence. But in Lk. 5.15 the miracle is noised
abroad without the leper's help. Luke's modification was likely to
have been prompted by a sense of the inappropriateness of having
someone, especially one just healed, flagrantly disobey Jesus.
According to Mk 4.38 the fearful disciples ask Jesus, 'Teacher, do you
not care if we perish?' Lk. 8.24 paraphrases, 'Master, we are
perishing!' In this example, the question of the disciples was probably
viewed as eidier disrespectful or as implying that die disciples viewed
Jesus as insensitive. In any case, Luke found die question in need of
qualification. In die same pericope Jesus rebukes the disciples, 'Why
are you afraid? Have you no faith?' (Mk 4.40). Again Luke is uncomfortable with M a r k ' s wording. His paraphrase of Jesus' rebuke
mitigates the disciples' failure: 'Where is your faith?' (8.25). The
implication is tiiat the disciples have suffered only a momentary lapse.
In his account of the healing of the woman with the hemorrhage the
Markan disciples exclaim: 'You see the crowd pressing around you,
and yet you say, "Who touched m e ? ' " (5.31). Again Luke wishes to
avoid the appearance that the disciples have shown less respect for
Jesus than they should have. The Lukan Peter, speaking for the
disciples, says, 'Master, the multitudes surround you and press around
you!' (Lk. 8.45). According to Mark die disciples were afraid when
Jesus was transfigured (Mk 9.6). Luke, however, only says that the
disciples 'were heavy with sleep' (Lk. 9.32). Luke tells us that one of
those crucified with Jesus expressed faith in him (Lk. 23.39-43),
whereas according to Mark they reviled Jesus (Mk 15.32). These
kinds of qualifications are typical in the examples of rewritten Bible.
Summaries
The Lukan evangelist is fond of sunmiaries. Often a summary signals
a transition from, to, or between sources. Lk. 4.13 summarizes the
temptation narrative (4.1-12), a narrative based on Mk 1.12-13 and Q
(compare Mt. 4.3-10), while the summary in 4.14-15 (an adaptation
of Mk 1.14) anticipates the Nazareth sermon in vv. 16-30. Lk. 12.1 is
a Lukan summary that introduces the sayings that follow. Lk. 15.1-2
(possibly derived from Mk 2.15-17) summarizes the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus' conduct in anticipation of tiie tiiree parables that follow.
Luke's notices of Jesus' 'going' to Jerusalem function as summaries
(9.51, 57; 10.1, 38; 11.53; 13.22, 33; 17.11; 18.31, 35; 19.1).
192
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Sometimes the summaries are no more than abbreviations. Lk. 9.7-9
summarizes M a r k ' s longer account of what befell the baptist
(Mk 6.14-29). Lk. 9.10-11 summarizes Mk 6.30-34.
Additions and Expansions
The most obvious additions to his Markan source would be Q and the
putative L source, upon which the evangelist has drawn for his
infancy narratives, various sayings, and other miscellaneous materials.
To cite a few examples: Luke adds 3.10-14 where the Baptist explains
what is expected of people who would repent and prepare themselves
for the Kingdom of God. The emphasis falls on economic honesty and
contentment, a dieme that is related to Luke's general concern with
one's disposition toward wealth. Luke also elaborates on Mark so as to
emphasize Jesus' habit of prayer, especially at times of major importance. This is seen at his baptism (3.21; cf. Mk 1.9-10), before the
choosing of tiie Twelve (Lk. 6.12; cf. Mk 3.13), before Peter's confession (Lk. 9.18; cf. Mk 8.27), before die Transfiguration (Lk. 9.28,
29; cf. Mk 9.2), and, assuming uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus represents the original reading, just before dying (Lk. 23.34). Luke (5.111) expands Mark's (1.16-20) call of die first disciples. By expanding
it and by relocating it, he explains why Peter, James and John would
follow Jesus' summons. Toward the end of his gospel narrative Luke
adds tiiat Jesus touched and healed die injured ear (Lk. 22.31; cf. Mk
14.47), probably to underscore Jesus' attitude of compassion and
forgiveness toward his enemies.
Omissions and Abbreviations
Luke omits a large section of Mark, a section tiiat includes die second
feeding miracle (Luke's so-called 'Big Omission', Mk 6.45-8.26).
Luke omits Mark's potentially inaccurate, and at best confusing,
reference 'when Abiathar was High Priest' (Mk 2.26; cf. Lk. 6.4). In
retelling Mark's account in which Mary and her sons wish to speak to
Jesus (Mk 3.31-35), Luke omits Jesus' rhetorical question, 'Who are
my mother and brothers?' (8.19-21), a question that Luke probably
regarded as disrespectful toward Mary, sometiiing quite inappropriate
for one who had already figured so positively in his account. Luke
omits Jesus' rebuke of Peter after the latter's confession (9.22; cf. Mk
8.31-33), an omission likely to have been motivated to avoid portraying
Peter in such a negative light. Luke omits M k 10.35-41 where James
193
and John request to sit next to Jesus, the request and reaction to which
Luke probably regarded as less than becoming to the disciples. Luke
omits Mk 11.12-14, 20-21 where Jesus curses the fruitless fig tree, an
action which the evangelist is likely to have thought unbecoming to
Jesus. In his retelling of the garden prayer Luke abbreviates Mark's
three-fold reference to the disciples' sleep and omits altogether Jesus'
rebuke of the disciples (Lk. 22.40-46; cf. Mk 14.32-42). Again, it
would appear that Luke wishes to spare the characters of the disciples.
Finally, in his account of Peter's denials Luke omits reference to
Peter's cursing (Lk. 22.60; cf. Mk 14.71).
Cultural Adaptation
As a general rule, Luke avoids Mark's Semitisms, replacing them widi
Greek or Latin equivalents ('Boanerges' in Mk 3.17, cf. Lk. 6.14;
'Talidia, cum* in Mk 5.41, cf. Lk. 8.54; 'Abba' in Mk 14.36, cf. Lk.
22.42). In 5.19 Luke says that the friends of the paralyzed man
removed the tiles of the roof, instead of digging through the roof (cf.
Mk 2.4), a revision likely to have been motivated to make the scene
more intelligible to his readers. Luke uses the more correct 'Lake
Gennesaret', instead of 'Sea of Galilee (5.1; cf. Mk 1.16).
Transformations
Luke completely transforms Mark's version of the Nazareth sermon
(4.16-30; cf. Mk 6.1-6a). Luke wishes to show that Jesus' ministry
provoked opposition because of his willingness to extend messianic
blessings to Israel's traditional enemies and not simply because his
people did not believe in him. Often Luke not only transforms a pericope but also gives it a new location in die narrative. Luke inserts his
expanded version of Jesus' sermon in the Nazareth synagogue (4.1630) between Mk 1.15 and 1.21. Luke widiholds Mark's account of die
calling of the disciples (Mk 1.16-20) until 5.1-11, probably so as to
explain why the disciples would drop everything and follow Jesus.
Moreover, Luke expands diis pericope probably in order to explain
why the disciples would follow Jesus, for the calling as presented in
Mark is quite abrupt. Luke's account of Mary and her sons requesting
to see Jesus (8.19-21; cf. Mk 3.31-35) is made to follow die Parable of
die Sower and related sayings (Lk. 8.1-18; cf. Mk 4.1-25). Luke has
relocated this unit probably because he wishes it to serve as part of his
theme on hearing and obeying the Word of God. Luke sometimes
194
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
inteqirets material so as to portray Gentiles and Jewish outcasts as
recipients of divine forgiveness. We see this in the Great Banquet
Parable (14.15-24//Mt. 22.1-14). Whereas the original form of the
parable probably had only two types of people in view (obedient Jews
and disobedient Jews), Luke adds a diird type (diose who live beyond
die highways) to represent die invitadon being extended to Gendles.
The Markan cry of abandonment (Mk 15.34b-36) is replaced by Jesus'
pious prayer, 'Fadier, into diy hands I commit my spirit' (23.46b).
Luke and Cognate Jewish
Literatures
Whereas most will agree that the New Testament Gospels share
significant affinides with the Jewish phenomenon Rewritten Bible,
diere is some debate as to which specific genre widiin diis phenomenon
with which they should be identified. Are the Gospels instances of
Christian targums, lectionaries, midrashim or radical paraphrase?
Targumsl
One might, I suppose, argue that Matthew and Luke bear a targumic
relationship to Mark, just as one scholar suggested similarly with
regard to Chronicles' relationship to Samuel/Kings, or Jubilees'
relationship to Genesis and Exodus. However, the objections that have
been raised against this interpretation of Chronicles probably apply
equally to such an interpretation of Matdiew and Luke (or of John as a
targum of one or more of the synoptics). Bruce Chilton's conclusion
diat tiie Gospels are 'cognate', radier dian identical, to the targums is
appropriate."
Lectionariesl
Are die Gospels instances of early Christian lectionaries? M.D. Goulder
has produced two major studies in which he argues that the synoptic
59. B.D. Chilton (Targumic Transmission and Dominical Tradition', in
R.T. France and D. Wenham [eds.]. Studies of History and Tradition in the Four
Gospels [Gospel Perspecdves. I; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1980], p. 36; repr. in
Chilton, Targumic Approaches to the Gospels [Studies in Judaism; Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1986], p. 125) righdy cautions against calling die
gospels 'targums'. He suggests that die retelling activity of the evangelists (and
U-adents before them) be considered 'cognate' (radier dian 'identical') to the retelling
process of the Targums.
EVANS Luke and the Rewritten
Bible
195
Gospels are early Christian lectionary books based upon Jewish
lectionaries.*" A. Guilding has tried to show the same witfi respect to
the Fourth Gospel.*' These probably represent the better known
works.*^ None of these studies, however, has escaped serious criticism,
even those of Goulder, which are judged by some to be the most competent.*' The basic problem with this approach is that we simply do
not know what lectionary cycles were in use in the first-century
synagogue;** nor do we know for certain if the first-century church
adopted any of its own. I believe, however, that there is a more
fundamental problem with this approach. It would seem that the
Gospels, as many of the books of Tanach, were written to be read
through, firom beginning to end, as narrative, not as lection. In Mark,
for example, does not the centurion's confession that Jesus is the 'Son
of God' (15.39) constitute the dramatic conclusion to the question of
Jesus' identity, a question hinted at in the first verse, and raised from
time to time throughout his story? If Mark has written a lectionary,
does he expect his readers and auditors to remember this theme over
die course of a year or more? I am sure diat die same objection could
60. M.D. Goulder. Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974);
idem. The Evangelists' Calendar: A Lectionary Explanation of the Development of
Scripture (London: SPCK. 1978). It should be noted, however, diat Goulder
(Midrash and Lection, p. 172) diinks diat a 'Gospel is not a literary genre at all' but
a 'liturgical genre'. Goulder diinks that Matthew's five major discourses correspond
to major Jewish feasts and holidays: (1) the Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5-7)—
Pentecost; (2) the Sending of the Twelve (ch. 10)—Rosh Hashanah and Yom
Kippur; (3) die Parables of die Kingdom (ch. 13)—Sukkah; (4) Rules for Church
Order (ch. 18)—Hanukkah; and (5) die Eschatalogical Discourse (chs. 24-25)—
Pesahim.
61. A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford: Oxford
University. I960).
62. Works that have won less scholarly attention would include those of
R.G. Finch. The Synagogue Lectionary and the New Testament (London: SPCK.
1939). and P. Carrington. The Primitive Christian Calendar (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 1952).
63. L. Morris. 'The Gospels and die Jewish Lecdonaries'. in Studies in Midrash
and Historiography, pp. 129-56.
64. C. Perrot, La lecture de la Bible dans la Synagogue (Hildesheim:
Gerstenberg, 1973). p. 287. The evidence of b. Meg. 31b, possibly reflecUng
second-century tradidon. suggests that diere was no uniform Jewish lecdonary. For a
criticism of Goulder's interpretation of diis passage, see Morris, 'The Gospels and
the Jewish Lectionaries'. p. 136.
196
The Pseudepigrapha
arui Early Biblical
Interpretation
be raised widi respect to the other Gospels. In the final analysis, the
lectionary hypotiiesis rests upon litde more than imagination and sheer
speculation.
Midrashim
Are the Gospels instances of Christian midrash? Goulder has argued
tiiat Matthew is a midrash on Mark and that the materials scholars
usually identify as ' Q ' are really no more than midrashic expansions
of Markan materials and themes.*' J. Drury extends this approach
further by suggesting diat not only is Matdiew a midrash on Mark, but
diat Luke is a midrash on bodi Matdiew and Mark (and John is a 'free
midrash' on die synoptic tradition).** It as sometimes been argued that
the Gospels are midrashim on various parts of Tanach. Recently
R.H. Gundry has argued that various pericopae in Matthew represent
Matthaean midrashim on various Old Testament passages, especially
with reference to the birth narrative.*' On a grander scale J.D.M.
Derrett has argued diat Mark is a 'gigantic midrash' on the Hexateuch
and Lamentations.** This is a thesis diat I find highly implausible.
There simply are not enough explicit citations or clear allusions to the
Hexateuch throughout Mark to make a convincing case for such a
putative midrash. Would any reader of antiquity have observed that
Mark was such a midrash? The pesharim at (jumran proceed verse by
verse. The later rabbinic midrashim proceed similarly. But Mark has
65. Goulder. Midrash and Lection in Matthew.
66. J. Drury, 'Midrash and Gospel". Theology V (1974). pp. 291-96; idem.
Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel (London: Darton. Longman & Todd. 1976),
pp. 44-45. According to Drury. 'midrash [is] the method by which, in historical fact
rather dian scholarly conjecture. Jews of various colours from die most chauvinistic
Pharisee to die most liberal Hellenist did their history writing' ('Midrash", p. 294).
As examples of what he regards as 'midrash", he cites Josephus. Philo. Jubilees, and
the Genesis Apocryphon. Clearly Drury"s understanding of midrash is far too broad
and inclusive.
67. R.H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1982), Gundry regards Matthew's gospel as a
'midrashic', but I do not diink that he regards die entire writing as a 'midrash' in the
sense that Goulder. Drury and Derrett have suggested.
68. J.D.M. Derrett. The Making of Mark: The Scriptural Bases of the Earliest
Gospel (2 vols.; Shipston-on-Stour: Drinkwater. 1985), I, p. 38; see also D. Miller,
The Gospel of Mark as Midrash on Earlier Jewish and New Testament Literature
(Lewiston and (Jueenston: Mellen. 1990).
197
not. If Mark was intended to be a midrash on parts of Genesis through
Joshua, then this wridng is not only literarily and methodologically
unique, but probably was not recognized by anyone for what it was
supposed to be. Gundry's case, however, is more plausible, since the
Old Testament passages upon which the midrash (or 'midrashic
embellishment') is supposed to be based are actually cited. But has
Matthew created stories to fit Scripture, or has he searched for
Scripture to fit the stories?*'
I believe diat claims tiiat die Gospels are midrashim on various Old
Testament books or passages overlook the obvious. The Gospels,
whedier midrash or not, tell the story of Jesus. They do not tell die
story of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David or Elijah. They may tell the
story of Jesus in ways that are clearly colored by the traditions of
diese ancient worthies, but their point is to tell the story of Jesus. Let
us consider two examples from Pseudo-Philo's Liber
Antiquitatum
Biblicarum,
where the story that he narrates clearly has been
influenced by other Scriptures. In retelling the story of die building of
die tower of Babel (Gen. 11.2-4), Pseudo-Philo draws upon Daniel 3.
The features of interest are as follows: Abraham and eleven others
refuse to assist in building the tower (LAB 6.3), an enterprise,
according to related tradition, that involved idolatry (Targ. Neof.,
Ps.-J. Gen. 11.4; Gen. R. 38.8 [on 11.3]), just as die diree friends in
Daniel refuse to worship the newly erected golden image (Dan. 3.812). Abraham and his companions are then brought to Joktan, who
gives them seven days to reconsider (6.4-6), just as the three friends
are brought to Nebuchadnezzar, who gives them a chance to reconsider (Dan. 3.13-15). Refusing a chance to escape, Abraham declares
his trust in God: 'If... I should be burned up, let the will of God be
done' (6.11). Similarly, die three friends answer Nebuchadnezzar that
they believe God can deliver diem from the furnace, but if not, the
king is to know that they will not worship the golden image (Dan.
3.16-18). When Abraham is cast into die furnace (6.16), there is an
earthquake that causes fire to flash forth and kill diose who were
standing by (6.17a). Similarly, the flames and heat of the furnace kill
the guards who threw the three friends into the fire (Dan. 3.22-23).
69. Of the various Gospels-as-midrash theories Gundry's has die most to commend it. But even his presentation is not without serious difficulties: see
P.B. Payne. 'Midrash and History in the Gospels with Special Reference to
R.H. Gundry's Afatthew', in Studies in Midrash and Historiography, pp. 177-215.
198
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Unharmed (6.17b), Abraham 'came up out of the furnace' (6.18), just
as the three friends, also unscathed (Dan. 3.25, 27), 'came out of the
fire' (3.26).
These parallels, along with the fact that Daniel 3 is explicitly cited
in other rabbinic commentary on this Abrahamic tradition {Gen. R.
44.13 [on 15.6]; b. Pes. 118a), confirm that Daniel 3 has made a
significant contribution to Pseudo-Philo's retelling of Genesis 11. But
would it be correct to say that Pseudo-Philo has produced a midrash
on Daniel 31 The point of departure is the story in Genesis,
specifically, the meaning of the word 'Ur' ('fire') and the assumption
that tiie story of tiie tower of Babel in ch. 11 precedes the call of
Abraham in ch. 12 for a reason. Pseudo-Philo's imaginative retelling
is an attempt to explain these factors. Daniel 3 assists him in tiiis
attempt, but is not itself tiie object of his interpretative retelling.
Let us look briefly at another example. In his retelling of the
crossing of the Red Sea (Exod. 14; LAB 10), Pseudo-Philo again draws
upon traditions found elsewhere in Tanach. The story of die people's
grumbling (Exod. 14.10-12) is enriched with allusions to die division
among the people in Judg. 5.15b, 16b (LAB 10.3), while die description of the parting of the sea in Exod. 14.21 is enriched with allusions
to die Psalter (106.9a; 18.15 = 2 Sam. 22.16) and to the Song of
Moses in Exodus 15 (v. 8) (LAB 10.5). (After diese embellishments,
Pseudo-Philo returns to Exod. 14.22 and cites it almost verbatim.)
Again, it is apparent diat Pseudo-Philo has not produced a midrash on
material from die Psalter, but has retold the story of Exodus 14.
It seems to me that even if the broadest legitimate definition of the
word midrash be accepted, it is inaccurate to define the Gospels as
midrashim, either on one another or on Tanach. One could argue that
midrashic elements, even isolated midrashim on given texts, are present in die Gospels. But to regard a Gospel as a whole as a midrash is
problematic for one basic reason: No Gospel as a whole is an exposition, in any case, of its major literary sources. Matthew has not commented upon Mark, nor has Luke. Matthew has used Mark as one of
his sources. Never does midrash work diis way. Midrash is always a
clarification of a text, whether this clarification be explicit, formal and
obvious, or allusive, subtle and hidden. Matthew and Luke do not
represent attempts to clarify and update Mark. They represent
attempts to clarify and update the Jesus story, and to do tiiis tiiey
needed Mark and odier materials. Matthew and Luke are independent
199
literary/exegetical attempts to retell Christian biblical history. I have
called this retelling 'radical paraphrase'.
Radical Paraphrase?
Is the Gospel of Luke an example of radical paraphrase of the Jesus
tradition? I think that it is, and I think that this is the best way to
understand the evangelist's literary-exegetical activity. He has retold
the Jesus story, not in a targumic manner, closely following Mark's
text, nor in a midrashic manner, interpreting portions of Mark's text.
He has instead freely adapted his various sources—Mark, Q, whatever,
according to his own purposes. His technique closely resembles that of
the Chronicler who made use of various Old Testament books, freely
selecting and omitting material, freely rewriting it according to his
theological perspective. Luke's technique also resembles many aspects
of the radical paraphrases of biblical history seen in 1 Esdras,
Jubilees, Jewish Antiquities and Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Just
as it is appropriate to classify these wridngs as radical paraphrase, a
part of the phenomenon of the 'rewritten Bible', so I think diat it is
appropriate to classify Luke (and Matdiew) similarly. Luke's affinides
to the 'Jewish approach' to sacred story must be taken into account, if
diis Gospel is to be adequately understood.
What about Luke's reladonship to die Old Testament? Can diat be
called midrash? The funcdon of the Old Testament in Luke, as well as
in the odier wridngs of the New Testament, at times may properly be
regarded as midrash.™ How much of it should be so regarded depends
on the definition given to midrash. I think that while the view that
only rabbinic exegesis should be called midrash is too narrow, the
view that virtually all early Jewish and Christian literature should be
called midrash is too broad. To what extent the function of Scripture
in Luke (and the New Testament) is truly midrash or midrashic must
await a resolution of tiie debate over tiie definition of midrash, particularly in tiie context of the first century." But I repeat, the question
70. J. Neusner (What is Midrash? [Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia:
Foruess Press, 1987], pp. 37-40) cites Matthew's use of Scripture in the infancy
narrative as an example of midrash as prophecy.
71. For a recent introductory discussion diat views the literary and exegetical
dimensions of midrash. see Neusner. What is Midrashl. B.D. Chilton ('Varieties
and Tendencies of Midrash: Rabbinic Interpretations of Isaiah 24.23', in Studies in
Midrash and Historiography, pp. 25-28) has suggested applying 'midrash' to that
200
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
of Luke's relationship to Jewish literary genres is not dependent on
the midrash debate. Luke's writing technique corresponds so closely
to the techniques observed at work in the wridngs surveyed above, I
diink future discussion of the gospel genre should begin here.
Conclusion: Luke as Hagiography
There is another dimension to radical paraphrase. Since the story that
is retold is sacred story (whether the Old Testament story or die Jesus
story), I believe that it is appropriate to view these wridngs as hagiographa (with the possible exception of Josephus). The hagiographer
not only makes use of sacred traditions, but he (1) writes in conscious
imitation of biblical style, (2) believes tiiat die contents of his writing
is in some sense 'inspired', and (3) intends his writing to be read
alongside of the biblical story; indeed, he believes that it has become
part of the story. (I believe that these dimensions, especially the
second and third, are not present in Josephus.) This Luke has done. In
incorporating his Jesus traditions he has deliberately imitated die style
of Scripture, which for him is the LXX.'^ He is also conscious of die
place that his narrative has among other attempts to tell the story of
Jesus (Lk. 1.1-4). It is likely that Luke viewed his writing as part of
Christianity's sacred story. Indeed, if Luke regarded Mark as sacred
story, and I think that he did, dien it is inconceivable diat he viewed
his own work as anydiing less. He probably viewed his work, or at the
very least its dominical contents, as belonging to the still amorphous
portion of Scripture known as the 'sacred writings', or hagiographa.
This could explain why Luke does not habitually cite Scripture as
'fulfilled', as do Matthew and John. Luke does not understand his
Gospel and Acts as conmientaries on Scripture, or even as containing
commentaries on Scripture, as I suspect Matdiew and John understand
their respective writings. Luke sees his writings as a continuation of
which is distinctively rabbinic, and 'midrashic' to exegetical approaches not limited
to die rabbis.
72. See H.F.D. Sparks. 'The Semidsms of St Luke's Gospel'. JTS 44 (1943).
pp. 129-38; D.L. Tiede. Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia:
Forwess Press. 1980). pp. 47-48. 58-61. 70-77, 82-84, 90-95; Fitzmyer. Luke IIX, pp. 114-16; T.L. Brodie, 'Greco-Roman Imitation of Texts as a Partial Guide
to Luke's Use of Sources', in CH. Talbert (ed.). Luke-Acts: New Perspectives
from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar (New York: Crossroad, 1984),
pp. 17-46.
201
the scriptural s t o r y . ' ' Luke does not see himself primarily as a
biographer, nor even a historian. The Lukan evangelist is a writer of
Scripture, a hagiographer who is proclaiming what God has
'accomplished among us*.
73. If 1 am correct in this assessment, we could have some interesting implications for die question of the New Testament as canon. Simply put. Luke may have
thought that Luke-Acts belongs in the Old Testament, not some sort of New
Testament
SUFFERING, INTERCESSION AND ESCHATOLOGICAL ATONEMENT:
AN UNCOMMON COMMON VIEW IN THE TESTAMENT
OF MOSES AND IN LUKE-ACTS
David P. Moessner
It is hard to overstate the importance of Moses in Jewish literature
between die Bible and die Mishnah. Whedier he be colored die originator of culture, military genius, sage, wonder worker, apocalyptic
seer, or supreme legislator and mediator of the law, no other figure
has captured the imagination and admiration of die multi-hued communities of Judaism to the same extent as Moses.' One aspect of his
career which had been emphasized in the earlier biblical account of
Deuteronomy, viz. Moses' intercessory suffering and death,^ is given
short shrift in the later 'intertestamental' period, although Josephus at
points in his Antiquities
underlines Moses* rejection by his own
1. Special thanks to my colleague, Walter Brueggemann, for discussing this
manuscript with me. For surveys on Moses, see, e.g., W.A. Meeks, The ProphetKing: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup, 14; Leiden: Brill,
1967), pp. l(X)-75; D.S. Russell, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 95-107; G. Vermes, 'Die Gestalt des Moses an der
Wende der beiden Testaments', in Moses: In Schrift und Oberlieferung (DUsseldorf:
Paunos, 1963), pp. 61-93; D.L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker
(SBLDS. 1: Missoula. MT: Scholars Pi«ss. 1972), pp. 101-240; idem, 'The Figure
of Moses in die Testament of Moses', in G.W.E. Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the
Testament of Moses (SCS, 4; Cambridge, MA: Society of Biblical Literature. 1973),
pp. 86-92; J. Jeremias. 'Moyses', TDNT, IV, pp. 848-73. On the Moses
pseudepigrapha. see J.H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modem Research
(SBLSCS. 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. 1976), pp. 159-66.
2. See esp. G. von Rad. Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; New York: Harper
& Row. 1962), I. pp. 289-96; D.P. Moessner. 'Luke 9.1-50: Luke's Preview of die
Journey of die Prophet Like Moses of Deuteronomy', JBL 102 (1983). pp. 582-87;
and P.D. Miller. '"Moses My Servant". The Deuteronomic Portrait of Moses'. Int
41 (1987), pp. 245-55.
MOESSNER Suffering,
Intercession,
Atonement
203
people.' A notable exception, however, is the first century CE writing
known as the Testament of Moses (T Mos.),* in which this suffering
3. See inter alia Ant. 2.15.4-5 §§327-29. 2.15.4 §334; 3.1.3 §§11-12, 3.13
§§295-99; 4.2.3 §22. 4.3.2 §§40-50.4.8.2 §§177-79. It is inteiesting that Josephus
mentions four different occasions in which the people try or desire to stone Moses
(Ant. 2.15.4 §327; 3.1.3-4 §§12-22, 3.14.3 §307; 4.2.3 §22). wheieas diis detail is
mentioned only once (Exod. 17.4) in die Hebrew Bible; on the relation of these
extrabiblical traditions to Deuteronomistic traditions, see, e.g., O.H. Steck, Israel
und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten (WMANT, 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag. 1967). pp. 81-86; D.P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The
Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis:
Foruess Press, 1989). pp. 85-87.
The fragmentary nature of many of the sources of this period does not allow
die conclusion diat Moses' suffering and death was of no interest or even of considerable importance. The (^mran community, for instance, nuiy have placed great
stock in Moses' suffering mediatorial role, especially in light of dieir own Teacher's
fate (see, e.g., 4QDib Ham; cf. 4QpHos 2.3b-6; KJpHab 2.6-10, 11.4-8; 4QpPs
37.14-15; IQH 2.9-19, 32-37; 4.8-10; 5.5-19; 9.1-36). On Qumran, see furdier
Meeks. Prophet-King, pp. 173-75; Moessner. Lord of the Banquet, pp. 87-90.
Typical, however, of longer U-eatments of Moses is the juxtaposing of several roles
and experiences, including his rejection or suffering, and the subsuming of the latter
to more overarching portrayals of die ideal legislator, sage and ruler, as in Philo and
Josephus. For Philo. see. e.g., Vit. Mos. 2.163-73, where Moses, in inner turmoil
over die golden calf, takes 'die part of mediator and reconciler... begging that their
sins might be forgiven... and softened die wrath of die Ruler' (LCL edn). But this
role is only one aspect of die much wider function of priest, die cenu-al feature of
which is 'piety' (Vit. Mos. 2.66). In Pseudo-Philo. widiin die context of foretelling
secrets of die future, Moses is presented as intercessor (LAB 19.3). For Josephus,
see n. 3 above, and see further. Tiede (Charismatic Figure, pp. 101-37.207-40).
Interest in Moses' suffering role and deadi figures more prominendy in die
later rabbinic literature; see. e.g., L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, I-VII
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. 1910-38]). Itt, pp. 439-81;
VI, pp. 151-68; Meeks, Prophet-King, pp. 176-215, esp. 198-204.
4. Most scholars hold to a first-century CE date for the final form, given the
radier vivid descriptions of die Herodian period and die campaign of Varus in ch. 6.
There is no indication of die destruction of die Temple in 70 CE. G.W.E. Nickelsburg
has built a convincing case for a basic text of T. Mos. from die period of Antiochus's
persecution with a later redaction in Herodian times; see, e.g.. his 'Antiochan Date
for the Testament of Moses', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of
Moses, pp. 33-37; idem. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS, 26; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972),
pp. 43-45; idem, Jewish Uteramre between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 80-83, 212-14; cf. A. Yarbro Collins, 'Composition and
204
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
and death forms the focal point of the unknown writer's (writers')
entire portrait of Moses. The thesis of this study is that within this
uncommon profile of Moses in the Testament of Moses, insufficient
attention has been paid to Moses' death as an interpretative key to the
significance of the suffering and deadi of the enigmatic Taxo (and
sons) in T. Mos. 9. Moses' impending death is not only die setdng for
a testament widi apocalyptic elements—as most acknowledge'—but his
death also seals God's preordained plan to effect a final or eschatological atonement for Israel through Taxo's faithful suffering and
death. Taxo dius fills up die full measure of propitiatory suffering
prophesied and decisively put into effect for Israel long before by
Moses himself. Moreover, in Part II, I shall expand the thesis by arguing that in a similar way, the apostles/witnesses of Acts are filling up a
full measure of faithful suffering and even death which has been
eschatologically sealed by die deadi of Jesus Messiah, die prophet like
Moses of Deuteronomy.
I
A look at the role of Moses' deadi in the Testament of Moses vis-^-vis
the final establishment of God's kingdom (regnum illius) in 10.1-10
reveals that it is precisely Moses' absence, that is, his death, which
looms as both the tragic barrier and yet, at the same time, as the
gracious access to Israel's entering the land of their forebears (1.8;
11.1 lb) and receiving tiie final blessings of die covenant (1.9; 11.17b).
Redaction of die Testament of Moses 10'. HTR 69 (1976). pp. 179-86. For die
period 4 BCE-48 CE. see D.M. Rhoads. T h e Assumption of Moses and Jewish
History: 4 BC-AD 48'. in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses,
pp. 53-58. For a summary of positions, see J.J. Collins, Testaments', in
M.E. Stone (ed.). Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT. 2.2;
Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). pp. 347-48; and idem.
T h e Testamentary Literature in Recent Scholarship', in R.A. Kraft and
G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.),£flr/y Judaism and its Modem Interpreters (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press; Adanta: Scholars Press. 1986). p. 277.
5. See, e.g.. A.B. Kolenkow. 'The Assumption of Moses as a Testament', in
Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, pp. 71-77; and idem, 'I. The
Literary Genre 'Testament'", in Kraft and Nickelsburg (eds.). Early Judaism and its
Modern Interpreters, pp. 259-67.
MOESSNER Suffering, Intercession,
la. The Opening Frame (Chapter
Atonement
205
If
The narrative framing of Moses* prophecy (profetiae, 1.5) of Israel's
future (2.1-10.10) spoken to Joshua in the tent of testimony (1.7)
obviously recalls Moses' and Joshua's final gathering in the tent of
meeting of Deut. 31.14-23. There, however, it is only Yahweh who
speaks, first to Moses (Deut. 31.16-21) and then to Joshua (Deut.
3 1 . 2 3 ) . ' The opening frame (ch. 1) of the Testament of Moses by
contrast stresses the significance of Moses' words to Joshua in the tent
(1.10-18 [1.1-9 = narrator]) which, now called a 'wridng* (scriptum,
1.16), will be crucial to Joshua*s ability to preserve the books diat
Moses is about to entrust to him (1.16-17). These 'books* are
undoubtedly a reference to die Law or 'everydiing which has been
commanded' through Moses (T. Mos. l.IO). Moses* first words, in
fact, admonish Joshua to blameless obedience to diese commandments
(1.10), before Moses describes himself as one 'devised* by God or
'prepared from the beginning of die world, to be the mediator of his
covenant' (ab initio orbis terrarum praeparatus sum ut sim arbiter
testamenti illius, 1.14). That Joshua's capacity to preserve the books
by the use of Moses* words/wridng is of utmost importance, is made
clear immediately by die way Moses links Joshua*s task to two cridcal
6. The contours of the final form of the text are themselves disturbed by
Joshua's questions at die beginning of ch. 11; it is as diough he has heard very litde
if anydiing at all of Moses' prophecy of die future, especially of Israel's final exaltation to 'the heaven of the stars' in 10.9. The prophetic prospect (chs. 2-10) appears
to be a distinct if not separate literary unit at some point combined with the narrative
framing. G. Reese (Die Geschichte Israels in der Auffassung des friihen Judentums
[Diss., University of Heidelberg. 1967]. pp. 90-93) reckons 1.6-15. 2.1-2, 10.1415 and 11, lb-12.13 to be an older narrative which the later author of T. Mos. used
for his historical presentation. This 'Moses-Joshua story' may well stem from die
same literary-dieological circle that produced Pseudo-Philo with its emphasis on die
role of die people within God's covenant faidifulness. See below, n. 11.
7. For T. Mos. as an expansion and/or rewriting of Deut. 31-34. see, e.g..
D.J. Harrington. 'Interpreting Israel's History: The Testament of Moses as a
Rewriting of Deut. 31-34', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of
Moses, pp. 59-68; Nickelsburg. Resurrection, pp. 29, 44; idem. Between the Bible
and the Mishnah, pp. 80-82; J. Priest. 'Testament of Moses. A New Translation
and Inu-oduction'. in OTP, I, pp. 923-24. Though the last chapters of Deuteronomy
are clearly the setting for T. Mos., especially with Moses' prophetic prospect in his
'song' in ch. 32. T. Mos. draws on die conceptions of God's covenant relationship
constitutive to and distincdy accented in the whole of Deuteronomy and in the later
Deuteronomistic history; see below, n. 11.
206
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
boundaries in Israel's future: Moses' imminent death (1.15) and God's
final 'visitation' of them at the end of history (1.18). In other words,
Moses' 'words'/'writing' to Joshua are in some fashion the key to the
understanding and obedience to the Law that will lead eventually, at
the end of time, to God's final visitation or appearance of God's
kingdom for Israel. Moses has already provided a clue why this is so.
This one who has been designed by God before the world ever existed
to be God's channel for the Law is now about to die, to exist no
longer. What will happen dien to Israel? How can Israel possibly exist
without this life-giving mediation, especially since God has hidden his
purpose for Israel from tiie Gentiles—namely, that G o d ' s whole
purpose in creating the world was on behalf of 'his people' (1.12)?
Will the way out of this dilemma then be simply faidiful obedience to
a law diat is already codified and will even be accompanied by a companion 'commentary' written by the soon to be deceased mediator
himself? Or to restate the issue at the end of die opening frame (ch. 1),
Does Moses' death bear any greater significance than the formal occasion upon which die eschatological horizon of Israel's final covenant
blessings are envisaged and through Moses' words in some way
ensured?'
lb. The Closing Frame
(lO.II-I2.I3).
Before looking at Moses' foreglimpse of Israel's history (2.1-10.10),
it will be illuminating to see just how Joshua understands and responds
to Moses' opening instiuction and deadi announcement in their dialogue which is not resumed until the closing frame, 10.11-12.13.
Moses first repeats his injunctions to Joshua: 1. Joshua is to hearken to
Moses' words, his 'book'/'writing' (10.11, librum; 1.16; cf. 11.14);
2. Moreover, God's final visitation of 1.18, now termed a 'coming'/
'advent' is dated from the time of Moses' deadi (250 'times', 10.1213). All tiiat will happen in tiie meantime is measured and dius tied to
8. Kolenkow's point ('Assumption') that T. Mos. enlarges one of the
'commonplaces' of the testamentary genre—through its disclosure of reveladon
completely hidden from the Gendle nadons since they could not have received a
testament given only to Moses' successor, Joshua—is certainly valid and particularly
illuminadng given the role of the Gendles in chs. 1 and 11-12 (pp. 72-73). In addition, we are inquiring about the material role that Moses' deadi itself plays in die plot
of the secret story of Israel's future—a story of God's pre-ordained will reserved for
die end of dme.
Atonement
207
Moses' death. For now, Joshua is to be 'minister' (successor)^ of the
same covenant (10.15; cf. 1.7).
With Israel's entire history spread out before him and coming to
consummadon in Israel's victory and exaltadon to heaven in ch. 10,
might one not expect diat Joshua now in ch. 11 would be relieved and
thank Moses for his testament of assurance? But Joshua's response is
in fact die very opposite, rending his clodies and prostrating himself
in tears. Israel's continued existence is still die great crisis and Moses'
death, in particular, forms the vortex of 'bitter words' (11.4) that
appear a whirlwind of gloom and destruction. Who can possibly lead
Israel into the land with enough compassion or enough wisdom to
judge and rule their life or with the ability to sustain/feed them and
guard tiiem tiirough all tiieir adversities (11.9-10, 12-13)? But far
more significandy, who will be qualified to pray for them, 'not omitting a single day, in order that I [Joshua] may lead them {ut inducam
illus) into die land of dieir forebears' (11.11)?
That it is Moses' intercessory prayers which, to this point, have
been foremost in mediating Israel's life and in enabling them to enter
die land, becomes clear from Joshua's concluding laments (11.12-19):
I. Moses' prayers, according to Joshua, have actually been the means
by which {in tuis orationibus) Israel's numbers have grown (to
100,000 [600,000])'" (11.14); 2. And looking ahead to die time when
Moses has departed, Joshua puts into the moutiis of the kings of die
Amorites this amazing admission:
Let us go up against them... Uiey have no advocate/protector (defensor) to
offer prayers on their behalf (pro eis) to die Lord, like Moses die great
messenger, who every hour day and night had his knees fixed to die earth
(habebat genua sua infixa in terra), praying and looking for help to the
One who rules all the world with compassion and righteousness,
reminding the Lord of the covenant of die forebears and propitiating the
Lord with the oath (et jurejurando placando Dominum)...\eX us go
dierefore and destroy diem (11.17-18).
The function of the nations in God's plan of creation, sounded at the
beginning, returns again here but now with the disclosure that it is
Moses' pleading on Israel's behalf that has placated God's anger
9. Probably msrt (e.g. Josh. 1.1) is indicated here (so R.H. Charles. APOT,
II. pp. 414 n. 7; 423 n. 15).
10. Cf. Exod. 12.37 and R.H.Charles, The Assumption of Moses (London:
A. & C. Black, 1897), p. 94 n. 14. for die suggested insertion.
208
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
against Israel. Moses' prayers have thus protected Israel, not from the
unenlightened, guilty nations (1.12-13) but from themselves vis-a-vis
the anger of God.
But the role of Moses' prayers and consequently Joshua's distress
become fully comprehensible only in Moses' rejoinder (12.1-13).
Moses confirms the nations' assertion about his prayers and Israel's
plight, while denying their conclusion. God has, he says, 'established
or appointed me on dieir [Israel's] behalf and for dieir sins' (me constituit pro eis et pro peccatis eorum, 12.6). Moreover, it is not because
he himself is worthy or capable of meedng this task; rather, it is
solely God's compassion and long-suffering that are the basis of his
calling and diat have accrued to him (contegerunt mihi). The context
now becomes transparent. Moses' calling or task includes not only his
prayers of intercession, which up to this point have been effective, but
it also includes his deadi, that is, the denial of entry into the land of
the forebears and his imminent departure, which is causing such consternation and crisis for Joshua and for Israel. For as Moses continues,
it is certain that Israel under Joshua's leadership will not enter the
land because of their godliness (pietas).
Those who do and fulfil the commandments of God shall increase and be
prospered, but those who sin and set at naught the commandments shall
deprive diemselves of die good diings mentioned before, and diey shall be
punished widi many torments by die nations (12.11).
Moreover, the prospects do not appear optimistic. The nation as a
whole, it seems, will continue to sin such that the Gentiles could easily
(i.e. justifiably) destroy Israel entirely. But God will not allow diat to
happen (non potest, 12.12b). Rather, God himself will go/come forth
(12.13). In light of diis end coming of God (cf. 10.3, 7!), die warning
to Joshua is now given its eschatological import. God's compassion
and long-suffering poured upon Israel through Moses is giving them
die land, in spite of dieir sin; but God's favor resting upon Moses will
no longer assure them of future deliverance—except tiiat, at tiie very
end, at least a part of Israel will be saved.
Consequently the real crisis for Israel is not Moses' death but rather
Israel's sin." And now it is finally clear why Joshua is so distressed
I I . I am arguing diat die posture of the whole book is deuteronomistic. That is.
the audior bases his hope in the final salvation on God's faidifulness to God's oath
sworn to Israel's ancestors and mediated through the Horeb covenant (see esp.
MOESSNER Suffering,
intercession,
Atonement
209
even after Moses* sweeping vision of Israel's heavenly exaltation. How
can Israel possibly survive, 'seeing* that they will continue such disobedience after Moses* death? Joshua, however, has failed to understand that in God*s eternal decree for the nations and for Israel, God
has also foreseen that it is Moses* life and death,
absence
his prayers and
from the blessings of the land, through which Moses' eter-
nally designed mediation for a sinful Israel should take place. In other
words, through Moses' life and death Israel's future life is assured.
His death is not simply the occasion upon which new revelation is
mediated, but is ironically, as Joshua has failed to perceive, the answer
T. Mos. 1.9; 3.9; 11.17; 12.13). This covenant includes the blessings but also the
curses—punishment diat follows continued disobedience of the people as a whole.
Corporate repentance/confession of sin is a sine qua non for blessing/restoration and
becomes constitutive of die hope in God's faidifulness and ultimate blessing. Thus a
pattern emerges—sin, punishment/judgment, repentance/intercession, salvation/
vindication—in which the punishment of 587 BCE becomes proto-lypical of die final
judgment of a disobedient Israel (e.g. T. Mos. 8.1; 9.1). For diis 'Doppelschema'
pattern and variations, see. e.g.. Steck. Israel, pp. 60-264; Nickelsburg. Beftveen the
Bible and the Mishnah, pp. 9-18; E. SjOberg. Gott und die Siinder im paldstinischen
Judentum (BWANT. 79; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938), pp. 201-202; J.J. Collins.
'Some Remaining Traditio-Historical Problems in the Testament of Moses', in
Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, pp. 40-42; D.P. Moessner.
'"The Christ Must Suffer": New Light on die Jesus-Peter. Stephen. Paul Parallels in
Luke-Acts'. NovT 28 (1986). pp. 225-30. For application of some aspect of
deuteronomic/istic historical categories to T. Mos., see. e.g., Steck. Israel und das
gewaltsame Geschick, pp. 172-73; Nickelsburg. Bible and the Mishnah, pp. 80-82;
Sjoberg, Gott und die Sunder, pp. 232. 235. 238-39, 250. 257, e.g. 235: 'Ass.
Mos... ist durch und durch von der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbetrachtung
geprSgt'; Collins. 'Traditio-Historical Problems'; idem, 'Testaments', in Stone (ed.),
Jewish Writings, pp. 346-47; Kolenkow, 'Assumption', pp. 73-74; Reese.
Geschichte Israels, pp. 117-24. e.g. 123: 'Die grosse Bedeutung. die das
Deuteronomium in der AssMos gewinnt, ISsst sich doch nur begriefen. ..dass die
Vf. der AssMos in seinem theologischen Denken im Bereich einer dt-dtr bestimmien
Theologie verwurzelt ist'; J. Priest. 'Some Reflections on the Assumption of
Moses', Perspectives on Religious Studies 4 (1977). p. 94; E. Brandenburger,
'Einleitung: Himmelfahrt Moses', in JSHRZ, 5/2. Apokalypsen (1976). pp. 63-64;
Harrington. 'Rewriting of Deut. 31-34'. pp. 60-61, 63-66; primarily non-deuteronomic/istic: e.g. E. Janssen, Das Gottesvolk und seine Geschichte (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Veriag. 1971), pp. 107-8; cf. Charles, APOT, 11, p. 424 n. 8:
'The nation is so evil and needs such frequent chastisement, that its selection by God
must be due not to merit but to die Divine purpose'; Samaritan: K. Haacker,
'Assumptio Mosis—Eine samaritanische Schrift?', TZ 25 (1969). pp. 385-405.
210
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
to the perceived 'problem' of his absence. Moses' death does not now
cut off the mediation of the covenant to Israel. Rather in his death
Moses' intercession for Israel is sealed and made effective for the end.
Israel will not be totally cut off (in totum exterminet...non
potest,
12.12), a part or remnant will be saved. 'Accordingly [as Moses first
introduces himself] die Lord designed me and prepared me before the
foundation of die world diat I should be the mediator of his covenant'
(1.14). And now in his death Moses declares 'that the time of die years
of my Ufe are consummated' (consummatum
est, 1.15). In life and
death Moses is die eternal mediator of the covenant.
Prophetic Prospect
(2.1-10.10)
Does Moses' prophetic prospect, which forms tiie heart of tiiis writing
( 2 . 1 - 1 0 . 1 0 ) , ' ^ square at all with its frame of Moses as eternal
mediator? Moses views the history of Israel in two great epochs (chs.
2 - 4 ; 5-9) before G o d ' s kingdom 'appears throughout all creation'
(10.1-10). When it is asked what is characteristic of each period or
upon what basis this particular division is made, it becomes clear that
it is Israel's corporate sin, repentance and restoration/atonement that
constitutes Moses' vision of the future. In ch. 2, the narrator's opening
summary of Joshua's career in 1.6-9 and Moses' injunction to Joshua
in 1.17-18 are fulfilled as the 12 tribes establish a central place of
worship and sacrifice, even if the 10 tribes break off and follow their
own ordinances. Nevertheless, because of all manner of idolatry perpetrated at tiie Temple the two tribes are taken into captivity where
they join together widi die ten tribes in lamenting their mass apostasy
(3.4-7) and in crying to the God of the covenant for mercy (3.8-9).
What is more, this mass sin is tied explicidy to the fulfilment of
Moses' prophecy and to his death.
Is not this that which Moses did declare unto us in prophecies, who
suffered many things in Egypt and in die Red Sea and in the wilderness
forty years, and called heaven and earth to wiuiess against us, that we
should not uansgress God's commandments of which he had become the
mediator for us? These things have come upon us after his death"
12. See above, n. 6; cf. Kolenkow. 'Assumption', pp. 73-74. 76; Nickelsburg,
'AnUochan Date', pp. 33-37.
13. See, e.g.,Char]es,AssumptionofMoses,p.67
n. \3:de isto ('i.\'i) = 'hryw =
'after him', i.e. 'after his deadi'. He points also to 2 Bar. 84.4 and Job 21.21.
Atonement
211
according to his declaration (testatus), as he declared to us at diat time,
and these (things) have taken place even to our being led as captives into
die land of die east (3.11-13).'"
Now interestingly the author (in the convention of apocalyptic) has
Moses in this preview reveal the people's point of view not only in
their present corporate sin in exile and its fulfilment of Moses' former
prophecy; but Moses also has the people in exile disclose retrojectively
Israel's condition throughout the entire Exodus preceding
Moses'
prophecy in the Testament of Moses at the border of the promised
land: Moses was a suffering mediator, 'who suffered many things {qui
multa passus est) in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for
forty years' (3.11). That his suffering was integral to his role as
mediator and that this mediation was necessary on account of Israel's
sin is certain as the people's lament continues on {et), 'and he
assuredly called heaven and earth as witnesses against us that we
should not transgress God's commandments of which he had become
the mediator for us?' (3.12)." In other words, as in the frame of the
Testament of Moses (cf. esp. his propitiatory prayers, 11.17), so in
the historical preview itself Moses' mediation is owing to Israel's
unrelenting sin. Moses' suffering is thus on their behalf
At the end of the period of captivity, someone 'enters' into Israel's
predicament who resembles Moses. Not only is he 'over them' ( 4 . 1 —
supra eos; cf. 11.1; 12.1—ad pedes Mouse), but he 'kneels upon his
knees' {et ponet genua sua, 4.1) and prays on Israel's behalf, reminding
God of the covenant (4.1-4; cf. 11.17b), as he pleads for God's compassion in delivering them from die Gentiles (cf. 11.17; 12.8). And as
witii Moses' prayers, so now again God allows die people to go (back)
into the land. But the restoration is only partial; only two tribes return
and they begin to lament that they are not able again to offer sacrifices
to the Lord (4.6-9).'*
In fact, no sooner is this return described than the 'times of
punishment and vengeance are already drawing nigh' (5.1). Chapters
14. Emphasis mine.
15. Emphasis mine.
16. The lament over sacrifices is not clear; probably 'die lesser glory* (Hag. 2.3)
of die second Temple plays some role but probably also some critique of die priest's
performance (e.g. Mai. 1.7). Charles {Assumption of Moses, p. 15 n. 8) points to 1
En. 89.73 and 2 Bar. 68.5. 6; cf. Collins. 'Traditio-Historical Problems', p. 43;
Reese. Geschichte Israels, pp. 1(X)-101.
212
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
5-7, no matter how many stages of transmission and/or interpolations
may be represented," present an era in which evil abounds among
Israel's ' k i n g s ' , priests and judges such that the Temple and its
sacrifices are polluted beyond all comparison. Only by reinvoking the
slavery of Egypt can the horrors of Israel's apostasy be suitably
imaged (6.1-7). Accordingly Israel's punishment will be gready
intensified (chs. 8-9). Now a 'king of the kings of the earth' instead of
'die east', 3 . 1 , comes to execute unprecedented persecution and
torture, forcing Israel to blaspheme die L a w . " But once again someone
enters the scene, who even more than die figure of ch. 4 resembles
Moses: 1. Like die Moses of die frame, Taxo, in 'first person' narradon, presumes to know God's purpose and limitadon in the Gendles'/
nadons' punishment of Israel. Now instead of Moses direcdy teaching
Joshua God's intendon, Taxo (through Moses the narrator) is teaching
his sons. The measure of punishment inflicted by the nadons, who
diemselves are impious and commit abominations against God, is just
about full ( 9 . 2 - 4 ) ; " 2. Taxo invokes a long line of 'parents* and dieir
17. The final form of T. Mos. requires a reading of chs. 7-10 in dieir present
sequence in order to make logical sense of Taxo's role in die final events of ch. 10.
Taxo himself (9.2-3) refers to an unprecedented persecution diat has already befallen
die people, a 'second punishment... surpassing die former one'; diough the text of
8.1a is corrupt, it intfoduces precisely just diat. a 'vengeance and wradi such as has
never happened to diem from die beginning up to diat time in which...' (ultio et ira
quae talis non fuit in illis a saeculo usque ad ilium tempus in quo). Moses is thus
linking Taxo's significance direcdy to diis final persecution (and hence to Moses'
own suffering!); note also die four 'horae' that come when 'the times will be ended'
(7.1). See further. J. Licht. 'Taxo, or the Apocalyptic Docuine of Vengeance'. JJS
12 (1961). pp. 101-103; Reese. Geschichte Israels, pp. 102-16; J.J. Collins. 'The
Date and Provenance of die Testament of Moses', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on
the Testament of Moses, pp. 17-22).
18. blasfemare verbum... haec leges (8.5); in 11.16 Moses is 'lord of the word'
(dominum verbi). In 1.9, 16 Moses' prophetic word to Joshua on Israel's law is
represented as die 'book'. T. Mos.
19. The analogy of even greater suffering and punishment for Israel vis-J-vis that
of the nations holds only if Taxo is comparing Israel's sin over against die nations'
'impiety' and 'abominations' against the Lord. As in the message of Deutero-Isaiah
(40.2). die emphasis in T. Mos. is that widi Taxo's (and sons') persecution and deadi
Israel will have 'paid' die full measure for their sin. Yet it must also be seen that die
basis of Taxo's declaration is a clear admission of Israel's guilt and God's righteous
punishment, i.e.. an orientation of repentance (see also 1.18; 3.4-7; 4,1-4; 11.17;
12.6) See also Charles, Assumption of Moses, p. 15 n. 8; Steck,Israel, pp. 172-73;
Atonement
213
forebears who did not transgress the commands of the Lord. Neither
does Taxo intend to do so. Like die line of the faithful, Taxo and his
sons will not tempt God so as to (ut) make themselves vulnerable to
breaking die commands. Radier, diey will go into a cave and die, if
need be/preferably (potius, 9.6), before transgressing 'die commands
of die God of our forebears'. In odier words, Taxo knows that his
'strength' lies in acdng in solidarity with a long lineage of a faithful
remnant who refused to violate the Law (9.5). In 11.16 (frame) it is
Moses, 'worthy of die Lord, lord of die word, who was faidiful in all
diings'. 3. Like Moses, Taxo knows diat God will use his own faidifulness and his death to bring deliverance for Israel. Ironically, as
Moses' death must occur before Israel can enter into the land of the
covenant, so Taxo's death must occur as the final act of faithful
suffering before Israel enters its exalted place in the final purpose of
die covenant (10.8-10, 15).^° For as Moses continues to narrate in his
prophecy of die future (lO.l-lO),^' Taxo's (and sons') deadi/'blood'
will indeed be 'avenged' by die Most High, Eternal God, who himself
will come to avenge Israel of their enemies (9.7, sanguis noster
vindicabitur coram Domino; 10.7, Deus aeternus solus...veniet
ut
vindicet gentes; cf. 10.2: die chief angel vindicabit illos ab inimicis
eorum). In fact, Moses' death (as we have seen) marks the beginning
of the '250 times' that must run their course until Taxo's (and sons')
deadi ushers in die final 'Kingdom' of God. What Moses' deadi in his
suffering mediation makes effective and seals for the end, Taxo's (and
sons') death completes and unlocks in his suffering mediation at the
end. Like Moses, Taxo describes God's 'visitation' upon a guilty
nation (9.2-3; cf. 1.18; 8.1).^^ But now unlike Moses, Taxo declares
that God's punishment upon Israel through the Gentiles is now dirough
his own faithful suffering becoming completely full. Consequendy,
Reese, Geschichte Israels, pp. 95-99; SjSberg. Gott und die Siinder, p. 250 n. 4.
20. Notice how Israel's 'kingdom' (regnum) of 2.2-9 is consummated in the
'kingdom' (regnum) of God in 10.1-10.
21. It is not certain in 10.1-10 whedier Taxo continues to speak in Moses'narration or if Moses utters the eschatological 'hymn' directly, as I am assuming. If die
former, dien my third point stands out all die more.
22. For the relation of Taxo's fasting to ritual repentance, see. e.g..
Reese. Geschichte Israels, pp. 110-11. who mentions 1 Sam. 7.6; Joel 1.14; 2.1214; Neh. 9.1-38; Jon. 3.7-8. Dan. 9.3. 4-19 should also be mentioned. Cf., e.g..
G.W.E. Nickelsburg. 'Introduction', in idem (ed.). Studies on the Testament of
Moses, pp. 8-9; Collins, 'Traditio-Historical Problems', pp. 41-42.
214
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
the faithfulness, which in the frame Moses represents and charges to
Joshua in 1.10, 16; 10.11, 15 and then predicts will exist in part at the
close of the 250 dmes (10.11; 12.10-13), is consummated through
Taxo (and sons).^'
By incorporating the historical preview with the frame of the
Testament of Moses we can now fill out and sunmiarize die role of
Moses' death in die Testament of Moses.
1.
2.
3.
Moses' death makes effective for the remainder of Israel's
history the compassion and long-suffering of God for a sinful
nation as had been mediated already through die propitiatory
prayers of intercession and the faithful suffering of Moses.
Rather than a crisis for Israel, Moses' death is an assurance
of his role as the eternal mediator of die covenant and tiius a
seal of Israel's final deliverance and blessing. In and of itself,
Moses' death is not given atoning significance. But taken
together with his appointment as suffering intercessor 'on
tiieir behalf and 'for their sins', his death is critical to an
atoning of God's anger and punishment for Israel's sin.
Moses' intercession, as sealed through his death, continues
tiirough a line of faidiful obedience to the commands of the
covenant. Taxo's faithfulness to the Law in the midst of suffering (persecution) and impending death completes Moses'
mediation for a sinful Israel and initiates God's vengeance
upon the Gentile punishers of Israel through the advent of
God and God's final kingdom.
Moses' words or writing, in other words the Testament of
Moses, is not simply a special apocalypse/revelation of the
true interpretation of the commandments given through
Moses; it is rather, more importantiy, a key to understanding
the persecution and faidiful suffering of Israel at die time the
Testament of Moses was composed (and revised). In order to
23. For discussions of Taxo's role and identity, see. e.g.. H.H. Rowley, The
Relevance of Apocalyptic (New Yoik: Association Press. 1964), pp. 149-56; Collins,
'Date and Provenance', pp. 22-30; Rhoads, 'Assumption', pp. 55-58; Priest.
'Reflecdons'.pp. 97-104; C. Lattey. 'The Messianic Expectation in "The Assumption
of Moses'", CBQ 4 (1942). pp. 9-21; Reese. Geschichte Israels, pp. 103-10;
S.K. Williams. Jesus' Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a
Concept (HDR, 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 69-70; S. ZeiUin, "The
Assumption of Moses and die Revolt of Bar Kokba', JQR 38 (1947-48). pp. 27-45.
MOESSNER Suffering,
intercession.
Atonement
215
understand the Endzeit or eschatological import of Taxo's
suffering and death one must look to die decisive beginning
or Urzeit of Israel's deliverance dirough the suffering mediadon and deadi of Moses. Moses' death, therefore, is not only
formally important as a determinadve setdng for a 'testament'
and/or 'apocalypse'; more significandy it is also materially
constitutive of a proper or perhaps even authoritative interpretation of Israel's predicament under persecution.
II
A number of trajectories through Luke-Acts, though indicating
fundamental differences with the Testament of Moses, point nevertiieless to a closely parallel view of Israel's past and tiie need for a
decisive eschatological act of God to deliver Israel first and foremost
from its own sin, as well as from the destruction of the Gentiles. In
bodi the Testament of Moses and Luke-Acts, God acts decisively for
Israel in the life and death of Moses/Jesus to effect eschatological
salvation.
1. Luke-Acts presents Israel as a whole, including its leaders, as
rejecting its suffering, interceding deliverer and his messengers.
This rejection by the 'evil generation' (Lk. 11.29) of Jesus' day
epitomizes an Israel that, from its very inception, has been disobedient
and whose unbroken rejection of the commands of God throughout its
history has been most poignantly displayed at its central place in
Jerusalem.
a. Jesus' Pronouncements of Judgments. Luke has Jesus utter warnings,
laments and oracles of judgment against die dirongs of Israel and their
leaders who have come out to hear him. Whedier in Galilee, along the
great journey or in Jerusalem, the nation as a whole has refused to
repent at the preaching of Jesus whose words are wiser than
Solomon's and brook a judgment far greater dian Jonah's (11.29-32):
Galilee (9.41; 10.13-16); Journey (11.42-48, 49-51, 52; 12.54-13.9,
22-30; 13.31-35; cf. 19.27); Jerusalem (19.41-44; 20.9-18, 45-47;
21.5-6). In fact, upon the generation of Jesus' day will fall the
'bloodguilt' of all of Israel's generations whose stream of blood begins
witii Abel in Genesis and flows dirough dieir history up to Zechariah
216
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
ben Jehoida whose 'murder' at the Temple is recorded in the last book
of the Writings. Because Jesus himself now receives the prophet's
reward at Jerusalem—'You stoner and killer of those sent' by God—
Israel's 'house' there 'will be abandoned' (11.47-53; 13.33-35a).
b. Calls to Repentance in the Speeches in Acts. At several points in
addresses by the apostles and witnesses in Acts, particularly in the
earlier speeches in the Temple precincts, the people as a whole and
their leaders are accused of killing their own anointed one, Jesus, who
had been sent to diem (Acts 2.36b; 3.13-15; sending, 3.26; cf. 3.202 1 ; 4.10-11; cf. 4.27; 5.30; 7.51-53). The only proper response is to
repent, especially since this one whom they killed came as the prophet
like Moses to consummate a long line of persecuted and murdered
prophets and messengers (2.38; 3.18-19a, 22-26; 7.35-53; 13.40-41;
26.20-23). This accusation reaches its first climax at the Temple, the
central place of Israel's worship, in Stephen's retrospect of Israel's
past when he, similar to Moses' prospect in the Testament of Moses,
characterizes tiieir entire history as an idolatrous disobedience of die
Law (7.53; cf. esp. Neh. 9.26, 30).
c. Jesus, Peter and the Apostles, Stephen, and Paul as Suffering Intercessors. Like Moses together widi the intercessors of chs. 4 and 9 in
T. Mos., so in Luke-Acts Jesus is portrayed as a suffering intercessor
on behalf of Israel's sin whose mediation continues after his death
through the apostles/witnesses of Acts.
Jesus. Not only is Jesus often at prayer (more than the other
Synoptics), his praying also occurs at pivotal points in his gathering a
laos and in their growing rejection of his sending to bring Israel
eschatological release (aphesis) from dieir own sin. From his baptism
with 'all the laos' who have heeded John's call to repentance (Lk.
3.21-22, 7-14) to his selection of 'twelve' 'aposdes' from tiie large
gathering of disciples of the laos from Judaea and Jerusalem and the
districts of Tyre and Sidon (6.12-13, 17), to die feeding of the
burgeoning laos in the wilderness near Bethsaida (9.13-17), to the
disciples journeying with him to Jerusalem (11.1-4; cf. 10.38), to the
twelve gathered at die Passover table in Jerusalem (22.14-20), Jesus is
in soUdarity with Israel at prayer as he proclaims the final reign of
God and exhorts a change of posture vis-^-vis God's powerful presence
Atonement
217
(e.g. 6.18-49; 9.10-11; 11.5-36; 22.28-38). In keeping with this
picture—and even more striking—îs Jesus at prayer at those moments
when resistance begins to set in and when it becomes increasingly
clear that the posture of this same laos and disciples will lead
inevitably to his death. For example: 1. Lk. 5.16 with 5.17-6.11:
Pharisees and the scribes attempt to take the 'Son of Humankind to
legal proceedings' (cf. esp. 5.24; 6.5, 7 ) ; " 2. Lk. 9.18 widi 9.19-27:
the Son of Humankind will suffer many things from the leaders in
Jerusalem and the crowds at large (cf. esp. 9.26); 3. Lk. 9.28-29 with
9.30-45: 'the Son of Humankind will be delivered over into the "hands
of humans" of a "faidiless and crooked generation'" (cf. esp. 9.41,
44); 4. Lk. 22.31-32 witii 22.33-38: Peter and die eleven at table in
Jerusalem will have their 'faidi' fail when die Son of Humankind is
delivered over by one of diose at diat very table! (cf. esp. 22.21-27).
The narrator brings all of this prayer for the disciples and for Israel
to a climax on die Mount of Olives when Jesus, warning his disciples
to pray lest diey 'enter into' the coming temptation, 'sets his knees
upon tiie earth' and pleads for a reprieve from the 'cup of wratii'^'
against Israel which he is to 'drink' through his deatii (22.41-42, 3946). Nevertheless, the will of the 'Father' for a generation that
'sleeps', 'comes out with swords and clubs', and 'delivers over the Son
of Humankind with a kiss' must be done. Consequendy it is not merely
artistic detail when Jesus' last words on the cross are prayer for Israel
as he surrenders his life to God's will on dieir behalf (23.46; 23.34,
43). In life and death Jesus is die great intercessor for Israel.
In Acts as well as in Luke the persecutions and rejections of the
apostles and messengers sent to Israel come at critical junctures and
are portrayed as suffering and intercession for Israel:
Peter and the Apostles. Peter and the apostles' preaching of repentance
and offer of eschatological life to Israel which is centered at Israel's
place of worship is sharply opposed by the guardians of diat cult. The
abuse, beatings and imprisonment of Acts 4 - 5 are summarized in 5.41
as suffering or being 'shamefully treated on behalf of the name' of
Jesus Messiah. This suffering dius becomes a means or medium through
24. On the role of the Pharisees and their scribes in the death of Jesus in Luke,
see D.P. Moessner. 'The "Leaven of die Pharisees" and "This Generation": Israel's
Rejection of Jesus according to Luke', JSNT 34 (1988). pp. 21-46.
25. Seeesp. Isa. 51.17-23.
218
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
which the eschatological life of 'this name* is extended to Israel. This
'name', as especially in E)euteronomy-2 Kings,^* represents the Lord's
presence for the release of sin through repentance (and baptism—
2.21, 38; 4.12—en ho) and, in addition, embodies an authoritative
presence 'by means of which' healing is effected (3.6—en to; 4.7—en;
4.10—en to; cf. 3.16; 4.7, 17, 18; 5.28, 40). In ch. 4 a 'speech'
provides the early community's interpretadon of diis persecution by
dieir appropriation of Ps. 2.1-2 in a prayer on behalf of tiie whole
people of Israel. Spoken by David, die Lord's 'servant', Ps. 2.1-2 not
only prophesies die violent treatment in Jerusalem of Jesus, the Lord's
'servant', but also continues to depict the ill-treatment of the apostles
and early community of messianists, the Lord's 'servants' (Acts 4.25,
27 and 30, 29). But now instead of summoning Psalm 2 to vindicate
their own reactions through a ' w e - t h e y ' posture and praying for
punishment of the Temple guardians and/or escape from persecution,
the early community intercedes for their peers, the people of Israel.
May die Lord use 'their threats' to continue the powerful signs and
wonders in tiie midst of bold preaching 'through/by means of (dia) the
name of your holy servant Jesus' (4.29-30). Their prayer thus is for
die continuing mediation of eschatological life through 'the name' in
tiie midst of suffering on behalf of the whole laos of Israel. This
notion of suffering mediation for Israel is accented all tfie more by die
narrator's eagerness to point out the favor and esteem in which the
community was held by the laos (2.47; 4.21; 5.13). Whereas die
blanket charge of stoning the prophets and messengers sent to Israel
typically indicts the whole nation's disobedience (Lk. 11.47-51; 13.34
[cf. 4.16-30!]; Acts 7.51-52, 59), here die Temple authorities diemselves might fall victim to stoning by die laos of Israel (5.26)!
Stephen. Stephen's speech (Acts 7.1-53) functions as a commentary on
Israel's reception of its messianic salvation after the fateful twist of
events in 6.8-15 in which the laos for die first time are 'stirred u p '
against the messianic community (6.12, 9-11). As the closing accusations of the speech make amply clear, diis resistance to Stephen on die
part of some of the people continues the long history of stubborn
rejection of all the prophets and messengers on the part of the whole
26. For the classic and sUU determinadve study, see G. von Rad, 'Deuteronomy's
"Name" Theology and the Priesdy Document's "Kabod" Theology', in Studies in
Deuteronomy [SBT, 9; London: SCM Pi«ss. 1953). pp. 37-44.
MOESSNER Suffering, intercession,
Atonement
219
nation, which has come to a climax in their killing of Jesus the Just
One, the prophet like Moses (7.37-41, 51-53). Moreover, the narrator
has taken pains to dovetail the charges against Stephen with those
against Jesus:
He [Stephen] speaks blasphemous words against Moses and God [cf. Lk.
22.71; 23.5, 1 4 ] . . . never ceasing to speak words against diis holy place
and die Law. for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazaredi will
destroy this place and will change the customs Moses delivered to us
(Acts 6.11b. 13b-14).
Yet Stephen's counter-accusation (Scheltwort) that Israel's worship at
the promised central place is utterly idolatrous, continuous with the
worship of the calf in the wilderness (7.51, 37-40, 52-53), does not
flow over into pronouncement of judgment (Wehe- or Drohwort; contrast Jesus in Lk. 11.42-52; 13.35a; 19.43-44; 21.6). Rather Stephen
sees the 'glory of God' (cf Acts 7.2) and Jesus, die Son of Humankind,
standing at the right of this glory (see Lk. 22.49!). And as he dies
outside die city, like Jesus—but now praying to Jesus—Stephen offers
over his spirit, and Jailing on his knees cries out, "Lord, do not hold
diis sin against diem'" (7.59-60; Lk. 23.46, 34). Like the early
community in Acts 4, suffering at the hands of Israel is met with
prayer on behalf of Israel. In life and death Stephen is united widi the
great intercessor for Israel.
Paul. The narrator first introduces Paul precisely when Stephen is
interceding for Israel. Later the narrator will present a summary of
Paul's enure calling to Israel when Paul himself is nearly killed by die
people in Jerusalem and invokes die 'blood of Stephen your [Jesus']
witness', whose murder Paul had been 'actively approving' (7.58; 8.13; 22.1-16, 17-22). This link is hardly fortuitous. Indeed, Israel's
hardness and growing opposition to the apostles/witnesses of eschatological salvation is tiie thread that weaves the entire tapestry of Acts
togetiier.
Each of tiie three descriptions of Paul's calling to Israel and the
nations stresses the central role of suffering (9.16; 22.15, 18, 2 1 ;
26.16-17), not merely as a consequence but as a necessary means or
agency through which 'forgiveness of sins' is enacted:
220
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
It is a 'divine necessity' {dei) that Paul 'bear the name of the
Lord Jesus' 'before the nations and their kings as well as
before the children of Israel' (9.15), and by bearing this
name 'suffer for the sake of my name' (9.16);
This necessary suffering is linked to die threefold insistence
that Paul's own persecution of tfiose who call upon die name
of Messiah Jesus (9.21-22) was actually a persecution of Jesus
himself (9.4-5; 22.7-8; 26.14-15). Thus somehow Jesus is not
only present in the 'name' but is so as one in solidarity with
die suffering of the community (cf. 4.23-31; 5.41-42);
Consequendy Paul is first introduced as the representative
par excellence of tiie 'stiff-necked' generation of Stephen's
audience, in fact, as the great inflamer of the first major persecution of the Jerusalem messianist conununity (7.51-53, 58;
8.1-3; 9.1-2, 13-14; 22.4-5, 19-20; 26.9-11). Ironically, tiien,
Stephen, aflame with the glory^' of Jesus, the Son of
Humankind, becomes the great intercessor for Paul and the
whole people of Israel (9.1-2, 14, 2 1 ; 22.5; 26.10, 12).
Stephen's intercessory role is highlighted further by the
sudden turn of affairs in Paul's own fate: first in Damascus
by fellow Jews (9.23-25) and then back in Jerusalem by nonmessianist Hellenists (9.29-30) Paul becomes die victim of his
own ravages;^'
But tiirough the suffering of Stephen and the Jerusalem
community and then Paul, the 'name of Jesus' is taken to
Samaria (ch. 8), Phoenicia, Cyprus, and eventually to Syria
(11.19), where first Jews and then Gentiles receive 'the
release of sin' ('name': 8.12, 16; 9.27, 28; 10.43, 48; 15.14,
17, 26; 16.18; 19.5, 17; 21.13; cf. 22.16; 26.9; 'release'/
'forgiveness of sins': 10.43; 13.38; 26.18; cf. 22.16!).
In two speeches toward the end of Paul's mission the narrator
summarizes Paul's entire sending to Israel as wholesale rejection and
suffering at dieir hands:
27. For the connection of glory with Jesus. Peter and the aposdes. Stephen, and
Paul, see Moessner. 'The Christ Must Suffer', pp. 227-56.
28. Notice the ironic use of 'to bind' {ded): Paul who is zealous to bind all diose
who call on the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 9.2. 14. 21; 22.5) becomes preeminendy die one bound by his fellow Jews (24.27; cf. 28.20). even as he is bound
'in die Spirit' (20.22) to be bound in Jerusalem! (21.11,13. 33; 22.29).
Atonement
221
Acts 20.18-35, 36-38. Paul's whole time in Asia is characterized by
him as a 'service of humiliation and tears and trials which befell
me'—not by the pagan silversmidi guild and die riodng chauvinists of
Ephesus and her patroness Artemis (19.23-41)—^but 'by die plots of
die Jews' (20.18b-19). Not only diis, Paul declares diat 'in every city'
of his mission (kata polin) 'the Holy Spirit keeps bearing witness to
me that chains and afflicdons await m e ' as he is 'bound to go to
Jerusalem' (20.23; cf., e.g., 20.3). But, Paul insists, 'he is innocent of
die blood guilt of all' die Jews (20.26). What is at stake is not diat his
own life be preserved, but rather that the mission he 'received from
die Lord Jesus' be 'fulfilled' (20.24).^ As Paul departs 'he falls down
on his knees with them all in prayer', while the 'elders weep,
sorrowing...because diey would not again see his face' (20.36-38).
Acts 22.1-21. The narrator provides a further glimpse into Paul's
own appraisal of his mission to Israel as well as illuminadon of
the Ephesian departure speech and prayer when Paul makes his
defense before die lynching mob just outside die gates of die Temple.
'I am a Jew', he declares, just 'as zealous for God as are all of you'
(22.3). As a prime persecutor of die Way, he had to learn that he was
actually persecuting 'Jesus of Nazareth', 'the Just One', who was alive
and whom he 'had been appointed...to see and to hear* (22.7-8, 14).
In fact, by 'calling upon his name* and 'being baptized*, his grave
'sins* would be 'washed away* before becoming a 'witness (martus)
to all peoples* of the persecuted Just One he had just 'seen and
heard* (22.14-16). Paul moves quickly to another vision of the 'Just
One' (cf. 26.16b!), a flashback to his first experience in Jerusalem
after Damascus, a 'first-person* recounting of 9.26-30. 'In the Temple
while at prayer* Paul 'sees him saying, "Hurry and leave quickly
from Jerusalem since the residents of Jerusalem will not receive
your witness (marturia) concerning me*'*. But Paul retorts that
tiieir behavior is understandable. After all he himself was a ringleader of the persecution and 'when the blood of Stephen your wimess
(martus) was being shed, I myself was standing alongside actively
approving, even as I guarded the mantles of those who were killing
29. Notice how Jesus in Lk. 19.41-44 and Paul in Acts 20.19. 31 weep for/over
Israel in die midst of opposition from Israel to their mission to Israel. In T. Mos.
11.1-4. in a similar context in which Israel has been depicted as increasing in
disobedience until the end of history, Moses and Joshua weepl
222
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
him* (22.17-20). If not a defense of his fellow Israelites, clearly at
least Paul's distress at diat dme in die Temple, as in Miletus in 20.24
(22-27), is not so much for his own life as it is for the life of Israel
(cf. also 26.6-8, 19-23, 28-29!). When he is told dien diat he will be
'sent to die nadons' {eis ethne, 22.21), diis cannot mean diat he will no
longer nor even primarily go to Jews, but diat he is being sent outside
Judaea (Palestine) into die nations, as Acts 13-19 make amply clear
(see esp. 13.26 in Antioch of Pisidia: 'sons and daughters of the family
of Abraham...to us has been sent (exapestale) die message of diis
salvation'; cf. also Lk. 24.47—eis panta ta ethne arxamenoi apo
lerousaleml).^" 'It is*, as he says in Rome, 'because of tiie hope of
Israel tiiat I am bearing tiiis chain' (28.20). Paul is sketched, rather,
like Stephen and Jesus, 'on his knees* for die sake of Israel.
To sum up, like die Testament of Moses, Luke-Acts presents a line
of suffering intercessors on behalf of IsraePs sin that harks back to a
decisive, seminal mediation, now in Jesus tiie Just One who is the
prophet like Moses. Unlike the Testament of Moses, in which the
Israel of Taxo*s day has suffered God*s punishment for their sin
nearly to completion, thus making the function of repentance only
secondary, in Luke-Acts the call to repentance is central and invokes
the judgment tiiat awaits a disobedient people. This difference also
explains why IsraeFs rejection of its own mediators or 'witnesses* is in
tiie forefront in Luke-Acts, whereas in die Testament of Moses tiiis
aspect recedes as a fact of dieir past.
2. As a corollary to L, Jesus' mediation of the covenant to Israel
through his suffering and death is. like Moses' in the Testament of
Moses, an eschatological event in the preordained plan of God for the
whole world.
As in the Testament of Moses, eschatological release from Israel *s
own sin and God*s punishment through the Gentiles must (dei) occur
through a line of suffering and intercession by a faithful remnant
before God's final judgment takes place.
30. For discussions of die pattern of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah for Paul's
mission in Acts, see D.P. Moessner. 'The Ironic Fulfillment of Israel's Glory', in
J.B. Tyson (ed.). Luke-Acts and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Augsburg
Publishing House. 1988). pp. 35-50. and die articles by D.L. Tiede (pp. 35-50)
and R.C. Tannehill (pp. 83-101) in die same volume.
Atonement
223
a. The Divine Necessity in the Plan and Foreknowledge of God.
Luke. In fulfilment of Simeon's oracle that the 'saving act of God' is
to take place through the preordained or 'pre-set' (keitai) sign that
will be opposed in Jesus (Lk. 2.34-35), Jesus' endre public activity is
controlled by the divine necessity (dei) of his suffering rejection and
death at the hands of his own people in Jerusalem. The predictions of
Jesus* passion placed in the mouth of Jesus himself by the narrator
provide programmatic organization of the plot, especially from the
end of the Galilaean phase throughout the long journey to its climax at
'tiie skull* ( 9 . 2 2 ^ 1 3 . 3 3 - ^ 1 7 . 2 5 ^ 2 2 . 3 7 ^ 2 4 . 7 ^ 2 4 . 2 6 ^ 2 4 . 4 4 - 4 6 ) . In
die penultimate finale of the Lukan passion meal, and unlike the
Testament of Moses, Jesus explicitly signifies his death/shedding of
blood as an atoning death 'on your behalf (22.19-20), diat is, for the
'twelve* and dius for all Israel (cf. 22.28-30). But like die Testament
of Moses, Jesus' death 'completes' or 'fulfils' die divine necessity of
his whole calling to rejection and suffering intercession for Israel as
die mediator of the 'new* covenant (22.20^22.22-^22.37). In the
denouement (ch. 24) the divine necessity is clarified first by two
'heavenly*/'flashing' 'messengers* (cf. 24.4; 24.23) and dien by die
risen Jesus himself who 'opens up* the whole of Israel's Scriptures:
Moses and die prophets point forward to the preordained necessity of
Messiah's suffering death and exaltation in securing eschatological
release for a faidiless Israel (24.25-27 [del], 30-32, 44-46 [dei]).
Instead of diis revelation constituting a new 'book'/'writing' preserved
to unlock the meaning for Israel's future, as in the Testament
of
Moses, Jesus* parting words to his successor(s) constitute a charge and
function as the plot motivator as well as the clarifier of the movements
of these 'witnesses* in the 'end days* for Israel (24.46-49 [manures];
cf. Acts 1.8 [manures]; 2.17a).
Acts. In tiie sequel, the divine foreordination continues to elucidate die
overriding movement of die actions and journeys of the apostles and
witnesses, while linking up with the necessity of the suffering of the
Christ as the center of fulfilment of the prophets and all of Israel's
Scriptures
(Acts 1.16, 2 1 - 2 2 ^ 2 . 2 2 - 2 3 - 4 3 . 1 8 , 2 1 - 2 5 ^ 8 . 2 6 , 3235-49.4-5, 16-4l3.27-30^14.22-»17.3 [11, 17; 18.5, 19, 28; 19.89 ] - 4 l 9 . 2 1 ^ 2 2 . 7 - 1 0 , 14-15->23.11^26.14-16, 2 2 - 2 3 ^ 2 7 . 2 4 ) . What
this divine necessity has accomplished and continues to effect is the
eschatological removal of sin and disobedience for Israel, and now.
224
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
unlike the Testament of Moses, for the nations as well (2.38; 3.26;
5.31; 10.43; 13.38; 26.18).
b. The Times of the Gentiles as the Time of Witness.
Luke-Acts. As Moses' parting words to his successor, Joshua (7". Mos.
12.1-13), clarify the relationship with Moses' own role and the function of future intercessors in Israel's history through the time of the
end (T. Mos. 3.1-10.5), so also Jesus' parting words to his successorsapostles-witnesses (Lk. 24.44-49; Acts 1.4b-8) clarify the relationship
between Jesus' own role and tiie function of diese witnesses widiin the
apocalyptic forecast of Israel's history and time of tiie end (Lk. 21.536). As in die Testament of Moses, the mediation of the covenant continues but now in a mediated presence of Jesus himself, the prophet
like Moses who has been raised up from the dead. The mediation
dirough Jesus' witnesses is depicted in a variety of ways and by various terms. But one central conception of this mediation, as we have
seen, is die presence of die name in die 'testimony' or 'witness' of the
church (martus: Lk. 24.48; Acts 1.8, 22, 2.32; 3.15; 5.32; 10.39. 4 1 ;
13.31;22.15,20; 26.16; negative or opposing marrwre^: 6.13; 7.58; cf.
22.5; see also 'actively approve/consent' [syneudokeo]: Lk. 11.48; Acts
8.1; 22.20; marturion/marturia:
Lk. 21.13; Acts 4.33; 22.18; cf. 7.44;
dia-martur-omai/ed: 2.40; 10.42, 43; 14.3; 15.8; 18.5; 20.21, 23, 24.
26; 23.11; 26.22; 28.23; cf. 22.5; 26.5).
Luke 21.5-36. According to Jesus' prediction in Luke the razing of
die Temple forms die first climax of a period of 'testimony'/'witness'
(marturion) in which die disciples are 'persecuted', 'delivered over' to
die synagogues and prisons, 'brought before kings and governors' all
'on account of/'for the sake of die name' of Jesus (21.12-13). They do
not need to rehearse ahead of time how they are 'to give a defense'
(apologethenai) during this period of testimony, since Jesus himself
(ego) will still be present with them to give it to them (21.14-15).
Some of tiie disciples will be killed, all will be hated 'because of the
name' of Jesus which in one way or anodier is associated with diem or
is in tiieir midst (21.16-17). Unlike Mark and Matdiew. Luke follows
diis period of persecution of Jesus' disciples by fellow Jews not by an
intensified 'abomination of desolation' (bdelugma tes eremoseos) (Mk
13.14; Mt. 24.15) performed by Gentiles in die Temple, but by an
eremdsis of destruction upon Jerusalem and the Temple as punishment
Atonement
225
solely upon 'this people' Israel (21.20-23b). Moreover, this judgment
corresponds to 'the days of retribution/vengeance' 'that fulfil/ complete all that has been written' (21.22). But following the exile of the
people and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Gentiles this period or
'dmes of die Gendles/nations' continues on until tiie times come to
completion or are 'filled up' (21.24) with die onset of a final judgment
upon the whole world (21.25-28)." Clearly die time of suffering
'testimony' continues on until the final judgment as well, as only those
disciples who remain faithful, who 'stay awake/alert', will be able to
escape not only the judgment upon Israel (21.19) but also the universal assize before die Son of Humankind (21.25-36). 'When diese diings
begin to happen, snap to attention and lift up your heads because your
liberation/atonement (apolutrosis)
is drawing near' (21.28). This
sequence of judgment first upon Israel and dien upon the Gentile
punishers of Israel, in which a faithful remnant is saved, is sdikingly
close to the Testament of Moses. In both, only when the full number
of 'times' of mediation of the covenant through suffering are completed does the judgment upon Israel leading to the judgment upon die
nations take place. And bodi the Testament of Moses and Luke-Acts
are remarkably close to the apocalyptic prospect of the Song of
Moses, Eteut. 32.1-43, in which a final judgment upon Israel, because
of their unrelenting sin after they have settied the land, precedes the
final judgment upon the Gentile punishers of Israel. Now Yahweh in
this final 'day of recompense' (hemera ekdikesesos, Deut. 32.35; cf.
Lk. 21.22!) 'avenges die blood of his servants... and makes atonement
for die land, for his people' (Deut. 32.43 [see 2 Mace. 7.6])—T. Mos.
9.7: 'sanguis noster vindicabitur coram Domino'—Acts
5.30-32a:
'The God of our forebears raised Jesus whom you violently killed by
hanging upon a tree. This one God has exalted to his right hand as
leader of life and savior in order to give repentance to Israel and
removal of sin'.
We can draw together several implications from tiie results of our
study:
31. In the Synoptic imagery of Jesus' prediction of the 'final catastfophe' of die
universe, only Luke (21.25-28) has die sequence sun, moon, stars and sea, similar
to T. Mos. 10.5-6 (cf. M t 24.29-31; Mk 13.24-27). For Lk. 21 and Deut. 32, see
further D.P. Moessner, 'Paul in Acts: Preacher of Eschatological Repentance to
Israel", NTS 34 (1988), pp. 98-101.
226
1.
2.
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Outside of the New Testament, the Testament of Moses
presents the closest parallel to the eschatological framework
of Luke-Acts. In both, the seminal life and death of a
covenant mediator alters and determines the course of the
rest of Israel's and the nations' history to its consummation.
In other words, in both writings a distinct 'already—not yet'
tension is decisive in the conception of history and of God's
saving process. Even more than the Qumran community,
which in its latter stages was apparently still awaiting tiie
anointed figures of the last days—even if the prophets were
already being fulfilled—die Testament of Moses places God's
decisive actions for the final blessings of the covenant akeady
in the life and deadi of Moses. There are critical differences
within tills framework. Whereas for the Testament of Moses
Moses' life and deatii are determinants for faitiiful Israel's
final exaltation to 'heaven', in Luke-Acts Jesus* life and deatii
and exaltation are decisive for IsraePs and the nation's final
salvation even as these events fulfil 'Moses and all the
prophets'. In bodi writings, however, the essential eschatological framework is devised 'in the appointed plan and
prescience of God' (Acts 2.23; cf. T. Mos. 12.4).
In light of the emphasis in both the Testament of Moses and
Luke-Acts upon intercessory suffering and the death of
Moses/Jesus arising out of that context, the roles of Moses'/
Jesus' death within die overall atoning/saving actions of God
must be revised. With respect to Luke-Acts, die notices of
Jesus' 'suffering many tilings' (polla patheinf^ in the passion
predictions of Lk. 9.22 and 17.25 simply cannot be reduced
to the crucifixion alone, as in certain recent interpretations.
Nor, more importandy, can Jesus' death be reduced to a foil
—ignorance/a terrible mistake of the Jews; the will of God,
etc.—against which the real saving events of resurrectionexaltation or perhaps 'incarnation' in the plan of God take
place. Rather, apart even from the longer reading of
Lk. 22.19b-20, Jesus' death must be read within die larger
development of rejection and release of sin which spans the
entire plot of Luke (and Acts) and is summarized in
Lk. 24.26-27, 46-47 as 'die Messiah had to suffer*. Atomistic
32. Cf. this stock phrase in T. Mos. 3.11: 'mulia passus est'.
MOESSNER Suffering, intercession,
3.
Atonement
227
comparisons of Luke with cross-sections of Mark and Matthew
simply will not do. This broader approach also means that
appeals to a 'martyr theology' of a 2 or 4 Maccabees or to
Greco-Roman counterparts for the deaths of Moses and Taxo
or Jesus and die witnesses in Luke-Acts are also amiss, since
the suffering and deaths in the latter wridngs are given
eschatological significance within a cosmic plan for the whole
of human history.''
The role of Torah faithfulness in Luke-Acts, though the
focus of some debate, needs to be re-evaluated especially in
light of a text such as the Testament of Moses which betrays a
Deuteronomisdc view of Israel's continual disobedience of
Torah and of die role and significance of die Temple and its
destruction in 587 BCE for the future eschatological salvation
of Israel. In bodi the Testament of Moses and Luke-Acts the
'stiff-necked past' of Israel's disobedience comes to a decisive
end in the sufferings and deaths of diose who are Torah faidiful. It is precisely in the light of diis Deuteronomistic perspective on Israel's history that the significance of suffering
and atoning death (see point 2) must be re-illuminated as well.
33. See the discussions in Nickelsburg. 'Antiochan Date', pp. 35-37; Collins,
'Date and Provenance', pp. 22-30; and Williams, Jesus' Death, pp. 59-90, 137202.
THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA IN THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES
Peter H. Davids
The Use of the Pseudepigrapha
in the Catholic
Epistles
It is well known that Jude and 2 Peter make reference to the
pseudepigrapha, especially / Enoch, but it is the purpose of this article
to examine the use made of the pseudepigrapha by all of the nonJohannine Catholic Epistles, especially James and 1 Peter. The results
from the examination of these longer works will in turn be compared
with that of Jude-2 Peter. In this process we will discover something
of how these works make use of their sources, whether pseudepigrapha or Jesus-tradition.
1. James
It is clear that James never cites any of the pseudepigrapha directly.
However, it is just as certain that he knew of the traditions contained
in them, for whenever he cites OT characters he reveals a knowledge
of traditions that were pseudepigraphal. In fact, he may be far more
influenced by these traditions than other writers who make a more
direct use of such material. A series of examples will illustrate.
James cites four OT characters, Abraham, Rahab, Job and Elijah.'
The citation of Abraham in 2.18-24 includes a direct reference to
Gen. 15.6, as well as one to the binding of Isaac narrative in Gen.
22.1-19. But it is also obvious that James knows a somewhat different
version of the Abraham narrative from that in Genesis.^ It is true that
1. An earlier version of this material appeared as Tradition and Citation in die
Episde of James', in W.W. Gasque and W.S. LaSor (eds.). Scripture, Tradition
and Interpretation (E.F. Harrison Festschrift; Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans. 1978).
pp. 113-26.
2. R.B. Ward. '"Works of Abraham": James 2.14-26'. HTR 61 (198). pp.28390. an excerpt from his 1966 ThD dissertation at Harvard, was die first to point out
DAVIDS The Pseudepigrapha
in the Catholic Epistles
229
he selects the climactic event in Abraham's life in the binding of Isaac,
but he is not thinking of it in isolation, for he refers to Abraham's
works (epywv in 2 . 2 1 or epyoK; in 2 . 2 2 ) . Furthermore, in Jas 1 . 1 3
we discover the strange phrase,reeipdCevSe ahxhc, [0e6(;] o v 5 e v a
([God] tests no one). What is strange about diis is diat die LXX of Gen.
2 2 . 1 contains the phrase, 6 0e6<; eiteipaêv tov A p p a a ^ (God tested
Abraham). While it is possible that James does not know the LXX,'
diis particular verse is a good translation of die Hebrew D'nbRm
Dma«-n» noj, following die usual LXX practice of translating no: (to
test) by Tteipdô), and tiius tiiere is no reason to believe tiiat James
would have translated tiie verse otherwise even if he were referring
direcdy to the Hebrew text. At the same time, James cites the OT
repeatedly and appears to value its authority highly, so it is difficult to
imagine that he would easily set a well-known text aside.
The solution to this problem appears immediately if one examines
the account of Abraham in Jubilees. First, in Jub. 1 7 . 1 5 - 1 8 , it is not
God who initiates the test of Abraham, but 'Prince Mastema' who
challenges God. Thus, while Jubilees does not explain why God went
along widi the test, the whole testing situation is recast in a form similar to that of Job. Secondly, Abraham is presented as a person who has
been faidiful through a series of tests.
The Lord was aware that Abraham was faithful in all of his afflictions
because he tested him with his land and with famine. And he tested him
widt the wealdi of kings. And he tested him again widi his wife, when she
was taken (from him), and widi circumcision... In everydiing in which he
tested him. he was found faidiful (Jub. 17.17-18).
In none of these 'tests' is it said in eidier Genesis or Jubilees that God
tested Abraham, but in all of diem Abraham remains faithful to God.
This is significant because 1 . testing is a major theme of James and so
the Abraham example is hardly accidental, and 2 . these multiple tests
this interpretation of the Abraham narrative. He includes a lot of rabbinic material,
which for the purposes of this discussion is irrelevant. I instead choose to foctis on
die pseudepigraphical traditions.
3. S.S. Laws ('Does Scripture Speak in Vain?'. NTS 20 [1974]. pp. 210-15)
has argued that James knows the LXX and cites it exacUy, but more careful study
shows diat in each of die passages which James cites die LXX does not diverge from
die MT. Therefore die similarity to die UCX only shows diat James may have used die
LXX, not diat he necessarily did so. See further P.H. Davids. The Epistle of
James (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1982). p. 10.
230
Interpretation
supply the plural works of Abraham. It is likely, then, that there is a
reference to these plural deeds in Jubilees when the Lord orders the
sacrifice to be halted widi the words, 'Do not let him do anything to
him because I know that he is one who fears the LORD' (Jub. 18.9).
Third, Jubilees 12 records two narratives in which Abraham first
attempts to convince Terah to 'worship the God of heaven' rather than
idols and dien (having earlier burned die house of idols, which triggers
the leaving of Ur) prays to 'my God, the Most High God, you alone
are God to m e ' . This fits widi James's statement of the basic creed as
'God is one' (el? eoxiv 6 9e6(;, Jas 2.19), a creed to which Abraham
subscribed.
It is obvious that this data is not enough to prove that James knew
Jubilees in its final written form. First, we have only firagments of
Jubilees in Hebrew from Qumran. Likewise, we have only fragments
in Greek." Therefore it is difficult to know the exact form in which
James could have known the work. Secondly, while we have content
similarity, we do not have verbal parallels. This fact, of course, is
somewhat mitigated by the fact that verbal parallels with a fragmentary form of Jubilees are hardly possible. Third, die traditions in
Jubilees are also common in rabbinic literature.' Since that literature
is later than Jubilees, it is possibly dependent upon it. But it could also
indicate that there were independent traditions about Abraham and
tiiat Jubilees has recorded only one form of diem. What diis evidence
does prove is diat James knows a form of die Abraham narratives tiiat
Jubilees also knows (possibly because he knows Jubilees itselO and diat
he assumes this so completely diat he apparendy does not imagine diat
his readers might not know this tradition. It has become for him an
overlay grid through which die OT Scripture is to be understood. So
much is this the case that when James writes, J t e i p d ^ e i 5e avxoq
[Oeoq] o v S e v a ('God tests no one'), he apparendy feels no tension
between diis and Gen. 22.1.
A different situation confronts us in Rahab. On the surface there are
no facts demanding explanation through extrabiblical traditions. But
this does not mean diat James knows of none concerning Rahab. The
fact diat he selects Rahab is in itself interesting, since she would
become the archetypal proselyte in later rabbinic literature. Furthermore, in I Clement 10-12 she is joined widi Abraham using language
4.
5.
Cf. O.S. Wintermute, 'Jubilees', in OTP, II, pp. 41-43.
See Davids. 'Tradition and Citadon'. pp. 114-15.
231
similar to that in James. While it is possible that Clement is dependent
upon James, it is also possible that both are depenent upon Jewish
ethical traditions connecting the two.* There is no proof of pseudepigraphical traditions here, but there is evidence of Jewish traditions
being the reason for die selection of this example.
The third OT example used in James is that of Job. Cited along with
the example of the prophets (but separate from them, perhaps
revealing a knowledge that Job is in the writings rather than the
prophets), it is tiie vjiojiovfi (patient endurance) of Job which is the
reason for mentioning him (Jas 5 . 1 ) . But while die prose portions of
Job do show a type of patient endurance,' die poeic sections reveal a
person protesting loudly against God's injustice to him. In what way
have these readers 'heard of the patient endurance of Job'? A brief
examination of the Testament of Job answers the question. This whole
book revolves around the term vreonovfi (patient endurance or
patience), presenting Job's suffering as a contest witii Satan* tiiat lasts
1 7 years and ends leaving Satan in tears. In tiie conclusion of die book
Job comments, 'Now my children you also must be patient in everything that happens to you. For patience is better than anything' (T. Job
27.6-7).
There is also other contact between James and die Testament of Job.
In Jas 5 . 7 - 2 0 James is summarizing the diemes of the book, one of
which is endurance and one of which is generosity. It may be no accident that the Testament of Job contains both those diemes. While
eiidurance is the major one, widiin the Testament Job boasts of his
great generosity (chs. 9 - 1 2 ) . ' One does not wish to make too much of
diis phenomenon, but it is suggestive of a second reason why Job fit
James' conclusion so well.
The Testament of Job itself is normally dated from die first century
6. See H. Chadwick. 'Juslificadon by Faidi and Hospitality'. Studia Patristica
4, pt. 2, in r f / 7 9 (1961). p. 281.
7. In the LXX the root naKpo9v)nea) appears only in Job 7.16; uitonovTj
appears only in Job 14.19. uitonevew appears 14 times, mosdy within the poetic
chs. 3-33, although it also occurs in 4.12. In none of these contexts is Job talking
about his own padent endurance.
8. God warns Job about what is about to happen and dien stands back while
Satan and his champion Job fight it out. This removes God from responsibility for
die events, at least in die mind of die author.
9. This dieme also occurs in canonical Job 29.12-17; 31.16-23 in defense of
Job's righteousness and thus against God's unrighteousness.
232
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
BCE to the first CE. R.P. Spittler suggests that it was first produced in
Greek among the Therapeuts in Egypt and later used by the
Montanists in Asia Minor."* This means that it is possible that James
actually knew the work. However, the data at hand are not extensive
enough (mainly the use of the term vnojiovfi, 'patient endurance') to
prove such a claim. The most we can argue is that James shows contact with the traditions incorporated in the Testament. But as in the
case of Abraham this tradidon colors his perception of the canonical
text. Without die pseudepigraphical tradition we would not be able to
explain James' use of Job as an example.
Finally we come to Elijah, whom James connects to prayer (Jas
5.17-18). While a reasonable assumption on James' part, diis is somediing of a strange reference in that to begin the drought die canonical
Elijah simply appears and makes an announcement that only by his
word will rain come (1 Kgs 17.1). At die end of the drought there is
prayer for fire from heavem (I Kgs 18.36-37) and a posture that
might imply prayer for rain (I Kgs 18.42), but no explicit connection
of prayer and rain. Jewish tradition, however, did connect Elijah and
die Carmel narrative to prayer (m. Ta'an. 2.4)." More importandy,
however, 4 Ezra 7.39 (109) states in a context of intercessory prayer
that 'Elijah [prayed] for those who received the rain, and for one who
was dead, that he might live'. Again we cannot claim that James
actually knew and used 4 Ezra, for in all probability it was completed
after James was already published,'^ but 4 Ezra witnesses to a Jewish
evaluation of Elijah that was current in James' world and colored
10. R.P. Spittler. Testament of Job', in OTP, I. pp. 833-34. Cf. R.A. Kraft.
Testament of Job (Missoula. MT; Scholars Press, 1974), pp. 17-20.
11. In this passage it is staled that on days of fasUng in the temple the Eighteen
BenedicUons were recited along widi die six Remembrance and Shofar verses. After
the fifth of diese verses the person praying is supposed to say. 'May he diat
answered Elijah in Carmel answer you and hearken to die voice of your crying this
day! Blessed art diou. O Lord, that hearest prayer!' The date of this passage is
uncertain. Judah ha-Nasi is die first rabbi to comment upon it. It may or may not go
back to the second temple period. But it does show a u-adidonal connection of Elijah
to prayer which likely does go back diat far.
12. B.M. Metzger ('The Fourdi Book of Ezra', in OTP, I. p. 520) argues diat
die Hebrew original was completed between 100 CE and 'not much after' 120, for
the Greek version had to be circulating in Christian circles before the Bar-Kokhba
revolt. No modem scholar dates James later than 96 CE, which means that James
clearly cannot have used 4 Ezra.
233
how James interpreted the canonical account.
We must not leave the Jacobean material without noting the role of
the devil. Jas 4.7 is the one place in which he is actually mentioned,
but we recognize that he plays a significant role in both Job (canonical
or Testament of Job) and the reinterpretation of the Abraham narrative. That means that while James focuses in 1.12-15 on personal responsibility for sin, the evil n s ' (evil yeser or evil impulse), the
tempter within, he at the same time does not rule out the external
agent, the devil, for this evil agent is necessary for him to make the
statement in 1.13. As in the Testament of Job, however, virtue may be
practiced whatever the devil does. This virtue will defeat the devil,
and, defeated, he will flee from such a person. In other words, despite
his scant references to the devil, James moves in the same thoughtworld in which Testament of Job and Jubilees are at home.
In summary, dien, we do not know for sure that James actually used
any of the pseudepigraphical books, but we do know that in every case
in which he cites OT narratives this literature witnesses to Jewish
traditions which have certainly (or in the case of Rahab, probably)
shaped the way James read the OT. The function of these traditions,
dien, is to provide a contemporary grid through which James reads his
canonical traditions. This grid or paradigm allows him to see in the
text things which in some cases could be reasonable assumtions (e.g.
Elijah's prayer life) and in otiier cases appear to contradict a more
naive reading of the text (e.g. Job's patience). Furthermore, in the
case of Abraham it allows him so to reinterpret tiie text (Gen. 22.1)
tiiat he can contradict its obvious meaning (Jas 1.13). This does not
appear to be a conscious activity on James's part, but a set of cultural
assumptions that he quite unconsciosly believes he shares with his
readers ('you have heard a b o u t . . . ' ) . Therefore we can speak of the
pseudepigraphical narratives as witnesses to a popular level of biblical
storytelling that reinterpreted and perhaps even superceded the
canonical text for at least the common people in the type of JewishChristian (and earlier Jewish) community to which James belonged.
2 . 1 Peter
When we turn to 1 Peter we discover a somewhat different use of the
pseudepigraphical traditions. First, there are only two references to
OT characters in an epistle just slighdy longer than James; i.e. to
234
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Sarah and Noah. Second, references to the Jesus traditions are far
more explicit than in James as Jesus becomes an example of suffering
for the community." Yet we will observe a number of similarities in
the general milieu of the two epistles.
Both 1 Peter and James are addressed to Diaspora communities,
although James is presented as more of a literary letter and 1 Peter as
a circular letter. Both are written to communities under pressure,
although James appears more interested in low-grade economic pressure and 1 Peter with social osd-acism and perhaps physical assault.'"
Yet the greatest similarity is in their use of pseudepigraphal material,
where diis can be tested.
Of the two O T characters named in 1 Peter, Sarah is die least problematic. The reference is to Gen. 18.12 in which in die LXX Sarah
refers to Abraham as 6 icupv6(; nov (my lord), which is itself a good
translation of the H e b r e w . " In other words, while the selection of
Sarah, one of tiie four motiiers of Israel, is significant, tiie usage is not
determined by any pseudepigraphal material.
The situation with Noah is quite anodier matter. While this is not the
place to get into a full discussion of I P e t 3.18-22, some aspects of
tills passage do need to be examined. Certain spirits (jtvevnaoiv) were
disobedient (otTceidfioaoiv) while God was patient during the time
that Noah was building the ark. The issue, of course, is what these
spirits were? The two most significant positions are I. the spirits are
tiie souls of tiiose who died in die flood,'* and 2. die spirits are die 'sons
13. James alludes almost exclusively to the ediical teaching of Jesus, especially
die 'Q' O-adiUon. See further P.H. Davids. 'James and Jesus', in D. Wenham (ed.).
The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels (Gospel Perspectives. 5; Sheffield: JSOT
Press. 1985). pp. 63-84.
14. While some see official persecution in I Peter, I have found those arguments
unconvincing. But even in situations in which the government is not officially
involved, physical injury and death are possible. See further, P.H. Davids. / Peter
(NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1990). p. 170; Cf. L. Goppelt. Der erste
Petrusbrief {MeyerK; G6ningen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1978). pp. 60-64;
J. Knox. 'Pliny and I Peter: A Note on I Pet. 4, 14-16 and 3. 15'. JBL 72 (1953),
pp. 187-89.
15. Cf. N. Brox. 'Sara zum Beispiel". in P. Muller (ed.). In Kontinuitdt und
Einheit: Festschrift fur F. Mussner (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet. 1981). pp. 48493.
16. C.E.B. Cranfield ('The Interpreution of I Peter iii.l9 and iv.6', ExpT 69
[1957-58], pp. 369-72) represents diis view among British scholars, F.W. Beare
235
of G o d ' of Gen. 6 . 1 - 4 , who are to be interpreted as the Watchers of
1 Enoch, that is, as fallen angels." If the first option is taken, then this
passage is irrelevant for our study, for 1 Peter is simply citing O T
data (perhaps along widi Jewish tradidon as to what happened to the
wicked dead, especially die generation of die flood). If die second option
is taken, then this passage is very relevant to our present discussion.
The decision between these two positions rests on the interpretation
of two words, rtvevjia (spirit) and icnpwoaa) (preach). The data are
that n v e v ^ t a is never used in the N T for a human spirit unless
qualified.'* T h e normal use of the term is for non-human spiritual
beings, e.g. Mt. 1 2 . 4 5 ; Mk 1 . 2 3 . 2 6 ; 3 . 3 0 ; Lk. 1 0 . 2 0 ; Acts 1 9 . 1 5 - 1 6 ;
2 3 . 8 - 9 ; Eph. 2 . 2 ; Heb. 1 . 1 4 ; 1 2 . 9 ; Rev. 1 6 . 1 3 - 1 4 . In otiier words, die
normal way to refer to a deceased human being was as a soul (VWXT|).
not as a s p i r i t . " This information would certainly prejudice us
towards the second interpretation. It is hard to see how a first-century
reader, especially one as steeped in O T ti-adition as 1 Peter assumes
his readers are, could understand anything otherwise.
But this still leaves the difficult KTipvooo). It is clear that the
normal use of this verb in the N T is for the proclamation of the
gospel. It is also clear tiiat in die N T diis word retains its secular
{The First Epistle of Peter [Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1970]. pp. 171-73) among
Canadians and H.-J. Vogels {Christi Absteig ins Totenreich und das Latenmgsgericht an den Toten [Freiburg, 1976]) as well as Goppelt and Windisch in their
commentaries, among die Germans; W. Grudem (/ Peter [TNTC; Grand Rapids.
MI: Eerdmans. 1988]. pp. 157-61 and 203-39) is the most recent American
proponent
17. While first proposed by F. Spitta {Christi Predigtan die Geister [Gdttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1890]). it is best known from the work of J. Dalton.
Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1965).
B. Reicke and J. Jeremias as well as Selwyn are notable example of scholars who
have followed diis posidon. A recent twist is diat of J.R. Michaels (7 Peter [WBC.
49; Waco, TX: Word. 1988], pp. 205-11), who argues diat die spirits are demons,
die offspring of the fallen angels of Gen. 6.1-4. But this connection of demons to
Gen. 6 is itself dependent upon 7 Enoch and similar pseudepigrapha, so for our purposes it is not a significant departure from die position of die others.
18. As. for example, in Heb. 12.23. Ttvevnaoi 5iKai(ov ('spirits of righteous
people').
19. E.g. Rev. 6.9. Two of the examples often listed as showing that 'spirit' can
mean 'deceased human spirit', i.e. Dan. 3.86 (LXX) and 7 En. 22.3-13. use 'soul' as
a clarifying term, showing diat die authors did not consider 'spirit' alone a sufficienUy
clear designation.
236
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
meaning of 'proclaim' or 'announce' (e.g. Lk. 12.3; Rom. 2.21; Rev.
5.2). These data prejudice us towards viewing the term as indicating a
proclamation of the gospel until we realize that 1 Peter refers to such
a proclamation four times in other places and never uses this verb.^**
What is more, the NT never speaks of evangelizing spirits, although it
does speak of Christ's victory over spirits (e.g. 2 Cor. 2.14; Col. 2.15;
Rev. 12.7). As a result, we may conclude that the use of this term does
not favor die first interpretadon, but radier its secular meaning allows
the second interpretadon of diis event.^'
The reference in this passage, then, is to the Genesis 6 story as
understood in such literature as I Enoch 1 0 - 1 6 . " Christ in his resurrected mode (i.e. 'in the Spirit') has gone to the disobedient spirits of
the d m e of Noah, presently imprisoned, and has proclaimed to them
his victory and, most likely, their condemnation.^' What is most interesting to me, however, is that the author refers to this elaboration of
the biblical story almost unreflectively. It is for him simply an illustration. Christ triumphed by going through death. Noah was saved by
going dirough water. So they will be delivered by going through persecution. Since it is simply an illustration, the author must assume that
his readers would be aware of it. In other words, he believes that the
concepts found in I Enoch would be familiar to Christians. This belief
is even more interesting in that the author of 1 Peter does not appear
to know his addressees personally and normally sticks to basic
Christian teaching with which he expects all Christians to be familiar.^''
20. In 1.12. 25; 4.6 he uses tio-yyeXitôi) and in 4.17 ebayyiXiov. Both are
more common terms for referring to die proclamation of die gospel.
21. For further discussion see R.T. France. 'Exegesis in Practice', in
I.H. Marshall (ed.). New Testament Interpretation (Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans.
1977), p. 271. See also Davids. / Peter, pp. 138-41.
22. 2 Bar. 56.12-16; T. Job 5.6; 6QD 2.18-21; IQapGen 2.1. 16; T. Naph. 3.5;
2 En. 7.1-3 also refer to diis same tradition, so we cannot be sure diat I Peter knows
die exact form found in / Enoch.
23. It is difficult to know where I Peter locates this event. 2 Enoch places the
prison in die second heaven, so J.N.D. Kelly {The Epistles of Peter and Jude
[London: A. & C. Black. 1969], pp. 155-56) argues diat it took place as part of die
ascent of Christ. But since odier of die literature cited places die prison on the earth,
in the West, or under the eardi. diis is far from a certain scenario.
24. This feature, of course, explains the catechetical and baptismal homily
theories of the formation of I Peter. While none of these have proved convincing,
diey do point to the basic nature of die teaching in die episde.
237
Moving beyond the two uses of narradve we have examined, we
must ask die question as to whedier tiiere is any other contact witii tiie
pseudepigrapha in 1 Peter? This question leads to die list of possibilities below, in which die references in die pseudepigrapha without an
answering reference in 1 Peter are all to the 3.18-22 passage.
Pseudepigrapha
2 Apoc. Baruch
11.1
13.1-12
13.9-10
67.7
78-87
Nature of Similarity
1 Peter
parallel
parallel
parallel
parallel
parallel structure in letter
5.13
4.17
4.17
5.13
Mart Isaiah
1.3
parallel
3.22
/ Enoch
1.1-2
6
9.1
10-16
16.3
21
21.10
21.6
22.3-13
48.6
61.10
62.7
only idea of searching
Scripture
parallel
I.II
parallel (or Chrisdan
interpoladon)
parallel
parallel (or Chrisdan
interpoladon)
1.20
3.22
1.20
2 Enoch
7.1-3
20.1
50.4
parallel
parallel
3.22
3.9
3 Maccabees
3.8
5.25
6.28
7.22
9.23
9.24
use of same verb
'Creator*
subsdtudonary atonement
persecution uadition
'brodierhood'
substitutionary atonement
5.10
4.19
3.18
1.6
2.17
3.18
238
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
9.29
10.3
10.15
11.5
11.12
12.17-18
17.22
persecution tradition
'brodierhood'
'brodierhood'
'Creator'
persecution tradition
1.6
2.17
2.17
4.19
1.6
3.18
3.18
Odes Solomon
19.1
parallel
2.3
Pss. Solomon
17.45
22.7
God as shepherd
use of 'keystone'
5.2
2.6-8
Sib. Oracles
5.143
5.159
parallel Babylon = Rome
parallel Babylon = Rome
5.13
5.13
parallel 'crown of glory'
parallel response to
suffering
parallel (judgment begins
with God's people)
5.4
2.23
T. Judah
8.1
use of 'chief shepherd*
5.4
T. Uvi
3.8
10.5
parallel
'it stands in Scripture'
3.22
2.6
T. Reuben
5.5
parallel idea
3.3
T. Moses
7.3-10
parallel vice list
4.3
T. Benjamin
4.1
5.4
10.8-9
4.17
T. Naphtali
3.5
Examining this list we note: 1. places in which unusual words or
expressions appear in both 1 Peter and die pseudepigrapha (although
often in very different contexts), 2. places in which the same general
idea appears in 1 Peter and die pseudepigrapha (although often
expressed quite differendy), and 3. some parallels in which diere is
bodi closeness of concept and some overlap of vocabulary. However,
239
none of these parallels are so close as to demand that the author of
1 Peter knew and used the pseudepigrapha in question. Even the
cumulative effect is simply to convince us that 1 Peter and the pseudepigrapha move in the same thought-world. To claim more than this
would be to stretch the evidence beyond reason.^
We may conclude, then, that 1 Peter lives in the same thoughtworld as that of the writers of at least some of the pseudepigrapha.
That is, I Peter is at home in the world of the apocalyptic streams of
first century Judaism.^* Furthermore, while one of his allusions to OT
narrative is inconclusive, there is one reference to O T narrative,
namely that to Genesis 6, which we discovered knows the types of
traditions preserved in 1 Enoch (which is itself part of die apocalyptic
milieu in which I Peter was comfortable). His allusion to that tradition (and his relating Jesus to it) reveals that the author not only
knows it himself, but expects believers whom he does not know personally to also be familiar witii i t . " This would suggest that the
pseudepigrapha or at least the narrative traditions tiiat they preserve
formed part of the oral or written teaching tradition of the Christian
communities widi which he was familiar.
3. 2 Peter-Jude
It is clear diat 2 Peter and Jude are well aware of the pseudepigrapha.
For this reason they are discussed last and more briefly than the other
two works in this study. One needs only to look at Jude 14-15 and its
quotation of 7 En. 1.9, condensed out of the break between 2 Pet. 2.17
and 2.18,^* or Jude 9 and its probable reference to a lost ending of the
25. Indeed, there is far more reason to believe and evidence for die acquaintance
of 1 Peter with die Jesus-tradition, but dial reladonship is hoUy debated. If that is the
case with die level of evidence which can be generated, dien how much more should
it be the case in relation to die pseudepigrapha. See further Davids. 7 Peter, pp. 2627.
26. For a full discussion of this idea see R.L. Webb. T h e Apocalyptic
Perspective of First Peter' (ThM diesis. Regent College. Vancouver. BC. 1986). a
work that deserves to be in print, given its thorough grasp of the nature of
apocalypdc and careful application of it to I Peter.
27. This is even more interesting when we realize diat die Christians addressed in
I Peter are gentile believers, not Jewish Christians. Cf. Davids. / Peter, pp. 8-9.
28. For the purposes of this discussion I assume diat 2 Peter is dependent upon
Jude. The fact diat topics are taken up in die same order and that diere is considerable
240
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Testament of Moses}"^ reflected in 2 Pet. 2 . 1 1 , to realize that these
works also knew the pseudepigrapha." But how indeed are the pseudepigrapha used in these works?
Lx)oking at Jude, we note flrst that the author appears to expect that
his readers will recognize the stories to which he refers. His references are clear in that he identifies the protagonists, but they are
cryptic in that he does not cite the work in which they are found. This
must mean that either the stories or the works in which they are found
(or both) were circulating in his community (and, he assumes, the
conununities of his readers).
Secondly, two of the stories serve as illustrations to drive home the
points the author is making. His opponents 'revile the glorious ones'
(Jude 8), but that is not what Michael did in a situation that was surely
far more serious than any they were in. It may also be that Michael is
seen as being of a higher rank dian they, mere human beings. These
same opponents will not escape judgment, for God did not spare the
angels diat fell (Jude 6). In bodi of these cases we get somediing of an
a fortiori argument, in that if this was the behaviour and judgment of
the great angels, how much more will it apply to human beings. This
is, of course, the same way that Jude cites O T stories except diat in
those stories it is not as clear that the persons involved are greater
than die opponents he is cursing." At the same dme, the judgment of
overlap in vocabulary argues for dependence. The direction of dependence is justified
on die basis diat while one could conceive of 2 Peter condensing some of die detail
out of Jude in order to add his new material, one cannot conceive of Jude's reflecting
only one of the three chapters in 2 Peter, totally ignoring the other two.
29. See the excursus. 'The Background and Source of Jude 9' in R.J. Bauckham.
Jude, 2 Peter (WBC. 50; Waco, TX: Word, 1983). pp. 65-76. which argues for die
existence of diis lost ending and its content from its parallels to and citations in odier
works. Cf. D. Flusser, 'Palaea Historica—An Unknown Source of Biblical
Legends', in Scripta Hierosolymitana. XXII. Studies in Aggadah and Folk-Literature
(Jenisalem: Hebrew University. 1971). p. 74; K. Haaker and P. Schafer, 'Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod des Mose'. in O. Beu. et aL (eds.). Josephus-Studien
(Gettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), pp. 147-74; S.E. Loewenstamm,
'The Death of Moses', in G.W.E. Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of
Abraham (SBLSCS. 6; Missoula. MT: Scholars Press. 1976), pp. 184-203.
30. There is also a probable reflection of / fin. 21 in Jude 4 and a tradition similar
to Jub. 7.20-25 in Jude 6 and 2 Pet. 2.4-5.
31. The stories cited are those of die Exodus (Jude 5). which is immediately
followed by that of the fallen angels, Sodom (Jude 7), Cain. Balaam and Korah (all
in Jude 11 and associated widi Michael's dispute widi Satan).
241
the OT characters does serve as a precedent according to which judgment must be coming to these NT teachers. There is no distinction made
between stories from the OT and stories from the Pseudepigrapha.'^
Thirdly, die final citation, tiiat of 7 En. 1.9, is cited as a prophecy.
What is more, it occurs in parallel to a reference to 'predictions of tiie
apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ' (Jude 1 7 , RSV)." These predictions
do not refer to a known Scripture, but they obviously refer to sayings
of die apostles known to Jude (and probably his readers), whedier in
the form of oral tradition or some lost document. In odier words, we
get first a prophet and then the apostles addressing the situation, which
means that Jude is ranking Enoch among the OT prophets. It is
difficult to see any way in which he is diinking of Enoch differendy
than Scripture.'*
When we turn to 2 Peter we get a somewhat different picture. To
the reference to the fallen angels fi-om Jude 6 he adds the reference to
Noah ( 2 Pet. 2 . 5 ) , which makes it clear diat he reads Jude as referring
to die story in 7 Enoch (which alone has the data about die imprisonment and torment of the fallen angels), but could perhaps make
his readers think that he is deriving the story from the OT. His
reason, however, like that for his adding the story of Lot to the
Sodom incident, is to suggest to his readers a pattern of salvation for
die righteous out of tiie midst of the judgment of the wicked.
When 2 Peter gets to 2 . 1 1 , he excises the direct references to
32. I am assuming that Jude is interested in die stories in their OT form. Given
die data observed above about James, we cannot be sure diat Cain's way. Balaam's
error or Korah's rebellion are die same as die criticisms made of those individuals in
the canonical writings, but unlike James also, we have no data in Jude that would
make us believe diat he was cidng a pseudepigraphal u-adition about diose characters
instead. Thus we are safest in taking the conservative assumption that he is indeed
cidng die OT stories.
33. Furthermore, like OTprophedc references, it has been made Christological.
by shifting the meaning of 'die Lord'. See C D . Osbum. 'The Christological Use of
1 Enoch 1.9 in Jude 14.15', NTS 23 (1976-1977), pp. 334-41.
34. R. Beckwith (The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church
[Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1985]. pp. 403-405) argues that Jude understands
the Testament of Moses story (and likely also 7 Enoch) as narradve haggadah similar
to Deut. R. 11.10. and that both Jews and Jude viewed such haggadah as 'edifying
but not necessarily historical'. This may be the case, but die fact remains that there is
no disdncdon in die way Jude cites pseudepigrapha from the way he cites OT text. If
such a distinction is in his mind, he is not concerned to let his readers know about i t
242
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Michael the archangel from Jude 9, but makes the same point by
referring to angels in general. After clearly identifying the error of
Balaam with elements of the biblical narrative (2.15), he completely
drops the prophecy of Enoch from Jude 14-15 (2.17). He also drops
the references to Cain and Korah.
These observations could be read in three ways. First, 2 Peter
clearly shows a tendency to simplify by using fewer stories, canonical
or pseudepigraphal, and to use these stories more thoroughly. Exodus,
Michael, Cain and Korah are dropped. Sodom is expanded to make a
clear parallel widi Noah, who is added to the fallen angels reference.
But the Noah theme is picked up again in 3.6, which shows diat it was
more than a casual parallel to 2 Peter. Likewise the 'error' of Balaam
is clarified. This tendency to use fewer stories more thoroughly
perhaps explains the dropping of the reference to Michael.
Secondly, 2 Peter is likely to be revealing that his community (or
his readers, to die extent that he has a definite group in view) is not as
familiar with the pseudepigrapha as that of Jude. If they knew the
general traditions of die fallen angels but not I Enoch or the Testament of Moses, it would explain why 2 Peter might excise the prophecy of Enoch and die story of Michael, which would have appeared
obscure to his readers.
Thirdly, 2 Peter may be showing an adversion to the use of the
pseudepigrapha. He is surely aware of the sources of his references,
but the casual reader would not be aware that he was doing anything
other than interpreting die biblical narrative in 2.4 and giving a general teaching about angels in 2.11, an unawareness diat 2 Peter does not
want to illumine. While it cannot be proved (i.e. alternative explanations are available, as noted above), I still suspect that the reason tiiat
his community does not know the pseudepigrapha well is that it did
not fully approve of the use of those works. This disapproval was not
so strong diat 2 Peter would reject die use of Jude (perhaps because he
accepted the traditional authorship), but it appears tiiat it was real
enough to cause him to excise all clear references to pseudepigraphical
stories."
What does this data tell us then? In at least some parts of die church
there was a use of the pseudepigrapha in a manner indistinguishable
from the use of OT literature. Stories could be used interchangeably.
35. So also D.J. Rowston, "The Most Neglected Book in the New Testament'.
NTS 21 (1974-75). p. 557.
243
7 Enoch (or at least the part cited) was considered on a par with OT
prophets. Later the same or another part of the church appears to use
the pseudepigrapha less, possibly because it was beginning to be
rejected as fit for use in Christian services.
4.
Summary
Our study of the use of the pseudepigrapha in the Catholic Epistles
(excluding the Johannine epistles) is complete. It has been complicated
by the fact that there was no 'canon' of pseudepigrapha in that period,
no Charles or Charlesworth, so to speak. Nor are we sure of the form
in which each of the books existed. This makes detecting use difficult.
But at the same time some conclusions have emerged.
At least some parts of the church, namely the community represented by Jude, appear to have known and used the pseudepigraphal
books in a manner indistinguishable firom their use of the OT. This is
true both of the use of pseudepigraphical narrative and of prophecy.
While it would be premature and anachronistic to speak of their
including at least 7 Enoch in their 'canon', it would not be incorrect to
state that the parts of this work that they knew at least stood alongside
the traditional Jewish 'canon' as a supplement and interpretation of it,
much as the Jesus-tradition must have fiinctioned.
Other parts of the church, that is, the conununities represented by
James and 1 Peter, move in an apocalyptic world in which the ideas
recorded in the pseudepigrapha were known and appreciated. Furthermore, when they cite OT narratives tiiey show tiiat tiiey understood
them dirough a grid that supplemented and interpreted them as the
pseudepigrapha do. Unfortunately, diere is not enough verbal similarity
to claim that these authors knew any specific pseudepigraphal book,
even if James is very close to the Testament of Job and 1 Peter to
7 Enoch. But it is clear that diey knew at least an early form of the
material included in these books, that they expected this knowledge to
be shared by their readers, and tiiat they had integrated these perspectives into their theology (especially in the case of 1 Peter, which
integrates Jesus' resurrection-ascension with material included in the
7 Enoch narrative). Thus, while not direcdy quoted, we have reason
to believe that pseudepigraphical traditions formed part of the
teaching of their communities. They are comfortable with them.
Thirdly, a final part of die church, namely tiiat represented by
244
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
2 Peter, appears to be showing increasing discomfort with the pseudepigrapha. The author clearly knows of the traditions and where they
came from. He does not disagree with at least the pseudepigraphical
interpretation of the OT narratives of which he reveals some knowledge. But he excises the one direct reference to a pseudepigraphical
quotation as prophecy and may mask others. It is likely, then, that
either the author himself wants to place the pseudepigrapha on a
clearly sub-scripture level or else he writes for a section of the church
which would not be comfortable with such references.
Fourdily, none of these works except Jude cite the pseudepigrapha.
Nor do they cite OT narrative. In fact, only 1 Peter is given at all to
citing Scripture (although 2 Peter shows diat he knows some works of
Paul which he is putting on a par witfi the Scripture).'* Their method
is to simply refer to narratives or quote phrases, expecting die readers
to be familiar with the material. This phenomenon is both frusti-ating,
in tiiat it makes it far more difficult to discover when diey are citing
die pseudepigrapha and how much of it tiiey know, and illuminating,
in that it is likely that they would similarly not directiy cite the Jesustradition or any otiier tradition important to t h e m . " This means that
the observations made here have implications for other fields of study
as well.
We see, then, Christianity as a movement birthed in apocalyptic
Judaism and thus familiar with the concepts and traditions of that
perspective. As it moves towards separation from Judaism'* and as it
must deal with what it considers spurious forms of Christianity, it also
separates from the pseudepigrapha, from the milieu in which it was
born. Whether diis was die cutting of the umbilical cord or the
jumping of a fish out of the sea will depend upon one's evaluation of
36. Thai is. James can quote the decalogue, but he never feels die need to mention dial his reference is to 'Moses' or 'The Law'. Likewise diese writers never note
in which book die narrative references are lo be found.
37. See further, for example. Davids. 'James and Jesus', pp. 63-84, or
D.B. Deppe, The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James (Chelsea, MI:
Bookcrafters, 1989).
38. This is not to imply dial one can therefore argue dial James and 1 Peter form
an earlier suge than 2 Peter or a later stage dian Jude because of their attitude to the
pseudepigrapha. All of diese attitudes probably existed simultaneously in die church,
bul 2 Peter clearly shows the direction in which die church would move as it did in
fact separate from Judaism, a process dial look time and did not move at equal speed
in all sections of the church.
245
the development of the succeeding centuries. Certainly the substitution
of Greek philosophical categories as the matrix for interpretation (as
was done, for example, in Alexandria) can hardly be viewed as a step
forward in understanding. At the least this study has shown that in
order to interpret these works one must step back into their milieu,
i.e. die same milieu diat gave birth to (and read) the pseudepigrapha.
HEAVENLY ASCENT IN PHILO:
AN EXAMINATION OF SELECTED PASSAGES
Peder Borgen
The Research
Situation
In antiquity the motif of persons' heavenly journey was widespread.'
Against this background the question arises whether Philo's ascension
texts are to be characterized as Jewish or non-Jewish. If they can be
placed witiiin a Jewish context, where do tiiey fit into the understanding
of heavenly journeys in apocalyptic, rabbinic and hekhalot texts? At
certain points the line will be drawn to tiie Revelation of John.
The abundant material on this theme in Philo of Alexandria is
seldom drawn into the discussion. Thus, in the classic work of
W. Bousset, 'Die Himmelreise der Seele', Philo is only mentioned in
passing, and Bousset places Philo totally on the non-Jewish, Greek
side. 'Ich stelle dabei den Alexandriner Philo ganz auf die hellenische
Seite'.^ Similarly, in M. Dean-Otting's book, Heavenly Journeys: A
Study of the Motif in Hellenistic Jewish Literature, the large body of
Hellenistic Jewish literature in Philo's writings is not included, except
in passing.' Dean-Otting attempts to justify tiiis exclusion of Philo by
emphasizing the observation that Philo 'stops short of any descriptions
of the heavens or of Deity, which can be compared to that of the
pseudepigraphical texts.'*
This lack of usage of the material in Philo's writings is also evident
in T.D. Tabor's book. Things Unutterable: Paul's Ascent to Paradise
1. W. Boussel, 'Die Himmelreise der Seele', Archiv fur
Religionswissenschaft, IV (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1901), pp. 136-69 and
229-73.
2. Bousset, 'Himmelreise', p. 137 n. 1.
3. M. Dean-Ouing, Heavenly Journeys: A Study of the Motif in Hellenistic
Jewish Literature (Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang. 1984).
4. Dean-Otting. Heavenly Journeys, p. 31.
BORGEN Heavenly Ascent in Philo
247
in its Greco-Roman, Judaic, and Early Christian Contexts.^ When he
states that it is the apostle Paul who provides us with a rare autobiographical account of such ecstadc experience of a heavenly journey,*
he overlooks die fact that Philo gives an autobiographical account of
his own spiritual heavenly journey in Spec. Leg. 3.1-2.
It is true diat die dieme of ascent was central in E.R. Goodenough's
interpretation of Philo, but he understood Philo in a one-sided way to
be a representative of a Jewish form of mystery religion. The transformation of tiie biblical story was done through the technique of
Greek mystic philosophers. Philo interpreted the patriarchs as the
royal priesdiood who had the priesdy power to bring others up into
dieir own experience. Thus Goodenough systematized Philo's thoughts
too much into a two-stage mystery, the 'Lesser Mystery' and the
'Great Mystery', and he failed to see the variety in the Philonic texts
and the complexity of their Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds.'
Some ascent texts from Philo have been used by scholars in various
contexts,* but there is need for much further work to be done on diis
material, especially by relating it to odier Jewish as well as non-Jewish
sources. Such a study can also illuminate points in the New Testament.
Since Philo's material on die subject is so extensive, the investigation
must be limited to selected passages and aspects within diis article.
Before entering into an examination of some of the texts, the general understanding of Philo's works should be indicated, and also the
question of method. What is die proper approach to an analysis of the
dieme of ascent in Philo's writings? In order to avoid making Philo
into a systematic philosopher of religion, specific passages will be discussed, in terms of their basis in die Old Testament, of the features
that indicate traditions, and of ideas which are drawn from mixed
background.
5. J.D. Tabor. Things Unutterable: Paul's Ascent to Paradise in its GrecoRoman, Judaic, and Early Christian Context (Lanham. MD: University Press of
America. 1986).
6. Tabor. Things Unutterable, p. ix.
7. E.R. Goodenough. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic
Judaism (London: Oxford University Press; New Haven: Yale University Press.
1935). See the critical comments by P. Borgen. 'Philo of Alexandria. A Critical and
syndietical survey of research since World War IF, ANRW, 0.21.1 (1984), p. 140.
8. See among others A.F. Segal. 'Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism.
Early Christianity and their Environment', ANRW, II.23.2 (1980). pp. 1354-59;
W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-King (Leiden: Brill, 1967), pp. 107-11.
248
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
A hermeneutical key to Philo's exegesis can be seen in his interpretation of the translation of the Laws of Moses from Hebrew into Greek.
Philo says that when King Ptolemy Philadelphus ordered the translation
to be done in Alexandria by Jewish scholars, it was an event of
'revelatory history'.' Prior to this event God's cosmic laws had only
been made known to the 'barbarian' half of the world when they were
revealed to the Israelites on Mt Sinai. When they were translated into
Greek in Alexandria, they were also revealed to the 'Greek' half of
the world. On die island of Pharos in Alexandria, die translators,
taking the sacred books, stretched them out towards heaven widi the
hands diat held diem, asking of God that they might not fail in their purpose. And He assented to their prayers, to die end diat die greater part, or
even die whole, of die human race might be profited and led to a better life
by continuing to observe such wise and mily admirable ordinances (Vit.
Mos. 2.36).
According to Philo, both the action taken by King Ptolemy Philadelphus and many other observable facts demonstrated the growing impact
of the Laws of Moses and the Jewish nadon upon other peoples; The
Laws of Moses
attract and win die attention of all, of barbarians, of Greeks of dwellers on
the mainland and islands, of the nations of the east and die west, of Europe
and Asia, of the whole inhabited worid from end to end (Vit Mos. 2.20).
The present study is based upon the assumption that Philo's interpretation continues this presentation of the Laws of Moses to the
Greek half of tiie world. Moreover, it assumes that when Philo in Vit.
Mos. 1.4 says that he always weaves together the Laws as read and the
traditions told him by the elders of the nation, he gives a clue to the
method used not only in his treatise On the Life of Moses, but also in
his other writings."*
Within a Jewish
Context
The first question to be addressed is diat of Jewish and/or non-Jewish
background. It is my thesis that Jewish and non-Jewish elements are
woven together in Philo's texts, but in varying degrees.
9. See P. Borgen. Thilo of Alexandria', in M.E. Stone, (ed.). Jewish
Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT. II.2; Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
1984). pp. 234-35 (widi some misprints in the references to passages in Philo).
10. See Borgen. 'Philo of Alexandria', p. 124.
249
Philo's place within the context of Jewish traditions is quite evident
in Quaest. in Gen. 1.86. Here the quaestio is raised on Gen. 5 . 2 4 : 'And
he was not found, for God had translated him'. In his solutio Philo
elaborates upon the idea indicated in the Septuagint that Enoch was
transported (iiexaxiOTinv) to the heavenly region. A similar interpretation of Gen. 5 . 2 4 is found in Mut. Norn. 3 8 , that Enoch 'changed his
abode and journeyed as an emigrant from the mortal life to the
immortal'.
Although Philo might have derived this interpretation directly from
Gen. 5 . 2 4 , as rendered in the Septuagint, it seems quite certain that he
relies upon traditional embellishments on the biblical text:
1.
2.
3.
He specifies that the translation meant a change of place, a
point also made by Josephus in Ant. 1.85, when he says that
Enoch withdrew/returned to God.
The clearest proof for Philo's dependence on tradition, however, is the circumstance that he not only comments upon
Gen. 5 . 2 4 , about Enoch, but adds references to Moses and
Elijah: all three ended their earthly lives in an unusual and
marvellous way by entering the heavenly form of existence
directly by assumption. These three are among the most outstanding figures in Jewish ascent traditions. Moreover, here
in Quaest. in Gen. 1 . 8 6 Philo expresses the view that Moses
was taken up to God by means of assumption widiout death
and burial, in conflict widi Deut. 3 4 . 5 and the interpretation
given by him in Vit. Mos. 2 . 2 9 1 where he states explicidy
tiiat Moses died and was buried. Thus Philo gives an early
evidence for die two traditions that are found in other Jewish
writings."
In addition to listing Enoch, Moses and Elijah together, Philo
states in Quaest. in Gen. 1 . 8 6 that Gen. 5 . 2 4 shows that the
end of worthy and holy men is not death but translation and
approaching anodier place."
11. Josephus. Ant. 4.326; Sifre Deut. §357, on Deut. 34.5; b. Sot. 13b. See
L. Ginzberg. 77ie Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: JPS. 12di repr.. 1968), II.
p. 161 n. 951; H.A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1948), I.
pp. 402-403; K. Haacker and P. Schafer. 'Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod des
Moses', in O. Betz, et aL (eds.). Josephus-Studien:
Festschrift
O. Michel
(GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), p. 171 and nn. 34 and 35.
12. There is a sulking parallel to Quaest. in Gen. 1.86 in Midrash Hag-Gadol 1:
250
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
The traditions about the assumptions of Enoch, Moses and EHjah
are brought together in various ways in Jewish traditions. Enoch and
Elijah are seen together in Josephus, Ant. 9.28: 'However, concerning
Elijah and Enoch, who lived before the Flood, it is written in the
sacred books that they became invisible, and no one knows of their
death'. The combination of Moses and Elijah occurs several places,
such as in b. Suk. 5a, Deut. R. 3.17, Mk 9.2-8 par, etc. In some texts,
such as in Sifre Deut. 357 on Deut. 34.5 and b. Sot. 13b it is probable
that traditions about Enoch have influenced traditions about Moses. In
Rev. 11.3-6 John draws on traditions about Moses and Elijah, and
possibly also traditions about E n o c h . " Correspondingly, Josephus
reports on the view tiiat Moses had gone back to the Deity, just as did
Enoch (Ant. 1.85).
Philo does not in Quaest. in Gen. 1.86 describe Enoch's translation
as an ascent of die soul separated from die body. Using platonizing
thoughts, Philo sees Enoch as a person moving 'from a sensible and
visible place to an incorporeal and intelligible form'. It is of interest
to notice that in 2 Enoch diis translation is also pictured as a change
from earthly into divine existence, but here in die form of undressing
and dressing: 'And the Lord said to Michael, "Go, and extract Enoch
from (his) earthly clothing. And anoint him with my delightful oil,
and put him into die clodies of my glory'" (22.81).'*
Philo's scriptural basis for die view diat Moses did not die but went
to die heavenly realm is LXX Deut. 34.6: that 'no one knew his burial
place'. This phrase is used in Quaest. in Gen. 1.86. As mentioned
above, Philo in V//. Mos. 2.291 renders another tradition, that Moses
was buried, with none present, not by mortal hands, but by immortal
Genesis (ed. S. Schechter; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1902) (p. 123). In
both places Gen. 5.24 is interpreted, and in the exposition there are listed three men
who ascended to heaven: Enoch. Moses and Elijah. Bodi texts refer to Gen. 5.24.
Deut. 34.6 and 2 Kgs 2.11. In both texts there is an attached statement about the
similar fate of the holy and righteous ones, that they also ascend on high/are
tfanslated. In spite of the late date for Midrash Hag-Gadol as a written collection, die
agreements make it probable that Philo gives an early evidence for die same uadition
found in Midrash Hag-Gadol. L. Ginsberg. Legends, V. p. 157. Ginzberg writes
that the remark in Midrash Hag-Gadol 1.123 diat the righteous ascend 'is certainly a
later tfadition'. The agreement widi Philo. Quaest. in Gen. 1.86. at diis point radier
suggests diat old tradition is rendered.
13. See Haacker and Schafer, 'Nachbiblische Traditionen', pp. 170-74.
14. Translation of 2 Enoch, widi foomotes, by F.L Andersen in OTP, I. p. 138.
251
powers. Since Philo sometimes describes angels as powers (Migr.
Abr. 115 and 142-43; Plant. 14; Somn. 1.240) or as servitors of God's
powers (Spec. Leg. 1.66), a parallel is found in Targ. Ps.-J. Deut.
34.6, where it is said that angels assisted God at the burial of Moses.
According to m. Sot. 1.9, t. Sot. 4.8, b. Sanh. 39a and Ps.-Philo, LAB
19.16, on the other hand, Moses was buried by God himself."
In addition to Quaest. in Gen. 1.86 Philo also mentions the assumption of Moses to God in Sacr. 8-10, referring to Deut. 34.5-6: God
'drawing the perfect one from things earthly to Himself. In Quaest. in
Gen. 1.86, then, Moses' assumption is paralleled to that of Enoch, who
in Platonic terms moved 'from a sensible and visible place to an
incorporeal and intelligible form'.
The third person mentioned by Philo in Quaest. in Gen. 1.86 is
Elijah. The view that he ascended to heaven is based on 2 Kgs 2.1-12.
The ascent of Elijah is mentioned in 1 Mace. 2.58; 1 En. 89.52; 93.8;
Sir. 48.9; b. Suk. 5a; Pes. R. 5b; Pes. R. 5 (15a); Num. R. 12 (166d);
Midr. Prov. 30.4 (53a), and is presupposed in odier texts such as Mk
9.2-8 par and Rev. 11.3-6. There is no other reference to the heavenly
ascent of Elijah elsewhere in the extant works of Philo.'*
Proclamatio Graeca
In order to illustrate how Jewish and non-Jewish elements are woven
together in a passage on heavenly journey in Philo, On the Creation
(Op. Mund.) 69-71 may serve as an example. The passage is an
exegetical interpretation of the concepts of 'man', 'the image of God'
and 'His likeness' in the quotation from Gen. 1.26. These words are
paraphrased in die opening exegesis in Op. Mund. 69ab. Then a more
independent elaboration about the eardily and heavenly journey by the
mind follows in 69c-71b. The structure of the exposition is as
f o l l o w s : " 1. scriptural quotation (Gen. 1.26); 2. an affirmative
paraphrasing interpretation; 3. rejection of a possible misunderstanding, in casu, an anthropomorphic understanding; 4. an acceptable,
15. L. Ginsberg. Legends, VI. p. 162; Haacker and Schafer. 'Nachbiblische
Traditionen'. pp. 154 and 165.
16. 1 Kgs 17 about Elijah and die widow is mentioned in Deus Imm. 136 and
138.
17. Cf. Th.H. Tobin. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation (CBQMS. 14; Washington. DC: Catholic Biblical Association. 1983), p. 37.
252
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
non-anthropomorphic interpretation, with elaboration about the ascent
of the mind.
Th.H. Tobin states that the conceptions of this non-anthropomorphic interpretation are drawn from the philosophical viewpoints of the
period, mainly from P l a t o . " Similarly, in the French translation of
Op. Mund. 69-71 there are only references to Platonic and Stoic
parallels." More thorough investigations show that there are several
points that have parallels both in Jewish and non-Jewish sources.
When humankind's likeness with God is seen as the corresponding
role of the soul/the mind and God (Op. Mund. 69), a widespread
tradidon is udlized. This tradidon is found in rabbinic writings, such
as Lev. R. 4.8 (on Lev. 4.2). Midr Ps. 103.4-5 (on Ps. 103.1) and b.
Ber. 10a, and in Seneca Ep. 65.24 and Philodemus, De Pietate 15.1421 (cf. Josephus, War 7.8.7 §§346-47).^" The agreements are seen in
die following quotations:
It (the mind, the ruler of die soul) is in a fashion a god of him who carries
and enshrines it. For the Great Ruler is related to die whole cosmos as
also the human mind is to man. For it is invisible while itself seeing all
diings. and it has an invisible substance, while it is comprehending die
substance of others (Philo, Op. Mund. 69).
Just as the Holy One. blessed be He. fills die whole world, so die soul
fills die body. Just as the Holy One. blessed be He. sees, but is not seen,
so the soul sees but is not itself seen (b. Ber. 10a).
God's place in the world corresponds to the soul's relation to man
(Seneca. Ep. 65.24).
Thus, this word about the correspondence between soul-body and
God-world was a commonplace in the ancient world. Philo is closer
to the rabbinic version, however, since he does not share the Stoic
pantheistic understanding of God, and he moreover makes die same
point as that found in b. Ber. 10a, that God/die mind sees widiout
being seen.
A more general agreement exists when Philo presupposes a
18. TH. Tobin. The Creation of Man, pp. 37. 44-47.
19. R. Amaldez et al. (ed. and trans.). Des oeuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie. I.
De Opificio Mundi (Paris. 1961). pp. 186-87: Plato. Laws XIL 963a; Theaetetus
I73e; Phaedrus 249c.
20. See J. Cohn (u-ans.), 'Ober die WeltschSpfung', in L. Cohn. et al. (eds.),
Philo von Alexandria: Die Werke in deutscher Obersetzung, I (Berlin: de Gruyter,
2nd edn, 1962). p. 51; L. Ginzberg. The Legends, I, p. 60 and V, pp. 80-81.
253
dichotomic anthropology, where the soul is connected with heaven and
die body with earth. This andiropology is found in rabbinic and in
apocalypdc sources as well as in Greek Platonic/Stoic tradidon).^' In
Sifre Deut., Haazinu, 306.28 this view is stated in an explicit way: die
human body is earthly but the soul is heavenly. Even die Platonic idea
of die pre-existence of the soul before it enters the body (cf. Phaedrus
248c; Phaidon 80B) had penetrated into Jewish anthropology, as can
be seen from 3 En. 43.4; b. Yeb. 62a; 63b; b. 'Abod. Zar. 5a; b. Nid.
13b; Gen. R. 24.4; Uv. R. 15.1; Philo, Gig. 12-15; Somn. 1.138-39;
Josephus, War 7.342-48.
On die basis of such andiropology, the idea of die heavenly ascent
of the soul is a natural development. Philo draws in Op. Mund. 70, as
elsewhere, on the common picture of die soul as a winged bird—see
Plato, Phaidon 109E; Phaedrus 249C; Theat. 173E; Gen. R. 93.8;
100.7; Lev. R. 4.5; Eccl. R. 12.4; b. Sanh. 92ab; y. M. Qat. 3.82b; y.
Yeb. 15.15c; Midr. Ps. 11.6-7; 3 Baruch (Greek) 1 0 . "
As for die ascent itself, Philo in Op. Mund. 69-1 \ pictures it in five
stages: 1. land and sea, 2. air, 3. ether and the stars, 4. the noedc
world and 5. die Great King Himself. Philo here combines two kinds
of ttavel, the search of the soul up to the spheres of air, stars and
beyond, and the ecstadc longing, like those filled with Corybandc
frenzy, to see God. Man's journey together widi the stars and odier
heavenly bodies occurs several places in Philo's wridngs, widi close
agreements of terminology. For example, the term <jvnjteputoA,e(o,
'Go around togedier with', is used about die wandering together with
the stars also in Spec. Leg. 1.37; 2.45; 3.1, and Praem. Poen. 121.
This word is a term for heavenly journey in astrology, as can be seen
from its use in Philodemus Gadarensis D. 3.9 and Catalogus Codicum
Astrologorum 1.136.^' In Spec. Leg. 1.37 and 2.45 it is used together
widi another astrological term for heavenly journey aiGepoPaxeo),
21. See R. Meyer. Hellenistisches in der rabbinischen Anthropologic (Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer. 1937).
22. See L. Ginsberg. The Legends, V, p. 81; H. Maker, 'Personification of
Soul and Body', JQR NS 2 (1911-12). p. 476; V. Aptowitzer, 'Die Seele als
Vogel', MGWJ 69 (1925). pp. 150-69. Concerning 3 Baruch (Gt«ek) 10. see
H.E. Gaylord (trans.). '3 (Greek Apocalypse oO Baruch', in OTP, 1. p. 673.
23. See also Philo's use of neTempoitoXeo). Leg. All. 3.71. 84; Det. Pot. Ins.
27; Plant. 145; Rev. Div. Her. 128. 230. 237. 239; Somn. 1.139; Vit. Mos. 1.190;
Spec. Leg. 1.207.
254
Interpretation
'tread the ether*. This latter verb also occurs in Spec. Leg. 1.207 and
Migr. Abr. 184, cf.. Her. 238 (birds). References to astrological
sources are Anthologia Palatina, Planudea 4.328; Pseudo-Lucian
Philopatris 25. The astrological background is also evident by the
similar term ovpavoPateo), 'tread the heaven', which is used by the
astrologer Vettius Valens, VI, Introduction." Cf. also Quaest. in Gen.
3.3. The idea of the dancing and singing of the stars occur also in
apocalyptic and rabbinic writings.^
Philo marks the distinction between the travel up to the etherial
region and the next stage of the ascent by employing the Platonic
category of the world of the senses and the noedc world, Op. Mund.
7 0 - 7 1 . The final stage, however, draws on Cybele-tradidon ('filled
with Corybandc frenzy') and on Jewish tradidon (God seen as 'the
Great King*). Philo here sees the vision of God, die Great King, as the
final aim of the ascent. God is called the Great King in several apocalypdc and odier Jewish sources, such as I En. 84.2, 5; 91.13; Sib. Or.
3.499, 560; Pss. SoL 2.32.
In Spec. Leg. 3.1-2 Philo tells about his own inspired ascent in a
way similar to the descripdon of die ascent found in Op. Mund. 70 In
Op. Mund. 70 it is said that the mind 'was borne even higher to the
ether and the circuit of heaven, and is whirled around with
(ovunEpiitoXeo)) the dances of die planets and the fixed stars... *, and
in Spec. Leg. 3.1 Philo tells that he seemed 'to be borne aloft into die
heights widi a soul possessed by some God-sent inspiradon, whirling
around with (avnrtepiJcoA,e(o) the sun and the moon and the whole
heaven and cosmos...*. In Op. Mund. 70-71 the mind goes still
24. See W. Gundel and H.G. Gundel, Astrologumena: Die
astrologische
Uteratur in derAntike und ihre Geschichte (Wiesbaden: Sleiner. 1966). pp. 29-30;
180-81; cf. L. Hartman, Kolosserbrevet
(Uppsala: EFS, 1985), p. 125;
W. VSlker, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien (Leipzig:
J.C. Hinricli, 1938). pp. 181-82; F. Cumont. Astrology and Religion among the
Greeks and Romans (New York: Dover, 1960. repr. of the English U-ansladon of
1912). p. 81. about die asu-onomer Ptolemy: 'Mortal as I am. 1 know that I am bom
for a day. but when I follow the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course,
my feet no longer touch die earth; I ascend to Zeus himself to feast me on ambrosia,
die food of the gods'.
25. 3 Enoch 46; S.A. Wertheimer (ed.), Batei Midrashot (Jerusalem: Ketav vaSefer, enlarged edn. 1967-68), II. p, 426. See K.E. GrSzinger. Musik und Gesang
in der Theologie der friihen jiidischen Uteratur: Talmud Midrash Mystik (Tubingen:
Mohr [Siebeck]. 1982), pp. 265. 271-72, etc.
BORGEN
Heavenly Ascent in Philo
255
further to the intelligible world and the God himself, while Philo has
the region of moon and sun as a lookout-place for viewing the earthly
things. Both in apocalyptic and in Hellenistic sources there are
examples given about ascents to the heavenly region from which the
person gets a view of the earthly matters.^* It is worth noticing that
the ascent makes it possible for Philo not only to read the Laws of
Moses, but to peer into them and reveal what is not known to the
multitude. Spec. Leg. 3.6.
Thus, Philo utilizes in his autobiographical report traditions that he
at other places draws on in his exposition of the ascent in Op. Mund.
69-71 and in other passages in the Laws of Moses. Moreover, he does
not hesitate in adding his own inspiration and ascent to the heavenly
region to the ascents of the biblical persons, such as Enoch, Moses and
Elijah. This observation should be considered when discussing die fact
that the author of the Book of Reveladon, John, tells about his own
ascent." Moreover, in different ways bodi Philo and John look upon
earthly events seen from the heavenly region and they interpret
Scripture as seen from die heavenly lookout-place to which they have
entered by means of ascents, which they have experienced through
God-sent inspiradon. It should also be added that the passage about
Philo's ascent is written into the collection of treatises diat we call the
'Exposition of die Laws of Moses'. This 'Exposition' concludes witii
die treatise On Rewards and Punishments which has an eschatological
outlook, even including the theme of reversal, which is a central
feature in several apocalyptic writings.^' Thus Philo is an inspired and
26. See Dean-OlUng. Heavenly Journeys, pp. 18-20. 143, 196-97.
27. Scholars have been puzzled by the fact that John has written his book in his
own name and not under a pseudonym. See D.S. Russell, The Method and Message
of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: SCM Press, 1964). pp. 127-39; G.R. BeasleyMurray. Revelation (London: Eerdmans. repr. 1983 of rev. edn. 1978). pp. 14-15.
and odier commentaries on The Revelation of John.
28. E.P. Sanders, T h e Genre of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypses', in
D. Hellhom (ed.). Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East
(Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck]. 2nd edn. 1989). pp. 456-58. states diat what is peculiar
to the works which have tfaditionally been considered Palestinian Jewish apocalypses is the combination of revelation with the promise of restoration and reversal.
Sanders notes that Philo in Praem. Poem. 94-97. 162-72 expresses die hope of
restoration and reversal. According to Sanders Philo lacks the notion of inspired
revelation. Sanders' understanding of Philo at this point needs to be modified.
S. Sandmel, 'Apocalypse and Philo'. in A.I. Kalsh and L. Nemoy (eds.). Essays
256
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
prophetic exegete, and his writings have some features in common
with apocalyptic writings.^'
The Role of Angels
In the article 'Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the
Apocalypses and the Hekhalot Literature', M. Himmelfarb draws the
following conclusions:
The instructions for ascent through the gates guarded by hostile angels or
other dangers in Hekhalot Rabbati, Hekhalot ZuU-ati, and the Ozhayah
fragment from the Geniza have more in common with certain gnostic
works and the magical papyri than widi the apocalypses'." Like die
prophets, the heroes of die apocalypses are taken to heaven at God's
command. They do nothing to set in motion die process of ascent. Their
response to die heavenly realm is awe and perhaps even fear, but diey are
no in danger. The hekhalot literature, on die odier hand, provides insttiictions for human beings who choose to embark on the journey to the divine
chariot. For them die way is full of dangers."
There are only traces of the motif of angelic opposition and rivalry
between human beings and angels in Philo. In a very moderate form
this idea is present in Philo's report on the Song of Moses in Virt. 1175. As an illustration of the virtue philanthropy Philo presents the life
of Moses in Virt. 51-79. When Moses knew that his end was near, he
in the proper way arranged for Joshua to be his successor (53-71) and
then broke into the Great Song (72-75) followed by the Blessing of
the tribes (76-79). With this concentration on Moses as an ideal ruler,
Philo in his report on Moses' song focuses the attention more on him
dian on die various ideas found in Deuteronomy 32. Thus Virt. 72-75
is largely an elaboration of the terms 'hymn', 'earth' and 'heaven' and
die reference to an assembly in tiie opening verse, Deut. 32.1, and the
words about 'angels' and 'heavens' in LXX Deut. 32.43.
Moses sang his song before his death, before 'the body was stripped
on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University (19091979) (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 1979). pp. 383-87, draws too
sharp a distinction between Philo and apocalyptic literature.
29. See D. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean
World (Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans. 1983). pp. 147-52.
30. M. Himmelfarb. 'Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses
and die Hekhalot Literature'. HUCA 59 (1988). p. 73.
31. Himmelfarb. 'Heavenly Ascent', pp. 84-85.
257
away' (Virt. 76), and there is in Virt. 7 2 - 7 5 no explicit statement
about his journey up to heaven. The idea is rather that he gathered
together cosmos, human beings and angels. Nevertheless, he sang his
solo placed among the angelic and ethereal choristers.
According to Virt. 74 the angels, being skilled in music, inspect
Moses when he sings because they are doubtful that anyone bound to a
corruptible body could, like the sun and the moon and the most sacred
choir of the otiier stars, sing in cosmic harmony. This doubt corresponds to the question which at places in rabbinic and apocalyptic texts
is raised by angels when they express protest against the ascension of
Moses or otiier human beings to tiie heavenly region, at times also
protesting against human beings joining the angelic choir: 'What does
he who was born of woman here?'.'^
The praise of God by human beings and heaven and earth and
angels has biblical basis as well as points of similarity widi Platonic
tradition." The celestial songs by angels appear prominendy in the
apocalypses and other Jewish writings, often as songs in the heavenly
t e m p l e . ' * In Quaest. in Gen. 4.130 Philo, with reference to Gen.
24.52-53, tells how the virtuous man makes dianksgiving and honour
to God by prostrating himself.
But prostration is nothing else than a sign of genuine admiration and Uiie
love, which diese men know who sip from diat source which cannot be
approached or touched but is incorporeal. Being given wings and out of
heavenly desire being borne aloft, diey move in flight about die Father and
Creator of all things, and Him. who truly with His being fills all things
with his powers for the salvadon of all, they call 'holy, blessed Creator,
almighty. God of truth.
With regard to the terminology of 'holy', 'creator' and 'almighty' in
the heavenly hymn, one may compare Rev. 4.8 and 11. Thus, although
Philo in Virt. 72-74 as also elsewhere draws on ideas from Platonic
32. See especially J.P. Schultz, 'Angelic Opposition to the Ascension of Moses
and die Revelation of the Law'. JQR 61 (1970-71), pp. 287-89 widi reference to
L. Ginzberg. Legends, VI. p. 57. etc. P. Alexander, '3 (Hebrew Apocalypse oO
Enoch', in OTP, I. p. 241 n. 58. K.E. GrSzinger. Musik und Gesang, pp. 310-11.
33. In addition to Deut. 32. see Ps. 148.1-6; Isa. 43.7 and 20-21, etc.
Concerning Platonic traditions, see D. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus
of Plato (Leiden: Brill, 1986), pp. 115-18.
34. Himmelfarb. 'Heavenly Ascent', pp. 91-96. Grdzinger. Musik und Gesang,
pp. 76-99.
258
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
and Hellenisdc astrological traditions, the themes of thanksgiving and
of angelic choir betray a more specific strain of biblical and Jewish/
Christian features."
Although Philo reflects a common motif when he in Virt. 74 states
that the angels were critical towards tiie song of Moses, there is a distinctive aspect in Philo's use of the motif: instead of the angels
protesting against the admission of the human person into the angelic
choir, in Virt. 74 they are critically watching Moses' performance
after he has received a place in die ediereal choir.
The role of angels in connection witii ascent is often tiiat of serving
as guides. This motif is also present in Philo's works. The need for
guidance and escort on the journey are seen in Migr. Abr. 168-175
where ascents of Abraham and Moses are mixed togetiier.
In Migr. Abr. 173-175 Philo elaborates on Abraham's ascent, as the
continuation of Moses' ascent: 'Now he that follows God has of
necessity as his fellow-travellers the logoi which accompany Him,
angels as they are often called'. Then two Scripture quotations are
combined, the one about Abraham accompanying die three 'men' on
their way after diey had visited him and Sarah at Manue, Gen. 18.16.
On this basis Philo states that Abraham was put on the same level as
tiiey (God and the angels), and tiius tiie escort was escorted. Then
Philo applies Exod. 23.20-21 to Abraham's ascent:
For as long as he falls short of perfection, he has the Divine Logos as his
leader of die way: since diere is an oracle which says, 'Lo. I send My
angel before your face, to guard you in the way. diat he may bring you to
die land which I have prepared for you: give heed to him and hearken to
him, disobey him not; for he will by no means withdraw from you; for
My name is on him' (Exod. 23.20-21).
Thus die Logos/Angel is die personification of God's name, YHWH,
and he is in §174 the 'Leader' ( ^ e n m v ) just as God according to §171
is 'Leader'. Elsewhere Philo calls this Logos/Angel die Son of God
and he has a position like some viceroy of a great king, Agr. 51-52,
widi citation of Exod. 23.20.
Here Philo draws on angelology that also is found in apocalypses
and in Merkabah texts. As widi Philo's Logos/Angel, so also Metatron
and die angel Yahoel are angelic personifications of tiie name of God.
35. For the Platonic background for the connection made in Virt. 73-75 between
angels and the fifdi element, ether, see Wolfson, Philo, I, pp. 369-70. For the idea
of die choral dancers in the ediereal sphere, see Op. Mund. 70. discussed above.
259
In 3 En. 12.5 and b. Sanh. 38b the angel of Exod. 23.20 is identified
as Metatron. And the archangel Yahoel (Apoc. Abr. 10, etc.) probably
originated in speculation about the angel in whom God's name resides,
according to Exod. 2 3 . 2 0 - 2 1 . "
In Migr. Abr. 174-75 the Logos/Angel and Abraham are seen as
runners, with the Logos/Angel running ahead.
But when he [Abraham] has arrived at full knowledge, he will run widi
more vigorous effort, and his pace will be as great as diat of him who
before led die way; for so they will bodi become attendants of the Allleading God (§175).
Philo dien mentions diose who cause dangers and obstacles on die journey: 'and no holder of heterodox doctrines will dog their steps any
more'. According to Spec. Leg. 2.193 and Sobr. 68 those who hold
heterodox views are die ones who prefer bodily and external things,
such as lavish banquets and the like. Thus the obstacles for Abraham
were the same as for Moses (Migr. Abr. 172): wealdi, fame, and so
on."
Thus several of Philo's texts fit togedier with Himmelfarb's characterization of tiie apocalypses in her article 'Heavenly Ascent...', cited
above: the heroes are taken to heaven at God's command. Thus they
ascend widiout meeting hostile forces.
Invasion and Ascent
D.J. Halperin points to another dualistic perspective, as indicated by
the title of his article 'Ascension or Invasion: Implications of the
Heavenly Journey in Ancient Judaism'.'* Halperin writes.
The belief in ascension exists in two main variants. In one, die ascending
figure is a hero, die narrator of the story sympathizes widi diis quest, and
the audience is expected to rejoice at his uiumph. In die odier. die ascending figure is sinister and demonic, die narrator regards his quest as a direat
to die divine order, and die audience is expected to rejoice at his fall."
36. See Alexander, '3 Enoch'. I. pp. 243-44; A. Segal, 'Heavenly Ascent',
p. 1362.
37. Cf. Apoc. Abr. 13-14. where die fallen angel Azazel is trying to stop
Abraham. The angel Yahoel then says: 'Shame on you. Azazel! For Abraham's
portion is heaven, and yours is on earth'. Translation by R. Rubinkiewicz.
'Apocalypse of Abraham', in OTP, I, p. 695.
38. In Rel. 18 (1988). pp. 47-67.
39. Halperin. 'Ascension or Invasion', p. 47.
260
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
Halperin has seen that the positive form of ascent often is pictured
against the background of a confrast. At several places this is the case
in Philo's writings. It has to be added, however, that the contrast
between ascension and invasion is one among several contrasts used by
Philo.
In a rudimentary way the idea of 'invasion' is formulated in Philo's
exposition of Num. 15.30 in Virt. 171-72:
'Whosoever sets his hand to do anything with presumptuousness provokes God'...the arrogant man is always filled with the spirit of
unreason, holding himself, as Pindar says, to be neither man nor demigod, but wholly divine, and claiming to overstep the limits of human
nature.
Gains invades the divine realm in this way: 'he no longer considered it
worthy of him to abide within the bounds of human nature but overstepped them in his eagerness to be thought a god' (Leg. Gai. 75).
Gains was a counterfeit of Israel and Moses, and features associated
with Moses as king are attributed to Gains by Philo in the form of a
parody,*"
The idea of invasion into the heavenly realm is also present elsewhere in Philo's writings, for example in the areas of doctrines and of
wealth. The story about the tower of Babel is interpreted by Philo as
an invasion of heaven by means of false doctrines (Somn. 2.283-99).
In Somn. 2.274-99 Philo lists three kinds of wrong speaking: 1. the
speaking of the pleasure lovers, represented by Pharaoh (276-79),
2. the sophists, represented by the people of Egypt (279-82), and
3. diose who deny die existence of God and providence, such as diose
who built the tower of Babel (Gen. 11):
diose who extended their activities of their word-cleverness to heaven
itself... They declared that nodiing exists beyond diis world of our sight
and senses, that it is neither was created nor will perish, but is uncreated,
imperishable, without guardian, helmsman or protector. Then piling
enterprises one upon anodier they raised on high like a tower dieir edifice
of unedifying doctrines... And therefore when they hoped to soar to
40. See W.A. Meeks. 'The Divine Agent and his Counterfeit in Philo and the
Fourth Gospel', in E. SchUssler Fiorenza (ed.). Aspects of Religious Propaganda
in Judaism and Early Christianity (NoU-e Dame. IN: NoUie Dame University Press.
1976). pp. 50-51. Concerning Gaius's claim to divinity, see E.M. Smallwood,
Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden: Brill. 2nd edn. 1970), pp. 191-92
and 209-11.
261
heaven in mind and diought. to desuoy die eternal kingship, die mighty
undestroyable hand cast them down and overturned their edifice and dieir
doctrine. And die place is called 'confusion'... (Somn. 2.283-86)."'
When attacking the theocratic view that God is the king, these
imposters argue for die absolute sovereignty of human rulers (Somn.
2.290-91). In diis interpretation of die tower of Babel, Philo has
primarily in mind non-Jewish philosophies and governments.
Also in Conf. Ling. 111-14 die invasion into heaven by die building
of die tower of Babel is understood in terms of (non-Jewish) philosophical ideas and human-centered government and human vices:
'Let us build ourselves a city' [Gen. 11.4], which is like... Let us enact
laws which shall eject from our community the justice whose product is
poverty and disrepute—laws which shall assure the emoluments of the
stronger to the succession of those whose powers of acquisition are
greater than odiers. And let a 'tower' (Gen. 11.4] be built as an acropolis,
as a royal and impregnable castle for die tyrannic evil, whose feet shall
walk upon the earth, and whose head reach to 'heaven' [Gen. 11.4],
carried by our vaulting ambition to diat vast height. For in fact that tower
not only has human misdeeds for its base, but it seeks to rise to the region
of celestial ('Olympic') diings, widi die argument of impiety and godlessness in its van. Such are its pronouncements, eidier that the Deity does not
exist, or diat it exists but does not exert providence, or that the world has
no beginning in which it was created, or that though created its course is
under the sway of varying and random causation.
The contrast between invasion and ascent is central in Migr. Abr.
168-75. In §168 Exod. 24.1 is quoted: 'Come up to your Lord, you
and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu and seventy of die gerusia of Israel'.
To be certain of making the right kind of ascent, Moses prays tiiat he
may have God Himself as leader on die way that leads to Him; for he
says: 'If You Yourself do not go widi me on my journey, lead me not
up from here' (Exod. 33.15 cited in Migr. Abr. 171). Widiout God's
direction the ascent turns out to be invasion and imposture. The result
is destruction. Philo points to two forms of invasion and destruction,
41. Widi regard to the (non-Jewish) philosophical background for die ideas criticized by Philo. see Wolfson, Philo, I. pp. 164-67. 299; 11. p. 382; Philo. V (LCL
edn, uans. F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker). p. 610.
42. Concerning tyrannic rule. etc. see E.R. Goodenough. The Politics of Philo
Judaeus (Hildesheim: Olms. 1967). 86. 93. etc. Concerning Philo's rejection of
views found in Greek philosophical tfaditions, see Wolfson, Philo. I. pp. 108-15,
165-99,295-300. and Philo (LCL edn). Ill, p. 508 n. on §199.
262
Interpretation
that of many sophists, and the fate of those who reach high up in
wealth and power. Thus Philo here as in Conf. Ling. 110-15 and
Somn. 2.283-92 combines theoretical reasoning and moral evil and
not only spiritualizes the ascent, but he also materializes it.
As for die invasion by the sophists, the English translation of Migr.
Abr. 171 in LCL runs:
...rather thati to lift ourselves heavenward and incur shipwreck as
imposters. This has been the fate of multitudes of sophists, dirough dieir
imagining that wisdom consists in finding specious arguments, and not in
appealing to die solid evidence of facts.
In this translation the verb dvaTpejto), overturn, has been rendered
as 'incur shipwreck'. The term can carry this meaning, but it is more
probable diat Philo alludes to the story about die building of the tower
of Babel, Genesis 11, since tiiere are important agreements between
Philo's vocabulary here and his vocabulary in the interpretation of
Genesis 11 in Somn. 2.284-90; Migr. Abr. 171, Ttpo? xov owpavov
e^dpavTa<;; 172, dv© netetopov e^dpTj(;; and Somn. 2.284, e i ?
v\|/o<;...e^fipav; cf. §285, ei? o \ ) p a v 6 v . . . d v a 5 p a n e t o 0 a i ; A/igr.
Abr. 171, dvatpajtiivai, and Somn. 2.285, ovvavatpevaoa; Migr.
Abr. 171,1)716 dXaôveia?, and 5omn. 2.292 KaxaX,aCoveuodnevoi.
Taking into consideration diis allusion to the tower of Babel, a more
precise translation of Migr. Abr. 171 would dien read: 'having raised
ourselves to heaven to be overturned by imposture'.
Such imposters were the sophists, according to Migr. Abr. 171.
Philo only indicates in what way they invade heaven. They do it by
relying on words rather than on reality itself. At many places in his
writings Philo joins the many philosophers who offer sharp criticism
of the sophists."" Anotiier reference to tiie sophists also found in De
Migratione Abrahami can throw light upon the criticism: 'Others
again have shewn great ability in expounding themes, and yet been
most evil thinkers, such as the so-called sophists' (Migr. Abr. 72). The
positive contrast is the ascent of Moses at Sinai, lead by God, having
as bodyguard prophetic speech (Aaron), voluntary honouring of God
(Nadab) and the care of God as Fadier (Abihu) (Migr. Abr. 168-71).
As for ascent or invasion widi regard to wealth. Philo paraphrases
the words of Moses' prayer in Exod. 33.15. The quotation is given in
43. See P. Borgen. Bread from Heaven (NovTSup. 10; Leiden: Brill, repr.
1981). pp. 123-24.
263
Migr. Abr. 171: 'If You Yourself do not go with me on my journey,
lead me not up from here'. Then Philo gives the paraphrase in §172:
But perhaps the meaning is something like this: 'Raise me not up on high,
endowing me widi wealdi or fame or honours or offices, or aught else diat
is called good fortune, unless You Yourself are about to come widi me'.
For these things often bring upon those who have them very great losses
as well as very great advantages, advantages, when the judgement is
under God's guidance; hurts, when this is not so: for to thousands die
things I have named, not being really good diings. have became die cause
of incurable evils.
In this way Philo pictures the proper ascent to God by those who are
guided by God and the Logos/angel (Migr. Abr. 170-75) against the
contrasting background of the imposters who attempt to invade heaven
(cf. the tower of Babel) and are overturned. The invasion and the ascent
are applied to the two areas of 1. intellectual argumentation and 2.
moral lifestyle in connection witii wealtii, holding of office, and fame.
In Migr. Abr. 171-72 Philo understands ascent to mean tiie right
way of life of persons who possess wealth and hold offices.** At times
he is more radical and states that those who ascend to heaven seek to
stay away from such 'worldly* activities and prefer solitude: Spec.
Leg. 2.44-45; 3.1-6 and tiie treatise On the Contemplative Life.
Since the idea of invasion into heaven can be applied to kings and
kingship, it is quite natural that corrupt kingship can be used as conti-ast to proper ascent, also without picturing the contrast as an
invasion into heaven. This is the case in Vit. Mos. 1.148-62.
In Vit. Mos. 1.148-62 the basic dualism is die difference between
Israel and the other nations in general and Egypt in particular: Moses
was not like those who gain positions of power by military means; he
gave up the lordship of Egypt because of the iniquities committed in
die land; he did not exalt his own house and promote his sons; he did
not treasure up gold and silver, did not levy tribute and abjured die
accumulation of lucre and wealdi. Thus, instead of being the heir of
die throne of tiie Pharaoh of die Egyptian people, God
thought good to requite him with die kingship of a nadon more populous
and mightier, a nadon destined to be consecrated above all odiers to offer
prayers for ever on behalf of the human race diat it may be delivered from
evil and participate in what is good (Vit. Mos. 1.149).
44. Cf. P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven, pp. 123-24.
264
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
As a reward God gave Moses the whole cosmos, land and cosmic
elements as his portion, and as the representative good man and world
citizen he was given partnership with God.
Again, was not the joy of his partnership with the Father and Maker of all
magnified also by the honour of being deemed worthy to bear the same
dtle? For he was named god and king of die whole nadon. and entered,
we are told, 'into die darkness where God was', diat is into die formless,
invisible, incorporeal and archetypal essence of existing thing, seeing
what is hidden for mortal nature (Vit. Mos. 1.158).
Here Exod. 20.21, 'Moses went into die darkness where God was', is
paraphrased togedier with the word 'god' which is applied to Moses in
Exod. 7.1: 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh' (cf. 4.16: 'as God to
him [Aaron]')."'
Moses' ascent is then the divine confirmadon of his appointment as
king {Vit. Mos. 1.163). Philo does not describe any heavenly scene
with God's throne and Moses' installadon, however. Instead he elaborates on the word 'darkness' in Exod. 20.21, and states that Moses
entered into the realm that is hidden for mortals. In Quaest. in Exod.
2.28 Philo reveals that Moses, the prophetic mind, entered 'the
darkness' (Exod. 20.21) and dwelt in the forecourt of die palace of the
Father. Thus by die realm hidden for mortals in Vit. Mos. 1.158 Philo
meant God's royal premises. It should also be mentioned that in The
Mishnah of Rabbi Eliezer (ed. H.G. Enelow [New York: Bloch, 1933],
p. 150), Moses grasped the throne when he entered the darkness
where God was (Exod. 20.21).
Biblical Persons, Humanity,
Israel
Above, passages about the ascents of the biblical persons Enoch,
Abraham, Moses and Elijah have been analysed. Philo has at times
referred to them as persons without making a distinction between soul
and body and without allegorizing them in an explicit and extensive
way: Quaest. in Exod. 1.86; Virt. 7 2 - 7 5 ; Vit. Mos. 1.158; Leg. Gai.
75. At odier places the stories are spiritualized and materialized. Thus
Moses is in Migr. Abr. 169-71 understood to be 'the soul' (V^XTI).
45. See Meeks. The Prophet-King, pp. 110-11 and 192-95. widi references to
die use of main elements of the same tradidon about Moses being 'God' and his
ascent in ran/i., ed. Buber, 4.51ff., Num. R. 15.13, cf. Pes. R. Piska 32. 198b.
etc.; P. Borgen. 'Philo of Alexandria', pp. 267-68.
265
and the ascent is related to the area of wealth, holding office, and the
like, as well as to the arguments of the sophists. Also in Poster. C. 1 4 15 Moses is understood to be 'the soul' (viixn)- In Op. Mund. 69-71
Philo interprets Gen. 1.26, 'the image of God', as the human 'mind'
and 'soul'. The material in Philo is thus varied. At times he spiritualizes the ascent, as stated by Halperin. At other times he materializes
the ascent, however, and at times he just deals with the biblical
persons as persons.**
In various ways the ascents of biblical persons serve as paradigm
for others or reveals teachings to others:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
As for Gen. 5.24 about Enoch, in Quaest. in Gen. 1.86 the
term 'translation' is not only applied to Enoch's ascent, but it
means also that ' . . . t h e end of worthy and holy men is not
death, but translation and approaching another place'. Thus,
Enoch's (Moses', and Elijah's) translation without death serves
as model for the translation of holy individuals after death.
In the Song of Moses, Virt. 73-75, Moses sang his canticles
with every kind of harmony and symphony in order that
humans and ministering angels should listen. From this
human beings, as disciples, should learn from him the lesson
of the same kind of dianksgiving.
According to Migr. Abr. 168-75 die ascents of Abraham and
Moses show diat the one who 'has been exalted to such highsoaring height will no longer suffer any parts of his soul to
have their converse down below among things mortal, but
will draw them all up with him as if hanging on a rope'.
Having perceived the 'invisible and incorporeal archetypal
essence of existing things', Moses, being god and king, so
models his life after it that he becomes a paradigm for those
who are willing to copy it, Vit. Mos. 1.158. As king destined
also to be legislator, he was a living and articulate law, Vit.
Mos. 1.162.
In several places Philo tells about ascent without connecting it
with any particular persons. Thus, in Op. Mund. 69-71 it is
tiie soul, as the image of God, that ascends. In Spec. Leg.
1.36-38 for 'those who have not taken a mere sip of philosophy' tiie reason is lifted up. According to Spec. Leg. 2.44-45
46. Halperin. 'Ascension or Invasion', pp. 51-52.
266
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
'all who practise wisdom', 'while tiieir bodies are firmly
planted on the land, they provide their souls with wings so
tiiat tiiey may traverse tiie etiier...' In Spec. Leg. 2.229-30
Philo writes that parents in the up-bringing of their children
cultivate their souls by encyclical education and philosophy
which lift the mind and escort it to heaven, creating a longing
for the ever-harmonious order. Philo even interprets the
sacrificial acts as symbol of ascent: when offering die whole
burnt-offering, the washing of die 'feet' (Lev. 1.9) means
that one's steps should no longer be on earth but should
travel togedier with die edier. For the soul of die lover of
God leaps from earth to heaven {Spec. Leg. 1.207; Cf. Spec.
Leg. 2.45 and Congr. 103-105).
Although this survey of relevant material in Philo's writings is not
complete, tiie passages examined make evident that the motif of ascent
is understood in a variety of ways. Particular biblical persons have
experienced ascents by being brought up to the divine sphere by God,
and they form patterns and teach human beings in general; men and
women (Sarah, Ebr. 60-62) search upwards in education, and in
ecstatic inspiration long for seeing God. Persons are seen as ascending
by soul and mind, as well as die ascent by vision. Ascent is presented
as biblical exegesis, as autobiographical report, and as a description of
the monastic group of the Therapeutae. Thus the motif of ascent is
present as experience, as hermeneutical key and paradigm.
Against this background it is not surprising that Philo understands
the people of Israel to be the nation that ascends to God, since Philo
regards the Israelites as the true human beings.'" Although die ascent
as such is not elaborated upon in Spec. Leg. 2.166, the motif is
present. In Spec. Leg. 2.164 Philo offers criticism of polytheism, and
in §165 he says that both Greeks and barbarians recognize God, the
creator, but combined with polytheism. Then he writes:
When they went wrong in what was the most vital matter of all. it is the
literal mith that the error which the rest committed was corrected by die
nation of die Jews, which soared above all created objects... and chose
the service only of die Uncreated and Eternal...
In Deus Imm. 145-51 the ascent of die Jewish nation is specified as a
journey in Philo's interpretation of Num. 20.17: 'We will pass by
47. Cf. Borgen, 'Philo of Alexandria', pp. 266-67.
267
through your land/earth'. This is understood to mean passing by the
things of earth: wealth, glory, and the rest. 'These are the great
ventures of an Olympic and heavenly soul, which has left the earthly
region, has been drawn upwards, and dwells with divine natures'
( § 1 5 1 ) . 'Divine natures' are in Migr. Abr. 1 1 5 understood to be the
angels. The soul is not understood in an individualistic way in Deus
Imm. 1 5 1 , however, but it refers to the Jewish nation: 'in the school
of Moses it is not one man only [Socrates, § 1 4 6 - 4 7 ] who may boast
that he has learnt the first element of wisdom, but a whole nation, a
most populous people' ( § 1 4 8 ) . In contrast to the invasion into divinity
by the emperor Gains when he claimed to be god {Leg. Gai. 7 5 ) , the
true ascent of the Jewish nation is presented in Leg. Gai. 4 - 5 :
Now this race is called in die Hebrew tongue Israel, but expressed in our
tongue, die word is 'he diat sees God'... souls whose vision has soared
above all created diings...
Sumrtiary
In Quaest. in Gen. 1.86, Mut. Nom. 3 8 and Sacr. 8 - 1 0 Philo gives an
early documentation of traditions about the assumptions of Enoch,
Moses and Elijah, meaning that they entered the heavenly realm widiout experiencing death. These traditions were widespread within
Judaism, as evidenced by passages in Josephus's writings, apocalyptic
writings, the New Testament and rabbinic writings. Although Philo
has his place within this Jewish setting, he also reflects Platonic
influence in his formulations.
Op. Mund. 6 9 - 7 1 has many points of parallels and agreements witii
rabbinic and apocalyptic writings on the one hand as well as on the
other hand Platonic, Stoic and Hellenistic astrological sources. The
penetration of Greek ideas is found in rabbinic and apocalyptic
writings and even more extensively in Philo's text. In Spec. Leg.
3.Iff. Philo tells about his own inspired ascent in a way similar to the
description of the ascent in Op. Mund. 7 0 . Philo does not hesitate
adding his own inspiration and ascent to the ascents of the biblical
persons, such as Enoch, Moses and Elijah. His inspired and prophetic
exegesis of the Laws of Moses shows affinity with the revelatory use
of Scripture in apocalyptic writings.
Several of Philo's texts fit togetiier with Himmelfarb's characterization of the apocalypses in her article 'Heavenly A s c e n t . . . ' , cited
268
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
above: the heroes are taken to heaven at God's command. Thus they
ascend without meeting evil forces.
At several places Philo pictures the ascent against the opposing idea
of invasion of heaven, or in a more general way against the opposing
idea of corrupt behaviour against God's Laws.
The material on ascent in Philo is extensive and varied. Often the
biblical persons serve as paradigm for others or reveal teachings to
others. Since ascent in this way is not only the experience of heavenly
journeys by biblical and other persons, but also serves as a paradigm,
it is not surprising that Philo understands the people of Israel to be the
nation that ascends to God. The true ascent of the Jewish nadon has as
contrast die invasion into divinity by die emperor Gains.
Philo's ascent texts have closer affinides to the ascent stories in
some rabbinic texts and in apocalypdc writings than to the ascents
as pictured in the hekhalot literature and in gnostic writings. Philo
provides interesting background perspectives for the New Testament,
especially for die Revelation of John.
RESURRECTION AS GIVING BACK THE DEAD:
A TRADITIONAL IMAGE OF RESURRECTION IN THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN
Richard
Bauckham
I
The relationship between the Apocalypse of John and the extracanonical
Jewish apocalypses has been variously understood. At one extreme are
those who see Reveladon as a typical Jewish apocalypse, whose
admittedly Chrisdan authorship makes little significant difference,'
while at the other extreme are those who distinguish sharply between
prophecy and apocalyptic and minimize Revelation's resemblances to
die Jewish apocalypses in order to classify it as a Christian prophecy
in continuity with Old Testament prophecy.^ This discussion has often
not sufficiently recognized the diversity of the Jewish apocalypses,
both in themes and in literary forms. Nor has it sufficiendy distinguished the various dimensions of Revelation's possible relationship to
1. J. Massyngberde Ford {Revelation [AB, 38; New York: Doubleday. 1975])
offers one version of the view, which was more popular in a past era of source criticism, diat Revelation in fact originated as a Jewish apocalypse (among the followers
of John die Baptist, according to Ford), to which some Christian additions have been
made. The rather common view diat Revelation is 'more Jewish than Christian' (cf.
R. Bultmann's famous statement: 'The Chri.stianity of Revelation has to be termed a
weakly christianized Judaism* [Theology of the New Testament, U (London: SCM
Press, 1955), p. 175]) rests on the untenable presupposition that early Christianity
was somediing different from Judaism, whereas in fact first-century Christianity was
a distinctive form of Judaism.
2. Most recendy. F.D. Mazzaferri. The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a
Source-Critical Perspective (BZNW. 54; Berlin: de Gruyter. 1989). His case for
Revelation's continuity with OT prophecy is excellent, but unfortunately his account
of Jewish apocalyptic is a caricature. E. SchUssler Fiorenza {The Book of
Revelation: Justice and Judgment [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], ch. 5) righdy
refuses the alternative of prophecy or apocalyptic.
270
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
them. Thus one could ask whether John is indebted to Jewish apocalyptic for the literary forms he uses, for theological ideas, for
symbolic images, for the ways in which he interprets Old Testament
Scriptures. In each of these aspects he may be more or less distinctive
while also being indebted to apocalyptic tradition. His distinctiveness
may be comparable to that of one Jewish apocalypse in relation to
others' or it m.ay come out of his deliberately Christian prophetic consciousness and message. We should probably reckon with both types
of distinctiveness.
One aspect of Revelation's relationship to the Jewish apocalypses
that has been little enough explored is Revelation's use of specific
items of apocalyptic tradition that also appear in Jewish apocalypses
and sometimes also in later Christian apocalypses. Where these have
been noticed they have often been taken to show that John was actually
borrowing from a particular Jewish apocalyptic work, such as
/ Enoch.* Although it is a priori quite likely that John had read some
of the Jewish apocalypses diat we know, it seems to me impossible to
prove his specific literary dependence on any such work. The U-aditions in question usually turn out to be attested in a variety of works,
Jewish and Christian, in such a way tiiat a chain of literary dependence
is very difficult to reconsUnct, and it seems more plausible to think of
u-aditions that were known, independendy of their use in particular
apocalypses, in circles, Jewish and Christian, diat studied and produced
apocalyptic literatiire. One such u-adition, which occurs in Revelation,
will be studied in this chapter.' It is a way of describing the general
resurrection, which in Rev. 20.13a takes tfiis form: 'And the sea gave
up the dead which were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead
which were in them'.
The study of the U-adition to which Rev. 20.13a belongs will not
only illuminate this verse's relationship to that tradition and illusttate
3. 1 point out some rarely noted differences between Reveladon and die major
Jewish apocalypses in R.J. Bauckhem, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the
Boole of Revelation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 1993), pp. 174-77.
4. E.g. R.H. Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation
of St John (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 1920). I. pp. Ixv. Ixxxii-lxxxiii; and
for discussion, cf. Mazzaferri, Genre, pp. 48-49.
5. I deal with other examples in The Climax of Prophecy, ch. 2.1 show
Revelation'sextensive allusions to traditions about the messianic war in The Climax
of Prophecy, ch. 8.
BAUCKHAM Resurrection as Giving Back the Dead
271
Revelation's use of apocalyptic traditions. It will also be a contribution
to the study of ideas of resurrection in early Judaism and early
Christianity. For most Jews and Christians, including most of those
who wrote the extant literature, such ideas were embodied in conventional ways of speaking about resurrection: words, phrases, images,
and scriptural allusions. Some of these, such as the image of resurrection as a waking from sleep, are well-known. But study of the full
range of conventional ways of speaking of resurrection in the literature of this period has only begun.* It is important that it be pursued
if we are to advance our understanding of the context in which the
New Testament writers spoke of resurrection. In this chapter, we shall
explore one traditional image of resurrection: that of the place of the
dead giving back the dead.
II
In diis section I present the collection of texts tiiat will be discussed in
die rest of die chapter:
A. 7 Enoch
5\.\:
And in those days the earth will return diat which has been entrusted
to it.
and Sheol will return that which has been entrusted to it, that which
it has received,
and desuiicdon [Abaddon] will return what it owes.'
6. Significant studies of the language of resurrection include M.E. Dahl, The
Resurrection of the Body (SBT 36; London: SCM Press, 1962), pp. 98-100, 12125; C F . Evans. Resurrection and the New Testament (SBT. 2/12; London: SCM
Press. 1970), pp. 20-27; J.F.A. Sawyer, 'Hebrew Words for the Resurrection of
die Dead', VT 23 (1973), pp. 218-34; J. Chmiel. 'Semantics of die Resurrection',
in E.A. Livingstone (ed.). Studia Biblica 1978.1. Papers on Old Testament and
Related Themes (JSOTSup, II; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1979). pp. 59-64.
7. Trans. M.A. Knibb. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, II (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1978). p. 135. E. Isaac (in OTP, I, p. 36) prefers a form of die Ediiopic text
widi only two main clauses:
In dwse days. Sheol will return all die deposits which she had
received
and hell [Abaddon] will give back all which it owes.
Isaac discusses the textual variants in this verse in 'New Light upon the Book of
Enoch from Newly-Found Ethiopic MSS', JAOS 103 (1983). p. 408. where he
272
Interpretation
B. 4 Ezra 7.32:
Et tena reddet qui in earn dormiunt
et pulvis qui in eo silendo habitant
et promptuaria reddent quae eis commendatae sunt animae.
And die earth shall give back diose who sleep in it,
and die dust those who dwell silendy in it,
and die chambers shall give back die souls which have been committed
to diem
C. Revelation
20.13:
KOI e8(0Kev f) GdXaooa xow; veKpowi; xo\><; ev ouTfj,
Koi 6 GovoTO? Koi 6 "AiSii; eStoKtv tov? veKpovi; TOU? ev
awtoi?...
And die sea gave up the dead which were in it.
And Deadi and Hades gave up die dead which were in them...
D. Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 3.10:
. . . Et vivificabo mortuos, et erigam dormientes de terra.
Et reddet infemus debitum suum
et perditio restituet paratecen suam...
. . . And I will give life to the dead, and raise from die earth diose
who sleep,
and Sheol will give back what it owes,
and Abaddon will restore what has been enuiisted to it...
E.2BarMc/i21.23:
Therefore, reprove the angel of deadi. and let your glory appear, and
let the greamess of your beauty be known,
and let die realm of deadi [Sheol] be sealed so diat it may not
receive die dead from diis dme,
and let the treasuries of die souls restore diose who are enclosed in
them.*
argues diat die diree-clause form of die text is a secondary scribal harmonization widi
4 Ezra 7.32 (our text B). However, die diree-clause form of die text of / £«. 51.1 is
closer to LAB 3.10 (our text D). widi which it shares the same diree terms for die
place of the dead (die earth, Sheol, Abaddon). Since LAB is not extant in Ediiopic.
this correspondence cannot have originated within the Ethiopic textual tradition.
Therefore most probably die diree-clause form of die text of / £>i. 51.1 is original.
8. Trans. A.F.J. Klijn, in OTP, I, p. 628.
F. Apocalypse
273
of Peter 4 . 3 - 4 :
He will command Gehenna to open its gates of steel and to give back
all who are in it.
"He will command die beasts and die birds to give back all the flesh
diat diey have eaten,
because he wills diat (all) humankind appear...'
G . Apocalypse
of Peter 4 . 1 0 - 1 2 :
'"See and understand die seeds that are sown, dry and lifeless, upon die
ground, and come to life and bear fruit' 'The eardi gives back as it were
the deposit widi which it has been enuvsted. That which dies is the seed
that is sown upon the ground, and comes to life, and is given for Ihe life
of humankind. '^How much more, on the day of judgment will God
raise up diose who believe in him, and his elect for whose sake he made
(die world).'"
H. Apocryphal quotation in Tertullian, De Resurrectione
32.1:
Et mandabo piscibus maris
et eructuabunt ossa quae sunt comesta.
et faciam compaginem ad compaginam et os ad os.
And I will command die fish of die sea.
and they shall vomit up die bones that were consumed.
and I will bring joint to joint and bone to bone.
I. 2 Baruch 4 2 . 8 :
And dust will be called, and told,
'Give back dial which does not belong to you
and raise up all that you have kept undl its own time'."
9. Trans. J. Hills. This ttanslation of the Ediiopic version of the Apocalypse of
Peter, which I use by permission of the U-anslator, will be published in A. Yarbro
Collins and M. Himmelfarb (eds.). New Testament Apocrypha, II (Sonoma, CA:
Polebridge Press), forthcoming.
10. Trans. J. Hills. The idea of die earth giving back the dead also occurs in the
Ethiopic version of 4.13 ('On die day of judgment die earth will give back all
diings...'), but has probably been intfoduced here by die Ethiopic translator. It does
not occur in the original Greek of this verse which has survived in a quotation in
Macarius Magnes, Apocritica 4.6.16 (T) -fy icapaotriaei xavta?
6e^ ev tmepot
Xpicew?...).
11. Trans. A.F.J. Klijn, in OTP, I. p. 634.
274
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
J. 2 Baruch 50.2:
For Ihe earth will surely give back the dead at that Ume;
it receives diem now in order to keep diem, not changing anydiing in
their form.
But as it has received them so it will give them back
And as I have delivered diem to it so it will raise diem.'^
K. 4 Ezra 4.41b-43a:
In inferno prompUiaria animarum matrici adsimilala sunt.
*^Quemadmodum enim fesdnavit quae parii effugere necessitatem
partus,
sic et haec fesdnat reddere ea quae commendata sunt "'ab inido.
The chambers of die souls in Sheol are like die womb.
"•^For just as a woman in travail hastens to escape die pains of
childbirth,
so also do diese places hasten to give back what has been entrusted to
them ^'from the beginning.
L. Pseudo-Philo, Uber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum 33.3:
. . . infemus accipiens sibi dcposila non resUtuet nisi reposcetur ab
eo qui deposuit e i . . .
Sheol which has received what has been enuiisted to it will not
restore it unless it is reclaimed by him who entrusted it to
it...
M. Midrash on Psalms 1.20 (on Ps. 1.4):
R. Berechiah taught: It was the wilderness which said, / am the rose of
Sharon [Song 2.1]: 'I am the one beloved by die Holy One, blessed be
He, for all the good things of the world are hidden widiin me, and God
has bestowed his blessing upon me, for He said, / will plant in the
wilderness the cedar, the Shitlah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil-tree; I
will set in the desert the fir-tree, and the pine, and the box-tree together
[Isa. 41.10]. And when die Holy One, blessed be He, requires it of me, I
shall return to God what He laid away widi me, and I shall again blossom
as the rose, and shall sing a song to Him, for it is said. The wilderness
and the parched land shall be glad: and the desert shall rejoice, and
blossom as the rose' [Isa. 35.1].
The Rabbis taught that it was die earth which said / am the rose of
Sharon: 'I am the beloved one in whose shadows all the dead of Ihe
world are hidden. But when the Holy One, blessed be He, requires it of
12. Trans. A.F.J. Klijn, in OTP, I, p. 638.
275
me, I shall return to Him what He laid away with me, as it is said Thy
dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise—Awake and sing ye that dwell
in the dust [Isa. 26.19], and I will blossom as dte rose, and sing a song
to God, as it is said From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard
songs: "Glory to the Righteous" [Isa. 24.16]."
N. Midrash Rabbah on the Song of Songs 2.1 §2:
R. Berekiah said: This verse [Song 2.1] is spoken by die wilderness.
Said the wilderness: 'I am the wilderness, and beloved am I, for all the
good things of the world are hidden in me, as it says, / will plant in the
wilderness the cedar, die acacia tree [Isa. 41.19]; God has placed diem in
me for safe keeping, and when God requires diem from me, I shall return
to Him His deposit unimpaired. I also shall blossom with good deeds,
and chant a song before Him, as it says. The wilderness and the parched
land shall be glad [Isa. 35.1 ]'. In the name of the Rabbis it was said: This
verse is said by die land [of Israel]. It says: *I am it, and I am beloved,
since all die dead are hidden in me. as it says. 77iy dead shall live, my
dead bodies shall arise [Isa. 26.19]. When God shall require diem from
me I shall return them to Him. and I shall blossom fordi with good deeds
like a rose, and chant a new song before Him. as it says. From the uttermost parts of the earth have we heard songs' [Isa. 24.16].'*
O. Pirqe de R. Eliezer §34:
Rabbi Ishmael said: All die bodies crumble into the dust of die earth, undl
nothing remains of the body except a spoonful of earthy matter. In the
future life, when die Holy One. blessed be He, calls to the earth to return
all the bodies deposited with it, that which has become mixed with the
dust of the earth, like the yeast which is mixed widi die dough, improves
and increases, and it raises up all die body. When die Holy One, blessed
be He. calls to the earth to return all die bodies deposited widi it. diat
which has become mixed with the dust of the earth, improves and
increases and raises up all die body widiout water."
13. Trans. W.G. Braude. The Midrash on Psalms, I (New Haven: Yale
University Press. 1959), pp. 28-29. Braude's note explains the first paragraph as
referring to the generation that died in the wilderness wanderings and were buried in
the desert, but another possibility is suggested by I En. 61.5. quoted and discussed
in section IV below.
14. Trans. M. Simon in H. Freedman and M. Simon (eds.), Midrash Rabbah,
IX (London: Soncino Press. 1939), p. 92.
15. Trans. G. Friedlander, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (New York: Sepher-Hermon,
2nd edn, 1965), p. 258.
276
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
P. Pesiqta Rabbati 21.4:
Another comment [on Ps. 76.9]: R. Phinehas taught in the name of
R. Johanan: If the earth is said to have feared, why stilH And if still, why
feared! The explanation of the earth's fear is in what the earth said: 'It
may be diat the dme of the resurrection of die dead has come and die Holy
One, blessed be He, requires of me what He has deposited widi me, as it
is written. The earth also shall disclose her blood and shall no more cover
her slain' [Isa. 26.21]. But then when she heard God say /, she grew
still.'*
Q. b. Sanh. 92a:
R. Tabi said in R. Josia's name: What is meant by. The grave; and the
barren womb; and the earth that is not filled by water [Prov. 30.16]: now,
what connection has die grave widi die womb? But it is to teach thee: just
as the womb receives and brings forth, so does die grave too receive and
bring forth. Now, does not this furnish us with an a fortiori argument? If
die womb, which receives in silence, yet brings forth amid great cries [of
jubiliation]; then die grave, which receives the dead amid cries [of grief],
will much more so bring them forth amid great cries [of joy]!"
Ill
It will be useful to preface our consideration of the texts given in
section 11 with a brief distinction between two basic ideas of resurrection in Jewish tradition, which we may call unitary and dualistic. The
simplest and doubtless the earliest Jewish notion of resurrection was
that the dead would return from the place of the dead to life on earth.
This presupposed the existence of the dead as shades in Sheol and
imagined these shades returning from Sheol to real life. Because
ancient Israelite thought made no sharp distinctions between Sheol and
the grave or between the dead person in Sheol and the body in the
grave, such distinctions did not belong to the original notion of resurrection. The dead person was conceived as returning from Sheol and
of course resuming a fully corporeal existence, but this did not necessarily mean that the shade from Sheol was reunited with his or her
corpse, resuscitated from the grave. Since death was not conceived as
16. Trans. W.G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati, I (Yale Judaica Series. 18; New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), p. 419.
17. Trans. H. Freedman in I. Epstein (ed.). The Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin
(London: Soncino Press. 1935), p. 618.
111
the separation of the person from his or her body, but as the death of
the bodily person, so resurrection was not the reunion of person and
body, but the resurrection of the bodily person. The notion is not the
resurrection of the body so much as the bodily resurrection of the
dead.
Reflection on and apologetic defence of this idea could easily produce a more dichotomous anthropology in which death is seen as the
separation of the shade diat descends to Sheol from the body diat is
laid in the grave, and resurrection is therefore understood as the
reunion of the two. Such a development is quite comprehensible even
witiiout Hellenistic influence, though Hellenistic influence may have
had some part to play in it. In any case, the dualism implied in this is
not a truly Greek dualism, but preserves in its own way tiie Jewish
conviction that human life is essentially corporeal. If the shade and its
body are sharply distinguished in death, then precisely because the
body is integral and essential to die person's life, a return to life must
mean the return of the body to life just as much as the return of the
shade to life. It must mean the reunion of shade and body in restored
bodily life. When the words soul or spirit are used in this conception
to refer to the shade in Sheol," they should not be taken in the fully
Platonic sense of the real person who never dies but escapes from the
body into eternal life. Bodi die soul in Sheol and the body in the grave
are dead—both come back to life in the resurrection when they are
reunited. The more soul and body were distinguished in death, die
more it was necessary to preserve the Jewish unitary view of human
life by insisting that this earthly body is raised to eternal life." While
the older view was content to think of the dead returning (of course,
to bodily life), many Jews and Christians of the first and second
centuries CE increasingly insisted on the resurrection (as well as, of
course, transformation) of this body which has been buried in the
grave. They did not all do so, but often it was precisely those who
were most aware of Hellenistic antiiropological dualism who guarded
against it by stressing the resurrection of this body, and who entered
on a rather detailed apologetic for this somewhat difficult notion.
However, what we need especially to recognize in the present
18. For the usage of these terms, see D.S. Russell, The Method and Message of
Jewish Apocalyptic (London: SCM Press. 1964), pp. 357-60.
19. Of course, there were also forms of Jewish expectation that did not expect
bodily resurrection: e.g. Jubilees, Wisdom.
278
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
context is that older ways of thinking and speaking of resurrection,
simply as the return of the dead from Sheol, persisted alongside
newer, more dualistic ideas of a reunion of soul and body. The
former were enshrined in various traditional ways of speaking about
resurrection, of which the tradition we shall study was one. It is probably correct to suppose that many writers had not so much a concept
of resurrection, but rather a number of conventional ways of speaking
of resurrection. Older and newer ways of speaking of resurrection
were not necessarily perceived as contradictory and both could be used
by the same writer. Armed with these preliminary observations we
may be better able to appreciate the tradition embodied in the series of
texts collected in section II, whose basic image of resurrection is that
the place of the dead will give back the dead.
With the exception of the rabbinic texts (M-Q), in which the tradition survives at later dates, all of the texts given (A-L) probably date
from the period c. 50-150 CE. However, we should remember that
this is a period from which a great deal of Jewish and Chrisdan apocalypdc literature survives. It may be an accident of the survival of
sources that the tradidon is not attested earlier.^" In any case, it seems
clear that the recurrence of this tradidon in a variety of Jewish and
Chrisdan works cannot be explained purely by literary relationships
among these works.^' We must be dealing widi a rather widespread
traditional formula.
Since a great deal of Jewish thinking about resurrection seems to
have derived from reflection on Old Testament texts that could be
interpreted as referring to resurrection, it is possible that our tradition originated as a paraphrase of tiie end of Isa. 26.19 ('tiie earth will
cast forth the shades', or 'tiie earth will give birtii to tiie shades').
Apart from Isa. 26.21, if this is interpreted of resurrection, Isa. 26.19
is the only Old Testament text that makes the place of the dead (here
20. Therefore it is rather doubtful whedier die correspondence between / En. 51.1
and examples of our uadition in 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra and LAB can itself be taken as an
indication of a latefirst-centuryCE date for die Parables of Enoch, as G. Stemberger
(Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologic und Eschatologie des
paldstinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter [ca. 170 v. Chr—100
n. Chr.l [AnBib, 56; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972], p. 29) proposes.
21. M. Black (77ie Book of Enoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition [SVTP. 7;
Leiden: Brill. 1985]. p. 214) regards LAB 3.10 as 'a clear allusion' to / En. 51.1,
but die full range of parallels makes common tradition at least as likely.
279
the earth) the subject of the act of resurrection, just as our tradition
does. Modem scholarship usually takes "j'sn to mean 'will give birth
to' (lit. let [the young] drop). The earth gives birth to the dead who
are at present in her womb. This image of resurrection as birth is rare
in later Jewish literature, but texts K (4 Ezra 4.41-42) and text Q {b.
Sanh. 92a) both compare the place of the dead with the womb and the
act of resurrection with childbirth. Isa. 26.19 may lie behind these
passages. It is worth nodng that text Q (included at the end of our
collection of texts because it uses the idea, though not the actual
language of giving back the dead) understands childbirth as a matter
of giving back what has been received. Just as the womb receives and
brings forth, so the grave receives die dead and brings them fordi.
However, if our tradition originated from interpretation of Isa.
26.19, the Jewish reader of Isa. 26.19 who originated it missed or did
not appreciate the image of childbirth. Instead, he paraphrased the last
three words of the verse in terms of a legal metaphor: 'the earth will
retum that which has been entrusted to i t ' . " This statement occurs in
tills form in text A (/ £n. 51.1), which may well preserve die most
original form of our tradition, and the same idea recurs in many of
our texts (see texts B , D, G, I, K, L, M, O, P). The full legal terminology is clearest in text L (LAB 33.3). The idea is that God has
entrusted tiie dead to the place of the dead for safekeeping. The place
of the dead does not therefore own them, but owes them to God and
must return them when he reclaims them at the time of the resurrection. The point of the metaphor is diat Sheol has no absolute right to
the dead, as though it could retain diem for ever. It has only a temporary right, a kind of custodianship of die dead, granted it by God. The
deadactiially belong to God; he entrusts tiiem to Sheol for safekeeping,
but retains the right to reclaim diem. The idea dierefore represents a
powerful step beyond the old idea that in death a person falls out of
the sphere of God's sovereignty into the power of Sheol. The metaphor of G o d ' s entmsting the dead to Sheol for safekeeping is an
assertion of God's sovereignty over die realm of the dead, and therefore of his power to demand that Sheol surrender the dead back to life.
The three lines of text A (7 £n. 51.1) repeat the same thought in
synonymous parallelism. The three terms ' e a r t h ' , ' S h e o l ' and
22. The same legal metaphor is used differendy in the idea that a person's soul is
entrusted to him or her by God and must be returned at deadi: C t Apoc. Ezra 6.3,
17. 2\;Apoc. Sedr. 9.2; Hermas. Mand. 3.2.
280
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
'Abaddon' are used synonymously for the place of the dead. The
thought of the whole verse is simply that the place of the dead will
give back the dead who have been entrusted to it. Some have interpreted this text (as well as other texts in our collection) according to
the dualistic understanding of resurrection, according to which the
body must be recovered from one place, the soul from another, in
order to be reunited. The earth restores the body, Sheol and Abaddon
die soul. But in that case one would have expected two lines radier
than diree. R.H. Charles diought diat Sheol and Abaddon represent
two different places from which the righteous and die wicked souls
respectively come;^' but diere is no evidence of such a distinction
between the terms Sheol and Abaddon in Jewish literature.^* In Old
Testament texts they occur in synonymous parallelism as alternative
terms for tiie place of die dead (Job 26.6; cf. Prov. 15.11; 27.20; IQH
3.19). It is best to interpret die whole verse in continuity with Old
Testament thought, according to which the dead person is in the earth
or Sheol or Abaddon.^' The personification of die place of die dead is
also rooted in Old Testament usage (e.g. Job 24.19; 28.22; Isa. 5.14).
Comparison of text A (7 £n. 51.1) with the following texts (B-E)
shows that there was a traditional formulation, whose basic structure
is three lines of synonymous parallelism expressing the thought that
the place of the dead will give back the dead. The persistence of the
direefold form indicates that in none of these cases are we likely to be
justified in distinguishing a place of the body and a place of the soul:
the idea expressed in diis form remains die simple one of the return of
the dead. The various terms for the place of the dead that are used in
these texts can be understood, largely from an Old Testament background, as synonyms for Sheol.
As well as the diree terms for die place of the dead in text A (7 En.
51.1)—die earth, Sheol, Abaddon—which recur exactiy in text D and
two of which recur individually in some other texts (earth: texts B, D,
G, M, N, O, P; Sheol/Hades: texts: C, E, L), tiie following terms are
also u.sed in these texts to describe the place or the power that gives
23. R.H. Charles. The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2nd edn.
1912). p. 99.
24. Stemberger. Leib der Auferstehung, p. 46. In Asc. Isa. 10.8. Abaddon is
die lowest part of die underworld, below Sheol. but there is no indicadon that it
contains a disdnct class of die dead.
25. For the earth as synonymous with Sheol, see 1 Sam. 28.13.
281
back the dead: die dust (texts B, I), die chambers or treasuries of die
souls (texts B, E, K), die sea (text C), Deadi (text C), die angel of
deadi (text E), and Gehenna (text F). The last is surprising, especially
since the text refers to die iron gates which are elsewhere those of
Sheol/Hades,^* and must be understood as die Ethiopic translation's
rendering of Hades in the original Greek of the Apocalypse of Peter}''
This is confirmed by Sib. Or. 2.228-29 (quoted in section IV below),
which is dependent on this verse of the Apocalypse of Peter and refers
to 'die gates of Hades'. The references in texts F and H to animals that
are commanded to give back die dead will be left aside now for
discussion in section IV.
Of the remaining terms, 'die dust* is used as in Isa. 26.19 and Dan.
12.2, two key passages for the Jewish concept of resurrection, as well
as in otiier Old Testament passages (e.g. Job 17.16; 20.11; Pss. 22.29;
30.10), for die place of die dead. 'The angel of deadi' in text E (2 Bar.
21.23) may be Abaddon, who is 'die angel of die abyss' in Rev. 9.11.
The personification of Abaddon in Job 28.22 could have led to die
idea that he is the angel in charge of the underworld and therefore the
angelic power to whom God entrusts the dead.
In Rev. 20.13 the diree places of die dead are the sea, Death and
Hades. The personified Death may be this author's substitute for
Abaddon, since he has used the latter name for the king of the demons
(rather dian die ruler of die dead) in 9.11 (cf. also 4QBer» 2.7). Deadi
and Hades are a standard pair in Revelation (1.18; 6.8; 20.13-14; cf.
also LAB 3.10b) and may represent tiie Old Testament pair Sheol and
Abaddon, diough tiiere is also Old Testament precedent for the pair
Death and Sheol (Hos. 13.14). More problematic is die sea. It is not
plausible to introduce a distinction between body and soul into this
verse, so diat sea is die place from which die bodies of diose who have
died at sea are recovered, while Death and Hades surrender tiieir
souls.^* In diis case, the earth as the place where the bodies of other
26. Isa. 38.10; Wis. 16.13; 3 Mace. 5.51; Pss. Sol. 16.2; Mt. 16.18; cf. Ps.
107.16; OdM 17.10.
27. Cf. D.D. Buchholz. Your Eyes Will Be Opened: A Study of the Creek
(Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter (SBLDS. 97; AUanta: Scholars Press, 1988). p. 293.
28. J. Dani61ou (The Theology of Jewish Christianity (u-ans. J. A.Baker; London:
Danon. Longman & Todd; Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1964]. pp. 24-25)
suggests that according to die original text of 4 (5) Ezra 2.31 God will bring the dead
from die 'depdis of the earth' and 'the depdis of die sea'; but diis reconstruction of
282
Interpretation
people are to be found would surely have to be mentioned too. But in
any case, the object of both clauses is 'the dead' (xov? vcKpow?). The
language is clearly not intended to disdnguish soul and body, but
simply to speak of the retum of die dead. There seem then to be two
possible explanations for die reference to the sea. It may be die place
for a special category of the dead: those who have died at sea.^'
Whereas those who are buried in the eardi are thought of as being in
Sheol/Hades, diose who die at sea are diought of as being in die subterranean ocean. But diere seems to be no other evidence for this distinction." So more probably, and in die light of several Old Testament passages which closely associate the subterranean ocean with
Sheol (e.g. 2 Sam. 22.5-6; Job 26.5; Ps. 69.15; Jon. 2), die sea is here
simply another synonym for Sheol. Thus Rev. 20.13 preserves the
synonymous parallelism exhibited by the tradition as found elsewhere.
There remains the term 'the chambers of die souls'. This term
occurs frequendy in 4 Ezra, twice in 2 Baruch (21.23; 30.2), once in
Pseudo-Philo {LAB 32.13; cf. 21.9), and occasionally in die Rabbis, to
designate the place where the righteous dead await die resurrection
{LAB 15.5 also speaks of the 'chambers of darkness' where the
wicked are kept). It may have originated as an interpretation of Isa.
2 6 . 2 0 . " Whether or not the original text of 4 Ezra 4.41 (text K)
the original text is highly conjectural. Cf. also Sib. Or. 2.233 (quoted in section IV
below): but here those who die at sea are only one category of several whose bodies
are destroyed widiout burial.
29. Charles {Revelation, II, pp. 195-96) diinks diis is die meaning of die present
text, though he considers die original text to have read tot tajieio rather than f)
BdXaooa.
30. Cf. H.B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St John (London: Macmillan, 2nd edn,
1907). p. 273; M. Kiddle, The Revelation of St John (MNTC; London: Hodder &
Stoughton. 1940), p. 406; G.B. Caird. The Revelation of St John the Divine
(BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1966), p. 260. These writers depend on a
passage in Achilles Tatius (fifdi century CE). cited by Wettstein. to the effect diat
those who die at sea have no access to Hades. I do not know die basis for the claim
by Ford {Revelation, p. 359). diat *diere was a U-adition diat only diose who died on
dry land would rise from die dead'.
31. This is how the chambers (xaneia) of Isa. 26.19 are understood in / Clem.
50.4.whichgivesacompositequotationof Isa. 26.19 and Ezek. 37.12.(Ondiis quotation, see Dani^lou. Theology of Jewish Christianity, p. 95; and idem, 'La vision des
ossements dess&hds (Ezech. 37.1-14) dans les testimonia'. RSR 53 [ 1965].pp. 221.
225). That the chambers of Isa. 26.19 are in Sheol could have been concluded by
comparison with Prov. 7.27, according to the midrashic technique of g'zlrd sawd.
283
explicitly located the chambers of the souls in Sheol, there can be little
doubt that both 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra imply that the chambers are in
Sheol. So the phrase 'the chambers of the souls' is another equivalent
to Sheol, the place of the dead, at least with reference to the righteous
dead.
In this context 'souls' need mean no more than the dead in Sheol,
the shades. It need not imply the distinction of body and soul in death
and resurrection as the reunion of the two. Certainly, this dichotomous view of death and resurrection seems not to be found in 2 Baruch,
which can describe the resurrection either as the coming forth of the
souls from the chambers (ch. 3 0 ) or as the restoration of the dead by
the earth in the same bodily form in which they died (ch. 5 0 ) . These
are surely not two distinct aspects of resurrection, but alternative
ways of describing the same event: the return of the dead to bodily
life. 2 Baruch never speaks of death as the separation of soul and body
or of resurrection as the reunion of the two.
4 Ezra, however, does explicitiy speak of death as die separation of
soul and body ( 7 . 7 8 , 8 8 - 8 9 , 1 0 0 ) . " Presumably, dierefore, for diis
author resurrection must be the reunion of body and soul, and
Stemberger argues that he actually describes it in those terms in 7 . 3 2
(our text B ) , though his use of the traditional formulation hampers
him in doing so. According to Stemberger, the first two lines of this
text are intended to describe the retum of die body from the earth, the
third line the return of die soul from the chambers." He argues that
the third line is set apart from the first two by the change from die
simple pronoun (qui) to 'the souls which' (animae quae)}*
However, it remains more plausible to interpret all three lines as
synonymous parallelism, as elsewhere in diis tradition. In each line the
author uses a traditional description of the dead which is appropriate
to the place of the dead as specified in that line. Thus in the first line,
the earth gives back those who sleep in it, because 'those who sleep in
the earth' is a traditional description of the dead (Dan. 1 2 . 2 ; 2 Bar.
1 1 . 4 ; 2 1 . 2 4 ) , while in the second line the dust gives back those who
dwell silendy in it, because 'those who dwell in the dust' is another
ti-aditional description of tiie dead (Isa. 2 6 . 1 9 ; cf. Job 7 . 2 1 ; Dan. 1 2 . 2 ;
32. On 4 Ezra's anthropology, see Stemberger. Leib der Auferstehung, pp. 7981.
33. Stemberger. Leib der Auferstehung, pp. 75, 82.
34. Stemberger. Leib der Auferstehung, p. 74.
284
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
IQH 6.34)." When in the third line the author uses 'souls' to describe
the dead, this is not meant to distinguish this line from the first two,
but simply to correspond to the conventional phrase 'the chambers of
the souls'. When 'the chambers' is used for the place of the dead, the
appropriate term for the dead is 'souls', just as when 'the earth' is
used for the place of the dead, the appropriate term for the dead is
'those who sleep in it'. Thus 4 Ezra has not broken the rule that the
three lines of the traditional form are synonymous, and although the
author himself probably understood resurrection as the reunion of
soul and body, the language of the traditional form he uses in itself
expresses no more than the simple idea of the retum of the dead from
die place of the dead.
In 4 Ezra 7.32 we see the persistence of the traditional form in a
context where it is no longer stricdy appropriate. If diis form is to be
interpreted consistendy with a dichotomous view of death and resurrection, it becomes necessary to regard the dead whom Sheol restores
as either souls who retum from tiie place of souls or bodies that are
brought up from tfieir graves. If tiie audior of 4 Ezra himself interpreted 7.32 in line with his own dichotomous view, he must have
taken it to refer to the return of souls rather than bodies. In other
writers, however, the language of bringing back the dead was adapted
to die dichotomous view in the alternative manner, diat is, it is used of
die retum of bodies from dieir graves. This is the case in text Q, a
late rabbinic passage, which is clearly concerned with the physical
continuity of the old body and the resurrection body, and interprets
the traditional language to mean diat the earth receives and restores
the corpse. It dierefore exhibits an apologetic concern witii the problem of the decay of the corpse, which is foreign to the older way of
speaking represented by die majority of our texts. It is worth noticing
that although the rabbis in general held a dichotomous view of death
and resurrection, the other rabbinic texts in our collection (N, P, Q)
still speak of the earth receiving and restoring the dead, not their
bodies. This is a striking example of tiie persistence of conventional
language about resurrection.
A particularly interesting use of our tradition occurs in 2 Bar. 50.2
(text J). Like Paul in 1 Cor. 15.35, the audior is here concerned to
answer die question, 'In what form will tiie dead rise?' (cf. 49.2-3).
The answer is a kind of two-stage resurrection: the dead are first
35. For Sheol as a place of silence, cf. Pss. 94.17; 115.17.
285
raised in exactly the form in which they died (50.2) and then transformed into glory. The first stage is necessary so that the dead can be
recognized. This seems to be in answer to an apologedc problem that
is explicidy raised in rabbinic literature (e.g. Gen. R. 95.1 (on Gen.
46.28); Eccl. R. 1.4 §2): how will it be possible to know diat it is
really the dead who are raised? The answer is that they will inidally
be recognizable as the same people who died.'* But in order to
maintain that the dead will inidally be raised in exactly the form in
which they died, 2 Baruch does not, as has often been said," appeal to
the nodon of resurrecdon as resuscitation of the corpse. At any rate,
die passage need not be read as concerned with the material identity of
the body. Essentially what it does is to press the implications of the
notion that the place of the dead will restore the dead who were
committed to it. In strict law, this legal notion requires that Sheol
restore exactly what was entrusted to it. Therefore tiie dead will
retum fi-om Sheol exactly as they went to it.
Finally in this section, some further observations on the form die
tradition takes in our various texts will be appropriate. The tradition
appears in its pure form only in texts A and B: three lines, each of
which states that the place of the dead will give back the dead who
were entmsted to it. Text C (Rev. 20.13) has abbreviated the form: it
has three terms for die place of the dead, but couples the last two in
one line. It has also dropped the legal metaphor, and with this omission the idea of giving back the dead has receded from prominence.
Text D retains the legal metaphor and die same three terms for die
place of the dead as are found in text A. However, the first line no
longer speaks of the earth returning the dead but of God raising them.
This change has probably been made in order to adapt the form to its
context here in a divine speech and to emphasize the divine initiative
in the act of resurrection. A similar motivation may account for the
more drastic modification in text E, which is in the context of a
prayer to God. Here the idea of the place of the dead restoring the
dead is found only in the last clause, but the three terms (angel of
death, Sheol, treasuries of the souls) may indicate that the direefold
formula still lies behind diis text.
Another group of texts (I-O) do not preserve the threefold
formula, but use only one term for the place of the dead. However,
36. For recognition in the resurrection, cf. also LAB 62.9.
37. E.g. Evans. Resurrection and the New Testament, p. 16.
286
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
they employ the same image of resurrection: the place of the dead
restores the dead who have been conmiitted to it. It should be noted
diat most of the texts in diis group make explicit what die standard
formula (found in the threefold form in texts A - E ) does not: that
Sheol restores the dead when and because God requires it to do so
(texts I, L-P). These texts are evidendy concerned to sttess diat resurrection is God's act. The same concern is found in texts F and H,
which also, in referring to animals that have eaten the dead, constitute
a special variation of die whole tradition, which raises problems to be
considered separately in tiie next section.
Text G (Apoc. Pet. 4.10-12) is anomalous in diat the deposit with
which the earth is entrusted and returns is here die seeds tiiat are sown
in it and grow out of it as plants. The Apocalypse of Peter is using the
rather widespread analogy of the sown and sprouting seed for the
process of death and resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15.36-38; Jn 12.24;
1 Clem. 24.4-5; Justin, 1 Apol. 19.4; 3 Cor. 3.26-27; Theophilus, Ad
Autol. 1.13; b. Ket. 11 lb; b. Sanh. 90b; Eccl. R. 5.10 §1; PRE §33)."
The two traditions about resurrection are combined in such a way that
our tradition retains its original reference—to the earth giving back
the dead—only indirecdy, as it were, by way of the seed which is an
image for the dead.
IV
The two texts F and H in our collection of texts in section II are distinguished from the others by their common use of the idea that God
will command animals that have eaten the dead to give back die dead.
There are two other texts (7 En. 61.6; Sib. Or. 2.121-Yl) tiiat were
not included in die collection in section n because diey do not belong
to the tradition represented by that collection, but which do share with
texts F and H an interest in die resurrection of the dead diat have been
consumed by animals. Since diese will be relevant to our discussion of
texts F and H, it will be useful to give them here, along with texts F
(extended) and H:
38. The whole of ch. 4 of the Apocalypse of Peter is a collection of tfaditions
about resurrection. Although the work itself is Jewish Christian, this collection is of
purely Jewish traditions.
287
/ Enoch 61.6:
And diese measurements will reveal all the secrets of the depths of
die earth,
and diose who were destroyed by die desert,
and diose who were destroyed by die fish of die sea and by the
animals,
that they may retum and rely on the day of die Chosen One;
for no one will be destroyed before the Lord of Spirits,
and no one can be destroyed."
Sibylline Oracles 2 . 2 2 7 - 3 7 :
Kttl xox' aneiXiKtoio Kai opprjKtow dSonovtoi;
KXeiGpa iteXtopa nvX&v xe axaX.Kevxov 'AiSao
pTi^djievo? OupifiX, peyai; ayyeXo? evGw paXeixai,
KOI ndoo? (lopipdi; itoXwitevGeo? eii; xpioiv oêi
eiSwXmv xa jidXioxo jtaXoiYeveoiv Tvxf|v<ov
fi8e xe riydvxwv, KOI ooai; eiXev KOXOKXVOHO?,
Kai 6' ai; ev iteXdYecoiv djtwXeoe KVHO SaXdooii?
Ti5' onooai; ftripe? Kai epiiexd Kai Tiexeiivd
GoivTjoavxo, oXa? tawta? ati pfijia KaXeooeiKai jtdXiv, d? e<p6eipev evi (pXoyi oapKO<pdYov jtSp,
Kai xavxa? eiti Piijio GeoO oxiioeicv dyeipai;.'**
Then Uriel, die great angel, will break the gigandc bolts,
of unyielding and unbreakable steel, of the gates
of Hades, not forged of metal; he will throw diem wide open
and will lead all die moumful forms to judgment,
especially diose of ancient phantoms. Titans
and the Giants and such as die Flood destroyed.
Also diose whom the wave of the sea destroyed in the oceans,
and as many as wild beasts and serpents and birds
devoured; all diese he will call to die tribunal.
Again, those whom die flesh-devouring fire desu-oyed by flame.
these also he will gather and set at the tribunal of God.**
Apocalypse
of Peter 4 . 3 - 5 , 7-8:
He will command Gehenna to open its gates of steel and to give back all
who are in it.
"He will command the beasts and the birds to give back all the flesh diat
they have eaten, because he wills diat (all) humankind appear.
39.
40.
1902).
41.
Trans. Knibb. Enoch, pp. 148-49.
Text from J. Geffcken, Die Oracula Sibyllina (GCS, 8: Leipzig: Hinrichs.
pp. 38-39.
Trans. J.J. Collins in OTP, I. pp. 350-51.
288
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
'For to God nodiing is lost, and nodiing is impossible for him...
' . . . as it says in die scripture: 'Son of man, prophesy over the bones,
*and say to each bone, "(Let) bone (be) with bones at dieir joints, and
tendons and muscles, flesh and skin, and hair upon it. and soul and
spirit"'.''^
Apocryphal quotation in Tertullian, De Resurrectione 32.1:
Et mandabo piscibus maris
et eructuabunt ossa quae sunt comesta,
et faciam compaginem ad compaginam et os ad os.
And I will command die fish of die sea,
and diey shall vomit up die bones that were consumed,
and I will bring joint to joint and bone to bone.
The second of these texts occurs within a passage {Sib. Or. 2.196338) that is largely a poetic paraphrase of the Apocalypse of Peter.*^
The passage quoted is dependent on Apoc. Pet. 4.3-4, 9; 6.7. It is
possible that lines 233-37, with tfieir references not only to tfiose eaten
by animals, but also to those destroyed by sea and fire, reflect a longer
text of Apoc. Pet. 4.4 than is preserved in the Ethiopic version. But
Sibylline Oracles 2 frequently expands on its soiffce in tfie Apocalypse
of Peter.
The relationship of tiie other texts is more problematic. The Apocalypse of Peter has in common with I En. 61.1 not only the reference
to animals who have devoured tiie dead (animals and birds in one case,
fish and animals in the other), but also an explanatory statement to the
effect that God allows none to be permanentiy destroyed:
'For to God nodiing is lost' {Apoc. Pel. 4.5)
'For no one will be destfoyed before die Lord of Spirits' (/ En. 61.1).
The apocryphal quotation tfiat Tertullian cites as Scripture agrees witfi
/ Enoch against the Apocalypse of Peter in referring to 'the fish
of the sea'.*'* But both the Apocalypse of Peter and Tertullian's
42. Trans. J. Hills (see n. 9 above).
43. This was conclusively shown by M.R. James, 'A New Text of the
Apocalypse of Peter', JTS 12 (1911), pp. 39-44, 51-52, but is not recognized by
Dani^lou, ('La vision des ossements dess&h^s', pp. 224-25) whose study entirely
neglects the Apocalypse of Peier, or by Collins in his discussion of sources and
redaction in Sib. Or. 2 in OTP, I, pp. 330-33.
44. In the comment which follows the quotation (32.2), Tertullian refers also to
'the odier animals and carnivorous birds'.
289
quotation, unlilce 1 Enoch, state tliat God will command the animals in
question to restore what they have eaten, which is in one case said to
be flesh and in the other bones (whereas in 1 Enoch the reference is to
persons destroyed). This makes it less likely than has usually been
thought*' that Tertullian himself or his quotation is directly dependent
on 7 £n. 61.1. It is possible that the Apocalypse of Peter is dependent
on / En. 61.1 (which would make it the earliest evidence of the existence of the Parables of Enoch), but it remains most likely that all
three texts are dependent on a common tradition. In the Apocalypse of
Peter this tradition in 4.4 occurs in a form exactly parallel to 4.3 and
so becomes a variant of the tradition that die place of die dead will
give back the dead. This is also, diough less clearly, the case in
Tertullian's quotation (where the more graphic 'vomit up' takes the
place of 'give back'). The idea of God commanding the place of the
dead to give back the dead is found elsewhere in die texts we have
collected in section II (see texts E, I, M, N, O, P).
In Tertulhan's quotation the specification that it is 'bones* that are
eaten and restored by the fish is appropriate to the last line of the
quotation, which alludes to Ezek. 37.7, but in a particular form that is
also found in Justin (/ Apol. 52.5: 'Joint shall be joined to joint, and
bone to bone, and flesh shall grow again...*).** Botii Tertullian*s
quotation and Justin*s (which is attributed to Ezekiel but continues
with words from Isa. 45.24) are tiie kind of composite and adapted
quotations typical of die early Christian testimonia.*^ At first sight it
looks as though Tertullian*s quotation may be dependent on the
Apocalypse of Peter, since the latter has not only a parallel to the first
two lines of tiie former in 4.4 but also a quotation from Scripture in
4.7-8 that includes words similar to tiie last line of Tertullian's
quotation. But diis line is in fact closer to Justin's quotation than it is
to Apoc. Pet. 4.7-8,** whereas die latter can now be seen to be, not a
45. E.g. E. Evans, Tertullian's Treatise on the Resurrection (London: SPCK.
1960), p. 266; J. Dani^lou. The Origins of Latin Christianity (trans. J.A. Baker;
London: Darton. Longman & Todd; Philadelphia: Wesuninster Press, 1977),
pp. 166-67.
46. For later pauistic citations of the text in this form, see Dani^lou. 'La vision
des ossements dessdch^s', p. 222.
47. Cf. Dani^lou. 'La vision des ossements dess^chds*. pp. 222-24.
48. O. Skarsaune (The Proof from Prophecy [NovTSup. 56; Leiden: Brill.
1987]. p. 436) suggests diat Justin's lost tteatise De Resurrectione was die source of
Tertullian's quotation.
290
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Interpretation
free quotation from canonical Ezekiel, but a more exact quotation
from the recently published apocryphal Ezekiel text from Qumran
(4Q385 Second Ezekiel" 2.5-7)."'
More important than the precise literary relationships are the views
of resurrection expressed in these texts. 1 En. 61.5 deals with a problem in the old concept of resurrection as the retum of the dead from
Sheol. Since Old Testament thought did not distinguish sharply
between the grave and the underworld, those who are in Sheol are
those who have been buried. But die question may dien arise: what of
diose who are not buried? I En. 61.5 mentions three examples: those
who die in the desert where tfiere is none to bury diem, diose who die
at sea and are eaten by fish, those who are eaten by wild animals. (Sib.
Or. I.l'i6-'yi, perhaps with Christian martyrdoms by burning in mind,
adds another such category: those consumed by fire.) Can these people
too 'return' and 'rely on the day of the Chosen O n e ' (the day of
resurrection)? The author states tiiat they too are in Sheol ('die depths
of the earth'). They appear to be desti-oyed, but in God's sight
('before the Lord of Spirits') none can be destroyed. It is noteworthy
that although the problem behind diis passage is die desbiiction of the
corpse, it deals not with bodies but widi dead people. The people, not
just their bodies, were destroyed and are in Sheol, waiting to retum.
There is no trace of the concern, to be found in later patristic
writers,"* to explain how tiie matter tiiat has been consumed by tfie
animals can be recovered and reconstituted as the resurrection body.
Both the Apocalypse of Peter and Tertullian's quotation seem concemed (with their references, respectively, to 'flesh' and 'bones')
rather with the resurrection of the body as such, whereas the passage
in the Sibylline Oracles, despite its dependence on the Apocalypse of
Peter, speaks, like I En. 61.5, simply of the dead. Of course, the
notion that the animals will retum the flesh or the bones tiiey had
devoured could hardly have been intended literally. Tertullian himself, though very much a literalist in his views of resurrection, anticipates die objection that if his quotation be taken literally the animals
49. J. Suugnell and D. Dimant. '4Q Second Ezekiel'. RevQ 13 (1988), pp. 4558. In R. Bauckham, 'A Quotation from 4Q Second Ezekiel in die Apocalypse of
Peter', RevQ 15 (1992). pp. 437-45.1 demonsttate in detail diat Ap. Pet. 4.7-8 is a
quotation from this work. It may well be die Apocryphon of Ezekiel known to
several of the Church Fadiers.
50. E.g. Adienagoras, De Res. 3-7; Augustine, De Civ. Dei 22.12,20.
291
themselves would have to be resurrected first in order to spew up
their human victims (De Res. 32.2). Clearly die images in Apoc. Pet.
4.4 and Tertullian's quotation are not meant to explain how the corpses
of tiiose consumed by animals could be restored in resurrection; they
are simply a vivid means of asserting tiiat tiiey will be.
In conclusion we retum to John's use of the tradition in Rev. 20.13. In
the context of an account of the last judgment (20.12-13), the tradition
functions to evoke the resurrection of the dead for judgment. Since
tiiere is no interest here in the form of resurrection, tiie tradition,
which asserted simply that the dead will return from death, served
John's purpose well. The tradition's tiiree lines of synonymous parallelism he has reduced to two, making 'Death and Hades' die joint subject of the second verb, but the remaining repetition serves to emphasize tiie universality of resurrection so that all may be judged. It was
perhaps because John always refers to 'Death and Hades' together
(1.18; 6.8; 20.14) tiiat he wished to keep tiiem together in 20.13, in
parallel with 'the sea', but it may also be tiiat he wanted to state tfie
resurrection in two clauses in order to make tiie climactic third clause
of the sentence tiie statement about tiie judgment.
The use of the term 'die sea' for the place of die dead (or probably
better understood, in parallel with 'Death and Hades', as the power
that holds the dead in death) was probably not in the tradition as John
knew it. It reflects his image of the sea as the primeval chaos from
which opposition to God derives (13.1). By referring to it in 20.13 he
prepares tiie way for the reference to it in 21.1. As Deatii and Hades
are destroyed (20.14), so in the new creation there will be no more
sea. Thus by varying the tradition's terms for the place of or power
over the dead, John has integrated die tradition into his own work.
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis
1-6
1
1.1-3
1.1
1.26
2.1-3
2.2
2.16-17
2.17
3.22-24
5
5.21-24
5.22
5.23-24
5.24
5.28-29
5.29
6
6.1-4
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.11-12
8.14
11
39, 174
11.2-4
118, 119,
142
11.4
118
11.6
39, 174, 184 12
12.2
118, 251,
12.10-20
265
121
13.4
14.17-24
119
119
14.18-20
119
14.19
15.6
118
112
15.7
112
15.13-21
15.13-14
100, 107,
112
17.21
37
18.10
100, 107.
18.12
18.14
112.249,
250. 265
18.16
112
20.2-7
21.2
113
22.1-19
55. 106,
235. 238
22.1
37. 103105. 235
22.18
107
24.52-53
106
25.5-6
105. 106.
25.7
189
25.28
105. 107
25.19-26
104
26.31-33
121
27.29
187. 198.
260. 262
197
261
189
187. 198
185. 186
184
185
37
123
186
228
186
188
58
122
122
234
122
258
184
122
228
185. 229,
230, 233
58
257
185
123
185
185
184
186
28
28.1
28.22
34
35
35.22
37-50
37.31-35
38.12-26
38.24
40-41
47-50
47.29-50.13
47.29
47.31
48.1-20
48.1
48.22
49
49.1-2
49.1
49.4
49.5-7
49.33
50.2-14
39
186
123
123
123
124, 184
39, 174
122
124
186
131, 132
34
34
34
34
184
34
34, 120
32, 33
33
34
124
123
34
34
Exodus
4.16
7-10
7-8
7.1
12.37
12.40
12.50
264
184
39. 174
264
207
58
39. 174. 184
Index of References
14
14.10-12
14.21
14.22
15
15.8
17.4
19.1
20
20.5
20.21
23.16
23.20-21
23.20
24.1
32
32.25-29
33.3
33.15
34.22
142. 198
198
198
198
198
198
203
121
118
185. 186
264
121
258. 259
258. 259
261
189
123
59
261, 262
121
Leviticus
1.9
9.24
16
20.10
20.11
20.12
21.9
23.2
23.15-16
23.26-32
23.29
23.37
23.40
25.18-55
266
183
104. 122
186
124
124
186
122
121
122
58
122
122
111
Numbers
6.24-26
11.26-29
15.30
15.37-41
16
16.5
20.17
22-24
24.14
102
39
260
187
187
188
266
102
102
24.17
25.1-13
25.12
102. 140.
186
123
123
Deuteronomy
4.5
4.25-31
7.2-4
7.13
16.14-15
18.15-16
18.15
18.90
22.23
23.9-10
25.4
26.1-11
26.14
27
27.15
28-34
28
28.8
30
30.19-20
30.19
31-34
31.14-23
31.16-21
31.23
32
32.1-43
32.1
32.6
32.11-13
32.30
32.32-43
32.35-43
32.35
32.36
32.37-39
32.43
33.1
33.2
183
183
123
186
122
58
59
58
186
88
178
45
186
45
185, 186
103
45
185, 186
45
45
103
36, 76, 79,
205
205
205
205
79. 225.
256. 257
225
103. 256
152
79
182
79
79
79, 80, 225
80
79
79, 80.92,
225, 256
102
102
293
33.9-11
33.20-21
34.5-6
34.5
34.6
34.7
123
182
251
249
250
189
Joshua
1.1
207
Judges
3.10
3.15
5.15-16
6.34
17.2
17.5
20.15-16
182
182
188,
182
188
188
182
] Samuel
7.6
12.3
16
16.1-11
16.1
16.3
16.12
16.13
17
17.8-25
17.14
21.5
28.13
31.6
213
188
30
30
181
181
181
181
30
30
30
88
280
180
2 Samuel
2.8-11
2.12-3.39
4.1-12
5.3
5.6
5.21
6.1-11
6.12-19
6.16
6.20-23
7.5-16
7.8
180
180
180
180
181
181
181
181
182
182
170
30
294
The Pseudepigrapha
7.14
8.1
8.2
9.1-13
11-12
11.11
13
14-15
16
17-18
19-20
21
21.7
21.8-9
22.5-6
22.16
24.1
24.18-25
24.18
24.24
152
183
182
180
182
88
182
182
182
182
182
182
180
180
282
198
181
181
183
183
1 Kings
8.29
8.52
17
17.1
18.36-37
18.38
18.42
22.19-23
22.19
22.21-22
186
186
251
232
232
183
232
108
108, 109
109
2 Kings
2.1-12
2.11
9.8
21.16
25
251
250
92
174
32
I Chronicles
6.9
(Eng. 6.24)
10.6
10.13-14
11.3
11.4
12
100
180
182
180
181
182
and Early Biblical
12.2
12.8-15
12.14
12.18
13.1-14
14.10-12
15.1-15
15.5
15.11
15.29
16.8-36
16.8-22
16.23-33
16.34-36
18.1
18.2
21.1
21.15
21.25
21.26-30
28.2-10
28.2
28.6-8
28.9-10
182
182
182
182
181
181
181
100
100
182
182
182
182
183
183
182
181
183
183
181. 183
183
183
183
183
2 Chronicles
13.2
100
18.18-22
108
20.18-19
148
33
31
33.11-13
31
35.1-27
183
35.1
183
35.3
183
Ezra
5.14
6
6.7
7.10
183
119
183
184
Nehemiah
1.1-7.72
1.6
2.12
7.5
7.73-8.12
8.1
184
186
136
136
183. 184
184
Interpretation
8.2
8.17
9.1-38
9.6-7
9.26
9.30
184
122
213
186
216
216
Job
1.6-12
2.3
2.8-9
2.11-13
3-33
4.12
7.16
7.21
14.19
17.16
20.11
21.21
24.19
26.5
26.6
28.22
29.12-17
31.16-23
185
181
27
27
231
231
231
283
231
281
281
210
280
282
280
280, 28]
231
231
Psalms
2
2.1-2
2.2
2.7
2.9
8
10
16.8-11
16.10
5
18.15
20
22.29
30
30.10
34.8
44
48
68.5
69.15
38. 218
218
116
60
86.94
59
59
57
60
188
198
74
281
74
281
73
74
38
152
282
Index of References
69.25
76.9
78.70-71
79.10
84.12
89
89.20
89.26
90.4
90.10
94.17
96.1-13
105.1-15
106.1
106.9
106.28
106.47-48
107.16
109.8
110.1
115.17
118
119.12
119.18-19
119.18
119.27
119.33-35
119.73
132.1-8
132.11-12
148.1-6
57
276
30
92
73
170
30
152
119
124
284
182
182
183
188. 198
186
183
281
57
57
284
74
130
130
130
130
130
130
183
170
257
Proverbs
7.27
8.22-31
15.11
27.20
30.16
282
47
280
280
276
Song of Songs
274. 275
2.1
Isaiah
1.9
2.1-4
5.14
6
6.1
186
38
280
108
108
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6-13
6.6
6.9-13
6.9-10
11
11.2-4
16.1-2
24.16
24.17-23
24.21-23
24.23
26.19
26.20
26.21
28.21
30.15-18
30.18
30.23
30.26
35.1
38.10
40.2
40.3
41.8
41.9
41.10
41.19
42.1
42.6
43.7
43.10
43.20-21
43.20
44.1
44.2
45.24
45.41
48.4
49.1
49.6
49.7
50.4-11
51.17-23
109
115
108
108
108
108
135
173
38
94
111
275
115. 142
72
152, 199
275, 278,
279. 281-83
282
276, 278
170
74
73
101
100, 101
274, 275
281
212
133
116
116
274
275
116
116
257
116
257
116
116
116
289
116
116
116
60, 116
116
74
217
295
52-53
52.7
52.11
52.13
53.7
53.10-12
53.11
53.12
55.1-4
55.3
55.10-11
61.1-2
63.16
64.18
65.15
65.17
66.1-2
66.22
74, 115
173
186
74
74
74
74. 116
74
116
60
178
179
152
152
185. 186
100
59
100
Jeremiah
3.4
3.19
9.22-23
9.26
15.2
17.7-8
23.32
25.11-12
25
29.10
29.18
31.9
35
43.17
152
152
16
59
90
73
109
111. 150
114
11. 150
185. 186
152
39
90
Ezekiel
1
1-14
1.1
1.4
1.13-14
1.13
1.15-16
1.19-21
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.26
108. 161
282
108
108
108
108
108
108. 109
108
108
108
108
2%
The Pseudepigrapha
1.27-28
1.27
1.28
1.29
2.2
3.23
8.3
9.3
10
10.1-22
10.1
10.2
10.3-4
10.4
10.6-7
10.16-17
11.1
16.40
37
37.7
37.12
43.4
44.4
Daniel
1-6
2
2.17-45
2.19
2.20-23
2.22
2.28-30
2.30
2.34
2.45
2.47
3
3.8-12
3.13-15
3.16-18
3.22-23
3.25
3.26
3.27
3.86 (LXX)
4-5
7-12
109
108
108, 109
108
109
109
108
108, 109
108
108
108
108
108
109
108
109
108
186
282
289
282
109
109
28
131
132
132
148
132
132
132
68
68
132
188, 197.
198
197
197
197
197
198
198
198
235
131
96
and Early Biblical
7
7.1
7.2
7.9-14
7.9-10
7.9
7.10-11
7.10
7.13-14
7.13
7.15
7.26
7.28
8.4
8.12
8.24
8.25
9
9.2
9.3
9.4-19
9.4
9.18
9.19
9.24-26
9.25-27
9.27
11.3
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.14
11.15-16
11.16
11.24
11.30-32
11.32-35
11.32
11.33-35
11.33-34
11.33
11.34
11.35
11.39
11.45-12.1
108. 109.
116
108
108
108
88, 108
108. 109
68
108. 109
140
108
108
68
108
73
73
73
68
111
150
213
213
73
186
73
150
111
68
73
73
73
73
67, 70
70
73
73
73
67
98, 7375
67
67
67, 68. 7375
67-69, 72.
74, 75
68, 73-75
73
68
Interpretation
12.3
12.6
12.10
12.12
12.13
109
72
74
68.73.281,
283
67, 73. 74
75
67. 73. 74
73.74
75
Hosea
13.14
281
Joel
1.14
2.12-14
2.28-32
213
213
57
Amos
5.25-27
59
Jonah
2
3.7-8
282
213
Micah
1.3-4
4.1-4
102
38
Habakkuk
1.5
3
60
102
Haggai
2.3
211
Zechariah
13.7
14.15
14.16-21
133
86
38
Malachi
1.6
1.7
2.10
2.7
4.5-6
152
211
152
123
49
12.1-3
12.1
12.2-3
12.2
Index of
References
297
APOCRYPHA
/ Esdras
1.1
1.3
3.1-5.6
4.13
4.14-41
4.42-63
6.18
6.27
8.7
9.39
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
184
184
/ Maccabees
1.53
1.62-63
1.64
2.19-68
2.23-26
2.29-41
2.29-38
2.29-30
2.37
2.40
2.42
2.44
2.50
2.58
2.66-68
3.3-8
3.18-22
3.19
3.22
3.43-44
4.8-11
4.46
7.8-17
7.41-42
9.27
77, 78
72
73
72.73
73
70
77
78
77, 80
71
69
71
71,72
251
71
71,73
71
71
71
71
71
171
69
72
171
2 Maccabees
2.19-22
2.21
2.22
5.1-4
5.20
71
71, 72
71
71, 72
71
6-8
6.11-7.40
6.11
6.12-17
7
7.2
7.6
7.14
7.17
7.18
7.19
7.29
7.31
7.32
7.33
7.34-37
7.35-37
7.38
8.2-4
8.5
8.13
8.16-20
8.23-24
8.29
8.34
9.4
9.8
10.6
10.29-31
14
14.6
15.8-16
15.21-23
73
77
70,78
71
78
77
77. 80. 225
77
71.77
71
71,77
71
71
71
71
77
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
77
71. 72
69
69
72
71
3 Maccabees
3.8
5.25
5.51
6.28
7.10-15
7.22
9.23
9.24
9.29
10.3
237
237
281
237
71
237
237
237
238
238
10.15
11.5
11.12
12.17-18
17.22
238
238
238
238
238
Baruch
3.29-4.4
130
Judith
9.11
71
Sirach
1-15
1.11-30
6.32-37
7.29-31
8.8
11.19
14.20-27
15.1
16-17
17.11-12
18.30
19.17
19.20
21.6
21.11
23.7
23.27
24.1-33
24.1-22
24.23
32.14-15
38.24-34
39.1-11
39.6-7
39.16-21
39.28-31
39.34
43.13-16
44.1-50.21
44.1-5
44.17-18
44.20
46
131
131
46
46
46
46
131
47
47
47
47
131
131
47
47
131
130
47
47, 130, 131
47
47
47, 130
130
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
48
298
44.22
45.6-22
45.17
45.23-24
46.4-5
46.7
47.4-7
47.8-10
47.11
47.13
47.15-17
48.9
48.10
48.15
48.17
48.23-25
49.2-3
49.4-7
50.1-21
50.27-29
51.20-23
51.26-28
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
49
251
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
50
50
Tobit
13.1
13.3
166
167
13.4
14.3-11
166. 168
34
Wisdom of Solomon
1.7
1.16-2.20
2.12-20
2.13
2.22
2.23
3
3.5
3.6-7
3.9
4.1
4.20-5.14
6.17-20
6.18
7.17-22
7.24-8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.18
9.8
9.9
50
50
74
74
50
50
74
50
74
50
50
74
51
130
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
52
Interpretation
9.18
10.1-2
10.3
10.4
10.5-14
10.15
11.1-14
11.15
11.16-20
11.26
12.3-11
12,12-18
12.19-23
12.27
13.1-15.17
13.1-3
13.5
15.18-16.14
16.13
16.15-19
17,1-21
18.1-4
18,9
18.24
19,1-21
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
53
53
53
53
53
53
281
53
53
53
53
53
53
13.43
15.13
16,17
16,18
16,27
18
18,10
18,14
18.18
18.19
18.35
20.23
21.4
21.31
22.1-14
23.9
24-25
24.15
24.29-31
168
168
167
167, 281
168
195
167
167
167
167
166
167
144
168
194
167
195
224
225
NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew
1.22
2.15
2.17
2.23
4.3-10
4.14
5-7
5.16
5.18
5.45
5.48
6.1
6.4
6.6
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.14
144
144
144
144
191
144
195
168
178
168
168
167
167
166
166
166
166
166
6.15
6.18
6.26
6.32
7.11
7.21
8.17
10
10.10
10.20
10.29
10.32
10.33
11.25-27
12.17
12.45
12.50
13
13.35
166
167
167
167
167
168
144
195
178
167
167
168
168
148. 166
144
235
168
195
144
Index of
24.35
24.36
25.34
25.41
26.29
26.39
26.42
26.51-53
26.52
26.53
27.9
28.19
178
167
168
168
167
166
166
72
90
86, 166
144
167
Mark
1.9-10
1.12-13
1.14
1.15
1.16-20
1.16
1.21
1.23
1.26
1.45
2.4
2.15-17
2.26
3.13
3.17
3.30
3.31-35
4.1-25
4.38
4.40
5.31
5.41
6.1-6
6.14-29
6.30-34
6.45-8.26
8.27
8.31-33
8.38
9.2-8
9.2
9.6
10.35-41
11.12-14
192
191
191
193
192, 193
193
193
235
235
191
193
191
192
192
193
235
192, 193
193
191
191
191
193
193
192
192
192
192
192
86
250, 251
192
191
192
193
11.20-21
13.14
13.24-27
13.27
14.25
14.32-42
14.36
14.47
14.71
15.32
15.34-36
15.39
Luke
1.1-4
1.5
1.16-17
1.27
1.32-33
1.54-55
1.68-79
2.22-24
2.27
2.29-32
2.34-35
2.36
2.39
3.7-14
3.10-14
3.21-22
3.21
3.23-38
3.38
4.1-13
4.1-12
4.13
4.14-15
4.16-30
4.32
5.1-11
5.1
5.15
5.16
5.17-6.11
5.19
5.24
6.4
References
193
224
225
86
167
193
193
192
193
191
194
195
200
190
175
190
175
175
175
175
175
175
223
190
175
216
192
216
192
190
190
190
191
191
175.
175,
193,
177
192,
177.
191
217
217
193
217
192
299
6.5
6.7
6.12-13
6.12
6.14
6.17
6.18-49
7.5
8.1-18
8.11-21
8.19-21
8.24
8.25
8.45
8.54
9.1-50
9.7-9
9.10-11
9.13-17
9.18
9.19-27
9.22
191
191.
218
193
193
9.26
9.28-29
9.28
9.29
9.30-45
9.32
9.41
9.44
9.51
9.57
10.1
10.7
10,13-16
10.20
10.21-22
10.38
10.39
n.1-4
11.5-36
11.28
11.29-32
11.29
11.32
11.42-52
11.42-48
217
217
216
192
193
216
217
175
193
177
192. 193
191
191
191
193
202
192
192. 217
216
192. 217
217
192, 223.
226
178. 217
217
192
192
217
191
215, 217
217
191
191
191
178
215
235
148
191. 216
177
216
217
177
215
215
178
219
215
300
11.47-53
11.47-51
11.4S
11.49-51
11.52
11.53
12.1
12.3
12.54-13.9
13.10
13.22-30
13.22
13.31-35
13.33-35
13.33
13.34
13.35
14.15-24
15.1-2
16.16
16.17
17.11
17.25
18.31
18.35
19.1
19.27
19.41-44
19.43-44
20.9-18
20.45-47
21
21.5-36
21.5-6
21.6
21.12-13
21.13
21.14-15
21.16-17
21.19
21.20-23
21.22
21.24
21.25-36
21.25-28
21.28
21.33
22.14-20
216
218
224
215
215
191
191
236
215
175
215
191
215
216
223
218
219
194
191
177
175
191
223, 226
191
191
191
215
215, 221
219
215
215
225
224
215
219
224
224
224
224
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
177
216
24
24.4
24.7
24.19
24.23
24.25-27
24.26-27
24.26
24.27
24.30-32
24.44-49
24.44-46
24.44
24.45
24.46-49
24.46-47
24.47
24.48
167
223. 226
223
217
222. 223
217
222
192. 217
217
223
217
193
217
193
219
193
219
219
219
192, 217,
219
191
217
194, 217.
219
223
223
223
177, 178
223
223
226
223
175
223
224
223
175
145
223
226
222
224
John
2.22
12.16
12.24
145
145
286
22.18
22.19-20
22.20
22.21-27
22.22
22.28-38
22.28-30
22.31
22.33-38
22.37
22.39-46
22.40-46
22.41-42
22.42
22.49
22.60
22.71
23.5
23.14
23.34
23.39-43
23.43
23.46
Interpretation
14.26
16.12-15
17.1-26
18.36
Acts
1.4-8
1.4
1.8
1.15-20
1.16
1.21-22
1.22
2.17-20
2.17
2.21
2.22-34
2.22-23
2.23
2.32
2.36
2.38
2.40
2.47
3.6
3.12-26
3.13-15
3.13
3.15
3.16
3.18-19
3.18
3.19
3.20-21
3.21-25
3.21
3.22-26
3.25
3.26
4-5
4
4.4
4.7
4.10-11
4.10
4.12
4.17
145
145
34
72
229
57
57. 223, 224
57
223
223
224
57
223
218
57
223
226
224
216
216, 218.
224
224
218
218
57
216
58
224
218
216
58. 223
58
216
223
58
216
58
58, 216. 224
217
219
177
218
216
218
218
218
Index of
4.18
4.21
4.23-31
4.25
4.27
4.29-30
4.29
4.30
4.31
4.33
4.36
5.13
5.26
5.28
5.30-32
5.30
5.31
5.32
5.40
5.41-42
5.41
6.4
6.7
6.8-15
6.9-11
6.11
6.12
6.13-14
6.13
7.1-53
7.1-51
7.2
7.5
7.8
7.17
7.22
7.25
7.32-34
7.35-53
7.35
7.36-39
7.37-41
7.37-40
7.38
7.39
7.42
7.44
7.47
218
218
220
218
216, 218
218
177, 218
218
177
224
147
218
218
218
225
216
224
224
218
220
217
177
177
218
218
219
218
219
224
218
58
219
58
58
58
178
58
59
216
59
60
219
219
59
59
59
224
60
7.48
7.51-53
7.51-52
7.51
7.52-53
7.53
7.58
7.59-60
7.59
8
8.1
8.1-3
8.12
8.16
8.26
8.32-35
9.1-2
9.2
9.4-5
9.13-14
9.14
9.15
9.16
9.20
9.21-22
9.21
9.23-25
9.26-30
-9:27
9.28
9.29-30
10.39
10.41
10.42
10.43
10.48
11.19
13-19
13
13.1-3
13.5
13.14
13.15
13.17
13.18
References
60
216, 219.
220
218
59. 219
59. 219
216
219. 220,
224
219
218
220
224
219, 220
220
220
223
223
220
220
220, 223
220
220
220
219. 220.
223
175
220
220
220
221
147. 220
220
220
224
224
224
220. 224
220
220
222
59
146
175
175
147
59
59
301
13.19-20
13.23-32
13.26
13.27-30
13.31
13.38
13.40-41
14.1
14.3
14.22
15
15.8
15.14
15.17
15.21
15.26
15.32
16.18
17.1
17.3
17.10
17.11
17.17
18.4
18.5
18.11
18.19
18.28
19.5
19.8-9
19.8
19.15-16
19.17
19.21
19.23-41
20.3
20.17-38
20.18-35
20.18-19
20.19
20.21
20.22-27
20.22
20.23
20.24
20.26
20.31
59
60
222
223
224
220, 224
216
175
224
223
175
224
220
220
175
220
147
220
175
223
175
223
223
175
223. 224
177
175, 223
223
220
223
175
235
220
223
220
221
34
221
221
221
224
222
220
221, 224
221. 222,
224
221, 224
221
302
20.32
20.36-38
21.11
21.13
21.20
21.33
22.1-21
22.1-16
22.3
22.4-5
22.5
22.7-10
22.7-8
22.14-16
22.14-15
22.14
22.15
22.16
22.17-22
22.17-20
22.18
22.19-20
22.20
22.21
22.29
23.8-9
23.11
24.14
24.27
25.8
26.5
26.6-8
26.9-11
26.9
26.10
26.12
26.14-16
26.14-15
26.16-17
26.16
26.18
26.19-23
26.20-23
26.22-23
26.22
26.28-29
27.24
28.20
The Pseudepigrapha
177
221
220
220
175
220
221
219
221
220
220,
223
220,
221
223
221
219,
220
219
221
219,
220
224
219,
220
235
223,
175
220
175
224
221
220
220
220
220
226
220
219
221,
220.
222
216
223
224
222
223
220.
and Early Biblical
28.23
175. 224
Romans
2.21
9-11
11.33-36
12.19
15.4
16.25-26
16.25
236
147. 148
148
79
147
145
145, 148
224
221
224
224
222
224
224
224
I Corinthians
1.18-31
1.26-31
2.6-16
12.7
12.10
14.1
14.3
14.27-28
14.29
14.37
15.35
15.36-38
144
16
145, 148
147
146
146
147
146
146
178
284
286
2 Corinthians
2.14
236
3.14-18
145
Galalians
1.11-12
178
Ephesians
1.9
2.2
3.5
3.9-10
144
235
145
145
Colossians
1.26-27
2.15
145
236
I Thessalonians
178
2.13
3.13
86
222
/ Timothy
4.1-16
34
Interpretation
5.18
178
2 Timothy
1.9-10
3.15
3.16
145
178
178
Titus
1.2-3
145
Hebrews
1.1-2
1.14
8.1-5
9.23-24
10.1
10.11-14
11.1-2
11.4
11.5-6
11.7
11.8-10
11.12
11.13
11.23-27
11.32-38
11.39
12.1-2
12.9
12.22-24
12.23
60
235
61
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
62
62
63
62
62
62
62
235
62
235
James
1.12-15
1.13
2.14-26
2.18-24
2.19
2.21
2.22
4.7
5.1
5.7-20
5.17-18
233
229, 233
228
228
230
229
229
233
231
231
232
1 Peter
1.6
1.11
237. 238
237
Index of References
1.12
1.20
1.25
2.3
2.6-8
2.6
2.17
2.23
3.3
3.9
3.18-22
3.18
3.22
4.3
4.6
4.14-16
4.15
4.17
4.19
5.2
5.4
5.10
5.13
236
145, 237
236
238
238
238
237, 238
238
238
237
234, 237
237. 238
237. 238
234, 238
236
234
234
236-38
237, 238
238
238
237
237, 238
2 Peter
1.16-21
2.4-5
2.4
2.5
2.11
2.15
2.17
2.18
3.6
3.8
3.15-16
178
240
242
241
240-42
242
239. 242
239
242
119
178
1 John
2.20
2.21
145
145
Jude
4
5
6
7
8
240
240
240, 241
240
240
9
17
239, 240,
242
240
239, 241.
242
241
Revelation
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.18
2.2
2.3
2.7
2.10
2.11
2.13
2.16
2.17
2.19
2.25
2.26-28
2.26-27
2.26
3.5
3.8
3.10-11
3.10
3.12
3.14
3.21
4.8
4.11
5.2
5.5-10
5.9-10
5.10
6.8
6.9-11
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12-17
7.9-17
8.3-5
8.6-9.21
89
87, 89
89
89
281, 291
89
89
88
87. 89
88
87, 89
86
88
93
89
88.89
88
88
88
89
89
89
88
87.89
88. 89
109, 257
257
236
89
89
88
281. 291
90,91
89. 235
92
91
91
87.89
87. 91
87
11
14-15
303
9.11
11.3-6
11.3
11.7
11.12
12
12.5
12.7
12.11
12.17
13
13.1
13.7
13.9-10
13.10
13.15
14.1
14.2-3
14.4
14.8
14.14-20
15.2-4
15.6
16.1-21
16.4
16.5-7
16.13-14
17.1-19.5
17.6
17.14
17.17
18.1-2
18.22
18.24
19.1-8
19.2
19.10
19.11-26
19.11-21
19.11
19.14
19.15
20.1-3
20.4-6
20.4
20.7-10
20.12-13
20.13-14
281
250. 251
89
89
89
87
86
236
89
89
89
291
89
90
93
89
87
87
87
88
87
87. 89
86
87
91
91
235
91
89. 91
87
136
92
92
91
92
80,92
89
86. 87
87
89
86
88
86
89.92
88. 89.92
87
291
281
304
20.13
270. 272.
281, 282.
285, 291
20.14
21.1
21.5
291
291
87
Interpretation
21.7
22.5
22.6
88
88
87
61.6
61.10
62-63
62.1
62.5
62.7
64.1-68.1
65-69
65.6-10
65.11
67-69
69.16-25
70-71
71.14
72-82
286-88
237
74, 115
116
116
116, 237
115, 142
55
55
55
55
55
115
115. 116
20. 55.96,
98.99
99
99
99. 100
100
100
20
100
100
100
55
100
100
55
99, 100
101
99
99
100
100
99
20
100
20
100
56, 99, 113
254
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
1 Enoch
1-36
1-5
1.1-2
1.1
1.2
1.3-9
1.8
1.9
2-5
2.1-5.3
5.8-10
6.1-9.11
6-11
6-7
6
6.1-2
6.2
6.3-8
6.3-4
6.6
7.1-2
7.1
7.2
9.1
10-16
10.9-10
10.11-14
12-16
12.1-13.10
12.1-2
12.1
13.8
14
14.1-7
14.8-25
14.8
14.13-14
14.14
37, 54,96.
99. 101
101-103
237
102
37
102
102
102. 241
102, 103
103
54
54
98. 101.
103-105
117
237
105
106
105
106
112
105
107
107
237
236. 237
106
106
101, 107
54
37, 107
107
37
104, 108,
116
54
108
108
108
108
14.18
14.20
14.21
14.22
14.23
14.24-25
16.3
17-36
17.1-22.14
17-19
20-36
21.1-22.14
21
21.6
21.10
22.3-13
24.1-36.4
37-71
37.1
38-44
38
39
39.2-3
39.2
42
45-57
46-50
46.2
48.2
48.6
48.10
51.1
52.4
52.6
53.6
54.1-56.4
56.5-8
58-69
61.1
61.5
108
109
109
109
109
109
237
101
54
101
101
54
237, 240
237
237
235, 237
54
55,99, 115,
142
115
115
55
55
115
115
55
115
55
115
116
U6, 237
116
271. 272,
278-80
116
116
116
115, 142
55
115
289
275. 290
72-79
72
72.1
72.37
74.2
75.1-9
75.3
75.4
76.14
77-79
78.10
79.6
80
80.1
80.2-81.10
80.2-8
81
81.5-6
81.6
82
82.1-20
82.1
82.5-6
82.7
83-90
84.2
Index of References
84.5
85-90
85.1-2
86-88
86.1-88.3
86.4
87-88
88.2
89.1-27
89.1
89.12
89.28-40
89.36
89.41-50
89.51-67
89.52
89.59
89.68-72
89.72-73
89.72
89.73-77
89.73
90.1
90.5
90.6-42
90.9
90.10
90.13
90.14
90.15
90.17-24
90.17
90.18
90.19
90.28-33
90.34
90.37-38
90.38
90.40-42
90.40
91-108
91-107
91.1-19
91.11-17
91.11-12
91.11
91.12
254
71,93, 113.
114
113
113
114
107
56
107
56
114
114
56
114
56
56
251
114
56
114
114
56
211
114
114
56
71
71
71
71
71
114
71, 114
71
71
115
71
115
115
113
148
56
96, 99, 109
34
71,93, 110
71
71
72
91.13
93
93.1-10
93.3-11
93.3-10
93.8
95.3
96.1
98.12
98.15-16
104
106-107
106.1
106.16
106.18
108
254
56
71.93, 110
113
110
251
72
72
72
109
109
57, 110, 112
113
112, 113
113
57
2 Enoch
1.4
7.1-3
18
20.1
22.8
50.4
71-72
37
236, 237
37
237
250
237
37
3 Enoch
12.5
43.4
46
259
253
254
2 Baruch
6.1-2
10-20
10.6-12.5
11.1
11.3
11.4-7
11.4
12,1
12.4
13
13.1-12
13.9-10
14.2
15.1
19.3-4
19.3
32
81
81
237
82
82
283
82
82
82
237
237
82
82
82, 85
82
305
19.5-20.6
21.23
21.24
24.4
28.1
29.2-30.1
29.2
30
30.1-5
30.2
31-32
32.1-7
39.7-40.2
40.2
40.3
41-44
41-42
42.8
44.2-8
46.5-6
48-52
48.47
49.2-3
50
50.2
51
52.6-7
54.22
56.12-16
67.7
68.5
68.6
70.9
71.1
72.2-6
73.1-74.4
75.1-8
77.1-17
77.15-16
77.18-87.1
78-87
78
82-83
82
83.1-3
83.4-8
82
272, 281.
282
283
84
84
83. 84
84
283
84
282
84
83
83. 84
84
84
84
83
273
83
83, 84
82
82
284
283
274, 284.
285
83
83. 85
83
236
237
211
211
83. 84
84
83, 84
84
148
83. 84
40
83
237
83
82
83
83
83. 85
306
The Pseudepigrapha
83.7
84.4
85.11
83
210
83
3 Baruch
10
253
4 Ezra
2.31
3.1-2
4.41-43
4.41-42
4.41
7.32
7.39 (109)
7.78
7.88-89
7.100
11.36-12.3
12.31-33
12.34
13
13.9-10
13.9
13.10-22
13.27
13.28
13.38
13.57-58
281
32
274
279
282
272, 283,
284
232
283
283
283
94
94
94
94
85
94
94
94
85,94
85,94
148
Apocalypse of Abraham
10
259
13-14
259
Apocalypse of Ezra
6.3
279
6.17
279
6.21
279
Apocalypse of Sedrach
9.2
279
Jubilees
1.1-6
1.26-29
2-50
2
142
142
118
119. 124
and Early Biblical
2.2
2.16
2.17-33
2.24
2.25
3.31
4
4.30
5.1-2
5.6-11
5.6
5.7-8
5.32
6
6.1
6.10-11
6.15-38
6.15-19
6.17-22
6.22
7.20-25
7.22
7.28-33
8.8-9.15
10.1-14
10.27-35
11.14-12.21
12
12.1-9
12.12-13
12.16-21
12.25-27
13.16
15-16
15.1
15.25-34
16.12
16.13
16.16
16.19
16.20
16.25
16.27
16.29
17.15-18
17.17-18
17.17
118
119, 120
121
117
119
185
119
119
120
120
120
106
121
124
121
121
124
121
185
117
240
107
185
120
120
120
120, 142
230
184
184
184
184
185
124
122
185
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
142, 185,
229
229
122
Interpretation
18.9
18.12
19^5
19.15
20-22
20.6-10
21.1-26
22.10-24
22.25-30
23
23.8-31
23.20
23.30-31
24.21-33
25.1-23
27.27
28.14
30.5
30.7-23
30.12
30.17
30.18-20
31.4-29
31.12-17
32
32.1-9
32.2
33.2-20
33.10-20
33.10
34.1-9
34.12-19
36.1-17
37-38
41.8-28
41.23-28
41.23-27
48.4-11
50.12
185, 230
185
142
185
120
185
185
186
186
71
124
71
71
184
120
123
123
123
185
117
123
123
120
123
124
123
123
124. 184
185
124
120
122
120
120
124
124
185
184
70
lAB (The Biblical
Antiquities of
Pseudo-Philo)
2.1-2
187
3.4
187
187
3.9
3.10
272, 278.
281
Index of References
6-7
6.3
6.4-6
6.11
6.16
6.17
6.18
7.2
9.8
10
10.2
10.3
10.5
12.3
15.3
15.5-7
15.5
16.1
16.4
19.3
19.16
21.9
22.3-4
23.6-7
24.6
25-28
25.10
28.1-2
29.4
31.1
32.13
33.1-5
33.3
33.6
36.4
40.1
40.2
40.4-7
42.1
44.2
44.5
52.1
57.2
59.4
60.2-3
62.9
64.1
187
197
197
197
197
197. 198
198
187
189
198
187
188, 198
198
189
187
187
282
187
187
203
251
282
187
188
188
188
188
188
188
187
282
188
274, 279
188
187
187
188
188
187
188
188
187
188
188
188
285
187
Martyrdom of Isaiah
1.3
237
Odes of Solomon
7.1
165
7.7
165
7.9
165
7.10
165
7.11
164
8.21
164
164
8.22
164
9.5
10.4
164
14.1
164
14.8
164
17.10
281
19.1
164. 238
19.2
164
19.6-7
164
31.1
165
31.2
165
31.3
165
31.4
165
31.5
165
41.9
165
41.10
165
Prayer of Jacob
162
18
162
19
Psalms of Solomon
254
2.32
16.2
281
17
40. 85. 94
17.22-24
85
17.23-24
86
17.24
94
17.33-35
85
17.33-34
94
17.35
94
17.36
94
17.45
238
18
40
22.7
238
Sibylline Oracles
2
288
307
2.196-338
2.227-37
2.228-29
2.233-37
2.233
2.236-37
3-5
3
3.499
3.352
3.356
3.560
3.366
3.669-701
3.672-73
3.689-91
3.798
3.702-13
3.727-31
3.781
4
4.135-36
4.159-61
4.171-78
5
5.143
5.159
5.274
5.299
5.325
5.375-80
5.414-25
288
286, 287
281
288
282
290
94
94
254
94
94
254
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
238
238
94
94
94
94
94
Testament of Abraham
6.6
163
20.12
163
Testament of Benjamin
4.1
238
5.4
238
10.8-9
238
Testament of
1.2-4
5.6
9-12
27.6-7
33.3
Job
35
236
231
231
161
308
33.9
40.2
40.3
47.11
50.3
The Pseudepigrapha
161
161. 162.
167
161, 162
162
162
Testament of Judah
3-7
120
8.1
238
9
120
Testament of Levi
3.8
238
34
5.1-2
238
10.5
Testament of Moses
1
205. 206
1.1-9
205
1.5
205
1.6-15
205
1.6-9
210
1.7
205, 207
204
1.8
1.9
204, 209,
212
1.10-18
205
1.10
205, 214
1.12-13
208
1.12
206
1.14
205. 210
1.15
206. 210
1.16-17
205
1.16
205. 206.
212. 214
1.17-18
210
1.18
206, 212,
213
2-10
205
2.1-10.10
76, 205,
206, 210
2-4
210
2
210
2.1-2
205
2.2-9
213
and Early Biblical
3.1-10.5
3.1
3.4-7
3.8-9
3.9
3.11-13
3.11
3.12
3.13
4
4.1-4
4.1
4.6-9
5-9
5-7
5.1
6
6.1-7
6.1
7-10
7.1-10
7.1
7.3-10
8-9
8
8.1
8.1-5
8.5
9
9.1
9.2-4
9.2-3
9.4-7
9.4
9.5
9.6-7
9.6
9.7
10
10.1-10
10.1
224
212
210, 212
210
209
211
211, 226
211
210
212. 216
211, 212
211
211
210
212
211
76, 77
212
78
212
76
212
238
77, 212
77
209, 212,
213
77
212
78.79. 204,
216
209
212
77, 212, 213
77, 78
76,78
213
77
79. 213
79.80.213,
225
78, 79, 204,
207, 212
77, 204.
210. 213
77
Interpretation
78-80. 213
78. 208
78
225
78-80. 208.
213
10.8-10
78. 213
10.8
79
10.9
205
10.11-12.13 206
10.11
206. 214
10.12-13
206
10.14-15
205
10.15
207. 213.
214
11-12
206
11.1-12.13 205
11
205. 207
11.1-4
221
211
11.1
11.4
207
11.9-10
207
11.11
204. 207
11.12-19
207
11.12-13
207
11.14
206. 207
11.16
212. 213
11.17-18
207
11.17
204. 209.
211, 212
12.1-13
208. 224
12.1
211
12.4
226
12.6
208. 212
211
12.8
12.10-13
214
12.10
76
12.11
208
12.12
76. 208, 210
12.13
208. 209
10.2
10.3
10.4-6
10.5-6
10.7
Testament of Naphtali
3.5
236. 238
Testament of Reuben
238
5.5
Index of
References
309
QUMRAN
CD
19.5-13
IQM
133
IQapGen
2.1
2.16
16-17
236
236
4QFlor
11.1-6
11.17
12.4-10
13.14-16
18.13-19.2
71
71
71
71
71
133
4QpHos
2.3-6
203
4QpPs
37.14-15
IQpHab
IQH
1.21
2.9-19
2.13
2.32-37
2.17-18
3.19
4.8-10
4.27-29
5.5-19
6.34
7.27
9.1-36
10.5-7
11.4-5
11.9-10
10.16-17
12.11-14
12.32-34
13.18-19
14.8
18.10-11
18.19-21
18.19
1-2 i 14
131
203
136
203
131
280
203
136
203
284
136
203
131
131
131
131
131
131
131
136
131
131
131
2.6-10
2.7-10
2.8
5.8-12
7
7.1-5
11.4-8
12.1-10
203
134
136
135
25
134
203
135
203
4QpPs''
3.15
4.27
134
136
4Q385
2.5-7
290
6QD
2.18-21
IQS
1.9
5.8-10
6.6-8
8.13-15
8.15
9.12-23
9.13
9.25
10.17-21
11.1-2
137
137
136
133
137
71
137
71
71
71
4QBer^
1.1
281
236
llQMelch
9-16
12
17
173
133
133
II QPs
151-55
151
151A. 1
151A. 5
151A. 7
31
14, 30
30
30
30
11.20
16.17
31.9
146
146
155
4QDib Ham
203
IQIsaf
6.2-10
135
TARGUMS
Jeremiah
Isaiah
53
63.16
64.8
172
155
155
3.4
3.8
3.19
8.4
155
146
155
146
Ezekiel
1.27
109
310
The Pseudepigrapha
Malachi
1.6
2.10
155
155
and Early Biblical
159
159
21.9
23.23
Deuteronomy
Targum NeofiU
32.6
157, 159.
165
157
Genesis
21
21.33
156
157-59. 168
33.24
1.19
15.12
17.11
Genesis
156. 158.
159
159
159
28.32
28.33
32.6
34.6
160. 168
160, 168
160
251
Fragments Targum
11.4
1.19
15.12
159
159. 160
197
Numbers
Exodus
1.19
160
21.9
23.23
159
159. 168
m. Sot.
1.9
251
Leviticus
Numbers
20.21
Deuteronomy
Exodus
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Exodus
Interpretation
157. 159
22.28
168
MISHNAH AND TALMUDS
b. -Abod. Zar.
b. Sanh.
5a
38b
39a
90
92a-b
92a
253
b. Ber
10a
252
259
251
286
253
276. 279
b. Ket.
Illb
2.4
232
/. Sot.
286
b Sot.
4.8
13b
48b
b. Meg.
31b
m. Ta'an.
249. 250
128
195
251
y M. Qat.
3.82b
253
b Suk.
b. Nid
13b
5a
250. 251
253
y Yeb
15.15c
253
b. Ta'an.
b Pes.
23b
154
118a
b Yeb
b Qid.
36a
168
62a
63b
253
253
MIDRASHIM
Gen. R.
24.4 (on
Gen. 5.1)
38.8 (on
Gen. n.3)
253
197
44.13
Gen.
71.10
Gen.
(on
15.6) 198
(on
31.13) 158
93.8 (on
Gen. 44.29) 2 5 3
95.1 (on
Gen. 46.28) 2 8 5
311
Index of References
97 (on
Gen. 48.1) 158
100.7 (on
Gen. 50.10) 2 5 3
98.16 (on
Gen. 49.20) 158
Lev.R.
4.5 (on
U v . 4.2)
4.8 (on
U v . 4.2)
15.1 (on
U v . 13.2)
Num. R.
2.10 (on
Num. 2.3)
12
12.11 (on
Num. 7.1)
15.13
253
252
253
158
251
264
Deul. R.
3.17 (on
Deut. 10.1) 2 5 0
11.10 (on
Deut. 31.14) 241
Eccl. R.
1.4 §2
5.10 §1
12.4 §1
285
286
253
Mek. on Exod.
20.21-13 (Bahodesh
258
§11)
Midr. Ps.
1.20 (on
Ps. 1.4)
11.6-7 (on
Ps. 11.7)
103.4-5 (on
Ps. 103.1)
274
253
Midr. Prov.
30.4 (53a)
Pes. R.
4.2
5
5b
5.3
21.4
Piska 32
198b
PRE
§33
§34
251
251
251
264
286
275
Sifre Deul.
§306 (on
Deul. 32.2) 2 5 3
§357 (on
Deut. 34.5) 249, 250
252
PlIILO
Agr.
51-52
Conf Ung.
110-15
111-14
Congr.
103-105
258
262
261
146-47
148
151
168-75
266
Gig.
12-15
253
Her.
238
254
Ug. All.
3.71
3.84
253
253
266
Det. Pot. Ins.
253
27
Deus Imm.
136
138
145-54
145-51
Ebr.
60-62
251
251
Leg. Gai.
4-5
75
267
260, 264,
267
168-71
168
169-71
170-75
171-72
171
172
173-75
174-75
174
184
Mut. Nom.
38
258, 261.
265
262
261
264
263
263
258, 261-63
259. 262,
263
258
259
258
254
249. 267
266
267
267
267
Migr. Abr.
72
115
142-43
262
251, 267
251
Op. Mund.
69-71
251-53,
255, 265.
267
312
The Pseudepigrapha
69
70-71
70
251. 252
254
253. 254,
258. 267
Plant.
14
145
251
253
Poster. C.
14-15
265
Praem. Poen.
94-97
121
162-72
255
253
255
Quaest. in Gen.
1.86
3.3
4.130
249-51,
265, 267
254
257
Quaest. in Exod.
1.86
2.28
264
264
Rev. Div. Her
128
230
237
239
253
253
253
253
Sacr.
8-10
251. 267
and Early Biblical
Sobr.
Interpretation
3.1
68
259
3.6
253, 254,
267
255
Somn.
1.138-39
1.139
1.240
2.78-92
2.274-99
2.276-79
2.279-82
2.283-99
2.283-92
2.283-86
2.284-90
2.284
2.285
2.290-91
2.292
Virt.
253
253
251
66
260
260
260
260
262
261
262
262
262
261
262
51-79
53-71
72-75
72-74
73-75
74
76-79
76
171-72
Vit. Mos.
Spec. Ug.
1.36-38
1.37
1.66
1.207
2.44-45
2.45
2.164
2.165
2.166
2.193
2.229-30
3.1-6
3.1-2
265
253
251
253,
266
263,
253,
266
266
266
259
266
263
247,
256
256
256, 257,
264
257
258. 265
257. 258
256
257
260
254,
265
266
1.4
1.148-62
1.149
1.158
1.162
1.163
1.190
2.20
2.36
2.37
2.40
2.66
2.163-73
2.291
238
263
263
264. 265
265
264
253
248
248
141
141
203
203
249. 250
8.13.6 §346
9.2.2 §28
12.3.3
§§129-44
12.6.2
§§268-78
14.4.2 §63
14.15.5
§§420-30
139
250
254
JOSEPHUS
Ant
1.3.4 §85
249, 250
2.15.4-5
§§327-29
203
2.15.4 §327 2 0 3
2.16.1 §334 2 0 3
3.1.3 §§11-12 2 0 3
3.1.3-4
§12-22
203
3.13
§§295-99
3.14.3 §307
4.2.3 §22
4.3.2
§§40-50
4.8.2
§§177-79
4.8.48 §326
6.4.2 §56
203
203
203
203
203
249
139
70
77
70
77
Index of
Apion
1.7 §37
139
War
2.8.12 §159
2.16.4 §392
137
70
3.8.3
§351-54
3.8.3 §354
6.5.4
§312-13
References
138
148
313
7.8.7
1342-48
7.8.7
§346-47
253
252
139
CHRISTIAN AUTHORS
Apoc. Pet.
4
4.3-5
4.3-4
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.7-8
4.9
4.10-12
4.13
6.7
9.6-7
Asc. Isa.
10.8
Athenagoras
De Res.
3-7
Augustine
De Civ. Dei
22.12
22.20
286
287
273,
289
288,
291
288
287.
290
288
273.
273
288
288
Bam.
5.3
288
2889,
144
Clement of Alexandria
1 Clement
10-12
230
24.4-5
286
50.4
282
289.
Eel.
25.1
144
JusUn
/ Apol.
19.4
52.5
286
289
3 Cor
3.26-27
286
Macarius Magnes
Apocritica
4.6.16
273
286
280
Strom.
4.71-n
144
Origen
Comm. in Joh.
144
13
Hermas
Mand.
3.2
279
Polycarp
Phil.
12.1
144
Tertullian
DeRes.
32.1
32.2
273, 288
288, 291
Theophilus
Ad Autol.
1.13
286
Vis.
2.1.1-2
148
290
Ignatius
Eph.
14.1
290
290
Irenaeus
Adv. Haer.
1.8.5
144
144
OTIIER ANCIENT AUTHORS AND WRITINGS
Andiologia Palastina
Planudea
4.328
254
Corpus HermeUcum
1.31-32
148
Demotic Chronicle
3.1-2
De Pietate
15.14-21
Philodemus
Catalogus Codicum
Astrologorum
1.136
253
Gadarensis D.
3.9
253
252
314
The Pseudepigrapha
and Early Biblical
Plato
Threat.
Phaidon
173E
SOB
109E
253
253
Seneca
252, 253
65.24
25
248C
249C
252. 253
Ep.
252
Ps.-Lucian
Philopaalris
Phaedrus
Interpretation
VetUus Valens VI
254
Introduction 2 5 4
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Ackroyd, P.R. 180, 182
Alexander, P.S. 120. 124, 172, 174,
257, 258
Andersen, F.I. 37, 250
Aptowitzer, V. 253
Arnaldez, R. 252
Attridge, H.W. 20, 175, 189
Aune. D.E. 126, 138. 145, 146, 256
Auvray, P. 126
Barnes. W.E. 179
Barton, J. 97, 128
Bauckham, R. 22, 186-89, 240, 270,
290
Beare. F.W. 234
Beasley-Murray G.R. 88, 255
Beckwidi, R. 97,241
Bentzen, A. 67
Bergman, J. 149
B e u , 0 . 128,240,249
Black, M. 24, 71, 72. 108. 113, 278
Blenkinsopp, J.L. 138
Bloch. R. 129, 135, 140. 180
Bogaert. P. 84
Borgen, P. 130. 247, 248, 262-65
Boring, M.E. 145
Bousset, W. 246
Bowden, J. 152
Bowker. J.W. 141
Brandenburger, E. 76. 77. 209
Braude. W.G. 275. 276
Brawley. R.L. 176
Brin, G. 142
Brock. S.P. 161. 172
Brodie, T.L 200
Brooke, G.J. 122, 127. 135, 137. 173
Brownlee. W.H. 126. 134, 135, 173
Brox, N. 234
Bruce, F.F. 132
Brueggemann. W. 202
Buchholz, D.D. 281
Bultmann. R. 269
Burchard. C. 152
Caird, G.B. 88. 282
Caquot, A. 14
Carmignac. J. 133. 149
Carrington, P. 195
Carson. D.A. 120, 152, 172
Cerfaux, L. 126. 145
Chadwick, H. 231
Charles, R.H. 37. 75-79, 90. 100, 101,
119, 120, 124, 125,207,209-12,
270. 280, 282
Charleswordi, J.H. 14. 30. 33, 35,41,
115, 162-65. 173, 174. 184. 186,
202
Chilton, B. 152. 155. 163, 172, 194.
199
Chmiel, J. 271
Clarke. E.G. 160
Coats. G.W. 170
Cohn. J. 252
Collins. A.Y. 65.68.70. 71.73.76,79,
86-92, 203
Collins, J.J. 41, 65.66,68, 70,72.73.
75-77. 79, 80, 84, 85, 144, 149.
204.209.211-14.227. 287
Codienet, E. 146. 147
Cranfield. C.E.B. 234
Crockett. L.C. 179
Cross. F.M. 22, 88, 170
Cumont. F. 254
316
Dahl, M.E. 175,271
Dalton, J. 235
Daniaou. J. 281, 282, 289
Dauman, F. 149
Dautzenberg, G. 128. 146
Davids, P.H. 229, 230, 234, 236, 239.
244
Davies,?. 6 9 , 7 0 , 104, 134
Davies, W.D. 2 4 . 1 2 9
Davis. M. 24
Dean-OtUng. M. 246, 255
Delcor, M. 163
Deppe, D.B. 244
Derrett, J.D.M. 196
Dexinger, F. 110
Dfez Macho. A. 156, 157
Dimant, D. 98. 103-105, 114, 120.
133. 173. 174, 290
Dodd, C H . 143
Dombkowski Hopkins. D. 137
Downing. F.G. 189. 190
Dniry, J. 196
Dunn, J.D.G. 41
Elliger, K. 132
Ellis. E.E. 126, 144. 147. 179
Emerton. J.A. 131. 132
Endres. J.C. 120, 123. 125. 142, 185
EUieridge. J.W. 160
Evans, C.A. 22. 29. 135. 173. 179, 271,
285, 289
Farmer, W.R. 69
Feldman. L.H. 42, 138, 139, 189
Finch, R.G. 195
Finkel, A. 132
Finkelstein. L. 129
Fiorenza, E.S. 86, 269
Fishbane. M. 16, 140, 170, 173
Fitzmyer, J.A. 176, 177, 200
Russer, D. 240
Ford. J.M. 269
Foster, J. 158
France. R.T. 152, 186, 194. 236
Freedman, D.N. 25, 158
Freedman, H. 276
Friebel, K.G. 135
Friedlander, G. 275
Interpretation
Fuchs, H. 26
Garcia MaitTnez, F. 136, 179
Gasque, W.W. 228
Gaston, L. 146
Gaylord, H.E. 253
Geffcken, J. 287
Georgi, D. 141
Ginsberg, H.L. 74, 126
Ginsburger. M. 159, 160
Ginzberg, L. 203, 249-53, 257
Goldstein, J.A. 68, 69, 76
Goodenough, E.R. 247. 260
Goppelt. L. 234, 235
Goulder. M.D. 195, 196
Grabbe, L. 113
Greenspahn, F.E. 20
Greer, R.A. 132, 140, 142, 150
Grelot, P. 112, 150
Grintz, Y.M. 26
GrOzinger, K.E. 254, 257
Grossfeld, G. 157
Grudem. W.A. 235
Guilding, A. 195
Gundel, H.G. 254
Gundel, W. 254
Gundry, R.H. 196. 197
Haacker. K. 209. 240, 249-51
Haase. W. 140
Hall, W.S. 147. 148
Halperin. D.J. 104, 109. 258. 264
Hanson. P. 104
Hanson. R.S. 25
Harrington. D.J. 76. 186. 205, 209
Harris. R. 164
Hartman, L. 102. 103, 254
Hauck, F. 89
Haug, M. 29
HawUiorne. G.F. 145
Hayes. R.B. 16
Hayward, R. 155
Hecht, R.D. 20
Hellholm. D. 149
Hengel, M. 4 1 , 6 7 , 73. 128. 139
Hilgert. E. 20
Hills, J. 273, 288
Himmelfarb, M. 256
Index of Authors
Morgan. M.P. 133-36. 173
Home. CF. 29
Horsley. R.A. 66. 69. 75. 138
Hullgard, A. 112
Ingelaere. J.-C. 138
Isaac. E. 37,271
James. M.R. 163.288
Janssen, E. 209
Jellicoe. S. 140
Jeremias. J. 146. 152-55. 166, 168.
202. 235
Jervell, J. 176
Jonge. M. de 33
Jourjon, M. 149
Jucci. E. 134
Juel. D. 143
Keck. L.E. 175
Kee. H.C. 22, 34,44
Kelly, J.N.D. 236
Kiddle, M. 282
Kim. T.H. 135, 173
Kittel, 0. 154
Klassen, W. 86
Klein, M.L. 158, 159
Klijn, A.F.J. 32, 40, 81, 82, 84, 272-74
Knibb, M.A. 106, 107, 137. 271, 287
Knight, D.A. 142
Knox, J. 234
Koch, K. 67. 111
Kolenkow. A.B. 204, 206, 209, 210
Kraft, R.A. 133.204
Kugel. J.L. 132, 140. 142. 150, 176,
177
LaSor, W.S. 228
Lacocque, A. 67. 68, 70. 74
Laperrousaz. E.-M. 76. 77
Lattey, C. 214
Lauterbach. J.Z. 158
Laws, S.S. 229
U Deaut, R. 129, 141, 156, 179
Leeuw, G. van der ISO
Uipoldt. J. 154
Ucht. J. 76. 79. 80. 212
Lindars. B. 143
317
Loewenstamm. S.E. 240
Lohmeyer, E. 87
Long. B.O. 170
Liihrmann, D. 145
Lull. D.J. 138
Lund. S. 158
McEleney, N.J. 23
Mack. B.L. 20
Malter, H. 253
Manson. T.W. 77
Marshall, LH. 175,236
Mardn, J.D. 104
Martyn, J.L. 175
Madiews. K.A. 25
Mazzaferri, F.D. 269, 270
Meeks, W.A. 202, 203, 247, 259, 264
Metzger, B.M. 32, 90. 232
Meyer, R. 253
Michaels, J.R. 235
Milik, J.T. 29, 96, 99, 104, 113. 136
Millar, E 129
Miller, P.D. 196.202
Mingana, A. 164
Mink. H.-A. 142
Moessner, D.P. 202. 203. 209, 217.
220. 222. 225
Montgomery, J.A. 67
Moore. G.F. 154
Morris. L. 195
Mounce. R. 86
MUller, H.-P. 131.234
Mulder. M.J. 98. 172-74, 189
Murphy, F.J. 65, 81-83, 85
Myers. J.M. 183
Neusner, J. 131, 199
Nickelsburg. G.W.E. 27, 28.41. 67, 71,
73, 76, 78-80, 96-98. 103, 104,
108-10. 115, 133, 174, 185, 187,
202-205, 209. 210. 212, 213, 227,
240
Noth, M. 102
O'Day, G.R. 16
OUenburger, B.C. 74
Oriinsky, H.M. 127, 141
Osbum. CD. 241
318
Panagopoulos, J. 147
Pane. D. 128, 129
Payne, P.B. 197
PeiTot, C. 195
PlOger, O. 67
Preisendanz, K. 162, 163
Priest, J. 36, 76, 79, 205, 209, 214
Puech, E. 179
Rabinowiu, 1. 135
Rad, G. von 67, 136,202,218
Reese, G. 205,209,211-14
Reicke, B. 235
Rhoads, D.M. 76, 78-80, 204, 214
Rieder, D. 160
Ringgren, H. 131
Robert, A. 130
Rost, L. 23, 24,29
Rowland, C. 41
Rowley, H.H. 24, 68, 69, 77, 214
Rowston, D.J. 242
Rubinkiewicz, R. 258
Ruiz, J.-P. 141
Runia. D. 257
Russell, D.S. 27. 41, 67, 202, 255, 277
Sahlin, H. 69
Sanders, E.P. 23, 35, 163, 255
Sanders. J.A. 22, 170
Sanders. J.T. 176
Sandniel, S. 43, 170, 255
Sandnes, K.O. 145
Sawyer, J.F.A. 271
SchSfer, P. 240. 249-51
Schillebeeckx. E. 40
Schrenk. G. 153
SchOrer, E. 21, 22, 129
Schulu, J.P. 257
Segal. A.F. 247. 258
Sekki. A.E. 128
Selwyn. E.G. 146.235
Sheppard. G.T. 131
Silberman. L.H. 132
Simon. M. 275
Simon. R. 18
Sj6berg. E. 209, 213
Skarsaune. O. 289
Slamovic, E. 138
Interpretation
Slotki. J.J. 158
Smallwood, E.M. 259
Smith. J.Z. 150, 163
Smith, M. 24, 176
Sparks, H.F.D. 33, 200
Spiegelberg, W. 149
Spitta, F. 235
Spittler, R.P. 34. 35. 161. 162. 232
Steck. O.H. 119,203,209,212
Stembcrger, G. 278, 280, 283
Slendahl, K. 143, 144
SUnespring, W.F. 173
Stone, M.E. 26, 27. 133. 173. 185. 189.
209, 248
Strugnell. J. 290
Stuhlmacher. P. 145
Suter. D.W. 115. 141
Swete, H.B. 282
Szor6nyi, A. 132
Tabor, T.D. 246. 247
Talbcrt. C.H. 200
Tannehill. R.C. 222
Tcherikover, V. 68-70
Temporini. H. 140
Thiering, B.E. 134
Ticde, D.L. 200. 202. 203. 222
Tobin. T.H. 252
Tov. E. 140. 172
Tucker, G.M. 142
Tuttle. G.A. 131
Tyson, J.B. 222
Urbach. E.E. 131
VanderKam, J.C. 22. 37. 96. 97. 101.
103. 107, 108, 110, 111, 115,
118. 120. 122. 123. 125. 173
Vermes, G. 98, 129, 133-135. 153155, 202
Vogels. H.-J. 235
Wallace, D.H. 75
Walton. B. 160
Ward. R.B. 228
Webb, R.L. 239
Wenham, D. 152, 186, 194, 234
Wertheimer, S.A. 254
Index of
Wenslein. J.J. 282
Willi. T. 180
Williams. S.K. 214.227
Williamson. H.G.M. 120. 152. 172.
180-82
Wills. L. 142
Wilson, A.M. 142
Wilson. S.G. 176
Windisch, H. 235
Wintermute, O.S. 184,230
Authors
Wolfson, H.A. 249, 258, 260
Woude, A.S. van der 134
Wright, A.G. 135
Wright, R.B. 94
Yadin, Y. 142
Zeitlin, S. 25. 76. 214
Zerbe. G. 66, 71, 94
Zobel, H.-J. 137
319

The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation

Transcription

Similar documents

Rangemaster - JWWalker.net

BAD NEWS /GOOD NEWS A beautiful red sports car plunged off the

amuzgo people - The Seed Company

Untitled - Cody Lamb. Moses Lake Real Estate

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Update From the Avatime People Pray For Your People

COASTAL CITIES OF ACTS By Private Yacht

Sample

Bringing hope to the hopeless

October 9, 2012 UPCOMING EVENTS