Covenant - Concepts of Berit, Diatheke, and Testamentum: Proceedings of the Conference at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston, Texas, November 2019 9783161617737, 3161617738

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) · Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

506

Covenant – Concepts of Berit, Diatheke, and Testamentum Proceedings of the Conference at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston, Texas, November 2019 edited by

Christian A. Eberhart and Wolfgang Kraus in collaboration with Richard J. Bautch, Matthias Henze, and Martin Rösel

Mohr Siebeck

Christian A. Eberhart, born 1964; 2000 doctorate; 2011 Habilitation; Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Religious Studies Program at the University of Houston, Texas. orcid.org/0000-0002-9634-1680 Wolfgang Kraus, born 1955; 1990 doctorate; 1994 Habilitation; Professor emeritus for New Testament Studies at the University of the Saarland, Saarbruecken; Research Associate Dept. of New Testament, University of Pretoria, South Africa. orcid.org/0000-0003-0878-034X

ISBN 978-3-16-161773-7 / eISBN 978-3-16-161774-4 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-161774-4 ISSN 0512-1604 / eISSN 2568-7476 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen ­Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Preface Preface Preface

This volume is based on the presentations delivered in November 19–22, 2019 at the conference “Berit, Diatheke, Foedus, Covenant, Bund” at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston, Texas, supplemented by additional articles to round out the topic. The conference was organized by the Program in Jewish Studies at Rice University in Houston (Texas) and the Religious Studies Program at the University of Houston in cooperation with the Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken (Germany) and the Universität Rostock (Germany) and in collaboration with the Lanier Theological Library in Houston. The scholars who organized it were (in alphabetical order) Richard J. Bautch, Professor of Humanities at St. Edward’s University in Austin, Christian A. Eberhart, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Houston, Matthias Henze, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at Rice University in Houston, Wolfgang Kraus, Professor of New Testament Studies at Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, and Martin Rösel, Professor of Old Testament Studies at Universität Rostock. This conference had its own prehistory that we gratefully acknowledge. Already in 2012, Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Rösel, Gert Steyn, and Florian Wilk had the idea of organizing an interdisciplinary conference on “covenant”. We are excited that, in 2019, this event could finally take place in Houston and that this volume makes the presentations available to a wider academic audience. We are grateful to Mohr Siebeck publisher in Tübingen for the interest in publishing the book, specifically Jörg Frey, the editor of the series Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament (WUNT) and Henning Ziebritzki, head of Mohr Siebeck. We would like to express our gratitude, in the most cordial way possible, to Mark and Becky Lanier, founders of the Lanier Theological Library, to its director Charles Mickey, to his assistant Jennie Enright, and to all the other staff members. They offered to host this event in the unique facilities of the Lanier Theological Library in Houston and supported it in countless other ways. We are also grateful to the following cosponsors: Rice University, Program in Jewish Studies; University of Houston – Religious Studies Program; University of Houston – Global Strategies and Studies; University of Houston – Department of History; University of Houston – the Honors College. Many thanks are in order to the stewards, Véronique A. Eberhart and Clint Boyd, who helped and assisted in uncountable ways before and during the conference. Furthermore, we acknowledge the hard work of Joshua George, Jaden M. Urdiales, Véronique A. Eberhart, Paul Allen,

VI

Preface

Ashlin Vance, and Claire Mummert for editorial assistance and support in the post-conference phase. Special thanks go to the Dean’s Office of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Houston for a generous book completion grant as well as to the Internationalisierungsfond der Universität des Saarlandes for additional funding for the work at these stages. The German Academic Exchange Service / Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) generously reimbursed travel expenses of German participants of the conference in Houston. We thank Andrea Töcker, Neuendettelsau, for preparing the manuscript for publication and compiling the indices. Christian A. Eberhart, Houston, and Wolfgang Kraus, Saarbrücken, in collaboration with Richard J. Bautch, Austin, Matthias Henze, Houston, and Martin Rösel, Rostock

Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents

Preface ..................................................................................................

V

Christian A. Eberhart / Wolfgang Kraus Introduction ...........................................................................................

1

History of Research and the Questions of Origin Siegfried Kreuzer Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament .......................................................................................

13

Ancient Near East Poppy Tushingham The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire: Imposed by Humans, Enforced by the Gods ..........................................

43

Hebrew and Greek Bible Thomas Hieke Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah ..............

69

Richard J. Bautch Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi .............................................

89

Karin Finsterbusch The New Covenant for Israel in Jeremiah. Notes on the Different Textual Versions of the Pericope and their Meaning ........................................... 109 Karin Finsterbusch Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel (Old Greek Ezekiel and its Hebrew Vorlage and MT-Ezekiel) ............... 121

VIII

Table of Contents

Eberhard Bons Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen ................................................. 143 Manfred Oeming Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Neh 8–10 ............................................................ 165 Bonifatia Gesche Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira .................................... 189 Francis M. Macatangay Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha ...................................................... 207 Martin Rösel Is διαθήκη an Appropriate Translation for ‫?ברית‬ Covenant, Contract, and Testament in the Septuagint ................................ 233

Second Temple Judaism Brent A. Strawn ‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran .......................................... 249 Heinz-Josef Fabry ‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran ................................. 273 Gert J. Steyn Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus .................................... 309 Matthias Henze Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha .................................... 335

New Testament Christian A. Eberhart Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”. Origins, Meanings, Ramifications .................................. 361 Florian Wilk Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen des Paulus .................................................................. 431

Table of Contents

IX

Jens Herzer The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans ........ 457 Wolfgang Kraus Διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews .................................................... 495 Martin Karrer The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19 ........................................ 511

Early Church Martin Meiser Covenant in the Early Church Writings ................................................. 541 Tobias Nicklas The Covenant in Christian Apocrypha. Fragmentary Evidence of a Spectrum of Ideas ........................................................................... 571

Late Antiquity Jörg Ulrich Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho

587

Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus ........................................ 609 Sara Ronis Sons of the Covenant? The Rabbinic Body and the Covenant with God ................................................................... 625

Covenant in the Arts and in Systematic Discourse Martin Karrer The Mosaic of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny-des-Prés .............. 647 Margit Ernst-Habib Covenant as Convivence. The Relevance of Covenantal Theology in Contemporary Theological Discourses .............................................. 661

X

Table of Contents

Names of Contributors .......................................................................... 687 Index of Ancient Sources ....................................................................... 691 Index of Authors .................................................................................... 704 Subject Index ......................................................................................... 716

Introduction Introduction

CHRISTIAN A. EBERHART / WOLFGANG KRAUS Christian A. Eberhart / Wolfgang Kraus

The topic of covenant – however it may be defined – is as important to the study of ANE religions, Second Temple Judaism, early Christian literature, and the early Christian Church and Rabbinic Judaism as it is complex and disputed among ancient and modern scholars alike. Although there are voices suggesting that the theme has been overemphasized in recent research, it cannot be denied that it permeates much of biblical and cognate literature throughout many centuries (while its absence in the literatures of certain periods and some authors needs to be acknowledged). The present collection of essays explores the diverse spectrum of covenantal concepts that emerged during this time period in different parts of the ANE and the eastern Mediterranean. Its contributions discuss, for example, the problem of translating the basic terminology such as ‫ ברית‬and διαθήκη (together with in the Peshitta, ‫ ܕ‬in the Syrohexapla, and foedus in Latin) and the proper understanding of these terms. They investigate the etymology of these terms and trace their origins in the socio-political sphere of the legal culture of the pre-Hellenistic ANE where they were often deployed to designate international contractual connections. They also explore the theological implications of this terminology and its later application in mostly religious texts from different scholarly perspectives. The result is a detailed, comprehensive, and thorough presentation of the tremendous range of covenantal concepts and their complexities in biblical and cognate literature throughout the ages, together with a keen look at the history of pertinent scholarly research. This volume starts with remarks on the history of research and questions of origin of the topic of ‫ ברית‬by Siegfried Kreuzer. Under the title “Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament”, Kreuzer first highlights the importance of the covenant theme from antiquity to modern discussions, not only in exegesis but also in theological thinking and in Bible translations. His contribution outlines the history of research, briefly introduces the most relevant biblical texts, explores the scholarly discussion about ‫ ברית‬from the late 19th century up to the present, and relates it to its literary, exegetical, ANE, and sociological contexts. It puts special emphasis not only on Hittite, Neo-Assyrian and Old Aramaic, but also on Old Babylonian covenant texts while, in addition, exploring ‘covenant’ thinking (in the sense of expressing a close relation, be it between the people or with God)

2

Christian A. Eberhart / Wolfgang Kraus

without and beyond the term ‫ברית‬. At this point, the paper presents the current consensus that the idea of a covenant between God and his people developed in ancient Israel and the Hebrew Bible in the late 7th century BCE as a counter concept to the loyalty oaths imposed on the Israelites and on other people by the Assyrian kings. However, Kreuzer questions if more or less a copy of these ‘texts of terror’ would have motivated the Israelites to embrace and follow such a covenant with the God of Israel. He eventually suggests an origin in the prophetic message and the reflection about it, for example that the idea of ‫ברית‬ would have expanded and substituted other expressions for close relations, both in their critical and in their positive function. The next contribution is dedicated to the ancient Near East. In her paper “The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire: Imposed by Humans, Enforced by the Gods”, Poppy Tushingham argues that “covenant” may be the closest English equivalent term to the Neo-Assyrian adê. Neo-Assyrian covenants were imposed by humans, most frequently the Assyrian king, and concerned actions and attitudes towards them or their successors. The covenants were enforced, meanwhile, by the gods, divine witnesses who inflicted curses on anyone who broke them. In her paper, Tushingham explores the relationship between these human imposers and divine enforcers. She illustrates how the Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince, a 7th century BCE work of Assyrian literature, grapples with this theme, particularly as regards the status of a covenant after the king’s death. A total of nine contributions reflect on the area of Hebrew and Greek Bible. Thomas Hieke studies the character of “Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah”. Hieke observes that the few words (especially verbs) syntactically associated with the 82 occurrences of the term ‫ברית‬, “covenant”, in the Torah lead to certain thematic lines that all are connected to the literary character of Abram/Abraham in one way or another. While the universal covenant with Noah and every living creature uses almost the same wording and references items as the passage in which God establishes the covenant with Abraham, a different set of expressions about “covenant” exists in the Abraham cycle that is later used for Israel’s special covenant with YHWH. Hieke concludes that Abram/Abraham emerges as the pivot of the important concept of “covenant” in the Torah. Richard Bautch investigates “Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi”. His study of the Covenant of Levi in Mal 2:4–9 breaks new ground by demonstrating how the text advances the leitmotif of Malachi, which is focused on fearing and glorifying the name of God; second, how it aligns with the allusions, puns and stinging reversals in Malachi that critique those Aaronide priests deeply involved in the formation of the Pentateuch (the Torah of Moses); third, how it serves as the manifesto of a Levitical group seeking separation from dominant priestly cohorts such as the Aaronides in Yehud at this time. Bautch shows how inconspicuous covenants such as the Covenant of

Introduction

3

Levi function as part of an oppositional wave in the priestly politics of the Second Temple period. The first contribution of Karin Finsterbusch has the title “The New Covenant for Israel in Jeremiah: Notes on the Different Textual Versions of the Pericope and their Meaning”. Finsterbusch studies the three different versions of the pericope of the New Covenant for Israel: the Old Greek translation (Jer 38:31–34LXX), its supposed Hebrew Vorlage – which should be considered as the oldest accessible version of the pericope – and the Hebrew Masoretic version (Jer 31:31–34MT). The differences between these versions are undoubtedly significant, as her analysis demonstrates. Finsterbusch argues that despite these differences, all versions share the same pessimistic view on the ability of God’s people to live according to the Torah and the same utopian expectation of God’s graceful action, for instance, of his making a new covenant in connection with a supernatural change of human nature. With regard to these views and hopes, the pericope is closely related to several other texts in Second Temple Jewish literature, even if the term “new covenant” is unique in the Hebrew Bible and has played a unique and most problematic role in the Christian reception. In her second contribution to this volume, Karin Finsterbusch explores “Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel (Old Greek Ezekiel and its Hebrew Vorlage and MT-Ezekiel)”. Finsterbusch considers Ezekiel to be an interesting case displaying a rather unique covenantal flavor for example completely ignoring the famous eternal covenant with Abraham. Furthermore, there are significant covenantal differences between the variant literary editions of the book. There is not only a difference in numbers (three covenants versus two covenants), but supposedly proto-Masoretic editorsscribes also reworked the older covenantal texts significantly. For example they fixed the date of the old covenant and the beginning of Israel as God’s chosen people during her stay in Egypt. These differences within such a major authoritative prophetic book as Ezekiel may show that the concept of covenant was adapted due to religious insight and developed due to changing political circumstances in the course of the textual transmission until a rather late period in Second Temple Judaism. Eberhard Bons explores “the Topic of Covenant in the Psalms” (“Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen”). His article provides an overview of the various ideas associated with the word ‫ ברית‬in the Psalms, examining a total of 19 passages in which the word refers to a covenant between God and Israel. In some cases – such as Psalm 105 and 106 – a similarity with priestly covenantal ideas is evident. In most cases, however, like in Psalm 78, it is hardly possible to draw lines of connection to specific texts in the Pentateuch where a covenant is mentioned. In these texts, the memory of a specific covenant has probably faded or – as in the communal laments Psalm 44 and 74 – the current misery is so much in the foreground that concrete covenants of the past are no longer

4

Christian A. Eberhart / Wolfgang Kraus

mentioned. In yet other texts – Psalm 25 and 50 – the collective aspect of the covenant is faded out and the covenant becomes the obligation of the individual. Manfred Oeming examines covenant concepts in the Achaemenid period with special consideration of Neh 8–10 (“Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Neh 8–10”). His contribution first outlines the research consensus on the dating of Deuteronomistic, Priestly, and prophetic covenantal concepts to the period between 650 to 500 BCE while also addressing their theological structures. Oeming then shows how recent research has opened up a fresh look at covenant theologies in the Persian period; numerous further developments and new approaches have been proposed, some of which are contradictory. Achaemenid politics, for example, inspired the idea of peaceful coexistence among peoples; there was an emphasis on adoption into the covenant instead of rigid genealogical family ties; aspects of individualization were emphasized, moving away from collective thinking to the idea of the very personal radical sublimation of sexual needs. But there was also, in some contrast, a hardline attitude of opposition to any form of intermarriage as religious apostasy. The concluding third part uses an exegesis of Neh 8–10 to show how covenant is tied to hearing and rightly interpreting Scripture, to instruct about the very intent of the Torah. This concept has had its own lengthy reception history (to Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, especially Matthew) through the Reformers, and its impact continues to the present day. Ezra, priest and scribe, with his “covenant of the book”, has predetermined critical theological parameters of Judaism and Christianity as sometimes strongly competing interpretive communities. In her contribution “Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira”, Bonifatia Gesche focuses on the praise of the ancestors, which lists individuals of Israel’s history who deserve extraordinary honor. This text attributes special honor to several of these people by mentioning a covenant with YHWH; these covenants peak in the Aaronite priesthood while Moses’s covenant at Mount Sinai is omitted. This can be explained when one distinguishes – according to Assmann’s terminology – Moses’s covenant as a covenant of loyalty and the covenants of truth that apply to the other bonds mentioned in this passage. According to Gesche, the latter requires complete holiness of the priests. Francis M. Macatangay studies “Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha”. His essay analyzes a number of selected texts (Tob 1:3–8, Jdt 9:11–14; Sir 45:23– 25; Wis 18:20–22; 1 Macc 1:11 / Dan 9:26–27; 2 Macc 7:34–38; Pr. Azar 11– 13, and Bar 2:34–35) which consider it an axiom that God remains faithful and has not given up on his people. And yet, these texts do not just recall the biblical covenants. Their articulation and understanding of covenant take on a variety of meanings and expressions. Macatangay concludes that, often embracing the Deuteronomic calculus of blessing and curse, reward and punishment,

Introduction

5

obedience and disobedience, these texts also creatively conceptualize the covenantal demands and the promises of God differently. Investigating covenant, contract, and testament in the Septuagint, Martin Rösel asks the question: “Is διαθήκη an appropriate translation for ‫ ”?ברית‬His article deals with the problem of why the translators of the Septuagint chose the word διαθήκη to translate Hebrew ‫ברית‬. In Classical and Hellenistic Greek, διαθήκη has the meaning of “testament” or “last will”, with an emphasis on the one-sidedness of the testator. A contract or alliance between equal partners usually does not lie within the semantic range of διαθήκη. Rösel argues that the Greek term has been chosen because it accentuates the one-sidedness of God’s deeds for his people, enhanced by the aspects of reliability and legal security. Thus the semantics of διαθήκη in the Septuagint include the religious idea of a “covenantal decree”. Four contributions are dedicated to Second Temple Judaism. Brent A. Strawn investigates “‫ ברית‬in the ‘Sectarian’ Texts from Qumran”. The word ‫“( ברית‬covenant”) occurs frequently in these texts. Strawn’s essay reviews these occurrences; instances of ‫ ברית‬in “non-sectarian” texts are treated in the subsequent contribution. After discussing the philological data, including the distribution, morphology, and syntax of ‫ §( ברית‬1), Strawn assesses what ‫ברית‬ means in these texts, covering how the term is employed in both “profane” and “theological” ways (§ 2). Heinz-Josef Fabry explores ‫ ברית‬in the non-sectarian Qumran texts (“‫ ברית‬in den ‘non-sectarian’ Schriften in Qumran”). Fabry shows that, in the nonsectarian Qumran texts, there are nearly 40 instances of ‫“( ברית‬covenant”) that, according to the majority view, date to the pre-Qumran period. They could be and were received by the later Qumran community as important specifications. This paper attempts to fathom the ideas of “covenant” with the help of the various noun-verb and verb-noun occurrences. The non-secratian texts feature approx. 20 of the total of 70 occurrences; especially their neologisms are significant. They certainly take up themes and ideas from the Old Testament, but also from apocryphal literature (especially the Book of Jubilees). God is often the subject of the meaning of the covenant, as the one who gives, makes, keeps, and remembers it. By contrast, the sectarian texts develop a clearly greater variety. The pre-Qumran conceptualization of “covenant”, which was seen as being mediated through the hand of Moses, was influenced by historical experiences with the pagan regime of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Phrases such as “sinning against the covenant” and the ambivalent “fighting against the covenant” show the difficulties the Jewish people faced. According to Fabry, the transition from the theological to the ecclesiological concept of “covenant” is attested exclusively in the sectarian texts. Gert J. Steyn studies “Covenant the Writings of Philo and Josephus”. Steyn observes that Philo engages with the covenant concept, although it is not the focal point of his theology. Key aspects, such as the signs of the covenant, are

6

Christian A. Eberhart / Wolfgang Kraus

missing in διαθήκη contexts. Closely linking διαθήκη to LXX quotations and interpreting it allegorically with symbolic associations, Philo identifies divine justice, law, and logos as synonymous with διαθήκη. The term encapsulates the very essence of God himself, which is consistently closely associated with God’s χάρις. Josephus, in turn, seeks common ground with his Gentile readers and avoids the technical use of διαθήκη as “covenant”. He rather uses different other related expressions and does not link God’s promises to citations from the Jewish Scriptures. To close out the thematic area of Second Temple Judaism, Matthias Henze examines “Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha”. Henze notes that the concept of “covenant” is widespread but not ubiquitous in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. There are many ways in which the biblical covenants are remembered and reimagined. The Book of Jubilees remembers God’s covenants with the patriarchs. Subsequent covenants in the Bible have merged to become reiterations of the one covenant God has established with Israel. Other Old Testament Pseudepigrapha align themselves with the book of Deuteronomy and adopt its covenantal tradition, among them the Psalms of Solomon, the Testament of Moses, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra. Henze finally observes that texts not adhering to the Deuteronomic paradigm either make covenant part of their sapiential thinking, such as Ben Sira, or largely avoid covenant altogether, such as 1 Enoch. Five contributions specifically reflect on the New Testament / early Christian literature. In his contribution “Between ‘My Blood of the Covenant’ and the ‘New Covenant in My Blood’: Origins, Meanings, Ramifications”, Christian A. Eberhart reflects on the meaning of the term διαθήκη with reference to HB / OT / LXX texts, specifically the covenant ritual at Mt. Sinai (Exod 24:3– 8) and the “new covenant” (Jer 31MT / 38LXX). Eberhart shows that the term ‫“ – ברית‬covenant” has its roots in ancient inter- and transnational diplomacy and in the local / domestic realm of family and household settings with some Achaemenid Persian influence. It conveys notions of connections, relationship, and bonds. At the stage of Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic redactions, the concept of covenant had gradually attained the quality of a unilateral promise of divine grace. The Mosaic covenant ritual at Mt. Sinai, a ceremonial establishment of an existential bond between God and Israel, is actualized through an idiosyncratic blood rite that prepares a subsequent close encounter with God, which may be seen as a graphic illustration of new identity as a result of the covenantal promise. The “new covenant” of Jeremiah envisages a gracious God as the sole guarantor of the covenant and humans who will be capable of fulfilling it because it is written on their hearts (Jer 31MT / Jer 38LXX). In the synoptic Gospels, Mark and Matthew draw on the rare “blood of the covenant” in Exod 24; Luke (via Paul in 1 Cor 11) draws on the unique “new covenant” in Jer 38LXX. Wine instead of blood as the covenantal sign in Mark

Introduction

7

and Matthew conveys a promise of continuous relationship beyond the impending death of Jesus. Referencing the “new covenant” in 1 Cor 11:23, Luke’s version evokes a sympotic libation. According to Eberhart, the word spoken over the chalice, as a creative new-covenant formula imbued with deep meaning, conveys the bond of Jesus with his disciples and others. Florian Wilk studies “Bundes-Terminologie und Bundes-Vorstellungen in den Korintherbriefen des Paulus” (“Terminology and Concepts of Covenant in the Corinthian Correspondence of Paul”). Wilk explores the significance of this concept in the Corinthian letters, the terminology about the establishment of a new covenant in connection with Jer 38(31)LXX determines important theological corollaries; these concern the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and the role and function of the apostolate. In this respect, a line of thought continues that has its origin in Paul’s foundational preaching. Wilk shows that both letters instruct the addressees regarding a mode of existence and a relationship with the apostle that are related to the biblical concept of covenant in essential ways through the term “fellowship” and the formula “God is faithful”. Jens Herzer investigates “The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans”. He argues that the theme of “covenant” does not belong to the prominent theologoumena in Paul. Nevertheless, the few references to the lexeme indicate a significance that connects the idea of covenant in Galatians and Romans not only with the issue of the law, but especially with that of Israel. According to Herzer, especially Rom 9–11 suggests that Paul’s main theological convictions are grounded on a certain concept of covenant or a certain perspective on covenant respectively. Within this context, Herzer shows how the disputes about the law influence the formation of a specific conception of covenant, which does not dissolve the Israel relation but, on the contrary, strengthens it. An important indicator for this is the change of the argumentative strategy from the polemical situation of Galatians to the reflection on Israel in Rom 9–11. Wolfgang Kraus reflects on “Διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews”. Kraus shows that the author of Hebrews quotes the promise of the new διαθήκη from Jer 38(31):31‒34LXX in Heb 8:7‒13 in full and later in Heb 10:15‒18 in excerpts. These quotations form an inclusion of the central Christological middle part of the letter. This paper focuses on the understanding of the term διαθήκη that applies to all 17 (resp. 21) occurrences of the term. It analyzes the different aspects and the theological value of διαθήκη throughout Hebrews. Kraus argues that διαθήκη does not only denote a disposition or an obligation but also designates an order for life, a (legally) binding principle. The only exception is Heb 9:16, 17, where the meaning is “testament” or “last will”. Martin Karrer explores “The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation (11:19)”. Karrer notes that the Book of Revelation mentions the covenant of God only once, in 11:19. However, this one instance has a highly significant meaning. The author seizes upon Israel’s notion of the ark of the covenant in order to

8

Christian A. Eberhart / Wolfgang Kraus

construct his own concept of the covenant for Israel and all of humanity. According to the author of Rev, Israel’s God is a powerful God who makes his covenant visible to humans from all nations. He, the one God, is present at the heavenly ark of the covenant proving his universal power, wrath and mercy. God’s covenant for Israel endures and simultaneously has a universal reach; mercy surpasses wrath in 21:3. The intriguing ekphrasis of the ark of the covenant in Rev 11:19 reminds Christianity not to forget its roots and the enduring relevance of God’s covenant for Israel. The next section of this volume is dedicated to the Early Church. In a first contribution, Martin Meiser reflects on “Covenant in Early Church Writings”. He argues that early Christian scholars employed the term “covenant” to refer to complex concepts of the history of salvation, comprising both continuity and discontinuity with regard to the recipients of divine action and the coherent nature of the one Holy Scripture. Continuity is manifest in the identity of the one who gives the covenant and the promise of the “new covenant” in the Old Testament, which is adopted in the New Testament. The “new covenant” corresponds to an “old covenant” which, however, had only transitory character. Early Christian scholars justify this with the failure of Israel in the development of biblical history, which points to the lack of efficacy of the old covenant. The end of the old covenant and the relativization of the ceremonial law were already indicated in the Old Testament. According to Meiser, the discontinuity of old and new covenant is manifest in the covenant mediator and the group of recipients of the new covenant, furthermore in stricter ethics and the new focus on love (instead of fear) for life within the new covenant. In his contribution “The Covenant in Christian Apocrypha: Fragmentary Evidence of a Spectrum of Ideas”, Tobias Nicklas discusses a range of ideas related to Covenant Theology to be found in ancient Christian Apocrypha. Nicklas draws three main conclusions. First, the idea of a covenant does not play a major role in many Greek and Latin Christian apocryphal writings. This may have to do with the fact that many Apocrypha became less interested in Christians’ Jewish heritage than in the exploration of new worlds and the conflicts with the agents of Greco-Roman cults. This is certainly not due to a kind of a positive attitude towards Jews, but has to do with an attitude which forgets Christian roots in Israel’s traditions, in many of the texts mentioned. Second, one has to be aware that much of the remaining evidence is highly fragmentary. One would assume that texts like the Gospels of Marcion, but even more, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, or the Gospel of the Hebrews took a position regarding the question of God’s covenant with Israel. One would also like to know more about the lost parts of the Gospel of Peter or the Book of Elchasai. However, all that is left today are fragments. Third, Nicklas demonstrates that the remaining cases represent a spectrum of voices which certainly must have been even broader than the fragmentary evidence still extant today. Besides texts which (probably) pre-

Introduction

9

suppose an unbroken covenant between God and Israel, there are writings that, for example, see only parts of the Torah and its ideas of God’s covenant as valid. Others purport that the covenant has been taken away from Israel and given to another people: This new people is not always simply “the Christians”, but can also be identified with the (miaphysite) Egyptians or the Ethiopians. If one wants to understand ancient Christian developments of the “covenant” theme, these voices have to be added to the evidence from the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, so-called “heretics” and “orthodox” authors of the ancient Church. In the first of three contributions exploring Late Antiquity, Jörg Ulrich explores discourses on the covenant of God in Justin’s dialogue with the Jew Trypho (“Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho”). According to Ulrich, Justin’s Dialogue reveals both Justin’s and Trypho’s contrarian views of the old and new διαθήκη. Although the theme appears only as a subsidiary matter within broader and more elaborate debates, it is still a distinguishing feature between Judaism and Christianity. Referring to Jer 38(31):31–32, Isa 55:3–5, and Isa 51:4–5, Justin finds the new covenant predicted by the prophets and fulfilled in Christ and therefore rejects any Christian observation of the Sinaitic law, whereas Trypho regards the Christian rejection of the law as a contempt of the διαθήκη between God and his people. Ulrich argues that, even if both positions are directly opposed, the tone of the debate remains remarkably sympathetic and moderate. The old and the new covenant in the writings of Jerome (“Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus”) is the topic of Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen. He notes that the late antiquity church father Jerome, whose Latin Bible translation, commentaries, and treatises were of the greatest importance for the medieval and modern church and theology, clearly distinguished between the old and new covenants. Again and again, Jerome uses this difference to explain the Christian history of salvation. Schlange-Schöningen shows how this is done in different works of Jerome. By way of introduction he considers the obituary of Paula, which Jerome wrote in 404 AD. Here, the account of the common pilgrimage through the Holy Land is influenced significantly by the tension between the old and the new covenant. The other sections of the article trace the development of Jerome’s covenant theology, beginning with the theological explanations he gave to Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, in 383 AD and ending with its impact on his translation work in Bethlehem. A strong antiJewish orientation of the theology of the covenant is also manifest in some of Jerome’s works; evidence of this is his interpretation of the book of Job. The reference of Jerome’s terminology to the foedus concept of the late antique state as well as his connection of moral theology and historical interpretation under the sign of the covenant theology are also investigated. Sara Ronis investigates “Sons of the Covenant? The Rabbinic Body and the Covenant with God”. According to Ronis, the rabbis construct an exclusive

10

Christian A. Eberhart / Wolfgang Kraus

covenantal theology of circumcision by exegetically limiting the Abrahamic covenant to Jacob’s offspring. And yet, their own understanding of themselves as Jacob’s offspring – inheritors of the Torah and Tannaitic teachings, obligated and privileged in particular ways, within the context of late antique Sasanian Babylonia led them to insist that the covenant required them to circumcise their non-Jewish enslaved men. Jewish identity was thus tied to the physical bodies of Jewish men, but perhaps even more importantly, it was tied to the actions undertaken by those men upon their households, properties, and communities. When the focus is on the actions of free Jewish men, the ethnic and religious identity of the enslaved person and their relationship to the covenant are more malleable, more liminal, than we might have thought. Ronis suggests that this liminality centers the body of rabbis – themselves as a religious body, and the actions of their actual bodies – in a covenantal relationship to God. Two concluding contributions are dedicated to the topic of covenant in the Arts and in Systematic Discourse. In his contribution, Martin Karrer focuses specifically on “The Mosaic of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny-desPrés”. Created around 806 AD, the apse mosaic of the Carolingian chapel in Germigny-des-Prés was influenced by Thodulf of Orléans’ reservations about a pictorial representation of God and Christ (cf. the Libri Carolini). Therefore, the mosaic refers to the presence of God through the symbol of the ark and avoids christological motifs. Aspects from Rev 11:19; Exod 25:10–22 and 1 Kings 6:23–28 are combined in an iconographically unusual image creation. Angels join in, symbolizing Christianity and Judaism. Karrer suggests that the positive appreciation of Judaism and the reluctance to use images can be compared with the theology of the book of Revelation and deserve high attention. Under this rubric, Margit Ernst-Habib’s essay is called “From Covenant to Convivence: The Relevance of Covenantal Theology in Contemporary Theological Discourse”. Ernst-Habib observes that much of contemporary Systematic Theology does not employ covenantal theologies or biblical concepts of covenant(s) at the center of its theological discourse. She argues that it is exactly the theme of covenant that may prove to be inspiring in responding to major contemporary challenges. A biblically grounded, carefully reconstructed and (self-)critical covenantal theology may provide a starting point in theological discourses on the subjects of Israel and the Church, the relation of covenant and creation, covenantal “the-anthropology”, covenantal living and ethics. With this understanding, her contribution describes God’s covenant with all of creation not only as a subversive paradigm, but also as creating space and spirit for Living Togetherness (convivence).

History of Research and the Questions of Origin

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

SIEGFRIED KREUZER Siegfried Kreuzer

1. Preliminary Remarks Covenant and covenant theology / Bund and Bundestheologie are among the most interesting subjects in biblical exegesis and theology.1 These concepts have left their traces throughout history, beginning from the designation of the Old and the New Testament as παλαιά and καινὴ διαθήκη or, in the Latin version, as vetus and novum testamentum. In the modern era, with its historical thinking and historical differentiation, the idea of different covenants that succeed one another became a means of allowing for historical development within the Bible and beyond: There was the covenant with Noah, the covenant with the patriarchs, the Sinai covenant, the covenant with David, and finally also the new covenant. This sequence can be continued in the New Testament with its age of the apostles and the age of the church with different phases. This idea of successive covenants was especially developed in the reformed tradition and called “federal theology”, from Latin foedus, “covenant”.2 On the other hand, the idea of covenant has, at times, been seriously questioned. A covenant or a treaty designates a relation between two more or less equal parties, such as in marriage or in diplomatic relations between two states. Is it at all possible to apply this category to the relation between God and humans? Is God not so far above humans that it is impossible to speak about a covenant, especially if one considers the basic meaning of the word, which derives from Latin convenire, “to come together, to agree”; similarly, the German word “Bund” relates to “binden”, i.e. binding together, being bound together. Such criticism against the theological use of covenant was voiced already in the 17th and 18th cent. for dogmatic reasons and it came up repeatedly in different variations over time.3 1

For overview articles on this subject see MENDENHALL/HERION, “Covenant”; KUTSCH, “Bund”; BARRÉ, “Treaties”; KOCH, “Covenant”. 2 ASSELT, Federal Theology; HORTON, God of Promise; HORTON, “Covenant Theology”. 3 It is interesting to note that the large Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, edited by Johann Jakob Herzog and later on by Albert Hauck does not contain,

14

Siegfried Kreuzer

In the 20th century, variations of this criticism were put forward by Joachim Begrich in 1944, by Alfred Jepsen in 1961, and by Ernst Kutsch around 1970. While Begrich and Jepsen basically argued exegetically,4 Kutsch not only analyzed the biblical texts and their ancient Near Eastern (ANE) background, but he also criticized the rendering as “Bund” in Bible translations.5 The rationale was that in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament (HB / OT), God is never on the same level as humans or as the people of Israel. The word “Bund” (like its English equivalent “covenant”), therefore, is a mistranslation of Hebrew ‫( ברית‬berit). It should rather be rendered as “Verfügung”, i.e. “regulation” or “decree”.6 In general, this suggestion was not followed. Most exegetes agreed to the observation (which was not entirely new) that the Hebrew term ‫ ברית‬has a wide semantic spectrum ranging from bilateral to unilateral relations.7 However, the German word “Bund”, for example, also covers a broad semantic spectrum. In practice, this matter has had some consequence in our German translation of the Septuagint. For instance, it can be observed that the one-sidedness of God’s covenant is emphasized in the Greek translation (although in different degrees in the different books). Therefore, the Pentateuch group under the leadership of Martin Rösel decided to render Greek διαθήκη not as “Bund” but as “Verfügung”, i.e. “decree”.8 Besides exegetical research, the significance of the covenant theme also varied with sociological assumptions, with the discovery of extra biblical sources, and with the dating of the biblical texts. In his research on and interpretation of ancient Judaism, Max Weber considered the concept of covenant to be highly important for Israel from its very beginning. He observed that social life and order were more and more related to God and that the covenant idea was a driving force in this development. It is significant that the

in any of its three editions, a separate article on “Bund”. However, its English version, the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (13 volumes, 1908–1914), had an article on “Covenant” (Old and New Testament) by J.F. MCCURDY in vol. 3, 1909, 287– 289. 4 BEGRICH, “Berit”; JEPSEN, “Berith”. While Begrich emphasized the one-sidedness of the ‫ברית‬-relation, Jepsen questioned that a ‫ ברית‬constituted a relation at all. 5 KUTSCH, “Bund”; IDEM, Verheißung und Gesetz. 6 KUTSCH, “Fehlübersetzung”. 7 One of the most influential defenders of the rendering as “Bund” was HERRMANN, “Fehlübersetzung?” Originally it was an oral presentation given in the presence of Kutsch in 1974, but printed only later in 1986. 8 See KRAUS/KARRER, Septuaginta Deutsch (Pentateuch). It is interesting that Martin Rösel maintains his insights and convictions, but that, especially in the sense of continuity of the word, today he would choose a combined term like, e.g., “Bundesverfügung” (covenantal decree); see also his contribution in this volume.

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

15

oldest law book carries the name “book of the covenant” (Exod 21–23, cf. 24:7).9 The translation of Weber’s Das Antike Judentum into English in 1952 became a great stimulus for the subject. It was especially taken up by George E. Mendenhall who, in his essay “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law” (1954), explicitly referred to Weber. Contrary to exegetes like Julius Wellhausen who considered the Sinai covenant (and covenant theology) as a late projection into early times, Mendenhall states “on the contrary now we know that the covenant relationships were the very foundation of relations between originally separate groups …”; this insight applies to the earliest Israel as well and includes the relation between God and people.10 On the other hand, the translation of Mendenhall’s studies into German became an additional stimulus to covenant studies in Europe. Engagement with covenant themes was also heavily encouraged by the discovery of the Hittite treaties published by Viktor Korošec in the 1930s. As these treaties belonged to the 14th and 13th cent. BCE, the comparison with them seemed to confirm the early existence and the high age of covenants in Israel and in the HB / OT. Klaus Baltzer’s book Das Bundesformular (1960) and Dennis J. McCarthy’s Treaty and Covenant (1963) may have been the peak of covenant studies.11 Only a few years later, this development was severely undermined by scholarship redating the origin of the covenant theme into the seventh century under Assyrian influence, such as that by Lothar Perlitt in 1969.12 Other authors soon took this trend even a step further. As a consequence, covenant and covenant theology were neglected for about two decades. New interest arose from the side of Jewish-Christian dialogue. In this context, the abandoned13 themes “covenant” and “covenant theology” gained new attention. Owing to the new perspective, the age of the covenant concept was less important, but instead its different aspects in the Bible and its influence on Jewish and Christian traditions. Yet, also exegetical studies and the historical quest for the age and roots of covenant traditions gained new interest, especially by comparison with the Assyrian vassal treaties. However, after a period of exclusive concentration on Assyrian texts of the 7th cent. BCE, the perspectives were being broadened again, and not only the (Late-)Assyrian treaties and loyalty oaths were 9

WEBER, Judentum, 81, speaks about an increasing “Theokratisierung der israelitischen Sozialordnung” through the covenant idea. 10 MENDENHALL, “Biblical Law”, 28, with reference to WEBER, Judaism, 75. 11 BALTZER, Bundesformular; engl. translation: The Covenant Formulary; MCCARTHY, Treaty and Covenant. 12 PERLITT, Bundestheologie. 13 Cf. the title of ZENGER, “Bundestheologie – ein derzeit vernachlässigtes Thema der Bibelwissenschaft” (1993).

16

Siegfried Kreuzer

considered, but (once more) also the Hittite and the Aramaic treaties,14 not to forget authors like Jean-Georges Heintz, who repeatedly referred to the Old Babylonian treaties from Mari in the 18th cent.15 This may suffice as introductory remarks about covenant and covenant theology. We now turn to exegetical questions, first in light of the history of research.

2. Biblical Texts and the History of Research 2.1 The Most Important Texts and their Characteristics As already mentioned, there are several covenants in the HB / OT, beginning in Gen 9 with the covenant given to Noah and, indeed, to all of humanity in perpetuity. Its famous sign is the rainbow. God promises that a deluge will never come again to extinguish all life on earth. In that sense, the covenant in Gen 9 is God’s one-sided promise. If one reads the whole text of Gen 9, this covenant is actually connected with certain stipulations, the so-called Noachide laws (Gen 9:1–6). But the covenant as such does not depend on these laws, it is indeed a gift from God. Therefore, it may be called a decree; however, this decree establishes and protects both vertical and horizontal relations, that is to say, between God and humanity and between the people on earth. The next covenant is with Abra(ha)m; however, there are two covenant texts, Gen 15 and 17. It is widely accepted that Gen 17 belongs to the priestly source. God reveals himself to Abram as the ‫אל שׁדי‬, usually rendered as the “Almighty God”. The covenant aims at God’s promise of land to the descendants of Abram. This is again underscored by a sign: Abram’s name is changed to Abraham, Sarai is changed to Sara, and circumcision is introduced. Once more, this is clearly God’s one-sided action, a decree, which certainly initiates a relation, and also with some human reaction, namely circumcision.16 Gen 15 is different. It begins with Abraham’s questions and doubts to which God answers by confirming his promises about the future. The first act in Gen 14

See especially KOCH, Vertrag, and also KOCH, “Covenant”. HEINTZ, “Alliance humaine – Alliance divine”. 16 Genesis 17 is treated in the commentaries on Genesis, like GUNKEL, Genesis, WESTERMANN, Genesis; WENHAM, Genesis 16–50. It is certainly correct that the so-called priestly covenant of Gen 17 is entirely God’s unilateral activity and not dependant on the people and their keeping the law as in the Sinai covenant, cf. especially ZIMMERLI, “Sinaibund und Abrahambund”. Yet, circumcision as the “sign” of this covenant is supposed to be performed throughout the generations (17:10). Insofar, KRAUSE, Bedingungen des Bundes, correctly highlights the – although very different – “conditions” of the different covenants. However, breaking this covenant by not practising circumcision would be an individual offense that could not invalidate God’s covenant with all of Israel. For the discussion it may be helpful to differentiate between condition and obligation. 15

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

17

15:1–6 is that God makes Abram aware of the stars: Abram’s descendants will be as innumerable as the stars in the sky. The second act comes closer to a covenant and even to a specific covenant ceremony: Abram has to slaughter some animals and split them in half. The halves should be placed opposite to each other. Abram does so and – while Abram falls into a kind of sleep – God, in the form of a flaming oven that is reminiscent of the fiery column at Mount Sinai, passes between the divided halves of the animals. This scene is similar to scenes that are part of ANE treaties, especially the Sefire treaties.17 But such a scene can also be found in the Bible; in Jer 34:18–20, the people of Jerusalem had made a covenant to free slaves as a measure to gain additional manpower for the defense of Jerusalem against the Babylonians. This covenant was enforced by a ceremony in which a calf was cut in half; then the “people” of Jerusalem, i.e. the representatives of Jerusalem’s upper class, passed between the parts of the animals with the solemn declaration that, if the treaty was not accomplished, they should be cut in pieces like the animal. This ceremony was done before the eyes of the Lord. It can be understood as the underscoring of an oath and as a self-obligation of the Jerusalem slave owners. After the danger had gone by, however, they failed to liberate the slaves. This caused a prophetic word of God that allows us to reconstruct what had happened: 18

And I will give the men who have transgressed my covenant, who have not fulfilled the words of the covenant which they made before me, when they cut the calf in two and passed between its parts – 19 the officials of Judah, and the officials of Jerusalem, the court officers, and the priests, and all the people of the land, who passed between the parts of the calf – 20 and I will give them into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life. And their dead bodies shall be food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth.

Certainly, this impressive ceremony was not invented for the occasion; it must have been known before. Indeed, the Sefire treaties from the 8th cent. BCE mention similar ceremonies. In Gen 15, it is significant that the role of passing between the pieces of the animals is taken on by God to reassure his promise.18 One can hardly imagine a stronger reassurance of God’s promise! It should also be noted that, while in Jer 34 God is witness and guardian over a treaty between humans, in Gen 15 God himself is a partner in the treaty. Gen 15 has been dated to different centuries, from the 10th cent. down to the th 6 or even the 5th cent. BCE. There are indeed good reasons for a later dating, i.e. to the 7th cent. as e.g. Lothar Perlitt had maintained, or maybe even to the

17 18

On the Sefire treaties, see FITZMYER, Sefire, and below. Therefore in Jewish tradition, it is called “the covenant between the pieces”.

18

Siegfried Kreuzer

late 6th cent.19 However, the dating must be done on literary grounds. Jer 34:18 is not a terminus a quo but only shows that such a rite was known in Jerusalem. From Gen 15 we go on to the Sinai covenant in Exod 19–24. Exod 19 describes the arrival of the Israelites at Mount Sinai and the preparations for God’s appearance and the theophany itself. Ch. 20 contains the Decalogue and chs. 21–23 another collection of laws, usually called “book of the covenant” (German Bundesbuch) because Exod 24:7 refers to these laws by that name. Exod 24:3–8 describes the covenant ceremony with a blood rite in which the blood of animal offerings is applied to the people and unto the base of the altar, which represents God. This singular blood rite evidently establishes and expresses the relation between God and the people; this relation is explicitly called ‫ברית‬, “covenant”. The next scene is up on the mountain (v. 9–11). There the elders of Israel enjoy a meal before God whose presence is indicated in a somewhat mysterious way: 10

They saw the God of Israel; and under his feet there it appeared like of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.20 11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God, and they ate and drank.

The common meal is another element belonging to the covenant tradition. While Exod 24:1–2 and 9–11 now frame the ‫ברית‬-ceremony that takes place at the foot of the mountain, it is also its counterpart. The meal of the 70 elders is combined with the other story. The emphasis is not on the sacrifice and the blood rite in v. 3–8, but on the meal in the presence of the Lord.21 This also expresses the close relationship between the community, represented by the elders, and God. It rather seems to express and confirm the close relation between the community and the deity, not its establishment. There is, however, no specific term used for this relationship. A common meal is also mentioned as the concluding element in the covenant between Jacob and Laban in Gen 31:43–54. This covenant comprises other interesting aspects: In the context of the Jacob story, it concerns the family story of the conflict between Jacob and Laban, his father in law, and their reconciliation (or maybe better: peace agreement). These aspects are connected 19

E.g. PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 55–77. For more recent discussions, see the commentaries on Genesis. 20 The question is how the words “they saw God” may be understood. I would like to propose the interpretation that the narrator only lifts his eyes to what can be seen under God’s feet, and what, e.g., at the high place of sacrifice in Petra (Southern Jordan), can really be seen: the blue sky “below God”. This narrator’s perspective is shared with the readers and consciously also the one of the elders of Israel. The phrase “he did not stretch out his hand” in v. 11 is not a proof for seeing God’s hand but the traditional metaphoric expression for God’s power that occurs elsewhere, too. 21 Although on a different level, it resembles the meal of elders at a holy place in 1 Sam 9:17–27.

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

19

with the relation between two tribes or local groups and their territory. A heap of stones is a witness and marks the border. It serves as a reminder of the covenant, which in this case is rather an agreement about the border between two social and territorial entities (v. 52). V. 44 (“And now, let us make a covenant, you and I”) features the term ‫“ ברית‬covenant” but there is a number of different ceremonies. Beyond the texts already mentioned, there are other covenant texts, e.g. the repetition of the covenant in Exod 34, and the covenant(s) in Deuteronomy. In Exod 34 the emphasis is once more on law giving (the so-called Cultic Decalogue). This covenant is God’s initiative (34:10) and, interestingly, there is a brief remark about what he will do for his people, before the obligations are enumerated, but at the end, the emphasis is on the obligations, i.e. the commandments (“for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel”, v. 27). The covenant(s) in the book of Deuteronomy will be taken up in the following chapters. However, at this point it should be said that, while the texts mentioned so far relate to the future or the present Israel, there is also a covenant with individuals in Israel, especially the covenant with king David and his dynasty as expressed in Pss 89 and 132. 2.2 History of Research As long as scholars considered the HB / OT texts to be somewhat close to the narrated events and no ANE texts were available, the events were thought to have happened more or less as they were described in the texts.22 This changed in the middle of the 19th cent. when the Pentateuch sources, especially the Priestly Code, were redated by Abraham Kuenen, Julius Wellhausen, and others.23 Now the Priestly Code, for example, was no longer close to the events at and on Mt. Sinai, but it was about 600 years younger; likewise the other sources would not have been written before 900 BCE. What then was the basis for these texts? Were they based on old reliable traditions or did their stories rather reflect their own time? For Wellhausen the answer was clear: The sources project their time back into the past, often in an idealized way. In other words, we know very little about the early history of Israel.24 The situation changed around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. There were now ANE texts that showed Israel as part of an ancient culture that stretched back over the centuries, in some cases even millennia. The new perspectives of HB / OT scholarship were taken up also by Max Weber. He 22

In spite of the fact that certain aspects were questioned, such details can be left aside for the moment. 23 For the important contribution by Abraham Kuenen see LOADER, “Exilic Period”, especially 12–17. 24 WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena.

20

Siegfried Kreuzer

integrated them into his sociological approach and his description of ancient Judaism. As briefly mentioned above, for Max Weber, covenant was the most important element of Israelite society and religion. Covenants shaped and stabilized the relationship between the different groups and tribes in Israel as well as the relationship between Israel and Yhwh, the God and Lord of Israel. Max Weber’s book Das Antike Judentum that originally appeared in two volumes in 1917 and 1919 was translated into English and published in the USA in 1952 under the title Ancient Judaism.25 It was read by George Mendenhall who drew the conclusion that – in contrast to Wellhausen’s late dating of the covenant – “we now know that the covenant relationships were the very foundation of relations between originally separate groups …”26 Similar developments occurred within HB / OT exegesis. Form criticism and tradition history gave rise to a more optimistic view of oral tradition and for a reconstruction of civic and cultic institutions and rituals. One may mention especially Hermann Gunkel, with his commentaries on Genesis and on the Psalms, or Hugo Gressmann and many others with their reliance on formcriticism and traditions history.27 The idea of an early covenant was taken up or maintained by many authors. Probably best known is the Theologie des Alten Testaments by Walter Eichrodt from 1933–35 (with expanded and updated editions until 1968), who centered his three parts around the basic relation of covenant: God and Israel, God and the World, God and the Individual. By the way, Eichrodt was the first to put the relation between God and Israel at first place, before “God and the world”, i.e. before the theme of creation, a priority that would, a few years later, be adopted by Gerhard von Rad.28 At this point it should be remembered that Wellhausen had not denied that the close relation between Yhwh and Israel was an old concept and at the center of Israelite religion from its very beginning. But this was, as he expressed, a natural religious relationship, while its conceptualization as a covenant developed only later on, in the times of crisis.29 This distinction between the basic relationship and its later expression by the specific term ‫ ברית‬also means that Eichrodt’s theology is less dependent on the ‫ ברית‬terminology than is often assumed. In the 1930’s, interesting new sources were published. In his Hethitische Staatsverträge (1931), Victor Korošec presented all the Hittite treaty or 25

WEBER, Ancient Judaism. MENDENHALL, “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law”, 28, with explicit reference to Weber. 27 On these developments see KRAUS, Geschichte der historisch kritischen Erforschung, a book which to my knowledge has not been translated into English. But see also: REVENTLOW, History of Biblical Interpretation IV. 28 VON RAD, “Problem”. 29 See WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena. 26

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

21

covenant texts that were known at that time,30 thus providing external comparative material for the biblical covenants. It demonstrated that treaties were well known in the ANE of the 2nd millennium BCE for creating and regulating relationships and that there was a specific formal tradition. Most of the treaties were between unequal partners, i.e. suzerainty or vassal treaties, some also between equal partners such as the treaty between the Hittite king Hattušili III and the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II.31 Besides some variations in detail, these treaties or covenants shared a specific form. Normally, they start with the identification of the king that made the treaty and a review of the historical relation between the partners, especially what the overlord had done so far for his vassal. Then stipulations followed, i.e. the obligations for the vassal and conditions for further relations. Then came provisions for storing the treaty in a location like a temple and for regular public reading. They closed with a list of deities from both covenantal partners and representing all areas of life. These deities would affirm the treaty and watch over it, which means they would especially punish the transgression of the covenant. Such punishments are expressed in the form of curses that enumerate various potential tragedies that may occur; occasionally, blessings for the keeping of the covenant are also mentioned. This collection of the Hittite vassal treaties became most important in George Mendenhall’s publications from 1954, especially in his Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition and the expanded German version Recht und Bund in Israel und im Alten Vorderen Orient from 1960. Comparing the Hittite treaties with the covenants in the Bible, Mendenhall found many similarities with the Sinai pericope and especially the Decalogue: There was the selfpresentation and the historical review: “I am Yhwh, your God who delivered you from Egypt, the house of slavery”, and there were the rules for the future relationship: you may not have other gods, you shall not do this or that, you shall, etc. While the Decalogue lacks curses or blessings, other texts do feature them.32 This proved to be a successful research trajectory; the Hittite vassal treaties became an important tool for an early dating of the biblical covenant texts, especially those of the Mt. Sinai tradition. However, the problem of contact and transmission remained unsolved. The Hittite empire ended around 30 KOROŠEC, Hethitische Staatsverträge, 1931. As a matter of fact, the treaties had also been published a few years earlier and at about the same time by FRIEDRICH, Staatsverträge des Ḫatti-Reiches (1926 and 1930). These texts and those discovered later can now be found in TUAT I/2, 1983, in TUAT.Erg (2001), and in TUAT.NF 2 (2005). 31 EDEL, “Vertrag”. It should be noted that this treaty in both versions has not only curses for transgression but also blessings for keeping it. This is an interesting detail, especially as it is missing in the treaties from neo-Assyrian times, but can be found in Deut 28:1–14. This does not mean that there is a direct relation, but it may indicate that treaties may have contained more than just stipulations and threats. 32 See also MENDENHALL/HERION, “Covenant”, 1179–1202.

22

Siegfried Kreuzer

1200 BCE, just before Israel came into existence. One had to assume some way of transmission, e.g. via Syria, i.e. via the Syro-Hittite states. The comparison with Hittite treaties was also being proposed in Germany; one example was, as mentioned above, Klaus Baltzer’s book Das Bundesformular published in 1960.33 Baltzer subsumed many texts under the genre of covenant, not only the above-mentioned traditional texts but also, e.g., the structure of the whole book of Deuteronomy (historical prologue, chs. 1–11; stipulations of the covenant, i.e. the Deuteronomic laws, ch. 12–26; mutual declaration of the covenant, end of ch. 26; blessings and curses especially in ch. 28; provision for the safekeeping and the regular reading of the treaty, 31:10–14).34 For several years, the covenant formula and the covenant genre became a general key to the exploration of the HB / OT with the corollary of an early dating of many texts, especially the Decalogue.35 Certainly, not every text represented the whole genre, but this did not matter, because also in the Hittite treaties some elements were often missing; however it was clear that the individual texts drew on a general and widely used tradition. The same would be true for the biblical use of the covenant tradition. The publication of three stelas from Sefire supported this development in scholarship. The first two stelas were discovered in 1930 some ten miles southeast of Aleppo and then published in the 1950s. They present – in Aramaic language – a treaty between two kings around 750 BCE. Beyond the usual features of a covenant text, they contained impressive curses much like the curses in Deut 28 and a ceremony close to Jer 34. As these treaty texts were later than the Hittite treaties, they confirmed that this kind of covenant tradition was known and practiced over centuries, not only in Hatti and in Assyria, but especially in Syria, which is much closer to Israel.36 They presented the missing link between the Hittite treaties from before 1200 BCE and ancient Israel. As often, when things become too one-sided, the pendulum swings back. In 1969, Lothar Perlitt published his study Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Analyzing the central texts on covenant like Gen 15, Exod 19–24, and Josh 24, he came to the conclusion that they belong to the 7th century at the earliest, probably its second half. In other words: covenant theology is a product of the Deuteronomists and their time, probably having originated at its earlier phase.37 This trend fit well with new perspectives on the Pentateuch; traditional theories

33

English translation: The covenant formulary, 1971. This idea was not entirely new; in his commentary on Deuteronomy, Gerhard von Rad had likewise identified such a structure (VON RAD, Deuteronomium, 15). 35 As the subtitle of Baltzer’s book (“In Old Testament, Jewish, and early Christian writings”) indicates, covenant and the covenant formulary had become a general key for the whole tradition. 36 Among the many publications on the stele, see especially FITZMYER, Sefire. 37 PERLITT, Bundestheologie. 34

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

23

about the Pentateuch sources, especially the time of their composition, were being scrutinized at the same time. These developments and especially Perlitt’s late dating caused a debate at first, yet within a few years, interest in the subject of covenant waned in literary and historical studies as well as regarding its theological relevance. It had an impact on the above-mentioned Theology of the Old Testament by Walter Eichrodt that had appeared in 1933–35 and was expanded and reprinted for several decades.38 Its three parts referred to God’s relation to Israel, to the world, and to the individuals under the – in his time undisputed – category of covenant (“Bund”). In the mid 1960’s, it was not only superseded by the Old Testament Theology of Gerhard von Rad, but also heavily criticized for its very use of the idea of covenant. For some decades, the topics of “covenant” or “covenant theology” became almost a no-go in HB / OT scholarship, at least in Germany. In 1993, Erich Zenger introduced his book Der neue Bund im Alten with an essay by the title “Die Bundestheologie – ein derzeit vernachlässigtes Thema der Bibelwissenschaft und ein wichtiges Thema für das Verhältnis Israel – Kirche” (“The covenant theology – a presently neglected subject of biblical scholarship and an important subject for the relationship between Israel and the Church”). As Zenger’s title conveys, one reason for this new interest was that covenant had emerged as an important subject in the Jewish–Christian dialogue, which required a theological approach relevant for both. In addition, there was the growing influence of the so-called canonical approach in biblical studies; with all of that, the question of dating the “Bundestheologie” was now considered less important. The contributions to Zenger’s volume show this trend as they deal with texts mainly belonging to the exilic or post-exilic period, like Jer 31, Ezek 16–17 or Ben Sira. Even Exod 19–34 is treated under the aspect of “new covenant”.39 The same applies to another comprehensive volume on the subject from that period, edited by Christoph Dohmen and Christian Frevel.40 While these aspects led to some recovery of the theme of covenant and covenant theology in the HB / OT, they also led not only to new questions, but also to some theologically sensitive issues. For example, the number of covenants and their human parties were now being scrutinized; was the covenant with Noah and the creation, or was it exclusively with Israel? Was there also a covenant with David and the Levites, or is there just one covenant? Furthermore, the question of continuity of the covenant in Jeremiah 31 emerged: Could there possibly be a “new” or “renewed” covenant? These rather doctrinal

38

EICHRODT, Theologie; the last edition appeared in 1968. DOHMEN, “Sinaibund als Neuer Bund” (“Sinai Covenant as New Covenant in Exod 19–34”). 40 DOHMEN/FREVEL, Studien. 39

24

Siegfried Kreuzer

questions could lead to new insights, but also to exegetical restrictions. These aspects cannot be treated here, but should at least be noted. In German and continental European scholarship, covenant texts were now considered to be younger and covenant theology was being associated with exilic or postexilic times. Likewise, texts like Jer 31 were now seen as secondary to the book of Jeremiah.41 However, there was also a counter movement. One of its representatives is Eckart Otto who studied legal and ethical traditions in the ANE and in the Bible.42 Otto also addressed the problem of dating and influence of covenant traditions, for which he drew on the Assyrian treaties, especially the vassal treaty of Esarhaddon.43 This treaty was established in 672 BCE by Esarhaddon in order to secure the irregular succession of his son Assurbanipal (while his older son Šamaš-šumu-ukin would become king of Babylon only). All the vassal kings should agree to this “treaty”, i.e. swear a loyalty oath to the king and especially to the designated successor. There were good reasons to assume that all the vassal kings had come to the capital in order to take the oath before the king, most probably also king Manasseh from Jerusalem. And it seems highly probable that a copy of the treaty was not only brought to Media but also the other capitals of the vassal kings, including Jerusalem.44 It is only an assumption that the Esarhaddon treaty was known in Jerusalem, but it is supported by the discovery of fragments of the treaty in Tell Tayinat in the north-west of traditional Syria/in the south-east of Turkey.45 With the discovery of the Esarhaddon Treaty, other treaties from neoAssyria and the neo-Assyrian times came in view. With Dennis J. McCarty’s Treaty and Covenant from 1963, the focus of the covenant discussion moved from Hittite to neo-Assyrian treaties. The Esarhaddon treaty is interesting because of a number of close similarities, especially with the curses in Deut 28. As mentioned before, there are also commonalities between the curses and some rites in the Sefire stelas and in the HB / OT, yet those with the Esarhaddon treaty are even closer. As the similarities between some passages in Deut 28 and the VTE pertain not only to their topics but also to their structural arrangement, it is warranted to 41

See e.g., LEVIN, Verheißung des neuen Bundes. See e.g., the title of the journal Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte, founded by Eckart Otto. 43 A version of this text was found in Nimrud in 1955 and had been published by Donald J. Wiseman in 1958; cf. WISEMAN, “Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon”. 44 Already Wiseman knew about nine copies in Nimrud. Besides them, there are three fragmentary copies of the Assur version. Instead of speaking about the vassal treaty of Esarhaddon (VTE), some authors prefer to speak about the oath(s), e.g., now WATANABE, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Oath Documents” (ESOD), thereby more correctly taking up the Assyrian term adȇ. 45 LAUINGER, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat”. 42

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

25

assume a literary dependence. Furthermore, there are parallels between the stipulations against prophets that would instigate an insurgency against the great king and the rules against false prophets in Deut 13.46 However, these rules are also the subject of other treaties. The similarities between Deut 13 and 28 and the vassal treaty of Esarhaddon became most important for the recent discussion. The basic assumption is that the Esarhaddon treaty was available in Jerusalem, at least for the time of the Assyrian domination, i.e. until about 650 or 640 BCE; therefore, it would have triggered the composition of the book of Deuteronomy or was at least a very important factor for it. Deuteronomy would have been the counter concept: as the Assyrian treaty text claimed loyalty to the Assyrian king, so the book of Deuteronomy would claim loyalty to the true king, i.e. to Yhwh, the God of Israel. With this idea, a new anchor was found, not only for the origin of the book of Deuteronomy but also for the origin of covenant theology in the sense that now the idea of covenant was applied to the relation to God. With this anchor in history, it was confirmed that covenant theology was not old but rather belongs to the end of the First Temple period. However, the majority of the biblical texts were dated only to the exilic period or thereafter. Hence, the combination of Deut 13 and 28 with the Esarhaddon treaty also became an anchor for dating at least the beginnings of Deuteronomy and of covenant theology before the (Babylonian) exile. The similarities between the Esarhaddon treaty and Deuteronomy were discussed in detail by a number of scholars, e.g., Ulrich Steymans.47 In his writings and in his large commentary, Eckart Otto likewise emphasized the close relationship of this treaty not only to Deut 28 but also to Deut 13 with its law against false prophets.48 For him, it was a strong argument for a pre-exilic date not only for some parts of Deuteronomy, but also for the covenant with Yhwh. While basically keeping with the late, i.e. Deuteronomistic, dating of the covenant theology that featured the term ‫ברית‬, Udo Rüteswörden pointed to the existence of a “covenant theology without ‫”ברית‬, i.e. that the relation between God and his people (before and after the use of ‫ )ברית‬could also be articulated in different ways, for instance through kinship terminology.49 Before going on, we briefly return to the ANE treaty or covenant texts.

46

The similarities were especially studied by STEYMANS, Deuteronomium 28. STEYMANS, Deuteronomium 28. 48 On this subject see especially OTTO, “Ursprünge der Bundestheologie”, and his commentary: OTTO, Deuteronomium, 12–34. 49 RÜTERSWÖRDEN, “Bundestheologie”. 47

26

Siegfried Kreuzer

2.3 Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and Covenant Texts It is interesting that, in contrast to the vast amount of treaty texts from other regions of the ANE, there are no treaty texts from Egypt.50 Pharaoh was probably considered so much above all others that he did not need to bother about making treaties with human beings, at least within his dominion. Yet in the other parts of the ANE, treaties and loyalty oaths were widespread.51 According to the Ebla texts from northern Syria, this tradition was already used in the course of the 3rd millennium BCE. There is also an Akkadian treaty by Naram Sin from the 23rd cent. From Hatti, i.e. the Hittite empire, some 50 treaty texts are known for the time between 1450 and 1200 BCE. Most famous is the above-mentioned parity treaty with Ramses II, while most of the other treaties are rather unilateral vassal treaties. They oblige the king to provide protection and military assistance and the vassal king to exclusive loyalty; the latter typically implies no relations with foreign kings, respecting the borders of the other vassal kings, and the extradition of political refugees. We already mentioned the typical treaty elements like the identification of the partners, a historical prologue, the stipulations or the treaty conditions, invocation of the divine witnesses and blessings and curses, connected with an oath ceremony. While the curses are generally quite daunting, it may be observed that they were less so if the vassal king was a relative of the emperor. The relation could be called “peace” or “brotherhood”, the partners could be called father and son although these words have the same meaning as overlord and vassal. From Syria, two treaties from the 15th century are known, both between vassal kings of the Mitanni empire. Then, there are also the above-mentioned Sefire treaties from around 750 BCE. They feature extensive curses and interesting ritual elements like the cutting in half of a calf as in Jer 34:18 and the incineration of wax figures, which conveys a graphic threat and is alluded to in Psalm 68:3 (68:2 ET). There were likewise treaties in the Middle Assyrian empire, i.e. from the second half of the 2nd millennium. For the treaties of the 1st millennium it is interesting that the traditional Akkadian terms riksu and rikiltu were being replaced by the term adê, which goes back to Aramaic ‘dy (‘adiya).52 While the term riksu refers to “binding” and “being bound”, which is surprisingly close to the German word “Bund” – and most probably also to 50

The exception is the treaty between the Hittite king Hattušili III and the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II. However, there are no intern treaties like loyalty oaths. 51 For the following overview see MENDENHALL/HERION, “Covenant”, 1179–1202; BARRÉ, “Treaties”; KOCH, “Covenant”; MCCARTHY, Treaty and Covenant. The covenant texts are presented in TUAT I/2 and TUAT.NF 2 and to some extent in HALLO/YOUNGER, Context of Scripture, II, 93–106, 211–216, 327–332. 52 For a possible Akkadian etymology see Tushingham, p. 43f. in this volume. In any case, the word developed its specific meaning in the neo-Assyrian period.

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

27

the original meaning of ‫– ברית‬,53 the new term adê relates to curses and oath ceremonies. This indicates a semantic change, yet one has to remember that by metonymy, the different terms refer to the full procedure. According to Simo Parpola’s 1987 study, 20 neo-Assyrian treaties were known at that time and about 50 further references to such treaties.54 Parpola goes even further: As only four of these treaties can be identified among the extant texts, he extrapolates that “the total number of Assyrian treaties concluded between 745 and 620 B.C. would rise to 160.”55 Impressive as this number is, the State-Archives-of-Assyria collection shows that only eight of these texts have survived and are known to modern scholars.56 Most of these treaties were on internal political affairs, and only some are considered diplomatic treaties. However, one may question this differentiation because for the Assyrians, a treaty with a vassal king in Media or in Tell Tayinat or with the king of Jerusalem was likely to be considered an internal matter of the empire. Yet there were certainly different levels of status and importance. Maybe the treaty with King Baal from Tyre in Phoenicia can be considered an external treaty as it deals with economic obligations, yet this is unknown to modern scholars because the concluding curses are lost. Unfortunately, most extant treaties are indeed fragmentary. In light of this situation, it is all the more important that the different fragments of the Esarhaddon Treaty text allow its reconstruction in its entirety. It contains 670 lines of which 230 lines, i.e. about one third, comprise the curses. Beyond the treaty texts themselves, it is of interest that the treaties or some of their phrases are also mentioned in letters of state officials. Thus, the treaties were not only kept in temples, but copies were also in use, and specific regulations of a treaty or the treaty tradition as such were known and referred to in the administration.57 They were probably known even beyond these administrative ranks. In a petition to the king, for example, a merchant referred to the adjured loyalty of the king using words that are characteristic of an adê. It shows that the loyalty oath contained not only obligations for the subjects but for the king as well. This is also manifest in the case of king Padi from Ekron, who was dethroned by his people but re-instated by the Assyrian king. All of these documents demonstrate that the loyalty oath, while being a unilateral covenant, was important for both sides.

53

The etymology of ‫ ברית‬is still debated (cf. WEINFELD, “‫)”ברית‬, but a term in the sense of relation and binding is most probable. 54 PARPOLA, “Treaties”. 55 PARPOLA, “Treaties”, 162, fn. 7. 56 PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties. 57 See KOCH, Vertrag, 43–45. Regulations and also references to the curses can be found in letters of different state officials. This shows that treaties and loyalty oath were known and adopted at different occasions, especially by court officials.

28

Siegfried Kreuzer

It should be mentioned that the treaty genre was just as well used for loyalty obligations of the inner circle of the royal family and the administration. There is, for instance, an oath by which Zakutu, the mother of Esarhaddon, had the royal family elite of the state affirm its loyalty toward her son.58 Such an innerstate loyalty pact is already known for the 9th century BCE. But loyalty oaths did not end with the neo-Assyrian empire. According to Watanabe’s collection, there are either texts documents, or references to such texts dating from the times of the Babylonian kings Nebukadnezar, Neriglissar, and Nabonid, and of the Persian Kings from Kyros to Artaxerxes.59 To sum up, covenants and loyalty oaths existed and were in use in Hatti, in Syria, and in Assyria in the 2nd and in the 1st millennium. They were important means to establish, to regulate, and to protect the relations between political entities, but they were also used to ensure loyalty within the political entities. Most texts were preserved in cuneiform writings, probably because the writing material for alphabetic writings was organic and therefore did not survive the climate. As the neo-Assyrian designation adê was taken over from Aramaic, one may assume that the oath and covenant tradition was also employed in Syria, although we only have the Sefire treaty texts that were written on stone.60 There is one limitation that is important for comparison with the biblical covenant tradition. In spite of the importance of the deities as witnesses and guardians of the treaties and covenants, all of these treaties are between humans, be it between kings or with their officials. Deities are invoked at the moment of establishing the covenant and function as guardians and witnesses of the treaty or the covenant. With these observations we turn back to the HB / OT tradition.

3. The Present Debate on Covenant in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament As shown above, the attention in HB / OT research regarding the covenant tradition has shifted from the Hittite to the neo-Assyrian treaties; its corollary was a substantial re-dating of the covenant tradition and pertinent reference texts. While in older research, the focus was on the Sinai covenant and that of Joshua 24, recent research has focused almost exclusively on Deuteronomy and on the stipulations and curses in Deut 13 and 28. At the same time, the entire picture of the literary development of the HB / OT has changed drastically. Recent scholarship classifies almost all of the texts as exilic or post-exilic. This also concerns the book of Deuteronomy and its different layers. 58

PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties; cf. KOCH, Vertrag, 41. WATANABE, Adȇ-Vereidigung. 60 Cf. BARRÉ, “Treaties”; KOCH, “Covenant”, 897–899. 59

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

29

By relating Deut 28 and later ch. 13 to the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, one may say that Steymans and especially Otto found a new Archimedean point for the origin of Deuteronomy and also of covenant theology.61 The basic idea is that the loyalty required by the Assyrian king was contrasted by a counter loyalty, namely to Yhwh, the Lord of Israel. This loyalty was connected with specific regulations and combined the loyalty to God with social relations among the people. However, Deut 13 with its stipulations concerning false prophets are different from other laws of the book of Deuteronomy, in particular those laws that adopt the book of covenant in Exod 21–23. It is also important to note that the concluding expression of the close and exclusive relation between God and Israel at the end of the Deuteronomic law in Deut 26:17–18 does not use the term ‫ברית‬. In spite of the similarities of the subject and the expressions in Deut 13 and 28, it is hard to imagine that the stipulations of the loyalty oaths were the base texts for Deuteronomy and that all the legal matters were filled in. Also, Deut 13 in itself has different literary layers, which makes it difficult to simply consider it as the oldest part of Deuteronomy and as an analogy to the Esarhaddon treaty. Especially, it could not have been the starting point for the development of the book of Deuteronomy. In view of the relations of Deuteronomy to the older juridical material, it seems more likely that Deut 13 and 28 were added to an already existing (reform-)law book so as to emphasize the exclusive relationship between God and Israel. Besides such literary problems, there is the additional question about the basic transfer. Is it really plausible that the loyalty oath tradition was used to claim loyalty to Yhwh? Certainly, Deuteronomy is strong on the exclusive veneration and obedience towards Yhwh. But is it plausible that this alternative loyalty would be adopted from a foreign political entity that was not appreciated in Jerusalem and accepted nevertheless? If one dates such an event closely to the end of Assyrian dominance and control or shortly thereafter, would the words and especially the drastic curses of the Assyrian loyalty oath be acceptable or even attractive for expressing the relation to Yhwh, the God of Israel? This hypothesis has been proposed in a new book by Richard Jude Thompson, Terror of Radiance: Aššur Covenant to YHWH Covenant (2013). Thompson discusses all the ANE treaties and finally focusses on the neoAssyrian treaties and their role as an instrument of domination by the “terror of the radiance” of the Assyrian rulers and their gods. He then proposes: “The Assyrian emperors employed a consistent theme of a radiant and brilliant light (melammȗ) that brings terror and fear of an overwhelming army led by an 61

STEYMANS, Deuteronomium 28 und die Adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons. From his several contributions to the subject see esp. OTTO, “Die Ursprünge der Bundestheologie” and Deuteronomy: OTTO, Deuteronomium.

30

Siegfried Kreuzer

omnipotent god …”62 Thompson then parallels the image of Yhwh in the Deuteronomistic History (DH) to the image of the Assyrian kings. Yhwh rules in a similar way over his enemies and over his own people. “The authors of the DH portray Yhwh in a similar imagery of terror and fear accompanied by overwhelming light, radiance, flame, and lightning”.63 For this, Thompson refers to the terror and fear that befalls the inhabitants of Canaan (Deut 2:25; Josh 2:9). However, these passages do not refer to Yhwh but to the Israelites, while the passages he mentions about the flames (2 Sam 22:13–14) belong to the theophany tradition; and the light of the morning and the rising sun (2 Sam 23:3–4) is rather a positive image. For Thompson the rule of this dreadful terror is administered by the scribes who know the rules, who inform the king, and who control the vassals. The scribes relate to the god Nabu, therefore they are called nabu, or in Hebrew nabi’, “prophet”. This would also explain the crucial role of prophets in the Deuteronomistic History, which is rightly called the “Former Prophets”: “The nebȋ’ȋm knew the mind of YHWH in the same way that the ardū or ardātu Nabȗ/ȋ knew, by means of their vast intelligence system, the detailed facts of the empire. They would have appeared god-like in their ability to advise the king in the name of the god”.64 This scholarly hypothesis may be somewhat exaggerated beyond what Deut 13 and 28 indicate, yet it illustrates that it is questionable if the threats and the curses would be the channel for the idea of covenant to become the model for the relation between Yhwh and his people. While Deuteronomy certainly demands exclusive loyalty to Yhwh, the historical situation with the Assyrians and especially all the threats and curses would not have made such a counter model particularly attractive. I am not the only one who doubts that covenant theology in ancient Israel arose from this background. Manfred Oeming has suggested a different origin, namely from covenant as a metaphor for marriage that would have been transferred to the relation of Yhwh and Israel. Oeming looks for a positive approach to inform the idea of covenant. He mentions Ezek 16 and considers the “psychology” of love as the factual core of covenant theology in the HB / OT.65 He traces the idea of God’s love for his people in the bridal and marriage metaphor back to Hosea, especially the famous chapters Hos 1–3, and assumes its reception in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Malachi. He concludes that “the dynamics of the emotional relation is the factual core of the covenant theology. ‫ ברית‬is not law-centered but love-centered. By God’s love, and only by love can it be explained why God does not implement his threats and curses. 62

THOMPSON, Terror, 226. THOMPSON, Terror, 228. 64 THOMPSON, Terror, 232. 65 OEMING, “Deine Zeit”, 151–160. 63

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

31

The legal categories (oath, vow, treaty) are on the surface, only below this rugged surface one enters the depths of covenant thinking, which is a ‘sphere’ of ‘illegally’ pardoning and loving personal relation.”66 I agree with Oeming on his basic idea, and in spite of the tendency to date practically everything of theological relevance to exilic and post exilic times, at least the core traditions of the book of Hosea go back to the pre-exilic period. Also in the book of Deuteronomy, there is more than just the spirit of loyalty oaths and curses, and to love God in Deuteronomy is more than a “friendly” and euphemistic circumscription of the stipulated loyalty to the overlord.67 There is also the message of the prophets, for instance Hosea’s message of God’s – although disappointed – love to his people, which ultimately limits his wrath and destruction, be it in the picture of marriage (Hos 1–3) or in the relation of a father (or as parents) to his (their) son (Hos 11, especially v. 8–9). Also, the bridal and marriage metaphors in Jeremiah and Ezekiel do not come out of the blue, although later they underwent a process of reflection and were challenged and changed in different ways. At their core, there is a natural and immediate relation of a deity and humans, which is not substantially different from, for example, that between Kamosh and the Moabites.68 However, even if one agrees to this, it may be asked how the category of covenant was being applied to the basic theological concept.

4. A New Suggestion for the Origin of Covenant Theology Covenant relations and covenant traditions within the human realm were certainly known in Israel for a longer time. A typical example is the covenant between Jacob and Laban in Gen 31, which serves two purposes; on the one hand, it defines the individual relationship between the two parties, and on the other hand, it regulates further matters, like their mutual areas and border protection. Another example is Hos 12:2 where Ephraim is criticized for its

66 OEMING, “Deine Zeit”, 159: “Als sachliche Mitte der Bundestheologie erweist sich die ‘emotionale’ Beziehungsdynamik. ‫ ברית‬ist nicht ius-zentriert, sondern amor-zentriert. Aus der Liebe Gottes, und allein aus der Liebe, erklärt sich, warum Gott seine Fluch- und Strafandrohungen nicht umsetzt. Der Rechtstitel (Eid, Schwur, Vertrag) liegt an der Oberfläche; erst unter dieser rauen Schale kommt man in die Tiefe des Bundesdenkens hinein, nämlich in eine Sphäre ‘illegal’ verzeihender und liebender personaler Relation.” 67 See, e.g., KREUZER, “Sache”. 68 For this quasi natural relation between a deity and humans and, specifically, between Yhwh and Israel, see already WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena, 415: “Das Verhältnis Jahves zu Israel war von Haus aus ein natürliches; kein zum Nachdenken geeignetes Zwischen trennte ihn von seinem Volke.” (“The relation of Yhwh to Israel was originally a natural one; no inbetween that was the object of reflection separated him from his people.”)

32

Siegfried Kreuzer

treaty with Assyria while engaging in a relationship with Egypt. Hosea criticizes Ephraim not for making the covenant but for its disloyalty. Covenants of different kinds, along with their pertinent terminology and rituals, have been known in Israel for a long time (see the above-mentioned examples of the covenant ritual involving cutting animals in half, which is referenced in Jer 34). Not only Deut 13 and 28 are reminiscent of covenant formulations, but also other texts, especially the curses and threats in Hos 4:1– 4 or 5:10–13, and some announcements in Amos 1 and 2. Christoph Koch aptly summarizes the situation: Before and alongside the use of bĕrît as a religious metaphor describing the relationship between God and his people, the HB / OT testifies to a use of the concept that is profane in the broadest sense, a use which belongs to the realm of ANE treaty law. Even though not a single treaty has been preserved, a number of references to treaties and treaty conclusions reveal the existence of Israelite or Judean treaty practice. In the HB / OT, private, state, and international states of affairs are described with bĕrît, the form of which, in each case, is a question of power relations. On the international level, there are, alongside treaties between more or less equally-ranked treaty partners (1 Kgs 5:26b; 1 Kgs 20:34; cf. Gen 31:44), those that indicate a clear power differential (1 Kgs 15:19; Hos 12:2; Ezek 17:13–14). For domestic treaty practice as well, there are examples (cf. 2 Kgs 11; Jer 34) that have, however, been reworked according to covenant-theology (cf. only Jer 34:13). As in the rest of the ANE, treaty conclusions were frequently accompanied by symbolic actions (a handshake [Ezek 17:18], an exchange of gifts [Gen 21:30], a shared meal [Gen 26:30], stepping between the halves of divided animals [Jer 34:18]). According to a pan-ANE viewpoint, the gods were not only witnesses and guarantors of the treaties but also treaty partners (in correspondence to their earthly representatives, the kings). The breach of a political treaty was thus also regarded as a betrayal of YHWH (cf. Ezek 17:19; Hos 6:7).69

However, in spite of the close involvement of the gods/god, their role is still limited to that of witnesses and guardians over the covenant, not yet as a treaty party. Therefore, conceptualizing God as one of the treaty partners is a new step. How did it come about? To answer this question, we take up the observation that the relation between Yhwh and Israel had once been natural and immediate.70 This relation was practiced at sacred sites, in feasts and celebrations, and in visits of individuals and groups. Over time, this natural relation became more and more reflected, mainly in periods of challenge, be it by contrast with other religions or reflections about the course of special events in history. Different means informed this process of reflection. One important tool was the justifications of events through prophetic judgement oracles. The prophets not only criticized specific social and cultic problems, but they questioned the relation between Yhwh and the people as such. Isaiah, for example, compared

69 70

KOCH, “Covenant”, 901. See above, fn. 29.

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

33

it to basic relations in everyday life: to the relation of parents and child, or the relation of animals to their owners: 2

Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth; For the LORD speaks, “Sons I have reared and brought up, but they have revolted against me. 3 An ox knows its owner, and a donkey its master’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand” (Isa 1:2–3).

Isaiah may even use the example of a piece of land that was carefully tended and should bring its fruit, like in the song about the vineyard: My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. 2 He dug it all around, removed its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in the middle of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it; then he expected it to produce good grapes, but it only produced worthless ones. 3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard (Isa 5:1–3).

Hosea also used the relation of father and son: When Israel was a youth, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. 2 The more they called them, the more they went from them. They kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols. 3 Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk (Hos 11:1–3).

Hosea referred to mutual obligations in a marriage to criticize Israel’s unfaithfulness; the consequences are presented in the form of a lawsuit (Hos 1–3). All of these images and comparisons are meant to express that the basic relation between Yhwh and his people was disturbed and that calamity and disaster was either pending or had already struck. This happened in the time of the expansion of the Assyrian Empire, first as an impending threat and later as a past experience of devastation and deportation.71 Of course, other catastrophes (like the earthquake in Amos) may have been in view as well.72 Most of these accusations and the debates are stylized as a lawsuit. Evidently, this was the appropriate means to express and justify God’s decision to punish his people. While the pictures mentioned above served to explain and to justify God’s actions, they belong to the individual realm; by contrast, the prophetic announcements and explanations concern the community. Is there also a category that might directly apply to larger social groups and to the community as a whole? A category that expresses a positive relation and, at the same time, includes the explanation of impending doom or catastrophes that had already arrived? The covenant relation is such a relation. Covenants were 71 In the debate about catastrophic historical experiences that were a challenge to theological reflections about God’s acting, the fall of the northern kingdom and the Assyrian exile should not be forgotten. 72 Cf. the catastrophes mentioned in Isa 9:7–20.

34

Siegfried Kreuzer

familiar as conveying both relations and agreements that would assist a community and protect it, but they were, on the reverse side, also about obligations that came with threats in case the covenant was broken. The covenantal relation was one with a whole people, and it gradually became a more fitting conceptual category as the prophets increasingly addressed their message to the entire nation. At the same time, the treaty and covenant terminology with its threats and curses also offered the possibility of expressing the woes that would be brought about by God and to explain what had already happened. Hence, covenant terminology became an important means for explaining and justifying Gods dealing with his people in history. It was a step in the development of the prophecy of doom and in understanding and interpreting it. It may have originated in circles that transmitted and interpreted the prophetic message. The category of covenant transcended the emotional message of the comparisons with family relations (like husband and wife or father and son) or ownership (of animals and vineyard). It also allowed for the inclusion of the social and religious categories that had been addressed in the prophetic criticism. In this way, the dark side of covenantal punishment opened up the doorway for envisioning the positive side: God not only punished according to covenant-rules; to the contrary, the very punishment implied that originally there was a positive relation to Israel. It seems probable that this development took place in the 7th century BCE in circles that not only passed on the message of the prophets of the 8th century, but reflected on it and wanted to draw consequences for the future life in Israel. Most probably, this happened in scribal circles in Jerusalem who preserved the prophetic message, who knew the categories and the language of treaties, and covenant and who were interested in social and religious reforms.73 It is no surprise that covenant theology surfaced in the book of Deuteronomy. One may say that Deuteronomy tries – by its means of law and education – to (re)create and to establish what the prophets had missed: a society that would love and honor Yhwh exclusively and that would consequently practice social justice. One of the means and expressions towards this goal was covenant theology. 73

KOCH, Vertrag, 43, mentions that Assyrian officials used covenant terminology also in letters, and he concludes that these persons were well acquainted with covenant texts and, therefore, used the vocabulary in other contexts as well. He assumes a similar situation in Jerusalem so that scribes and administrative personnel were the Trägergruppe for the ideas and the terminology of covenant; cf. the title of his ch. V. 3.2 “Die judäische Funktionselite als Trägerschicht der Bundestheologie”, 310–312. However, as he develops the idea that all of this is possible in exilic times only, he tries to argue that a number of persons of this group had been spared from deportation. While this is certainly possible (also the Babylonian administration relied on locals), there were more such specialists while the Jerusalem court was functioning on its own, and they were likewise thinking about the past and the future, as is manifest in the Shafan-family (mentioned by KOCH, Vertrag, 307).

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

35

This basic idea was being developed in different directions and into different concepts. Covenant theology became the means of expressing the basic relationship between God and Israel, based on an emotional relation like the one between husband and wife or parents and children. It provided the terminological and conceptual background for articulating a relation based on obedience and threats. Ultimately it developed into the novel idea of a unilateral covenant guaranteed by God alone. But this is beyond the question of the background and origin of covenant theology and will be taken up in other contributions.

Bibliography ASSELT, WILLEM J. VAN, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669), Leiden: Brill, 2001. BALTZER, KLAUS, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4), Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1960; engl. translation: The Covenant Formulary: In Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings, Oxford: Blackwell / Minneapolis: Fortress, 1971. BARRÉ, MICHAEL L., “Treaties in the ANE”, ABD VI (1992): 653–656. BARTON, JOHN, “Covenant in Old Testament Theology”, in Covenant as Context, edited by A.D.H. Mayes / R.B. Salters, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, 23–38. BEGRICH, JOACHIM, “Berit: Ein Beitrag zur Erfassung einer alttestamentlichen Denkform”, ZAW 60 (1944): 1–11; repr. in IDEM, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (TB 21), München: Chr. Kaiser, 1964, 55–66. DOHMEN, CHRISTOPH, “Der Sinaibund als Neuer Bund nach Ex 19–34”, in Der neue Bund im alten (QD 146), edited by Erich Zenger, Freiburg: Herder, 1993, 51–83. DOHMEN, CHRISTOPH / FREVEL, CHRISTIAN (eds.), Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel (SBS 211), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007. EDEL, ELMAR, “Der Vertrag zwischen Pharao Ramses II. und Hattusili III. von Hatti”, TUAT I/2 (1983): 135–153. EICHRODT, WALTHER, Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 1: Gott und Volk, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1933; Stuttgart: Klotz, 81968; vol. 2: Gott und Welt, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1935; vol. 3: Gott und Mensch, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1935. –, Theology of the Old Testament (OTL), London: SCM Press / Philadelphia: Westminster / John Knox Press, vol. 1, 1961; vol. 2, 1967 (engl. translation of the 4th ed. 1957). FITZMYER, JOSEPH A., The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (BibOr 19), Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1967 (2nd ed. 1995). FRIEDRICH, JOHANNES, Staatsverträge des Ḫatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache: 1: Teil: Die Verträge Muršiliš’ II: mit Duppi-Tešup von Amurru, Targašnalliš von Ḫapalla (MVAeg 31), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1926; 2. Teil: Die Verträge Muršiliš’ II. mit ManapaDattaš vom Lande des Flusses Šeḫa, des Muwattalliš mit Alakšanduš von Wiluša und des Šuppiluliumaš mit Ḫukkanāš und den Leuten von Ḫajaša (mit Indices zum 1. und 2. Teil) / (MVAeg 34), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930. GERTZ, JAN CHRISTIAN, “Bund II. Altes Testament”, RGG4 I (1998): 1862–1865. GUNKEL, HERMANN, Genesis (HK.AT I), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 91979.

36

Siegfried Kreuzer

HEINTZ, JEAN-GEORGES, “Alliance humaine – Alliance divine: documents d’époque babylonienne ancienne & Bible hébraïque”, in IDEM, Prophétisme et Alliance: Des Archives royales de Mari à la Bible hébraïque (OBO 271), Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 309–322. –, “Nouveaux traités d’époque babylonienne ancienne et formules d’alliance de la bible hébraïque: Remarques préliminaires”, in IDEM, Prophétisme et Alliance: Des Archives royales de Mari à la Bible hébraïque (OBO 271), Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 285–308. HALLO, WILLIAM W. / YOUNGER, K. LAWSON, The Context of Scripture, vol. 2, Leiden: Brill, 2003. HERRMANN, SIEGFRIED, “‘Bund’ eine Fehlübersetzung von ‘berit’? Zur Auseinandersetzung mit Ernst Kutsch”, in IDEM, Gesammelte Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments (TB 75), München: Kaiser, 1986, 210–220. HORTON, MICHAEL SCOTT, “Covenant Theology”, EBR 5 (2012): 933–935. –, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. JANOWSKI, BERND / WILHELM, GERNOT (eds.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments: Neue Folge, vol. 2: Staatsverträge, Herrscherinschriften und andere Dokumente zur politischen Geschichte, Gütersloh: Güterloher Verlagshaus, 2005. JEPSEN, ALFRED, “Berith: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Exilszeit”, in Verbannung und Heimkehr: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr., Wilhelm Rudolph dargebracht, edited by Arnulf Kuschke, Tübingen: Mohr, 1961, 161–179. KAISER, OTTO (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, vol. 1/2: Staatsverträge, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1983. KOCH, CHRISTOPH, “Covenant”, EBR 5 (2012): 897–908. –, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (BZAW 383), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. KOROŠEC, VIKTOR, Hethitische Staatsverträge: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung (Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche Studien 60), Leipzig: Weicher, 1931. KRAUS, HANS-JOACHIM, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 21969. KRAUS, WOLFGANG / KARRER, MARTIN, Septuaginta Deutsch: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 22010. KRAUSE, JOACHIM J., Die Bedingungen des Bundes: Studien zur konditionalen Struktur alttestamentlicher Bundeskonzeptionen (FAT 140), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. KREUZER, SIEGFRIED, “Die Sache auf das Wort gebracht. – Sprache und Wirkung des Buches Deuteronomium von der joschijanischen Reform bis zu den Reformatoren”, in Am Anfang war das Wort (Veröffentlichungen der Kirchlichen Hochschule Wuppertal NF 1), edited by Albrecht Grözinger / Johannes von Lüpke, Neukirchen: Neukirchener / Wuppertal: foedus, 1998, 56–80. KUTSCH, ERNST, “Bund I: Altes Testament”, TRE 7 (1981): 397–403. –, Neues Testament – Neuer Bund? Eine Fehlübersetzung wird korrigiert, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1978. –, Verheißung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten ‘Bund’ im Alten Testament (BZAW 131), Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. LAUINGER, JACOB, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary”, JCS 64 (2012): 87–123.

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

37

LEVIN, CHRISTOPH, “Die Entstehung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament” (2004) now in IDEM, Verheißung und Rechtfertigung: Gesammelte Studien II (BZAW 431), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 242–259. –, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. LOADER, JAMES A., “The Exilic Period in Abraham Kuenen’s Account of Israelite Religion”, ZAW 96 (1984): 3–23. MCCARTHY, DENNIS J., Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnBibl 21), Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963; (AnBibl 21a), Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 21978. MENDENHALL, GEORGE E., “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law”, BA 17 (1954): 26–46. –, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955; updated and expanded German translation: Recht und Bund in Israel und dem Alten Vordern Orient (ThSt 64), Zürich: TVZ, 1960. MENDENHALL, GEORGE E. / GATY A. HERION, “Covenant”, ABD I (1992): 1179–1202. NEEF, HEINZ-DIETER, “Aspekte alttestamentlicher Bundestheologie”, in Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), edited by Friedrich Avemarie / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr, 1996, 1–23. NICHOLSON, ERNEST W., God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. NÖTSCHER, FRIEDRICH, “Bundesformular und Amtsschimmel”, BZ.NF 9 (1965): 181–214. OEMING, MANFRED, “‘Siehe, deine Zeit war gekommen, die Zeit der Liebe’ (Ez 16,8): Die ‘Psychologie’ der Liebe als sachlicher Kern der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament”, in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel: Festgabe für FrankLothar Hossfeld zum 65. Geburtstag (SBS 211), edited by Christoph Dohmen and Christian Frevel, Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007, 151–160. OTTE, MARIANNE, Der Begriff berit in der jüngeren alttestamentlichen Forschung: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der semantischen Fragestellung bei Ernst Kutsch (EHS XXIII/803), Frankfurt: Lang, 2005. OTTO, ECKART, Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (BZAW 284), Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. –, “Die Ursprünge der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient”, ZABR 4 (1998): 1–84. –, Deuteronomium 12–34: Erster Teilband: 12,1–23,15, Freiburg: Herder, 2016; Zweiter Teilband: 23,16–34,12, Freiburg: Herder, 2017. –, “Völkerrecht in der hebräischen Bibel und seine altorientalischen Wurzeln”, ZABR 12 (2006): 29–51. PARPOLA, SIMO(N), “Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Niniveh”, JCS 39 (1987): 161–189. PARPOLA, SIMO(N) / WATANABE, KAZUKO, Neo-Assyrian treaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA II), Helsinki: University Press, 1988. PEDERSEN, JOHANNES, Der Eid bei den Semiten in seinem Verhältnis zu verwandten Erscheinungen sowie die Stellung des Eides im Islam, Straßburg: Trübner, 1914. PERLITT, LOTHAR, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36), Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1969. REVENTLOW, HENNING GRAF, History of Biblical Interpretation IV: From the Enlightenment to the Twentieth Century (SBLRBS 63), Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2010.

38

Siegfried Kreuzer

RÜTERSWÖRDEN, UDO, “Bundestheologie ohne ‫”ברית‬, ZABR 4 (1998): 85–99. –, “Die Liebe zu Gott im Deuteronomium”, in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur ‘Deuteronomismus’Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW 365), edited by Markus Witte et al., Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 2006, 229–238. SCHMIDT, WERNER H., “Der ‘neue Bund’ als Antwort auf Jeremias kritische Einsichten”, in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel: Festgabe für Frank-Lothar Hossfeld zum 65. Geburtstag (SBS 211), edited by Christoph Dohmen / Christian Frevel, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007, 187–193. SEEBASS, HORST, “Berit im Buch Numeri”, in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel: Festgabe für Frank-Lothar Hossfeld zum 65. Geburtstag (SBS 211), edited by Christoph Dohmen / Christian Frevel, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007, 219–230. STEYMANS, HANS ULRICH, Deuteronomium 28 und die Adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel (OBO 145), Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. –, “DtrB und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons. Bundestheologie und Bundesformular im Blick auf Deuteronomium 11”, in Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation (BZABR 17), edited by Georg Fischer / Dominik Markl, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011, 161–192. STOLZ, FRITZ, “Bund I. Religionsgeschichtlich”, RGG4 I: 1861–1862. THOMPSON, RICHARD JUDE, Terror of Radiance: Aššur Covenant to YHWH Covenant (OBO 258), Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. VON RAD, GERHARD, Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium (ATD 8), Göttingen: Vandenhock & Ruprecht, 21968. –, “Das theologische Problem des alttestamentlichen Schöpfungsglaubens”, 1936; IDEM, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (TB 8), München: Kaiser 21961, 136–147. –, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. (transl. by D.M.G. Stalker; OTL), Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962 / 1965. WATANABE, KAZUKO, Die adȇ-Vereidigung anläßlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons (BaM. Beiheft 3), Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1987. –, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Oath Documents Reconsidered in Light of the Tayinat Version”, Orient 49 (2014): 145–170. WEBER, MAX, Das antike Judentum, originally in several parts in: Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 1917–1919, then in: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie III, 1921 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr 1921). –, Ancient Judaism, Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1952. WEINFELD, MOSHE, “‫”ברית‬, ThWAT I (1973): 781–808. –, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. WELLHAUSEN, JULIUS, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin: de Gruyter, 61927. WENHAM, GORDON J., Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1 / 1), Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987. –, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 1 / 2), Waco, TX: Word Books, 1994. WESTERMANN, CLAUS, Genesis 1–11 (BK.AT 1 / 1), Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1974. –, Genesis 12–36 (BK.AT 1 / 2), Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1981. WISEMAN, DONALD J., “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon”, Iraq 20 (1958): 1–99 (with plates 1–53). ZENGER, ERICH (ed.), Der Neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD 146), Freiburg: Herder, 1993.

Background and Origin of Covenant Theology in the HB / OT

39

–, “Die Bundestheologie – ein derzeit vernachlässigtes Thema der Bibelwissenschaft und ein wichtiges Thema für das Verhältnis Israel – Kirche”, in Der Neue Bund im Alten (QD 146), edited by Erich Zenger, Freiburg: Herder 1993, 13–49. ZIMMERLI, WALTHER, 1960, “Sinaibund und Abrahambund: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift”, ThZ 16, 268–280; also in: IDEM, Gottes Offenbarung, Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (TB 19), München: Kaiser, 1963, 205–216.

Ancient Near East

The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire: Imposed by Humans, Enforced by the Gods* The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire

POPPY TUSHINGHAM Poppy Tushingham

The Neo-Assyrian Empire existed for about 300 years between the 9th and the 7th century BCE. At its greatest extent, it controlled vast swathes of the Middle East in the form of directly-controlled provinces and nominally-independent client states. The adê, which has been translated into English as “treaty”, but also “loyalty oath”,1 “pact” and “covenant”, was an important tool of Assyrian imperial rule.2 In his 2013 treatment of the subject, Jacob Lauinger argued for “duty, destiny” as better capturing the connotations of the Assyrian term.3 The translation “duty” draws on the suggested etymology put forth by Jean-Marie Durand, who associates adê with the Old Babylonian adû(m), meaning “work assignment, duty”, which is itself derived from the Sumerian a2.du3.4 While some have assumed that adê is an Aramaic loanword, there is no evidence that the Aramaic ’dy predates the Assyrian, nor has a convincing West-Semitic etymology been found.5 As such, the interpretation of adê as a technical term * This paper was written as part of the Collaborative Research Center at the LMU Munich entitled “Vigilanzkulturen. Transformationen – Räume – Techniken (SFB 1369)”, funded by the German Research Foundation. My thanks to Shuichi Hasegawa, Jamie Novotny and Karen Radner for reading the draft manuscript and making valuable suggestions. 1 Also ‘fealty-oaths’, as in HERBORDT et al., Documents, 32. 2 See PARPOLA, “Neo-Assyrian treaties”, 182, for discussion of the merits of these translations. 3 LAUINGER, “Neo-Assyrian adê”. 4 The Akkadian dictionaries have not accepted a West-Semitic origin for the term: VON SODEN, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, 14 s.v. adû(m) III; GELB et al. Assyrian Dictionary, A/1, 131–134 s.v. adû C.; BLACK et al., Concise Dictionary, 5 s.v. adû I. For the Sumerian, see SJÖBERG, Sumerian Dictionary, 52 s.v. a2.du3. For the suggested Akkadian etymology, see DURAND, “Précurseurs syriens”, 70 note 167 and also ibid., “Réalites amorrites”, 33 for the attestation of adû(m) in “un domaine ouest-sémitique, comme une catégorie qui régit une société tribale”. 5 Indeed, the earliest attested use of adê in an Assyrian source may perhaps be dated to the 12th century BCE in a fragmentary passage of the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic, some five centuries before the earliest attestation of the Aramaic term: MACHINIST, Epic, 102, iv 8’: […] a-de-e EN-ni. See also BRINKMAN, “Political Covenants”, 82–83 with note 4. The first certain attestation of adê, meanwhile, dates to the reign of Aššur-nerari V (754–745 BCE) in his treaty with Mati’-il of Arpad (PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, no. 2).

44

Poppy Tushingham

derived from the more general adû(m) seems likely, with the word entering Aramaic from Assyrian.6 Each of the proposed translations has points to recommend it, as well as contexts in which it falls short. As Lauinger has illustrated, adê has shades of meaning not captured by the English “treaty”, “loyalty oath” or “pact”.7 The divine role as witness to the agreement and curser of those who either break their oath or damage the tablet upon which the adê was written was fundamental to these compositions. Nevertheless, while Lauinger’s “duty, destiny” more successfully highlights the mythological aspects of the term adê, it does not capture the adê as a legally binding agreement between parties and is therefore impractical for general use. Furthermore, Lauinger expressly bases his suggested translation on analysis of the adê that King Esarhaddon of Assyria (r. 680–669 BCE) imposed on his people in the year 672 BCE, known in the secondary literature as “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty” (EST).8 This composition is unusual in many ways and, in particular, was sealed with three divine seals of the god Aššur, head of the Assyrian pantheon. This, as Andrew George has argued, elevated a tablet to the mythological status of a “Tablet of Destinies”, the contents of which were fated to occur.9 As no other extant ṭuppi adê “adê-tablet” bears seal impressions, the translation “destiny” may not apply to the wider concept of adê to the same extent that it does to EST.10

The first attestation of the Aramaic ’dy, in the Sefire Stelae, also includes Mati’-il (LEMAIRE/ DURAND, Les inscriptions araméennes; FITZMYER, Aramaic Inscriptions; for context: MORROW, “Sefire Treaty”; FALES/MAZZONI, “Sefire”). 6 This explanation has been widely accepted and was argued most recently by RADNER, “Neo-Assyrian Treaties”, 312. See also EADEM, “Assyrische ṭuppi adê”, 357. LAUINGER has also argued similarly (“Neo-Assyrian adê”, 100). See ibid., note 6 for a selected bibliography of those who have considered adê to be an Aramaic loanword. 7 Ibid. Beyond this, ‘loyalty oath’ is a particularly infelicitous translation, as ‘oath’ māmītu is an important constituent part of the adê and the two are clearly differentiated in the sources. The earliest secure attestation of māmītu dates to the reign of Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076 BCE) (for the edition, see GRAYSON, Assyrian Rulers, A.0.87.1 v 14; see discussion in RADNER, “Treaties as a Source”, 310–311). For more on the relationship between adê and māmītu, see LAUINGER, “Neo-Assyrian adê”, 105–107; PARPOLA, “NeoAssyrian Treaties”, 182; PARPOLA/WATANABE, Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, xv; and RADNER, “Assyrische ṭuppi adê”, 353–357. 8 Also termed the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (VTE). WATANABE has put forth Esarhaddon’s Succession Oath Documents (ESOD) as a preferable designation (as in “Reconsidered”, “Innovations” and “Assyrian Cultural Policy”). 9 GEORGE, “Sennacherib”. See also WATANABE, “Siegelung” and “Adoration”. 10 The other compositions known to modern scholars may be chancellery copies (RADNER, “Assyrische ṭuppi adê”, 373), as well as excerpts or drafts (LAUINGER, “NeoAssyrian scribes”, 287) and were all found at Nineveh or Assur (published in PARPOLA/ WATANABE, Treaties and Loyalty Oaths and FRAHM, Historische, nos. 66–71).

The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire

45

In this light, the translation “covenant” has much to recommend it.11 Firstly, it covers a broad semantic range, referring to “an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified”.12 It is therefore more widely applicable than “treaty” or “loyalty oath”, while implying a greater degree of formality than “pact”. Secondly, in stark contrast to the other translations discussed here, it carries with it the clear connotation of a sacred bond.13 The centrality of the gods to the adê renders it appropriate for the English translation of the term to emphasize divine involvement. In particular, “covenant” is likely to call the biblical covenants to a reader’s mind. Indeed, the relationship between the covenants of the Bible and those of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, as well as the existence of possible influence and intertextuality between them has been the focus of much scholarship.14 This study does not approach the Assyrian adê-covenants from this perspective; rather, the focus here is the relationship between the party imposing the covenant and the gods. Whereas, in the covenants of the Bible, these were one and the same, in Assyria they were separate and had two distinct roles. The covenant existed between human parties and was imposed by one person, often the Assyrian king, while deities were both witnesses and enforcers, cursing those who broke the covenant. The present study is separated into two sections. The first explores two aspects of the relationship between the adê imposer and the gods which have already received some scholarly attention. Firstly, it considers who was able to impose an adê, and by what justification and, secondly, which deities were included in the adê-covenants and in what manner. This section argues that the composition grapples with the question of how a covenant might function after the death of the king who imposed it.

1. Human and Divine Roles 1.1. The human role The adê-covenant is only attested between human parties, imposed by a single individual. Most commonly, this individual was the Assyrian king. In contrast, 11

As stated, for instance, in PARPOLA, “Neo-Assyrian Treaties”, 182. As defined on Dictionary.com (www.dictionary.com/browse/covenant, last accessed on 12/30/2020). 13 RADNER suggests it as a particularly suitable translation on precisely these grounds (“Treaties as a Source”, 312; see also ibid., “Second Temple Period”, 80–81). 14 The scholarship on this topic is vast and thus only a very brief selection of recent publications is listed here: CROUCH, Israel and the Assyrians; HARRISON, “Recent Discoveries”; KOCH, Vertrag; LEVINSON, “Esarhaddon’s Succession”; STEYMANS, “Vertragsrhetorik” and “Deuteronomy 28”. 12

46

Poppy Tushingham

a covenant could be imposed on multiple parties. The imposer of the covenant did not need to adjure these other parties in person, however, and this task could be designated to a representative.15 This is not reflected in the wording of the covenant compositions themselves, however, which portray the bond of the covenant as existing directly between the parties, without intermediary. In the source material, covenants are most commonly imposed by the Assyrian king. Nevertheless, the Assyrian king was not the only human capable of imposing a covenant. Non-Assyrian rulers are attested in this role.16 Within Assyria, meanwhile, other male and female members of the royal house could impose covenants. Sennacherib of Assyria (r. 704–681 BCE) died at the hands of his own sons, an event of sufficient note to be recorded in the Bible.17 Sennacherib had imposed a succession covenant on the Assyrian people on behalf of his crown prince, Esarhaddon. Upon his father’s death, Esarhaddon was faced with the challenge of assuming the throne despite opposition, and concluded a covenant with his people while still crown prince to ensure their support.18 Later, upon Esarhaddon’s own death in 669 BCE, his mother Naqi’a imposed a covenant on behalf of his son and crown prince Assurbanipal (r. 668–ca. 631 BCE).19 In both cases, these covenants appear to have been imposed with the approval of the previous king: Sennacherib had promoted Esarhaddon to crown prince, while in turn Esarhaddon had elevated his mother’s political status during his lifetime.20 At least in the latter case, it seems possible that the king had made specific arrangements for a covenant to be imposed upon his death.21 15

RADNER, “Assyrische ṭuppi adê”, 358. It was also possible for partners to send envoys to enter into an adê on their behalf, ibid., 359. 16 See for instance a query to the sun-god, asking whether or not the Zagros city-lord Kaštaritu will conclude an adê “invoking the names of gods and goddesses” in STARR, Queries, no. 43. For discussion see RADNER, “Assyrische ṭuppi adê”, 358 note 28. 17 2 Kgs 19:37; Isa 37:38 and 2 Chronicles 32:21. On the evidence for Sennacherib’s murder, see GRAYSON/NOVOTNY, Royal Inscriptions, 1. For the argument that Esarhaddon might have been implicated in Sennacherib’s murder, see KNAPP, “Murderer”. 18 PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, no. 3. That Esarhaddon was not yet king is clear, because he is referenced as bēlīya ‘my lord’ rather than as king of Assyria, as would be expected if he were already monarch. Compare also ibid., no. 3 and FRAHM, Historische, nos. 67–69, for a covenant imposed by Sennacherib on Esarhaddon’s behalf. 19 PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, no. 8. As Assurbanipal is here termed šar Māt-Aššūr ‘king of Assyria’, it is clear that Esarhaddon has already died. 20 Esarhaddon promoted not only his mother, but also his wife Ešarra-hammat and eldest daughter Šerua-eṭirat to the level of political actors (RADNER, “Trials of Esarhaddon”, 168). 21 It has been suggested that this covenant is a draft (LAUINGER, “Neo-Assyrian scribes”, 287). If so, one may perhaps wonder whether it was drafted before the death of Esarhaddon, for use in case Assurbanipal encountered resistance to his accession. MELVILLE (Naqia/ Zakutu, 85–90) argues that Esarhaddon planned for Naqi’a to impose a covenant for Assurbanipal upon his death. The king’s own chronic illness likely rendered this particularly

The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire

47

Nevertheless, covenants could also be imposed against the wishes of the Assyrian king. Letters from the royal correspondence indicate that UrduMullissu, Esarhaddon’s brother and murderer of their father Sennacherib, also swore his followers to a covenant.22 Rather than acting with Sennacherib’s approval, Urdu-Mullissu imposed the covenant on the grounds that he himself – not Sennacherib or Esarhaddon – was the rightful ruler of Assyria. A letter describing his plot, sent to Esarhaddon, refers to the covenant as an [ad]ê ša sīḫi ‘covenant of rebellion’, made while Sennacherib was still alive.23 During his reign, Esarhaddon explicitly forbade covenants imposed without his approval, including the following stipulation in EST: You shall not take a mutually binding oath ( aḫē’iš tutammāni) with (any)one who produces (statues of) gods in order to conclude a covenant before gods (adê ina pān ilāni), (be it) by sett[ing] a table, by drinking from a cup, by kindling a fire, by water, by oil, or by holding breasts (EST: § 13, lines 153–156).24

Thus, by entering into an unapproved covenant, the oath-takers break the terms of their existing bond, incurring the wrath of the gods and bringing divine curses upon themselves. As EST explicitly seeks to safeguard against rival members of the royal family attempting to seize the throne in Assurbanipal’s stead,25 the stipulation expressly rules out covenants imposed by such individuals. Esarhaddon’s attempt to monopolize the use of covenants was unsuccessful, however, and plotters against the king continued to bind their followers to them with covenants.26 Indeed, this likely occurred just one year later (671 BCE), when a certain Abdâ, city-overseer of Assur, swore 120 elite soldiers to a covenant. A panicked letter to Esarhaddon from the otherwise unattested Nabûpressing (on his illness and its effects on his rule, see RADNER, Trials of Esarhaddon, 169– 170). 22 REYNOLDS, Babylonian Correspondence, no. 100 describes this scheme. For further discussion of the text, see PARPOLA, “Murderer” and WATANABE, “Aššurbanipal”, 239–243. PARPOLA, Letters, no. 113 may also refer to the covenant sworn to Urdu-Mullissu. 23 REYNOLDS, Babylonian Correspondence, no. 100, obv. 4’. See also RADNER, “Revolts”, 52–53. 24 PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, no. 6, § 13, lines 153–156: 153ša DINGIR-MEŠ-ni ú-še-šá-bu-u-ni a-de-e ina IGI DINGIR-MEŠ-ni 154i-šá-kan-u-ni ina ri-⸢kis⸣ GIŠ.BANŠUR šá-te-e ka-si 155ni-pi-iḫ dGIŠ.BAR A-MEŠ Ì-MEŠ ṣi-bit tu-le-e 156 a-ḫe-iš tu-tam-ma-a-ni. 25 As indeed does the covenant of Naqi’a, which is concluded with Assurbanipal’s own brothers and zēr šarri ‘the royal seed’, among others (PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, no. 8, obv. 1–5). 26 The starkest example of this is YBC 11382, published by FRAHM in 2010 (“Hochverrat”). Note that WATANABE argues that this letter refers to the Urdu-Mullissu plot (Aššurbanipal, 242). The mention of Sasî (see note 31 below), however, renders it more probable that the letter alludes to a plot under Esarhaddon and was written in 671 BCE (as FRAHM suggests in “Hochverrat”, 100 and again in “Neo-Assyrian”, 187–188).

48

Poppy Tushingham

ušallim details the plot.27 Abdâ’s background is unknown, and it is therefore unclear whether he was a member of the royal family. As he held high state office in the important city of Assur, it seems possible that he claimed royal lineage, although this is by no means necessarily the case.28 The exact particulars of the plot are uncertain: Abdâ tells Nabû-ušallim about two of his dreams, both of which appear to portend kingship. Nevertheless, Nabû-ušallim also presents Abdâ as a co-conspirator of Sasî, likely identical with the man of that name attested in other sources as presiding over an insurrection based in the city of Harran.29 Sasî seems to have styled himself as the rightful king, a claim supported by prophecy.30 That these men were working together and yet both wished to take the throne for themselves seems improbable. It may therefore be the case that Sasî was the party imposing the covenant, while Abdâ served as his representative, adjuring the soldiers in his absence. Sasî himself might have been a member of the royal family, descended from Sargon II (r. 721–705 BCE), although this is speculative.31 Another very fragmentary letter may refer to a covenant imposed by Sasî.32 It is probable, though not certain, that membership of the Assyrian royal house was a prerequisite to imposing a covenant in the Assyrian Empire. What is clear, however, is that royalty was not a sufficient condition to do so. Neither Sasî or Abdâ are attested as justifying their plot on account of their royal blood. Rather, they portray themselves as enjoying divine support. In general, the Assyrian king – who was the god Aššur’s earthly representative and high priest – was generally the strongest candidate to claim the divine favor to impose a covenant. Nevertheless, if this appeared to be in doubt, as it likely did in 671 BCE when Esarhaddon was suffering from serious illness, a tell-tale sign of divine wrath, then others were perhaps able to claim superior favor with the gods.33 This allowed rivals to argue not only that they were the rightful king, but also that they were able to muster the support of the gods for their covenant.

27

FRAHM, “Hochverrat”, 92, YBC 11382 rev. 35–36. As FRAHM notes (ibid., 114–115). He also points out that Abdâ’s West-Semitic name makes his royal status seem rather less likely, although the same argument could also be made of Sasî (BAKER [ed.], Prosopography 3/1, 1093). 29 On Sasî, see NISSINEN, References, 107–153, as well as RADNER, “Trials of Esarhaddon”. 30 As reported in another letter to Esarhaddon (LUUKKO / VAN BUYLAERE, Political Correspondence, no. 59, rev. 4’–5’). 31 As argued in ibid., 173. 32 LUUKKO / VAN BUYLAERE, Political Correspondence, no. 243. 33 See RADNER, “Trials of Esarhaddon”. 28

The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire

49

1.2 The divine role The imposing party determined the covenant’s stipulations, which regulated actions and attitudes towards them or the successor they supported.34 The gods, meanwhile, took on the role of witness and curser of any parties to break the covenant. Thus, the gods enforced the stipulations presented by the imposing party. The physical presence of divine images by which to swear to the covenant appears to have been typical. Indeed, the injunction against concluding an adêcovenant in EST cited above describes the potential traitor as ša ilāni ušeššabūni “one who installs gods” for the purpose of concluding an adê ina pān ilāni “covenant before gods”.35 It therefore seems clear that the physical presence of a divine image was common at the conclusion of a covenant. Ceremonies for EST were concluded “under Bel and Nabû”, namely in the presence of their statues.36 Similarly, Mar-Issar, an agent of Esarhaddon in Babylonia, informs delegates of Babylonia that they have concluded a covenant with the king [ina pān] ilāni [ina] pūt parakki “[in front of] the gods, before the sanctuary”.37 As concerns the adê-covenants concluded by rival claimants to the throne, it may be of significance that the only adê-ceremony not approved by the king whose location is certain (that described in Nabû-ušallim’s letter) took place in the city of Assur, the Assyrian state’s religious center. Abdâ, in his capacity as overseer of Assur, was one of the most powerful members of the city’s municipal administration and might therefore have been able to gain access to its temples and religious images, which included among others the statue of god Aššur. While the letter makes no explicit statements on this matter, it is possible that this rival adê-ceremony was made all the more dangerous by its location. Sasî, meanwhile, was associated with Harran, the location of an important temple to the moon god Sîn, which Esarhaddon himself had visited to gain divine support for his invasion of Egypt.38 Both plotters were thus well positioned to adjure followers in the presence of the statues of important deities, and such access might have been an important aspect of their ability to conclude covenants.

34 Note that in the case of Naqi’a, this was not her own chosen successor, but rather that of her son, Esarhaddon. That she supported Assurbanipal is expressed not merely on the grounds that he was Esarhaddon’s crown prince, rather, he is described as her ‘favorite grandson’ DUMU ŠÀ–ŠÀ-bi-šá ḪÚL (PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, no. 8, obv. 11). 35 Ibid., no. 6, § 13, 153. See note 24 above. 36 PARPOLA, Letters, no. 6. 37 Ibid., no. 354, obv. 21: [ina IGI] ⸢DINGIR⸣-MEŠ [ina] pu-ut ⸢BARAG⸣. 38 RADNER, “Trials of Esarhaddon”, 171.

50

Poppy Tushingham

Important deities of the Assyrian pantheon are always included in adêcompositions. Local deities of the other covenant parties, meanwhile, were also taken into account in these texts. The covenants between Šamši-Adad V and Marduk-zakir-šumi of Babylon, Aššur-nerari V and Mati’-il of Arpad and Esarhaddon and Ba’alu, king of Tyre, all include important local deities of both parties.39 In other instances, the characterization of deities that were typically included in covenant compositions varied according to the interests of the other parties. In EST, for instance, Aššur is the king of the gods, while Marduk is described as “the eldest son” who will “decree a heavy punishment and an indissoluble curse for your fate.”40 When, however, Assurbanipal included a curse of Marduk in a covenant with Babylonian partners, it is he who, befitting his Babylonian status, is the king of the gods: “May Marduk, king of the gods, lord of the lands, […].”41 With the exception of EST, the covenants cited here were likely composed specifically for the rulers or inhabitants of one region, with a curse section that was tailored to include the important deities of that region. In contrast, EST was intended to apply to the entire extent of the empire under Esarhaddon, encompassing both the provinces and client kingdoms.42 Approximately 11 of a minimum 110 original tablets are known, found at three locations: Kalhu and Assur in the empire’s heartland, and the western provincial capital of Kullania (modern Tell Tayinat).43 All of the EST tablets give Esarhaddon as the imposer, but each is concluded with different parties, either a client king and his subjects, or a provincial governor and the province’s inhabitants.44 39

PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, nos. 1, 2 and 5, respectively. Ibid., no. 6: § 44, 433–434. 41 Ibid., no. 9, rev. 6’. The same can be said of Nabû, who in EST is presented as bearer of the tablet of destinies, in keeping with his status in Assyria as a scribe (ibid., no. 6: § 105, lines 660–661), while in ibid., no. 9, rev. 7’: he is ‘trustee of the entire heaven and underworld’, conforming to a more Babylonian conception of the deity. 42 As is clear from the discovery in 2009 of an EST tablet at Tell Tayinat, ancient Kullania (LAUINGER, “Treaty at Tell Tayinat”). The Kalhu versions of EST (PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, no. 6, also WATANABE, adê-Vereidigung and WISEMAN, “Vassal Treaties”) are concluded with eastern vassals of the Assyrian king. In contrast, the Tell Tayinat version is concluded with the governor of an Assyrian province, confirming that EST was imposed on the entire empire. On the new status of EST in light of the discovery at Tell Tayinat see also: FALES, “After Ta’yinat”; PONCHIA, “Protocol”; STEYMANS, “Deuteronomy 28”; and WATANABE, “Reconsidered”. 43 LAUINGER gives 110 as a minimum estimate (“Neo-Assyrian scribes”, 289–292). FALES, meanwhile, suggests that the number of copies numbered around 220 (“After Ta’yinat”, 148). Note also that we do not know whether other groups of people were given EST tablets, which might have borne yet another version of the preamble (§ 1). 44 The former is the case of the Kalhu manuscripts, the latter is the case of the Tell Tayinat manuscript (see above, note 46). Note too that while three fragments of EST are known from 40

The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire

51

It has been suggested that the exemplar found at Kullania contains a locally significant curse not attested in the manuscripts of the Zagros city-lords found at Kalhu: “May Šarrat-Amqaruna (“Queen of Ekron”) make a worm fall from your insides” (§ 54B).45 While § 54–55 of the composition is only partially preserved in the Kalhu manuscripts, it seems probable that this curse was also included on these tablets. A small fragment (1959-4-14, 85) bears portions of three consecutive curses. The second two are clearly identifiable as § 54C and § 55.46 Only three signs of the first curse are preserved, but these are consistent with § 54B and certainly not with § 54, as was suggested before the discovery of the Kullania manuscript.47 As such, it seems that § 54–55 was indeed the same across all known copies of EST. One curse found in the exemplars from Kalhu is certainly omitted from the Kullania manuscript: “[May] the Pleiades, the [heroic] gods, mas[sacre you with their] fierce [weapons]” (§ 53, lines 464–465).48 Nevertheless, there appears not to be any geographic rationale behind this omission. It seems most probable that the scribe tasked with drawing up the Kullania manuscript made an error and omitted two of the composition’s ca. 670 lines. As such, we can determine that the EST composition likely used the same curses in each manuscript. This uniformity might well have been ideological: all people under the dominion of the Assyrian king were bound to the same stipulations and cursed by the same deities. Indeed, it might have been seen as beneficial to include cursing deities from a range of locations. No person other than Esarhaddon could credibly have claimed to have the support of such a diverse list of gods.49 Nevertheless, the decision to use the same curse list for each EST manuscript may also reflect practical considerations. The mass production of at least 110 copies of this ca. 670-line composition, each bearing three divine seal impressions, would have required substantial manpower and coordination. Assur (VAT 12374, 9424 and 11534, see FRAHM, Historische, nos. 70–71 and WEIDNER, “Assurbânipal”, 215), the preamble (§ 1) is not preserved on any of them and it is thus unclear which version of the EST it is (if they are all from one tablet, which is also unknown). 45 LAUINGER, “Treaty at Tell Tayinat”, 102, 113, T vi line 47: dšar-rat-a-am-qár-⸢ru⸣-u⸢na⸣ TA ŠÀ-ku-⸢nu⸣ li-šá-ḫi-ḫa tul-⸢tu⸣. See also RADNER (“Treaties as a Source”, 317) for this observation and more on the significance of the choice of this deity. 46 WATANABE, adê-Vereidigung, plates 12g and 13g (mislabeled 1959-4-14,88). 47 The signs are […]-⸢ku-nu⸣ […]-tu. The final sign, TU, is in keeping with the curse of Šarrat-Amqaruna (see above, note 44), but not with that of Aramiš, which ends with the sign NU (LAUINGER, “Treaty at Tell Tayinat”, T vi line 44). 48 PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, no. 6, § 53, lines 464–465: dsi-bit-ti DINGIR-⸢MEŠ qar-du⸣-[te ina GIŠ.TUKUL-MEŠ-šú-nu] ez-zu-ti na-aš-pan-[ta-ku-nu liš-ku-nu]. 49 Such a message parallels the Assyrian practice of confiscating statues of deities from the temples of vanquished foes and setting them up in the Aššur temple (RADNER, Introduction, 16; on ‘godnapping’ in Neo-Assyrian royal discourse see also ZAIA, “Sacrilege”). Thus, Esarhaddon might have been able to claim physical access to these gods too.

52

Poppy Tushingham

It was probably desirable to keep the differences between each manuscript to a minimum.50 In order to render EST as broadly applicable as possible without further complicating the already ambitious project of imposing an adê-covenant on the entire empire, therefore, the composers took a mixed approach. In the curse sections, a wide range of deities are included, as well as such groupings as ilāni rabûtu ša šamê kaqqiri “the great gods of heaven and earth” (§ 61). The adjuration (§ 3), meanwhile, ends with the demand that the partners swear by ilāni mātīšu nagêšu “the gods of one’s land and one’s district”.51 This catch-all clause ensures that, even if the adê-composition does not mention the most relevant deity to a particular oath-taker by name, that individual is nonetheless bound to the adê-covenant by that god, having sworn by them. Three seals of the god Aššur are impressed on the obverse of each EST tablet. These impressions illustrated that Esarhaddon had the approval of that deity. The sealing of a tablet by a god rendered it a “Tablet of Destinies”, fating all that was written upon it to happen.52 Considered from a legal perspective, the seal impressions also send the clear message that the covenant is legally binding and that god Aššur is intimately involved in the agreement.53 The practice of a third party sealing a tablet and thus taking on secondary responsibility, perhaps as a guarantor, was still active in the city of Assur in the Neo-Assyrian period.54 It seems likely, therefore, that the divine seals share some of the legal implications of this practice, symbolizing the role of the god as a divine guarantor to the agreement. The adê ša šarri “covenant of the king” also takes on an agency of its own in the penalty clauses of private legal documents.55 That there might have been a degree of confusion regarding the precise meaning of these clauses (“may the king’s covenant call him (i.e. anyone who breaks the contract) to account” and “may the king’s covenant be his legal opponent”) is revealed by some of their variations. On the one hand, the clause “may the king and the crown prince be 50 For discussion of the mass production of the text, see LAUINGER, “Neo-Assyrian scribes”. 51 PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, no. 6, § 3, line 40B: [DINGIR]-MEŠ KURšu* na-gi-šu. 52 GEORGE, “Sennacherib”. See also WATANABE, “Siegelung” and “Adoration”. 53 In Neo-Assyrian legal practice, the sealing of a tablet rendered it legally binding (RADNER, Mensch und Umwelt, 32). The sealing of a tablet confirms the presence of that party. Typically, the party giving up their legal claim sealed the tablet, for instance a seller in the case of a conveyance document. 54 On sealing practice in Assur, see KLENGEL-BRANDT/RADNER, “Stadtbeamten”, and FAIST/KLENGEL-BRANDT, “Siegel”, as well as TUSHINGHAM, “Uniformity”, 34–35. 55 See the lists in RADNER, Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad, 19 and RADNER, “Treaties as a Source”, 322–324 for attestations of the clauses. Note that the tablet DONBAZ/PARPOLA, Legal Texts, no. 164, which is dated to 675 BCE, is the earliest known attestation of the first clause (see also discussion in BARCINA, “Display”, 40).

The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire

53

his legal opponent” is attested, possibly indicating that the rulers themselves, or perhaps their statues, were considered to have the same divine power as the covenant.56 In one document, meanwhile, the clause is written as “may the king’s gods call him to account.”57 This seemingly illustrates that, at least in the eyes of the scribe of this tablet, the covenant of the king represented the gods that supported him, which – if the wording of EST is to be taken seriously – were all of the deities of the empire. Here, therefore, we see the covenant acting as a symbol of the perfect alignment of royal interests with the will of the gods, to the point where the three concepts are not clearly distinguishable.

2. The Dead King and Nergal, Lord of the Underworld In the following, we will focus on the relationship between the Assyrian king and divine actors in ensuring the success of a covenant. The literary composition The Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince58 is known from just one fragmentary copy, found in a private house at the city of Assur.59 The work is unusual in the Akkadian literary tradition and the lack of other copies suggests that it was never widely circulated. Its oddity renders it appropriate to characterize the composition as experimental. It is not known where or by whom it was composed, although it is certainly late Neo-Assyrian, possibly dating to the reign of Assurbanipal (r. 668–ca. 631 BCE).60

56

For instance, KWASMAN/PARPOLA, Legal Transactions, no. 238, obv. 10: LUGAL u lu-u EN de-ni-šú, “The king and the crown prince shall be his legal opponents”. A list of attestations is found in RADNER, “vier Privatrechtsurkunden”, 126–129 with notes 37–47. One may perhaps link this clause with the statues of the king distributed across the empire, which are also mentioned in the composition of EST (§ 35, T v, lines 65– 68). See also BARCINA, “Display”, 39–41. 57 MATTILA, Legal Transactions, no. 155. The document is dated to 627* BCE. The clause reads thus: aš-šur d30 dšá-maš EN dPA DINGIR-MEŠ šá MAN ina ŠU.2-šú lu-ba-ʾu-ú (rev. 3–5). It can therefore be translated either as ‘May Aššur, Sîn, Šamaš, Bel, Nabû, and the gods of the king call him to account’, or ‘May (the listed gods), gods of the king call him to account’. 58 Published by LIVINGSTONE in Court Poetry, no. 32. See also VON SODEN, “Unterweltsvision”. 59 On the private library N6, see PEDERSÉN, Archives, 81–82 and FADHIL, Tontafelbibliothek, 7–8. 60 SANDERS has argued this, for instance (“Tour of Hell”, 164), while FOSTER compares the composition to Assurbanipal’s Hymn to Aššur (Muses, 833). For the Hymn to Aššur, see LIVINGSTONE, Court Poetry, no. 1. FINN, meanwhile, compares it to Assurbanipal’s Coronation Hymn (Much Ado, 108–109). For this composition, see LIVINGSTONE, Court Poetry, no. 11. VON SODEN, meanwhile, takes the view that the work was composed while Assurbanipal was crown prince, i.e. 672–669 BCE (“Unterweltsvision”, 3). DUMU-LUGAL

54

Poppy Tushingham

It is necessary briefly to lay out the details of the narrative. The obverse of the tablet is particularly broken, and thus the initial portion of the narrative is difficult to reconstruct. It begins with the actions of a royal person, either a prince or perhaps the king, who consults scholars and arranges an offering ceremony. He begins to act wrongly, however, hoarding wealth for himself. The protagonist travels from Nineveh (obv. 11) to Assur (obv. 13). A former king is mentioned (obv. 16), as is the “son of a scribe” (obv. 17), both in broken contexts. There is mention of a treasure chamber (obv. 18). It is not clear what has happened, but it seems that the protagonist is greatly distressed by it: “he did [not] rest by night, he did not stop wailing […]” (obv. 19).61 The adverse effects continue, the underworld is mentioned, as is a royal banquet (obv. 23). There follows the first preserved reference to Kummayu (obv. 27), who may be identical with the protagonist of the proceeding 26 lines, although this is the subject of debate.62 He enters the temple of the chthonic goddess Allatu, apparently “planning to go down to the underworld”: ana arādi arallî … uṣarramma (obv. 28).63 As a response, the goddess Ereškigal, consort of Nergal, god of the underworld, appears to him in a dream and refuses to answer: he has incurred her wrath (obv. 35–36). Kummayu wakes up, cursing the dream and prays to Ereškigal once more (obv. 37–40). The reverse of the tablet is much better preserved, although it still presents many challenges of interpretation. Kummayu lies down to sleep and has a vision of the underworld (rev. 1). The narrative switches to the first person, and the narrator (presumably Kummayu) describes a succession of terrifying composite beings (rev. 1–10). He sees Nergal, god of the underworld, seated on his throne (rev. 11). Nergal is angry, and it is stated that “a mighty silence lay before the prince” ina pān mār rubê nadi šiššu dannu (rev. 13). The most probable explanation of this line is that the narration here briefly shifts back to the third person. If this is the case, then Kummayu is an Assyrian prince.64 The narration returns to first person, with Nergal seizing the narrator by the forelock and preparing to kill him (rev. 13–15). Išum, Nergal’s companion and fire personified, intercedes and implores Nergal to spare the narrator, stating that if he does “may the peoples of all the lands always hear your glorification!” tašrīḫīka baḫūlāti ša māti kalāma liltammû (rev. 17). Nergal is persuaded, although he chastises the narrator for insulting his wife (rev. 18–21). He then presents the body of a king of Assyria, said to be Kummayu’s “father” or

61

LIVINGSTONE, Court Poetry, no. 32 obv. 19: […] i?-na?-a?-ḫa? MI ul i-ni-a bi-ki-i-⸢tu?⸣

[…]. 62

Some suggest that the previous section refers to Kummayu’s father, whom they identify as the Assyrian king (e.g. FOSTER, Muses, 832; FINN, Much Ado, 105). 63 Allatu is likely synonymous with Ereškigal, consort of Nergal, lord of the underworld, as noted by LOKTIONOV (“Egyptianising”, 40). 64 As is generally assumed in the scholarship on the composition.

The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire

55

“ancestor” (Akkadian zārû).65 Nergal praises this monarch, stating that he built god Aššur a new year festival house (bīt akīti), and that his body and progeny are protected by three minor deities (rev. 22–26). He also issues a what seems to be a warning that is not addressed solely to the narrator: Who(ever) may have closed his ear to his (the king’s) speech, tasted the forbidden, trampled on the consecrated – the luminous splendor of his terrifying majesty will throw you down instantly, until (you are but) wind! May this word be set like a thorn in your heart! Go forth to the upper world until I think of you!” (Underworld Vision: rev. 27–28).66

The narrator wakes up (rev. 29–30), and the narrative switches back to third person. Someone, presumably Kummayu, laments his situation and scoops dust from ‘street and square’ into his mouth (rev. 31–32). He then proceeds to praise Nergal and Ereškigal “who had come to the aid of the prince” ša ana rēṣūti rubêma izzizū in front of the “peoples of Assyria” baḫūlāti Māt Aššūr (rev. 32). The composition ends with a scribe (possibly to be identified as the author of the text and mirroring in some aspects the individual mentioned in obv. 17). The scribe who “previously had accepted bribes” ša ina mahrê ṭa’tu imhuru, hears these words “with the wise understanding which Ea had given him” and states: So that (the curses of) the covenant may not come near me to do (me) evil, and may not threaten me, let me always carry out my actions as [Nergal?] has ordered!” He hurries to the palace and the composition ends and repeats what he has heard, saying “Let this be my apotropaic ritual!” (Underworld Vision: rev. 34–35).67

Here, then, we see a complex dynamic between the Assyrian prince, Nergal and the dead king, which is finally framed in the context of a corrupt scribe deciding to honor the stipulations of a covenant. The prince, a living member of the royal family, does not enjoy divine approval. Indeed, upon seeing him, Nergal initially wishes to kill him as punishment for his inappropriate conduct towards the gods. While the prince is spared, this does not appear to comfort him much, as he awakens in a state of anguish. It has been suggested that the Underworld Vision is critical of the crown.68 Certainly, the comparison of 65

GELB et al., Assyrian Dictionary, Z, 72 s.v. zārû A. LIVINGSTONE in Court Poetry, no. 32, rev. 27–28: ⸢ša?⸣-a ina qa-[bé]-e-šú ip-ḫu-ú ḫasi-sa-šú a-sak-ku i-ku-la an-zil-la ú-kab-bi-sa ḫa-an-ṭiš me-lam-me LUGAL-ti-šú gal-tu-ti esaḫ-ḫap-ku-nu a-di šá-a-[ri] a-ma-tu an-[ni]-tu ki-i gi-iṣ-ṣi ina ŠÀ-bi-ku-nu lu-ú na-da-ata at-lak a-na e-la-a-ti a-di a-ḫa-sa-sa-ka iq-ba-[am-ma]. 67 Ibid., no. 32, rev. 33–35: ù šu-ú LÚ.A.BA ša ina maḫ-re-e ṭa-aʾ-tu im-ḫu-ru ina manzal-ti AD-šú e-zi-zu i-na uz-ni ni-kil-ti ša dÉ.A ú-šat-li-mu-šú INIM?.GAR?-e di-li-li i-na ŠÀ-bišú iš-du-ud-ma ki-a-am ina ṣur-ri-šú iq-bi ma-a áš-šú a-de-e a-na le-mut-ti a.a iṭ-[ḫu]-ni a.a is-niq-u-ni [šá dU.GUR?] iq-bu-u ep-ši-ti-ia* lu-pu-uš il-lik-ma a-na É.GAL ú-šá-an-ni ma-a an-nu-ú lu NAM.BÚR.BI-ia. 68 Multiple scholars have interpreted the composition as critical of the crown, for instance FOSTER (Late Period, 98), ALSTER (“Scribes, Sages”, 51) and FINN (Much Ado, 104). Note 66

56

Poppy Tushingham

Kummayu to a flatulent, copulating young boar in rev. 30 does seem to imply some satirical intent. The name “Kummayu” is also perhaps interesting: the prince is clearly Assyrian, yet his name means “one from Kumme”. Kumme was located in the mountains north of the Assyrian heartland, one of a group of linguistically and culturally Hurrian states that had long acted as a buffer between Assyria and Urartu.69 One may perhaps speculate that this choice of name compares the Assyrian prince to a disobedient vassal ruler, or a foreigner more generally. Indeed, this portrayal may bear some comparison with Esarhaddon’s account of his conquest of Šubria – another Hurrian state and Kumme’s neighbour – in 673 BCE, known as his “Letter to the God Aššur.”70 The narrative portrays Esarhaddon’s actions as prompted by the Šubrian king’s failure to uphold his oath, and explores the interdependent roles of Aššur and the Assyrian king in enforcing it. The description of the scribe is rather more ambiguous than the portrayal of the prince. Indeed, despite his corruption, he is described as possessing the “wide understanding which god Ea had given him”. Perhaps related to this, upon hearing the prince’s praise of Nergal and Ereškigal – likely the portion of the composition narrated in first person by Kummayu – the scribe realizes that his behavior has been mistaken. It seems possible that he discerned from Nergal’s words, in particular the statement of rev. 27–28, that he has indeed “closed his ear” and therefore will be punished.71 Although neither the prince however that several other scholars consider it to be a form of royal propaganda, including VON SODEN (“Unterweltsvision”, 7), LIVINGSTONE (Court Poetry, XXVIII), SANDERS, who considers it a ‘political communication’ (“Tour of Hell”, 161) and RÖLLIG, who states that it is ‘a kind of wisdom text, an advice to a royal prince’ (“Myths”, 309). These two interpretations are not necessarily mutually exclusive, however. Some have also seen the composition as a criticism of particular historical events. FINN, for instance, has interpreted it as pertaining to the nomination of Šamaš-šumu-ukin as crown prince (Much Ado, 107). 69 On the name Kummayu, see BAKER (ed.), Prosopography 2/1, 636–637 and SANDERS, “Tour of Hell”, 156–157. On Kumme and the other buffer states of the regions, see RADNER, “Rock”. 70 On Šubria and Esarhaddon’s campaign, see ibid., 261–264. For the Letter to the God Aššur, see LEICHTY, Royal Inscriptions, no. 33. In the Letter to the God Aššur, the Šubrian ruler, Ik-Teššub, has ignored Esarhaddon’s commands and thus broken his oath. 71 SANDERS has described lines rev. 27–28 as Nergal ‘breaking the frame of the narrative by addressing whoever hears, in the second person plural, against whoever would neglect Sennacherib’s words’ (“Tour of Hell”, 160). Note, however, that while, for instance, SANDERS (ibid.), BACH (“Transtextual”), LIVINGSTONE (Court poetry, no. 32) and FOSTER (Muses, 832; Late Period, 98) all interpret the composition in this way, this is not the only possible interpretation of this section. Some interpret the description in rev. 22–26 as referring to two different individuals (rev. 22–25 referring to the dead king and rev. 26 referring to the father of Kummayu), and then the warning in rev. 27–28 as pertaining to that second individual (see FINN, Much Ado, 106, esp. note 266 for this interpretation). This rests largely on the restoration of the first signs of rev. 26 as [ù šu]-ú ‘and he/the aforementioned’ and the supposition that this refers to a new subject, as it does in rev. 32. This position has

The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire

57

nor Nergal mention the covenant explicitly, the scribe immediately surmises that the warning pertains to it. The reason that the scribe is prompted to do this appears to be based on the relationship between Nergal and the dead king. Some of the imagery used to describe these two parties is unusual in the Mesopotamian literary tradition, and appears to incorporate Egyptian elements.72 This is indicative once more of the experimental nature of the composition, and perhaps an interest in exploring the relationship of a dead monarch and the god of the underworld in new ways.73 Nergal describes the corpse as “buried in the underworld” and belonging to “the proud shepherd who fulfilled the wishes of my father [Aššur], the king of the gods” (rev. 22). He further highlights the dead king’s favorable relationship with Aššur, stating that the king built Aššur’s new year festival house. Here, then, the personal closeness of the king’s relationship with Aššur is emphasized, as it is in EST. Nergal also states that the Elamite deities Yabru, Humban and Naprušu protect his body and his progeny. The choice of Elamite deities is interesting, and one may perhaps tentatively link their inclusion to Esarhaddon’s covenant with Elam, in which these deities are likely to have been included.74 Thus the dead king – whose description bears some similarity to the deeds of Sennacherib75 – confers a degree of divine approval on his descendants, including Kummayu, despite the apparent wrongdoing of the latter. generally been taken in order to argue that the dead king is to be interpreted as Sennacherib, while the other king is Esarhaddon, and that Nergal is criticizing Esarhaddon’s succession policy. This seems unlikely, as the description in rev. 26 is positive. Furthermore, the scribe at the end the scribe at the end of the composition, who had until then been corrupt, clearly interprets this warning as relevant enough to him to change his behavior. 72 LOKTIONOV, “Egyptianizing”, 47–48. ATAÇ interprets the royal corpse as a veiled reference to the corpse of Osiris in the underworld (“Underworld Vision”, 69). 73 Egyptians were resettled in the Assyrian heartland after Esarhaddon’s conquest of Thebes and Memphis in 671 BCE (RADNER, “Assyrian King”, 225). For more on the relationship between Egypt and Assyria see also ibid., “After Eltekeh”. 74 VON SODEN also notes that these deities appear in the same order in Šurpu II 163 (“Unterweltsvision”, 30 line 65). On Esarhaddon’s treaty with Urtaku, king of Elam, concluded in 674 BCE, see most recently RADNER, “Treaties as a Source”, 319. It is probably also of interest that the same king is described in the royal inscriptions of Assurbanipal as having broken his covenant, and being punished for it (ibid., 312; see NOVOTNY/JEFFERS, Royal Inscriptions, no. 3, iv lines 49–62). 75 Whether or not one should equate the dead king with Sennacherib, it is perhaps of interest that this king did impose a covenant on behalf of Esarhaddon, his crown prince (PARPOLA/WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, no. 3). BARCINA has argued that the covenant mentioned in the Underworld Vision could be understood as Sennacherib’s succession covenant, and that the text was likely composed under Esarhaddon (“Conceptualization”, 111–112).

58

Poppy Tushingham

Meanwhile, considering intergenerational relationships beyond the royal house, it is perhaps relevant that the bond of covenant applies both to those upon whom it is imposed and to their children. In EST, the covenant is made between Esarhaddon and “all those over whom Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, exercises kingship and lordship, (with) you, your sons and your grandsons who will be born in days to come after this treaty” (§ 1 7–10).76 In the oath section of the composition, meanwhile, the subjects are to swear that: As long as we, our sons (and) our grandsons are alive, Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, shall be our king and our lord, and we will not set any other king or prince over us, our sons or our grandsons. May all the gods mentioned by name (in this treaty) hold us, our seed and our seed’s seed accountable (for this vow). (EST: § 57, lines 507–512).77

It is possible that the Underworld Vision is interested in such notions. In the narrative, the father of the scribe is mentioned twice: firstly, the scribe is described as “the son of a scribe,” and secondly, it is stated that he “occupied the post of his father” ina manzalti abīšu ezzizu (rev. 33).78 The text thus subtly references the legacy not only of the Assyrian monarch but of a subject too. While the suggestion must be tentative, this could be seen as alluding, like EST, to the theme of inherited duty to the crown. The composition explores the way in which a covenant might be enforced after the death of the king. While this may seem clear – Nergal enforces the wishes of the dead king – the composition actually presents a more complex dynamic. The terrifying account of the underworld, in particular the demonic beings that the narrator encounters, perhaps serves to remind the scribe of the terrible fate at the hands of the gods that awaits those who break a covenant. When expressing his fear to himself, however, it is the covenant, rather than the gods, that has agency. He states that he will go to the palace and repeat what he knows so that “the covenant may not come near me to do me evil, and may not threaten me” (rev. 34). It is unclear whether he here refers specifically to the divine curses of the covenant or whether he views the covenant itself as 76 Ibid., no. 6, § 1, lines 7–10: am-mar maš-šur-PAB-AŠ MAN KUR-aš-šur LUGAL-tu be-lutu ina UGU-ḫi-šú-nu up-pa-áš-u-ni is-si-ku-nu DUMU-MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU-DUMU-MEŠku-nu ša EGIR a-de-e a-na UD-me ṣa-a-ti ib-ba-áš-šú-u-ni. 77 Ibid., § 57, lines 507-512: la ni-qa-bu-u-ni UD-mu am-mar a-ni-nu DUMU-MEŠ-ni DUMU-DUMU-MEŠ-ni bal-ṭa-a-ni-ni maš-šur-DÙ-A DUMU-MAN GAL šá É-UŠ-ti la LUGAL-nini la EN-ni-ni šum-ma LUGAL MAN-ma DUMU-LUGAL MAN-ma ina UGU-ḫi-ni DUMU-MEŠDINGIR-MEŠ ma-la MU-šú-nu zak-ru ina ŠU.2-i-ni ni DUMU-DUMU-MEŠ-ni ni-šá-kan-u-ni NUMUN-[i]-ni NUMUN–NUMUN-i-ni lu-ba-ʾi-ú. 78 It is not clear that the individual mentioned in the initial lines of the composition is identical to the scribe in the final lines. It seems probable, however, as the scribe in rev. 32 is introduced with the phrase ù šu-ú LÚ.A.BA ‘and that scribe’, perhaps implying that the character has been introduced previously. The structure of the composition of course also places the scribe writing the Underworld Vision in a similar situation as the scribe in the final lines (applying to both the original composer and those copying it down later).

The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire

59

a divine avenger.79 He continues by resolving to do “as [name broken] has ordered” (rev. 35). Livingstone restores the broken word as “Nergal”, although “the king” – in reference to the orders of the dead king – may also be conceivable. So too, in the portrayal of Nergal and the dead king, their roles are blurred. The dead king is unable to speak or act. The immortal Nergal thus takes upon himself the task of reminding those who hear him to follow the orders made by the king during his lifetime. Nergal is terrifying, but this general warning is not accompanied by the threat that Nergal himself will act against the hearers, instead “the luminous splendor of his (i.e. the dead king’s) terrifying majesty will throw you down instantly, until (you are but) wind!” The term melammu “fearsome radiance” is used three times in the preserved portion of the composition. Firstly, it is used in connection with one of the composite beings, Muhra, who “had fearsomeness and luminous splendor”.80 Next it is used to describe Nergal himself: “I looked at him and my bones shivered! His grimly luminescent splendor overwhelmed me, I kissed the feet of his great divinity and knelt down” (rev. 14).81 It is finally used in connection with the dead king. Thus, the šarrūtu “majesty”, literally “kingship”, of the dead king is described similarly to Nergal and to another divine being. Here, then, it is not the king himself but rather his “kingship” that takes on an agency of its own, akin to that of a divine being, able to punish those who disobey him even after his death. It is therefore a divine retributive force, intrinsically connected to the king and supported by powerful and terrifying gods, that is likely to be identified as the agent that will punish the scribe. The centrality of the gods to this force is clear, as the scribe only adheres to it after Nergal’s warning. Nergal is here not a punisher of those who have failed to keep their covenant, although his power to punish is made plain, rather he seems to prompt those who hear him to follow the covenant’s stipulations. He also confirms the accuracy of the covenant’s framing as applying in perpetuity, illustrating that the covenant bond is still strong, despite the death of its initiator. The dead king is himself no longer an active participant in the covenant, but his wishes are nonetheless maintained by a power connected to his kingship, which seems to be bound up with his pious deeds and divine support.

79

LIVINGSTONE supports the former interpretation (Court Poetry, no. 32, rev. 34), but as RADNER has argued that the covenant can take on the role of divine avenger in other contexts (e.g. in legal clauses, see “Treaties as a Source”, 320–325), it seems possible that the same thing is also occurring here. 80 On Muhra, see LIVINGSTONE, Explanatory Works, 186. 81 LIVINGSTONE, Court Poetry, no. 32, rev. 14: [a]-mur-šu-ma i-tar-ru-ra iš-da-a.a melam-mu-šu ez-zu-ti is-ḫu-pu-u-ni GÌR.2 DINGIR-ti-šú [GAL]-⸢ti⸣ áš-šiq-ma ak-mis a-zi-iz i-naṭa-al-an-ni-ma ú-na-a-⸢ša?⸣ [SAG].⸢DU?-su⸣.

60

Poppy Tushingham

The “luminous splendor of his terrifying majesty” is a force thus inextricably linked with royal commands and divine approval. It is given the agency to punish those who do not obey the divinely sanctioned word of the king. The scribe links this with the covenant, which is also portrayed as having agency, “drawing near” to the corrupt official to do him “evil”. Thus, in the Underworld Vision, a covenant must be imposed by a pious king and continuously enforced by the gods in order to function successfully. Beyond this, the composition portrays the covenant itself as a force derived from the merging of royal and divine power, which therefore has the ability to outlive the human parties that concluded it.

3. Conclusions The roles of the human imposer and divine enforcers of Assyrian covenants, while they may initially seem clear-cut and distinct, create a complex dynamic at the heart of these covenants. The imposer needed to convey convincingly that they had divine support for their covenant, not merely at the time of its conclusion but indefinitely. It was also important to ensure that the right gods were involved in its enforcement, namely those best positioned to punish anyone who broke it. In EST, the close and interdependent nature of the bond between the imposer, Esarhaddon, and the main enforcer, god Aššur, is made tangible by means of the divine seal impressions on the covenant tablet. Indeed, the covenant appears itself to come to stand, in the minds of some, as a symbol for divine support of the king. The covenant gods were the “gods of the king”, and supported not only the covenant stipulations themselves but also other aspects of the Assyrian state apparatus, such as the legal system. Indeed, the concepts of the king, the gods who supported him and the covenant appear to have so closely entangled as perhaps to have seemed interchangeable in some contexts. The Underworld Vision contains an interesting portrayal of the roles played by the king and a particular deity, Nergal, lord of the underworld, in ensuring the success of a covenant. The king does not impose a covenant in the narrative, nor does Nergal punish those who have broken it. Rather, Nergal issues a threat to them. He does so on behalf of the dead king, making clear, at least in the mind of the scribe at the end of the composition, that even though that monarch is no longer alive, wishes will be enforced. Assyrian covenants were valid not only during the lifetimes of those who imposed them, but also afterwards. So too, they applied to those who entered them and to their descendants. The Underworld Vision may provide, therefore, one illustration of how such an arrangement may have been thought to work. The scenario laid out in the composition is both intriguing and rather complex. The agent of the punishment inflicted on those who break the covenant is the “luminous splendor of his (the dead king’s) terrifying majesty (lit. kingship).”

The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire

61

The scribe at the end of the composition connects this to the adê covenant, which is also given agency. Here, therefore, the concepts of Nergal’s divine wrath, ‘kingship’ and the covenant are blurred together. While this experimental composition is probably not indicative of universal public opinion, it certainly points to lively and innovative scholarly engagement with the topic of covenants in general, and with the implications of the relationship between their human composers and divine enforcers in particular.

Bibliography ALSTER, BENDT, “Scribes, Sages, and Seers in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World, edited by Leo G. Perdue, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008, 47–63. ATAÇ, MEHMET-ALI, “The ‘Underworld Vision’ of the Ninevite Intellectual Milieu”, Iraq 66 (2004): 67–76. BAKER, HEATHER D. (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire 2, Part I: H-K, Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000. –, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire 3, Part I: P-Ṣ, Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002. BLACK, JEREMY / ANDREW GEORGE / NICHOLAS POSTGATE, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (2nd ed., SANTAG 5), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000. BACH, JOHANNES, “A Transtextual View on the ‘Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince’”, in Mesopotamian Magic and Medicine: Studies in Honor of Markham J. Geller (Ancient Magic and Divination 14), edited by Strahil V. Panayotov / Luděk Vacín, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018, 69–92. BARCINA, CRISTINA, “The Display of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Kalhu as a Means of Internal Political Control”, Antiguo Oriente 14 (2016): 11–51. –, “The Conceptualization of the Akitu under the Sargonids: Some Reflections”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 23, (2017): 91–129. BRINKMAN, JOHN A., “Political Covenants, Treaties, and Loyalty Oaths in Babylonia and between Assyria and Babylonia”, in: I Trattati nel Mondo Antico: Forma, Ideologia, Funzione, edited by Luciano Canfora / Mario Liverani / Carlo Zaccagnini, Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1990, 81–112. COLE, STEVEN W. / PETER MACHINIST, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Priests to Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (State Archives of Assyria 13), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1998. CROUCH, CARLY L., Israel and the Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon, and the Nature of Subversion (Ancient Near East Monographs 8), Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. DONBAZ, VEYSEL / SIMO PARPOLA, Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istanbul (Studien zu den Assur Texten 2), Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, 2001. DURAND, JEAN-Marie, “Précurseurs syriens aux protocoles néo-assyriens”, in Marchands, diplomates et empereurs: études sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli, edited by Dominique Charpin / Francis Joannès, Paris: Éd. Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991, 13–72.

62

Poppy Tushingham

–, “Réalites amorrites et traditions bibliques”, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 92 (1998): 3–39. FADHIL, ANMAR ABDULILLAH, Eine kleine Tontafelbibliothek aus Assur (Ass. 15426), PhD Dissertation, Heidelberg: Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, 2012. FAIST, BETINA / EVELYN KLENGEL-BRANDT, “Die Siegel der Stadtvorsteher von Assur”, in Studies Presented in Honour of Veysel Donbaz DUB.SAR É.DUB.BA.A, edited by Şevket Dönmez, Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2010, 115–134. FALES, FREDERICK MARIO / STEFANIA MAZZONI, “Sefire”, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12, edited by Erich Ebeling / Ernst F. Weidner, Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 2009–2011, 342–345. FALES, FREDERICK MARIO, “After Ta’yinat: The New Status of Esarhaddon’s adê for Assyrian Political History”, Revue d’Assyriologie 106 (2012): 133–158. FINN, JENNIFER, Much Ado about Marduk: Questioning Discourses of Royalty in First Millennium Mesopotamian Literature (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 16), Boston/Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. FITZMYER, JOSEPH A., The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (Biblica et Orientalia 19/A), revised ed., Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995. FOSTER, BENJAMIN, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd ed., Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005. –, Akkadian Literature of the Late Period (Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 2), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2007. FRAHM, ECKART, “Hochverrat in Assur”, in Assur-Forschungen: Arbeiten aus der Forschungsstelle “Edition literarischer Keilschrifttexte aus Assur” der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, edited by Stefan Maul / Nils P. Heeßel, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010, 89–139. –, Historische und historisch-literarische Texte (Keilschifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 3, WVDOG 121), Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2009. –, “Counter-texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations: Politically Motivated Responses to the Babylonian Epire of Creation in Mesopotamia, the Biblical World, and Elsewhere”, Orient 45 (2010): 3–33. –, “The Neo-Assyrian Period”, in A Companion to Assyria, edited by Eckart Frahm, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017, 161–208. GEORGE, ANDREW R., “Sennacherib and the Tablet of Destinies”, Iraq 48 (1986): 133–146. GRAYSON, ALBERT KIRK, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 2), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. GRAYSON, ALBERT KIRK / JAMIE NOVOTNY, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 2 (The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/2), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014. HARRISON, TIMOTHY P., “Recent Discoveries at Tayinat (Ancient Kunulua/Calno) and their Biblical Implications”, in Congress Volume Munich 2013, edited by Christl M. Maier, Leiden: Brill, 2014, 396–425. HERBORDT, SUZANNE et al., Documents from the Nabu Temple and from private houses on the citadel (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 6), London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq, 2019. KLENGEL-BRANDT, EVELYN / KAREN RADNER, “Die Stadtbeamten von Assur und ihre Siegel”, in Assyria 1995: proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-

The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire

63

Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, edited by Simo Parpola / Robert M. Whiting, Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997, 137–159. KNAPP, ANDREW, “The Murderer of Sennacherib, yet Again: The Case against Esarhaddon”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 140/1 (2020): 165–181. KOCH, CHRISTOPH, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (BZAW 383), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. KVANVIG, HELGE S., Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man (WMANT 61), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1988. KWASMAN, THEODORE / SIMO PARPOLA, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part I. Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhaddon (State Archives of Assyria 6), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1991. LAUINGER, JACOB, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64 (2012): 87–123. – “The Neo-Assyrian adê: Treaty, Oath or Something Else?” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 19 (2013): 99–115. LEICHTY, ERLE, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria 680–669 BC (Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. LEMAIRE, ANDRÉ and DURAND, JEAN-MARIE, Les inscriptions araméennes de Sfiré et l’Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu, Paris: Droz, 1984. LEVINSON, BERNARD M., “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty as the Source for the Canon Formula in Deuteronomy 13:1”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 130 (2010): 337–347. LIVINGSTONE, ALASDAIR, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (State Archives of Assyria 3), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989. –, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. LOKTIONOV, ALEXANDRE ALEXANDROVICH, “An ‘Egyptianising’ Underworld Judging an Assyrian Prince? New Perspectives on VAT 10057”, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 3/1 (2016): 39–55. LUUKKO, MIKKO / VAN BUYLAERE, GRETA, The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon (State Archives of Assyria 16), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2002. MACHINIST, PETER, The Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta I: A Study in Middle Assyrian Literature, PhD Dissertation, New Haven: Yale University, 1987. MATTILA, RAIJA, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part II: Assurbanipal Through Sin-šarru-iškun (State Archives of Assyria 14), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2002. MELVILLE, SARAH C., The Role of Naqia/Zakutu in Sargonid Politics (State Archives of Assyria Studies 9), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1999. MORROW, WILLIAM S., “The Sefire Treaty Stipulations and the Mesopotamian Treaty Tradition”, in The World of the Aramaeans III: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion, edited by P. M. Michèle Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 83–99. NISSINEN, MARTTI, References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources (State Archives of Assyria Studies 7), Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1998. PARPOLA, SIMO(N), “The Murderer of Sennacherib”, in Death in Mesopotamia (Mesopotamia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 8), edited by Bendt Alster, Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980, 171–182.

64

Poppy Tushingham

–, “Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Niniveh”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 39 (1987): 161–189. –, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (State Archives of Assyria 10), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993. PARPOLA, SIMO(N) / KAZUKO WATANABE, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (State Archives of Assyria 2), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988. PEDERSÉN, OLOF, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 6 and 8), 2 vols., Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1985–1986. PONCHIA, SIMONETTA, “The Neo-Assyrian adê Protocol and the Administration of the Empire”, in From Source to History: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi (AOAT 412), edited by Salvatore Gaspa et al., Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014, 501–526. RADNER, KAREN, Die Neuassyrischen Privatrechtsurkunden als Quelle für Mensch und Umwelt (State Archives of Assyria Studies 6), Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997. –, “Vier neuassyrische Privatrechtsurkunden aus dem Vorderasiatischen Museum, Berlin”, Altorientalische Forschungen 24 (1997): 115–134. –, Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad (Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šeh Ḫamad/ Dur-Katlimmu 6), Berlin: Reimer Verlag, 2002. –, “The Trials of Esarhaddon: The Conspiracy of 670 BC”, in Isimu: Revista sobre Oriente Próximo y Egipto en la antiguedad 6 (2003, published in 2007): 165–184. –, “Assyrische ṭuppi adê als Vorbild für Deuteronomium 28, 22–44?” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, edited by Jan Christian Gertz et al., Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006, 351–378. –, “The Assyrian King and His Scholars: The Syro-Anatolian and the Egyptian Schools”, in Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars: Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola (Studia Orientalia 106), edited by Mikko Luukko et al., Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2009, 221–238. –, “After Eltekeh: Royal Hostages from Egypt at the Assyrian Court”, in Stories of Long Ago: Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf (AOAT 397), edited by Heather D. Baker et al., Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012, 471–479. –, “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Musasir, Kumme, Ukku and Šubria – the Buffer States between Assyria and Urartu”, in Biainili-Urartu (Acta Iranica 51), edited by Stephan Kroll et al., Leuven: Peeters, 2012, 243–264. –, Ancient Assyria: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. –, “Revolts in the Assyrian Empire: Succession Wars, Rebellions Against a False King and Independence Movements”, in Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East: In the Crucible of Empire, edited by John J. Collins / J.G. Manning, Leiden: Brill, 2016, 41–54. –, “Assur’s ‘Second Temple Period’: The Restoration of the Cult of Aššur, c. 538 BC”, in Herrschaftslegitimation in vorderorientalischen Reichen der Eisenzeit (ORA 21), edited by Christoph Levin / Reinhard Müller, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 77–96. –, “Neo-Assyrian Treaties as a Source for the Historian”, in Neo-Assyrian History: Sources, Problems, and Approaches (State Archives of Assyria Studies 30), edited by Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi et al., Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2019, 309–328.

The adê Covenants of the Assyrian Empire

65

REYNOLDS, FRANCES S., The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon and Letters to Assurbanipal and Sin-šarru-iškun from Northern and Central Babylonia (State Archives of Assyria 18), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2003. RÖLLIG, WOLFGANG, “Myths about the Netherworld in the Ancient Near East and their Counterparts in the Greek Religion”, in La questione delle influence vicino-orientali sulla religione greca, edited by Sergio Ribichini et al., Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 2001, 307–314. ROTH, MARTHA T. (ed.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago/Glückstadt: Oriental Institute / J.J. Augustin, 1956–2010. SANDERS, SETH L., “The First Tour of Hell: From Neo-Assyrian Propaganda to Early Jewish Revelation”, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 9/2 (2009): 151–169. SJÖBERG, ÅKE W. (ed.), The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of The University of Pennsylvania, A Part II, Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1994. STARR, IVAN, Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria (State Archives of Assyria 4), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990. STEYMANS, HANS ULRICH, “Die neuassyrische Vertragsrhetorik der ‛Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon’ und das Deuteronomium”, in Das Deuteronomium, edited by Georg Braulik, Frankfurt: Lang, 2003, 89–152. –, “Deuteronomy 28 and Tell Tayinat”, Verbum et ecclesia 34/2 (2013): 1–13. TUSHINGHAM, POPPY, “Uniformity Versus Regional Variation in the Legal and Scribal Practices of the Neo-Assyrian Empire”, Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 25 (2019): 29–53. VON SODEN, WOLFRAM, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch 3 vols., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1959–1981. –, “Die Unterweltsvision eines assyrischen Kronprinzen”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 43 (1936): 1–32. WATANABE, KAZUKO, “Adoration of Oath Documents in Assyrian Religions and its Development”, Orient 55 (2020): 71–86. –, “Aššurbanipal and His Brothers Considered from the References in Esarhaddon’s Succession Oath Documents”, in Prince of the Orient: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa (Supplement to Orient: Journal of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan), edited by Schizo Nakata et al., Tokyo: Society for Near Easern Studies in Japan, 2019, 237–257. –, “A Study of Assyrian Cultural Policy as Expressed in Esarhaddon’s Succession Oath Documents”, in “Now it happened in those days”: Studies in Biblical, Assyrian and other Ancient Near Eastern Historiography presented to Mordechai Cogan on his 75th Birthday, edited by Amitai Baruchi-Unna et al., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2017, 473– 492. –, Die adê-Vereidigung anläßlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons (Baghdader Mitteilungen, Beiheft 3), Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1987. –, “Die Siegelung der ‘Vasallenverträge Asarhaddons’ durch den Gott Aššur”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 16 (1985): 377–392, Pl. 33. –, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Oath Documents Reconsidered in Light of the Tayinat Version”, Orient 49 (2014): 145–170. –, “Innovations in Esarhaddon’s Succession Oath Documents Considered from the Viewpoint of the Documents’ Structure”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 21 (2015, published in 2016): 173–215.

66

Poppy Tushingham

WEIDNER, ERNST FRIEDRICH, “Assurbânipal in Assur”, Archiv für Orientforschung 13 (1939/40): 204–218. WISEMAN, DONALD JOHN, “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon”, Iraq 20 (1958): 1–99. ZAIA, SHANA, “State-Sponsored Sacrilege: ‘Godnapping’ and Omission in Neo-Assyrian Inscriptions”, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2/1 (2015): 19–54.

Hebrew and Greek Bible

Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah

THOMAS HIEKE Thomas Hieke

1. The Approach It is not customary to start a paper with apologies, but this time it is inevitable: To meet the expectation of a brief and concise summary of the concept1 of “covenant” in the Torah is an unsurmountable task – at least for me. To review the secondary literature on “covenant” makes up a research project of its own for a whole team.2 Hence, my apologies, I did what I always do in such cases: I started up my Bible software program, did a search on ‫ ברית‬in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, limited to Genesis – Deuteronomy, and tried to make sense of the results. As this was not a disappointing but rather illuminating process, I want to share my ideas with you. For the very well organized and inspiring conference in Houston before the 2019 SBL Annual Meeting, I had to prepare a handout. For that purpose, I tried to present my results in a nutshell. Hence, if you are in a hurry, just read the following page and have a look at the diagram that accompanies this contribution. A review of all 82 occurrences of the term ‫ברית‬, “covenant”, in the Torah reveals a remarkable phenomenon: The few words (especially verbs) syntactically associated with ‫ ברית‬lead to certain thematic lines that are all connected to the literary character of Abram/Abraham in one way or another. Hence, Abram/Abraham emerges as the pivot of the important concept of “covenant” in the Torah.

1

Already here the first question pops up: Is there a concept or are there concepts? Is there one covenant or are there several different covenants? In the long run and for theological reasons, I strongly opt for “one covenant”. Of course, there are different manifestations, no doubt, and there were probably many different ideas about a “covenant with YHWH” in the religion history of Israel in “biblical” times. The literary presentation of the term “covenant” in context with the associated words, however, does not give an impression of a coincidental accumulation, but of a purposefully devised arrangement in which Abram/Abraham plays a crucial role. 2 For a recent survey on the status quaestionis of the “alttestamentliche Bundestheologie” see, e.g., KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 2–16, who refers to quite a number of earlier summaries. See further GROSS, “Bundestheologie”, 39–63.

70

Thomas Hieke

(1) The first manifestation of “covenant”, the universal covenant with Noah and every living creature, uses almost the same wording and referenced items as the passage in which God establishes the covenant with Abraham. (2) The Hebrew Bible expresses the “making” of the covenant with the verb ‫כרת‬, “to cut”. The occurrences form an ascending line beginning with Abram and continuing with the Israelites at Mount Horeb, then “all of us here alive today” in the land of Moab, and finally the future generations. (3) The eternal covenant (‫ )ברית עולם‬with every living creature finds a special expression in Abraham and the circumcision; it occurs once more in the context of the Sabbath and the weekly renewed show-bread in the Tabernacle. (4) To “keep” (‫ )שמר‬the covenant is another important verb. Abraham is the first figure summoned to keep the covenant, which later shall be kept by the people of Israel, while God, in turn, will keep the covenant with those who keep his commandments. Hence, “keeping (the covenant)” is an action of reciprocity between God and the people. (5) The antonym of keeping already appears in the context of Abraham: The uncircumcised male has “broken” (‫ )פרר‬God’s covenant. Later, the Israelites break the covenant whereas God will never break his covenant. Hence, “breaking (the covenant)” is unilateral; it only happens on the side of humans (no reciprocity). (6) God overcomes the problem of the broken covenant by “remembering” (‫ )זכר‬his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This enables God to start his work of salvation (the exodus, the mercy after the exile). (7) While the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy do not allow any covenant between Israel and the nations, Abraham and the other Patriarchs make covenants with other people. This detail underscores the important role of Abraham: Abraham opens the concept of covenant for “the other”. To sum up, Abraham is an embodiment of the bridge between God’s particular covenant with Israel and God’s universal covenant with all humans and living creatures. In what follows, I would like to clarify my approach and elaborate on its ramifications for an understanding of the meaning of covenant concept. A review of all 82 occurrences of the term ‫ברית‬, “covenant”,3 in the Torah and the verbs and substantives attached to it yield a set of intertextual relationships that the reader can interpret in a literary and theological framework. Thus, the concept emerges from within the biblical text itself. This 3 On the translation of this term in the ancient versions (Septuagint: διαθήκη [90%], Vulgate: foedus or pactum) and its disputed etymology, see KOCH, “Covenant”, 900. On the differences between the occurrences of ‫ ברית‬in the Torah and its rendering in the Septuagint, see the appendix. The gematria of the Hebrew term ‫ ברית‬counts 2+200+10+400 = 612, which is quite close to the 613 mitzvot that the Jewish tradition derived from the Torah from the third century C.E. on.

Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah

71

approach avoids the grafting of external theological categories onto the text and is thus similar to what Gerhard von Rad called “re-telling”, which “remains the most legitimate form of theological discourse on the Old Testament.”4 Hence, the following is a story told by the concordance – or, more precisely, bible software. It hardly emerges during a first reading, but rather, after a process of multiple re-readings. It presupposes a more or less finished “Torah”, and hence originated probably not before the Persian period.5 I will demonstrate how the major thematic lines – I focus on seven items – converge in the literary character of Abram/Abraham.6 A brief conclusion will summarize major aspects of the concept of ‫ ברית‬in the Torah.

2. The Same Wording for the Universal Covenant as for the Covenant with Abraham Particular verbs or phrases associated with ‫ ברית‬indicate the major thematic lines – and all these lines are connected with Abraham in one way or another. In the story line of the first book of the Torah, Genesis, Abraham is not the first one connected with ‫ברית‬. The first ‫ ברית‬of the Torah is the universal covenant that God establishes with Noah and every living creature, but as soon as the narrative turns to the particular covenant established with Abraham and his descendants, the reader notes that the book of Genesis uses almost the same wording for both manifestations of the concept “covenant”.7 The important 4

The entire quotation reads as follows: “But it would be fatal to our understanding of Israel’s witness if we were to arrange it from the outset on the basis of theological categories which, though current among ourselves, have absolutely nothing to do with those on whose basis Israel herself allowed her theological thinking to be ordered. Thus, re-telling remains the most legitimate form of theological discourse on the Old Testament” (VON RAD, Old Testament Theology, 121). 5 See, e.g., KOCH, “Covenant”, 902–903. On the development of the “Priestly Covenant” and its origin in the sixth century BCE., see NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant”, 126–128. 6 On the role of Abraham in postexilic covenantal texts (Isa 63:7–64:11; Neh 9:6–37; Lev 26:1–46) see BAUTCH, “Appraisal”, 42–63. Bautch points out that in the Second Temple period, some tradents appropriated Abraham (as it appears according to the following observations on the Torah) while others eschewed him. 7 The Hebrew term ‫ ברית‬does not form a plural (see KOCH, “Covenant”, 900); hence, it is appropriate to assume that the concept of “covenant” implies that only one single covenant exists between God and human beings, not a variety of particular covenants with various groups and varying degrees of obligation or stability. However, the concept of the single covenant that God offers unfolds in various and particular “manifestations”. These terminological considerations have theological implications: Since God in the Hebrew Bible (and the Christian Bible as well) always remains one and the same, it is theologically suitable to speak of one and the same ‫ברית‬, covenant, that God offers to human beings. However, as the human side of the covenant is naturally subject to changes, God realizes various

72

Thomas Hieke

verbs are ‫קום‬, “to establish”, and ‫נתן‬, “to give, make”. Each manifestation of the covenant is illustrated by “the sign of the covenant” (‫ )אות הברית‬resp. “a sign of a covenant” (‫ )אות ברית‬and characterized as an “everlasting covenant” (‫)ברית עולם‬. In each case, the covenant extends to the descendants. The following chart summarizes the common aspects of the universal covenant with every living creature and the particular covenant with Abraham:8 Universal Covenant Established with Noah and Every Living Creature

The Particular Covenant Established with Abram and His Descendants

Gen 6:18 + 9:9, 11 (‫קום‬, “establish”), Gen 9:12 (‫נתן‬, “give, make”)

Gen 17:2 (‫נתן‬, “give, make”), Gen 17:7 (‫קום‬, “establish”)

The sign of the covenant (‫)אות הברית‬: the bow in the clouds (Gen 9:12–13, 17)

A sign of a covenant (‫)אות ברית‬: circumcision (Gen 17:11)

everlasting covenant (‫)ברית עולם‬ (Gen 9:16)

everlasting covenant (‫)ברית עולם‬ (Gen 17:13)

‫“( קום‬establish”) with you and your descendants (Gen 9:9) … and every living creature/all flesh (Gen 9:15–17)

‫“( קום‬establish”) – with Isaac (Gen 17:21)

Thus, both manifestations of the covenant are closely interconnected: The particular covenant with Abraham and his descendants9 and the universal covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature are, so to speak, two sides of the same coin or, as Gen 12:3 puts it, “in you [Abram] all the families of the earth shall be blessed”.10 manifestations of the divine covenant in the course of time. The similarity between the covenant with Noah and the subsequent covenant between God and Abraham is a wellknown feature, see, e.g., BAUTCH, Glory, 10. 8 On Genesis 9, see SCHÜLE, “Eternal Covenant”, 54–55. On Genesis 17, see the study by KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 61–81. Krause strongly (and correctly) advocates that the commandment of circumcision is an integral part of Genesis 17. The alternative view, i.e., to consider the law of circumcision in Gen 17:9–14 as a secondary, late-Priestly addition (see, e.g., WÖHRLE, “Abraham”, 26), is not convincing, as Krause has sufficiently demonstrated. 9 While Gen 17:21 notes a particular covenant with Isaac, there is no explicit manifestation of a covenant with Jacob. However, the comment in Exod 2:24 about the remembrance of the covenant with all three Patriarchs presupposes that the covenant with Abraham and Isaac also extends to Jacob. 10 The thematic line of the covenant God “established” (‫ קום‬qal) with Abraham and his descendants develops further in Exod 6:4 (‫ קום‬qal) and expands to the promise that God will “maintain” or “confirm” (‫ קום‬hiphil) his covenant in Lev 26:9. It finally culminates in Deut 8:18: YHWH “may confirm (‫ קום‬hiphil) his covenant that he swore (‫ שבע‬niphal) to your ancestors.”

Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah

73

However, the terminology that the universal covenant has in common with the particular covenant, i.e., “establishing (‫)קום‬, making (‫ )נתן‬a covenant” and “sign of the/a covenant”, does not occur in the manifestations of the concept “covenant” after Abraham. In these manifestations in Exodus to Deuteronomy, a second set of terms appears, which is, however, also connected to Abraham: “to cut (‫ )כרת‬a covenant, to keep (‫ )שמר‬or to break (‫ )פרר‬the covenant”. Hence, Abraham emerges as the hinge or pivot of the concept of covenant in the Torah.

3. The Covenant that God Makes (“Cuts”: ‫– )כרת‬ An Ascending Line According to the Torah, God “makes” (literally, “cuts”, ‫ )כרת‬a ‫ ברית‬with Abram, Moses, and Israel thirteen times.11 An ascending thematic line stretches from the past via the present to the future, i.e., from Abram (the past) via the Israelites of the narrated situation (the present) down to future generations of all times: Past: Present:

Future:

Gen 15:18 (“On that day YHWH cut/made a covenant with Abram”). Exod 24:8 (“See the blood of the covenant12 that YHWH has cut/made with you” [the Israelites]); Exod 34:10.27; Deut 4:23; 9:9; 29:24 (Eng. 29:25); 31:16. Deut 5:2–3: “YHWH our God cut/made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our ancestors did YHWH cut/make his covenant, but with us, who are all of us alive today.” Deut 28:69: “These are the words of the covenant that YHWH commanded Moses to cut/make with the Israelites in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant that he had cut/made with them at Horeb.” Deut 29:11–14 (Eng. 29:12–15): “11 to enter into the covenant of YHWH your God, sworn by an oath, which YHWH your God is cutting/making with you today; 12 in order that he may establish (‫ )קום‬you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you and as he swore to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. 13 I am cutting/ making this covenant, sworn by an oath, not only with you who stand here with us today before YHWH our God, 14 but also with those who are not here with us today [= the future generations].”

11 See Gen 15:18 (Abram); Exod 24:8; 34:10 (Israel); 34:27 (Moses and Israel); Deut 4:23; 5:2–3; 9:9; 28:69; 29:11.13 (Israel); 29:24 (the ancestors); 31:16 (Israel). 12 The ritual with the “blood of the covenant” is unique to the Hebrew Bible and binds the people to life and death (cf. Deut 30:15–20). “It accomplishes this task with the … bifurcated application of the ‘blood of the covenant’ (dam-habbĕrît) upon the altar representing YHWH on the one hand and upon the people on the other” (KOCH, “Covenant”, 903).

74

Thomas Hieke

Robert Brawley aptly states about the passage in Deuteronomy 29: When Moses begins his farewell address, he construes the entrance of his people into covenant with God as a part of the Abrahamic covenant (29:12–13; cf. 30:20; 34:4). So the Deuteronomist collapses the Sinaitic covenant with the Abrahamic.13

Thus, a circle comes to a close: As the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15 predominantly refers to the land and the offspring, the Sinaitic covenant (and the Moab covenant in Deuteronomy) touches the entry of the people of Israel – Abraham’s offspring – into the Promised Land. One might speculate why the verb ‫כרת‬, “cut, make”, does not appear in relation to Noah and the covenant with every living creature. Maybe this verb implies some kind of response from the non-divine party (Abram, the Israelites), which cannot be expected from “every living creature”.

4. The Eternal Covenant (‫)ברית עולם‬ The term “eternal covenant” (‫ )ברית עולם‬appears within the terminology of the universal covenant with every living creature (Gen 9:16), in the wording of the particular covenant with Abraham (Gen 17:7, 13, 19), and also in the prescriptions for the covenant with the Israelites (Exod 31:16; Lev 24:8).14 “This phrase never appears outside the P and H traditions of the Pentateuch.”15 13

BRAWLEY, “Reverberations”, 29–30. The modern bifurcation of covenant into conditional and unconditional covenants is no longer sustainable, as SWEENEY, “Berit Olam”, 3, rightly points out; see also MASON, Eternal Covenant, passim. The origin of this “bifurcation” lies in an article by Walther Zimmerli from 1960, as KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 8–10, 51–52, demonstrates (see also WÖHRLE, “Abraham”, 23; SCHÜLE, “Eternal Covenant”, 41–43). Although the binary-coded juxtaposition of conditional and unconditional covenant has become firmly established in the research landscape, the more recent discussion dissolves this dichotomy. Among other voices see the introduction to the collection of essays edited by BAUTCH and KNOPPERS, Covenant, 5: “The obligatory/promissory dichotomy is false; covenants assume relational expectations that are mutual and can be translated into conditions incumbent on both parties. The conditions are expressed differently in different texts, with the literary context often key for understanding a covenant’s conditionality. Conditionality differs from text to text, but it resides in virtually every covenantal text.” See also KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 207: “Es gibt im Alten Testament keine Konzeption des Bundes, die nicht konditional strukturiert wäre; die Israel betreffende Bedingung bezieht sich aber in keinem der Fälle auf die Gabe des Bundes selbst, sondern durchweg auf dessen Bewahrung.” Already in 2001, Jacob Milgrom stated: “In the Bible, there is no covenant without obligation. In other words, there is no such thing as an unconditional covenant” (MILGROM, Leviticus 23–27, 2345). 15 SCHÜLE, “Eternal Covenant”, 49. Schüle notes some uncertainty among scholars about how to interpret the “elusive phrase” ‫ברית עולם‬. Focusing on Abraham as the pivot of the covenant concept and giving up the prejudice of an “unconditional” covenant in P might be helpful for sorting out the function of the phrase. In the exilic and postexilic prophets, the 14

Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah

75

Abraham is the “man in the middle” and theologically connects Israel’s relationship to God (“covenant”) with God’s relationship to every human being and even every living creature. Via Abraham, God’s particular covenant with Israel is essentially another manifestation of one and the same eternal covenant. It is necessary and indispensable that there is only one single eternal covenant of God with God’s creation (and therein with human beings). But in order to link the universal covenant of God that embraces the world with God’s special concern for Israel, the text employs the mediating figure of Abraham. In the same way as Abraham is close to Israel, he is also close to all the families of the earth via the promised blessing (Gen 12:3). The red thread of God’s (eternal) covenant runs through all instances: creation – Abraham – Israel – the nations. Jakob Wöhrle assumes a political idea behind the Priestly concept of covenant: The covenant with Noah gives the promise that the earth is and remains an inhabitable place for all humanity where they can be fruitful and multiply. The covenant with Abraham specifies this promise. It states that within this inhabitable place the land of Canaan is only directed to Abraham and his descendants. The ancestors’ relatives shall retreat and restrict themselves to their own territories. But there, in their own territories, they are also under the promise that the God of Abraham preserves and multiplies them. With this concept, the circles behind the Priestly passages of the Pentateuch show how the people of God and the members of foreign nations can and should live together under the new circumstances in the multiethnic empire of Persia.16

The manifestations of the one and only covenant, however, differ with respect to the category of time. There is an ascending thread from the beginning of creation via the beginning of a new human male life to the beginning of a new week:17 Reference

Content

Interpretation

Gen 9:16

every living creature

the beginning of the renewed creation after the flood (“life” in general)

Gen 17:7, 13, 19

Abraham; circumcision

the beginning of a new (human male) life in form of a corporeal marker

Exod 31:16

Israelites, observing the Sabbath

Lev 24:8

the bread in the Tabernacle, every Sabbath renewed

the beginning of a new week (after the Sabbath): Thus, the eternal covenant covers every level: the creation, the human lifespan, the week

“eternal covenant” becomes a new way of expressing Israel’s approach to the covenant: Israel will understand how reckless and immature they had been in the days of their youth. Israel will be ashamed of its past ways and never want to return to its former state of unfaithfulness, as Ezek 16:60; 31:21–26; Isa 55:1–5; Jer 32:39–41 demonstrate (see SCHÜLE, “Eternal Covenant”, 50–53). 16 WÖHRLE, “Abraham”, 34. 17 For more details see SWEENEY, “Berit Olam”, 4–9.

76

Thomas Hieke

The observance of Sabbath constitutes a perpetual covenant according to Exod 31:16 – and according to Exod 31:13, 17 the observance of Sabbath is also called a “sign” (‫)אות‬.18 Rolf Rendtorff concludes: This terminology clearly corresponds to that of Genesis 9: “between me and you throughout your generations” (‫ביני וביניכם לדרתיכם‬, cf. Gen 9:12). But in the case of the sabbath, the sign has to be performed by human beings, as has the sign of circumcision (Genesis 17). Thus, there is a double relationship, to chap. 9 as well as to chap. 17. In the latter, we find the expression ‫ברית עולם‬, “an everlasting covenant”, twice – first used for the covenant given by God (v. 7), and second for the covenant to be performed by Abraham and his descendants as a human response (v. 13). The same expression, ‫ברית עולם‬, is used for the sabbath in Exod 31:16, that is, for the covenant to be performed by the Israelites. Is it also to be understood as a human response? If so, where is the first part to be found, the divine covenant to which the sabbath corresponds? In my view, the answer is clear: The covenant of the sabbath responds to the covenant given to Noah (Genesis 9). There also we find the expression ‫ברית‬ ‫( עולם‬v. 16; cf. v. 12: ‫)לדרת עולם‬. Thus, God’s everlasting covenant given to the world and humanity finds its response in the sabbath, which is called “an everlasting covenant” as well.19

In a metaphorical way, salt (‫ )מלח‬functions in Lev 2:13 (‫מלח ברית אלהיך‬, the salt of the covenant with your God) and Num 18:19 (‫ברית מלח עולם‬, a covenant of 18

On the discussion about the provenance of Exod 31:12–17 from P, Ps, H see SCHÜLE, “Eternal Covenant”, 43–45. Schüle follows the proposal that the Sabbath as a sign of the eternal covenant and the requirement of Sabbath observance for Israel fit well into the covenantal theology of P: “It is certainly reasonable to assume that the notion of covenant is anchored in all three parts of P’s pentateuchal narrative: the primeval period (Genesis 9), the ancestral period (Genesis 17), and the Sinai events (Exodus 31). On the other hand, there is no real reason to assume that P’s concept of covenant is strictly unconditional, which may have been the main reason, especially for Protestant exegetes, to assign Exod 31:12–17 either to a pre-Priestly source or to a post-Priestly redactor. Obviously, this condition is already mentioned in Genesis 17 with the required circumcision of newborn males, which is supposed to separate the descendants of Abraham from other ethnicities” (ibid., 45). Schüle concludes regarding the Sabbath: “In this perspective, Sabbath observance is not a condition of a bilateral agreement. It is not a matter of give and take. Rather, Sabbath observance is presented here as something that Israel, in spite of its checkered history with God and in spite of its tendency to break the law, can do to hold on to the eternal covenant” (ibid., 56). This final statement is based on Schüle’s important general thesis that “P deliberately distinguishes between covenant and law” (ibid., 55, emphasis original). Thus, Israel can and will break the law, but not the covenant (which remains eternal). 19 RENDTORFF, “Covenant”, 392. See also SCHÜLE, “Eternal Covenant”, 45: “As biblical and archeological evidence suggest, circumcision was not a proprium of Israelite culture, but it was not a common practice either …, so one does get the impression that there is an intended development from the Noahic covenant with the rainbow as a natural phenomenon to the Abrahamic covenant that implements a specific cultural practice as a covenantal sign. It is certainly conceivable that, with the Sabbath, the Priestly tradition takes the notion of covenant to yet another level where its purpose is to define the particular relationship between YHWH and his chosen people and, correspondingly, where it requires a particular religious practice that distinguishes Israel from other nations.”

Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah

77

salt forever) as a symbol for the durability, permanence, stability, and eternity of the covenant. In a further development, the eternal covenant finds a particular expression in the promise of “a covenant of perpetual priesthood” (‫ )ברית כהנת עולם‬to the Aaronite Phinehas and his descendants, i.e., the genealogical line of the Aaronite priesthood (Num 25:13).20

5. The Covenant One Shall Keep (‫ – )שמר‬Reciprocity After establishing a covenant, the parties are summoned to “keep” (‫ )שמר‬the covenant. Abraham and his descendants should keep the covenant symbolized in the circumcision (Gen 17:9, 10).21 According to Exod 19:5, Israel will become God’s treasured possession out of all the peoples, if Israel keeps God’s covenant. However, Deut 7:9, 12 demonstrates that “keeping” is a reciprocal concept: God keeps the covenant with those who keep his commandments.22 Keeping the covenant is only possible if one knows about the relevant conditions and contents. Thus, it is crucial that Moses reads (‫ )קרא‬the book of the covenant to the people and that they accept the conditions (Exod 24:7). In the same vein, Deut 4:13–14 states that God declared (‫ )נגד‬to Israel his covenant on two stone tablets, while he charged Moses to teach the people the statutes and ordinances. Moses’ blessing assigns to the Levites a mediatory role as teachers of God’s law and ordinances because they observe God’s word and keep his covenant (Deut 33:9). 20

See SWEENEY, “Berit Olam”, 6–9, for more details. See ibid., 9–17, for an overview over the occurrences of ‫ ברית עולם‬in the other parts of the Tanakh. He concludes (17–18): “… the common bifurcation of an unconditional Davidic/Abrahamic covenant and a conditional Mosaic covenant in the Hebrew Bible cannot be sustained. Rather, the concept of an eternal covenant is normative in the Hebrew Bible, i.e., G-d’s covenant with Israel is understood as an unconditional eternal covenant. Nevertheless, we have observed that the covenant might somehow be abrogated or suspended, as indicated in such texts as Lev 26, Deut 28–30, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, but in every case, a means was found to continue the covenant following suspension. Leviticus 26 and Deut 28–30 envision repentance by Israel/Judah as the prerequisite to restoration of the covenant, and Jeremiah and Ezekiel both envision the divine will as the prerequisite to covenant restoration.” 21 See RENDTORFF, “Covenant”, 392. Rendtorff rightly observes: “It is, of course, the same covenant [as the one of Genesis 15, T.H.]. But there is an element of human response which belongs indispensably to that covenant.” Philo of Alexandria states with reference to Gen 26:5 that Abraham kept all the law, though it was unwritten, by nature, and the written law that Israel shall keep is a copy of the archetypal law that Abraham observed, see Migr. 130; Abr. 275. According to Philo, Abr. 3–6, Abraham shares this feature of keeping the unwritten law by nature with the “earliest men” (scil. Enoch and Noah) in Genesis. 22 God is the one who keeps the covenant, see the recurring expression in Deut 7:9; 1 Kings 8:23 [par. 2 Chron 6:14]; Dan 9:4; Neh 1:5; 9:32; cf. RENDTORFF, “Covenant”, 390: “This is a sort of epithet that characterizes God’s nature and behavior toward his people.”

78

Thomas Hieke

6. To Break the Covenant (‫ – )פרר‬No Reciprocity The antonym of keeping the covenant is breaking it (‫)פרר‬. In the narratives about Abraham, the possibility is already mentioned that someone might break (‫ )פרר‬the covenant, i.e., the uncircumcised male: ‫את בריתי הפר‬, “he has broken my covenant” (Gen 17:14).23 The Torah also foresees that the Israelites will break the covenant (Lev 26:15; Deut 31:16, 20). However, it makes clear that this is a non-reciprocal concept: God will never break the covenant (Lev 26:44)! God will always fulfill his duties towards Israel – even if Israel fails to fulfill her duties towards God.24 This is the major point of the third part of Leviticus 26: Lev 26:40–45. The message of the entire chapter is clear: … as long as Israel observes God’s commandments listed in the preceding chapters, the people will experience blessing in abundance regarding all important areas of human life. If, however, Israel does not obey Yahweh and spurns his statutes, God will bring terror on the people. But the history of Israel makes it impossible to keep this clear black-and-white pattern: Israel had experienced – and survived – the catastrophe of the Exile. Hence, a third part, Lev 26:40–45, cushions this impact of history and adds without a special signal the concept of redemption. Within terror, exile, and disaster, during the justly executed punishment of the people, God intervenes in a salvific way by remembering the covenant; Yahweh does not forsake Israel entirely. In the end, God’s desire to lead his people to freedom will tip the balance toward the redemption of Israel from disaster. This construction of admonition and redemption makes it possible to keep an essential tension of biblical theology basically formulated in the formula of grace in Exod 34:6–7. Israel (and thus every human being) remains responsible and is called to live according to God’s commandments; failing to do so or willingly neglecting God’s torah will not be without consequences. But the punishment will not lead into extinction: God’s mercy and his remembrance of the covenant will make a new beginning possible.25

On the basis of these considerations, one must specify the theological semantics of the phrase “breaking the covenant” in the following way: ‘Israel breaks the covenant’ means in more precise terms, ‘Israel violates its obligation incumbent upon it in the context of the covenant relationship’. By this behavior of Israel (‫)פרר‬, however, the covenant (the relationship) itself is not broken. The covenant of YHWH cannot be broken by Israel on its own, only YHWH himself could do that.26 To effectively end YHWH’s covenant is solely in 23 However, such a transgression does not affect the covenant as such, the covenantal structure of the relationship between YHWH and Israel, “thus accounting for the fact that, despite the continuous possibility of Israel’s disobedience, this covenant remains an ‘everlasting covenant’” (NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant”, 126). 24 See also KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 92. 25 HIEKE, “Covenant”, 76. See also KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 108; GROSS, “Bundestheologie”, 54–59. 26 See also SCHÜLE, “Eternal Covenant”, 55–56: “P is adamant about the fact that, by definition, every covenant that God establishes is eternal and that it is beyond human reach to alter that.”

Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah

79

YHWH’s power. Such a final reaction, as it were, remains only within the realm of possibility. In all places where ‫ פרר‬hiph + ‫ ברית‬is used in connection with YHWH, the statement is nullified (Jer 14:21 in the form of a plea to YHWH; Lev 26:44 in the form of YHWH’s own anticipation of the sentence carried out; Judg 2:1 in the form of a general commitment by YHWH; see also Ezek 16:59–63).27 Three other verbs express something like the breaking of the covenant: Moses warns the Israelites not to “forget” (‫ )שכח‬the covenant (Deut 4:23) because God will not forget the covenant with their ancestors that he swore to them (Deut 4:31). One “transgresses” the covenant (‫ )עבר‬by going to serve other gods (Deut 17:2–3).28 Deuteronomy also announces that the nations will find the reason for the great distress and destruction that Israel will suffer during war and exile in the sixth century: “It is because they ‘abandoned’ (‫)עזב‬ the covenant of YHWH, the God of their ancestors” (Deut 29:24, ET 29:25).

7. The Covenant that God Remembers (‫ – )זכר‬Salvation Despite Israel tending to “forget” (‫ )שכח‬the covenant, God will “remember” (‫ )זכר‬the covenant. This important antonym is the key term for God’s salvific acts for creation in general and for Israel in particular: God’s salvation begins with God’s remembrance of the covenant. On a universal level, God’s remembrance of his covenant with Noah and every living creature means that God will never again destroy all flesh (Gen 9:15–16).29 In particular, remembering his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob leads God to redeem his people from Egypt, the house of slavery (Exod 2:24; 6:2–8). The remembrance triggers a new manifestation of the covenant, this time, as a covenant with the people as the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: “I will take you as my people, and I will be your God” (the so-called covenant formula in Exod 6:7).30 The second half of this covenant formula, i.e., “I/YHWH will be your God”, already occurs with Abraham in Gen 17:7–8; again, Abraham is the “man in the middle” between God’s universal covenant with creation and God’s covenant with the people of Israel. Leviticus 26 announces for the future that both manifestations of the covenant, the covenant with Jacob, with Isaac, and with Abraham (note the sequence in Lev 26:42) as well as the covenant with the ancestors whom God brought out of the land of Egypt (Lev 26:45), will trigger God’s grace, mercy, 27

See KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 132, 214. The same verb, ‫עבר‬, can also mean to “enter into the covenant”, see Deut 29:11 (ET 29:12). 29 See, e.g., RENDTORFF, “Covenant”, 387. 30 See ibid., 391. 28

80

Thomas Hieke

and forgiveness towards the sinful people many generations after the exodus.31 All the curses mentioned in Leviticus 26 reflect the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as well as the Exile: God had to punish the people who broke God’s covenant (26:15), but the story does not end here. God’s remembrance (‫ )זכר‬of the covenant is essential for a salvific new beginning after the Exile. Centuries after his alleged appearance, Abraham again plays a vital role: The patriarch of ancient times is present as the literary and theological key to the everlasting covenant, which God will reactivate (biblically spoken: will “remember”, ‫ )זכר‬in order to give a new beginning. The Abrahamic covenant alone, however, does not ensure the future blessing. Here, Israel’s repentance is indispensable: The people confess their iniquity (Lev 26:40) and make satisfaction for it (26:41).32 Regarding the terms ‫( ברית עולם‬eternal covenant), ‫( זכר‬remembering the covenant), ‫פרר‬ (breaking the covenant), and the related concept of a covenant theology crafted by P (the Priestly Writer), J.J. Krause draws an important conclusion which I may partly translate, partly paraphrase here as follows: Instead of anthropocentrically approaching the supposedly eliminated factor of human fallibility, it is advisable to look for the guarantor of the eternal covenant at the other end. And indeed, the theocentricity of the priestly conception is confirmed. The decisive motive turns out to be the remembrance (‫ )זכר‬of YHWH’s covenant, which functions elsewhere in the Old Testament tradition as synonym to the negated (!) breaking (‫ פרר‬hiphil) of the covenant by YHWH (…). P takes up the motif of remembrance and uses it specifically at the critical turning point in salvation history, where the future of the relationship of YHWH to Israel is in question (Exod 2:24; 6:3–5; Lev 26:42, 45; in the same way already on the level of the cosmos in Gen 9:15, 16; see also Ezek 16:60). Two things are particularly striking: According to the biblical text, it is only YHWH who remembers “his” (!) covenant; and the statement about YHWH’s covenant with Israel is always related to the Patriarchs, i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (see above, Lev 26:42). The strategy of the priestly tradition thus comes to the fore: it founds new hope on the old promise. This observation fits best to the insight of the newer Pentateuchal criticism, according to which the literary connection between the patriarchs and the Exodus was first established by P. In short: According to the priestly view the covenant is eternally inviolable, not because its breaking by the human partner is impossible, but because God does not break it.33

Deuteronomy, on the other hand, connects the remembrance (‫ )זכר‬of the covenant with the verb ‫ שבע‬niphal, “to swear”: God will not forget (will

31 On the role of the covenant in Leviticus 26, see KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 81–93; HIEKE, “Covenant”, 75–89; BAUTCH, Glory, 54–57, 71–74. Bautch notes: “There is a synthesis of the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants in Lev 26 suggesting that an initial stage of reactivation, realized shortly after the exile in terms of the Abrahamic covenant, has been followed by covenantal renewal proper along Sinaitic lines” (ibid., 73). 32 See BAUTCH, “Appraisal”, 60; idem, Glory, 84–86; SWEENEY, “Berit Olam”, 18. 33 See KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 211.

Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah

81

maintain, will confirm) the covenant that he swore to the ancestors (Deut 4:31: ‫ ;ולא ישכח את ברית אבתיך אשר נשבע להם‬7:12; 8:18; see also 29:12–15; 31:20).34 Regarding the concept of the covenant theology of the Deuteronomistic literature (especially Deuteronomy 28–29), J.J. Krause points to a decisive key observation. Although the text sounds like the language of a treaty in analogy to the often-mentioned documents of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty (EST), one has to note an important difference. The latter treaty advocates the Assyrian deities in order to utterly punish all those of the vassals who do not stay loyal to his successor on the throne: the curses function automatically, set in power by the deities. While the text of Deuteronomy takes over the treaty language, it does not apply the automatism of the curse: Although heaven and earth are advocated in an analogous way, they are just witnesses, no deities. The only deity involved remains YHWH. YHWH, however, freely controls the sanctions that have been determined. It is in YHWH’s power to put the threats (the comminations) into action. Israel, on the other hand, unlike the vassals bound by Esarhaddon, cannot bring about the impending disaster on its own. Certainly, according to the Deuteronomistic view, there is a causal connection between disobedience and disaster; all emphasis is placed on it. But this connection does not work automatically, but is established by YHWH as the case arises. YHWH can be bound neither by the disobedience of the human partner (Israel) nor by Israel’s obedience.35

8. A Covenant Among Human Beings In a few cases, the Torah uses ‫ ברית‬to refer to a covenant among human beings. The distribution is significant: (a) Abram has allies (‫ )בעלי ברית אברם‬in Gen 14:13 (LXX: συνωμόται τοῦ Αβραμ), and Abraham makes (‫ )כרת‬a covenant with Abimelech (21:27, 32). Isaac does the same (Gen 26:28), and Laban makes (‫ )כרת‬a covenant with Jacob (Gen 31:44). Thus, the Patriarchs make covenants with other groups in order to settle conflicts and live in peace. (b) On the other hand, the Israelites are not allowed to make a covenant with other peoples (the inhabitants of the land), in order to avoid making a covenant with other gods (Exod 23:32; 34:12, 15; Deut 7:2). Hence, there are two types of covenants among human beings: (1) The “Abraham-type” leads to peace between neighbors, which, however, are separated by clearly defined boundaries: Abimelech and Laban remain outside the territory and thus are no reason for religious danger. (2) The second type compromises Israel’s covenantal relationship with YHWH, because it refers to “others” within the territory, from which the danger of religious promiscuity or syncretism potentially emerges. Israel has to avoid the latter but might learn from the Abraham-type covenant: living in peace with one’s neighbors without adopting their religion. 34 35

See KOCH, “Covenant”, 906; GROSS, “Bundestheologie”, 51–54. See KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 214.

82

Thomas Hieke

9. Conclusion After a first reading along the story line of the Torah from Genesis to Deuteronomy, one needs to re-read it. This second reading opens a conceptual field that discloses the theological concept circling around a central term. A rereading of the Torah focusing on the 82 occurrences of the term ‫ ברית‬reveals Abram/Abraham as the central prefiguration or pivot of the covenant.36 All manifestations of the concept “covenant” are connected to Abraham in various ways. As a theological consequence, there is only one covenant that God offers to humanity in a number of ways.37 The one and only covenant manifests itself in different situations with different groups and persons, but in each case, Abraham is involved. The major thematic lines are indicated by particular verbs or phrases associated with ‫ברית‬, and all of these lines are connected with Abraham.38 36

RENDTORFF, “Covenant”, 393, points in the same direction when he states: “The use of the word bĕrît in other texts between these two key stories [i.e., the Primeval History, Genesis 1–11, and the Sinai story in Exodus 19–34, T.H.] shows a network of references and interrelations whereby human involvement in the covenant as a response to God’s gift is emphasized in different ways: circumcision is the first ‘sign of covenant’ as a response to God’s promise to Abraham (Genesis 17). Obedience to the commandments is Israel’s response to God’s guidance and gift of the covenant (Exod 19:4–6; 24:3–8), and the sabbath as a ‘sign’ of the ‘everlasting covenant’ (31:12–17) links Israel’s religious life to the first covenant by which God restored the creation once and for all (Genesis 9).” BAUTCH, Glory, 43–45, underscores the preeminent role of the literary character of Abraham for the “renovation” of the tradition of the Sinai covenant in the postexilic period. 37 See also DOHMEN, “Sinaibund”, 79–81. NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant”, 115, points out: “For the scribes who edited the Pentateuch, there could only be, ultimately, one comprehensive covenant between YHWH and Israel.” Nihan correctly demonstrates that Leviticus 26 and Numbers 25 use the term ‫ ברית עולם‬in order to establish a synthesis between the Priestly and the non-Priestly definitions of the covenant (ibid., 127). See also GROSS, “Bundestheologie”, 58–59. 38 This feature implicitly reappears in the reception in the New Testament, e.g., in LukeActs; see BRAWLEY, “Abrahamic Covenant”, 109–132. Brawley presents “firm evidence that Abrahamic traditions are indispensable for the characterization of God. God’s promises to Abraham are conspicuous at narrative beginnings (Mary, Zechariah, the Baptizer) and foreshadow the mission of Jesus. The healing of the woman bent double and the salvation of Zacchaeus as instances of Abrahamic heritage are reiterated features of Jesus’ profile. God’s acts to fulfill Abrahamic promises are also foundational for new beginnings in Acts. … Luke–Acts … synthetizes covenant traditions … The Abrahamic covenant is a characterization of God with respect to history. God promises to bless all the families of the earth at canonical narrative beginnings (Gen 12:1–3). Davidic and Mosaic covenants are related to the Abrahamic covenant as part of a sequence. They are particular ways God moves the promises toward their term. For Luke–Acts, Mosaic, Davidic, and Abrahamic covenants do not compete with each other but function properly when they play their role in a holistic program” (ibid., 130–132). The same holds true for the Gospel of Matthew, as BRAWLEY, “Reverberations”, 32–46, convincingly demonstrates.

Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah

83

(1) In the book of Genesis, the first manifestation of “covenant” is the universal covenant with Noah, his descendants (i.e., humanity in general), and every living creature. For this covenant, Genesis uses nearly identical phrases as those for the particular covenant God establishes with Abram/Abraham and his descendants (especially Isaac): to establish, to give, sign of the covenant, everlasting covenant (Gen 6:18; 9:9–17; 17:2–21). (2) In the past, God made (‫ )כרת‬a covenant with Abraham (Gen 15:18). In the present story line of the Torah, God makes a covenant with the Israelites (Exod 24:8 etc.; “today”: Deut 5:3; “in the land of Moab”: Deut 28:69), but this covenant also covers the future generations (“those who are not here with us today”: Deut 29:15). (3) Hence, the covenant is an eternal covenant (‫)ברית עולם‬. This phrase occurs first at the beginning of the renewed creation after the flood (Gen 9:16) and reappears in the context of Abraham at the beginning of each male life, i.e., ritually marked by circumcision (Gen 17:7, 13, 19). The Israelites remember the everlasting covenant at the beginning of each week by observing the Sabbath (Exod 31:16) and renewing the bread in the Tabernacle (Lev 24:8). Thus, God’s particular covenant with Israel goes back via Abraham to the covenant with all humans (Noah) and all living creatures. (4) God summons Abraham and his descendants (Gen 17:9, 10) as well as the Israelites (Exod 19:5) to keep (‫ )שמר‬the covenant. Keeping the covenant follows the principle of reciprocity: God keeps the covenant with those who keep his commandments (Deut 7:9, 12). (5) The antonym of “to keep” is “to break” (‫)פרר‬. This verb occurs already in the context of Abraham and the circumcision (Gen 17:14). The Torah knows that Israel will break the covenant (Lev 26:15; Deut 31:16, 20); however, God will never break the covenant (Lev 26:44). Therefore, there is no reciprocity in this aspect. (6) After a breakup of the covenant, God grants forgiveness and a new beginning, which is triggered by God’s remembrance (‫ )זכר‬of the covenant: After the flood, God enables a new beginning by establishing a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature (Gen 9:8–17; in fact, a renewal of the proclaimed covenant in Gen 6:18). God promises that the waters will never again destroy all flesh (Gen 9:15): The new beginning will never be threatened by a flood again, since God will remember the covenant with Noah and every living creature. Later on, God starts his redeeming acts (the exodus) and grants forgiveness for Israel (after the Exile) by remembering his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod 2:24; 6:2–8; Lev 26:42) and the ancestors liberated from Egypt (Lev 26:45). Abraham becomes the key to a renewal of the covenant. (7) Regarding the covenant among human beings, the covenant according to Abraham establishes peace with one’s neighbors without adopting their religion or compromising one’s (Israel’s) relationship with YHWH.

84

Thomas Hieke

In sum, Abraham prefigures the overall concept of covenant in the Torah and thus embodies the bridge between God’s particular covenant with Israel and God’s universal covenant with all humans and living creatures. As a final remark, I may add a speculative thought about the literary origin and history of the different manifestations of the concept of “covenant”.39 The oldest or first idea probably was a covenant between Israel as a nation and her god YHWH, maybe formally designed according to and ideologically aimed against the Assyrian vassal treaties at the end of the Royal Period. As this manifestation became problematic with the crisis of the nation, i.e., the conquests of the Babylonians, a more stable principle was needed. The theologians discovered Abraham (and God’s promises to him and his descendants) as a literary warrantor for Israel’s new existence after the Exile. Almost at the same time the idea of monotheism (YHWH as the one and only god, the ruler of the earth and the universe) emerged. Hence, it became necessary to develop a manifestation of “covenant” that applies to the entire earth. This universal covenant was designed according to the pattern of the covenant with Abraham.

10. Appendix: The Differences in the Septuagint The Greek term διαθήκη is the standard equivalent in the Septuagint for the Hebrew term ‫ ברית‬in the Torah. There are 82 occurrences of ‫ ברית‬in the Hebrew text (HT) and 87 occurrences of διαθήκη in the Septuagint (according to the Göttingen Septuagint LXXGö). Hence, there are only a few pluses (+) and minuses (–) to discuss. The following chart displays the findings: reference –

Gen 14:13

(+)

Exod 23:22

MT

LXX (Rahlfs; Hanhart) LXXRa

‫בעלי ברית אברם‬ –

συνωμόται τοῦ Αβραμ φυλάξητε τὴν διαθήκην μου

not in LXXGö

+

Exod 27:21

+

Exod 31:7

‫הארן לעדת‬

τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης

+

Exod 39:15[35]

‫ארן העדת‬

τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης

(+)

Lev 26:11

‫משכני‬

τὴν διαθήκην μου

LXXGö: τὴν σκηνήν μου

+

Deut 9:5

‫הדבר‬

τὴν διαθήκην

+ ‫קום‬, ‫שבע‬

–

Deut 9:15 39

‫על העדת‬

Remark

‫לחת הברית‬

ἐπὶ τῆς διαθήκης

πλάκες –

See, e.g., GROSS, “Bundestheologie”, 40–48.

Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah reference +

Deut 29:20[19]

MT ‫כל האלה‬

LXX (Rahlfs; Hanhart) LXXRa

85

Remark

πᾶσαι αἱ ἀραὶ τῆς διαθήκης ταύτης

Minuses (–): Gen 14:13 refers to Abram’s allies and hence to a covenant among human beings (see above). The LXX renders ‫ בעלי ברית‬with a technical term that occurs only here in the Greek Bible. In Deut 9:15, the Septuagint skips the qualification of the tablets as those “of the covenant”. Only few late witnesses add της διαθηκης, Aquila supplements τῆς συνθήκης.40 Pluses (+): In five cases, the Septuagint renders other Hebrew terms with the Greek term διαθήκη. Exod 23:22 is not counted here, since only LXXRa has φυλάξητε τὴν διαθήκην μου, while LXXGö reads ποιήσῃς πάντα (close to the HT). In Exod 27:21, 31:7, and 39:15[HT: 39:35] the Septuagint translates the Hebrew term ‫( עדת‬standard equivalent: μαρτύριον) with διαθήκη. This rare rendering might be due to the influence of the very frequent phrase ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου / ‫ארון ברית יהוה‬. In Lev 26:11, LXXRa reads τὴν διαθήκην μου for the Hebrew ‫משכני‬, thus following Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus, while LXXGö chooses the reading τὴν σκηνήν μου, which is closer to the Hebrew text. The proximity of a very similar phrase in Lev 26:9 “obviously influenced an ancient copyist to change ‘tent’ to ‘covenant’. The structure θήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου was wellknown from Gen 17:7,19 (and comp. 17:2). In fact, even the verb was affected by v. 9, since the Byz text substituted στήσω for θήσω.”41 Lev 26:9 LXXGö: Lev 26:11 LXXGö:

καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου μεθʼ ὑμῶν. καὶ θήσω τὴν σκηνήν [LXXRa: διαθήκην] μου ἐν ὑμῖν.

Thus, Lev 26:11 is not counted as a “plus”, following LXXGö. In Deut 9:5, the rather unspecific Hebrew term ‫הדבר‬, “the word, deed, thing” is associated with the theologically highly loaded verbs ‫( קום‬see above: “to raise up, establish”) and ‫ שבע‬niphal (“to swear”). Both verbs are closely related to ‫ברית‬/διαθήκη (for ‫קום‬, see above: Gen 6:18; 9:9, 11; 17:7, 21; for ‫ שבע‬see Deut 4:31; 7:12; 8:18; 29:12–15; 31:20). Furthermore, there is a very close parallel to Deut 9:5 in Deut 8:18: Both verses are almost identical. Deut 8:18 HT: Deut 9:5 HT: Deut 8:18 LXX:

40 41

‫למען הקים את בריתו אשר נשבע לאבתיך‬ ‫ולמען הקים את הדבר אשר נשבע יהוה לאבתיך‬ καὶ ἵνα στήσῃ τὴν διαθήκην αὐτοῦ, ἣν ὤμοσεν τοῖς πατράσιν σου

See WEVERS, Deuteronomium (1977) ad loc. for details. WEVERS, Notes, 442.

86 Deut 9:5 LXX:

Thomas Hieke

καὶ ἵνα στήσῃ τὴν διαθήκην, ἣν ὤμοσεν κύριος τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν

This constellation probably led the Greek translator to render ‫ הדבר‬in Deut 9:5 with the more specific word διαθήκη, thus repeating the wording of Deut 8:18. In Deut 29:20[HT: 29:19], the Septuagint adds the Genitive τῆς διαθήκης ταύτης in order to clarify which “curses” (‫אלה‬/ἀρά) are exactly at issue, namely, the ones associated with the covenant mentioned several times before in the chapter (Deut 29:1, 9, 12, 14). Another reason for the addition is an almost verbatim repetition of a long phrase in two subsequent verses: Deut 29:19 HT: Deut 29:20 HT: Deut 29:20 LXXGö: Deut 29:21 LXXGö:

‫כל האלה הכתובה בספר הזה‬ ‫ככל אלות הברית הכתובה בספר התורה הזה‬ πᾶσαι αἱ ἀραὶ τῆς διαθήκης ταύτης αἱ γεγραμμέναι ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τούτου κατὰ πάσας τὰς ἀρὰς τῆς διαθήκης τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τούτου.

The Greek translator probably stocked up the shorter version in the previous verse with the phrases from the following verse, thus creating a thick homoioteleuton. In sum, the pluses and minuses of the Septuagint version do not create large changes in the overall concept of “covenant” as it emerges from the Hebrew text. It also works by and large with the Greek equivalent διαθήκη.

Bibliography BAUTCH, RICHARD J., “An Appraisal of Abraham’s Role in Postexilic Covenants”, CBQ 71 (2009): 42–63. –, Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period (LHB/OTS 471), New York / London: T&T Clark, 2009. BAUTCH, RICHARD J. / GARY N. KNOPPERS (eds.), Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. BRAWLEY, ROBERT L., “Abrahamic Covenant Traditions and the Characterization of God in Luke–Acts”, in The Unity of Luke–Acts (BETL 142), edited by Joseph Verheyden, Leuven: Peeters, 1999, 109–132. –, “Reverberations of Abrahamic Covenant Traditions in the Ethics of Matthew”, in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr., edited by Prescott H. Williams, Atlanta: Scholars, 1999, 26–46. DOHMEN, CHRISTOPH, “Der Sinaibund als Neuer Bund nach Ex 19–34”, in Der Neue Bund im Alten: Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD 146), edited by Erich Zenger, Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1993, 51–83.

Abram/Abraham as Prefiguration of the Covenant in the Torah

87

GROSS, WALTER, “Bundestheologie im Wandel”, in Wandel als Thema religiöser Selbstdeutung: Perspektiven aus Judentum, Christentum und Islam (QD 310), edited by Judith Könemann / Michael Seewald, Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2021, 39–63. HIEKE, THOMAS, “The Covenant in Leviticus 26: A Concept of Admonition and Redemption”, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch / Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 75–89. KOCH, CHRISTOPH, “Covenant: Ancient Near East, Hebrew Bible / Old Testament”, EBR 5 (2012): 897–908. KRAUSE, JOACHIM J., Die Bedingungen des Bundes: Studien zur konditionalen Struktur alttestamentlicher Bundeskonzeptionen (FAT 140), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. MASON, STEPHEN D., “Eternal Covenant” in the Pentateuch: The Contours of an Elusive Phrase (LHB/OTS 494), New York / London: T&T Clark, 2008. MILGROM, JACOB, Leviticus 23–27 (AB 3B), New York et al.: Doubleday, 2001. NIHAN, CHRISTOPHE, “The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of ‘P’”, in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (AThANT 95), edited by Sarah Shectman / Joel S. Baden, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009, 87–134. RAD, GERHARD VON, Old Testament Theology, Volume I: The History of Israel’s Historical Traditions, Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 2001. RAHLFS, ALFRED / ROBERT HANHART (eds.), Septuaginta: SESB Edition, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006 (LXXRa). RENDTORFF, ROLF, “‘Covenant’ as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus”, JBL 108 (1989): 385–393. SCHÜLE, ANDREAS, “The ‘Eternal Covenant’ in the Priestly Pentateuch and the Major Prophets”, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch / Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 41–58. SWEENEY, MARVIN A., “Berit Olam, the Eternal Covenant: Is the Conditional Covenant Really Conditional?”, Conversations with the Biblical World 33 (2018): 1–19. WEVERS, JOHN W. (ed.), Septuaginta / auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, Genesis (1974), Exodus (1991), Leviticus (1986), Numeri (1982), Deuteronomium (1977), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974–1991 (LXXGö). –, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (SBL.SCS 44), Atlanta: Scholars, 1997. WÖHRLE, JAKOB, “Abraham amidst the Nations: The Priestly Concept of Covenant and the Persian Imperial Ideology”, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch / Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 23–39. ZIMMERLI, WALTHER, “Sinaibund und Abrahambund: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift (1960)”, in IDEM, Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (TB 19), München: Chr. Kaiser, 1963, 205–216.

88

Thomas Hieke

Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi

RICHARD J. BAUTCH Richard J. Bautch

1. Introduction The Covenant of Levi appears only in the book of Malachi, where it is attested in Mal 2:4, 8. The biblical writers responsible for the Covenant of Levi provided it with contours and a unique body of teaching.1 Moreover, the covenant contains polemics of the sort that one social group directs at its rival. As such, the Covenant of Levi contributes to the tremendous range of covenantal perspectives that emerge during the Persian period, while it reflects the pluralistic social fabric of Yehud in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE. It would be a mistake to harmonize the Covenant of Levi with other covenants in Malachi or to conflate it with major covenantal traditions such as those associated with Abraham or Moses. This misguided approach is exemplified in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which construes the book of Malachi in terms of one predominant theme: Israel’s covenantal relationship with YHWH. Andrew Hill, the author of the ABD entry, asserts “the unity of the covenantal theme,” adding that “the covenantal themes of Malachi are so thoroughly integrated and logically presented within the prophet’s discourse that any attempts at rearranging the material in the text prove most unconvincing.”2 Hill’s pancovenantal approach to Malachi is indicative of an earlier era in scholarship, when the place of covenant in Israelite religion was routinely overstated and viewed through a proto-Christian lens.3 Ironically, scholars who thought 1

On the distinctiveness of each covenant in the Persian period, see BAUTCH/KNOPPERS, Covenant in the Persian Period. In the case of the Covenant of Levi, its Persian-period context is decisive: With the return from exile of various groups of Judeans, the concept of covenant proves to be influential, and in these circumstances covenant often becomes a catalyst for early Jewish thought. After exile, the literature exhibits a striking diversity of ideas related to covenant; there are covenantal developments associated with the Deuteronomic writers, with certain prophetic circles, with the Priestly schools, with scribes responsible for Wisdom writings, and with other groups of distinction. Because various perspectives on covenant emerged at this time, each covenant must be explored within its religious and historical context, as is the case with the Covenant of Levi. 2 HILL, “Malachi, Book of”, ABD 4:478–485, esp. 482. 3 Hill concludes, “Foremost is Malachi’s knowledge of and identification with the covenantal tradition of his prophetic heritage (3:1). Hence the book rests squarely in the

90

Richard J. Bautch

covenant to be the Mitte treated it reductively inasmuch as pacts such as the Covenant of Levi were subsumed into the theological construct of covenant qua relationship with God. Yet to understand the Covenant of Levi, we focus on its contours, unique teaching and polemics. The Covenant of Levi has a discrete meaning that emerges from certain Levitical circles at the time of its composition, in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE. It would be equally mistaken, however, to study the Covenant of Levi in isolation. The covenant is distinctive, but not detached from Jewish and priestly life. Any analysis, therefore, must have an eye to other texts: the various parts of Malachi as well as the nascent Pentateuch. In the 4th and 3rd centuries, the Pentateuch is in a formative stage, and those developments are not simply proximate to the Covenant of Levi but may be reflected there.4 In fact, this study will argue in its conclusions that Pentateuchal developments provide the impetus for the Covenant of Levi. As for the book of Malachi, it is generally agreed that the book comprises six paraenetic speeches that take the form of disputations.5 This division of the text along literary-critical lines is serviceable to a degree. There are, however, linguistic patterns forming motifs that cut across the six oracles and can be fully understood only when Malachi is read holistically. For example, the command to fear and glorify God’s name recurs with frequency and becomes the leitmotif. There are other thought patterns expressed more episodically; with some of these expressions, repetition is discernible but it may not rise to the level of a pattern or motif. In the present analysis, motifs play a pivotal role in the book of Malachi. There are key motifs, and indeed a leitmotif, that express the book’s major ideas. Other verbal patterns indicate more limited themes that nonetheless relate to the core ideas in Malachi. These relational lines are drawn neither linearly nor statically. The text is dynamic, with puns and reversals driving home a certain point to the stunned and sometimes scandalized reader. There are echoes and warped echoes that play on the repetition of triliteral roots in different Hebrew words. One expression recalls an earlier one only to turn it on its head. When we focus on the Covenant of Levi, there are six verses to consider, Mal 2:4–9. The six verses contain some eleven instances of wordplay with or allusion to the patterned language in Malachi. The covenant is highly midst of OT covenantal theology and in large measure embodies the essence of later NT thought” (ibid., 483). 4 WÖHRLE, “Jacob, Moses, Levi“, 1011–1013. 5 PETERSEN, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, 34; RUDOLPH, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi, 277. See also PIETER A. VERHOEFF, who identifies seven speeches in the book of Malachi by subdividing 1:6–2:16 into 1:6–14 and 2:1–9 in his Haggai and Malachi, 162. In his analysis of Malachi’s structure, Jon Berquist was among the first to take into account the social plurality of the later postexilic period. He proposed that Malachi’s text reflects its audience as comprised of three distinct social groups. See BERQUIST, Judaism, 125.

Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi

91

intertextual. Furthermore, the eleven intertextual expressions do not provide a covenantal kumbaya; they do not effect spiritual unity or interpersonal harmony, as Andrew Hill holds. Rather, polemics carry the day as one priestly group defines itself over and against another. Given the predominance and importance of motif in Malachi, this study begins by reviewing the key words and phrases that constitute the main motifs in this late prophetic book. The next section examines the Covenant of Levi and clarifies its relationship to the thought-world of Malachi and to certain polemics expressed elsewhere in the book. The following section locates said polemics in the context of the Pentateuchal Redaction.6 The Pentateuchal Redaction was the process whereby the authority of the first five biblical books was linked exclusively to the figure of Moses through a series of textual innovations, and these included the insertion of the Aaronide blessing in Num 6:24–27. The study’s final section deals with implications by suggesting the breadth and scope of the opposition to the Pentateuchal Redaction. Trace elements of the opposition are found not only in Malachi but as well in Chronicles, Jeremiah and Deuteronomy itself. What one sees, in the end, is how inconspicuous covenants such as the Covenant of Levi function as part of an oppositional wave in the priestly politics of the Second Temple Period.

2. Motifs and Patterns in Malachi 2.1 The Leitmotif The Book of Malachi begins divisively with an account (1:1–5) of YHWH loving Jacob but hating Esau. Familial language continues in the next oracle, which asks rhetorically whether a father is due honor (‫ )כבוד‬and fear (‫)מורא‬, from his son (1:6).7 In the same verse, the father, also referred to as a lord, castigates the priests who are despising (‫ )בזינו‬his name (‫)שׁם‬. Herein are the key terms to Malachi’s main idea: God’s name is to be honored and feared, yet certain priests despise it. These are not obscure concepts, and the notion of fearing God, for example, is prominent in the Hebrew Bible.8 In Deuteronomy 6 In nuce, the Pentateuchal Redaction transformed the association between the Torah and Moses in order that the transcribed Torah could assume a high degree of Mosaic authority and perform Moses’ function of mediating the divine will. See OTTO, “Deuteronomy as the Legal Completion”, 182–183. In this study, sections 4.0 and 5.1 provide further discussion of the Pentateuchal Redaction. 7 Biblical translations are by the author. 8 The language of fearing God is widespread in the Hebrew Bible. Its analysis has often followed BECKER, Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament. Becker studies the concept of fear of the divine through analysis of the Hebrew root ‫ ירא‬and its derivative forms. Crucially, Becker posits a semantic and conceptual relationship between ‫ ירא‬and ‫קדוש‬, the Hebrew term for

92

Richard J. Bautch

especially the fear of God is expressed in colocations that Moshe Weinfeld has catalogued extensively in his classic Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School.9 It is noteworthy, however, that the writer of Malachi uses none of the standard Deuteronomic phrasing for fearing God but asks rather, “If I am their LORD, where is my fear?” (1:6) We do well to track this language, which appears next in Mal 1:14. Here a new oracle begins, “Cursed be the knave who vows to his lord one of his flock but sacrifices a spoiled animal”. It continues, “I am a great king, and my name is feared among the nations (‫”)ושׁמי נורא בגוים‬, with emphasis, for our purposes, on fearing the name. It continues, “And now, I [give] to you the priests this commandment”, whereupon the priests are told “to give glory to my name (‫”)לתת כבוד לשׁמי‬, lest God curse them and turn their blessings to curses (2:1). Two things are important. The repetition of glorifying and fearing God’s name further establishes the model of right response to God. A motif is emerging, and it will become the leitmotif.10 Also, the term “commandment”, like “fear”, is a Deuteronomic term used here without any Deuteronomic resonance. Konrad Schmid writes of biblical motifs being “Torah-conscious” when they seem holiness and specifically for holiness as a divine attribute. On this basis, scholars have defined “fear of God” as the experience of encountering God as ‫ ;קדוש‬see FUHS, “‫ ירא‬yārēʼ”, esp. 298. Subsequent studies have displaced Becker’s approach, although there remains a tendency to explain the fear of God through linguistic pairs and clusters. For example, Julia O’Brien notes that ‫ ירא‬and ‫( חתת‬Mal 2:5) are often used in parallelism to indicate extreme awareness of the power of another. The word pair, however, occurs in Malachi only in 2:5 and is not a motif of this prophet. O’BRIEN, Priest and Levite in Malachi, 41. Recently, Phillip Michael Lasater underscored a connection between ‫ ירא‬and ‫גדול‬, and he holds that fear in the biblical context evokes “hierarchy, authority, or a relationship of power appropriate for a royal or otherwise high-ranking audience”. In his theory, “the hierarchical application of fear language … in the ancient Near East, [is] logically coalescing with the image of YHWH as king.” See LASATER, Facets of Fear, 34, 47. Lasater helpfully concludes that “to fear God” is a motif in the Hebrew Bible with diverse applications and under the control of no one school of thought, although it was employed by several of them, each in its own manner; Lasater thereby speaks of “facets of fear”, as if the motif “fear of God” were a cut gem with many different sides (222–223). Malachi, the current study argues, reflects one distinct facet of the fear of God that is unique and not shared by other biblical writers. 9 WEINFELD, Deuteronomy, 332–333. 10 In Lasater’s paradigm (see n. 8), assorted biblical writers present different facets of the fear of God motif. Malachi construes the motif as requiring that God’s name be honored and feared; as such, Malachi’s facet appears to be sui generis. That is, in a taxonomy of sorts Lassater identifies three prototypical expressions of the fear of God (attested in Jer 10:1–16; Leviticus 17–26; and Proverbs 1–9). Malachi’s main idea that God’s name is to be honored and feared aligns with none of the three prototypes, although it does share similarities with Jer 10:1–16 (specifically Jer 10:6–7a: “There is none like you, YHWH, and your name is great in might; who would not fear you, O king of the nations? It is your due”). It is curious that Lasater does not address the fear of God in Malachi, either as a variation on the Jeremian prototype or as a facet of fear unto itself.

Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi

93

to take up the network of specific details found in passages of Genesis or Deuteronomy; these motifs are thus connected not simply with Torah but with the formation of the Torah.11 As such, they have a highly Deuteronomic resonance, yet in Malachi neither “fear” not “commandment” are leveraged in this way. One is never given the impression that there is an emerging legal code, the Pentateuch as we know it, in any proximity to Malachi. In the pursuit of Malachi’s leitmotif, the next verses to consider are Mal 2:4– 9; 3:5, 16. Taken together, these verses indicate that those who fear God’s name are at the center of the book of Malachi. The name of God they fear and glorify so as to occasion blessing and deflect curses. This constellation of ideas forms the text’s leitmotif, which at times is referred to as a commandment (2:1, 4). We may, in fact, speak of a distinct discourse arising in Malachi inasmuch as it contrasts with Deuteronomic parlance. Words commonly associated with Deuteronomy, such as “fear” and “commandment”, are attested in Malachi’s leitmotif, but they are not “Torah conscious”, to use Schmid’s term.12 The tension between Malachi’s discourse and that of Deuteronomy comes into greater relief when we study the Covenant of Levi. First, however, we consider the role of reversals and puns in the language of the book of Malachi. 2.2 Reversals and Puns in Malachi Of Malachi’s reversals and puns, Michael Fishbane notes: “The prophet’s speech is replete with interlocking puns that condemn the priests ‘measure for measure’. Note, for example, the initial ironic appeal to ‘beseech’ God, which is countered by the reference to the priests’ desecrations, … The ironic reversal of the priests’ language, actions, and hopes is thus textured through a series of reworkings and plays on the liturgical language.”13 Fishbane’s analysis has stood the test of time, although scholars since have sought through their interpretations to soften Malachi’s condemnation of the temple priests in Jerusalem.14 In Malachi, the most sustained and systematic instance of punning reversals occurs in reference not to the temple but to another text, Num 6:24–27, commonly known as the Aaronide blessing. The text reads: 11

SCHMID, “The Late Persian Formation of the Torah”, esp. 244, 247. In Malachi, there is a range of terms that connote Torah but are not explicitly connected to the Israelite legal tradition: ‫( מצוה‬2:4); ‫( ברית‬2:5); ‫( תורה‬2:7, 8); ‫( ונשׂאים פנים בתורה‬2:9). 13 FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 333–334. See also IDEM, “Form and Formulation”, 115–121. 14 Following Fishbane, for example, is PETERSEN, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, 182, n. 29. Elie Assis, however, interprets Malachi’s oracle as an admonition rather than an excoriation. See ASSIS, “The Reproach of the Priests”, esp. 284: “The prophet alludes to the Priestly blessing to impress upon the priests that if they do not fulfill their dual obligations to present the people’s ritual offerings to God and to act on God’s behalf in instructing the people, they should not assume that they will succeed in fulfilling their function.” 12

94

Richard J. Bautch

The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his face upon you, and give you peace. So they shall put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.

The Aaronide blessing speaks of the “face” (‫ )פנה‬multiple times. Malachi’s first allusion to the Aaronide blessing occurs in Mal 1:8: “Bring it [your offering] to your governor; will he be pleased or lift your face?” The next verse, Mal 1:9, reads: “And now, entreat the face of God, so that he might show favor (‫)חלו־נא פני־אל‬.” The somewhat odd reference to God’s face makes sense if the writer has in view Num 6:24: “The LORD let his face shine upon you (‫)יאר יהוה׀ פניו אליך‬.” When Malachi uses the Hebrew word “face” a fourth time15 in the final phrase of Mal 1:9, ‫הישׂא מכם פנים‬, the expression has become conspicuous. Here the prophet’s phrasing with the verb ‫ נשׂא‬matches very closely that of the Aaronide blessing: “The LORD lift up his face upon you”, although Num 6:26a is commonly translated less literally: “The LORD look upon you kindly” (NABRE) or “The LORD bestow his favor upon you” (JPS, where a note offers the alternative “lift up his countenance”). The next verse, Mal 1:10, reads “Who among you will shut the [temple] doors to keep you from lighting altar fire (‫ )ולא־תאירו‬in vain.” In 1:10 the verb ‫ אור‬does double duty. In addition to a pun whereby ‫“ אור‬light” becomes ‫“ ארר‬curse” (Mal 1:14), there is an allusion to Num 6:25, which begins “May the LORD shine (‫ )יאר‬his face upon you.” Subsequently, Malachi in Mal 1:11–12 makes multiple references to God’s name, which is one of the high notes struck in the Aaronide blessing: “So they shall put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.” To summarize, in a tour de force the author of Malachi radically reverses the Aaronide blessing of Numbers 6. When in 2:2 the prophet announces, “I will send a curse among you, and I will curse your blessing, just as I have already cursed it,” is this not a reference to the Aaronide blessing? To the rivals of this prophetic group is “sent” nothing shy of a curse that reverses their previous blessing. The coup de gras comes in 2:3: “Look! I will rebuke your offspring [literally ‘seed’ ‫]זרע‬, and I will scatter [‫וזריתי‬, a derivative of ‫]זרה‬ excrement upon your face; the excrement of your solemn feasts, and one will lift you [‫ ]ונשׂא‬away to it.”16 Instead of “the LORD lift his face upon you” (Num 6:26a), the peoples’ faces are smeared with feces, and they are “lifted” away – banished. Allusions and puns abound, such as the scatological scattering (‫)זרה‬ forming a sharp contrast with the seed (‫ )זרע‬of a people with great legacy. 15

Note that earlier in Mal 1:9 the expression “face” appears in reference to the Deity. I am grateful to Daniel Bodi for pointing out the defecation ritual in ancient Near East texts as a parallel to Mal 2:3. In texts from Mari, for example, defecation is a symbolic action that serves as invective against the speaker’s enemies. Bodi suggests that the scatological references in Ezekiel (Ezek 4:12, 15–16) emerged from a Babylonian milieu where defecation rituals were practiced during the time of the Judeans’ exile there. BODI, Israël à l’ombre des Babyloniens et des Perses, 149–161. For further commentary on the ritual use of animal excrement in the Hebrew Bible, see PETERSEN, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, 189. 16

Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi

95

3. The Covenant of Levi As the critique of the Aaronide blessing concludes, the Covenant of Levi begins. While the latter does not replace the former, there is a void within which the Covenant of Levi arises. A discussion ensues over six verses, Mal 2:4–9. The oracle on the Covenant of Levi alludes to the Aaronide blessing several times, always derisively (2:5, 6, 9), but there is a more primary and decidedly more positive literary relationship to be observed. The Covenant of Levi exists to reinforce Malachi’s leitmotif of fearing and glorifying God’s name, in a way that imparts identity to the priestly group here associating itself with Levi. Through their association with Levi, they gain the role of God’s messengers (Mal 2:7b). 3.1 Reinforcing Both the Leitmotif and the Critique In Mal 2:4, the LORD Sabaoth says he “has sent to you this commandment” to be “my covenant with Levi”. The phrase “to you this commandment” is identical to Mal 2:1 where the commandment is to fear and glorify God’s name. In the first context, God “sends” a curse (Mal 2:2), whereas here in 2:4 God “sends” the commandment that is synonymous with the Covenant of Levi. The following verse, 2:5, describes Levi as fearing God and standing awestruck in the presence of God’s name. The leitmotif of Malachi recurs. Levi is the exemplar. He reverses the curse. It is no coincidence that “presence” is denoted with the plural form of “face” (‫ )ומפני שׁמי‬here serving as a preposition.17 The face of God meets Levi as he reverences and glorifies the divine name. ‫ומפני‬ ‫ שׁמי‬may or may not be in reference to the face of God in the Aaronide blessing, but the evidence begins to mount when elsewhere in the verse God gives Levi life and peace. Peace, ‫השׁלום‬, is an echo of Num 6:26, whether intentional or not. Later in 2:6, Levi walks in peace, another echo of the Aaronide blessing. The Covenant of Levi both extends the critique of the Aaronide blessing and it reinforces the leitmotif of Malachi. The second of the two references to the Covenant of Levi, in 2:8, follows an accusation that priests have deviated from the way and caused many to stumble in Torah.18 The priests’ misdeeds have corrupted the Covenant of Levi, with the verb (‫ )שׁחתם‬reflective of Malachi’s leitmotif (1:14; 3:11). It is significant that the writer here did not choose a more common term for undoing a covenant, such as breaking the pact (‫פרר‬, cf. Gen 17:14; Deut 31:16, 20; Isa 24:5; Jer 33:19) or transgressing the covenant relationship (‫עבר‬, cf. Deut 17:2). Although these terms are well attested in Second Temple discourse, here the 17

On the use of ‫ ומפנ‬as opposed to ‫לפני‬, see LASATER, Facets of Fear, 56. Here Kessler notes, “Just as in 8a, in v. 9b the whole Torah of Moses is not thought of” (KESSLER, Maleachi, 176). 18

96

Richard J. Bautch

priests “corrupt” the covenant of Levi, exactly as they sacrifice corrupt or blemished sheep to God (1:14). Another element of the leitmotif, the verb “despise” (‫)נבזים‬, punctuates the next verse, Mal 2:9, although here it is God who despises the miscreant priests. Why are they despised? They do not keep my way, God states, and they “raise faces in Torah.” The phrase in question, they “raise faces in Torah”, is enigmatic. Some commentators interpret ‫ ונשׂאים פנים בתורה‬as a charge of partiality. Pieter Verhoef writes, “The expression is taken in malam partem, ‘to show partiality’. Their instruction of the law was instigated by material gain and was based on bribery and corruption.”19 The analysis here founders on its subjective elements, bribery and corruption by the priests, which are not evidenced in the text of Malachi. Others explain partiality by way of linguistics, with the citation of BDB (670): “To lift up a face was to grant a request or show favor.” Here the problem is that the source, BDB, does not apply this specific meaning to Mal 2:9 (although elsewhere in the same entry BDB does list Mal 2:9 as an example of showing partiality). Rainer Kessler interprets “face” (‫)פנים‬ differently but no less speculatively. “It could be thought that the priests are accused of not putting their faces on the line and so ignoring Torah.”20 There is no consensus among modern interpreters. Ancient readers of Malachi, however, may well have interpreted ‫ פנים‬in light of the prophetic critique of the Aaronide blessing. Recall how when the blessing was turned into a curse in Mal 2:2, the priests’ faces were smeared with feces. To lift so soiled a face to Torah would be an insult to God and God’s ways. The section on the Covenant of Levi concludes with this condemnation of not only the corrupt priests but as well of a priestly text, the Aaronide blessing in Num 6:24–27. 3.2 The Covenant of Levi and Torah In his reading of Malachi, Rainer Kessler disassociates the Torah mentioned in Mal 2:8 from the whole Torah of Moses (die ganze Tora des Mose).21 He holds that the Torah in 2:8 is not to be conflated with Mal 3:22, which speaks explicitly of the Torah of Moses.22 Kessler associates such a conflated reading with the work of Andrew Hill, whom he rebuts. Rather, Kessler suggests, the reference to Torah in Mal 2:8 is direct speech from the mouth of the priest, as in the previous verse, Mal 2:7. In Mal 2:7, a priest’s lips keep law, and people seek Torah from a priest’s mouth. The parallelism between the priest’s lips and

19

VERHOEFF, Haggai and Malachi, 253. KESSLER, Maleachi, 177. Similarly, Arndt Meinhold suggests, “The priests were accused of failing to raise their faces to Torah, in the sense that the did not take Torah instruction into account when making their decisions.” MEINHOLD, Maleachi, 164. 21 See n. 18. 22 KESSLER, Maleachi, 176. 20

Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi

97

mouth mirrors that established between Torah and law (here ‫)דעת‬. Significantly, the pairing of Torah and law is unique to this author and not found elsewhere, especially not Deuteronomy.23 The word “law” (‫ )דעת‬appears only twice in Deuteronomy (4:42; 19:4), and in both instances it refers to a criminal’s mental state, not to the codified teaching of Moses. The word ‫תורה‬ in the context of Mal 2:7 is neither resonant with Deuteronomic thought nor is it “Torah conscious”, to use the term of Konrad Schmid. In fact, those responsible for Malachi’s oracle on the Covenant of Levi appear averse to even indirect references to the Torah of Moses. For example, the previous verse, Mal 2:6, says of Levi: “A Torah of truth was in his mouth, injustice was not found on his lips; in peace and in uprightness he walked with me, and he turned many away from iniquity.” A parallel expression occurs in Neh 9:13: “You descended upon Mount Sinai, and he spoke with them from the heavens; and he gave them upright laws and a Torah of truth, good statutes and commandments.” Note the recurrence of truth and uprightness as concepts applied to Torah; Neh 9:13 sheds light on Mal 2:7. Mark Boda’s linguistic analysis of the expression “Torahs” (the Hebrew form is plural) in Neh 9:13 leads him to conclude that the text represents “a movement away from the Dtr conception of law as a unity to a Priestly conception of the law as a body of individual requirements.”24 That is to say, Neh 9:13 contains only faint traces of the Deuteronomic perspective, such as its reference to Sinai. Neh 9:13 and Mal 2:6 were written in proximity to one another, and it is significant that neither construes Torah as a monolith along Deuteronomic lines.25 Rather, Malachi associates the Torah of truth and uprightness with a priestly figure, Levi, and lexically it pairs Torah with ‫דעת‬. Malachi is focused on a different literary tradition keyed to the reverencing and glorifying of God’s name. 3.3 The Covenant of Levi through the Lens of Jeremiah While the Covenant of Levi in Malachi manifests no Deuteronomic influence, its language and conceptual structure resonate with materials in the book of Jeremiah. The Covenant of Levi contains two references to the eponymous priest, and a distinction may be made between “my covenant with Levi” (2:4) 23 The perennial distinction between Torah and law does not preclude a certain proximity of one to the other. For example, the Artaxerxes Rescript in the book of Ezra (Ezra 7:12– 26), while never pairing together Torah and law, stipulates that Jewish priests such as Ezra are to provide guidance to the Judeans along dual lines and consult both the dāta of the Persian empire as well as the Torah of the Jewish deity (Ezra 7:13, 21, 25–26). 24 BODA, Praying the Tradition, 129. 25 Like Malachi, Nehemiah associates Levites with a particular covenant, but in this case the covenant is unnamed and referred to simply as “a covenant with the Priests and the Levites” (Neh 13:29). On the likelihood that “the Levites” was added later, see BLENKINSOPP, Ezra-Nehemiah, 362.

98

Richard J. Bautch

and “the covenant of Levi” (2:8). The former is a historicizing reference to the figure of Levi that involves the relatively rare expression “my covenant” (cf. Deut 31:16, 20; Zech 11:8). A contemporary parallel is found in Jer 33:21, “My covenant with my ministers the Levites.”26 In Jeremiah 33, a second covenant, that of David, is also mentioned, and the parallel pacts are referred to in terms of the “seed” of the royal and priestly ancestors, respectively (33:21–22). Similarly, Mal 2:3 speaks of the seed or offspring of the priests to be rebuked.27 The censured priests will be supplanted by those adhering to the Covenant of Levi. It is as if Malachi’s first reference to the Covenant of Levi connects the rejecting of Aaronide seed (Mal 2:3) with its replacement by Levitical seed as indicated in Jeremiah’s covenant with the ministerial Levites (Jer 33:21). Malachi and Jer 33:14–26 may not enjoy a literary relationship, but their shared, covenantal context is undeniable.28 In Mal 2:8, the “Covenant of Levi” is a contemporary reference, in the context of the 4th century BCE; at this time there are apparently cultic officiants corrupting this covenantal agreement. That is, the Covenant of Levi is in essence a code of conduct, a program of priestly protocols to which at least Levites adhere and with which they identify. As such, the covenant enables identity formation, group cohesion, and the fixing of boundaries to determine who is “outside” this group of Levites. The outsiders are easily known because they “have corrupted the Covenant of Levi.” Those Levites inside the covenant are also easily known.29 In Yehud at this time, covenant indicated bonds between humans and the Deity that are aligned with specific bonds formed among human parties.30 Scholars increasingly work with models of covenant in the Persian period that integrate the theological and sociological functions. 26

ASSIS, “The Reproach of the Priests”, 281; KESSLER, Maleachi, 169. It is generally agreed that Jer 33:14–26, which does not appear in the LXX, is a late addition to Jeremiah. 27 Recall the vicious pun when the rebuked “seed” (‫ )זרע‬is juxtaposed with the smearing (‫ )זרה‬of feces on the faces of the offenders. 28 Additional linkage between Malachi and Jeremiah is discussed below (5.1). Noteworthy as well is Jer 10:6–7a: “There is none like you, YHWH, and your name is great in might; who would not fear you, O king of the nations? It is your due.” While not an exact expression of Malach’s motif “fear and glorify God’s name”, the verse revolves around the name of God and the reverential fear it elicits. See LASATER, Facets of Fear, 99–136, and HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 1, 332. 29 The insiders are likely not the entire class of Levites, but rather a segment within the Levitical demographic. In one scenario, Mark Leuchter speculates that Levites stand behind the late-Persian redaction of the Book of the Twelve, and that redactional seams (beginnings and endpoints) were crucial to their work. To explain the approach of these Levites, Leuchter draws attention to Mal 3:16, which twice speaks of “the fear of God” in relationship to the book of remembrance. Moreover, Leuchter’s reconstruction posits a disagreement between this Levitical group and the Aaronide cult (they disputed the role that Persia was to play in the politics of the Judeans). LEUCHTER, Levites, 245–247. 30 See BAUTCH/KNOPPERS, Covenant in the Persian Period, 6.

Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi

99

Covenant as a concept could readily express the dynamics of a group’s identity within Judean society, such as that of the Levites who had a hand in the book of Malachi – its composition as well as its redaction – and who also enjoyed a connection to the group of Levites that mediated the contents of the Jeremiah tradition.31 The broad association between Jeremiah and the Levites responsible for Malachi stands in contrast to the Deuteronomism of the Aaronides, for which these Levites had little use.

4. The Pentateuchal Redaction The argument thus far is that there are two polarities: a certain form of Deuteronomism expressed through the Pentateuchal Redaction on the one hand and Malachi with its Covenant of Levi on the other hand. This can be the case only if there is a direct line between these two poles, specifically between the book of Malachi and the Pentateuchal Redaction. The line comes to light in the form of the Aaronide blessing in Num 6:24–27. We have observed in Malachi an antipathy for this priestly text, and that was only the tip of the iceberg. Now we shall observe how the blessing of Aaron forms an integral part of the Pentateuchal Redaction and how together the Aaronide blessing and the Pentateuchal Redaction elicit a strong reaction, expressed in terms of the Covenant of Levi in Malachi. 4.1 The Aaronide Blessing in Recent Scholarship Recent studies on Num 6:24–27 have shed new light on the Aaronide blessing. Jeremy Smoak in his 2016 monograph refers to the shorter and likely earlier form of the blessing found on amulets at Ketef Hinnom. Smoak contrasts the amulets with the later literary articulation of the blessing. The writing of the blessing as in the book of Numbers “gave the book its ritual power and authority”, in a manner much like the conferring of authority in other ANE contexts when a blessing was enshrined in writing at a cult site.32 By including the instructions for the priestly blessing within this unit of material, Smoak continues, the authors of Numbers “created a tangible link between the blessing, the tabernacle, and the sons of Aaron.”33 Put differently, the blessing’s textual authority served a certain social group that identified with the sons of Aaron.34 31

LEUCHTER, Levites, 240. SMOAK, The Priestly Blessing, 138. 33 Ibid. 34 On the Aaronide’s emergence in the neo-Babylonian and Persian periods, see BLENKINSOPP, “The Mystery of the Missing”. While Blenkinsopp focuses on common ground between the Aaronides and Levites (71, “the more inclusive Levitical-Aaronite family tree”), 32

100

Richard J. Bautch

Textual authority is the focus of Raik Heckl in his 2019 article on the Aaronide blessing.35 The incorporation of the written blessing into the Pentateuchal materials, according to Heckl, reflects a stage in the literary process of Torah authorization. The process began with the figure of Moses, understood as the prophet whose unique relationship to God equips him with the authority to promulgate laws and statutes orally. As the process unfolded, priestly authors used said Mosaic authority to confirm changes they made to the narrative of Moses through a redaction of Deuteronomy and the books that preceded it. The process, which we have been referring to as the Pentateuchal Redaction, further involved the incorporation of explicitly priestly texts such as Num 6:24–27 in order to claim that Aaron and his sons receive from God an authority commensurate with that conferred upon Moses. In the words of Heckl, “Num 6:27 emphasizes the exclusiveness of the blessing given by the Aaronide priests at the temple of YHWH … It intends to canonize the Aaronic blessing through the authority of Moses against different inner-biblical and extra-biblical possibilities and versions.”36 What lies behind the blessing historically are priestly polemics enmeshed in the Pentateuchal process. Heckl concludes that the strategic positioning of the Aaronide blessing in Numbers 6 is decisive for that process; the Aaronide blessing comes to support “a view of successive composition of the priestly books of the Pentateuch in their finished form.”37 That is, the Pentateuchal Redaction is inextricably linked to the Aaronide blessing, and vice versa. Heckl concludes: Numbers 6 is a step on the way toward the canonization of Torah. The authority of Moses as the mediator of the will of God is used to privilege one text and its usage, and together with it the entire complement of older passages and their priestly interpretations. The Israelites are to receive the blessing in Numbers 6 as an expression of their acceptance of (and identification with) the form of the relationship to God proclaimed at the Second Temple according to the priestly composed Torah.38

4.2 Conclusion In Judean history, one group who identified with the sons of Aaron had an association with those responsible for the Pentateuchal Redaction. It is plausible that this group maintained a covenant of some sorts to express and articulate their understanding of Israel’s relationship to God. Such a covenant would have two dimensions. In Yehud at this time, covenant indicated bonds between persons and the Deity that are expressed theologically and as well in the two groups held conflicting ideas of the Pentateuch in terms of its Mosaic character as well as its authorized interpretation. 35 HECKL, “The Aaronic Blessing”. 36 Ibid., 135. 37 Ibid., 136. 38 Ibid., 138.

Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi

101

specific alliances formed among human parties. The prevailing model of covenant in the Persian period integrated the theological and sociological functions. Covenant as a concept reflected the dynamics of a group’s identity within Judean society, in this case the axis between the sons of Aaron and the priestly Pentateuchal redactors. It is beyond the scope of this study to identify an Aaronide covenant that incorporated those responsible for the Pentateuchal Redaction, but possible evidence in this regard includes the covenant of salt with Aaron in Num 18:19 and the covenant of peace with Phineas in Num 25:6– 13. While this axis identified with one covenant, the writers of Malachi resisted them and, in reaction, articulated a different covenant. The Covenant of Levi in Mal 2:4–9 employs allusions, puns and wicked reversals to critique the Aaronide blessing and eschew Torah conscious language. The Covenant of Levi champions the leitmotif of Malachi, as focused on the blessing that comes to those who fear and glorify the name of God. The Covenant of Levi is the manifesto of a Levitical group seeking separation from one of the more dominant priestly cohorts in Yehud at this time. The Levites’ efforts were successful, but only to a degree. The last word went to their rivals, the Aaronide group using the figure of Moses to frame the Pentateuch and authorize their Torah-teaching traditions, in statements such as Lev 10:11. This other group shaped and gave definitive form to not only the Pentateuch but as well to the Book of the Twelve. Using an overarching redactional design, they brought the Book of the Twelve, and Malachi in particular, into alignment with the Pentateuch. An example is the strategic insertion of Mal 3:22: “Remember the Torah of Moses my servant, which I commanded to him at Horeb for all Israel, statutes and judgments.”39 This codicil to Malachi is extremely Torah-conscious, and the phrase “statutes and judgments” is replicated across Deuteronomy (4:1, 5, 8, 14; 5:1; 11:32; 12:1; 26:1) and the Deuteronomistic History (1 Kgs 9:4; 11:33). Furthermore, Mal 3:23b contains the phrase “before the great and fearful day of the Lord” (‫)יום יהוה הגדול והנורא‬, which is undoubtedly one of the last redactional touches added to the Book of the Twelve and indeed to the operative collection of scripture at this time.40 In one stroke, those responsible for the Pentateuchal Redaction undercut Malachi’s leitmotif, to fear and glorify God’s name, by importing an alternative expression, great and fearful, that would prove to be commonplace in the Hebrew Bible.41 The program to homogenize diverse

39

See PETERSEN, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, 233. Hugh Williamson describes Mal 3:23b as “a fully eschatologized understanding of the ‘day of the Lord’” that draws upon Joel 2:11; 3:4. On this basis, Williamson suggests that the final three verses of Malachi “presuppose a more or less completed ‘law and the prophets’.” WILLIAMSON, “The Day of the Lord”, 238. 41 LASATER, Facets of Fear, 47. 40

102

Richard J. Bautch

approaches to Torah interpretation and neutralize opposition to the Pentateuchal Redaction was largely successful, although textual traditions associated with the figure of Levi would perdure and find expression in Aramaic Levi, Jubilees and the Testament of Levi.42

5. Implications What are the implications of the Covenant of Levi, understood as a defining element in the opposition to the Pentateuchal Redaction that took place during the Second Temple Period? While our models of textual politics at this time should he recalibrated in several respects, two in particular require immediate attention. 5.1 The Impact of the Pentateuchal Redaction The notion that the Pentateuchal Redaction provoked significant challenges has been appearing in scholarship over the past ten years. Books and articles reconstruct the postexilic debate about the modalities of divine revelation. One of the first studies in this vein is Eckart Otto’s “Jeremia und die Tora. Ein nachexilischer Diskurs”.43 Otto, for example, juxtaposes the commissioning of Aaron, who is an eloquent speaker because Moses puts words in his mouth (Exod 4:14–17), with Jer 1:7–9, where God puts words in the mouth of Jeremiah as part of the prophet’s commissioning. The book of Jeremiah as a locus of opposition to the Pentateuchal Redaction has been explored as well by Benedetta Rossi, who argues that Jer 31:31–34, the new covenant initiative, challenges the pattern of revelation established in Deuteronomy 34 through the figure of Moses, whose status as archprophet is said to preclude any other program of Torah interpretation and teaching.44 There are other scholars who are less explicit than Otto and Rossi in their analysis but still focused on fissures and even dissent in the scribal culture at the time of Pentateuchal formation. Specializing in Jeremiah, this group includes Mark Leuchter and Nathan Mastnjak, among others.45 While scholars are finding in Jeremiah increasing evidence of an opposition to the Pentateuchal Redaction – as do I – the case now extends to Malachi. In Malachi, the Covenant of Levi is closely linked to the rejection of the Aaronide blessing, a bulwark of the Pentateuchal 42

See KIM, The Temple Administration and the Levites, 185. OTTO, “Jeremia und die Tora”. See also Otto’s “Deuteronomy as the Legal Completion”, 182–183. 44 ROSSI, “Conflicting Patterns of Revelation”, 202–225. 45 See LEUCHTER, The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity, and IDEM., The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45, 193; MASTNJAK, Deuteronomy and the Emergence, 185–188. 43

Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi

103

Redaction. We therefore should integrate Malachi’s Covenant of Levi into our understanding of how Jeremiah and Deuteronomy relate to the entire Torah during its final stages of composition. It will be important to understand how established data, such as Otto’s linking Exod 4:14–17 with Jer 1:7–9, come into new light provided by the Covenant of Levi. 5.2 Gatekeepers: Group-Identity Formation within the Covenant of Levi A second implication pertains to Levites in history, and the degree to which we can correlate the moves reflected in the Covenant of Levi with an elevated status for actual Levites in the Second Temple period. Such analysis is extremely challenging as Judean society was pluralistic and groups therein defined themselves through a range of issues. While we rightly assume that tension between groups often proved formative and fostered group-identity formation, history itself is opaque in this regard, and we work in the realm of plausibility. Arguably, the books of Chronicles promote the elevated status of Levites as much or more than any other source in the Second Temple period. In Chronicles, the Levites are first-rate cultic functionaries; they are legitimate and vital. Moreover, Chronicles significantly expands the ranks of the Levites to include lay ministers at the temple. Prominent are non-priestly cultic personnel such as gatekeepers and singers throughout the listings in 1 Chronicles 23–27.46 Whereas the books of the Pentateuch, with the complex exception of Deuteronomy, subordinate Levites to temple priests, Chronicles reimagines and enhances their roles.47 These developments occur not in isolation but rather within a larger matrix of legal traditions that the Chronicler cites in order to ground the cultic practices he describes in a political and religious authority. 1, 2 Chronicles is one Jerusalem-based group’s attempt to integrate different threads of what would become Pentateuchal law into a highly distinctive narrative of origins.48 In so many words, Chronicles stands in some relationship to the Pentateuch and so the Pentateuchal Redaction, much like the Covenant of Levi in Malachi. In fact, Chronicles and the Covenant of Levi are similar in that neither exhibits the uniformity of interpretation and application required by the Mosaic tradents responsible for the Pentateuchal Redaction. Both the Covenant of Levi and Chronicles are reticent with regard 46

On this section, see n. 51 below. See for example KNOPPERS, “Hierodules, Priests or Janitors?”, 49–72; JAPHET, I & II Chronicles (OTL), 298: “There is no doubt that the Levites play a more prominent role in Chronicles than the priests, and that their interests are closer to the Chronicler’s heart. Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume that this observation should be pushed to an extreme ‘all or nothing’ position. It is hardly likely that the Chronicler would deny the priesthood altogether or deny its well established rights.” 48 See for example MASKOW, Tora in der Chronik, 543–550. 47

104

Richard J. Bautch

to Deuteronomisms and Torah-conscious language; in Chronicles, such speech appears only occasionally.49 The Chronicler’s approach to Pentateuchal traditions is dialectical as he does not simply follow the legal traditions available to him. He works dialectically and employs discernment. In the words of Yeong Seon Kim, “He freely harmonizes different legal traditions about the same matter; presents creative interpretations of certain traditions from his own perspective; and sometimes deviates from Priestly tradition to make his own points concerning a specific matter”.50 A prime example is the cultic reforms within the account of Hezekiah’s reign (2 Chronicles 29–32). These initiatives are of such scale and magnitude they at times overreach the existing liturgical norms. Moreover, they are sudden and spontaneous; neither the cleansing of the Temple nor the Passover celebration were planned far in advance. Their unprecedented nature gives rise to certain issues, such as the massive amount of sacrifices leaving the priestly personnel short-handed and unable to prepare them all (29:34), or in a similar vein there not being enough priests to bring the blood from the point of sacrifice to the altar where it is to be dashed upon the slab (30:16). Another issue concerns the northerners who come from afar, arriving in Jerusalem but without enough time to sanctify and clean themselves properly (30:18). In several instances, Hezekiah exhibits a prudential legal judgment to ensure that the cultic celebration continues uninterrupted. On more than one occasion, the king turns to the Levites, who in lieu of the priests prepare the well-being and thanksgiving sacrifices (29:34) and who slaughter the sacrifice for those (northerners) not yet ritually clean (30:18). The same northerners are permitted to eat the paschal feast in violation of what is written in the law because, in Hezekiah’s own words, God pardons them and approves this adjustment (30:19–20). Hezekiah is not, to be sure, flouting the laws as it suits his purpose. Nor is he simply improvising. Rather, he is interpreting and applying different legal sources, including but not limited to the Mosaic Torah (30:16). He also cites, for example, prophetic authority (29:25, “David, Gad, and Nathan”; 29:30 “David, and Asaph the seer”). From this perspective, we can appreciate that Hezekiah’s deployment of the Levites is not ad hoc but rather a model of agile legal discernment. In the world of Chronicles, did such favorable treatment of the Levites cause friction with other priestly groups identifying with the legacy of Zadok (1 Chr 6:1–34; 29:22) or Aaron (1 Chr 24:1; 2 Chr 13:10)? The biblical text in its final 49 The exception proves the rule: 2 Chr 5:25 describes in Deuteronomistic language how the half tribe of Manasseh worshipped local deities (“by prostituting themselves to follow the gods of the peoples of the land”) and was subsequently punished by God. The verse is one of the few in 1, 2 Chronicles that echoes Deuteronomistic discourse. The Chronicler included such language here to sharpen his point about the misdeeds of Manasseh. 50 KIM, The Temple Administration and the Levites, 169.

Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi

105

form gives the impression of complementarity and harmony between Levites and priests, and Chronicles is rightly read along these lines by most commentators. There are, however, occasional signs to the contrary, as in 1 Chronicles 23–27, the lengthy description of temple personnel. Chapters 23– 27 were systematically reworked and reincorporated into the Chronicler’s account of the temple personnel so as to constitute a secondary level that fits into the primary level cleanly. Hugh Williamson, in a classic article from 1979, delineates the secondary level in terms of a cluster of priestly issues.51 While the primary level focuses on the Levites, the secondary level creates a distinction between the Levites and the priests descending from Aaron (24:1), or the Aaronides, in order to enhance the latter’s authority. One imagines a game of chess with moves and countermoves to position the Levites or their rivals more or less advantageously in the temple milieu. Political tension of this sort could explain Chronicles’ special interest in the Korahites, a controversial branch of the Levites. Chronicles designates the Korahites to be the temple gatekeepers. The chief of the gatekeepers is Shallum, said to be a descendent of Korah and the Korahites, who had as their special task, in the days of yore, guarding the threshold of the tent (1 Chr 9:17– 19). But there is more to the historiography unfolding here. In Numbers 16, Korah and his followers stage a rebellion against Moses and Aaron; the Korahites demand a more democratic form of leadership but are punished for this action when the ground around their tents opens and swallows them alive down to Sheol (16:33). In the discourse of the Pentateuchal Redaction, Numbers 16 is a cautionary tale that reinforces the authority of Moses and Aaron. Korah’s role is that of Levitical foil, except in Chronicles, where he is honored as gatekeeper. It is a dry irony that the Temple gatekeepers in Chronicles are put forward with a dual purpose: they are also the gatekeepers of Torah, the Levites who resist the Pentateuchal Redaction and band together as a cohort not unlike the members of the Covenant of Levi.

Bibliography BAUTCH, RICHARD J., Power and Glory, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period (LHBOTS 471), New York: T&T Clark / Continuum, 2009. BAUTCH, RICHARD J. / GARY N. KNOPPERS (eds.), Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. BECKER, JOACHIM, Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament. Analecta Biblica Dissertationes, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965. BLENKINSOPP, JOSEPH, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL), Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. –, “The Mystery of the Missing ‘Sons of Aaron’”, in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd, edited by Gary 51

WILLIAMSON, “The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses”, 251–268.

106

Richard J. Bautch

N. Knoppers / Lester Grabbe, with Deirdre Fulton, London / New York: T&T Clark, 2009, 65–77. BODA, MARK J., Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 (BZAW 277), Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. BODI, DANIEL, Israël à l’ombre des Babyloniens et des Perses. Collection de l’Université Marc Bloch – Strasbourg, Études d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Paris: de Boccard, 2010. DAHMEN, ULRICH, Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium: Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien (BBB 110), Bodenheim: Philo, 1996. FISHBANE, MICHAEL, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. GIBSON, JONATHAN, Covenant Continuity and Fidelity: A Study of Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Malachi (LHBOTS 625), New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. HECKL, RAIK, “The Aaronic Blessing (Numbers 6): Its Intention and Place in the Concept of the Pentateuch”, in On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period: Discerning Criteria and Establishing Epoch, edited by Richard J. Bautch / Mark Laskowski (FAT II/101), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019, 119–138. HILL, ANDREW E., “Malachi”, ABD 4:478–485. HITZIG, FERDINAND, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1863. KESSLER, RAINER, Maleachi (HThKAT), Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2011. KIM, YEONG SEON, The Temple Administration and the Levites in Chronicles (CBQMS 51), Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2014. KNOPPERS, GARY N., “Hierodules, Priests or Janitors? The Levites in Chronicles and the History of the Israelite Priesthood”, JBL 118 (1999): 49–72. LABUSCHAGNE, CASPER J., “The Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch: The Key to its Literary Structure”, VT 32/3 (1982): 268–296. LASATER, PHILLIP MICHAEL, Facets of Fear: The Fear of God in Exilic and Post-exilic Contexts (FAT II/104), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. LEUCHTER, MARK, The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. LEUCHTER, MARK / JEREMY M. HUTTON (eds.), Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition (AIL 9), Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011. LUST, JOHAN, “Messianism and the Greek Version of Jeremiah: Jer 23:5–6 and 33:14–26”, JNSL 20 (1984): 31–48. MASTNJAK, NATHAN, Deuteronomy and the Emergence of Textual Authority in Jeremiah (FAT II/87), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. MEINHOLD, ARNDT, Maleachi (BKAT 14), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002. NOGALSKI, JAMES, “How Does Malachi’s ‘Book of Remembrance’ Function for the Cultic Elite?”, in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve, edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (ANEM 14), Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016, 191–214. O’BRIEN, JULIA M., Priest and Levite in Malachi (SBLDS 121), Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. OTTO, ECKART, “Jeremia und die Tora. Ein nachexilischer Diskurs”, in Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch. Gesammelte Schriften, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009, 515–560. –, “Deuteronomy as the Legal Completion and Prophetic Finale of the Pentateuch”, in Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (BZAR 22), edited by M. Armgardt et al., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2019, 179–188. PETERSEN, DAVID L., Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi (OTL), Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 1995.

Priestly Polemics in the Covenant of Levi

107

ROSSI, BENEDETTA, “Conflicting Patterns of Revelation. Jer 31:33–34 and its Challenge to the Post-Mosaic Revelation Program”, Bib 99/2 (2018): 202–225. SCHMID, KONRAD, “The Late Persian Formation of the Torah: Observations on Deuteronomy 34”, in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., edited by Oded Lipschits et al., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007, 237–251. SMOAK, JEREMY D., The Priestly Blessing in Inscription and Scripture: The Early History of Numbers 6:24–26, New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. VERHOEF, PIETER, The Books of Haggai and Malachi (NICOT), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. WEINFELD, MOSHE, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. WILLIAMSON, HUGH G. M., “The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses: A Study of 1 Chronicles 23–27,” in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 30), Leiden: Brill, 1979, 251–268. –, “The Day of the Lord in the Book of Isaiah and the Book of the Twelve,” in Isaiah and the Twelve: Parallels, Similarities and Differences, ed. Richard J. Bautch, Joachim Eck and Burkard M. Zapff (BZAW 527), Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020, 223–242 WÖHRLE, JAKOB, “Jacob, Moses, Levi – Pentateuchal Figures in the Book of the Twelve”, in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Israel, Europe, and North America (FAT 111), edited by J. C. Gertz et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016, 997–1014.

The New Covenant for Israel in Jeremiah The New Covenant for Israel in Jeremiah

Notes on the Different Textual Versions of the Pericope and their Meaning KARIN FINSTERBUSCH Karin Finsterbusch

During the interdisciplinary conference “Berit-Diatheke-Foedus-CovenantBund” held in Houston (November 19–22, 2019), several presentations and discussions referred to the pericope of the new covenant in the book of Jeremiah. It is for that reason that the organizers asked me afterwards for a short contribution on this text and its versions (in addition to my contribution on Ezekiel’s covenant concept in this conference volume).1 The pericope of the new covenant has a rather different shape in the Greek (Jer 38:31–34LXX) and in the Hebrew masoretic version (Jer 31:31–34MT). Since the Greek translator(s) of Jeremiah followed the Hebrew syntax and word order faithfully throughout the book,2 the Greek version points to a Hebrew Vorlage which was substantially at variance with the proto-masoretic version. As most textual critics do, I believe this Hebrew Vorlage to be grosso modo the older version.3 Up to now, several studies have been dedicated to the differences between Jer 38:31–34LXX and Jer 31:31–34MT.4 However, the reconstructed Hebrew Vorlage of Jer 38:31–38LXX was usually not considered as a third textual version in its own right. In the first part of this study, the Greek translation of Jer 38:31–34LXX (according to the Göttingen edition5) will be evaluated, the Hebrew Vorlage will be reconstructed, and this oldest accessible version of the pericope will be analyzed. In the second part, the 1 I have analyzed (parts of) this pericope in two articles, see FINSTERBUSCH, “Tora”; EADEM, “Auszugs-Bund”. – For a comprehensive overview of the vast literature on the pericope see STIPP, Jeremia 25–52, 272–274. 2 Due to the fairly literal Greek translation of Jeremiah, which is undisputed in scholarly literature, retroversion is possible in many cases with a high degree of certainty. A retroverted Hebrew Vorlage has been presented by STIPP, Synopse. 3 For an overview of the scholarly positions on the variant literary editions of Jeremiah and their relationship see WEIS, “Textual History”, 499–503; LANGE, “Masoretic Texts”, 519–520. 4 See especially BOGAERT, “Alliance”; RENAUD, “Alliance”; SCHENKER, Bund; WALSER, “Versions”; STIPP, “Perikope”; KRAUS, “Rezeption”. 5 ZIEGLER, Jeremias.

110

Karin Finsterbusch

focus will be on Jer 31:31–34MT (according to the BHS6), highlighting the most important textual changes supposedly made by proto-masoretic editors-scribes. The article concludes with some reflections on the differences between the versions and on the meaning of the concept of the new covenant within Second Temple Judaism.

1. Jer 38:31–34LXX and its Hebrew Vorlage Respectively I begin with a literal translation of the Greek version of the pericope of the new covenant into English: 31a Behold, days are coming – says Kyrios – b and I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah c a new covenant, 32a not according to the covenant b which I made with their fathers c on the day when I took (them) by their hand d to bring them out of the land of Egypt, e because they, they did not abide by my covenant, f and I, I was unconcerned for them – says Kyrios – 33a because this (is) the covenant b which I will make with the house of Israel after those days – says Kyrios: c Giving I will give my laws in their mind d and on their hearts I will write them (i.e., the laws), e and I will be for them God and they, they will be for me (my) people. 34a And they will not teach, b each his fellow citizen and each his brother, saying: c Know Kyrios!, d because they all will know me, e from their small and even to their great, f because I will forgive their injustices g and their sins I will remember no more. Translation-critical, philological, and text-critical notes: (1) 31b–c: JerLXX: figura etymologica διαθήσομαι … διαθήκην; the translator(s) of Jeremiah did as a rule not render literally the Hebrew ‫ כרת‬Qal + ‫“ ברית‬to cut a covenant”. (2) 32e: JerLXX: ὅτι αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ μου, reflecting ‫כי המה לא הקימו את‬ ‫( בריתי‬JerMT: ‫)אשׁר המה הפרו את בריתי‬.7 If the Greek translator(s) had found ‫ אשׁר‬in the Vorlage, they would have rendered it presumably (as the first ‫ אשׁר‬in 32b) as a relative pronoun, referring to ‫( ברית‬and not as a conjunction, which would have been a rather unusual choice for ‫)אשׁר‬.8

6

RUDOLPH/ELLIGER, Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia. See BOGAERT, “Alliance”, 85; SCHENKER, Bund, 21; STIPP, “Perikope”, 242. 8 Pace GROSS, Zukunft, 136. 7

The New Covenant for Israel in Jeremiah

111

(3) 32f: JerLXX: ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, reflecting ‫( געלתי בם‬MT-Jer: ‫)בעלתי בם‬. Some scholars explain the difference between the Hebrew texts as a variant due to an interchange of the letters ‫ ב‬and ‫ג‬.9 However, there are good reasons to assume a deliberate change of the verb by proto-masoretic scribes, see below. (4) 33c: JerLXX: διδοὺς δώσω, reflecting the figura etymologica ‫ נתן אתן‬in the Hebrew Vorlage (JerMT according to the Leningradensis: ‫)נתתי‬.10 (5) 33c–d: JerLXX: νόμους μου … γράψω αὐτούς; this is in all likelihood an interpretative rendering of ‫( תורתי … אכתבנה‬MT) and not of ‫( תורתי … אכתבם‬morphologically, it is possible to read ‫ תורתי‬as plural; however, this would require a verbal plural suffix).11 According to the masoretic tradition, ‫ תורה‬in Jer is to be read in every instance (even in 32:23: ketib spelling: plural, qere: singular) as singular. The rendering of ‫ תורתי‬as plural in 33c by the Greek translator(s) should be evaluated especially in connection with two other cases at the end of the pericope (34f–g, see the note below), creating the following contrast: on the one hand God’s multiplicity of laws, which will all be adhered to in the future, and on the other hand the multiplicity of sins due to the transgressions of the old covenant in the past. One might question the appropriateness of this translation, since “Torah” is certainly much more multifaceted than “laws”. However, it is unlikely that one might interpret this difference as such that God’s Torah relates to a “closed entity” of the past12 and that God’s laws might refer to other laws of the envisioned future times, unconnected to the Torah: Which authoritative divine laws did the Jewish Greek translator(s) in the second century BCE have in mind if not the laws of the Torah – which must of course be regarded as a dynamic entity to be constantly updated (cf. the halachic discussions in many writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the later rabbinic constructions of the written and the oral Torah13)? (6) 33c: JerLXX: εἰς τῆν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν, reflecting ‫( בקרבם‬MT). Since the sentences in 33c and 33d in the supposed Hebrew Vorlage are parallel (the main verbs appear in the future tense), the understanding of both ‫ קרב‬and ‫ לב‬as anthropological terms is reasonable (MT: ‫ בקרבם‬should be understood as a sociological term, i.e., “in their midst”). In the Greek text, the difference in numerus of these terms is notable, since they appeared in the Hebrew Vorlage in all likelihood both in the singular: The first term is rendered as singular (διάνοιαν), referring to the collective mind of the people, whereas the second as plural (καρδίας), emphasizing the involvement of each individual.

9

See e.g. STIPP, “Perikope”, 243–244. See SCHENKER, Bund, 32–33. 11 Interestingly, the Greek translators Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion all translated the noun in 33c as singular, see WALSER, “History”, 373. 12 Pace SCHENKER, Bund, 40: “Der Plural ‘meine Weisungen’ ist also zusammengefasst eine Wendung, die die Mannigfaltigkeit und die große Zahl von Weisungen hervorhebt, während die Einzahl ‘meine Weisung’ eher die abgeschlossene Gesamtheit der Weisungen Gottes meint. Der Singular passt deshalb besonders gut zur abgeschlossenen und umfassenden Offenbarung Gottes in der Vergangenheit, die durch Mose an Israel während seiner Heraufführung ins gelobte Land erging, während der Plural kommende und daher unabgeschlossene, mannigfaltige Weisungen nahelegt, die JHWH speziell für den neuen Bund geben wird.” WALSER, “History”, 373, noted, too, that “the plural νόμους can hardly refer to the Torah.” BOGAERT, “Alliance”, 86, on the other hand, linked the mentioned laws especially to the Decalogue. 13 See SCHIFFMAN, “Torah”; FINSTERBUSCH, “‫”תורה‬. 10

112

Karin Finsterbusch

(7) 34c: JerLXX: γνῶθι τὸν κύριον; this is presumably an interpretative rendering of ‫דעו את‬ ‫( יהוה‬MT) under the influence of the famous Delphi oracle γνῶθι σεαυτόν “Know yourself!”14 (8) 34f–g: JerLXX: ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. The Greek translator(s) had to render the Hebrew collective nouns ‫( לעונם ולחטאתם‬MT) as plural, since the singular would have implied “their one injustice” and “their one sin”.

Summing up the notes, the Greek version of the pericope in its entirety appears to be a rather close translation of its supposed Hebrew Vorlage. The most meaningful difference concerns the rendering of the three Hebrew singular nouns in the supposed Vorlage as plural nouns in 33c and 34f–g. The Vorlage – the oldest accessible version of the pericope – may then be rendered literally into English as follows: 31a Behold, days are coming – oracle of YHWH – b and I will cut with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah c a new covenant, 32a not according to the covenant b which I cut with their fathers c on the day when I took (them) by their hand d to bring them out of the land of Egypt, e because they, they did not establish my covenant, f and I, I loathed them – oracle of YHWH – 33a because this (is) the covenant b which I will cut with the house of Israel after those days – oracle of YHWH: c Giving I will give my Torah in their mind d and on their heart I will write it (i.e., the Torah), e and I will be for them God and they, they will be for me (my) people. 34a And they will not teach, b each his neighbour and each his brother, saying: c Know YHWH!, d because they all will know me, e from their small and even to their great, f because I will forgive their iniquity g and their sin I will remember no more.

This version of the pericope is especially complex due to different ‫כי‬-clauses. Its rough structure may be illustrated as follows: I will cut with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant, (I will cut it) not according to the covenant which I cut with their fathers … because (‫ )כי‬they, they did not establish my covenant … because (‫ )כי‬this (is) the covenant which I will cut … because (‫ )כי‬I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more.

14

See BOGAERT, “Alliance”, 87.

The New Covenant for Israel in Jeremiah

113

I will now briefly analyze the text, concentrating on the meaning of the two covenants. The main clause in 31b–c is the announcement to make a new covenant in the future. The adjective “new” indicates that this covenant will replace (not only renew or transform15) the old covenant. The old covenant and its problems are referred to in detail in verse 32: (1) According to 32c–d, the covenant was made on the day of the exodus (cf. as well Jer 11:3–4MT/LXX; Jer 34:13MT/Jer 41:13LXX). The making of a covenant on the very last day Israel stayed in Egypt is not attested anywhere else in Second Temple Jewish literature.16 With regard to the covenantal document, it is plausible to assume that this was the Torah, which is mentioned in 33c. Usually, a covenantal document was written down and deposited at a certain place at the very end of a covenantal process.17 In the case of the Torah, this happened according to the pentateuchal narratives only in Moab on Moses’ last day (see Deut 31:9, 24). In light of these narratives, which the Jeremianic authors must have acknowledged, the unique establishment of the making of the covenant on the day of the exodus should be understood as the beginning of a covenantal process only. This process included, then, several single covenants with different legislations, such as the covenant at Sinai (see Exod 24:8) and the covenant in Moab (see Deut 28:69).18 (2) The statements in 32e–f provide the reason (32e: ‫ )כי‬as to why the making of a new covenant is necessary at all: The old covenant did not work, since the “fathers” did not abide by its terms. Consequently, God did not stick to his covenantal obligations either, as ‫“( געלתי בם‬I loathed them”) reveals. The emotional strong term ‫ געל‬indicates God’s legitimate (reactive) “breaking” of the covenant (cf. ‫ געל‬in MT-Jer 14:1919). Does “breaking” mean “annulling” of the covenant, as Adrian Schenker suggested?20 This suggestion is not likely, since the notice at the end of the pericope (34f–g, see below) about the continuing sinfulness of the houses of Israel and Judah in the old reality would not make any sense if the covenant and the covenantal laws would not still be

15 See GROSS, Zukunft, 148–149; FISCHER, Jeremiah 26–52, 171; STIPP, Jeremia 25–52, 277–284; KARTVEIT, “Jeremiah”, 167. 16 A similar concept is attested only in MT-Ezek 20. In this passage, God’s making of the covenant in the early period of Israel’s existence is fixed on a day during their stay in Egypt. See on this concept my contribution “Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel (Old Greek Ezekiel and its Hebrew Vorlage and MT-Ezekiel)” in this conference volume. 17 See for the treaty practice(s) in the Ancient Near East KOCH, “Covenant”. 18 See FINSTERBUSCH, “Auszugs-Bund”, 93–94; ROM-SHILONI, “Phrase”, 641–642. 19 Within Jer 14:19–22, ‫( געל‬God’s loathing) and ‫ פרר‬Hifil + ‫( ברית‬God’s breaking of the covenant) appear as synonymous expressions, see FINSTERBUSCH, “Auszugs-Bund”, 95–96. 20 SCHENKER, Bund, especially 40–42.

114

Karin Finsterbusch

the benchmark.21 This was, by the way, the understanding of the Greek translator(s), too, since ‫ געלתי בם‬was translated with the aorist (and not in the imperfect or present tense). 32f. should be read thus as God’s legitimate (reactive) “breaking” of the covenant, which was of temporary duration only. (3) With respect to God’s temporary legitimate (reactive) “breaking” of the covenant, related to the period of the “fathers”, the Jeremianic authors might have expected their addressees to recall the relevant pentateuchal stories, especially the story about the failed conquest of the land due to disobedience and God’s punishment, leading to the nearly forty-years-stay in the desert until the death of the exodus generation (cf. Deut 2:14, 15). (4) The case of the “fathers” impressively demonstrates that even this very generation that experienced “in person” the process of the making of the covenant (hearing God’s voice at Sinai) was not able to abide by it. This was even more the case for the generations to come: The house of Israel and the house of Judah are exclusively and solely described in the pericope as sinful (34f–g). Consequently, as a precondition for the making of the new covenant, God must first settle the old (and, in the world of the book of Jeremiah, still lasting) sinful reality and remove its shadows. Iniquity and sin must be forgiven and must no longer be remembered (34f–g). In 33a–34e, the focus is on the new covenant. It will be made differently than the old covenant (33a: ‫ )כי‬as follows: (1) The perhaps most decisive difference concerns the mode of the making of the covenant. God’s Torah will be given directly into the mind (33c) of his people, whereby the heart of each individual will function as the material document (the Torah will be written on the heart, 33d). This implies an everlasting process: Instead of one covenantal act in time and place – making the covenant at a certain time, writing the content on a tablet or a scroll, deposing the covenantal document at a certain place – the Torah will be made accessible to everyone in each generation anew by God himself. (2) The anthropological implications of this new covenantal reality are farreaching: The human nature appears to be fundamentally changed, since mind and heart will be transformed. Consequently, it will be impossible not to live according to the Torah. And there is another point, insofar as the changed human nature will lead to a profound change of the old religious mode of life: The “natural” ways of religious teaching and learning (as emphasized in texts like Deuteronomy or Psalm 119) will be obsolete, since everyone will possess the crucial religious knowledge anyway (34a–e).

21

Other texts in Jeremiah like 11:9–10 (all versions) also testify the ongoing validity of the covenant “made on the day of the exodus” during the existence of Judah and Israel as kingdoms, see GROSS, Zukunft, 142–143; STIPP, “Perikope”, 253.

The New Covenant for Israel in Jeremiah

115

(3) It should not be overlooked, however, that there will be some continuity between the old and the new covenantal reality, too. What will not change is the addressee of the covenant: It is the “house of Israel” (33b). The singular – in contrast to the political entities “house of Israel and house of Judah” (31b) – indicates in all probability the expectation that in the future the people will finally be a unity.22 Furthermore, the content of the covenant will remain the same (as explained above in contrast to Schenker and others, this was generally not disputed by the Greek translator[s]). In other words: God’s Torah will be at the centre of the new covenant, just as it was in the centre of the old covenant.

2. Jer 31:31–34MT Supposedly, proto-masoretic editors-scribes extensively reworked the older Jeremianic book edition, restructured the text (placing the oracles against the nations before Jer 52), inserted longer passages (e.g., plusses like MT Jer 11:7– 8a; 17:1–4; 33:14–26), changed the character of the book (strengthening the voice of the book narrator23), and modified many passages in detail. Traces of such redactional activity can be discerned in the pericope of the new covenant, too. First, a literal translation of its masoretic version will be presented. Additions in comparison to the supposed Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek translation of the pericope are underlined, and important textual differences are set in italics: 31a Behold, days are coming – oracle of YHWH – b and I will cut with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah c a new covenant, 32a not according to the covenant b which I cut with their fathers c on the day when I took (them) by their hand d to bring them out of the land of Egypt, e which they, they broke, my covenant, f and/but I, I was master over them – oracle of YHWH – 33a because this (is) the covenant b which I will cut with the house of Israel after those days – oracle of YHWH: c I gave my Torah in their midst d and/but on their heart I will write it (i.e., the Torah), e and I will be for them God and they, they will be for me (my) people. 34a And they will not teach any more, b each his neighbour and each his brother, saying: c Know YHWH!, d because they all will know me,

22 23

See STIPP, Jeremia 25–52, 279. See on this aspect especially FINSTERBUSCH/JACOBY, Kommunikationsstruktur, 12–17.

116

Karin Finsterbusch

e from their small and even to their great – oracle of YHWH – f because I will forgive their iniquity g and their sin I will remember no more. Text-critical note: 33c: JerMT according to the Leningradensis: ‫“ ;נתתי‬mlt Mss” (BHS): ‫ונתתי‬. The variant ‫ונתתי‬ is difficult due to the syndetic beginning after the nominal clause ‫כי זאת הברית‬. In all probability ‫ ונתתי‬is an attempt to adjust the tenses (the verbs in the parallel clauses appear thus both in the future tense): “And I will give my torah … and also … I will write it …”

In the following, the specific profile of the masoretic version of the pericope will be analyzed: (1) I begin with its structure. Instead of the conjunction ‫ כי‬at the beginning of 32e in the supposed older version, the MT has ‫אשׁר‬. This ‫ – אשׁר‬reinforced by a resumptive ‫“( את בריתי‬my covenant”) – is most likely to be read in parallel to the ‫ אשׁר‬in 32b, meaning that both ‫ אשׁר‬modify ‫( ברית‬32a).24 The rough structure of the masoretic version of the pericope may then be outlined as follows: I will cut with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant, (I will cut it) not according to the covenant which I cut with their fathers … which they, they broke … because this (is) the covenant which I will cut … because I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more.25

According to this structure, the entire emphasis in 32a–34e is on the explanation of the announcement that God will make the new covenant not like the old one (33a: ‫)כי‬. (2) In addition to the different beginning of the clause, 32e displays a different verb: Instead of ‫ המה לא הקימו את בריתי‬in the supposed older version, the MT has ‫המה הפרו את בריתי‬. This is a much more direct statement of the violation of the covenant (cf. Jer 11:10MT/LXX). (3) In 32f, the MT has ‫ בעלתי בם‬instead of ‫ געלתי בם‬in the supposed older version. The meaning of ‫ בעלתי בם‬is presumably that God stayed the faithful master of the fathers although they had broken the covenant.26 In any case, the

24

See HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 197–198; GROSS, Zukunft, 134, 136. In the pericope (all versions), v. 31 and the last sentence of v. 34 are directly related (forming a kind of frame), see RENAUD, “Alliance”, 91–92; GROSS, Zukunft, 140. 26 Many scholars understand ‫ בעלתי בם‬in the sense of “they broke the covenant in spite of the fact that I was master over them.” Thus, the stupidity or inability of the fathers would be emphasized. In light of the overall argumentation in the pericope, this point was, however, clear anyway. For an overview of the positions on the meaning of ‫ בעלתי בם‬see MCKANE, Jeremiah II, 819. 25

The New Covenant for Israel in Jeremiah

117

difficult implication of God’s legitimate (reactive) temporary “breaking” of the covenant in the older textual version of this sentence is removed. (4) The announcement to make the new covenant not like the old covenant is explained in 33c–d with the two verbal clauses … ‫ נתתי‬+ … ‫אכתבנה‬. This combination of a Hebrew Perfect and a Hebrew Imperfect is rather unusual (in comparison with the combination of the Hebrew Imperfects in the supposed older version: … ‫ נתן אתן‬+ … ‫)אכתבנה‬. Contrary to the majority of scholars, the Hebrew Perfect ‫ נתתי‬should be taken seriously, i.e., as a reference to the past.27 Consequently, ‫ בקרבם‬cannot mean “in their mind”, since the Torah was not given in the first place in the mind of the people, but “in their midst”. The first sentence ‫( נתתי את תורתי בקרבם‬33c), then, refers to God’s making of the old covenant. Only the following sentence (33d) describes the making of the new covenant. Due to this reference to different realities, the picture of a faithfully acting God in the masoretic version of the pericope is highlighted: YHWH appears as God who was at first disappointed in his expectation (or mistaken in his estimation). He expected the old covenant to work and the Israelites to be able and willing to teach and to learn “the Torah in their midst” (cf. 34a–e) and to live according to its standards. Since this model failed so miserably from the very beginning (cf. 32e), he will eventually adjust the reality without condition and replace this model with another one, this time making sure that the Torah will be obeyed by every single Israelite indeed. To sum up: Taking all these points into consideration, two redactional tendencies in the masoretic version of the pericope are discernable. On the one hand, the dimension of the sinfulness of the people is increased (31e: “breaking” the covenant; 33c: not referring properly to the “Torah in their midst”); and on the other hand, the aspect of the devotion of YHWH to his people is underlined (32f: remaining the “master” of the unfaithful fathers; 33c–d: correcting his original covenantal model in favour of his people).

3. Concluding Remarks on the Differences Between the Versions and the Meaning of the Concept of the New Covenant for Israel The differences between the versions of the pericope of the new covenant for Israel are interesting, in that they point to the concern of the redactors-scribes and of the translator(s) for essential religious questions. However, it should not be overlooked that in major points all three versions are in agreement. They all share the same statements concerning Israel’s future: Israel will have a future only due to God’s graceful action, i.e., due to his pardon which is bestowed 27

See TITA, “Tora”; FINSTERBUSCH, “Tora”; SCHENKER, Bund, 26–31.

118

Karin Finsterbusch

unconditionally, and due to his making of a new covenant, which cannot be broken because of the fundamentally changed heart of the people. The term “new covenant” (‫ )ברית חדשׁה‬appears in the Hebrew Bible only in Jeremiah in the pericope we have analysed. However, the concept is not as unique as it might appear at first glance. Especially close is Ezekiel’s covenantal concept, according to which God will transform the breakable covenant of the past into an unbreakable one. Moreover, God will replace the heart of stone and the old spirit of his people with a heart of flesh and a new spirit. Thus, both concepts are linked by a similar evaluation of the old covenantal reality and a similar utopian expectation of a changed covenantal reality, created by God himself. Furthermore, it should be noted that, with respect to the pessimistic view of the ability of God’s people to live according to the Torah, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s covenantal concepts are by no means singular. It may suffice to mention one more prominent example: According to Deut 30:1–10, Israel – after having returned from exile to the land – will be able to abide by the laws of the Torah only because God will circumcise their hearts in the first place (30:6). All these pessimistic anthropological texts appear in the Hebrew Bible alongside many other texts which, in contrast, emphasize the ability of the Israelites to live according to the Torah (with regard to Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, see, e.g., Jer 23:3–9; Ezek 33:1–20; Deut 28). Anthropology in Second Temple Jewish literature is multifaceted indeed. Whereas in Judaism, the pericope of the new covenant has played only a minor role, it became enormously important in Christianity.28 The reasons are manifold. It is, of course, far beyond the constraints of this article to refer to this complex and extremely problematic Christian reception history. Yet I would like to add one final remark. The construction of Israel in the pericope as solely sinful during the time of the Old Covenant should be understood as an internal Jewish self-critical evaluation (“we”). Adopting this evaluation from a Christian perspective as an “objective” statement about the non-Christbelieving Jewish people (“they” are sinful, living in an old reality, opposing God’s will) would be a fundamental misunderstanding and a mischievous interpretation of this biblical text.

28 On the reception of the pericope in the epistle to the Hebrews see KRAUS, “Rezeption”, and his contribution in this conference volume; on its reception in the first centuries among the church fathers see WALSER, “History”, 375–380, and the contribution of Martin Meiser in this conference volume.

The New Covenant for Israel in Jeremiah

119

Bibliography BOGAERT, PIERRE-MAURICE, “Loi(s) et alliance nouvelle dans les deux formes conservées du livre de Jérémie (Jr 31,31–37 TM; 38,31–37 LXX)”, in La loi dans l’un et l’autre Testament (Lectio Divina 168), edited by Camille Focant; Paris: Cerf, 1997, 81–92. FINSTERBUSCH, KARIN, “‘Ich habe meine Tora in ihre Mitte gegeben’: Bemerkungen zu Jer 31,33”, BZ 49 (2005): 86–92. –, “Auszugs-Bund, neuer Bund und weitere Bünde: ‘Berit’ im älteren (hebräische Vorlage LXX-Jer) und im jüngeren Jeremiabuch (MT-Jer)”, in Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism (FAT II/79), edited by N. MacDonald, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 87–121. –, “‫”תורה‬, ThWQ III (2016): 1110–1118. FINSTERBUSCH, KARIN / NORBERT JACOBY, MT-Jeremia und LXX-Jeremia 25–52: Synoptische Übersetzung und Analyse der Kommunikationsstruktur (WMANT 146), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. FISCHER, Georg, Jeremia 26–52 (HThKAT), Freiburg: Herder, 2005. GROSS, WALTER, Zukunft für Israel: Alttestamentliche Bundeskonzepte und die aktuelle Debatte um den Neuen Bund (SBS 176), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. HOLLADAY, WILLIAM, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: Chapters 26–52 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. KARTVEIT, MAGNAR, “Reconsidering the ‘New Covenant’ in Jeremiah 31:31–34”, in The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTSup 178), edited by J. R. Lundbom et al., Leiden: Brill, 2018, 149–169. KOCH, CHRISTOPH, “Covenant I. Ancient Near East”, EBR 5 (2012), 897–900. KRAUS, WOLFGANG, “Die Rezeption von Jer 38:31–34 (LXX) in Hebräer 8–10 und dessen Funktion in der Argumentation des Hebräerbriefes”, in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies on the Septuagint (VTSup 157), edited by J. Cook / H.-J. Stipp, Leiden: Brill, 2012, 447–462. LANGE, ARMIN, “Jeremiah. 7.2.2. Masoretic Texts and Ancient Texts Close to MT”, in Textual History of the Bible. Vol. 1B. Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, edited by A. Lange / E. Tov, Leiden: Brill, 2017, 518–536. MCKANE, WILLIAM, Jeremiah: Volume II. Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–LII (ICC), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. RENAUD, BERNARD, “L’oracle de la nouvelle alliance: À propos des divergences entre le texte hébreu (Jr 31,31–34) et le texte grec (38,31–34)”, in Lectures et relectures de la Bible. FS P.-M. Bogaert (BEThL 144), edited by J.-M. Auwers / A. Wénin, Leuven: University Press, 1999, 85–98. ROM-SHILONI, DALIT, “‘On the Day I Took Them out of the Land of Egypt’: A NonDeuteronomistic Phrase within Jeremiah’s Conception of Covenant”, VT 65 (2015): 621– 647. RUDOLPH, WILHELM / KARL ELLIGER, Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967–1977. SCHENKER, ADRIAN, Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten: Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel (FRLANT 212), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. SCHIFFMAN, LAWRENCE H., “The Term and Concept of Torah”, in What is Bible? (CBET 67), edited by Karin Finsterbusch / Armin Lange, Leuven: Peeters, 2012, 173–191.

120

Karin Finsterbusch

STIPP, HERMANN-JOSEF, “Die Perikope vom ‘Neuen Bund’ (Jer 31,31–34) im masoretischen und alexandrinischen Jeremiabuch”, in IDEM, Studien zum Jeremiabuch: Text und Redaktion (FAT 96), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015, 237–258. –, Jeremia 25–52 (HAT I/12,2), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. –, Textkritische Synopse zum Jeremiabuch, online published on his homepage https://www. kaththeol.uni-muenchen.de/lehrstuehle/at_theol/team/emeritus/stipp/forschung/index. html (last accessed: 11/11/2022). TITA, HUBERT, “‘Ich hatte meine Tora in ihre Mitte gegeben’: Das Gewicht einer nicht berücksichtigten Perfektform in Jer. XXXI 33”, VT 52 (2002): 551–555 WALSER, GEORG, “Jeremiah 38:31–34 (MT 31:31–34): The History of the Two Versions and Their Reception”, in XIV Congress of the IOSCS: Helsinki, 2010 (SCS 59), edited by M.K.H. Peters, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013, 369–380. WEIS, RICHARD D., “Jeremiah. 7.1. Textual History of Jeremiah”, in Textual History of the Bible. Vol. 1B, edited by Armin Lange / Emanuel Tov, Leiden: Brill, 2017, 495–513. ZIEGLER, JOSEF, Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 15), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 42013.

Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel (Old Greek Ezekiel and its Hebrew Vorlage and MT-Ezekiel) Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel

KARIN FINSTERBUSCH Karin Finsterbusch

God’s covenant with his people is a central multifaceted religious topic in many authoritative texts of Ancient Israel. In this article, I will focus on covenantal texts in Ezekiel, on which no comprehensive study has yet been written in spite of the fact that they display quite a unique flavour.1 Ezekiel is also an interesting case since the book is extant in two variant literary editions:2 on the one hand Old Greek Ezekiel with its main witnesses LXX967, LXX988 and LXXB,3 and on the other hand MT-Ezek. Both editions differ in arrangement and length. In LXX967-Ezek, chapters 38–39 precede chapter 37 and several passages are absent (such as 12:26–28; 32:24b–26; 36:23b–38). Furthermore, many units in both editions have rather different shapes due to small but significant textual variations. The fairly literal Greek translation with a faithful imitation of the Hebrew word order and the syntax throughout the book points to a Hebrew Vorlage which in many cases does not correspond to MT-Ezek. The question is, of course, which edition was grosso modo the older one. As many other scholars do,4 I believe that it were grosso modo proto-masoretic 1 This unique flavour was observed by JÜNGLING, “Eid und Bund in Ezek 16–17”, 113: “Trotz der relativ geringen Anzahl der Belege für ‘Bund’ bietet das Ezechielbuch für diesen Begriff Nuancen, die anderswo im Alten Testament so nicht zutage treten.” 2 Ezekiel is one of the scriptures with a complex textual history. The extant ancient Hebrew Ezekiel manuscripts all date between the middle of the first century BCE and the early second part of the first century CE and align grosso modo with MT-Ezek; for an overview see LANGE, “Ezekiel. Ancient Manuscript Evidence”. However, the text-critically relevant quotations of and allusions to Ezekiel in the Second Temple Jewish literature attest not only to the existence of the non-masoretic Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek Ezekiel but also substantiate the assumption that even more non-masoretic Ezekiel texts were in use until the beginning of the first century BCE, see FINSTERBUSCH, “The Non-Masoretic Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek Ezekiel”. 3 See LUST, “Ezekiel. Septuagint”, 581. The most important witness is undoubtedly papyrus 967. The extant sections cover most of Ezek 11:25–48:35. The extant Ezekiel fragments of papyrus 988 (Antinoopolis papyrus) are of no text-critical importance for the present article. 4 See e.g. LUST, “Major Divergences”; KONKEL, “Ezechiel-Septuaginta”; LILLY, Two Books of Ezekiel, 130.

122

Karin Finsterbusch

editors-scribes5 who reworked an older text intensely, since it is in numerous cases more reasonable to explain the differences this way than the other way around. In both Ezekielian variant editions “covenant”6 (Hebrew: ‫ ;ברית‬Greek translation: διαθήκη) is a genuine part of the book design. In the non-masoretic edition, the word appears 18 times in six subunits,7 in the masoretic edition 18 times in seven subunits. Several times, covenant has the meaning of a political agreement between people (Old Greek Ezekiel: 8 times; MT-Ezek: 7 times).8 I will not discuss these cases, however, but concentrate solely on ‫ ברית‬/ διαθήκη in the sense of God’s covenant with Israel. In the first part of this article, the covenantal texts in four subunits of the older edition will be analysed (16:8, 59–63; 34:25; 37:26; 44:7), using as textual basis LXX967 and, if a textual portion is not extant in the papyrus, the second best witness of Old Greek Ezekiel, LXXB. The covenantal texts will be presented sequentially, since the narrative dynamic within the book is crucial for the understanding of the overall concept of covenant. Translation-critical and text-critical notes are only made if they are important for the understanding of the topic covenant. In the second part, the focus is on covenantal changes in MT-Ezek: In one subunit (MT-Ezek 20), the topic covenant was inserted anew, and two of the old covenantal texts were significantly reworked (MT-Ezek 34:25; 44:7). Finally, the profile of both concepts of covenant will be reflected on, summarizing the main findings.

5

TOV, Textual Criticism, 240. The translation “covenant” (German: “Bund”) for ‫ ברית‬/ διαθήκη has been much discussed, see KUTSCH, Verheißung und Gesetz; BARR, “Semantic Notes”; MCCONVILLE, “Covenant”. See as well the contribution of Martin Rösel in this volume. Since there is no convincing alternative, the term “covenant” is used in the present article. 7 Old Greek Ezekiel: 16:1–63 (7x); 17:1–24 (6x); 30:1–19 (1x); 34:1–31 (1x); 37:15–28 (2x); 44:4–46:18 (1x). MT-Ezek: 16:1–63 (6x); 17:1–24 (6x); 20:1–44 (1x); 30:1–19 (1x); 34:1–31 (1x); 37:15–28 (2x); 44:4–46:18 (1x). The book (both editions) is designed as an account of the prophet. In the world of the book, Ezekiel narrates in a sequence of different major sections, each one introduced by a date formula; the subunits within these sections were often introduced by formulae like the word-event formula and the citation formula, see SWEENEY, “Ezekiel: Zadokide Priest”, 127–143; MAYFIELD, Literary Structure, 77–124; POSER, Ezechielbuch, 283–284. 8 Old Greek Ezekiel: 16:29; 17:13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19; 30:5. MT-Ezek: 17:13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19; 30:5. 6

Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel

123

1. The Concept of Covenant in the Old Greek Ezekiel and its Hebrew Vorlage Respectively 1.1 Transforming an old covenant into an eternal one: the covenant with Jerusalem (Ezek 16:8, 59–63) Ezek 8–19 constitutes the second major section in the book, demarcated by the initial date formulae in 8:1 and 20:1. The section opens with a vision account (Ezek 8–11): This vision account contains not only the departure of “God’s Glory” (Hebrew: ‫ )כבוד יהוה‬from the profaned Temple in Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple and the punishment of the people, but also God’s somewhat surprising announcement of the implementation of a new heart and a new spirit in the future. Each of the following subunits, usually introduced by the word-event formula, elaborates upon the significance of this vision. “Covenant” is mentioned for the first time in the book in the subunit Ezek 16. It opens with the following sentences: 16:1 And the word of Kyrios came to me, saying: 2 Son of man, testify to Jerusalem about her lawless acts 3 and you shall say: Your origin and your birth (is) from the land of Canaan; your father (is) an Amorrite and your mother a Chettite. 4 And as for your birth: In the day you were born … with water you were not bathed and with salt you were not salted …, 5a neither did my eye spare you so as to do for you one of these things to show feelings for you. 5b And you were thrown out on the surface of the plain by the perversion of your soul in the day that you were born. 6 And I passed by you and saw you fouled by your own blood and said to you: From your blood (shall be) life, 7 grow up! Just like the sprouting of the field I have rendered you, and you grew up and became tall and entered into cities of cities. Your breasts were set right, and your hair grew, but you, you were naked and disgraced. 8 And I passed through you and saw you and behold! It was your time and a time of lodgers, and I spread out my wings over you and covered your shamefulness, and I swore to you and came into a covenant with you – says Kyrios, the God – and you became mine. 9 And I bathed you with water and washed your blood from you …

According to 16:1–2, the prophet is charged to present God’s case against Jerusalem, which, as the capital city, presumably represents the entire nation. God begins his case, retelling Jerusalem her biography. The first episode about

124

Karin Finsterbusch

the exposed baby is especially remarkable in comparison with other ancient exposure tales: The abandonment by the parents – with God’s approval (cf. 16:5a)! – is not forced by shame or necessity; it is because of the perversion of her soul (16:5b). This is a particularly pejorative and remarkably critical judgement. God’s motive to eventually change his mind and to give the abandoned child a future is not entirely clear. One may assume that the picture of the helpless baby in the field arouses mercy and compassion. The next important biographical step is God’s marriage with the grown up girl (16:8). The reason for this step remains unclear again: irrational love? 16:8 displays a number of peculiarities: Only in this instance, God (and not a human being) is subject of the phrase “to come into a covenant” (Hebrew Vorlage: ‫בוא‬ Qal + ‫)בברית‬. Furthermore, the designation of marriage as covenant is unusual,9 and nowhere but in Ezek 16:8 is, as Moshe Greenberg has noted, the marriage declaration of the husband called an oath.10 These peculiarities undoubtedly point to quite another story behind the text. I turn again to the phrase “to come into a covenant”. It occurs about 25 times in the Second Temple Jewish literature,11 being rather unspecific with regard to the person who enters and with regard to the covenant. For example it is applied to covenants made by King Zedekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Jer 34:10), by King Asa (2 Chr 15:12), and by the Qumran community (1QS V7–10). The question is why of all things this phrase was put into God’s mouth in Ezek 16:8 instead of one of the usual phrases such as “God cut a covenant” (‫ )כרת ברית‬or “God gave a covenant” (‫)נתן ברית‬. In my view the likely answer is that ‫ בוא‬+ ‫ בברית‬does not occur in the Pentateuch and its famous covenant stories. Thus, the addressee Jerusalem in the world of the book is not “in danger” to identify the mentioned covenant with one specific covenant on the basis of the word-code. Rather, the word-code allows the association of all kinds of “breakable” (and – at least in theory – with the option of “annulment” made12) covenants between God and Israel in the early period, like the covenant at Sinai and the covenant in Moab (not, however, the covenant with Abraham in Gen 17, since this covenant is indeed made “eternal”:13 a ‫)ברית עולם‬. Such a 9 Within the Jewish Second Temple Literature there are, as it seems, only two other instances: Mal 2:14 and Prov 2:17. See HUGENBERGER, Marriage as a Covenant, 27–47. 10 GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20, 278. 11 See STRAWN, “‫”בְּ ִרית‬, 513. 12 Cf. STIPP, Jeremiah 25–52, 275: “Gemeint ist [mit Bund im Sinn von Vertrag] ein Gottesverhältnis, in dem JHWH bestimmte, für Israel lebensnotwendige Gaben gewährt und dafür als Gegenleistung die Befolgung seines im Gesetz niedergelegten Willens verlangt. Aufgrund der geschichtlichen Erfahrungen Israels erwies sich das Konzept bald als problematisch, weil die Vertragsförmigkeit des Gottesverhältnisses in der Theorie seine Widerruflichkeit einschloss, insbesondere wenn Israel den Forderungen JHWHs nicht nachkam.” 13 On the meaning of the “eternity” of the concept of covenant in Gen 17 see GROSS, “Individualisierung des Bundesbruchs in der Priesterschrift”, 70–76. – Interestingly, the

Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel

125

condensed understanding of covenant in Ezek 16:8 seems all the more likely with regard to the continuation of God’s speech. He draws the picture of a broken marriage, accusing Jerusalem of adulterous behaviour and of numerous cultic offenses like worshipping idols and sacrificing her children. These are certainly central themes of various pentateuchal covenantal laws.14 The case against unfaithful Jerusalem in Ezek 16, however, does not end with accusations, announcements of punishment or the presentation of the divorce bill. I quote the last sentences of the subunit: 16:59 And I will do with you just as you have done, as you have dishonoured these things so as to transgress my covenant. 60 And (then) I will remember, I, my covenant with you in the day of your youth, and I will establish (my covenant) for you as an eternal covenant. 61 And you will remember your way, and you will be completely dishonoured when I take back your elder sisters with your younger ones (i.e. Sodom and Samaria), and (then) I will give them to you for a building and not on account of your covenant(al behaviour). 62 And I will establish, I, my covenant with you, and you will know that I (am) Kyrios, the God, 63 in order that you will remember and will be ashamed and that there may not be an opening of your mouth from before your dishonour, when I make atonement for you for everything that you have done – says Kyrios. Translation-critical and text-critical notes: (1) 16:59: LXX967-Ezek: ταῦτα, reflecting ‫ אלה‬in the Hebrew Vorlage, which the Greek translator(s) read as pronoun ‫“ אֵ לֶּה‬these things”, referring presumably to the good things, which God gave to his wife. Masoretic vocalization: ‫“ אׇ לׇה‬curse”, referring to the covenantal curse.15 Both readings fit the passage. (2) 16:60: LXX967-Ezek: ἐν ἡμέρᾳ νηπιότητός σου, reflecting ‫ ;ביום נעוריך‬the singular ‫יום‬ occurred presumably in the Hebrew Vorlage of 16:43, too. Within the unit, this day is best understood as the very day, when the marital covenant was established. MT-Ezek: ‫ ;בימי נעוריך‬the plural ‫ ימים‬is attested in MT-Ezek 16:43, too. “The days of her youth” refer to the early period in the life of the woman in which the marital covenant was established. Both variants fit the passage.

God sums up Jerusalem’s behaviour as having transgressed “my covenant” (16:59). The covenant was broken, does this mean that it was annulled – a thesis Adrian Schenker developed concerning related texts in the book of

covenant with the Patriarchs (Gen 17, cf. Lev 26:43; Deut 4:31) plays no role in Ezekiel whatsoever (both editions), as has often been noted, see GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20, 364; BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24, 627–628. 14 In scholarly literature, the covenant is often equated with the Sinaitic covenant, e.g. RENAUD, “L’alliance éternelle”, 336. 15 See PETERSON, Ezekiel in Context, 197 (without discussing the different reading of the Greek translator[s]).

126

Karin Finsterbusch

Jeremiah?16 However, the wording of 16:59 stands against the thesis of annulment. God will react to Jerusalem’s violation of his covenant accordingly in the future. The covenant reality, thus, will be valid until the future.17 This future will not be a simple prolongation of the past, i.e. of transgression and punishment: In 16:60–63, God announces somewhat surprisingly a comprehensive restoration. With respect to the topic covenant, v. 60 is especially interesting. I present at first the wording according to LXX967 and its Hebrew Vorlage: καὶ μνησθήσομαι ἐγὼ τῆς διαθήκης μου τῆς μετὰ σοῦ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ νηπιότητός σου καὶ ἀναστήσω σοι διαθήκην αἰώνιον ‫וזכרתי אני את בריתי אותך ביום נעוריך‬ ‫והקימותי לך ברית עולם‬

In scholarly literature v. 60 is usually understood as: 60a And I will remember, I, my covenant with you in the day of your youth, 60b and I will establish for you an eternal covenant.

Many scholars have defended the continuity of both covenants, for example Moshe Greenberg and Daniel Block in their major commentaries.18 Even if this is the case, the question still remains why two covenants are mentioned here. There is, however, another possibility to understand the wording of v. 60, reading the indefinite accusative διαθήκην αἰώνιον / ‫ ברית עולם‬predicatively19: 60a And I will remember, I, my covenant with you in the day of your youth, 60b and I will establish (my covenant) for you as an eternal covenant.

According to 16:60a, God will by all means (repeated pronoun after the verb!) remember his covenant with Jerusalem in the day of her youth, which is a highly affirmative statement. There is apparently nothing wrong with the content of this covenant, at least nothing in the text points to the necessity of a change of content. What will result from the divine reflection of the old covenant, is according to 16:60b a change of condition: God will establish (‫קום‬ Hifil20) this old covenant as “eternal” covenant (he will not replace it by cutting a “new” one). In light of the marriage metaphor used at the beginning of the divine speech, the meaning of this announcement is: I will never ever give you a divorce bill and send you away. God will remove from his covenant with Jerusalem every possibility of it being temporary or finite. 16

SCHENKER, Das Neue am neuen Bund. Cf. SEDLMEIER, “Das JHWH-Volk Israel”, 167–168. 18 GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20, 291; BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24, 516–17; RENAUD, “L’alliance éternelle”, 338. 19 Cf. also JÜNGLING, “Eid und Bund”, 146–147; SEDLMEIER, “Bund”, 169. 20 Unlike the phrase ‫כרת ברית‬, which as a rule means the making of a new covenant (see below Ezek 34:25 and 37:26), ‫ הקים ברית‬often means the establishing of an existing covenant, see GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20, 291; NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant”, 101, note 52. 17

Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel

127

The expected impact on Jerusalem will be twofold. First, she will be able to remember her way, meaning to fully acknowledge her deeds and to feel true shame (16:61, 63). Second, she will understand the meaning of YHWH being God (16:62). However, one may wonder if this new reality alone would be really enough to make her change her ways permanently, making her obedient to the covenant obligations. What about the “perversion of her soul”, stated in 16:5b? As already mentioned above, the subunit Ezek 16 should be read in light of the vision account Ezek 8–11, which opens the second major section in the book. Especially important here is the passage 11:13–21: 11:13 And while I was prophesying (in Jerusalem within the vision), Pelatiah (son) of Benaiah died, and I fell on my face and cried with a loud voice and said: Woe, woe, o Kyrios, you are making an end of the remnant of Israel! 14 And the word of Kyrios came to me saying: 15 Son of man, your brothers and the men of your captivity and all the house of Israel have come to an end, those to whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem said: You are far away from Kyrios, to us the land is given as an inheritance! … 17 Therefore, say: Thus says Kyrios: And I will receive them out of the nations … and I will give to them the land of Israel 18 and they will enter there and will remove all its abominations and all its lawless acts from it. 19 And I will give them another heart and a new spirit I will give in them. And I will draw forth the heart of stone from their flesh and I will give them a heart of flesh, 20 so that in my statutes they will walk and my ordinances they will keep and do them. And they will be for me people and I will be for them God …

This passage reveals that it is not God’s intention to annihilate the remnant of Israel. Although he has clearly given up the inhabitants of Jerusalem due to their behaviour, a significant remnant of the people will remain, drawn from the exiles. After their return into the land, God will transplant their heart and transform their spirit (11:19). The goal of this supranatural divine operation is defined in 11:20 as obedience to the laws. With a heart of flesh and a new spirit installed, it would be impossible not to live according to God’s will. This reminds in particular of the pericope of the New Covenant in Jeremiah: God, cutting a new covenant, will enable the people to finally keep the Torah – by a supranatural transformation of their heart (MT-Jer 31:31–34/LXX-Jer 38:31– 3421). 21

On the variant editions of this pericope see my contribution in this conference volume.

128

Karin Finsterbusch

Back to Ezekiel 16. In light of the quoted passage from Ezekiel 11 it becomes clear, why the “perversion of the soul” will disappear and Jerusalem will be able to change her ways permanently. It is God himself who must and who will resolve this “fundamental human problem”22. 1.2 Making eternal covenants in the future The data formula in Ezek 33:21 marks the beginning of the last but one (i.e. the twelfth) major section in the book which ends before Ezek 40:1 (last data formula in the book). The structure of this section in the non-masoretic book differs from that of the MT significantly, as chapter 37 is positioned after chapters 38 and 39; this is after the pericope about the defeat of the surreal powerful ruler Gog. The central issue of the whole section is the restoration of the people in the future to come, including two covenants of peace in the first and in the last part of the section.23 1.2.1 The covenant of peace with David (34:25) The subunit Ezek 34 contains a divine speech which Ezekiel must pass on to the rulers of Israel. Using the metaphor of shepherds of God’s flock, those rulers are accused of having done nothing but oppress the people and lead them astray. Within the restored Israel, a new shepherd from the line of David will be appointed, as is explained in 34:23–25: 34:23 And I will raise over them (i.e. my flock) another shepherd and he will shepherd them, (namely) my servant David, and he will be their shepherd. 24 And I, Kyrios, I will be for them God and David (will be) ruler in their midst. I, Kyrios, I have spoken. 25a And I will make with David a covenant of peace 25b and I will get rid of harmful beasts from the land 22

BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24, 356. LYONS, “Who takes the Initiative?” 419, rightly emphasizes: “Every description of restoration in the book is unconditional; not one is depicted as a response to a prior act of repentance. […] It therefore strikes the reader as odd to find three explicit appeals to repeat in the book of Ezekiel: Ezek 14:6; 18:30–32; 33:10– 11.” Lyons provides in his article an instructive overview on the reception history of these passages. 23 The section displays the following structure after the opening account by the prophet (33:21–22): I. Evaluation of different groups within the people (33:23–33; 34:1–31); II. Arrangements to bring the exiles back into the land (35:1–36:15); III. Reasons for bringing the exiles back into the land (36:16–23; 38:1–39:29); IV. Arrangements to bring the exiles back into the land (37:1–14); V. In the land in the future: one people, one shepherd (37:15– 28). The section is structured concentrically with the third part in the center, see FINSTERBUSCH, “Ezechiel 33,21–39,29”, 119.

Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel

129

and they (i.e. my flock) will dwell secure in the wilderness and will sleep in the forests.

The Hebrew Vorlage of the sentence καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ Δαυιδ διαθήκην (34:25a) was in all probability ‫וכרתי לדויד ברית שׁלום‬. The phrase ‫ כרת‬Piel + ‫ברית‬ means as a rule making a new covenant – not establishing an old one; this would have been expressed by ‫ קום‬Hifil + ‫( ברית‬used in Ezek 16:60, 62). The accent of the wording ‫( כרתי ל‬instead of ‫ )כרתי את‬is on God’s act:24 God rather acts in favour of his covenantal partner than he does oblige him to do something. The content of the covenant of peace is spelled out in the sequel: The new David will be able to govern the people in peace; this means not being disturbed by any beastly elements within the land of Israel (34:25b) and not being threatened by foreign political powers such as the ruler Gog (Ezek 38–39). The covenant of peace, then, is connected to quite a new paradisiacal reality, set unconditionally25 by God himself, without any obligation for the people. The restoration will be a promissory divine act, sealed and confirmed by a new covenant. 1.2.2 The covenant of peace with the people of Israel (37:26) The twelfth major section in the non-masoretic book closes with the following sentences: 37:24 And my servant David will be ruler in their midst, one shepherd for all (i.e. all twelve tribes), because they will walk in my statutes and will keep my ordinances and do them. 25 And they will live upon their land that I have given to my servant Jacob, there where their fathers lived, and they will live upon it, they, and David, my servant, (will be) ruler for them forever. 26 And I will make with them a covenant of peace, an eternal covenant it will be for them forever. And I will put my sanctuary in their midst forever. 27 And my dwelling place will be in their midst. And I will be for them God and they, they will be for me people. 28 And the nations will know that I, I am Kyrios, who makes them holy, when my sanctuary will be in their midst forever.

The word αἰώνιος (Hebrew: ‫“ )עולם‬eternal/forever” is the key word of this passage: David will rule forever (37:25) – which implies that the covenant of 24 25

Cf. M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 21–37, 702. This aspect is highlighted, too, by TOOMAN, “Covenant”, 167.

130

Karin Finsterbusch

peace with David, mentioned in Ezek 34:25, is an eternal one. The covenant of peace for the people is explicitly connected with the word eternal even twice (37:26: διαθήκη αἰωνία αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, supposed Hebrew Vorlage: ‫)ברית עולם לעולם‬. And so is the future sanctuary (37:26, 28). Another aspect in this passage is worth noting. In 37:24, the speaking God in the world of the book expects the new political and social order in the land to work, because (Greek: ὃτι, supposed Hebrew Vorlage: ‫ )כי‬everybody will live according to the divine statutes and ordinances. The syntax is interesting, clearly keeping the laws separate from the content of one of the covenants of peace. Rather, within the book of Ezekiel, the laws can be related to God’s covenant with Jerusalem, who, as God’s covenantal partner, is obliged to live according to his standards. As already postulated, this covenant of the past, too, shall be established by God in the future to come eventually as an eternal covenant (16:60). Due to this strong emphasis on eternity, the new future seems to be somewhat static: an everlasting reality, an end-time full of political peace and unbreakable harmony between the people, the Davidic ruler and God. With respect to the topic covenant, this means that there won’t be any need to cut a further covenant or to renew an old one. In this paradisiacal state, the two covenants of peace which cannot be breached would be the last covenants God will ever need to cut with and for his people. 1.3 Update of content: new legislation within the old covenant (Ezek 44:7) The thirteenth and last major section in the book appears in Ezek 40–48; the date formula in 40:1 points to the year 573 BCE. Jerusalem and the Temple are destroyed. The section is dominated by a vision, in which Ezekiel receives a tour within the newly restored sanctuary on the Eden-like holy Temple mount, led by an angelic guide. During this tour, the prophet watches the return of “God’s Glory” into the Temple and receives some new laws for the house of Israel. Within Ezek 44, for the last time in the book a covenant is mentioned: 44:4 And he (i.e. the angelic guide) brought me in … to the front of the (Temple-)house … 5 And Kyrios said to me: Son of man … look with your eyes and with your ears hear everything that I, I am speaking to you concerning all statutes of the (Temple-)house of Kyrios and concerning all its laws … 6a And you shall say to the embittering, to the house of Israel: 6b Thus says Kyrios: Let there be all of your lawless acts enough for you, o house of Israel, 7a not to bring in (any more) alien sons, uncircumcised in heart, to be in my sanctuary and to profane it, when you are offering my bread and fat and blood!

Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel

131

7b And you were transgressing my covenant in all your lawless acts! 8 And you assigned (the alien sons) to keep watch in all my sanctuary! 9 Therefore, thus says Kyrios: No alien son, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall come to the sanctuary, from all aliens in the midst of the house of Israel, 10 but the Levites (shall come) …

What can be determined about the character of the covenant, mentioned in 44:7b? Its content is related to laws, especially cultic laws. The covenant is “breakable”, since God accuses the house of Israel of having broken it during the existence of the first Temple (v. 7b; supposed Hebrew Vorlage: ‫ותפרו את‬ ‫)בריתי‬.26 In spite of this violation, the old covenant has obviously not been annulled, since nothing in the passage indicates that the covenant is not valid any more or will not be valid in the future. There will be, however, some change concerning the legislation of the old covenant in the future. 44:5–6a serves as an introduction of quite a comprehensive series of new laws, presented in the following passages (44:6b–46:18 and 47:13–48:35). Ezekiel must proclaim these laws to the house of Israel. Why new laws within the old covenant? The reason is certainly not that the old laws are defective, since not the old laws are criticized, but solely the house of Israel is criticized for not having kept them (44:6b, 7b). The reason for the new legislation is a new constitution of the land of Israel, with the sanctuary being a separate place as its holy centre, not located any more within the city of Jerusalem (cf. Ezek 45:1–8; 48). All this requires indeed new laws, for example about the access to the Temple mount and about the sacrifices. The close reading of the major sections in the book suggests to identifying the last mentioned covenant in 44:7 with the first one in 16:8, since both covenants are “old” covenants and both have been violated by God’s covenantal partner in the preexilic times, whereas the assumption of the existence of two old “breakable” covenants unrelated to each other would be rather unsatisfactory. The focus of the covenantal texts in Ezek 16 and Ezek 44, however, is a different one: In the first case, the emphasis is on the transformation of the old covenant into an eternal covenant. In the second case the focus is on the adjustment of the legislation within this very covenant in the future. Scholars have sometimes described Ezekiel as a second Moses, meaning as a second legislator, since Ezek 40–48 contain the only body of legislation in the Hebrew Bible not placed in the mouth of Moses.27 I am not convinced. I would rather describe Ezekiel in the narrated world of the book as a prophet 26 The Greek translator(s), using the Greek Impf. παραβαίνετε, made clear that the violation of covenantal cultic laws was a constant one. 27 ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel 25–48, 1106; LEVENSON, Program of Restoration, 37–52; BLOCK, Ezekiel 25–48, 617; LEVITT KOHN, New Heart, 109.

132

Karin Finsterbusch

like Moses who – just in line with the prophetic law in Deut 18 – is commissioned to pass on to the house of Israel the updated will of God due to changed times and circumstances.28

2. Accentuations and Modifications in the Masoretic Book of Ezekiel 2.1 Insertion of the topic covenant: the old covenant as covenant made in Egypt (MT-Ezek 20) The date formula in 20:1 marks the beginning of the third major section in the book (20:1–23:49). Within the first subunit (20:1–44), the term ‫ ברית‬appears in V. 37. This, however, is not the only “covenantal insertion” in the masoretic version of the subunit, as the following textual extracts of both versions demonstrate. Additions in the respective text are underlined; decisive textual differences are set in italics: LXX967-Ezek

MT-Ezek

20:1 And in the seventh year … some of the elders of the house of Israel came to inquire of Kyrios, and they sat down before me. 2 And the word of Kyrios came to me, saying: 3 Son of man, speak to the elders of the house of Israel and say to them … 4 … The abominations of their fathers testify to them 5 and say to them: … From the day I chose Israel, then I made myself known to the descendants of the house of Jacob, and I made myself known to them in the land of Egypt and I took hold with my hand of them – 6– – to bring them out of the land of Egypt

20:1 And in the seventh year … some of the elders of Israel came to inquire of YHWH, and they sat down before me. 2 And the word of YHWH came to me, saying: 3 Son of man, speak to the elders of Israel and say to them … 4 … The abominations of their fathers make known to them 5 and say to them: … On the day I chose Israel, then I swore (lit.: raised my hand) to the descendants of the house of Jacob and made myself known to them in the land of Egypt, then I swore (lit.: raised my hand) to them, saying: I (am) YHWH, your God! 6a On that day I swore (lit.: raised my hand) to them 6b to bring them out of the land of Egypt

28

Ezekiel’s role is not that of a creative interpreter of the Torah, since the prophet usually does not address his audience on his own behalf but on behalf of God in order to pass on God’s words, contra GANZEL / LEVITT KOHN, “Ezekiel’s Prophetic Message”, 1078, 1084.

Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel

133

LXX967-Ezek

MT-Ezek

to a place that I swore their fathers, to a land that I had searched out for them … 7 And I said to them: Throw away, each of you, the disgusting objects of your eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the practices of Egypt; I (am) Kyrios, your God! … … 30 (Son of man), say, then, to the house of Israel: … 34 And I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands, to which you have been scattered with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with outpoured fury. 35 And I will bring you into the desert of the peoples, and enter into judgement with you there, face-to-face. 36 As I entered into judgement with your fathers in the desert of the land of Egypt, so I will judge you – the declaration of Kyrios. 37 And I will make you pass under the rod and I will make pass you by number. 38 And I will select out from you the impious and rebellious, because I will take them out of the land of their sojourn, but they shall not come to the land of Israel. And you will know that I (am) Kyrios.

– to a land that I had searched out for them … 7 And I said to them: Throw away, each of you, the disgusting objects of your eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt; I (am) YHWH, your God! … … 30 (Son of man), say, then, to the house of Israel: … 34 And I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands, to which you have been scattered with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with outpoured fury. 35 And I will bring you into the desert of the peoples, and enter into judgement with you there, face-to-face. 36 As I entered into judgement with your fathers in the desert of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgement with you – the declaration of Adonai YHWH. 37 And I will make you pass under the rod and I will bring you in the tradition of the covenant. 38 And I will purge you of those who rebel and transgress against me, I will take them out of the land of their sojourn, but he shall not come to the land of Israel. And you will know that I (am) YHWH.

Translation-critical and text-critical notes: (1) 20:5: LXX967-Ezek: ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας … καὶ ἐγνωρίσθην, reflecting ‫ מהיום … ואודע‬in the Hebrew Vorlage. The time of God’s election is not specified, a reference to the time of the Patriarchs is likely.29 MT-Ezek: ‫ביום … ואשׂא ידי‬. The time of election is fixed on a day during Israel’s presence in Egypt.

29

See OLLEY, Ezekiel, 362.

134

Karin Finsterbusch

(2) 20:37: LXX967-Ezek: ἐν ἀριθμῷ, reflecting ‫ במספר‬in the Hebrew Vorlage. This is an explanation of how God will use the shepherd’s rod in order to select. MT-Ezek: ‫במסרת הברית‬. This is an explanation of how or under which condition God will bring the people into the land. (3) 20:38: LXX967-Ezek: διότι, reflecting ‫ כי‬in the Hebrew Vorlage. MT-Ezek: ‫בי‬. This might be a case of scribal error due to graphic similarity of the letters ‫ ב‬and ‫כ‬. Since both readings fit the passage, the direction of change is difficult to tell. (4) 20:38: LXX967-Ezek: εἰσελεύσονται, the Greek translator(s) read presumably ‫יבאו‬, as testified by some masoretic Mss. The Leningradensis has ‫ ;יבוא‬this might be a scribal error due to the interchange of letters.

Supposedly proto-masoretic editors-scribes reworked the older subunit decisively in two passages, inserting the topic covenant – the opposite assumption of the removal of this topic from the subunit is not likely and in scholarly literature rightly not proposed. The connection of these two redactional activities has, however, as yet escaped notice. I turn first to MT-Ezek 20:5–7: Not only was God’s action accentuated twice as raising the hand to the house of Jacob (v. 5) – that gesture accompanied often ancient oath ceremonies. But God’s action was also fixed twice on a certain day (‫“ ביום‬on the day”, v. 5, 6). In light of this covenantal design, God’s obliging himself to bring his people out of Egypt into the Promised Land (v. 6b), and his obliging the people to give up foreign local gods (v. 7) – obligations which recall with respect to semantics and content especially the first commandment of the Decalogue and the sacral legislation of Lev 19:3–4 – appear as central mutual covenantal obligations. Thus, even though the word covenant does not appear, the making of a covenant is nonetheless implied in that passage, as various commentators have already correctly noted.30 The second passage of interest is MT-Ezek 20:32–38. In this passage, a second Exodus is announced which will be organized in different steps: The first step is God’s gathering Israel out of the nations (v. 34); the second one is God’s bringing them into the desert in order to judge them (v. 35–36). Since the speech formula at the end of v. 36 clearly marks the end of this step, I believe (in contrast to many other scholars) that v. 37–38 present a third step. In order to better defend this position, I will quote at first the Hebrew masoretic text of v. 37: ‫והעברתי אתכם תחת השׁבט‬ ‫והבאתי אתכם במסרת הברית‬

The two sentences are built strictly parallel to one another. God’s actions are described as ‫ עבר‬Hifil and ‫ בא‬Hifil. Both verbs express movement. But which movement is referred to? After the judgement of the whole people in the desert “face to face” (v. 35), this movement can only refer to the journey from the desert into the land of Israel. This understanding is especially supported by the 30

Cf. ALLEN, Ezekiel 20–48, 9; BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24, 625–626.

Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel

135

use of the verb ‫ בא‬Hifil, which often means “God brings into the land” (cf. 20:15, 28, 42). It is furthermore noteworthy that in the following sentence (v. 38) the verb ‫ בא‬is used again (in the Qal conjugation) in the sense of “to come into the land of Israel”. With respect to the parallelism membrorum, ‫ תחת השׁבט‬and ‫במסרת הברית‬ should both be understood instrumentally, thereby explaining the mode of God’s actions (“how”) – thus ruling out the usual understanding of ‫במסרת הברית‬ as an answer whereto God will bring Israel.31 The first expression ‫תחת השׁבט‬ (“under the rod”) evokes the picture of God as shepherd, using his rod (cf. Lev 27:32). God’s use of the rod, however, is not a friendly or a neutral one (for example in order to count his flock), rather it is used in order to select the good sheep from the bad ones (cf. v. 38). The second expression ‫“( במסרת הברית‬in the tradition of the covenant”) points not only to God as the (“traditional”) faithful covenantal partner, keeping his main covenantal promise to eventually bring Israel into the land, as stated at the beginning of the subunit (v. 5–6). But it also points to the fact that God will act on the way to the land according to the old covenantal agreement made in Egypt, which means he is punishing or selecting those individuals, who will disregard the covenantal stipulations (for example by worshipping other Gods). It should not be overlooked that the covenantal concept, as displayed in MTEzek 20, is a rather remarkable one; two points should be highlighted. First, a covenant “on the day, Israel was chosen in Egypt” is nowhere else known in Second Temple Jewish literature. The proto-masoretic Ezekielian editorsscribes obviously had an interest in letting the covenantal reality between God and his people begin during their stay in Egypt – neither beforehand in the land of Israel with the Patriarchs nor afterwards in the desert during the exodus. This goes decidedly against the narratives in the Pentateuch! Since according to MT-Ezek 20:5–6 the covenant in Egypt aims first and foremost at bringing the people out of Egypt and into the land of Israel, the intention is presumably to insert a critical statement on the Diaspora – most likely with respect to the Jewish Diaspora groups in Egypt and elsewhere at the time of the protomasoretic Ezekielian editors-scribes: Diaspora can only be a temporary state for Jews. Second, the expression “on the day, Israel was chosen in Egypt” seems to make the covenant in Egypt at first glance a singular and one-off 31 According to BLOCK, Ezekiel 1–24, 647–648, note 170, it is Israel who should be brought into the “obligation of the covenant” (reading ‫ מסרת‬in 20:37 as ‫ מאסרת‬from ‫“ אסר‬to bind”). This, however, does neither fit the beginning of the subunit MT-Ezek 20, since the covenant is already made (“in Egypt”) and Israel is already under the obligation of the covenant. Nor does it fit the passage 20:32–38, since the selection of the good and the bad sheep (20:38) would follow the imposing of the covenantal obligation on the people (20:37). The solution offered by GREENBERG in his instructive article, “MSRT HBRYT”, 42, to connect 20:37a and 20:38 and only then to read 20:37b (‫“ אתכם‬with you” would refer thus only to the selected good sheep) is rather artificial and thus not convincing.

136

Karin Finsterbusch

event. This, however, cannot be so, since the relationship between the covenant in Egypt and other important covenants in the period of the exodus (like the covenants at Sinai and in Moab), which the proto-masoretic editors-scribes must have acknowledged, would remain unclear. The making of a covenant includes at its very end as a rule the writing of the covenantal document. Within the Pentateuch, the covenantal process between God and Israel only ends up in Moab with Moses’ writing down the Torah (Deut 31). The Ezekielian “day, Israel was chosen in Egypt” should be understood, then, as the beginning of a covenantal process, in which several single covenants and several different legislations (cf. MT-Ezek 20:11–12) were successively integrated. I can only point here to another rather similar comprehensive covenantal concept in another major prophetic book: the covenant “on the day God took Israel out of Egypt” (i.e., on the very last day of Israel’s stay in Egypt) in the book of Jeremiah (cf. MT-Jer 31:32; 34:13).32 The significant agreement of the covenant between God and his people in MT-Ezek 16 and in MT-Ezek 20 leaves the book’s addressees in no doubt about its sameness: It is one and the same covenant made in the early period of Israel’s existence. Only the shape of the covenantal stories is different due to different interests of the authors and editors respectively. 2.2 Reworking covenantal texts 2.2.1 Making the covenant of peace with David disappear (MT-Ezek 34:25) The first “covenantal change” which must be analysed concerns the passage Ezek 34:23–25. In the following translation of the masoretic version, additions in comparison with the non-masoretic version are underlined, important textual differences are set in italics: 34:23 And I will raise over them (i.e. my flock) a single shepherd and he will shepherd them, (namely) my servant David, he, he will shepherd them, and he, he will be for them shepherd. 24 And I, YHWH, I will be for them God and my servant David (will be) ruler in their midst. I, YHWH, I have spoken. 25a And I will make with them a covenant of peace 25b and I will get rid of harmful beasts from the land and they (i.e. my flock) will dwell secure in the wilderness in security and will sleep in the forests.

32

See FINSTERBUSCH, “Auszugs-Bund”, 93–94; ROM-SHILONI, “Phrase”, 641–642. – Lev 26 attests to another case of fusing several covenants into one covenant, see NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant”, 111–112.

Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel

137

As the additional textual elements in v. 23 and v. 24 show, not only the function of David as shepherd was emphasized in the masoretic version, but also his status as God’s servant. David’s role as covenantal partner of God, however, was removed from the text:33 According to v. 25a God will make his covenant of peace with the whole people (‫)וכרתי להם ברית שׁלום‬, this would of course include David. Obviously, in the eyes of the proto-masoretic editors-scribes David did not deserve an extra covenant. It is hard to escape the conclusion that these scribes wanted to diminish the power of the political ruler in the authoritative religious book with regard to the ruler at their present time. Interestingly enough, the proto-masoretic editors-scribes of Jeremiah acted conversely: While reworking the book edition, they inserted a new passage (MT-Jer 33:14–26), which includes a reaffirmation of the old covenant with David (and with Levi) in the future.34 2.2.2 Increase of violation of covenantal laws in the past (MT-Ezek 44:7) Ezek 44:7 is the second case of reworking a covenantal text. In the following, a translation of extracts of MT-Ezek 44:4–10 will be presented; as previously done above, additions in comparison with the non-masoretic version are underlined, important textual differences are set in italics: 44:4 And he (i.e. the angelic guide) brought me in … to the front of the (Temple-)house … 5 And YHWH said to me: Son of man … look with your eyes and with your ears hear everything … 6 And you shall say to the embittering, to the house of Israel: Thus says Adonai YHWH: Let there be all of your abominations enough for you, o house of Israel, 7 in bringing in alien sons, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary and to profane it, my (Temple-)house, when you are offering my bread and fat and blood! And they (i.e. the alien sons) transgressed my covenant (in addition) to all your abominations! 8 And you did not keep watch of my holy (things), and you assigned (the alien sons) as keepers of my watch in all my sanctuary for yourself! 9 Therefore, thus says Adonai YHWH: No alien son, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall come to my sanctuary, from every son of aliens who (is) in the midst of the house of Israel, 10 but the Levites (shall come) … 33

In many important studies on Ezek 34:23–31 this textual change has escaped notice, see GOSSE, “La nouvelle alliance”, 426; TOOMAN, “Covenant and Presence”; NIHAN, “Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation”. 34 See LANGE, “Covenants with the Levites”. Cf. as well the contribution of Richard Bautch in this conference volume.

138

Karin Finsterbusch

In the masoretic version of v. 7 the foreigners are subject of the verb ‫ פרר‬Hifil (“they transgressed [my covenant]”). Scholars have often changed textcritically ‫ ויפרו‬into ‫“ ותפרו‬you (i.e. the house of Israel) transgressed (my covenant)”35 according to the supposed Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek καὶ παρεβαίνετε. Since, however, all masoretic manuscripts testify ‫ויפרו‬, this textcritical operation is to be rejected as arbitrary and the meaning of ‫ ויפרו‬is to be established. The covenantal transgression of the foreigners requires indeed an explanation because the mentioned covenant is obviously not valid for them. The passage contains no demand for the foreigners to change their behaviour and to enter the covenant by circumcision. On the contrary, according to 44:9 these foreigners will remain uncircumcised, and this goes in the text without a critical note. As uncircumcised foreigners they are not denied to live in the midst of the house of Israel, they are only denied to have access to the sanctuary. The focus of God’s accusation in MT-Ezek 44:6–8 is solely on the house of Israel. They violated cultic laws in the first instance by bringing in foreigners into the sanctuary. Inevitably the foreigners violated covenantal laws, too – as a by-effect of the behaviour of the house of Israel. This multifaceted violation points to the reason for making the proto-masoretic editors-scribes change the text of 44:7. They aimed in all likelihood to intensify Israel’s unlawful acts in the past, thus increasing the pessimistic anthropological view of the older book edition: Israel not only violated the laws by their own acts (profaning the sanctuary) but even involved others in adding to this violation.

3. The Profile of the Ezekielian Concepts of Covenant: Concluding Remarks The rationale for the concept of covenant in the non-masoretic book edition as represented by the Old Greek Ezekiel and its Hebrew Vorlage respectively is twofold: On the one hand the evaluation of the people as incorrigible, described in terms of constantly breaking God’s covenant (16:8, 59; 44:7). The focus of only one covenant, which is “breakable” (to the extent that it even might be annulled), in the early period of Israel’s existence, is a distinctive feature of Ezekiel. The most prominent “eternal” covenant with Abraham (Gen 17) is completely ignored. On the other hand, there is the expectation of a paradisiacal state which will begin when the exiles are restored in their land. This beginning will be marked by two covenants of peace, one with David (34:25) and one with the people (37:26). The character of those covenants of peace differs significantly from that of the old covenant, as both covenants of peace are “eternal”, both are sort of divine promises with respect to the internal and 35

See e.g. KILCHÖR, “Ezechiel und Ägypten”, 10.

Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel

139

external political security of the people, and both are made without imposing any obligations on the human side. Even in paradise, however, God’s rules must be obeyed. Thus, the old covenant will not be given up, but will be integrated into the paradisiacal state. Since territory, Temple and Jerusalem will be organized anew and quite differently than in the old world, the legislation of the old covenant must be updated (chapters 40–48). Furthermore, since the paradisiacal state will be an eternal one, the condition of the old covenant, too, must be adapted, i.e., by transforming it into an eternal covenant (16:60). And there is another operation necessary: God’s supranatural replacement of the old heart and the old spirit of his people by a heart of flesh and a new spirit (11:17–21). The reasons for the covenantal changes made by proto-masoretic editorsscribes may be summarized as follows: First, supposedly in order to make a critical note on the Diaspora state, they fixed the making of the old covenant (or more precisely: the beginning of the covenantal process in the early period of Israel’s existence) in Egypt and described God’s covenantal obligation first and foremost as leading his people into the land of Israel (MT-Ezek 20). Second, supposedly in order to make a critical note on the present ruler, they made the covenant of peace with David disappear from the text (MT-Ezek 34:25). Consequently, the concept of covenant in MT-Ezek includes only two covenants, each one marks the beginning of a new era: the beginning of Israel as God’s chosen people in Egypt, and the beginning of the paradisiacal era in the land of Israel. Third, supposedly in order to intensify the pessimistic anthropological line in the older book, the proto-masoretic editors-scribes increased the dimension of the people’s violating the old covenant in the First Temple period (MT-Ezek 44:7). The necessity of the implementation of a new heart and a new spirit – additionally emphasized in the masoretic book of Ezekiel by the insertion of a long textual plus (MT-Ezek 36:23b–38) – becomes thus even more understandable. These differences show not least that even within such a major authoritative prophetic book as Ezekiel, the concept of covenant was adapted due to religious insight and developed due to changed political circumstances in the course of the textual transmission until a rather late period in Second Temple Judaism.

Bibliography ALLEN, LESLIE C., Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29), Dallas: Word Books, 1990. BARR, JAMES, “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant”, in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift W. Zimmerli, edited by Herbert Donner et al., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977, 23–38. BLOCK, DANIEL I., The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (NICOT), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. –, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (NICOT), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

140

Karin Finsterbusch

FINSTERBUSCH, KARIN, “Auszugs-Bund: Neuer Bund und weitere Bünde: ‘Berit’ im älteren (hebräische Vorlage LXX-Jer) und im jüngeren Jeremiabuch (MT-Jer)”, in Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism (FAT II/79), edited by N. MacDonald, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015, 87–121. –, “Ezechiel 33,21–39,29: Anmerkungen zum Profil der Sinneinheit in der nicht-masoretischen Textfassung (Papyrus 967) und zu Veränderungen durch proto-masoretische Redaktoren”, in Sources and Interpretation in Ancient Israel: Studies for Tal Ilan at Sixty (AJEC 104), edited by M.M. Piotrkowski et al., Leiden: Brill, 2018, 109–129. –, “The Non-Masoretic Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek Ezekiel (LXX967/LXXB), Other Non-Masoretic and Proto-Masoretic Ezekiel Texts: Evidence from Quotations of and Allusions to Ezekiel in Second Temple Judaism”, VT 71 (2021): 329–351. GANZEL, TOVA and LEVITT KOHN, RISA, “Ezekiel’s Prophetic Message in Light of Leviticus 26”, in The Formation of the Pentateuch. Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT 111), edited by J.C. Gertz et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016, 1075–1084. GOSSE, BERNARD, “La nouvelle alliance et les promesses d’avenir se référent à David dans les livres de Jérémie, Ézechiel et Isaïe”, VT 41 (1991): 419–428. GREENBERG, MOSHE, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22), New York: Doubleday, 1982. –, “MSRT HBRYT: ‘The Obligation of the Covenant’, in Ezekiel 20:37”, in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. FS David Noel Freedman, edited by C.L. Meyers and M. O’Connor, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983, 37–46. –, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB 22A), New York: Doubleday, 1997. GROSS, WALTER, “Noch einmal: Individualisierung des Bundesbruchs in der Priesterschrift. Eine Überprüfung”, in Jeremia, Deuteronomismus und Priesterschrift. FS H.-J. Stipp, edited by A. Michel / N.K. Rüttgers, St. Ottilien: Eos print, 2019, 69–86. HUGENBERGER, GORDON P., Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Maleachi (VTSup 52), Leiden: Brill, 1994. JÜNGLING, HANS-WINFRIED, “Eid und Bund in Ezek 16–17”, in Der neue Bund im alten. Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente, edited by E. Zenger, Freiburg: Herder, 1993, 113–148. KILCHÖR, BENJAMIN, “Ezechiel und Ägypten. Ein Vorschlag zur Identifikation der Fremden in Ezechiel 44,7.9”, BN NF 179 (2018): 3–17. KONKEL, MICHAEL, “Die Ezechiel-Septuaginta, Papyrus 967 und die Redaktionsgeschichte des Ezechielbuches – Probleme und Perspektiven am Beispiel von Ez 34”, in Das Buch Ezechiel. Komposition, Redaktion und Rezeption (BZAW 516), edited by J. Chr. Gertz et al., Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020, 43–62. KUTSCH, ERNST, Verheißung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten ‘Bund’ im Alten Testament (BZAW 131), Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. LANGE, ARMIN, “The Covenants with the Levites (Jer 33:21) in the Proto-Masoretic Text of Jeremiah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in ‘Go out and Study the Land!’ (Judges 18:2). FS H. Eshel (JSJ.Sup 148), edited by A. M. Maeir et al., Leiden: Brill, 2012, 91– 116. –, “Ezekiel. 8.2.1. Ancient Manuscript Evidence”, in Textual History of the Bible, Vol. 1B. Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, edited by A. Lange / E. Tov, Leiden: Brill, 2017, 570–572. LEVENSON, JON DOUGLAS, Theology of the Program of Restauration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 10), Missoula: Scholars, 1976.

Concepts of Covenant in the Variant Literary Editions of Ezekiel

141

LEVITT KOHN, RISA, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOTSup 358), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. LILLY, INGRID, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions (VTSup 150), Leiden: Brill, 2012. LUST, JOHAN, “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel”, in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SCS 52), edited by A. Schenker, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 82– 92. –, “Ezekiel. 8.3. Septuagint”, in Textual History of the Bible, Vol. 1B. Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, edited by A. Lange / E. Tov, Leiden: Brill, 2017, 581–585. LYONS, MICHAEL A., “Who Takes the Initiative? Reading Ezekiel in the Second Temple Period and Late Antiquity”, in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions (FAT 112), edited by W.A. Tooman and P. Barter, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 417–441. MAYFIELD, TYLOR D., Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel (FAT II/43), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. MCCONVILLE, J. GORDON, “Covenant”, in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. 1, edited by W.A. VanGemeren, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publ. House, 1997, 747–755. NIHAN, CHRISTOPHE, “The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of ‘P’”, in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (AThANT 95), edited by S. Shectman / J. S. Baden, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009, 87–134. –, “Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation: A Plea for Nonlinear Models”, in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT 111), edited by J. C. Gertz et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016, 1015–1039. OLLEY, JOHN W., Ezekiel: A Commentary based on Iezekiēl in Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series), Leiden: Brill, 2009. PETERSON, BRIAN NEIL, Ezekiel in Context: Ezekiel’s Message Understood in Its Historical Setting of Covenant Curses and Ancient Near Eastern Mythological Motifs (Princeton Theological Monograph Series), Eugene: Pickwick, 2012. POSER, RUTH, Das Ezechielbuch as Trauma-Literatur (VTSup 154), Leiden: Brill, 2012. RENAUD, BERNARD, “L’alliance éternelle d’Éz 16,59–63 et l’alliance nouvelle de Jér 31,13– 34”, in Ezekiel and his Book: Texual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BEhTL 74), edited by J. Lust, Leuven: University Press, 1986, 335–339. ROM-SHILONI, DALIT, “‘On the Day I Took Them out of the Land of Egypt’: A NonDeuteronomistic Phrase within Jeremiah’s Conception of Covenant”, VT 65 (2015): 621– 647. STIPP, HERMANN-JOSEF, Jeremiah 25–52 (HAT I/12,2), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. SCHENKER, ADRIAN, Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten: Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel (FRLANT 212), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. SEDLMEIER, FRANZ, “Das JHWH-Volk Israel und der von Gott nie gekündigte Bund”, in Antijudaismen in der Exegese? Eine Diskussion 50 Jahre nach Nostra Aetate, edited by S. Schreiber / Th. Schumacher, Freiburg: Herder, 2015, 158–182. STRAWN, BRENT A., “‫”בְּ ִרית‬, ThQ I (2011): 508–521. SWEENEY, MARVIN A., “Ezekiel: Zadokide Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile”, in idem, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 127–143.

142

Karin Finsterbusch

TOOMAN, WILLIAM A., “Covenant and Presence in the Composition and Theology of Ezekiel”, in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism (FAT II/61), edited by N. MacDonald / I.J. de Hulster, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, 151–182. TOV, EMANUEL, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis: Fortress, 32012. ZIMMERLI, WALTHER, Ezechiel: 2. Teilband 25–48 (BK 13/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 21979.

Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen* Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen

EBERHARD BONS Eberhard Bons

1. Vorüberlegungen Wer die verschiedenen alttestamentlichen Bundeskonzepte untersucht und sich für die Frage interessiert, welche Vorstellungen und Implikationen mit ihnen jeweils verbunden sind, wird in der Regel den Blick auf die einschlägigen Texte des Pentateuchs und der Propheten Jeremia und Ezechiel richten, nicht jedoch auf die Psalmen. Vielleicht ist es kein Zufall, dass Moshe Weinfeld in seinem ausführlichen Artikel zum Begriff ‫ ברית‬dem Befund in der prophetischen Literatur einen eigenen Abschnitt widmet, die Belege in den Psalmen aber im gesamten Artikel höchstens beiläufig erwähnt.1 Dennoch wird man den Psalmen keinesfalls ein “Bundesschweigen”2 attestieren können, kommt doch das Substantiv ‫ברית‬, rein statistisch betrachtet, im hebräischen Psalter 21mal vor, verteilt auf insgesamt 13 Psalmen. Dabei ist das Wort mehr als einmal in Ps 25; 50; 78; 89; 105; 111 belegt. Gewöhnlich wird es im Deutschen mit “Bund” übersetzt, so offenbar schon seit Martin Luther,3 und diese Übersetzung findet sich auch in den neuesten deutschsprachigen Bibelausgaben. So halten die Neue Zürcher Bibel von 2007, die Revidierte Einheitsübersetzung von 2016 sowie die Luther-Bibel in der Revision von 2017 an der Wiedergabe von ‫ ברית‬mit “Bund” nach wie vor fest. Wenn auch in einem Text wie Psalm 89 das Wort ‫ ברית‬viermal vorkommt, sollte man diesem Befund nicht zu viel Gewicht verleihen. Zwar ist diesem gehäuften Gebrauch Rechnung zu tragen, doch insgesamt gesehen ist das Thema des Bundes – so die Hypothese dieses Artikels – im Psalter nur ein marginales Thema. Das bestätigen auch einige weitere Beobachtungen, die schon bei einer ersten Lektüre der in Betracht kommenden Stellen auffallen: – In der Regel wird auf keinen spezifischen Bund explizit verwiesen, der anderswo im Alten Testament, insbesondere im Pentateuch, erwähnt würde. Überhaupt spielt die sogenannte Urgeschichte Israels an den Stellen, wo in den

* Für eine sorgfältige Lektüre dieses Artikels sowie für einige wertvolle Hinweise danke ich meiner Kollegin Prof. Dr. Karin Finsterbusch, Landau. 1 Vgl. WEINFELD, “‫ בְּ ִרית‬berît”, passim. 2 Zu diesem Ausdruck vgl. PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 129–155. 3 Vgl. KUTSCH, “Bund I”, 397.

144

Eberhard Bons

Psalmen vom Bund die Rede ist, keine Rolle. Eine Ausnahme bildet jedoch Psalm 105. – Die Belege von ‫ ברית‬in den Psalmen gehen nicht auf Begleithandlungen von Bundesschlüssen ein. Bundesformeln werden nicht zitiert, und die Verpflichtungen, die die Bündnisspartner mit ihrer Einigung eingehen, sowie die Maßnahmen, die bei einem eventuellen Bundesbruch in Kraft treten sollen, kann man allenfalls aus dem Kontext erschließen, wenn überhaupt. – Die Terminologie – insbesondere der Gebrauch der Verben, von denen ‫ ברית‬syntaktisch abhängt – hat zwar einige Gemeinsamkeiten mit der übrigen alttestamentlichen Literatur; dennoch werden einige geläufige Formulierungen nicht verwendet. Doch auch innerhalb des Psalters ist die Terminologie sehr heterogen. – Die verschiedenen Stellen im Psalter, die von einem Bund sprechen, lassen sich kaum auf einen gemeinsamen inhaltlichen Nenner bringen. Noch viel weniger kann man den Psalmen eine Art übergreifender “Bundestheologie” entnehmen, selbst wenn diese nur auf einige bestimmte Psalmen beschränkt wäre, andere Psalmen dagegen sich nicht in eine solche textübergreifende Konzeption einordnen ließen. Vielmehr erscheinen die mit dem Terminus ‫ ברית‬verbundenen Vorstellungen als disparat, ganz zu schweigen davon, dass die betreffenden Stellen im Psalter es wegen ihrer Kürze kaum zulassen, in ihnen explizite bundestheologische Ideen wiederzufinden. Möglicherweise waren diese Ideen entweder schon verblasst, als die Psalmen verfasst wurden, oder aber sie waren soweit bekannt, dass sie keiner weiteren Erklärungen und Ausführungen mehr bedurften. Norbert Lohfink bemerkt, dass späte alttestamentliche Texte lediglich mittels Anspielungen auf die Thematik des Bundes verweisen, trotzdem aber andere Texte voraussetzen, in denen diese ausführlich behandelt wird.4 Die alttestamentliche Forschung hat sich in den zurückliegenden Jahrzehnten Fragen vor allem der literarhistorischen Einordnung der verschiedenen Bundesschlüsse gewidmet, die in der Hebräischen Bibel erwähnt werden. Dazu kommen weitere Fragestellungen, etwa der Vergleich mit altorientalischen, vor allem neuassyrischen Bundesvorstellungen, schließlich die Untersuchung der Funktion von Aussagen über Bundesschlüsse in ihren jeweiligen alttestamentlichen Kontexten.5 Im Zusammenhang des vorliegenden Artikels kann auf diese Forschungen nur hier und da verwiesen werden. Da es um die Psalmen geht, soll eine andere Aufgabe im Vordergrund stehen. Sofern sich terminologische und inhaltliche Verbindungslinien zu anderen Belegen von ‫ ברית‬sowie zu Bundesvorstellungen ziehen lassen, sollen diese genauer beschrieben werden. Es stellt sich nämlich die Frage, von welchen möglicherweise in anderen 4

Vgl. LOHFINK, “Begriff”, 25. Vgl. die Beiträge im vorliegenden Band sowie die verschiedenen Überblicksartikel, etwa GERTZ, “Bund II: Altes Testament”; ferner GROSS, Zukunft für Israel, 9–12. 5

Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen

145

Texten belegten Bundesvorstellungen die Belege im Psalter beeinflusst sind oder ob sie wenigstens eine gewisse Nähe zu diesen erkennen lassen. In anderen Fällen hingegen wird es notwendig sein, die Unterschiede genauer zu erfassen: Inwiefern weichen die Stellen, in denen eine ‫ ברית‬im Psalter erwähnt wird, von den bundestheologischen Vorstellungen ab, die anderswo im Alten Testament erwähnt werden? In welchem Maße scheinen sie sie vorauszusetzen? Somit stehen drei Fragen im Vordergrund: – Wie fügt sich die Rede von der ‫ ברית‬in den jeweiligen Kontext eines Psalms ein? – Mit welcher Terminologie ist die Rede von der ‫ ברית‬jeweils verknüpft? Welche Konnotationen hat das Substantiv in seinen spezifischen Kontexten? – Auf welche Bundesvorstellungen wird Bezug genommen? Wird möglicherweise auf einen bestimmten Bund angespielt? Dieser Artikel soll zunächst einen Überblick über die verschiedenen im Psalter belegten Aussagen bieten, in denen das Substantiv ‫ ברית‬vorkommt, sofern dieses das Verhältnis zwischen Gott und Israel betrifft.6 Danach sollen kurz die Aussagen skizziert werden, die an solche Bundesvorstellungen anknüpfen, die aus anderen alttestamentlichen theologischen Entwürfen bekannt sind (2). Dabei wird auf eine detaillierte Exegese der entsprechenden Texte verzichtet. Zwei Psalmenzitate jedoch scheinen keine eindeutige Zuordnung zu derartigen Bundesvorstellungen zuzulassen. Es handelt sich dabei um Psalm 44,18 und Psalm 74,20, also um Zitate aus den sogenannten Volksklagepsalmen. Diese beiden Stellen werden in zwei weiteren Abschnitten auf dem Hintergrund ihres Kontextes ausführlicher behandelt (3). Einige zusammenfassende und weiterführende Überlegungen schließen diesen Artikel ab (4).

6 Aus diesem Grund kann Ps 83,6 und sein unmittelbarer Kontext außer Acht bleiben, da dort von einem Bündnis unter Menschen die Rede ist, und zwar von den Nachbarvölkern Israels, die gegen Gott einen Bund geschlossen haben sollen (‫)עליך ברית יכרתו‬. Diese Verwendung von ‫ ברית‬als eines Vertrages unter menschlichen Partnern ist mehrfach in der Hebräischen Bibel bezeugt; vgl. ausführlich hierzu KUTSCH, Verheißung, 11–12; WEINFELD, “‫ בְּ ִרית‬berît”, 784. Ähnliches gilt weiterhin für Ps 55,21, wo die Verletzung eines Bundes beklagt wird, der unter Menschen geschlossen worden ist. Das schließt nicht aus, dass man dabei ursprünglich die Gottheit als Zeugen angerufen hat; vgl. ALONSO SCHÖKEL / CARNITI, Salmos, I, 758.

146

Eberhard Bons

2. Ein kurzer Überblick über die Bundesvorstellungen im Psalter 2.1 Reminiszenzen der priesterschriftlichen Bundeskonzeptionen Die einzige Aussage zu den Bundesschlüssen mit den Patriarchen findet sich in Ps 105,8–10. In diesem Geschichtspsalm wird auf die Patriarchenzeit zurückgegriffen und daran erinnert, dass Gott seines Bundes für immer gedenkt (Vers 8: ‫)זכר לעולם בריתו‬, den er mit Abraham geschlossen hat (‫אשׁר כרת את־‬ ‫)אברהם‬, ja dass er seinen Bund als einen Bund für die Ewigkeit in Kraft gesetzt hat (Vers 10: ‫)ויעמידה … ברית עולם‬. In diesen Versen wird im Wesentlichen auf zwei Texte aus dem Pentateuch angespielt, und zwar an die priesterschriftliche Konzeption vom ewigen Bund (‫ )ברית עולם‬in Gen 17,7.13.197 sowie an die Rede vom Bund für tausend Generationen (‫ )לאלף דור‬in Dtn 7,9. Wie in Gen 17 ist auch in Ps 105 das Versprechen Gottes8 weder Gegenstand von Verhandlungen9 noch an irgendwelche Bedingungen gebunden, die Israel erfüllen müsste, damit der Bund in Kraft bleibt.10 Im Gegensatz zu Gen 17 wird die Verpflichtung zur Beschneidung nicht erwähnt. Außerdem wird im unmittelbaren Kontext nicht auf die Verpflichtung Israels Bezug genommen, die Torah und ihre Gebote zu halten. Dies ist erst in Vers 45 der Fall: Nachdem in Vers 42 an das Wort erinnert wird, das Gott Abraham einst gegeben hat, wird gleichsam als dessen Erfüllung nicht die große Nachkommenschaft erwähnt (vgl. Gen 17,6), sondern die Gabe des Landes. Diese ist wiederum mit dem Gehorsam gegenüber dem Gesetz und den Geboten verbunden, wie Vers 45 ausführt. Damit nähern sich die letzten Verse des Psalms den Vorstellungen an, wie sie etwa aus Dtn 4,1; 11,31–32 bekannt sind. Von einem Bundesbruch Israels ist in diesem Psalm, dessen Geschichtsdarstellung mit der Landnahme endet, jedoch nicht die Rede. Offenbar haben die Zusagen Gottes an die Patriarchen nach wie vor für die Beter des Psalms Bestand.11 Und noch mehr: “Gedenken” (Verb ‫ )זכר‬impliziert eine “handelnd-helfende Zuwendung zum Menschen”12, die wiederum Grund für Hoffnung ist. In einer Zeit, die den Verlust der politischen Autonomie, die Tempelzerstörung und das Exil kennt, tritt darum die

7

Vgl. zu den Details GROSS, Zukunft für Israel, 52–64. KUTSCH, Verheißung, 21, spricht hier von “Selbstverpflichtung”. 9 Vgl. PASSARO, “Theological Hermeneutics”, 45. 10 Vgl. auch GÄRTNER, Geschichtspsalmen, 154. Die Frage, inwieweit in Gen 17 von einem unbedingten oder (aufgrund der Verpflichtung zur Beschneidung) von einem bedingten Bund die Rede sein kann, wird hier nicht weiter vertieft; vgl. hierzu KRAUSE, Bedingungen des Bundes, 61–80. 11 So GÄRTNER, Geschichtspsalmen, 159. 12 JANOWSKI, “Schöpferische Erinnerung”, 20 (dort kursiv). 8

Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen

147

Zusage Gottes an die Patriarchen in den Vordergrund und nicht der Bundesbruch.13 Ähnliches gilt nun auch für die Reflexion in den Versen 43–46, mit denen die Betrachtung der Geschichte in Psalm 106 abschließt. Dort findet sich in Vers 45 die Aussage, dass Gott seines Bundes um der Israeliten willen gedacht hat (Vers 45: ‫)ויזכר להם בריתו‬. Ohne hier den thematischen Aufbau dieses weiteren Geschichtspsalms nachzuzeichnen, sei bemerkt, dass dieser an die in Ps 105,8–10 zum Ausdruck kommende Bundeskonzeption anknüpft. Im Gegensatz zu diesem vertieft Psalm 106 jedoch das Thema des Ungehorsams Israels. Dabei kommt der Psalm aber zu dem sicherlich überraschenden Schluss,14 dass Gott sein Volk trotz dessen wiederholter Untreue nicht aufgab, sondern sich seines Bundes erinnerte und aufgrund seines großen Erbarmens von einer Bestrafung absah (‫)וינחם כרב חסדו‬. Dieser oft als “Reue” gedeutete Verzicht Gottes auf eine solche Maßnahme bedeutet aber letztendlich, dass Gott sich “zur Wendung der Not veranlaßt”15 fühlte. Wie in Psalm 105 ist der Bund also eine “Heilsgabe”. Die enge thematische Verwandtschaft mit der Vorstellung des priesterschriftlichen Bundes ist offenkundig.16 Spuren der priesterschriftlichen Bundeskonzeption finden sich auch in Ps 111, wo das Wort ‫ ברית‬zweimal begegnet. Nach Vers 5 wird Gott ewig seines Bundes gedenken (‫)יזכר לעולם בריתו‬, und nach Vers 9 hat er seinen Bund für alle Zeit in Kraft gesetzt (‫)צוה־לעולם בריתו‬. Dieses Vokabular hat Psalm 111 auch mit den Psalmen 105 und 106 gemeinsam, ebenfalls die Einbettung der entsprechenden Aussagen in eine geschichtstheologische Reflexion, die aber wesentlich knapper ausfällt als in den Psalmen 105 und 106. Wenn die Verse 4 und 5 auf Gottes Beistand für Israel während des Exodus und der Wüstenwanderung anspielen,17 dann werden diese Taten unter das Vorzeichen des Abraham zugesagten Versprechens gestellt. Einen Schritt weiter geht Vers 9, der die Befreiung des Volkes Israels mit der Gabe des Bundes verbindet. Dabei steht aber nicht die Verpflichtung zur Einhaltung der Gebote im Vordergrund, ja von der Torah ist gar nicht mehr die Rede, sondern es kommt eine weisheitliche Nuance ins Spiel. Angesichts der Gabe des Bundes ist die Furcht des Herrn gefordert, die wiederum das Prinzip der Weisheit ist (vgl. Spr 4,7; 9,10; Sir 1,14).

13

Vgl. auch HOSSFELD, “Bundestheologie im Psalter”, 174: “In der Zielangabe [also Vers 45] klingt dtn-dtr Gesetzesobservanz an, die theologische Führung übernimmt aber eindeutig die priesterliche Bundestheologie.” 14 So SEILER, Text-Beziehungen, 227. 15 JEREMIAS, Reue Gottes, 117. 16 Vgl. GÄRTNER, Geschichtspsalmen, 231. 17 Vgl. schon DELITZSCH, Psalmen, 687; ausführlich zu dieser Interpretation ZENGER, “Psalm 111”, 226–229.

148

Eberhard Bons

2.2 Die David und seinen Nachfolgern gegebenen Zusagen Gottes Die Thematik der ‫ ברית‬mit David begegnet in Psalm 89, und zwar in vier Versen. In den Versen 4–5 werden Gott die Worte in den Mund gelegt, dass er mit seinem Erwählten, David, einen Bund geschlossen (‫ )כרתי ברית‬und ihm geschworen hat, dass seine Nachkommenschaft und sein Thron immer Bestand haben sollen. Dieser Bund wird von Gott selbst – so die beiden ihm zugeschriebenen Aussagen – als beständig, unverbrüchlich (‫ )נאמנת‬bezeichnet (Vers 29), was nach Vers 35 bedeutet, dass er ihn nicht entweiht (‫)לא־אחלל בריתי‬. Doch – so vermutet der Psalmensprecher – Gott ist seinem Versprechen nicht treu geblieben und hat – so Vers 40 – den Bund mit seinem Diener David widerrufen (‫)נארתה ברית עבדך‬. Mit Ausnahme vom Gebrauch des Verbs ‫ כרת‬in Vers 4 sind die anderen Formulierungen singulär in der Hebräischen Bibel. Ohne hier auf den thematischen Aufbau des Textes18 und seine theologische Problematik ausführlich einzugehen, seien folgende Beobachtungen notiert: – Die Rede von einer ‫ ברית‬mit David ist der sogenannten Natan-Weissagung in 2Sam 7,8–16 fremd; sie verwendet den Terminus ‫ ברית‬nicht, jedoch wissen Texte wie 2Sam 23,5; 2Chr 13,5; 21,7; Jer 33,21 von einer ‫ ברית‬mit David. – Da in den Versen 4 und 5 das “Schneiden” (Verb ‫ )כרת‬der ‫ ברית‬in Parallele zum Schwur Gottes19 gegenüber David steht, geht die Bedeutung von ‫ ברית‬in die Richtung von “Zusage”20. – Der Inhalt dieses Versprechens besteht in der Dynastiezusage, die die Verheißung Natans in 2Sam 7,12–13 noch insofern übertrifft, als sie dort nur dem unmittelbaren Thronfolger Davids gilt, seinem Sohn, in Ps 89 jedoch weiter gefasst wird. – Die Gott zugeschriebene Rede weiß um die Gefahr, dass die Nachkommen Davids versucht sind, sich von der Torah und ihren Geboten abzuwenden (Vers 31). Dieses Verhalten zieht zwar die Strafe Gottes nach sich, aber keinesfalls die Aufkündigung des Bundes (Verse 33–35). Der Bund scheint also auch dann nicht in Frage gestellt zu werden, wenn die Nachkommen Davids sich nicht an die Torah und ihre Gebote halten. Insofern bestehen gewisse Parallelen mit den Aussagen von Psalm 106, wenn auch nicht von einem “ewigen Bund” die Rede ist. Dass die nach Vers 4–5 gemachte Zusage rückgängig gemacht werden kann, zeigt dann Vers 40. Dass dies wenigstens im Prinzip möglich ist, ist wohl letztlich darin begründet, dass die ‫ ברית‬im Fall von Psalm 89 keinen einver-

18

Vgl. neben den Kommentaren STEYMANS, Psalm 89, Kapitel III. Ausführlich zu dieser Thematik STEYMANS, Psalm 89, 212–216. 20 Vgl. auch KUTSCH, Verheißung, 19: “Jahwe hat wie durch den Schwur so auch durch das berît-Schneiden sich gegenüber David feierlich verpflichtet.” Vgl. Ges18, 177. 19

Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen

149

nehmlich von zwei Partnern geschlossenen Vertrag darstellt,21 sondern eine Zusage, die Gott aus eigener Initiative macht. Innerhalb des Psalters ist Psalm 132 derjenige Text, der ebenfalls die Dynastieverheißung an David zitiert (Vers 11), allerdings dabei von einem Eid spricht, nicht von einem Bund. Der Psalm verbindet diese Zusage aber mit der Verpflichtung, so Vers 12, dass die Nachkommen Davids Gottes Bund – wohl den Bund mit Israel – und seine Gebote bewahren (‫)אם־ישׁמרו בניך בריתי ועדתי‬, ähnlich wie dies bereits in Ps 89,31 formuliert worden ist. Im Gegensatz zur Natan-Weissagung in 2Sam 7,8–16 ist somit die Zusage an eine Bedingung geknüpft, mit der die Söhne Davids auf den Sinaibund und die Observanz der Gebote verpflichtet werden.22 Gleichzeitig wird – aus rückblickender Perspektive – das Scheitern der davidischen Dynastie erklärt, deren Vertreter – so die Forderung von Dtn 17,18–19 – zuallererst sich dem Gesetz und seinen Geboten unterordnen sollen.23 2.3 Bewahrung des Bundes und Bundesbruch Der Begriff ‫ ברית‬begegnet in einer Reihe von Psalmen, ohne dass die damit verbundene Thematik ausführlich entfaltet würde. Man kann höchstens im Kontext Indizien finden, die eine Zuordnung zu bestimmten Bundesvorstellungen erlauben. 2.3.1 Psalm 78 Eine gesamtisraelitische Perspektive ist charakteristisch für Psalm 78, den ersten Geschichtspsalm in Psalter. Dieser spricht zweimal von der ‫ברית‬. Nach Vers 10 hielten die Israeliten nicht den Bund Gottes und lehnten es ab, der Torah zu folgen (‫)לא שׁמרו ברית אלהים ובתורתו מאנו ללכת‬, und nach Vers 37 blieben sie seinem Bund nicht treu (‫)ולא נאמנו בבריתו‬. Gerade die Formulierung von Vers 37 ist singulär in der Hebräischen Bibel. Ohne auf den Aufbau des Psalms im Detail einzugehen und seine thematische Entwicklung nachzuzeichnen,24 seien folgende Beobachtungen festgehalten: – Der Psalm warnt vor einer “Geschichtsvergessenheit”, die darin besteht, dass schon die Väter, also die Vorfahren, nicht mehr an die Heilstaten Gottes zugunsten Israels dachten, sondern sie schlichtweg vergaßen (vgl. Vers 11).

21 Vgl. schon PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 53, sowie VOLGGER, Notizen zur Textanalyse, 104–105, und STEYMANS, Psalm 89, 213, der von “keine(r) paritätische(n) Beziehung” zwischen Gott und David spricht. 22 Vgl. HOSSFELD, “Bundestheologie im Psalter”, 172: “Der Davidsschwur wird auf diese Weise dem Sinaibund zu- bzw. untergeordnet.” 23 Vgl. auch SEYBOLD, Psalmen, 498. 24 Vgl. hierzu etwa GÄRTNER, “From Generation to Generation”.

150

Eberhard Bons

Diese Taten werden in einem ersten Redegang in den Versen 12–16 rekapituliert. Die erste Erwähnung der ‫ ברית‬in Vers 10 geht diesem Abschnitt voraus. Möglicherweise ist die Rede von der fehlenden Achtung des Bundes Gottes so zu verstehen, dass mit dem Vergessen der Heilstaten der Vergangenheit auch das Vergessen des Gesetzes impliziert ist, das bereits in den Versen 4 und 5 zusammen mit den Ruhmestaten Gottes erwähnt wird. Wer aber den Bund vergisst, vergisst auch das Gesetz. – Das Vergessen der Vergangenheit und die Ablehnung des Gesetzes führen jedoch keineswegs dazu, dass Gott strafend eingreift und die Strafe der Schuld somit mehr oder weniger unmittelbar folgt;25 vielmehr fährt Gott fort, Israel seine Fürsorge zuzuwenden (vgl. die Verse 23–29). Greift er aber dennoch strafend ein (vgl. die Verse 33–34), kommt es zu einer kurzfristigen Besinnung auf Seiten Israels. Diese ist aber unaufrichtig, wie die zweite Erwähnung der ‫ ברית‬in Vers 37 zeigt; denn die Bekenntnisse geben nicht die innere Einstellung derjenigen wieder, die ihre Schuld zu bereuen scheinen (vgl. Vers 36). – Psalm 78 kennt keine Hinweise auf die Patriarchenzeit. Die Geschichte Israels scheint vielmehr mit dem Exodus zu beginnen. Wenn auch die Verwendung des Verbs ‫ שׁמר‬in Vers 10 an die Terminologie des Deuteronomiums denken lässt, so ist mit der Wortwahl dieses Verses kaum an deuteronomische Vorbilder angespielt.26 Ebenso wenig ist das parallele Verb ‫מאן‬, “ablehnen”, “sich weigern”, Bestandteil typischer deuteronomischer Sprache. Die Formulierung ‫ לא שׁמרו ברית‬in Vers 10 erinnert eher an Texte wie Gen 17,9 und Ex 19,5. Von daher wird man mit einer gewissen Vorsicht folgern können, dass die in Psalm 78 erwähnte ‫ ברית‬zwar den Bundesschluss am Sinai oder Horeb voraussetzt, vor allem eine Verpflichtung Israels, die Erinnerung an dieses Gründungsereignis aktiv zu bewahren und das Gesetz und seine Gebote zu beachten. Mehr sagt der Psalm aber nicht.27 2.3.2 Psalm 103 Im Gegensatz zu Psalm 78 ist keine gesamtisraelitische Perspektive in Psalm 103 erkennbar. Wie dessen Vers 17 aussagt, gilt Gottes ‫ חסד‬von Ewigkeit zu Ewigkeit denen, die ihn fürchten, und seine ‫ צדקה‬deren Kindeskindern, und zwar, wie Vers 18 fortfährt, “denen, die seinen Bund bewahren und die sich 25 Vgl. SPIECKERMANN, Heilsgegenwart, 143: “In der Wahrnehmung der Schuld der Vorväter in heilsgeschichtlicher Zeit ist der Dichter deuteronomistischer Theologie verpflichtet, in der Bewertung der Schuld allerdings eher altüberlieferter Psalmtheologie, nach deren Einsicht menschliche Schuld nie göttliche Gnade fraglich machen kann.” 26 HOSSFELD, “Bundestheologie im Psalter”, 172, lässt die Frage offen, ob der Verfasser des Psalms ein “eigenständiger, sprachschöpferischer ‘Protodeuteronomiker’ ist oder über das Erbe deuteronomistischer Sprachklischees frei verfügt.” 27 GÄRTNER, Geschichtspsalmen, 76, verzichtet offenbar darauf, den Terminus ‫ ברית‬im Psalm zu definieren.

Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen

151

seiner Gebote erinnern, um sie zu tun” (‫)לשׁמרי בריתו ולזכרי פקדיו לעשׂותם‬. Wiewohl eine direkte Parallele in der Hebräischen Bibel fehlt, fällt eine Nähe zur deuteronomischen Sprache auf, gerade wegen des nachgestellten Infinitivs ‫לעשׂותם‬. Im Deuteronomium handelt es sich jedoch in der Regel um den suffixlosen Infinitiv ‫( לעשׂות‬Dtn 4,5 u.ö.), und auch das Verb ‫ זכר‬wird im Deuteronomium gebraucht, um an die Geschichte zu erinnern, nicht an die Gebote.28 Mangels näherer Angaben im Kontext bleibt unklar, ob der Psalm eine bestimmte Bundeskonzeption voraussetzt.29 2.3.3 Psalm 25 Psalm 25 ist ein alphabetischer Psalm, der in Vers 9 die Metaphorik von Wegen und Pfaden entfaltet: Gott lässt die Demütigen im Recht gehen, und er lehrt diese seine Pfade. In Vers 10 wird diese Thematik erweitert, was durch den alphabetischen Charakter des Textes wenigstens zum Teil bedingt ist. Der Buchstabe Kaph macht es nämlich notwendig, dass der Vers entsprechend beginnt, was mit der Voranstellung von ‫ כל‬erreicht wird: Alle Wege des Herrn sind Treue und Wahrheit für diejenigen, “die seinen Bund und seine Zeugnisse bewahren” (‫)לנצרי בריתו ועדתיו‬. In Vers 14 wird schließlich denjenigen, die den Herrn fürchten, zugesagt, dass sie der “Rat” Gottes begleitet, d.h. der “wegweisende Ratschluß”30, und sein Bund besteht darin, sie – d.h. wohl die Gottesfürchtigen – erkennen zu lassen31 (‫)סוד יהוה ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם‬. Ohne auf weitere Einzelheiten des Psalms und seines Aufbaus einzugehen,32 sei festgehalten, dass der Psalm das Thema der Lehre und Führung der Frommen durch Gott in den Vordergrund stellt.33 Ähnlich wie Ps 103,17–18 sagen die beiden Verse 10 und 14 denjenigen Menschen eine zuverlässige “Begleitung” – so der Sinn der Wegmetaphorik – durch Gott zu, die sich von ihm die Wege lehren lassen, aber auch seine ‫ ברית‬wahren.34 Die ‫ ברית‬einzuhalten, ja zuzulassen, dass sie den Menschen gestattet, so Vers 14, “zu erkennen”, vermutlich den wegweisenden Ratschluss Gottes – dies sind die zwei zusammengehörigen Aspekte ein und derselben Grundentscheidung, die schon zu Beginn 28

Vgl. ausführlich hierzu BRAULIK/LOHFINK, Sprache und literarische Gestalt, 325–

328. 29

Zu diesem Ergebnis gelangt auch FISS, “Lobe den Herrn”, 203; vgl. auch ebd., Kapitel 5 zum Verhältnis von Gnade und Gebotserfüllung. 30 So KRAUS, Psalmen, I, 354. 31 Zur Analyse des Halbverses und zu seiner Interpretation s. FINSTERBUSCH, JHWH als Lehrer, 79. 32 Neben den Kommentaren vgl. u. a. FINSTERBUSCH, JHWH als Lehrer, 62–85. 33 Vgl. GIES, “Nicht sollen frohlocken”, 170. 34 Vgl. DELITZSCH, Psalmen, 232, zu Vers 10: “Aber nur die, welche treu und folgsam seinen Bund und seine Zeugnisse wahren, werden solcher Gnade und Wahrheit teilhaftig.” Ebd, 232, zu Vers 14: “Rückhaltlos erschließt sich Jahve, vertraulich teilt er sich denen mit, die ihn fürchten.”

152

Eberhard Bons

in Vers 2 zum Ausdruck gebracht wird: das Vertrauen auf Gott und die damit verbundene Hoffnung, nicht zu scheitern. Dass in diesem Text auf einen bestimmten Bund Bezug genommen wird, ist kaum wahrscheinlich, wiewohl stichwortartige Beziehungen zu Exodus 34 existieren.35 Von der Torah als solcher ist nicht ausdrücklich die Rede. Man wird höchstens mit einer gewissen Vorsicht sagen können, dass die mit der Idee der ‫ ברית‬verbundenen Zusagen und Verpflichtungen anscheinend auch in Psalm 25 ein Echo finden, hier allerdings auf das Individuum übertragen: Wer die ‫ ברית‬einhält, kann mit Gottes Treue rechnen.36 2.3.4 Psalm 50 Der Aufbau dieses Psalms erschließt sich ohne große Schwierigkeiten.37 Im ersten Teil (Verse 1–6) wird eine kosmische Szene beschrieben, in der Gott die kosmischen Mächte als Zeugen aufruft und sein Gericht ankündigt. Die Rede Gottes richtet sich an zwei Parteien, zunächst an sein Volk (ab Vers 7) und dann an den Sünder (ab Vers 16). In Vers 5 ruft Gott die Frommen, die ‫חסידים‬, auf, sich zu versammeln, und bezeichnet diese als diejenigen, die beim Opfer mit ihm den Bund schließen (‫)כרתי בריתי עלי־זבח‬. Das Thema des Opfers (Wurzel ‫ )זבח‬begegnet noch in den Versen 8, 14 und 23, wo Gott auf unmissverständliche Weise deutlich macht, dass er keine tierischen Opfer benötigt, vermutlich zum Zweck der Einlösung von Gelübden,38 sondern dass ihm stattdessen “Lobopfer” dargebracht werden sollen (Vers 23: ‫)זבח תודה‬. Ab Vers 16 folgt eine neue Rede Gottes, die an den Sünder im Singular gerichtet ist. Ihm stellt Gott die Frage, warum er seine Gebote aufzählt und seinen Bund in den Mund nimmt (‫)ותשׂא בריתי עלי־פיך‬, gleichzeitig aber nicht erkennen lässt, dass er die Gebote einhält. Diese Thematik wird in den Versen 18–20 entfaltet, wo das Fehlverhalten des Sünders anhand einiger konkreter Beispiele illustriert wird, die auf die sogenannte zweite Tafel des Dekalogs Bezug nehmen.39 In welchem Verhältnis die beiden Reden Gottes an die Frommen und an den Sünder zueinander stehen, ist nicht leicht zu ermitteln. Wahrscheinlich bildet der letzte Vers des Psalms, Vers 23, eine Synthese, die die zwei Reden zusammenfasst. Gott lässt diejenigen sein Heil schauen, die ihm ein Lobopfer (d.h. anstelle von Tieropfern) zur Erfüllung ihrer Gelübde darbringen und auf dem rechten Pfad gehen. Auf diesem Hintergrund wird der “Bund” zu einer persönlichen Angelegenheit des Individuums. Dabei ist die zweite Erwähnung des 35

Näheres bei LOHFINK, “Bund und Tora”, 80–81. Mit leicht anderen Akzenten auch HOSSFELD, “Bundestheologie im Psalter”, 172. 37 Vgl. neben den Kommentaren RADEBACH-HUONKER, Opferterminologie, 163. 38 So SCHÖNING, “Kontext und Kohärenz”, 219. 39 Vgl. RADEBACH-HUONKER, Opferterminologie, 173. 36

Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen

153

Bundes in Vers 16 besser zu verstehen als die erste in Vers 5. Aus Vers 16 geht hervor, dass es nicht genügt, den Bund “im Munde zu führen”, aber gleichzeitig gegen die Gebote der Nächstenliebe zu verstoßen. Die Thematik des SinaiBundes mag bei derartigen Formulierungen vorausgesetzt sein, vor allem die Verknüpfung von Bund und Geboten, sie wird aber nicht mehr entfaltet. Dass nach Vers 5 schließlich Menschen mit Gott einen Bund schließen, also nicht vor Gott wie in 2Kön 23,3 und Jer 34,15, ist eine Formulierung ohne Parallele in der Hebräischen Bibel. Man kann vielleicht an einen “Sitz im Leben” wie eine Verpflichtung der Gemeinde auf den Sinai-Bund denken,40 aber der Text selbst lässt kaum eine solche Schlussfolgerung zu. “Bund” bedeutet somit eine “enge personale Gemeinschaft” mit Gott, der den Menschen einlädt, ihn am Tag der Bedrängnis anzurufen, der ihm die Rettung verheißt und nichts anderes von ihm verlangt als das Lob – so die Aussage von Vers 15.

3. Das Thema des Bundes in zwei Volksklagepsalmen 3.1 Psalm 44 Psalm 44 wird in der Regel als “Volksklagepsalm” verstanden,41 dessen historischer Hintergrund – offenbar eine Niederlage, die man als Demütigung erfahren hat – kaum noch mit Sicherheit zu rekonstruieren ist.42 Nur einmal wird hier der Bund, ausgedrückt mit ‫ברית‬, erwähnt, und zwar in Vers 18. Dort begegnet die gewöhnlich als konzessiv verstandene Formulierung ‫ולא־שׁקרנו‬ ‫בבריתך‬, “obwohl wir nicht treulos an deinem Bund gehandelt haben”, die in der Hebräischen Bibel singulär ist. Der Satz bildet das zweite Element einer vierteiligen Aussage, mit der die Israeliten ihre Unschuld betonen und in jedem der vier Elemente unterstreichen, dass sie ein bestimmtes und mit dem Verhältnis zu Gott geradezu unvereinbares Handeln vermieden haben. Dem Vers geht wiederum ein Abschnitt von sieben Versen voraus (Verse 10–17), in dem die Israeliten Gott in einer im Psalter geradezu ungewohnten Deutlichkeit vorwerfen, sein Volk aufgegeben und dem Spott der Feinde ausgesetzt zu haben. Was den Israeliten aufgrund dieser angeblich fehlenden Aufmerksamkeit und Fürsorge Gottes widerfahren ist, wird am Anfang von Vers 18 zusammengefasst, nämlich mit der pronominalen Formulierung ‫כל־זאת באתנו‬, “all dies ist über uns gekommen.” Somit werden das Verhalten Gottes und dasjenige Israels einander gegenübergestellt: Während die Israeliten auf ihrer Treue zu Gott bestehen, ihn also weder in der Vergangenheit vergessen haben noch ihn aktuell 40

Vgl. HOSSFELD, “Bundestheologie im Psalter”, 170; RADEBACH-HUONKER, Opferterminologie, 167. 41 Vgl. schon GUNKEL, Psalmen, 184. 42 Vgl. SEYBOLD, Psalmen, 180: “Mangels präziser Angaben ist eine Datierung nicht möglich.”

154

Eberhard Bons

vergessen,43 hat dieser sich gegenüber Israel nicht genauso verhalten. Er hat sein Volk buchstäblich vergessen44 und dem Unglück und dem Hohn der Feinde preisgegeben. Die Schuld liegt also nicht bei Israel und würde dann – deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischem Denken entsprechend – die Strafe Gottes nach sich ziehen; vielmehr wird dieses theologische Schema bestritten.45 Soweit in Kürze der unmittelbare Kontext der Formulierung ‫לא־שׁקרנו בבריתך‬. Wie aber lässt sie sich im Detail verstehen? Hierzu die folgenden drei Beobachtungen: 1. Die Formulierung besitzt keine unmittelbare Parallele in der Hebräischen Bibel. Lediglich in Ps 89,34 findet sich eine ähnliche Formulierung. Dort werden Gott die Worte in den Mund gelegt, dass er seinem König die Treue hält, d.h. diesem gegenüber nicht die Treue bricht: ‫ולא־אשׁקר באמונתי‬. Das Verb ‫שׁקר‬ hat zwar eine gewisse Affinität zu einem vertragsbrüchigen Verhalten;46 dennoch bleibt festzustellen, dass die spezifische Formulierung in der Hebräischen Bibel keine weitere Entsprechung hat. 2. Die Aussage ‫ לא־שׁקרנו בבריתך‬steht in Parallele zu ‫“ ולא שׁכחנוך‬und obwohl wir dich nicht vergessen haben”, dem ersten Element der vierteiligen Aussage, mit der die Israeliten die eigene Unschuld betonen. Vor der Gefahr des Vergessens, ausgedrückt mit dem Verb ‫שׁכח‬, also dem Gegenteil des Sich-Erinnerns (vgl. Dtn 8,18–19), warnen vor allem die verschiedensten Stellen des Deuteronomiums. So werden die Israeliten ermahnt, weder Gott selbst (Dtn 6,12; 8,11.14.19) noch seine ‫( ברית‬Dtn 4,23; vgl. 2Kön 17,38) zu vergessen. In prophetischen Texten wird dagegen konstatiert, so auch von Gott selbst, dass die Israeliten ihn vergessen haben (z.B. Jes 17,10: Jer 2,32; 3,21; 13,25; Ez 22,12; 23,35; Hos 13,6; Ps 106,21).47 Demgegenüber heben die Israeliten in Ps 44,18 hervor, dass dies keineswegs der Fall ist, insofern sie Gott gerade nicht vergessen haben. Im Vergleich zu den zitierten Texten verwendet also Ps 44,18 dasselbe Vokabular, besonders das Verb ‫שׁכח‬, allerdings weder im Sinne einer Gefahr, der die Israeliten erliegen könnten, noch im Sinne eines Eingeständnisses, dass sie dieser Gefahr tatsächlich erlegen seien. Die Formulierung von Ps 44,18 mag somit zwar eine gewisse Nähe zu deuteronomischen und prophetischen Aussagen aufweisen, zielt jedoch in eine völlig andere Richtung. Vor allem ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass weitere Elemente der deuteronomischen Sprache im unmittelbaren Kontext fehlen. Dazu zählt etwa der Hinweis auf die 43 So KWAKKEL, ‘According to My Righteousness’, 208, der sich die Frage stellt, ob der Vers zwei Interpretationen erlaubt: “all this happened to us, although we had not forgotten you” oder aber “although all this happened to us, we have not forgotten you.” 44 Vgl. hierzu ALONSO SCHÖKEL / CARNITI, Salmos, 636: “El caso presente es casì un acto de acusasión: nosotros no nos hemos olvidados de ti, tú ¿por qué te olvidas?” 45 Vgl. GROSS, “Das verborgene Gesicht Gottes”, 191–192. 46 Vgl. SEEBASS et al., “‫”שׁקר‬, 466. 47 Vgl. zu den Aussagen, wonach die Israeliten Gott vergessen, PREUSS, “‫”שׁכח‬, 1320– 1321.

Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen

155

Torah und ihre Gebote, die die Israeliten Gefahr laufen nicht einzuhalten, wenn sie ihren Gott vergessen würden (vgl. Dtn 8,11). Zumindest ist in Ps 44,18 die Idee des Bundes nicht an den Gedanken der Gesetzesobservanz geknüpft. 3. Der unmittelbare Kontext von Ps 44,18 gibt kaum nähere Auskunft zu konkreten Formen eines Fehlverhaltens Israels, die man mit einem Bundesbruch in Verbindung bringen könnte – mit einer Ausnahme allerdings, wie Vers 21 zeigt. Dieser Vers ist insofern aufschlussreich, als die Thematik des Vergessens wiederaufgenommen wird.48 Wie zuvor wird auf ein Verschulden angespielt, das jedoch nicht eingetreten ist und im Irrealis formuliert wird: Dabei entspricht der Aussage ‫ ולא שׁכחנוך‬von Vers 18 eine erweiterte Formulierung: ‫אם־שׁכחנו שׁם אלהינו‬, “wenn wir den Namen unseres Gottes vergessen hätten”, d.h. das enklitische Personalpronomen von ‫ שׁכחנוך‬wird hier ersetzt durch ‫שׁם אלהינו‬, wobei der “Name” für Gott selbst steht.49 Dieses mögliche Vergessen Gottes durch die Israeliten wird aber mit einem anderen Verhalten in Verbindung gebracht, das dieses Vergessen geradezu erklärt, ja mit ihm einhergehen könnte:50 ‫ונפרשׂ כפינו לאל זר‬, “und [wenn] wir unsere Hände zu einem fremden Gott hin ausgestreckt hätten.” Auch diese Formulierung ist singulär. Zwar drückt das Verb ‫ פרשׂ‬mit dem Objekt ‫ כף‬verschiedentlich eine Gebetsgeste aus, so u. a. in Ex 9,29.33; 1Kön 8,22,38; Esra 9,5; Ijob 11,13; SirB 48,20; doch an keiner dieser Stellen wenden sich die Beter einem fremden Gott zu, einem ‫אל זר‬, um ihn kultisch zu verehren. Letztere Formulierung begegnet in Ps 81,10, und wenn man ‫ אלהים‬jeweils ergänzen würde, kämen noch Stellen wie Dtn 32,16 und Jes 17,10 hinzu, wo auf die Verehrung fremder Götter Bezug genommen wird. Gerade Jes 17,10 könnte man mit Ps 44,21 in Verbindung bringen, da dort ebenfalls davon die Rede ist, dass die Israeliten ihren Gott vergessen haben. Somit wird man folgendes Ergebnis festhalten können: Wenn auch die spezifische Formulierung ‫ ונפרשׂ כפינו לאל זר‬von Ps 44,21 keine unmittelbaren Vorbilder anderswo in der Hebräischen Bibel hat, ist in der damit ausgedrückten Zuwendung zu fremden Göttern anscheinend das Verschulden gemeint, auf das in Vers 18 angespielt wurde: die Untreue gegenüber dem Bund Gottes.51 Insofern macht Vers 21 explizit, was Vers 18 voraussetzt: Der Bund Gottes mit Israel ist exklusiv in dem Sinne, dass er Israel verpflichtet, keinem anderen Gott eine kultische Verehrung entgegenzubringen. Wenn auch die Sprache dieser Verse nur wenige Berührungspunkte mit der Sprache des Deuteronomiums aufweist, wird dort der Sache nach mehr als einmal die Gefahr des Vergessens

48

Zur Bedeutung des Themas “Vergessen” für Psalm 44 vgl. auch SCHÖNEMANN, Der untreue Gott, 131. 49 Vgl. ausführlich zu dieser Thematik RENAUD, “Proche est ton Nom”, bes. 16–17. 50 Vgl. auch NGOA, “Tutto questo”, 228. 51 Vgl. schon GUNKEL, Psalmen, 186: “kein Bundesbruch, kein Götzendienst”.

156

Eberhard Bons

YHWHs mit der Bereitschaft assoziiert, andere Götter zu verehren (vgl. Dtn 4,23; 8,19). Wenn also Ps 44,18 von Gottes ‫ ברית‬mit Israel spricht, ist damit auf ein Vertragsverhältnis angespielt, das beide Partner verpflichtet: Gott zur Fürsorge gegenüber Israel und Israel zur Alleinverehrung Gottes. Der Besitz des Landes ist offenbar nicht mehr Gegenstand dieses Vertragsverhältnisses, wird jedenfalls nicht erwähnt; genauso wenig wird erwähnt, dass Israel, zur Observanz der Torah und ihrer Gebote verpflichtet, eines Gesetzesbruches schuldig geworden sei. Schließlich wird auch nicht auf einen bestimmten Bundesschluss in der Vergangenheit Bezug genommen.52 Zwar mag der in Ps 44,18 erwähnte Bund die Bundesvorstellungen des Deuteronomiums, gerade den Aspekt der wechselseitigen Verpflichtung, voraussetzen und nicht ohne diesen Hintergrund verständlich sein;53 doch der Fokus des Textes liegt auf einer Gegenwart, die nicht nur als rätselhaft, sondern als bedrückend erfahren wird, weil das Festhalten am Bundesverhältnis Israel offenbar nicht vor Leid und Unglück bewahrt.54 3.2 Psalm 74 Wie in Psalm 44 begegnet auch in Psalm 74, einem weiteren gewöhnlich als “Volksklagepsalm”55 angesehenen Text vermutlich aus frühexilischer Zeit,56 das Thema des Bundes ein einziges Mal, auch hier ausgedrückt mit ‫ברית‬. Damit erschöpfen sich aber im Wesentlichen die Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen beiden Verwendungsweisen von ‫ברית‬. In Psalm 44 besteht nämlich das Volk nicht darauf, nicht den Bund gebrochen zu haben; vielmehr ermahnt es Gott in einer Situation, in der es Erniedrigung und Zerstörung erfahren hat, sich seines Bundes zu erinnern. Es handelt sich um einen “Text zur Krisenbewältigung”57, in dem die Israeliten Gott in Vers 20 zum Eingreifen drängen: ‫הבט לברית‬, “blick auf deinen Bund.” Der Psalm beginnt mit der Frage, ob Gott sein Volk für immer verstoßen habe und warum sein Zorn sich gegen es wende (Vers 1). In den folgenden 52

KWAKKEL, ‘According to My Righteousness’, 206, denkt jedoch hier an den Sinaibund, wendet sich aber gleichzeitig gegen Ernst Kutschs Behauptung, dass im Fall von Ps 44,18 die Übersetzung mit “Bund” oder vergleichbaren Termini unzutreffend sei, da hier kein Vertrag impliziert ist. 53 Vgl. auch SEYBOLD, Psalmen, 183: “Der Psalm setzt das Bestehen eines Bundesverhältnisses voraus, das auf gegenseitigem Vertrauen basiert.” 54 Vgl. KRAUS, Psalmen, I, 484, der die Problematik auf dem Hintergrund der Idee des Leidens des unschuldigen Gerechten zu erklären sucht; ZENGER, “Psalm 44”, 277, erkennt gerade im Festhalten am Bund – trotz Niederlagen und Leiden – die “theologische Leistung dieses Psalms.” 55 Vgl. noch SEYBOLD, Psalmen, 287. 56 Vgl. SPIECKERMANN, Heilsgegenwart, 126. 57 So SEILER, “Zur Funktion und Bedeutung”, 136.

Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen

157

Versen wird ein ganz konkretes Unheil beklagt, das möglicherweise auf den Fall Jerusalems im Jahr 587 anspielt:58 Feinde haben das Heiligtum zerstört, d.h. die Wohnstätte des göttlichen Namens, die nunmehr entweiht ist (Vers 7). Anscheinend besteht keine Möglichkeit, dem unheilvollen Treiben des Feindes etwas entgegenzusetzen. Die Situation verschlimmert sich für die Israeliten insofern, als eine prophetische Botschaft auszubleiben scheint; denn diese könnte vielleicht Auskunft darüber geben, wie lange das Unheil noch andauern wird (Vers 9). Deshalb wird an Gott eine doppelte Frage gerichtet (Verse 10–11). Die erste bezieht sich auf die scheinbar ungebremste Wut des Feindes, der Gottes Namen weiterhin beleidigt. Wie lange noch wird er ungehindert agieren können? Die zweite Frage ist in gewisser Weise in der ersten impliziert: Wie lange wird Gott danebenstehen und tatenlos zusehen? In den folgenden Versen 12–17 geht der Sprecher weit zurück in die Vergangenheit und zählt Gottes Heilstaten auf, die nicht an eine bestimmte Zeit und an einen bestimmten geographischen Raum gebunden sind.59 Doch zunächst wird – eingeleitet durch ein waw adversativum – in Vers 12 betont, dass Gott derartige Taten auf der Erde immer noch erfüllen kann (‫)פעל ישׁועות בקרב הארץ‬. Bemerkenswert ist dabei die partizipiale Formulierung, so als solle angedeutet werden, dass Gottes Wirken keineswegs auf die Vergangenheit beschränkt ist. Sodann wird auf Gottes schöpferische Taten in der Vergangenheit verwiesen (Verse 13–17), die Anlass zur Hoffnung in der Gegenwart gibt.60 Auf diesen Abschnitt folgt nämlich ein Imperativ, mit dem eine Brücke zur Situation geschlagen wird, auf die der Psalm sich bezieht (Vers 18): ‫זכר־זאת‬, “denk daran”, wobei das Demonstrativpronomen ‫ זאת‬die dem Feind zugeschriebenen Taten, nämlich die Beleidigung des Namens Gottes, zusammenfasst. “An etwas denken” bedeutet “nicht vergessen”. Dementsprechend führt Vers 19 die Aufforderung mit zwei Negationen weiter, jeweils ausgedrückt mit dem Vetitiv: “Gib die Seele deiner Taube nicht den wilden Tieren preis; vergiss das Leben deiner Armen nicht für immer.” Einmal mehr wird die zeitliche Dimension mit dem Wort ‫ לנצח‬hervorgehoben, das an den ersten Vers des Psalms (“warum verstößt du uns für immer?”) und an Vers 10 (“Wie lange, o Gott, soll der Feind spotten?”) anknüpft. Während die Bitte von Vers 19 sowie die beiden 58

Zum historischen Hintergrund des Psalms vgl. die Kommentare, wovon die meisten sich für eine exilische Entstehungszeit aussprechen; vgl. etwa TATE, Psalms 51–100, 246– 247. 59 Detailliert hierzu SEILER, “Zur Funktion und Bedeutung”, 138–147. 60 Vgl. SPIECKERMANN, Heilsgegenwart, 131: “Ein Gott, der so gehandelt hat [d.h. in Schöpfung und Geschichte], muß auch in der Gegenwart zur Sicherung seines Werkes und zur Wiederholung seines Tuns zu bewegen sein”. Ähnlich SEILER, “Zur Funktion und Bedeutung”, 145: “Weil Gott dem Psalmbeter als Stifter, Eigentümer und Garant der umfassenden, stabilen zeitlichen und räumlichen Weltordnung gilt, kann die Gemeinde von ihm erwarten, dass er – entgegen der augenblicklichen äußeren Wahrnehmung – zuverlässig zu ihr stehen wird und zu jeder Zeit und an jedem Ort erfahrbar ist.”

158

Eberhard Bons

Fragen die Sorge ausdrücken, dass das Unheil auch in Zukunft nicht enden wird, springt Vers 20 in die Vergangenheit zurück: ‫הבט לברית‬, “blick auf den Bund”. Was könnte damit gemeint sein? Das Thema des Bundes wird zwar im Kontext nicht aufgegriffen, dennoch wird man ihm einige Anhaltspunkte entnehmen können. Hierzu fünf Überlegungen. 1. Der Text gibt keinen expliziten Hinweis darauf, auf welchen Bund sich das Wort ‫ ברית‬hier bezieht. Aus dem unmittelbaren Kontext könnte man allenfalls folgern, dass “auf den Bund blicken” – wiederum eine singuläre Aussage in der Hebräischen Bibel – ein göttliches Eingreifen erforderlich macht, das dem gegenwärtigen Unheil ein Ende bereitet. Ob mit der Aufforderung impliziert ist, dass Gott dem Bund keine Bedeutung mehr schenkt,61 mag offen bleiben. 2. Wird mit dem Terminus auf einen bestimmten Bund wenigstens angespielt? In manchen Kommentaren wird die Frage gar nicht gestellt,62 erst recht nicht dort, wo das Wort aufgrund einer Konjektur, etwa ‫לבריות‬, “auf die Geschöpfe”63, oder ‫לבריתך‬, “auf deine Geschöpfe”64 ersetzt wird.65 Doch widerspricht dies der masoretischen Tradition sowie den antiken Übersetzungen, von der Septuaginta angefangen (ἐπίβλεψον εἰς τὴν διαθήκην). Ob in Ps 74,20 ‫ברית‬ sich auf eine Menschengruppe bezieht, nämlich ähnlich wie in Dan 11,28.30 auf das Volk Israel, mag man erwägen,66 aber die Unterschiede zu diesen beiden Stellen sind offensichtlich. Daher sollte man in ‫ ברית‬wenigstens eine Anspielung an einen Bund erkennen. 3. Angesichts der Tatsache, dass Vers 2 den Berg Zion67 erwähnt und die folgenden Verse von der Schändung des Heiligtums sprechen, vermutlich des ersten Tempels, liegt der Fokus des Psalms auf dem Schicksal Israels. Dem widerspricht auch nicht, dass die Verse 13–17 die Situation Israels vorübergehend ausblenden und Gottes Wirken in Schöpfung und Geschichte mit kosmischen Kategorien beschreiben. Man wird daher annehmen dürfen, dass die Aufforderung “blick auf den Bund” sich auf einen anscheinend nicht aufgehobenen oder gekündigten Bund bezieht, der im Psalm nicht weiter identifiziert

61

Vgl. TATE, Psalms 51–100, 252: “God is being charged with ignoring his covenant.” So z.B. bei KRAUS, Psalmen, II, 682; SEYBOLD, Psalmen, 290. 63 Vgl. GUNKEL, Psalmen, 326. 64 Nachweise bei BARTHÉLEMY, Critique textuelle, IV, 539–540, der sich gegen die Konjektur ausspricht. 65 Einen Überblick über weitere Konjekturen, die in der neueren Exegese jedoch kaum noch Zustimmung finden, bietet HUMAN, “Berit in Psalm 74”, 58–59. 66 So KUTSCH, Bund I, 400; ähnlich HOSSFELD, “Bundestheologie im Psalter”, 174, der die Verse 18–21 als einen aus seleukidischer Zeit stammenden Zusatz ansieht. 67 Zum Thema der Erwählung des Zion vgl. KÖRTING, Zion, 106–120 (zu Psalm 132); sie bietet aber keine Analyse von Psalm 74. 62

Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen

159

wird, der aber Gott in die Pflicht nehmen soll.68 Das kann der am Sinai oder Horeb geschlossene Bund sein;69 ausgedrückt wird dies aber nicht, und weder Mose noch die weiteren Umstände des Bundesschlusses werden erwähnt. 4. Doch auch diese Hypothese hängt von der Interpretation verschiedener Textdetails ab. Wer das Substantiv ‫ ארץ‬in der Constructus-Verbindung ‫מחשׁכי־‬ ‫ארץ‬, wörtlich “dunkle Orte des Landes”, im Sinne von “Erde” und nicht von “Land” (= Land Israel) interpretiert und weiterhin die Verse 19–21 als späteren Zusatz ansieht,70 mag in der ‫ ברית‬einen Hinweis auf den Noachbund in Gen 9,8–1771 erkennen. Der in Vers 20 erwähnte Bund hätte insofern eine das Land und das Volk Israel übergreifende Dimension. Doch stellt sich die Frage, ob die Verse 19–21 tatsächlich in Spannung zu ihrem unmittelbaren Kontext stehen. Nur ein gewichtiges Gegenargument sei angeführt: Wenn nach Vers 21b selbst die Armen und Elenden als personae miserae – sie sind nicht selten die größten Opfer von Invasionen, Zerstörungen und Gewalttaten – imstande sein sollen, Gottes Namen zu preisen, kann man dies als endgültige Bestätigung von dessen Eingreifen verstehen. Wenn die Hoffnung ausgedrückt wird, dass die wehrlosen Opfer einer überall lauernden Gewalt dankbar Gott loben, bedeutet dies mit anderen Worten, dass Gott auf seinen Bund “geblickt” hat, sein Eingreifen erfolgreich war und die Armen und Elenden wieder Hoffnung schöpfen können. Dies ist freilich aus der Perspektive, aus der der Psalm formuliert ist, ein Wunsch, der an Gott gerichtet wird. Noch sind die Armen und Elenden noch nicht dazu in der Lage, Gott zu loben und zu preisen. 5. Dass Gott mit Israel einen Bund geschlossen hat (Verb ‫)כרת‬, wird im Psalm nicht explizit gesagt. Bemerkenswert ist jedoch, dass Vers 2 wie auch Vers 18 mit dem Imperativ ‫זכר‬, “denke daran”, beginnen lässt. Dabei greift auch Vers 2 auf ein Handeln Gottes zurück, das in einer fernen Vergangenheit liegt: ‫זכר עדתך קנית קדם‬, “denk an deine Gemeinde, die du vorzeiten erworben hast.” Dieser Ausdruck steht in Parallele mit ‫גאלת שׁבט נחלתך‬, wörtlich “[die] du erlöst hast als Stamm deines Erbes”. Damit wird nicht nur an den lange zurückliegenden Anfang der Beziehung zwischen Gott und Israel erinnert, die auf die Zeit des Exodus zurückgeht72 (vgl. Ex 15,6, wo ebenfalls das Verb ‫קנה‬, “erwerben”, begegnet), sondern auch an die Art des Verhältnisses: eine durch “Erwerb”, “Erlösung” entstandene dauerhafte Bindung, hier mit dem Substantiv ‫נחלה‬, das ein eigentlich inalienables Recht an einem Gut bezeichnet. Aus dieser Perspektive betrachtet, scheint Vers 20 mit dem Terminus ‫ ברית‬auf die Vorstel68

Vgl. ALONSO SCHÖKEL / CARNITI, Salmos, II, 990: “La súplica supone que la vieja alianza sigue en vigor, que no ha sido denunciada ni sustituida por una nueva.” 69 Vgl. TATE, Psalms 51–100, 252. 70 Vgl. SPIECKERMANN, Heilsgegenwart, 125–126, Anm. 11; ZENGER, “Psalm 74”, 361. 71 ZENGER, “Psalm 74”, 370. 72 Da der Psalm also so weit in die Vergangenheit zurückgreift, scheint es ausgeschlossen zu sein, dass der Terminus ‫ ברית‬in Vers 20 auf den Davidsbund anspielt, was HUMAN, “Berit in Psalm 74”, 62, annimmt.

160

Eberhard Bons

lung anzuspielen, dass Gott gegenüber Israel eine Verpflichtung73 eingegangen ist. In einer weit zurückliegenden Vergangenheit ist er in eine Beziehung zum Volk Israel eingetreten, ja hat es als dauerhaftes Eigentum erworben.74 In der Gegenwart dagegen scheint er – so die vielleicht nicht nur rhetorische Frage von Vers 1 – sein Volk verstoßen zu haben und muss nun auf das Bundesverhältnis aufmerksam gemacht werden. Ohne dass explizit vom Bund die Rede ist, spielt die Erinnerung an die “Stämme deines Erbes” (‫שׁבטי נחלתך‬, hier im Plural) auch eine Rolle in der Argumentation von Jes 63,17–19.75 Dort wird anscheinend ebenfalls eine Art “Bruch” in der Beziehung zwischen Gott und Israel beklagt (Vers 19). Doch in Vers 17b wird Gott aufgefordert “umzukehren” oder “zurückzukehren” (Verb ‫)שׁוב‬, und zwar um seiner Diener willen, die ja die Stämme seines Erbes darstellen. Das unzertrennbare Band zwischen Gott und seinem Volk nimmt also beide Partner hier in die Pflicht. Es soll Israel davor bewahren, sich von Gott zu entfernen (Vers 17a), und Gott dazu veranlassen, angesichts der Schändung des Heiligtums (Vers 18) einzuschreiten und seinem Volk die Treue zu bewahren. Somit lässt sich folgendes Ergebnis formulieren: Zwar erwähnt Psalm 74 nicht ausdrücklich einen Bund am Sinai oder Horeb, und von Mose und den Begleitumständen des Bundesschlusses ist ebenso wenig die Rede. Aber dieser spezifischen Vergangenheit und den damals handelnden Autoritäten gilt nicht die Aufmerksamkeit des Textes, übrigens genauso wenig wie in Jes 63,16, wo Abraham und Israel/Jakob nicht mehr als Autoritäten gelten, von denen man Hilfe erwartet.76 Der Ausgangspunkt von Psalm 74 liegt vielmehr in der Erfahrung des ungehemmten Waltens der Feinde, die den Tempel auf dem Berg Zion geschändet haben. Dazu kommt die Befürchtung, dass Gott sein Volk verstoßen habe, was die Situation noch verschlimmert. Der einzige Rettungsanker scheint in der Erinnerung daran zu liegen, dass Gott in einer fernen Vergangenheit sein Volk wie ein unveräußerliches Eigentum erworben hat. An diese Vorstellung schließt mutatis mutandis der Terminus ‫ ברית‬in Vers 20 an. Es wird also offenbar an einen Bund angespielt, der anscheinend nicht außer Kraft gesetzt, sondern nach wie vor gültig zu sein scheint.77 Wann und wie dieser Bund zustande gekommen sein mag, scheint nur noch von zweitrangiger Bedeutung zu sein. Vielleicht wird hier von den verschiedenen Bundesschlüssen, die aus dem Pentateuch bekannt sind, abstrahiert, so dass mit dem Terminus ‫ ברית‬eine Art allumfassendes Treueverhältnis gemeint ist.

73

KUTSCH, Verheißung, 6–7, würde von “Selbstverpflichtung” sprechen. Vgl. SPIECKERMANN, Heilsgegenwart, 128–129. 75 Vgl. ausführlich hierzu die Kommentare, z.B. KOOLE, Isaiah III/3, 381. 76 Zu dieser Interpretation vgl. KOOLE, Isaiah III/3, 377. 77 Vgl. auch HUMAN, “Berit in Psalm 74”, 62: “God’s people express their trust in an already existing relationship with Yahweh.” 74

Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen

161

Im Targum findet sich in Ps 74,20 schon der Zusatz ‫דגזרתא לאבהתן‬, “den du für unsere Väter geschlossen hast”, und vor rund 900 Jahren formulierte der mittelalterliche jüdische Exeget Rashi zum Wort ‫ ברית‬geradezu dieselbe Erklärung in hebräischer Sprache: ‫אשׁר כרתה לאבותינו‬, “den du für unsere Väter geschlossen hast.” Sie findet sich auch in der neueren Exegese wieder, wobei die Anspielungen an den Mosebund deutlich sind: “This appeal [= Vers 20], more pressing than ever, is based on the Mosaic covenant. The psalmist has not accepted the great prophets’ denunciations of the national corruption.”78

4. Abschließende Überlegungen Der vorliegende Artikel hatte das Ziel, die verschiedenen Belege von ‫ ברית‬im Psalter zu untersuchen, also des Wortes, das traditionell mit “Bund” übersetzt wird. Vier Überlegungen sollen nun diesen Beitrag abschließen. – Wie in den vorhergehenden Analysen gezeigt wurde, ist das Thema des Bundes, ausgedrückt mit diesem Terminus, kein zentrales Thema im Psalter. Eine gewisse Entfaltung erfährt es lediglich in einigen Psalmen, wobei die Zitate in den Psalmen 105 und 106 noch am besten auf dem Hintergrund der priesterschriftlichen Bundesvorstellungen gedeutet werden können. Anderswo, etwa in Psalm 89, der immerhin vier Belege von ‫ ברית‬kennt, bezieht sich der Begriff auf eine David gegebene Zusage, die – so die Aussage des Textes – von Gott aber nicht eingehalten wurde. – Die Mehrzahl der anderen Belege von ‫ ברית‬im Psalter lässt kaum explizite Bezugnahmen auf die im Pentateuch erwähnten Bundesschlüsse erkennen. Die Formulierungen sind in der Regel sehr knapp gehalten. In einigen Fällen sind die Belege von ‫ ברית‬im Psalter ohne Parallele, in anderen Fällen kann man lediglich aus dem Kontext erschließen, dass die Idee des Bundes mit seiner Verpflichtung Israels auf Torah und Gebote im Hintergrund steht. Von den Bundesschlüssen selbst und ihren Umständen ist aber keine Rede mehr. Wahrscheinlich bezeichnete in einigen dieser Texte die ‫ ברית‬eher das rechte Verhältnis zu Gott und weniger einen Vertrag oder eine Zusage. Schließlich wird in Texten wie Psalm 25 und Psalm 50 die ‫ ברית‬eine Angelegenheit des Einzelnen. Nicht mehr das Volk Israel steht im Vordergrund, nicht mehr die Israel einst gegebenen Versprechen, sondern die rechte Lebensweise der Gläubigen. Diese Entwicklung findet ihre Fortsetzung in späten Texten wie dem Sirachbuch (vgl. Zitate wie Sir 28,7). – In diesem Artikel musste die Frage nach der Datierung der einzelnen behandelten Psalmen offen bleiben. In den meisten Fällen ist es unmöglich, zu eindeutigen Schlussfolgerungen in dieser Hinsicht zu gelangen. Dass einige 78 TERRIEN, Psalms, 542. Vgl. auch ALONSO SCHÖKEL / CARNITI, Salmos, II, 990 (s. o. Fußnote 68).

162

Eberhard Bons

Psalmen wie Psalm 74 eine exilische oder nachexilische Perspektive reflektieren, ist schwerlich zu bestreiten. Genauere Aussagen erlaubt der Textbefund jedoch nicht. Doch auch die Entstehungszeit der zentralen Texte des Pentateuchs, die von den Bundesschlüssen handeln, kann nicht mit Sicherheit bestimmt werden.79 Aus diesem Grund fällt es schwer, selbst dort literarische Abhängigkeiten zu behaupten, wo man terminologische oder konzeptionelle Ähnlichkeiten zwischen Psalmzitaten und Texten des Pentateuchs meint erkennen zu können. – Die Aussagen über die ‫ ברית‬im Psalter sind – mit Ausnahme von Psalm 105 und 106 – nicht in benachbarten Psalmen zu finden. Insgesamt gesehen, weisen sie nur geringe terminologische Gemeinsamkeiten auf. Auf einen gemeinsamen inhaltlichen Nenner lassen sie sich aber nicht bringen. Daran ändert sich auch wenig, wenn man Hinweise auf eine Bundestheologie in anderen Psalmen erkennt, gerade in solchen, die den Terminus ‫ ברית‬nicht verwenden. Dies gilt etwa für Ps 100,3. Liest man den Text auf dem Hintergrund der vorausgehenden Psalmen 93–99, dann kann man im Fall von Ps 100,3 von einer Ausweitung der Bundesformel auf die Völker sprechen.80 Dies setzt jedoch eine kanonische Exegese der Psalmen voraus, die noch einmal zu anderen Ergebnissen führen würde als der vorliegende Beitrag.

Literatur ALONSO SCHÖKEL, LUIS / CECILIA CARNITI, Salmos. Traducción, introducciones y comentario, 2 Bände, Estella (Navarra): Editorial Verbo Divino, 1994. BARTHÉLEMY, DOMINIQUE, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 4. Psaumes, (OBO 50/4), Fribourg / Göttingen: Academic Press / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. BRAULIK, GEORG / NORBERT LOHFINK, Sprache und literarische Gestalt des Buches Deuteronimium. Beobachtungen und Studien (ÖBS 53), Berlin: Peter Lang, 2021. DELITZSCH, FRANZ, Die Psalmen, Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 51894. FINSTERBUSCH, KARIN, JHWH als Lehrer der Menschen. Ein Beitrag zur Gottesvorstellung der Hebräischen Bibel (BThSt 90), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2007. FISS, ANN-CATHRIN, “Lobe den Herrn, meine Seele”. Psalm 103 in seinen Kontexten (WMANT 156), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019. GÄRTNER, JUDITH, Die Geschichtspsalmen. Eine Studie zu den Psalmen 78, 105, 106, 135 und 136 als hermeneutische Schlüsseltexte im Psalter (FAT 84), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. –, “From Generation to Generation: Remembered History in Psalm 78”, in: Remembering and Forgetting in Early Second Temple Judah (FAT 85), edited by Ehud Ben Zvi / Christoph Levin, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 269–278, GERTZ, JAN CHRISTIAN, “Bund II: Altes Testament”, RGG4 1 (1998): 1862–1865.

79 80

Vgl. dazu die Überlegungen bei GROSS, Zukunft für Israel, 13. Vgl. hierzu LOHFINK, “Universalisierung”.

Das Thema des Bundes in den Psalmen

163

GIES, KATHRIN, “‘Nicht sollen frohlocken meine Feinde über mich!’ (Ps 25,2). Überwindung von Feindschaft durch göttliche Unterweisung und menschliches Zeugnis in Ps 25 und 37”, in: Gegner im Gebet. Studien zur Feindschaft und Entfeindung im Buch der Psalmen (HBS 91), hg. von Kathrin Lies / Johannes Schnocks, Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2018, 166–194 GROSS, WALTER, “Das verborgene Gesicht Gottes – eine alttestamentliche Grunderfahrung und die heutige religiöse Krise”, in: ders., Studien zur Priesterschrift und zu alttestamentlichen Gottesbildern (SBAB 30), Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1999, 185– 197. –, Zukunft für Israel. Alttestamentliche Bundeskonzepte und die aktuelle Debatte um den Neuen Bund (SBS 176), Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. GUNKEL, HERMANN, Die Psalmen. Übersetzt und erklärt, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 61986. HOSSFELD, FRANK-LOTHAR, “Bundestheologie im Psalter”, in: Der Neue Bund im Alten. Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD 146), edited by Erich Zenger, Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1993, 169–176. HUMAN, DIRK J., “Berit in Psalm 74”, SkKe16 (1995): 57–66. JANOWSKI, Bernd, “Schöpferische Erinnerung. Zum ‘Gedenken Gottes’ in der biblischen Fluterzählung”, in Sprachliche Tiefe – Theologische Weite (BThSt 91), edited by Oliver Dyma / Andreas Michel, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008, 17–47. JEREMIAS, JÖRG, Die Reue Gottes. Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung (BThSt 31), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 32002. KOOLE, JAN L., Isaiah. Part III. Volume 3: Isaiah Chapters 56–66 (HCOT), Leuven: Peeters, 2001. KÖRTING, CORINNA, Zion in den Psalmen (FAT 48), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. KRAUSE, JOACHIM J., Die Bedingungen des Bundes. Studien zur konditionalen Struktur alttestamentlicher Bundeskonzeptionen (FAT 140), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. KUTSCH, ERNST, “Bund I”, TRE 7 (1993): 397–403. –, Verheißung und Gesetz. Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament (BZAW 131), Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 1973. KWAKKEL, GERT, According to My Righteousness: Upright Behaviour as Grounds for Deliverance in Psalms 7, 17, 18, 26 and 44 (OTS 46), Leiden et al.: Brill, 2002. LOHFINK, NORBERT, “Bund und Tora bei der Völkerwallfahrt (Jesajabuch und Psalm 25)”, in: DERS. / ERICH ZENGER, Der Gott Israels und die Völker. Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen (SBS 154), Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994, 37–83. –, “Der Begriff ‘Bund’ in der biblischen Theologie”, in ders. / Erich Zenger, Der Gott Israels und die Völker. Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen (SBS 154), Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994, 19–36. –, “Die Universalisierung der ‘Bundesformel’ in Ps 100,3”, ThPh 65 (1990): 172–183. NGOA, MATHIEU, “Tutto questo ci era successo e(ppure) non avevamo dimenticato la tua alleanza. Protesta d’innocenza in Sal 44,18–23”, in: Gottes Wort im Menschenwort. Festschrift für Georg Fischer SJ zum 60. Geburtstag (ÖBS 43), edited by Dominik Markl et al., Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2014, 223–232. PASSARO, ANGELO, “Theological Hermeneutics and Historical Motifs in Pss 105–106”, in History and Identity. How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History. International Conference of the ISDCL at Barcelona, Spain, 2–6 July 2005 (DCLY 2006), edited by Nuria Calduch-Benages / Jan Liesen, Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 2006, 43–55.

164

Eberhard Bons

PERLITT, LOTHAR, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969. PREUSS, HORST-DIETRICH, “‫ שׁכח‬šākaḥ”, ThWAT 7 (1993): 1318–1322. RADEBACH-HUONKER, CHRISTIANE, Opferterminologie im Psalter (FAT II/44), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. RENAUD, BERNARD, “Proche est ton Nom”. De la révélation à l’invocation du Nom de Dieu, Paris: Cerf, 2007. SCHÖNEMANN, HUBERTUS, Der untreue Gott und sein treues Volk – Anklage Gottes angesichts unschuldigen Leidens nach Psalm 44 (BBB 157), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Unipress, 2009. SCHÖNING, BENEDICT, “Gott ruft zur Umkehr. Kontext und Kohärenz von Ps 50”, BZ 60 (2016): 209–227. SEEBASS, HORST et al., “‫ שׁקר‬šqr”, ThWAT 8 (1995): 466–472. SEILER, STEFAN, Text-Beziehungen. Zur intertextuellen Interpretation alttestamentlicher Texte am Beispiel ausgewählter Psalmen (BWANT 202), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012. SEILER, STEFAN, “Zur Funktion und Bedeutung der schöpfungstheologischen Aussagen in Ps 74”, VT 69 (2019): 135–148 SEYBOLD, KLAUS, Die Psalmen (HAT I/15), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. SPIECKERMANN, HERMANN, Heilsgegenwart. Eine Theologie der Psalmen (FRLANT 148), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. STEYMANS, HANS ULRICH, Psalm 89 und der Davidsbund. Eine strukturale und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (ÖBS 27), Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2005. TATE, MARVIN E., Psalms 51–100 (WBC 20), Dallas TX: Word Books, 1990. TERRIEN, SAMUEL, The Psalms. Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary, Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003. VOLGGER, DAVID, Notizen zur Textanalyse von Ps 89 (ATS 45), St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 1995. WEINFELD, MOSHE, “‫ בְּ ִרית‬berît”, ThWAT 1 (1973): 781–808. ZENGER, ERICH, “Psalm 44 – Auf der Suche nach einem neuen Gottesverhältnis”, in FRANKLOTHAR HOSSFELD / ERICH ZENGER, Die Psalmen I. Psalm 1–50 (NEB 29), Würzburg: Echter, 1993, 271–278. –, “Psalm 74”, in FRANK-LOTHAR HOSSFELD / ERICH ZENGER, Psalmen 51–100. Übersetzt und ausgelegt (HThKAT), Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2000, 355–372. –, “Psalm 111”, in FRANK-LOTHAR HOSSFELD / ERICH ZENGER, Psalmen 101–150. Übersetzt und ausgelegt (HThKAT), Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008, 218–231.

Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Neh 8–10* Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit

MANFRED OEMING Manfred Oeming

1. Die vermeintliche Abgeschlossenheit der Erforschung des alttestamentlichen Bundesdenkens Bis vor einigen Jahren schien es so, als seien die Probleme der Bundestheologie weitgehend, nahezu abschließend geklärt.1 Es bestand seit der Antike Einigkeit darüber, dass der Bundesgedanke eines der wichtigsten Motive der Biblischen Theologie ist, das Einheit und systematische Ordnung in der Vielfalt der biblischen Bücher eröffnet. Auch im Rahmen der historisch-kritischen Wissenschaft war die hohe Bedeutung der Bundeskonzeptionen breit anerkannt, freilich wurde über ihr Alter und über die genauen Inhalte gerungen. Innerhalb der Priesterschrift2 waren seit Julius Wellhausen die Bünde in ihrem Nacheinander als ein griffiges chronologisches Schema erkannt: der Schöpfungsbund (Gen 1), der Bund mit der nachsintflutlichen Menschheit in Gestalt von Noah (Gen 9); mit den Patriarchen Abraham, Jakob, Israel (Gen 17 u.ö.); der Bund mit Mose und dem Volk Israel am Berg Sinai (Ex 24). Dieses Netzwerk ließ *

Ich möchte mich bei den Organisatoren der schon lange geplanten Tagung für die Einladung bedanken, über Bundestheologie in der Perserzeit vorzutragen. Dankbar bin ich aber auch dafür, dass die Tagung nicht schon früher stattgefunden hat, denn aus Sicht der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft kam das genannte Thema seit 2015 ganz neu in Schwung. 1 Da Siegfried Kreuzer in diesem Band den Forschungsstand auch bibliographisch umfangreich und zuverlässig dokumentiert, nenne ich hier nur BALTZER, Bundesformular; HILLERS, Covenant; MENDENHALL, Law and Covenant; PERLITT, Bundestheologie; MCCARTHY, Treaty and Covenant; WEINFELD, Covenant of Grant, 184–193; GROSS, Zukunft für Israel; MCKENZIE, Covenant; DOHMEN/FREVEL (Hg.), Für immer verbündet; KOCH, Vertrag. 2 “Entgegen dem Votum Wellhausens, der die Priesterschrift noch als Liber quattuor foederum (‘Buch der vier Bundesschlüsse’) einstufen wollte und ihr deshalb das Siglum Q verlieh, spricht die Priesterschrift explizit nur von zwei Bundesschlüssen, nämlich bei Noah (Gen 9) und bei Abraham (Gen 17), die die grundlegende Setzung Gottes für die Welt und die abrahamitischen Völker – das ist Israel (Isaak/Jakob), aber auch die Araber (Ismael) und die Edomiter (Esau) – formulieren. Entsprechend lässt sich die Priesterschrift zunächst in zwei große Abschnitte gliedern, die man ‘Weltkreis’ und ‘Abrahamkreis’ nennen kann. In Genesis 9 stellt Gott den entspannten Kriegsbogen in die Wolken und garantiert der Schöpfung dauerhaften Bestand” (SCHMID, Theologie, 132).

166

Manfred Oeming

sich leicht auf das ganze Alte Testament extrahieren: vom Bund mit Aaron und den Priestern (Num 18,19; 25,13) bis hin zur Bundeserneuerung unter Josia (2Chr 34,30–32); vom Bund mit David (2Sam 7; Ps 89,4) bis zum neuen Bund (Jer 31,31). “Auch in der späterhin so sehr beliebt gewordenen Form des Bundes hat die Theokratie nicht seit Moses existirt. Das Verhältnis Jahves zu Israel war von Haus aus ein natürliches; kein zum Nachdenken geeignetes Zwischen trennte ihn von seinem Volke. … Die alten Hebräer hatten für Gesetz keine andere Vorstellung und keine andere Bezeichnung als die des Vertrages. … Dieser Sprachgebrauch, Berith (d.i. Vertrag) für Gesetz, ließ sich nun sehr bequem der prophetischen Grundidee anpassen und nach derselben deuten, wonach das Verhältnis Jahves zu Israel bedingt war durch die Forderungen seiner Gerechtigkeit, deren Inhalt durch sein Wort und seine Weisung explicirt wurde. … Seit dem feierlichen und folgenschweren Akte, durch den Josia dies Gesetz einführte, scheint die Idee der Bundesschließung zwischen Jahve und Israel in den Mittelpunkt der religiösen Reflexion gerückt zu sein; sie herrscht im Deuteronomium, bei Jeremias, Ezechiel, in Isa 40–66, Lev 17–26, und am meisten im Vierbundesbuche.”3

Die konstante Basis aller Variationen war die Idee von einem “ewigen Bund” ‫( בְּ ִרית עוֹלָם‬Gen 9,7.16), innerhalb dessen die wesentlichen “identity marker” des Judentums verankert waren: Beschneidung (Gen 17,7.19), Sabbat (Ex 31,16), Daviddynastie (2Sam 23,5), Landgabe (1Chr 16,17 = Ps 105,10) und Gottesfurcht (Jer 32,40; vgl. Ps 50,16f.). Aber die Bundestheologie hatte dennoch eine innere Dynamik, da Gott frei war, immer wieder neue Bundespartner in die ‫ בְּ ִרית‬aufzunehmen bzw. die Bedingungen des Verbleibens im Bund anders zu definieren. Gott verpflichtete sich selbst zunehmend zu einem gnädigen Handeln an diesen Bundespartnern. Aber er verpflichtete auch die Bundespartner zu einem bundesgemäßen Verhalten. In der klassischen Forschung4 wurde die Idee eines Bundes zwischen JHWH und Israel als ein sehr altes Konzept (mit hethitischen Wurzeln, so Klaus Baltzer) angesehen und schon wegen seines Alters hoch geschätzt. Viele Gelehrte verfolgten das Aufkommen einer solchen Bundestheologie bis in die vormonarchische Epoche (z.B. Martin Noth mit seiner Amphiktyonie-Hypothese), mit der Annahme eines jährlichen Bundeserneuerungsfestes in Sichem, das in den alttestamentlichen Festkalendern leider fehlt (Sigmund Mowinckel). Oder man geht bis in die frühmonarchische Zeit hinauf (z.B. Norbert Lohfink). Der Bund JHWHs mit Israel wurde wie eine Ehe als stark verpflichtende Vereinbarung mit emotionaler Tiefe verstanden (z.B. Manfred Oeming findet dieses Konzept schon bei Hosea5), sei es zwischen im Prinzip Gleichen (so Moshe Weinfeld6) oder

3

WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena, 415–417. Vgl. den Beitrag von S. Kreuzer in diesem Band. 5 OEMING, “Zeit”. 6 WEINFELD, “‫ ברית‬berīt”, 781–808. 4

Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit

167

zwischen sehr Ungleichen (Ernst Kutsch7). Das “Bundesschweigen der Propheten” (Lothar Perlitt) führte viele zu einer weiteren Herabdatierung. In der neueren Forschung8 wurde der prägende Einfluss der assyrischen Traditionen nachhaltig herausgearbeitet und das Alter des Konzepts entsprechend herunterdatiert. Erst die neuassyrischen Vasallenverträge bildeten demnach den maßgeblichen Rahmen für die (vor)exilische Bundesvorstellung insbesondere des Deuteronomiums, die als ein konditioniertes Bundeskonzept beschrieben wird. Das aus neuassyrischen Texten stammende Bundesmodell sieht eine starke Verpflichtung, die der König seinen Untertanen und besonders den unterworfenen Völkern auferlegt. Wenn sie sich loyal verhalten, Steuern zahlen und im Kriegsfalle treue Soldaten stellen, ergeht es ihnen allen gut (pax assyriaca). Sollten sie aber eine Revolte wagen, die Steuern nicht zahlen oder Heeresgefolgschaft verweigern, wird der König sie vernichtend bestrafen und schlagen. Dieses Konzept lässt sich graphisch folgendermaßen verdeutlichen: Vassall Treaty Neo-Assyrian Period 700–600 BCE

Officials

Graphik 1: Die Logik der neuassyrischen Vasallenverträge9

In Israel trat an die Stelle des Königs der Staatsgott JHWH selbst. Für die genaue Erfüllung seiner umfänglichen Bundessatzungen verheißt er Segen und Lohn, für einen Bruch der Vorschriften kündigt er jedoch zahlreiche Flüche und harte Strafen an (Dtn 28). Die Graphik stellt die Parallelität, aber eben auch den Unterschied zum assyrischen Denken heraus:

7

KUTSCH, “‫ ברית‬berīt Verpflichtung”; DERS., Verheißung; DERS., Neues Testament. Ich nenne hier nur GERTZ, “Bund II. im AT”; OTTO, Ursprünge, 1–84; KOCH, Vertrag. 9 Alle Graphiken stammen von Manfred Oeming, mit elektronischer Umsetzung durch Benjamin Sitzmann. 8

168

Manfred Oeming

Dtn – dtr covenant thelogy (Dtn and DtrH 630–500 BCE)

Graphik 2: Die Logik des deuteronomischen Bundesdenkens

Diese Denkfigur wird zum theologischen Gedankenrahmen des Deuteronomiums: JHWH bindet sich an sein Volk, das er aus Ägypten herausgeführt hat; aber er legt diesem Volk gleichzeitig damit komplexe Pflichten auf, die es befolgen muss, um im Bund zu bleiben. Sollte es aber die Gebote brechen – und sei es nur eines (?), v.a. das erste und das zweite Gebot –, dann entbrennt der Zorn JHWHs und er wird sein Volk mit Untergang und Exilierung hart strafen. Es gibt, wie die Graphiken veranschaulichen wollen, viele Analogien zwischen Assur und Israel; wenn man aber die Analogie von Vasallenvertrag und Gottesbild im Bundesbegriff zu stark betont, dann verkommt die alttestamentliche Bundestheologie zu einer Untergattung des Despotismus. Es ist daher wichtig, dass mit der wörtlichen Rezeption des assyrischen Loyalitätseides “ein subversiver Charakter” verbunden ist, wie Eckart Otto vielfach herausgearbeitet hat.10 Diese kritische Bundestheologie gehört ihm zufolge in die vorexilische Epoche, nicht erst in die nachstaatliche Zeit. In der Frage der Datierung diagnostiziert Otto tiefe Wurzeln “in einem unterschiedlichen Religionsverständnis. Wird der Verlust des Königtums zur Voraussetzung einer Bundestheologie und ihrer Vorstufen gemacht, so verbindet sich damit der Gedanke, dass die Religionsentwicklung auch in der Antike nur den politischgesellschaftlichen Entwicklungen nachläuft. Rechnet man dagegen mit einer subversiven Rezeption der neuassyrischen Loyalitätsforderung als Akt der ideellen Emanzipation aus einer imperialen Funktionalisierung der Religion und Entwicklung einer eigenständigen religiösen Identität in spätvorexilischer Zeit, die in der Exilszeit sich mit der Formulierung des Ersten Gebots und der Bundestheologie Ausdruck verschafft und damit zur Voraussetzung des Über-

10

Z.B. OTTO, Covenant; vgl. MILLER, Covenant and Grace.

Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit

169

lebens judäischer Identität im Exil wird, so traut man der Religion zu, ihrerseits die politisch-gesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse mitzuprägen.”11 In der babylonischen Zeit wurde diese dtn Ideologie der ‫ברית‬, die im Grunde eine Spielart des Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhangs darstellt, im Rahmen der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdarstellungen ausgiebig genutzt, um die Geschichte der Zerstörung Judas und Jerusalems als “nur” konsequentes Handeln Gottes darzustellen. Gott hat in seinem Gericht recht: die harten Folgen der im Bundesschluss implizierten Flüche bei Verletzung des Bundesrechts von Dtn 28,58–68 haben sich nach 2Kön 25 // Jer 52 erfüllt. Die Schuld liegt beim Volk. Gott hält paradoxerweise gerade darin den Bund, dass er sein untreues Volk verurteilt. Das Bundeskonzept hilft, die Theodizeeproblematik zu lösen. Auf der anderen Seite aber produziert ein solcher Gedanke bei den menschlichen Bündnispartnern Angst und Schrecken: Was passiert aber, wenn Israel den Bund erneut bricht? Werden dann ein neuer Untergang und ein neues Exil kommen? Ein Aufsatz von Walther Zimmerli aus dem Jahre 1960 hat Forschungsgeschichte geschrieben: “Sinaibund und Abrahambund: ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift” führte den Gedanken ein, dass die Priesterschrift in Reaktion auf das Trauma des Exils und in starkem Gegensatz zum Deuteronomium den tröstlichen Gedanken ersinnt, dass Gott einen unbedingten Gnadenbund gestiftet habe, den der Mensch von sich aus gar nicht brechen kann.12 Die Verbindung von Bund und Gesetz sei bei P aufgebrochen; einzige “Bedingung” sei die Beschneidung, die aber mehr ein Symbol der ewigen Verbundenheit darstelle als eine bedrohliche Conditio. Es war nichts weniger als eine theologische Revolution, die P vollzogen habe. Mit dem Konzept eines “ewigen Bundes” als Versprechen Gottes und als völlig einseitiges Handeln JHWHs entwickelte sich eine wahrhaftige Soteriologie der Priesterschrift. Wie das Bundeszeichen der Beschneidung seiner Natur nach irreversibel ist, so darf der Israelit wissen, dass er fest im Bund steht. Der Bund hat eine Art character indelebilis, was die folgende Graphik veranschaulichen möchte.

11 12

OTTO, Rez. von “Chr. Koch”, Vertrag, 675. ZIMMERLI, “Sinaibund” (s. DERS., Aufsätze, 205–216).

170

Manfred Oeming

Covenant with Abraham (Priestly code 550–500 BCE)

Circumcision

Graphik 3: Der priesterschriftliche Bundesgedanke

Diese Entdeckung Zimmerlis wurde geradezu begierig aufgenommen und weiterentwickelt. Es war eine Neuerung in den 1970er Jahren zu betonen, dass die Priesterschrift im Grund eine reformatorische Gnadentheologie konzipiert habe: Der Bund ist ein einseitiges und unbedingtes Versprechen oder eine Selbstverpflichtung, die von einer Partei für eine andere Partei, d.h. von Gott für den Menschen, die Tiere und die gesamte Schöpfung gestiftet wird (so bes. Ernst Kutsch13). Covenant with Noah (Priestly code 550–500 BCE)

Graphik 4: Bund als Selbstverpflichtung Gottes

“Offenkundig greift die Priesterschrift so die Botschaft der Gerichtsprophetie auf, verlagert sie aber in die Urgeschichte: Ja, es hat einen göttlichen Beschluss 13

S. oben Fn. 7.

Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit

171

zum ‘Ende’ gegeben, aber er liegt in der Vergangenheit, nicht in der Zukunft. Damit stellt sich die Priesterschrift auch gegen das Deuteronomium mit seinen Fluchankündigungen (Dtn 28,15–68).”14 Entsprechend ist die Botschaft der Priesterschrift theologisch für Israel ausgerichtet: “So wie der Noahbund den ewigen Bestand der Welt garantiert, so garantiert der Abrahambund Israel fortwährende Gottesnähe – in beiden Fällen ergehen dazu keine Bedingungen.”15 In Entsprechung zu oder in Vorbereitung von dem Gnadenstrom (vgl. Ez 47,1–12), der die Priesterschrift durchströmt, entwickelten sich prophetische Bundestheologien (Christoph Levin16); die “neuen” Bündnisse (Sinai Ex 32– 34; Jer 31,31ff.) meinen nicht inhaltlich ganz andere Bünde, sondern eine frische und unbefleckte Wiedereinsetzung des alten Bundes. Nach der Zerstörung Jerusalems und Judas – verstanden als Strafe Gottes – entwickelte sich im Exil die Hoffnung auf einen neuen, von Gott selbst geschaffenen Bund: Dieser kann durch neues “Personal” der Bundesvermittlung, durch neue verinnerlichte Formen der Einführung in den Bund und durch neue Beständigkeit der Beziehung durch ein neues Herz (Ez 18,31; 36,26) oder neue klare Rituale und Zeremonien erreicht werden. Das war der Beginn einer Erwartung von etwas Anderem und Neuem (Jer 31,31ff.); damit wurde in Babylon – gesamtbiblisch gesehen – eine wichtige Brücke zum Neuen Testament geschlagen.17 Die hier skizzierten Lehrmeinungen waren Examenswissen; es gibt im Alten Testament drei Formen der Bundestheologie: die strenge deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische, die sanfte priesterschriftliche und die hoffnungsvolle prophetische.18 Dass die drei Bundeskonzeptionen Dtr – P – prophetischer “Neuer Bund” in scharfen Spannungen stehen, wurde als inneralttestamentliche Kontroverse hingenommen.

14

SCHMID, Theologie, 133. SCHMID, Theologie, 132. 16 LEVIN, Verheißung. 17 Vgl. Karin Finsterbusch in diesem Band. 18 Unsicherheiten und Klärungsbedarf bestanden im Blick auf diejenigen Bundesschlüsse, die eher implizit nur vermutet wurden: Gab es wirklich einen “Schöpfungsbund” in Gen 1? Und was bedeutete dies im Blick auf den Bund mit Adam? (Hos 6,7)? Aber sie haben – wie Adam – den Bund übertreten; “dort haben sie treulos gegen mich gehandelt.” Vgl. RÜTERSWÖRDEN, “Bundestheologie”. 15

172

Manfred Oeming

2. Die neuen Impulse zur Erforschung der Bundestheologie in der Perserzeit seit 2015 Die Geschichte des Bundeskonzeptes ist vor allem mit dem neuassyrischen Vertragsrecht und mit der Theologiegeschichte des babylonischen Exils bei P und den Redaktionsgeschichten der Prophetenbücher Jeremia und Ezechiel auf einen Zeitraum von ca. 150 Jahren datiert. Der relative Mangel an Aufmerksamkeit für Bundesperspektiven, die in den 200 Jahren nach dem Exil auftauchten, war auffallend. Vielleicht hat die Unterschätzung des Bundesthemas in den perserzeitlichen Schriften der hebräischen Bibel auch mit dem lange gepflegten Stereotyp zu tun, dass man – im langen Schatten von Julius Wellhausen – die Perserzeit als eine unwichtige Zeit der Epigonie und des Niedergangs sah. Das prägende Konzept des Bundes im alten Israel sei in der achämenidischen Epoche auf uninspirierte rituelle Observanzen und legalistische Verfestigung (“Erstarrung”) reduziert worden. Die subkutane Meinung war, dass späte Formulierungen der Bundestheologie das Ende der israelitischen Religion und den Anfang des nomistischen Judentums markieren. In der aktuellen Forschung sind die Fragen der späten Entwicklungen des Bundesdenkens unerwartet wieder offen. Auch wenn sich ein Umdenken länger angebahnt hat,19 weil ein starker Trend der Forschung dahin geht, die literarische Produktivität der Perserzeit sehr viel höher anzusetzen, hat das Thema Bund seit 2015 eine erhebliche Dynamik bekommen, weil drei Bücher starke neue Impulse einbrachten: einerseits der eher schmale, von Nathan MacDonald 2015 herausgegebene Sammelband Covenant and Election in Exilic and PostExilic Judaism,20 andererseits die von Richard Bautch und Gary Knoppers herausgegebene stattliche Sammlung von Beiträgen einer über Jahre arbeiten-

19

Vgl. z.B. BAUTCH, Glory and Power. MACDONALD (Hg.), Covenant and Election. Darin: Nathan MacDonald, Introduction – Matthias Köckert: Gottes “Bund” mit Abraham und die “Erwählung” Israels in Genesis 17 – Christoph Koch: Bundestheologie und autoritativer Text im Deuteronomium: Das Tafelmotiv in Deuteronomium 5.9–10 vor dem Hintergrund altorientalischer Vertragspraxis – Anselm C. Hagedorn: Covenant, Election, and War in Deuteronomy 7 – Stephen B. Chapman: The Covenant God of Israel: Joshua 8, Divine Concession, and Jesus – Karin Finsterbusch: Auszugs-Bund, neuer Bund und weitere Bünde: “Berit” im älteren (hebräische Vorlage LXX-Jer) und im jüngeren Jeremiabuch (MT-Jer) – Sebastian Grätz: Bund und Erwählung in Esra-Nehemia – Gary N. Knoppers: Judah, Levi, David, Solomon, Jerusalem, and the Temple: Election and Covenant in Chronicles – Matthew J. Lynch: The Davidic Covenant and Institutional Integration in Chronicles. 20

Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit

173

den SBL-Sektion21 und schließlich die Monographie von Joachim J. Krause zu den Bedingungen des Bundes.22 Die Sammlung von Nathan McDonald zeigt mit einigen überzeugenden Fallbeispielen exemplarisch auf, dass Bund und Erwählung nicht von Anfang an eine zentrale Bedeutung besaßen, sondern erst durch exilische und eben auch nachexilische Schriftgelehrte und Überlieferer in ein kohärentes Konzept verwandelt wurden. Vor allem die theologische Bewältigung der nationalen Katastrophe führte dazu, dass der Gedanke des Bundes in der Perserzeit zum theologischen Zentrum avancierte. Der von Bautch und Knoppers edierte Band ist in fünf Sektionen untergliedert: Pentateuch, historische Bücher des deuteronomistischen Kreises, Prophetie, Weisheit und chronistische Theologien (Esra, Nehemia, Chronik). Es zeigt sich hier, dass die Beurteilungen der nachexilischen Theologien bisher nicht adäquat waren und dass die Bundesthematik nachexilisch in sehr verschiede-

21 BAUTCH/KNOPPERS (Hg.), Covenant in the Persian Period. Darin: Part 1: Pentateuch: Jakob Wöhrle, Abraham amidst the Nations: The Priestly Concept of Covenant and the Persian Imperial Ideology – Andreas Schüle, The “Eternal Covenant” in the Priestly Pentateuch and the Major Prophets – Wolfgang Oswald, Correlating the Covenants in Exodus 24 and Exodus 34 – Thomas Hieke, The Covenant in Leviticus 26: A Concept of Admonition and Redemption. Part 2: Historical Books (Deuteronomistic History): Reinhard Achenbach, “The Unwritten Text of the Covenant”: Torah in the Mouth of the Prophets – Ehud Ben Zvi, A Balancing Act: Settling and Unsettling Issues Coming Past Divine Promises in Historiographical Texts Shaping Social Memory in the Late Persian Period – Cynthia Edenburg, From Covenant to Connubium – Cynthia Edenburg, Persian Period Developments in the Perception of Covenant in the Deuteronomistic History. Part 3: Prophecy: Dalit Rom-Shiloni, The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Employment of Family and Political Metaphors – Matthew Sjoberg, Inner-Biblical Interpretation in the Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26 – J. Todd Hibbard, Breaking an Eternal Covenant: Isaiah 24:5 and Persian Period Discourse about the Covenant – James Nogalski, Presumptions of “Covenant” in Joel – John Kessler, Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai – Richard J. Bautch, Zechariah 11 and the Shepherd’s Broken Covenant – Elie Assis, The Reproach of the Priests (Malachi 1:6–2:9) within Malachi’s Conception of Covenant – Christine Mitchell, Achaemenid Persian Concepts Pertaining to Covenant and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Part 4: Wisdom Literature: W.H. Bellinger Jr., The Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period – Carol J. Dempsey, Poems, Prayers and Promises: The Psalms and Israel’s Three Covenants – Jamie A. Grant, “When the Friendship of God Was upon My Tent”: Covenant as Essential Background to Lament in the Wisdom Literature – Thomas M. Bolin, Qohelet and the Covenant: Some Preliminary Observations. Part 5: Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah: D.J.E. Nykolaishen, Ezra 10:3: Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant? – Mark J. Boda, Reenvisioning the Relationship: Covenant in Chronicles – Louis C. Jonker, “The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord”: The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology. 22 KRAUSE, Bedingungen.

174

Manfred Oeming

nen Formen weiterwirkte. Die Herausgeber des Buches sind selbst von den Ergebnissen überrascht worden; Gary Knoppers fasst das folgendermaßen zusammen: “Wir haben damals kaum geahnt, in welchem Ausmaß die Gelehrten, die wir um Beiträge für die Sektion ‘Bund in der persischen Zeit’ der SBL gebeten haben, ein so weitreichendes, kreatives und aufschlussreiches Umdenken zum Thema Bund hervorbringen würden.”23 Ich habe hier keine Möglichkeit, einen Überblick über den Inhalt der einzelnen Beiträge dieser beeindruckenden und sehr wichtigen Arbeiten zu geben.24 Ich zitiere aber noch einmal Gary Knoppers, der die Themen des ganzen Buches in aller Kürze zusammenfasst: Die universellen Dimensionen des abrahamitischen Bundes, die verschiedenen Umschreibungen des davidischen Bundes, Sabbatobservanz als Bedingung des ewigen Bundes der Priesterschrift, göttliche Verheißung und israelitische Verpflichtung im Heiligkeitskodex, die Natur des Bundes mit Levi, Bundesverheißungen und soziales Gedächtnis, Bund und Konnubium, Bund und Adoption, Bund und Verwandtschaft, Bund und gemeinschaftliche Identitätsbildung, globale Bundesschlüsse, spezialisierte Subbünde, Bundeskonzepte in der Weisheitsliteratur, Bündnisse in den Psalmen, Bund in Deutero-Sacharja, Bundesflüche in Joel, Bundesbruch und Bundesaufhebung in Haggai, Vertrag und Gewährung in Jeremia, die Neudefinition des göttlich-israelitischen Verhältnisses im Lichte der internationalen diplomatischen Arrangements der persischen Periode, die Beziehung zwischen Persien als kolonisierendem Reich und Jehud als Ziel imperialistischer Politik, der Bund in Nicht-‫ברית‬-Texten und Nicht-Bund in ‫ברית‬-Texten, die mündliche Tora in Jeremias neuem Bund und die Beziehung zwischen Bußgebet und Bundeserneuerung. Anstatt das Ende der israelitischen Religion zu spiegeln, wird der Bundesgedanke, wie Sean Burt beobachtet, zu einer formbaren literarischen Ressource und zu einem ‘besonders potenten Werkzeugkasten’ in der postmonarchischen Ära.25

Ich selbst möchte in Zuspitzung und Ergänzung zum eben Gesagten neun Punkte hervorheben: 1. Die späten Texte reflektieren die imperiale Politik und Ideologie des persischen Reiches: Dabei gibt es gewiss Kontinuitäten zur assyrischen Konzeption, aber eben auch sehr deutliche neue Akzentuierungen. Die Gedankenfortschritte in der Genesis von der universellen Verheißung an Noah, dass alle Völker gemeinsam die Erde bewohnen werden (Gen 9), zur geographisch spezifischeren Verheißung an Abraham, dass er im Land Kanaan wohnen wird, spiegeln das persische Herrschaftskonzept wider, wonach die Völker in ihre jeweiligen Länder gegliedert werden, um auf der Erde friedlich zu koexistieren (Jakob Wöhrle). Christine Mitchell weist in diesem Zusammenhang auf den altpersischen Begriff bandaka hin, welcher die besondere Beziehung zwischen 23

Übersetzung M. O. Vgl. SCHWEITZER (Hg.), Covenant in the Persian Period (mit vier Artikeln von Thomas Dozeman, Sean Burt, Melody Knowles und Thomas Römer und mit zwei Antworten der beiden Herausgeber Richard Bautch und Gary Knoppers). 25 Übersetzung und Hervorhebung M. O. 24

Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit

175

König und Satrap oder, noch wichtiger, zwischen Gottheit und König bezeichnet. Der terminus technicus für eine solche loyale und freundschaftliche Observanz ist ‫עבד‬. Jos 24,24 ist perserzeitlich zu datieren (Thomas Römer) und lautet: Und das Volk sprach zu Josua: JHWH, unserem Gott, wollen wir dienen und seiner Stimme wollen wir gehorchen. ‫שׁ ַﬠ‬ ֻ ‫ֹאמרוּ הָ ָﬠם אֶ ל־ ְיהוֹ‬ ְ ‫וַיּ‬ ‫אֶ ת־ ְיהוָה ֱא הֵ ינוּ ַנﬠֲבֹ ד וּבְ קוֹלוֹ ִנ ְשׁמָ ע׃‬

2. Die alte Auslegung des Bundes als Ehe (Hos 1–3; Jer 2–3) wurde mehrfach modularisiert. Sie wurde zum einen zunehmend negativ interpretiert. Die innerbiblische Auslegung von Dtn 24,1–4 in Jer 3,1 unterstreicht die Unfähigkeit Gottes und Israels, wieder zu heiraten. Wenn ein Mann seine Frau entlässt und wenn sie von ihm weggeht und die Frau eines andern wird, wendet er sich dann ihr wieder zu? Würde das Land nicht völlig entweiht? Du aber hast mit vielen Freunden gebuhlt, und da solltest du zu mir zurückkehren dürfen? – Spruch JHWHs.

Jer 3,19–25 sieht stattdessen eine zukünftige Bundesbeziehung zwischen Gott und dem Volk vor, indem es die Familienmetaphern des Bundes zwischen Ehe und Adoption trennt. Anders als die Ehe-Metapher, die die Beendigung des Bundes und die radikale Scheidung betont, lässt die Metapher der Adoption die Möglichkeit der Umkehr und der Hoffnung auf die Wiederherstellung der Beziehung zwischen Gott und Volk zu (vgl. den Aufsatz von Dalit Rom-Shiloni)26. 3. Im Kampf um die Identität der nachexilischen Gemeinschaft entstand eine sehr starke Betonung des Verbots der Mischehen, das sich in manchen Kreisen geradezu ideologisch verhärtete. Der Inhalt dieses Bundes konzentrierte sich auf die Reinerhaltung des (religiös definierten) Volkes durch die Verunmöglichung von Verunreinigungen des “heiligen Samens” (Jes 6,13, Esr 9,2; vgl. auch Tob 4,12: πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ παιδίον ἀπὸ πάσης πορνείας καὶ γυναῖκα πρῶτον λαβὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος τῶν πατέρων σου μὴ λάβῃς γυναῖκα ἀλλοτρίαν ἣ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς τοῦ πατρός σου διότι υἱοὶ προφητῶν ἐσμεν. Νωε, Αβρααμ, Ισαακ, Ιακωβ οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος μνήσθητι, παιδίον, ὅτι οὗτοι πάντες ἔλαβον γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶν καὶ εὐλογήθησαν ἐν τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῶν, καὶ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτῶν κληρονομήσει γῆν. Mein Sohn, hüte dich vor jeder Art von Unzucht! Vor allem: nimm eine Frau aus dem Stamm deiner Väter! Nimm keine fremde Frau, die nicht zum Volk deines Vaters gehört; denn wir stammen von Propheten ab. Mein Sohn, denk an Noah, Abraham, Isaak und Jakob, unsere ersten Vorfahren! Sie alle haben Frauen aus ihrem Stamm geheiratet und sind mit Kindern gesegnet worden; ihre Nachkommen werden das Land besitzen.

26

In BAUTCH/KNOPPERS, Covenant in the Persian Period.

176

Manfred Oeming

Die Klimax dieser Abgrenzung von fremden Religionen ist die Forderung, sich unverzüglich von den fremden Frauen scheiden zu lassen und sie mitsamt den Kindern wegzuschicken. Und nun werden wir mit unserem Gott einen Bund schließen, alle die Frauen und die von ihnen Geborenen fortzuschicken, gemäß dem Beschluss meines Herrn und derer, die das Gebot unseres Gottes fürchten. Und nach der Weisung soll gehandelt werden! (Esr 10,3)

Während Dtn 7 das Konnubium für die Zukunft verbietet, drängt Esra 9/10 sogar diejenigen, die bereits in einer “Mischehe” leben, sich sofort scheiden zu lassen und die Frauen mitsamt den Kindern wegzuschicken. Solche bewusste Absonderung geht bis hinein in den Bereich der Sprache. Die Pflege der Heiligen Sprache Hebräisch (Judäisch) wird zum wesentlichen Kriterium der Bundestreue: ‫דּוֹדית וְ אֵ ינָם מַ כִּ ִירים לְ דַ בֵּ ר ְיהוּדִ ית וְ כִ לְ שׁוֹן ַﬠם ָו ָﬠם׃‬ ִ ‫וּבְ נֵיהֶ ם חֲצִ י ְמדַ בֵּ ר אַ ְשׁ‬ ֙‫ם־תּ ְשׂאוּ‬ ִ ‫ֵיה ם וְ ִא‬ ֶ ֔ ‫ם־תּ ְתּנ֤ וּ בְ ֹֽנ תֵ יכֶם֙ לִ בְ נ‬ ִ ‫וָאָ ִ ֤ריב ﬠִ מָּ ם֙ ָו ֲא ַ ֽק לְ ֵ֔לם וָאַ כֶּ ֥ה מֵ ֶה֛ם ֲאנ ִ ָ֖שׁ ים ָוֽאֶ ְמ ְר ֵ ֑ט ם וָאַ ְשׁבִּ יﬠֵ ֣ם ֵ ֽבּ א ִ֗הים ִא‬ ‫יהם לִ בְ נֵיכֶ ֖ם וְ ל ֶ ָֽכ ם׃‬ ֶ ֔ ֵ‫ִמבְּ ֹ֣נ ת‬ 24 Die Hälfte ihrer Kinder redete in der Sprache von Aschdod oder in der Sprache eines der anderen Völker, konnten aber nicht mehr Judäisch. 25 Ich machte ihnen Vorwürfe und verfluchte sie. Einige von ihnen schlug ich und packte sie bei den Haaren. Ich beschwor sie bei Gott: Ihr dürft eure Töchter nicht ihren Söhnen geben noch ihre Töchter zu Frauen für eure Söhne oder für euch selbst nehmen. (Neh 13,24f.)

Esra und Nehemia können als Weiterentwicklung der Denkweise der jüngsten Schichten des Deuteronomiums in der zweiten Hälfte der Perserzeit verstanden werden, denn ihnen zufolge bringen fremde Frauen fremde Religionen und bewirken somit einen Bruch des ersten und zweiten Gebotes. Die rigorose Entschlossenheit hinter diesem Konzept muss man als theologisch inakzeptable Verbohrtheit kritisieren, wobei man aus heutiger Sicht allerdings deutlich sagen muss, dass es noch bis zum Anfang des 21. Jh. nach Chr. im evangelischen Pfarrerdienstrecht starke Hindernisse für religionsverschiedene Ehen gab. 4. Der Bund war nicht oder zumindest deutlich weniger eine kollektive Angelegenheit der ganzen Nation bzw. aller Völker, sondern Sach 11 und Neh 10 präsentieren einen spezialisierten “Unterbund”, der kleinere Gruppen zusammenbindet, indem er innerhalb des Gemeinwesens besondere Gruppen etwa durch Spezialgesetze bindet (Sach 11,10–15). 5. Das Buch von Joachim Krause hat 2020 die Position Zimmerlis bezüglich des unbedingten Bundes regelrecht zerlegt. Krause urteilt sehr grundlegend: “Das Alte Testament kennt keinen Bund ohne Verpflichtung. Die Auffassung, das Theologumenon bedeute – ob ursprünglich und ‘eigentlich’ oder auf einer späteren Stufe seiner Theologiegeschichte – ausschließlich Verheißung, findet keinen Anhalt an den Belegen. Einen gänzlich unkonditionierten, in diesem Sinne ‘reinen’ Gnadenbund, in dem jedes Korrespondenzverhalten des menschlichen Partners ausgeschaltet wäre, gibt es nach dem Zeugnis des Alten

Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit

177

Testaments nicht. Gleichgewichtig und komplementär dazu ist festzuhalten: Dass es keinen unkonditionierten Bund gibt, heißt nicht, dass der von der exegetischen Tradition geprägte Begriff des ‘Gnadenbundes’ nicht auf die in Rede stehenden Konzeptionen angewandt werden könnte. Denn so gewiss die Liebe, die Gott gibt, sich nicht scheiden lässt von der, die er empfängt, so gewiss ist diese Reihenfolge unumkehrbar. Von daher ist der Idee der Gesetzlichkeit in dem Sinne, als müsse der menschliche Partner für sein Heil selbst sorgen, endgültig der Abschied zu geben, und zwar für alle Entwicklungsstadien israelitisch-jüdischer Religion.”27 Auch wenn Krause meines Erachtens recht hat und man die These Zimmerlis u.a. vom unkonditionierten ewigen Bund in den Akten der Forschungsgeschichte abheften muss, so es ist weiterhin wichtig, genau zu differenzieren, welche unterschiedlichen Formen die Bundestheologie in der persischen Epoche annahm. Absolute Datierungen von literarischen Werken sind dabei immer umstritten,28 aber generell kann man sagen, dass in den aktuellen Forschungen zur Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments eine starke Tendenz besteht, mehr oder weniger die gesamte hebräische Bibel in die Perserzeit zu datieren.29 6. Der Bund wird zur Verpflichtung des Selbst, zu einem inneren Imperativ, der zu Disziplin und zur Selbstbeherrschung verpflichtet: Ich habe einen Bund mit meinen Augen geschlossen; wie könnte ich dann eine Jungfrau anstarren? (Hi 31,1)

Noch heute bedeutet in der Sprache der ultraorthodoxen Juden “den Bund halten” das Gleiche wie “auf Pornographie, Onanie und Masturbation vollständig zu verzichten.” 7. Die neue Rolle der Priester lässt sich daran erkennen, dass es zu einer komplexen Mischung aus Ritualwissen, ethischer Unterweisung (‫)תּוֹרת ֱאמֶ ת‬ ַ und exegetischer Kompetenz kam. 4 Dann werdet ihr erkennen, dass ich es bin, der diesen Beschluss über euch ergehen ließ, weil ich einen Bund mit Levi habe, spricht der Herr der Heere. 5 Mein Bund bedeutete für ihn Leben und Heil; beides gab ich ihm, dazu die Furcht: Er sollte mich fürchten und vor meinem Namen erschrecken. 6 Zuverlässige Belehrung kam aus seinem Mund, nichts Verkehrtes fand sich auf seinen Lippen, in Frieden und Aufrichtigkeit ging er mit mir seinen Weg, und viele hielt er davon ab, schuldig zu werden. 7 Denn die Lippen des Priesters bewahren die Erkenntnis, und aus seinem Mund erwartet man Belehrung; denn er ist der Bote des Herrn der Heere. (Mal 2,4–7) 15 Mose hat ihn in sein Amt eingesetzt und ihn mit heiligem Öl gesalbt. So wurde ihm ein ewiger Bund gewährt und auch seinen Nachkommen, solange der Himmel steht: den Dienst

27

KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 227. SCHMID, “Pentateuch”. 29 OEMING, “Jerusalem”. 28

178

Manfred Oeming

zu tun, für Gott Priester zu sein und sein Volk in seinem Namen zu segnen. (Sir 45,15; vgl. den Kontext 45,6–18)

8. Neue Festzeiten werden entdeckt, die eingehalten werden müssen. 14 Da fanden sie im Gesetz, das der Herr durch Mose geboten hat, die Stelle, an der es heißt: Die Israeliten sollen während des Festes im siebten Monat in Laubhütten wohnen. 15 Wie man sie unterrichtet hatte, ließen sie nun in all ihren Städten und in Jerusalem ausrufen: Geht in die Berge und holt Zweige von veredelten und von wilden Ölbäumen, Zweige von Myrten, Palmen und Laubbäumen zum Bau von Laubhütten, wie es vorgeschrieben ist. (Neh 8,14f.)

Es wurde mit Purim sogar ein ganz neues Fest eingeführt, wobei die Datierung von Esther und dem Purimfest noch in der Perserzeit nicht unumstritten ist: 28 Diese Tage sollten in Erinnerung bleiben und in jeder Generation, in jeder Familie, in jeder Provinz und in jeder Stadt begangen werden. Die Juden sollten nie aufhören, das Purimfest zu feiern, diese Tage sollten bei ihren Nachkommen nie vergessen werden. (Est 9,28)

9. Das “Volk des Bundes” ist nicht die Gemeinschaft derer, die den Exodus erlebt haben, sondern die Gemeinschaft der Leser und Ausleger der Heiligen Schrift. Sie “finden” Gesetze, die erst durch exegetische Studien erkannt wurden (dazu mehr unten unter 3.): 26 Hat sich nicht wegen solcher Frauen Salomo, der König Israels, versündigt? Unter den vielen Völkern gab es keinen König wie ihn. Er wurde von seinem Gott geliebt; darum hatte ihn Gott zum König über ganz Israel gemacht. Aber selbst ihn haben die fremden Frauen zur Sünde verführt. 27 Und jetzt hört man von euch, dass ihr genau dieselbe Untat begeht und unserem Gott die Treue brecht, indem ihr fremde Frauen heiratet. […]. (Neh 13,26f.)30

Man erkennt an den genannten neun Punkten feine bis deutliche Unterschiede der perserzeitlichen Vorstellungen gegenüber den älteren Konzepten, was genau der Bund impliziert; aber man darf die Diversität auch nicht überstrapazieren. Gewisse Grundstrukturen halten sich durch.

30 Hier wird “ebenfalls bundestheologische Terminologie (‫ )בְ ִרית‬mit derjenigen der kultischen Verunreinigung (‫ )גאל‬kombiniert” (GRÄTZ, Bund, 125).

Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit

179

3. Nehemia 8–10 als Kronzeuge einer speziellen Bundestheologie: Das Bundesvolk als Lese- und Auslegungsgemeinschaft Die expliziten Verwendungen von ‫ בְּ ִרית‬in Esra und Nehemia31 klingen zunächst ganz konservativ nach hartem deuteronomistischem Bundesnomismus: ‫ַתּוֹרה ֵי ָﬠשֶׂ ה׃‬ ָ ‫וְ ַﬠתָּ ה ִנכְ ָרת־בְּ ִרית לֵא הֵ ינוּ לְ הוֹצִ יא כָל־נ ִָשׁים וְ הַ נּוֹלָד מֵ הֶ ם בַּ ﬠֲצַ ת ֲא ֹדנָי וְ הַ ח ֲֵר ִדים בְּ ִמצְ וַת ֱא הֵ ינוּ וְ כ‬ Jetzt aber: Lasst uns mit unserm Gott einen Bund schließen, alle [ausländischen] Frauen und das von ihnen Geborene fortzuschicken, nach dem Ratschluss meines Herrn; und die, die vor dem Gebot unseres Gottes zittern. Gemäß der Tora soll man handeln. (Esr 10,3)

Im Gebet betont Nehemia demütig, dass JHWH zwei Seiten hat: ‫שׁמֵ ר הַ בְּ ִרית וָחֶ סֶ ד לְ אֹ הֲבָ יו וּלְ שֹׁ ְמ ֵרי ִמצְ וֹתָ יו׃‬ ֹ ‫נּוֹרא‬ ָ ַ‫וָאֹ מַ ר אָ נָּא ְיהוָה ֱא הֵ י הַ שָּׁ מַ ִים הָ אֵ ל הַ גָּדוֹל וְ ה‬ Und ich sprach: ‘Ach, JHWH, Gott des Himmels, du großer und furchtgebietender Gott, der den Bund und die Gnade denen bewahrt, die ihn lieben und seine Gebote bewahren!’ (Neh 1,5) ‫וּמָ צָ אתָ אֶ ת־לְ בָ בוֹ ֶנ ֱאמָ ן לְ ָפנֶי וְ ָכרוֹת ﬠִ מּוֹ הַ בְּ ִרית לָתֵ ת אֶ ת־אֶ ֶרץ הַ כְּ ַנ ֲﬠ ִני הַ חִ ִתּי הָ ֱאמֹ ִרי וְ הַ פְּ ִר ִזּי וְ הַ ְיבוּסִ י וְ הַ גִּ ְרגּ ִָשׁי‬ ְ ֶ‫לָתֵ ת לְ ז ְַרעוֹ וַתָּ קֶ ם א‬ ‫ת־דּבָ ֶרי כִּ י צַ ִדּיק אָ תָּ ה׃‬ Und du hast sein Herz treu vor dir erfunden und du hast mit ihm den Bund geschlossen, ihm zu geben das Land der Kanaaniter, der Hetiter, der Amoriter und der Perisiter und der Jebusiter und der Girgasiter – es seinen Nachkommen zu geben. Und du hast deine Worte gehalten, denn du bist gerecht. (Neh 9,8) ‫וּמָ צָ אתָ אֶ ת־לְ בָ בוֹ ֶנ ֱאמָ ן לְ ָפנֶי וְ ָכרוֹת ﬠִ מּוֹ הַ בְּ ִרית לָתֵ ת אֶ ת־אֶ ֶרץ הַ כְּ ַנ ֲﬠ ִני הַ חִ ִתּי הָ ֱאמֹ ִרי וְ הַ פְּ ִר ִזּי וְ הַ ְיבוּסִ י וְ הַ גִּ ְרגּ ִָשׁי‬ ‫ת־דּבָ ֶרי כִּ י צַ ִדּיק אָ תָּ ה׃‬ ְ ֶ‫לָתֵ ת לְ ז ְַרעוֹ וַתָּ קֶ ם א‬ Und nun, unser Gott, der große, starke und furchtgebietende Gott, der den Bund und die Gnade bewahrt, lass nicht gering vor dir sein all die Härte, die uns getroffen hat, unsere Könige, unsere Obersten und unsere Priester und unsere Propheten und unsere Väter und dein ganzes Volk, seit den Tagen der Könige von Assur bis auf diesen Tag! (Neh 9,32)

Und dennoch weisen die beiden Bücher Spezifika auf, die man differenziert betrachten muss, wie es Sebastian Grätz aufgezeigt hat. Seiner überzeugenden Analyse zufolge verschiebt sich im Kontext von Esra/Nehemia das Bundeskonzept von der Prophetie weg deutlich hin zur Tora:32 Die Leserichtung des Esrabuches legt dabei nahe, dass die Toratradition die prophetische (auch zeitlich) ablöst und der Tora so die Präponderanz zukommen lässt. In beiden Fällen geht es gleichwohl letztendlich um kommunikatives Geschehen zwischen Gott und Mensch, das von einem besonderen initialen Akt wie der Offenbarung Gottes an Mose oder seinen 31 32

Vgl. den einschlägigen Aufsatz von Sebastian GRÄTZ, Bund, 123–138. GRÄTZ, Bund, 123–138.

180

Manfred Oeming

Mitteilungen an unterschiedliche Propheten ausgeht. Die Fortdauer der Kommunikation bestätigt dabei zugleich die Kontinuität von Bund und Erwählung, deren Faktizität durch das Exil in Frage gestellt sein musste.33

Die Bücher Esra/Nehemia verfolgen mehrere Strategien, um Anknüpfung und Kontinuität deutlich herauszustellen: das Narrativ vom Bau des Zweiten Tempels in Esra 1–6 sowie von der Wiedererrichtung der Stadtmauer Jerusalems in Neh 2–6; 11–12, die Genealogien und Einwohnerlisten Jerusalems, die “den Kreis der Erwählten aktuell definieren”34 und die Maßnahmen zur Sicherung des “Heiligen Samens” (Esr 9,2) durch strikte Endogamie. Von großer Bedeutung ist aber die enge Bindung an die Heilige Schrift: Ihre Schriftlichkeit eröffnet dabei den Horizont einer je aktualisierenden Exegese, die zum einen das kommunikative Geschehen am Leben erhält, deren Verbindlichkeit zum anderen nicht nur durch den Text der Tora, sondern auch durch die durch Genealogie und Ausbildung verbürgte Autorität des Exegeten garantiert bleibt. So schildert Esra 9 den Beginn eines infinitesimalen Geschehens, das stets an seinen idealen Urbeginn, der göttlichen Offenbarung der Tora und der damit verbundenen Erwählung Israels zurückgebunden bleibt.35

Das von Sebastian Grätz damit schon skizzierte Phänomen des Lesens und Auslegens des Buches der Tora soll im Folgenden durch eine Analyse von Neh 8–10 noch nachhaltig verstärkt werden. Da dieser Text stilistische und sprachliche Unebenheiten hat, gab es Versuche, das Esra-Material in verschiedene literarische Abschnitte zu zerlegen und in die “richtige” Reihenfolge zu bringen.36 Reinhard Kratz und Jakob Wright z.B. gehen davon aus, dass die literarische Entwicklung des Materials in drei Phasen verlief: am Anfang standen Esra 7–8; es folgten Esra 9–10 und schließlich bildete Neh 8(–10) den Höhepunkt und Abschluss der Esra-Erzählung. Wie auch immer man diese literaturgeschichtliche Abfolge beurteilt,37 Neh 8 wird in der Forschung gerne und völlig zu Recht als “Urbild des synagogalen Gottesdienstes”38 angesehen. Auch im Blick auf die Bundestheologie bieten die drei Kapitel etwas ganz Neues. Der Bund vollzieht sich über das Hören/Lesen und das Auslegen der Heiligen Schrift. Der Text beschreibt in idealtypischer Verdichtung, wie ein Wortgottesdienst in der jüdischen Gemeinschaft Mitte des 5. Jh. v.Chr. aussehen sollte.39 Das Volk verlangt nach der Tora (V. 1), wohl auch, weil das Fest der Laubhütten ist (Neh 8, V. 14–17; vgl. Dtn 31,10f.; 1Kön 8,65//2Chr 7,8), aber es ist 33

GRÄTZ, “Bund”, 135, Hervorhebungen M.O. GRÄTZ, “Bund”, 135. 35 GRÄTZ, “Bund”, 135f. 36 Zur Forschungsgeschichte vgl. DUGGAN, The Covenant Renewal, Kapitel 1: History of Research, das einen guten Überblick über Kommentare und Monographien bietet. 37 Vgl. KRATZ, Komposition, 70–73.87–90; WRIGHT, Nehemiah-Memoir, 86–93, 321– 330. Eine andere Ansicht vertritt GRÄTZ, Artaxerxes, 35–62, der die Reihenfolge von 1Esra für ursprünglich hält. 38 GUNNEWEG, Nehemia, 110. 39 VENEMA, Scripture, 170ff.; HIEKE, Esra und Nehemia, 189–201. 34

Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit

181

Esra, der Priester und der Schriftgelehrte, der die Versammlung liturgisch inszeniert;40 er brachte das Gesetz vor die Ohren des Volkes (V. 2). Bemerkenswert ist die Betonung dessen, was für die Teilnahme am Geschehen notwendig ist: Es ist nicht das Geschlecht! Denn Männer und Frauen stehen zusammen. Es ist nicht das Alter, sondern es ist vielmehr der Verstand. Denn zu den Erwachsenen treten die Kinder hinzu, die intellektuell schon in der Lage sind, das Wort Gottes zu hören, d.h. zu begreifen (‫ד־אשָּׁ ה וְ כֹ ל מֵ בִ ין לִ ְשׁמֹ ַﬠ‬ ִ ‫ מֵ ִאישׁ וְ ַﬠ‬V. 2b). Die Initiative zur Lesung und zur Katechese geht vom Tempel aus, um der Gemeinde die Gebote massiv einzuprägen! Das ganze Volk wird unterwiesen; nicht für Einzelne, sondern für alle findet eine allgemeine Schulung statt. In V. 3 wird die “Gegenwart der Männer und Frauen und aller, die es verstehen konnten” wiederholt und damit verstärkt, dass jeder Mensch, der die notwendige intellektuelle Reife mitbringt, die mosaischen Unterweisung begreifen und praktizieren kann. Die Erklärung des praktischen Sinnes der Tora ist das Ziel; es geht weniger um Predigt als Erbauung, sondern um eine strenge praxisorientierte “Sonntagsschule” mit kultischem und ethischem Schwerpunkt. Der Text hebt vier Teilmomente hervor: a) Die Verlesung der Tora von einem “Turm aus Holz” aus (‫)מגְ דַּ ל־ ֵﬠץ‬, ִ d.h. von einem hohen hölzernen Lesepult (LXX βῆμα = “erhöhte Plattform”), was die gehobene Bedeutung der Schrift sinnfällig macht. Die Rolle der Schriftrolle ist geradezu unüberbietbar. b) Zur Schriftlesung steht die Gemeinde auf, offenbar für Stunden (!), was die Bedeutsamkeit der Lesung nochmals verstärkt. Das ganze Volk soll aufmerksam zuhören, seine Ohren auf das Wort richten. Wer aufsteht, erweist dem, der da kommt, eine besondere Ehrerbietung. In seinem Wort kommt Gott zur versammelten Gemeinde. c) Die Lesung wird von der Gemeinde dreifach beantwortet: mit einer feierlichen Bekräftigung, einem doppelten “Amen!” (Neh 8,6), mit extensiven Bewegungen von hoch erhobenen Händen bis hinab zur Proskynese und mit einem Buß-Gebet. Man sitzt also nicht ruhig auf den Bänken, sondern zeigt mit liturgischen Zwischenrufen, Bewegungen und kultischen Gesten seine Anteilnahme am verlesenen Wort. Das hatte bei dem stundenlangen Stehen sicher auch praktische Gründe. d) Es geht aber nicht nur um das Hören, sondern um das Verstehen. Die Leviten gehen wie Lehrer in Kleingruppen herum und explizieren auf Nachfrage den Sinn der Gebote, die Abschnitt für Abschnitt vorgelesen werden,41 so lange, bis alle verstanden haben (‫)בין‬, worauf es ankommt. Liturgie, Homiletik und Hermeneutik kommen zusammen.

40 41

Vgl. KRATZ, “Ezra”. Alternative Deutungen von parasch vgl. HIEKE, Esra und Nehemia, 199.

182

Manfred Oeming ‫תוֹרת הָ ֱא הִ ים ְמפֹ ָרשׁ וְ שׂוֹם שֶׂ כֶל ַויָּבִ ינוּ בַּ ִמּקְ ָרא׃‬ ַ ְ‫ַו ִיּקְ ְראוּ בַ סֵּ ֶפר בּ‬

Man las aus dem Buch, dem Gesetz Gottes, in Abschnitten vor und gab dazu Erklärungen, so dass die Leute das Vorgelesene verstehen konnten. (Neh 8,8)

Wichtig ist die Bezeichnung des verlesenen Textes als “Buch der Tora Gottes” (Neh 8,3.5.8.18; 9,3), welche ihm ein Maximum an Autorität verleiht, andererseits die Bedeutung von Einsicht und Verstehen impliziert. Bücher muss man laut lesen/ hören und deuten. Allerdings besteht die Reaktion der Hörer auf das Verstandene darin, dass sie beginnen zu weinen (Neh 8,9). Es ist eine klassische Frage der Forschung, wie dieses Weinen zu deuten ist (vgl. auch die Ambivalenz des Weinens bei der Grundsteinlegung des neu zu erbauenden Tempels Esr 3,12f.): Handelt es sich um das Weinen der Einsicht bzw. Scham, wenn einem bewusst wird, wie falsch man vor dem Verstehen der Tora lebte? Haben die Gemeindeglieder erst jetzt begriffen, wie umfangreich die Regelungen ihres Alltags sind und wie schwer es werden wird, die Weisung Gottes einzuhalten? Haben sie Angst vor den Drohungen am Ende der Tora? Oder ist es ein Weinen der Rührung und Freude. Den Gedanken, dass auch das Glück seine Tränen hat, möchte der folgende Vers nahelegen: Macht euch keine Sorgen; denn die Freude am Herrn ist eure Stärke. (Neh 8,10)

Obgleich “gesetzlich” über das, “was Gott Israel befohlen hat” (‫)צִ וָּ ֥ה‬, gepredigt wird und obgleich die Strafen, die das Gesetz für Übertretungen androht (vgl. Lev 26,14–41; Dtn 28,58–68), offenbar mitgelesen und eindrücklich mit erläutert werden, was die Hörer zu Tränen der Verzweiflung treibt, bewirkt das Verstehen der Gebote am Ende doch große Freude und ein Feiern mit einem opulenten Festmahl (V. 11). Die Tora richtig zu verstehen, sie auf das persönliche Leben zu applizieren und nach ihr zu leben, das macht glücklich. Deswegen ist es notwendig und heilsam, das Lesen immer wieder zu wiederholen. Der Wortgottesdienst wird im Laubhüttenfest eine Woche lang täglich wiederholt: Jeden Tag las [Esra] aus dem Buch des Gesetzes Gottes vor, vom ersten Tag bis zum letzten. (‫תּוֹרת הָ ֱא הִ ים יוֹם בְּ יוֹם ִמן־הַ יּוֹם הָ ִראשׁוֹן ַﬠד הַ יּוֹם הָ אַ חֲרוֹן‬ ַ ‫ ) ַו ִיּקְ ָרא בְּ סֵ ֶפר‬So feierte man das Fest sieben Tage lang; am achten Tag war, wie vorgeschrieben, die Festversammlung. (Neh 8,18)

Sehr abrupt geht es mit Neh 9 von dieser fröhlichen Festversammlung zu einem Fasten und Bußetun über. Ob dieser Kontrast durch literarisch sekundäre Erweiterungen entstand, kann man seriös diskutieren, aber ohne Zweifel wollte der Endredaktor des Nehemiabuches diese Kombination von Weinen, Freude und Buße programmatisch in seinem Bundeskonzept verankern. Bezeichnend ist V. 32, der ‫ הַ בְּ ִרית וְ הַ חֶ סֶ ד‬zusammenstellt. Das Hören der Lebensordnungen Gottes ist ein Erweis der Gnade Gottes; die Bundessatzungen führen zu Einsicht in die Problematik der eigenen Lebensordnungen der Menschen, aber wenn man sie richtig versteht, sind sie ein Weg zum Leben. Der perserzeitliche

Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit

183

(oder hellenistische?) Psalm 119 bringt diese Sicht mehrfach modularisiert zum Ausdruck, z.B.: Dein Wort ist meines Fußes Leuchte und ein Licht auf meinem Wege. (Ps 119,105) Ich freue mich über dein Wort wie einer, der große Beute macht. (Ps 119,162)

In Neh 10 wird der Begriff “Bund” nicht verwendet, sondern der Terminus ‫ ; ֲאמָ נָה‬es wird damit eine Art epexegetische Umschreibung geliefert: ‫ ֲאמָ נָה‬meint nach Gesenius18 eine “bindende Abmachung”, eine “verbindliche Anordnung, eine königliche Vorschrift … und feste Ordnung” (Neh 11,23).42 ‫כּי־ ִמצְ וַת הַ מֶּ ֶל ֲﬠלֵיהֶ ם ַו ֲאמָ נָה ַﬠל־הַ ְמשֹׁ ְר ִרים ְדּבַ ר־יוֹם בְּ יוֹמוֹ׃‬ Denn es gab ein Gebot des Königs für sie und eine feste Abmachung, an welchem Tag jeder zu singen hatte. (Neh 11,23)

Bund ist hier eine hoch verbindliche Urkunde, durch namentlich Genannte schriftlich fixiert, persönlich unterzeichnet und wie eine Vertragsurkunde versiegelt: Und darum wollen wir eine feste Abmachung (‫ ) ֲאמָ נָה‬treffen, sie aufschreiben, und unsere Fürsten, Leviten und Priester sollen sie versiegeln und unterschreiben. (Neh 10,1f.)

Auch wenn es hier inhaltlich (leider) nur um die strikte Ablehnung von Mischehen geht, was eine problematische massive Verengung der Tora bedeutet (dagegen richtet sich innerkanonisch bereits die Botschaft des Buches Ruth), so wird dieser Vorgang jedoch theologisch grundsätzlich ausgewertet und als pars pro toto verstanden. Alle, die glauben und verstehen (‫)כֹּ ל יוֹדֵ ַﬠ מֵ בִ ין‬ treten in Eid und Schwur, im Gesetz Gottes zu leben, das durch Mose, den Knecht Gottes, gegeben worden ist, und alle Gebote des HERRN, unseres Herrn, und seine Rechtsbestimmungen und seine Ordnungen zu bewahren und zu tun. (Neh 10,30)

Erlauben Sie mir, einen terminus technicus für diese theologische Entwicklung in spätpersischer Zeit vorzuschlagen: “Bund des Buches” oder “hermeneutischer Bund”, der sich graphisch wie folgt darstellen lässt.

42

GESENIUS, 18. Auflage, sub verbo.

184

Manfred Oeming

Nehemiah 8–10 (Chronistic circle 350–300 BCE [Nehemiah may be older])

Harsh Punishment Graphik 6 Das perserzeitliche Konzept Nehemias hat viele Ähnlichkeiten mit den früheren Konzepten, insbesondere bei Josia in 2Kön 22,8ff. // 2Chr 34, z.B. das Vorlesen eines Buches, das Verstehen der Bedeutung, die Durchführung von Bußritualen und die Zerstörung dessen, was vom Gesetz Gottes nicht erlaubt ist. Dennoch schaffen die kleinen Unterschiede doch ein fast neues Konzept: Der Bund besteht im kontinuierlichen Hören auf das Wort Gottes und in dem exegetischen Versuch, das Gehörte immer neu im Alltag umzusetzen. Auch dieser Bund hat ohne Zweifel mit der Katastrophe der Zerstörung Jerusalems und dem babylonischen Exil zu tun (Neh 9,32) und er greift durch die geforderte Konzentration der Eheschließungen nur auf Angehörige der eigenen Religion (bis hin zur Massenehescheidung in Esra 10) schroff in das Leben der Menschen ein. Aber er hat seinem Selbstverständnis nach nicht nur schreckliche Konsequenzen, er bewirkt eine bleibende Verbindung zu Gott. Der Bund ist auch hier keinesfalls ein Versprechen einer immerwährenden Gnade (unabhängig von der menschlichen Reaktion). Vor allem muss das tägliche Leben nach dieser Form von praxisorientierter Exegese gestaltet werden. Der Bund umfasst zahlreiche weitere Regelungen zum Handel am Sabbat, zum Schuldenerlass im siebten Jahr, zur Tempelsteuer, zur Ausstattung des Tempels und seines Personals (Neh 10,29–40). Die Auslegung soll zur Verbundenheit mit dem Tempel führen: ‫וְ ל ֹא ַנﬠֲזֹ ב אֶ ת־בֵּ ית ֱא הֵ ינוּ‬ So werden wir das Haus unseres Gottes nicht im Stich lassen. (Neh 10,40)

Mit der Bundestheologie von Esra und Nehemia sind wichtige Neuerungen verbunden, die bei aller Sachkritik an der exegetischen Fehlleistung, aus der

Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit

185

Tora und aus der Salomotradition ein absolutes Mischehenverbot ableiten zu wollen,43 doch gewichtige positive Konsequenzen haben: die Installation des Gottesdienstes als extensives Hören auf das Wort Gottes, die Einsicht in die Notwendigkeit, das Leben als konstante Buße zu reflektieren und jeweils aktuelle Forderungen für den Alltag zu deduzieren. Diese “hermeneutische Wende” der Bundestheologie ist – nach meinem Urteil – historisch sehr wichtig und für das perserzeitliche Judentum am stärksten identitätsstiftend. Auch wenn man die ideologische Tabuisierung der Mischehen theologisch kritisieren muss, den Bund halten heißt, die Tora zu studieren, sie zu explizieren und dann zu applizieren. Neh 8–10 markiert den Anfang dessen, was sich in den Jahrhunderten nach Nehemia als Konzept der Synagoge entwickelt hat.44 Der wohl älteste inschriftliche Hinweis auf die Funktion einer Synagoge ist die TheodotosSynagogeninschrift, die Raymond Weil 1913 bei seinen Ausgrabungen in der Davidsstadt in einer Zisterne zerbrochen oder zertrümmert gefunden hat und die heute im Israel-Museum in Jerusalem ausgestellt ist. In Zeile 4f. wird die Funktion der Synagoge bestimmt: ΕΙΣ ΑΝ(ΑΓ)ΝΩΣ(ΙΝ) ΝΟΜΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΣ (Δ)ΙΔAΧ(Η)Ν ΕΝΤΟΛΩΝ: “das Gesetz zu lesen und die Gebote zu lehren.”45 Dies ist die zentrale Aufgabe jeder Synagoge zur Zeit Jesu, aber auch schon, wie die ersten Zeilen lehren, zur Zeit der Väter und Großväter des Theodotos, also im 1. Jh. v.Chr. [Die weiteren in der Inschrift genannten Funktionen wie Gästebewirtung und Waschgelegenheiten dienen diesem Ziel.] Man könnte auch pointierter “zur pädagogischen Unterweisung in den Geboten”, “Gebotsunterweisung” übersetzen, was aufgrund der Parallelität zu νόμος Sinn ergibt.

4. Ergebnis Die Untersuchung des deuteronomistischen, priesterschriftlichen und prophetischen Bundesdenkens in der Perserzeit hat einen neuen Blick auf die zahlreichen Weiterentwicklungen und Neuansätze eröffnet, die sich allerdings zum Teil widersprechen. Die achämenidische Politik inspirierte z.B. den Gedanken der friedlichen Koexistenz der Völker; es kam zu einer Betonung der Adoption 43 Dagegen bilden schon die midianitische Ehefrau des Moses und die Moabiterin Ruth ein innerkanonisches Gegengewicht, indem es die Heirat ausländischer Frauen erlaubt und die Moabiterin Ruth als Glaubensmodell darstellt und zur Großmutter Davids stilisiert. 44 Vgl. OEMING, “Der ‘verlängerte Arm’”. 45 Die Datierung der Inschrift ist in der Forschung umstritten; meist wird die Zeit vor der Zerstörung des Tempels angenommen; vgl. KREUZER, Entstehung und Funktion(en) der Synagoge.

186

Manfred Oeming

in den Bund hinein anstelle der starren genealogischen Familienbande; Aspekte der Individualisierung wurden betont, weg von einem kollektiven Denken, bis hin zum Gedanken der ganz persönlichen radikalen Sublimierung von sexuellen Bedürfnissen. Aber es gab auch ganz im Gegensatz dazu eine harte Kampfhaltung gegen jede Form von Mischehen und dem Gedanken, dass der Bund an immer neuen Bedingungen geknüpft ist. Der abschließende dritte Teil dieser Untersuchung zeigte anhand einer Exegese von Neh 8–10, wie der Bund an das Hören und die richtige Auslegung der Schrift, an eine Belehrung über die eigentliche Intention des Tora gekoppelt ist. Dieses Konzept hat eine lange Wirkungsgeschichte aus sich herausgesetzt (bis zu Jesus, Paulus und den Evangelien, besonders Matthäus) und hat über die Reformatoren bis heute weiterwirkt. Esra, Priester und Schriftgelehrter, stellt mit seinem “Bund des Buches” wichtige Weichen des Judentums, Christentums und des Islams als bisweilen auch stark konkurrierende Deutungsgemeinschaften.

Bibliography BALTZER, KLAUS, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1960. BAUTCH, RICHARD J., Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period (LHB/OTS 471), London: T&T Clark, 2009. –, KNOPPERS, GARY N. (Hg.), Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. DOHMEN, CHRISTOPH / CHRISTIAN FREVEL (Hg.), Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel (FS Frank-Lothar Hossfeld zum 65. Geburtstag) (SBS 211), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007. DUGGAN, MICHAEL W. The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b–10:40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study (SBLDS 64). Atlanta: SBL Press, 2001. GERTZ, JAN, Art. “Bund II. im AT”, in RGG4 1, Tübingen, 1997, 1862–1865. GRÄTZ, SEBASTIAN, Das Edikt des Artaxerxes. Eine Untersuchung zum religionspolitischen und historischen Umfeld von Esra 7,12–26 (BZAW 337), Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2004. –, “Bund und Erwählung in Esra-Nehemia”, in Covenant and Election in Exilic and PostExilic Judaism. Studies of the Sofjaovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism V (FAT II/79), edited by Nathan MacDonald (Hg.), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. GROSS, WALTER, Zukunft für Israel. Alttestamentliche Bundeskonzepte und die aktuelle Debatte um den Neuen Bund (SBS 176), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. GUNNEWEG, ANTONIUS H.J., Nehemia (KAT XIX 2), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 1987 HIEKE, THOMAS, Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia (NSK), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2005. HILLERS, DELBERT R., Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969.

Bundeskonzeptionen in der Achämenidenzeit

187

KOCH, CHRISTOPH, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund. Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (BZAW 383), Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 2008. KRATZ, REINHARD, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. –, “Ezra – Priest and Scribe”, in Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World (FRLANT 219), edited by Leo G. Perdue, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008, 163–188. KRAUSE, JOACHIM, Die Bedingungen des Bundes (FAT 140), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. KREUZER, SIEGFRIED, “Entstehung und Funktion(en) der Synagoge. Zum Stand der Diskussion”, in Tempel, Lehrhaus, Synagoge. Orte jüdischen Gottesdienstes, Lernens und Lebens (FS für Wolfgang Kraus), edited by Christian A. Eberhart et al., Paderborn: Brill / Schöningh, 2020, 1–34. KUTSCH, ERNST, Neues Testament – Neuer Bund? Eine Fehlübersetzung wird korrigiert, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978. –, Verheißung und Gesetz. Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament (BZAW 131), Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. –, “‫ ברית‬berīt Verpflichtung”, THAT I (1971): 339–352. LEVIN, CHRISTOPH, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. MACDONALD, NATHAN (Hg.), Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism. Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism V (FAT II/79), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. MCCARTHY, DENNIS J., Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents, 2nd ed. (AnBib 21a); Rom: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. MCKENZIE, STEVEN L., Covenant (Understanding Biblical Themes 3), St Louis: Chalice Press, 2000. MENDENHALL, GEORGE, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Pittsburgh: Presbyterian Board of Colportage of Western Pennsylvania, 1955. MILLER II., ROBERT D., Covenant and Grace in the Old Testament: Assyrian Propaganda and Israelite Faith (Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 16), Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2012. OEMING, MANFRED, “‘Siehe, deine Zeit war gekommen, die Zeit der Liebe’ (Ez 16,8). Die ‘Psychologie’ der Liebe als sachlicher Kern der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament”, in Für immer verbündet. Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel (SBS 211), edited by C. Dohmen / C. Frevel, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007, 151–160. –, “Der ‘verlängerte Arm’ des Jerusalemer Tempels. Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion über die Ursprünge der Synagoge”, in Tempel, Lehrhaus, Synagoge. Orte jüdischen Lernens und Lebens (FS Wolfgang Kraus), edited by Christian Eberhart et al., Paderborn: Brill / Schöningh, 2020, 35–55. –, “Jerusalem in der Perserzeit”, in Jerusalem in archäologischer, historischer und theologischer Perspektive, edited by A. Graupner et al. (im Druck). OTTO, ECKART, Art. Covenant, in Encyclopedia of Religion. Second Edition, edited by L. Jones (Hg.), Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2005, 2047–2051. –, “Die Ursprünge der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient”, ZABR 4 (1998): 1–84. –, “Rez. von Chr. Koch, Vertrag, Treueid, Bund”, ThLZ 135 (2010): 673–675.

188

Manfred Oeming

PERLITT, LOTHAR, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969. RÜTERSWÖRDEN, UDO, “Bundestheologie ohne ‫”ברית‬, ZABR 4 (1998): 85–99. SCHMID, KONRAD, “How to Identify a Persian Period Text in the Pentateuch”, in On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period. Discerning Criteria and Establishing Epochs, edited by Richard J. Bautch / Mark Lackowski (Hg.), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019, 101–118. –, Theologie des Alten Testaments, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. SCHWEITZER, STEVEN (Hg.), Covenant in the Persian Period, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (JHS), 2018. VENEMA, RENÉ, Reading Scripture in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 9–10; 31 – 2 Kings 22–23 – Jeremiah 36 – Nehemiah 8 (OTS 48), Leiden: Brill, 2004, 138–181. WEINFELD, MOSHE, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East”, JAOS 90 (1970), 184–193. –, “‫ ברית‬berīt”, ThWAT 1 (1973): 781‒808. WELLHAUSEN, JULIUS, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin/Leipzig: de Guyter, 6 1927. WRIGHT, JACOB, Rebuilding. Identity The Nehemiah-Memoir and its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348), Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 2012. ZIMMERLI, WALTHER, Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (ThB 19), München: Chr. Kaiser, 21969. –, “Sinaibund und Abrahambund: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift”, ThZ 16 (1960): 268–280.

Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira

BONIFATIA GESCHE Bonifatia Gesche

1. Relevance of the Book of Ben Sira for Covenant Theology As a book at the edge of the canon, written as late as the second century BCE, the book of Ben Sira, which belongs to the genre of wisdom literature, offers a retrospective overview of biblical books. In doing so, the author, who is well acquainted with Scripture, does not only collect sapiential phrases but also focuses on selective past occasions and interprets them according to his own cultural and social environment. He shows his familiarity with Israel’s history and with the books of the Torah in particular. The book is important because it offers insights into Jewish theology of the Second Temple period, as Lester Grabbe points out.1 Thus, Ben Sira lets us catch a glimpse of the understanding of covenant during the 2nd century BCE.

2. Outline of Covenant Theology in General Whether or not the concept of covenant is at all theologically relevant is a subject of debate.2 While there is much to affirm its significance for Israel, one should not neglect the arguments suggesting its irrelevance outside of that context. Regardless of this broader scholarly discussion, however, the impact of the concept of covenant on the book of Sirach cannot be denied as the term appears frequently in central passages of the book. Before we focus on Ben Sira’s specific view, it is necessary to give an overview of the controversially discussed topics of covenant within biblical

1

GRABBE, “Covenant”, 259. ERICH ZENGER, “Bundestheologie”, gives an overview over the history of research concerning the theology of covenant and concludes that this topic is neglected in the discourse up to the 1990th years. But also more recently, 2015; KONKEL, Vergebung ohne Umkehr, 445, argues against Reinhard Feldmeier’s and Hermann Spieckermann’s statement that the idea of covenant is of marginal value; the latter nevertheless offer a helpful outline of this theologoumenon (cf. FELDMEIER/SPIECKERMANN, Der Gott der Lebendigen, 445– 466). 2

190

Bonifatia Gesche

theology.3 Starting with Julius Wellhausen, scholars argued about the point in history when the term started to be of some significance.4 Protagonists of this discourse are Rudolf Smend and Lothar Perlitt, who proposes a late date for the appearance of the concept of covenant in the history of Israel. He focused on Josh 24 in order to place its provenance in the 7th century BCE.5 Although recent research moves the provenance even later to the end of the 6th century BCE, i.e. to the beginning of the Persian empire, Perlitt is one of the scholars who introduced the view of the later date to the discussion.6 Smend, on the other hand, structures the outline of the history of Israel’s religion in three periods, the time of self-evident relationship with God,7 the time when this selfevidence is explicitly stated, and the time when the relationship with God is no longer self-evident.8 The prophets of the 8th century BCE are not aware of the significance of the concept of covenant. The so-called “Bundesschweigen” in the pre-exilic prophecy is striking.9 Therefore it is important to take into account when examining the book of Sirach that texts about covenant belong mostly to postexilic times. As in political vassal treaties, which are well know from Mesopotamian rulers (see the vassal treaty of Esarhaddon), the superior party has to grant protection and support while the inferior one owes loyalty and obedience.10 When applied to early Jewish religion these parameters offered a matrix for explaining human sufferings. Whenever Israel and Judah failed to obey YHWH, then he was no longer bound to his treaty commitment and would punish his people. But soon, this led to a problem; the idea that the future depended on human behavior became increasingly problematic because the human being is not capable of following such commitments in all its consequences. The solution was a covenant with YHWH that did not rely on people. An example of such an unconditioned covenant was the “new covenant” (Jer 31:31–34). The distinction between conditional and unconditional covenants became a common issue in theological discourse. While the Deuteronomistic covenant implies a contract between the participating parties, the priestly 3 There are several pertinent surveys of the history of research, for example LEVIN, “Bundestheologie”, KOCH, Vertrag, 2–14, or recently KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 2–16. 4 WELLHAUSEN, Geschichte, 32. 5 PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 239–284. Cf. the overview by LEVIN, “Bundestheologie”. 6 PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 129–155. Also THIEL, “Rede”, adds considerably to the dating of covenant theology. He points out that only the Deuteronomistic redaction introduces the idea of covenant to earlier prophetic writings. 7 Rudolf Smend picks up Julius Wellhausen’s focus on the fact, that YHWH is Israel’s god and Israel is YHWH’s people. See SMEND, Bundesformel, 1. 8 For this summary see LEVIN, “Bundestheologie”, 6. 9 For “Bundesschweigen” see PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 129–155 and THIEL, “Rede”. 10 See LEVIN, “Bundestheologie”, 15.

Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira

191

covenant is granted to the people due to mere grace. This communis opinio has recently been challenged. Joachim J. Krause dedicated his Habilitationsschrift to this question and argued convincingly that also the priestly covenant is not possible without conditionality of any kind.11 In his survey of previous research, Christoph Levin focuses on the idea that monotheism is essential in order to enter into a commitment with YHWH. This is expressed in formulas like “I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”12 As this point is important and relevant for Ben Sira’s understanding of covenant theology, it is necessary to investigate it more closely. Jan Assmann, whose goal of research is to understand the general concepts underlying culture and human existence, examines the theology of covenant in the book of Exodus. He states that the “biblical concept of God’s chosen people represents no less innovative and momentous an achievement than the biblical monotheism of loyalty. Monotheism (of loyalty) and a nation of the elect are two sides of the same novel idea: that of a covenant between God and human beings. The one God is the God of one people, and this one people is the people of the one God.”13 This is also important to keep in mind for Ben Sira’s theology, because, according to Assmann, the Sinai covenant is quite different from, for instance, those of Noah or Abraham, insofar as at Sinai God binds himself to his chosen people who freely accepts this offer, while Noah, for instance, represents the entire humanity as counterpart of its creator.14 Ben Sira does not mention the Sinai covenant explicitly. This does not mean, however, that he does not refer to the Sinai covenant at all, as we will show later.

3. Terminology Although linguistic features are not sufficient when it comes to historicalcritical and theological questions, and words and the concept behind them are not to be mingled with each other, some reflections of the terminology conveying the biblical concept of covenant are inevitable for the understanding of the matter. On one hand, there are several words in the relevant languages that cover the idea of covenant; on the other hand, these words are not exclusively restricted to that meaning. However, even if one considers the context, it remains sometimes uncertain whether a text speaks for example of a covenant to which both parties have to agree, or rather of a decree or statute 11 He points out that already at the beginning of the 20th century, Bernhard Stade argued against the idea of an unconditional covenant (STADE, Biblische Theologie, 345), but this insight was largely neglected in subsequent research (KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 51). 12 So for example Lev 26:12. 13 ASSMANN, Invention, 190 (italicized by Assmann). 14 ASSMANN, Invention, 190–191.

192

Bonifatia Gesche

given by the superior party, which has to be followed by the counterpart. Several previous studies are available for a thorough description of the terms that cover the concept of “covenant” (‫ברית‬, ‫חק‬, διαθήκη, , testamentum).15 In Hebrew, the concept of covenant is typically expressed by the terms ‫ברית‬ and ‫ ;חק‬both are usually, but not exclusively, rendered as διαθήκη in Greek. The Peshitta translates both words with while the Syro-Hexapla uses the loanword ‫ܕ‬. The Old Latin translations, including the books that Hieronymus included in their Old Latin form into the Vulgate, render the word as “testamentum”; Hieronymus himself mostly used the term “pactum”.16 No single translation can cover the broad spectrum of meanings of these terms. “Bond between two parties” in a broad sense might cover the meaning of διαθήκη and all the terms in question. This universal rendering should not weaken the meaning of the term, but rather summarize the specific meanings. The bond could be a statute given by the superior party and agreed to by the other one, a bilateral commitment, a covenant, a decree, a treaty, but also a contract as it is implied in the term “testament” in the meaning of “last will”.

4. Covenant in the Praise of the Ancestors In the book of Ben Sira, the praise of the ancestors (Sir 44–50) occupies a special position. Form and content differ from the rest of the book. The author presents characters of Israel with whom he associates occasions relevant to the history of his people. This in itself is already a striking fact because sapiential texts are not the genre where one expects to find historical allusion, and particularly not lengthy historical accounts. But it is apparent for Ben Sira that wisdom is already present in the creation of all being and is essentially part of history. The praise of the ancestors (Sir 44–50, especially 44:12–45:25) is structured through references to the renewal of the covenant between God and humans, represented by chosen individuals.17 It mentions those proven to be worthy of this praise (44:1) who stand out because of their righteousness, as the Hebrew and Syriac versions put it (‫ אנשי חסד‬, ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫)ܐ‬, or who are respected among people, according to the Greek and Latin versions (ἄνδρας ἐνδόξους, “viros gloriosos”). Criteria for success are well-considered power, which leads to peace and welfare, not victory in war (44:3–7). Their reward is that their good deeds will be remembered in future generations. Their offspring 15 Almost all studies dedicated to this topic offer an overview about the terminology. Therefore, there is no need to repeat the details. 16 For a good overview of the translations in the ancient versions see KUTSCH, Verheissung, 175–188. See also MARTTILA, “‘Statute’ or ‘Covenant’?” and most of the introductions to studies concerning the concept and theology of covenant. 17 See MARBÖCK, “Die ‘Geschichte Israels’”, 180.

Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira

193

is their inheritance (44:11–12). How far it applies to the persons honored in the following chapters is another question.18 In the praise of the ancestors, the keyword “covenant” occurs for the first time in the following sentence: “In the covenants their seed stood, and their children for their sake” (Sir 44:12 NETS). The Hebrew version is transmitted in manuscript M, which offers ‫בבריתם‬, “in their covenant”, accordingly rendered as ‫ܘ ݂ܢ‬ in the Peshitta. The Greek and Latin translations have a plural instead, ἐν ταῖς διαθήκαις (+ αυτων L–248), “in testamentis”, “in the (variant: their) covenants.” The first in the list of ancestors is Enoch who gave an example of righteousness to future generations (44:16), but who had never entered a covenant with YHWH. The Peshitta does not mention Enoch, but starts with Noah, who comes as second in the other versions (44:17–18 [17–19 Lat]). Gr: Νωε εὑρέθη τέλειος δίκαιος, ἐν καιρῷ ὀργῆς ἐγένετο ἀντάλλαγμα· διὰ τοῦτον ἐγενήθη κατάλειμμα τῇ γῇ, ὅτε ἐγένετο κατακλυσμός· διαθῆκαι αἰῶνος ἐτέθησαν πρὸς αὐτόν, ἵνα μὴ ἐξαλειφθῇ κατακλυσμῷ πᾶσα σάρξ. Heb: ‫ בעבורו היה שארית ][ ובבריתו חדל‬/‫]נ[ח צדיק נמצא תמים ][ ֯לעת כלה היה תחליף׃‬ ‫ באות עולם נכ֯ רת עמו ][ לבלתי תשחית כל בשר׃‬/‫מבול׃‬ Lat: Noe inventus est perfectus iustus et in tempore iracundiae factus est reconciliatio ideo dimissum est reliquum terrae cum factum est diluvium testamenta saeculi posita sunt apud illum ne deleri possit diluvio omnis caro Pesh: ‫݂ܗ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫݂ܪܗ ݁ ܂‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܚ ܙܕ‬ ‫܂ܘ‬ ‫݂ ݂ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܪ ܂ܕ‬ ̈ ‫܂‬ ‫ܘ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܙ ܬ ܂ܘ ݂ ܐ ݂ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘܬ‬ ݂ ݂ ‫ܕ‬ ‫܀‬ Gr: (17) Noe was found as a perfectly righteous; in a time of wrath he became an exchange; because of him, there was a remnant for the earth, when a flood occurred. (18) Covenants of eternity were set before him, so that all flesh would not be wiped out by a flood (anymore). The covenant with Noah concerns all living beings in eternity. God promises to never again erase life from earth. The main Greek and the Latin versions explicitly mention the flood, which God chose at this occasion. The Hebrew, the Syriac, and also codex A of the Greek transmission turn this version even more universal by leaving out the flood. Although it might be only of marginal importance, it is nevertheless interesting to notice that the text version Z within the Latin transmission replaces “testamenta saeculi”, “the covenants (or statutes) of eternity”, with “testamenta populi”, “covenants of the people”. It is possible but not very likely that this change is based on a scribal error. If not, 18 MACK, Wisdom, 3–4, points to the fact that several of the praised people might not deserve his honor.

194

Bonifatia Gesche

then this version goes the other direction by not extending the covenant to the whole world, but rather restricting it to Israel. In the following passage Ben Sira proceeds to Abraham, the great father of many nations, who kept the law of the Most High (the words of the Most High, in the Peshitta). Abraham entered the covenant with YHWH, ݂ ‫ܗܝ ܕ‬ of which circumcision was a visible sign (44:19–21). YHWH promised with an oath that through Abraham’s descendants (literally “through his seed”), the nations will be blessed and prosper and inherit the whole world. Abraham’s covenant and the blessing through him are assigned to Isaac and Jacob, who then shared them with the twelve tribes of Israel (44:22–23). Following this account, Ben Sira increases the tension before he finally introduces Moses. He mentions that “a man of mercy” emerged from Jacob’s heritage, who turned out to be Moses. Ben Sira dedicates a reasonably large passage, six verses, to Moses (43:23–44:5), mentioning that YHWH and humans, not restricted to the people of Israel, loved him while his enemies feared him. However, Ben Sira concisely assembles all of these achievements in one single verse (44:3 [44:2–3 Lat]), which is only poorly preserved in the Hebrew version. Gr: ἐν λόγοις αὐτοῦ σημεῖα κατέπαυσεν, ἐδόξασεν αὐτὸν κατὰ πρόσωπον βασιλέων· ἐνετείλατο αὐτῷ πρὸς λαὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ· Lat: et in verbis suis monstra placavit glorificavit illum in conspectu regum et iussit illi coram populo suo et ostendit illi gloriam suam Pesh: ‫ܡ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘ ݂ ܗ‬ ‫܁‬ ‫ܐ ݂ܗ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ . ݂ Heb: ‫מלך׃ לפני ויחזקהו 〚 〛 מהר ̊ת]תו[̊א ̊ו̊י̊פ ]ר[̊בדב‬/ ‫]כבודו׃ את הו[̊א̊ר̊י̊ו 〛 〚 )?(◦◦◦◦ ̊ם̊ע̊ה [̇ל]א [ויצוהו‬/ Gr (similar in La): “By his words he set the signs to a rest, glorified him before kings, and gave him commands for his people and showed him his glory.” Pesh: And he placed him before the king and gave him commands for the people and showed him his glory and made him listen to his voice. The remaining letters of the Hebrew version as preserved in manuscript B might be interpreted as “By the word of his mouth (happened) swiftly signs, and he strengthened him before the king and gave him commands for the people […] and showed […].”19 Josef Ziegler in his Göttingen edition followed the interpretation of the Hebrew ‫ מהר‬and proposed the conjecture κατέσπευσεν instead of κατεπαυσε(ν), the reading attested in all the Greek witnesses including the Syro-Hexapla and the 19 Translation according to the German version by the project “Sirach-Synopse” (www. sirach-synopse.de).

Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira

195

Latin translation. Even if his assumption is correct, the tradition followed a different path. The signs mentioned in this passage might refer to the miracles that Moses performed at Pharaoh’s court, and also to the plagues YHWH brought upon Egypt through Moses’s hand. While the Greek and the Latin versions indicate that Moses was glorified before kings, the Hebrew text and most of the Syriac manuscripts – one manuscript offers ̣ ̈ , “kings” – mention only one king. The Semitic versions seem to relate to the before-mentioned scene and imply that Pharaoh is meant, while, by contrast, the other traditions generalize by showing Moses in his importance to all peoples. This might be an allusion to the crossing through the Red Sea, although just a vague one. Alternatively, the allusion could point to Moses’s song that refers to the surrounding peoples with their rulers, who were struck by terror seeing how YHWH acted in favor of Israel (Exod 15:15–17). It is not clear whether the second part of the passage points to the fact that YHWH made him the leader of the people and gave him orders, or rather to the scene at Mount Sinai where Moses received the decalogue. The note that YHWH showed Moses his glory may likewise refer to several events, for instance to the burning bush or to the encounter on Mount Sinai. The account of the giving of the commandments follows afterwards: “He caused him to hear his voice, and he led him into the deep darkness, and he gave him commandments face–to–face, a law of life and knowledge, to teach Jakob a covenant and Israel his judgments” (Sir 45:5, NETS). As this verse is of some importance for Ben Sira’s understanding of covenant, we will take the time to observe it carefully and in different versions. Heb: ‫…ללמד ב֯ יעקב חקיו ][ י ][ ועדותיו ומשפטיו לישראל׃‬ ݁ … Pesh: ‫ܒ܂‬ ‫ܗܝ ܘܕ ݂ ̈ܗܝ‬ ‫̈ ܗܝ ܁ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ݂ Gr: … διδάξαι τὸν Ιακωβ διαθήκην καὶ κρίματα αὐτοῦ τὸν Ισραηλ. Lat: … docere Iacob testamentum et iudicia sua Israhel Heb: … in order to teach Jacob his statutes [ ] his precepts and judgements to Israel. Pesh: … in order to teach his laws to those from the house Israel his and his covenants (or statutes) and his judgements to Jacob. Gr/Lat: … in order to teach Jacob a covenant and Israel his judgments. To begin with, the singular διαθήκη and the Latin translation “testamentum”, which is, with good reason, translated as “covenant”, render the Hebrew plural noun with a possessive suffix, ‫חקיו‬, in Syriac ‫ܗܝ‬ . When the Hebrew ‫ חק‬is used in the plural, one tends to render it as “statutes” rather than as “covenants”, the more so as the more common word for “covenant” is ‫ברית‬. It remains nevertheless difficult, as mentioned before, to specify with certainty what kind of “bond” the author had in mind. The Peshitta uses , the normal term for “covenant”. Furthermore, the Greek translator introduces the singular,

196

Bonifatia Gesche

διαθήκη, which means most likely “covenant” and is translated into Latin accordingly. Considering all the details in the description of Moses in the passage, one is led to the astonishing observation that a covenant remains unmentioned. As stated above, for all forefathers who prove to be worthy of praise, the author refers to the renewal of God’s covenant with them. However, this does not apply to Moses who would thus be treated differently from those prominent individuals. This is especially striking because the covenant between YHWH and Moses (Exod 34:37) belongs to the most distinct events in Israel’s history. According to this passage, Moses receives the commandments and the law of life and knowledge, but it is Jacob, i.e. Israel, to whom the covenant is assigned. Moses bears the responsibility of assuring that the covenant could develop under the people. The next passage leads to a first climax when Ben Sira proceeds to Moses’s brother Aaron, whom he exalts to the same degree as Moses according to all versions except the Hebrew, which lacks the comparison with Moses. Beside this, the Latin version does not specify that Aaron is holy (Sir 45:6 [Lat 7]). Heb: ‫וירם קדוש את אהרן למטה לוי‬ Pesh: ‫ܕ ݂ܝ܂‬ ‫ܗܪܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܪ ܐ ܬܗ‬ Gr: Ααρων ὕψωσεν ἅγιον ὅμοιον αὐτῷ ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκ φυλῆς Λευι· Lat: excelsum fecit Aaron fratrem eius et similem sibi de tribu Levi Heb: And he exalted Aaron, who belonged to the tribe of Levi, as a holy person. Pesh: And he exalted, holy as he himself, Aaron from the tribe of Levi. Gr: He exalted his brother Aaron, a holy person like him, from the tribe of Levi. Lat: He made Aaron, his brother, exalted and him alike, from the tribe of Levi. Although Aaron is depicted as equal to Moses according to the text, Ben Sira grants him an extensive praise that far exceeds that of Moses with a special focus on the description of Aaron’s cultic vestment and his offering before YHWH. This indicates that the Aaronite priesthood is of particular interest to Ben Sira. Already at the beginning of the passage it was explicitly stated that Moses had to teach Aaron the covenant in order to ensure his success. Later Moses anointed Aaron in order to sanctify him, so that the covenant with Aaron became an eternal bond between YHWH and Aaron and his successors, whose duty it was to serve him as priests (Sir 45:15–16 [Lat 18–20]). The next individual in the list is Phineas, who stood out in his relationship to YHWH, who did not turn away from God’s commandments, and who made atonement for Israel. Therefore, a “covenant of peace” (‫ברית שלום‬, διαθήκη εἰρήνης, testamentum pacis) was erected with the agreement that Phineas and his descendants would possess the priestly office forever (Sir 45:23). The Syriac translation of the Peshitta renders the Hebrew Vorlage freely and

Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira

197

emphasizes YHWH’s initiative. “Therefore God swore to him with oaths that he would build an altar for him and that the priestly office would remain in his ̈ and his offspring’s possession forever” ( ‫ܐ ݂ ܂‬ ‫ܠܗ‬ ݂ ‫܁܀‬ ‫ܬ ܪ‬ ‫ܘ ܪ‬ ‫܂ ܘܬܗܘ‬ ݂ ‫)ܕ‬. With this statement, YHWH’s covenants with his chosen people culminate in the High Priest Phineas. It might be informed by the historical reality that the group of priests around Phineas became the dominant priestly class in the time of Ben Sira. As Heinz-Josef Fabry pointed out, this tendency is not restricted to Ben Sira’s circles but is also known from the Maccabees.20 The covenant with David is next, which also evolves from the Aaronite covenant. By introducing this covenant here, Ben Sira ultimately points out the predominant value of the Aaronite covenant, upon which all others depend. But this is not the last reference to covenant. Only in the Hebrew text and in its translation in the Peshitta, the priest Simeon is singled out among Phineas’s descendants and assured that he will not be cut off from the everlasting covenant with the Aaronite priesthood (Sir 50:24). Heb: ‫יאמן ע̊ם שמעון חסדו ][ ויקם לו ברית פינחס׃ אשר לא יכ̊רת לו ולזרעו ][ כימי שמים׃‬ Pesh: ‫̇ܘ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܙܪ ̣ ܐ‬ ‫̣܂ ܘ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ̈ ‫܆ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ Heb: May his faithfulness remain with Simeon and he establish with him the covenant of Phineas, so that it (i.e. his faithfulness) will not be cut off from him and his seed [] as long as the heavens last. Pesh: … and the mercy may remain with Simeon and with his seed like the days of the heavens. The Greek translator does not know anything about this statement and neither the variants nor the Latin translation offers any traces of this notion. They may reflect an otherwise unknown Hebrew Vorlage that lacks the reference to Simeon.

5. Explanation of the Prominent Position of the Idea of Covenant in the Praise of the Ancestors Ben Sira includes in his sapiential book a long passage in which he gives credit to individuals of the history of Israel who are distinguished because of their virtue. The greatest honor YHWH grants is that of a covenant. It is notable that, while YHWH makes a covenant with a single person, he always extends the bond far beyond the relationship between himself and the individual. He includes their descendants, or in the case of the covenant with Noah, the whole 20

See FABRY, “‘Wir wollen nun loben’”, 43.

198

Bonifatia Gesche

world. In some cases, he also claims explicitly that it would be an everlasting covenant. Thus, there is no restriction in any direction.21 Although it is true that the covenant with each of the partners is extended to a broader group of people or even to the whole world, it is nevertheless striking to observe who is worthy of this distinction. It has frequently been pointed out that the line of covenants culminates with Phineas and in the Aaronite priesthood. But the clue to the understanding of Ben Sira’s covenant theology lies in the depiction of Moses, who is granted great honors, but according to the book of Sirach does not explicitly enter into a covenant with YHWH. In the Hebrew Bible, he stands out mostly for two events, the exodus and the giving of the law. Both aspects are highly significant for Israel and relevant throughout the entire Bible. In the book of Sirach, Moses is exclusively characterized by the events of the Sinai pericope, while the fundamental experience of the exodus, in which Moses had the leading role, does not seem to be of any significance. Also the covenant which YHWH made with Moses and with his people Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 34), although important for Israel, is not explicitly mentioned in the book of Sirach. An explanation for this striking issue can be found in Jan Assmann’s aforementioned observations in his study of the book of Exodus, which focusses on faith and covenant. Assmann generally describes the “Mosaic distinction” between true and false. Now, however, he claims that this distinction is not yet present in the book Exodus. The distinctions are rather “between (1) Egypt and Israel, (2) Israel and the nations, and (3) friend and foe, or loyalty and betrayal.”22 From this distinction he deduces the difference of the “covenant between creator and created” and the “covenant between liberator and liberated.”23 Contrary to the first one, the latter is based on free decision. YHWH has chosen Israel to be his own, and Israel freely agreed to obey and follow YHWH in loyalty. “Such loyalty would be meaningless in the absence of other gods.”24 In other words, the theology of covenant is related to the development of monotheism. In the time of the exodus, YHWH was not yet the only God to whom Israel could turn, but he was one among others. It was an act of freedom and loyalty when Israel decided to follow him, just as it was an act of free love that he chose Israel as his people. Assmann calls this “monotheism of loyalty” … “in contrast to a “monotheism of truth” – represented in the Bible not by Moses but by the exilic and postexilic prophets, especially Deutero-Isaiah, Daniel, and others…”25 We can add Ben Sira with 21

Cf. also MARTTILA, “Sirachbuch”, 230. ASSMANN, Invention, 79. He refers to his book Moses the Egyptian. 23 ASSMANN, Invention, 190, see also ibid., 84. 24 ASSMANN, ibid. 25 ASSMANN, Invention, 84. 22

Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira

199

his praise of the ancestors to this list. But what exactly is the difference between the covenants he presents in this passage and that with Moses, which he does not explicitly mention? The first contract is made between YHWH and Noah, who is characterized by his perfect righteousness that makes him appropriate to serve as mediator between YHWH and all of humanity. YHWH makes this pact as the sole creator not with an elected group and in fact also not only with Noah, but with all his creation forever. The aspect of freely chosen loyalty is not taken into account, and therefore, it is clearly to be distinguished from the Sinai covenant, as Assmann emphasizes as well.26 The covenant with Abraham, the second in Ben Sira’s list, is likewise not restricted to Abraham and his descendants, but is extended first to the twelve tribes of Israel and then to the whole world. Thus, this covenant is in the same line as Noah’s. After the phrases about the praise for Moses, the priests Aaron and Phineas are next. In Ben Sira’s view, the covenant with YHWH culminates in the bond with them who descend from Aaron. Jan Assmann has pointed out the relationship between the distinction of a “covenant of loyalty” in contrast to a “covenant of truth” on one hand and the development of monotheism on the other. The covenants with Noah and Abraham are understood as bonds between the sovereign creator and his creature; they do not leave room for a free choice, as by the time of the final redaction of the text YHWH had established himself as the only God. Therefore, the priests, when they enter a covenant with YHWH, lack a free choice between him and other gods. The monotheism of loyalty altered to a monotheism of truth. The decision between true and false, right and wrong took the place of the choice between loyalty and betrayal.27 The priestly covenant with YHWH implied the decision for orthodoxy. The relationship with YHWH climaxes in faithful worship and renunciation of idolatry; it requires complete holiness.

6. The Notion of “Covenant” in the Book of Sirach Outside the Praise of the Ancestors “Covenant” in its strict sense occurs only in the praise of the ancestors. Elsewhere, διαθήκη or its equivalents refer mainly to abstract nouns. We shall now explore whether the usage agrees with what could be established for the praise of the ancestors. The first example is found in Sir 11:20 (21 Lat).

26 27

ASSMANN, Invention, 190–191. Cf. ASSMANN, Invention, 79–80.

200

Bonifatia Gesche

Heb: [ ‫ובמ ֯לאכתך התי]שן׃‬ ֯ ‫]ו[ש ֯ע‬ ֯ ‫ב]ני עמ[ד֯ בחוקך ובו ֯ה‬ ݁‫܂ ܘ‬ Pesh: ‫̇ܕ ̇ ݂ܙܠ ܘܐ ܩ‬ ‫̇ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ݂ ‫ܐܘܪ‬ ‫ ݂ܝ ܡ‬. Gr: Στῆθι ἐν διαθήκῃ σου καὶ ὁμίλει ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ σου παλαιώθητι. Lat: sta in testamento tuo et in illo conloquere et in opere mandatorum tuorum veteresce. Heb: My son, stand firmly in your covenant/destination and provide assistance with it and grow old in your work. Pesh: My son, stand on your way and rely on it and walk in your work and grow old. Gr: Stand firmly in your covenant/decree and engage yourself in it and grow old in your work. Lat: Stand firmly in your covenant/decree and engage yourself in it and grow old executing your orders. The term ‫ חק‬as well as its translations are determined by a possessive pronoun of the second person singular, understood as an objectivus. Only the Latin version Z omits this explicit explanation. While the Syro-Hexapla, the translation of the Greek text, simply transcribes διαθήκη in the expression ݂ ‫ܕ‬ , the Peshitta, translated from a Hebrew Vorlage, interprets the Hebrew ‫ חוקך‬as ‫ܘܪ ݂ ܁‬, “your way”, apparently in the sense of “way of the life” like ‫הלכה‬. The term διαθήκη in this context does not mean a covenant between two parties, but is rather to be understood as the destination or the statute that YHWH set for his creature. The next passage is found in Sir 14:12, 17. 14:12: Heb: ‫זכור כי לא בשאול תענוג ולא מות יתמהמה׃ וחוק לשאול לא הגד לך‬ ݁ Pesh:‫܂‬ ‫݂ܠ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫܂ܘ‬ ‫ܐܬܕ ܕ‬ ݂ ݂‫ܬ‬ ܸ ‫ܐܬ‬ Gr: μνήσθητι ὅτι θάνατος οὐ χρονιεῖ καὶ διαθήκη ᾅδου οὐχ ὑπεδείχθη (ουκ υπελειφθη l; ουκ απεκαλυφθη SacPar) σοι· Lat: memor esto quoniam mors non tardat et testamentum inferorum quia demonstratum est tibi testamentum enim huius mundi morte morietur Heb: Remember that there is no delight in the underworld and death does not tarry. And the decree/covenant for the underworld has not been announced to you. Pesh: Remember that up till now you have not yet seen death, and the decree of the underworld has not been visible for you. Gr: Remember that death will not tarry, and the covenant/decree of the underworld has not been shown (left; revealed) to you. Lat: Remember that death does not tarry and that the covenant/decree of the underworld has been shown to you, for the covenant/decree of this world is: one will die by death.

Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira

201

14:17 (18 Lat): Heb: ‫כל הבשר כבגד יבלה וחוק עולם גוע יגועו׃‬ Pesh: ‫݁ ܂ ܘܕܪ̈ܐ ܕ‬ ‫̈ ݂ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܘܢ‬ . ݂ Gr: πᾶσα σὰρξ ὡς ἱμάτιον παλαιοῦται· ἡ γὰρ διαθήκη ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος Θανάτῳ ἀποθανῇ. Lat: V: omnis caro sicut faenum veterescet A: omnis caro sicut vestis veterescit testamentum enim a saeculo morte morieris Heb: All flesh wears out like a garment and this is an everlasting statute/ covenant: one will surely decease. Pesh: For all human beings wear out for certain and the generations of the world surely die. Gr: All flesh grows old like a garment, for this is the covenant/statute of old: You will die by death. Lat: V: All flesh will become old like grass. A: All flesh will grow old like a garment, for this is the covenant/statute of old: You will die by death. These two verses of chapter 14 belong to the same context, which focuses on the sense of life in light of death. The close connection of these verses is also apparent in the fact that within the Vulgate, the last passage of the second example is shifted to the other verse. In 14:17 the Peshitta does not explicitly translate the term ‫חק‬, but appears to convey its meaning through a figura etymologica. The Hebrew Vorlage states that mortality is an eternal determination (= ‫)חק‬. The Peshitta emphasizes the determination by using again a figura etymologica when it renders that the generations “die dying” ( ). Thus, the meaning of the term ‫ חק‬and its Greek equivalents διαθήκη ( ‫ ܕ‬in the Syro-Hexapla) and testamentum (shifted to verse 12) is something like “statute”, “law”, or “decree”. Sir 16:22 also refers to an eternal decree that YHWH had destined for his people. Regardless of the acts of justice that one might have performed, their judgement is still far off and will not take place during one’s lifetime. The term διαθήκη and its equivalents stand not for a covenant with a living counterpart to YHWH; it rather refers to an order set entirely by YHWH himself. 16:22 Heb: ‫מה מעשה צדק מי יגידנו ותקות מה כי אצוק חוק׃‬ Pesh: missing Gr: ἔργα δικαιοσύνης τίς ἀναγγελεῖ; ἢ τίς ὑπομενεῖ; μακρὰν γὰρ ἡ διαθήκη ( ‫ ܕ‬Syh) [[Gr2: καὶ ἐξέτασις ἁπάντων ἐν τελευτῇ.]]

202

Bonifatia Gesche

Lat: opera iustitiae quis enuntiabit aut quis sustinebit longe enim est testamentum a quibusdam et interrogatio omnium in consummatione est Heb: An act of justice: Who will proclaim (it)? And which hope is there, when I pour out the decree? Gr: Acts of justice: Who will announce (them)? Or who will stand firm? For the covenant/decree is far off. [[And the examination of all (will take place) at the end.]] Lat: Acts of justice: Who will announce (them)? Or who will stand firm? For the covenant/decree is far off for certain (people) and the interrogation of all takes place at the completion. The reference to the covenant in Sir 17:11–12 (Gr) is of some interest. It is set in the context of the creation of the entire cosmos including everything and every being. As the Hebrew Vorlage is not preserved, we have to concentrate on the other versions. The Peshitta, however, typically renders the Hebrew text exactly, so that it is possible to reconstruct the possible text of the Vorlage. 17:11 (Gr) writes προσέθηκεν αὐτοῖς ἐπιστήμην καὶ νόμον ζωῆς ἐκληροδότησεν αὐτοῖς, “In addition he gave them knowledge, and a law of life he allotted to them.”28 For the expression ἐπιστήμην καὶ νόμον ζωῆς (“knowledge and the law of life”), disciplinam et legem vitae (“instruction and the law of life”), the Peshitta writes ݂ ̈ ‫ܕ‬ ‫܂ܘ‬ (“a covenant and the law of life”) (17:11a [Gr, Pesh], 9 [Lat]). Hence the Syriac version, which might represent the Hebrew Vorlage, introduces the concept of the covenant already one verse earlier than the other versions. The following verse is consistently transmitted in all versions with only minor variants: διαθήκην αἰῶνος ἔστησεν μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ κρίματα αὐτοῦ ὑπέδειξεν αὐτοῖς, “A perpetual covenant he established with them, and his judgments he showed to them.” Covenant and law are set in close relationship, and humanity received it together with knowledge as an integral aspect of life in the course of its creation. This is worth mentioning, as one may be tempted to distinguish between the theology of creation and the theology of covenant.29

28

Josef Ziegler follows Smend’s conjecture and edits προέθηκεν. Although the meaning changes only slightly, Gr 2 adds at the end of the verse: εἰς τὸ νοῆσαι ὅτι θνητοὶ ὄντες ὑπάρχουσι νῦν, “so that they realize, that they now exist, although they are mortal.” 29 Michael Konkel does so when stating that the relationship between YHWH and humanity requires a distinct decision and is not already founded in creation (cf. KONKEL, Vergebung ohne Umkehr, 60, with reference to ASSMANN, Exodus, 399–400, the German version of The Invention of Religion. Jan Assmann observes that it is the commitment of God to his people Israel that characterizes this special relationship. He sees the people in its entirety as God’s counterpart, not an individual person). Like Assmann, Konkel distinguishes between a covenant of loyalty and a covenant of truth; however, he did not cover wisdom literature in his studies.

Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira

203

The same things are described in Sir 24:23 (32–33 Lat). Ben Sira employs poetic language to extensively praise the value of the personalized wisdom; then he summarizes all its virtues and identifies wisdom with covenant and the law that Moses has given to his people. This is the heritage for the congregation of Jacob for future generations. The Greek version reads: Ταῦτα πάντα βίβλος διαθήκης θεοῦ ὑψίστου, νόμον ὃν ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν Μωυσῆς κληρονομίαν συναγωγαῖς Ιακωβ. “All these things are the book of the covenant of the Most High God: The law that Moses commanded us, an inheritance for the gatherings of Jacob.” The second part of the verse features a verbatim quotation of Deut 33:4. It is exceptional to have a direct quote of a biblical text within the book of Sirach.30 One of the Gr 2 manuscripts (ms. 248) even specifies the law as τοῦ δευτερονομίου (“from Deuteronomy”). This indicates the significance that Ben Sira grants to this statement and to the reality behind it. While the Peshitta coincides with the Greek text and points to a corresponding Hebrew Vorlage, the Latin translator extends and modifies the text by duplicating passages from other parts of the book, or he refers to a no longer extant Vorlage: (32) haec omnia liber vitae testamentum Altissimi et agnitio veritatis (33) legem mandavit Moses in praeceptis iustitiarum et hereditatem domui Iacob et Israhel promission, “all these things are the book of life, the covenant of the Most High, the knowledge of truth. Moses handed over the law in the precepts over judgments and the heritage to the house of Jacob and Israel, (the people) of the promise.” The Latin translator describes the wisdom with the triplet of the book of life, the covenant, and the knowledge of truth. Thus, he places wisdom right in the center of human existence. The quotation from the book of Deuteronomy is, in the Latin version, only an allusion to this passage, but not a word for word citation. Ben Sira continues in the same line. Covenant and law belong together; it is a sign of education and wisdom to adhere to them, as Ben Sira outlines in his evaluation of craftspeople and scribes (Sir 38:24– 39:11). The person “who devotes his soul and who thinks about the law of the Most High” (Sir 38:34b Gr) stands out due to several features. Among those characteristics, this person publicly proclaims the source of his teaching and boasts in the law of the Lord’s covenant (Sir 39:8 [11 Lat]). The Peshitta offers the “law of life” instead of the law of the Lord’s covenant. The combination of covenant and life, law, and wisdom is attested here once again. All remaining occurrences of διαθήκη, Sir 28:7 (28:8–9 Lat); 38:33 (38:37– 38 Lat); 39:8 (39:11 Lat); 39:31 [39:37 Lat]) do not refer to the concept of covenant, but are used with the meaning of statute or decree. Outside the praise of the ancestors, διαθήκη with its equivalents occurs exclusively in connection with abstract nouns and never describes any relationship between two parties. 30 The fact that the Greek translator refers directly to a Scripture text might reveal a lot about the history of the text. But this cannot be addressed in the present study.

204

Bonifatia Gesche

It has the meaning of statute or decree; therefore, it does not correlate with the analysis of the praise of the ancestors in any way.

7. Conclusion It is a well-known fact that the praise of the ancestors in Ben Sira features a gradual development, starting with Noah and peaking in the Aaronite priesthood, which is finally represented in the person of Phineas. An interesting development is the way in which Ben Sira uses the concept of covenant in order to honor some chosen people and, thus, reveals this monotheistic theology. All the covenants that he chooses for the compilation of praised forefathers can be understood as covenants of truth according to Jan Assmann’s terminology. Ben Sira starts with covenants established with single persons, Noah and Abraham; both covenants were then being extended to include the entire world. They can, therefore, be described as covenants of the creator with his people. Moses receives the role to hand over the covenant to his brother Aaron, while his own covenant at Mount Sinai is not mentioned. The Sinaitic covenant is quite different from all the other bonds with YHWH insofar as it required a free choice of both partners; YHWH chose his people and Israel decided to follow him and no other god. In Jan Assmann’s terminology, this can be called a covenant of loyalty. The covenant with Aaron and his successors focuses on the decision to obey YHWH through faithful worship and righteous offerings. It is also a priestly duty to reconcile the people with YHWH. Thus, Ben Sira’s theology of covenant is closely related to his monotheistic theology. The bond with YHWH is founded on unchallenged obedience, true orthodoxy, and clear rejection of idolatry. It requires complete holiness on the part of the priest. Other occurrences in the book of Ben Sira do not contradict this theology, but as they do not depict the same kind of bond as the one found in the praise of the ancestors, they do not support these observations either.

Bibliography ASSMANN, JAN, Exodus: Die Revolution der alten Welt, München: Beck, 2015. –, The Invention of Religion: Faith and Covenant in the Book of Exodus (translated by Robert Savage), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018. –, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009. AURELIUS, ERIK, “Bundestheologie im Alten Testament: Ein Buch von Lothar Perlitt und seine Folgen”, ZThK 111 (2014): 357–373. CALDUCH-BENAGES, NÚRIA, “The Hymn to the Creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): A Polemic Text?”, in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLS 1), edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008, 119– 138.

Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira

205

FABRY, HEINZ-JOSEF, “‘Wir wollen nun loben Männer von gutem Ruf’ (Sir 44,1): Der Pinhas-Bund im ‘Lob der Väter’”, in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel (SBS 211), edited by Christoph Dohmen and Christian Frevel, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007, 49–60. FELDMEIER, REINHARD and SPIECKERMANN, HERMANN, Der Gott der Lebendigen: Eine biblische Gotteslehre (Topoi Biblischer Theologie 1), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. GRABBE, LESTER L., “Did All Jews Think Alike? ‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus in the Context of Second Temple Judaic Religion”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.Sup 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter / Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 251–266. KNOPPERS, GARY N., “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?” JAOS 116 (1996): 670–697. KOCH, CHRISTOPH, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (BZAW 383), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. KONKEL, MICHAEL, “Vergebung ohne Umkehr: Die Bundestheologie als theologische Mitte des Pentateuch”, in Bundestheologie, edited by Bernd Biberger et al., Vallendar: Patris 2015, 59–82. KRAUSE, JOACHIM J., Die Bedingungen des Bundes: Studien zur konditionalen Struktur alttestamentlicher Bundeskonzeptionen (FAT 140), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2020. KUTSCH, ERNST, Verheißung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament (BZAW 131), Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. LEVIN, CHRISTOPH, Die Entstehung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (NAWG.PH 4), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, [3]–[18]. –, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. MACK, BURTON L., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. MARBÖCK, JOHANNES, “Die ‘Geschichte Israels’ als ‘Bundesgeschichte’ nach dem Sirachbuch”, in Der Neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD 146), edited by Erich Zenger, Freiburg: Herder, 1993, 177–197. –, “Ein ewiger Bund für alle? Notizen zu Sir 17,11–14”, in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel (SBS 211), edited by Christoph Dohmen / Christian Frevel, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007, 133–140. MARKL, DOMINIK, “God’s Covenants with Humanity and Israel”, in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, edited by John Barton, Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press 2016, 331–337. MARTTILLA, MARKO, “‘Statute’ or ‘Covenant’? Remarks on the Rendering of the Word Greek Ben Sira”, in Scripture in Transition: Essays on the Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Raija Sollamo (JSJ.Sup 126), edited by Anssi Voitila / Jutta Jokiranta, Leiden: Brill, 2008, 73–87. –, “Das Sirachbuch als Zusammenfassung der alttestamentlichen Theologie”, in Theology and Anthropology in the Book of Sirach (SCS 73), edited by Bonifatia Gesche et al., Atlanta: SBL Press, 2020, 219–248. PERLITT, LOTHAR, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969. SANDERS, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977.

206

Bonifatia Gesche

SCHMID, KONRAD, “Gibt es eine ‘abrahamitische Ökumene’ im Alten Testament? Überlegungen zur religionspolitischen Theologie der Priesterschrift in Genesis 17”, in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition (FS Matthias Köckert), edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn / Henrik Pfeiffer, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009, 67–92. SCHNABEL, ECKHARD J., Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom and Ethics (WUNT II/16), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. SMEND, RUDOLF, “Die Bundesformel”, in IDEM, Die Mitte des Alten Testaments: Exegetische Aufsätze, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002, 1–29. STADE, BERNHARD, Die Religion Israels und die Entstehung des Judentums, in Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments (GThW II/2), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 21905. THIEL, WINFRIED, “Die Rede vom ‘Bund’ in den Prophetenbüchern”, ThViat 9 (1977): 11– 36. WELLHAUSEN, JULIUS, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, Berlin: de Gruyter, 81921. ZENGER, ERICH, “Die Bundestheologie – ein derzeit vernachlässigtes Thema der Bibelwissenschaft und ein wichtiges Thema für das Verhältnis Israel–Kirche”, in Der Neue Bund im Alten. Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD 146), edited by Erich Zenger, Freiburg: Herder, 1993, 13–49.

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha

FRANCIS M. MACATANGAY Francis M. Macatangay

1. Introduction “The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, the living, every one of us who is here today”, so Moses tells the Israelites in Deut 5:2–3. One implication of this passage is that the covenant that God has with Israel is not a static reality but a living one; it is not a mere event of the past but remains a present experience. Since that covenant relationship is presented as something that extends down the ages, the movement of history is likely to shape the way covenant is understood, imagined, or lived. The apocrypha, also known as the deuterocanonical books, embody and attest to the many ways covenant has been conceptualized or re-appropriated at certain periods in Israel’s history. This essay surveys the ideas of covenant in the works of the apocrypha, which are Second Temple texts produced somewhere between the late third century BCE and the first century BCE.1 No doubt, these texts take covenant as a given; they consider it an axiom that God remains faithful and has not given up on his people. And yet, these texts do not just recall the biblical covenants. Their articulation and understanding of covenant take on a variety of meanings and expressions. Although these texts often embrace the deuteronomic scheme of blessing and curse, they nonetheless interpret the covenantal demands and the promises of God differently. To explore and underscore the diverse meanings, ideas, and contents of covenant in this literary corpus, the essay will analyze the following texts: Tob 1:3–8, Jdt 9:11– 14; Sir 45:23–24; Wis 18:20–22; 1 Macc 1:11/Dan 9:26–27; 2 Macc 7:34–38; Pr Azar 11–13, and Bar 2:34–35.

1 Most Protestant Christians refer to these books as apocryphal, which literally means hidden or set aside, to denote their lack of scriptural canonicity. Roman Catholics use the term “deuterocanonical” to describe this literary corpus, indicating that their scriptural status is secondary but only in a chronological sense. In short, they are books that were later added to the scriptural canon. See STUCKENBRUCK, “Apocrypha and Septuagint”, 177–204; COLLINS, “Penumbra of the Canon”, 1–17. For some methodological considerations, see the introduction of Matthias Henze to his essay in this volume.

208

Francis M. Macatangay

2. Tobit 1:3–8 3

I, Tobit, walked in the ways of truth and righteousness all the days of my life. I performed many acts of charity for my kindred and my people who had gone with me in exile to Nineveh in the land of the Assyrians. 4When I was in my own country, in the land of Israel, while I was still a young man, the whole tribe of my ancestor Naphtali deserted the house of David and Jerusalem. This city had been chosen from among all the tribes of Israel, where all the tribes of Israel should offer sacrifice and where the temple, the dwelling of God, had been consecrated and established for all generations forever. 5 All my kindred and our ancestral house of Naphtali sacrificed to the calf that King Jeroboam of Israel had erected in Dan and on all the mountains of Galilee. 6But I alone went often to Jerusalem for the festivals, as it is prescribed for all Israel by an everlasting decree. I would hurry off to Jerusalem with the first fruits of the crops and the firstlings of the flock, the tithes of the cattle, and the first shearing of the sheep. 7I would give these to the priests, the sons of Aaron, at the altar; likewise the tenth of the grain, wine, olive oil, pomegranates, figs, and the rest of the fruits to the sons of Levi who ministered at Jerusalem. Also for six years I would save up a second tenth in money and go and distribute it in Jerusalem. 8A third tenth I would give to the orphans and widows and to the converts who had attached themselves to Israel. I would bring it and give it to them in the third year, and we would eat it according to the ordinance decreed concerning it in the law of Moses and according to the instructions of Deborah, the mother of my father Tobiel, for my father had died and left me an orphan.

The Book of Tobit, a story likely composed between the mid-third century and early second century BCE, never mentions covenant.2 And yet, these opening verses of the book make it clear that covenant is operative. Tobit’s bold declaration in the beginning of the narrative that he “walked in the ways of truth and righteousness all the days” of his life (1:3) suggests an identity that is grounded in God’s covenantal relationship with Israel. While some may regard Tobit’s statement as arrogantly self-righteous, it actually articulates Tobit’s acute awareness of the demands of the covenant. Tobit is an ideal Israelite whose faithful adherence to the covenantal demands, no matter what the circumstances are, makes him righteous. The timeline of “all the days” of Tobit’s life cleaves in two: “before” and “after” exile. Tobit immediately defines “walking in truth and righteousness” as charitable solicitude now that he is living with his people in exile. A verse later, he adds the cultic practices that he performed when he was a young man in his own country to delineate his walking in truth and righteousness. The harsh reshuffling of Tobit’s life leads to a sharp re-ordering of his piety. At first sight, Tobit’s remarks proffer the impression that the practice of charity parallels the practice of the cult. And yet, Tobit’s practice of charity in v. 3b and in v. 16–17 frames his devotion to the temple in v. 4–6. His performance

2

For introductory matters, see MOORE, Tobit, 3–64; FITZMYER, Tobit, 3–57; MACATANWhen I Die, 3–7.

GAY,

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha

209

of charity understandably takes precedence over the cult in exile, thus modifying the framework for concrete Torah obedience. Before the fall of Samaria (1:2), Tobit went on pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the festivals and offered tithes and sacrificial gifts at the temple.3 He did all of these while in his own country because it has literally been written or “prescribed for all Israel” by an everlasting πρόσταγμα or “decree” (1:6). Tobit helpfully suggests that the “everlasting decree” that guided his behavior before his exile is in accordance with the πρόσταγμα commanded “in the law of Moses” and the “instructions of Deborah”, the grandmother who raised him (cf. 1:8).4 Since the naming of Deborah as Tobit’s grandmother may allude to the biblical prophetess Deborah who led the northern tribes in their battle against the Canaanite king, such instructions are assumed to have been taught in line with the prophetic tradition.5 Later in his prayer, Tobit suggests that his exile is due to the disobedience and offences of his ancestors: “they sinned against you … so you gave us over to plunder” (Tob 3:3–4). In consonance with the deuteronomic scheme, exile is the consequence of his ancestors’ own infidelity to the πρόσταγμα of the covenant. Tobit’s prayerful confession of the sins of his ancestors may illustrate the repentance that could spur the renewal of the covenant between God and his people. In exile, Tobit’s charitable works for his fellow Jews include burying the dead, feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked (1:16–17). Certainly, Tobit displays his religious zeal and mindfulness of God by avoiding Gentile food (1:11), as Daniel (Dan 1:8, 14–15), Esther (Esth 4:17LXX), and Judith (Jdt 10:5, 12:2–4, 9, 19) have also done. The story, however, is far more insistent on Tobit’s charitable deeds. Tobit is simply a paragon of charity and a model covenant partner. When Tobit celebrates Pentecost, “the sacred festival of weeks” (2:1)6 with a festive meal, he also feeds the poor and buries the dead. That Tobit performs acts of charity on the Feast of Weeks may resonate with the tradition attested in Jubilees and in Qumran in which “the festival of weeks was the date for making and remembering the biblical covenants and for renewing the Sinaitic covenant.”7 This may suggest that Tobit’s acts of charity at Pentecost are an exercise in covenant renewal. And so, before and after exile,

3

On tithes and offerings in Tobit, see DIMANT, “Qumran Halakhah”, 121–143. COLLINS, “Judaism”, 32, notes that the “book of Moses” refers to ancestral laws, and not to a particular biblical law, which derive their authority from Moses. But see ANDERSON, “Commandment”, 3–10. 5 See DIMANT, “Qumran Halakhah”, 140. 6 The Aramaic 4Q196 2.10 has a reference to the “Festival of Weeks” while the Greek manuscript traditions of Tob 2:10 describe it as “our Festival of Pentecost, which is the sacred Festival of Weeks.” 7 VANDERKAM, “Pentecost”, 253. 4

210

Francis M. Macatangay

Tobit shows a singular devotion to the Torah: “at home by service to the altar, abroad by deeds of charity.”8 None perhaps has more importance for righteousness than Tobit’s practice of almsgiving. In his familial instruction to his son Tobias, which reflects the idea that covenant and its obligations are rooted first of all in a father-son relationship,9 Tobit begins with a general instruction to “remember the Lord all the days, my son, and refuse to transgress his commandments; live uprightly all the days of your life, and do not walk in the ways of wrongdoing” (4:5). Tobit defines what it means to “remember the Lord” and to “live uprightly” always by identifying the performance of charity, specifically the giving of alms from one’s possessions, as an essential component: to give alms is to be righteous (cf. 4:10 and 14:11).10 Tobit’s unrelievedly grim misfortunes do not ironically deter him from instructing his son to follow his example. The performance of charity and almsgiving manifests righteousness in a way similar to the observance of the commandments. To practice charity demonstrates the faithful keeping of the Torah.11 Almsgiving, of course, is not explicitly commanded in the Book of Moses as constitutive of righteousness.12 In Tobit, it is the practice of charity and care for the poor, especially almsgiving, that has become an indispensable covenantal demand. Of course, a certain doubt can be cast against the legitimacy of interpreting the demands of the covenant as charity. If Tobit is made righteous by almsgiving, why is it then that he still suffers? Perhaps, God does not count this type of religious piety as fulfilling the covenant. Will this form of righteousness help in restoring Tobit’s children’s children to the land? Or, are Tobit’s misfortunes proof of divine unfaithfulness? Tobit certainly does not believe this to be the case. In the end, Tobit, whose fate is braided with Israel’s, affirms that the words of the prophet will not fail and that God will be true to his promises (14:4) by bringing dispersed Israel to the land promised to Abraham at the appointed time (cf. 14:5). Tobit has the prospicience that his very experience will be Israel’s own someday. God has indeed afflicted Israel but God will also show mercy if Israel returns to God and does what is true and righteous before him (13:5–6), which Tobit has earlier specified as acting in mercy. An open reciprocity seems to be at work: as a covenant partner, God will match Israel’s act of mercy and charity with his own exercise of mercy. In this case, mercy and its practical manifestations in beneficent deeds have

8

ANDERSON, Charity, 19. See CROSS, Epic, 14, who notes that “the language of covenant, kinship in-law, is taken from the language of kinship, kinship-in-flesh.” 10 MACATANGAY, Wisdom Instructions, 79–85. 11 ANDERSON, Sin, 174; MACATANGAY, When I Die, 37. 12 See MACATANGAY, “Instruction in Torah”, 99–103. 9

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha

211

become central to the continuing covenantal relationship between God and Israel, keeping the fulfilment of the divine promises alive.

3. Judith 9:11–14 11

For your strength does not depend on numbers, nor your might on the powerful. But you are the God of the lowly, helper of the oppressed, upholder of the weak, protector of the forsaken, savior of those without hope. 12Please, please, God of my father, God of the heritage of Israel, Lord of heaven and earth, Creator of the waters, King of all your creation, hear my prayer! 13Make my deceitful words bring wound and bruise on those who have planned cruel things against your covenant, and against your sacred house, and against Mount Zion, and against the house your children possess. 14Let your whole nation and every tribe know and understand that you are God, the God of all power and might, and that there is no other who protects the people of Israel but you alone!

This text comes from the longest prayer of the eponymous hero of the Book of Judith, written likely during the late Hasmonean period sometime in the first century BCE.13 Judith asks God to listen to her supplication in order to show before all that God will continue to keep his covenant commitment to protect Israel from the Assyrian threat (9:14). In the midst of “great misery”, however, the people of Bethulia are willing to be unfaithful to God (7:32). The water supply crisis caused by the Assyrian siege has led the people to believe that God has sold them into the hands of the enemies. Uzziah and the town elders urge the people to hold out for five more days. If God does not send help within the deadline, they will surrender to Holofernes and become slaves as the people have desired (7:27–29). Judith, a devout widow who fears God (8:8) and who faithfully practices the religious observances of the day, “heard about these things” (8:1) and called the elders to her home. Wiser than the town elders in matters of theology, particularly in God’s covenant relationship with the people, Judith refuses to put God to the test, trusting that God will work on their behalf. Judith admonishes them to avoid putting God to the test with the promise of surrender unless God helps. Rather, the elders should see their situation as God’s test and pedagogy to draw them to God (8:27). She urges them to set an example for the people in order to spare not only the lives of the people but also to save the sanctuary and temple from destruction (8:24), assuring them that she will “deliver Israel by her hand” (8:35). Judith prostrated and prayed for divine support before enacting her plan as incense was being offered in the Jerusalem temple (9:1).14 After recounting a

13

See NICKELSBURG, Jewish Literature, 108–109; MOORE, Judith, 67–70. For analysis of the prayer, see NEWMAN, Praying, 117–154; VAN DEN EYNDE, “Crying to God”, 221–223; 226–227; XERAVITS, “Supplication”, 161–178; SCHMITZ, “Function”, 14

212

Francis M. Macatangay

past event in which God answered the prayer of her ancestor Simeon, Judith begged the saving God of exodus (cf. Exod 15:2), whom she called “the God of the lowly, helper of the oppressed, upholder of the weak, protector of the forsaken, savior of those without hope”, to strengthen her widow’s hand and to provide her lips guile and deceit to strike down the enemy (9:9–10).15 Judith concluded her prayer for God’s help with five more divine epithets: “God of my father, God of the heritage of Israel, Lord of heaven and earth, Creator of the waters, King of all your creation” (9:12). The first two, personal and specific to Israel, capture who God is for Israel – a God who protects and has concern for lowly Israel. These titles mark a covenantal relationship between God and Israel while the last three are a clear swipe against king Nebuchadnezzar’s claim to divinity.16 Judith repeats her request for a “beguiling tongue” meant to wound and bruise “those who have planned cruel things against your covenant, and against your sacred house, and against Mount Zion, and against the house your children possess” (9:13). The consequence of her divinely approved action as Israel’s defender will show to all people that in the battle between the God of Jerusalem and Nebuchadnezzar, “the great king” and “lord of heaven and earth” who desires to be universally worshipped (2:4–5; 3:8; 6:2), the former is the true and supreme God whose covenant promise to be Israel’s God stands. Judith’s prayer suggests that covenant, not deliverance, matters most.17 Nebuchadnezzar has to destroy Israel’s covenant with the one and only God in order to be recognized as indeed worthy of worship (3:8).18 Judith identifies the holy realities that are the campaign’s targets: 1) your covenant,19 2) your sacred house / the house your children possess, and 3) Mount Zion. The word covenant is mentioned only once here in the narrative and its denotative meaning can be clarified by taking the two similar realities under threat, namely the sacred house and Mount Zion, as the specified items or referents of the covenant. The structural parallelism in v. 13 can also explain its meaning.20 The temple is the entity that stands in for the covenant; they are intimately related realities.

164–174. On the resemblance of Judith to Jael and Deborah in Judges 4–5, see WHITE, “In the Steps”, 5–16. 15 See CRAVEN, Artistry and Faith, 91; WILLS, Judith, 293. 16 XERAVITS, “Supplication”, 175. 17 CRAVEN, “Judith Prays”, 211. 18 In a private correspondence with Barbara Schmitz. 19 In Dan 11:28, the similar phrase, “his heart set against the holy covenant”, is associated with Antiochus’ desecration and plunder of the temple upon his wrathful return to Judaea (COLLINS, Daniel, 383–384). 20 See XERAVITS, “Supplication”, 176; WILLS, Judith, 297.

213

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha Make my deceitful word bring wound and bruise on those who have planned cruel things Against your covenant And against your sacred house And against Mount Zion And against the house your children possess/inherit

A B A’ B’

The word οῖκος (house) designating the temple in B is repeated in B’ but qualified this time as the inheritance or possession of the children of Israel. The “covenant” in A is specifically associated with “Mount Zion” in A’, which is identified as a κορυφή, literally meaning ‘highest point’ or ‘hill’. This word is not a common term for Israel’s sacred site.21 The story, however, has employed the term to refer to “fortified hilltops” that the Israelites trusted to provide them security (4:5; 5:1). In Jdt 7:10, Holofernes’ council asserts that the source of Israelite confidence is the location of the town on the heights of the mountains. Moreover, in Jdt 6:12, it is the κορυφή, the top of the hill, from which the men of Bethulia pelted with stones the servants guarding and bringing the dismissed Achior to prevent them from coming up and taking over. In effect, Israel can rely on their covenant with God and the temple on Mount Zion for divine aid if they are faithful. Viewed in light of Psalm 46, which praises God for his creative presence with Israel, the God “in the midst of the city” who makes wars cease, is Jacob’s refuge, strength, and help in trouble, the one sovereign God who keeps Israel safe. Judith’s actions preserve the temple and the covenant. As long as God’s house is standing, the covenant is alive, and Israel can continue to count on divine help against its enemies just as the ark of the covenant signaled divine protection in early Israelite history. Israel only needs to trust rather than test the Lord who works in their favor and promises to be with Israel always (cf. Deut 31:8). That the temple remains inviolate is a powerful sign that the God of Israel has indeed broken the enemy’s strength with his might and brought down their power with his anger (9:8–10). In short, the temple specifies the covenantal promise never to forsake Israel, and with it, the security that comes from knowing that God’s presence continues to dwell in Israel. Central to Israel’s identity, the temple on Zion is the holy reality that makes the presence of God evident to the people, the institution that manifests God’s covenantal faithfulness and continuing relationship to Israel. It has been noted that the focus of the threat in this passage is the temple though elsewhere in Judith, Israel itself is in deep danger.22 Still, the temple seems to be Judith’s main concern. In Jdt 9:8–9, Judith implores God to empower her in dashing the might of the Assyrians and in bringing down their strength because they “plan to desecrate the sanctuary, to defile the tabernacle, 21 22

See COWLEY, “Judith”, n. 13, 259, noting that “top” (i.e., mount) is unusual with Sion. WILLS, Judith, 297.

214

Francis M. Macatangay

the resting place of your glorious throne, to knock off the horns of your altar with the sword.” In her speech to the elders, Judith says that Bethulia’s capture would mean the plunder of the sanctuary (8:21) and their action would determine the fate of both the temple and altar (8:24). Upon learning of the Assyrian destruction of all the sanctuaries in the coastal cities to show that the king is a god (3:8), the Israelites pray that God will not allow “the sanctuary to be profaned and desecrated to the malicious joy of the Gentiles” (4:12). The elders send Judith off with a prayer for the fulfillment of her plans so that “Jerusalem may be exalted” (10:8); in her prayer before she strikes Holofernes, she repeats the same phrase (13:4). It is suggestive that the defense of Bethulia against the Assyrians is undertaken only so that Jerusalem and its temple are preserved from the siege.23 This overriding concern for the temple in Judith likely reflects the significance of the dedication of the temple after its profanation during the Maccabean period, a historical development pointing to the reality that God has not abandoned his people.24 Since God’s covenant with Israel includes the promise to dwell with his people and the clearest visual sign of his presence is the Jerusalem temple, this sacred house is the most observable sign and public reminder of the covenant that promises divine presence and protection for his people. For Judith, the preservation of God’s house on Mount Zion is an undeniable proof of God’s enduring covenant with Israel, giving Israel the blessed assurance to rest secure in the true God’s protection and promise not to forsake them.

4. Sir 45:23–24 In a footnote, G.H. Box and W.O.E. Oesterley observed that “covenant” in Ben Sira always means “a gracious promise by God.”25 This is true to an extent but it begs elucidation. Ben Sira presents Wisdom as God’s gracious gift to Israel (cf. Sir 24) and so, covenant is heavily associated with Wisdom. Ben Sira views Wisdom, embodied in the law (cf. Sir 24:23), as the expression of Israel’s election, Israel as God’s choice for Wisdom’s dwelling. He refers increasingly to covenant in his programmatic review of Israel’s history and leaders in Sir 44–50. Here, Israel’s ancestors who are described as “men of mercy whose righteous deeds have not been forgotten” and whose “descendants stand by the covenants”26 receive praises (44:12). More importantly, Ben Sira concludes his 23

See JUHL CHRISTIANSEN, “Defender”, 70–84. See OTZEN, Tobit and Judith, 94–97. 25 BOX and OESTERLEY, “Sirach”, n.12, 481. See also the section on Ben Sira in the essay of Matthias Henze in this volume. 26 In the Greek text of this verse, the noun covenant is in the plural. But the Hebrew Masada VII:19 reads: “in their covenant, their seed endures.” 24

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha

215

introduction to the praise of the ancestors with the statement that the people or the congregation will tell of their wisdom (44:15). The first is Noah who received God’s everlasting covenants, specified as God’s promise to refrain from destroying creation by flood (44:18). Next is Abraham who kept the law of the Most High and entered into covenant with God, prompting the divine promises of inheritance and numerous descendants through whom nations are to be blessed. The Hebrew text of 44:20 (Ms B) states, “in his flesh, he cut a statute for him” but the Greek translation renders the statute as covenant: “in his flesh, he established the covenant.” Jacob also received “the blessing of all and the covenant”, according to the Greek text. In the Hebrew text of 44:22–23 (Ms B), however, it is Isaac to whom God gave “the covenant of all those who were from the first.” Moses is not explicitly described as a recipient of covenant. He is instead a teacher of the laws and decrees of the covenant; a “man of mercy” who found favor with God (45:1) and to whom God gave the commandments or “the law of life and knowledge” “face to face”, so that he may teach Jacob “the covenant and Israel his judgments” (45:5). Here, the grandson renders “his precepts/ decrees” (‫ )חקיו‬that Moses teaches Jacob (Ms B) as covenant. Since this echoes Ben Sira’s category of precepts and statutes as “wisdom”, the grandson seems to make the sapiential overtones of covenant explicit. God also gave a covenant to Moses’ brother Aaron, which is designated as the priesthood of the people (45:7). The Hebrew text of this verse (Ms B), however, simply states, “he appointed him an eternal office.” Here, the grandson reads covenant in cultic or priestly terms. Aaron’s cultic service and ministry as priest who blesses the people in God’s name is “an everlasting covenant for him and for his descendants all the days of heaven” (45:15). God also formed a covenant with David, which is kingship that is transferrable to his sons. And yet, the reference to the Davidic covenant is made only in the context of the office of the priesthood for Aaron’s sons, claiming thus a priestly succession similar to that of the kingly. (45:25). Solomon is the last figure in the praise of the ancestors to receive, after God had forgiven him his sins, a “covenant of kings”, according to the Greek text of Sir 47:11. The Heb text (Ms B), however, simply states that God made a decree that entitles him to reign (‫)חק ממלכת‬. (Sir 47:11). The extensive treatment given to Aaron and Phinehas points to the importance of the office of the Levitical priesthood.27 The frequent references to covenants in this section suggest that the priestly office is anchored in decrees or covenants God made with Israel.28 Ben Sira concludes his praise of priestly figures with God’s establishment of a covenant with Phinehas, the son 27

See SKEHAN / DI LELLA, Ben Sira, 511–514. MACK, Hebrew Epic, 52: “The history of the people has been subsumed completely in the history of Israel’s offices and leaders, with priests up and kings down.” 28

216

Francis M. Macatangay

of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron, here identified as a “covenant of fellowship” or a “covenant of peace”. The understanding of this particular covenant, however, varies in the Greek and Hebrew texts of Sir 45:22–24. 4.1 Sir 45:23–24 (Ms B)29 23

Also Phineas, the [s]on of Eleazar [[ ]] by his might [ ] In his zeal for the God of all [[ ]] he took his stand during the breach of his people. And who, by his magnanimity, that is, his heart, [[ ]] made atonement on behalf of the children of Israel. 24 Therefore also to him he decreed an allotment, [[ ]] a covenant of fellowship to administer the sanctuary, which was to be his and his seed’s, [[ ]] the high priesthood forever.

Ben Sira’s Hebrew text uses Num 25:6–13 as the biblical basis for the divine establishment of the covenant with Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron the priest. This covenant is specified as a covenant of perpetual priesthood for him and for his descendants (Num 25:13). In Ben Sira’s reading, Phinehas is the one who “stood in the breach of his people” which is a phrase in Ps 106:23 that describes Moses’ attempt to turn God’s anger away from Israel after the golden calf fiasco. Phinehas’ action at Baal Peor in Numbers 25 also turned back God’s wrath from the Israelites. Ben Sira’s description of Phinehas as a figure who intercedes in order to turn away the Lord’s anger and as one who makes atonement for Israel points to his priestly role. Ben Sira identifies the purpose of the covenant, which is to administer the sanctuary. Ben Sira, however, rewrites Num 25:13. By adding the word “high”, Ben Sira considers the covenant not only as a covenant of perpetual priesthood for Phinehas and his descendants but specifically for the high priesthood, which can only be inherited by a direct descendant like the royal succession in the Davidic covenant. Ben Sira wants to show that Phinehas was the lawful successor to the high priesthood.30 This Levitical office conferred to Phinehas is passed on to Simon II and his descendants as part of the covenant. Ben Sira saw the high priesthood as the office that maintains the sanctuary and makes atonement for Israel, realizing thus God’s blessings and forgiveness for Israel.31 Ben Sira’s interpretation serves to endorse and ensure the priestly establishment and line of the Oniad family in Jerusalem and Simon II in particular.32 Moreover, Ben Sira, who promotes the pursuit of wisdom, sees wisdom as being embodied in the Temple’s cultic service (24:10). The high priesthood as exercised by Simon has returned Israel to its golden age, restoring peace and glory to Israel not enjoyed since the time of Solomon. Now, God’s covenantal fidelity, which is 29

Translation by BENJAMIN H. PARKER and MARTIN G. ABEGG. See also bensira.org. SKEHAN / DI LELLA, Ben Sira, 513. 31 MACK, Hebrew Epic, 39. 32 WRIGHT, “Fear of the Lord”, 196; see also KAISER, “Covenant”, 244–251. 30

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha

217

shown in the grant of traveling wisdom to lodge in Israel and specifically in the book of the covenant as Jacob’s inheritance (24:23), “rests with the high priest”, with Solomon’s role as the embodiment of wisdom conveyed to Simon.33 For Ben Sira, the high priesthood is the “principle of order” in the world and in Judea.34 As the highest authority for the interpretation of the Torah (cf. Deut 33:8–10), the office of the high priesthood transmits wisdom and actualizes the blessings of glory and peace for Israel. 4.2 Sir 45:23–25 (Greek) 23

Phinehas son of Eleazar ranks third in glory for being zealous in the fear of the Lord, and standing firm, when the people turned away, in the noble courage of his soul; and he made atonement for Israel. 24 Therefore a covenant of friendship was established with him, that he should be leader of the sanctuary and of his people, that he and his descendants should have the dignity of the priesthood forever. 25 Just as a covenant was established with David son of Jesse of the tribe of Judah, that the king’s heritage passes only from son to son, so the heritage of Aaron is for his descendants alone.

Translated by his grandson into Greek around 132–117 BCE, some 60 or 70 years after Ben Sira’s original work, the text above makes clear the grandson’s translation is also a work of interpretation that reflects the concerns of his own lifetime.35 The Greek translation revises Ben Sira’s original and reflects the Hasmonean priestly ideology. Two changes are worth noting since they alter the substance of the covenant:36 first, the purpose of the covenant of peace is for Phinehas and his descendants to be the “leader of the sanctuary and his people”. The leadership exercised by the priesthood is not only cultic but also civil; the priest now possesses the responsibility of ruling Israel. Second, they should have “the dignity of the priesthood forever” (45:24). A more significant change, the covenant is no longer for the high priesthood but for the eternal dignity of the priesthood. Interestingly, the Greek version is closer to the vision of the covenant in Numbers 25. In the Greek text, Phinehas is not third in the priestly line of succession but a model of priestly piety, zeal, faithfulness, and leadership, which conforms to the description of the Hasmonean high priest Simon in 1 Macc 14:41–49 (cf. 1 Macc 2:52–54), who is portrayed as the leader of both the sanctuary and the 33

MERMELSTEIN, Creation, 67. SCHMIDT, Wisdom, 438. 35 SCHMIDT, Wisdom, 437. 36 See POMYKALA, “Covenant”, 29–32. 34

218

Francis M. Macatangay

people. In short, the emphasis of the Greek text is not the line of succession as part of the covenant but on Phinehas as an archetypal priest that Mattathias and his sons emulate (2:23–26). The changes in the blessing of the prayer that concludes the praise of Simon in the Hebrew text of Sir 50:22–24 are telling. The prayer, which alludes to Sir 45:23–26, is for Simon’s descendants, including Onias III and the future high priests from his line who are viewed as the legitimate representatives of Phinehas. The Greek version, however, does not echo Sir 45:23–26. The Greek text has the prayer directed instead to the people of Israel and not to the descendants of the high priesthood. For instance, “wisdom of heart” in 50:23 is changed to “gladness of heart” which is proper for the people as a whole, and the request for mercy for Simon is replaced with a call for mercy and deliverance for Israel. And so, the prayer for Simon’s descendants to keep the high priesthood based on the covenant with Phinehas has become in the Greek translation a prayer instead for various blessings upon Israel with no reference to Simon or covenant with Phinehas.37 The Greek revisions to Heb Sir 45:23–24 and 50:23–24 transform the covenant with Phinehas into a covenant for the dignity of priests whose leadership encompasses both cultic and civil realms.

5. Wisdom 18:20–22 20

The experience of death touched also the righteous, and a plague came upon the multitude in the desert, but the wrath did not long continue. 21 For a blameless man was quick to act as their champion; he brought forward the shield of his ministry, prayer and propitiation by incense; he withstood the anger and put an end to the disaster, showing that he was your servant. 22 He conquered the wrath not by strength of body, not by force of arms, but by his word he subdued the avenger, appealing to the oaths and covenants given to our ancestors.

The text above is from the Wisdom of Solomon, likely written in Alexandria in the late first century BCE around the time of Octavian’s conquest of Egypt.38 It belongs to the last major section of the book, Wisdom 10–19,39 which recounts the manifestation and salvific role of wisdom in Israelite history from Adam to Moses. This section attests to the use of διαθήκη in the plural form in 37

See SKEHAN / DI LELLA, Ben Sira, 514; POMYKALA, “Covenant”, 33–36. For general issues of dating, see GLICKSMAN, Wisdom of Solomon, 7–31. 39 On the issue of structure, see COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom, 179–80. 38

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha

219

Wis 18:22 and συνθήκη, also in the plural, and translated as covenant, in Wis 12:21; the latter term is also in Wis 1:16. It is noted that such scarcity of references to covenant and the law is unusual for a book that deals with issues relating to human behavior.40 Since the retelling of Israel’s history in Wis 10– 19 does convey covenantal consciousness, it is likely that some rhetorical function may lie behind such a salient rarity of use. First, the language in Wis 10–19 exudes the conviction that the Israelites and their descendants are God’s chosen (15:1–6; 12:18–22) and the proper heirs to the ancestral covenants with God (Wis 12:21; 18:22). When addressing God, the author refers to the people of Israel as “your people” (12:19; 16:2, 20; 18:7), “your children” (16:10, 26; 18:4), and “your holy ones” (18:2; 10:17). Echoing the identity of God’s elect in Exod 19:6, Israel is identified as “a holy nation” (17:2) and “the holy children” (18:9).41 Following Exod 4:22–30, Wisdom calls the people of Israel “God’s son” (18:13) while the Israelites of the exodus and those who entered the promised land are recognized as “our ancestors” (18:6; 12:6). Moreover, God’s paradigmatic act of liberation is the focal point of the history Pseudo-Solomon recounts. In Wis 10:15–21, the Israelites in Egypt are a “a holy people and a blameless race” while the Egyptians are “a nation of oppressors” (10:15). While Moses is God’s servant, Pharaoh exemplifies the “dread kings” (10:16). Those who were freed from Egyptian slavery are identified as “a holy people” but those who pursued them and drowned under the sea are the “enemies” (10:19). In this version of exodus, God employs creation with a dual purpose: creation is a vehicle of salvation for the righteous but of punishment for the ungodly. In short, the Israelites are the “righteous” while their enemies are the “ungodly” (10:20). Second, the foundational covenantal demand that Israel must worship God and God alone is a heavy concern in the historical rehearsal in Wis 10–19.42 Wis 13–15 specifically polemicizes against idolatry and pagan practices in Egypt. Certainly, the book mentions the law or laws a number of times (2:12; 6:4, 18; 9:5; 16:6; 18:4, 9). The references to the law, however, does not necessarily denote the law of Moses. Still, the “divine law” in Wis 18:9 and the “imperishable light of the law” given to the world through “your children” in Wis 18:4 may both have the Mosaic law in view. In Wis 12:21, the ancestors are the recipients of the “oaths and covenants” (ὂρκους καὶ συνθήκας) “full of good promises”. The lexeme συνθήκη in the plural in Wis 12:21 becomes διαθήκη in the plural in Wis 18:22. It is observed that the exodus context of these two passages evokes the giving of the law at Sinai but the references to covenants given to the ancestors in light of the 40

NICKELSBURG, “Torah”, 233. For the designation of Israel as holy, see also Exod 22:31; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:6, 14:21, 26:19; Isa 63:12; Jer 2:3. 42 CHESNUTT, “Covenant”, 229. 41

220

Francis M. Macatangay

exodus generation also call to mind previous covenants established with Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; in this way, the ambivalence “between συνθήκαι and διαθήκαι suggests indeterminacy and fluidity rather than a fixed covenantal doctrine”.43 While it may be true that there is no “fixed covenantal doctrine” in Wisdom, it is plausible that διαθήκη in Wis 18:22 has a particular nuance or content. The juxtaposed “oaths and covenants” in Wis 18:22 likely include another reality that forms part of the covenantal thinking in Wisdom. In the text above, the “blameless man” is not named. However, the allusion to Num 16:46–50, which recounts how Aaron stopped the destroying angel from further inflicting death as a result of the plague that struck Israel in the desert, makes it likely that Aaron is the “blameless man” who “conquered the wrath not by strength of body, not by force of arms” but by his appeal “to oaths and covenants” given to the ancestors, thereby subduing the avenger and saving the Israelites in the wilderness from a deathly catastrophe (18:22). Death is admittedly the prevailing image in Wisdom 18 (cf. 18:5, 12–13, 15, 18, 20, 23). Just as the plea of Moses asking God to remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel and his promises to them stayed the angry hand of God against the Israelites (Exod 32:13–14), so Aaron’s appeal to the covenants “cuts off” death’s way to the living (18:23). The release from “the experience of death” that “touched also the righteous” is due to a blameless man’s appeal to the divine oath and promise, which likely alludes to God’s oath to increase offspring and progeny first given to Abraham after the Aqedah (cf. Gen 22:16) and later to Isaac (cf. ὄρκος in Gen 26:3LXX). Wisdom does not deny that the righteous experience death, but this passage suggests that God’s oaths and covenants can be appealed to in order to release the righteous from death; the righteous have such a covenant. The ungodly, on the other hand, has made a covenant, συνθήκη, with death “by their unsound reasoning” (1:16–2:1). The ungodly did so because they longed for death’s company and did not know “the secret purposes of God, nor hoped for the wages of holiness, nor discerned the prize for blameless souls, for God created us for incorruption and made us in the image of his own eternity” (2:22–23). The ungodly have a covenant with death but the righteous received covenants from God full of good promises that include the “wages of holiness” and incorruption (12:21). Accordingly, the covenant of the ungodly results in death but the divine covenants and oaths the righteous receive, Wis 18:22 implies, are a promise, a guarantee even, of release from death for the righteous. Wisdom transposes God’s original oath to increase descendants into a promise to prevent decrease and dissolution by countering death. The other instance of “oath” in the chapter is in 18:5–9 which has for its context the killing of infants. Unlike their enemies, Israel rested secure in “the 43

CHESNUTT, “Covenant”, 233.

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha

221

knowledge of the oaths” and trusted in the promise, made known beforehand to their ancestors, that their children would be delivered from death. The oaths allowed them to expect “deliverance of the righteous and the destruction of their enemies” (18:6). Consistent with the antithetical pairing of punishment and deliverance, the divine oaths benefit the righteous with life while they assure punishment of the wicked. Whatever the content of the oaths and covenants that Aaron used as the basis for his appeal to appease “the wrath” and thus avert death for the Israelites, it would have to include the preservation of Israel’s life. As God’s “holy children of good people” who agreed “with one accord” to observe the divine law that was given to them (Wis 18:9), Israel can “rejoice in the sure knowledge of the oaths” and hope for “incorruption” as God’s son (18:13; cf. 5:5). In Wis 18:22, Israel’s preservation from death is part of God’s oaths and a blessing of the covenant.

6. 1 Macc 1:11 / Dan 9:26–2744 First Macc 1:11 reports that “in those days, certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles around us, for since we separated from them many disasters have come upon us”. In light of Daniel 9, the covenant likely refers to Antiochus’ offer of a deal with his Hellenizing supporters. Here, the use of covenant hints at the mistaken perception of the “many” and the hubris of Antiochus whose offering of his own covenant not only mocks but also threatens the true covenant between God and Israel.45 Daniel 9 dates from the time of Maccabean crisis. As Daniel completes his penitential prayer, the angel Gabriel appears and explains Jeremiah’s prophecy on 70 years of captivity to Daniel. Gabriel concludes with an ex eventu prophecy, including Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ deposition of the legitimate high priest Onias III in favor of Jason his brother (2 Macc 4:8) and the pact that Antiochus will make with the Jewish supporters of Hellenization. Dan 9:26–27 26

After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make

44 The analysis of these texts follows Prof. Matthias Henze’s original presentation at the conference. I am grateful to him for graciously sharing his paper and for allowing me to include these texts. 45 NEWSOM, Daniel, 307.

222

Francis M. Macatangay

sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.

Despite the textual problems in this passage, it is clear that Antiochus is the desolating prince who made “a strong covenant” or “an agreement” with Jewish supporters of Jason and later Menelaus. This agreement had unfortunate consequences. First Maccabees describes the “abomination that desolates” in Dan 9:27 as Antiochus’ erection of “a desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt offering” on the fifteenth day of Chislev (1 Macc 1:54). Dan 11:30–31 describes Antiochus’ hostile disposition toward “the holy covenant” which was concretely shown in his assault on Jerusalem, the plundering of the Temple, and the violent repression of the Jewish religion (cf. 1 Macc 1:30–32). In effect, Antiochus’ illegitimate covenant replaced the true and “holy covenant” (cf. 1 Macc 1:63). But Mattathias, the leader of the Maccabean revolt, would not accept this situation. In 1 Macc 2:19–22, Mattathias vows that he and his sons and brothers “will continue to live by the covenant of our ancestors” even if all the other nations under the king’s rule obey him and abandon the religion of their ancestors. Mattathias thinks that there are others under Antiochus’ hegemony who are as devoted to the ancestral religion as he and his family are. For Mattathias, to live by the covenant of his ancestors means not to forsake “the law and the ordinances”. To live by the covenant of the ancestors contrasts with the obedience to the king who commanded the people to give up their particular customs (cf. 1 Macc 1:41–42). Jewish identity is here defined by Torah piety as molded by Jewish practice. Although Daniel or 1 Maccabees does not provide any specifics about the nature of the covenant or the commandments, it is nonetheless clear that the abandonment of the religion of the ancestors ultimately means the violation of God’s covenant with Israel. In Daniel and 1 Maccabees, to live by the covenant means to hold fast to the traditions of the ancestors. The observance of such ancestral customs serves as boundary markers that define true Jewish identity.

7. 2 Macc 7:34–38 34

But you, unholy wretch, you most defiled of all mortals, do not be elated in vain and puffed up by uncertain hopes, when you raise your hand against the children of heaven. 35 You have not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty, all-seeing God. 36 For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of ever-flowing life, under God’s covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance. 37 I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our ancestors, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by trials and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God, 38 and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation.

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha

223

Second Maccabees is an ἐπιτομἠ (2:26, 28) or digest of Jason of Cyrene’s fivevolume history of the events that led to the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid throne (2:23, 26, 28). Likely from between 124 BCE and 78/77 BCE, it is prefaced by two letters that recommend the yearly celebration of the purification of the Jerusalem temple on the 25th of Chislev (1:9, 18; 2:16; cf. 10:5–6) while the narrative recounts the attacks against the Jerusalem temple and the people (175–167 BCE) that Judas Maccabeus, with divine help, successfully countered. The epitomator and Jason of Cyrene present a theology of history according to Deuteronomy 28–32: the observance of the Torah, the festivals, and Jewish ancestral customs all lead to God’s protection but their neglect in order to become “like the nations” results in correction or punishment (7:18), with God using the foreign nations as means of divine discipline (2 Macc 6:12–16). As the sixth brother admits, the people as a whole are suffering because “we have sinned against our God” (7:18; cf. Dan 9:4– 19). The seventh brother’s similar admission is balanced by his conviction that although God may treat “us harshly for a while in order to correct us”, God will again be “reconciled with his servants” (7:33). By dying for the “ancestral laws” (7:37), the seventh brother hopes to hasten the fulfillment of the discipline imposed on Israel and the just punishments due the wicked king. The passage above is part of the story of the martyrdom of a mother and her seven sons. Their death as martyrs is the consequence of their exemplary act of obedience and their commitment to the ancestral laws (7:2, 9, 11, 23). The wicked king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, compels the mother and her seven sons to eat pork, which the Torah forbids Jews to consume (Lev 11:7–8). Every brother is subjected to torture, including scalping, maiming, and frying, with the mother and the rest of the surviving brothers serving as real time witnesses. Their fidelity to God leads to their predicament even as they recognize that the nation’s sin, or the sin of the corporate whole, is the reason for the greater quandary of Gentile subjugation and religious suffering (7:18; 32–33; 37–38). The story of their martyrdom is pivotal. As an act of archetypal obedience on behalf of the nation, the deaths they suffer on account of their refusal to break the covenant transforms God’s anger to mercy (2 Macc 8:5; 6:19, 20, 30; 7:2). Their story then marks the historical turn from a time of divine wrath (3:1– 7:42) to a time of divine mercy (8:1–15:37).46 This renewal of divine favor and mercy opens up the right condition for Judas and his forces to have successful military campaigns (cf. 2 Macc 8:4, 27). Each brother shows his devotion to the God of Israel and explains why he prefers to die rather than turn away from the ways of the ancestors and transgress the divine commandments given through Moses (7:24, 30). But the most important reason for the martyrs’ embrace of these horrific sufferings leading to their death is their belief in the bodily resurrection of the dead and 46

DORAN, Temple Propaganda, 93; DUGGAN, “Family Measure”, 295.

224

Francis M. Macatangay

in rewards and punishments after death. The second son affirms that “the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life” (7:9). The third son hopes to get back from God his tongue and hands that were cut off (7:11). The fourth son dies while cherishing “the hope God gives of being raised again by him” (7:14). The mother assures her sixth son that God “will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again” (7:23), implying that life after death is an act of new creation. Antiochus entices the seventh and youngest son with friendship if he renounces the ways of his ancestors. The seventh son rejects the offer. His mother encourages him instead to accept death, to be worthy of his brothers, and not to “fear this butcher” so that in God’s mercy, “I may get you back again along with your brothers” (7:29). At the same time, the youngest son echoes the previous warnings that the wicked king will not have a share in the resurrection of the righteous but rather will experience great suffering and even annihilation (7:14, 19, 23). He tells the king that he will not escape the hands of God (7:31) and his judgment; he will be punished for his arrogance (7:35– 36). More importantly, the youngest son claims that his brothers “have drunk of overflowing life under God’s covenant” after enduring a brief suffering. The use of διαθηκη in this rather unique phrasing47 in the context of the brothers’ deaths gestures toward God’s promise and commitment to grant the pious and law-abiding martyrs resurrection and eternal life. An important aspect of God’s covenant that is emphasized here is the element of “overflowing life”, which, as part of God’s new creative work, likely means, based on context, a life that flows into the resurrection. God’s covenant is here contrasted with Antiochus’ promise of oaths to make the youngest son rich and enviable, with friendship and an “office of trust”, if he obeys him and gives up his ancestral laws (2 Macc 7:24). The son chooses “overflowing life” under God’s covenant understood in light of God as creator and founder of the world, over the offer of friendship and oaths and promises of Antiochus. Second Maccabees opens with a reference to the covenant with the patriarchs. In the first prefatory letter, the epitomator addresses a prayer to the Jewish community in Egypt: “may God do good to you, and may he remember his covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob (1:2)”. God’s beneficence towards his people stems from the divine remembrance of his covenant with the patriarchs. God’s covenant with Abraham includes the promise to make his descendants numerous, with Isaac and Jacob as the heirs and vehicles of the promise (cf. Gen 15:5–6). In the story of the martyrdom of the mother and the seven sons, this promise appears forfeited. With all seven sons dead, the lineage of descendants is cut off and death would seem to invalidate the promises of God. Even after death, however, God is said to fulfill his promises 47

On how to make grammatical sense of the phrase, see DORAN, 2 Maccabees, 162–163.

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha

225

in a later generation in the continuation and survival of the family line, since identity is corporate.48 But this will no longer apply to the mother and her seven sons. The absence of any descendants obliterates their existence and they suffer the same fate as the wicked king. Their observance of the law and keeping the ancestral way of life does not lead to any blessing. And so, the promise of descendants and the consequent notion that one lives on in one’s descendants is reimagined here as personal resurrection for those who keep God’s commandments;49 the promise of descendants as numerous as the stars transmutes into a promise of resurrection. The mother assures her sons that God will give life back to them in mercy (7:23), and expects to receive his sons and restore the family after death (7:29). Second Maccabees subsumes the blessing of a life that overflows into resurrection “under God’s covenant”. The reward of resurrected life, made possible in light of God’s creative action (cf. 2 Macc 7:23a, 28), has become a component of the covenant.

8. Prayer of Azariah 11–13 11

12

13

For your name’s sake do not give us up forever, and do not annul your covenant. Do not withdraw your mercy from us, for the sake of Abraham your beloved and for the sake of your servant Isaac and Israel your holy one, to whom you promised to multiply their descendants like the stars of heaven and like the sand on the shore of the sea.

The Prayer of Azariah (ca. 180–160 BCE) is a liturgical prayer in Greek intriguingly inserted between Dan 3:23–24. It does not bear any direct connection to its present context in the book of Daniel other than its attribution to Azariah, one of the three young men whom the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar threw into the fiery furnace but survived. The prayer proceeds in three sections: 1) the praise of God and his attributes (v. 3–4), 2) the Deuteronomic view that disobedience of the covenant commandments results in corporate misfortunes (v. 5–10), and 3) the plea for deliverance (v. 11–22). It is the third section of the penitential prayer that mentions covenant (v. 11). The prayer assumes the covenantal relationship by identifying God as the “God of the ancestors” whose name is glorified forever. It then describes the character of God as just and whose works are true and whose ways are right. God’s judgments on the people of Israel who have sinned and broken the law 48 49

See LEVENSON, Resurrection, 170. DUGGAN, “Family Measure”, 297.

226

Francis M. Macatangay

proceed from this description of the divine character. The confession of the people’s sins acknowledges God’s judgments as true (5, 8). In short, Israel’s troubles manifest God’s justice and truth. Having admitted that Israel’s misfortune is just, the prayer now asks God for deliverance. This plea for deliverance is first expressed in three ways: “do not give us up forever”, “do not annul your covenant”, and “do not withdraw your mercy from us” (11). The appeal for deliverance is made for the sake of God’s name and for the sake of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, linking God’s honor and reputation with his promises to the ancestors. That Israel has “become fewer than any other nation” (14) endangers not only God’s promise to Abraham but also the glorious name of God. The deliverance from disgrace of those who claim God’s protection and the restoration of Israel to greatness bring glory to God’s name (20). The prayer recognizes that Israel’s humiliation flows from the character of God, namely God’s truth and justice. More significantly, Israel’s hopes for renewal will proceed from the character of God, namely his mercy. The prayer expects God to respond in such a way that God will neither repudiate his covenant nor withdraw his mercy. Here, covenant becomes an expression of the merciful character of God. The appeal to the covenant, which will consequently bring the desired deliverance, is in the end an appeal to God’s mercy (cf. Exod 34:6). For God to continue the covenant with Israel is for God to exercise mercy. To an extent, covenant becomes embedded in the very nature of God; divine mercy constitutes the covenant. Since God’s marvelous works manifest his mercy, it is this merciful character of God that makes his name and reputation glorious. The prayer later reiterates the request for deliverance in this way: “do not put us to shame but deal with us in your patience and in your abundant mercy; deliver us in accordance with your marvelous works and bring glory to your name O Lord” (19–20). The plea for God not to give up on Israel but continue instead his covenantal relationship with his people is ultimately a plea for mercy which will result in Israel’s renewal. Since Israel has no leader, prophet, or temple for sacrificial offerings, the only thing that Israel brings as sacrifice to win God’s favor is a “contrite soul” and a “humbled spirit” which God hopefully will look upon or counter with mercy. Here, God’s character of mercy which manifests as his covenant matches Israel’s character of a contrite soul and a humbled spirit.

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha

227

9. Baruch 2:34–35 Attributed to Jeremiah’s secretary, Baruch was likely composed by an unknown author in the second or first century BCE.50 In deuteronomic terms, Baruch presents exile and its costs as the divinely sanctioned consequence of Israel’s sins (2:10, 13, 19). Israel’s curse and calamities are the result of disobedience to the commandments, failure to listen to God’s voice through his prophets (2:20, 24),51 and infidelity to the covenantal relationship, which is presumed in the use of the title “God of Israel” (2:11; 3:1, 4), the address “the Lord, our God” (1:10, 15; 2:19; 3:6), and the reference to exodus (2:11). The exile and Israel’s misfortunes, however, seem to have left God’s covenant with Israel in much doubt. Even so, the people’s “return to their heart” (2:30), acknowledging the Lord as their God, their repentance and embrace of the “commandments of life” (3:9) and the “fountain of wisdom” (3:12), which previous generations had abandoned, will lead to God ending Israel’s sorrow. It is not the practice of the cult that matters most. Rather, God offers to give Israel “a heart that obeys and ears that hear” (2:31), so that with renewed obedience, Israel can praise God and remember God’s name in exile. In doing so, the people will turn away from their evil deeds (2:32–33; cf. 3:7). With hearts prepared, God will then reestablish his people to the land promised to the ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: 34

I will bring them again into the land that I swore to give to their ancestors, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and they will rule over it; and I will increase them, and they will not be diminished. 35 I will make an everlasting covenant with them to be their God and they shall be my people; and I will never again remove my people Israel from the land that I have given them.

This text belongs to the penitential prayer and plea for help in 1:14–3:8. While it is similar to Dan 9:4–19 in its confession of sin and guilt, Baruch’s focus on the survival of Israel makes it different from Daniel with its emphasis on Jerusalem and the temple.52 The restoration of Israel in the land is made 50

NICKELSBURG, Jewish Literature, 97. On the dating of the book, see ADAMS, Baruch,

4–6. 51 It is possible that the prophetic voice here is specifically that of Jeremiah, like Dan 9. The accusation may be that Jeremiah’s teaching that Israel must submit to the foreign rulers remained in effect even in the period of the Second Temple. In other words, the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid rulers would not be in accord with Jeremiah’s word. Baruch’s prayer then is a polemic against those who support the Hasmoneans, implying that their success does not necessarily mean that God has finally lifted the covenantal curses. This might explain why Baruch seems indifferent to the temple and seemingly content with coexistence with foreign overlords, favoring instead a kind of religious reform that recommends prayer and the study of Torah as the vehicle of divine wisdom. 52 On this point, see WERLINE, Penitential Prayer, 65–108.

228

Francis M. Macatangay

possible because God promises to make an “everlasting covenant” with his people. This is the only occurrence of covenant in Baruch (2:35). Likely alluding to Jer 32:38–40 with its promise of an everlasting covenant, Baruch defines the meaning or extent of this covenant. Expressed in the form of the future tense, God’s statements here spoken in first person express a sense of expectations; these are “expected developments”, not “realized events”.53 God’s promise to increase Israel has been fulfilled (cf. Gen 15:6; Exod 1:7) but the exile and the subsequent scattering of Israel made Israel few in number (2:13). Now God not only promises to increase Israel but also offers the firm assurance that his people will not be diminished. This promise is connected to Israel’s restoration in the land where Israel will experience only increase. Part of God’s promise in establishing an everlasting covenant is never to send his people into exile where they scatter or to drive his people out of the land he has given them to possess eternally. This covenant assures Israel that its relation to the land will not be dissolved as it was once during the exile. In Baruch, God’s “everlasting covenant” refers to the divine commitment to the rehabilitation of disgraced Israel with the cessation of the exilic condition.

10. Conclusion This survey of selected apocryphal texts shows some of the various conceptualizations of covenant during the Second Temple period. In its simplest terms, covenant forms a relationship that involves obligations and promises. Generally speaking, many of these apocryphal texts embrace the deuteronomic calculus of reward and punishment, blessings and curses: if Israel faithfully observes its obligations, blessings result. On the other hand, if Israel neglects the terms of the covenant laid out in the divine commandments and decrees, curses ensue. Israel’s experience of exile is often viewed as punishment for the violations of the covenant. These texts do not engage in mere remembrance of the biblical covenants. Rather, they reconceive the obligations and the divine promises in order to actualize them to meet the needs of the situations of their time. For Tobit, the primary covenantal demand and obligation in exile is the performance of charity; to engage in almsgiving is to be counted righteous. For Daniel 9 and 1–2 Maccabees, faithfulness to the covenant means holding fast to the tradition of the ancestors. Often, these Torah-oriented ancestral ways and practices are boundary markers that define Jewish identity. In other texts, covenant is specifically tied to institutions. In the case of Judith, the Jerusalem temple visibly manifests God’s covenantal presence and commitment to protect his people against their enemies; the temple assures 53

ADAMS, Baruch, 89.

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha

229

Israel that the covenant stands and God has not forsaken them. For Ben Sira, God’s covenant with Phinehas is specifically for the high priesthood, the office that actualizes blessings and forgiveness for Israel. And yet, Ben Sira’s grandson not only translated his work into Greek but also revised it to reflect the realities of the Hasmonean era. For him, the same covenant is for the dignity of priests who now hold both cultic and civic responsibilities over Israel. The penitential prayer of Azariah, a Greek addition to Daniel, tends to see covenant as arising from the merciful nature of God: God’s withdrawal of his mercy is the same as the nullification of the covenant. Covenant endures because of God’s mercy, and so, Israel can only approach God with a contrite and humbled spirit. In this prayer, God’s mercy undergirds the covenant with Israel. Finally, the interpretation of God’s covenantal promises sets these texts apart from the biblical texts that specify the divine blessings. For Baruch, God’s establishment of an everlasting covenant, likely inspired by Jeremiah, means that God is committed to renew his people by ending their exilic condition and never driving them out of the land again. The blessing is still related to the promise of land, but now, Baruch transposes this particular blessing into an assurance that Israel will never be sent into exile again. In the Book of Wisdom, God’s oaths and good promises provide the assurance that righteous Israel will be preserved from death, thus avoiding dissolution. Second Maccabees teases out further the implication of such a claim based on God as creator. Admittedly, the reality of death due to covenant faithfulness appears to forfeit all the divine promises, especially the blessings of offspring and the continuation of the Abrahamic line with numerous descendants. And so, 2 Maccabees proposes to understand that God’s covenant, which offers an overflowing of life, includes the resurrected life of the body. In summary, the selected texts use covenant to mean a variety of realities, offering a rich understanding of covenant. They actualize the obligations and promises of covenant differently to meet the demands of their times, thus making the case that God’s gracious offer of covenant, which is always meaningful and relevant, also requires an ongoing and creative response.

Bibliography ADAMS, SEAN A., Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on the Texts in Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series), Leiden: Brill, 2014. ANDERSON, GARY A., Sin: A History, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. –, Charity: The Place of the Poor in the Biblical Tradition, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. –, “Charity as ‘The’ Commandment in the Book of Tobit”, in The Figure of Jesus in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of John Meier (CBQ Imprints 1), edited by Vincent T.M. Skemp / Kelley Coblentz Bautch, Washington DC: CBA, 2020, 3–10.

230

Francis M. Macatangay

BOX, G.H. / W.O.E. OESTERLEY, “Sirach”, APOT 1: 268–517. CHESNUTT, RANDALL D., “Covenant and Cosmos in Wisdom of Solomon 10–19”, in The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.Sup 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter / Jacqueline C.R. de Roo, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 223–249. COLLINS, JOHN J., Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. –, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL), Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 1997. –, “The Judaism of the Book of Tobit”, in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology (JSJ.Sup 98), edited by Géza G. Xeravits / József Zsengellér, Leiden: Brill, 2005, 23–40. –, “The Penumbra of the Canon: What do the Deuterocanonicals Represent?”, in Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals (DCLS 22), edited by Geza G. Xeravits et al., Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014, 1–17. COWLEY, A.E., “Judith”, APOT 1: 242–267. CRAVEN, TONI, Artistry and Faith in the Book of Judith (SBLDS 70), Chico: Scholars, 1983. –, “Judith Prays for Help (Jdt 9:1–14)”, in Society of Biblical Literature 1995 Seminar Papers, edited by Eugene H. Lovering, Jr., Atlanta: Scholars, 1995, 208–212. CROSS, FRANK M., From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. DIMANT, DEVORAH, “The Book of Tobit and Qumran Halakhah”, in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran (FAT II/35), edited by Devorah Dimant / Reinhard G. Kratz, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, 121–143. DORAN, ROBERT, 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. –, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees (CBQMS 12), Washington DC: CBA, 1981. DUGGAN, MICHAEL W., “The Family Measure in 2 Maccabees: A Mother and Her Seven Sons (2 Macc 7:1–42)”, in Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2012/2013), edited by Angelo Passaro, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 283– 299. EYNDE, S. VAN DEN, “Crying to God: Prayer and Plot in the Book of Tobit”, Bib 85 (2004): 217–231. FITZMYER, JOSEPH A., Tobit (CEJL), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. GLICKSMAN, ANDREW, Wisdom of Solomon 10: A Jewish Hellenistic Reinterpretation of Early Israelite History through Sapiential Lenses (DCLS 9), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. JUHL CHRISTIANSEN, ELLEN, “Judith: Defender of Israel – Preserver of the Temple”, in A Pious Seductress: Studies in the Book of Judith (DCLS 14), edited by Géza G. Xeravits, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012, 70–84. KAISER, OTTO, “Covenant and Law in Ben Sira”, in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E.W. Nicholson, edited by A.D.H. Mayes / R.B. Salters, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, 235–260. LEVENSON, JON D., Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. MACATANGAY, FRANCIS M., When I Die, Bury Me Well: Death, Burial, Almsgiving, and Restoration in the Book of Tobit, Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2016. –, “The Wisdom Discourse of Tobit as Instruction in Torah”, BN 167 (2015): 99–111. –, The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit (DCLS 12), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. MACK, BURTON L., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (CSHJ), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1985.

Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha

231

MERMELSTEIN, ARI, Creation, Covenant, and the Beginnings of Judaism: Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.Sup 168), Leiden: Brill, 2014. MOORE, CAREY A., Tobit (AB 40A), New York: Doubleday, 1996. –, Judith (AB 40), New York: Doubleday, 1985. NEWSOM, CAROL A., Daniel: A Commentary (OTL), Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 2014. NICKELSBURG, GEORGE W.E., Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 2nd ed., Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. –, “Torah and the Deuteronomic Scheme in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Variations on a Theme and Some Noteworthy Examples of its Absence”, in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament: Festschrift für Christoph Burchard zum 75. Geburtstag (NTOA/StUNT 57), edited by Dieter Sänger / Matthias Konradt, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006, 223–235. NEWMAN, JUDITH H., Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (EJL 14), Atlanta: Scholars, 1999. OTZEN, BENEDIKT, Tobit and Judith, London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. POMYKALA, KENNETH E., “The Covenant with Phinehas in Ben Sira (Sirach 45:23–26; 50:22–24)”, in Israel in the Wilderness: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions (TBN 10), edited by Kenneth E. Pomykala, Leiden: Brill, 2008, 17–36. SCHMIDT, A. JORDAN, Wisdom, Cosmos, and Cultus in the Book of Sirach (DCLS 42), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. SCHMITZ, BARBARA, “The Function of the Speeches and Prayers in the Book of Judith”, in A Feminist Companion to Tobit and Judith, edited by Athalya Brenner-Idan with Helen Efthimiadis-Keith, London: Bloomsbury, 2015, 164–174. SKEHAN, PATRICK / ALEXANDER A. DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York: Doubleday, 1987. STUCKENBRUCK, LOREN T., “Apocrypha and Septuagint. Exploring the Christian Canon”, in Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum – The Septuagint and Christian Origins (WUNT 277), edited by Thomas S. Caulley et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 177– 204. WILLS, LAWRENCE M., Judith (Hermenia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2019. WRIGHT, BENJAMIN G., “Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood”, in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research (BZAW 255), edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997, 189–222. XERAVITS, GÉZA G., “The Supplication of Judith (Judith 9:2–14)”, in A Pious Seductress: Studies in the Book of Judith (DCLS 14), edited by Géza G. Xeravits, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012, 161–178. VANDERKAM, JAMES, “Covenant and Pentecost”, CTJ 37 (2002): 229–254. WERLINE, RODNEY A., Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. The Development of a Religious Institution (EJL 13), Atlanta: Scholars, 1998.

Is διαθήκη an Appropriate Translation for ‫?ברית‬ Is διαθήκη an Appropriate Translation for ‫?ברית‬ Covenant, Contract, and Testament in the Septuagint MARTIN RÖSEL Martin Rösel

The title of this paper may seem somewhat presumptuous. Who am I to criticize the translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek about 2,300 years ago? But already a first glance at the dictionaries and modern translations may justify the question: The two special lexica of the Septuagint, Muraoka and Lust/Eynikel/Hauspie, both offer “covenant” and “treaty”, Muraoka adds also “compact” and “mutual agreement”.1 The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) uses “covenant” throughout, similarly the French “La Bible d’Alexandrie”, which has “alliance”.2 But the dictionaries of Classical Greek offer for διαθήκη translations like “disposition of property by will” or “testament” (LSJ) or “disposition” or “testamentary deposition, testament” (Montanari, Brill); they list “covenant” only in special sections on biblical Greek. Therefore the German translation “Septuaginta Deutsch” in the Pentateuch has used “Verfügung” (“decree” or “disposal”) as a translation for ‫ברית‬.3 So why have the first translators of the Septuagint chosen an equivalent that in its usual Greek usage obviously does not bear the meaning of its Hebrew counterpart?4 The first important observation is that obviously all translators during the roughly 200 years it took to render the Hebrew Bible into Greek had the impression that διαθήκη was, in fact, an appropriate translation for ‫ברית‬. There is an astonishingly small amount of variation; only in very few cases was διαθήκη not used as an equivalent for ‫ ברית‬but for other Hebrew words, while, on the other hand, ‫ ברית‬was only occasionally translated by another Greek term. In other cases the translators were willing to use different equivalents for

1

MURAOKA, Lexicon, 150–151; LUST/EYNIKEL/HAUSPIE, Lexicon, 103. HARL, Genèse, 55–56. 3 KARRER/KRAUS, LXX.E, 170; excursus on the translation of διαθήκη (M. Rösel). However, in the following books from Joshua on the translation “Bund” (covenant) was used. 4 It is interesting to notice that the article “Covenant” by John Goldingay does not even mention the problem that is caused by the translation of ‫ ברית‬by διαθήκη. 2

234

Martin Rösel

stylistic or interpretative reasons, as is the case with θεός and κύριος, νόμος and ἀνομία, δικαιοσύνη or ἀδικία.5 One possible explanation might be that the semantic range of διαθήκη was so broad that it worked as a suitable translation nearly everywhere. Another possibility is that the pairing διαθήκη – ‫ ברית‬was so tightly connected in the Hellenistic-Jewish communities that its use was unavoidable. And thirdly, one can also consider the possibility that the translators did not have a suitable Greek alternative for διαθήκη. In what follows I will take a brief look at Greek terms that might have served as possible alternatives for the translators. In a second and third step I will give an overview of the meaning of διαθήκη and of previous explanations of the problem. In the final section I will turn to διαθήκη-translations in the Greek Pentateuch. One of my basic assumptions – based on my previous research on the Septuagint – is that a book like Genesis could not have been translated without substantial preparations.6 This is suggested by the fact that from the outset some key terms of the Jewish religion were translated consistently – for instance ‫ תורה‬by νόμος (Exod 12:49), ‫ האמין‬as πιστεύω (Gen 15:6), or ‫ ברית‬as διαθήκη (Gen 6:18; 9:13).7 These translations must have been in accordance with their usage in the religious community in Alexandria – that is, they presuppose the prior shift from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek in daily life and religious practice, and they presuppose a period of oral translation through which the characteristics of the language were coined.8 Therefore we can only guess what the reasons of the Jewish community were for choosing or rejecting a specific Greek word.

1. Possible Alternatives to διαθήκη as Translation for ‫ברית‬ There are several Greek terms that might have been considered as suitable translations for ‫ברית‬, although one should bear in mind that the idea of an alliance between God and Men was not common in antiquity.9 Therefore one cannot expect a directly compatible concept nor a closely fitting term. If we start in the field of political alliances, one possible candidate may have been κοινόν, “the common”. The term has been widely used in Hellenistic times for alliances or confederations as in the case of the Achaean League (Koinon ton 5 For the translation of the names of God, cf. RÖSEL, Tradition, 291–315, and for the problem of the translation of legal terms, cf. RÖSEL, Tradition, 343–363. 6 RÖSEL, Übersetzung, 254–260. Cf. also LEE¸ Greek of the Pentateuch, 202–208 who also suggests the existence of glossaries made by the translators. 7 LEE, Greek of the Pentateuch, 200–202. 8 See AEJMELAEUS, Septuagint and Oral Tradition, on this phenomenon. 9 WEINFELD, “‫”ברית‬, 807.

Is διαθήκη an Appropriate Translation for ‫?ברית‬

235

Achaion) or, earlier, the Ionian league, which even had its own central sanctuary called Panionion (Πανιώνιον) in Asia Minor, north of Priene. A koinon-alliance included functions such as defense, diplomacy, economics, and religious practices in its member states, usually with equal rights among the members.10 It is interesting to notice that κοινόν is only rarely used in the Greek Bible, mostly meaning “public” (2 Macc 12:4) or “common” (Prov 1:14), but never in the sense of “alliance”, although it might have been appropriate for alliances between men such as in Gen 14:13 or 21:27. Another hint can be found in the works of Homer, especially in the Iliad. Here quite often mention is made of ὅρκια πιστά “sure oaths” (3,70+95) between the parties, even “oaths of Zeus” (Διὸς ὅρκια, 3,105) and the “oaths of the Gods” are mentioned (3,245). The ceremony of pledging an oath is called ὅρκια πιστὰ τάμνειν “cutting sure oaths” (3,252; 2,124), a terminus technicus that is quite close to the Hebrew phrase of “cutting a berit” (‫)כרת‬11. Many more references could be mentioned, e.g., Herodotus 4,201, where ὅρκιον is used for a treaty between Persians and Barkaians, again with the verb τάμνειν (cf. LSJ s.v. τέμνω). While the translators of the Greek Bible used ὅρκος quite often (mostly to translate the root ‫)שבע‬, they have never used it to translate ‫ברית‬, although the idea of a divine oath is not too far away from the concept of covenant, for example in Sir 44:21, where διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὅρκῳ ἔστησεν αὐτῷ “therefore he established by means of an oath with him” (NETS) refers back to the covenant with Abraham.12 A third possibility might have been the widely used plural term σπονδαί, according to LSJ s.v. “a solemn treaty or truce (because solemn drink-offerings were made on concluding them).” This word has also been used by the translators of the Bible from Gen 35:14 on, but only in its basic meaning “libation”, never for a treaty or the like. The most common term for agreements, treaties, and contracts has been συνθήκη, which was used for a “covenant, treaty, between individuals and states” (LSJ s.v.). This would have been the obvious translation for ‫ברית‬, because it could also be used for written documents containing the agreements.13 And in fact, it was chosen in a large number of instances by the later revisions

10

BECK/FUNKE, Federalism, 1–29. Cf. also SCHWEMER, Verhältnis, 70, note 16. 12 Cf. also Gen 26:3: ‫והקמתי את־השבעה אשׁר נשׁבעתי לאברהם‬, the parallelism in Ps 105(104):9–10 or the phrase ὅρκους πατέρων καὶ διαθήκας ὑπομνήσας in Wis 18:22; SCHWEMER, Verhältnis, 70, note 17. S. also SCHNEIDER, “ὅρκος κτλ.”, 461, where one can even find the formulation “Gottes Eidbund” (God’s sworn covenant in the English translation in the TDNT). 13 Aeschylus Cho. 555; Aristophanes, Lys. 1267, see MONTANARI, Lexicon, 2046, for further references. 11

236

Martin Rösel

of the LXX carried out by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.14 In the Old Greek Bible itself the term has only rarely been used: In the Antiochene text of 4 Kgdms 17:15 one can find the only occurrence as a rendering of ‫ברית‬. There are five more occurrences of συνθήκη that do not translate the word ‫ברית‬: in Isa 28:15 it was used for ‫ חזה‬II “contract, agreement” (in parallelism with ‫)ברית‬, and in 30:1 ‫“ מסכה‬drink offering accompanying a treaty” (with βουλή in parallelism). In Dan 11:6 it is used for ‫“ משרים‬political agreement” (OG and Th), similarly in 11:17 for ‫( ישרים‬OG only). The remaining nine occurrences come from 1+2 Maccabees, Wisdom, and Psalms of Solomon,15 but only in Wis 12:21 it refers to God’s covenant with Israel’s fathers, with ὅρκος in parallelism.16 To sum up this first approach towards the problem: the translators or their Jewish-Hellenistic community apparently did not choose one of the common terms for alliances or treaties. One can speculate that they wanted to avoid the impression that there are any similarities between God’s relation with Israel and other alliances between men or between Greek Gods and humans.

2. The Greek Term διαθήκη Turning to the Greek usage of διαθήκη, the initial impression from looking at the dictionaries of Classical Greek is confirmed. The term is widely attested. In most cases it refers to a written testament or last will (cf. the speech by the orator Isaeus [around 5th/4th century BCE] or. 6,27: γράψας διαθήκην, ἐφ᾽ οἷς εἰσήγαγε τὸν παῖδα “having drawn up a testament (detailing the conditions) under which he introduced the child”). The institution of a διαθήκη was an innovation in Greek law, allegedly (thus Plutarch) introduced by Solon himself.17 It was developed from the custom of adoption to allow people who were not members of the family to become heirs.18 Thus there was a 14 Cf. e.g. Aquila and Symmachus in Gen 6:18 (Theodotion has διαθήκη, also in Gen 9:9); Deut 9:15 (Aquila); Ps 24(25):10 (Symmachus); Ps 24(25):14 (Theodotion). 15 1 Macc 10:26; 2 Macc 12:1; 13:25; 14:20. 26. 27; Wis 1:16; 12:21; Pss. Sol. 8:10. 16 ἔκρινας τοὺς υἱούς σου ὧν τοῖς πατράσιν ὅρκους καὶ συνθήκας ἔδωκας ἀγαθῶν ὑποσχέσεων (“you have judged your sons to whose fathers you gave oaths and covenants of good promises” [NETS]). 17 Plutarch, Sol. 21: ευδοκιμησε δε καν τω περι διαθηκων νομῳ; cf. KÜBLER, “Testament”, 968. 18 Cf. THÜR, “Diatheke”, 527; NORTON, Study, 11–38 gives a very convenient overview of the use of διαθήκη by classical Greek authors, followed by an introduction into the problem of the Greek will. Basic information about the term διαθήκη can also be found in LOHMEYER, Diatheke; BEHM, “διαθήκη”, 124–126; BISCARDI, “Osservazioni”; POHLMANN, “Diatheke”. Cf. also the literature on Greek testaments: KÜBLER, “Testament”; SCHIEMANN, “Testament”.

Is διαθήκη an Appropriate Translation for ‫?ברית‬

237

development from a mutual agreement concerning the adoption to a unilateral designation by the testator, who has the full power of disposition.19 The inheritance is called κληρονομία; also this term was adopted in the Septuagint from Gen 31:14 on to translate ‫נחלה‬, denoting either the inheritance of land, or, in a theological sense, the Lord as the inheritance in the midst of Israel (Num 18:20).20 A large number of papyri from Egypt shows that this element of Greek law was used also in Hellenistic Egypt,21 and even the compound phrase/figura etymologica διατίθεσθαι διαθήκην “testate a testament/issue a will” is well attested (sometimes only τίθεσθαι διαθήκην, P Ryl II, 116,9). The word διαθήκη itself can denote both, the act of inheritance and the document containing the testament.22 From the Cynic Menippus of Gadara in the 3rd century BCE on, διαθήκη was also used for a specific genre, namely the intellectual legacy of a sage, his last words and instructions.23 This meaning has later – perhaps from the 2nd century BCE on – been adopted in Judaism by the genre of fictitious patriarchal testaments, but it is difficult to determine since when this usage was common24 and whether it has influenced the LXX. Nevertheless, it is obvious that in this genre the term refers to a unilateral enactment. There are also a few instances where διαθήκη can denote a treaty or a contract between two parties. Usually scholars cite a passage from Aristophanes’ work (Aves, 440), where διαθήκη is used in parallelism with σπονδαί.25 It is not completely clear whether or not the term could also refer to dispositions or contracts of two parties, in such cases in which one party makes the arrangement and the other has to accept it. There is only weak evidence for this meaning, which comes mostly from the use of διάθεσις, e.g., in Plato’s

19 Cf. SWETNAM, “Diathēkē”, 440; LOHMEYER, Diatheke, 29: “Vermächtnistestament”. But cf. KÜBLER, “Testament”, 967, and KRELLER, Untersuchungen, 296: also bilateral dispositions were possible. 20 HERRMANN/FOERSTER, “κληρονομος”, 776–779 (767). 21 LOHMEYER, Diatheke 23–29. Still useful is also KRELLER, Untersuchungen, § 32 “Terminologie”, 296–303. 22 THÜR, “Diatheke”, 529. 23 LOHMEYER, Diatheke, 32–36; cf. BEHM, “διαθήκη”, 124. 24 KUGLER, “Testaments”, also SCHWEMER, “Verhältnis”, 74–75. Cf. also Tobit’s testament in Tob 14 that already shows all elements of the genre. 25 See LOHMEYER, Diatheke, 9–11 on the text and a sound interpretation. According to RIGGENBACH, Begriff, 10, this text mirrors an Ionic understanding of διαθήκη which differs from the usual Attic meaning “testament”. Therefore, he suggests that the Ionic meaning “covenant” was known to the translators of the Pentateuch. I do not see that this theory has received much attention.

238

Martin Rösel

Nomoi, I.62426 and the use of the hebraized word ‫ דיאתיקי‬diateqe in both meanings “ordinance/disposition” and “will” in later rabbinic texts.27 To conclude: διαθήκη in its Greek usage refers in most cases to a one-sided obligation/commitment or promise, not to an alliance of equal partners, with equal rights and duties. This meaning is also attested much later in the works of Philo28 and in the letter to the Hebrews (Hebr 9:16–17).29 It was therefore known during the whole period in which the Greek Bible was translated. Moreover, the translators have obviously chosen an equivalent that was not specifically used for the relation between God and men. Since this result is not new, I will now recall briefly scholarly explanations why this specific word has been chosen to translate ‫ברית‬.

3. Prior Research The meaning of διαθήκη seems to be different in the Old Greek Bible and in its surrounding Hellenistic culture. One way of dealing with this is to accept the difference but to diminish its semantic significance or to assume that a general shift in meaning has taken place. Note John William Wevers, for example, who has stated: “The word as used in the LXX must then be understood solely in terms of his Hebrew equivalent.”30 Following the study by Annie Jaubert, Marguerite Harl goes even further, when she wrote that “le mot grec διαθήκη est donc riche des idées de pacte qui engage pour l’avenir, de promesse pour le future.”31 Thus the term διαθήκη can easily be translated as “covenant” in English, “alliance” in French, and “Bund” in German translations of the Septuagint or in the dictionaries I have quoted earlier.32 One should note that these positions merely state the fact that διαθήκη was used to translate ‫ ברית‬without explaining why this word has been chosen, they merely try to define the semantic range of διαθήκη. The fundamental problem of 26 Plato, Leg. I, 624: θεος η τις ανθρωπων υμιν, ω ξενοι, ειληφε την αιτιαν της των νομων διαθησεως “Do you think, O guests, that a God or some man was the cause of the establishment of laws?” 27 BEHM, “διαθήκη”, 125–126, LOHMEYER, Diatheke, 29–32; in some cases, the will requires the heir’s consent. 28 Cf. SCHWEMER, “Verhältnis”, 101, or GRABBE, “Did all Jews?”, see also Gert Steyn’s paper in this volume. 29 Cf. the paper by Wolfgang Kraus in this volume, or KRAUS, “Bedeutung”, 73–77. 30 WEVERS, Notes on Genesis, 86. 31 HARL, Genèse, 55: “The Greek word διαθήκη is therefore rich in ideas about the covenant which are committed to the things to come, a promise for the future” (my translation). 32 Cf. already the paper by RIGGENBACH, Begriff, 10, who concluded that one can hardly deny that διαθήκη in the LXX has predominantly the meaning “covenant”.

Is διαθήκη an Appropriate Translation for ‫?ברית‬

239

“Greek words and Hebrew meanings” lying behind this discussion cannot be discussed here.33 On the other side of the spectrum we have the position of Hans Pohlmann. In his article on διαθήκη in the Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum he came to the conclusion that the translator’s use of διαθήκη shows the encounter of Jewish piety and Greek intellect, so that the idea of covenant was Hellenized and transformed to a statement of God’s unilateral actions.34 This transformation took place because the idea of a “Vertragsgott” (a contractual god) was alien to Greek thinking. There are also several intermediary positions. Already in 1913 Ernst Lohmeyer in his still valuable work has argued against the idea that διαθήκη could have directly taken over the meaning of ‫ברית‬.35 In his view, the translators knew and accepted the usual Greek meaning in the sense of “will” or “order”. But a shift in meaning happened because this concept was applied to the relation between God and Israel, and thus διαθήκη was now an acceptable translation for the prophetic interpretation of God’s will and plans for Israel’s future (95–97).36 As a possible reason why the translators have chosen the term, he considers the use of διαθήκη for the ceremonial, binding last words of dying elders or patriarchs (35–38). Lohmeyers view was in general accepted by Johannes Behm in his article in the ThWNT/TDNT (1935). According to his view διαθήκη “hovers between the senses of ‘covenant’ and ‘disposition’” (126). The translators have chosen it because the originally legal term ‫ברית‬ needed the additional religious connotations “of a free declaration of the divine will to man’s salvation” (127). In a similar direction points Ernst Kutsch’s explanation (1968)37: The general meaning of διαθήκη was changed, because the usual connotations of the death of the testator were lost. But especially in the Pentateuch, the translation was intended to convey unilateral and legally binding regulations

33 Cf. the study bearing this title by HILL (1967). For the problem, see TOV, “Three Dimensions”, 92–93, who distinguishes two different dimensions, the first as “unilateral agreement”, but “the second dimension of διαθήκη is fully identical to ‫ברית‬, whose usage it follows almost exclusively.” 34 POHLMANN, “Diatheke”, 983–984. 35 LOHMEYER, Diatheke, 80–88. 36 It should be added that this view has also problematic aspects, because Lohmeyer cites Adolf DEISSMANN (“Hellenisierung”, 175): “Die Bibel, die das Verhältnis zwischen Gott und Mensch als eine διαθήκη Gottes auffaßt, steht doch auf einer höheren Warte, auf der Warte eines Paulus und Augustinus, als die Bibel, die Gott Kontrakte schließen lässt” (“The Bible, which understands the relationship between God and man as a διαθήκη of God, is after all on a higher level – the level of Paul and Augustine – than the Bible, which had God make contracts”; my translation). Thus the Greek Bible in its Christian understanding is seen as superior to the Jewish Hebrew original. 37 KUTSCH, “‫”בְּ ִרית‬, 166–167.

240

Martin Rösel

and dispositions that, in Kutzsch’s understanding, were the most important part of the original semantic range of ‫ – ברית‬as Kutsch understood it.38 While Kutsch’s explanation stays within the boundaries of inner-biblical theology, Anna Maria Schwemer points in her article on διαθήκη to a different hermeneutical situation in Hellenistic times. She connects the problem of understanding διαθήκη with the Greek concept of νόμος, which presupposes the idea of a divine origin of the laws.39 Because the translators have seen God in analogy to Hellenistic kings as a benefactor (εὐεργέτης),40 his nomos and his diathekai are the favors and good deeds by which he supports his people (p. 71–72). Thus in Schwemer’s view, the meaning of regulation or disposition is too narrow, διαθήκη denotes the gift of a divine benefactor. The problem with this position is that in the LXX εὐεργέτης κτλ. is used only rarely (Ps 13[12]:6; 57[56]:3; 78[77]:11 in translated texts). In my view it is not very likely that this idea was prominent with the translators. But if the pairing διαθήκη – ‫ברית‬ was established before the actual translations were carried out, Schwemer’s assumption might point in the right direction. Finally, Adrian Schenker’s position needs to be mentioned.41 While Schwemer has emphasized the aspects of donation and grace, he takes the connotations of a last will or testament seriously. A διαθήκη to adopt a son was necessary to keep the possession of land in the family. This basic idea is applied to the first instances where διαθήκη was used to translate ‫ ברית‬in the chapters Gen 6, 9, 15 and 17, because, according to Schenker, “the translators of the LXX set up equivalences between Hebrew and Greek terms on the basis of the first contexts in which they encountered a given word.”42 Thus the translators have chosen διαθήκη not despite, but because of its legal and testamentary connotations, to supply “an excellent metaphor for the relationship to the land, both from God’s side and from the side of humans” (49). In Schenker’s view the legal connotations of διαθήκη/testament were combined with a contract of inheritance so that the term now refers to the bestowal of property to take effect while the testator is alive (p. 44). This leads to two different rights over the property, the right of the owner (God) and the firm rights of the users (Israel).

38

On Kutsch’s thesis concerning the semantics of ‫ ברית‬see KUTSCH, “Bund”, 398–400; cf. also the paper by Siegfried Kreuzer in this volume. See also VOGEL, Heil, 14–22, for a concise history of research of the Herbew term. 39 SCHWEMER, “Verhältnis”, 71. 40 SCHWEMER, “Verhältnis”, 72, follows HORBURY, “Ezekiel”, 42. 41 SCHENKER, “διαθήκη pour ‫”בְּ ִרית‬, and “Le contract successoral”. See also an expanded English version” in: SCHENKER, “Inheritance Contract”. 42 SCHENKER, “Inheritance Contract”, 38, with reference to TOV, “Impact”, although Tov does not support the view that the equivalences were set up on the basis of the first contexts in which they encountered the term in question. On the contrary, Tov states that “the foundations … were probably laid in the generations which preceded that translation” (184).

Is διαθήκη an Appropriate Translation for ‫?ברית‬

241

As mentioned earlier, the pairing διαθήκη – ‫ ברית‬had most likely already been established prior to the first translation of Gen 6–17. Therefore, I am not fully convinced by Schenker’s theory. Nevertheless, it can explain why διαθήκη seemed acceptable in the narrative contexts of the Genesis.

4. διαθήκη in the Greek Pentateuch In the last part of my paper I will focus on some specific aspects of the use of διαθήκη in the Greek Pentateuch to get an impression of the semantic range of the term in these early translations.43 The first thing to notice is that ‫ ברית‬was in nearly all instances translated by διαθήκη. Only in two instances was it not rendered into Greek.44 Διαθήκη on the other side was in very few cases used to render different Hebrew terms. It can stand several times for ‫“ עדות‬testimony” (Exod 27:21; 31:7; 39:35[14]).45 In all these cases ‫ עדות‬denotes the ark containing the διαθήκη, the tablets of the Ten Words. This fits the only instance where διαθήκη stands for ‫דבר‬, which God has sworn (‫ )שׁבע‬to the fathers (Deut 9:5).46 This is an interesting observation, because in texts like the Torah Psalms 19 and 119 the use of ‫ ברית‬was avoided and ‫ עדות‬was used instead, referring to “an unconditional covenant of grace indestructible from the human side.”47 Thus at least the translator(s) of Exodus saw διαθήκη and μαρτύριον “testimony” (which usually translates ‫ )עדות‬in the same semantic field. From the first use in Gen 6:18 on, another peculiarity can be seen. While in the Hebrew text God establishes (‫ )קום‬his covenant with Noah (‫)אתך‬, he gives it to him (πρός σε) in the Greek translation. Thus it is clear that God is subject and donator of this διαθήκη, Noah the recipient. This is no coincidence, because the same phenomenon can also be seen in 9:11 (for Noah and his sons) and in 17:19, 21 (for Isaac). The translators of Exodus and Deuteronomy did

43 For the sake of brevity, I have collected the evidence of these five different translations, knowing that in a more extensive paper they should be treated separately. But since the results converge, this procedure seems to be justifiable. 44 Deut 9:15, cf. WEVERS, Notes on Deuteronomy, 165. For Gen 14:13 see below. 45 The edition of Rahlfs has διαθήκη also in Lev 26:11 for ‫משׁכן‬, but this is clearly secondary, influenced by 26:9, cf. WEVERS, Notes on Leviticus, 442. 46 This is obviously a harmonization with Deut 8:18; cf. DOGNIEZ/HARL, Deutéronome, 175. In Deut 29:19(20) διαθήκη is used without equivalent in the Hebrew text. This addition is obviously influenced by the next verse, where it is about ‫ככל אלות הברית‬, πάσας τὰς ἀρὰς τῆς διαθήκης; cf. WEVERS, Notes on Deuteronomy, 472. DOGNIEZ/HARL, Deutéronome, 302, assume a textual variant because the formulation is attested in CD I,17. 47 KOCH, “Covenant”, 907.

242

Martin Rösel

the same in Exod 2:2448 and Deut 4:23 (here even for the preposition ‫)עם‬. In this way they accentuated the unilateral aspect of giving the διαθήκη. In the case of Deut 4:23 this understanding is supported by the immediate context, because in 4:13 the διαθήκη was commanded (‫ צוה‬/ ἐνετείλατο). In other instances the translator stayed closer to the Hebrew text and rendered ‫ את‬by a dative (Gen 9:9; 15:18; Num 25:13; Deut 4:13, here with dependent infinitive), but the result is similar, the διαθήκη is given to/for Noah or Abraham.49 In Exod 34:10 the translator even added σοι. In some cases the translators followed the Hebrew wording, so that the διαθήκη was installed “between me and between you” (καὶ θήσομαι τὴν διαθήκην μου ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον σοῦ for ‫ ;ואתנה בריתי ביני ובינך‬Gen 17:2), or God’s διαθήκη is with him and you (ἡ διαθήκη μου μετὰ σοῦ for ‫הנה‬ ‫ ;בריתי אתך‬17:4; cf. Lev 26:9). Thus, the aspect of a bilateral agreement could be added to the connotations of the term, but the idea of God’s authorship was kept. Moreover, like ‫ברית‬, διαθήκη was also used for contracts between human partners, cf. Gen 26:28 between Isaac and Abimelech. Here Isaac is the one who suggests the agreement: “we will make a diatheke with you”50 (καὶ διαθησόμεθα μετὰ σοῦ διαθήκην) for ‫ונכרתה ברית עמך‬. Similar is the formulation in Gen 31:44: “now then, come, let us make a diatheke, me and you” (νῦν οὖν δεῦρο διαθώμεθα διαθήκην ἐγὼ καὶ σύ) for ‫ועתה לכה נכרתה ברית אני ואתה‬. In Gen 21:27 it is clear that it is a bilateral treaty between Abraham and Abimelech: καὶ διέθεντο ἀμφότεροι διαθήκην (and both made a diatheke) for ‫ויכרתו שׁניהם ברית‬. In all these cases the equal status of the partners is obvious because two subjects are mentioned and the verb is in the plural, not in the singular, as it is when God installs his διαθήκας. In one special case, διαθήκη is not mentioned in a human context, because in Gen 14:13 the passage ‫והם‬ ‫“( בעלי ברית־אברם‬and they were allies of Abram”) was translated freely by οἳ ἦσαν συνωμόται τοῦ Αβραμ (“who were confederates of Abram”). Also, for the warnings to make agreements with other peoples and their gods (Exod 23:32; 34:12, 15; Deut 7:2) διαθήκη could be used. It is interesting to notice that in only one chapter, Exod 34, one can see the whole range of meanings διαθήκη can have in the Greek Bible: It refers to God’s glorious deeds of salvation (v. 10), to a warning against treaties with the inhabitants of Kanaan

48

Cf. the comment by WEVERS, Notes on Exodus, 24. In Exod 6:5 the text was altered from “my covenant” (‫ )את־בריתי‬to the objective genitive “the decree for you” (τῆς διαθήκης ὑμῶν); WEVERS, Notes on Exodus, 74. 49 In both cases this interpretation is supported by the verb, God causes his διαθήκη to rise (ἀνίστημι τὴν διαθήκην μου ὑμῖν 9:9) or he grants the will to Abram (διέθετο κύριος τῷ Αβραμ διαθήκην; 15:18). 50 The translations of LXX texts are taken from the NETS but modified insofar as its standard translation “covenant” is not used.

Is διαθήκη an Appropriate Translation for ‫?ברית‬

243

(v. 12), the overall relationship between God and Israel (v. 27), and finally to the document, the tablets of the διαθήκη (v. 28).

5. Conclusion The use of διαθήκη in the Greek Bible seems to be appropriate because it accentuates the one-sidedness of God’s deeds for his people. This impression is conveyed by the semantic connotations of a testament or a last will, which the term has from its Greek legal background. It is furthermore strengthened by the verbs used in the context, most of all διατίθεμαι for ‫כרת‬, which emphasizes the aspect of order and decree. This fits to the semantic range of ‫ ברית‬in post-exilic times, emphasizing that God’s covenant of grace is unconditional and indestructible by the human side (cf. Gen 9). Moreover, now the term was often used in parallelism with ‫“ חק‬ordinance” and verbs like ‫צוה‬ “command” (e.g. 1 Chr 16:15–17)51; covenantal theology was enhanced by concentration on the Torah52. Thus the term διαθήκη may have been chosen because its aspects of reliability and legal security, but it was enhanced by religious connotations that were unusual in Greek contexts. Moreover, its connotations were further enriched by the use in contexts of mutual agreements between men. Thus the use of διαθήκη by the Hellenistic-Jewish communities and the translators is part of the developing theology of Diaspora-Judaism with its strong focus on the nomos and God’s singularity.53 One final consideration: the question remains how to translate διαθήκη in the Greek Bible. As mentioned earlier, in our German translation “Septuaginta. Deutsch” we have used “Verfügung” (“decree / disposal”) in most cases in the Pentateuch,54 which sometimes led to strange sounding results like “Buch der Verfügung, Truhe der Verfügung, Blut der Verfügung” (“book of decree, chest of decree, blood of decree”). When treaties between men were meant, we have used “Vertrag” (“contract”). Other translators from the book of Joshua on stayed with “Bund” (“covenant”) as their translation. In light of this renewed approach to the problem I would now prefer to make use of one of the advantages of the “awful German language” (Mark Twain):55 the compound 51 Cf. SIEGERT, Einführung, 263; BARR, Semantic Notes, 35; WEINFELD, “‫”ברית‬, 806. For the special case in Ben Sira cf. the excursus by H.J. FABRY in LXX.E, II, 2182–2183, and the paper of Bonifatia Gesche in this volume. 52 In 3 Kgdms 11:11 it was even possible to translate the parallelism of ‫ ברית‬and ‫ חקה‬by ἐντολή and πρόσταγμα. See also JAUBERT, La notion, 43–54, who emphasizes the close connection between covenant and law in Hellenistic-Jewish theology. 53 For the specific use of νόμος in the Greek Bible, cf. RÖSEL, Tradition, 343–363. 54 Cf. the similar suggestion by KUTSCH, “‫”ברית‬, 166. 55 Published in 1880 as part of the collection A Tramp Abroad, American Publishing Company, Hartford, Connecticut.

244

Martin Rösel

nouns. A word like “Bundesverfügung” or “Bundessatzung” is still a bit unpleasant, but it is more precise to communicate the ambiguous aspects of διαθήκη for ‫ ברית‬in the Septuagint for which the translation “Bund” or “covenant” alone does not suffice.56

Bibliography AEJMELAEUS, ANNELI, “The Septuagint and Oral Tradition”, in XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Helsinki, 2010 (SCS 59), edited by Melvin K. H. Peters, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013, 5–13. BARR, JAMES, “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant”, in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Herbert Donner u. a., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977, 23–38. BECK, HANS / PETER FUNKE (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. BEHM, JOHANNES, “διαθήκη”, TDNT 2 (1964): 106–134. BICKERMAN, ELIAS, “Couper une alliance”, in Studies in Jewish and Christian history (AGJU 9), edited by Elias Bickerman, Leiden: Brill, 1976, 1–32. BISCARDI, ARNALDO, “Osservazioni critiche sulla terminologia Διαθήκη-ΔΙΑΤΙΘΕΣΘΑΙ”, in Symposion 1979: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Ägina, 3.–7. September 1979), edited by Panayotis Dimakis. Köln, Böhlau 1983, 23–35. DEISSMANN, ADOLF, “Die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus”, NJKA: Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur (1903): 162– 177. DOGNIEZ, CÉCILE / MARGUERITE HARL, Le Deutéronome (La Bible d’Alexandrie 5), Paris: Cerf, 1992. GOLDINGGAY, JOHN, “Covenant, OT and NT”, in NIDB 1 (2006): 767–778. GRABBE, LESTER L., “Did all Jews think alike? ‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus in the Context of Second Temple Judaism”, in The concept of the covenant in the Second Temple period (JSJ Sup 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 251–266. HARL, MARGUERITE, La Genèse (La Bible d’Alexandrie 1), Paris: Cerf, 1986. HERRMANN, JOHANNES / WERNER FOERSTER, “κληρονομος κτλ.”, TWNT 3 (1938): 766– 786. HILL, DAVID, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the semantics of Soteriological Terms (MSSNTS 5), London: Cambridge University Press, 1967. HORBURY, WILLIAM, “Ezekiel Tragicus 106: δωρήματα”, VT 36 (1986): 37–51. JAUBERT, ANNIE, La notion d’alliance dans le Judaïsme aux abords de l’ère chrétienne, Niort: Impr. Soulisse & Cassegrain, 1963. KOCH, CHRISTOPH, “Covenant”, EBR 5 (2012): 897–908. KRAUS, WOLFGANG, “Die Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief”, in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature (WUNT II/367), edited by Eberhard Bons et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014, 67–83.

56 The term “Bundesverfügung” was also used by Florian Wilk in his paper read at the conference in Houston.

Is διαθήκη an Appropriate Translation for ‫?ברית‬

245

KRELLER, HANS, Erbrechtliche Untersuchungen auf Grund der graeco-aegyptischen Papyrusurkunden, Leipzig: Teubner, 1919. KÜBLER, B., “Testament”, RE 2/22 (1934): 966–1010. KUGLER, ROBERT A., “Testaments”, EDSS 2 (2000): 933–936. KUTSCH, ERNST, “Von ‫ בְּ ִרית‬zu Bund”, KuD 14 (1968): 159–182. –, “Bund”, TRE 7 (1981): 397–405. LOHMEYER, ERNST. Diatheke: Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung des neutestamentlichen Begriffs (UNT 2), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913. LUST, JOHAN et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Part I, A–I, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992. MONTANARI, FRANCO et al. (eds.), The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015. MURAOKA, TAKAMITSU, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Louvain u. a.: Peeters, 2009. NORTON, FREDERICK O., A Lexicographical and Historical Study of διαθήκη: From the Earliest Times to the End of the Classical Period, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1908. POHLMANN, HANS, “Diatheke (Διαθήκη)”, RAC 3 (1957): 982–990. RIGGENBACH, EDUARD, Der Begriff der Διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief, Leipzig: Deichert, 1908. RÖSEL, MARTIN, Tradition and Innovation: English and German Studies on the Septuagint (SCS 70), Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018. –, Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta (BZAW 223), Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. –, “Vorlage oder Interpretation? Zur Übersetzung von Gottesaussagen in der Septuaginta des Deuteronomiums”, in Ein Freund des Wortes: Festschrift Udo Rüterswörden, edited by Sebastian Grätz et al., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019, 250–262. SCHENKER, ADRIAN, “διαθήκη pour ‫בְּ ִרית‬: L’option de traduction de la LXX à la double lumière du droit successoral de l’Égypte ptolémaïque et du livre de la Genèse”, in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: FS P.-M. Bogaert (BETL 144), edited by Jean-Marie Auwers / André Wénin, Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1999, 125–131. –, “Le contrat successoral en droit gréco-égyptien et la diathéke dans la Septante”, ZABR 6 (2000): 175–85. –, “The Inheritance Contract in Greco-Egyptian Law and διαθήκη in the Septuagint”, Journal of Biblical Text Research 7 (2000): 36–49. SCHIEMANN, GOTTFRIED, “Testament, III. Griechenland”, Neuer Pauly 12,1 (2002): 182. SCHNEIDER, JOHANNES, “ὅρκος κτλ.”, TWNT 5 (1954): 458–467. SCHWEMER, ANNA M., “Zum Verhältnis von Diatheke und Nomos in den Schriften der jüdischen Diaspora Ägyptens in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit”, in Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in altestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), edited by Friedrich Avemarie / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 67–109. SIEGERT, FOLKER, Zwischen hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament: Eine Einführung in die Septuaginta (MJS 9), Münster: LIT, 2001. SWETNAM, JAMES, “Diathēkē in the Septuagint Account of Sinai: A Suggestion”, Bib 47 (1966): 438–444. THÜR, GERHARD, “Diatheke”, Neuer Pauly 3 (1997): 527–530.

246

Martin Rösel

TOV, EMANUEL, “The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the other Books”, in IDEM, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VT.S 72), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1999, 183–194. – “Three Dimensions of Words in the Septuagint”, in IDEM, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VT.S 72), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1999, 85–94. VOGEL, MANUEL, Das Heil des Bundes: Bundestheologie im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (TANZ 18), Tübingen: Francke, 1996. WEINFELD, MOSHE, “‫”ברית‬, ThWAT 1 (1973): 781–808. –, “The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World”, in Trattati nel mondo antico: forma, ideologia, funzione, edited by Luciano Canfora et al., Saggi di storia antica 2, Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1990, 175–191. WEVERS, JOHN W., Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SCS 35), Atlanta: Scholars, 1993. –, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SCS 30), Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. –, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (SCS 44), Atlanta: Scholars, 1997. –, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (SCS 39), Atlanta: Scholars, 1995.

Second Temple Judaism

‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran* ‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran

BRENT A. STRAWN Brent A. Strawn

The word ‫“( ברית‬covenant”) occurs frequently in the “sectarian” texts from Qumran. The present essay reviews these occurrences; instances of ‫ ברית‬in “non-sectarian” texts are treated elsewhere in this volume.1 After discussing the philological data, including the distribution, morphology, and syntax of ‫ §( ברית‬1), I assess what ‫ ברית‬means in these texts, covering how the term is employed in both “profane” and “theological” ways (§ 2).

1. ‫ ברית‬in the Sectarian Texts: The Data 1.1 Occurrences and Distribution ‫ ברית‬occurs 257 times in the Dead Sea Scrolls.2 The high frequency, not to mention the general import of the term in the Hebrew Bible generally,3 has led at least one scholar to wonder if “covenant is … the foundation of Qumran thought.”4 If not foundational, ‫ ברית‬is certainly “one of the dominant theological ideas” at Qumran.5 Indeed, the vast majority of instances belong to the texts Shemaryahu Talmon has called “Foundation Documents” – namely, 1QS, 1QSa, CD, 1QpHab, 1QM, 1QHa, and 11QT.6 A narrowly Qumranic prove*

An earlier version of this essay appeared in German as STRAWN, “‫ בְּ ִרית‬berît”; it is revised here passim. My thanks go to the editors for their patience and assistance, as well as their kind invitation to contribute to these proceedings. 1 See the essay by FABRY, “‫ ברית‬in den ‘non-sectarian’ Schriften in Qumran” in this volume. 2 See DSSC 1:158–160; one text, 1Q54 2, which reads ‫[רית‬, ֗ is debated. DSSC 1:159 suggests reconstructing ‫גבו[ ֗רות‬. 3 See EICHRODT, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:36–69; HILLERS, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea; MCCARTHY, Treaty and Covenant; IDEM, Old Testament Covenant; MCKENZIE, Covenant; NICHOLSON, God and His People; MILLER, Covenant and Grace in the Old Testament. 4 DEASLEY, The Shape of Qumran Theology, 138. 5 MCCONVILLE, “‫”בְּ ִרית‬, 753; cf. ABEGG, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians”, 84– 85. 6 TALMON, “The Community of the Renewed Covenant”, 11; cf. EVANS, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”, 55.

250

Brent A. Strawn

nience for CD and 11QT, in particular, may be doubted of course,7 but it is nevertheless clear that ‫ ברית‬abounds in all seven of these famous, extensive, and well-preserved texts (and their congeners): – 32x in 1QS, 11x in its material adjuncts (4x in 1QSa and 7x in 1QSb), and 8x in 4QS (4Q256, 4Q258, 4Q259, 4Q261);8 – 42x in CD, 16x in 4QD (4Q266, 4Q267, 4Q269, 4Q270, 4Q271), and 2x in 6Q15; – 2x in 1QpHab; – 13x in 1QM and 3x in 4QM (4Q491, 4Q495);9 – 26x in 1QHa; and – 4x in 11QTa and 1x in 11QTb. The above list accounts for 160 occurrences (62%) of the total number of instances of ‫ברית‬. Already in 1969, Delbert Hillers noted that Qumranic use of the covenant concept was particularly dense, occurring five times more frequently than in the New Testament where διαθήκη appears 33x.10 Today, with the Scrolls fully published, the proportion is now seen to be actually much higher: 7.79 times more frequent than the New Testament (though of course the various sizes of the respective corpora should be taken into consideration). What is perhaps more surprising, however, is how the frequency of ‫ ברית‬in the Scrolls nearly rivals that of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament where ‫ברית‬ occurs 286x (note also 57 instances of διαθήκη in the Old Testament Apocrypha). While the “sectarian” status of various documents will continue to be debated with that term variously understood and defined,11 if one adopts Devorah Dimant’s criterion regarding “terminology connected to the Qumran Community”,12 the vast majority of instances of ‫ ברית‬occur in sectarian texts. In addition to a “minimal” listing of 95 instances from the Rule of the Community (1QS, 4QS), Rule of the Congregation (1QSa), Blessings (1QSb), Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHab), War Scroll (1QM, 4QM), and Thanksgiving Hymns (1QHa) – excepting, for the moment, the Damascus Document (CD, 4QD, 6Q15) and Temple Scroll (11QTa and 11QTb) – the following texts 7

See COLLINS, Beyond the Qumran Community. Cf. also 5Q13 28,30 (counted below). 9 Cf. also 4Q471 2,2 and 4Q497 1,5 (counted below). 10 HILLERS, Covenant, 171; also QUELL/BEHM, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”. 11 NEWSOM, “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran”, 167–187, remains classic. Cf. also LANGE, “Kriterien essenischer Texte”, 59–85; NAM, “How to Rewrite Torah”, 153– 165; STRAWN with MORISADA RIETZ, “(More) Sectarian Terminology”, 53–64; also STRAWN, “David as One of the ‘Perfect of (the) Way’”, 607–626. 12 DIMANT, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance”, 27. See further the essays collected in EADEM, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, esp. 57–100, 101–111, 113–133, 135–151, 171–183. 8

‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran

251

mentioning ‫ ברית‬are “sectarian” à la Dimant (one instance each, unless otherwise noted): 1Q30, 1Q34bis (2x), 1Q36; 4Q167, 4Q171 (2x), 4Q174, 4Q175, 4Q176, 4Q183, 4Q249a (2x), 4Q252 (2x), 4Q280, 4Q299, 4Q306, 4Q392, 4Q393, 4Q415 (2x), 4Q418, 4Q419, 4Q423, 4Q434, 4Q436, 4Q439, 4Q471, 4Q471a, 4Q497, 4Q501 (2x), 4Q503, 4Q504 (9x), 4Q508, 4Q509 (3x), 4Q511 (2x), 4Q512; 5Q13; 6Q16; 11Q13.

These documents add 53 more occurrences, bringing a minimal listing to 148 of the total 257 (57.5%) and a maximal listing (with Damascus Document and Temple Scroll) to 213 (83%). Even if some of these compositions (in whichever listing) were not originally sectarian, it is apparent that they were nevertheless important to the Community and ‫ ברית‬occurs predominantly in them. Indeed, the above accounting leaves only 44 instances in 32 “non-sectarian” texts (according to Dimant):13 1Q22 (4x), 1Q54, 4Q179, 4Q185, 4Q216, 4Q282a, 4Q284, 4Q284a, 4Q324 (2x), 4Q370, 4Q381 (2x), 4Q382, 4Q383, 4Q384, 4Q385, 4Q385a (3x), 4Q387 (2x), 4Q388, 4Q388a (2x), 4Q390 (2x), 4Q414, 4Q463, 4Q470 (2x), 4Q521, 4Q577, 11Q5, PAM 43.675 27,2; PAM 43.686 30,1; PAM 43.688 65,1; PAM 43.692 55,2; PAM 43.698 27,1; PAM 43.700 32,1.

Of course some texts are too broken to classify with certainty (e.g., 1Q54, 4Q282a, the PAM readings). Regardless, the 44 non-sectarian instances total just 17% of the total number of occurrences of ‫ ברית‬at Qumran. If one reorganizes these texts according to genre (again following Dimant), one sees that ‫ ברית‬occurs in a wide range of genres. For the sectarian texts these genres include: – Rules: 1QS, 1QSa, 1QSb, 1QM; 4QS, 4QD, 4QM, 4Q471, 4Q471a, 4Q497; 5Q13; 6Q15; – Halakhic works: 4Q512 – Poetic/Hymnic works: 1QHa, 1Q36; 4Q434, 4Q436, 4Q439; – Liturgical works: 1Q30, 1Q34bis; 4Q280, 4Q392, 4Q393, 4Q501, 4Q503, 4Q504, 4Q508, 4Q509, 4Q511; – Exegetical works: 1QpHab; 4Q167, 4Q171, 4Q174, 4Q175, 4Q176, 4Q252; 11Q13; – Sapiential works: 4Q299, 4Q415, 4Q418, 4Q419, 4Q423; – Varia: 4Q183, 4Q306; and – Cryptic texts: 4Q249a. For the “non-sectarian” texts (according to Dimant) the following genres are attested: – Narratives: 4Q370, 4Q382, 4Q383, 4Q384, 4Q385, 4Q463, 4Q470, 4Q577; – Poetic/Liturgical works: 4Q179, 4Q381, 4Q521; 11Q5; – Pseudepigrapha: 1Q22; 4Q216, 4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q388, 4Q388a, 4Q390; 13

Cf. the statistics in FABRY, “‫ ברית‬in den ‘non-sectarian’ Schriften”.

252

Brent A. Strawn

– Sapiential works: 4Q185; – Halakhic texts: 4Q414; and – Calendrical and chronological texts: 4Q324. It is perhaps noteworthy that no non-sectarian exegetical works employ ‫ברית‬. But, again, there are a number of very broken contexts as well as fragments that remain unclassified or unidentified (1Q54; 4Q282a; 4Q284a). It should be reiterated that the sectarian vs. non-sectarian status of many of these documents may be challenged. For example, in the accompanying essay on ‫ ברית‬in the non-sectarian texts in the present volume, Heinz-Josef Fabry argues that 4Q284a; 4Q414; and 11Q5 (= 11QPsa) are best classified as sectarian.14 I am not opposed to Fabry’s (re-)categorization; indeed, I have argued for a sectarian provenance for 11QPsa as a whole elsewhere.15 Fabry also believes that 11Q19 (11QTa) and 11Q20 (11QTb) are best understood as non-sectarian and that, for its part, 4Q393 is likely pre-Qumranic.16 In the interest of aligning the two essays on ‫ ברית‬at Qumran for the present volume, I have not included 11QTa–b or 4Q393 in what follows, even as I have made sure to include 4Q284a, 4Q414, and 11QPsa. While the total number of instances of ‫ ברית‬in these latter works is modest (3x, once in each manuscript), the categorization suggested by Fabry does affect Dimant’s organization by genre.17 It means, contra Dimant, that there is no longer any non-sectarian halakhic work that uses ‫ברית‬, since 4Q414 is now considered sectarian; there is also now one less non-sectarian poetic/liturgical work, 11Q5, which is here considered sectarian. Further, Fabry’s realignment means there is one less sectarian liturgical work to consider here, 4Q393, which is now considered non-sectarian. There can be little doubt that scholarly debate over the nature of these and other texts from the Judean desert will continue and thus final determinations cannot be made here. So, while what follows is inevitably somewhat provisional, two facts remain secure: (1) ‫ ברית‬occurs with high frequency among the Dead Sea Scrolls; and (2) most of the instances of ‫ ברית‬occur in sectarian contexts, even when those are conservatively estimated.18

14

See FABRY, “‫ ברית‬in den ‘non-sectarian’ Schriften”. See STRAWN, “David as One of the ‘Perfect of (the) Way’”, 607–626. See further STRAWN, “10.1 Textual History of Psalms”, “10.2.2 (Proto-)Masoretic Texts and Ancient Texts Close to MT [Psalms]”, and “10.2.3 Other Texts [Psalms]”, 5–23, 42–61, and 61–81, respectively. Of course a number of the compositions contained in 11Q5 are not to be considered “sectarian”, but some are, with the collection as a whole likely shaped by sectarian use (see the literature in note 11 above). 16 See FABRY, “‫ ברית‬in den ‘non-sectarian’ Schriften”. 17 It also affects the statistics offered earlier, but only slightly: the net loss (at maximum) is three total instances of ‫ ברית‬in non-sectarian texts. 18 Note that in what follows, I include the passages from CD/4QD for sake of comprehensiveness. 15

‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran

253

1.2 Morphology Unfortunately, none of the instances of ‫ ברית‬in the Scrolls help to resolve the long-debated question of the word’s etymology.19 To the several different forms – absolute (‫ )ברית‬or suffixed (‫בריתי‬, ‫[ בריתך‬2ms and 2fs], ‫בריתכם‬, and ‫ – )בריתו‬attested in biblical Hebrew, the Scrolls add two more: with 1cp suffix (‫בריתנו‬, “our covenant”; 4Q471 2,2) and with 3mp suffix (‫בריתם‬, “their covenant”; 1QS V,9; VI,19; 1QSa I,2; 4Q282a 2). The following presentation collects all augmented forms of ‫ ברית‬in the Scrolls.20 First, however, it should be noted that, in contrast to later Hebrew (‫)בריתות‬21 and Greek (διαθῆκαι, see 2 Macc 8:15; Wisd 18:22; Sir 44:12, 18; 45:17; Rom 9:4; Gal 4:24; Eph 2:12; cf. Ezek 16:29 LXX), no plural form is attested for ‫ ברית‬at Qumran. The lack of a plural form is likely a sign of biblical influence on sectarian usage, since no plural form is attested in the Hebrew Bible, either. The absence of a plural form may reflect, therefore, pressure from the biblical tradition and may also be theologically significant: implying the singularity of God’s (one) covenant. 1. With conjunction (‫)וברית‬: 1QSb II,25; III,26; V,21; 1QM XII,3; XIII,7; XVIII,7; 4Q174 6–7,4; 4Q175 17; 4Q390 1,8; 4Q392 1,3; 4Q415 2ii7; 4Q436 1a+bi4; 4Q491 11ii18; 4Q508 4,2; 4Q512 1–6,12; PAM 43.686 30,1. 2. With the definite article (‫)הברית‬: CD III,10; VI,19; IX,3; X,6; XV,2, 3 ,6, 8, 9; XIX,1; XX,25, 29; 1QS II,13, 16, 18; V,2, 9; 1QSa I,5, 7; 1QpHab II,6; 1Q22 1i8; 4Q171 1–2ii13, 1+3–4iii12; 4Q267 3,4; 4Q269 2,5; 4Q270 6iii17, 6iv17; 4Q271 4ii2; 4Q383 A,2; 4Q385 2,1; 4Q387 3,8; 4Q388a 7ii2; 4Q504 1–2iv6; 11Q13 II,24. 3. With prefixed prepositions: a) With ‫)בברית( ב‬: CD VI,11; VIII,21; XII,11; XV,5; XIX,16, 33; XX,12; 1QS I,8, 16, 18, 20, 24; II,10, 12; V,3, 8, 10, 11, 18, 20; VI,15; X,10; 1QSb I,2; 1QpHab II,4; 1QHa VII,15, 18; X,22, 28; XII,39; XV,10; XVIII,30; XXI,9, 13; XXII,11; XXIII,9; 4Q183 1ii3; 4Q256 II,1, III,3; 4Q258 IX,9; 4Q266 3iii24; 4Q267 4,8; 4Q284a 1,6; 4Q381 69,5; 4Q382 104,1; 4Q392 1,3; 4Q415 2ii7; 4Q439 1i+2,2; 4Q470 1,3; 4Q471a 2; PAM 43.675 27,2. b) With ‫)כברית( כ‬: CD IV,9. c) With ‫)לברית( ל‬: 1QS III,11; IV,22; V,22; VIII,9; 1QSb I,2; 1QM XIII,8; XIV,4; XVII,3; 1QHa XII,5, 24; XV,20; 4Q259 II,17; 4Q267 8,1; 4Q384 9,4; 4Q577 6,3; PAM 43.688 65,1.

19 See HALOT 1:157; TDOT 2:253–255; TLOT 1:257; NOTH, “Old Testament Covenantmaking in the light of a Text from Mari”. 20 Forms containing prefixes and suffixes (e.g., ‫ בבריתו‬in 1QS V,11) are listed twice; reconstructed affixes are not considered and therefore counted as if unaugmented (such “absolutes” [‫ ]ברית‬occur approximately 86x.) 21 See JASTROW, Dictionary of the Targumim, 194.

254

Brent A. Strawn

d) With ‫)מברית( מן‬: 1QM XIV,10; 1QHa XII,19, 35; XV,8; 4Q491 8–10i7.22 4. With pronominal suffixes: a) First person: i. Singular (‫)בריתי‬: 1QHa XIII,23; 4Q216 II,8; 4Q385a 3a–c,6; 4Q388a 3,5; 4Q463 1,3. ii. Plural (‫)בריתנו‬: 4Q471 2,2. b) Second person (masculine singular only): i. ‫בריתך‬: 1QHa VI,22; VII,15, 18; VIII,16, 24; X,28; XII,34; 1Q34bis 3ii5, 3ii6; 4Q175 17; 4Q415 2ii7; 4Q491 8–10i7. ii. ‫בריתכה‬: 1QM XIII,8; XIV,10; XVIII,7, 8; 1QHa X,22 (‫;)בבריתךה‬23 XII,5, 19, 24, 35, 39; XV,8, 10, 20; XVIII,30; XXIII,9; 4Q284 4,2; 4Q382 104,1; 4Q414 2ii–4,3; 4Q436 1a+bi4; 4Q501 2; 4Q503 7– 9,3; 4Q504 1–2ii9, 1–2iii9, 1–2iii18, 1–2iv6, 1–2v8, 1–2v9, 1–2vi8; 4Q509 18,2; 97–98i8, 188,2. c) Third person (masculine only): i. Masculine singular: ‫בריתו‬: CD I,17; III,13; VIII,1; XIX,14; 1QS V,11, 18, 19, 22 (2x); 1QSa I,3; 1QSb III,23; V,23; 1QM XIV,4; XVII,8; 4Q176 16,5; 4Q179 1i4; 4Q183 1ii3; 4Q258 II,1; 4Q261 1a–b,1; 4Q266 2i20; 4Q266 3iii24; 4Q392 1,3; 4Q471a 2; 4Q504 Verso 2vii9; 4Q508 4,2; 11Q5 XXVIII,1224; PAM 43.675 27,2. ii. Masculine plural: ‫בריתם‬: 1QS V,9; VI,19; 1QSa I,2; 4Q282a 2. This list is instructive in highlighting the frequent use of certain forms over others, including the preference for plene ‫כה‬- over defectiva ‫ך‬- in 2ms suffixed forms. The list also showcases certain low-frequency examples that are potentially significant. For example, the suffixed form used in 4Q471: ‫ל[שמר עדוות‬ ] ֯‫בריתנ֯ ו‬, “[to] keep the testimonies of our covenant”, is intriguing if only because there is no other instance of ‫ בריתנו‬attested. Perhaps this reference to “our covenant” is self-referential, pointing to the Qumranites’ own oath-taking. Unfortunately, the text is broken and, as a result, the suffix is in considerable doubt,25 with other editions reading ‫“( בריתכה‬your covenant”)26 – a form otherwise amply attested.

22 Note that ‫ מן‬is always directly affixed to forms of ‫ ברית‬at Qumran. There are no examples of ‫)ה(ברית‬+ ‫מן‬. 23 Note the final kaph in non-final position (see DJD 40:139 for discussion). 24 This is from Psalm 151A, which is also attested in the LXX and Syriac, but the poetic line in question, “and he set me as leader for his people \ and ruler / over the children of his covenant [‫ומושל\ בבני בריתו‬/ ‫ ”]וישימני נגיד לעמו‬is unique to 11Q5 XXVIII,11–12. See SANDERS in DJD 4:54–60, who deems 11Q5 the “original” version of the psalm. 25 See DJD 36:544. 26 See, e.g., DSSSE 2:950.

‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran

255

1.3 Syntax The above listing concerned morphology only; further light is shed on ‫ברית‬ when syntactical matters are taken into consideration. 1.3.1 ‫ ברית‬with Prepositions In addition to the uses of ‫ ברית‬with the inseparable prefixed prepositions (‫ב־‬, ‫כ־‬, ‫ל־‬, ‫ )מ]ן[־‬catalogued above, two independent prepositions are found with ‫ברית‬: ‫( למען‬2x) and ‫( על‬5x).27 In the case of the former, 1QM 18,8 describes God’s gracious action “on account of your covenant”, and 4Q504 1–2ii9 describes God’s pity (‫ )חוס‬on the ancestors because of “your love for them and on account of your covenant.” In these two passages, God’s covenant is a source of benevolent activity with the preposition helping to communicate that beneficence.28 The meaning of ‫ על‬with ‫ ברית‬is more mixed. The adversative sense of ‫ על‬is found in 1QHa XII,34, where the wicked rise up “against your (God’s) covenant” (‫)על בריתך‬. The same holds true for 4Q280 2,6, which relates how those who “plot against” (‫ )לזום על‬God’s covenant are cursed. Two other instances seem to employ ‫ על‬with respect to manner29 by designating things said “concerning” the covenant (4Q271 4ii2) or by describing how war will be waged in the future “over” (or “about”) the Torah and the covenant (4Q387 3,8). A final occurrence in 5Q13 28,3, ]‫[ על ברית ֯א ֯ל‬, is too broken for comment. 1.3.2 ‫ ברית‬with Verbs Some 43 different verbs are used with ‫ברית‬. All of these are catalogued in what follows, excepting wholly reconstructed forms (even if attested by a parallel manuscript), but only the most important verbs are discussed and categorized into larger semantic groupings. It is noteworthy that ‫ ברית‬is the subject of a predicative relationship in only two passages, though in both cases the verb in question, ‫אמן‬,30 is flexed as a niphal participle,31 in what appears to be a use of the feminine plural as an abstract:32 (1) In CD VII,5 (= XIX,1), God’s covenant “is (or: will be) faithful [‫ ”]ברית אל נאמנות‬to those who walk in holy perfection.33

27 See further § 1.3.2 below for syntagmas created by the use of certain verbs + certain prepositions + ‫ברית‬. 28 See ARNOLD/CHOI, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 128, on ‫ למען‬in biblical Hebrew where it functions to show purpose or cause. 29 See ARNOLD/CHOI, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 135. 30 Cf. the use of ‫ אמן‬with God as the verbal subject in 4Q436 1a+bi4 (discussed below). 31 QIMRON, A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 343. 32 But compare the variant in 4Q267 listed below. 33 Cf. WACHOLDER, The New Damascus Document, 41.

256

Brent A. Strawn

(2) In CD XIV,2//4Q267 9v4, the covenant of God “is (or: will be) faithful, saving [‫ ;ברית אל נאמנות … להנצילם‬4Q267: ‫”]ברית אל נאמנת‬34 those who walk in the Maskil’s regulations.35 All other passages employ ‫ ברית‬as the verbal object. These uses can be organized into two primary domains: (1) supporting or (2) breaking the covenant – each of which occur with two different subjects, God or humans. Notably, while both God and humans are subjects in the first domain, only humans, and never God, are said to break the covenant in the second domain. 1.3.2.1 Initiating, (Re-)Establishing, or Maintaining the Covenant 1. God as subject. a) Several different verbs are used for God initiating the covenant, but the most important is ‫כרת‬: God “makes” (woodenly, “cuts”)36 the covenant in 1QM XIII,7; 4Q271 4ii2, 4ii3; 4Q388a 7ii2; 4Q434 7b,2; 4Q470 1,6; and 4Q504 3ii13. God “has chosen” (‫ )בחר‬the perfect of the way for (‫ )ל־‬an everlasting covenant in 1QS IV,22 and 1QSb I,2; it is likely also God “who chose us and his covenant” in the broken context of 4Q508 4,2. God is said to have rescued his people “in order to give” (‫ )נתן < לתת‬them the covenant in 4Q385 2,1. ‫ נתן‬is also plausibly reconstructed in 4Q381 69,5, which speaks of laws, instructions, and commands given in or through (‫ )ב־‬the covenant via Moses. In 4Q252 V,4 the covenant of kingship is said to have been given (‫ )נתנה‬to David and his descendants. In light of the subject matter and the morphology, one suspects here a kind of divine passive with God the implied giver. In this same vein, certain formulations with ‫ בוא‬may suggest divine activity – e.g., the hophal forms in CD VI,11//4Q266 3ii18 (‫ ;וכל אשר הובאו בברית‬4QD: ‫)הובא‬. While this cannot be certain, two clear instances of the hiphil of ‫ בוא‬with reference to God’s activity occur in 1QHa XXI: “You have [br]ought him (‫ )הב[יאותה‬into the covenant with you” (line 9), and “to bring (‫ )להביא‬into covenant with you” (line 13). This passage, combined with the predestinarian nature of Qumran thought, may indicate that the hophal instances of ‫ בוא‬as well as the possible hiphil participle in CD IX,3 (“those brought to the covenant”), if read as ‫מביאי‬,37 have God as the implied agent.38 Finally, 4Q183 1ii3 states that by (‫ )ב־‬his covenant, God (‫ אל‬in paleo-Hebrew script) “saved” (‫ )ישע < הושיע‬and set free (‫)מלט‬, but the specific object of these verbs is no longer extant. 34 The form in 4Q267 could be defectively written or, alternatively, might be feminine singular. Note that ‫ אל‬in this line is written in paleo-Hebrew. 35 Cf. WACHOLDER, The New Damascus Document, 97. 36 Cf. NOTH, “Old Testament Covenant-making”. 37 So DSSSE 1:564. The parallel text in 4Q270 6iii17 reads ‫מבאי‬. 38 But note 1QS VI,15, which employs a hiphil form (‫ )יביאהו‬with the overseer as the verbal subject.

‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran

257

b) God is also said to establish or, depending on context, reestablish the covenant. God “establishes” the covenant with ‫( קום‬hiphil) in CD III,13; IV,9; 1QSb V,23; 4Q504 1–2iv6. Elsewhere, ‫( עמד‬hiphil) is preferred with the same sentiment: God “establishes” the hymnist in the covenant (1QHa XV,20) and establishes the covenant through the hand of Moses (4Q381 69,5). In one passage, God is said to have confirmed (‫ )חזק < החזיק‬Eleazar and Ithamar for the priestly covenant (1QM XVII,3). God “remembers” (‫ )זכר‬the covenant in CD I,4; VI,2; 1Q34bis 3ii5; 4Q267 2,7; 4Q370 1i7; 4Q504 1–2v9; and 6Q15 3,5. In 4Q501 2, the pray-er asks God to “remember the sons of your covenant” (‫ )זכור בני בריתכה‬who have been desolated. Famously, God “makes new” or “renews” (‫ )חדש‬the covenant in three texts: 1QSb III,26; V,21; 1Q34bis 3ii6.39 c) God maintains the covenant by “keeping” (‫ )שמר‬it in CD XIX,1; 1QM XIV,8; and XVIII,7.40 While broken, it is possible that God instructs (‫ )למד‬the hymnist in the covenant in 1QHa XV,10. God is said to have confirmed (‫)אמן‬ the covenant for the prayer in 4Q436 1a+bi4.41 In a passage where the hymnist thanks God for sustaining (‫ )סמך‬and fortifying (‫ )חזק‬him, he also states that God has not discouraged (‫ )ל]א[ החתתה‬him from the covenant (1QHa XV,8). d) Additionally, God is said to “illuminate with joy” (‫ )להאיר בשמחה‬the covenant of Israel in 1QM XVII,7 (cf. 1QHa XII,5) and to have engraved (‫)חרה‬ the covenant of God’s peace in 1QM XII,3. Lastly, although broken, it may be God who performs or enacts (‫ )עשה‬the words of the covenant in 4Q185 3,3.42 2. Humans as subjects. Several of the same key verbs are used also for human initiation, (re)establishment, and maintenance of the covenant. Indeed, given the semantic overlap between several of these verbs and the renewal theology of Qumran, it is not always easy to draw hard and fast distinctions between covenantal initiation, establishment, and maintenance. a) In terms of human initiation of the covenant, ‫ כרת‬is not as important as it was with God as subject, as it is used only once: Moses is credited with making (‫ )כרת‬the covenant in CD XV,8.43 Other verbs for human initiation of the covenant are also rare: ‫ נתן‬is plausibly reconstructed in 1Q22 1ii8, where it would refer to Moses giving the covenant. People are said to seek (‫ )דרש‬the

39 Also reconstructed in 4Q509 97–98i8. See further below on the new/renewed covenant (§ 2.2.3). 40 Cf. 1QM XIV,4 where God keeps ‫ חסד‬for his covenant. 41 Note also the niphal participles from ‫ אמן‬in CD//4QD discussed above. 42 Cf. 4Q185 3,1 and the reconstruction in DSSSE 1:380–381. 43 Cf. 11Q19 II,4 (non-sectarian for present purposes), where the Israelites are warned not to make covenants with other people (‫)פן תכרות‬.

258

Brent A. Strawn

covenant in 1QHa XIII,9,44 and in a broken context in 4Q267 8,1 someone draws near (‫ )קרב‬to the covenant. The main verbs for human entry into the covenant are ‫ עבר‬and ‫ ;בוא‬these are used with both singular and plural referents. It is not always easy to distinguish fine differences in meaning between these two verbs with reference to the covenant. They seem, in the end, largely synonymous, though their use varies (see below). Note that the two verbs appear together in two passages, which likely undercuts any notion of pure synonymity between the two: (1) “And all those who enter (‫ )וכול הבאים‬in (or by) the Rule of the Community (‫)בסרך היחד‬ will cross over into the covenant (‫ )יעבורו בברית‬before God (‫( ”)לפני אל‬1QS I,16//4Q256 II,1). (2) CD XV,5–6, which speaks of those entering the covenant (‫ )והבא בברית‬imposing an oath on their sons who are old enough to enter the ranks of the enrolled (‫)לעבור על הפקודים‬.45 ‫ בוא‬is used for entry into the covenant in CD II,2; III,10; VI,19; VIII,1, 21; XII,11; XIII,14; XV,5; XIX,14, 16, 33; XX,25; 1QS II,12, 18; V,8, 20; VI,15; X,10; 1QHa XIII,23; 4Q258 IX,9; 4Q266 3iii24; 4Q269 2,5; 4Q470 1,3; PAM 43.698 27,1; cf. also 1QS I,16. Notably, the verb is used of entry into the covenant with the ancestors (e.g., CD III,10) as well as entry into the new/renewed covenant (e.g., 1QS V,8; VI,15). ‫ עבר‬is used for entry into (-‫ )ב‬the covenant in 1QS I,16, 18, 20, 24; II,10;46 4Q256 II,1; III,3; 4Q439 1i+2,2. Outside Deut 29:11, this use is without biblical precedent,47 since ‫ עבר‬in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament normally denotes transgression of the covenant (see below). Note that ‫ עבר‬is not found in the Damascus Document and appears only once outside Serekh texts (4Q439). Moreover, in contrast to ‫בוא‬, it appears that ‫ עבר‬is only used of entry into the new/renewed covenant of the Qumran community. b) As when God is the subject, humans are also said to establish the covenant with ‫( קום‬often hiphil): CD XX,12 (of the new covenant established in Damascus); 1QS V,10 (‫יקים בברית על נפשו‬, which approximates an oath),48 22; VIII,10; 1QSb V,23; 4Q258 II,1;VI,3; and 11Q13 II,24. Perhaps belonging to this same semantic range is the broken context referring to knowing (‫)בדעתם‬ the covenant of God’s compassion (1QHa XXVII,7) and the reference to those gathered or united together (‫ )הנועדים יחד‬in God’s covenant (1QHa XII,24). 44 The syntax is not entirely clear; cf. DSSSE 1:171; MANSOOR, The Thanksgiving Hymns, 133 n. 2; WISE, “The Concept of a New Covenant”, 125 n. 38; SCHULLER/NEWSOM, The Hodayot, 43: “From this comes a covenant for those who seek it.” 45 Cf. also 1QS II,11–12, though ‫ לעבור‬there is often emended to ‫לעבוד‬, so, e.g., PTSDSSP 1:11 n. 31; WERNBERG-MØLLER, The Manual of Discipline, 23, 54; contrast LEANEY, The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning, 124; note also HULTGREN, From the Damascus Covenant, 45: “the idols of his heart that cause him [!] to transgress.” 46 See above on 1QS II,11–12. 47 ABEGG, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians”, 90. 48 See DCH (rev. ed.) 2:276.

‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran

259

What is certain is that human reestablishment of the covenant employs a verb not found when the subject is the deity: ‫שוב‬. 1QS V,22 speaks of “those who volunteer to return by (or within) the Community to his covenant” ( ‫המתנדבים‬ ‫)לשוב ביחד לבריתו‬. Comparable, perhaps, is CD XIX,16, which speaks of entry (‫ )בוא‬into the covenant “by conversion” (‫)תשובה‬. c) Maintenance of the covenant is expressed by a number of terms, the most important of which are ‫( שמר‬CD XX,17; 1QHa VII,15; 1QS V,2, 9; 1QSa I,3; 4Q385a 18ia–b,9; 4Q521 10,2), ‫( תמך‬1QHa X,21–22; XXII,11; 4Q382 104,1) and ‫( חזק‬1QHa X,28; XII,39; XXIII,9; 1QS V,3 [of the ‫ ;]יחד‬1QSb I,2; III,23; 4Q267 3,4). Not surprisingly, priests are often the ones who are said to keep (‫שמר‬, 1QS V,2, 9), guard (‫ ;נצר‬4Q175 17 of Levi), be faithful to (‫;נאמני ברית‬ 4Q419 1,3), or strengthen (‫חזק‬, 1QSb III,23) the covenant. While not obviously relating to maintenance per se, the following five texts may be included here: The faithful remnant is described as ‫ מחיה לבריתכה‬in 1QM XIII,8; the hymnist’s heart rejoices (‫ )שוש‬in God’s covenant in 1QHa XVIII,30; and the hymnist clings (‫ )דבק‬to God’s covenant in 1QHa VIII,16, which is similar to 4Q392 1,3, where “their soul” (‫נפשם‬, unclear antecedent) clings to God’s covenant. Finally, while the syntax of 1QS III,11 is uncertain, in the process of admission “it” (the covenant? the intitiate’s acceptance of it?) “will be for him a covenant of everlasting Community” (‫)והיתה לו לברית יחד עולמים‬. 1.3.2.2 Violating, Invalidating, or Breaking the Covenant God as subject. There are no obvious instances of God breaking the covenant in the sectarian texts. While this is a datum from silence, it is nevertheless an important point, especially given the rather large number of passages and verbs used to describe human breakage of the covenant. By use, that is, God is always portrayed as faithful to and a guarantor of covenant; humans, in contrast, are far more fickle. Humans as subjects. A whole host of verbs are used to describe human transgression of the covenant. Several of these verbs occur just once; only two occur more than three times: (1) ‫( פרר‬hiphil) occurs 6x: 4Q381 69,8; 4Q390 2i6 (2x); 4Q463 1,3; 4Q504 1–2v8; 1–2vi8; (2) ‫ עבר‬occurs 4x: CD I,20 (hiphil); XVI,12//4Q271 4ii12 (of an oath that might violate the covenant); 4Q167 7– 9,1. Possible confusion between ‫“ עבר‬to enter” and ‫“ עבר‬to transgress” is avoided by the facts that the former always employs “in” (-‫ )ב‬and does not occur in the Damascus Document materials (see above); still further, the Scrolls employ many other terms to describe covenant transgression. Indeed, the ambiguity of ‫ עבר‬at Qumran (especially in the Serekh material) may explain the proliferation of other verbs. These include the following terms, each of which occur more

260

Brent A. Strawn

than once: ‫ חשב‬+ ‫( לא‬1QS V,11, 18; 1QHa VI,22: ‫;)לא הח[שבו‬49 ‫( מאס‬CD XX,12; 1QHa VII,18); ‫( עזב‬CD III,11; 1QHa XII,35 [‫( רשע ;)]נעזבתי‬1QM I,2; 4Q387 3,6; both passages employ hiphil mp participles); and ‫( שכח‬4Q390 1,8; 4Q509 18,2). The following are singular instances: ‫ אמן‬+ ‫( לא‬1QpHab II,4; cf. II,6); ‫( בוא‬hophal) + ‫( לא‬4Q284a 1,6); ‫( זום‬4Q280 2,6); ‫( זור‬1QHa XII,19); ‫( חלל‬4Q383 A,2); ‫ ידע‬+ ‫( לא‬1QS V,19); ‫( כרת‬niphal for the cutting off of violators of the covenant [‫ ;]עריצי הברית‬4Q171 1+3–4iii12); ‫( מחה‬1QM XIII,8); ‫( פרע‬4Q415 2ii4); ‫ קום‬+ ‫( על‬1QHa XII,34); and ‫( שקר‬4Q471a 2).50 Finally, it should be noted that there is one instance of a non-human subject that can evidently separate one from the covenant – it is “all the mysteries of his (Belial’s) enmity” (‫)ובכול רזי שטמתו‬, but 1QM XIV,10//4Q491 8–10i7 adds these have not been successful ([‫)לוא הדיחונ]ו‬. With the data sufficiently described, we may turn now to probe the meaning of ‫ ברית‬in the sectarian texts at Qumran.

2. ‫ ברית‬in the Sectarian Texts: Meaning As in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, the meaning of ‫ ברית‬at Qumran “must be sought by means of a study of its usage.”51 The above data help greatly toward that endeavor, but the task remains a large one, with numerous studies devoted to the topic.52 In what follows, I categorize the data around certain key issues or aspects that both reflect past research and that may also prove helpful for future studies. The use of ‫ ברית‬in the sectarian texts can be divided into two, grossly unequal parts: profane (secular) use, which is limited to only one passage (§ 2.1); and theological use, which is robust and which can be further differentiated in a number of ways (§ 2.2). 2.1 Profane Use The Hebrew Bible / Old Testament knows of two main types of covenants: those between humans and God and those between two human entities (e.g., 49 So DSSE 1:152–153: “I will not admit into the council those who are not included (‫ )לא הח[שבו‬in your covenant.” Others prefer to restore a form of ‫ ;שוב‬see VERMES, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 249; MANSOOR, The Thanksgiving Hymns, 182; SCHULLER/NEWSOM, The Hodayot, 22–23: “]who turn away / [from] your [co[venant.” Cf. STEGEMANN, SCHULLER, NEWSOM in DJD 40:93–94. 50 Perhaps also ‫שוב‬, depending on the reconstruction in 1QHa VI,22. See the previous note, also SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 256. 51 MCCONVILLE, “‫”בְּ ִרית‬, 747; cf. 752. 52 See esp. ABEGG, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians”; CHRISTIANSEN, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul; EVANS, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”; HULTGREN, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community; JAUBERT, La Notion d’Alliance dans le Judaïsme.

‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran

261

Jacob and Laban in Gen 31:44; Syria and Israel in 1 Kgs 15:19).53 The majority of references in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament concern the former, theological kind of ‫ברית‬,54 though the latter are far from insignificant. Indeed, these latter, human covenants (not to mention the comparative data),55 lend an unmistakable political, even contractual, cast to the theological instances of covenant.56 At the same time, the prevalence of theological covenant(s), especially in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, may shade things in the opposite direction: lending a theological coloring to “profane” uses. Perhaps these, too, at least at times, have a theological aspect to them (cf. Gen 31:49!). There is only one possibly profane use of ‫ ברית‬in the sectarian texts: 1QHa IV,27 is very broken but mentions “every human treaty” (‫)כול ברית אדם‬, which might be a non-theological use of covenant. Unfortunately, nothing more can be said about this text given its state of preservation.57 The fact that profane use of ‫ ברית‬is limited to a single (uncertain) passage is not surprising given the word’s pronounced theological profile in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament and other early Jewish literature.58 In point of fact, profane use of ‫ ברית‬is rare in later literature as well.59 Even so, the severely limited profane use of ‫ברית‬ underscores the theological nature of the covenant in the sectarian texts from Qumran, and no doubt reveals the influence of the biblical ‫ ברית‬at precisely this point. That granted, the specific valence(s) of ‫ ברית‬at Qumran, or among the different documents found there, which are not all of one piece, will remain a matter of continuing debate. 2.2 Theological Use The theological use of ‫ ברית‬in the sectarian texts from Qumran is extensive and variegated. Five major rubrics can be delineated and deserve discussion: the determination of which covenant(s) is designated by ‫ §( ברית‬2.2.1), the ownership of the covenant (§ 2.2.2), the new or renewed covenant (§ 2.2.3), the obligations and benefits of the covenant along with the covenant’s function as a community marker (§ 2.2.4), and the covenant renewal ceremony (§ 2.2.5). 53

See QUELL, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”, TDNT 2:109–118. See MCKENZIE, Covenant, 9; EICHRODT, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:36. 55 See MCCARTHY, Treaty and Covenant; HILLERS, Covenant; BARRÉ, The God-List; KITCHEN/LAWRENCE, Treaty, Law and Covenant; MILLER, Covenant and Grace. 56 HALOT 1:157. 57 Cf. SCHULLER/NEWSOM, The Hodayot, 19: “the whole covenant of Adam.” One might note also a case of profane use in 11Q19 II,4, which is treated here as a non-sectarian text. This passage warns against making a covenant with the prior inhabitants of the land. An allusion to Deut 7:2 is obvious and suggests (as does the context of 11Q19) that such covenants are, in fact, fraught with theological meaning. So, again, even “profane” covenants can have profound theological consequences. 58 See CHRISTIANSEN, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul. 59 See SCHIFFMAN, “The Rabbinic Understanding of Covenant”, 289–298. 54

262

Brent A. Strawn

2.2.1 Which Covenant(s)? The first question that must be addressed is one of identification: of which covenant(s) do the sectarian texts speak? In point of fact, these texts speak of several different covenants – all of those mentioned in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and then some.60 So, for example, the Noachic covenant is mentioned in 4Q370 1i7, which states that God put the bow in the clouds to remember the covenant. The covenant with the ancestors (‫ )אבות‬is mentioned at several different places: CD VIII,18; XIX,31; 1QM XIII,7, XIV,8 (cf. also 4Q385a 18ia–b,9: ‫)ברית אלהי אבותיהם‬. Several texts employ the phrase “covenant of the former ones” (‫)ראשנים‬: CD I,4; III,10//4Q269 2,5; IV,9; VI,2//4Q267 2,7//6Q15 3,5. Abegg is of the opinion that both the “father” and “former” constructions refer to the Mosaic covenant. While this seems true for CD III,10//4Q269 2,5, which mentions the guilt of the former ones vis-à-vis the covenant (see further below) – it seems that the other texts refer to the ancestors of Genesis, not those of the Sinai/exodus/wilderness generation. Covenants with the three most important patriarchs are named twice: Abraham in CD XII,11; and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in 4Q388a 7ii2.61 The Mosaic covenant is found in CD XV,8, which states that Moses “cut” (‫ )כרת‬the covenant with Israel. This covenant is then further defined as the covenant to return to the Torah of Moses (CD XV,9). 4Q381 69,5 states that God gave commandments in the covenant that he established (‫“ )העמיד‬by the hand of [Moses]” ([‫)ביד ]משה‬. 4Q504 3ii13 remarks that God made a covenant with us “at Ho[reb]” ([‫ ;בחו]רב‬cf. Deut 5:2). Moses’ atonement (‫ )כפר‬is mentioned in the same context of God’s covenant in 4Q504 2ii9. The content and context of 1Q22 1i8 suggest that “the Sabbath of the covenant” (‫ )שבת הברית‬mentioned in this text belongs to the legislation of the Sinai pericope. The same may be true of the broken passage that mentions Jubilee (‫ )ויובל‬along with the covenant (PAM 43.686 30,1). References to “the covenant of eternal priesthood” (‫עלמים‬/‫ )ברית כוהנת עולם‬in 1QSb III,26 and 1QM XVII,3 probably derive from biblical traditions about Sinai and/or the wilderness wanderings (see Lev 10:1, 6, 12; Num 3:4; 25:1–13; 26:61).62 Indeed, 1QM mentions Nadab and Abihu as well as Eleazar and Ithamar, the latter two being confirmed (‫ )החזיק‬by God in the everlasting priestly covenant.63 The covenant with David, and more broadly with (presumably) his royal descendants, is also known in the sectarian texts. 4Q252, in a passage 60

See ABEGG, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians”. Cf. also 11Q19 XXIX,10, non-sectarian for present purposes, which mentions the covenant with Jacob at Bethel. 62 Cf. further CHANG, “Priestly Covenants in 1QM and 1QSb”, 147–162. 63 In the non-sectarian texts, cf. 11Q20 IV,24, which mentions ‫ ברית מלח‬in connection with the offerings discussed there. This, too, may have priestly resonance (see Lev 2:13; Num 18:19) but note 2 Chr 13:5 where such language is used of the Davidic covenant. 61

‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran

263

obviously indebted to 2 Samuel 7, states that “the covenant of the kingship” (‫מלכות‬/‫ברית ה‬, V,2, 4) has been given (‫ )נתנה‬to David and his offspring (‫)לזרעו‬. The prayer in 4Q504 1–2iv6 celebrates God’s establishing (‫קום‬, hiphil) the covenant with David. Despite the obvious importance of that great king, another monarch is also mentioned with reference to the covenant: 4Q470 1,3 indicates that Zedekiah will enter (‫ )בוא‬into the covenant “on that day” (‫)ביום ]הה[וא‬. A final covenant mentioned in the sectarian texts is the famous “new” or “renewed” covenant (see § 2.2.3 below). This language was likely inspired by Jer 31:31, which mentions ‫ברית חדשה‬.64 As is well known, several texts take up this language and apply it to the immediate Qumran Community. Indeed, at several points the various covenants delineated above appear to bleed over into the contemporary situation and communal context. So, for example, the covenant of eternal priesthood is renewed (‫“ )יח[דש‬for you” (‫ – )לכה‬the faithful eschatological community of 1QSb III,26. Then again, certain references to the ‫ ברית ראשנים‬or even the ‫( ברית ישראל‬see 1QM XVII,7; 4Q306 1,3) may be double-edged, referring to biblical precedents even as they also evoke present circumstances. In this way, ‫“ ברית‬slides very readily from the sense of ‘covenant’ to that of ‘community’.”65 Before more can be said about these matters, especially about the new/contemporary covenant, the ownership of the covenant must be discussed. 2.2.2 Ownership of the Covenant The various covenants in question are predominantly described as belonging to God. In addition to ‫( ברית אל‬CD III,11; V,12; VII,5; XIII,14; XIV,2; XX,17; 1QpHab II,4; 1QS V,8; X,10; 4Q267 9v4; 4Q491 11ii18; 5Q13 28,3; 6Q15 5,5; reconstructed in 4Q419 1,3), there is one instance of ‫( ברית אלהי אבותיהם‬4Q385a 18ia–b,9). Additionally, the 3ms suffix in every instance of “his covenant” (‫בריתו‬, 27x) apparently refers to God, as does every instance of “your covenant” (‫כה‬/‫בריתך‬, 43x). Six of the seven instances of ‫“( בריתי‬my covenant”) also refer to God. Certain descriptors used with the covenant (e.g., ‫חסד‬, ‫שלום‬, ‫עולם‬, ‫)קודש‬ also indicate the divine origin or nature of the ‫ברית‬, even if God is not explicitly invoked. Three exceptions deserve discussion. The first is the isolated (possible) instance of ‫ בריתנו‬in 4Q471 2,2; this reading, however, is in some doubt (see above). Second, in 1QHa XIII,23, we read of “those who have joined my covenant” (‫ ;)לבאי בריתי‬the 1cs suffix here refers to the speaker making this the only instance of ‫ בריתי‬being used of someone other than God. Although this hymn is often attributed to the Teacher, the precise identification is debated: is 64

See RINGGREN, The Faith of Qumran, 128; EVANS, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”, 59; contra COLLINS, “The Berith-notion”, 555–594. 65 DEASLEY, Shape of Qumran Theology, 147. Cf. BAUTCH, Glory and Power, 150.

264

Brent A. Strawn

it the Righteous Teacher himself or a later leader who succeeded him?66 Either way, the persona of the persecuted leader employed here speaks of his own (not God’s) covenant. Given the syntagma used (‫ בוא‬+ ‫ – )ברית‬one that is typically used of God’s covenants (CD III,10; VI,11; VIII,1; XII,1; XIII,14; XIX,13–14; 1QS V,8; X,10; 1QHa XXI,10, 14) – not to mention the biblical allusions at work in the unit,67 it is highly unlikely that the speaker’s covenant is an instance of profane use of ‫ברית‬. Instead, it may be an indicator of the speaker’s own charisma if not self-understanding – namely, that the speaker’s own (construal of the) covenant is the same as God’s covenant, and so to enter the covenant means accepting the speaker’s own teaching and views.68 This identification makes further sense in light of the fact that, apart from entry into God’s covenants, the other typical use of ‫ בוא‬with reference to a covenant refers to entry into the “new” or Qumranic covenant (CD VI,19; VIII,21; XIX,33–34; cf. CD II,2; IX,2–3; XV,5; XX,25; 1QS I,16; II,12,18; V,20; VI,15; see § 2.2.3 below). The third exception concerns three references to “their covenant” (‫;בריתם‬ 1QS V,9; VI,19; 1QSa I,2; 4Q282a 2). The suffix in these cases appears to refer to the Community’s own covenant or covenantal commitment,69 or to the priestly founders of that covenant.70 Either way, these references are not too different, at the end of the day, from the second exception in 1QHa XIII,23. These three exceptions may simply prove what has already been stated: that there is considerable conceptual and semantic overlap between God’s covenant (of old) with Israel and what is transpiring in the contemporary community at Qumran. And so it is that we read in the sectarian texts not only of God’s covenant, or of Israel’s covenant, but also and especially of “the covenant of the Community” (‫יחד‬/‫ברית ה‬, 1QS III,11–12; VIII,16–17//4Q258 VI,8; 1QSb V,21). 2.2.3 The New/Renewed Covenant The new or renewed covenant (‫ )ברית חדשה‬is among the most well-known aspects of Qumran theology. It is somewhat remarkable, therefore, that the nominal phrase occurs only in the Damascus Document (CD VI,19; VIII,21; XIX,33; XX,12; the only possible exception is 1QpHab II,3, but ‫ ברית‬is not extant there), which many believe predates the sectarian community at 66

See, respectively, WISE, “The Concept of a New Covenant”, 121–124, who traces ‫בריתי‬ back to Zech 11:10, and NEWSOM, The Self as Symbolic Space, 287–300. 67 See NEWSOM, The Self as Symbolic Space, 342. 68 See WISE, “The Concept of a New Covenant”. 69 See CHRISTIANSEN, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul, 150; cf. ILG, “Überlegungen zum Verständnis von ‫ ברית‬in den Qumrântexten”, 257–263. 70 SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 241; JAUBERT, La Notion d’Alliance, 146– 147.

‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran

265

Qumran;71 at the very least, the Damascus Document seems directed to a different and larger group than could be accommodated at Qumran proper. Indeed, the new covenant is explicitly glossed as being “in the land of Damascus” (‫ ;בארץ דמשק‬cf. the verbless clause in XX,12: “the covenant … which they established in the land of Damascus – it is the new covenant”). The lack of new covenant language outside the Damascus Document is striking because, as Hultgren notes, “[i]t would be astounding indeed if the Qumran community called itself the ‘new covenant’ and yet never once called itself by that name in its own literature.”72 Early scholarship often identified the new Damascus covenant with the Qumran ‫יחד‬, taking the Damascus reference to be an indication of some sort of exilic consciousness. More recent work prefers source-, redaction-, and literary-critical arguments to differentiate the Damascus Document, which never uses ‫( יחד‬but cf. ‫ יחיד‬in CD XX,32), nor ‫ עבר‬for entry into the covenant, from the Rule of the Community, which uses both but which never mentions ‫ברית חדשה‬, nor, evidently, any earlier covenants from the past.73 Whether or not these texts are at odds, the result of a schism in the community, or complementary – referring to larger (= Damascus Document, earlier/parent?) and smaller (= Rule of the Community, later/extreme?) groups, respectively, remains debated.74 Also debated is the level of continuity or discontinuity between the “new/ renewed” covenant (regardless of the explicit presence of ‫ )חדש‬and the “old” one. The new covenant of Jer 31:31 is itself in profound continuity with the first (old?) covenant at Sinai.75 Most scholars agree, therefore, that the new covenant in the sectarian texts is the same one “made and renewed in the Hebrew Scriptures.”76 Or, put more pointedly, “God’s covenant and the sectarian covenant are identical.”77 Indeed, the use of ‫ עבר‬for entry into the 71 See HULTGREN, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community; COLLINS, Beyond the Qumran Community; EVANS, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”. 72 HULTGREN, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community, 5. One should note, however, the use of the verb ‫ חדש‬with ‫ ברית‬in 1QSb III,26; V,5, 21; and 1Q34bis 3ii6. 73 For discussion, see COLLINS, Beyond the Qumran Community; HULTGREN, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community; CHRISTIANSEN, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul; cf. EVANS, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”. 74 TALMON, “The Community of the Renewed Covenant”, 8; COLLINS, Beyond the Qumran Community, esp. 48–50, 209–214; HULTGREN, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community. 75 See WOLFF, Confrontations with Prophets; for post-biblical usage, see SCHIFFMAN, “The Rabbinic Understanding of Covenant”, 294; KUTSCH, “‫ בְּ ִרית‬berît obligation”, 264. 76 VANDERKAM, “Covenant”, 152; see also ABEGG, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians”, 84; EVANS, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”; HILLERS, Covenant, 176– 178; TALMON, “The Community of the Renewed Covenant”, 13; MCCONVILLE, “‫”בְּ ִרית‬, 753. 77 SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 242 (emphasis added).

266

Brent A. Strawn

covenant may signal this connection: “Joining the Qumran community was unmistakably pictured in sectarian thought as crossing (the Jordan) into (the land of) the covenant.”78 While it is true that certain texts avoid applying the term “Israel” cavalierly to the present-day Qumran Community,79 it nevertheless seems correct to assert that, in the sectarian texts, the community lived “conceptually in the world of the Bible” and saw themselves as “the sole legitimate representative of biblical Israel.”80 That said, the covenants of the Community and Israel would only become one in the Endtime.81 Emphasizing covenantal continuity should not come at the expense of recognizing key differences, however. Two are particularly noteworthy: First, it appears that the new covenant is marked by new revelations of “hidden things” (‫נסתרות‬, 15x; cf. Deut 29:28), which are apparently new interpretations, especially of legal issues from the Mosaic Torah, including Sabbath legislation, calendrical considerations, and covenantal requirements. These hidden things were revealed through sectarian exegesis as well as by God’s initiative; they eventually led to a break from other Early Jewish groups.82 Said differently, while “[t]he content of the ‘new covenant’ did not differ from the content of the [prior] ‘covenant’: it was [nevertheless] the law of Moses correctly understood and practiced” that was a point of major contention.83 Second, and perhaps even more importantly, the Qumran covenant is marked by a significant “reduction of the number of elect. There is now a chosen people drawn out from among the people of Israel: a chosen from the chosen, as it were.”84 Related to this point is the pronounced emphasis on volunteerism (‫ )נדב‬in texts about entering the covenant.85

78 ABEGG, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians”, 90; cf. EVANS, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”, 63. 79 See SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 245–255. 80 TALMON, “The Community of the Renewed Covenant”, 18, 12, respectively; see, similarly, ABEGG, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians”, 88. 81 ABEGG, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians”, 97; SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 245–255; cf. 1QSb V,21. 82 See ABEGG, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians”, 85–88; SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 242; EVANS, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”, 60, 68; cf. SCHIFFMAN, “The Rabbinic Understanding of Covenant”. Note also BLANTON IV, Constructing a New Covenant, 104–105. 83 HULTGREN, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community, 539. 84 EVANS, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”, 80; cf. SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 247; VANDERKAM, “Covenant”, 1:152; CHRISTIANSEN, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul. 85 SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 242; CHRISTIANSEN, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul, 143.

‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran

267

2.2.4 Covenant Obligations/Benefits and the Covenant as Community Marker Those who volunteer to join the covenant do not do so lightly. The texts are replete with mention of oaths (‫ )שבועה‬and curses (‫ות‬/‫ )אלה‬made in solemn fashion (‫ ;אמן‬e.g., 1QS I,20; II,16, 18; V,12; CD I,17//4Q266 2i20; CD XIV,2//4Q267 9v4; CD XV,2, 3, 6, 8). One also hears of “covenant statutes” (‫ברית‬/‫ ;חוקי ה‬CD V,12; XX,29; 1QSa I,5, 7; 1QHa VII,24; VIII,24; reconstructed in 4Q249a 1,2; 1,6) or “covenantal words” (‫ברית‬/‫ ;דברי ה‬1QS II,13; 4Q185 3,3; reconstructed in 1Q22 1iii3) that must be carefully observed. Here too belong references to “teachings of the covenant” (‫ ;יסודי ברית‬CD X,6//4Q270 6iv17), “works of the covenant” (‫מע[שי ברית‬, 4Q418 188,6; reconstructed in 4Q423 9,2), and “testimonies of our covenant” (‫עדוות בריתנו‬, 4Q471 2,2), perhaps even the “covenant of justice” (‫ ;ברית משפט‬1QS VIII,9). After all, it is only those of perfect (‫ )תמים‬behavior that belong to God’s covenant (1QS I,8; IV,22; VIII,9–10//4Q258 VI,3//4Q259 II,17; 1QSb I,2; CD VII,5).86 Moreover, the texts often describe or threaten judgment and/or curses on those who have entered or who will enter the covenant (CD III,10//4Q269 2,5; VIII,1//4Q266 3iii24; XIX,14, 16, 33; XX,25; 1QS II,10, 12, 18; cf. ‫ נקם ברית‬in CD I,18; XIX,13). This emphasis on ethics – even ethical perfection87 – in the covenant is, however, a complex combination of both obligation and divine gift. According to Sanders, there is no contradiction here “since these were not alternative ways to salvation. Salvation was always by grace (unmerited election) and always required perfection.”88 1QHa, for example, speaks of God’s work on behalf of the covenanter, bringing (‫בוא‬, hiphil) him into the covenant (XXI,9, 13) or strengthening him with the result that he clings (‫ )לדבוק‬to the truth of God’s covenant (VIII,15; cf. X,22, which has the speaker “relying” [‫ ]תמך‬on God’s covenant). Covenantal benefits are also implied in the positive descriptors and verbs used with the covenant: ‫( חסד‬1QS I,8; 1QM XIV,4), ‫( שלום‬1QM XII,3), ‫עולם‬ (1QS IV,22; V,5; 1QSb I,2; II,25), ‫( אמת‬1QHa VIII,16; 4Q414 2ii–4,3), ‫שמחה‬ (1QM XVII,7), ‫( אמן‬CD VII,5; XIV,2//4Q267 9v4; cf. XIX,1), and ‫( ברך‬1QSb I,1–2). Such beneficial qualifiers no doubt serve as additional motivation for one to join this covenant. Once one does, the individual belongs to a definable group, known by such designations as “men/people of the covenant” (‫אנשי ברית‬, 1QS V,9; VI,19, VIII,16//4Q258 6,8; 1QSa I,2; 1Q36 7,2; 1QHa 4,8 [‫;]אנושי‬ 4Q511 63–64ii5; 63iii5), “sons/childen of the covenant” (‫בני ברית‬, 1QM XVII,8; 4Q284 4,2; 4Q501 2, 7; 4Q503 7–9,3; 11Q5 XXVIII,11–12), “holy 86

See STRAWN, “David as One of the ‘Perfect of (the) Way’”; also STRAWN with MORISADA RIETZ, “(More) Sectarian Terminology in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice”. 87 VANDERKAM, “Covenant”, 1:154. 88 SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 328; cf. RINGGREN, The Faith of Qumran, 128–129; MCCONVILLE, “‫”בְּ ִרית‬, 752; more generally, MILLER, Covenant and Grace.

268

Brent A. Strawn

ones of the covenant” (‫קדושי ברית‬, 1QM X,10//4Q495 1,2), “the Community of the covenant” (‫יחד ברית‬, 1QS V,5; VIII,16; cf. III,11; V,22), perhaps even “members of the covenant” (‫בעלי ברית‬, CD III,4). Those who do not belong to the covenant are also defined by it. So, for example, “the violators of covenant” (‫ )עריצי הברית‬are traitors in 1QpHab II,6. These types of people are found within the house of Judah, plotting to destroy law-observers in 4Q171 1–2ii13, and are defined as “the wicked of Israel” in 4Q171 1+3–4iii12. According to Sanders, those who are excluded from the covenant include the Gentiles, non-sectarian Jews, and apostate sectarians.89 The process of joining the covenant coupled with certain ritual practices (especially eating and washing) serve as community markers differentiating who is in and who is out.90 This demarcation comprises the “basic soteriological conception of the sect”: those outside the covenant “will be destroyed … Conversely, those in the covenant … will be saved in the judgment.”91 In this way, submission to and maintenance of covenantal boundaries is seen once again as both obligation and benefit. 2.2.5 The Covenant Renewal Ceremony Finally, it should be noted that several of the texts (especially 1QS II,19–25) and several of the observations discussed above suggest that there was an annual renewal ceremony among the sectarians, though the specific time when that was held is uncertain.92 The elements of the ceremony – discernable from the content of the key texts as well as from their literary structure93 – has much in common with covenant patterns familiar from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and the ancient Near East insofar as the Qumran covenant includes reminiscences of the historical introduction, blessings and curses, obligations, and the necessity of periodic renewal.94

89

SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 243. See, e.g., METSO, The Serekh Texts, 24; BAUTCH, Glory and Power, 138–153; LEGRAND, “L’expression d’une identité”, 133–155; CHRISTIANSEN, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul; REED, “The Role of Food as Related to Covenant in Qumran Literature”, 129–164; VANDERKAM, “Covenant”, 1:153; MCCONVILLE, “‫”בְּ ִרית‬, 753; cf. WEINFELD, “‫ בְּ ִרית‬berîth”, 270. 91 SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 257. 92 See VANDERKAM, “Covenant”, 1:152; TALMON, “The Community of the Renewed Covenant”; RINGGREN, The Faith of Qumran, 225–226; cf. Jub. 6.7. 93 See VANDERKAM, “Covenant”, 1:152; DAVIES, The Damascus Covenant. 94 RINGGREN, The Faith of Qumran, 226–227; HILLERS, Covenant, 176–178; cf. WEINFELD, “‫ בְּ ִרית‬berîth”, TDOT 2:275; and, further, WEINFELD, The Organizational Pattern. 90

‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran

269

Bibliography ABEGG, MARTIN A., “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians”, in The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period, edited by Stanley E. Porter / Jacqueline C.R. de Roo (JSJ.Sup 71), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003, 81–97. ARNOLD, BILL T. / JOHN H. CHOI, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. AVEMARIE, FRIEDRICH / HERMANN LICHTENBERGER (eds.), Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996. BARRÉ, MICHAEL L., The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia: A Study in Light of the Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Tradition (JHNES), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1983. BAUTCH, RICHARD J., Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period (LHBOTS 471), New York: T&T Clark, 2009. BLANTON, THOMAS R. IV, Constructing a New Covenant: Discursive Strategies in the Damascus Document and Second Corinthians (WUNT II/233), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. CHANG, DONGSHIN D., “Priestly Covenants in 1QM and 1QSb”, in The War Scroll, Violence, War and Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honour of Martin G. Abegg on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Kipp Davis et al. (STDJ 115), Leiden: Brill, 2016, 147–162. CHRISTIANSEN, ELLEN JUHL, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers (AGJU 27), Leiden: Brill, 1995. COLLINS, JOHN J., Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. COLLINS, R.F., “The Berith-notion of the Cairo Damascus Covenant and its Comparison with the New Testament”, ETL 39 (1963): 555–594. DAVIES, PHILIP R., The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” (JSOTSup 25), Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. DEASLEY, ALEX R. G., The Shape of Qumran Theology, Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000. DIMANT, DEVORAH, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance”, in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 (STDJ 16), edited by Devorah Dimant / Lawrence H. Schiffman, Leiden: Brill, 1995, 23–58. –, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Essays (FAT 90), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. EICHRODT, WALTHER, Theology of the Old Testament (OTL), translated by J.A. Baker, 2 vols., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961–1967. EVANS, CRAIG A., “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”, in The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.Sup 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter / Jacqueline C.R. de Roo, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003, 55–80. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, FLORENTINO, “La ‘Alianza Nueva’ en los Textos de Qumrán”, Salmanticensis 63 (2016): 23–43. HILLERS, DELBERT R., Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969.

270

Brent A. Strawn

HULTGREN, STEPHEN, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community: Literary, Historical, and Theological Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 66), Leiden: Brill, 2007. ILG, NORBERT, “Überlegungen zum Verständnis von ‫ ברית‬in den Qumrântexten”, in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, edited by M. Delcor (BETL 46), Paris: Éditions Duculot / Leuven: University Press, 1978, 257–263. JASTROW, MARCUS, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, repr. ed., Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005. JAUBERT, ANNIE, La Notion d’Alliance dans le Judaïsme aux abords de l’ère Chrétienne (Patristica Sorbonensia 6), Paris: Èditions du Seuil, 1963. KAPELRUD, ARVID S., “Der Bund in den Qumran-Schriften”, in Bibel und Qumran: Beiträge zur Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel- und Qumranwissenschaft: Hans Bardtke zum 22.9.1966, edited by Siegfied Wagner, Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968, 137–149. KITCHEN, KENNETH A. / PAUL J.N. LAWRENCE, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East, 3 vols., Wiesbaden: Harrosowitz, 2012. KUTSCH, E., “‫ בְּ ִרית‬berît obligation”, TLOT 1:256–266. LANGE, ARMIN, “Kriterien essenischer Texte”, in Qumran kontrovers: Beiträge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer, edited by Jörg Fey / Hartmut Stegemann, Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003, 59–85. LEANEY, A.R.C., The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (NTL), London: SCM, 1966. LEGRAND, THIERRY, “L’expression d’une identité à travers un commentaire prophétique: l’exégèse qumrânienne du Pesher d’Habaquq”, in Konstruktionen individueller und kollektiver Identität (BThSt 161), edited by Eberhard Bons / Karin F. Finsterbusch, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2016, 133–155. MANSOOR, MENAHEM, The Thanksgiving Hymns: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (STDJ 3), Leiden: Brill, 1961. MCCARTHY, DENNIS J., Treaty and Covenant, rev. ed. (AnBib 21A), Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. –, Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions, Richmond: John Knox, 1972. MCCONVILLE, GORDON J., “‫”בְּ ִרית‬, NIDOTTE 1: 747–755. MCKENZIE, STEVEN L., Covenant, St. Louis: Chalice, 2000. METSO, SARIANNA, The Serekh Texts (LSTS 62), London: T&T Clark, 2007. NAM, ROGER S., “How to Rewrite Torah: The Case for Proto-Sectarian Ideology in the Reworked Pentateuch (4QRP)”, RevQ 23 (2007): 153–165. NEWSOM, CAROL A., The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (STDJ 52), Leiden: Brill, 2004. –, “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran”, in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (BJSUCSD 1), edited by Baruch Halpern, William H. Propp, and David Noel Freedman, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990, 167–187. NICHOLSON, ERNEST W., God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament, Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. NITZAN, BILHAH, “The Concept of the Covenant in Qumran Literature”, in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27–32 January 1999 (STDJ 37), edited

‫ ברית‬in the “Sectarian” Texts from Qumran

271

by David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick, and Daniel R. Schwartz, Leiden: Brill, 2001, 85– 104. NOTH, MARTIN, “Old Testament Covenant-making in the light of a Text from Mari”, in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, translated by D.R. Ap-Thomas, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966, 108–117. QIMRON, ELISHA, A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2018. QUELL, GOTTFRIED / JOHANNES BEHM, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”, TDNT 2: 104–134. REED, STEPHEN A. “The Role of Food as Related to Covenant in Qumran Literature”, in The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.Sup 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter / Jacqueline C.R. de Roo, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003, 129–164. RINGGREN, HELMER, The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, expanded ed., edited by J.H. Charlesworth, New York: Crossroad, 1995. SANDERS, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977. SCHIFFMAN, LAWRENCE H., “The Rabbinic Understanding of Covenant”, RevExp 84 (1987): 289–298. SCHULLER, EILEEN M. / CAROL A. NEWSOM, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa (EJL 36), Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012. STRAWN, BRENT A., “10.1 Textual History of Psalms”, in The Hebrew Bible, Vol. 1C: Writings, edited by Armin Lange / Emanuel Tov (Textual History of the Bible 1), Leiden: Brill, 2017, 5–23. –, “10.2.2 (Proto-)Masoretic Texts and Ancient Texts Close to MT [Psalms]”, in The Hebrew Bible, Vol. 1C: Writings, edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Textual History of the Bible 1), Leiden: Brill, 2017, 42–61. –, “10.2.3 Other Texts [Psalms]”, in The Hebrew Bible, Vol. 1C: Writings, edited by Armin Lange / Emanuel Tov (Textual History of the Bible 1), Leiden: Brill, 2017, 61–81. –, “‫ בְּ ִרית‬berît”, in Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten, edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry / Ulrich Dahmen, 3 vols., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011–2016, 1:508–521. –, “David as One of the ‘Perfect of (the) Way’: On the Provenience of David’s Compositions (and 11QPsa as a Whole?)”, RevQ 24/96 (2010): 607–626. STRAWN, BRENT A. with HENRY W. MORISADA RIETZ, “(More) Sectarian Terminology in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: The Case of ‫”תמימי דרך‬, in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions, edited by Michael Thomas Davis / Brent A. Strawn, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007, 53–64. TALMON, SHEMARYAHU, “The Community of the Renewed Covenant: Between Judaism and Christianity”, in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Eugene Ulrich / James VanderKam, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994, 3–24. TZOREF, SHANI, “Covenantal Election in 4Q252 and Jubilees’ Heavenly Tablets”, DSD 18 (2011): 74–89. VANDERKAM, JAMES C., “Covenant”, EDSS 1:151–155. VERMES, GEZA, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, New York: Penguin, 1997. WACHOLDER, BEN ZION, The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary (STDJ 56), Leiden: Brill, 2007. WEINFELD, MOSHE, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period

272

Brent A. Strawn

(NTOA 2), Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. –, “‫ בְּ ִרית‬berîth”, TDOT 2:253–279. WERMAN, CANA, “The Two Covenants: An Interpretation of the 4Q158 Fragments”, JSP 28 (2019): 183–213. WERNBERG-MØLLER, P., The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (STDJ 1), Leiden: Brill, 1957. WISE, MICHAEL O., “The Concept of a New Covenant in the Teacher Hymns from Qumran (1QHa X–XVII)”, in The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.Sup 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter / Jacqueline C.R. de Roo, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003, 99–128. WOLFF, HANS WALTER, Confrontations with Prophets: Discovering the Old Testament’s New and Contemporary Significance, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran ‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

HEINZ-JOSEF FABRY Heinz-Josef Fabry

Die große Anzahl der Belege des Nomens ‫ ברית‬in den Manuskripten von Qumran weist aus, dass man die Idee des ‫ ברית‬als “one of the dominant theological ideas” in Qumran bezeichnet hat. Dem entspricht, dass die überwiegende Anzahl der Belege – nach minimaler Zählung 65%, nach maximaler Zählung 83% – in den “sectarian” Texten begegnet.1 Akzeptieren wir hier mit guten Gründen die maximale Zählung, so verbleiben für die “non sectarian” Handschriften noch 17%, das sind knapp 40 Belege. Obwohl die Texte mehrheitlich sehr fragmentarisch sind, ist ihre Analyse doch wertvoll, weil die Bedeutung von ‫ ברית‬auch in “non sectarian”-Gruppierungen für die Qumraner so wertvoll war, dass sie die entsprechenden Schriften in ihre Bibliothek aufnahmen – wobei dies wahrscheinlich nicht der einzige Grund war. Bei der Unterscheidung der Schriften muss man mit großen Unschärfen rechnen: Hat man anfänglich primär sprachliche Phänomene zur Unterscheidung benutzt,2 um “sectarian” von “non sectarian” zu unterscheiden, so wurde mit der Entwicklung der Kategorie “pre-sectarian” dem Phänomen Rechnung getragen, dass viele “non sectarian” Schriften durchaus in Qumran eine sehr hohe Reputation erlangten und hier durchaus auch weiter entwickelt und in “sectarian” Weise fortgeschrieben werden konnten (Musterbeispiel 11QPsa).3 Das gilt nicht nur für biblische Texte, sondern bes. für die Pseudepigraphen und Apokryphen (z.B. Henoch, Jubiläen) und für halakhische Werke (z.B. Tempelrolle).

1. Statistische Vorbemerkungen Das Nomen ‫ ברית‬geht mit einer ganzen Reihe von Verben (ca. 70) Verbindungen ein, wobei es fast nie als Subjekt, fast immer jedoch als Objekt zum Verb begegnet. Diese Verbindungen sind unterschiedlich verteilt und zeigen einige Schwerpunkte, was sich in der folgenden Tabelle aufzeigen lässt: 1

Vgl. STRAWN, ThWQ I, 509–510. Vgl. hier bes. DIMANT, Qumran; CHAZON, “Divrei”, bes. 5–16; LANGE, Weisheit, bes. 6–20; JOKIRANTA, “Sectarianism”. 3 Bes. instruktiv ist in dieser Hinsicht der Beitrag von FRÖHLICH, “Defining Sectarian”. 2

274

Heinz-Josef Fabry

Verb ‫( אור‬hiph) ‫( אמן‬hiph) ‫בוא ברית‬ ‫בוא הברית‬ ‫בוא בברית‬ ‫בחר לברית‬ ‫גאל‬ ‫( גבר‬hiph) ‫דבק‬ ‫דרשׁ‬ ‫ברית היה ל‬ ‫זמם על‬ ‫זכר ברית‬ ‫( חדש‬hiph) ‫חזק ברית‬ ‫חזק הברית‬ ‫חזק בברית‬ ‫( חזק לברית‬hitp.) ‫( חלל הברית‬pi.) ‫( חקק‬pu.) ‫חרה לברית‬ ‫חשׁב בברית‬ ‫חתת מברית‬ ‫ידע‬ ‫ידע את ברית‬ ‫ידע לברית‬ ‫( ירד‬hiph) ‫( כלה ברית‬pi.) ‫( כפר‬pu.) ‫כרת ברית‬ ‫כרת ברית את‬ ‫כרת את הברית‬ ‫כרת ברית ל‬

MT – 2 – – 4 – 1 (Neh) 2 (Dtn) – – 4 – 11 – – – 2 (Jes) – 3 (Mal/Ps) – – – – – – – – 1 (Jes 28) 19 11 5 21

sect. 1 3 6 (D) 7 (D) 22 (D/S) 2 (S/Sb) – – 2 1 (H) 1 (S) 1 (4Q280) 7 4 (Sb) 7 (D/S) 1 4 (S/H) 1 (M) – – 1 (M) 1 (S) 1 (H) 1 (H) 1 (S) 1 (259) – – – – 1 (271) – 2(M/434)

non sect. – – 1 (PAM 43) – 1 (470) – – – – – – – 2 (370/504) – – – – – 1 (383) 1 (252) – – – – – – 2 (385a/387) 1 (1Q22 1ii8) – – 1 (504) – 3 (368[r]/381/ Ta 2,4.12[r]) –

‫כרת ברית על‬

2

–

‫כרת ברית עם‬

11

2 (CD/271)

‫לחם על ברית‬ (hiph.) ‫למד בברית‬ ‫לקח ברית עם‬ ‫מאס‬ ‫מאס בברית‬ ‫מאס את ברית‬ ‫מחה לברית‬ ‫נאר‬ ‫נבט אל‬ ‫נבט ל‬ ‫( נגד‬hiph.)

–

–

3 (388a/470/ Ta 29,10) 1 (387 3,8)

– 1 (2C23,1) – – 1 (2K) – 1 (Ps 89) – 1 (Ps 74) 2 (Dtn 4)

1 (H) – 1 (D) 1 (H) – 1 (M) – 1 (H) – –

– – – – – – – – – –

Bedeutung den B. erleuchten am B. festhalten in den B. kommen dto. dto. für den B. erwählen den B. beflecken den B. groß machen sich festhalten an den B. suchen der B. ist/soll sein … (Böses) planen an den B. denken den B. erneuern am B. festhalten dto. im B. stärken für den B. stark machen den B. entweihen einen B. anordnen einen B. eingraben zum B. gerechnet werden sich abschrecken lassen erkennen dto. dto. herabstürzen lassen einen B. vollenden der B. wird ausgelöscht einen B. schließen einen B. schließen mit dto. dto. einen B. schließen gegen (Gott) dto. gegen den B. kämpfen lassen im B. belehren sich verbünden mit den B. verwerfen dto. dto. den B. erhalten aufheben, entweihen aufblicken zum B. dto. einen B. verkündigen

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran Verb ‫נזר מברית‬ ‫נשׂא‬ ‫נתן ברית‬ ‫נתן את ברית‬

MT – 1 (Ps 50) 1 (Gen 17) 1 (Num 25,12) – 2 (Jes) –

sect. 1 (H) – – –

‫( עמד ברית‬hiph.) ‫( עמד בברית‬qal) ‫( עמד לברית‬hiph.) ‫ערץ‬ ‫עשׂה כברית‬

2 1 (2K23,3) 4 – 1 (2C)

– – 1 (H15,22) 3 (171/pH) –

‫עשׂה דברי ברית‬ ‫פרע‬ ‫( פרר ברית‬hiph.) ‫צוה‬ ‫( קום ברית‬hiph.) ‫( קום את ברית‬hiph.) ‫( קום על ברית‬hiph.) ‫קרב לברית‬ ‫רשׁע‬ ‫שׂים‬ ‫( שׁבת ברית‬hiph.) ‫שׁוב אל‬ ‫שׁוב מן‬ ‫שׁחה‬ ‫שׁכח‬ ‫שׁמע את דברי הברית‬ ‫שׁמר ברית‬ ‫שׁמר הברית‬ ‫שׁמר את ברית‬ ‫( שׁמר בברית‬hitp.) ‫שׁמר את דברי הברית‬ ‫שׁקר‬ ‫תמך בברית‬

1 (2C) – 20 1 (Ps 111) 3 8 (Dtn) – – 1 (Dan) 1 (2Sam) – – – 1 (Mal 2,6) 4 3 (Jer 11) 5 6 4 –

‫נתן הברית ל‬ ‫נתן לברית‬ ‫סור‬ ‫עבר ברית‬ ‫עבר את ברית‬ ‫עבר בברית‬ ‫עזב‬ ‫עזב את ברית‬ ‫( עזב מברית‬niph.)

– 1 (252) 1 (D) 3 (Dtn/Hos) 4 (D) 6 (dtr./Jer) – – 8 3 (1K/Jer) – 1 (Dtn) 1 (D) – 1 (H)

– 2 (415/502) 1 – 7 (D/S) 2 (S) 1 (H) 1 (D) 1 (M) – – 2 (S/D) 1 (H 6,32f.) – 2 (176/509) 1 (S 2,13) 6 (D/Sa/M) 3 (D/S) – 1 (H 7,28) 2 (Dtn/2Chr) – – –

1 (471a) 3 (H)

non sect. – – 1 (1Q22)? –

275

Bedeutung vom B.abweichen einen B. schließen den Bund geben den B. stiften

2 (385/388) – – 1 (Ta 55) – – – – –

jem. den Bund geben zum B. machen feststehen den B. verlassen dto. in den B. eintreten den B. verlassen dto. aus dem B. entlassen werden 1 (381) den B. aufrichten – dem B. beitreten – für den B. hinstellen – den B. fürchten – dem B. entsprechend handeln 1 (185 3,9) die Worte des B. machen – nicht befolgen 7 den B. brechen/widerrufen – den B. bestimmen 1 (504) den B. errichten – dto. – dto. – sich dem B. nähern 2 (385a/387) sich am B. versündigen – einen B. gewähren 2 (Tb 4,24par.) einen B. beenden – zum B. umkehren – vom B. abkehren – den B. zunichte machen 6 den B. vergessen – auf die Worte des B. hören 1 (521) den B. beachten, befolgen 1 (393) den B. beachten, befolgen 1 (385a) dto. – im B. bewahrt sein 1 (1Q22) auf die Worte des B. achten – den B. verspotten 1 (382) den B. festhalten

(1) Bemerkenswert ist die gegenüber MT große Vielfalt der syntaktischen Verbindungen. So ist die Wendung ‫“ בוא ברית‬in den Bund kommen” geradezu ein “sectarian” Proprium, ebenso ‫( חדשׁ ברית‬hiph) “den Bund erneuern” und ‫“ חזק ברית‬am Bund festhalten etc.”. Gegenüber MT überraschend selten begegnen die Wendungen ‫“ כרת ברית‬einen Bund schließen” und ‫( פרר ברית‬hiph.) “den Bund brechen”.

276

Heinz-Josef Fabry

(2) Die “non sectarian” Texte benutzen folgende Verbindungen mit MT gegen die “sectarian” Texte: ‫( חלל הברית‬pi.) “den Bund entweihen”, ‫“ נתן ברית‬den Bund geben”, ‫שׁמר את‬ ‫“ דברי הברית‬die Worte des Bundes ausführen” und ‫“ שׁמר את ברית‬den Bund beachten”. (3) Die “non sectarian” Texte haben folgende Eigenprägungen generiert: ‫( חקק ברית‬pu.) “einen Bund anordnen”, ‫( ירד ברית‬hiph) “einen Bund herabstürzen lassen”, ‫( כלה ברית‬pi.) “einen Bund vollenden”, ‫( לחם על ברית‬hiph.) “gegen den Bund kämpfen lassen”, ‫נתן הברית ל‬ “jem. den Bund geben” und ‫( שׁבת ברית‬hiph.) “den (Salz-)Bund beenden”.

2. Die Erarbeitung der Textbasis Brent A. Strawn hat folgende Texte als “non sectarian” qualifiziert:4 erzählende Werke (4Q370; 382–385; 463; 470; 577)5; poetisch/liturgische Werke (4Q1796; 381; 521; 11QPsa), zusätzlich noch 4Q3937; Pseudepigrapha (1Q228; 4Q216; 385a; 387; 388; 388a; 390); weisheitliche Texte (4Q185); halakhische Texte (4Q414); kalendarisch/chronologische Texte (4Q324) und die “non identified” Texte (1Q54; 4Q282a; 284a).9 – Dagegen sind die Texte

4

STRAWN, ThWQ 1, 510. Gelegentlich wurde auch 4Q252 als “non sectarian” angesehen. Dieser Text enthält eine pescher-ähnliche Paraphrase zu Gen 6–49. Die beiden Belege von ‫ ברית‬finden sich in 4Q252 1 v 2.4 in einer paraphrasierenden Auslegung des Judaspruches Gen 49,10. V. 2 spricht über MT hinaus vom “meḥoqeq des Bundes des Königtums” und intensiviert damit den messianischen Unterton des Judaspruches (vgl. CD 6,7). Da in V. 5 daneben auch qumrantypisch von den “Männern des ‫ ”יחד‬und der Erwählung der “Söhne Zadoqs” gesprochen wird, ist der Text sicher als “sectarian” zu bezeichnen; vgl. BROOKE, “The Thematic Content”, bes. 55– 57. 6 4Q179 (4QApocryphal Lamentations A) gilt gemeinhin als ein vorqumranisches Klagelied, wird aber auch gelegentlich als “sectarian” qualifiziert. Der Text enthält jedoch keine zwingenden Hinweise auf eine “sectarian” Herkunft. 7 STRAWN (ThWQ 1, 510) rechnet diesen Text zu den “sectarian texts”, was letztlich nicht ausgeschlossen werden kann, da ähnliche Materialien auch in der Bundeserneuerungsliturgie 1QS 1,18–2,23 vorliegen. Die große Nähe zu den Bekenntnisgebeten in Dtn 9,26–29; Neh 9; Ps 51 und Jub 1,4–25 und das Tetragramm sprechen eher für eine vorqumranische Herkunft (vgl. FALK, DJD XXIX, 48). 8 1Q22 (1QWords of Mosesa) wird häufig zu den “sectarian texts” gerechnet. Er bildet nach Meinung des Editors MILIK (DJD 1, 92) ein “Petit Deutéronome”, wie parallel dazu das Jubiläenbuch eine “Petite Genèse” bildet. In den vier großen gut erhaltenen Fragmenten findet sich nichts, das den Text zwingend als “sectarian” kennzeichnet. 9 Eine Durchsicht der sehr stark fragmentierten möglicherweise “non sectarian” Belege 4Q324 (4QMishmarot C) 1,3.7; 4Q384 (4QpapApocrJer B) 9,4 und 4Q577 (4QText Mentioning the Flood) 6,3 bringt nichts ein. Ebenso sind die “non identified” Texte 1Q54,2 (“Bund seiner Glorie”, ‫ ;)ב[רית כבודו‬4Q282a und 1Q22 42,2 für eine semantische Analyse unergiebig. 5

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

277

4Q284a10; 41411; 11QPsa12 als “sectarian” einzuordnen und 11Q19 (Ta) und 11Q20 (Tb)13 den “non sectarian” Texten zuzuordnen.

3. Die semantische Analyse der Belege 3.1 “Den Bund aufrichten (‫”)הקים‬ Die Wendungen “den Bund aufrichten” sind im MT (11mal, davon 6mal in Gen), in den “sectarian” Texten Qumrans gut, in den “non sectarian” Texten auffällig selten bezeugt: ‫ הקים ברית‬begegnet 7mal ausschließlich in CD und S; ‫ הקים הברית‬nur in 11Q13(Melch) 2,24; ‫ הקים את ברית‬2mal (nur in S) und ‫ הקים על ברית‬nur 1QH 12,34. Im “non sectarian” Bereich ist ‫ הקים ברית‬nur in 4Q504 1–2 iv 6 belegt. Die Wendung ‫ עמד ברית‬ist semantisch zu differenzieren in: ‫“ עמד בברית‬dem Bund beitreten” (2Kön 23,3; vgl. 2Chr 34,32 [ohne ‫)]ברית‬, ‫( עמד ברית‬hiph.) “den Bund aufrichten” (Ps 105,10; 1Chr 16,17, sonst nur “non sectarian” in 4Q381 69,6) und ‫( עמד לברית‬hiph.) “für den Bund hinstellen” (1QH 15,22f.). 4Q504 (4QDibHama) 1–2 iv 6: Dieser Text führt die heilsgeschichtlichen Magnalia Dei (Exodus; Erhalt im Exil, Gnadenerweise, Erbarmen, Ermöglichung zur Umkehr) auf und gehört nach E. Chazon14 ebenfalls zur “pre-sectarian” Literatur. Er ist wohl als Trostwort an die Exilierten resp. mittellos Heimgekehrten gerichtet. 10

4Q284a (4QHarvesting) wird von STRAWN ThWQ 1, 510, als “non sectarian” eingeordnet, die z.T. wörtliche Nähe zu 1QS 6,20 und 7,20 und die Plene-Schreibung lassen es geraten erscheinen, den Text als “sectarian” zu qualifizieren. 11 4Q414 (4QRitual of Purification A) wird von STRAWN ThWQ 1, 510, als “non sectarian” gewertet. Die Nennung der Termine zum Eintauchen im Reinigungsbad finden sich genauso in 11QTa 49, was die “non sectarian” Wertung stützen könnte. Die Nähe zu 4Q512 und die Wendung ‫ עבר בברית‬in der Bedeutung “in den Bund eintreten”, die sonst nur noch in 1QS 1,16.18.20.24; 2,10 und 4Q439 (“sectarian”) begegnet – im Gegensatz zu ‫עבר ברית‬, “den Bund verlassen” in 11QTa 55 – sprechen für einen “sectarian” Charakter des Textes, was zusätzlich durch das Vorkommen von ‫ יחד‬in 4Q414 5,7 bestätigt wird. 12 11Q5 (11QPsa) als “non sectarian” zu bezeichnen, ist zuerst einmal grundsätzlich zutreffend, denn das weit überwiegende Psalmenmaterial entspricht dem Psalterium der hebräischen Bibel und auch die apokryphen Psalmen der Rolle werden allgemein als “pre-sectarian” angesehen. Die Neukomposition der Psalmen, ihre Kompilation mit den apokryphen Dichtungen, die auffällige David-Bezogenheit und die Variationen im Schlusspalm 151 erweisen die Rolle in ihrer Endgestalt jedoch als eindeutig “sectarian”; dazu vgl. WITT, “David”, 77–97: “… the tentative conclusion … is, that the present form of Ps 151A–B, originated within Qumran Community”. 13 Es ist heute überwiegender Konsens der Forschung, dass die Tempelrolle aus der vorqumranischen Zeit stammt. 14 Vgl. CHAZON (s.o. Anm. 2).

278

Heinz-Josef Fabry ‫… כיא אהבתה‬ ‫את ישראל מכול העמים ותבחר בשבט‬ ‫יאודה ובריתכה הקימותה לדויד להיות‬ ‫כרעי נגיד על עמכה וישב על כסא ישראל לפניך‬

denn du hast Israel geliebt mehr als alle Völker und du hast erwählt den Stamm Ja’udah und deinen Bund hast du aufgerichtet mit David, damit er sei wie ein Hirtenfürst über dein Volk und sitze auf dem Thron Israels vor dir …

Der engere Kontext spricht die Erwählung Judas an (vgl. Ps 78,68), die sich in der freien Bundesstiftung Gottes mit David konkretisiert. Die Gottesrede richtet sich gegen Jerusalem, wo Gott trotz aller Missetaten des Volkes seinen Bund mit Israel aufrichtet (Ez 16,60.62; Bar 2,35). Genau diesen Gnadenbund greifen auch CD 3,13; 4,9 auf, um ihn nun als der neuen Gemeinde zugesprochen zu interpretieren. Unser “non sectarian” Text muss den Text Ez 16,60.62 vor sich gehabt haben, da auch er die Gabe des Bundes an das Volk mit der Erkenntnisformel verbindet. 4Q381 (4QNon-Canonical Psalms B) 69,5f.: Der Text von 4Q381 verteilt sich auf 110 Fragmente. Da das Tetragramm relativ häufig in diesem Text begegnet15, ist diese Psalmensammlung wohl als “non sectarian” anzusehen. Die einzelnen Gebete sind nicht mehr voneinander abzuheben, aber mehrere betende Subjekte sind noch zu erkennen. Die Gefahr, die von den Bewohnern des Landes ausgeht, bestimmt als Grundtenor den gesamten Text. Ihre Abscheulichkeiten verführen zum Götzendienst. In diesem Kontext steht Fragm. 69, das im Unterschied zu den anderen Texten nun ein plur. “euch” anspricht und eher mahnenden Charakter hat und eine gewisse Nähe zu Neh 9, aber auch zur deuteronomischen Sprache (vgl. Dtn 4,1.5.14 u.ö.) zeigt. 16

‫[בכם וינתם לכם ברוחו נביאים להשכיל וללמד אתכם‬ ‫ כם מן שמים ירד וידבר עמכם להשכיל אתכם ולהשיב ממעשי ישבי‬°[ °°° [‫נתן ח[קים תורות ומצות בברית העמיד ביד] משה‬

]bei euch. Und es wurde euch gegeben durch seinen Geist Propheten, damit sie euch unterweisen und lehren, ] euch, vom Himmel stieg er herab und er sprach mit euch, um euch zu unterweisen und (euch) abzuwenden von den Taten der Bewohner des [ Er gab Ge]setze, Torot und Bestimmungen durch/in dem Bund, (den er ) aufgerichtet hat durch die Hand [des Moses] …

Unserer Stelle am nächsten steht Ps 105,10, wo Gott für Israel “einen (ewigen) Bund bestimmt” (par. “eine Satzung (‫ )חוק‬bestimmen”). ‫ העמיד ברית‬steht hier in unmittelbarer Parallele zu ‫ כרת לכם‬in Z. 8; semantisch ist kein Unterschied zu entdecken. Zur Fortführung des Textes vgl. w.u. Pt. 3.13. 15 16

1,2; 24a+b,4.8. 33a+b+35,2; 77,12; 86,2. Diese Zeile ist über der Folgezeile offensichtlich sekundär nachgetragen.

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

279

Fazit: Während der Text 4Q504 noch ganz in der prophetischen Tradition steht, schöpft 4Q381 ganz aus Dtn 4 und greift von dort die Reminiszenz an den Sinai/Horeb-Bund auf, den Gott mit den Vätern geschlossen (‫ )כרת‬und ihnen zugeschworen (‫ )נשׁבע‬hat (Dtn 4,13.23.31). Beide Texte sehen den Bund als den ethischen Raum Israels, der dem Volk durch Gottes Handeln gewährt worden ist. 3.2 “Den Bund schließen (‫”)כרת‬ Die Wendung ‫“ כרת ברית‬den Bund schließen” (im MT ca. 80mal) in unterschiedlichen, semantisch identischen Formationen ist in Qumran zahlenmäßig auffallend gering belegt. ‫( כרת ברית‬MT 19mal) ist in Qumran nicht belegt. Die häufigere Wendung ‫( כרת ברית ל‬MT 21mal) ist 2mal “sectarian” und 4mal “non sectarian” vertreten. Es fällt auf, dass die gebräuchliche Terminologie für den Bundesschluss in den “sectarian” Texten überraschend selten, in den zahlenmäßig viel geringeren “non sectarian” Texten dagegen öfter (7mal) belegt ist. Dieser statistische Sachverhalt ist leicht einsichtig, da in den “sectarian” Texten ‫ ברית‬vielfach zur Bezeichnung der “Gemeinde” geworden ist, eine semantische Entwicklung, die in den “non sectarian” Schriften noch nicht zu beobachten ist. Im Umkehrschluss findet sich entsprechend häufig (ca. 35mal, bes. in 1QS und CD) die Wendung “in den Bund kommen” als Ausdruck für die Hinwendung zum jaḥad. Im folgenden Text nun findet sich der einzige Beleg im qumranischen Schrifttum, in denen beide Wendungen in unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft begegnen: 4Q470 (4QText Mentioning Zedekiah) 1,3.6 zeigt alle Anzeichen eines vorqumranischen Textes und enthält zwei Belege von ‫ברית‬. Wie viele Texte der zwischentestamentlichen Zeit ist auch dieser Text am Wirken der Engel interessiert. Michael tritt hier auf als Mediator zwischen Gott und König Zidkija17, um zwischen beiden einen Bund zu stiften. Dies muss überraschen, da dieser König im DtrGW durchweg negativ kritisiert wird (2Kön 24,19; Jer 52,2; 2Chr 36,12), weil er – allen Einwänden zum Trotz – einen Bund mit Babylon geschlossen und diesen durch politisch-militärische Kontakte mit Ägypten gebrochen hatte (2Chr 36,13). Andererseits hatte er aber auch auf Drängen Jeremias mit den Bewohnern Jerusalems einen Bund geschlossen, der die Verpflichtung enthielt, die jüdischen Sklaven freizulassen (Jer 34,8ff.), woran sich die Bewohner jedoch nicht hielten. Der Text hier lautet:

17 In zwei “sectarian” Texten wird Zidkija genannt, aber nur im Beitext im Zusammenhang mit der Zerstörung Jerusalems durch die Babylonier (4Q247 1,4; 398 11–13,2).

280

Heinz-Josef Fabry ]°[ ]‫מיכאל‬°[ ‫יב[וא צדקיה ביום ]הה[וא בב]רי[ת‬ ‫ לעשות ולהעשות את כל התורה‬°°[ ‫ב[עת ההיא יאמר מ]יכ[אל אל צדקיה‬ ‫[אכרתה עמך] בר[י]ת [לעיני הקהל‬ ]‫ ל‬°[ ]°‫לע[שות ו‬

][ ] Michael[ ] Zidkija [soll ko]mmen an die[sem] Tag in den B[un]d ] um zu tun und um tun zu lassen die gesamte Tora [zu] dieser Zeit soll M[ich]ael zu Zidkija sagen: ] Ich will schließen mit dir einen ]Bu][n[d ]vor den Augen der Versammlung, um zu t]un und[

Die Wendung ‫“ בוא בברית‬in den Bund kommen” – in den “sectarian” Schriften Ausdruck für die Hinwendung zum jaḥad – kommt im MT nur 3mal vor (Jer 34,10; Ez 16,8; 2Chr 15,12; im hiph. “jem. in den Bund [mit JHWH] bringen”, 1Sam 20,8; vgl. Ez 17,13, hier mit ‫ כרת‬formuliert18) und konkretisiert dort die Hinwendung des Menschen zu Gott. Die häufigere Wendung ‫ – כרת ברית‬hier mit göttlichem Subjekt (Erzengel Michael) – steht in unmittelbarem Kontext und meint einen Bund schließen im Sinne: eine Verpflichtung feierlich eingehen (vgl. 2Chr 15,12). Nun ist aber die Verbform rekonstruiert und bereits die Editoren lassen die Möglichkeit offen, hier eine Form von ‫“ קרא‬lesen” zu sehen.19 Diese Wendung ist jedoch weder im MT noch in Qumran belegt; vergleichbar wäre vielleicht ‫קרא במגילה‬ “in der Rolle lesen” (Dtn 17,19; Jes 36,6.8.10.14 u.ö.). Die Forschung ist sich uneinig in der Beantwortung der Frage, um welchen Bund es sich handeln soll. Sehr wahrscheinlich trifft der Vorschlag von E. Larson20 das Richtige, unser Text sei eine Exegese von Jer 34,8–22. Möglich ist auch ein Verweis auf Jer 31,31–34: Der in 4Q470 gemeinte Bund sei dann der neue Bund, der durch den Engel Michael dem Zidkija vermittelt werde. Der Text schaue demnach auf die Verwirklichung der Verheißung des messianischen Königs in Jer 23,5–6, der den Namen ‫“ יהוה צדקנו‬JHWH ist unsere Gerechtigkeit” haben wird.21 11QTa 2,4f.: Das umfangreiche halakhische Werk der Tempelrolle ist im 2. Jh.v.Chr. endredigiert worden, wobei der Text im Wesentlichen bis ins 4. Jh. zurückreichen könnte. Die fragmentarischen Anfangskolumnen enthalten Passagen aus dem atl. Privilegrecht (Ex 34). 18

WEINFELD, ThWAT I, 788. LARSON, SCHIFFMAN, STRUGNELL, DJD XIX, 239. 20 A.a.O., 244. 21 SCHIFFMAN, a.a.O., 243f. sieht in der Namensänderung von Jojachin zu Zidkija “Gerechtigkeit ist JHWH” den Ausdruck eines göttlichen Segens, den unser Text als Bundesschluss verstehe. 19

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

281

[‫הש[מר לכה פן תכרות בר]ית ליושבי הארץ‬ [‫]אשר אתה [בא אליהם פן יהיו למו]קש בקרבכה‬ Nimm dich [in Acht], dass du nicht schließt einen B[und mit den Bewohnern des Landes], [wenn du zu ihnen ko]mmst, dass sie nicht werden zu einer Fa[lle in deiner Mitte].

Z. 4 ist ein Zitat aus Ex 34,12 und ist fast wortgleich mit dem MT. Dieses Zitat wird in Z. 12 noch einmal wiederholt, nun in der Lautung von Ex 34,15. 11QTa 2,12: Der Text von Z. 12 ist fragmentarisch und muss rekonstruiert werden: [‫השמר פן תכרות ]ברית ליושבי הארץ‬ ‫]וזנו[ אחרי אל]והיהמה ו[זבחו לה]מה‬ Hüte dich davor, [einen Bund] zu schließen [mit den Bewohnern des Landes], [denn sie huren ihren] Göt[tern] hinterher [und] opfern ih[nen und laden dich dazu ein].

Die Tempelrolle zitiert hier wörtlich die privilegrechtliche Bestimmung Ex 34,15 (vgl. V. 12). Dieser beliebte atl. Topos findet sich auch in Ex 23,32; Dtn 7,2; Jos 9,2.7; 23,12f.16; 24,19 und Ri 2,2. 4Q368 (4QApocryphal Pent A) 2,7 (rekonstr.) findet sich im Zusammenhang einer Exhortation des Moses an das Volk: Der Text zeigt eine deutliche Nähe zu 1Q22: ‫[יהוה קנא שמו אלקנא‬ ‫]הוא פן תכרות ברית ליושבי הארץ ויזנו [ אחרי אלוהיהם‬ ]JHWH, Eifersüchtiger ist sein Name, ein Eifergott ist [er, damit du nicht einen Bund schließt mit den Bewohnern des Landes, denn sie huren] hinter ihren Göttern her …

Diese Pentateuch-Apokryphe ist ganz sicher “pre-sectarian” und orientiert sich auch an Ex 34,14f. Der Text ist gleichlautend mit 11QTa 2,12. 11QTa 29,10: Dieser Passus findet sich in dem größeren Textzusammenhang “Die Opfer im Kalenderzyklus” (Kol. 13–30), näherhin im Abschluss der Opfervorschriften …‫ואקדשתי ]את מ[קדשי בכבודי אשר אשכן‬ ‫אליו את כבודי עד יום הבריה אשר אברא אני את מקדשי‬ ‫להכינו לי כול הימים כברית אשר כרתי עם יעקוב בבית אל‬ … Und ich will heiligen meinen Tempel in meiner Glorie, denn ich will wohnen lassen in ihm meine Glorie bis zum Tag der Schöpfung, wenn ich schaffen werde meinen Tempel, um ihn aufzurichten für mich alle Tage gemäß dem Bund, den ich geschlossen habe mit Jakob in Bet-El.

282

Heinz-Josef Fabry

Interessant ist die Interpretation der Ereignisse von Gen 28 und 35 in Bet-El durch die Tempelrolle als Bundesschluss, die wahrscheinlich auf einen Hintergrund des Jubiläenbuches verweist. Nach Gen 28,19 hat Jakob hier vor dem Herrn nur ein “Gelübde” (nedær) abgelegt (vgl. Jub 27,19ff.; 31,1.26.29; 32,5.7), nach Gen 35,1ff. hat er hier das Volk verpflichtet, die Götzenfiguren zu entfernen und einen Reinigungsritus durchzuführen. Obwohl weder in Gen noch in Jub in diesem Kontext von einem Bund gesprochen wird, steht diese Vorstellung ohne Zweifel im Hintergrund. Bedenkt man zudem, dass in Bet-El dem Stamm Levi das Hohepriestertum verheißen und übergeben wurde (Jub 32,1.3ff.), dann legt sich die Deutung als “Bund” analog zum Pinhasbund (Num 25,12) nahe. 4Q381 (4QNon-Canonical Psalms B) 69,8: (zur Charakterisierung von 4Q381 und zum Prätext vgl. o. Pt. 3.1. und w.u. 3.13.): ]°°‫[ישו שבו על הארץ אז תטהר ויא‬ ‫[ להשכיל בכם אם תהיו לוא ואם ] לא‬ ] ‫[ולהפיר ברית כרת לכם ולהנכר ולא‬ ]‫לפ[ על רשעה ולהמיר דבריו פיהו מעל א‬ ] sie kehrten zurück in das Land, alsdann wurde es gereinigt und [ ] um zu unterweisen unter euch, ob ihr sein (wollt) für ihn oder [nicht ] und um zu brechen den Bund, (den) er geschlossen hat mit euch und um zu handeln als Fremder und nicht[ um zu tu]n Böses und um umzudrehen seine Worte seines Mundes von weg [.

4Q504 (4QDibHama) 3 ii 13 gehört nach E. Chazon22 zu den “pre-sectarian” Texten. Diese Ansicht ist aber nicht unbestritten. Fragm. 3 ist sehr fragmentiert und im Kontext sind nur wenige Worte (“Heiligkeit, Vorschriften und Gesetze, Mose … von Angesicht zu Angesicht”) zu erkennen: ‫לעולם ותכרות אתנו ברית בחו]רב‬ auf ewig. Und du schlossest mit uns einen Bund am Ho[reb …

Fazit: Die Wendung “den Bund schließen” begegnet in Qumran fast ausschließlich in den “non sectarian” Texten und ist noch ganz alttestamentlich geprägt. Hier wie dort geht es um die Einhaltung einer Verpflichtung, die im Bundesschluss festgelegt wird. Zu einem solchen Bundesschluss kann jemand eingeladen werden “er soll in den Bund kommen”, eine Formulierung, die sich semantisch völlig von ihrem Gebrauch in den “sectarian” Texten unterscheidet. Auffällig ist auch der häufige Rekurs auf Ex 34,12, der die entsprechenden “non sectarian” Texte ganz in die Nähe der nachexilischen Integrations- und Mischehenproblematik rückt. Singulär ist in 11QTa 29,10 der Verweis auf 22

Vgl. o. Anm. 2.

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

283

einen Bundesschluss in Bet-El, der offensichtlich die bibl. Vorgaben als “Selbstverpflichtung” versteht und sie nun bundesterminologisch ausdeutet. 3.3 “Den Bund geben (‫”)נתן‬ 4Q385 (4QPsEza) 2,1 (≈ 4Q388[4QPsEzd] 7,3) ist Teil des Pseudo-EzechielTextes23. Fragm. 2 und 3 (par. 4Q386 1 i und 4Q388 7) bieten eine “reworked” Fassung von Ez 37,1–14 sowie eine stark verkürzte Fassung von Ez 38–39 und bestätigen damit die Kapitelfolge des MT gegen den Papyrus 967 (vgl. dazu w.u. zu 4Q521 10,2). Während Fragm. 1 Elemente der mærkābāh-Tradition aus Ez 1 aufgenommen hat, stellen die Fragm. 2 und 3 die “Auferstehung der Gebeine” als Metapher für das Aufblühen der jüdischen Gemeinde (Wacholder)24 oder als Lohn für die Gerechten (Ben Wright) dar.25 Der Text von Fragm. 2 zeigt einige vacats (Z. 1.4.9), die den Text untergliedern, um den Dialogcharakter des Gesprächs zwischen JHWH und Ezechiel zu markieren. Der hier relevante Text lautet: top margin vacat ‫]כי אני יהוה[ הגואל עמי לתת להם הברית‬ ‫]ואמרה יהוה[ ראיתי רבים מישראל אשר אהבו את שמך וילכו‬ ‫בדרכי] לבך וא[לה מתי יהיו והיככה ישתלמו חסדם ויאמר יהוה‬ vacat ‫אלי אני אראה] [את בני ישראל וידעו כי אני יהוה‬ [dass ich JHWH bin], der Erlöser meines Volkes, um ihnen den Bund zu geben. [Und ich sprach: JHWH], ich habe viele aus Israel gesehen, die deinen Namen lieben und wandeln auf den Wegen [deines Herzens und die]se, wann werden sie sein und wie wird ihnen ihre Güte vergolten? Da sprach JHWH zu mir: Ich habe gesehen[ ] die Söhne Israels und sie sollen erkennen, dass ich JHWH bin. .

Hier liegt eine Konflation von Ez 33,11; 18,21–32 und 37,11–14 vor. Interessant ist, dass die Wendung ‫“ נתן ברית‬den Bund geben” selbst nicht bei Ezechiel vorkommt; hier liegt also eine sprachliche Entwicklung in der pseudoezechielischen Tradition vor. Zudem ist die Wendung recht selten und begegnet in vier Formationen: ‫“ נתן ברית‬einen Bund geben”, so in Gen 17,2 (El Schaddaj stiftet einen Bund mit Abraham) und möglicherweise in 1Q22 1 ii 8 (rekonstr.; vgl. w.u.); ‫“ נתן ]ה[ברית ל‬einen/den Bund schließen mit” (4Q385 2,1; par. 4Q388,7,3; rekonstr.; s.u.); ‫( נתן את ברית‬Num 25,12: JHWH gibt dem Pinhas einen ewigen [Priester-]Bund) und ‫“ נתן לברית‬zum Bund (des Volkes)

23

4Q385 1–4,6 386 i–iii; 385b.c; 388 und 391. WACHOLDER, “Deutero-Ezekiel”. 25 FABRY, “Ezechiel in Qumran”. 24

284

Heinz-Josef Fabry

geben” (Jes 42,6; 49,8 und 4Q252 1 v 426 [niph.]: Gott ist indirekt Subj. des davidischen Königsbundes). In exakter Nachahmung ezechielischer Diktion bietet unser Text mehrfach die Erkenntnisformel (Erweiswort), wobei er die singuläre Kombination von göttlichem Erlösungshandeln und Bundesgabe bietet. Diese Kombination findet sich in den Qumrantexten sonst nicht, ist aber eine konsequente Weiterentwicklung der prophetischen Botschaft des Ezechiel. Der Autor legt den Propheten exakt aus, wenn er auf die doppelte Bundesformel (Ez 37,23b.27b) und auf den göttlichen Bundeswillen nach der Auferweckung der Totengebeine dort (Ez 37,26) nun hier rekurriert, sie der extrem kondensierten Fassung dieses Auferweckungsberichtes voranstellt und diesen damit durch die bundestheologische Brille neu zu sehen lehrt. 4Q388 (4QPsEzd) 7,3 (≈ 4Q385 2,1): Von diesem Text sind nur relative winzige Fragmente erhalten; trotzdem lassen sich durch Überlappungen mit 4Q385 2,1–5 und 4Q386 1 i 1–5 die Zusammenhänge noch recht zuverlässig erkennen: [‫כי אני יהוה הגואל‬ ‫[ים ולא תמו]תו‬ ] [‫< ואמרה יהוה‬va]cat> ‫]עמי לתת להם ה[ברית‬ [‫]ראיתי רבים מי[שראל אשר אהבו את ש]מך וילכו בדרכי לבך‬ [ ] und ihr werdet nicht sterb[en ] denn ich bin JHWH, der Retter], [mein Volk, um zu geben ihnen den ] Bund . Da sprach ich: JHWH] [Ich habe viele aus Is]rael gesehen, die lieben dein[en Namen und die wandeln auf den Wegen deines Herzens].

Fazit: Die Wendung “den Bund geben” findet sich im “non sectarian” Bereich ausschließlich in der pseudo-ezechielischen Tradition und ist hier Werk des Erlösers. Gabe und Bestehen des “Bundes” sind Garanten des Lebens, des Überlebens und der Wiedererstehung des jüdischen Volkes im Bild der Auferstehung. Wie kaum eine andere Wendung drückt diese den unbedingten Geschenkcharakter der Bundesgabe aus. 3.4 “Den Bund vollenden (‫שׁבת‬/‫”)כלה‬ 1Q22 (1QWords of Mosesa/1QDM) 1 ii 8: 1Q22 bietet nach der Rekonstruktion durch J.T. Milik27 ein dreifach strukturiertes Werk: auf eine Gottesrede an Mose (1,1–11) folgen eine Mahnrede des Moses (2,1–11) und eine Verlesung des Gesetzes (2,11–4,11). Im Großen und Ganzen bietet der Text eine harmonisierende Zusammenschau pentateuchischer (vornehmlich dtn) Bestimmungen. Ferner werden außerpentateuchische Rechtsmaterialien (z.B. Bestim26 Bei 4Q252 handelt es sich um einen “rewritten text” über Gen 7–9.22.49, der gelegentlich (D. DIMANT) als “non sectarian” eingestuft wird. Die Nennung der ‫ אנשׁי היחד‬in 5,5 rät jedoch davon ab. 27 MILIK, DJD I, 91–97.

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

285

mungen zum Versöhnungstag) eingebracht. J. Strugnell sieht in diesem MosesApokryphon ein Werk, das auf eine “pre-sectarian” zadoqidische Priestergruppe zurückgeht.28 Vierzig Jahre nach dem Auszug aus Ägypten ruft Mose das Volk auf, sich weise Männer zu bestellen, damit sie dem Volk die Tora auslegen und für öffentliche Ordnung sorgen. Dies ist eine Anspielung auf die Anweisung des Schwiegervaters Jitro an Mose, Richter einzusetzen, um sich selbst zu entlasten (Ex 18,13–27; Num 11,10–17; Dtn 1,9–18). ‫ואת[ כול מש]פטיו אי[כה ]אשא לבדי[ טרחכם ]ומש[א]כם וריבכם[ ויהה‬ ‫]אשר ככלו[תני ל] [ברית ולצוו]ת את[ הד]רך אש[ר תלכו בה ]הבו לכם חכמים אשר י[עשו לבאר‬ ‫]לכם ולבני[כם ]את[ כול דברי הת]ורה ]האלה‬ und] alle seine Rechts[fälle, wi]e [soll ich sie für mich] alleine tragen, eure Last [und eure ]Bü[rde und eure Rechtsstreitigkeiten]. Und es soll sein, wenn ich vollendet habe für [ ] den Bund, um zu befeh[len den We]g, au[f de]m ihr gehen sollt. [Schafft herbei für euch Weise, welche aus]führen sollen zu erklären [euch und euren Söh]nen alle Worte die[ser Tora.

Die erste Zeile entspricht exakt Dtn 1,12; die Auswahl der Weisen Dtn 1,13 (inkl. des seltenen ‫“ הבו‬schafft herbei” statt ‫“ בחרו‬wählt aus”). Zwischen beide ist der Hinweis auf die Vollendung des Bundes eingeschoben. Das Sinnsubjekt schillert, wahrscheinlich jedoch ist es Mose, der das Volk beauftragt, Schriftgelehrte einzusetzen. Wie soll man nun die Wendung ‫“ כלה ברית‬den Bund vollenden” verstehen? Rein wörtlich übersetzt könnte es heißen “den Bund beenden”, was aber hier quer zum Kontext stünde. Vom Kontext her ist eher an eine Situation gedacht, in der das Vertragswerk des Bundes zwischen Gott, Mose und Israel geschlossen, die Offenbarung abgeschlossen ist und die Gemeinde nun von der Auslegung leben soll29. Dass ‫ ברית‬bei allem die Ausgangsverpflichtung bildet, von der aus der Lebenswandel des Volkes bestimmt werden soll, die aber nun am Abschluss der Offenbarung als Tora schriftgelehrt interpretiert werden muss, liegt auf der Hand. Als Möglichkeit sollte auch in Betracht gezogen werden, dass die Lakune in Z. 8 anders zu rekonstruieren ist: statt ‫ ככלו[תני ל][ברית‬ist auch die Lesung ‫“ ככלו[תני ל]תת [ברית‬wenn ich vollendet habe, einen Bund zu geben” denkbar. Zur Wendung ‫ נתן ברית‬vgl. o. zu 4Q385, 2,1. 11QTb 4,24 par. 11QTa 20,19f. steht im Kontext der Bestimmungen über die Opferanteile der Priester:

28 29

STRUGNELL, Moses-Pseudepigrapha. FABRY, ThWQ II, 393.

286

Heinz-Josef Fabry


‫תאכל חמץ ביום ההוא תאכל ולוא תבו[ ע]ל[י]ו ה[שמש‬ > ‫]ועל כול קורבנכמה תתנו מלח ולוא ת[שׂבית ברית מלח לעולם‬

… [Und die ungesäuerten Brote sollen die Priester essen. Nicht soll es gegessen werden als Gesäuertes, an diesem Tag soll es gegessen werden, und nicht soll unter[gehen] ü[b]er ihm [die] Sonne . [Und auf allen euren Opfergaben sollt ihr Salz geben. Und nicht soll er au]fhören lassen den Salzbund auf ewig .

Da beide Versionen ein hiph. von ‫ שׁבת‬lesen, ist der Rückbezug auf Lev 2,13 gegeben. Der dort gegebene Auftrag an die aaronidischen Priester, jedes Speiseopfer zu salzen und es am “Salz des Bundes” nicht fehlen zu lassen, bildet zusammen mit der altorientalischen Vorstellung, beim Gastmahl Brot und Salz gastfreundlich zu teilen (vgl. Esr 4,14), die Wurzel für die Vorstellung des “Salzbundes”, einer festen Vereinbarung zwischen Gott und dem Priestertum (Num 18,19)30, auf die nun die Tempelrolle Bezug nimmt. Für H. Seebass wird ein Opfer erst durch die Beigabe von Salz gültig31, für P. Riede steht der Salzbund für die Unverbrüchlichkeit aller für die Aaroniden geltenden Bestimmungen, wie sie in Num 18,8ff. niedergelegt sind32. Letzteres scheint für die Tempelrolle entscheidend zu sein, die damit offensichtlich ein Postulat der aaronidischen Priesterschaft formuliert. Fazit: Die Formulierungen ‫“ כלה ברית‬den Bund vollenden” und ‫“ השׁבית ברית‬den Bund aufhören lassen” sprechen beide den “Bund” im Sinne einer festen und unverbrüchlich geltenden Vereinbarung zwischen Gott und dem Bundespartner an. Die Tempelrolle sieht in der Unverbrüchlichkeit des “Salzbundes” entsprechend der atl. Vorgabe das zentrale Berufs-Postulat und Privileg der aaronidischen Priesterschaft. Diese Vorstellung ist grundsätzlich nicht mit dem Selbstverständnis der qumranischen Gemeinde zu vereinbaren, muss also “pre-sectarian” sein. 3.5 “Den Bund bewahren (‫”)שׁמר‬ Die Wendung ‫“ שׁמר ברית‬den Bund bewahren/beachten” ist in vier variierenden Formationen belegt (vgl. Tabelle), was aber offensichtlich nicht zu semantischen Varianten führt: der MT enthält 17 Belege, wobei 7mal Gott (Dtn 7,9.12; 1Kön 8,23; Dan 9,4; Neh 1,5; 9,32; 2Chr 6,14) und 10mal Menschen (Gen 17,9 [Abraham]; 1Kön 11,11 [Salomo]; Gen 17,10; Ex 19,5; Ez 17,14; Ps 78,10; 103,18; 132,12 [Israel]) Subjekt der Bewahrung des Bundes sind. In 30 Zu nennen ist auch der “Salzbund” zwischen JHWH und dem Haus Davids, auf den sich Abija gegen Jerobeam beruft (2Chr 13,5). 31 SEEBASS, Numeri, 233. 32 RIEDE, Salz.

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

287

Qumran finden sich 9 “sectarian” Belege: in 1QS 5,2.9 sind die Zadoqiden und in CD 20,17; 1QSa 1,3 die Gemeinde, aber in 4 Belegen ist Gott (1QM 14,4.8; 18,7; CD 19,1) Subjekt, womit der “sectarian” Bereich die spätnachexilische Entwicklung aufgegriffen hat, in der mehr und mehr Gott als Subjekt der Bundeswahrung gesehen wurde.33 Es verbleiben die drei “non sectarian” Belege: 4Q393 (4QCommunal Confession) 3,2 enthält das Tetragramm (3,6) und dürfte deshalb ein “non sectarian” Text sein. Es handelt sich um ein Bußgebet (vgl. Neh 9,6–37; Esr 9,6–15; Dan 9,4–19). Daniel Falk34 hat die Gattung ausführlich beschrieben, in der möglicherweise auch eine jährliche Bundeserneuerung integriert war. [‫אתה‬ [‫]האלוהי[ם האל הנאמן שומר ]ה[ברית והחסד לאהב]יך ולשמרי מצותיך אשר‬ ‫]צויתה [אל מושה אל תעזוב עמך ]ונ[חלתך ואל ללכת איש בשרירות לבו‬ Du bist Gott, der zuverlässige Gott, der bewahrt [den] Bund und die Gnade denen, die dich lieb[en und deine Gebote beachten, die [du befohlen hast dem Mose. Vernichte nicht dein Volk [und dein] Erbe. Und (damit) nicht der Mensch laufe in der Hartnäckigkeit seines Herzens …

Unser Text ist ein nahezu wörtliches Zitat aus Dan 9,4 und zeigt auch sonst Anklänge an das Gebet des Moses in Dtn 7,9ff. und Neh 9 (bes. V. 32), aber auch an Jub 1,4–25. Der Jub-Text steht in derselben Tradition, auch wenn er die Wendung “den Bund bewahren” nicht enthält. Stattdessen wird in 1,17 – abgeändert in V. 24 – explizit die Bundesformel genannt. 4Q521 (4QMessianicApocalypse) 10,2: Der Text ist ein wichtiges Zeugnis für die Erwartung des/der Messias/se, resp. von Gesalbten in der qumranischen Umwelt. Beschränkten sich die literarischen Werke zur Messiaserwartung im Judentum hauptsächlich auf PsSal 17+18; 1Hen 37–71; 4Esra; 2Bar und Test XII (alle im Wesentlichen aus dem 1. Jh.n.Chr.), so haben die Mss. aus Qumran dazu wichtige Ergänzungen geliefert. Dazu zählt auch 4Q52135, das als ältere Tradition zu einem der Vorläufer von 2Bar und 4Esra gerechnet werden kann. Die Differenz zeigt sich in der Verbindung von Messias und Auferstehung von den Toten: In 4Q521 2 ii geschieht die Auferstehung in den Tagen des Messias, der offensichtlich als das ausführende Werkzeug Gottes angesehen werden muss. 2Bar/4Esra sehen im Messias ein von Gott ausgehendes und zu ihm wieder zurückkehrendes göttliches Wesen, das durch die Vernichtung der Feinde

33

Vgl. dazu ausführlich HANSBERGER, ThWQ III, 1008. FALK, DJD XXIX, 47f. 35 Vgl. dazu bes. COLLINS, Messiah, 98–112; KNIBB, Messianism, bes. 181. 34

288

Heinz-Josef Fabry

Israels die messianische Zeit bringt. Dort erfolgt die Auferstehung der Toten und das Endgericht nach der Rückkehr des Messias zu Gott.36 Das sehr fragmentarische Fragm. 10 lässt von diesen Zusammenhängen nichts erkennen. Sein Text lautet: ‫ש]ר‬°[ ‫[ישמרו ברי]ת‬ ‫[עו[ד רשע בינידם‬ ‫[ה בתוכם‬ ] [ ]sie bewahren den Bun[d no]ch ein Frevel zwischen ihnen ] in ihrer Mitte.

4Q385a (4QApocrJerCa) 18 i a–b,9 gehört zum erzählerischen Abschluss des gesamten Jer-Apokryphons und könnte eine apokryphe Ausformulierung für den im MT nicht berichteten Aufenthalt Jeremias in Babel sein: ‫]וישמעו[ בקול ירמיה לדברים אשר צוהו אלהים‬ ‫]לעשות [ושמרו את ברית אלהי אבותיהם בארץ‬ ‫]בבל ולא יעשו [כאשר עשו‬ Und sie hörten] auf die Stimme des Jeremia im Bezug auf die Dinge, die ihm befohlen hatte Gott, [zu tun ] und sie bewahrten den Bund des Gottes ihrer Väter im Land [Babel und nicht taten sie ], wie sie getan hatten …

Der Text ist wohl exegetisch entwickelt aus der Schlussmahnung Gottes in Tachpanes (nicht im MT) vermittelt durch Jeremia in 4Q385a 18 ii 8f.: Jeden Tag sucht meine Bestimmungen und haltet meine Gebote und lauft nicht den Götzenbildern der Heiden hinterher, hinter denen eure Väter herliefen, denn die können euch nicht retten.

Beachtlich ist dann die Nennung vom “Bund”, der nun als Sammelbegriff für die in 18 ii 8f. genannten Einzelelemente verstanden werden muss. Dimant weist darauf hin, dass wir hier auf eine Jeremia-Tradition treffen, die offensichtlich parallel zum masoretischen Jer überliefert worden ist und Spuren in EpJer; 2Makk 2,1–4; 4Bar; 2Bar und Pes.Rabbati hinterlassen hat.37 1Q22 1 iii 3: Dieser Text steht nun im Zusammenhang der Einrichtung des Sabbatjahres nach Lev 25 und Dtn 15. Der Text lautet:

36 Hier ist auf die unterschiedliche Textabfolge der Kapitel Ez 37–39 in MT/LXX (Auferstehung vor dem Endgericht) und in Papyrus 967 (Endgericht vor der Auferstehung) zu verweisen; dazu vgl. KONKEL, “Ezechiel-Septuaginta” und w.o. zu 4Q385 2,1. 37 Vgl. DIMANT, DJD XXX, 166; TOV, “Literary History”.

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

289

… [‫…………… לוא[ יזמור אי]ש‬ [‫]ואת ספיחי קצירו לוא יקצור איש ולוא י[אסוף ל]ו מאומה ושמרתה א[ת כו]ל דברי ה[ברית ]הא[ל]ה‬ ‫]…לעשות אותם ו[יהי‬ … Niemand] soll abschneiden [und den Nachwuchs seiner Ernte. Niemand soll ernten und niemand soll s]ammeln fü[r sich irgendetwas. Und du sollst beachten al]le Worte die[ses B]undes, [um sie zu tun und] es wird sein …

Der weitere sehr fragm. Textverlauf zeigt die sozialen Bestimmungen auf: Erlass der Darlehen; positiver Umgang mit den Fremdlingen im Land etc. Die Terminologie erscheint auf dem ersten Blick als völlig unspektakulär. Die Wendung ‫“ דברי הברית‬Worte des Bundes” begegnet im MT nur 10mal: wie hier mit ‫ שׁמר‬in Dtn 29,8 und 2Kön 23,3; mit ‫ שׁמע‬in Jer 11,2.6.8 und in Qumran in 1QS 2,13 (mit ‫ )שמע‬und “non sectarian” 4Q185 3,3 (fragm.; mit ‫ ;עשה‬vgl. 2Chr 34,31)38. Der Dtn-Beleg finden sich an einer Schlüsselstellen für die Verbindung der Gesetzgebung am Horeb mit der 2. Mosesrede im Lande Moab durch die Moab-Redaktion39. In 2Kön 23,3 wird die Bundeserneuerung durch König Joschija berichtet. Fazit: Die Wendung “den Bund bewahren” denkt eindeutig an die Bundesverpflichtungen vom Sinai, die im Einklang mit vorderorientalischen Vertragsvorstellungen von den Bundespartnern einzuhalten sind. Die Formulierung wäre also mit der “Grundsatzerklärung” im sog. “Bundesformular” zu vergleichen, wird dann aber zur Grundhaltung des Gottesvolkes. Die “non sectarian” Belege verbleiben ganz in der atl. Vorstellungswelt: Gott bewahrt den Bund denen, die ihn lieben; die Menschen bewahren den Bund, wenn sie in der Tradition ihrer Väter verharren und alle Worte seines Bundes bewahren. Diese Tradition wird auch in den “sectarian” Texten weitergeführt: Die Gemeinde bewahrt den Bund, wenn sie vom Frevel umkehrt und inmitten der Gottlosigkeit ihrem Gott die Treue hält. Bemerkenswert ist nun die in 1QS 5 vorfindliche Personalisierung: hier sind es die Zadoqiden, die mustergültig die Bewahrung des Bundes vorleben und damit die Grundlage für die Bildung und Existenz der Gemeinde gelegt haben. Der Bundesbegriff wechselt allmählich von einem ethischen Begriff zu einer ekklesiologischen Bezeichnung. 3.6 “An den Bund denken (‫”)זכר‬ 4Q370 (4QAdmon Flood) 1 i 7 ist eine Paraphrase von Gen 9,13.15. Der erhaltene Text bietet eine extreme Verdichtung von Gen 1–9 mit der Konzentration auf schöpfungstheologische Aspekte – deshalb Anspielungen auf Ps 105; 4Q185 1–2 i [“non sectarian”], 4Q422 [“sectarian”] und 11Q5 XXVI 38 39

Sonst noch Ex 34,28; Dtn 28,69; Jer 34,18. Vgl. E. OTTO, Deuteronomium.

290

Heinz-Josef Fabry

[Hymn to the Creator] –, und auf die priesterschriftliche Schilderung der Flut. Er enthält dreimal das Tetragramm und ist deshalb mit Recht als “non sectarian” anzusehen. Der Text entstammt unzweifelhaft einem weisheitlichen Zusammenhang, in dem geschichtstheologisch argumentiert wurde, um ein Leben in Erinnerung an die Großtaten Gottes zu gestalten und um sein Erbarmen zu finden (1 ii 6). Der fragm. Text von 1 i 7 wird meistens anhand des MT rekonstruiert: ‫וא[ת קשתו ונתן] נענן ל]מען יזכור ברית‬

] ‫ויעש אל‬

… nach der Flut machte Gott [ein Bundeszeichen und] gab seinen Bogen [ins Gewölk, da]ss er des Bundes gedenke.40

Auch wenn sich gelegentlich die Übersetzung findet, “dass man des Bundes gedenke”41, ist von der hebr. Satzkonstruktion her Gott zwingend Subj. des Gedenkens. Dass Gott sich des Bundes erinnert, resp. sich erinnern möge, ist ein beliebter Topos primär der Gebetsliteratur sowohl im Tanakh (vgl. Lev 26,45; Ez 16,60; Ps 105,8; 106,45; 111,5) als auch in den “sectarian” Texten in Qumran (CD 1,4f.; 6,2f. [= 6Q15 3,5]; 1Q34bis[LitPr] 3 ii 5 u.ö.). L. Novakovic42 sah darin einen Identitätsmarker der Qumrangemeinde. Weil Gott sich an den Bund erinnert, hat er einsichtige Männer erwählt, die die Frommen um sich scharten und zur Gemeinde formierten. 4Q370 1 i 7 ist der einzige Beleg in einem “non sectarian” Text und ein Beleg dafür, dass auch außerhalb der Gemeinde von Qumran so gedacht wurde. Die Verbindung vom biblischen Narrativ mit einer Paränese erinnert an Ps 78, aber auch an CD, wobei letztere sich an noch nicht näher eingrenzbare religiöse Gruppen der persischen Zeit43 richtete. In diese zeitliche Epoche könnte auch 4Q504[DibHama] 1–2 v 9 (vgl. o. Pt. 3.1.) gehören: “Denn du allein bist ein lebendiger Gott, und niemand gibt es außer dir. Und du denkst an deinen Bund, der du uns herausgeführt hast vor den Augen der Völker”. Auch 4Q504 1–2 iii 9 ist in diesem Zusammenhang zu betrachten: “Du mehrtest uns in den Jahren unserer Generationen … böse Krankheiten und Hungersnot und Durst und Pest und Schwert. [Ra]che44 (für) deinen Bund, denn du hast uns erwählt für dich … Darum hast du ausgeschüttet über uns deinen Grimm”.

40

Rekonstruktion des Textes nach NEWSOM, DJD XIX, 95. So z.B. MAIER, Texte II, 317. 42 NOVAKOVIC, ThWQ I, 844f. 43 NEWSOM, DJD XIX, 87 findet im Text Anspielungen an 11QPsa Hymn to the Creator, was eine Datierung in spätpersische Zeit ermöglicht. 44 GARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ und TIGCHELAAR, DSS.SE II, 1015 rekonstruieren hier die Cstr.Form ‫“ נק[מת‬requital of your covenant”, nicht unwahrscheinlich wegen der noch lesbaren Buchstaben ‫מת‬. 41

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

291

Fazit: Alle Belege zeigen eindeutig, dass hier primär an den Bund vom Sinai gedacht ist, der als heilsgeschichtliches Konstitutiv für das Volk Israel angesehen wird. Die Befolgung der daraus resultierenden Verpflichtungen ist für das Geschick des Volkes ausschlaggebend – eindeutig deuteronomistisches Gedankengut. Ganz sicher ist hier (noch) nicht an den qumranischen Bund = jaḥad-Gemeinde gedacht. 3.7 “Am Bund festhalten (‫”)תמך‬ Die hier zu analysierende Wendung “am Bund festhalten” ist alttestamentlich nicht belegt, findet sich aber 3mal in 1QHa X 23f.; XII 2 (rekonstr.; par. 4QHf 7,4); XXII 14f.45 und in 4Q382 (4QParaKings) 104,1. Spr 3,18 spricht vom “Festhalten an der Weisheit”. 4Q382 (4QParaKings) 104,1 ist Teil eines Gesamttextes, von dem 154 Fragmente erhalten sind. Dort findet sich 2mal das Tetragramm (11,1; 53,1), einmal ersetzt durch vier Punkte (5,9). Obwohl die ersten Fragmente einen Text anzeigen, der sich um Ereignisse im Leben der Propheten Elija und Elischa rankt, scheint in 15,1 durch ‫ למנצח‬der Beginn eines Psalms angedeutet zu sein. Auch nehmen die Textreste ab Fragm. 49 Züge an, die auf ein Gebet (häufiger Gebrauch des Suff. 2.m.Sg.) schließen lassen. Fragm. 104 als eines der größten Fragmente ermöglicht auch keine zusammenhängende Lesung: Es scheint so, als biete der dtr. geprägte Text ein heilsgeschichtliches Kompendium mit bes. Schwerpunktsetzung auf die Gabe der göttlichen Gesetze in Gebetsform. Der in Frage kommende Versteil lautet: ] ‫ו[ לקדשו‬

] ‫ [ מדבריך ולתמוך בבריתכה ולהיות לבבם‬,

] von deinen Worten, und um festzuhalten an deinem Bund; und damit ihre Herzen sein sollen [ und] um ihn zu heiligen.

Nach 1QH gehört das “Festhalten am Bund”, resp. an der Wahrheit (1QH XV 23), an den Geheimnissen, Gesetzen, Wegen und an Gott46 zum Selbstverständnis der Qumrangemeinde, mit der sich der Beter genau durch diese Lebenshaltung identifiziert. Aber offensichtlich hat der Beter diese Terminologie schon in der weisheitlichen Tradition vorgefunden (vgl. Spr 3,18; Sir 4,13). Der einzige “non sectarian” Beleg 4Q382 104,1 weicht von diesem “sectarian” Befund nicht ab. Fazit: Der einzige Beleg der Wendung “am Bund festhalten” in “non sectarian” Texten lässt sich aufgrund seiner fragmentarischen Kontexte weder datieren 45

Die Zählweise der H-Belege folgt hier und im Folgenden wesentlich der Ausgabe von DAHMEN, Loblieder, die sich wiederum an der neuesten Edition in DJD XL, orientiert. 46 Belege bei MILLER, ThWQ III, 1134f.

292

Heinz-Josef Fabry

noch exakt einordnen. Seine Sprache lässt auf einen deuteronomistischen Hintergrund schließen, aber auch die Nähe zur Psalmenliteratur lässt sich noch erkennen. Sollte dieser Text in die “pre-sectarian” Zeit zurückreichen, dann wäre er eventuell als Traditionsbrücke von Spr 3,18 zu den Hodayot-Belegen auszumachen. 3.8 “Den Bund vergessen (‫”)שׁכח‬ Die Wendung “den Bund vergessen”47 steht bereits im MT in stringenter Nähe zur Götzenbild-Polemik (Dtn 4,23; 2Kön 17,38). Ähnliche Gedanken bestimmen auch die Warnung vor der fremden Frau, die den Gefährten ihrer Jugend verlässt und den Bund ihres Gottes vergisst (Spr 2,17). Jer 50,5 skizziert die Heilszeit, in der das Volk den Bund mit JHWH nicht mehr vergessen wird. Die Wendung wird bes. im “non sectarian” Bereich expliziert als (schuldhaftes) Vergessen der Gebote, der Festzeiten, der Sabbate und auch des Bundes. Während der “non sectarian” Bereich mit vier Belegen diese Vorstellung offensichtlich breit aufgegriffen hat, lassen sich im “sectarian” Bereich nur drei Belege (1Q22 1 ii 4 [Gebote vergessen] und 4Q176 16,5 und 4Q509 18,2 [den Bund vergessen; beide sehr fragm.]) aufweisen. 4Q390 (4QApocrJere) 1,848 ist nun ganz offensichtlich ein Zitat von Jub 23,19. In beiden Belegen ist ‫ ברית‬direktes Objekt zum Verb ‫“ שׁכח‬vergessen”. ‫ישכחו חוק ומועד ושבת וברית‬ Sie haben vergessen die Bestimmung und die Festzeit und den Sabbat und den Bund.

Entsprechend wird auch 4Q216 (4QJuba) 2,16f.49 (≈ Jub 1,14f.) rekonstruiert: ‫]וישכחו כל חקותי וכל מצותי [וכל תורותי ושכ[חו חודש ושבת‬ ‫]ומועד ויובל וברית ואחרי כן ישובו[ אלי מתוך הגוי]ם‬ [Und sie haben vergessen alle meine Bestimmungen und alle meine Satzungen] und alle meine Torot und sie haben ver[gessen den Monat und den Sabbat]

47

Vgl. dazu SCRENOCK, ThWQ III, 916–920. 4Q390 wird häufig als “sectarian” gewertet, wobei die Diskussion aber noch nicht abgeschlossen ist. Die auffallend große terminologische Nähe zum Jubiläenbuch mit der Betonung der Jubiläen (1,7; 2,4) macht eine vorqumranische Herkunft wahrscheinlich, dem auch die wenigen Belege von ‫( משטמות‬1,11; 2,7) in S, D und M nicht ernsthaft entgegengehalten werden können. Auch die Betonung der Aaroniden in 1,2 spricht eher für eine “non sectarian” Herkunft. 49 Ob 4Q216 als “sectarian” oder “non sectarian” einzuordnen ist, lässt sich außerordentlich schwer entscheiden. Paläographisch wird die Handschrift in der Mitte des 2. Jh. v.Chr. datiert in unmittelbarer Nähe zur Abfassungszeit des originalen Jubiläenbuches (vgl. J. VANDERKAM und MILIK, DJD XIII, 1–22, bes. 2). Dieses frühe Datum der Kopie und das Tetragramm (1,3.5) lassen eher an eine “pre-sectarian” Einordnung denken. 48

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

293

[und die Festzeit und das Jubiläum und den Bund. Und danach aber werden sie umkehren] zu mir aus der Mitte der Völker …

Im Kontext von Jub 23,19 “… denn sie vergaßen Gebot und Bund, Feste, Monate, Sabbate und Jubiläen, überhaupt alle Satzungen” geht es darum, dass nach Abraham die Lebenszeit der Menschen wegen ihrer Sünden verkürzt werden wird. Die Menschen haben den Bund vergessen, den Gott mit ihnen geschlossen hat (V. 16); alle handeln böse und alle werden umkommen: 4Q216 (4QJuba) 2,8 (par. 1Q22 1 i 8): War in den bisherigen Belegen “Bund” direktes Objekt zu “vergessen”, so haben die folgenden Belege den “Bund” im st.cstr. den “Festzeiten” zugeordnet. Die 2. Kolumne enthält den Text Jub 1,7– 15, d.h. Z. 8 bietet den Text von Jub 1,10: [‫ואבדו רבי[ם ילכדו ונפלו ]ביד אויב כי‬ [‫]עזבו את[ חקותי ואת]מצותי ואת מועד[י בריתי] ואת שבתותי ואת קדשי‬ [… ‫אשר הקדישו לי בת]וכם ואת משכני ואת [מקדש]י‬ und viele werden umkommen und ergriffen werden und fallen [in die Hand des Feindes, denn sie haben verlassen meine Bestimmungen und [meine Gebote und die Festzeit]en meines Bundes [und meine Sabbate und meine (?) heiligen Dinge], die sie mir geheiligt haben in ihrer [Mitte und meine Wohnung und [mein] Heiligtum, …

Die Rekonstruktion des Textes nach der äthiopischen Fassung des Jubiläenbuches macht die unmittelbare Nähe zu 1Q22 deutlich: 1Q22 1 i 8f. (≈ par. PAM 43.686 30 par. 4Q216 ii 8) ist recht fragmentarisch. ‫[ כי מגיד‬ ‫אנו]כי[ אשר יעזבו]ני ויב[חר]ו בשקוצי ה[גו]ים ותו[עבותיהם ]וגל[וליהם ]ויעבדו[ את‬ ‫אלי]לי[ם והיו לפ]ה ו[מוקש ויע]ברו כול מקרא קו[דש ושבת הברית ]ומועדים[ את אשר‬ ‫אנו]כי[ מצוך היום ]לע[שות‬ … ]Fürwahr, ein Offenbarender bin [ich], dass sie [mich] verlassen werden [und er]wählen werden [die Scheusale der Vö]lker [und ihre Grä]uel [und ihre Göt]zen [und sie werden dienen] den Göt[te]rn und sie werden zum Fangn[etz und] zur Falle und sie werden über[treten jeden heiligen Festter[min] und den Sabbat des Bundes [und die Festzeiten], die ic[h] aufgetragen habe heute, [um sie] auszuführen.

Der Ausdruck ‫“ שבת הברית‬Sabbat des Bundes” ist singulär. Möglicherweise ist deshalb die Rekonstruktion des Textes durch Milik verdächtig. Deshalb hat E. Tigchelaar50 mit Hilfe einer 4Q-Parallele (PAM 43.686 30) den Text der Z. 8 wie folgt berichtigt:

50

TIGCHELAAR, “Divre Moshe”, bes. 304f.

294

Heinz-Josef Fabry

… ‫אלו]היה[ם והיו לפ]ה ול[מוקש ויע]זבוני וישכחו ח[דש ושבת ו]יובל [ וברית ]וויפרו[ את אשר‬ … ihren G[ötte]rn und sie werden zum Fangn[etz und] zur Falle und sie werden mich ver[lassen und sie werden vergessen den Mo]nat und den Sabbat und [das Jubiläum] und den Bund und sie werden übertreten, was ich aufgetragen habe …

Dieser Text zeigt nun eine nahezu wörtliche Parallele zu Jub 1,9.14, jedoch fehlt an beiden Stellen dort das Wort “Bund”. Da die Zusammenstellung von “Jubiläum” und “Bund” typisch für das Jubiläenbuch ist, ist 1Q22 wahrscheinlich von diesem abhängig oder es stammt aus derselben Trägergruppe.51 Andererseits könnte man auch an eine Kompilation diverser Textelemente aus Ex 23,33; Jos 23,13 und Dtn 7,16 denken, in denen vom Götzendienst als Falle gesprochen wird. 4Q385a (4QApocrJerCa) 3a–c,6 par. 4Q387 1,3 par. 4Q388a 3,4ff. zeigen eine auffallende Ähnlichkeit: [‫ו]תאמרו[ עזכתנ]ו אלהינו ותמאטו את חקותי‬ [‫]ותשכחו את [מועדי בריתי ותח]ללו את שמי ואת קדשי‬ ‫]ותטמאו את[ מקדשי‬ und [ihr sagt: Du hast uns verlass[en, unser Gott. Und ihr habt verunreinigt meine Gesetze] [und ihr habt vergessen die ]Festzeiten meines Bundes und ihr habt ent[weiht meinen Namen und meine heiligen Dinge] [und ihr habt verunreinigt] mein Heiligtum …

Beachtlich ist die relative Konstanz der Reihenfolge: Gesetz – Festzeiten – Sabbat – Bund, aus der 1Q22 1 i 8f. deutlich ausschert. Aber auch die Nennung des Bundes und seine variierende Kombination zu “Festzeiten meines Bundes” zeigt die Variabilität der Traditionsrezeption. Der Kontext spricht zumeist von dem durch die Nähe zu den Völkern des Landes verursachten Götzendienst. Auf der Suche nach der Herkunft dieser Tradition bieten sich mehrere Indizien an: (1) Die textliche Nähe zu Jub 1,9–10 ist offensichtlich. Im Kontext der Offenbarung am Sinai gibt Gott dem Mose Kenntnis über den zukünftigen Geschichtsverlauf, der vom Abfall der Menschen von Gottes Geboten geprägt ist: Viele kommen um; sie werden ergriffen und fallen in die Hand des Feindes; denn sie verlassen meine Ordnung, mein Gebot, die Feste meines Bundes, meine Sabbate und das mir Heilige, das ich mir bei ihnen weihte, und mein Heiligtum, das ich mir inmitten des Landes weihte, um meinen Namen darin wohnen zu lassen.

51

TIGCHELAAR, “Divre Moshe”, 307.

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

295

Auch Jub 1,14 steht dieser Diktion nahe: Sie vergessen mein ganzes Gesetz, alle meine Gebote und mein ganzes Recht. Sie lösen Neumond, Sabbat, Feste, Jubiläen und die Ordnung auf.

In Jub 6,34–37 spricht der unmittelbare Kontext vom Bundesschluss Noachs mit Gott nach dem Auszug aus der Arche (V. 10f.). Es folgen die eidlichen Verpflichtungen der sog. Noachitischen Gebote und die Einrichtung des Wochenfestes als Bundeserneuerungsfest (V. 17–22) und der Neumondfeste (V. 23–31): Und alle Israeliten werden den Lauf der Jahre vergessen und sie (sc. ihre Ordnung) nicht mehr finden; ebenso vergessen sie Neumond, Jahreszeiten und Sabbat und irren in aller Jahresordnung … und auf den himmlischen Tafeln ist die Tageseinteilung festgesetzt, damit sie nicht die Bundesfeste vergessen und sich nicht nach den heidnischen Festen in ihrer Verirrung und Unkenntnis richten.

(2) Man wird voraussetzen dürfen, dass den Autoren die klassische Formulierung, wie sie in Hos 2,13 – in 4Q166 (pHosa) 3,14f. – vorliegt, bekannt war: Da werde ich ein Ende machen all ihrer Freude, ihrem Fest (‫)חג‬, ihrem Neumond (‫)חודש‬ und ihrem Sabbat (‫ )שבת‬und all ihren Festterminen (‫)מועד‬.52

Und trotzdem lässt sich leicht erkennen, dass die “non sectarian” Belege den Jubiläen-Zitaten näherstehen, wo das Vokabular weitestgehend identisch, wenn auch anders angeordnet ist. (3) Schließlich findet sich diese Thematik auch in CD 3,13–16: Aber mit denen, die an den Geboten Gottes festhielten, die von ihnen übrig waren, hat Gott seinen Bund für Israel aufgerichtet für immer, um ihnen verborgene Dinge zu offenbaren, worin ganz Israel in die Irre gegangen war: seine heiligen Sabbate und seine herrlichen Festzeiten, seine gerechten Zeugnisse und die Wege seiner Wahrheit und die Wünsche seines Willens … hat er ihnen aufgetan.

Fazit: Die Wendung “den Bund vergessen etc.” macht eine Tradition sichtbar, die recht offensichtlich aus dem Trägerkreis des Jubiläenbuches stammt und vor allem in den “non sectarian” Schriften breit rezipiert worden ist. Es ist dabei nicht zu übersehen, dass der “Bund” nicht mehr als umfassender theologischer Begriff begegnet, sondern mit Ordnung, Gesetz, Festzeiten, Sabbat parallelisiert werden kann. Besonders beachtlich ist in diesem Zusammenhang die Aufwertung des Sabbats zum “Sabbat des Bundes”, die insinuiert, dass die Sabbatheiligung inzwischen als wesentlicher Vollzug des Bundes und zugleich als sichtbares Zeichen der Bundeszugehörigkeit verstanden wurde.

52 Wenn der Text fortfährt: “Seine Deutung ist, dass sie [die Tage des] Zeugnisses zu begehen pflegen nach den Festzeiten der Völker” (vgl. STEUDEL, Qumran II, 243), gibt der Kommentator zu erkennen, dass auch er die Kalenderfrevel in der Assimilation Israel mit den Heidenvölkern begründet sieht.

296

Heinz-Josef Fabry

3.9 “Den Bund entweihen (‫”)חלל‬ Im MT wie in Qumran ist das Verb ‫ חלל‬pi. recht häufig bezeugt.53 Meistens geht es um die Profanisierung des göttlichen Namens, seines Heiligtums oder des Sabbats. Diese Vorstellungen werden in Qumran (bes. häufig im JeremiaApokryphon)54 rezipiert. Im MT kommen vier Belege in Frage, die aber sehr differenziert gelagert sind. In Ps 55,21 wirft der Beter seinem Freund vor, dass er ihm zum Feind geworden sei und den (Freundschafts-)Bund55 entweiht habe. In Ps 89,35 verheißt Gott, dass er seinen Bund (mit David) nicht entweihen werde. In Jes 56,6 ergeht eine Verheißung, dass alle Fremden, die sich dem Herrn anschließen, den Sabbat halten, ihn nicht entweihen und am Bund des Herrn festhalten, Zutritt zum Haus des Gebetes finden werden. In Mal 2,10 jedoch scheint der traditionelle Hintergrund für 4Q383 A 2 zu liegen: In einem Diskussionswort stellt der Prophet die rhetorische Frage: “Haben wir nicht alle einen einzigen Vater? Hat nicht ein einziger Gott uns geschaffen?”, um dann erstaunt fortzufahren, dass wir trotzdem einander betrügen und den Bund unserer Vorfahren entweihen. 4Q383 (4QApocrJerA) A 2 ist Bestandteil eines Textes, der sich auf sechs Fragmenten (1–6) befindet, zu denen drei weitere als “unidentified” (A–C) aufgrund ihrer materialen Beschaffenheit hinzugerechnet werden, 4Q383 wurde von Dimant dem Jeremia-Apokryphon zugewiesen, das ihrer Meinung nach im 2. Jh. v.Chr. verfasst worden ist. Die vorhandene Textbasis ist äußerst dürftig, die Zuordnung der Fragm. A–C, bes. C bleibt unsicher. Der Text von A lautet: ] ‫[ בגו ה‬ ‫[שה מחללי הברית מט]מאי‬ ] ‫[ אבותם בוזזי אמותם הפוחזים‬ ] [ ]welche sind Entweihende des Bundes, Verun[reinigende ] ihre Väter, Plünderer ihrer Mütter, Rücksichtslose [sind sie …

Fazit: Die Wendung ‫ חלל הברית‬ist in den Qumrantexten singulär. Es kann kein Zweifel darin bestehen, dass mit ‫ ברית‬der am Sinai geschlossene Bund (Dtn 4,31; 5,2f. u.ö.) gemeint ist. Es muss auffallen, dass sowohl Maleachi wie auch 4Q383 die übliche Bundesbruch-Terminologie nicht verwendet haben. Offensichtlich sprechen sie einen speziellen Sachverhalt an, der eher den priester-

53

Vgl. dazu JASSEN, ThWQ I, 980–986. 4Q385a 3a–c,6; 4Q390 1,8; 2 i 10 (Entweihung des Heiligtums); 4Q385 18a–b,11; 387 A 1 (Entweihung des Gottesnamens). 55 So HOSSFELD, Psalmen 50–100, 101. 54

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

297

lich-kultischen Bereich56 berührt. 4Q383 wäre demnach einem vorqumranischen Kreis zuzuweisen, der aus bundestheologischen Erwägungen heraus priester- und kultkritisch argumentierte. 3.10 “Sich am Bund versündigen (‫”)רשע‬ Für ‫( רשע‬hiph.) bietet Ges18 die Bedeutungen “für schuldig erklären, ins Unrecht setzen, schuldhaft handeln, freveln, überführen, widerlegen”.57 Die hier gewählte reflexive Übersetzung steht in einem gewissen Widerspruch zum Ptz. hiph., ist aber hilfreich, um die Bedeutung dieser Wendung von der folgenden Wendung “gegen den Bund kämpfen” abzugrenzen. 4Q387 3,6 (4QApocrJerCb) par. 4Q385a 5a–b,8f.: ‫[ ים כהנים שלושה אשר לא יתהלכו בדרכי‬ ] ‫]הכהנים ה[ראשנים על שם אלהי ישראל יקראו‬ ‫]והורד [ בימיהם גאון מרישיעי ברית ועבדי נאכר‬ [‫ויתקרע ישראל בדור הה]וא‬ … drei Priester, die nicht wandeln auf den Wegen [der f]rüheren [Priester], (die) nach dem Namen des Gottes Israels gerufen wurden. [Und erniedrigt wird] in ihren Tagen der Stolz derer, die sich versündigen am Bund und die Diener des Fremden (sind), und zerrissen wird Israel in die[ser] Generation.

Die Wendung ‫( רשע ברית‬hiph.) begegnet in den “sectarian” Schriften nur in 1QM 1,2 und bezeichnet hier die Apostaten, die sich den schlimmsten (und traditionellen) Feinden der Gemeinde (Edomiter, Moabiter, Kittim u. a.) angeschlossen haben. Der Ausdruck entstammt zweifellos Dan 11,32, wo er die von Antiochus IV. zum Abfall verführten Juden bezeichnet, die sich durch ihre Apostasie am Bund versündigt haben. Für Brian Schultz58 gilt es als erwiesen, dass 1QM 1,2 zur ältesten literarischen Schicht der Kriegsrolle gehört, die in die vorqumranische Zeit zurückreicht und noch die religiösen Wirren im 2. Jh. v.Chr. widerspiegelt. In der Tat ist die Sprache von 1QM 1 Israel-bezogen, während das für “sectarian” Texte übliche gemeindebezogene Denken noch fehlt. Den Feinden und Frevlern am Bund stehen die Leviten und “Söhne Judas”, die “Söhne Benjamins” und die “Verbannten der Wüste” entgegen. All dies ist noch keine “sectarian” Terminologie, bezeichnet aber Realitäten im Vorfeld der qumranischen Gemeindebildung. Schließlich ist auch der enge sprachliche Bezug dieses Kapitels zum Danielbuch zu notieren, der den Beleg als “pre-sectarian” erkennen lässt. 56

Das wird aus der Parallelisierung in Mal 2,10–16 mit der Entweihung des heiligen Namens durch die Priester in Mal 1,12 evoziert; vgl. KESSLER, Maleachi, 193. 57 Vgl. SCHÄFERS, ThWQ III, 731.739; Ges18 1271 übersetzt den Ausdruck ‫מרישיעי ברית‬ wohl irrtümlich mit “die am Gesetz (sic!) freveln.” 58 SCHULTZ, Conquering, passim.

298

Heinz-Josef Fabry

Fazit: Der Kontext lässt nur fragmentarisch erkennen, was die Versündigung am Bund konkret meint. Ausgehend von Dan 11,32 muss diese Sünde in fehlender Glaubenstreue bestehen, da sich die “Sünder” verführen ließen, um abtrünnig zu werden. Für sie galt das jüdische Credo nicht mehr, denn sie “dienten dem Fremden”, womit auch hier die Verehrung der Fremdgötter und der sich selbst vergötzenden diadochischen Fremdherrscher (Kittim aus Ägypten) gemeint ist. 1QM 1,2 geht hier schon einen bedeutenden Schritt weiter, wenn diese Apostaten zusammen mit den traditionellen Erzfeinden Israels gesehen werden. 3.11 “Gegen den Bund kämpfen (‫”)לחם‬ Die Wendung ‫“ הלחם על התורה ועל הברית‬gegen die Tora und gegen den Bund kämpfen” ist ebenfalls singulär. Jedoch mögen einige Textelemente Hinweise geben: 4Q387 (4QApocrJerCb) 3,6 ≈ 4Q385a 5a–b,8f. ‫]והורד [ בימיהם גאון מרישיעי ברית ועבדו נאכר‬ ‫ ישראל בדור הה]וא[ להלחם א]י[ש ברעהו‬59‫ויתקרע‬ ‫על התורה ועל הברית ושלחתי רעב ב]אר[ץ ולא‬ [‫לל]ח[ם וצמא ול]א[ למים] כי[ אם ל]שמע את דברי‬ … und in ihren Tagen wurde der Stolz [erniedrigt] von denen, die sich versündigten am Bund und sie dienten dem Fremden, und zerrissen wird Israel in die[ser] Generation, um zu kämpfen [je]der gegen jeden gegen die Tora und gegen den Bund, und ich schicke den Hunger in das [La]nd und nicht für Br[o]t und Durst, und nich[t] für Wasser, [denn] eher für das [Hören der Worte …].

Der Text besteht offensichtlich aus einer Kompilation diverser Versatzstücke aus älteren Texten: der Kampf jedes gegen jeden (Jes 19,2; Sach 8,10 und Jub 23,19), die Entsendung von Hunger etc. (Am 8,11). Jub 23,19 spricht vom Vergessen von Tora und Bund60. Das Verb ‫( לחם‬hier inf.cstr. niph.; “kämpfen mit …”) wird im bibl. Hebr. meistens mit den Partikeln ‫ ב‬und ‫ עם‬konstruiert. Die hier vorliegende Fügung mit ‫ על‬findet sich außer Jes 7,1; 37,8 und Neh 4,8 nur noch in der dtn. und dtr. Literatur, bes. aber im Jer-Buch61. Dies sagt etwas über den theologischen Hintergrund des Jeremia-Apokryphons aus. Dem entspricht hier auch die unmittelbare Parallele von “Bund” und “Tora”, die ‫ברית‬ als die Verpflichtung auf die Tora-Treue qualifiziert. Eine Verdichtung auf die

59

Die Form ‫“ ויתקרע‬und es wurde zerrissen” ist ein Hitp. mit passiver Bedeutung, das so im biblischen Sprachgebrauch nicht belegt ist, aber v.a. in Qumran-aramäischen Texten bekannt ist; vgl. QIMRON, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls § 310.16. 60 Vgl. o. Pt. 3.8. 61 Jer 21,2; 32,24.29; 34,22; 37,8.

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

299

Gemeinde von Qumran ist noch nicht zu erkennen. So wird man Dimant62 darin zustimmen können, dass unser Text die inneren Zustände des Volkes z.Zt. des Antiochus IV. widerspiegelt. Das Drohwort von der kommenden Hungersnot ist dann jedoch keine Prophezeiung zukünftiger Dinge, sondern Beschreibung bereits bestehender Wirklichkeit in dem Sinne, dass die katastrophale Wirklichkeit auf den Kampf gegen Bund und Tora zurückgeführt wird. Fazit: Der Kampf gegen Tora und Bund lässt nun eine doppelte Deutung zu: einerseits spricht der Kontext eher von einem Kampf gegen Tora und Bund, hat also Menschen im Blick, die das jüdische Bekenntnis z.Zt. des Zweiten Tempels ablehnen und es bekämpfen. Dafür böten die antijüdischen Exzesse zur genannten Zeit des Antiochus IV. einen hinreichenden historischen Hintergrund. Andererseits könnte hier auch der Kampf um die (Deutungs-)Hoheit über Tora und Bund angesprochen sein, was mit Dimant für eine Datierung auf den Beginn der Hasmonäerzeit sprechen könnte. Unterschiedliche Gruppen im Judentum stritten um die Zuständigkeit, sicherlich einer der Gründe, die später zur Separation der Frommen und Bildung der Qumrangemeinde geführt haben. Sollte das zutreffen, dann könnte dieser Text bereits an der Schwelle zum “sectarian” Schrifttum stehen. 3.12 “Den Bund verlassen/übertreten (‫”)עבר‬ Die Wendung ‫ עבר ברית‬ist nicht eindeutig zu übersetzen, denn das Verb hat eine große Bedeutungsbreite. Als lokale Bewegung kann es sowohl die “Entfernung von” wie auch das “Hinüberkommen zu” bedeuten. Entscheidend ist jeweils der Kontext. Im MT begegnet die Wendung in den Formen ‫עבר ברית‬ und ‫ עבר את ברית‬offensichtlich in der Bedeutung “den Bund verlassen”, vornehmlich in dtr. Literatur (z.B. Dtn 17,2; Jos 7,11.15 u.ö.) und bei Jer 34,18. Qumran hat davon lediglich die erste Wendung rezipiert primär in der “sectarian” D-Literatur (4mal) und in 4Qp167 (Hosb) 7–9,1 als Zitat von Hos 6,7 und nur einmal im “non sectarian” 11QTa 55,17. Die “sectarian” S-Literatur hat zudem eine eigene Begrifflichkeit entwickelt: ‫“ עבר בברית‬in den Bund eintreten”63 oder im hiph. “in den Bund eintreten lassen” (4Q439 1 i+2,2; vgl. CD 1,20). Daraus resultiert die Selbstbezeichnung für die Qumrangemeinde ‫“ העוברים בברית‬die Eintretenden in den Bund” (1QS 1,18.20.24; 2,10; 4QSb 2,1).

62

DJD XXX, 195. 1QS 1,16.18.20.24; 2,10; 4QSb 2,1; 3,3 und 4Q439 1 i+2,2. Der letztgenannte Beleg findet sich im Kontext einer Klage eines Gemeindeleiters, der sich darüber beklagt, dass alle, die er in den Bund geführt hat, abtrünnig geworden sind. Zum schwierigen Kontext dieser Stelle vgl. WEINFELD und SEELY, DJD XXIX, 340. 63

300

Heinz-Josef Fabry

11QTa 55,17 steht im Zusammenhang einer Abhandlung über die Verführung zum Götzendienst: ‫< אם ימצא בקרבכה באחד שעריכה אשר‬vacat> ‫אנוכי נותן לכה איש או אישה אשר יעשה את הרע בעיני‬ ‫לעבור בריתי והלך ועבד אלוהים אחרים והשתחוה להמה‬ … Wenn sich einer findet in deiner Mitte in einem deiner Tore, welche ich dir gebe, Mann oder Frau, welcher Böses tut in meinen Augen, um meinen Bund zu verlassen, und er geht und er dient fremden Göttern und er verehrt sie …

Das Verlassen des Bundes steht hier in dem merkwürdigen Zusammenhang zwischen “Böses tun” als Grund und der Fremdgötterverehrung als Folge. Das hat seinen Grund in der bibl. Herkunft dieser Formulierung in Hos 6,7, wo der Prophet das Volk anklagt, den Bund mit seinem Gott verlassen zu haben, um fremden Göttern zu dienen (Hos 8,1). Fazit: Damit ist offensichtlich, dass der Bund hier das zentrale ethische Prinzip des jüdischen Glaubens bezeichnet und noch nicht zur Gemeindebezeichnung geworden ist. Es geht hier um das strikte monotheistische Glaubensbekenntnis des Menschen, das einerseits das “Böses tun” und andererseits die “Fremdgötterverehrung” kategorisch ausschließt. Der Beleg der Tempelrolle weist zurück in eine fromme Bewegung des 3. Jh.v.Chr., die eine Reform des Tempelkultes, überhaupt der kultischen Frömmigkeit anstrebte. 3.13 “Den Bund brechen (‫”)פרר‬ Die Verbindung ‫ הפר ברית‬und ‫“ הפר את ברית‬den Bund brechen” begegnet im MT je 10mal (davon je 6mal in der proph. Literatur, vornehmlich bei Jer), dagegen in den “sectarian” Hauptschriften dezidiert nicht (vgl. CD 1,20: ‫)הפר חוק‬. Die Qumrangemeinde selbst scheint also den “Bundesbruch” nicht thematisiert zu haben. Bes. 1QH entwickelt stattdessen eine Sonderdiktion.64 Nur der Beleg 4Q249j (4QpapCryptA Levh) 1–2,3 könnte dem “sectarian” Bereich zugewiesen werden. Es handelt sich allerdings um ein Zitat aus Lev 26,14–16, das anhand des MT rekonstruiert worden ist. Umstritten ist die Zuweisung von 4Q390 (4QApocrJerCe) 2 i 6. wobei aber die Signale im Text für eine “non sectarian” Zuweisung überwiegen. Überraschen müssen die insgesamt 7 Belege im Bereich der “non sectarian” Schriften:

64

Belege bei BRÜMMER, ThWQ III, 341.

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

301

4Q463 (4QNarrative D) 1,3 ist ein Text, dem man trotz aller Kürze gewisse “sectarian” Merkmale nicht absprechen kann. Der Text bildet offensichtlich ein exegetisches Zitat aus Lev 26,44 und lautet: ] vacat ‫ ויזכור אל את דברו אשר אמר‬vacat ‫דמה‬°[ ‫בני ישראל לא[מור גם בהיותם בארצות אויביהמ]ה לא מאסתים‬ ]‫ולא געלתים לכלות[ם להפר בריתי וחסדי מהמה ויהי מלא‬ ‫חכמה לכול דורש ? [ נסתרות‬ Und Gott dachte an sein Wort, das er gesprochen hatte [die Israeliten folgender]maßen: Auch bei ihrem Sein in den Ländern ihrer Fein[de: Nicht habe ich sie verworfen [und nicht habe ich sie verabscheut, um sie zu vernich]ten, um zu brechen meinen Bund65 und die Gunsterweise weg von ihnen. Und es soll sein die Fülle [ der Weisheit für jeden, der sucht (?)] die verborgenen Dinge.

Das hier vorliegende Zitat stimmt im Wesentlichen mit dem MT überein, einige kleine Varianten jedoch legen nahe, an eine Übernahme aus dem Samaritanus zu denken (vgl. auch 3Makk 6,15). 4Q388a (4QApocrJerCc) 7 ii 2: z.T. rekonstruiert nach 4Q387 2 iii und 4Q389 8 ii. [‫מא]ס[תים ושבו] ועשו רעה ורבה הר[עה מ]ן הראשונה והפרו את‬ [‫הברית אשר כ]רתי ע[ם אברהם ועם יצחק] ועם יעקוב בימים‬ ‫ההמה‬ Ich habe sie ver[ac]htet und sie werden sich abkehren [und Übles tun und das Übel wird größer] werden als das [frühere und sie werden brechen den] Bund, den ich [mi]t Abraham und mit Isaak[und mit Jakob geschlos]sen habe. In jenen [Tagen] …

Die Ankündigung des Folgetextes, dass Gott die Existenz des Volkes beenden wird, dass er einen blasphemischen Heiden zum König werden, das Volk in die Gefangenschaft führen, das Land verwüsten und den Hohenpriester zum Götzendienst abfallen lässt, zeigen die Folgen des Bundesbruches. Die Nennung der Patriarchen als Bundespartner erinnert an Dtn 29,12. 4Q179 (4QApocr LamA) 1 i 3 findet sich in einem apokryphen Klagelied, angezeigt durch diverse Weherufe (1 i 3; ii 1). Der Text lautet: ‫ר כל עוונותינו ואין לאל ידנו כי לא שמע]נו‬°°[ ] ‫בקץ[ הפקודה לקרותנו כל אלה ברוע‬ 66 ‫מעללינו והפרנ[ו את בריתו‬

65

Kursiv: wörtliches Zitat aus Lev 26,44. Text nach BERNSTEIN, DSSR 5, 148, z.T. korrigiert nach STRUGNELL, “Moses”, 250f. und GARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ und TIGCHELAAR, DSS.SE I, 368. Die kursivierten Wörter sind ganz unsicher. 66

302

Heinz-Josef Fabry

] alle unsere Sünden, und es gibt nichts im Bezug auf die Kraft unserer Hände, denn nicht haben wir gehö[rt zur Zeit] der Heimsuchung, um uns zu treffen alle diese (Dinge) wegen des Übels [ unserer Handlungen und wir haben gebroch[en] seinen Bund Wehe uns!

In diesem fragm. Text wird die Verwüstung Jerusalems beklagt. Die kontextuelle Einbindung von ‫ בריתו‬in Z. 3 ist nicht mehr sicher zu rekonstruieren. Ist die hier vorgelegte Rekonstruktion zutreffend, dann enthält unser Text eine der üblichen Formulierungen für den Bruch seines (Gottes) Bundes durch die vom Beter repräsentierte Gemeinde. Während Gott den von ihm geschlossenen Bund niemals bricht (4Q463 1,3), ist Israel sehr wohl dazu in der Lage, muss dann jedoch klagend die Folgen beweinen. 4Q381 (4QNon-Canonical Psalms B) 69,8: (zur Charakterisierung von 4Q381 und zum Prätext vgl. o. Pt. 3.1. und 3.2.): ]°°‫[ישו שבו על הארץ אז תטהר ויא‬ ‫[ להשכיל בכם אם תהיו לוא ואם ] לא‬ ] ‫[ולהפיר ברית כרת לכם ולהנכר ולא‬ ]‫לפ[ על רשעה ולהמיר דבריו פיהו מעל א‬ ] sie kehrten zurück in das Land, alsdann wurde es gereinigt und [ ] um zu unterweisen unter euch, ob ihr sein (wollt) für ihn oder [nicht ] und um zu brechen den Bund, (den) er geschlossen hat mit euch, und um zu handeln als Fremder und nicht[ um zu tu]n Böses und um umzudrehen seine Worte seines Mundes von weg [.

Auch hier sind es wieder die Menschen, die den Bund brechen, aus dem Judentum als Kontrastgesellschaft ausbrechen, sich den Fremdvölkern assimilieren und ihrer Bosheit und Unreinheit anhängen. Ob nun ‫ הפיר‬von der Wurzel ‫פרר‬ oder vom mischnischen ‫ פור‬herzuleiten ist, wie Schuller67 vorgeschlagen hat, bringt semantisch keinen Unterschied. 11QTa 59,8 steht im Kontext des Abschlusses der ersten Gesetzessammlung der Tempelrolle und spricht die Sanktionen aus, die eine Missachtung der Torot und ein Bundesbruch nach sich ziehen: ‫… ואסתיר פני מהמה והיו לאוכלה‬ ‫ולבז ולמשוסה ואין מושיע מפני רעתמה אשר הפרו בריתי‬ ‫ואת תורתי געלה נפשמה עד יאשמו כול אשמה אחר ישובו‬ … … Und ich will verbergen mein Angesicht vor ihnen und sie werden zur Nahrung und zur Beute und zur Plünderung. Und nicht (findet sich) ein Retter wegen ihrer Bosheit, die sie meinen Bund gebrochen haben,

67

SCHULLER, DJD XI, 151.

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

303

und meine Torot hat missachtet ihre Seele, bis sie sich verschulden jegliche Schuld. Danach werden sie umkehren …

Erst eine Umkehr kann den Bundesbruch rückgängig machen und eine Rekonziliation des Volkes bei Gott bewirken. 4Q504 1–2 v 8: ‫לוא מאסתה‬ ‫בזרע יעקוב ולו געלתה את ישראל‬ ‫לכלותם להפר בריתכה אתם כיא אתה‬ ‫… אל חי לבדכה‬ … Nicht hast du verschmäht den Samen Jakobs und nicht hast du Israel verabscheut, um sie zu beenden, um deinen Bund mit ihnen zu brechen, denn du bist ein lebendiger Gott, du allein …

4Q504 1–2 vi 5–9 ‫ועתה כיום הזה‬ ‫אשר נכנע לבנו רצינו את עוונו ואת עוון‬ ‫אבותינו במעלנו ואשר הלכו בקרי ולוא מאסנו‬ ‫בנסוייכה ובנגיעכה לוא געלה נפשו להפר‬ ‫את בריתכה בכול צרע נפשנו‬ … Und nun, wie an diesem Tag, an dem wir unser Herz demütigen, tragen wir unsere Sünde ab und die Sünde unserer Väter wegen unseres Treuebruches und weil wir in die Irre gegangen sind. Aber nicht haben wir verschmäht deine Versuchungen und deine Plagen hat unsere Seele nicht verabscheut, um zu brechen deinen Bund bei aller Not unserer Seele …

Beide Texte lassen sich verstehen als antwortendes Gebet auf die große Segens- und Fluchverheißung in Lev 26, bes. auf die V. 39–45. Dabei ist wichtig, dass das Schuldbekenntnis des Menschen als adäquate Haltung des Menschen Gott und seinem Bundeswillen gegenüber angesehen wird. Hier ist abschließend auf die weisheitliche Ermahnung in 4Q185 (4QSapiental Work) 3,9 (vgl. 2Chr 34,31) zu verweisen, wo es um die Ausführung der “Worte seines Bundes” (‫ )[עשה דברי ברי]תו‬geht. Der vorqumranische Weisheitslehrer warnt vor einem Leben in Torheit und rät zu einem Leben in Weisheit und Gerechtigkeit. Fazit: Die “non sectarian” Texte formulieren den Bundesbruch und seine Folgen in aller Deutlichkeit und setzen damit prophetische Vorgaben des AT fort. Darin werden ihnen die “sectarian” Texte nicht folgen. Der Bundesbruch geht immer vom Menschen aus, nie ist Gott Subjekt, der trotz allen Zornes und aller Strafen am Bund festhält, wie es aus Lev 26,44 bekannt und in 4Q463 1,3 (“sectarian?”) formuliert wird. Die Texte zeichnen auch dann, wenn sie dro-

304

Heinz-Josef Fabry

henden und mahnenden Charakter haben, ein überaus positives Gottesbild. Gründe dafür liegen einmal im Bestehen des Bundes, dann auch in dem unbedingten Schöpferwillen Gottes, der seinen Geschöpfen Gutes will. Hier zeigt sich eine gewisse Differenz zu den “sectarian” Texten (z.B. 1QH), die in solchen Zusammenhängen von Reinigung und Sühne sprechen.68

4. Theologische Auswertung der Belege Es kann nicht gelingen, eine in allem befriedigende Deutung der über 250 Belege von ‫ ברית‬in den Qumrantexten zu finden, denn gerade bei den “non sectarian” Texten verbleiben viele Unschärfen, die durch ihren fragmentarischen Charakter und durch ihre schwierige zeitliche Verortung bedingt sind. Es ist unbestreitbar, dass die “non sectarian” Texte weitgehend atl. Themen und Vorstellungen rezipieren. Viele Belege sind im Jeremia-Apokryphon konzentriert und bezeugen eine intensive Jeremia-Rezeption. Auffällig ist auch eine Nähe zum Daniel- und zum Jubiläenbuch. 4.1 Gemeinsamkeiten der “sectarian” und “non sectarian” Texte mit dem AT Gemeinsam ist allen drei Bereichen die Vorstellung vom “Bund mit den Vätern”. In der überwiegenden Anzahl der Belege ist Gott das Sinnsubjekt des Bundes; er schließt den Bund; er gibt den Bund (seltene Formulierung), was den Geschenkcharakter verdeutlicht. Er bewahrt den Bund und erinnert sich seiner. Ist dieser Akt göttlicher Erwählung in den “non sectarian” Texten Garant für das Bestehen der Heilsgeschichte, so entwickeln die “sectarian” Texte daraus die Vorstellung einer besonderen Erwählung der Gemeinde. Die Vorstellung vom “Festhalten am Bund” ist in den “non sectarian” Texten singulär und ist hier wohl Ideengeber für die Hodayot. 4.2 Das Mehr der “sectarian” Texte Über die “non sectarian” Texte hinaus sprechen die “sectarian” Texte explizit vom “Bund Gottes” und vom “Bund der Früheren”, vom “Eintreten/Kommen” in den Bund und von der “Erleuchtung” des Bundes. Nach Meinung der “non sectarian” Texte geschieht die “Aufrichtung des Bundes” ausschließlich durch Gott, nach Meinung der “sectarian” Texte können auch Menschen (Priester, Zadoqiden) Subjekt sein. Sie können ‫ ברית‬mit den Suffixen zu “unser/ihr Bund” verbinden und bewirken damit eine entscheidende semantische Veränderung: “Bund” wird nun Bezeichnung für die Gemeinde (‫ )יחד‬von Qumran, die in diesem Begriff nun ihre Soteriologie und Ekklesiologie konzentriert und daraus die Notwendigkeit ihrer esoterischen Abgrenzung gegen andere Juden, 68

LICHTENBERGER, “Mahnrede”, bes. 161f.

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

305

Apostaten und Fremde herleiten. CD und 1QSa kennen die Vorstellung von der Erneuerung des Bundes. Und schließlich und ganz selten findet sich auch die Vorstellung von der “Umkehr zum Bund”, sei es als ethisch-moralische Bekehrung, sei als Rückkehr zur Gemeinde. 4.3 Gemeinsamkeiten der “non sectarian” Texte mit dem AT Gemeinsam ist die Vorstellung vom “Bund Gottes mit Abraham, Isaak und Jakob”, vom “Bund des Gottes ihrer Väter”, vom Bund mit Jakob in Bet-El, vom Davidsbund und vom Bund mit Zidkija. Auch der priesterliche Salzbund wird in den “non sectarian” Texten thematisiert. Subjekt des Bundesschlusses ist vor allem Gott, aber auch Menschen werden genannt, wenn an sie das privilegrechtliche (Ex 34,14f.) Verbot ergeht, mit den Bewohnern des Landes einen Bund zu schließen, ein Reflex der Mischehen- und Fremdvölker-Problematik der spätnachexil. Zeit. Im Gegensatz zu den “sectarian” Texten sprechen die “non sectarian” Texte häufig vom “Schließen des Bundes” und erinnern damit an die verschiedenen Bundesschlüsse am Sinai, am Horeb und in Bet El und verbleiben damit ganz in der atl. Tradition, während die “sectarian” Texte diese kaum thematisieren und meistens vom “Kommen in den Bund” sprechen, was auf eine grundsätzliche semantische Verschiebung von ‫ ברית‬hinweist. Die atl. geläufige Wendung von der “Aufrichtung des Bundes” wird nur 2mal aufgegriffen und orientiert sich an Dtn 4. Das “Vergessen des Bundes” ist im AT Grund für den Götzendienst, für die “non sectarian” Schriften in Rezeption ähnlicher Vorstellungen im Jubiläenbuch Grund für das Vergessen der Gottesdienstordnung und des Kultkalenders. Die “Bewahrung des Bundes” gehört einerseits zu den Eigenschaften Gottes und ist andererseits Aufgabe der Menschen. Erst die “sectarian” Texte haben diese Vorstellung auf eine Gruppe von Auserwählten, v.a. den Zadoqiden und Leviten, dann auf die Gemeinde von Qumran eingeengt. Hinter der seltenen Formulierung “den Bund vollenden” steht offensichtlich die Vorstellung vom “Bund” als göttlichem Vertragswerk, aus dem die Tora hervorgeht. Die Formulierung “den Salzbund nicht aufhören lassen” erscheint als aaronidisches Postulat und erinnert an die Verheißung des ewigen Priesterbundes an Pinhas. Der Bundesbruch ist immer Sache der Menschen, nie von Gott initiiert. Während AT (vornehmlich Jer) und die “non sectarian” Texte die Vorstellung vom “Brechen des Bundes” breit ansprechen, wird diese Vorstellung in den “sectarian” Texten nicht thematisiert, obwohl die Gemeinde robuste Exkommunikationsriten kennt.

306

Heinz-Josef Fabry

4.4 Propria der “non sectarian” Texte Diese Texte sprechen vom Bund Gottes vermittelt “durch die Hand des Moses”, es ist der “Bund mit uns am Horeb”. Sie prägen den Begriff des “Bundessabbats”. Aus Mal 2,10 beziehen sie die Vorstellung von der “Entweihung des Bundes” und denken dabei an einen bestimmten priesterlich-kultischen Bereich. Die “Versündigung am Bund” und das “Kämpfen gegen den Bund” sind seltene Synonyma für Apostasie aus der Zeit Antiochus IV. Ob hinter letzterem ein wirklich feindlicher Vorgang steht oder ob es sich um einen Streit um die Deutungshoheit über Bund und Tora in vorqumranischer Zeit handelt, ist nicht mehr sicher zu entscheiden. Schließlich verstehen sie ‫ עבר ברית‬als “Verlassen des Bundes”, während die “sectarian” Texte mit diesem Verb – wie mit ‫ – בוא‬den Eintritt in die Gemeinde bezeichnen. Alles in allem wird man in den “non sectarian” Texten zuerst eine Fortführung alttestamentlichen Ideengutes, aber auch einiger Traditionen aus apokryphen Texten sehen können. Die Vorstellungen vom Bund mit ihren diversen semantischen Verästelungen werden weitgehend aufgenommen und z.T. erweitert. Dabei dienen sie als wichtige Vorstufe und Brücke zu den “sectarian” Vorstellungen. Dort werden dann einige Vorstellung nicht aufgenommen, ohne dass man daraus weitreichende Schlüsse ziehen könnte. Andere Vorstellungen werden gepflegt und ausgebaut. Entscheidend ist jedoch in den “sectarian” Texten der semantische Sprung zur Bezeichnung der Gemeinde, die damit in Anspruch nimmt, dass alles, was frühere Texte über den Bund zu sagen haben, in dieser Gemeinde von Qumran und nur hier verwirklicht werden kann und verwirklicht ist.

Literatur BERNSTEIN, MOSHE J., Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (DSSR) 5, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005, 148–150. BROOKE, GEORGE, J., “The Thematic Content of 4Q352”, JWR 85 (1994), 33–59. BRÜMMER, JULIA, “‫ פרר‬I”, ThWQ III, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016, 339–341. CHAZON, ESTHER G., “Is Divrei ha-me’orot a Sectarian Prayer?”, in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (STDJ 10), edited by D. Dimant / U. Rappaport, Leiden/Jerusalem: Brill, 1992, 3–17. COLLINS, JOHN J., The Works of the Messiah (DSD 1/1), 1994, 98–112. DAHMEN, ULRICH, Die Loblieder (Hodayot) aus Qumran, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019. DIMANT, DEVORAH, “Qumran Sectarian Literature”, in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT 1), edited by Michael E. Stone, Assen / Philadelphia: Van Gorcum / Fortress, 1984, 483–550. –, “4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Ca” (DJD XXX), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001, 129–171. FABRY, Heinz-Josef, “‫”כלה‬, ThWQ II, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013, 390–396.

‫ ברית‬in den “non-sectarian” Schriften in Qumran

307

–, “Ezechiel in Qumran und Masada – Bezeugung und Rezeption”, in Das Buch Ezechiel. Komposition, Redaktion und Rezeption (BZAW 516), edited by J. C. Gertz / C. Kötting / M. Witte, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020, 1–42. FALK, DANIEL, “4QCommunal Confession” (DJD XXIX), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, 45–61. FRÖHLICH, IDA, “Defining Sectarian by ‘Non-Sectarian’ Narratives in Qumran”, in Sects and Sectarianism in Jewish History (IJS Studies in Judaica 12), edited by S. Stern, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011, 63–86. GARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ, FLORENTINO / TIGCHELAAR, EIBERT, Dead Sea Scrolls – Study Edition (DSS.SE) I–II, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1997/1998. HANSBERGER, THERESE, “‫”שׁמר‬, ThWQ III (2016), 1005–1013. JASSEN, ALEX P., “‫ חלל‬I”, ThWQ I (2011), 980–986. JOKIRANTA, JUTTA M., “Sectarianism” of the Qumran “Sect”: “Sociological Notes”, RQu 78/20 (2001), 223–239. KESSLER, RAINER, Maleachi (HThK), Freiburg: Herder, 2011. KNIBB, MICHAEL, Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls (DSD 2/2), 1995, 165–184. KONKEL, MICHAEL, “Die Ezechiel-Septuaginta, Papyrus 967 und die Redaktionsgeschichte des Ezechielbuches. Probleme und Perspektiven am Beispiel von Ez 34”, in Das Buch Ezechiel. Komposition, Redaktion und Rezeption (BZAW 516), edited by J.C. Gertz et al., Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020, 43–62. LANGE, ARMIN, Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18), Leiden: Brill, 1995. LARSON, ERIK, LAWRENCE SCHIFFMANN, JOHN STRUGNELL, “Text Mentioning Zedekiah” (DJD XIX), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995, 235–244. LICHTENBERGER, HERMANN, “Eine weisheitliche Mahnrede in den Qumranfunden (4Q185)”, in Qumrân. Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (BEThL 46), edited by M. Delcor, Leuven: Peeters, 1978, 151–162. MAIER, JOHANN, Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer II (UTB 1863), München: Ernst-Reinhard Verlag, 1995. MILLER, SHEM, “‫”תמך‬, ThWQ III (2016), 1133–1135. MILIK, JOZEF T., “1QDires de Moïse” (DJD I), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955, 91–97. NEWSOM, CAROL, 4QAdmonition Based on the Flood (DJD XIX), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995, 85–97. NOVAKOVIC, LIDIJA, “‫”זכר‬, ThWQ I (2011), 840–849. OTTO, ECKART, Deuteronomium 23,16–34,12 (HThK), Freiburg: Herder, 2017. QIMRON, ELISHA, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HDSS 29), Leiden: Brill, 1986. RIEDE, PETER, “Salz” (https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/25931/) (Abruf: 04.01.2022). SCHÄFERS, KIRSTEN M., “‫”רשׁע‬, ThWQ III (2016), 722–741. SCHULLER, EILEEN, “4QNon-Canonical Psalms B” (DJD XI), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, 87–171. SCHULTZ, BRIAN, Conquering the World. The War Scroll Reconsidered (STDJ 76), Leiden: Brill, 2009. SCRENOCK, JOHN, “‫”שׁכח‬, ThWQ III (2016), 916–920. SEEBASS, HORST, Numeri (BK IV/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 22003. STEUDEL, ANNETTE, Die Texte aus Qumran II, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2001. STRAWN, BRENT, “‫”ברית‬, ThWQ I, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011, 509–510.

308

Heinz-Josef Fabry

STRUGNELL, JOHN, “Notes en marge du volume V des DJD”, RQu 7 (1979), 163–276. –, “Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: 4Q375, 4Q376, and Similar Works”, in Archaeology and History of the Dead Sea Scrolls (JSP Suppl.Ser. 8, JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2), edited by L.H. Schiffman, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990, 221–256. TIGCHELAAR, EIBERT, “A Cave 6 Fragment of Divre Moshe (4QDM) and the Text of 1Q22 1:7–10 and Jubilees 1:9,14”, DSD 12 (2005), 303–312. TOV, EMANUEL, The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of its Textual History, in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, edited by J.H. Tigay, Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1985, 211–237. VANDERKAM, JAMES / JOZEF T. MILIK, “4QJubileesa” (DJD XIII), London: Clarendon Press, 1994, 1–22. WACHOLDER, BEN ZION, “Deutero-Ezekiel and Jeremiah (4Q384–4Q391): Identifying the Dry Bones of Ezekiel 37 as the Essenes”, in: The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery, edited by J. Aviram, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000, 445–461. WEINFELD, MOSHE, “‫”ברית‬, ThWAT 1, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973, 781–808. DERS. / DAVID SEELY, “4QLament by a Leader” (DJD XXIX), 1999, 335–341. WITT, ANDREW, “David, the ‘Ruler of the Sons of his Covenant’ (‫)מושל בבני בריתו‬: The Expansion of Psalm 151 in 11QPsa”, JESOT 3/1 (2014), 77–97. ZENGER, ERICH / FRANK-LOTHAR HOSSFELD, Psalmen 50–100 (HThK), Freiburg: Herder, 2000.

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

GERT J. STEYN Gert J. Steyn

Part 1: Covenant in Philo’s Writings 1. Introduction A perception was created by Isaak Heinemann (1929–1932), almost a century ago, that Philo did not know the concept of the covenant at all.1 This, in turn, led to a general perception that the term “covenant” was unimportant for Philo of Alexandria,2 or that “the theme of covenant is largely absent in Philo’s thought”,3 with the consequence that the topic had hardly been receiving any attention in Jewish-Hellenistic studies. It is indeed true that at strategic places, such as in Philo’s description of the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai (Decal. 32–49), Philo does not refer to cultic and covenantal elements.4 It is also true that a “theology of the covenant referring to the salvation of the collective entity ‘Israel’” is absent in Philo.5 However, the importance of the covenantal theme by Philo has been indicated later by others, such as Erwin Goodenough (1965), who stated that Philo “still believed with all his heart that Jews had a special revelation of God in the Torah, and a peculiar relationship with him”. Goodenough “argued that there was a ‘minimal Judaism’ based on several of the lowest common denominators among Jews such as Jewish identity as a people based on the covenant and their loyalty to their scriptures”.6 He, furthermore, made it clear that “to the great majority of Jews the covenant has meant loyalty to … the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and of Sinai, and a sense that their very raison d’être arose from a unique relationship to that God”.7 Also E.P. Sanders (1976, 2016) noted the importance of the covenant concept by Philo when he pointed to Philo’s connection with “the Jewish politeia – commonwealth, 1

HEINEMANN, Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung, 482–483, 564. GRABBE, “‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus”, 251–266, for instance, is of the opinion that Philo belongs to a significant number of writers or writings that do not mention “covenant”, or show no interest in the concept of covenant. 3 So, for instance, BYRON, Slavery Metaphors, 102–116. 4 ROGERS, “Philo’s Universalization”, 85–105. 5 VOGEL, Heil des Bundes, 210–219. 6 STERLING, “Place of Philo of Alexandria”, 26. 7 GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols, 6–9 (quoted in SANDERS, Comparing Judaism, 57). 2

310

Gert J. Steyn

citizenship, or constitution”, where the covenant conception could be clearly found.8 It is particularly Sanders who developed the concept of “covenantal nominism”9 as a way of understanding Second Temple Judaism10 – a controversial perspective which had been noted with skepticism by scholarship.11 It has been argued, for instance, that “‘covenantal nomism’ is not a useful description for Philo’s deeply individualistic religious pattern” and that Philo “rarely mentions the divine covenant with Israel and his frame of thought is not soteriological.”12 Two aspects need to be noted, when engaging with Philo’s concept of covenant. Firstly, that the concept of covenant is definitely not absent at all in Philo’s writings. Secondly, the fact that Philo understands and interprets covenant differently than the biblical writers, does not mean that it is unimportant to him. “Philo develops the OT concept of covenant in an original way, applying the aspect of community, implicit in this concept, to the soul and to the world.”13 His modus operandi is to spiritualize and universalize particular aspects related to Israel through his allegorical interpretations, which includes his presentation and interpretation of the covenant “in order to embrace all wise or virtuous people.”14 The role of the covenant is especially addressed in Philo’s treatises on the Pentateuch.15 2. Occurrences and distribution of the term διαθήκη Philo of Alexandria mentions the covenant-theme explicitly in seven of his works when he utilizes the term διαθήκη. In all these cases, his discussion of the theme is every time closely connected with a quotation from his Greek Pentateuch. The only exception to these is the case of Somn. 2. 237, where no 8 SANDERS, Comparing Judaism, 57. See also SANDERS, “Covenant as a Soteriological Category”, 11–44. 9 Also BEKKEN, Word Is Near You, considers, for instance, Philo’s approach to Deut 30:11–14 in Praem. 79–84 as “covenant nominism”. 10 Cf. HAY, “Philo”, 357–379. 11 So, for instance, SPRINKLE, Law and Life. 12 Review on HAY, “Philo”, in RUNIA, Annotated Bibliography, 168–169. 13 Cf. ZELLER on VOGEL, Heil des Bundes, 210–219, in RUNIA, Annotated Bibliography, 429. 14 Cf. REDDOCH, Book Review on COLLINS and HARLOW, Early Judaism, 233: “There were unifying factors in early Judaism like monotheism, Torah, and covenant; however, literary, geographical, and linguistic diversity brought about by ever changing political milieux resulted in a range of Jewish responses that are difficult to categorize.” See also BIRNBAUM, “Allegorical Interpretation”, 307–329. 15 So also ZELLER, “Gott bei Philo”, 32–57. STERLING, “People of the Covenant”, 404– 439, points to the frequency of references to Exodus and particularly Exod 23, which shows that Philo is keenly interested in selections from the Book of Covenant, albeit by spiritualizing and universalizing the cult of ancient Israel.

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

311

explicit quotation is directly linked to his reference of διαθήκη there. Philo’s deliberations on covenant are particularly connected to the Noahic Covenant (with quotations from Gen 9) as well as to the Abrahamic Covenant (with quotations from Gen 15 and 17, but also Deut 9 and 33).16 He mentions in passing that he already wrote two commentaries concerning “covenants” before (τὸν δὲ περὶ διαθηκῶν σύμπαντα λόγον ἐν δυσὶν ἀναγέγραφα), stating that “for that reason I now deliberately pass over that subject, for the sake of not appearing to repeat what I have said before” (Mut. 53).17 Not only would Philo dwell on the purpose of a covenant in his expositions,18 but he would often elaborate on its nature and essence,19 whilst attempting to trace this essence sometimes by means of a symbolic or figurative explanation.20 He recognizes the existence of many kinds of covenants, but identifies the highest kind of them all to be found in the existence of God’s very Being itself.21 The benefits attached to the covenantal relation become clear in Philo’s commentaries.22 2.1 Purpose of the covenant In his references to covenant, Philo does not always explicitly mention the purpose of the covenant in the cases he discussed. However, the intention with the covenant seems to be an assumed fact and to be well known to his audience. In the few cases where Philo does give a hint in this direction, it is closely connected to the Abrahamic covenant and the promises of land and a people. This becomes clear when Philo quotes Gen 15:18: “on that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, to your seed will I give this land” (Her. 313). When linking the covenantal theme with the land-promise, Philo stated that inheritance of the land was not due to the righteousness of the people, but rather to “the iniquity of these nations” and “that he may establish the covenant which he swore to our fathers” (Sacr. 57). Interesting, however, is also the connection to the inheritance of virtues in Philo’s interpretation. The purpose is mentioned to be “that the race of

16 Cf. CALVERT, “Abraham”, 1: “Josephus and Philo portray Abraham as one who assimilates pagan, particularly Hellenistic, culture (e.g., Josephus Ant. 1.8.2 § 166–68; Philo Abr. 88)”. 17 Cf. Mut. 53 and Eusebius, Eccl. hist. 2.18.3 (STERLING, “Place of Philo”, 23). ROYSE, “Did Philo publish his works?”, 75–100, points to references in Philo where the latter refers to works that are now lost, such as “the question of rewards” (τὰ περὶ μισθῶν, Her. 1) and “the whole subject of the covenants” (τὸν περὶ διαθηκῶν σύμπαντα λόγον, Mut. 53). 18 Her. 313; Sacr. 57; Mut. 263. 19 Mut. 58; Somn. 2.223–224.227; Leg. 3.85. 20 Mut. 52; Sacr. 57. 21 Mut. 58. 22 So, for instance, Mut. 58 and 268; also Mut. 52 and 263; Praem. 79–84.

312

Gert J. Steyn

humankind may receive each kind of virtue” when reference is made to the covenant with Israel (Mut. 263). 2.2 Nature and essence of the covenant As noted, Philo acknowledges the existence of different kinds of covenants. He states: “There are very many kinds of covenants, which distribute graces and gifts to those who are worthy to receive them; but the highest kind of covenant of all is I myself” (Mut. 58). With this statement, Philo defines the nature and essence of the highest kind of covenant to be identical to God’s existence itself. In this definition, the revelation of the Divine Being as the One who Is,23 implies in this case a connection with the Mosaic covenant, although it remains still strongly rooted in the Abrahamic covenant.24 The Noahic covenant, too, is also referred to in terms of its nature and essence. It is described as a “covenant full of grace – and that means his law and his word” (τὴν πλήρη χαρίτων25 διαθήκην ἑαυτοῦ νόμος δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ λόγος; Somn. 2. 223), says Philo – hence, the covenant is “Law and Reason” (νόμος δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ λόγος).26 He, furthermore, also identifies the essence of this covenant to “be an image in the likeness of God” (Somn. 2. 223) and makes it explicitly clear that the covenant and the identity of God are synonymous with each other. The different terminologies that Philo uses belongs for him to the same semantic field. Not only “covenant” and “identity of God”, but also “justice” and “word of the living God” are all concepts that are closely connected with each other in Philo’s opinion. He can, therefore, equal justice with God’s covenant: “justice is in no respect different from the covenant of God” (Somn. 2.224). In a similar manner, he also identifies “the living word of God” with God’s covenant. Most importantly, however, is the nature and essence of this covenant, which is described with stability, unchangeability and eternity (Somn. 2.237). The latter quality is particularly acknowledged by Philo as the nature of the Abrahamic covenant when he refers to the establishment of the covenant as “an everlasting covenant” (καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς διαθήκην αἰώνιον, Leg. 3.85). Due to his unfamiliarity with Hebrew, Philo’s understanding of the nature of the covenant must have been deeply rooted in his engagement with his Greek (LXX) Scriptures.27 He is thus, according to Grabbe, conditioned rather by the 23

Cf. Exod 3:14 (“I am who I am”) – quoted by Philo in Somn. 1.40; Det. 44. Cf. Exod 3:15–16 – quoted by Philo in Abr. 10; Mos. 1.14. 25 See ZELLER, Charis bei Philon. 26 HATCH, “Short Studies”, 48. 27 Cf. HATCH, “Short Studies”, 48: “In Philo it has the same sense as in the LXX.” Cf. also BEHM, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”, 104–134: “The religious concept διαθήκη θεοῦ (Det. Pot. Ins., 68; Som., II, 224: τὸ δίκαιον ἀδιαφορεῖ διαθήκης θεοῦ) is taken by him from the LXX” 24

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

313

primary sense of the Greek word as a will or testament, than by the Hebrew concept of a mutual agreement between God and humans.28 2.3 Symbolic or figurative explanantion of the covenant True to his hermeneutical methodology, Philo constantly seeks a deeper meaning in the text of his authoratative Scriptures. In his understanding, a symbolic or spiritual meaning is often implied, which should be unlocked through allegorical or symbolic interpretation in order to establish what the true intended message might be. Philo also applies this hermeneutic to the covenant theme and seeks its symbolic or figurative meaning. Hence, for Philo, a covenant (or testament) “is a symbol of grace” (ὥστε σύμβολον εἶναι διαθήκην χάριτος, Mut. 52).29 He explains this at another place: “Now by the covenant of God his graces are figuratively meant … as all the gifts of the uncreated God are complete and entirely perfect, and virtue is a thing complete among existing things, and so is the course of action in accordance with it” (διαθήκη δʼ ἐστὶ θεοῦ συμβολικῶς αἱ χάριτες αὐτοῦ … ὥσθʼ ὁλόκληροι καὶ παντελεῖς αἱ τοῦ ἀγενήτου δωρεαὶ πᾶσαι, ὁλόκληρον δὲ ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἀρετὴ καὶ αἱ κατʼ ἀρετὴν πράξεις, Sacr. 57). Given Philo’s close connection with covenant and virtue, it is not surprising at all that he returns to this topic. 2.4 Advantages or benefits of the covenant Not only the purpose, nature or figurative meaning of the covenant is addressed by Philo, but also the advantages or benefits of it. Striking and foremost seems to be the issue that “covenants and testaments are written for the advantage of those who are worthy of the gift” (διαθῆκαι δὲ ἐπʼ ὠφελείᾳ γράφονται τῶν δωρεᾶς ἀξίων, Mut. 52). An integral part of the covenant as a gift can be found in the fact that the covenant is given in order “that the race of humankind may receive each kind of virtue” (ἵνʼ ἑκατέρας ἀρετῆς τὸ ἀνθρώπων μεταποιῆται γένος, Mut. 263). Philo, furthermore, emphasizes the covenant as a freely given divine gift.30 It becomes clear in Philo’s expositions that the “gift” associated with the covenant, does not merely comprise of the covenant itself as a gift, or the different virtues associated therewith, but also includes the receiver of all this as a gift to himself. Philo wrote: “the expression, ‘I will establish my covenant with you’, is equivalent to, I will give you to yourself” (Somn. 2.224). and “As an allegorist, however, he imports into the LXX concept the current everyday sense of ‘testament’ (Spec. Leg., II, 16).” 28 GRABBE, “‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus”, 251–266. Philo might have been closer to the Greek sense of the term (“ordinance” or “statute”), than to the Hebrew sense (“treaty” or “covenant”) (BEHM, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”, 104–134). 29 “The word (χάρις, GJS) often occurs in Hellenistic Jewish texts, in which it describes the fruits of a reciprocal beneficence or retaliation” – cf. Sir 12:1 (BOVON, Luke 1, 237). 30 GRABBE, “‘Covenant’ in Philo”, 251–266.

314

Gert J. Steyn

Although the term διαθήκη is not explicitly used in Praem. 79–84, an interesting advantage of the covenant might be identified here when Philo links Deut 30:11–14 with the promised blessings of the covenant, and that such promised blessings could be understood eschatologically.31 3. The Noahic covenant32 3.1 Philo’s reception of Gen 9:11LXX in Somn. 2.223–224, 2.237 In his De Somniis (Book 2), Philo elaborates on the theme of the Noahic covenant. He uses a verbal quotation from Gen 9:11LXX as focal point for his interpretation: “I will establish my covenant with you” (στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς σέ, Somn. 2.223) – the reading which is in exact agreement with the known LXX version(s). Philo highlights five interesting aspects during his interpretation. Firstly, that “there is in the Deity such an excessive degree of stability (τοσαύτη περὶ τὸ θεῖόν ἐστιν ὑπερβολὴ τοῦ βεβαίου), that he gave even to the most excellent natures a share of his durability (ταῖς ἐπιλελεγμέναις φύσεσιν ἐχυρότητος) as his most excellent possession” (ὡς ἀρίστου κτήματος). Secondly, the fact that it is a “covenant full of grace” (τὴν πλήρη χαρίτων διαθήκην).33 Thirdly, that this grace-filled-covenant equals God’s law and his word (νόμος δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ λόγος τῶν ὄντων).34 Fourthly, that the covenant is firmly erected “in the soul of the just man as on a solid foundation” (ὡς ἂν ἐπὶ βάσεως τῆς τοῦ δικαίου ψυχῆς). Fifthly, that the covenant is “an image in the likeness of God”, or a “godlike statue” (ἄγαλμα θεοειδές). It is striking here again with the Noahic covenant, how it is linked to the aspect of grace, on the one hand, and to the revelation of God’s identity itself, on the other hand. The covenant represents the very Being of God himself and stands like an image in the likeness of God, to be visualised in a similar manner as the statues of the gods of other nations, although Philo does not explicitly makes this comparison.

31

See BEKKEN, Word Is Near You, as well as KEENER’s Review of BEKKEN in SPhiloA,

292. 32

See also SCHWEMER, “Verhältnis von Diatheke und Nomos”, 92–95. “He lays the strongest possible stress on the element of the absolute one-sidedness of the expression of the will of the gracious God” (BEHM, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”, 104–134). “In correlation with χάρις this means direct participation of the self-taught character in God” (ZELLER, in RUNIA, Annotated Bibliography, 429). 34 “When διαθήκη is connected with the Logos as cosmological principle of order, God communicates his own steadiness to the soul” (ZELLER, in RUNIA, Annotated Bibliography, 429). A perception existed in Hellenistic Judaism where Logos was identified as a person, sometimes as the Angel of the Covenant. For some translation examples in the LXX, cf. BRYANT, Sentiments of Philo, 45. These include, for instance, references to Ps 104:19LXX; 106:20LXX; 118:89LXX. 33

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

315

Philo continues with his interpretation of the Noahic covenant (Somn. 2.224) and points to two further aspects that are referred to (δύο ἕτερα) in terms of this covenantal relation. The one (ἓν μέν) is “that justice is in no respect different from the covenant of God” (τὸ δίκαιον ἀδιαφορεῖ διαθήκης θεοῦ). The connections already made with durability, grace, the law and words of God, as well as the representation of the very Being of God, makes the connection between covenant and justice a logical one in Philo’s argumentation. The other aspect that Philo points to (ἕτερον δέ) is the difference between the bestowing of gifts amongst people and God’s bestowing of gifts. In the case of people, the gifts that are bestowed are different from the persons who receive them (οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι χαρίζονται τὰ διαφέροντα τῶν λαμβανόντων). In the case of God, however (ὁ δὲ θεός), he not only gives those gifts, “but he gives also the very persons who receive them to themselves” (οὐ μόνον ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ αὐτοὺς ἐκείνους ἑαυτοῖς). Philo’s argument follows an interesting ontological line of thinking. Suddenly switching between the first person singular (referring to himself) and the third person singular (referring to all others), he presents and interprets his own existence as God’s gift to himself (ἐμὲ γὰρ ἐμοὶ δεδώρηται), as is the case with all others (καὶ ἕκαστον τῶν ὄντων ἑαυτῷ). Philo returns at this point in his argument to the quotation of Gen 9:11LXX (στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς σέ), explaining that this expression “is equivalent to, ‘I will give you to yourself’” (ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ “σοὶ δωρήσομαι”).35 Philo’s interpretation of the Noahic covenant in this particular context is new, creative and adapted for his philosophically oriented Hellenistic audience. It is far distanced from the person of Noah. The central symbol of the Noahic covenantal event is absent. The ontological existence of humanity itself is the gracious expression of a durable relation between God and humanity, which has been established by God through the expression of this verbal statement as contained in Gen 9:11LXX. Somewhat later in his De Somniis (2.237), Philo returns to the covenantal theme. He reiterates that the qualities of steadiness, stability (τῆς οὖν στάσεως καὶ ἱδρύσεως), unchangeability and immovability (τὸ ἀμετάβλητον καὶ ἄτρεπτον) are rooted firstly (πρῶτον μέν) in the existence of the living Being (περὶ τὸ ὄν), and secondly (ἔπειτα δέ) “in the word of the living Being, which he has called his covenant” (περὶ τὸν τοῦ ὄντος λόγον, ὃν διαθήκην ἐκάλεσε). Philo adds two further elements in which these qualities of firmness are revealed. In the third place (τρίτον δέ), stands “the wise man” (περὶ τὸν σοφόν) and fourthly (καὶ τέταρτον) the person “who is advancing towards perfection” (περὶ τὸν προκόπτοντα).

35 Cf. KENNEDY, Philo’s Contribution, 146: “But of supreme importance for human beings is the recognition that their own highest faculties are Divine gifts.”

316

Gert J. Steyn

4. The Abrahamic covenant36 4.1 Philo’s reception of Gen 15:18LXX in Her. 313–314 In his treatise, De confusione linguarum, Philo quoted Gen 15:18LXX verbally: “For … on that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, to your seed will I give this land” (ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ … ἐκείνῃ διέθετο κύριος τῷ Ἀβραὰμ διαθήκην λέγων· τῷ σπέρματί σου δώσω τὴν γῆν ταύτην). There are no differences in text form between our known LXX versions and Philo’s quotation. The explicit quotation follows after Philo had elaborated on the “wise man (ὁ σοφός) who has now been sufficiently proved to be the inheritor of the knowledge of the subjects above mentioned.” Philo consistently continues to present Abraham as a “wise man” in his treatises. The emphasis on Abraham’s inheritance is neither on his offspring, nor primarily on the land, but rather on “the knowledge” (τῆς ἐπιστήμης) of which he has been “sufficiently proved to be the inheritor” (κληρονόμος δεόντως ἀποδείκνυται). But the quotation refers to the land, so that Philo needs to explain then in his exposition of Gen 15 what “land” means here in this context for him. True to his hermeneutic, Philo ascribes an allegorical interpretation to it and understands it to be the fire of God’s instruction, i.e. “divine powers” (αἱ θεῖαι δυνάμεις), which Philo connects, in turn, with the verse that preceded his quotation, namely Gen 15:17LXX and which he quoted in Her. 312: “The lamps of fire (λαμπάδες πυρός) which were in the midst between the divided portions”.37 4.2 Philo’s reception of Gen 17:1–21LXX in Mut. 51–58, 263 Philo quoted four times from Gen 17LXX in his De mutatione nominum with explicit references to the Abrahamic covenant, on which he then elaborates in his argumentation.38 The quotations follow the sequence as it appears in Gen 17, starting with verses 1–2 (Mut. 52), then twice a quotation from verse 4 (Mut. 57, 58) and lastly verse 21 (Mut. 263). It is indicative of Philo’s systematic analysis and discussion of his LXX Vorlage. Philo’s reference to Abraham’s deliberate choice of this “way of life” (τῷ δὲ ᾑρημένῳ ζῆν τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον), strikingly reminds of the phrase of philosophy as a way of life39 (i.e. a particular course of conduct), a perspective 36

See also SCHWEMER, “Verhältnis von Diatheke und Nomos”, 96–105. Cf. WILLIAMSON, “Abraham, Israel and the Church”, 117: “The land promised to Abraham and his descendants as a permanent possession symbolized or typified something much greater than even the most grandiose borders suggested in the ancestral stories; the ultimate inheritance is one of cosmic, not simply geographical proportions.” 38 It is clear that the Abrahamic covenant as prior relationship with God, takes precedence over the Sinai covenant. Cf. TIWALD, Hebräer von Hebräern. 39 Cf., for instance, Pindar’s Nemean Odes 1,29: Ἁγησιδάμου παῖ, σέο δʼ ἀμφὶ τρόπῳ. 37

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

317

which is reiterated by Philo when he refers to Abraham as “a wise man” (σοφῷ) (Mut. 51).40 Abraham’s choice to leave his inheritance behind (καὶ κλῆρον … ἀπολείψειν) is perceived to be “in accordance with the covenant” (κατὰ διαθήκας) where God gives (δοῦναι μὲν θεῷ) and Abraham receives (λαβεῖν δέ). Philo then verbally quotes LXX Gen 17:1–2 (θήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον σοῦ)41 and comments on three aspects. Firstly, that “covenants are written for the advantage of those who are worthy of the gift” (διαθῆκαι δὲ ἐπʼ ὠφελείᾳ γράφονται τῶν δωρεᾶς ἀξίων).42 Secondly, that “a covenant is a symbol of grace” (σύμβολον εἶναι διαθήκην χάριτος). Thirdly, that God places it “between himself who proffers it (hands it out) and man who receives it” (ἣν μέσην ἔθηκεν ὁ θεὸς ἑαυτοῦ τε ὀρέγοντος καὶ ἀνθρώπου λαμβάνοντος) (Mut. 52). This space between God and the human being is understood to be a space of grace, filled with the virgin grace of God: “there is nothing between God and the soul except his own virgin grace” (μὴ εἶναι θεοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς μέσον, ὅτι μὴ τὴν παρθένον χάριτα, Mut. 53). It is clear that Philo’s notion of χάρις is not based on reciprocity. The universe, for instance, is given freely as a gift by God to all people, whereas virtues, on the other hand, are given only to some.43 When Philo continues his discussion on the Abrahamic covenant somewhat later in his document, he starts with a verbal quotation of LXX Gen 17:4: κἀγώ, ἰδοὺ ἡ διαθήκη μου μετὰ σοῦ (with the only change of the LXX Καὶ ἐγώ, presented through krasis as κἀγώ in Philo). He then interprets the statement of this quotation by referring to its concealed meaning (τοῦτο δὲ τοιοῦτον ὑποβάλλει νοῦν), which Philo understands to be that the highest kind of covenant of all is God himself (τὸ δʼ ἀνώτατον γένος διαθηκῶν αὐτὸς ἐγώ εἰμι), because God displayed himself as “the beginning and fountain of all graces” (ἡ πασῶν χαρίτων ἀρχή τε καὶ πηγὴ αὐτός εἰμι ἐγώ).44 At this point Philo repeats the quotation from LXX Gen 17:4 in an identical manner (Mut. 58). Philo understands the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant as a divine revelation of God himself. This “covenant of grace” is in itself a theophany, which represents the identity of the invisible Divine Being in a concrete manner. 40

Philo refers elsewhere also to Abraham as “a wise man”. See, for instance, Conf. 26 (ὁ σοφὸς Ἀβραάμ). 41 The only difference between the LXX reading and Philo’s quotation is that Gen 17:2LXX reads θήσομαι, while Philo reads θήσω. Cf. WEVERS, Genesis. 42 Cf. Philo, Migr. 1–127; Mut. 52. Philo knew “the tradition that the covenant was linked with gifts. The treatise On the Migration of Abraham interprets God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17 as five ‘gifts’ (δωρεαί)” (STERLING, “Moses in Ezekiel and Philo”, SPhiloA, 115–133). 43 Cf. WHITLARK, “Enabling Charis”, 325–357. 44 Cf. KENNEDY, Philo’s Contribution, 146: “All that exists, in so far as it can benefit, is an expression of the loving-kindness of God, imparted freely to all His creatures.”

318

Gert J. Steyn

Much later in the same document, Philo continues with the Abrahamic covenant theme in his broader argument on virtue, “which will bring forth a legitimate male child”45 (Mut. 261). Philo then quotes a few elected phrases from LXX Gen 17:20 in reference to Ishmael: Gen 17:20LXX

Philo, Mut. 26346

ἰδοὺ εὐλόγηκα αὐτόν καὶ αὐξανῶ αὐτὸν

εὐλόγηκα αὐτόν, αὐξήσω αὐτόν,

καὶ πληθυνῶ αὐτὸν σφόδρα·

πληθυνῶ,

δώδεκα ἔθνη γεννήσει, καὶ δώσω αὐτὸν

δώδεκα ἔθνη γεννήσει

εἰς ἔθνος μέγα

Philo, again, establishes a link between covenant and philosophy when he interprets this quotation: “that is to say, he shall beget the whole circle and ring of the sophistical preliminary branches of education” (τὸν κύκλον καὶ τὸν χορὸν ἅπαντα τῶν σοφιστικῶν προπαιδευμάτων). Immediately hereafter follows the reference to Isaac, when Philo verbally quotes the consecutive verse from Gen 17:21LXX (τὴν δὲ διαθήκην μου στήσω πρὸς Ἰσαάκ). He proceeds in the same breath, immediately following the explicit quotation as if the quotation itself continues, stating “that the race of humankind may receive each kind of virtue”. Philo specifies that “the weaker part of them (i.e. Ishmael, GJS) receiving both that which is taught by others, and that which is learnt by one’s self, and the stronger part (i.e. Isaac, GJS) that which is ready and prepared” (Mut. 263). In this manner, both Ishmael and Isaac represent different virtues, with the covenant in the case of Isaac being closely connected to the virtue of joy, which carries the name, Laughter (Mut. 262), thus “wisdom shall bring forth joy” (Mut. 264). Manuel Alexandre summarized Philo’s argument in an aptly manner: Having begun the argument with Hagar and Sarah (255–260), Philo ends it with Isaac and Ishmael (261–263) to demonstrate that there are two forms of virtue, one where the teacher is another, and one where teacher and learner are the same. One type results from the teaching of others, the other is manifest in oneself as natural talent or direct insemination from God.47

It is certainly striking that in Philo’s exposition of Gen 17 and the Abrahamic covenant, he neither refers to circumcision as such, nor to it as a sign of God’s

45

Cf. WILLIAMSON, “Abraham, Israel and the Church”, 102: “Genesis 17 gives the first signal that the multitudinous descendants promised to Abraham would come though lsaac’s line.” 46 BORGEN, FUGLSETH and SKARSTEN, Works of Philo. 47 ALEXANDRE, “Rhetorical Hermeneutics”, 36.

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

319

covenant with Abraham. Although circumcision is elsewhere acknowledged by Philo, he separates it clearly here in this context from the covenantal theme.48 4.3 Philo’s reception of Gen 17:17LXX, 19 in Leg. 3.85 Philo engages explicitly with the Abrahamic promise of Gen 17LXX in his work Legum allegoriae 3.85 and quotes two verses in this connection. The fact of the human impossibility for the promised offspring for Abraham receives attention in his commentary that Abraham laughed at the promise (γελάσαντι ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποσχέσει). This impossibility of an offspring is then expressed in Abraham’s question, which Philo verbally quotes from Gen 17:17LXX. Philo points to the fact that God asserts Abraham’s question positively and ratifies his promise (καταφάσκει καὶ ἐπινεύει λέγων ναί), upon which Philo then quotes Gen 17:19LXX verbally. It is confirmed that Abraham’s wife, Sarah, shall bear him a son, that he should be called “Isaac”, and that God shall establish his covenant towards Isaac for an everlasting covenant. Philo’s quotation agrees verbally with the known LXX version(s) but does not include the last part of the promise (καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετʼ αὐτόν), which is probably perceived by Philo to be superfluous in light of the fact that the covenant is anyway “an everlasting covenant” (εἰς διαθήκην αἰώνιον). 4.4 Philo’s reception of Deut 9:5LXX in Sacr. 56–57 In his De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, Philo returns to the Abrahamic covenant with an argument in which he wants to make it clear that “the good things that have befallen someone” (τῶν συμβαινόντων ἀγαθῶν) should not be considered to be the result of such a person’s own doing. Philo quotes Deut 8:17LXX to underline this thesis: “Say not, my own might, or the strength of my right hand has acquired me all this power, but remember always the Lord your God, who gave you the might to acquire power”. Someone who argues like that ought to be taught to change his opinion on the basis of Deut 9:5LXX, which Philo then quotes at length – including some differences between the text forms of our known LXX version(s) and Philo’s quotation:

48

Detailed studies in this connection on Philo have shown that nowhere is circumcision considered to be a sign of the covenant. Cf. BLASCHKE, Beschneidung, 222–223; NIEHOFF, “Circumcision”, 89–123.

320

Gert J. Steyn

Deut 9:5LXX49

Philo, Sacr. 5750

5

οὐχὶ διὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου οὐδὲ διὰ τὴν ὁσιότητα τῆς καρδίας σου σὺ εἰσπορεύῃ κληρονομῆσαι τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ

οὐχὶ διὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου οὐδὲ διὰ τὴν ὁσιότητα τῆς καρδίας σου εἰσπορεύῃ τὴν γῆν κληρονομῆσαι αὐτήν, ἀλλὰ

διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν τῶν ἐθνῶν τούτων

πρῶτον μὲν διὰ τὴν ἀνομίαν τῶν ἐθνῶν τούτων,

κύριος ἐξολεθρεύσει αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ προσώπου σου καὶ

ὄλεθρον κακίαις ἐπάγοντος θεοῦ, ἔπειθʼ

ἵνα στήσῃ τὴν διαθήκην, ἣν ὤμοσεν κύριος

ἵνα στήσῃ τὴν διαθήκην, ἣν ὤμοσε

τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν,

τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν

τῷ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ. It is not because of your righteousness or the holiness of your heart that you are going in to inherit their land, but because of the impiety of these nations the Lord will destroy them utterly before you, and in order that he may uphold the covenant that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraam and Isaak and Iakob.51

You do not enter into this land to possess it because of your righteousness, or because of the holiness of your heart; but, in the first place, because of the iniquity of these nations, since God has brought on them the destruction of wickedness; and in the second place that he may establish the covenant which he swore to our fathers.52

Philo then explains the concept of the covenant here again and does so in a figurative sense:53 “Now by the covenant of God his graces are figuratively meant” (διαθήκη δʼ ἐστὶ θεοῦ συμβολικῶς αἱ χάριτες αὐτοῦ). As elsewhere, Philo also draw connections between covenant on the one hand, and the grace of God and virtue on the other hand. All these “gifts” of God – which here implies the covenant itself – are understood to be “complete and entirely perfect” (ὁλόκληροι καὶ παντελεῖς αἱ … δωρεαὶ πᾶσαι). The same applies to “virtue”, which is “a thing complete among existing things” (ὁλόκληρον δὲ ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἀρετή), and its “course of action” (καὶ αἱ κατʼ ἀρετὴν πράξεις).54

49

WEVERS, Deuteronomium. BORGEN et al., Works of Philo. 51 PIETERSMA/WRIGHT, New English Translation of the Septuagint. 52 YONGE, Works of Philo. 53 “Philo obviously realised that his figurative interpretation of the divine διαθήκη as a testament differed from the true biblical sense. His knowledge of this sense could in fact be deduced, even if there were no direct evidence, from his hermeneutical principles (the literal and allegorical sense)” (BEHM, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”, 128). 54 “The argument seems to be: The covenant means God’s gifts, God’s gifts are perfect; virtue is perfect; therefore virtue is God’s gift, and not man’s merit” (COLSON/WHITAKER, Philo, 491). 50

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

321

4.5 Philo’s reception of Deut 33:9b–10aLXX in Det. 67–68 Moses’ blessing of the Israelites in Deut 33 becomes the backdrop for another of Philo’s references to the “covenant of God” (διαθήκης θεοῦ) in his work Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat. Philo refers to the blessing of Levi by Moses and then quotes Deut 33:9b–10aLXX explicitly: Deut 33:9b–10aLXX55

Philo, Det. 6756

ἐφύλαξεν τὰ λόγιά σου

ἐφύλαξε τὰ λόγιά σου,

καὶ τὴν διαθήκην σου διετήρησεν.

καὶ τὴν διαθήκην σου διετήρησεν εἶθʼ ἑξῆς·δηλώσουσι τὰ δικαιώματά σου

10

δηλώσουσιν τὰ δικαιώματά σου τῷ Ἰακώβ,

Ἰακὼβ

καὶ τὸν νόμον σου τῷ Ἰσραήλ·

καὶ τὸν νόμον σου Ἰσραήλ

He guarded your oracles and kept your covenant. They shall show Jacob your statutes and Israel your law.

“He has guarded your words and kept your covenant” and immediately continues “They shall show Jacob your judgements, and Israel your law”

Philo elaborates hereafter on the covenant and interprets its occurrence here consistenly with his association of covenant with “the good man” (ὁ ἀστεῖός57), who is both “the guardian of the words” (καὶ λόγων) and “of the covenant of God” (καὶ διαθήκης θεοῦ φύλαξ) (Det. 68). Somewhat earlier in his argument, Philo asked the rhetorical question: “Do you not see that the lawgiver (ὁ νομοθέτης) entrusts the keeping and preservation of the holy things (τὴν τῶν ἁγίων διατήρησίν τε καὶ φυλακήν) not to any chance person (οὐ τοῖς ἐπιτυχοῦσιν), but to the Levites, who were the most holy persons in their opinions? (τοῖς τὰς γνώμας ἱερωτάτοις Λευίταις)” (Det. 62). He continued, that “it has not fallen to the lot of all the suppliants to become guardians of the holy things (τοῖς ἱκέταις γενέσθαι φύλαξιν ἱερῶν), but to those only who have arrived at the number fifty” (Det. 63), a number which Philo considers as perfect (τέλειος γὰρ ὁ πεντηκοστὸς λόγος, Det. 64). Philo based this on his quotation from LXX Num 8:24, which states that the Levites should retire from their duties at the age of fifty years. Philo argues that labor and practice fall within the pre-retirement phase and is thus imperfect, whereas the preservation and guardianship of the holy things fall within the post-retirement phase and are thus perfect. He elaborates further: “But it is the perfect duty of guardianship to deliver to memory the well-practised contemplations of holy things, the excellent deposit of knowledge to a faithful guardian (φύλακι 55

WEVERS, Deuteronomium. BORGEN et al., Works of Philo. 57 Cf. LIDDELL et al., Greek-English Lexicon. The term is often used by Philo (38 times), particularly in connection with honourable persons or persons with good qualities. 56

322

Gert J. Steyn

πιστῇ), who is the only one who disregards the ingenious and manifold nets of forgetfulness” (Det. 65). In arguing on the example of Cain and Abel (quoting Gen 4:9LXX – “Am I my brother’s keeper?”), Philo concludes that “the mind of the good man (ὁ μὲν τοῦ ἀστείου νοῦς) is the guardian and steward of the doctrines of virtue” (φύλαξ καὶ ταμίας τῶν ἀρετῆς ἔσται δογμάτων, Det. 66). The connections with the “good man” and “virtue” that Philo makes here, do not surprise in the light of his other discussions where the topic of “covenant” surfaced in his argumentation. It points to a particular and consistent interpretation by Philo where the emphasis is placed on a “deeper meaning”, a spritualization or allegorization of the covenant concept, rather than on the agreement established by God with the people of Israel. 5. Conclusion An exploration of the concept of covenant in Philo’s works confirms our point of departure, namely that the topic is not at all absent by Philo, but that it is dealt with in a fairly different manner than that known to us via the Hebrew and the NT Scriptures. Philo engages with the covenant concept, but it certainly is not the focal point of his theology. Any importance to the “covenant people” (Bundesvolk), the renewal, repetition or reiteration of the covenant, or a new covenant, seems to be completely absent in the specific cases explored above. The same applies to the absence of obedience as a prerequisite for a successful covenantal relationship. In this sense, Israel as Bundestreue people does not figure in these particular contexts at all, but rather an understanding of the covenant as a gracious gift to the wise and good person. It is also striking that key aspects of the covenant concept, such as the sign of the covenant (the rainbow by the Noahic and circumcision58 by the Abrahamic covenants) lack altogether in the contexts above where Philo engages with the term διαθήκη.59 Furthermore, although Philo refers to the fact that there are different kinds of covenants, he certainly does not distinguish in the above contexts very clearly between the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants, whilst underplaying other covenants, such as the Sinai (Mosaic)60 or the Davidic covenants. His emphasis on the Pentateuch certainly influenced this choice, but also his hermeneutic. It is clear from Philo’s quotations which are linked to the covenant theme, that these were taken from Gen 15 and 17, with further expositions also on Deut 9 and 33. 58 So also COHN, Werke Philos, 15: “Die Bedeutung der Beschneidung als Bundeszeichen übergeht er.” 59 RUNIA, “Place of De Abrahamo”, 140–141, points to the fact that “two themes prominent in Gen 17, the covenant which God promises to Abraham’s offspring and the obligation to circumcise males, are simply ignored. It is perhaps no coincidence that these themes are overtly Jewish.” 60 Cf., for instance, Exod 24:8.

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

323

The passages under investigation in this study, where Philo deals with the concept of “covenant” (διαθήκη), revealed some important characteristics. They are all, firstly, closely linked to explict quotations from his Greek scriptures. Secondly, Philo’s engagement with the term διαθήκη aligns with his characteristic allegorical hermeneutics. It is thus self-evident that he would attach a range of symbolic associations to the term. These often include associations with the “wise (or good) man” as the one who is the receiver of the covenant, “virtues” as covenantal gifts,61 the “gift of grace” associated with receiving the covenant, and the covenant as revelation of God’s very own identity, i.e God’s gift of himself.62 Philo, furthermore, identifies divine justice, law and logos as synonomous with διαθήκη. More specifically, Philo identifies five particular qualities of διαθήκη when God establishes the Abrahamic covenant (στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς σέ, Somn. 2.223). Many of these align closely with his interpretation of διαθήκη elsewhere in his writings: i. God’s most excellent possession: The Deity gave to the most excellent natures a share of his durability (ταῖς ἐπιλελεγμέναις φύσεσιν ἐχυρότητος) as his most excellent possession (ὡς ἀρίστου κτήματος). ii. Διαθήκη as a symbol of God’s grace: God displayed himself as the beginning and fountain of all graces (ἡ πασῶν χαρίτων ἀρχή τε καὶ πηγὴ αὐτός εἰμι ἐγώ, Mut. 58). Thus, by the covenant of God, his graces are meant (διαθήκη δʼ ἐστὶ θεοῦ συμβολικῶς αἱ χάριτες αὐτοῦ, Sacr. 57). Hence, the covenant is a symbol of grace (εἶναι διαθήκην χάριτος, Mut. 52) and thus full of grace (τὴν πλήρη χαρίτων διαθήκην, Somn. 2.223). God, however (ὁ δὲ θεός), does not only give those gifts, “but he gives also the very persons who receive them to themselves” (οὐ μόνον ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ αὐτοὺς ἐκείνους ἑαυτοῖς, Somn. 2.224). The space between God and the soul consists of nothing except God’s “virgin grace” (τὴν παρθένον χάριτα, Mut. 53). The purpose of receiving God’s διαθήκη, is that the race of humankind may receive each kind of virtue (ἵνʼ ἑκατέρας ἀρετῆς, Mut. 263). iii. Διαθήκη as God’s Law and Logos: The covenant is “law and reason” (νόμος δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ λόγος, Somn. 2.223). Hence, the qualities of steadiness, stability (τῆς οὖν στάσεως καὶ ἱδρύσεως), unchangeability and immovability (τὸ ἀμετάβλητον καὶ ἄτρεπτον) are thus elsewhere, secondly rooted “in the word of the living Being (περὶ τὸν τοῦ ὄντος λόγον), which he has called his covenant” (ὃν διαθήκην ἐκάλεσε, Somn. 2.237). For Philo, it is the good man (ὁ ἀστεῖός) who is both “the guardian of the words” (καὶ λόγων) and “of the covenant of God” (καὶ διαθήκης θεοῦ φύλαξ) (Det. 68). 61 “… as ‘last will’ Philo is interested in the act of donation” (ZELLER, in RUNIA, Annotated Bibliography, 429). 62 GRABBE identifies also the intelligible world as further association (“‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus”, 251–266).

324

Gert J. Steyn

iv. Διαθήκη given to those worthy of the gift: The covenant is firmly erected “in the soul of the just man (τῆς τοῦ δικαίου ψυχῆς) as on a solid foundation”, as it is “the most excellent natures (ταῖς ἐπιλελεγμέναις φύσεσιν) who receive a share of his durability” (Somn. 2.223). The qualities of steadiness, stability, unchangeability and immovability are thus (“thirdly”) rooted in “the wise man” (περὶ τὸν σοφόν), like Abraham (σοφῷ, Mut. 51), and (“fourthly”) in the person “who is advancing towards perfection” (περὶ τὸν προκόπτοντα, Somn. 2.237). It is “the good man” (ὁ ἀστεῖός) who is “the guardian of the words” (καὶ λόγων) and “of the covenant of God” (καὶ διαθήκης θεοῦ φύλαξ, Det. 68). Also, testaments (διαθῆκαι) are written for the advantage of those who are worthy of the gift (γράφονται τῶν δωρεᾶς ἀξίων, Mut. 52). Hence, the covenant distributes graces and gifts to those who are worthy to receive them (χάριτας καὶ δωρεὰς τοῖς ἀξίοις, Mut. 58). This can be seen in Abraham’s choice to leave his inheritance behind, which is perceived to be in accordance with the covenant (κατὰ διαθήκας) where God gives (δοῦναι μὲν θεῷ) and Abraham receives (λαβεῖν δὲ, Mut. 51). v. Διαθήκη as an image of God: The highest kind of all covenants is God himself (τὸ … γένος διαθηκῶν αὐτὸς ἐγώ εἰμι), because God displayed himself as “the beginning and fountain of all graces” (ἡ πασῶν χαρίτων ἀρχή τε καὶ πηγὴ αὐτός εἰμι ἐγώ, Mut. 58). This means the essence of the covenant is like “an image in the likeness of God” (Somn. 2.223). Hence, the qualities of steadiness, stability, unchangeability and immovability are thus firstly rooted in the existence of the living Being (περὶ τὸ ὄν, Somn. 2.237). Two further aspects associated with διαθήκη as an image of God himself, could be found in the fact that it equals God’s justice (τὸ δίκαιον ἀδιαφορεῖ διαθήκης θεοῦ, Somn. 2.224) and that it is an everlasting covenant (εἰς διαθήκην αἰώνιον, Leg. 3.85). Διαθήκη encapsulates for Philo the very essence of God himself, which is consistently closely associated with God’s χάρις.

Part 2: Covenant in Josephus’ writings 1. Introduction Scholars have noted before that Josephus’ theology displays a different emphasis from that of the biblical sources and that it conveys the notion of a covenant which is dimunitive,63 totally avoided,64 or virtually eliminated.65 Josephus neglects for some scholars the great theological concept of covenant

63

MASON, Josephus and the NT, 70. GRABBE, “‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus”, 251–266. 65 So, for instance, ATTRIDGE, Interpretation of Biblical History; FELDMAN, Josephus and Modern Scholarship. 64

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

325

to a point that is equal to denial.66 This becomes evident, for instance, in his deliberate omission of stress on the covenanted land of Israel and his shift of the center of gravity to the Diaspora.67 These scholars have often pointed particularly to Josephus’ Balaam narrative and his avoidance of terminology suggestive of an independent state (cf. Num 23:21)68 when Josephus’ Balaam remarks that God “has granted untold blessings to the Israelites and has vouchsafed to them his own providence as their perpetual ally and guide” (Ant. 4.114). This leads to the conclusion that the “rendering is clearly not merely an equivalent for the biblical concept of covenant but actually a replacement for it”.69 Josephus’ sensitivity in connection with a covenant theology, linked to an independent land, has been explained as follows: As one who had participated in the war against the Romans and who had come to the conclusion that resistance to Rome was futile and that Rome was divinely destined to rule the world, Josephus constantly seeks to prevail upon his compatriots to give up their dream of national independence.70

Especially Feldman represents the view that Josephus’ “relationship to his Roman patrons may explain why he avoids discussions of eschatology and other theological issues.”71 Josephus himself participated in the war against the Romans at the beginning of the Jewish revolt in 66 C.E. and came to the conclusion, after his surrendering to the Romans, that resistance was futile and that Rome was divinely destined to rule the world.72 Attridge, too, considered Josephus’ personal experience in the Jewish revolt and in the life of the Diaspora to be responsible for Josephus’ particular brand of covenant theology.73 2. Josephus’ use of the term διαθήκη and related terminology The term διαθήκη occurs 34 times in Josephus’ works and is consistently and without exception used to refer to a “testament” in the sense of a person’s written last will and testament.74 Josephus never uses the term διαθήκη in the sense of “covenant”, but rather uses different other expressions related to the 66

DANIEL, “Apologetics in Josephus”; FELDMAN/HATA, Josephus, 406. HALPERN-AMARU, “Land Theology”, 201–229; FELDMAN/HATA, Josephus, 412. 68 FELDMAN, Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 120. 69 ATTRIDGE, Interpretation of Biblical History, 79–80; FELDMAN, Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 120. 70 FELDMAN, Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 120. 71 See FELDMAN/HATA, Josephus, 357; FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation, 661. 72 FELDMAN, “Josephus’ Portrait of Moses”, 301–330. 73 ATTRIDGE, Interpretation of Biblical History; FELDMAN/HATA, Josephus, 357. 74 Cf. J.W. 1.451; 1.573; 1.588; 1.600; 1.625; 1.646; 1.664; 1.669; 2.2; 2.20; 2.31; 2.38; 2.98; 2.99; Ant. 13.349; 17.53; 17.78; 17.146; 17.188; 17.195; 17.202; 17.224; 17.228; 17.238; 17.224; 17.246; 17.248; 17.321; 17.322; 18.156. 67

326

Gert J. Steyn

same semantic field. These include mainly the terms συνθήκη (treaty), ὁμολογία (confession) and ἐπαγγέλλω / ἐπαγγελία (promise), or the expressions σπονδή ποιεῖν (making a league) and ὅρκος ποιεῖν (making an oath). a) συνθήκη (conventional agreement; treaty): This was a common Greek term for a “treaty”.75 It is not an uncommon term being used for “covenant” or “treaty” in the LXX, where it is mostly found in the books of the Maccabees,76 but never as translation for ‫בּרית‬, except in 4 Kgdms 17:15 LXX-A77 and in PsΘ 24:14.78 Ps 24:14 LXX, however, reads here διαθήκη. The term συνθήκη and its derivatives appear 39 times in Josephus and is a term which he applies regularly in the closest sense to “covenant” (cf. Ant. 6.230; 6.253; 7.111; 8.258; 8.388; 16.346; 16.351). Josephus applies it, furthermore, in the sense of a “league” (J.W. 7.25; 7.31; 7.221; Ant. 5.54, 55; 15.173), “contract” (Ant. 4.118), “agreement” (Ant. 6.236; 9.65, 67; 13.392; 16.118; 16.270), or even “an oath” (Ant. 2.253). b) ὁμολογία (confession; making a statement; promise): The common use of “ὁμολογία implies consent to something felt to be valid, and in such a way that it is followed by definite resolve and action, by ready attachment to a cause.”79 The term ὁμολογία and its derivatives appear 23 times in Josephus. Very similar to his employment of the term συνθήκη, Josephus also regularly applies ὁμολογία in a close sense to “covenant” (J.W. 7.209), but also in the sense of “league” (Ant. 7.25), “agreement” (Ant. 7.31; 9.254; 16.222; Ag. Ap. 1.128), “treaty” (J.W. 1.21) and “promise” (Ant. 8.207; 9.96; 17.337; 18.154). Some sense of the public process involved in ὁμολογία, is portrayed in Josephus’ description in Ant. 14.7: When they had agreed upon these terms (ἐπὶ τοῖς συνθέμενοι) in the temple and had confirmed the agreement (πιστωσάμενοι τὰς ὁμολογίας) with oaths (καὶ ὅρκοις) and the giving one another their right hands (καὶ δεξιαῖς) and embracing one another in the sight of the whole multitude, they departed.80

c) ἐπαγγέλλω / ἐπαγγελία (promise): Josephus, furthermore, refers to the act of promising something with the verb ἐπαγγέλλω (cf. Ant. 1.208; 2.275; 3.23; 5.16; 5.159) and with the noun ἐπαγγελία to the promises themselves (cf. Ant. 75

BEHM, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”, 126. Cf. 1 Macc 10:26; 2 Macc 12:1; 13:25; 14:20, 26, 27. It is also to be found in Wis 1:16; 12:21; Pss.Sal. 8:10; Isa 28:15 (both διαθήκη and συνθήκη is used); Isa 30:1; Dan 11:6; 11:17 (συνθήκη is absent in Dan-Θ 11:17). 77 JOHANNES BEHM, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”, 107, 126. 78 BERTRAM, “νήπιος, νηπιάζω”, 921–1026. 79 MICHEL, “ὁμολογέω, ἐξομολογέω”, 200. Michel explains further: “The noun ὁμολογία, as agreement through a common logos, is esp. significant in the Platonic Socratic dialogue and is the opp. of the average opinion adopted uncritically (δόξα).” 80 WHISTON, Works of Josephus, 366. 76

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

327

1.236; 2.219; 3.24; 3.77).81 Both the verb and the noun are often applied to God as the subject of such promises. d) σπονδή ποιεῖν (to make a league): This classical (Attic) phrase for making or pouring a libation, or later in a transitive sense to make a league, is not uncommon in Josephus and occurs a number of times in his works with both meanings, i.e. forming a league (e.g. Ant. 1.313; 12.154; 12.381) or pouring a libation (e.g. Ant. 8.101; J.W. 4.462). Related to the forming of a league is also the breaking of a league, often expressed with the phrase σπονδή παραβαίνειν (Ant. 12.249; J.W. 2.389), or the terms παράσπονδον (covenantbreaker, Ant. 10.138) or παρεσπονδημένων (covenant breakers, J.W. 1.378). e) ὅρκος ποιεῖν (to make an oath): Another related phrase employed by Josephus in the same semantic field is the phrase ὅρκος ποιεῖν to portray the act of making an oath (Ant. 2.242; 6.276; 10.63). 3. Josephus and the Noahic promise In his exposition on Noah and the Great Flood (Ant. 1.71 – 1.108),82 Josephus refers to God’s “sign of the bow” (σημανῶ … τοξείᾳ τῇ ἐμῇ). Josephus explains that the rainbow was perceived to be the bow of God. He then states that, after God made this promise (ὑποσχόμενος [ὑπισχνέομαι]), he went away (Ant. 1.103). Any reference to a covenant between God and man seems to have been omitted by Josephus in his version of the flood story.83 Different to Philo, it is thus clear that Josephus does not apply the term διαθήκη (as covenant)84 as a technical term in connection with God’s “promise” (with the term ὑποσχόμενος) to Noah, that God will leave for the time to come “such punishments, the effects of so great wrath” (τοσαύτης ὀργῆς τὰς τιμωρίας). There are no references or quotations from the Jewish Scriptures in Josephus’ account (such as by Philo to Gen 9). Josephus refers to the place where Noah’s ark landed as ἀποβατήριον, which is so called by the Armenians (Ant. 1.92). Josephus, in fact, utilizes other sources as his “witnesses” (μαρτυροῦσι δέ μου, Ant. 1.107) and lists them at the end of the Noah account, when he refers to the life span of the ancients: Now I have for witnesses to what I have said, all those that have written Antiquities, both among the Greeks and barbarians; for even Manetho, who wrote the Egyptian History, and Berosus, who collected the Chaldean Monuments, and Mochus and Hestiaeus, and besides these, Hieronymus the Egyptian, and those who composed the Phoenician History, agree to 81

Josephus applies the stem ἐπαγγελ- 35 times in his works. Josephus’ Noah narrative is much less concentrated than the Biblical narrative (FELDMAN, Josephus’ Rewritten Bible). 83 FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation, 568. 84 PAUL, “Anti-Christian Manifesto”, 473–480, explains the complete absence of any reference to a covenant between God and man as due to Josephus’ attempt to answer the Christian challenge (FELDMAN/HATA, Josephus, 360). 82

328

Gert J. Steyn

what I here say: Hesiod also, and Hecataeus, Hellanicus, and Acusilaus; and besides these, Ephorus and Nicolaus relate that the ancients lived a thousand years; but as to these matters let everyone look upon them as he thinks fit (Ant. 1.107–108).85

4. Josephus and the Abrahamic promise Similar to his Noahic narrative, Josephus also avoids any explicit reference to the term διαθήκη in connection to God’s promise that Abraham would receive a great offspring. Josephus mentions that God merely “said that he would add to all the rest of the benefits that he had bestowed on Abraham ever since he led him out of Mesopotamia, the gift of children” (Ant. 1.187). Later in the narrative, Josephus refers to God’s promise (ὁ θεὸς ἀπήγγειλεν) to Abraham,86 which he links with a future optative (ἔσοιτο; he should have a son by Sarai), a future participle (ἐσόμενα; from this son should spring great nations and kings) and a future indicative (καθέξουσι; they should obtain all the land87 of Canaan) to express the contents of the Abrahamic promise (Ant.1.191). Josephus follows the same linguistic strategy in the further deployment of the Abrahamic events. In his narrative on the sacrifice of Isaac, he employs a series of futuratives in God’s speech to Abraham: His son should (ἔσεσθαί: future infinitive) live to a very great age; that he should live (βιώσαντα: aorist participle) a happy life and bequeath (παραδώσειν: future infinitive) a large principality to his children, who should be good and legitimate. He foretold (προεδήλου: imperfect indicative) also, that his family should increase (ἐπιδώσειν: future infinitive) into many nations; and that those patriarchs should (ἔσεσθαι: future infinitive) leave behind them an everlasting name; that they should obtain the possession (κατακτησαμένους: aorist participle) of the land of Canaan and be (ἔσεσθαι: future infinitive) envied by all men. (Ant. 1.234–235).88

The narrative concludes with Abraham and Isaac who “obtained the promises (ἐπαγγελίας) of such great blessings” (Ant. 1.236). The consistency of Josephus’ linguistic strategy to present the contents of God’s promises to the patriarchs with a list of futuratives that end in a general statement about God’s promise or prediction, is also evident in the events surrounding the life of Jacob. This can be seen, for instance, in the pronouncements of Ant. 1.281– 282: you shall have (ἐκδέξεταί) great abundance of all good things; the marriage … shall be consummated (ἀνυσθήσεται); you shall have (γενήσονταί) 85

WHISTON, Works of Josephus, 35. For the reception of the Abraham narrative in Josephus, see AVIOZ, “Abraham in Josephus’ Writings”, 93–108. 87 FELDMAN, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, refers to the work of HALPERN-AMARU, “Land Theology”, 201–229, who is of the opinion that “Josephus deliberately omits the stress on the convenanted land of Israel, since this was the focal point of the revolutionaries in his own day, and instead shifts to the promise of a great Jewish population and a Jewish Diaspora.” 88 WHISTON, Works of Josephus, 44. 86

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

329

children; their multitude shall be (ἔσται) innumerable; their posterity shall fill (πληρώσουσιν) the entire earth and sea. These all end in the statement: “Such were the predictions which God made to Jacob” (Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὁ θεὸς Ἰακώβῳ προαγορεύει, Ant. 1.284). Feldman has drawn attention to the fact that the biblical theme of the fulfillment of God’s promise that Abraham’s descendants will inherit the Land of Israel, would have appeared treasonous to Romans in his audience. In fact, this promise is omitted in the passage (Ant. 1.157) that parallels Gen. 12:7, as well as in the passage (Ant. 1.170) that parallels Gen. 13:14–17, in that (Ant. 1.184) paralleling Gen. 15:18, and in that (Ant. 1.193) paralleling Gen. 17:19–21. Likewise, Josephus omits the passage about God’s blessing to Isaac promising the land to Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 26:3–5). Instead, Josephus shifts the stress from the covenanted Land of Israel, so dear to the revolutionaries, to the biblical personalities themselves and to the role of the Diaspora.89

The reason for the commandment of circumcision in the biblical narrative is to serve as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham, with the promise that Abraham’s descendants are guaranteed the land of Canaan (Gen 17:10). Josephus, however, explains the reason of circumcision to be that it is to prevent the Jews from mixing with others and to nonpolitically prevent assimilation (Ant. 1.192).90 5. Josephus and God’s promises to Moses at the burning bush The divine assignments that Moses received out of the fire (ἐκ τοῦ πυρός) when he engages with the burning bush, are described by Josephus with the verb θεοκλυτέω (θεοκλυτεῖται; Ant. 2.269). The only other occurrence of the same stem in Josephus is the utilization of the noun θεόκλυτος in reference to the naming of Ishmael, as “Heard-by-God” (Ant. 1.189). The term carries the meaning of invocation, of calling on the gods, or to ask in prayer. Similar to his linguistic presentation of the contents of God’s promises to the patriarchs, Josephus also employs here in his burning bush account on Moses prominent futuratives to describe the contents of God’s agreement with Moses: For, said God, they shall inhabit (οἰκήσουσι; future indicative) this happy land which your forefather Abraham inhabited, and shall have the enjoyment (ἀπολαύσουσιν; future indicative) of all sorts of good things; and you, by your prudence, shall guide them (ἡγουμένης; praesens participle) to those good things (Ant. 2.269).91

Josephus stays clear to any reference of a covenant tradition which is linked to the term διαθήκη. 89

FELDMAN, Josephus’s interpretation, 154. FELDMAN, Josephus’s interpretation, 257, 661. 91 WHISTON, Works of Josephus, 71. 90

330

Gert J. Steyn

6. Conclusion Josephus’ presentation of God’s agreements with Noah, Abraham and the patriarchs, and with Moses, is marked by two clear characteristics: (a) it avoids the technical use of διαθήκη as a covenantal agreement and (b) it does not link God’s promises to explicit citations from the Jewish Scriptures. God’s promise of land to Israel and his promise of a great nation, with its covenantal signs of a rainbow and circumcision, were now inconsistent with the fact that Rome rules the world. Flavius Josephus, the conquered Jewish priest, systematically removes the stronger covenantal statements from his paraphrased biblical narratives (Ant 1.183–185, 191–193).92 Alternatively, Josephus’ avoidance of the term διαθήκη might probably be explained based on the fact of its association with the land and, therefore, zealotic and messianic ideology.93 It became clear that the idea of the covenant is not completely absent in Josephus, but that it is reinterpreted and deliberately expressed differently, more likely in terms of a “client-patron relationship to make the idea more intelligible to his essentially non-Jewish audience”.94 At the heart of this relationship lies Josephus’ political conviction of co-operation and harmony between Judaism and the Gentile world (the latter, which was not accustomed to theological thought concerning a covenantal relationship between deities and human beings95) and Josephus’ desire of finding common ground with these Greek-speaking orientals, among whom much of Jewry lived.96

Bibliography ALEXANDRE, MANUEL, “Rhetorical Hermeneutics in Philo’s Commentary of Scripture”, Revista de Retórica y Teoría de la Comunicación 1.1 (2001): 29–41. ATTRIDGE, HAROLD W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus, Missoula: Scholars, 1976. AVIOZ, MICHAEL, “Abraham in Josephus’ Writings”, in Abraham in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, edited by Sean A. Adams and Zanne Domoney-Lyttle, 93–108, London: T&T Clark, 2019. BEHM, JOHANNES, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”, in TDNT, Vol. 2, 104–134, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. BEKKEN, PER JARLE, The Word Is Near You: A Study of Deuteronomy 30:12–14 in Paul’s Letter to the Romans in a Jewish Context (BZNW 144), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007.

92

MASON, Josephus and the NT, 70. PAGET, “Josephus and Christianity”, 608. 94 PAGET, “Josephus and Christianity”, 608. 95 GRABBE, “‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus”, 251–266. 96 RAJAK, Josephus, 225. 93

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

331

BERTRAM, GEORG, “νήπιος, νηπιάζω”, in TDNT, Vol. 4, 912–924, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967. BIRNBAUM, ELLEN, “Allegorical Interpretation and Jewish Identity among Alexandrian Jewish Writers”, in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen (NovTSup 106), edited by David E. Aune et al., 307–329, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003. BLASCHKE, ANDREAS, Beschneidung. Zeugnisse der Bibel und verwandter Texte (TANZ 28), Tübingen/Basel: Francke, 1998. BORGEN, PEDER et al., The Works of Philo: Greek Text with Morphology, Bellingham: Logos Bible Software, 2005. BOVON, FRANCOIS, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. BRYANT, JACOB, The Sentiments of Philo Judeus Concerning the λόγος, or Word of God, Cambridge: John Burges, 1797. BYRON, JOHN, Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity: A TraditioHistorical and Exegetical Examination (WUNT II/162), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. CALVERT, NANCY L., “Abraham”, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 1–9, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993. COHN, LEOPOLD, Die Werke Philos von Alexandrien. Zweiter Teil, Breslau: M&H Marcus, 1910. COLLINS, JOHN J. / DANIEL C. HARLOW (eds.), Early Judaism. A Comprehensive Overview, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. COLSON, FRANCIS H. / GEORGE H. WHITAKER (eds.), Philo, Vol. II (LCL 226), Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929/1994. DANIEL, JERRY L., “Apologetics in Josephus”, Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, 1981. FELDMAN, LOUIS H., Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980), Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. –, “Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part Three”, JQR 83.3/4 (1993): 301–330. –, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. –, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, Leiden: Brill, 1998. FELDMAN, LOUIS / GOHEI HATA (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. GOODENOUGH, ERWIN, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Vol. 12: Summary and Conclusions, New York: Bollingen Foundation, 1965. GRABBE, LESTER L., “Did all Jews think alike? ‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus in the Context of Second Temple Judaic Religion”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.Sup 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter / Jacqueline C.R. de Roo, 251–266, Leiden: Brill, 2003. HALPERN-AMARU, BETSY, “Land Theology in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities”, JQR 71 (1980–81): 201–229. HATCH, EDWIN, “Short Studies of the Meanings of Words in Biblical Greek”, in IDEM, Essays in Biblical Greek, 36–93, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1889. HEINEMANN, ISAAK, Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962. HAY, DAVID M., “Philo”, in Justification and Variegated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (WUNT II/140), edited by Donald A. Carson et al., 357–379, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.

332

Gert J. Steyn

HAY, DAVID M., “Philo”, in Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography 1997–2008, edited by David T. Runia, 168–169, Leiden: Brill, 2012. KEENER, CRAIG, Review of PER JARLE BEKKEN, Word is near you, in SPhiloA 22 (2010): 292. KENNEDY, HARRY A.A., Philo’s Contribution to Religion, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919. LIDDELL, HENRY G. at al., A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. MASON, STEVE, Josephus and the New Testament, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992. MICHEL, OTTO, “ὁμολογέω, ἐξομολογέω, ἀνθομολογέομαι, ὁμολογία, ὁμολογουμένως”, in TDNT, Vol. 5, 199–220, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967. NIEHOFF, MAREN R., “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity: Philo, Origen and Genesis Rabbah on Gen. 17:1–14”, JSQ 10 (2003): 89–123. PAGET, JAMES C., “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity”, JTS 52.2 (2001): 539–624. PAUL, ANDRÉ, “Flavius Josephus’ ‘Antiquities of the Jews’: An Anti-Christian Manifesto”, NTS 31 (1985): 473–480. PIETERSMA, ALBERT / BENJAMIN G. WRIGHT (eds.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. RAJAK, TESSA, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. REDDOCH, M. JASON, Book Review on Collins and Harlow, Early Judaism, SPhiloA 25 (2013): 231–235. ROGERS, TRENT A., “Philo’s Universalization of Sinai in De Decalogo 32–49”, SPhiloA 24 (2012): 85–105. ROYSE, JAMES R., “Did Philo publish his works?”, SPhiloA 25 (2013): 75–100. RUNIA, DAVID T., “The Place of De Abrahamo in Philo’s Oevre”, SPhiloA 20 (2008): 133– 150. SANDERS, ED P., Comparing Judaism and Christianity: Common Judaism, Paul, and the Inner and Outer in the Study of Religion, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. –, “The Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism”, in Jews, Greeks and Christians. Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. Essays in Honor of William David Davies (SJLA 21), edited by Robert Hamerton-Kelly / Robin Scroggs, Leiden: Brill, 1976, 11–44. SCHWEMER, ANNA MARIA, “Zum Verhältnis von Diatheke und Nomos in den Schriften der jüdischen Diaspora Ägyptens in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit”, in Bund und Thora: Zur theologischer Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), edited by Friedrich Avemarie / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 67–109. SPRINKLE, PRESTON M., Law and Life: the Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul (WUNT II/241), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. STERLING, GREGORY E., “The place of Philo of Alexandria in the study of christian origins”, in Philo und das Neue Testament. Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen (WUNT 172), edited by Roland Dines / Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004, 21–52. –, “From the thick marshes of the Nile to the throne of God: Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian and Philo of Alexandria”, SPhiloA 26 (2014): 115–133. –, “The People of the Covenant or the People of God: Exodus in Philo of Alexandria”, in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTSup 164), edited by Thomas B. Dozeman et al., 404–439, Leiden: Brill, 2014.

Covenant in the Writings of Philo and Josephus

333

TIWALD, MARKUS, Hebräer von Hebräern: Paulus auf dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Argumentation und biblischer Interpretation (HBS 52), Freiburg: Herder, 2008. VOGEL, MANUEL, Das Heil des Bundes. Bundestheologie im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (TANZ 18), Tübingen/Basel: Francke, 1996. WEVERS, JOHN W., Genesis, Bd. I (Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. –, Deuteronomium, Bd. III, 2 (Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. WHISTON, WILLIAM, The works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987. WHITLARK, JASON, “Enabling Charis: Transformation of the Convention of Reciprocity by Philo and in Ephesians”, PRSt 30 (2003): 325–357. WILLIAMSON, PAUL, “Abraham, Israel and the Church”, EvQ 72.2 (2000): 99–118. YONGE, CHARLES D., The works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. ZELLER, DIETER, Book Review on Manuel Vogel, Heil des Bundes, in Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography 1997–2006, edited by David T. Runia, 429, Leiden: Brill, 2012. –, “Gott bei Philo von Alexandrien”, in Der Gott Israels im Zeugnis des Neuen Testaments (QD 201), edited by Ulrich Busse, 32–57; Freiburg u.a.: Herder, 2003. –, Charis bei Philon und Paulus (SBS 142), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990.

Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

MATTHIAS HENZE Matthias Henze

1. Introduction The aim of this brief survey is to collect in a summary fashion some of the references to a covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and to offer a preliminary assessment of the ways in which the biblical covenants are remembered and reimagined. Although this study is necessarily selective and partial, it is hoped that our investigation provides a first entry into the diverse uses of the covenant in the Pseudepigrapha that will be helpful for those who seek to understand the afterlife of this biblical concept in early Judaism and nascent Christianity. Before we turn to the pseudepigraphic texts themselves, we need to acknowledge two methodological challenges. The first challenge concerns the nature of the texts themselves. Whereas terms like “biblical” and “deuterocanonical” designate specific collections of books, there is no fixed canon of pseudepigraphic writings. Rather, the term Pseudepigrapha “often refers today to an ever-growing and fluid corpus of documents preserved from antiquity”.1 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha is a modern category, a scholarly invention created in recognition of the fact that many, though not all of these texts are fictitiously attributed to an authoritative figure of the biblical past.2 Since there is no fixed number of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, and since the texts are exceedingly diverse in both origin and outlook, we should be wary of trying to arrive at general hypotheses that pertain to apply to all Pseudepigrapha and instead prefer to focus on specific texts. The second challenge concerns the concept of covenant. Covenant continues to be a topic of interest in early Judaism. Writing about the Qumran community, Geza Vermes went so far as to claim that “the key to any understanding of 1

STUCKENBRUCK, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”, 191–192. A widespread rhetorical device in antiquity, pseudepigraphy has lately received a considerable amount of attention. See, e.g., SPEYER, Die literarische Fälschung; YOSHIKO REED, “The Modern Invention of ‘Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’”, 403–436; PEIRANO, The Rhetoric of the Roman Fake; NAJMAN / PEIRANO GARRISON, “Pseudepigraphy as an Interpretative Construct”, 331–355, with recent bibliography. A different view, that pseudepigraphy is a form of literary deceit, and hence constitutes a deliberate act of forgery, is espoused by EHRMAN, Forgery and Counterforgery. 2

336

Matthias Henze

Judaism must be the notion of the Covenant … The history of mankind and of the Jewish people has been a series of such covenants.”3 E.P. Sanders expressed a similar sentiment when he coined the term “covenantal nomism” in his seminal work Paul and Palestinian Judaism.4 For Sanders, covenantal nomism is “a pattern of religion”, the way in which “a religion is perceived by its adherents to function.”5 In Sanders’s nomenclature, “covenantal”, the first half of the phrase, describes God’s unilateral election of Israel, the divine choice to establish a covenant with Israel. The initiative is God’s. God brings Israel into the divine covenant. “Nomism”, or Torah observance, is the second step, Israel’s response to God’s initiative and the way by which Israel upholds the covenantal agreement and remains in the covenant.6 Significant for our purposes is Sanders’s recognition of the complexity of early Judaism. Even though Sanders derived this pattern of religion mainly from tannaitic Judaism, he included in his study the Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Equally significantly, Sanders acknowledged that covenantal nomism is multi-faceted and includes a broad array of aspects, among them the Deuteronomic scheme of reward and punishment, and, concomitantly, of repentance and atonement, Israel’s election and the Gentiles, the enduring validity of the covenantal promises, the ethical life, and salvation and the promise of life in the world to come.7 The same methodological care and attentiveness to the many facets of covenant is called for when dealing with a body of literature as diverse as the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Covenant in early Judaism took on a variety of meanings and religious expressions. Its use was widespread but not ubiquitous. We begin our survey with the book of Jubilees. It remembers God’s covenants with the patriarchs, while reimagining these covenants in light of its own theological priorities. In Jubilees, the multiple covenants of the Bible have merged to become subsequent reiterations, albeit with some modifications, of a single covenant God has established with Israel. Next, there are a number of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha that align themselves with the book of Deuteronomy and adopt its covenantal tradition (esp. Deuteronomy 26–32). In these texts, that include the Psalms of Solomon, the Testament of Moses, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra, the covenant figures prominently. Its reinterpretation closely follows the Deuteronomic paradigm. Finally, there is another set of Old 3

VERMES, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 163–164. SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. 5 SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 17. 6 On the vast response to the covenantal nomism hypothesis, see GATHERCOLE, “Covenantal Nomism”, 494–496. 7 SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 33–233. By comparison, LONGENECKER, Eschatology and the Covenant, 23–31, focuses on two aspects of early Jewish covenantalism: human sinfulness and the covenant of divine grace; and Jewish distinctiveness, separation, and ethnocentrism. 4

Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

337

Testament Pseudepigrapha which either have an understanding of covenant that does not adhere to the Deuteronomic paradigm, such as the sapiential book of Ben Sira, or which largely avoid the covenant altogether, such as the apocalypse of 1 Enoch.

2. Jubilees The covenant occurs frequently in the book of Jubilees, a text from the second century BCE. It is mentioned almost exclusively in association with a biblical figure from the books of Genesis or Exodus:8 God’s covenant with Noah (Jub. 6:4–38; cf. Gen 6:18; 9:8–17); with Abraham (Jub. 14:17–20; 15:1–32; cf. Gen 15:17–21; 17:1–27); with Isaac (Jub. 15:19, 21; cf. Gen 17:19, 21); with Jacob (Jub. 22:15, 30; cf. Gen 17:7; Zech 8:8); and with Moses and the people of Israel (Jub. 6:11; cf. Exod 31:16–17; 34:7).9 Such recollections of Israel’s past, with frequent references to various biblical covenants, are also found in the Liber antiquitatum biblicarum and in Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers.10 Of particular interest is God’s covenant with Abraham.11 In numerous early Jewish texts God is said to “remember” in particular the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.12 The Abrahamic covenant is recalled in 1 En. 93:5; Pr Azar 11–13; CD 3:2–3, 12–13; Neh 9:7–8; 4 Ezra 3:13–15; and 4 Bar 6:18. The author of Jubilees places particular emphasis on the commandment of circumcision (Jub 15:11–13; cf. Gen 17: 10–13) and “its significance as a 8

VAN RUITEN, “The Covenant of Noah in Jubilees 6.1–38”, 168–170. VANDERKAM, Jubilees 1, 312. 10 On LAB, see God’s covenant with Noah (LAB 3:11); Noah’s descendants (LAB 4:5, 11); Abraham (LAB 7:4; 8:3; 9:3); the covenant with “our fathers” (testamentum patribus nostri, 9:4; also 9:7; 10:2; 13:10; 19:2; 30:7); Moses (9:13, where it says of Moses’s birth: Ipse autem puer natus est in testamento Dei et in testamento carnis eius “That boy was born in the covenant of God and the covenant of his flesh”, 9:15; also 24:3); Israel (LAB 11:1, 3,5; 21:10; 32:14; 38:4); the “tablets of the covenant” (tabulas testamenti; 19:7); Joshua (LAB 20:1; 23:1–13); the “ark of the covenant” (arcam testamenti; 21:8; 26:12, 15); and Cenaz (LAB 28:2). The Latin text and English translation are by JACOBSON, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. On the covenant in LAB, also see AMARU, “The Historical Covenant of Pseudo-Philo”. In the prologue to Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers in Sir 44:1–15, Ben Sira writes of “the covenants” of the ancestors in the pl. (Sir 44:12), before he goes through the history and lists the covenants one by one: God’s covenant with Noah (Sir 44:18); Abraham (Sir 44:20); Jacob (Sir 44:23); Moses (Sir 45:5); Aaron (Sir 45: 7, 15); Phinehas (Sir 45:24); and David (Sir 45:25; note the phrase “a covenant of kings” [διαθήκην βασιλέων] in Sir 47:11). 11 BAUTCH, “An Appraisal of Abraham’s Role in Postexilic Covenants”; MERMELSTEIN, “When History Repeats Itself”. 12 E.g., 2 Kgs 13:23; CD 1:4–5; Bar 2:34–35; T. Mos. 4:5–6; Jer. Apocr. 34:13; ALLISON, 4 Baruch: Paraleipomena Jeremiou, 298. 9

338

Matthias Henze

marker of belonging to the covenantal community.”13 Being a descendant of Abraham and being circumcised on the eighth day are preconditions for membership in the covenantal community. Jubilees also has a particular interest in the timing of the covenant. It associates covenant ceremonies in general with the Festival of Weeks. In Jub. 14:20 the author makes the peculiar statement that Abraham’s Covenant between the Pieces in Genesis 15 happened on the same day of the year on which God had established a covenant with Noah (cf. Jub. 6:17–19). The author of Jubilees then goes on to note that “Abram renewed the festival and the ordinance for himself forever.” In other words, rather than thinking of the biblical covenants as independent from each other, the author of Jubilees sees in the Abrahamic covenant a renewal of the God’s previous covenant with Noah. Subsequent covenants in the Hebrew Bible have merged to become renewal ceremonies of one and the same covenant between God and Israel. In the words of James VanderKam: “The covenants in Jubilees stand in a continuum, or, to put it more precisely, there is a single covenant subject to periodic renewals in which elements, often laws, are added to the earlier formulations of it. The Festival of Weeks was an annual celebration, and on it the covenant was in some sense renewed every year (see also 1QS ii:19–23), but on a few occasions it was reinforced and supplemented with new agreements and stipulations or information. The author of Jubilees links the various iterations of the covenant into one grand and evolving agreement between God and God’s chosen ones.”14

3. The Psalms of Solomon Over the last couple of decades, scholars have begun to reconsider many of the assumptions about the Psalms of Solomon that had been in place since the nineteenth century: the alleged Pharisaic origin of the Psalms of Solomon and the hypothesis that they were originally written in Hebrew; their genre and their affinity with biblical prophecy and Deuteronomic thought more so than with the biblical psalms; and their particular vocabulary.15 Most scholars still plausibly maintain that the Psalms of Solomon were written at the time of the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 63 BCE. In making his plea that God protect the righteous in Israel, the authors of the Psalms of Solomon refer three times

13

VANDERKAM, Jubilees 1, 510. VANDERKAM, Jubilees 1, 502. Similarly, BAUTCH, “Covenant”, 174: “While the Hebrew Bible lists various covenants in historical succession, Jubilees implies that there is one, eternal covenant that is expressed variously, through the pact with Moses at Sinai and through the agreements that God makes with the patriarchs.” 15 For a convenient summary, see BONS/POUCHELLE, Psalms of Solomon; GURTNER, Introducing the Pseudepigrapha, 340–352. On the textual history, see LATTKE, “Textual History of the Psalms of Solomon”, 327–332. 14

Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

339

to the covenant.16 These references are embedded in the book’s poetry and have not received much attention. Psalm of Solomon 9 is a plea for God to show mercy and compassion on Israel, God’s chosen people.17 The psalmist begins by remembering the Babylonian Exile (Ps. Sol. 9:1–3): even though the Israelites erroneously believed that their sins were hidden from God, the righteous Judge saw their lawless deeds. The Babylonian dispersion was an act of divine punishment for Israel’s transgressions. This leads the psalmist in the second stanza to reflect on the power and consequences of individual choice (Ps. Sol. 9:4–7). Through their own choosing, the righteous and the wicked bring upon themselves life or destruction, as God’s judgment is always just. Both the righteous and the wicked sin, and yet God forgives the righteous, because they repent for their transgressions. After this acknowledgment of human culpability, the psalmist brings his plea before God in the third and final stanza of the psalm. 8

Now, then, you are God and we are the people whom you have loved: Look, and be compassionate, O God of Israel, because we are yours, and don’t take away your mercy from us, lest they set upon us. 9 Because you have chosen the descendants of Abraham over all the other nations; you put your name upon us, O Lord, and that will not cease forever. 10 You made a covenant with our ancestors about us, and we will place our hope in you, when we turn ourselves towards you. 11 May the Lord’s mercy be upon the house of Israel forever and ever. (Ps. Sol. 9:8–11)18

The final phrase in 9:8, “lest they [i.e., the Gentiles] set upon us”, may imply that the psalmist is thinking of a real and imminent assault. This would add a certain urgency to his plea: the psalm would have been composed as a prayer to avert a possible military attack on Jerusalem. To make his case before God, the psalmist invokes Israel’s special status as God’s chosen people. 9:8–10 are replete with phrases that emphasize that it was God who elected Israel: “we are the people whom you have loved” [καὶ ἡμεῖς λαὸς ὅν ἠγάπησας]; “we are yours” [ὅτι σοί ἐσμεν]; “you put your name upon us, O Lord” [καὶ ἔθου τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς κύριε]. At the core of his appeal, the psalmist uses covenantal language. God has chosen the descendants of Abraham “over all the other nations”, an obvious swipe at the Gentiles who currently threaten to attack. And God has made a “covenant with our ancestors” [ἐν διαθήκῃ διέθου τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν].19 That covenant, the psalmist emphasizes, remains valid 16

Pss. Sol. 9:10; 10:4; 17:15. SCHÜPPHAUS, Psalmen Salomos, 50–53; ATKINSON, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon, 190–197; and IDEM, I Cried to the Lord, 189–193. 18 The translation is by WRIGHT, Psalms of Solomon. 19 Note the similar expression in Wis 18:22, the only mention of covenant (διαθήκη) in the book where Aaron is praised for having saved the wilderness generation from God’s wrath by “appealing to the oaths and covenants given to our ancestors” [ὅρκους πατέρων καὶ διαθήκας ὑπομνήσας]. Whereas the ancestors in Ps. Sol. 9:10 are not further identified, in 17

340

Matthias Henze

to his day, since it is ultimately “about us” [περὶ ἡμῶν]. It is the covenant that forms the foundation for the psalmist’s enduring trust in God (v. 10). The same idea, that God judges the entire world but loves Israel, is picked up again in Ps. Sol. 18:3: “Your compassionate judgements are over the whole world, and your love is for the descendants of Abraham, an Israelite”.20 Ps. Sol. 9 ends with the affirmation, once again grounded in the covenantal promise, that God’s mercy on Israel will be forever (9:11). In Ps. Sol. 9 covenantal language is used in the appeal to God to protect Israel from an imminent Gentile assault. It is the “covenant with our ancestors” that sets Israel, the people of the covenant, apart from the Gentiles and that ensures that God will protect Israel forever. The next reference to the covenant comes in the following psalm. Ps. Sol. 10 is a brief meditation on the question of why God disciplines the righteous. The poem is connected to the previous psalm in several ways: both psalms reflect on God’s harsh dealings with the righteous (cf. Pss. Sol. 9:5–7; 10:1– 4), while maintaining that God is just [δίκαιος] in judging Israel (cf. Pss. Sol. 9:2; 10:5); and both psalms mention the covenant (cf. Pss. Sol. 9:10; 10:4).21 The beatitude in the first verse of Ps. Sol. 10 introduces the theme of the psalm: “Happy is the person whom the Lord remembers with rebuking [ἐν ἐλεγμῷ]”22 (Ps. Sol. 10:1; cf. Ps. Sol. 6:1). The psalmist goes on to elaborate on the idea already introduced in the previous psalm, that the divine rebuke of the righteous is not like that of the wicked. God’s judgment of those who are willing to accept God’s discipline is not an act of punishment but of rebuke and purification. It is a form of chastisement (παιδεία), a preferred term in the Psalms of Solomon,23 intended to save the righteous from their ultimate demise (cf. Pss. Sol. 3:11–12; 13:11; 14:10). The psalmist explains:

Wis 18:22 context makes clear that the ancestors are the wilderness generation. CHESNUTT, “Covenant and Cosmos in Wisdom of Solomon 10–19”, 225. 20 EMBRY, “Some Thoughts on and Implications from Genre Categorization in the Psalms of Solomon”, 73–74, makes much of the fact that the election tradition in the Psalms of Solomon is found in such prominent places, i.e., both in the middle and at the end of the work. 21 NICKELSBURG, Jewish Literature, 240–241, puts Pss. Sol. 9 and 10 in two different groups, the “Psalms of the Nations” (Ps. Sol. 9) and the “Psalms of the Righteous and the Pious” (Ps. Sol. 10). While it is true that Ps. Sol. 10 does not appear to be concerned with Israel as a whole, the division of the psalms into two distinct groups should not obscure the close connections between them that may well explain why they are put next to each other in the collection. 22 WRIGHT, Psalms of Somolom, 135, translates ἐλεγμός with “punishment”, but “rebuking; refutation; censure” might be better; cf. Lev 19:17; 2Pet 2:16. 23 The language of chastisement is frequently attested: παιδεύω (Pss. Sol. 3:4; 7:3; 13:8; 16:11; 17:42); παιδεία (Pss. Sol. 7:9; 8:26; 10:2, 3; 13:7, 9, 10; 14:1; 16:13; 18:4, 7); and παιδευτής (Ps. Sol. 8:29). See WERLINE, “The Experience of God’s Paideia in the Psalms of Solomon”, 17–44.

Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

341

3 For [God] will set straight the ways of the righteous, and will not lead them astray by discipline. And the mercy of the Lord is upon those who truly love him. 4 The Lord will remember his servants with compassion, for the testimony is in the Torah of the eternal covenant, this testimony of the Lord is found in the lives of persons under his watchful care. (Ps. Sol. 10:3–4)

In Ps. Sol. 10, the covenant is mentioned in the context of God’s treatment of the righteous. God will be true to the “eternal covenant” and show compassion on the righteous, as God has always done and will always do. To substantiate his claim, the psalmist points to God’s eternal covenantal promise to Israel: God is faithful to the covenant and will not abandon the righteous. The Torah serves as “proof” or “testimony” (the term μαρτυρία is used twice in v. 4) for the psalmist’s argument: “the testimony is in the Torah of the eternal covenant” [ἡ γὰρ μαρτυρία ἐν νόμῳ διαθήκης αἰωνίου].24 Kenneth Atkinson has proposed a different interpretation of the verse. In Atkinson’s reading, the “Law … places limitations on God’s discipline (Ps. Sol. 10:4) … the Law actually requires that God punish the righteous for their sins (Ps. Sol. 10:4)”.25 But the psalmist does not write about limitations, let alone any requirements that the Torah imposes on what God can and cannot do. Rather, the lives of the righteous, as we read about them in the Torah, give testimony to the fact that God will never forsake the righteous but will act in accordance with the eternal covenant between God and Israel.26 The psalm concludes, accordingly, with a call on Israel to embrace God’s judgment and to give thanks (Ps. Sol. 10:5–8). Ps. Sol. 17, the longest and most complex psalm in the book, includes the third and final reference to the covenant. After the initial affirmation that God is King (Ps. Sol. 17:1–3) and that God chose David and his descendants to be the rightful kings over Israel (Ps. Sol. 17:4–5; cf. 17:21), the psalmist quickly 24

Note the similar phrase in 1 En. 99:2: “Woe to you who alter the true words and pervert the everlasting covenant” (τὴν αἰωνίαν διαθήκην). The Hebrew equivalent, ‫ברית עולם‬, is found many times in the Hebrew Bible, e.g., in Gen 9:16 (of the covenant with Noah); 17:7 (of Abraham); Exod 31:16 (of Sabbath observance); 2 Sam 23:5 (of David); etc. Many Second Temple texts emphasize the eternal character of the covenant and of its stipulations; e.g., Sir 17:12 (“A perpetual covenant [διαθήκην αἰῶνος] he established with them”); CD 3:13 (“God established his covenant with Israel forever”; ‫;)הקים אל את בריתו לישראל עד עולם‬ 15:5; Bar 2:35 (“I will make an everlasting covenant [διαθήκην αἰώνιον] with them to be their God and they shall be may people”); Jub. 2:33; 16:29–30; 30:10; 33:16; 49:8; 4 Ezra 9:31, 37. 25 ATKINSON, I Cried to the Lord, 200–1. Yet another reading is proposed by NICKELSBURG, Jewish Literature, 245, who suggests that the psalmist maintains that God disciplines the righteous, “so that they might be kept within the covenantal relationship”. 26 SCHÜPPHAUS, Psalmen Salomos, 54 n. 212 correctly points out that the psalmist emphasizes not the Torah but “the testimony of God’s history with Israel” (“das dort aufgezeichnete Zeugnis der Geschichte Gottes mit Israel”).

342

Matthias Henze

reviews the story of the Hasmoneans, whom he casts as usurpers of David’s throne and for whom he has harsh words (Ps. Sol. 17:5–6). God punished them with the arrival of the Romans in Jerusalem (Ps. Sol. 17:7–20). In telling his story of the Roman takeover of Jerusalem, the poet refers to their leader but does not name him by name. Instead, he merely calls him “a man alien to our race” [ἄνθρωπον ἀλλότριον γένους ἡμῶν] (Ps. Sol. 17:7), “the lawless one” [ὁ ἄνομος] (Ps. Sol. 17:11), and simply the “enemy” [ὁ ἐχθρὸς] (Ps. Sol. 17:13). Scholars have long identified him with Pompey.27 In the following short excerpt, the psalmist describes Pompey’s actions in Jerusalem and the response of the Jerusalemites. 13

As the enemy was a foreigner, and his heart was foreign to our God, so he acted arrogantly. So in Jerusalem he engaged in all the practices that Gentiles do for their gods in their great cities. 15 And the people of the covenant living among the many nations adopted these things. No one among them in Jerusalem acted with mercy or truth. (Ps. Sol. 17:13–15) 14

According to the psalmist, Pompey treated Jerusalem like the Gentiles behave in their own cities, even worshipping their own gods. Far from condemning the Gentile practices, the Israelites embraced them – both the Israelites living in the Diaspora “among the many nations” and the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Ps. Sol. 17:15).28 The only hope that is left for Jerusalem is the advent of the Davidic messiah, the only legitimate “king of Israel” (Ps. Sol. 17:42), who will do away with the foreign invaders, gather the dispersed, and rule victoriously (Ps. Sol. 17:21–46). What distinguishes the Israelites from the Gentiles – and, it is implied, Jerusalem from other cities – is that the Israelites are “the people of the covenant” [οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς διαθήκης] (Ps. Sol. 17:15), regardless of where they live. The Jerusalemites in particular are subject to much criticism throughout the Psalms of Solomon. Their “lawless behavior” even surpasses that of the Gentiles (Pss. Sol. 1:8; 8:13).29 The psalmist never says, as Atkinson claims, that their behavior “has resulted in the forfeiture of their covenantal status”.30 Rather, since unlike the Gentiles, they are “the people of the covenant”, their infidelity to the covenant is the reason why God punishes them by means of a foreign invasion, and why the only hope that is left for Jerusalem is the advent of the messiah. To summarize, in the Psalms of Solomon, covenant is used to establish difference. On a large scale, the covenant marks the principle difference 27 ATKINSON, Intertextual Study, 336–341; and I Cried to the Lord, 135–139; ECKHARDT, “The Psalms of Solomon”, 25–28. 28 According to Jdt 9:13, Israel’s enemies have “planned cruel things against your covenant.” 29 Cf. Pss. Sol. 1:8; 2:3–13; 8:8–13, 18–22; 17:14–15. 30 ATKINSON, “Perceptions of the Temple Priests”, 83.

Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

343

between Israel and the Gentiles. Both have sinned, but only Israel is “the people of the covenant” (Ps. Sol. 17:15). Israel’s lawless acts are the reason why God is punishing Israel by means of the Gentile nation and why God’s judgment is justified. On a smaller, inner-Israelite scale, the covenant distinguishes between Israel’s righteous and sinners. God’s punishment of the righteous is not like that of the sinners, in that God will always have compassion for the righteous who repent. For this, “the Torah of the eternal covenant” (Ps. Sol. 10:4) bears proof. Most importantly, the eternal covenants, established with the ancestors and valid to this day, are the reason the psalmist can look with confidence and thanksgiving to the future.

4. The Testament of Moses Covenant is not a dominant topic in the early Jewish testamentary literature.31 No covenant is mentioned in the Testament of Abraham, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, or in the Testament of Job.32 The exception is the Testament of Moses, a text also known as the Assumption of Moses,33 that includes no fewer than nine explicit references to a covenant.34 It may be helpful to distinguish between three different uses of covenant in the Testament of Moses. First, Moses is the mediator of God’s covenant; second, the destruction of Jerusalem is an act of divine punishment in response to Israel’s violation of the divine covenant; and third, the covenant serves as guarantee that the divine promises to Israel are still valid. First, Moses as mediator of God’s covenant. In his address to Joshua at the beginning of the book, Moses refers to his God-given, elevated status. Knowing that he is about to die, Moses seeks to strengthen Joshua, his chosen successor, and, in passing, makes the remarkable statement that God had determined already at the moment of creation that he, Moses, should be the mediator of the covenant.

31

For a summary of recent scholarship on the testaments, see KUGLER, “Testaments”, 329–352. On the Testament of Moses, see NICKELSBURG, Studies on the Testament of Moses; YOSHIKO REED, “Textuality between Death and Memory”, 381–412; GURTNER, Introducing the Pseudepigrapha, 167–176. 32 Note, however, the discussion of the “Covenant Formulary” particularly in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs by BALTZER, Covenant Formulary, 137–163. 33 Antonio Ceriani, who in 1861 published the only, incomplete Latin manuscript, called it an “Assumption” (following Gelasius, Hist. eccl. 2.17.17). That designation is retained by TROMP, The Assumption of Moses, and, more recently, HOFMANN, Assumptio Mosis. 34 A covenant (testamentum) is mentioned in T. Mos. 1:9, 14; 2:7; 3:9; 4:2, 5; 10:15; 11:17; and 12:13.

344

Matthias Henze

Therefore, he [God] has devised and invented me, I who have been prepared from the beginning of the world to be the mediator of his covenant. (T. Mos. 1:14)35

It is not clear whether the reference to the beginning of the world implies that Moses was actually preexistent, as Charles has argued.36 More plausibly, Moses is here saying that God had intended for Moses to be “the mediator of his covenant” (arbiter testamenti illius) since long before Moses was born.37 Toward the end of the book, Moses is addressing Joshua again, encouraging him further to be strong in light of Moses’s impending death. Moses says, “It is you whom God has chosen to be successor to his covenant (Te elegit Deus esse mihi successorem ejusdem testamenti)” (T. Mos. 10:15). In both passages, Moses refers to the covenant as God’s covenant, in the first case with Moses, and in the second with Joshua as the human mediator. The two references at once frame the book and capture the essence of what it means for Joshua to become Moses’s successor: Joshua will step into the Mosaic role of intermediary between God and Israel. Second, Jerusalem was destroyed, because Israel abandoned the covenant. The author of the Testament of Moses adopts the Deuteronomic stance that the destruction of Judah was an act of divine punishment for Israel’s infidelity to the covenant. This is expressed in T. Mos. 2:7, an ex eventu prophecy put in the mouth of Moses, according to which the two southern tribes will “abandon the covenant of the Lord” (adcedent ad testamentum Domini) and “defile the alliance (et fidem polluent) the Lord made with them”.38 As in the previous examples, it is again God who has established the covenant with Israel (note the parallel use of testamentum “covenant” and fides “alliance”). In the next chapter, the author describes the sacking of Jerusalem, a direct consequence of 35

All translations are by TROMP, The Assumption of Moses. Moses’s exceptional role, his unsurpassed piety and his task as intercessor on behalf of Israel, are described further in chapter 11. Taking his cue from Deut 34:10, the author hails Moses as “the holy and sacred spirit, the worthy one before the Lord, the versatile and inscrutable lord of the world, the trusted one in everything, the divine prophet for this world, the perfect teacher of this earth … an advocate (defensor) for them [Israel], who will supplicate to the Lord for them … the great messenger, who bent his knees on earth every hour of the day and of the night, praying; and who could look at him who rules the entire world with mercy and justice, reminding him of the covenant with the fathers (reminiscens testamentum parentum), and placating the Lord with his oath” (T. Mos. 11:17; see also 11:12–15). Cf. HOFMANN, Assumptio Mosis, 170– 172. 36 CHARLES, The Assumption of Moses, 6; this view appears to be endorsed by HOFMANN, Assumptio Mosis, 171. 37 TIEDE, “The Figure of Moses in the Testament of Moses”, 90–91. 38 HOFMANN, Assumptio Mosis, 58 notes how T. Mos. 4:8 refers back to 2:7–9. There we read that after their return from Exile, the two tribes will be “mourning and weeping, because they will not be able to bring offerings to the Lord of their fathers”, most likely a strong condemnation and rejection of the sacrificial practices of the second temple. For a different interpretation, see SCHWARTZ, “The Tribes of As. Mos. 4:7–9”, 217–223.

Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

345

the breaking of the covenant. The phrase in T. Mos. 2:7, that Israel will “abandon the covenant of the Lord”, is so formulaic that it is difficult to determine which events in particular the author considers a violation of the covenant. The condemnation of the tribes for their idolatrous practices in the next couple of verses (T. Mos. 2:8–9) may provide a clue.39 And yet, the charge of the breaking of the covenant remains veiled behind traditional Deuteronomic language. Third, the covenant as guarantee that God’s promises are valid. In most of the references to a covenant in the Testament of Moses, covenant is synonymous with divine promise. God has made a covenant with the ancestors – with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – and both Moses and the Israelites hold God to God’s promises. Of particular significance is the promise of land. The book’s narrator says right at the beginning that the land will be given to Israel “on account of the covenant” (per testamentum; T. Mos. 1:9). The idea is repeated a couple of chapters later, when the Israelites pray to God.40 God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, remember your covenant, which you have made with them (reminiscere testamentum tuum quod factasti cum eis), and the oath, which you swore by yourself, that their seed would never be absent from the land that you gave them! (T. Mos. 3:9)

A few aspects of the covenant are emphasized. The first we have noted already, that it was God who took the initiative and established a covenant (T. Mos. 4:2, 5). In his intercessions on Israel’s behalf, Moses reminds God of the covenant and holds God responsible (T. Mos. 11:17). Second, the covenant that is singled out in the testament for its importance is the covenant God made with Abraham (T. Mos. 3:9).41 The author does not treat the different covenants in the Hebrew Bible as distinct from each other, they merge and are considered one and the same. And third, by entering the covenant, Israel has become God’s chosen people. Covenant and chosenness are thus closely intertwined, the latter being the result of the former, and both have their origin in the Abrahamic covenant (T. Mos. 4:2).

39 Critiques of idolatry are common in early Jewish literature. See, e.g., Epistle of Jeremiah; Bel and the Dragon; Wis 13–15; Let. Aris. 134–38; Sib. Or. 3.29–35; T. Job 2–5; Jos. Asen. 10–13; Philo, Decal. 12–16; Contempl. 1; Spec. 1.3–5; see CHESNUTT, “Covenant and Cosmos in Wisdom of Solomon 10–19”, 229 n. 28. 40 The covenant (testamentum) is often mentioned together with the oath (jusjurandum), in T. Mos. 1:9; 3:9; 11:17; 12:13. TROMP, The Assumption of Moses, 161 n. 6, remarks that “testamentum and jusjurandum are a word-pair in As. Mos., which must not be separated, and which consistently refers to the covenant with the fathers”, but he doesn’t offer any further comment. Similarly, HOFMANN, Assumptio Mosis, 75 n. 65. 41 The vocabulary varies a bit throughout the testament. God made a covenant with the fathers (patres; T. Mos. 1:8–9; 4:2, 5), with the tribes of Israel (T. Mos. 2:7), and with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (T. Mos. 3:9).

346

Matthias Henze

To summarize, Moses, and Joshua after him, are the mediators of the covenant that God first established with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. When the Israelites were defeated, they turned to God and pleaded that God remember the covenant that God made with the fathers. Just as the covenant convicted the Israelites of their iniquities that led to their downfall, it now serves as the very foundation of their confidence and hope. The last reference to the covenant in the Testament of Moses is in the last verse of the manuscript, before the text breaks off in mid-sentence: God’s “covenant stands firm” (et stabilitum est testamentum illius; T. Mos. 12:13). Among the early Jewish testaments, the Testament of Moses is exceptional in that it repeatedly invokes the covenant. This is due to its Deuteronomic outlook. “This theology might also be aptly described as covenantal nomism. Salvation comes through membership of the Jewish people and requires observance of the law.”42

5. 2 Baruch Written in the aftermath of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, or 2 Baruch, is an extended meditation on the recent calamity and, more specifically, on the question of God’s justice. Israel’s devastating defeat by the enemy raises a host of issues, chief among them the question whether God’s covenant with Israel had been broken.43 After God announces to Baruch in the opening scene of the book that Jerusalem is about to be delivered into the hands of the enemy, Baruch is greatly distraught, in shock, and barely able to utter a few, seemingly unrelated questions (2 Bar 3:5– 9). The last of his questions is about the covenantal promises: “And where is all that you said to Moses about us?” (2 Bar 3:9).44 The exact reference is not clear, but Pierre-Maurice Bogaert has plausibly suggested that Baruch may allude to Deut 26:18–19, Moses’s conclusion to the Deuteronomic Law and his reminder to the Israelites of the covenantal agreement between God and Israel.45 It is God’s will, Moses emphasizes, that Israel be “high above all 42 COLLINS, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 161–162. But see HALPERN-AMARU, Rewriting the Bible, 67, who opts for an eschatological reading. “The perspective at the end of the Testament is extra-historical. It asserts surety in fulfillment of the covenant and oath outside of an historical frame of reference.” KUGLER, “Testaments”, 190–197. 43 NICKELSBURG, Jewish Literature, 282; SAYLER, Have the Promises Failed? Ezra is more forthcoming than Baruch when he explains to the angel that he wonders “why Israel has been given over to the Gentiles in disgrace; why the people whom you loved has been given over to godless tribes, and the law of our ancestors has been brought to destruction and the written covenants no longer exist” (4 Ezra 4:23). 44 All translations of 2 Baruch are taken from HENZE, “2 Baruch”, 83–141. 45 BOGAERT, Apocalypse de Baruch: Introduction, 2:14. Bogaert also notes the similarities of our text with LAB 13:10 (see our discussion above).

Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

347

nations” and “a people holy to God” (Deut 26:19). If Israel is still God’s treasured people, as Moses said, Baruch wants to know whether, by giving Jerusalem up for destruction, God is not violating the covenantal promise. The first explicit reference to the covenant in 2 Baruch comes in chapter 19. While talking with God, Baruch had just lamented that, even though Moses gave Israel the Torah, only few in Israel are keeping the commandments (2 Bar 18:1–2). In his reply, God recalls the Deuteronomic covenant and, specifically, the speech in which Moses summoned Israel to the covenant. And [God] answered and said to [Baruch]: “Therefore at that time he made for them a covenant and said: ‘See, I have placed before you life and death’. And he called on heaven and earth to bear witness against them, for he knew that his time was short, while heaven and earth would be forever. They, however, sinned and transgressed after his death, knowing that they had the Torah reproaching [them], as well as that light in which nothing can stray, and the astronomical spheres that bear witness, and me, who judges over everything”. (2 Bar 19:1–3)

This is one of a small handful of cases in 2 Baruch in which the author quotes a proof text, in this case Deut 30:19, a verse that is frequently used in early Jewish literature: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life …”46 In our passage, God reminds Baruch that Israel violated the Mosaic covenant after Moses had died. They did so in full awareness of the fact that the Torah, the cosmos, and, indeed God would bear witness against them. This is the tragedy of Israel’s history. And yet, God goes on to tell Baruch not to be preoccupied with the past. You, however, do not preoccupy yourself with these [things] or be in agony over those [things] that have been. For now is the consummation of time that has been summoned, whether of matters, of prosperity, or of disgrace, not its beginning. (2 Bar 19:4–5)

God instructs Baruch not to be troubled by the past but to realize that the woes that are about to befall Israel far surpass anything Israel has ever experienced. Baruch is asked to make a mental shift, from his anxiety about Israel’s having broken the covenant in the past to being concerned about “the consummation of the time” that is under way. The language is apocalyptic. The author employs a great variety of expressions to relate to the end of time, that transitional moment from this world to the world to come.47 The point is not that Baruch is asked to dismiss, let alone to forget the covenant. Rather, the point is that the covenant is here recontextualized: the breaking of the covenant has moved God to deliver Jerusalem into the hands of the enemy (2 Bar 1:2–5), which in turn marks the beginning of the eschaton.

46 47

Cf., e.g., Sir 15:17; 2 Bar 84:2; 4 Ezra 7:129; LAB 19:4; T. Mos. 3:12. HENZE, “This Age and the Age to Come in 2 Baruch”, 117–139.

348

Matthias Henze

There are multiple ways in which the author of 2 Baruch refers to the covenant and its stipulations.48 In a few passages we read of God’s “statutes”. In 2 Bar 41:1–42:5, Baruch enquires about the last judgment. He wants to know from God what will happen to those “who have withdrawn from your statutes and have cast from them the yoke of your Torah” (41:3), while others turned to God toward the end of their lives? God replies that only the moment of the end of time matters: rather than considering the entirety of one’s life, what matters is the final moment.49 Baruch undergoes a remarkable transformation over the course of the book: whereas in the beginning he is distraught and full of doubt, he becomes increasingly accepting of God’s plan and grows in confidence, to the point that he consoles others.50 In his epistle to the exiles at the very end of the book, Baruch returns to the Mosaic covenant which he had already invoked at the beginning. Referring once again to Deut 30:19, Baruch reminds his readers of what Moses had done. “Remember that Moses once solemnly called heaven and earth to witness against you and said: ‘If you transgress the Torah, you will be scattered, but if you keep it, you will be planted’” (2 Bar 84:2). That covenant, Baruch insists, is still intact. And so he admonishes the exiles a few verses later: “Remember Zion and the Torah, also the Holy Land, your brothers, the covenant, your fathers, the festivals, and the Sabbaths do not forget” (2 Bar 84:8). To summarize, three points can be made. First, the enduring validity of the covenant and its promises. For the author of 2 Baruch the loss of temple and homeland were such severe disruptions that they called into question the justice of God. Has the covenant been broken? Baruch asks this question himself right at the beginning of the book (2 Bar 3:9) and answers it at the end, when he calls on the exiles to remember the covenant (2 Bar 84:2, 8). The covenant remains intact. Second, the Deuteronomic covenant. The covenant that is remembered in 2 Baruch is the Deuteronomic covenant and its statutes. The apocalypse includes references to Moses who gave Israel the Torah (e.g., 2 Bar 17:4), but nothing is made of the Sinaitic covenant, and the emphasis is instead on the

48 On 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, see VIOLET, Die Apokalypsen des Esra, 257; HARNISCH, Verhängnis und Verheißung, 30. 49 Even though the author of 2 Baruch advocates strongly for a Torah-based form of post70 CE Judaism and repeatedly emphasizes the necessity to follow God’s statutes, the reader looks in vain for any specific laws and stipulations in the book. There are no references to any legal debates or specific regulations that reflect the theological interests of the author. The one exception are two references to the mingling “with the seed of mixed nations” (2 Bar 42:4), in this passage, and repeated in 2 Bar 48:23, which compromises Israel’s chosenness and thus is considered a violation of the covenant. 50 WRIGHT, “Baruch: His Evolution from Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer”, 264–289.

Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

349

Torah that remains with Israel.51 And third, the covenant reimagined in an apocalyptic context. In 2 Baruch, the covenant is recontextualized and reimagined in light of the impending end. Whereas in its original, Deuteronomic context, observance of the divine statutes is rewarded with a long and fulfilling life in this world, in its new, apocalyptic setting keeping the covenant comes with the promise of entry into the world to come. As we will see momentarily, not all apocalyptic authors spoke with one voice: whereas the authors of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra sought to integrate a basic Deuteronomic outlook with their apocalyptic worldview, covenantal language and Deuteronomic thinking are largely absent from 1 Enoch.

6. 4 Ezra As has often been observed, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are both closely related, in their origins and in their transmission histories.52 2 Baruch is set during the days of the Babylonian occupation of Jerusalem, while the first verse of 4 Ezra locates the book in the thirtieth year after the city’s destruction (4 Ezra 1:1). According to their narrative settings, then, 4 Ezra follows 2 Baruch. Unlike 2 Baruch, in which the covenant plays only a minor role, 4 Ezra frequently refers to Israel’s covenants.53 Sometimes the reference is to a particular covenant in the singular, but mostly the reference is to covenants in the plural.54 It may be helpful to divide the references to the covenant in 4Ezra into four groups. First, the Abrahamic covenant. The only covenant from the Hebrew Bible that is mentioned explicitly in 4Ezra is the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15. Second, Israel’s devastation. The loss of the covenants becomes emblematic of the overall loss as it was experienced in postdestruction Israel. Third, Israel vs. the nations. Unlike the nations, Israel has 51

The de-emphasis of the Sinaitic covenant is in line with what we find in other early Jewish writings; see BROOKE et al., The Significance of Sinai. 52 Their exact relationship is a matter of ongoing debate; see HENZE, “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch”, 181–200. LIV INGEBORG LIED points out that 2 Baruch is always copied together with 4 Ezra. This is true, above all, of the Codex Ambrosianus, the most important text witness, where the two apocalypses appear side by side. “All later Syriac lectionary manuscripts that include excerpts from 2 Baruch also include excerpts from 4Ezra. Furthermore, the single Arabic codex that preserves a copy of 2 Baruch includes two books only – these books are, precisely, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. This implies that in the period after the production of the Codex Ambrosianus the two books were indeed circulating together.” LIED, “2 Baruch and the Syriac Codex Ambrosianus (7a1)”, 100–101. 53 See 4 Ezra 3:15, 32; 4:23; 5:29; 7:24, 46, 83; 8:27; 10:22. However, because of 4 Ezra’s complicated textual history, there is some significant textual variation among the versions; see HOGAN, “Textual History of 4Ezra”, 471–481. 54 According to STONE, Fourth Ezra, 76, “covenant” is in the singular in 4 Ezra 3:15 and 10:22, and in the plural in 3:32; 5:29; 7:24, 46, 83; and 8:27.

350

Matthias Henze

entered into a covenantal relationship with God. And fourth, the righteous vs. the sinners. Unlike the sinners, the righteous in Israel have kept God’s covenants. First, the Abrahamic covenant. The first mention of a covenant in 4 Ezra is in 3:15. In his review of the history of Israel from Adam to the Babylonian Exile, Ezra pays particular attention to Abraham.55 Like Baruch (2 Bar 57:1– 2), Ezra maintains that Abraham was the recipient of apocalyptic mysteries in the episode in Genesis 15: “to [Abraham] alone you revealed the end of the times, secretly by night” (4 Ezra 3:14).56 But unlike Baruch, who never mentions the Abrahamic covenant, Ezra further emphasizes the significance of the covenant in the next verse: “You made an everlasting covenant with him, and promised him that you would never forsake his descendants” (4 Ezra 3:15). What matters to Ezra in particular about the Abrahamic covenant is God’s unconditional promise of eternal protection. Ezra wonders how God’s actions can be called just when, having promised to safeguard Abraham’s descendants, God has just delivered Israel up for destruction? In the words of Ari Mermelstein, “God had unilaterally chosen Abraham from among the godless gentiles and then rejected Esau, yet God had allowed Esau’s godless descendants to destroy the Jerusalem Temple.”57 Second, Israel’s devastation. Ezra emphasizes in his discourse with the angel that his concern is not with heavenly mysteries that are beyond human cognition. Instead, he is wrestling with the devastation Israel is currently experiencing. His anguished response to the angel may well be a powerful reflection of the actual situation in which Israel found itself after the failed uprising against Rome.58 For I did not wish to inquire about the ways above, but about those things that we daily experience: why Israel has been given over to the Gentiles in disgrace; why the people whom you loved has been given over to godless tribes, and the law of our ancestors has been brought to destruction and the written covenants no longer exist (4 Ezra 4:23).

55

The comments by Michael Stone on the genre of the historical review are particularly pertinent for our investigation. “In the Hebrew Bible such recitals of the gracious deeds of God usually precede the making or renewal of a covenant between God and Israel or form part of a legal indictment of Israel before the heavenly court for transgressing the covenant (cf. Josh 24; Ezek 20; Neh 9). Here 4Ezra strikingly inverts the biblical form and indicts God before the bar of his own justice for conducting the world unjustly.” STONE/BERGREN, “2 Esdras”, 779. 56 Similarly, in Apoc. Ab. 9–32, Abraham is carried up to heaven, where he receives further instructions (compare Apoc. Ab. 13–14 with Gen 15:11; and Apoc. Ab. 20:1–5 with Gen 15:5), sees the divine throne, and learns about the future fate of Israel and the final judgment and salvation. KNIBB, “The Second Book of Esdras”, 117. 57 MERMELSTEIN, “When History Repeats Itself”, 129. 58 KNIBB, “The Second Book of Esdras”, 124.

Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

351

The passage captures Ezra’s profound sense of loss and destruction: Israel’s current situation is irreconcilable with the covenantal promises. The phrase “written covenants” is noteworthy and appears to be unique.59 The seer repeats the same sentiment in his conversation with the inconsolable woman in the field, to whom he describes Israel’s current state of mourning: “the light of our lampstand has been put out, the ark of our covenant has been plundered” (4 Ezra 10:22). The loss of the ark of the covenant symbolizes the loss of God’s protective presence in Israel. Third, Israel and the nations. Rejecting the notion that the foreign nations are any more deserving, let alone that they are morally superior to Israel, Ezra continues to argue with the angel and points to what to Ezra is an obvious injustice in God’s actions. Only Israel has entered into a covenantal relationship with God, not the nations; indeed, the nations “are unmindful of your commandments” (4 Ezra 3:33). Or has another nation known you beside Israel? Or what tribes have so believed the covenants as these tribes of Jacob? (4 Ezra 3:32) And those [foreign nations] who opposed your promises have trampled on those who believed your covenants. (4 Ezra 5:29)

Israel and the nations are not alike, Ezra insists. Israel has known God and has believed in God’s covenants, whereas the nations are ignorant of God’s commandments and even have oppressed Israel. Underlying these sentiments is the idea of Israel’s election.60 Israel has been chosen by God, and unlike the nations, Israel has at least tried to live in compliance with the covenants. And yet, God has allowed Israel’s enemies to flourish, even though they have “opposed your promise” (4 Ezra 5:29). It is not entirely clear what Ezra has in mind: is he implying that the nations are expected to uphold the same commandments as Israel but have opposed them? Or is he referring to the Noachid commandments that apply to Israel and the nations alike? Following Ephraim E. Urbach, Michael Stone hints at a third possible interpretation. Stone cites the famous midrash in which God first offers the Torah to the nations and only after they have refused it gives it to Israel.61 It is possible that the same idea lies behind the passages in 4 Ezra. In that case, Ezra would be upset because God has now allowed the very same nations who had previously rejected the covenant to triumph over Israel. Fourth, the righteous and the sinners. A recurring theme in the debate between the angel and Ezra is Ezra’s urgent concern that in the final judgment only a few will be found righteous, whereas the significant majority of human 59

STONE, Fourth Ezra, 88. HENZE, “The Chosenness of Israel in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”, 170–198. 61 Mekilta, BaḤodesh 5; Sifre Deut., Pesiḳa 343. URBACH, The Sages, 531–533; STONE, Fourth Ezra, 76. 60

352

Matthias Henze

beings who are sinful will be condemned. For the unfortunates, promises of a blissful world to come remain empty and unattainable. So Ezra wonders: “For who among the living is there who has not sinned, or who is there among mortals who has not transgressed your covenant?” (4 Ezra 7:46). Sinning and breaking the covenant, here put in parallelism, is what will separate the sinners from the righteous on the day of reckoning. The angel remains unimpressed by Ezra’s repeated expressions of empathy for the many, rejects Ezra’s concern, and retorts that God has given Israel the Torah. Israel had a choice, and yet the wicked have knowingly disregarded the Torah and have denied the covenant. It is only just, replies the angelic interlocutor, that in the end the “empty” ungodly will receive emptiness, whereas the “full” righteous will be rewarded fully (4 Ezra 7:25). Let many perish who are now living, rather than that the law of God that is set before them be disregarded! For the Lord strictly commanded those who came into the world, when they came, what they should do to live, and what they should observe to avoid punishment. (4 Ezra 7:20–21)62

The fate of both the sinners and the righteous is written in the Torah, and still the sinners did not live in accordance with the commandments and will therefore be punished. They scorned his law and denied his covenants; they have been unfaithful to his statutes and have not performed his works. (4 Ezra 7:24)

Ezra’s prayer in 4 Ezra 8:19–36 is an urgent plea for God’s mercy. The seer calls on God not to look at the sins of the people but to acknowledge those who have acted righteously and who have kept the covenants, even under difficult circumstances. Do not take note of the endeavors of those who act wickedly, but of the endeavors of those who have kept your covenants amid afflictions. (4 Ezra 8:27)

And yet, here too the angel remains unmoved. The violators of the covenant will be punished on the last day. What is more, in their punishment “they shall see the reward laid up for those who have trusted the covenants of the Most High” (4 Ezra 7:83). To summarize, all four aspects of the covenant in 4 Ezra are familiar from the texts reviewed above, though they offer some significant variations. The first aspect, the emphasis on the Abrahamic covenant, is consistently found throughout early Jewish literature. The second aspect, that Israel’s current devastation calls into question the enduring validity of the covenantal promises to Israel, is also a major concern in 2 Baruch. The third and fourth aspects, the covenant as marker of difference between Israel and the nations on the larger scale and between the righteous and the sinners within Israel, we have already 62

On this passage, see HARNISCH, Verhängnis und Verheißung, 146–155.

Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

353

seen in the Psalms of Solomon. For the psalmist, Israel is “the people of the covenant” [οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς διαθήκης] (Ps. Sol. 17:15), a topic that receives much attention in the historical overview in 4Ezra 3. As for the lives of the righteous, the author of the Psalms of Solomon is confident that God will act in accordance with the eternal covenant and not forsake them (Ps. Sol. 10:3–4). Ezra is not so optimistic. His concern is with the fate of the many sinners and the few righteous on the day of reckoning, a concern that is never fully resolved.

7. Pseudepigrapha that Do Not Follow the Deuteronomic Paradigm The covenant is not ubiquitous in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. In conclusion, we need to be mindful of early Jewish texts that do not employ the traditional covenantal paradigm. Our first example is the sapiential book of Ben Sira. Though not a Pseudepigraphon in the strict sense (Ben Sira explicitly identifies himself as the author in Sir 50:27), the book represents an important example of an early Jewish book whose author demonstrably was familiar with the covenantal paradigm but chose not to embrace it. In the LXX version of Ben Sira, the word διαθήκη “covenant” appears no fewer than twenty two times, with a variety of different meanings.63 Ben Sira was clearly aware of the Mosaic Torah and of the commandments. Most famously, in Sir 24:33 he equates Torah with wisdom: “All these things are the book of the covenant of the Most High God (βίβλος διαθὴκης θεοῦ ὑψίστου), a law that Moyses commanded us”.64 In several places throughout the book he refers to God’s covenant with Israel in language that has a strong Deuteronomic coloring. In Sir 17:12, for example, he writes of the “perpetual covenant” (διαθήκην αἰῶνος) God has established with Israel; in 28:7, and similarly in 42:2, he mentions “the covenant of the Most High” (διαθήκην ὑψίστου); and in 39:8 he praises the learned scribe who will boast “in the law of the Lord’s covenant” (ἐν νόμῳ διαθήκης κυρίου). Ben Sira is also aware of the various covenants throughout Israel’s history, and he lists several of them in his Hymn to the Fathers in Sir 44:1–50:24.65 And then there are multiple uses of the word διαθήκη that are part of Ben Sira’s sapiential instructions. In Sir 11:20, 14:12, 17, and 16:22, all passages for which the Hebrew text is preserved, the Hebrew 63 Α διαθήκη is mentioned in LXX Sir 11:20; 14:12, 17; 16:22; 17:12; 24:23; 28:7; 38:33; 39:8; 41:20; 42:2; 44:12, 18, 20, 23; 45:5, 7, 15, 17, 24, 25; 47:11. The preserved Hebrew text of Ben Sira has ‫“ ברית‬covenant” twice, in Sir 11:34 and 50:24, without an equivalent reference to a covenant in the Greek (BEENTJES, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew). On Ben Sira, also see the the articles by Francis Macatangay and Bonifatia Gesche in this volume. 64 I am following the NETS translation. MERMELSTEIN, Creation, 16–51. 65 See note 10.

354

Matthias Henze

has ‫ חוק‬for διαθήκη and may be better translated with “agreement; decree”. In these cases, the word διαθήκη is part of the typical wisdom instruction about human conduct and the ethical life in general that have nothing to do with the Deuteronomic way of thinking about covenant. Most noticeably, Ben Sira never applies the Deuteronomic scheme to the history of Israel, appeal to God to remember the covenant with the ancestors, or concern himself with any specific commandments of the Mosaic Torah. Instead, Ben Sira has fully integrated the covenant into his sapiential teachings.66 The last text to be considered is 1 Enoch, a collection of several apocalypses that are pseudepigraphically attributed to the antediluvian patriarch Enoch. Unlike 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, two early Jewish apocalypses that worked the covenantal paradigm into their apocalyptic outlook, 1 Enoch barely refers to and largely downplays the covenant, Moses, and the Torah.67 There are a few notable exceptions in the Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 92–105). For example, the Apocalypse of Weeks includes “the only explicit mention of the Mosaic Torah in 1 Enoch.”68 The author writes about the fourth week that “a covenant for all generations and a tabernacle will be made” (1 En. 93:6),69 a reference to the Mosaic covenant. The text is terse, and nothing more is said about the covenant. A bit later in the text, in the last of a series of five woe-oracles that condemn the fools for their foolishness (1 En. 98:9–99:2), the author takes on his opponents and accuses them of breaking the covenant. “Woe to you who alter the true words and pervert the everlasting covenant …” (1 En. 99:2).70 Which covenant in particular the author accuses the others of breaking is not clear. The statement may well be deliberately vague and is cast in polemical language that is widely attested in the Hellenistic period. The intention is to condemn “the activities of those who transgress, pervert, or stray from divinely revealed Torah.”71 And finally, toward the end of the book, in the context of the birth story of Noah, Enoch relates to Methuselah, his son, the episode of the rebellious watchers. “That in the generation of Jared, my father, they transgressed the word of the Lord/the covenant of heaven” (1 En. 106:13). The Greek differs from the Ethiopic in that it reads ἀπὸ τῆς διαθήκης τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, “from the covenant of heaven.” The phrase is biblical, with a noticeably Deuteronomic tone.72 But such passages are the exception that prove the rule, 66

NICKELSBURG, “Torah and the Deuteronomic Scheme”, 230. HENZE, “Apocalypse and Torah in Ancient Jewish Literature”, 312–325. 68 STUCKENBRUCK, 1 Enoch 91–108, 103; see also 378. 69 The translation is by NICKELSBURG/VANDERKAM, 1 Enoch. 70 The Greek has τὴν αἰωνίαν διαθήκην. Cf. Ps. Sol. 10:4, “the Torah of the eternal covenant” (ἐν νόμῳ διαθήκης αἰωνίου); see our comments above. 71 STUCKENBRUCK, 1 Enoch 91–108, 379–380. 72 The phrase ‫עבר את הברית‬, or παρέρχεσθαι/παραβαίνειν τὴν διαθήκην, is found widely in the Bible, e.g., in Deut 17:2; Jos 7:11; 2 Kgs 18:12; etc., and in several Dead Sea Scrolls. See STUCKENBRUCK, 1 Enoch 91–108, 665. 67

Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

355

that 1 Enoch shies away from Deuteronomic language. There are only a small handful of references to a covenant, which otherwise plays next to no role in the apocalypse. This goes to show that the covenant is found widely in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, but that there are noticeable exceptions, particularly those texts that do not adopt the Deuteronomic covenantal paradigm.

Bibliography ALLISON, DALE C. JR., 4 Baruch: Paraleipomena Jeremious (CEJL), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. ATKINSON, KENNETH, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon (Pseudepigrapha, Studies in the Bible and early Christianity 49), Lewiston: Mellen, 2001, 190–197. –, I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting (JSJ.Sup 84), Leiden: Brill, 2004. –, “Perceptions of the Temple Priests in the Psalm of Solomon”, in The Psalms of Solomon, edited by Bons/Pouchelle, 79–96. BALTZER, KLAUS, The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish and Early Christian Writings, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971; German Ed. 1964. BAUTCH, RICHARD J., “An Appraisal of Abraham’s Role in Postexilic Covenants”, CBQ 71 (2009), 42–67. –, “Covenant”, in T&T Clark Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism: Volume 2, London: T&T Clark, 2020, 171–174. –, Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period (LHBOTS 471), edited by Daniel M. Gurtner / Loren T. Stuckenbruck, London: T&T Clark, 2009. BAUTCH, RICHARD J. / GARY N. KNOPPERS (eds.), Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. BEENTJES, PANCRATIUS C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup 68), Leiden: Brill, 1997. BOGAERT, PIERRE-MAURICE, Apocalypse de Baruch: Introduction, Traduction du Syriaque et Commentaire (SC 144–145), 2 vols., Paris: Cerf, 1969. BONS, EBERHARD / PATRICK POUCHELLE (eds.), The Psalms of Solomon: Language, History, Theology (EJL 40), Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. BROOKE, GEORGE J. et al. (eds.), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity (TBN 12), Leiden: Brill, 2008. CARSON, D.A. et al. (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (WUNT II/140), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck / Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. CHARLES, ROBERT H., The Assumption of Moses: Translated from the Latin Sixth Century MS., the Unemended Text of Which is Published Herewith, Together with the Text in its Restored and Critically Emended Form, London: Adam and Charles Black, 1897. CHESNUTT, RANDALL D., “Covenant and Cosmos in Wisdom of Solomon 10–19”, in Concept of the Covenant, edited by Porter et al., 223–249. COLLINS, JOHN J., The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, third edition, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.

356

Matthias Henze

ECKHARDT, BENEDIKT, “The Psalms of Solomon as a Historical Source for the Late Hasmonean Period”, in The Psalms of Solomon, edited by Bons/Pouchelle, 7–29. EHRMAN, BART D., Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics, New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. EMBRY, BRAD, “Some Thoughts on and Implications from Genre Categorization in the Psalms of Solomon”, in The Psalms of Solomon, edited by Bons/Pouchelle, 59–78. GATHERCOLE, SIMON J., “Covenantal Nomism”, in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, edited by John J. Collins / Daniel C. Harlow, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010, 494–496. GESCHE, BONIFATIA, “Covenant and Holiness in the Book of Ben Sira”, in Covenant – Concepts of Berit, Diatheke, and Testamentum: Proceedings of the Conference at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston, Texas November 2019 (WUNT 506), edited by Christian Eberhart and Wolfgang Kraus in Collaboration with Richard Bautch, Matthias Henze, and Martin Rösel, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023, 189–206. GRABBE, LESTER L., “Did All Jews Think Alike? ‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus in the Context of Second Temple Judaic Religion”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.Sup 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter / Jacqueline C.R. de Roo, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 251–266. GURTNER, DANIEL M., Introducing the Pseudepigrapha of Second Temple Judaism: Message, Context, and Significance, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020. HALPERN-AMARU, BETSY, Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Postbiblical Jewish Literature, Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1994. HARNISCH, WOLFGANG, Verhängnis und Verheißung der Geschichte: Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverständnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse (FRLANT 97), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. HENZE, MATTHIAS, “2 Baruch”, in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes, edited by Michael E. Stone / Matthias Henze, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013, 83– 141. –, “2 Esdras”, in The New Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by Katharine J. Dell / David Lincicum, Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. –, “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Literary Composition and Oral Performance in First-Century Apocalyptic Literature”, JBL 131 (2012), 181–200. –, “Apocalypse and Torah in Ancient Jewish Literature”, in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, edited by John J. Collins, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014, 312–325. –, “The Chosenness of Israel in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”, in The Call of Abraham: Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson, edited by Gary A. Anderson / Joel S. Kaminsky, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013, 170–198. –, “This Age and the Age to Come in 2 Baruch”, in Dreams, Visions, Imaginations: Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic Views of the World to Come, edited by Jens Schröter / Tobias Nicklas, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021, 117–139. HOFMANN, NORBERT JOHANNES, Die Assumptio Mosis: Studien zur Rezeption massgültiger Überlieferung (JSJ.Sup 67), Leiden: Brill, 2000. HULTGREN, STEPHEN, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community: Literary, Historical, and Theological Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 66), Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Covenant in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

357

JACOBSON, HOWARD, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation, 2 Vols. (AGJU 31), Leiden: Brill, 1996. KNIBB, MICHAEL A., “The Second Book of Esdras”, in The First and Second Books of Esdras, edited by R.J. Coggins / M.A. Knibb, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. KUGLER, ROBERT, “Testaments”, in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, edited by Matthias Henze / Rodney A. Werline, second edition, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2020, 329– 352. LATTKE, MICHAEL, “Textual History of the Psalms of Solomon”, in Textual History of the Bible: The Deuterocanonical Scriptures: Volume 2C, edited by Frank Feder / Matthias Henze, Leiden: Brill 2019, 327–332. LIED, LIV INGEBORG, “2 Baruch and the Syriac Codex Ambrosianus (7a1): Studying Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in Their Manuscript Context”, JSP 26 (2016), 67–107. LONGENECKER, BRUCE, Eschatology and the Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Romans 1–11, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991, 23–31. MACATANGAY, FRANCIS M., “Ideas of Covenant in the Apocrypha”, in Covenant – Concepts of Berit, Diatheke, and Testamentum: Proceedings of the Conference at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston, Texas November 2019 (WUNT 506), edited by Christian Eberhart and Wolfgang Kraus in Collaboration with Richard Bautch, Matthias Henze, and Martin Rösel, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023, 207–231. MERMELSTEIN, ARI, Creation, Covenant, and the Beginning of Judaism: Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.Sup 168), Leiden: Brill, 2014. –, “When History Repeats Itself: The Theological Significance of the Abrahamic Covenant in Early Jewish Writings”, JSP 27 (2017): 113–142. NAJMAN, HINDY / IRENE PEIRANO GARRISON, “Pseudepigraphy as an Interpretative Construct”, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Fifty Years of the Pseudepigrapha Section at the SBL (EJL 50), edited by Matthias Henze / Liv Ingeborg Lied, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2019, 331–355. NICKELSBURG, GEORGE W.E., Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, second edition, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. –, (ed.), Studies on the Testament of Moses: Seminar Papers (SCS 4), Cambridge: SBL Press, 1973. –, “Torah and the Deuteronomic Scheme in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Variations on a Theme and Some Noteworthy Examples of its Absence”, in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament: Festschrift für Christoph Burchard zum 75. Geburtstag (NTOA 57), edited by Dieter Sänger / Matthias Konradt, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht / Fribourg: Academic Press, 2006, 222–235. NICKELSBURG, GEORGE W.E. / JAMES C. VANDERKAM, 1 Enoch: A New Translation, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. PEIRANO, IRENE, The Rhetoric of the Roman Fake: Latin Pseudepigrapha in Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. PORTER, STANLEY E. / JACQUELINE C.R. DE ROO (eds.), The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.Sup 71), Leiden: Brill, 2003. YOSHIKO REED, ANNETTE, “Textuality between Death and Memory: The Prehistory and Formation of the Patriarchal Testament”, JQR 104 (2014), 381–412. –, “The Modern Invention of ‘Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’”, JTS 60 (2009), 403–436.

358

Matthias Henze

RUITEN, JACQUES VAN, “The Covenant of Noah in Jubilees 6.1–38”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.Sup 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter / Jacqueline C.R. de Roo, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 167–190. SANDERS, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. SAYLER, GWENDOLYN B., Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch (SBLDS 72), Chico: Scholars, 1984. SCHÜPPHAUS, JOACHIM, Die Psalmen Salomos: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts (ALGHJ 7), Leiden: Brill, 1977, 50–53. SCHWARTZ, DANIEL R., “The Tribes of As. Mos. 4:7–9”, JBL 99 (1980), 217–223. SCOTT, JAMES M., “Covenant”, in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, edited by John J. Collins / Daniel C. Harlow, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010, 491–494. SPEYER, WOLFGANG, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum: Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung, München: Beck, 1971. STONE, MICHAEL E. / THEODORE A. BERGREN, “2 Esdras”, in Harper’s Bible Commentary, edited by James L. Mays, San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1988, 776–790. –, Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. STUCKENBRUCK, LOREN T., 1 Enoch 91–108 (CEJL), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. –, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”, in Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview, edited by John J. Collins / Daniel C. Harlow, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012, 179–203. TIEDE, DAVID L., “The Figure of Moses in the Testament of Moses”, in Studies on the Testament of Moses: Seminar Papers (SCS 4), edited by George W.E. Nickelsburg, Cambridge: SBL Press, 1973, 86–92. TROMP, JOHANNES, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (SVTP 10), Leiden: Brill, 1993. URBACH, EPHRAIM E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987. VANDERKAM, JAMES C., “Covenant and Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees 6”, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 1997, edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman et al., Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000, 92–104. –, Jubilees 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees Chapters 1–21 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018. VERMES, GEZA, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective, London: Collins, 1981. VIOLET, BRUNO, Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in Deutscher Gestalt, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 1924. WERLINE, RODNEY A., “The Experience of God’s Paideia in the Psalms of Solomon”, in Experientia, Volume 2: Linking Text and Experience (EJL 35), edited by Colleen Shantz / Rodney A. Werline, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012, 17–44. WRIGHT, ROBERT B., “Baruch: His Evolution from Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer”, in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible, edited by Michael E. Stone / Theodore A. Bergren, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998, 264–289. –, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies), New York: T&T Clark, 2007.

New Testament

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood” Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

Origins, Meanings, Ramifications* CHRISTIAN A. EBERHART Christian A. Eberhart In memoriam Robert (Bob) Jewett, 1933–2020

1. Introduction In this study, I explore the origins, meanings, and ramifications of the term διαθήκη, commonly translated as “covenant” or “will, testament”, in the three synoptic Gospels.1 As the term διαθήκη is most prominently featured in the words of institution that Jesus spoke over the Eucharistic cup of wine, this study will also contain reflections on the Last Supper of Jesus as such. It is, however, no exhaustive examination of either the topic of covenant or of the Last Supper / Lord’s Supper / Eucharist. Other contributions in this volume investigating the areas of ancient Near East, Hebrew and Greek Bible

* Preliminary note: This contribution is an expanded version of the presentation delivered at the conference in Houston on November 21, 2019, which did not include reflections on διαθήκη in the Gospel according to Luke. 1 A crucial question for every exploration of the topic of διαθήκη / ‫ ברית‬is what kind of terminology or other textual indicator establishes its presence. First, the concept of covenant underwent changes throughout history, which is reflected in biblical texts from different time periods. Second, the term has different meanings in legal, religious, and other contexts. Third, a short comment on the modern translation of διαθήκη / ‫ברית‬. Martin Rösel suggested that this term and its equivalent should rather be rendered and understood as a one-sided ‘disposition’, German “Verfügung” or “Bundessatzung” or “Bundesverfügung”, which in English could be rendered as “covenantal disposition”. (This issue will be revisited later.) For the moment, it should be noted that, among frequent customary translations, even the English term “covenant” (or the German equivalent “Bund” or the French “alliance”) or “contract” or “will, testament” are not necessarily understood alike and have different ramifications in different cultural areas (cf. EDENBURG, “Covenant”, 131–133; see also the contribution of Siegfried Kreuzer in this volume).

362

Christian A. Eberhart

(Septuagint), and Second Temple Judaism have already addressed crucial aspects that do not need to be repeated here or can just be briefly referred to.2 This exploration of the New Testament Gospels will focus on the three synoptics with a few comments on the Communion in Luke’s second volume, the Acts of the Apostles, which features two occurrences of διαθήκη. It proceeds in the following four steps: 1. An overview of the passages in the NT Gospels where the word διαθήκη occurs helps to discern the individual profile of the three words of institution over the cup, which belong to two groups (Matt follows Mark; Luke follows Paul in 1 Cor), and to identify a variety of important aspects for the subsequent discussion. 2. A quest for the origins of this terminology involves comments on the HB / OT and LXX passages about key themes and words within the multifaceted treasury of covenants, some of which belong to the Deuteronomic / Deuteronomistic historiography. Specific attention will be given to the covenant at Mt. Sinai (Exod 24) and the “new covenant” (Jer 31MT / 38LXX). 3. An inquiry into the adoption of the covenant concept in the synoptic Gospels explores for what purpose the Last Supper tradition included these specific references from the HB / OT / LXX3. It describes their individual profile and specific changes from Mark 14 to Matt 26 and Luke 22 (with a few comments on the “breaking of bread” in Acts). 4. The conclusion will summarize the meaning of the term διαθήκη in the Last Supper tradition and reflect on its ramifications for articulating and conceptualizing the core of the mission and ministry of Jesus. 2 A sharp distinction between Judaism and Christianity is impossible for the 1st century CE. Early Christians understood themselves as a group within Judaism and met with this sense of self-identity. Neither their faith in a messiah nor in resurrection nor a gradual openness towards Gentiles was uncommon among certain Jewish groups of that time. Like many others, those Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, and the savior were engaged in a process of collectively renegotiating their traditions in the face of contemporary cultural, religious, and political challenges, many of which had to do with Hellenization and the Roman occupation since the conquest of Palestine under Pompey the Great in 63 BCE. A part of this process of renegotiation had to do with the terminology and concept of covenant. 3 In English-speaking biblical scholarship and beyond, the use of the terms and abbreviations “Hebrew Bible” (HB) instead of “Old Testament” (OT) or both together (“Hebrew Bible / Old Testament” – HB / OT) has, for good reasons, become common so as to use language agreeable to Jewish, Christian, and other scholars. However, NT scholarship scrutinizing its text traditions in early Jewish scriptures has become increasingly aware of the fact that they do not refer to the Hebrew Bible but the Septuagint (LXX). A study of the origins of NT concepts thus needs to consciously include the LXX. In this contribution, therefore, I am using the extended abbreviation “HB / OT / LXX” where appropriate and fitting to reflect this reality (even if the LXX relates to HB / OT not in the same way as HB to OT, as these are two different denotations for the same text collection).

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

363

2. Overview: Occurrences of διαθήκη in the New Testament Gospels It is peculiar that the NT Gospels contain surprisingly little about διαθήκη. The term occurs, by and large, just once in each of the synoptic Gospels, while it is missing altogether in the Gospel according to John. The term is prominently featured in Mark’s pericope of the Last Supper and its synoptic parallels, specifically in the words of institution that Jesus spoke over the cup of wine. From there, it has been adopted in the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke, assuming the validity of the so-called two-source-theory. Here is an overview of the three passages, arranged in chronological order: Mark 14:24: τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν.

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Matt 26:28: τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.

… for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 22:20: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

The only other occurrence of διαθήκη in the NT Gospels is found in Zechariah’s benediction, in which the priest praises God for having “shown the mercy promised to our ancestors, and has remembered his holy covenant (καὶ μνησθῆναι διαθήκης ἁγίας αὐτοῦ)” (Luke 1:72).4 Zechariah’s statement featuring “covenant” and the “oath” (ὅρκος) to Abraham (1:73a) in artistic chiastic structure5 may well be considered an early pointer to the final section of this Gospel with its unusual sequence cup – bread – cup (22:14–23) where the term διαθήκη is attested again (22:20). Because of the scant attestation of διαθήκη in the NT, German biblical scholars have used the term “Bundesschweigen”6, which also denotes the absence of references to covenantal terminology in, for 4

The notion of God’s remembrance of the divine covenant is frequent in the HB / OT / LXX (see, e.g., Exod 2:24; Lev 26:42; Ps 106:45; Ezek 16:60). 5 Cf. VANHOYE, “Structure”, 382–389; BOVON, Luke 1, 67. 6 GRÄSSER, Alte Bund, 9–16. It should be noted that the term “Bundesschweigen” is also used among HB / OT scholars to refer to the lack of covenant terminology and concepts among 8th and 7th century BCE prophets, leading to the conclusion that covenant theology should be dated post-587 (cf. PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 129–155; MCKENZIE, Covenant, 22; THIEL, “Rede”, 11–36; KOCH, “Entstehung”, 245–247; IDEM, “Covenant”, 903).

364

Christian A. Eberhart

example, the public proclamation of Jesus. The rare attestation of the term in the Gospels has its equivalent in the Pauline letters.7 Therefore, the general statement is warranted that “the NT writers remain reluctant to embrace the covenant motif since it was connected closely to YHWH’s election of Israel and to Israel’s ethnic and social identity.”8 The sparse attestation of the term is remarkable considering, first, its wide-spread usage specifically in the Deuteronomic literature / Deuteronomistic historiography,9 second, even more frequent occurrences in the “sectarian” texts from Qumran,10 and third, recent claims that Palestinian Judaism in the days of the apostle Paul is appropriately described as ‘covenantal nomism’ and, as such, may have remained the spiritual home of Paul.11 NT texts show, however, that the groups around Jesus

7 Overall, the NT features 33 occurrences of διαθήκη, eight of which are in Paul’s letters, 17 in Hebrews, and one in Ephesians and Revelation each; there are also another 4 implicit occurrences (cf. BACKHAUS, “Covenant”, 909; see also BEHM and QUELL, “διατίθημι”, 132; KUTSCH, “Bund”, 406; MCKENZIE, Covenant, 83–84). The eight occurrences in Paul’s letters are, however, distributed throughout several of his letters (Rom 9:4; 11:27; Gal 3:15, 17; 4:24; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6, 14); thus, the theme should not be considered too prominent for the apostle (see the contributions of Florian Wilk and Jens Herzer in this volume). The situation is famously different in Hebrews, owing in part to the strong reliance of its soteriological and Christological concept on priestly literature in the HB / OT / LXX (see the contribution of Wolfgang Kraus in this volume). By contrast, the term διαθήκη is, with the sole exception of Eph 2:12, missing from all deutero-Pauline letters (including the pastoral letters), the three letters of John, both letters of Peter, and from James and Jude. The term is frequent in only two books of the so-called Apostolic Fathers (Barn.: 13 occurrences; Justin’s Dial.: 31), but rare again in 1 Clem. (two occurrences in 15:4; 35:7). The term is also rare in Philo’s many books (see, e.g., Mut. 58; Sacr. 57; Somn. 2:223–224, 227, 237; Leg. 3:85; see the contribution of Gert J. Steyn in this volume; also BEHM / QUELL, “διατίθημι”, 131; JAUBERT, La notion d’alliance, 375–442; GILDERS, “Covenant”, 914). It is avoided by Josephus out of consideration of his Gentile audience in the city of Rome. 8 BACKHAUS, “Covenant”, 909. 9 The common English rendering of the German term “deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk”, coined by Martin Noth in 1943, is “Deuteronomistic history”. Yet I consider the translation “Deuteronomistic historiography” to be more accurate as it better conveys a continuous narrative of the history of Ancient Israel and early stages of Second Temple Judaism from the Mosaic beginnings until the exile. The bulk of its literary composition and redaction belongs to the Persian era, as consistent features are the socio-religious explanation of the failure of the monarchy and a diaspora perspective (cf. MCKENZIE, Covenant, 25–27; RÖMER, “Deuteronomistic History”, 203–204; IDEM, Introduction, 175–178). 10 See the contributions of Heinz-Josef Fabry and Brent A. Strawn in this volume. 11 Cf. SANDERS, Paul, 75, 236, 420–422, 544 etc.; DUNN, “Paul”, 429–445; BOYARIN, Radical Jew (for an overview, see BACHMANN, “Neue Paulusperspektive”, 25–43; RIEGER, “Aspekte”, 129–139; also the contribution of Jens Herzer in this volume). It should be noted that Sanders qualified Paul’s ‘pattern of religion’ as incompatible with ‘covenantal nomism’ (SANDERS, Paul, 543). Despite the few occurrences of the term διαθήκη in Paul’s letters, other scholars reject this opinion, partly based on the assumption that the soteriological

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

365

and Paul have been notably reluctant to employ the term διαθήκη and related theological concepts.12 Given this situation, the question of whether Jesus had employed the term διαθήκη in his words of institution at all is disputed among scholars. If Jesus had omitted this term in his entire proclamation, why would he have employed it for the first time just hours before his death? Against such concerns, however, it has been pointed out that covenants are, by their very nature, singular acts. Thus, the fact of their singular occurrence should not be considered an argument against their authenticity.13 On the other hand, the term clearly has a prominent place in the Eucharistic tradition, which itself is a climax in the Gospel narratives.14 How then does the earliest Gospel narrative depict the Last Supper, and what is the relationship to the other two synoptic Gospels? It clearly concentrates several motifs in just a few dense sentences that should, therefore, not be quickly attributed to any single tradition. Important aspects to consider are, for example, the Passover tradition, the origins of the term διαθήκη, and the meaning of the term “blood” that is “poured out for many.” 1. According to all three synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper pericope is positioned in the context of a Passover celebration that would have occurred on the fourteenth of Nisan (Mark 14:12–21; Matt 26:17–19; Luke 22:7–13). In the 1st century CE, a typical Jewish Passover meal consisted of four courses organized around four cups of wine (m.Pes.).15 The idiosyncratic two cups in Luke’s version of the Last Supper (Luke 22:17, 20) may allude to some of these four cups. The first cup appears in Luke’s extended introduction (22:15–18) that emphasizes the Passover tradition more than the parallels in Mark and Matthew. However, besides these aspects, the Passover tradition as such does not appear to have much of an importance for the Last Supper of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels. Typical elements of the Passover tradition are lacking, such as the recounting of the exodus story and constitutive meal items like bitter concept of participation in Christ also establishes covenantal hermeneutics (cf. HOOKER, “Paul”, 155–164; CAMPBELL, Nations, 299–305, etc.). 12 Eventually, this development led to the rejection of circumcision as a physical sign of initiation into the group (Gal 2:1–14; 5:2–15; 6:12–13; Phil 3:2–3; cf., for example, WILEY, Gentile Women, 16–20, 54–102; SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Memory, 210–213). 13 Cf. THEISSEN/MERZ, Historische Jesus, 373; SANDNES, “Meal”, 472. 14 Because of its prominent place in the Eucharistic tradition, this passage has left its imprint on Christian church liturgies. In many denominations, it is common for pastors or priests to include phrases such as “the blood of Christ shed for you” or “the cup of blessing” during the Eucharistic rite. Yet it is peculiar that traditional and modern church liturgies often choose phrases for their words of institution that are not identical to those featured in the NT texts, that the order of the components is inversed – according to Mark, Jesus first gives the cup of wine to his disciples and then speaks the words (see below) – and that the term ‘covenant’ is often omitted. Cf. also LÖHR, “Entstehung”, 55. 15 Cf. MCKNIGHT, Historiography, 255–258.

366

Christian A. Eberhart

herbs or unleavened bread (matzah) – the term ἄρτος for the bread that Jesus broke and shared signifies leavened bread.16 If the traditional Passover was an annual joyful celebration with affirmation of Jewish national identity, then the words of institution that Jesus spoke over bread and wine with “morose contemplation of his own death”17 convey a decidedly different mood. Even certain elements of the passion story of Mark do not align with a dating of the Last Supper of Jesus on Passover.18 This suggests that the Last Supper was about something else; therefore, the earliest version of this ritual in a letter by Paul does not mention Passover at all (1 Cor 11:23–26).19 2. According to Mark, after Jesus breaks bread and shares it with his twelve disciples (Mark 14:22), the actual event of drinking from the cup is related with the following words: “καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες” – “then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it” (Mark 14:23). These words describe the drinking of the wine as being restricted to the disciples. The words ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες syntactically connect to αὐτοῖς, which signifies only the disciples, not Jesus. The scene is slightly altered in Matthew, which relates: καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες – “Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you’” (Matt 26:27). In Luke 22:17, the same applies to the first of the two cups. Hence in all three synoptic Gospels, the twelve disciples drink; Jesus, the host, does not.20 16 Cf. DELLING, “Abendmahl”, 48; THEISSEN/MERZ, Historische Jesus, 375–376; MYERS, Binding, 363; LANG, “Abendmahl”, 530–531; HAHN, “Motive”, 339–344; IDEM, Theologie II, 543; COOK, “Jewish Scholars”, 70–73; NODET, “Last Supper”, 348–349; against, for example, STUHLMACHER, “Zeugnis”, 4, 8. Michael J. Cook assumes, therefore, that Mark integrated the Passover section (Mark 14:12–16) into an earlier storyline for purely theological reasons (COOK, “Jewish Scholars”, 73). In the fourth Gospel, the dates are also different. After the Last Supper, when Jesus is brought before Pilate, his Jewish opponents stayed away from the Roman praetorium to avoid defilement because of their intention to participate in the Passover afterwards (John 18:28; cf. THEISSEN/MERZ, Historische Jesus, 373, 375). 17 MCKNIGHT, Historiography, 273; cf. also LEONHARD, “Pesach”, 275–312. 18 For example, the enemies of Jesus plot to kill him before the Passover (Mark 14:1–2). Furthermore, if Jesus was being arrested immediately after the Last Supper (14:46), then his trial before the Sanhedrin (14:53–65) would have been on that holy day, which would have violated the law of Second Temple Judaism. Also, the note that dates the crucifixion to “the day of Preparation” (παρασκευή, 15:42) is telling; one may assume it would have been called “the day of Passover” had this indeed been the date of the death of Jesus (cf. THEISSEN/ MERZ, Historische Jesus, 376). 19 Cf. LICHTENBERGER, “Abendmahlsüberlieferung”, 218–219. 20 In the same way the words λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς – “he [sc. Jesus] took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them” (Mark 14:22) convey that the twelve disciples ate from the bread that Jesus distributed among them. According to the text, Jesus himself does not eat.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

367

3. In the Gospel according to Mark, the sharing of the cup is followed by the word of institution; it explicitly identifies the contents of the cup of wine with Jesus’ blood that is further qualified through a reference to a “covenant”: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν – “And he [sc. Jesus] said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many’” (14:24).21 Adela Yarbro-Collins comments on the order of activities: “It is noteworthy that the sayings related to the cup are narrated after all of the Twelve had drunk from it (v. 23). This order of events supports the reading of this passage proposed above, namely, as an interpretation of the death of Jesus before the event, not as a liturgical text.”22 The order of drinking from the cup, followed by the word of institution, is unique to Mark. Matthew (26:27–28) inverses it; in Luke (22:20), the drinking from the second cup remains unmentioned. All three versions feature the term διαθήκη, but they do so in different ways. The word of institution in Matt 26:28 follows Mark 14:24 (adding γάρ – “for”). In both Gospels, the demonstrative nominative neuter singular τοῦτο – “this” refers to the cup of wine.23 It is, therefore, the wine in the chalice that is τὸ 21 There are two noteworthy text-critical variants in Mark 14:24: First, the alternative reading τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης – “of the new covenant” is attested in A K P Γ Δ ƒ1.13 28. 579. 700. 892. 1241. 1424. 2542 𝔪 lat sy samss bopt; NTG Nestle-Aland, 28th edition chooses the text of ‫ א‬B C Dc L Θ Ψ 565 k samss bopt. The addition can be explained through the influence of 1 Cor 11:25 (cf. METZGER, Textual Commentary, 95). Second, the addition of εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν – “for the forgiveness of sins” after τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν – “which is poured out for many” is attested in W ƒ13 a vgms (samss bo) bomss; it can be interpreted as an assimilation to Matt 26:28. 22 YARBRO-COLLINS, Mark, 656 (italics in the original). See also LÖHR, “Entstehung”, 61. 23 Cf. PESCH, Markusevangelium, 358; LICHTENBERGER, “Abendmahlsüberlieferung”, 220–223; see also LÖHR, “Entstehung”, 61. As is well known, these words, together with those accompanying the sharing of the bread, have been the basis of ongoing scholarly debates between different Christian denominations regarding the proper interpretation of the Eucharist. Recently, Karl Olav Sandnes scrutinized them again. Interestingly enough, he admits that he first posited that τοῦτο in Mark 14:22 does not refer to the bread as such but, due to grammatical incongruency (ἄρτος is masculine), to the entire procedure of breaking and eating the bread (an opinion also promoted in LUZ, Matthew 21–28, 378). An analogous interpretation would then have applied to the word over the chalice in Mark 14:24. However, he changed his mind to now assert that τοῦτο does refer to the bread (despite the grammatical incongruency) and wine. The rationale is that λάβετε – “take” in 14:22 (as well as λάβετε φάγετε – “take, eat” in Matt 26:26) makes only sense as a reference to the bread, which is the only thing that can be “taken” (and “eaten”). A similar interpretation would then apply to τοῦτό ἐστιν in connection with the cup of wine (Mark 14:24 / Matt 26:28; cf. SANDNES, “Meal”, 460–461). One may add that this understanding is corroborated by the concluding words in 1 Cor 11:26 that also focus on bread and the cup of wine: ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε, τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ – “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

368

Christian A. Eberhart

αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης – “my blood of the covenant”. Luke 22:20, however, has a nominal sentence in which τοῦτο – “this” directly references the subsequent τὸ ποτήριον – “the cup” while ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη – “the new covenant” is parallel to, and relates to τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον. Here, “this cup”, which is the second cup of wine, is the new covenant. Luke’s word over the cup relies less on Mark and Matthew but draws on Paul’s version (1 Cor 11:25), which some scholars consider the earliest.24 4. The difference between the word of institution over the cup in the three synoptic Gospels led to a difference in meaning of the term αἷμα – “blood”. The versions of Mark and Matthew allude to actual blood. In the HB/OT, the expression “blood of grapes” could be used for the juice of grapes (Gen 49:11; Deut 32:14); the word “blood” substitutes for “juice” since both are red liquids. Furthermore, the expression to “drink blood like wine” is attested in some Greek manuscripts of Zech 9:15.25 Thus, during the Last Supper, Jesus deployed an expression familiar to his disciples. But this blood is “poured out for many” (Mark 14:24; Matt 26:28; for the different version in Luke 22:20 see below), alluding at the same time to the anticipated death on the cross. In Luke 22:20, the different wording “this cup … is the new covenant in my blood” implies that αἷμα – “blood” means “death” even more immediately. For Luke, the new covenant is effective through, or by way of, the death of Jesus, hence the dative construction ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου.26 24

Cf. FELD, Verständnis, 32–33; BARTH, Tod Jesu, 47; KAZEN, “Sacrificial Interpretation”, 479. Other scholars consider the Markan version to be the most original one (cf. STUHLMACHER, “Zeugnis”, 10; BYRSKOG, “Meal”, 443–444 [with an attempt to reconstruct the original Greek words of the Last Supper scene]). From 1 Cor 11:24, Luke adopts the directive to repeat the ritual, yet only for the breaking of the bread: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν – “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). For him, the bread is the truly characteristic element conveying the essence of the ministry of Jesus (see more on this below). 25 The Hebrew text of Zech 9:15 has been called “complicated” and “difficult” (MEYERS/ MEYERS, Zechariah 9–14, 152, 154). The textual problems have occasioned different attempts of the Greek translators to render the verse, one of which is ἐκπίονται τὸ αἷμα αὐτῶν ὡς οἶνον – “they shall drink their blood like wine” (see Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; this is the text adopted in NRSV). 26 Cf. HAHN, Theologie 2, 540; LICHTENBERGER, “Abendmahlsüberlieferung”, 222–225. The fact that αἷμα – “blood” means “death” in Luke 22:20 is corroborated by two observations. First, Luke follows 1 Cor 11:25 where the next sentence after the word of institution over the cup is the following explicatory comment by Paul: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death (τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε) until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26). This sentence makes explicit that “death” is what eating bread and drinking from the cup convey. Second, Luke has his own equivalents attached to the two cups of his Last Supper pericope. Here, Jesus gives the first cup to his disciples with the words: “Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:17b–18). The words “I will not drink …” also directly convey the anticipation of

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

369

5. There is a long-standing tradition of attempts to eliminate the term διαθήκη from the word of institution over the chalice. Already in approx. 150– 155 CE, the apologist Justin Martyr conjectured in his First Apology that the original words of Jesus might have been strictly symmetrical: τοῦτʼ ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου / τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ αἷμά μου – “this is my body / this is my blood” (1 Apol. 66:3).27 In the middle of the 20th century CE and later, Rudolf Bultmann and other scholars made similar proposals.28 Against these tendencies, the fact that Paul’s version (1 Cor 11:25), followed by Luke (22:20), has not been parallelized with the word of institution over the bread may be seen as proof that it is indeed original – and also earlier (see above). 6. Matthew’s version of the word of institution over the cup is the longest: τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν – “… for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28). Only this version contains the addition “for the forgiveness of sins”, thus explicating the soteriological meaning that Matthew associates with the cup of wine.29 7. All three pericopes in the synoptic Gospels feature a comment about pouring out. But this comment is surprisingly flexible in a number of aspects. Mark’s text has τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν – “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (14:24); here, τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον refers to τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης, words that imminent death. The second cup with the actual word of institution is followed by the comment: “But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table. For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!” (22:21–22). The reference to the betrayal likewise points to the imminent death of Jesus on the cross. The “new covenant”, according to both Paul and Luke, is thus established through this death. But Mark’s Gospel also qualifies the term “cup” in this way. Shortly after the Last Supper scene, Jesus goes to the garden in Gethsemane to pray (Mark 14:32–42; see also Matt 26:36–46; Luke 22:39–46). His prayer famously includes the words: “Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me (παρένεγκε τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ); yet, not what I want, but what you want” (Mark 14:36; see also below). Echoing the words of institution over the cup in Mark 14:24, the term ποτήριον directly refers to the anticipated death of Jesus (cf. BROWN, Death of the Messiah, 170; BOVON, Luke 3, 159–160 [regarding Luke 22:20]; SANDNES, “Meal”, 460; see also further comments below). 27 Cf. LICHTENBERGER, “Abendmahlsüberlieferung”, 220; THEISSEN/MERZ, Historische Jesus, 372; BETZ, “Unique”, 1806–1812; also BOLYKI, Jesu Tischgemeinschaften, 148. The full passage reads: “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus passed on to us what was passed on to them; that Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, said, ‘Do this in remembrance of me, this is my body’, and that he took the cup similarly and given thanks, he said, ‘This is my blood’, and he gave it to them” (1 Apol. 66:3). 28 Cf. BULTMANN, Theologie, 148; LANG, “Becher”, 205–206; critical of this opinion is, e.g., LICHTENBERGER, “Abendmahlsüberlieferung”, 220–222. 29 Cf. KAZEN, “Sacrificial Interpretation”, 486; LOADER, “Forgiveness”, 364. See further comments below.

370

Christian A. Eberhart

belong together as they are a quotation from Exod 24:8LXX (apart from the insertion of μου – “my”). Matthew alters this text: … τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον – “which is poured out for many” (Matt 26:28). The referent here is still the “blood”. The change of preposition from ὑπέρ in Mark 14:24 to περί does not result in any change of meaning.30 In Second Temple Judaism and in the HB / OT, “blood” that is “poured out” (‫ שׁפך דם‬/ αἷμα ἐκχέω or ἐκχύννω) is a standard phrase synonymous to death, including murder (Gen 9:6; Num 35:33; Ezek 18:10 etc.).31 Luke, however, inserts the comment about pouring out into the word over the chalice found in 1 Cor 11:25 (where it does not occur). The result is the following: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον – “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). That sentence is grammatically awkward and, therefore, often translated incorrectly. To address the problem, Matthias Klinghardt points out that the participle τὸ … ἐκχυννόμενον cannot be connected to the dative αἵματι. A nominative singular neuter, ἐκχυννόμενον can only be associated with τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον. As Klinghardt states, the phrase in the Lukan version about the cup that is poured out indicates a libation, which was a customary element in a Greco-Roman symposium.32 In this case, the reference to the cup would, as a synecdoche, include the wine as its content. 30 Ulrich Luz notes: “There is presumably no significance in the change of the terms translated ‘for’ in v. 28 (from the Markan ὑπέρ to περί) that comes from Matthew” (LUZ, Matthew 21–28, 365; cf. also GNILKA, Matthäusevangelium, 401). Sometimes, the change of preposition is explained as an allusion to the Greek text of the laws of sacrificial offerings where περί is the preposition designating the person who receives cultic atonement (e.g., Lev 1:4; 4:20, 26; 5:16; 9:7; cf. YARBRO-COLLINS, “Mark’s Interpretation”, 549–550 [her argument extends only to the sin offering in Lev 4:20, 26]). 31 Cf. EBERHART, “Blood”, 203. 32 Cf. KLINGHARDT, “Becher”, 33–58; see also WICK, Gottesdienste, 123; BÖTTRICH, “Proexistenz”, 420–425; WINNINGE, “Lord’s Supper”, 591, 600; BYRSKOG, “Meal”, 442; HELLHOLM, “Aliments”, 1892. While NRSV provides a syntactically correct rendering of Luke 22:20, NIV, for instance, is incorrect by making “blood” the object to the participle: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”. According to KLINGHARDT, also the Lutherübersetzung (1984), Elberfelder, Zürcher, Einheitsübersetzung, Bibel in gerechter Sprache (2006) and several other German translations feature the incorrect rendering, along with many prominent commentaries (KLINGHARDT, “Becher”, 33–37). Correct in this regard is the paraphrase of BERGER/NORD, Neue Testament, 497: “Dieser Becher ist der neue Bund, gestiftet durch mein Blut. Er wird für euch ausgeschenkt.” The awareness of the problem is not new. In antiquity, attempts to address the issue include the omission of Luke 22:19b–20 altogether, which is attested in Codex Bezae and generally known as the short version; it has the further advantage of reducing the unusual cup – bread – cup sequence in Luke to cup – bread, also found in Did 9:1–3 (cf. BILLINGS, “Disputed Words”, 507–526; KAZEN, “Sacrificial Interpretation”, 480; SMITH, Symposium, 262–263; BÖTTRICH, “Proexistenz”, 420–422; EPP, “Disputed Words”, 407–416; ALIKIN, Earliest History, 124; WINNINGE, “Lord’s Supper”, 586–588).

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

371

8. All three words of institution feature the preposition “for” connected to the comment about pouring out, but in diverse ways. Mark 14:24 has ὑπὲρ πολλῶν – “for many”, Matt 26:28 changes the preposition to περὶ πολλῶν. Luke 22:20 is again different: ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν – “for you”. The characteristic wording “for many” may, on the one hand, imply that, quite literally, not all of the disciples of Jesus might benefit from the rite, an interpretive option that is avoided in Luke’s ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, which includes all of the disciples at the Last Supper. On the other hand, the ὑπὲρ / περὶ πολλῶν in Mark 14:24 and Matt 26:28 is often related to the surrender formula about the Son of Man who gave his life as “a ransom for many” (λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, Mark 10:45 / Matt 20:28), even though the preposition is not the same. This saying, in turn, may allude to the Greek text of Deutero-Isaiah’s Fourth Song of the Suffering Servant (Isa 52:13–53:12LXX), which portrays someone who “carries our sins” (… τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει, 53:4LXX). Specifically, the term “many” occurs no less than five times in this song (52:14, 15; 53:11, 12 [bis]).33 The most prominent usage would be in 53:12: “… his soul was given into death and he was counted among the lawless, and he carried the sins of many (καὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν), and for their sins he was given up.” Hence, the words of institution in Mark and Matthew may perhaps refer to key texts in these Gospels about the soteriological significance of the mission of Jesus Christ.34 33 In the Greek version, the term πολλοί – “many” occurs five times in Isa 52:13–53:12LXX as opposed to four attestations of the Hebrew equivalent ‫ רבים‬in MT. 34 Cf. STUHLMACHER, “Zeugnis”, 12; YARBRO-COLLINS, “Mark’s Interpretation”, 546; EADEM, Mark, 499–504, 656–657; DELLING, “Abendmahl”, 54; MITTMANN, “Jes 53 LXX”, 221–224; THEOBALD, “‘Gebt ihr ihnen zu essen!’”, 170; SANDNES, “Meal”, 463–464; SCHNELLE, First One Hundred Years, 122; LOADER, “Forgiveness”, 364. It is undisputed that NT texts feature many quotations and allusions to the book of IsaiahLXX (cf. VAN DER KOOIJ / WILK, “Esaias”, 2493–2498). For the interpretation of Mark 14:24, however, attention must be drawn to the fact that literary evidence is limited to the word πολλοί – “many”, which is not infrequent. The more critical term λύτρον – “ransom” in Mark 10:45 / Matt 20:28 occurs neither in Isa 52:13–53:12LXX nor in the words of institution over the chalice. Therefore, these intertextual connections are often questioned (cf. LUZ, Matthew 21–28, 381; BARTH, Tod Jesu, 58; KRAUS, “Jesaja 53 LXX”, 178–179; BLENKINSOPP, Opening, 174–178; KAZEN, “Sacrificial Interpretation”, 482–484). Dennis Smith attempts to bolster the argument for the ransom saying in Mark 10:45 / Matt 20:28 through a reference to early Jewish martyrological literature and proposes 4 Macc 6:29; 17:20–22 as the potential origin of the expression (SMITH, Symposium, 247–248; see also BARTH, Tod Jesu, 59–64). However, recent scholarship has determined that the book of 4 Maccabees was composed in the late first or early second century CE, thus rendering such a literary connection impossible (cf. VAN HENTEN, “Datierung”, 136–149). Support for the argument of a connection between Mark 14:24 and the Logion in 10:45 can, nevertheless, be adduced through the observation that Luke places the entire pericope of the ‘Dispute about Greatness’ (Luke 22:24–30) immediately behind his Last Supper scene (22:14–23). In doing so, Luke eliminates the term λύτρον – “ransom” and applies the topic of serving to the task of serving at table, thus creating a thematic link to the scene of the Washing of the Disciples’ Feet in John 13:1–20

372

Christian A. Eberhart

This brief survey of important aspects in the three synoptic Gospels relative to the Last Supper scene and the associated words of institution over the cup shows that, despite individual differences, the term διαθήκη – “covenant” belongs to all of them.35 An interesting question at this point is why Matthew and Luke, in their versions of the word of institution over the cup, made their respective choices when producing their Gospels; that is, why did Matthew adopt Mark’s version, only to add the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins”, while Luke went on a different route, choosing instead the alternate version that he knew from one of Paul’s letters as his basis? These different redactional choices are evidence for a certain inherent ambiguity in Mark’s version of the word of institution over the chalice. To explain this complex situation and further elucidate the meaning of the term διαθήκη, I shall now explore the origins and other aspects of the “covenant” concept in the HB / OT / LXX more broadly. Then, two particular covenants shall be explored in some detail: first, the covenant at Sinai in Exod 24 because it is the origin of τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης – “my blood of the covenant” (Mark 14:24 / Matt 26:28), and second, the “new covenant” in Jer 31MT / 38LXX because the terminology in Luke 22:20 (as well as 1 Cor 11:24) alludes to it.36

(cf. WISCHMEYER, “Herrschen”, 30, 34; HELLHOLM, “Aliments”, 1894). If Luke sees a connection between these passages, then it is conceivable that it is also present in his Markan Vorlage. 35 The term is featured in the generally accepted text of Mark 14:24, Matt 26:28, and Luke 22:20; there is no text-critical argument contra. Furthermore, regarding the authenticity of the covenant motif in these passages, Knut Backhaus comments that “… all strata of tradition witness to the covenant motif (Mark 14:24 par. Matt 26:28; 1 Cor 11:25; Luke 22:20), thereby meeting the criterion of dissimilarity, since the early church does not reveal any specific interest in covenant theology until Hebrews” (BACKHAUS, “Covenant”, 909; similar KUTSCH, “Bund”, 407; FELDMEIER/SPIECKERMANN, Gott, 459; skeptical: SCHRÖTER, Abendmahl, 133). More broadly, the authenticity of the words of institution as such is assumed by, e.g., SMITH, “Last Supper”, 836; LÖHR, “Entstehung”, 55–56; see also SCHNELLE, First One Hundred Years, 122. Either assessment is not mitigated by the acknowledgement that all versions of the words of institution have been shaped through liturgical usage (cf. LICHTENBERGER, “Abendmahlsüberlieferung”, 219). 36 For that purpose, it must be mentioned that Scripture quotations and allusions in early Christian texts typically refer to the Septuagint (in its variety of versions), which was the Bible of the early Christians. The project of the Greek translation of the HB / OT started in ca. 250 BCE in the Egyptian diaspora, with centers in Alexandria and Leontopolis. The Jewish community there was Hellenized, with a philosophical affinity to pre-Socratic thinkers, middle Platonism, and Stoic doctrines (cf. WILK, Bedeutung, 364–380; KRAUS, “Septuaginta”, 266–290).

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

373

2. Origins: “Covenant” in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament / Septuagint 2.1 General Considerations on “Covenant” The covenant terminology in the synoptic Gospels has its origins in the HB / OT, more specifically in the LXX, as the usage in Zechariah’s benediction demonstrates (Luke 1:72–73, see above). When exploring this topic, an important question is whether the paradigm also comprises kinship or adoption terminology or covenant formulas besides the term ‫ ברית‬/ διαθήκη. Moreover, literary forms such as oaths or curses and distinct legal or religious rituals of selection or ratification could also be considered.37 But every exploration of the topic of “covenant” in the HB / OT / LXX is faced with an interesting problem: The HB / OT / LXX features not only a number of successive covenants, but even of covenants called “eternal”. The Torah, the constitutive scriptures of Second Temple Judaism, relates stories of various patriarchs, for example Noah. When God warns Noah about the flood, advises him that it will “make an end of all flesh” (Gen 6:13), and instructs him to build the ark, God also announces the establishment of “my covenant (‫ברית‬ / διαθήκη) with you” (6:18). After the flood is over and Noah offers burnt offerings “of every clean animal and of every clean bird” (8:20), God blesses Noah’s family. The following words belong to God’s promise of the “eternal covenant” (9:8–17); the rainbow is its covenantal sign (9:17). Gen 9:16: ‫והיתה הקשׁת בענן‬ ‫וראיתיה‬ ‫לזכר ברית עולם‬ ‫בין אלהים‬ ‫ובין כל־נפשׁ חיה בכל־בשׂר‬ ‫אשׁר על־הארץ׃‬

“When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it to remember the eternal covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”

37 Cf., e.g., MCKENZIE, Covenant, 15. In the HB / OT, the notion of selection is sometimes seen as belonging to the theme of “covenant”; cf. BEGRICH, “Berit”, 7. The socalled covenant formula “I will be your God and you will be my people” (e.g., Jer 7:23; 11:4) and other allusions to mutuality and fellowship may also be seen as belonging to the paradigm (cf. RENDTORFF, Bundesformel; KOCH, “Entstehung”, 255; RÜTERSWÖRDEN, “Bundestheologie”). The introductory chapters of the book of Hosea famously feature the term ‫ ברית‬/ διαθήκη (Hos 2:20 [2:18ET]) and related imagery of marital and family bonds about the prophet’s ambiguous personal relations with Gomer bat Diblaim, the “woman of harlotry”, and his “children of harlotry” as the matrix for problematizing Israel’s religious and political situation (Hos 1–3; cf. OEMING, “‘Zeit der Liebe’”, 151–160). While many of these criteria remain solely textual or narrative, Menahem Haran encouraged the recognition of “covenant” by ritual or ceremonial aspects such as solemn declarations, expression of consent, and the presence or presentation of witnesses; he also suggested that the divine presence would guarantee that a covenant would be obeyed (HARAN, Berît, 203–219).

374

Christian A. Eberhart

καὶ ἔσται τὸ τόξον μου ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ, καὶ ὄψομαι + τοῦ μνησθῆναι διαθήκην αἰώνιον ἀνὰ μέσον [ἐμοῦ] καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον πάσης ψυχῆς ζώσης ἐν πάσῃ σαρκί, ἥ ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

“When the bow is in the clouds, and I will see + and remember the eternal covenant between me and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”38

This promise of God is the first covenant and the first “eternal covenant” that is mentioned in the canonical order of HB / OT / LXX texts. Comprehensive in scope, it extends to Noah, the future generations of his family, and all lifeforms on earth. As it is impossible for the latter to respond in any fashion or agree to a condition so as to keep the covenant, it is entirely unilateral.39 It is about God’s promise to never again destroy life.40 Soon the story of Abram, the next patriarch, follows. Abram has a beautiful wife and material wealth but lacks offspring. In this crisis situation, God appears to Abram in a vision and promises him descendants. In addition, God requests that Abram cut various animals in half and arrange them opposite each other (Gen 15:9–11). Later when it is dark, “a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces” (15:17). In this way, YHWH makes a covenant with Abram, assuring him of land allotments to the descendants (15:18–21).41 More than that, when Abram is 99 years old, another covenant is made, again with the promise of exceedingly numerous offspring (Gen 17). The covenantal sign is circumcision, and it is accompanied by name changes (“Abraham” and “Sarah”); this

38

Differences between MT and LXX here and below are indicated through […] in the Hebrew text and italics in the English translation. 39 Chapter 9 contains God’s blessing of Noah and his sons. This blessing is accompanied by the advice to procreate and, in addition, by general regulations about respect of life, including vegetarian nutrition, and the prohibitions of “eating blood” and shedding it (Gen 9:1–7). As such, these regulations take into account the reality of violence in the world after the deluge. In Judaism, these rules are commonly known as the ‫“( שבע מצוות בני נח‬Seven Laws of Noah’s Sons”) or the Noahide Laws (and extended to include, for instance, the prohibition of idol worship). Despite these regulations, the covenant between God and Noah and “every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth” is not presented as dependent on them (cf. GERTZ, Genesis, 278). It is a gift from God and a unilateral promise. 40 The text passage is commonly considered to belong to P (cf. GROSS, Zukunft, 51; NEEF, “Aspekte”, 18‒19; GERTZ, Genesis, 276–285). The Rabbis debate the exact meaning of the textual detail that the divine promise is a 1st singular proclamation speaking of an “eternal covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh” (Gen 9:16). Rashi opines that ‫ אלהים‬does not refer to God but to the divine aspect of justice. Kimhi disagrees and explains that it is precisely in response to human wickedness “that the Holy one will ‘remember’ and refrain from destroying them”. He also interprets the repeated mention of the sign of the covenant as a reassurance of the “absolutely unconditional promise.” Nahmanides likewise explicitly rejects Rashi’s interpretation (cf. CARASIK, Genesis, 90). 41 For the interpretation of the covenant ritual in Gen 15, see below.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

375

covenant is also called “eternal covenant” (17:7–8).42 Centuries later in the narrated history of the Torah, an “eternal covenant” is also mentioned not once but twice in the Sinai pericope (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10). The first is made with Israel (Exod 31:16) and specifies Sabbath observance (31:12–17), which must be considered a significant covenantal obligation and, as such, prone to be transgressed.43 The second is about the preparation of the showbread for the Tabernacle sanctuary and its placement there, together with pure frankincense, on every Sabbath (Lev 24:8).44 Relative to these “eternal covenants” with Noah, Abram, and Israel, therefore, one may ask about the meaning of the attribute “eternal” and how these covenants relate to each other.45 But there is also the observation that ‫ ברית‬/ διαθήκη as such is a frequent term in the five books of the Torah. Not only do they mention thirteen times that a covenant ‫ ברית‬is made (literally “cut”, ‫כרת‬, which is the preferred term in the literature of the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic school46) between God and Abram, Moses, and Israel (Gen 15:18; Exod 24:8; 34:10, 27; Deut 4:23; 5:2–3; 9:9; 28:69; 29:11, 13, 24; 31:16). There are also no less than 82 occurrences of the term ‫ ברית‬/ διαθήκη

42

Jakob Wöhrle argues that the law of circumcision (Gen 17:9–14) is a late-Priestly addition that conveys Abraham’s personal acquirement of the covenant. It is a promise of assurance directed at the postexilic Jewish diaspora community in the multi-ethnic Persian empire (cf. WÖHRLE, Fremdling, 45–50; IDEM, “Nations”, 26). 43 Cf. SCHÜLE, “Covenant”, 41–58. 44 See also the two related expressions ‫“ מלח ברית אלהיך‬salt of the covenant with your God” / ἅλς διαθήκης κυρίου “salt of the covenant with the Lord” (Lev 2:13) and ‫ברית מלח‬ ‫ עולם‬/ διαθήκη ἁλὸς αἰωνίου – “covenant of salt forever” (Num 18:19) in the context of sacrificial rituals, where it was a required ingredient for all types of sacrifice. On the one hand, salt enhanced the taste of food, and all sacrificial materials were comestible goods (cf. EBERHART, Studien, 70–71, 348–354; MARX, Systèmes sacrificiels, 221; EDERER, Begegnung, 480–483, 568). On the other hand, salt was already known in antiquity for its qualities as a food preservative (see Philo, Leg. 1:289; Theophylact. in Luc. 14:34). Therefore, it became a symbol for stability, including that of covenants (cf. MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16, 191–192; HIEKE, Levitikus 1–15, 195, 210–211). Already Targum Ps.-Jonathan acknowledges salt as such; Nahmanides agrees with Rashi that a covenant was already established with salt during the six days of creation. It may be added that salt is one of the natural treasures of Israel, both in antiquity and today. The Dead Sea is 25 percent salt by weight, and also modern Sodom has large sodium chloride (NaCl) and potassium chloride (KCl) deposits (see, e.g., the reference to “salt pits” in Zeph 2:9). Hence, Jews have traditionally been involved in salt trade and extraction since the 10th century (cf. KAPLAN, “Salt”, 709). 45 It is noteworthy that Sir 44:18 speaks of διαθῆκαι “covenants” in the plural when referencing Noah’s covenant in Gen 9:8–17. 46 Cf. GROSS, “Bundestheologie”, 40–41.

376

Christian A. Eberhart

in the Torah overall.47 How do these various covenants relate to each other and those labeled “eternal”? While it is correct that these covenants are different as they are made with different people and have different signs and contents, an important insight is that covenants need to be re-established with subsequent generations: “I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham ( ‫וזכרתי את־בריתי יעקוב ואף את־בריתי יצחק ואף את־בריתי‬ ‫ אברהם אזכר‬/ καὶ μνησθήσομαι [τῆς] διαθήκης Ιακωβ καὶ [τῆς] διαθήκης Ισαακ καὶ [τῆς] διαθήκης Αβρααμ μνησθήσομαι), and I will remember the land” (Lev 26:42; see also v. 45).48 Even the Mosaic covenant at Mt. Sinai is presented as being related to, and in a way a product of, God’s remembrance of the covenant with these patriarchs (Exod 2:23–24), which is immediately followed by the calling of Moses (3:1–12). Passages like these imply periodic renewal; the covenant of the fathers needs to be re-actualized and lives on in newer covenantal manifestations.49 There is, of course, the serious problem that the covenant may be “broken” (‫ פרר‬/ διασκεδάννυμι, Gen 17:14; Lev 26:15; Deut 31:16, 20, etc.). That is dramatically conveyed in the narrative of Moses who descends from Mt. Sinai with the two stone tablets of the covenantal law, engraved recto verso by the finger of God (Exod 31:18; 32:15–16). However, when seeing the Israelites dancing around the golden calf to worship it, Moses “threw the tablets from his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain” (32:19). The golden calf (or a young bull or ox; see Ps 106:19–20) was a representation of Israel’s God and, although intended for YHWH worship (Exod 32:5), a direct violation of the Decalogue (particularly 20:4).50 Israel has broken God’s commandment! Yet through the passionate intercession of Moses (32:30–34:28), God changes the plan to destroy the Israelites, affirms the divine proclivity to mercy and forgiveness, and eventually “cuts” another covenant (Exod 34:10; see also Deut 9:8–21). Covenant is, therefore, no reciprocal concept; Israel may fail to fulfill the obligations towards God, but

47

See the contribution of Thomas Hieke; furthermore CARR, Writing, 11; ELLMAN, Memory, 22–25. In addition, there are passages about the prohibition of “cutting” covenants with other Canaanite peoples and their gods (e.g., Exod 23:32). 48 Cf. GROSS, “Neuer Bund?” 53–54; HIEKE, “Covenant”, 81–82. The chapter Lev 26 alone has eight occurrences of the term “covenant”; this is in contrast to another two occurrences of the term in the rest of Leviticus. It likely indicates the redactional character of Lev 26. Many scholars agree that its date is postexilic (cf. BAUTCH, Glory, 54–55; HIEKE, Levitikus 16–27, 1059). 49 The passage in Luke 1:72 shows that this view of covenantal concepts still prevailed in early Christianity. 50 Cf. MEYERS, Exodus, 258–260; PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 552; SCHMIDT, “Dekalog”, 587.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

377

God will nevertheless keep and guarantee it unilaterally.51 Analogous observations apply to the book of Jubilees that is distinctly focused on covenant, in particular the renewal of the covenant at Sinai during the Festival of Weeks (Jub. 6:17). William K. Gilders notes that this covenant “can be violated by Israel – but it cannot be permanently broken, since God will remain faithful to the relationship (Jub. 1:5, 6, 18)”.52 The “eternal covenant” is assured through the unilateral commitment of God alone. 2.2 The “Blood of the Covenant” in Exodus 24 To further investigate the origins of τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης – “my blood of the covenant” in Mark 14:24 / Matt 26:28, let us now turn to the covenants at Mt. Sinai with specific attention to its version in Exod 24. I will start with a brief overview of a recent trend in HB / OT / LXX scholarship according to which most of its texts were composed or redacted during the Persian and Hellenistic periods. That trend is accompanied by relevant claims about covenant theology, described as the climactic stage of certain redactional layers in the Pentateuch. According to this new perspective, HB / OT narratives about ancient Israel are rather literature of early stages of Second Temple Judaism.53 The beginning of the HB / OT is to be located as ancient Israel comes to an end at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Christoph Levin, for instance, coined the memorable phrase: “Das Alte Testament beginnt, wo das Alte Israel endet.”54 This hypothesis provides clues about the dating of P to the second 51 See again the contribution of Thomas Hieke, who proposes to correlate this stage in the development of the history of the covenant concept with Israel’s experience of surviving the catastrophe of the Babylonian exile (ca. 586–539 BCE). Richard J. Bautch apprehends it as “… a response to the unthinkable destruction and human loss experienced in the exile” (BAUTCH, “Covenant”, 172); Isaac Kalimi as a response to the ongoing existential Angst of annihilation (KALIMI, “Furcht vor Vernichtung”, 339–355). That assessment would provide a clue to date it to the Persian period (cf. also HIEKE, “Covenant”, 76, 81–82; KRAUSE, Bedingungen, 108; GROSS, “Bundestheologie”, 54–59). Recent scholarship has introduced the phrase “Individualisierung des Bundesbruchs” to articulate this characteristic unilateral design of covenantal theology. It is based on the observation that God’s covenant is given to all of Israel, but breaking it by, for instance, failing to follow certain covenantal regulations (such as circumcision) remains an individual problem that cannot endanger the divine commitment to the collective (cf. STIPP, “Meinen Bund”, 290–304; KRAUSE, “Individualisierung des Bundesbruchs?” 194–204; GROSS, “Individualisierung”, 69–86; IDEM, “Bundestheologie”, 42–44; see also NIHAN, “Priestly Covenant”, 126). 52 GILDERS, “Covenant”, 913. Cf. also BAUTCH, “Covenant”, 174; see also the contribution of Matthias Henze in this volume. 53 For a different opinion of older HB / OT research, see MARTIN-ACHARD, “Signification de l’alliance”, 102. 54 LEVIN, Alte Testament, 21. For Levin, the book of Jeremiah is the beginning of covenant theology (particularly ch. 6). Only since the time of the exile did the first commandment become relevant: “you shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:3).

378

Christian A. Eberhart

half of the fifth century since P knows Ezekiel. With its focus on the establishment of the Jerusalem temple, P is the youngest redaction of the HB / OT.55 Levin recognizes five organizing structures (“Ordnungsreihen”) in P – and this has to do with covenant. The first four organizing structures are the “superscription system”,56 the closely related topographical scheme,57 the chronological presentation of the history of salvation,58 and the periodization of divine revelation.59 The most important one, however, is the covenant promise (“Bundesverheißung”) found in key passages of the history of the patriarchs (covenant with Noah, Gen 9:9, 11; with Abram, 17:6–8), the covenant after the exodus from Egypt (Exod 6:2–8), and finally the climax of all P covenants, the covenant at Sinai that prefaces the commandment to build the sanctuary (Exod 25–29). It is grounded in and explicates the eternal “covenant of peace” of Ezek 37:26–27 about God’s sanctuary amidst the Israelites.60 Thus for Levin, “covenant” is one of the most important elements in the theology of P. The progression between the different covenants and their interrelatedness to the narrated history in P corresponds in a way to the proposal that the person of Abram / Abraham is a prefiguration or embodiment of covenant theology in the Torah.61 With these elements, the theological program of P points to the future of Second Temple Judaism and beyond. The climactic covenant in the HB / OT was, therefore, the one at Mt. Sinai, and Israel’s God is known by this location.62 Yet an interesting problem arises

Deuteronomistic covenant theology thus developed out of prophetic proclamation and received its creative impulse from there (LEVIN, Alte Testament, 60; cf. also PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 57). See, moreover, the similar concept in MCKENZIE, Covenant, 17, etc. 55 LEVIN, Alte Testament, 74. See also recent proposals that date the Covenant Code with its law ceremony to the post-monarchic period (cf. KOCH, Vertrag, 317; OSWALD, “Correlating”, 64). 56 “Überschriftensystem”; it features the stereotypical phase “these are the generations of …” (Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Cf. LEVIN, Alte Testament, 75–76. 57 “Topographisches Schema”; it is about patriarchs moving away from the Promised Land (Gen 36:1, 6–8; 31:1). Cf. LEVIN, Alte Testament, 76. 58 “Chronologie”; the chronological presentation of the history of salvation provides an overarching frame that connects the creation era to the present. Cf. LEVIN, Alte Testament, 76. 59 The periodization of divine revelation is about God’s gradual self-revelation (earlier as ‫אלהים‬, later as ‫ אל שׁדי ;יהוה‬between both; cf. LEVIN, Alte Testament, 76–77. 60 LEVIN, Alte Testament, 77–78 (cf. also the concise summary in DE ANGELO CUNHA, “Alte Testament”, passim). William W. Hallo likewise views the covenant and further events at Mt. Sinai as the climax of the book of Exodus (cf. HALLO, Book of the People, 55). 61 See the contribution of Thomas Hieke in this volume. Cf. also BAUTCH, “Covenant”, 172: “The Priestly writer drew attention to Abraham as the conduit for covenantal thinking in the Second Temple period”. 62 The “Song of Deborah” featuring the line “the mountains quaked before YHWH, the one of Sinai, before YHWH, the God of Israel”, Judg 5:5. This song is often considered as

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

379

for any study of the Sinai covenant that we have, mutatis mutandis, already encountered above: there is a succession of multiple such covenants in the Torah! After the exodus from Egypt, a first reference to a “covenant” is found immediately upon the arrival of the Israelites at Mt. Sinai.63 Moses mentions that keeping the covenant and obeying God’s commandments will bring rewards and render Israel “a priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6). After elaborate consecration rituals and activities (19:10–25), God descends upon the top of Mt. Sinai to give Israel the Ten Commandments (20:1–21) and the legal texts of the so-called ‘Covenant Code’ (20:22–23:33).64 After that, a complex covenant ceremony follows, again with promises of obedience, a blood rite, and the ascension of Moses and Aaron and a group of other Israelites upon Mt. Sinai (Exod 24:1–11).65 Surprisingly, it is immediately succeeded by another request of God that Moses may climb up the mountain to receive stone tablets inscribed with the law and the commandments (24:12–18). This scene prefaces God’s revelation, on top of Mt. Sinai, of the layout of Israel’s new tabernacle sanctuary, its appurtenances, and other related matters (Exod 25– 31). Its various details do not need to be listed here; suffice it to say that its precise description of the tabernacle proceeds from the inside to the outside,66 starting with the “ark of the covenant” inside the Holy of Holies (25:10–22).67 one of the oldest, if not the oldest, single text passages in the HB / OT; cf. NIEHR, “Richter”, 141–142; MCKENZIE, Covenant, 12; BAUKS, Theologie, 292. 63 The arrival at Mt. Sinai is not just any stop on the way but marks the first time that the people of Israel are “with God” (cf. RENDTORFF, Theologie, 48). In terms of the narrated history in the Torah, Israel’s stay at Mt. Sinai (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10) constitutes one of the largest continuous text paragraphs in the HB / OT / LXX. 64 This collection of legal texts is alternatively called ‘Covenant Collection’ since the word ‘code’ may be seen as setting forth specific terms of the covenants mentioned before and after. But that is not the case. Instead, the collected legal texts contain, for instance, community ordinances, rules, statutes, and exhortations. Its extent is debated and sometimes limited to 20:22–23:19 (cf. MEYERS, Exodus, 179–188). 65 This passage will be discussed in detail further below. 66 Cf. MEYERS, Exodus, 223–253. 67 In Exod 25:22 and elsewhere in P, the Hebrew term for the ark, the key object of the portable tabernacle sanctuary and Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, is ‫“ – ארון העדות‬ark of the testimony” (also in Exod 26:33–34; 30:26; 40:3, 5; Num 4:5; 7:89; Jos 4:16, etc.), rendered in Greek as κιβωτὸς τοῦ μαρτυρίου – “chest of the testimony” (e.g., Exod 25:9, 21LXX; cf. SCHAPER, Exodos, 310). In the book of Deuteronomy, in literature of the Deuteronomistic school and elsewhere, however, this object is commonly called ‫ארון הברית‬ – “ark of the covenant”, often with additions “of YHWH” (Deut 10:8; 31:9, 25; Jos 4:7, 18; 6:8; 8:33; Jer 3:16, etc.), “of God” (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 15:24; 1 Chr 16:6, etc.). The LXX typically translates κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης – “ark of the covenant”. The extended phrase ‫ארון‬ ‫“ – הברית יהוה צבאות ישׁב הכרבים‬ark of the covenant of YHWH, the Lord of hosts enthroned upon the cherubim” (1 Sam 4:4; see also Exod 25:21–22; Num 7:89) indicates why the ark is central; it is the very location of the presence of Israel’s God. Therefore, the entire tabernacle, usually known as ‫“ – אהל מועד‬tent of meeting”, could also be called ‫– אהל העדות‬

380

Christian A. Eberhart

Upon the descent of Moses, the literal “breaking” of the two stone tablets with the words of the Decalogue follows in response to the incident with the golden calf (32:19). Moses’ appeals and intercessions on behalf of Israel lead to yet another covenant (34:10); Moses returns to the people with a radiant face. While all of these covenants succeed one another in the book of Exodus, the book of Deuteronomy recapitulates some of them while calling the mountain “Horeb”. It mentions God’s “covenant” consisting of the Decalogue that Israel had been charged to observe, engraved on the stone tablets (Deut 4:13, 23; 5:1– 21). The recapitulation is accompanied by comments that God intended to make the covenant with the current generation, not with the previous one.68 Not sparing the painful parts, it also recounts the golden calf episode (Deut 9:8– 21). Finally, further divine prohibitions and promises are reinforced as “words of the covenant” (29:1), but they are promulgated in the land of Moab (28:69; 29:11, 13, 24; 31:16). Hence the Torah features a variety of covenants that God established with Israel at Mt. Sinai alone. They cannot all be explored here; the endeavor of systematizing them would indeed be challenging.69

“tent of the testimony” (Num 9:15; 17:22, 23; 18:2; see also 2 Chr 24:6). The LXX renders ‫ אהל העדות‬as σκηνή τοῦ μαρτυρίου – “tent of the testimony”; however, this translation is also its choice for ‫( אהל מועד‬Exod 40:2, 6; Lev 1:1, 3; 3:2, etc.) and for ‫“ – משׁכן‬sanctuary” (Exod 40:5). Hence, in the LXX the entire portable sanctuary of Israel is known in correlation to terminology relative to “testimony / covenant” (cf. MEYERS, Exodus, 223; PERKINS, “People and Covenant”, 441). This observation conveys an important connection between covenant terminology and the aspect of encounter with God, which happens at the sanctuary. After the exile, however, the ark is never mentioned in connection with Zerubbabel’s Temple, dedicated in 515 BCE (Ezra 1–6; Hag 1–2); later, it is reported that the Holy of Holies was empty (Josephus, J.W. 5:219; Tacitus, Hist. 5:9). It is possible that the ark was lost, perhaps in 586 BCE during the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple (2 Kings 25:8–17; Jer 52:1–27; b.Yoma 53b; y.Sheq. 6:1:2). It has, moreover, been conjectured that it did not fall victim to external assault but to internal religious conflicts when Manasseh, king of Judah from 687 to 642 BCE and considered the greatest of apostates by the Deuteronomistic historiographer (2 Kings 21), might have replaced it with an Asherah image (cf. HARAN, Temples, 276–288; DAY, “Ark of the Covenant”, 256). Either way, however, the ark would have been missing from actual religious practice in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period and the time of the Deuteronomistic redactional work. 68 Cf. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11, 239. 69 See Christian Frevel’s cautionary note, “dass es eine alle Aspekte umfassende synchrone Bundestheologie nicht gibt. Lässt sich schon das komplexe Verhältnis von Sinaibünden (Ex 24,8; 34,10.27), Horebbund und Moabbund nicht einfach und leicht in einer synchronen Bundestheologie bestimmen, so verkompliziert sich die Lage noch erheblich, wenn man die übrigen Bundesschlüsse auch nur annährend mit einbezieht” (FREVEL, “Mose”, 111–112, italics in the original). Understandably, from a diachronic perspective, the multitude of covenants at Sinai has led to an equal multitude of attempts to assign them to different sources.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

381

For this essay, it is sufficient to focus on one ritual covenant ceremony, namely the one narrated in Exod 24:1–11. The text is structured as follows:70 24:1–2 24:3–8

24:9–11

Introduction: Moses and the Israelites get permission to climb up Mt. Sinai. Blood rites and covenant: proclamation of “words” and “laws”, the people agree to be obedient; Moses builds an altar, sets up twelve pillars; sacrifices are performed, Moses dashes half of the blood against the altar; reading from the “book of the covenant” followed by tossing sacrificial blood, called “blood of the covenant”, onto the people. Execution of order in 24:1–2: Moses and other Israelites climb up Mt. Sinai, see God, eat and drink.

Literary critics commonly suggest that these different text sections did not originally belong together. In particular, God’s directive that Moses “and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel” should climb up the mountain to “worship at a distance” (Exod 24:1) is only carried out in 24:9– 11. A close reading of 24:1–2 in correlation to v. 9–11, however, reveals that these passages do not seamlessly fit together either.71 Thus, the introduction 24:1–2 is probably secondary. Finally, there is also the difficult connection between Exod 24:9–11 and v. 12–18 featuring yet another ascent to the top of Mt. Sinai, but with different groups of people. These observations suggest that the whole of chapter 24 combines diverse redactional layers. Only the passage Exod 24:3–8 mentions the preparation and execution of a bipartite covenant ritual.72 Moses is its main actor; in fact, he is the subject of every sentence in this paragraph (with the exception of 24:7b).73 Preparations for the actual ritual are mentioned explicitly, yet briefly: Moses communicates God’s words and decrees to the Israelites who vow their obedience (v. 3). Then 70

For detailed summaries of this narrative, see, e.g., WILLI-PLEIN, Opfer, 65–67; GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 37–39; GRAUPNER, “Frage”, 136–141. 71 In Exod 24:1–2, the name of God is “YHWH” (‫ )יהוה‬/ “the Lord” (κύριος), yet 24:9–11 speaks of “the God of Israel” (‫ אלהי ישׂראל‬/ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ισραηλ) and “God” (‫ האלהים‬/ ὁ θεός). Second, in 24:1b, Moses and his escorts are asked to worship God on the mountain top and remain at a distance. But 24:9–11 does not relate any genuine worship activity; instead, the people eat and drink during the visio dei (according to MT; 24:9–11LXX features a rather different reading and de facto eliminates the visio dei, however still without any worship activities of the people). Third, the restriction according to 24:2 that Moses should approach God alone is nowhere manifest in 24:9–11. All of these observations lead to the conclusion that the introduction is a later addition (cf. GRAUPNER, “Frage”, 137–138). Inconsistencies can also be detected between the literary units Exod 24:1–11 and v. 12–18, for example regarding the names of the actants or the question whether Moses (v. 4) or God (v. 12) wrote down the divine words (cf. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 147). 72 The text unit Exod 24:3–8 may be an insertion from the hand of the Deuteronomistic redactor. But it has been suggested that, because of internal inconsistencies, even these sentences may belong to two different literary strata (cf. PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 191– 193; GRAUPNER, “Frage”, 138–139; also SCHMIDT, “Dekalog”, 590–593). 73 Cf. MEYERS, Exodus, 208; SCHMIDT, “Dekalog”, 591.

382

Christian A. Eberhart

Moses writes these words down – the terminology may suggest that the “words” are the Decalogue (20:1–17) and the “decrees” are the ‘Covenant Code’ (20:22–23:33).74 Then Moses “builds” an altar and twelve sacred stone pillars (‫ ושׁתים עשׂרה מצבה‬/ καὶ δώδεκα λίθους) that represent the twelve tribes of Israel (24:4).75 He chooses young men “who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed oxen as offerings of well-being to Yhwh / the Lord” ( ‫ויעלו עלת ויזבחו‬ ‫ זבחים שׁלמים ליהוה פרים‬/ καὶ ἀνήνεγκαν ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ ἔθυσαν θυσίαν σωτηρίου τῷ θεῷ μοσχάρια, 24:5).76 Now the covenant ritual proper follows. The reading from the book and the oath of obedience are sandwiched between blood rites in two stages: Exod 24:6–8MT: ‫ויקח משׁה חצי הדם‬ ‫וישׂם באגנת‬ ‫וחצי הדם‬ ‫זרק על־המזבח׃‬ ‫ויקח ספר הברית‬ ‫ויקרא באזני העם‬ ‫ויאמרו‬ ‫כל אשׁר־דבר יהוה‬ ‫נעשׂה ונשׁמע׃‬ ‫ויקח משׁה את־הדם‬ ‫ויזרק על־העם ויאמר‬ ‫הנה דם־הברית‬ ‫אשׁר כרת יהוה עמכם‬ ‫על כל־הדברים האלה׃‬

74

Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and half of the blood he dashed against the altar. Then he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said: “All that Yhwh has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” Moses took the blood and dashed it on the people, and said: “See the blood of the covenant that Yhwh has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

Cf. GRAUPNER, “Frage”, 140; LEVIN, “Entstehung”, 256; also ALBERTZ, Exodus, 139. Critical of such an interpretation is DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 200. 75 The terminology is surprising; an altar can be “built”, but a sacred stone pillar (‫)מצבה‬ can only be “set up” or “erected” (Gen 35:14, 20; Lev 26:1; Deut 16,22). Furthermore, Exod 24:4LXX avoids the standard equivalent of ‫מצבה‬, which is στήλη (likewise Samaritanus: ‫)אבנים‬. The reason is probably the prohibition of setting up these sacred stone pillars in Deut 16:22 (cf. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 139; GRAUPNER, “Frage”, 139; SCHAPER, Exodos, 308). 76 This is an interesting and partially unprepared combination of two types of sacrifice. While previously the burnt offering has been mentioned repeatedly in the Torah (e.g., Gen 8:20–21; 22:2–3, 6–8; Exod 10:25; 18:12), an offering of well-being was mentioned only once, alongside the burnt offering, in the altar law (Exod 20:22–26). Detailed descriptions of the complete rituals of these two types of sacrifice will only be revealed in the future (Lev 1; 3). It may be noted that with this sacrificial ceremony, the purpose of Moses’ request in front of Pharaoh to release the Israelites “… that they may celebrate (‫ חגג‬/ ἑορτάζω) to me in the wilderness” (Exod 5:1; see also 7:16; 10:25–26) has been obtained. However, there is a total of three episodes involving sacrificial worship ‘in the wilderness’ (Exod 18:12: celebration with Jethro; 24:1–11; 32:1–10: worship of the golden calf), so that the exact connection to one of them is a matter of scholarly dispute (cf. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 295; SCHMIDT, “Dekalog”, 590–591; DAVIES, Exodus 1–18, 388–390).

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

383

Exod 24:6–8LXX: λαβὼν δὲ Μωυσῆς τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ αἵματος [ἐνέχεεν] εἰς κρατῆρας, τὸ δὲ ἥμισυ τοῦ αἵματος προσέχεεν πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον. καὶ λαβὼν τὸ βιβλίον τῆς διαθήκης ἀνέγνω εἰς τὰ ὦτα τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ εἶπαν Πάντα, ὅσα ἐλάλησεν κύριος, ποιήσομεν καὶ [ἀκουσόμεθα]. λαβὼν δὲ Μωυσῆς τὸ αἷμα κατεσκέδασεν τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ εἶπεν Ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης, ἧς διέθετο κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων τῶν λόγων τούτων.

Moses took half of the blood and poured it into bowls, and half of the blood he poured against the altar. Then he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said: “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will listen.” Moses took the blood and dashed it on the people, and said: “See the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

This unique covenant ritual has long puzzled scholars. Jean-Louis Ska rightfully calls the passage “l’une des plus compliquées de tout le Pentateuque.”77 I will not be able to solve all the riddles surrounding it, but would like to make some suggestions in conversation with its ancient and (post-)modern attentive readers. Its complex structure has often been explained through source-critical and form-critical analyses.78 As for a broad assessment of chapter 24 in the larger context of the Sinai pericope, it may be said that it “serves transitional

77 SKA, Introduction, 303; cf. also HAHN, “Current Research”, 276; GRAUPNER, “Frage”, 136. See, however, the different interpretation of the composition of the book of Exodus, including its chapter 24, by William W. Hallo: “The consummate artist who was author or redactor of Exodus began with the genealogy of the sons of Jacob (1:1–7; cf. 6:14–26) and the biography of the children of Amram; he chronicled the climactic succession of events which led from oppression to freedom; and he will yet provide a legislative code to ensure that the new freedom be shared and respected for all future time. But now, in the middle of the book, he weaves together all these strands – biographical, historical, legislative – to create a true crescendo in the events at Mount Sinai” (HALLO, Book of the People, 55; for similar views on other aspects of the narrative of the Sinai, cf. PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 169, etc.). 78 Traditional source criticism assigned the verses of the passage to J, E, RJE, or JE, and sometimes to P (cf. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 148; OSWALD, “Lawgiving”, 175–191; GRAUPNER, “Frage”, 143–144; DAVIES, Exodus 1–18, 72–116). However, the characteristic unanimity in the endeavor of source allocation prompts some scholars to wonder whether it is the result of a lottery (cf. PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 181; WILLI-PLEIN, Opfer, 64; cf. also PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 141; AURELIUS, “Bundestheologie”, 358–362). More recently, the passage about the covenant ritual (usually Exod 24:4b–6) has been considered to belong to the Deuteronomistic redactional layer (cf. MCKENZIE, Covenant, 19–21; BLENKINSOPP, “Structure”, 109–125; WILLI-PLEIN, Opfer, 66; NEEF, “Aspekte”, 12–13).

384

Christian A. Eberhart

purposes.”79 Its brevity together with the variety of inconsistencies and contradictions between its structural elements show that it was not the focus of the ancient redactor of the final narrative, who pieced it together in an almost careless fashion.80 The focus of the overarching narrative is not the various activities and rituals in this chapter per se, but the legal materials preceding it and the vision of the sanctuary immediately following it, structured so carefully and covering the next 15 chapters. The covenantal matrix serves to connect these blocks of text traditions and support them.81 The template for this “vertical” covenant between humans and God is found in the horizontal, secular sphere. First, the acceptance of the “words” and “decrees” happens by consensual approval of “(all) the people” (Exod 24:3, 7). They are not represented by a king, as should be expected in a traditional ANE setting. Instead, “… the law book is passed by the people. … This means the narrative does not adopt a concept from the ancient Near East; rather, it adopts a concept that is common in the Mediterranean world, (particularly in) … Greek citizen-states …”82 Second, there is nevertheless a close connection between law and covenant. The standard opinion in recent research is that Second Temple Judaism adopted the covenant concept from suzerainty treaty practices in the ancient Hittite empire and during the neo-Assyrian period.83 Although its etymology is still disputed, the term ‫ ברית‬is most likely derived from Akkadian birtu / bertu – “tie, shackle” or the Aramaic term adê, with Assyrian origins, meaning “work

79

MEYERS, Exodus, 205; DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 198: “Scharnierfunktion” (cf. also ibid., 206–207). Such an understanding seems to be correct. Exod 24 links the Covenant Code to P’s elaborate and – for most of it – carefully crafted description of Israel’s new sanctuary in Exod 25–31. The latter is so important that it is repeated – in inversed order of events – in 35–39 and again in 40! 80 For this evaluation, see particularly the combination of Exod 24:9–11 with v. 12–18, which will be discussed below. 81 Wolfgang Oswald argues that in Exod 18–24, “… the covenant motif has a reinforcing function. It is strictly connected to the basic event of law-giving. The covenant motif in the Mountain-of-God pericope is the expression not of an ubiquitous covenantal thinking but of a juridical device to deal better with the law” (OSWALD, “Correlating”, 62). One may only add that it is similarly a device to introduce the lengthy description of the new sanctuary thereafter. 82 Cf. OSWALD, “Correlating”, 63. Cf. also VAN SETERS, Live, 286; FELDMEIER/SPIECKERMANN, Gott, 447. The lack of any royal ideology characterizes the book of Deuteronomy as well; that is an argument against possible origins of these theological concepts in the monarchic period of Israel (as claimed by, e.g., OTTO, Deuteronomium, 72, etc.; cf. AURELIUS, Zukunft, 41; IDEM, “Bundestheologie”, 369). 83 Cf. PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 283–284, etc.; MARTIN-ACHARD, “Signification de l’alliance”, 91, 94–95; HALLO, Book of the People, 56, 59; MCKENZIE, Covenant, 17–18; KOCH, “Covenant”, 898–899; see also the contribution of Siegfried Kreuzer in this volume.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

385

assignment, duty”.84 Thus the term originally belongs to the highly-developed legal culture of the pre-Hellenistic ANE where it was mostly used to designate international contractual connections. A birtu / bertu or an adê or a ‫ ברית‬was a mutual diplomatic arrangement between different nations or between groups within a nation to cope with antagonism and avoid war for the purpose of obtaining structured order and establishing peace; associated values were reliability, loyalty, friendship, and honor as opposed to distrust, hate, and shame.85 Deities were customarily invoked as witnesses and guarantors of the treaties. In its religious usage in the HB / OT, a ‫ ברית‬offers the promise of God’s exclusive loyalty in light of the tragic and traumatic experience of exile while inviting the Israelites to obedience for the purpose of affirming their religious and cultural identity.86 Siegfried Kreuzer argues that this is a new stage in the development of the covenantal matrix as the role of God has changed from a treaty guarantor to a treaty party.87 However, the term ‫ ברית‬is also used in the private sphere to refer to marital and family bonds. The book of Hosea, for instance, famously features the prophet’s scandalous relation with Gomer bat Diblaim, the “woman of harlotry”; this ambiguous relation is used as the background to problematize Israel’s religious and political situation (Hos 1–3).88 Here, God’s forgiving love is, in the end, the factor that assures the stability of the relation.89 Often neglected in scholarly conceptualization, the Old Persian term bandaka likely influenced the notion of covenant in 4th / 3rd century BCE Yehud in a similar direction. The organizing principle behind Achaemenid imperial ideology was 84

Cf. WEINFELD, “‫”ברית‬, 783–784; KOCH, “Covenant”, 900–901; FELDMEIER/SPIECKERMANN, Gott, 447. For the older scholarly consensus, see ZIMMERLI, Grundriß, 39–40. See also the contribution of Poppy Tushingham in this volume. 85 Cf. OLYAN, “Honor”, 202–218; BAUTCH, “Broken Covenant”, 255–269. 86 Cf. PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 284; GERTZ, “Bund”, 1862; FELDMEIER/SPIECKERMANN, Gott, 446: “Yhwhs Treueschwur”. See also the conclusion by Carol J. Dempsey that in Psalms 103, 105, 106, and 132 “… the Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant, and the Davidic Covenant (…) became foundational to the development of Israel as a people and as a people living in relationship with their God. As poems reflective of either exilic or postexilic times, these four psalms call the people to remember their past and to be confident and comforted in their present reality … The appeal to ‘covenant’ becomes the blessed reminder that no matter where the people are or in what state or condition they find themselves, God will remember even when they do not remember; God will be faithful, even when they are not faithful; God will rescue, heal, and deliver despite their doubts” (DEMPSEY, “Psalms”, 336–337). 87 See the contribution of Siegfried Kreuzer in this volume. 88 Depending on the dating of the book of Hosea, these important aspects of the term ‫ברית‬ / διαθήκη are either attested before their Deuteronomistic usage or roughly at the same time period (cf. JEREMIAS, “Hosea”, 594; BEN ZVI, Hosea, 14). 89 Cf. OEMING, “‘Deine Zeit’”, 151–160; ROM-SHILONI, “Covenant”, 154–155, 161–171 (regarding the book of Jeremiah).

386

Christian A. Eberhart

the bandaka relationship that emphasized the social fabric of its vast multicultural empire. According to Christine Mitchell, “… the concept of covenant in biblical texts was reimagined in ways that aligned with Achaemenid ideology. The relationship becomes more personal, based on loyalty and reciprocity.”90 None of these types of relationships presuppose either equal status of the covenanting parties or the necessity of commensurate bilateral commitments. Instead, a sliding scale from bilateral to unilateral covenantal relations can be ascertained in pertinent text traditions.91 Hence, whether the term ‫ ברית‬has its origins in ancient inter- and transnational diplomacy or in the local / domestic realm of family and household settings, it consistently conveys the theme of relational bonds and, as such, is applicable in a variety of heterogeneous settings. In line with both referents, frequent key aspects are the establishment, conditions, durability, and also the end of such a relationship (sometimes under dramatic circumstances). These considerations result in the recommendation to translate ‫ ברית‬as “covenant” (or “bond”, German “Bund” / French “alliance”).92 The LXX usually renders ‫ ברית‬with διαθήκη. Both terms are not identical. The term διαθήκη designates a “testament” or “will” in Classical and Hellenistic Greek, articulating specifically the one-sidedness of a decree or act.93 By contrast, the common term for bilateral treaties and contracts between parties of somewhat equal status is συνθήκη – “agreement”. It occurs only once in the LXX: “But the ungodly by their words and deeds summoned death; considering him a friend, they pined away and made an agreement with him (ἐτάκησαν καὶ 90

MITCHELL, “Achaemenid Persian Concepts”, 305. Building on research by Manfred Oeming (OEMING, “‘See’”, 571–588), Christine Mitchell is conscious of the fact that the Achaemenid Empire had no need for treaties because, in its royal rhetoric, it extended over the entire earth. But its bandaka relationship for a ‘bondsman’ or ‘well-regarded ally of the Persian Empire’ had formative power nevertheless; etymologically, the English terms “bond” and “band” and the German “Bund” all derive from it (cf. MITCHELL, “Achaemenid Persian Concepts”, 291–306; cf. also OEMING, “‘See’”, 579; furthermore BAUTCH, Glory, 96–98, 116–122). 91 Despite a paucity of attestation in Chronicles, the occurrences of the term ‫ ברית‬/ διαθήκη show a general shift in its meaning from bilateral to unilateral responsibilities, although covenantal relations are usually between humans (cf. BODA, “Reenvisioning”, 391–407). 92 These terms were being used as translation of ‫ ברית‬until Ernst Kutsch questioned their appropriateness. He advocated for a rendering that, in his opinion, better captured the onesided nature of the resulting relationship, such as “disposition” (German “Verfügung” or “Setzung”; cf. KUTSCH, “berit – Verpflichtung”, 339‒352; IDEM, “Bund”, 397‒410). His proposal, however, has more recently been scrutinized and rejected as too one-sided (cf. LEVIN, Verheißung, 119‒122, 269; HERRMANN, “Fehlübersetzung”, 210‒220; NEEF, “Aspekte”, 1‒23; FELDMEIER/SPIECKERMANN, Gott, 451). 93 Cf. BEHM/QUELL, “διατίθημι”, 127–131; SWETNAM, “Diathēkē”, 440–441; MÜLLER, Entfaltung, 752; RÖSEL, “Übersetzung”, 170; PERKINS, “People and Covenant”, 439.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

387

συνθήκην ἔθεντο πρὸς αὐτόν) …” (Wis 1:16). If ‫ ברית‬were to signify a connection between equal parties, then συνθήκη would have been the preferred rendition. The preference of the translators of the LXX for διαθήκη is, however, not due to the fact that ‫ ברית‬categorically conveys a unilateral decree or disposition. It rather reflects the gradual shift in meaning under the influence of Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic covenantal theology with an emphasis on a gracious God, which it seeks to highlight. All things considered, an appropriate translation of διαθήκη is “covenant” or “covenantal decree” (German “Bundesverfügung” / “Bundessatzung”).94 In the unique covenant ritual of Exod 24:3–8, one of the most puzzling aspects is the sacrificial blood rite in v. 8.95 This has to do with the following three aspects:96 First, it is unique, and thus unusual, that Moses is said to have dashed half of the blood against the altar and, later, the other half “on the people” (24:6, 8a). Second, it is likewise unique that the blood is called “blood of the covenant (‫ דם־הברית‬/ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης) that YHWH has made with you in accordance with all these words” (24:8b); the expression “blood of the covenant” parallels the preceding term “book of the covenant” (‫ ספר הברית‬/ τὸ βιβλίον τῆς διαθήκης, 24:7). And third, the text passage does not contain any explicit remarks about the intended effect of the blood rite, other than calling it the “blood of the covenant”. With that, one can say that the blood rite is the sign of this covenant at Mt. Sinai, like circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:7–8). The covenant is now established. What information does the text Exod 24:3–8 contain about the significance or purpose of the rite or about its specific modus operandi? It has been commented that the narrative leaves its readers with an “uninterpreted ritual”.97 However, 94

See also the contribution of Martin Rösel in this volume. Similarly, Knut Backhaus strives to rediscover the relational aspects of the term διαθήκη. Countering earlier arguments that, in the 1st century CE, the term would have been exclusively understood as a juridical notion, he points out that a religious interpretation existed as well and that διαθήκη is being referenced according to its usage in the LXX, leading to rhetorical arguments based on the terminological ambivalence. While Backhaus recognizes that the spectrum of meanings of διαθήκη in the NT cannot be successfully covered by the one term “covenant” (“Bund”), he argues that the choice of an unfamiliar expression may not be a viable alternative either as it will not be understood appropriately. Hence he advocates against a terminological exchange and for a theological interpretation. Backhaus thus maintains that “covenant” (“Bund”) is an appropriate rendering of διαθήκη (BACKHAUS, Neue Bund, 34–35, 195, etc.). 95 Cf. WILLI-PLEIN, Opfer, 67; SARNA, Exodus, 152; RENDTORFF, Theologie, 53; DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 203; MEYER, Exodus, 205 (“The sacrifice itself involves a mysterious rite”); GILDER, Blood Ritual, 39–41, 90, etc. 96 Also the “oxen” (Exod 24:5) and the “bowls” (‫ אגנת‬/ κρητῆρα, 24:6) as containers for the blood are unusual and not mentioned in other sacrificial rituals (cf. DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 203). 97 Cf. GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 90. Cf. SARNA, Exodus, 152: “The significance of the sprinkling of the blood is never explained.”

388

Christian A. Eberhart

I would like to scrutinize this statement and suggest a differentiation. It is not entirely correct that the words of Moses in Exod 24:8, “See the blood of the covenant that YHWH has made with you in accordance with all these words” would “simply identify the blood. They do not identify the significance of what is done with it.”98 After all, this comment addresses an interpretive sentence in the source text about the ritual. The distinction I would like to introduce is this: What the text does indeed not elucidate is the specific modus operandi of the blood rite, that is to say, how it achieves its purpose. But the significance or purpose of the blood rite as such is (at least to some degree) conveyed in the interpretive words of Moses. They have to do with “covenant” in the sense of creating a bond, as mentioned above. That is an interpretation about the significance of the blood rite. However, the words “blood of the covenant” in this phrase are unique within the context of HB / OT / LXX ritual texts. Regulations or descriptions of sacrificial rituals in P and other priestly texts feature frequent interpretive comments about the atoning or purifying effect of such rites.99 But none of them features a formula similar to that in Exod 24:8. The uniqueness of the interpretive phrase is the actual challenge for its ancient and modern interpreters, not its absence. The lack of analogies has led to a spectrum of different comments and explanations through the ages, making the covenant ritual in Exod 24 and its idiosyncratic blood rite a veritable crux interpretum. Since the Rabbinic period, explanations belonging to at least four categories have been offered. The blood rite has, for instance, often been interpreted as effecting atonement and / or consecration. Targum Onkelos and Ps.-Jonathan both render Exod 24:8 as ‫“ – ונסיב משה ית דמא וזרק על מדבחא לכפרא על עמא‬Moses took the blood and sprinkled (it) on the altar as an atonement for the people.”100 In his comments on Exod 24, Rashi explicitly refers to Onkelos and quotes its text while Ibn Ezra adds the interpretive option that the blood rite effects consecration in

98

Cf. GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 42. For example, blood rites “atone” (‫ כפר‬/ ἐξιλάσκομαι, Exod 29:36–37; Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 9:7; 12:7–8; 15:15; 16:16–18, Num 15:25, 28; 28–29; Ezek 43:18–27; 45:18–27, etc.), “purify” (‫ חטא‬or ‫ טהר‬/ καθαρίζω, Exod 29:36–37; Lev 8:14–17; 12:6–8; 16:19, etc.), and / or “consecrate” (‫ קדשׁ‬/ ἁγιάζω, Exod 29:36–37; Lev 8:14–17; 16:19, etc.); in addition, blood rites or the entire ritual effect forgiveness (‫ נסלח‬/ ἀφεθήσεται … ἡ ἁμαρτία, Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35). In some of these rituals, sacrificial blood is also applied to humans (Exod 29:20–21; Lev 8:23–24; 14:14), even though that is never done with the blood of a burnt offering. 100 Cf. KAZEN, “Sacrificial Interpretation”, 487; PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 139; also LICHTENBERGER, “Abendmahlsüberlieferung”, 221. This interpretation of the blood rite in Exod 24:8 appears to apply the priestly rational in Lev 17:11 that atonement in the context of the sacrificial cult is achieved through blood, which is life: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar, because the blood makes atonement through the soul (‫ על־נפשׁתיכם כי־הדם הוא בנפשׁ יכפר‬/ ἐξιλάσκεσθαι περὶ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, τὸ γὰρ αἷμα [αὐτοῦ] [ἀντὶ τῆς ψυχῆς] ἐξιλάσεται).” 99

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

389

analogy to priestly inauguration rituals of Lev 8:30.101 Modern scholars have often shared this interpretive tradition.102 In that case, the modus operandi of the blood rite in Exod 24 would be understood in line with regulations or descriptions of sacrificial rituals in P and other priestly texts; many of them are explicit about the atoning or purifying effect of such rites (see above). However, one may ask whether the uniqueness of the Mosaic rite with the “blood of the covenant” and its common classification as a non-P text do not preclude such an interpretation by analogy to P.103 A different type of parallel is evoked in theories construing an implicit threat or curse for the people in the activity of blood application. These interpretive approaches rely on the analogy of Exod 24:8 to the bizarre covenant ritual in Gen 15:9–17 in which Abram is requested to cut various animals in half and in which God, represented by a smoking oven and a burning torch, passes between the cadavers. In Exod 24:6, the peculiar reference to “half of the blood”, repeated twice, may be a textual reference to this covenant. The vision in Gen 15 adopts the conceptual framework of covenantal punishment (see the similar scenario in Jer 34:18–20 and ANE parallels).104 Does the dashing of the “blood 101 In the rituals of the inauguration of Aaron and his sons as Israel’s priests, sacrificial blood is even applied to both the altar (Lev 8:15) and the priests and their vestments (8:30). At the altar, the blood is then poured out at the base of the altar. The texts informs the reader: “… thus he [Moses] consecrated it, to make atonement for it” (8:15). This ritual, which explicitly connects to Exod 29 (cf. WATTS, Leviticus 1–10, 468; HIEKE, Levitikus 1–15, 349), thus provides a number of parallels to that in Exod 24. But Ibn Ezra is clearly aware of the crux interpretum of this text passage as he goes on to list further attempts of understanding the covenant ritual: “Others explain our verse to mean that Moses dashed the blood on account of the people, as in Num. 17:12, where Aaron burns incense to make expiation ‘on’ (account of) the people. Saadia takes it as an allusion, as if to say ‘Your blood may be spilled with impunity, just as this blood is, if you do not keep the covenant’. But that is a midrash” (according to CARASIK, Exodus, 209 [italics in the original]). 102 Cf. NICHOLSON, “Covenant Ritual”, 83; VAN SETERS, Live, 286; BLUM, Studien, 51– 52; SEEBASS, “Opfer”, 260 (“am ehesten eine Art Weihe für den heiligen Gott”); LICHTENBERGER, “Abendmahlsüberlieferung”, 221–222; RENDTORFF, Theologie, 53–54; EBERHART, Studien, 270–272; OTTO, “Pentateuchredaktion”, 79, 83; SCHMIDT, “Dekalog”, 588– 590. 103 Cf. DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 203: “Folglich kann man das Ritual selbst, das in der hier beschriebenen Weise in der ganzen Bibel nicht wieder begegnet, auch nicht aus Ähnlichkeiten oder Parallelitäten erklären.” Cf. also GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 90. In addition, the inauguration of the priestly cult has, in the chronology of the Torah narrative, not occurred yet (it happens later in Lev 8–9); interpretive categories such as atonement are not yet ‘in effect’. Therefore, it is questionable whether the covenant ritual in Exod 24 can be explained as a proleptic reference. 104 Abram’s covenant vision in Gen 15 is often referenced to illuminate the expression of “cutting” (‫ )כרת‬a covenant, which is characteristic of Deuteronomistic historiography. It relates to the actions of cutting up animals and walking through them to establish the covenant. Such a covenant is invoked as a covenantal obligation in the book of Jeremiah;

390

Christian A. Eberhart

of the covenant” (Exod 24:8), therefore, communicate a threat to the Israelites in case they transgress the covenantal regulations?105 Yet while appealing prima vista, this is an unlikely explanation.106 A first variation of this theory is the explanation that the blood rite binds the people to life and death, perhaps with implicit reference to the exhortation in Deut 30:15–20.107 This proposal rightly acknowledges that, in the HB / OT / LXX, the term “blood” often dialectically conveys both “life” and “death”.108 A second variation of this theory is the proposal that the blood rite connects the Israelites with God who the consequences are then announced to those who broke it: “And those who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant that they made before me, I will make like the calf when they cut it in two and passed between its parts: the officials of Judah, the officials of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf” (Jer 34:18–19). Similar treaty practices were common in the ancient Hittite empire and during the neo-Assyrian period (cf. POLAK, “Covenant at Mount Sinai”, 123–126; MARTIN-ACHARD, “Signification de l’alliance”, 91 [“Il s’agit alors d’un rite d’imprécation: le contractant s’engage sous peine de mort à observer scrupuleusement les clauses du traité; en cas de défaillance, en effet, il connaîtra le sort de la bête immolée”]; MCKENZIE, Covenant, 17–18; HAHN, “Covenant, Cult”, 75–79; KOCH, “Covenant”, 898– 899; see also the contribution of Siegfried Kreuzer in this volume). However, the covenant in Gen 15 dramatically inverses the roles of both covenant parties; in the nightly vision, it is God, not Abram, who submits to the conditional self-imprecation of the treaty-lord. Despite its ghoulish nature, therefore, this covenant amounts to a unilateral assurance of covenantal land allotment. Rashi sets the tone for the Rabbinic interpretation of the ritual in Gen 15 by conjecturing that all “three-year-old” animals (v. 9) are rather three animals. He assumes they are sacrificial animals of the Day of Atonement ritual and intended to effect atonement for the sins of Israel (Lev 16). Kimhi and Nahmanides follow Rashi’s argument that the text means three animals; Nahmanides points out that Targum Onkelos supports this understanding and suggests they are for three different types of sacrifice. Only Ibn Ezra maintains the literal meaning of MT as it stands (“three-year-old”). On the aspect of “cutting” the animals in half, Rashi is citing the reference in Jer 34:19. 105 Cf. POLAK, “Covenant at Mount Sinai”, 130–131; see also the discussion in GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 39. 106 As William K. Gilders points out in his discussion of this interpretation: “Had Moses tossed blood only on the people, this interpretation might be accepted. However, because Moses also tossed blood on the altar, it is unlikely that this act refers to a blood curse” (GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 39). 107 Cf. KOCH, “Covenant”, 903. 108 It is a commonplace idea in the ANE that the blood of humans and animals alike represents their life-force or vitality. Most people in these cultures were nomads who frequently practiced animal slaughter by cutting an animal’s throat to drain its blood. Also in warfare, the idea of blood as life could be empirically verified through the observation that the loss of blood causes death. For that reason, this notion pervades ancient mythology. According to the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Eliš, humans are created from the blood of a slain god (6:33), and the Canaanite god El offers bread and “wine” to the goddess Anat; the latter is paraphrased as “blood of the grapevine” (cf. EBERHART, “Blood”, 202–204, 207).

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

391

is thought to be represented by the altar.109 But all three theories display weaknesses. On the one hand, blood is mentioned neither in Gen 15 (despite the action of cutting animals in half) nor in Deut 30. On the other hand, blood rites never have the explicit purpose of connecting or linking anything in the HB / OT / LXX. Why should they have that meaning here? After this short survey of four major types of explanations of the covenant ritual in Exod 24 and its blood rite (that it effects atonement / consecration, conveys a threat of covenantal punishment, binds people to life and death, or binds the Israelites to God)110, none is indeed uncontested. I will now nevertheless turn my attention to the last theory and explore it further. It could be favored precisely because it does not attempt to explain this unique ritual by analogy with other similar HB / OT / LXX texts, thus avoiding a methodological error.111 At this point, I will add another insight and take into consideration that we encounter the blood rite in Exod 24:8 as a text. Nobody today witnessed its actual performance. The same applies, of course, also to ancient interpretive communities, and it is true for all rituals in the HB / OT / LXX. They all should be interpreted as textual representations of rituals, not as ritual

109 Cf. SARNA, Exodus, 152: “… the blood functions mysteriously to cement the bond between the involved parties.” This interpretation has been suggested for some time; cf. BEHM/QUELL, “διατίθημι”, 116–117 (“fiktive Blutverwandschaft”); ČERNÝ, “Blood Brotherhood”, 161–163; POLAK, “Covenant at Mount Sinai”, 130–131; more recently NEEF, “Aspekte”, 13; DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 203–204; ALBERTZ, Exodus, 137. This is also the explanation proposed by William K. Gilders who, informed by the ritual theory approach, argues that sacrificial blood rites in the HB/OT create, at the level of their latent functions, direct connections through immediate contact with an object or person (GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 39–43, 90, 95–96, 186–191, 233 fn. 7, etc.). He assumes that “… the meaning of blood as an index is immediately evident to the observer who watches for patterns of existential relationship that are marked, indexed, by the handling of the blood” (GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 81). In addition, the blood rites also indicate the privileged status of actors (like Moses and priests) within the narrated world and mark off ordered space from chaotic space (GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 48–49, 59, 141, 187, etc.). For Gilders’ further emphasis that rituals in the HB/OT must be interpreted as a textual representation of rituals, see below. 110 This survey has, of course, been far from exhaustive. According to other theories, the blood that Moses poured out represents the covenantal gift of God’s word for the Israelites (cf. PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 190–203; NEEF, “Aspekte”, 13). This understanding, however, seems rather unlikely; apart from the parallel of “book of the covenant” and “blood of the covenant”, it is not clear how blood could represent words, specifically of legal and ethical nature. 111 The criticism that the HB / OT / LXX never explicitly mentions blood rites connecting parties of a celebration to one another does not pertain to their latent (or implicit) functions. In other words, certain activities might have social or other consequences that their actors are either unaware of or that do not fit their interpretive frameworks (cf. GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 181–191, etc.).

392

Christian A. Eberhart

per se.112 This insight has itself been a latent feature in our exploration of the covenant ritual at Mt. Sinai, for example when considering the merits of the source-critical conclusion that the text unit Exod 24:3–8 is an insertion from the hand of the Deuteronomistic redactor. Here, the tacit assumption is that we deal with this ritual as a text. The interpretive endeavor needs to focus, therefore, not only on the meaning of actual rituals being performed in history. In addition, it needs to ask how a text about this ritual creates meaning in the process of being read. We need to employ a reader- or performance-oriented approach. Revisiting the Deuteronomistic insertion in Exod 24:3–8 with that perspective, it becomes clear that it provides its ancient and modern audience with a number of overt and subtle textual signals that a bond was being established between the Israelites and God who is represented through the altar113: 112 Cf. WATTS, “Unperformed Rituals”, 29: “There is, however, a deep methodological conflict between ritual and textual approaches, one that has bedeviled many attempts to employ ritual theory in biblical scholarship. The problem, in essence, is that we do not have access to ancient Israel’s rituals, only to texts that happen to describe or refer to them. (…) We have only stories that use rituals to further their plots and ritual instructions that urge hearers and readers to do as they say. (…) The problem, as several interpreters of biblical rituals have recently argued, is that texts are not rituals and rituals are not texts.” Cf. also IDEM, Leviticus 1–10, 63–64, 71; FISH, Text, 303–371; GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 8–11, 37, etc.; HIEKE, Levitikus 1–15, 44–45. 113 Many scholars assume that the altar represents God (cf. SARNA, Exodus, 151; GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 39, 41, 58–59; DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 204; MARX, Systèmes sacrificiels, 94–95). The text of Exod 24 does not affirm this assumption directly. However, the fact that the twelve sacred stone pillars, mentioned immediately after the construction of the altar, are said to be “representing the twelve tribes of Israel” (24:4) leads to the conclusion that, by analogy, the altar represents God. A subsequent question is how the sacrificial blood would have been applied to the Israelites. The Hebrew verb for this activity is ‫“ – זרק‬to dash, toss, pour out” (24:6b, 8a), usually referring to the dispatch of large quantities of fluids at once (it still has that meaning in modern Ivrith). However, the LXX uses two different verbs: προσχέω – “to dash, pour out” in 24:6b, similar to the Hebrew term, and κατασκεδάννυμι – “to sprinkle” in v. 8a, usually indicating a different, rather dispersed dispatch of smaller amounts of fluids (cf. RENDTORFF, Leviticus, 51–54; ANDRÉ, “‫”זרק‬, 686– 689; GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 25–27, 39; MARX, Systèmes sacrificiels, 123; WATTS, Leviticus 1–10, 199–200; HIEKE, Levitikus 1–15, 172–173). The verb ‫ זרק‬and its equivalent προσχέω are used in the regulations and descriptions of sacrificial rituals (Lev 1:5; 8:24, etc.; see also m.Zeb. 5:4) for the activity of pouring out sacrificial blood at the base of the altar. The choice of κατασκεδάννυμι in Exod 24:8aLXX demonstrates the puzzlement of the Greek translators regarding the exact understanding of the ritual activity in their Hebrew Vorlage; the problem is that neither dashing nor pouring out of sacrificial blood over a large crowd of people is easy to imagine. A possible explanation has been provided by Nahum M. Sarna who assumes that the dashing of the blood was done not on the people per se but on the stone pillars representing them (cf. SARNA, Exodus, 151; cf. also MARX, Systèmes sacrificiels, 152). It would explain why the narrative of Exod 24:3–8 mentions the stone pillars in the first place; they have no further function thereafter and are not mentioned again.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

393

1. The sacrificial blood is being divided into equal amounts (“half” – “half”, 24:6); 2. Blood is dashed on the altar (representing God, v. 6) and the twelve stone pillars (representing the Israelites, v. 8); 3. The blood is explicitly called “blood of the covenant” (the term “covenant” signifies a bond); 4. Connection with a verbal agreement to obey the words of the host of the covenant (which is also, through its title as “book of the covenant”, textually connected to the blood). Through these aspects, the text creates meaning for its audience, conveying the establishment of a bond between the covenanting parties.114 In this sense, the narrative about the covenant ceremony and its blood rite in Exod 24:3–8 corroborates the common theme of the larger literary block of Exod 18–24.115 In the world of the text, the blood ritual does this by means of a latent dimension in ritual activity. The same applies to the distinction between the “book of the covenant” and the “blood of the covenant”. Of these, the former is nevertheless communicated as having a bilateral quality; it relies on the positive response of the Israelites, which is carefully noted (Exod 24:7, see also v. 3; in that sense, it resembles the covenantal commitment in 19:5–9). The latter, by contrast, is a unilateral element, as ritual procedures convey an intended effect in a matter-of-fact fashion. By means of the blood rite, the relationship is established; the covenant is now actualized. It can be broken later, but for the moment, it is a reality. In this sense, the “book of the covenant” and the “blood of the covenant”, while being two closely related components of the covenant at Mt. Sinai, complement each other as antitypes.116 All of this happens in a narrated world, communicating its meaning through textual signals and words about a covenant ritual. These reflections on the narrative of the unique blood rite in Exod 24:8 and its modus operandi have not solved all the problems that it has presented, and still presents to ancient and modern readers. In the end, the strangeness of this 114

William K. Gilders notes about the division and application of the sacrificial blood: “Clearly, an existential relationship is established in this way between the altar and the people. (…) Thus, we may speak of a relationship between Yahweh and the people being indexed by the blood manipulations” (GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 41; cf. also ibid., 58–59, 90). 115 See Wolfgang Oswald’s comment that Exod 18–24 contains “… a plurality of divinehuman relations. To give only a brief impression: some parts of the text feature a close relation between God and Moses while others include the people; still others connect God and certain representatives of Israel. Some regulations are introduced without the participation of God, some by God directly, some by mediation of Moses. In some scenes God and the people are close together; in others they are distant from each other” (OSWALD, “Lawgiving”, 179). 116 The relationship between both covenant components is ‘antitypical’; this term conveys their continuity over their discontinuity (cf. BACKHAUS, Neue Bund, 294–296).

394

Christian A. Eberhart

covenant prevails. That is no recent insight. It is arguably because this passage is a crux interpretum that it has not often been quoted elsewhere in the HB / OT / LXX. The sole exception is the promise of salvation in Zech 9:11: “As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant [with you] (‫ בדם־בריתך‬/ ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης +), I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.”117 Some vague allusions to the covenant in Exod 24, including sprinkling of blood, are included in Noah’s covenant with God in Jubilees (6:11–12), a book that otherwise distinctively emphasizes the topic of covenant.118 Yet in the covenant ceremony at Mt. Sinai, not only the passage about the unique blood rite in Exod 24:3–8 is strange. The subsequent paragraph in 24:9– 11 is no less surprising. It narrates how Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu together with seventy representatives of the Israelites climb up Mt. Sinai.119 There, they have a ‘close encounter’; they “saw God, and they ate and drank” (24:11MT). Such a proximity to God and the visio dei are astounding, to say the least. Therefore, the narrative only describes glimpses of God’s entourage, not the “full corporeality of God’s presence.”120 Through the ages, however, the 117

The words “for you” are missing in the LXX. The reference in Zech 9:11 shortens the phrase in Exod 24:8. It is concise enough that some recognize a reference to circumcision instead, which is associated with “blood” at the textual level in Exod 4:26 (“bridegroom of blood”). But a “covenant” is not mentioned in that passage, which is why this association is unlikely (cf. MEYERS and MEYERS, Zechariah 9–14, 139). Later, however, Rabbinic Judaism made that connection by formulating the following blessing for the circumcision of a male slave: “Blessed (…) who sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us to circumcise enslaved men and to draw from them the blood of the covenant…” (Tosefta Berakhot 6:18). 118 Cf. VANDERKAM, Jubilees, 312–313; BAUTCH, Glory, 125–138; GILDERS, “Covenant”, 913. Yet in Jub. 6:11–12, the purpose of the blood rite is linked to the prohibition of ‘eating’ blood; it is known from Gen 9:4 (and Lev 3:17; 17:10–14; Deut 12:23) and has been previously referenced in Jub. 6:7. The allusion to the blood rite of Exod 24:8 is added to establish a connection with the covenantal matrix: “This testimony has been written regarding you to keep it for all times so that you may not at any time eat any blood of animals or birds throughout all the days of the earth. (As for) the human being who has eaten the blood of an animal, of cattle, or of birds during all the days of the earth – he and his descendants will be uprooted from the earth” (Jub. 6:12). While Philo’s books contain a few references to “covenant”, his De vita Moysis nevertheless omits the entire Sinai pericope (cf. STERLING, “Thunderous Silence”, 449–474). 119 The theological tendency in the narratives to divinely legitimize Moses as well as his activities and pronouncements through his encounters with God on Mt. Sinai has the peculiar corollary that the passage of Exod 19:3–34:29 has Moses climb the mountain no less than eight or nine times (cf. MENDENHALL, Introduction, 71; KRATZ, Composition, 137). 120 MEYERS, Exodus, 207. Adrian Schenker correlates the visio dei in Exod 24:9–11 to the theophany in the burning bush in 3:1–6: “Ces deux théophanies forment le point de départ et le point d’aboutissement, signe, Ex III, 12, et accomplissement du signe. En outre, elles soulignent le trait narratif propre à l’Exode: YHWH ne se donne jamais à voir à tout le peuple, Ex XX, 18–21, mais seulement à ses représentants et médiateurs (Moïse, les

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

395

vision of God has been considered provocative enough to be effectively eliminated in Exod 24:10–11LXX or have its immediacy toned down in the targumim so as to reduce its anthropomorphic depiction of God.121 For some interpreters, this festive meal scene, perhaps a reference to the “feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines” on a mountain according to Isa 25:6, marks the ratification of the covenant.122 Indeed, some of its elements can be elucidated from the perspective of ANE covenant ratification ceremonies.123 The text unit of the covenantal blood rite in Exod 24:3–8 and the one of the intimate visio dei with the subsequent meal in v. 9–11 did not originally belong together. But in the narrative world created by the Deuteronomistic redactor, the sequence of both units is nonetheless intended to serve as a graphic illustration of the new innocent propinquity between God and the Israelites that is the direct result of the covenant established through the “blood of the covenant”. As such, the scene may be qualified as the functional equivalent of the covenant formula; it is an impressive display of what the phrase “I will be your God and you will be my people” (e.g., Jer 7:23; 11:4) elsewhere is about, namely a relationship characterized by mutuality, peace, and abundance. With these parameters, the mountaintop experience of Moses and the Israelites sets the stage for the subsequent revelation, establishment, and inauguration of Israel’s worship cult.124 Finally, the paragraph after this ascent of Moses and the other Israelites to the top of Mt. Sinai (Exod 24:9–11) is likewise peculiar, as it is followed by anciens)” (SCHENKER, “Sacrifices d’alliance”, 491). While this is correct, it should be noted that Moses only sees God as a fire in the theophany in the burning bush, so the theophanies are different. 121 Cf. LE BOULLUEC / SANDEVOIR, L’Exode, 246–247; EBERHART, “Begegnung”, 216. Not Exod 24:10–11MT, but the LXX version is the text that informs the pronouncement in John 1:18: Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε – “Nobody has ever seen God”. Since the sacred Scriptures of early Christians were not the Hebrew Bible but the Septuagint, John could rightly state that no human has ever seen God. 122 Cf. BEGRICH, “Berit”, 7; LEVIN, Alte Testament, 91. 123 Several scholars explore the Mosaic covenant at Mt. Sinai in light of covenant documents discovered in Mari. They suggest that the narrative in Exod 24:1–11 follows a characteristic structure of ancient Near Eastern covenant ratifications, during which terms were being announced and consent was being conveyed. This was followed by a ratification process in either party’s territory, which would explain the twofold covenant ratification in Exod 24 first in the human and then in the divine sphere (cf. MARTIN-ACHARD, “Signification de l’alliance”, 91; ZIMMERLI, Grundriß, 40; HALLO, Book of the People, 56– 58; HEINTZ, “Alliance humaine”, 309–322; POLAK, “Covenant at Mount Sinai”, 122–133; also the summary in HAHN, “Current Research”, 276). 124 Cf. MARX/GRAPPE, Sacrifices scandaleux, 94: “Chaque sacrifice (tendant à la communion) était censé reproduire à sa manière l’expérience unique et fondatrice que représentait, pour le peuple, la théophanie du Sinaï et déboucher sur une commensalité semblable à celle qu’avaient expérimentée les privilégiés d’entre les fils d’Israël lors de la conclusion de l’Alliance selon Exode 24,1–11.” See also MARX, Systèmes sacrificiels, 123.

396

Christian A. Eberhart

yet another request that Moses climb up the mountain, now with his assistant Joshua, to receive tablets of stone inscribed with the law and the commandments (24:12–18). But already a cursory reading reveals that this text unit actually mentions twice that “Moses went up” on the mountain (v. 13, 15).125 (The narrative about the broken covenant in 32:19 or Jer 31:32 refers to these tablets.) Thus, its second half in Exod 24:15–18 is commonly assigned to P.126 This time, the mountain is covered by the cloud of the “glory” of God. Moses enters the cloud to stay for forty days and forty nights and receive God’s revelation of Israel’s new tabernacle sanctuary (Exod 25–31). At the stage of the final redaction, chapter Exod 24 suggests that human proximity with God is now a recurring possibility. It leads directly to a vision of the new residence that God will soon inhabit to be permanently in the midst of the Israelites as they wander towards the Promised Land (Exod 40; Lev 9).127 2.3 The “New Covenant” in Jeremiah 31MT / 38LXX After this, we need to also explore the one HB / OT / LXX text that explicitly mentions a “new covenant”. Jer 31:31–34MT: ‫הנה ימים באים‬ ‫נאם־יהוה‬ ‫וכרתי את־בית ישׂראל‬ ‫ואת־בית יהודה‬ ‫ברית חדשׁה׃‬ ‫לא כברית אשׁר כרתי‬ ‫את־אבותם ביום‬ ‫החזיקי בידם‬ ‫להוציאם מארץ מצרים‬ ‫אשׁר־המה הפרו את־בריתי‬ ‫ואנכי בעלתי בם‬ ‫נאם־יהוה׃‬ ‫כי זאת הברית‬ ‫אשׁר אכרת את־בית ישׂראל‬ ‫אחרי הימים ההם נאם־יהוה‬ ‫נתתי את־תורתי בקרבם‬ ‫ועל־לבם‬ ‫אכתבנה‬ ‫והייתי להם לאלהים‬

Behold, days are coming – oracle of YHWH – and I will cut with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. Not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers on the day when I took (them) by their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which they, they broke, my covenant, and / but I, I was master over them – oracle of YHWH – because this (is) the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel after those days – oracle of YHWH: I gave my Torah in their midst and / but on their heart I will write it (i.e., the Torah), and I will be for them God

125 While in Exod 24:15MT Moses ascends, many LXX manuscripts read “Moses and Joshua ascended” in an attempt to correct the inconsistency of MT (cf. PROPP, Exodus 19– 40, 141). There has been a number of attempts to explain, from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives, the frequent ascent of Moses to the mountaintop (cf. the survey in OSWALD, “Lawgiving”, 172–175). 126 Cf. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 142, 147; DEBEL, “Anchoring Revelations”, 487–488. 127 Cf. DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 208.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood” ‫והמה יהיו־לי לעם׃‬ ‫ולא ילמדו עוד‬ ‫אישׁ את־רעהו ואישׁ את־אחיו‬ ‫לאמר דעו את־יהוה‬ ‫כי־כולם ידעו אותי‬ ‫למקטנם ועד־גדולם‬ ‫נאם־יהוה‬ ‫כי אסלח לעונם‬ ‫ולחטאתם לא אזכר־עוד׃‬

397

and they, they will be for me (my) people. And they will not teach any more, each his neighbor and each his brother, saying: Know YHWH! Because they all will know me, from their small and even to their great – oracle of YHWH – because I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more.128

Jer 38:31–34LXX:129 Ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, [φησὶν] κύριος, καὶ διαθήσομαι [τῷ οἴκῳ] Ισραηλ καὶ [τῷ οἴκῳ] Ιουδα διαθήκην καινήν, οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην, ἣν διεθέμην [τοῖς πατράσιν] αὐτῶν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, [ὅτι] αὐτοὶ [οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν] τῇ διαθήκῃ μου, καὶ ἐγὼ + [ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν], [φησὶν] κύριος, ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη, ἣν διαθήσομαι [τῷ οἴκῳ] Ισραηλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, [φησὶν] κύριος [Διδοὺς δώσω νόμους] μου εἰς τὴν [διάνοιαν] αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν,

Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will establish for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah a new covenant, not according to the covenant that I established for their fathers on the day when I took (them) by their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not remain in my covenant, and I + did not care about them,130 says the Lord, because this (is) the covenant which I will establish for the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will certainly give my laws in their mind and on their heart I will write them (i.e., the laws), and I will be for them God

128 The translation of the Hebrew text follows the contribution on covenant in Jeremiah by Karin Finsterbusch in this volume. 129 The differences between LXX and MT, including those pertaining to the overall structure of the book, may be based on a Hebrew Vorlage that is not identical with MT (cf. WEIS, “Textual History”, 499–503; for an alternative opinion, see VONACH, “Jeremia”, 2699–2700). 130 In Jer 38:32LXX, the reading ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν – “(I) did not care about them” differs from Jer 31:32MT ‫“ – בעלתי בם‬I was master over them”. It could be the result of either understanding the verb I. ‫“ – בעל‬to master (over)” as II. ‫“ – בעל‬to despise” or a misreading of the letters ‫ ב‬and ‫ג‬, since ‫ געלתי בם‬would likewise correspond to the Greek text (cf. VONACH, “Jeremias”, 2799–2800; KARRER, “Schriften”, 1193–1194; KRAUS, “Rezeption”, 453; see also the contribution on covenant in Jeremiah by Karin Finsterbusch in this volume).

398

Christian A. Eberhart

καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν, καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν ἕκαστος τὸν πολίτην αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ λέγων Γνῶθι τὸν κύριον, ὅτι πάντες εἰδήσουσίν με ἀπὸ μικροῦ αὐτῶν καὶ ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν, + ὅτι [ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις] αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ ἔτι.

and they, they will be a people for me. And they will not + teach each one’s neighbor and each one’s brother, saying: Know the Lord! Because they all will know me, from their small and even to their great + because I will be merciful toward their iniquity and their sins I will remember no more.

This long passage, in its MT version, consists of two chiastically arranged segments, one in prose (v. 31–33aα) and one in poetic style (v. 33aβ–34).131 It describes the “new covenant” in conscious contradistinction to the broken covenant at Mt. Sinai, which is most likely an allusion to the broken tablets, the epitome of a compromised covenant (Exod 32).132 The entire chapter in Jer 31MT / 38LXX expounds an eschatological-utopian vision replete with terminology and phrases belonging to the realm of covenant (e.g., v. 1: “I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people”, v. 16), describing a romantic love relationship (v. 3, 4: “virgin Israel”), and containing references about the return of the people from exile to a life of abundance and safety (v. 7–9, 10–14, 23–26). Acknowledging the permanent reality of human sin, the establishment of the “new covenant” envisages God’s twofold initiative as “savior”133 of the people: first, an internalization of covenant not based on any human participation. Instead, it is YHWH / the Lord who will write the divine Torah (LXX: laws) on human “hearts”, equipping everybody with intimate knowledge of God.134 The result will be a fundamental transformation 131 The authenticity of Jer 31:31–34MT / Jer 38:31–34LXX has sometimes been disputed in scholarship, but affirmed by, e.g., HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 164. For a summary of the literary-critical discussion see GROSS, “Erneuerter oder neuer Bund”, 43–44; for comments on its artful structure see GRAUPNER, “Ewiger Bund”, 483. 132 Cf. GROSS, “Der neue Bund in Jer 31”, 260–262; NEEF, “Aspekte”, 15‒16; FELDMEIER/SPIECKERMANN, Gott, 455–456; KRAUS, “Rezeption”, 452. 133 The notion of “savior” permeates Jer 30–31MT; cf. GOSSE, “Nouvelle alliance”, 568: “Sur la question du ‘salut’ le livre de Jérémie est tellement dépendant du livre d’Isaïe que l’on retrouve même parfois sur ce sujet le vocabulaire du deutéro-Isaïe”. 134 In Jer 31:33MT / 38:33LXX, the rendering of ‫“ – תורתי‬my Torah” with νόμους μου – “my laws” is based on the usual translation practice, but it is, nevertheless, semantically not fully adequate. ‫ תורה‬has a wider spectrum of meaning that includes cultic regulations while νόμος occurs a lot more frequently (cf. RÖSEL, “Nomothesie”, 147; MÜLLER, Entfaltung, 751). Furthermore, the term ‫ לב‬/ καρδία – “heart” designates the seat of the cognitive capacities of humans, not emotions; “without heart” in Jer 5:21 means “senseless” (see also Jer 5:24; 13:22, etc.; cf. HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 1, 197; GRAUPNER, “Ewiger Bund”, 484). Hence, the notion of God’s Torah / Law written on human “hearts” evokes an image of internalization

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

399

of the human being. Any process of religious teaching and learning will be obsolete (31:34) if humans were ‘hard-wired’ this way.135 Jeremiah’s label “new covenant” specifically refers to this different mode of conveyance of divine knowledge; the covenant is not “new” because of different contents of the Torah.136 And second, YHWH / the Lord will show mercy and no longer “remember” human sins. Eliminating any human obligation, such a new, unconditional covenant can no longer be broken.137 This stage in the development of HB / OT covenant theology emphasizes the agency of God as the sole guarantor of the enduring relation with humans. It is entirely unilateral and, as such, reminiscent of Deuteronomic diction in the prose section “since the setting proposed is the recitation of the Deuteronomic law during the feast of booths (tabernacles) in the autumn of 587 [BCE], after the destruction of Jerusalem.”138 In light of this, the text variant “(I) did not care about them” (Jer 38:32LXX) is remarkable. Exceeding the equivalent in Jer 38:32MT, yet corroborated by similar pronouncements in Jer 11:2–5; 38:35–37LXX; 41:8–22LXX, it concedes that God had previously neglected covenantal commitments towards Israel in reaction to the lack of covenantal commitments by Israel.139 However, that as quasi-instinctive knowledge (cf. FELDMEIER/SPIECKERMANN, Gott, 319: “Hier wird Gottesunmittelbarkeit durch die auf das Herz geschriebene Tora ersehnt …”). In Jer 31:31MT / 38:31LXX, the divine initiative is further emphasized through the rendition of ‫וכרתי את־בית‬ ‫“ – ישׂראל ואת־בית יהודה ברית חדשׁה‬and I will cut with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant” as καὶ διαθήσομαι [τῷ οἴκῳ] Ισραηλ καὶ [τῷ οἴκῳ] Ιουδα διαθήκην καινήν – “and I will establish for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah a new covenant” (see also v. 33). The dative τῷ οἴκῳ accentuates the unilateral quality of the new covenant. 135 Cf. SCHMIDT, “Verheißung”, 37; NEEF, “Aspekte”, 15; BAUTCH, Glory, 31; NEWSOM, “Problem”, 72; GRAUPNER, “Ewiger Bund”, 484: “Will der Mensch in seinem Inneren, in seinem Herzen, was Gott will, ist menschlicher Ungehorsam, ist ein erneuter Bruch des Bundes ausgeschlossen. Gott wird die Unterscheidung von Autonomie und Heteronomie, Selbst- und Fremdbestimmung, die sich in der Geschichte Israels von Beginn an als Diastase gezeigt hat, in der Einheit von göttlichem und menschlichem Willen aufheben.” 136 Cf. KRAUS, “Rezeption”, 453–454; see also the contribution on covenant in Jeremiah by Karin Finsterbusch in this volume. 137 Cf. GROSS, “Neuer Bund?” 58–62 (“Der neue Bund ist daher ein voraussetzungsloser, reiner Gnadenbund”; ibid., 60); FINSTERBUSCH, “‘Tora’”, 86–92. 138 HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 197 (adopted in BAUTCH, Glory, 30–31). Cf. FELDMEIER / SPIECKERMANN, Gott, 319: “Auch hier handelt es sich um einen nachexilischen Text, der die Hochschätzung der Tora voraussetzt und zugleich die Grenzen der Toraobservanz vor Augen hat”; also ibid., 455. Besides the Deuteronomistic idiom, the underlying concept in Jer 31:31–34 has also been described as post- or non-Deuteronomistic (GROSS, Zukunft, 146). 139 Cf. SCHENKER, Bund, 24; KRAUS, “Rezeption”, 454–456. Also, the prophets Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah grapple with the question of how the promise of an eternal covenant relates to God’s severing the bond with Israel because of covenant violations (cf. FREEDMAN, “Commitment”, 429; BAUTCH, Glory, 30).

400

Christian A. Eberhart

bilateral neglect was only temporary, as indicated by the aorist form of ἠμέλησα. The new, unilateral covenant will be eternal. Finally, it has substantially and definitely shifted the contents of God’s covenantal promise. Previous covenants often focused on the promise of land (Gen 15:7–8, 18–21; Exod 6:2– 8; Deut 7:1–11; 30:1–5, 15–20, etc.); by contrast, this eschatological-utopian covenant is exclusively about the relationship between Israel and God and centers on perfect Torah observation.140 Such a variety of changes to the covenantal matrix is surprising. “The passage must have been shocking in Jrm’s day and thereafter; after all, the passage implies that Yahweh will draw up a fresh contract without the defects of the old, implying in turn that he could improve on the old one, that he had learned something from the failure of the old.”141 This is indeed a qualitatively “new covenant” (‫ ברית חדשׁה‬/ διαθήκη καινή, Jer 31:31MT / 38:31LXX) with terminology that is unique in the HB / OT / LXX.142 Various aspects of this “new covenant” nevertheless resemble the covenant concept in the book of Ezekiel (even if covenants there are never called “new”).143 According to this prophet, God will give the Israelites hearts of flesh and new spirits to obtain an unbreakable covenant (Ezek 16:8, 59–63; 44:7). This is a “covenant of peace” (‫ ברית שׁלום‬/ διαθήκη εἰρήνης, 34:25), even “a covenant of peace, an eternal covenant” (‫ ברית שׁלום ברית עולם‬/ διαθήκη εἰρήνης, διαθήκη αἰωνία, 37:26) with an eschatological utopia of undisturbed lives in the wilderness and the rich blessings of abundant harvests (34:25–27; similar Hos 2:20 [2:18ET], see also Isa 27:6; 65:17–25; Amos 9:13; Ezek 47:9–12; 4Ezra 8:52) and political reunification of the divided kingdoms (Ezek 37:22).144 And like Jeremiah’s internalized “new covenant” written on human “hearts”, its program of salvation promises a “new heart” and a “new spirit” (Ezek 36:26–27).145 Terminologically related to Jeremiah’s “new covenant” is 140 Cf. GROSS, “Bundestheologie”, 61: “Das Land spielt in diesem neuen Bund keine Rolle mehr. Er ist kein Instrument der Geschichtsdeutung mehr. In diesem Bund geht es einzig um das gelungene Gottesverhältnis in JHWH-Erkenntnis und Toragehorsam.” 141 Cf. HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 197. 142 Cf. GROSS, “Der neue Bund in Jer 31”, 260–261; KRAUS, “Rezeption”, 452–453. 143 Cf. GOSSE, “Nouvelle alliance”, 570–580, who provides a detailed list of similarities between Jeremiah and Ezekiel relative to this topic. 144 Cf. HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 197; BAUTCH, Glory, 34–35; HIEKE, “Covenant”, 84–85 who compares these covenant texts to those in Lev 26. The broader context also features the covenant formula without explicitly mentioning the term (e.g., Ezek 36:28; cf. KONKEL, “Neuschöpfung”, 124‒132). A “covenant of peace” occurs as well in Num 25:12 (with Phinehas, son of Eleazar, after he kills an Israelite and a Midianite woman for having a romantic relationship; the covenant is further described as a “covenant of perpetual priesthood” and later, in Sir 45:24, celebrated as a “covenant of friendship”) and Isa 54:10 (alongside a promise of God’s steadfast love and compassion). 145 Cf. GROSS, “Der neue Bund in Jer 31”, 263; NEEF, “Aspekte”, 16‒17; BAUTCH, Glory, 35–36; KRAUS, “Rezeption”, 453. For Michael Konkel, the replacement of the old with a

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

401

also the “new” or, perhaps more appropriately, “renewed” covenant ( ‫ברית‬ ‫ )חדשה‬in the Damascus Document, although its contents are rather different.146 2.4 Summary: “Covenant” in Exodus 24 and Jeremiah 31MT / 38LXX With origins in ancient inter- and transnational diplomacy (common treaty practices in the Hittite empire and during the neo-Assyrian period) and in the local / domestic realm of family and household settings (marriage, parent / offspring), and with possibly some Achaemenid Persian influence as well, the term ‫ ברית‬conveys connection, relationship, and bond. As such, it is applicable in a variety of heterogeneous settings. In line with these semantic aspects, the term frequently denotes the establishment and end of a relationship (sometimes under painful circumstances). Conceptualized in opposition to disappointment, hate, enmity, and / or war, the term ‫ ברית‬is usually informed by the sensitive corollary themes of reliability, trust, friendship, love, and / or peace. It is, therefore, a potent term to be applied with similar meaning in the realm of religion. A graphic illustration is the narrative about the unique covenant ceremony at Mt. Sinai, featuring an idiosyncratic rite with “blood of the covenant” (Exod 24:1–11). In tandem with the “book of the covenant”, this covenant is actualized through the application of (i.e. physical contact with) blood. The Torah narrative conveys the establishment of a bilateral covenant between the covenanting parties, God and Israel, yet this covenant contains, through the ritual with the “blood of the covenant”, a unilateral component. It prepares Israel for a subsequent scene of intimate proximity with God, including (according to MT) a visio dei on top of Mt. Sinai. A functional equivalent of sorts to the covenant formula, it displays the power of the new heart is an even more radical idea than Jeremiah’s “new covenant” written on the (old) heart; it implies an act of new creation (cf. KONKEL, “Neuschöpfung”, 127–128). 146 A “new / renewed covenant” (‫ )ברית חדשה‬is mentioned in CD 6:19; 8:21; 19:33; 20:12. Similarly, 1QS 5:7–8; 10:10 speak of ‘entering’ the covenant. The concept of the “new” or “renewed” covenant here is different from that of Jer 31:31 in that the sectarian community cherished special divine revelations called “hidden things” about halachic and legal matters. However, this assembly believed that at least a selected group of its members was capable of fulfilling the divine law. For that purpose, it instituted a community council of twelve men and three priests who were expected to obtain atonement on behalf of the community through obedience to the laws and the study of scripture (1QS 8:1–10; 9:4; see also 1QSa 1:2–3; 3:22). They would provide Aaron “with eternal knowledge of the covenant of justice (‫ … )בדעת כולם )עולם( לברית‬to establish the covenant (‫ )להקם }…{ ברית‬according to the eternal laws” (1QS 8:9–10; cf. SANDERS, Paul, 242; EVANS, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”, 60, 68; MURPHY-O’CONNOR, “The New Covenant”, 200; GROSSMAN, Reading, 63–64; BAUTCH, Glory, 138–153; GILDERS, “Covenant”, 914; TALMON, “Gemeinde des Erneuerten Bundes”, 295–312; KLINGHARDT, “Becher”, 52; REGEV, “Community”, 612–615; see also the contribution of Brent Strawn in this volume). Thus, a different view about the impact of human sinfulness prevails in these documents.

402

Christian A. Eberhart

covenantal bond and the new identity of Israel as the people of God. Yet, this peculiar ceremony belongs to only one of several other covenant scenes at or on top of Mt. Sinai; one that features stone tablets is the dramatic epitome of a broken covenant. Throughout the development of the covenantal matrix in the HB / OT, an important concern is the stability and endurance of covenant relations. For that purpose, HB / OT texts mention the need of periodical covenant renewal or reestablishment, for example with the present generation, and describe ceremonies and rituals with solemn pledges to corroborate and inscribe them into the religious and cultural awareness. As such, a ‫ ברית‬often mitigates existential crisis situations that commonly originate from the human deficiency to fulfill covenantal obligations. Covenant proved to be a flexible concept that was readily adopted and adapted in the realm of religion. It has thus been deployed to interpret the catastrophe of the exile in 587 BCE; in the narrative world of the HB / OT, it reflects on the breaking of the covenant at Mt. Sinai. Time witnessed a gradual alteration in the calculus of divine commitment and human responsibility with the extreme of the “new covenant”, mentioned only once in the HB / OT / LXX. In contradistinction to the compromised covenant at Mt. Sinai, it envisages a gracious God as the sole guarantor of the covenant and humans who will be capable of fulfilling it because it is now internalized (written “on their heart”, Jer 31:33MT / 38:33LXX). It is in reference to this Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic stage in the development of covenantal theology that the Greek translators involved in the LXX project preferred the term διαθήκη to render ‫ברית‬, further stressing unilateral divine initiative and ownership of the covenant.

3. “Covenant” in the Synoptic Gospels The NT contains two separate streams of tradition of the words of institution: Mark, followed by Matthew, and 1 Corinthians, followed by Luke. All of them feature the term διαθήκη – “covenant” (or “covenantal decree”) in the word of institution over the cup, and as for Mark and Matthew, this is the only occurrence of the term in the entire Gospel. As stated above, its deployment is based on the HB / OT / LXX, as Luke 1:72–73 demonstrates. But the words spoken over the cup, whether originally spoken by Jesus or going back to the redactor or somebody else in the chain of oral transmission, do not randomly allude to all of the 82 covenants in the Torah or the even higher number of covenants in the HB / OT / LXX. They refer specifically to two of them: The words “my blood of the covenant” (τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης, Mark 14:24;

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

403

Matt 26:28) are clearly those from the Torah narrative of Mt. Sinai.147 And the words “new covenant” (καινὴ διαθήκη) in 1 Cor 11:25 and Luke 22:20 (as well as the variant readings of Mark 14:24) are a clear reference to the “new covenant” in Jeremiah.148 Either reference is easy to recognize; the first is even a quotation. Both versions of the words of institution over the cup refer to covenant terminology that is rarely referenced elsewhere. It has been noted in the previous chapter that there is only one other reference to the “blood of the covenant” in Exod 24:8, namely in Zech 9:11. And the peculiar title “new covenant” (‫ ברית חדשׁה‬/ διαθήκη καινή) in Jer 31:31MT / 38:31LXX is unique in the HB / OT / LXX. Therefore, Jesus is depicted in the NT as interpreting his anticipated death in accordance with two rare manifestations of covenantal theology.149 Furthermore, both covenants are also unilateral. Thus, the three synoptic Gospels (or all four NT occurrences of the word over the cup) converge; they all refer to the rare HB / OT / LXX tradition that establishes a unilateral covenant conveying unconditional grace. What are the reasons for this, and what do these references to covenant terminology mean for early Christians in the 1st century CE? 3.1 The Covenant Tradition in Mark 14:24 and Matt 26:28 According to the earliest of the three synoptic Gospels, Jesus gives a chalice of wine to his twelve disciples. One should note that “ποτήριον is the only word used in the early Christian texts about the Eucharistic chalice”, even though

147

Cf. BEHM/QUELL, “διατίθημι”, 174; LÉON-DUFOUR, Le partage, 170–172; LICHTENBERGER, “Abendmahlsüberlieferung”, 221–225; WICK, Gottesdienste, 248–249; THEISSEN/MERZ, Historische Jesus, 372–373; MYERS, Binding, 363; MCKNIGHT, Historiography, 287–321; HAHN, Theologie II, 540; GRAUPNER, “Frage”, 136, 146; KAZEN, “Sacrificial Interpretation”, 484–485. Occasionally, the reference of Mark 14:24 parr. to Exod 24:8 is questioned, cf. DELLING, “Abendmahl”, 54 (without substantial arguments); GRAYSTON, Dying, 203–312. 148 Cf. STUHLMACHER, “Zeugnis”, 9, 16; THEISSEN/MERZ, Historische Jesus, 372; SMITH, Symposium, 190; HAHN, Theologie II, 540; LOADER, “Forgiveness”, 365; SANDNES, “Meal”, 467; KAZEN, “Sacrificial Interpretation”, 489–491 (skeptical: BYRSKOG, “Meal”, 443). 149 Even if the “blood of the covenant” at Mt. Sinai was referenced only once in the HB / OT / LXX, the prophet Moses as its principal agent was commonly known in Judaism as the one proclaiming the divine Torah. The reading of Torah in front of people is, in the days of Jesus, one of the typical functions of synagogues (cf. OEMING, “Der ‘verlängerte Arm’”, 42). The reference to Zech 9:11 is corroborated through the observation that Mark’s Passion account contains further allusions to Zechariah; for example, Mark 14:25 invokes the broader eschatological context of Zech 9, and Mark 14:27 features a quotation from Zech 13:7 (cf. HAYS, Echoes of Scripture, 81–82).

404

Christian A. Eberhart

other terms were available.150 Thus, ποτήριον in Mark 14:23 corresponds to the term κρατήρ – “bowl” in Exod 24:6. The preference for ποτήριον in the Last Supper scenes of the NT may have to do with its frequent metaphorical usage in LXX for a person’s destiny, specifically misfortune, as ordained by God’s superior authority (Isa 51:17LXX; Hab 2:16LXX; Ps 115:4LXX). Jesus himself is depicted as deploying the term for his anticipated passion (Mark 10:38–39; 14:36 parr.).151 The twelve disciples all drink from the cup, one after another. Then Jesus speaks the words: τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν – “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mark 14:24). Although it is Passover, Jesus is depicted as “expropriating its symbolic discourse (the ritual meal) in order to narrate his new myth, that of the Human One who gives his life for the people.”152 It is about his own pro-existence. In doing so, Jesus refers to the text traditions about Mt. Sinai; the early Christian community is familiar with them from its Scriptures, the LXX. In the Last Supper scene, Jesus does not select any of the lengthy and elaborate legal ordinances, and in choosing from the activities during the rituals in Exod 24, he does not include any references to the “words” or the “book of the covenant” to which the people gave repeated consensual approval (Exod 24:3, 7).153 He prefers the blood rite instead. This leaves the ancient and modern audiences of the text and the participants in the Eucharistic liturgy wondering what aspects and contents the word over the cup in Mark 14:24 activates from this old tradition. Here is a list of six aspects that correspond or differ: 1. The blood of the sacrificial animals corresponds to the wine in the cup that, in turn, represents the blood of Jesus in anticipation of his impending death. This aspect means that sacrificial connotations are being evoked to some 150 BLOMQVIST/BLOMQVIST, “Eucharist Terminology”, 417. Jerker Blomqvist and Karin Blomqvist remark that κέρνος, κρατήρ, κύλιξ, λέβης, λεκάνη, and φιάλη were other terms for sacred vessels known from descriptions of other ancient cults (ibid.). 151 Cf. MYERS, Binding, 362; BLOMQVIST/BLOMQVIST, “Eucharist Terminology”, 415– 416; SANDNES, “Meal”, 460. 152 MYERS, Binding, 363. 153 Jesus also does not choose the other covenant at Mt. Sinai that required a response to a commitment (Exod 19:5–9) or the one associated with stone tablets (24:12); the reason for avoiding the latter is presumably that it is the epitome of a compromised covenant. His own “blood of the covenant” is accompanied by another sign, which is the sharing of the bread representing his body (Mark 14:22). Instead of imposing ethical obligations, this element reminded his disciples that Jesus had come to quite literarily nurture humans with God’s love, and that, during his life, meals were time and again focal points of acceptance and divine power (cf. HAHN, Gottesdienst, 40–41; IDEM, Theologie II, 533–534; SMITH, Symposium, 219–277; ÅDNA, “Jesus’ Meals and Table Companions”, 331–353; HOLMSTRAND, “Narratives”, 355–388). Overall, therefore, the covenant established by Jesus was indeed unilateral. The twelve disciples ate and drank, which can barely be called a covenantal obligation.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

405

degree. However, since ritual atonement or consecration was less likely the purpose of the blood rite in Exod 24:8, the traditional patterns of interpreting sacrifices would not apply here. 2. In the Mosaic covenant at Mt. Sinai, the dashing of the blood (possibly onto the sacred stone pillars) corresponds, as an antitype, to the drinking of the shared cup of wine. In either situation, the crucial aspect is physical contact with blood / wine. Hence, the covenant of Jesus is manifest through the act of drinking wine.154 With that, it features an emotive aspect; salvation can be tasted. 3. The twelve stone pillars in Exod 24:4, representing the twelve tribes of Israel, correspond to the twelve disciples. At one level, Jesus establishes his covenant with his disciples. At another level, however, the clause “which is poured out for many” (τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν, Mark 14:24 / τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον, Matt 26:28), hearkening back to the surrender formula about the pro-existence of the Son of Man (Mark 10:45 / Matt 20:28), simultaneously opens it up for the multitudes of people who share this faith.155 At the same time, the clause activates the semantic meaning of “shed blood” and thus alludes to the anticipated death of Jesus (together with other aspects of the larger Passion narrative). 4. Referencing the meaning of διαθήκη as it is manifest at the Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic stage in the development of the covenantal matrix, the covenant of Jesus communicated a unilateral promise of continuous fellowship. In the larger context of the Passion narrative, this particularly means a continuous relationship beyond death. Israel’s covenant was established through a blood rite that gave Israel a new identity as God’s nation; the covenant of Jesus was made through drinking wine, thus binding the disciples (or the “many”) to him through an everlasting bond. 5. A constitutive element of the covenant ritual at Mt. Sinai was, according to the interpretation above, that equal amounts of the “blood of the covenant” were dashed on both the altar (Exod 24:6) and the sacred stone pillars representing the Israelites (v. 8). This was the sign of the covenant that established the bond between the two parties. By analogy, this would require for the Last Supper scene that Jesus, as the other covenant party, also drinks from the cup. Yet the pertinent words in Mark 14:23 are “καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες” – “then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it” (see also the parallels in Matt 26:27 and Luke 22:17). They suggest that the drinking of the wine was restricted to the twelve disciples. Jesus, the host, did 154 One may add that, during a worship service, just talking about, studying, or meditating on, potential effects of drinking wine without actually drinking it is not sufficient for a Eucharistic liturgy. 155 Cf. KOESTER, Introduction 2, 87; GRAUPNER, “Frage”, 147.

406

Christian A. Eberhart

not drink from the cup. This is another antitypical aspect in the correlation between both covenants.156 6. Finally, the meal on top of Mt. Sinai and the intimate proximity to God (Exod 24:9–11) that together activate the eschatological promises of a great and joyous banquet (Isa 25:6–10; 65:13–19; Joel 2:15–26) illustrate the hope of salvation of Jesus beyond the gruesome torture and shameful death that he anticipated (Mark 14:25).157 In these six ways, the sharing of the cup and the word of institution over it help to articulate the gospel message of Jesus, on the one hand, and provide a glimpse of hope for the present situation and anticipated future, on the other. After all, Mark’s Gospel describes various scenes of failure of the disciples of Jesus, and it is no coincidence that they frame the Last Supper scene (betrayal of Judas, Mark 14:10–11 with 14:17–21; Peter’s denial, 14:26–31 with 14:66– 72). The result was a situation of existential fear and loss of perspective for the disciples. Yet in light of that, Jesus wanted them to know that their status as beloved children of God would not cease through his death, which could have been interpreted as an expression of divine judgment and the ultimate end of his (and their) mission. The various covenant events in the HB / OT / LXX as well as the Eucharistic covenant convey an existence vis-à-vis God. The chalice of wine that Jesus gave his disciples to share was thus a sign of God’s unilateral and unconditional love. Its “effect” would have been like that at Mt. Sinai: humans who come into physical contact with the sign of covenant – here it is wine – get to enjoy a lasting covenant fellowship with God, no matter how big the tragedy. This is what the tradition of past covenants yields for the present one.158 Above I have made the effort of interpreting the covenant ritual at Mt. Sinai and its peculiar blood rite as a ceremonial establishment of an existential bond between God and Israel. Only its unilateral component, the “blood of the covenant”, has been adopted in Mark 14:24. What may be its meaning if we also were to refute any interpretation of this passage based on atonement concepts? A ritual theory perspective will favor its socio-cultural realms of meaning or ‘latent functions’ over explicit ‘native’ explanations. It will, first, consider the Eucharist as a meal, if only a ‘token’ meal. Also traditional sacrificial rituals, such as the one in Exod 24, were often followed by a joint 156 It may be seen as being mitigated by the fact that, in keeping with the analogy, Jesus himself offered the cup of wine to his disciples and would ultimately provide the “blood of the covenant” through his passion and death on the cross. 157 Cf. BOLYKI, Jesu Tischgemeinschaften, 193; JEWETT, Romans, 819; HELLHOLM, “Aliments”, 1893. Cf. BOVON, Luke 3, 157: “… the Eucharist of the first Christians was not only a memorial of the death of Jesus but also a joyful anticipation of the end.” 158 Cf. CARR, Writing, 11: “Indeed, that past is never ‘past’ in the way we might conceive it but stands in the ancient world as a potentially realizable ‘present’ to which each generation seeks to return”. Cf. also ELLMAN, Memory, 25.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

407

meal. Ithamar Gruenwald writes: “It is important to note that food is the core of the ritual. Food sustains life.”159 Renewal through the Eucharist thus happens not only through physical recovery by food consumption. The Last Supper or Eucharist is specifically about communal eating and the sharing of bread and wine. Thus a latent, yet immediate function of this ritual is the establishment or continuation of social relations.160 The word of institution in Mark 14:24 would articulate such a formative and integrative social process by using the familiar covenantal matrix of the HB / OT / LXX. The characteristic phrase “for many” (ὑπὲρ πολλῶν, Mark 14:24 / περὶ πολλῶν, Matt 26:28) is often interpreted in reference to the saying of Jesus that the Son of Man has come to give his life as “a ransom for many” (λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, Mark 10:45 / Matt 20:28). This saying, in turn, alludes to the Greek text of Deutero-Isaiah’s Fourth Song of the Suffering Servant (Isa 52:13– 53:12LXX) describing someone who “carries our sins” (… τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει, 53:4LXX). There is no reference to blood or covenant in either of these two passages, but a point of contact may also be the Eucharistic bread.161 Yet the allusion remains vague; it might have the purpose of connecting the Last Supper tradition more generally to a unique and uniquely potent LXX tradition about vicarious suffering and martyrdom.162 The insertion of the words εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν – “for the forgiveness of sins” in Matt 26:28 shows that the “blood of the covenant” was soon understood within the interpretive framework of atonement categories. On the one hand, these additional words deeply reflect the overall theology of Matthew. It has been shown that forgiveness of sins is one of the key concepts in this Gospel and the goal of the mission of Jesus as it is depicted there.163 On the other hand, the addition of these words evokes reflections on early stages in the reception history of biblical texts. Two related questions should be considered: How did a redactor of the late 1st century CE understand the unique term διαθήκη in the Vorlage in Mark 14:24? And second, how did this person 159

GRUENWALD, Rituals, 252. Outsiders can be invited to join the group by participating in the meal. Renewal then occurs through social integration and the experience of fellowship. Ithamar Gruenwald focuses the effect of constituting a social group on the pronouncement of the words of blessing over the cup, yet the outcome is the same (GRUENWALD, Rituals, 253). 161 Cf. MITTMANN, “Jes 53 LXX”, 227. 162 Deutero-Isaiah’s Fourth Song (Isa 52:13–53:12LXX) has been used variously throughout the NT in christological-soteriological statements (and equally by Paul to describe his apostolic task). Cf. HOOKER, “Righteousness”, 358–375; FINLAN, Sacrifice, 87–88; HAYS, Echoes of Scripture, 87 (“… it is very difficult to make a case that Isaiah’s Suffering Servant texts play any significant role in Mark’s account of Jesus’ death”); KRAUS, “Jesaja 53 LXX”, 149–179. For the use of Isa 52:13–53:12LXX in Luke’s Gospel, see below. 163 Cf. LUZ, Matthew 21–28, 364; SANDNES, “Meal”, 467; also LOADER, “Forgiveness”, 364, 366–367. 160

408

Christian A. Eberhart

think the term in the Vorlage was appropriated relative to the text in Exod 24:8? Above we explored the meaning of the strange ritual in Exod 24 in light of traditional and modern scholarship, concluding that it establishes a sense of unilateral connection between humans and God. For that purpose, we consulted a broad spectrum of interpretative responses, drawing on insights gained from recently discovered ANE documents, complex literary-critical and / or sourcecritical text analyses, and a ritual theory approach. But is it appropriate to assume that people living at the end of the Second Temple period, whether Jesus of Nazareth or his disciples early in the 1st century CE or the Markan redactor late in the same century or, again several years later, those who adopted the Markan Vorlage, apprehended it in exactly the ‘correct way’ as established by modern exegetical scholarship (with newly obtained knowledge of, for example, treaty practices in the ancient Hittite empire and during the neo-Assyrian period)?164 This is all the more true as our analysis of HB / OT / LXX text traditions, informed by recent ritual theory approaches, explored latent (or implicit) functions or rituals of which their actors were unaware (see above). And mutatis mutandis, how would any 1st century CE audience or reader have understood this narrative or its subsequent liturgical enactment? Does it not make more sense to assume that these people would have understood the texts at these different stages, on the one hand, as texts and, on the other hand, within the framework of the rituals that they knew from their own worship liturgies? Matthew’s version shows that its author or redactor understood both the blood rite in Exod 24:8 and the “blood of the covenant” in the Vorlage, Mark 14:24, in light of familiar atonement concepts. This author / redactor would have been informed by the worship at the Jerusalem Temple where, until a few years earlier, ritual sacrifices had been offered daily and where blood of animals was used to make atonement. This was a ‘close connection’, even if Matthew’s redaction of Mark’s text post-dated the temple destruction; in the literary world of the Vorlage, after all, the Last Supper of Jesus is situated in the city of Jerusalem, and Jesus had just visited the temple with his disciples (Mark 11:15–19; 13:1–2).165 Furthermore, Matthew has demonstrated his 164

The disciples of Jesus responded to his question “whom say ye that I am” that he is John the Baptist or Elijah or the Messiah (Mark 8:27–30). They did not respond that he is a historical-critical researcher or modern archaeologist or ritual theorist. 165 The proximity to the Jerusalem Temple and its worship, suggested here, does not mean that Matthew understood the “blood of the covenant” like that of, e.g., the sin offering (‫חטאת‬, Lev 4), which affects atonement and forgiveness (cf. YARBRO-COLLINS, “Mark’s Interpretation”, 549–550). It rather means that Matthew would have understood the effect or modus operandi of the blood rite of the burnt offering and the offering of well-being in Exod 24:8 in a way that corresponds to these sacrificial rituals (cf. KAZEN, “Sacrificial Interpretation”, 486–488). For this discussion, however, it is important to realize that Matthew does not link forgiveness exclusively to the “blood of the covenant” in the Last Supper scene. In his

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

409

preference for imagery drawn from Day of Atonement rituals (Lev 16), including atonement concepts, elsewhere in his rendition of the Jesus story, specifically just prior to and following his Last Supper pericope.166 The tradition of Rabbinic interpretation as outlined above (Targumim Onkelos and Ps.-Jonathan on Exod 24:8, affirmed by, e.g., Rashi and Ibn Ezra) is another example for this interpretive move, also post-dating the temple destruction.167 That tradition in turn corresponds to the way in which Hebrews, authored late in the 1st or early in the 2nd century CE, refers to the “blood” of Jesus. This NT book quotes the αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης – “blood of the covenant” of Exod 24:8LXX three times (Heb 10:29 and 13:20; 9:20 has an even longer quotation: τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης ἧς ἐνετείλατο πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός – “this is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you”).168 Thus, for Hebrews as for

Gospel, Jesus forgives sins well during his lifetime. The Eucharistic cup is one more source of forgiveness, but not the only one. It is no “forgiveness monopoly” (cf. LOADER, “Forgiveness”, 364–365). 166 For example, the fifth major discourse of Jesus in the Gospel according to Matthew ends with the final judgement account (Matt 25:31–46), which is also the last discourse of the ministry of Jesus. Its contrasting of sheep and goats, accompanied by two opposing lots and the expulsion of the goats that are cursed, may draw on Azazel / scapegoat traditions in Lev 16:20–22; these are associated with “atonement” (Lev 16:10; cf. MOSCICKE, “Final Judgement”, 241–259). In a similar way, a variety of text signals in the Barabbas episode (Matt 27:15–26) subtly alludes to an understanding of Jesus as a scapegoat who carries away human sin, for instance, the addition of the name “Jesus” to “Barabbas” so that “Jesus Barabbas” is now pitched against “Jesus the Messiah” (27:17), which corresponds to the tradition of two identical goats, one of which was being sacrificed as a sin offering while the other one was to become the scapegoat (Barn. 7:10a). Moreover, the red cloak around the shoulders of Jesus is, according to Matt 27:28, κοκκίνη – “scarlet”, no longer πορφύρα – “purple” as in the Vorlage in Mark 15:17; it now corresponds to the “scarlet thread” (‫לשון שלזהורית‬, m.Yoma 4:2) for the cords that were being tied onto the head of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement to distinguish it from the goat for the sin offering and symbolize the transmitted sins and impurities (cf. STÖKL BEN EZRA, “Fasting”, 182–183). Thus Matthew creatively yet obliquely integrates aspects of the Day of Atonement rituals into this narrative about Jesus. 167 The Rabbinic discussions of the meaning of the covenant scene in Gen 15 is another example that evinces the tendency of resorting to ‘familiar’ atonement concepts for the interpretation of an unusual ritual (see the pertinent discussion above). 168 While offering a rather creative paraphrase of its LXX source text, Hebrews is explicit about its understanding of the meaning of blood as purification (καθαρίζω) effecting forgiveness (ἄφεσις, Heb 9:22), as sanctification (ἁγιάζω, 10:29), and as the very means by which “the God of peace … brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus” (13:20). The first three are cultic terms. They draw on the Day of Atonement ritual (Lev 16) that is mentioned in Heb 9:6–13 where they are combined with references to the covenant ritual according to Exod 24:4–8 (cf. FREY, “διαθήκη”, 281–291; HOLTZ, “Pentateuchrezeption”, 370–371; KARRER, Hebräer, 162–164 [who mentions that the three materials water, scarlet wool, and hyssop that are referenced in Heb 9:19 but exceed Exod 24:8 all serve cleansing purposes];

410

Christian A. Eberhart

Matthew, the “blood of the covenant” evokes cultic atonement categories implying purification and consecration. Does Matthew’s interpretation also apply to Mark 14:24? We do not know; interpretive hints about the significance of the cup are limited to the accompanying word of institution. Beyond employing the term “covenant”, Mark does not explicate any soteriological benefit of the drinking from the shared chalice. In that sense, his word of institution resembles the words of Moses that accompany the blood rite in Exod 24:8. While both are actually interpretive comments, they are unique and do not elucidate the specific modus operandi of the rite any further. However, through the employment of the term “covenant”, the word of institution in Mark 14:24 conveys the establishment of a lasting bond with those who drink from the cup. As for the meaning of the term “covenant” in Mark 14:24 and Matt 26:28, these observations evince the propensity of NT writings to “… maintain continuity with the specific religious usage of the Septuagint, where διαθήκη designates, quite generally, the mutual relationship between God and his people, established sovereignly by YHWH to set a binding order of justice and peace.”169 In other words, the exact modus operandi of how the covenant is established is less important than its effective promise of a lasting “covenant” relationship with God. Summing up, the addition of εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν – “for the forgiveness of sins” to the word of institution over the cup (Matt 26:28) just like the early and later Rabbinic tradition and their adoption in Hebrews are vivid examples of the fact that – faute de mieux – ancient interpretive communities (authors, redactors, audiences / readers) drew on familiar cultic categories as cognitive frameworks in their efforts to either comprehend or explain traditional texts (Exod 24) or literary Vorlagen (Mark 14). For Matthew, that involved forgiveness. This is “the purpose or aim of the cup.”170 The larger contexts in both Exod 24 and in Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospel convey to the audience what such a “covenant” fellowship means. 3.2 The “New Covenant” in Luke 22:20 Forgiveness of sins is also an explicit aspect of the “new covenant” in Jer 31:31–34MT / Jer 38:31–34LXX. The usage of this text passage in early Christian literature is well attested; Hebrews, for example, quotes it twice within three chapters (the quotation in Heb 8:7‒13 is the most extensive one of a HB / OT / LXX passage in the entire NT; excerpts also occur in Heb 10:15‒18). It effectively conveys the core of God’s saving grace through forgiveness of sins

KRAUS, “Rezeption”, 123; JOSEPH, “Hebrews”, 223; see also the contribution of Wolfgang Kraus in this volume). 169 Cf. BACKHAUS, “Covenant”, 909. 170 SANDNES, “Meal”, 467.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

411

and iniquities.171 In Luke 22:20, the word over the cup, τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον ‒ “this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (see also 1 Cor 11:25) inverses the order of the words “blood” and “covenant” and, through the addition of the attribute “new”, clearly alludes to Jer 38:31LXX.172 We may assume that, in the 1st century CE, terminology and concepts about the internalized and intimate knowledge of God based on divine initiative that accomplishes forgiveness of sins must have been familiar from its source text in Jer 38:31–34LXX. That passage does not mention “blood” (or death) anywhere and is not about atonement.173 To recapitulate, for Luke, the “cup that is poured out for you” indicates a libation according to the tradition of the Greco-Roman symposium, extending to the wine (synecdoche).174 Moreover, the alternative words ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, which clearly refer to all of the disciples who were present at the Last Supper, may be understood as a proleptic assurance of grace even to those of the disciples who will subsequently betray and deny Jesus (Luke 22:47‒51 [with v. 3‒6], 54‒62). The fellowship with Jesus is valid beyond death and despite human failure. In his comments on the word of institution over the cup, François Bovon points out “a play between the first person singular (μου) and the second person plural (ὑμῶν). The fellowship is not only established among ‘you’; it is also created between ‘you’ and ‘me’.”175 Luke’s Gospel famously lacks anything reminiscent of atonement (despite its preference for the Temple in Jerusalem).176 The “breaking of bread” is a lot more characteristic of the memorial rite that Jesus instituted; in the Last Supper 171

Cf. KARRER, Hebräer, 118; BACKHAUS, Neue Bund, 171; FUHRMANN, “Failures Forgotten”, 300–308; HOLTZ, “Pentateuchrezeption”, 365–366; KRAUS, “Rezeption”, 456. 172 Cf. HAHN, Theologie II, 479; KLINGHARDT, “Becher”, 49–52; KAZEN, “Sacrificial Interpretation”, 489–491. Critical of the reference to Jer 38:31LXX are, e.g., GRÄSSER, “Bund”, 119–120; VOGEL, Heil, 83; see, however, the discussion and rejection of their arguments in KLINGHARDT, “Becher”, 50. 173 Cf. NEEF, “Aspekte”, 16; THEISSEN/MERZ, Historische Jesus, 372; BYRSKOG, “Meal”, 443. 174 Cf. KLINGHARDT, “Becher”, 49–52; BYRSKOG, “Meal”, 442. 175 BOVON, Luke 3, 159; cf. also THEOBALD, “‘Gebt ihr ihnen zu essen!’”, 170–171. Such a lasting fellowship is the typical outcome of common wine drinking in the Greco-Roman sympotic culture (cf. ÖHLER, “Mähler”, 1426–1429). With that, the Dionysiac culture of antiquity also needs to be mentioned at least in passing as it “is natural to assume that the literary and iconographic traditions about Dionysus, including his presence at meals, influenced Christian authors more than many other aspects of ‘pagan theology’. And it cannot be excluded that the ‘common figure of speech’ which identified god and wine, ridiculed by the philosophers, had some impact on Christian thought as well” (ECKHARDT, “Eating”, 1774; Dionysiac iconography is richly attested in Greco-Roman antiquity, for instance in the luxurious slope houses of Ephesus; cf. ZIMMERMANN, “Archäologische Zeugnisse”, 1620, 1625, etc.). 176 Cf. KAZEN, “Sacrificial Interpretation”, 490–491.

412

Christian A. Eberhart

pericope, the two cups (Luke 22:17–18, 20) frame the bread action (v. 19), literally making it the center of the scene.177 The bread is a symbol of unity. Luke adopts the terminology and concept of the Last Supper from 1 Cor 11:23– 26. The apostle Paul draws repeatedly on Jeremiah’s “new covenant” in his letters to help the congregation in Corinth cope with internal schisms. The “new covenant” is to be understood in terms of κοινωνία – “fellowship” (1 Cor 1:9).178 Friendship, respect, and love are all aspects included in this vision of κοινωνία. These various aspects are being activated in Luke’s employment of the word over the cup and the term διαθήκη. In Luke’s Gospel as well as in the book of Acts, central concerns are social justice, the empowerment of the poor, and an intimate experience of community that includes the sharing of material possessions.179 The rite points to what is right. And all of this analeptically recalls narratives that depict Jesus feeding the multitudes (Luke 9:10–17; see also Mark 6:30–44; 8:1–9, etc.). The pericope about the Last Supper conveys all of that, drawing on conviviality as an important concept.180 Even if Luke puts the emphasis on the bread, its symbolism is closely connected with the cup as well. According to Matthias Klinghardt, in Luke, the libation of the chalice in the tradition of the Greco-Roman symposium is the “new covenant”; through the analogy of peace covenants, libations are

177 Therefore, on the road to Emmaus, the two disciples only recognize Jesus during the bread rite (Luke 24:13–35), an idiosyncratic event of symbolic significance for the entire mission of Jesus. In Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7 and elsewhere, the shortened, pars pro toto reference to this meal ritual is only “breaking of bread”, not, for example, “drinking of a cup” or “bread and wine” (cf. PESCH, Apostelgeschichte, 190; BOLYKI, Jesu Tischgemeinschaften, 157– 158; BÖTTRICH, “Proexistenz”, 428–430; LÖHR, “Entstehung”, 72). 178 The term κοινωνία – “fellowship” is not repeated in 1 Cor 1; the argumentative weight is focused on “covenant”, which is more than just a divine institution. It conveys not just a vertical, but also a horizontal connection, and according to 11:17–26 the latter is the result of the former. It is, a few sentences later, explicated by the short “wait for one another” (11:33), emphasizing the importance of true community among the Corinthians. 179 In Acts 2:42, κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου – “breaking of bread” is mentioned as part of the early Christian worship. It conveys, first, the empowerment of the disciples, and second, an intimate experience of community that includes the distribution and joint possession of material possessions. Third, the bread is also shared with others, and a distance to the Jewish temple is not indicated. Finally, the event happens in the context of a joyful community (cf. BOLYKI, Jesu Tischgemeinschaften, 152–156, 228–230; BÖTTRICH, “Proexistenz”, 417– 420; SCHNELLE, First One Hundred Years, 122–124). 180 Cf. MYERS, Binding, 362–363; THEOBALD, “‘Gebt ihr ihnen zu essen!’”, 158–171; HOLMSTRAND, “Narratives”, 355–388. The aspect of the unity and fellowship of a group of people is central to the concept of the Eucharist. As mentioned above, the cup of wine is ὑπὲρ πολλῶν (Mark 14:24) or περὶ πολλῶν (Matt 26:28) – “for many” or ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν – “for you” (Luke 22:20). Despite the differences in detail, all three phrases feature a plural. The Eucharistic celebration is, by its very nature, a communal event among people who have come together for a celebration.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

413

likewise the peace.181 In this sense, it is no coincidence that Luke includes the words τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν – “do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19) after the sharing of the bread, the idiosyncratic representation of the ministry of Jesus. Remembering the mission of Jesus is, at the same time, the perfect example of a life lived for others with the continuous goals of love, respect, social justice, etc.182

4. Conclusion and Ramifications: “Covenant” in the Synoptic Gospels The Last Supper pericopes in the synoptic Gospels contain two distinct streams of tradition of the words of institution (based on Mark and 1 Corinthians). They all feature the term διαθήκη – “covenant” in the word of institution over the chalice. The Last Supper as such consciously combines several different traditions with different ‘weights’: Passover, covenant, atonement, conviviality / symposium, etc. The term διαθήκη refers to a number of HB / OT / LXX texts, specifically to the covenant ritual at Mt. Sinai (Exod 24:3–8) and the “new covenant” (Jer 31MT / 38LXX). The term ‫“ – ברית‬covenant” has its roots in ancient inter- and transnational diplomacy (common treaty practices in the Hittite empire and during the neoAssyrian period) and in the local / domestic realm of family and household settings (marriage, parent / offspring) with arguably some Achaemenid Persian influence. Applicable in a variety of heterogeneous setting, its semantics convey connections, relationship, and bonds. The concept has been adopted widely and repeatedly in the daunting endeavor of renegotiating religious identity during and after the exile, leading to a multitude of succeeding covenants not only in the Torah or the HB / OT / LXX, but even at Mt. Sinai. 181

KLINGHARDT, “Becher”, 50–51. Cf. WINNINGE, “Lord’s Supper”, 594–595. In articulating this vision, we will now entertain the question of whether Luke’s Last Supper pericope alludes to the iconic text of Deutero-Isaiah’s Suffering Servant (Isa 52:13–53:12LXX). Previously it was argued that the characteristic word πολλοί – “many” in Mark 14:24 and Matt 26:28 may be such a hint because of its five occurrences in the passage of Deutero-Isaiah. It is sometimes proposed that Luke’s prominent use of the term παραδίδωμι – “to betray, hand over”, which occurs twice in the Passion narrative (Luke 22:21–22), is an additional textual clue as it may echo Isa 53:12LXX: ἀνθʼ ὧν παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ – “… because he handed his soul over to death”. Moreover, all the suffering happens according to divine plan (cf. WINNINGE, “Lord’s Supper”, 594–595). However, while the latter is correct, it must be mentioned that Luke’s version of the Last Supper of Jesus has ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν – “for you” in the word over the second cup (Luke 22:20) and likewise for the bread (v. 19). Thus, the characteristic πολλοί – “many” is missing altogether in Luke, making an allusion to Isa 52:13–53:12LXX difficult to substantiate (cf. ESCHNER, Gestorben, 493; KAZEN, “Sacrificial Interpretation”, 490). 182

414

Christian A. Eberhart

At the stage of Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic redactions, the concept of covenant had gradually attained the quality of a unilateral promise of divine grace, captured later also in the Greek term διαθήκη to render ‫ברית‬. One of these many covenants is the Mosaic covenant ritual at Mt. Sinai (Exod 24:1– 11), a ceremonial establishment of an existential bond between God and Israel. In its final redactional form, it is actualized through an idiosyncratic blood rite that prepares a subsequent close encounter with God, which may be seen as a graphic illustration of new identity as a result of the covenantal promise. A crux interpretum, the blood rite as such should neither be understood as effecting atonement nor as covenantal punishment because of the lack of analogies. In the narrated world of the ritual, various aspects convey the creation of a bond between the covenanting parties. But this is only one covenant among many in the HB / OT / LXX. Over time, a sliding scale from bilateral to unilateral covenantal relations emerged with the extreme of the “new covenant”. In contradistinction to the broken covenant of Mt. Sinai, the unique “new covenant” of Jeremiah envisages a gracious God as the sole guarantor of the covenant and humans who will be capable of fulfilling it because it is written on their hearts (Jer 31MT / Jer 38LXX). Furthermore, God will forgive human sins. In the synoptic Gospels, Mark and Matthew draw on the rare “blood of the covenant” in Exod 24, Luke (via 1 Cor 11) draws on the unique “new covenant” in Jer 38LXX. Wine instead of blood is the covenantal sign in Mark and Matthew; the covenant itself is actualized through drinking. It conveys a promise for the twelve disciples, but also for everybody else of continuous relationship beyond the death of Jesus. From the source text in Exod 24, only the unilateral component, the “blood of the covenant”, has been adopted in Mark 14:24 / Matt 26:28. Mark’s version seemingly avoids atonement categories to convey the covenantal bond; some suggest that it alludes to the iconic Song of the Suffering Servant (Isa 52:13–53:12LXX) to articulate the vicarious meaning of the suffering and death of Jesus. Matthew adopts the word over the cup from the Markan Vorlage and understands it in light of traditional atonement concepts, as does the Rabbinic tradition. Drawing on the “new covenant” in 1 Cor 11:23, which hearkens back to a promise of another unilateral covenant in Jer 38:31–34LXX, Luke’s version follows a different interpretive trajectory. Giving primacy to the bread rite, the “cup that is poured out for you” evokes a sympotic libation. By the analogy of peace covenants, libations likewise are the peace. In either way, the word spoken over the chalice, as a creative new covenant formula imbued with deep meaning, conveys the covenantal bond of Jesus with his disciples and others who receive a new identity. At the same time, it epitomizes the pro-existence of Jesus. The ratification of this (new) unilateral covenant through a ritual evinces its quality as a free gift. The cup of wine is its sign, appropriated in emotive fashion

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

415

through tasting and drinking (physical contact). It communicates victory over death through an eternal bond with God.183 The dimension of an existence vis-à-vis God is important when conceptualizing the ramifications of the ‘blood of the covenant’. This peculiar relational aspect is the determining factor that God’s history with Israel continues. No matter which translation we choose for διαθήκη – a case is to be made for “covenant” or “covenantal decree” (“Bund” or “Bundesverfügung”) – what it primarily conveys is less the technicality of a specific modus operandi or type (testament, legal obligation, cult event), but its underlying relational dimension, specifically an existence coram deo, and its eternal quality. As such, “covenant” is a dynamic category that has, since the days of Jeremiah and the Deuteronomistic historiographer, continuously required periodic actualization and adaptation. Soon, the whole authoritative collection of 27 early Christian writings was being subsumed under the term that came to epitomize the Last Supper, which in turn was a reference to the covenant of Jeremiah looking even further back to the covenant at Mt. Sinai. The church later translated the Greek καινὴ διαθήκη as Latin novum testamentum – “New Testament”. It used terminology of a final, legal decree with an emphasis on a unilaterally established bond between God and humanity for its Scriptures. As the reflections above indicate, this was an apt summary of what Jesus had in mind.

Bibliography ÅDNA, JOSTEIN, “Jesus’ Meals and Table Companions”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 1: Old Testament, Early Judaism, New Testament

183 These interpretive aspects open a window into later developmental stages of the Eucharistic tradition and subsequent references to it. For instance, it shows the occasional connection with the idea of overcoming death. Early in the 2nd century CE, Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Eucharist as “breaking one bread”, reminiscent of the Lukan tradition. For Ignatius, it was “a medicine that brings immortality, an antidote that allows us not to die but to live at all times in Jesus Christ” (φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτος τοῦ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν ἀλλὰ ζῆν ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ διὰ παντός, Ign.Eph. 20:2). In a similar way, the narrative Joseph and Aseneth features references to the Eucharist as “blessed bread of life, blessed cup of immortality[, blessed unction of incorruptibility]” (8:9; 15:5; 16:16; cf. HUMPHREY, Joseph and Aseneth, 59; ALIKIN, Earliest History, 133; BLOMQVIST/BLOMQVIST, “Eucharist Terminology”, 406, 415; HELLHOLM, “Aliments”, 1889). In the Qurʼān, the death of Jesus is antitypically related to the notion of “covenant”. According to Surah 4:155–157, people who have broken the covenant (wa-kufrihim) are those who proclaim the false statement that Jesus, the Messiah, son of Mary, and the one sent from God, would have been killed and crucified (cf. KAHL, “Deutung”, 404–405).

416

Christian A. Eberhart

(WUNT 376), edited by David Hellholm / Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 331–353. ALBERTZ, RAINER, Exodus 19–40 (ZBK.AT 2 / 2), Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2015. ALIKIN, VALERIY A., The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering: Origin, Development and Content of the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010. AMPHOUX, CHRISTIAN-BERNARD, “Le dernier repas de Jésus: Lc 22, 15–20 par”, EThR 56 (1981): 449–454. ANDRÉ, GUNNEL, “‫”זרק‬, ThWAT 2 (1977): 686–689. AURELIUS, ERIK, “Bundestheologie im Alten Testament: Ein Buch von Lothar Perlitt und seine Folgen”, ZThK 111 (2014): 357–373. –, Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Enneateuch (BZAW 319), Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 2003. BACHMANN, MICHAEL, “J.D.G. Dunn und die Neue Paulusperspektive”, ThZ 63 (2007): 25– 43. BACKHAUS, KNUT, “Covenant: III. New Testament”, EBR 5 (2012): 908–912. –, Der neue Bund und das Werden der Kirche: Die Diatheke-Deutung des Hebräerbriefes im Rahmen der frühchristlichen Theologiegeschichte (NTA 29), Münster: Aschendorff, 1996. –, “Hat Jesus vom Gottesbund gesprochen?”, ThGl 86 (1996): 343–356. BARTH, GERHARD, Der Tod Jesu Christi im Verständnis des Neuen Testaments, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1992. BAUKS, MICHAELA, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Religionsgeschichtliche und bibelhermeneutische Perspektiven (UTB 4973), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. BAUTCH, RICHARD J., “An Appraisal of Abraham’s Role in Postexilic Covenants”, CBQ 71 (2009): 42–63. –, Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period (LHB / OTS 471), New York and London: T&T Clark, 2009. –, “Covenant”, T&T Clark Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism 2, edited by Daniel M. Gurtner / Loren T. Stuckenbruck, London et al.: T&T Clark, 2020, 171–174. –, “Zechariah 11 and the Shepherd’s Broken Covenant”, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 255–269. BEGRICH, JOACHIM, “Berit: Ein Beitrag zur Erfassung einer alttestamentlichen Denkform”, ZAW 60 (1944): 1–11. BEHM, JOHANNES and QUELL, GOTTFRIED, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”, ThWNT 2 (1935): 105‒ 137. BEN ZVI, EHUD, Hosea (FOTL 21A / 1), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. BERGER, KLAUS / CHRISTIANE NORD, Das Neue Testament und frühchristliche Schriften, Frankfurt am Main and Leipzig: Insel, 1999. BETZ, HANS DIETER, “Unique by Comparison: The Eucharist and Mithras Cult”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 3: Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Traditions, Archaeology (WUNT 376), edited by David Hellholm and Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 1795–1832. BILLINGS, BRADLY S., “The Disputed Words in the Lukan Institution Narrative (Luke 22:19b–20): A Sociological Answer to a Textual Problem”, JBL 125 (2006): 507–526.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

417

–, Do This in Remembrance of Me: The Disputed Words in the Lukan Institution (Luke 22.19b–20): An Historico-Exegetical, Theological and Sociological Analysis (Library of New Testament Studies 314), London: T&T Clark, 2006. BLENKINSOPP, JOSEPH, Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. –, “Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 19–34)”, in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content (FS George W. Coats; JSOTSup 240), edited by Eugene E. Carpenter, Sheffield: Academic Press, 1997, 109–125. BLOMQVIST, JERKER and BLOMQVIST, KARIN, “Eucharist Terminology in Early Christian Literature: Philological and Semantic Aspects”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 1: Old Testament, Early Judaism, New Testament (WUNT 376), edited by David Hellholm and Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 389–421. BLUM, ERHARD, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189), Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1990. BODA, MARK J., “Reenvisioning the Relationship: Covenant in Chronicles”, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch / Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 391–407. BOLYKI, JÁNOS, Jesu Tischgemeinschaften (WUNT II/96), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. BÖTTRICH, CHRISTFRIED, “Proexistenz im Leben und Sterben: Jesu Tod bei Lukas”, in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament (WUNT 181), edited by Jörg Frey / Jens Schröter, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 413–436. BOVON, FRANÇOIS, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 (transl. by Christine M. Thomas; Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002. –, Luke 3: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 19:28–24:53 (transl. by James Crouch; Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012. BOYARIN, DANIEL, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. BRAWLEY, ROBERT L., “Abrahamic Covenant Traditions and the Characterization of God in Luke–Acts”, in The Unity of Luke–Acts (BETL 142), edited by Joseph Verheyden, Leuven: Peeters, 1999, 109–132. –, “Reverberations of Abrahamic Covenant Traditions in the Ethics of Matthew”, in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr., edited by Prescott H. Williams, Atlanta: Scholars, 1999, 26–46. BROWN, RAYMOND E., The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, vol. 2: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (ABRL), New York et al.: Doubleday, 1994. BULTMANN, RUDOLF, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (UTB 630), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984 (9th edition). BYRSKOG, SAMUEL, “The Meal and the Temple: Probing the Cult-Critical Implications of the Last Supper”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 1: Old Testament, Early Judaism, New Testament (WUNT 376), edited by David Hellholm / Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 423–452. CAMPBELL, WILLIAM S., The Nations in the Divine Economy: Paul’s Covenantal Hermeneutics and Participation in Christ, Lanham et al.: Lexington Books / Fortress Academic, 2018.

418

Christian A. Eberhart

CARASIK, MICHAEL, The Commentators’s Bible: The Rubin JPS Miqra’ot Gedolot: Exodus ‫שמות‬, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2005 / 5765. CARR, DAVID M., Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. ČERNÝ, JAROSLAV, “Reference to Blood Brotherhood among Semites in an Egyptian Text of the Ramesside Period”, JNES 14 (1955): 161–163. COOK, MICHAEL J., “Where Jewish Scholars on Jesus Go Awry: Last Supper, Sanhedrin, Blasphemy, Barabbas”, Shofar 28 (2010): 70–77. DAVIES, GRAHAM I., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1–18, vol. 1: Commentary on Exodus 1–10 (ICC), London / New York 2020. DAY, JOHN, “Whatever Happened to the Ark of the Covenant?”, in IDEM, Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (LHBOTS 422), London / New York: T&T Clark, 2005, 250– 270. DE ANGELO CUNHA, WILSON, “Christoph Levin: Das Alte Testament”, RBL (2019). DEBEL, HANS, “Anchoring Revelations in the Authority of Sinai: A Comparison of the Rewritings of ‘Scripture’ in Jubilees and in the P stratum of Exodus”, JSJ 45 (2014): 471–492. DELLING, GERHARD, “Abendmahl: II. Urchristliches Mahl-Verständnis”, TRE 1 (1977): 47– 58. DEMPSEY, CAROL J., “Poems, Prayers, and Promises: The Psalms and Israel’s Three Covenants”, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 323–338. DOHMEN, CHRISTOPH, “Der Sinaibund als Neuer Bund nach Ex 19–34”, in Der Neue Bund im Alten: Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD 146), edited by Erich Zenger, Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1993, 51–83. –, Exodus 19–40 (HThKAT), Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2012. DUNN, JAMES D. G., “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Romans 9:4 and 11:27”, IDEM, The New Perspective on Paul: Revised Edition, Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005, 429–445. DU PLESSIS, ISAK JOHANNES, “The Saving Significance of Jesus and His Death on the Cross in Luke’s Gospel – Focussing on Luke 22:19b–20”, Neot 28 (1994): 523–540. EBERHART, CHRISTIAN A., “Blood. I. Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible / Old Testament”, EBR 4 (2012): 201–212. –, “Kult und die Begegnung mit dem einen Gott in der Septuaginta”, in Handbuch zur Septuaginta – Handbook of the Septuaginta, vol. 5: Die Theologie der Septuaginta – The Theology of the Septuagint (LXX.H 5), edited by Hans Ausloos / Bénédicte Lemmelijn, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2020, 165–242. –, Studien zur Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament: Die Signifikanz von Blut- und Verbrennungsriten im kultischen Rahmen (WMANT 94), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002. ECKHARDT, BENEDIKT, “Eating and Drinking (with) Dionysos”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 3: Near Eastern and GraecoRoman Traditions, Archaeology (WUNT 376), edited by David Hellholm / Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 1761–1777. EDENBURG, CYNTHIA, “From Covenant to Connubium: Persian Period Developments in the Perception of Covenant in the Deuteronomistic History”, in Covenant in the Persian

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

419

Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch / Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 131–149. EDERER, MATTHIAS, Identitätsstiftende Begegnung: Die theologische Deutung des regelmäßigen Kultes Israels in der Tora (FAT 121), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. ELLMAN, BARAT, Memory and Covenant: The Role of Israel’s and God’s Memory in Sustaining the Deuteronomic and Priestly Covenants (Emerging Scholars Series), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. EPP, ELDON J., “The Disputed Words of the Eucharistic Institution (Luke 22,19b–20): The Long and Short of the Matter”, Bib 90 (2009): 407–416. ESCHNER, CHRISTINA, Gestorben und hingegeben “für” die Sünder: Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi, vol. 1: Auslegungen der paulinischen Formulierungen (WMANT 122), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010. EVANS, CRAIG A., “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”, in The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.Sup 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter / Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003, 55–80. FELD, HELMUT, Das Verständnis des Abendmahls (EdF 50), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976. FELDMEIER, REINHARD and SPIECKERMANN, HERMANN, Der Gott der Lebendigen: Eine biblische Gotteslehre (ToBiTh 1), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. FINLAN, STEPHEN, Sacrifice and Atonement: Psychological Motives and Biblical Patterns, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. FINSTERBUSCH, KARIN, “‘Ich habe meine Tora in ihre Mitte gegeben’: Bemerkungen zu Jer 31,33”, BZ 49 (2005): 86–92. FISH, STANLEY, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980. FREEDMAN, DAVID N., “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation”, Int 18 (1964): 419– 431. FREVEL, CHRISTIAN, “‘Und Mose hörte (es), und es war gut in seinen Augen’ (Lev 10,20): Zum Verhältnis von Literargeschichte, Theologiegeschichte und innerbiblischer Auslegung am Beispiel von Lev 10”, in Gottes Name(n): Zum Gedenken an Erich Zenger (HBS 71), edited by Ilse Müllner et al., Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2012, 104–136. FREY, JÖRG, “Die alte und die neue διαθήκη nach dem Hebräerbrief”, in Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), edited by Friedrich Avemarie / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr, 1996, 263–310. FUHRMANN, SEBASTIAN, “Failures Forgotten: The Soteriology in Hebrews Revisited in the Light of its Quotation of Jeremiah 38:31–34[LXX]”, Neot 41 (2007): 295–316. GERTZ, JAN CHRISTIAN, “Bund: II. Altes Testament”, RGG 1 (41998): 1862–1865. –, Das erste Buch Mose (Genesis): Die Urgeschichte Gen 1–11 (ATD 1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. GILDERS, WILLIAM K., Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. –, “Covenant: IV. Judaism: A. Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism”, EBR 5 (2012): 912– 915. GNILKA, JOACHIM, Das Matthäusevangelium: vol. 2: Kommentar zu Kap. 14,1–28,20 und Einleitungsfragen (HThKNT 1/2), Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1988.

420

Christian A. Eberhart

GOSSE, BERNARD, “La nouvelle alliance de Jérémie 31,31–34: Du livre d’Ezéchiel au livre de Jérémie”, ZAW 116 (2004): 568–580. GRABBE, LESTER L., “Did all Jews Think Alike? ‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus in the Context of Second Temple Judaic Religion”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.S 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter / J.C.R. de Roo, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 252–266. GRÄSSER, ERICH, “Der Alte Bund im Neuen: Eine exegetische Vorlesung”, idem, Der Alte Bund im Neuen: Exegetische Studien zur Israelfrage im Neuen Testament (WUNT 35), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985, 1–134. GRAUPNER, AXEL, “Ewiger Bund (Gen 17) oder neuer Bund (Jer 31,31–34)? Überlegungen zu einem Grundproblem der Theologie des Alten Testaments im Horizont gesamtbiblischer Theologie”, Rocznik Teologiczny 57 (2015): 473–490. –, “Exodus 24 und die Frage nach dem Ursprung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament mit einem Ausblick auf die Herrenmahlsüberlieferung im Neuen Testament”, in Urchristliche Theologiegeschichte (BZNW 163), edited by Wolfgang Kraus, Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 2009, 129–148. GRAYSTON, KENNETH, Dying, We Live: A New Enquiry into the Death of Christ in the New Testament, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. GROSS, WALTER, “Bundestheologie im Wandel”, in Wandel als Thema religiöser Selbstdeutung: Perspektiven aus Judentum, Christentum und Islam (QD 310), edited by Judith Könemann / Michael Seewald, Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2021, 39–63. –, “Der neue Bund in Jer 31 und die Suche nach übergreifenden Bundeskonzeptionen im Alten Testament”, ThQ 176 (1996): 259–272. –, “Erneuerter oder neuer Bund? Wortlaut und Aussageintention in Jer 31,31–34”, in Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), edited by Friedrich Avemarie / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr, 1996, 41–66. –, “Noch einmal: Individualisierung des Bundesbruchs in der Priesterschrift: Eine Überprüfung”, in Jeremia, Deuteronomismus und Priesterschrift: Beiträge zur Literaturund Theologiegeschichte des Alten Testaments (FS Hermann-Josef Stipp; ATSAT 105), edited by Andreas Michel / Katrin Rüttgers, St. Ottilien: EOS–Editions, 2019, 69–86. –, Zukunft für Israel: Alttestamentliche Bundeskonzepte und die aktuelle Debatte um den Neuen Bund (SBS 176), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. GROSSMAN, MAXINE L., Reading for History in the Damascus Document: A Methodological Study (STDJ, 45), Leiden: Brill, 2002. GRUENWALD, ITHAMAR, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Brill Reference Library of Judaism 10), Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003. HAHN, FERDINAND, “Das Verständnis des Opfers im Neuen Testament”, in Das Opfer Jesu Christi und seine Gegenwart in der Kirche: Klärungen zum Opfercharakter des Herrenmahles (DiKi 3), edited by Karl Lehmann / Edmund Schlink, Freiburg / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983, 51–91. –, Der urchristliche Gottesdienst (SBS 41), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970. –, “Die alttestamentlichen Motive in der urchristlichen Abendmahlsüberlieferung”, EvTh 27 (1967): 337–374. –, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1: Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments: Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005 (2nd ed.). –, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2: Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Thematische Darstellung, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005 (2nd ed.).

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

421

–, “Zum Stand der Erforschung des urchristlichen Herrenmahls”, EvTh 35 (1975): 553–563. HAHN, SCOTT, “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-of-Death: Διαθήκη in Heb 9:15–22”, in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (BIS 75), edited by Gabriella Gelardini, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005, 65‒88. –, “Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994–2004)”, CBR 3 (2005): 263–292. HALLO, WILLIAM W., The Book of the People (BJS 225), Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 2020. HARAN, MENAHEM, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns / Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. –, “The Berît ‘Covenant’: Its Nature and Ceremonial Background”, in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, edited by Mordechai Cogan et al., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997, 203–219. HAYS, RICHARD B., Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016. HEINTZ, JEAN-GEORGES, “Alliance humaine – Alliance divine: Documents d’époque babylonienne ancienne & Bible hébraïque”, idem, Prophétisme et Alliance: Des Archives royales de Mari à la Bible hébraïque (OBO 271), Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 309–322. HELLHOLM, DAVID, “Aliments of Immortality in the Afterlife: Apocalyptic and Eschatological Notions of Eternal Life”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 3: Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Traditions, Archaeology (WUNT 376), edited by idem and Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 1851–1908. HERRMANN, SIEGFRIED, “‘Bund’ eine Fehlübersetzung von ‘berît’? Zur Auseinandersetzung mit Ernst Kutsch”, idem, Gesammelte Schriften zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments (ThB 75), München: Chr. Kaiser, 1986, 210‒220. HIEKE, THOMAS, Levitikus 1–15 (HThKAT), Freiburg: Herder, 2014. –, Levitikus 16–27 (HThKAT), Freiburg: Herder, 2014. –, “The Covenant in Leviticus 26: A Concept of Admonition and Redemption”, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 75–89. HOLLADAY, WILLIAM L., Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986. –, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. HOLMÉN, TOM, Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking (BibInt 55), Leiden: Brill, 2001. HOLMSTRAND, JONAS, “The Narratives of Jesus’ Feeding of the Multitudes: Functions in Early Christian Literature”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 1: Old Testament, Early Judaism, New Testament (WUNT 376), edited by David Hellholm / Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 355–388. HOLTZ, GUDRUN, “Pentateuchrezeption im Hebräerbrief”, in Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum: The Septuagint and Christian Origins (WUNT 277), edited by Thomas S. Caulley / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 359–381. HOOKER, MORNA D., “On Becoming the Righteousness of God: Another Look at 2 Cor 5:21”, NovT 50 (2008): 358–375.

422

Christian A. Eberhart

–, “Paul and ‘Covenantal Nomism’”, in eadem, From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 155–164. HUGENBERGER, GORDON P., Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52), Leiden: Brill, 1994. HUMPHREY, EDITH M., Joseph and Aseneth, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. JAUBERT, ANNIE, La notion d’alliance dans le judaïsme aux abords de l’ère chrétienne (Patristica Sorbonensia 6), Paris: Seuil, 1963. JEREMIAS, JÖRG, “Hosea / Hoseabuch”, TRE 15 (1986): 586–598. JEWETT, ROBERT, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. JOSEPH, SIMON J., “‘In the Days of His Flesh, He Offered Up Prayers’: Reimagining the Sacrifice(s) of Jesus in the Letter to the Hebrews”, JBL 140 (2021): 207–227. KAHL, WERNER, “Die Deutung des Kreuzesgeschehens im Kontext der koranischen Verkündigungsgeschichte”, in Talking God in Society: Multidisciplinary (Re)constructions of Ancient (Con)texts. Vol. 2: Hermeneuein in Global Contexts: Past and Present (FS Peter Lampe; NTOA 120/2), edited by Ute E. Eisen / Heidrun E. Mader, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020, 399–415. KALIMI, ISAAC, “Furcht vor Vernichtung und der ewige Bund: Das Buch Ester im Judentum und in jüdischer Theologie”, ZRGG 62 (2010): 339–355. KAPLAN, JACOB, “Salt Trade and Industry”, EJ 17 (22007): 709–710. KARRER, MARTIN, Der Brief an die Hebräer, vol. 2: Kapitel 5,11–13,25 (ÖTBK 20/2), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008. –, “Die Schriften Israels im Hebräerbrief”, TLZ 138 (2013): 1181–1196. KAZEN, THOMAS, “Sacrificial Interpretation in the Narratives of Jesus’ Last Meal”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 1: Old Testament, Early Judaism, New Testament (WUNT 376), edited by David Hellholm / Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 477–502. KLINGHARDT, MATTHIAS, “Der vergossene Becher: Ritual und Gemeinschaft im lukanischen Mahlbericht”, Early Christianity 3 (2012): 33–58. KOCH, CHRISTOPH, “Covenant: I. Ancient Near East; II. Hebrew Bible / Old Testament”, EBR 5 (2012): 897–908. –, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (BZAW 383), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. KOESTER, HELMUT, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity, New York / Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987. KONKEL, MICHAEL, “Bund und Neuschöpfung: Anmerkungen zur Komposition von Ez 36– 37”, in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel: Festgabe für Frank-Lothar Hossfeld zum 65. Geburtstag (SBS 211), edited by Christoph Dohmen / Christian Frevel, Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007, 123–132. KRATZ, REINHARD G., The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (transl. by John Bowden), New York: T&T Clark, 2005. KRAUS, WOLFGANG, “Die Rezeption von Jer 38,31–34 (LXX) in Hebräer 8–10 und dessen Funktion in der Argumentation des Hebräerbriefes”, in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint (VTSup 157), edited by Johann Cook / Hermann-Josef Stipp, Leiden: Brill, 2012, 447–462.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

423

–, “Die Septuaginta als Brückenschlag zwischen Altem und Neuem Testament? Dtn 32 (Odae 2) als Fallbeispiel”, in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta, vol. 3. Studien zur Theologie, Anthropologie, Ekklesiologie, Eschatologie und Liturgie der Griechischen Bibel (BWANT 14), edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry / Dieter Böhler, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007, 266–290. –, “Jesaja 53 LXX im frühen Christentum – eine Überprüfung”, in idem (ed.), Beiträge zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte (BZNW 163), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009, 149–179. –, “Zur Aufnahme von Ex 24f. im Hebräerbrief”, in Heiliger Raum: Exegese und Rezeption der Heiligtumstexte Ex 24–40 (Theologische Akzente), edited by Matthias Hopf et al., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016, 94–99. –, “Zur Rezeption von Ps 40(39 LXX),7–9 in Hebr 10,5–10”, in Die Septuaginta – Geschichte, Wirkung, Relevanz: 6. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 21.‒24. Juli 2016 (WUNT 405), edited by Martin Meiser et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018, 110–129. KRAUSE, JOACHIM J., Die Bedingungen des Bundes: Studien zur konditionalen Struktur alttestamentlicher Bundeskonzeptionen (FAT 140), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. –, “Individualisierung des Bundesbruchs? Die neuere Deutung von Gen 17,14 im Licht der Vergleichsbelege”, ZAW 129 (2017): 194–204. KUTSCH, ERNST, “berit ‒ Verpflichtung”, THAT 1 (1971): 339‒352. –, “Bund: I. Altes Testament; II. Frühes Judentum; III. Neues Testament und frühe Kirche”, TRE 7 (1981): 397–410. LANG, BERNHARD, “Der Becher als Bundeszeichen: ‘Bund’ und ‘neuer Bund’ in den neutestamentlichen Abendmahlstexten”, in Der Neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD 146), edited by Erich Zenger, Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1993, 199–212. LANG, FRIEDRICH, “Abendmahl und Bundesgedanke im Neuen Testament”, EvTh 35 (1975): 524–538. LE BOULLUEC, ALAIN and SANDEVOIR, PIERRE, La Bible d’Alexandrie. L’Exode: Traduction du texte grec de la Septante: Introduction et Notes, Paris: Cerf, 1989. LÉON-DUFOUR, XAVIER, Le partage du pain eucharistique selon le Nouveau Testament, Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1982. LEONHARD, CLEMENS, “Pesach and the Eucharist”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 1: Old Testament, Early Judaism, New Testament (WUNT 376), edited by David Hellholm / Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 275–312. LEVIN, CHRISTOPH, Das Alte Testament, München: Beck, 2018 (5th edition). –, “Die Entstehung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament”, in idem, Verheißung und Rechtfertigung: Gesammelte Studien II (BZAW 431), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 242–259. –, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. –, “Erinnerung der Zukunft: Ein Grundzug biblischer Geschichtsschreibung”, ZThK 111 (2014): 127–147. LICHTENBERGER, HERMANN, “‘Bund’ in der Abendmahlsüberlieferung”, in Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), edited by idem / Friedrich Avemarie, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 217–228.

424

Christian A. Eberhart

LOADER, WILLIAM, “Forgiveness Monopoly? Identity Formation and Demarcation in the Jesus Movement”, in Tempel, Lehrhaus, Synagoge: Orte jüdischen Lernens und Lebens (FS Wolfgang Kraus), edited by Christian A. Eberhart et al., Paderborn: Brill; Ferdinand Schöningh, 2020, 359–372. LÖHR, HERMUT, “Entstehung und Bedeutung des Abendmahls im frühesten Christentum”, idem, Abendmahl (UTB 3499), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 51–94. LUZ, ULRICH, Matthew 21–28: A Commentary (transl. by J. E. Crouch; Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. MARTIN-ACHARD, ROBERT, “La signification de l’alliance dans l’Ancien Testament d’après quelques récents travaux”, RTP 18 (1968): 88–102. MARX, ALFRED, Les systèmes sacrificiels de l’Ancien Testament: Formes et fonctions du culte sacrificiel à Yhwh (VTSup 105), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005. MARX, ALFRED and GRAPPE, CHRISTIAN, Sacrifices scandaleux? Sacrifices humains, martyre et mort du Christ (EssBib 42), Genève: Labor et Fides, 2008. MASON, STEPHEN D., “Eternal Covenant” in the Pentateuch: The Contours of an Elusive Phrase (LHB / OTS 494), New York / London: T&T Clark, 2008. MCKENZIE, STEVEN L., Covenant (Understanding Biblical Themes), St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2000. MCKNIGHT, SCOT, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory, Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005. MENDENHALL, GEORGE E., Ancient Israel’s Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context, Louisville/London: Westminster / John Knox, 2001. METZGER, BRUCE M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (fourth revised edition), Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994 (2nd ed.). MEYERS, CAROL, Exodus (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. MEYERS, CAROL L. and MEYERS, ERIC M., Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B), Garden City: Doubleday, 1987. MILGROM, JACOB, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3), New York et al.: Doubleday, 1991. MITCHELL, CHRISTINE, “Achaemenid Persian Concepts Pertaining to Covenant and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi”, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch / Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 291–306. MITTMANN, ULRIKE, “Jes 53 LXX – ein umstrittener urchristlicher Referenztext: Zum traditions- und rezeptionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der Einsetzungsworte”, in Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum: The Septuagint and Christian Origins (WUNT 277), edited by Thomas S. Caulley / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 217–232. MOSCICKE, HANS M., “The Final Judgement as Ritual Purgation of the Cosmos: The Influence of Scapegoat Traditions on Matt 25:31–46”, NTS 67 (2021): 241–259. MÜLLER, MOGENS, “Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta für die Entfaltung neutestamentlicher Theologie”, in Die Septuaginta – Geschichte, Wirkung, Relevanz: 6. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 21.–24. Juli 2016 (WUNT 405), edited by Martin Meiser et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018, 730–756. MURPHY-O’CONNOR, JEROME, “The New Covenant in the Letters of Paul and the Essene Documents”, in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

425

Fitzmyer, S.J., edited by Maurya P. Horgan / Paul J. Kobelski, New York: Crossroad, 1989, 194–204. MYERS, CHED, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus, Maryknoll: Orbis, 2003 (14th edition). NEEF, HEINZ-DIETER, “Aspekte alttestamentlicher Bundestheologie”, in Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), edited by Friedrich Avemarie / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr, 1996, 1–23. NEWSOM, CAROL A., “‘When the Problem Is Not What You Have Done but Who You Are: The Changing Focus of Atonement in Second Temple Prayer and Poetry”, in Atonement: Jewish and Christian Origins, edited by Max Botner et al., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020, 67–88. NICHOLSON, ERNEST W., “The Covenant Ritual in Exodus XXIV 3–8”, VT 32 (1982): 74– 86. NIEHR, HERBERT, “Das Buch der Richter”, in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1), edited by Erich Zenger et al., Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1995 (2nd ed.), 137–143. NIHAN, CHRISTOPHE, “The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of ‘P’”, in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (AThANT 95), edited by Sarah Shectman / Joel S. Baden, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009, 87–134. NODET, ÉTIENNE, “On Jesus’ Last Supper”, Bib 91 (2010): 348–369. OEMING, MANFRED, “Der ‘verlängerte Arm’ des Jerusalemer Tempels: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion über die Ursprünge der Synagoge”, in Tempel, Lehrhaus, Synagoge: Orte jüdischen Lernens und Lebens (FS Wolfgang Kraus), edited by Christian A. Eberhart et al., Paderborn: Brill / Ferdinand Schöningh, 2020, 35–55. –, “‘See, We Are Serving Today’ (Nehemiah 9:36): Nehemiah 9 as a Theological Interpretation of the Persian Period”, in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, edited by idem / Oded Lipschits, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006, 571–588. –, “‘Siehe, deine Zeit war gekommen, die Zeit der Liebe’ (Ez 16,8): Die ‘Psychologie’ der Liebe als sachlicher Kern der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament”, in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel: Festgabe für Frank-Lothar Hossfeld zum 65. Geburtstag (SBS 211), edited by Christoph Dohmen / Christian Frevel, Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007, 151–160. ÖHLER, MARKUS, “Mähler und Opferhandlungen in griechisch-römischen Vereinigungen: Das frühchristliche Herrenmahl im Kontext”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 3: Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Traditions, Archaeology (WUNT 376), edited by David Hellholm / Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 1413–1439. OLYAN, SAUL M., “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment”, JBL 115 (1996): 201–218. OSWALD, WOLFGANG, “Correlating the Covenants in Exodus 24 and Exodus 34”, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 59–73. –, “Lawgiving at the Mountain of God (Exodus 19–24)”, in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTSup 164), edited by Thomas B. Dozeman et al., Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014, 169–192.

426

Christian A. Eberhart

OTTE, MARIANNE, Der Begriff berit in der jüngeren alttestamentlichen Forschung: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der semantischen Fragestellung bei Ernst Kutsch (EHS XXIII/803), Frankfurt: Lang, 2005. OTTO, ECKART, Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (BZAW 284), Berlin: de Gruyter 1999. –, “Die Ursprünge der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient”, ZAR 4 (1998): 1–84. –, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus”, in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction-Reception-Interpretation (BEThL 126), edited by Marc Vervenne, Leuven: Peeters, 1996, 61–111. PERKINS, LARRY, “People and Covenant”, in Handbuch zur Septuaginta – Handbook of the Septuaginta, vol. 5: Die Theologie der Septuaginta – The Theology of the Septuagint (LXX.H 5), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2020, 399–502. PERLITT, LOTHAR, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969. PESCH, RUDOLF, Das Markusevangelium, vol. 2: Kommentar zu Kapitel 8,27–16,20 (HThKNT 2), Freiburg: Herder, 1977. –, Die Apostelgeschichte, vol. 2: Apg 13–28 (EKK 5/2), Zürich: Benzinger / NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1986. POLAK, FRANK H., “The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari”, in Sefer Moshe (FS Moshe Weinfeld), edited by Chaim Cohen et al., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004, 119–134. PROPP, WILLIAM H.C., Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2), New York: Doubleday, 1999. –, Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2A), New York et al.: Doubleday, 2006. REGEV, EYAL, “Community as Temple: Revisiting Cultic Metaphors in Qumran and the New Testament”, BBR 28 (2018): 604–631. RENDTORFF, ROLF, Die “Bundesformel”: Eine exegetisch-theologische Untersuchung (SBS 160), Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995. –, Leviticus: vol. 1. Leviticus 1,1–10,20 (BK 3), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2004. –, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein kanonischer Entwurf, vol. 1: Kanonische Grundlegung, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999. RIEGER, HANS-MARTIN, “Aspekte alttestamentlicher Bundestheologie”, in Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), edited by Friedrich Avemarie / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr, 1996, 129–161. ROM-SHILONI, DALIT, “The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Employment of Family and Political Metaphor”, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch / Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 153–174. RÖMER, THOMAS, “Deuteronomistic History”, T&T Clark Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism 2, edited by Daniel M. Gurtner / Loren T. Stuckenbruck, London et al.: T&T Clark, 2020, 202–205. –, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction, London / New York: T&T Clark, 2005.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

427

RÖSEL, MARTIN, “Exkurs: Zur Übersetzung von διαθήκη”, in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, vol. 1: Genesis bis Makkabäer, edited by Martin Karrer / Wolfgang Kraus, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011, 170. –, “Nomothesie: Zum Gesetzesverständnis der Septuaginta”, in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta, vol. 3: Studien zur Theologie, Anthropologie, Ekklesiologie, Eschatologie und Liturgie der griechischen Bibel (BWANT 174), edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry / Dieter Bohler, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007, 132–150. RÜTERSWÖRDEN, UDO, “Bundestheologie ohne ‫”ברית‬, ZAR 4 (1998): 85–99. SANDERS, ED P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977. SANDNES, KARL OLAV, “Jesus’ Last Meal According to Mark and Matthew”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 1: Old Testament, Early Judaism, New Testament (WUNT 376), edited by David Hellholm / Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 453–475. SARNA, NAHUM M., Exodus ‫שמות‬: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary), Philadelphia et al.: Jewish Publication Society, 5751 / 1991. SCHAPER, JOACHIM, “Exodos: Exodus / Das zweite Buch Mose”, in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erklärungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, vol. 1: Genesis bis Makkabäer, edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011, 258–324. SCHENKER, ADRIAN, Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten: Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel (FRLANT 212), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. –, “Les sacrifices d’alliance, Ex XXIV,3–8, dans leur portée narrative et religieuse: Contribution à l’étude de la berît dans l’Ancien Testament”, RB 101 (1994): 481–494. SCHMIDT, LUDWIG, “Dekalog und Bundesbuch im Kontext von Exodus 19–24”, ZAW 128 (2016): 579–593. SCHMIDT, WERNER H., “Die Verheißung des Neuen Bundes: Jeremia 31,31–34”, Kirche und Israel: Didaskalia 34 (1989): 27–44. SCHNELLE, UDO, The First One Hundred Years of Christianity: An Introduction to its History, Literature, and Development (translated by James W. Thompson), Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020. SCHRÖTER, JENS, Das Abendmahl: Frühchristliche Deutungen und Impulse für die Gegenwart (SBS 210), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2006. SCHÜLE, ANDREAS, “The ‘Eternal Covenant’ in the Priestly Pentateuch and the Major Prophets”, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch / Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 41–58. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, ELISABETH, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, New York: Crossroad, 1983. SEEBASS, HORST, “Opfer II. Altes Testament”, TRE 25 (1995): 258–267. SKA, JEAN-LOUIS, Introduction à la lecture du Pentateuque: Clés pour l’interprétation des cinq premiers livres de la Bible (transl. by Frédéric Vermorel; Le livre et le rouleau 5), Brussels: Lessius, 2000. SMITH, BARRY, “Last Supper: I. New Testament”, EBR 15 (2017): 834–837. SMITH, DENNIS E., From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

428

Christian A. Eberhart

STERLING, GREGORY E., “Thunderous Silence: The Omission of the Sinai Pericope in Philo of Alexandria”, JSJ 49 (2018): 449–474. STIPP, HERMANN-JOSEF, “‘Meinen Bund hat er gebrochen’ (Gen 17,14): Die Individualisierung des Bundesbruchs in der Priesterschrift”, MTZ 56 (2005): 290–304. STÖKL BEN EZRA, DANIEL, “Fasting with Jews, Thinking with Scapegoats: Some Remarks on Yom Kippur in Early Judaism and Christianity, in Particular 4Q541, Barnabas 7, Matthew 27 and Acts 27”, in The Day of Atonement: Its Interpretations in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions (TBN 15), edited by Thomas Hieke / Tobias Nicklas, Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2012, 165–187. STUHLMACHER, PETER, “Das neutestamentliche Zeugnis vom Herrenmahl”, ZThK 84 (1987): 1–35. SWETNAM, JAMES, “Diathēkē in the Septuagint Account of Sinai: A Suggestion”, Bib 47 (1966): 438–444. TALMON, SHEMARYAHU, “Die Gemeinde des Erneuerten Bundes von Qumran: Zwischen rabbinischem Judentum und Christentum”, in Zion – Ort der Begegnung (FS Laurentius Klein; BBB 90), edited by Ferdinand Hahn et al., Bonn: Athenäum, 1993, 295–312. THIEL, WINFRIED, “Die Rede vom ‘Bund’ in den Prophetenbüchern”, ThV 9 (1977): 11–36. THEISSEN, GERD / ANNETTE MERZ, Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. THEOBALD, MICHAEL, “‘Gebt ihr ihnen zu essen!’ (Mk 6,37): Aspekte einer eucharistischen Theologie der Gabe im Neuen Testament”, JBTh 27: Geben und Nehmen (2012): 151– 186. VANDERKAM, JAMES C., Jubilees 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees Chapters 1–21 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018. VAN DER KOOIJ, ARIE / FLORIAN WILK, “Esaias: Isaias / Das Buch Jesaja: Einleitung”, in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erklärungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, vol. 2: Psalmen bis Daniel, edited by Martin Karrer / Wolfgang Kraus, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011, 2484–2505. VAN HENTEN, JAN WILLEM, “Datierung und Herkunft des vierten Makkabäerbuches”, idem et al. (eds.), Tradition and Re-interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (FS J.C.H. Lebram; StPB 36), Leiden: Brill, 1986, 136–149. VANHOYE, ALBERT, “Structure du Benedictus”, NTS 12 (1965/1966): 382–389. VAN SETERS, JOHN, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus Numbers (CBET 10), Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994. VARONE, FRANÇOIS, Ce Dieu censé aimer la souffrance, Paris: Cerf, 1993. VOGEL, MANUEL, Das Heil des Bundes: Bundestheologie im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (TANZ 18), Tübingen: Francke 1996. VONACH, ANDREAS, “Jeremias: Ieremias / Jeremia”, in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erklärungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, vol. 2: Psalmen bis Daniel, edited by Martin Karrer / Wolfgang Kraus, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011, 2696– 2814. WATTS, JAMES W., Leviticus 1–10 (HCOT), Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2013. –, “Unperformed Rituals in an Unread Book”, in Writing a Commentary on Leviticus: Hermeneutics – Methodology – Themes (FRLANT 276), edited by Christian A. Eberhart and Thomas Hieke, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019, 25–33. WEINFELD, MOSHE, “‫”ברית‬, ThWAT 1 (1973): 781–808. –, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 5), New York: Doubleday, 1991.

Between “My Blood of the Covenant” and the “New Covenant in My Blood”

429

WEIS, RICHARD D., “Jeremiah: 7.1. Textual History of Jeremiah”, in Textual History of the Bible. Vol. 1B, edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, Leiden: Brill, 2017, 495–513. WICK, PETER, Die urchristlichen Gottesdienste: Entstehung und Entwicklung im Rahmen der frühjüdischen Tempel-, Synagogen- und Hausfrömmigkeit (BWANT 150), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002. WILEY, TATHA, Paul and the Gentile Women: Reframing Galatians, New York: Continuum, 2005. WILK, FLORIAN, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus (FRLANT 179), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. WILLI-PLEIN, INA, Opfer und Kult im alttestamentlichen Israel: Textbefragungen und Zwischenergebnisse (SBS 153), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993. WINNINGE, MIKAEL, “The Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11 and Luke 22: Traditions and Development”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 1: Old Testament, Early Judaism, New Testament (WUNT 376), edited by David Hellholm / Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 579–602. WISCHMEYER, ODA, “Herrschen als Dienen – Mk 10,41–45”, ZNW 90 (1999): 28–44. WÖHRLE, JAKOB, “Abraham amidst the Nations: The Priestly Covenants and the Persian Imperial Ideology”, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J. Bautch / Gary N. Knoppers, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015, 23– 39. –, Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte (FRLANT 246), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. YARBRO-COLLINS, ADELA, Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. –, “Mark’s Interpretation of the Death of Jesus”, JBL 128 (2009): 545–554. ZIMMERLI, WALTHER, Grundriß der alttestamentlichen Theologie (Theologische Wissenschaft 3), Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1972. ZIMMERMANN, NORBERT, “Archäologische Zeugnisse von Gemeinschafts- und Kultmählern aus römischer Zeit: Am Beispiel von Ephesos”, in The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, vol. 3: Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Traditions, Archaeology (WUNT 376), edited by David Hellholm / Dieter Sänger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 1615–1632.

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen des Paulus* Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

FLORIAN WILK Florian Wilk

1. Einführung Die Debatte über eine etwaige Prägung der paulinischen Theologie durch das Konzept des “Bundes” (hebräisch ‫ברית‬, griechisch διαθήκη) ist im Zuge der “New Perspective on Paul” neu in Gang gekommen.1 Vielfach wird mit Selbstverständlichkeit von einem “Bundesnomismus” als prägendem Faktor des antiken, vorrabbinischen Judentums gesprochen und darin ein wesentlicher Verständnishintergrund für das Wirken des Apostels Paulus gesehen.2 Andererseits stößt solche Wahrnehmung sowohl der antik-jüdischen Quellen als auch vor allem der Paulusbriefe auf große Skepsis.3 In der Tat ist nach wie vor strittig, inwieweit hinter den relativ wenigen paulinischen Belegen aus dem Wortfeld διαθήκη ein umfassenderes, ggf. auch durch andere Begriffe und Aussagen zur Sprache gebrachtes Bundes-Konzept steht.4 Die beiden erhaltenen Briefe des Apostels Paulus an die Gemeinde zu Korinth sind für diese Debatte von zentraler Bedeutung.5 Beide greifen jeweils in einem Sinnabschnitt die Bundes-Terminologie auf, ohne dass dies durch Aus-

* Die Erarbeitung des Beitrags erfolgte im Rahmen und mit Unterstützung des Göttinger SFB 1136 “Bildung und Religion” (7/2015–12/2020; Teilprojekt B 02: “Schriftauslegung als Bildungsvorgang in den Briefen des Paulus”). Für Rat und Hilfe danke ich meinen Mitarbeitern Dr. J. Andrew Cowan (bis 12/2020) und Niklas Henning. 1 Zur “New Perspective” vgl. grundlegend STENDAHL, “Apostle”; SANDERS, Paul; WRIGHT, “Paul”; DUNN, “Perspective”. Überblicke zur Diskussion bieten STRECKER, “Paulus”; LOHSE, “Theologie”; WESTERHOLM, Perspectives; WOLTER, “Perspektive”; HAACKER, “Merits”; LANDMESSER, “Paulus”, ferner – aus der Binnenperspektive – DUNN, “Whence”. 2 Zum Bundesnomismus (“covenantal nomism”) vgl. grundlegend SANDERS, Paul; zur Anwendung auf Paulus vgl. z.B. WRIGHT, Climax (“covenantal theology”); LONGENECKER, “Sharing”, in modifizierter Form auch PITRE et al., Paul. 3 Vgl. etwa CAMPBELL, “Meaning”; DAS, “Rethinking”. 4 Letzteres befürworten etwa PORTER, “Covenant”, 279–285; WELCH/RENNAKER, “Paul”, 447f. 5 Zur literarischen Einheitlichkeit beider Briefe vgl. einerseits SCHRAGE, Brief I, 63–71, andererseits WILK, “propositio”.

432

Florian Wilk

einandersetzungen mit Gegnern jüdischer Prägung bedingt wäre.6 Dabei erfolgen die Referenzen durchaus mit Blick auf wichtige Aspekte christusgläubiger Existenz – auf die Feier des Herrenmahls in 1Kor 11 und auf das Verständnis des Aposteldienstes in 2Kor 3. Zu klären bleibt, welche Relevanz diesen Referenzen im jeweiligen Gedankengang, im Zusammenhang des jeweiligen Briefs sowie im Rahmen der Korintherkorrespondenz insgesamt zukommt. Dafür ist zunächst der Sinn des Begriffs διαθήκη in 1Kor 11,25 und 2Kor 3,6.14 zu erheben – vor dem Hintergrund seiner biblischen Verwendung. Sodann ist für beide Belege nach den jeweiligen Voraussetzungen innerhalb der Kommunikation zu fragen, die zwischen dem Apostel Paulus und seiner Mitarbeiterschaft einerseits, der Gemeinde zu Korinth andererseits stattgefunden hat: Welche Bezüge auf den “Bund” sind in ihr vorgegeben? Vor diesem Hintergrund ist schließlich die Verwendung der Bundesbegrifflichkeit und Bundeskonzeption in den beiden Korintherbriefen zu analysieren und abschließend zusammenfassend zu charakterisieren.

2. Die Rede vom “Bund” in 1Kor 11,17–34 2.1 Übersetzung und Gliederung 17 Da ich aber dies anordne, lobe ich (natürlich) nicht,7 dass ihr nicht zu dem (für euch) Besseren, sondern zu dem (für euch) Schlimmeren zusammenkommt. 18 Vor allem nämlich höre ich von eurem Zusammenkommen in der Gemeindeversammlung, dass es Spaltungen unter euch gibt – und zum Teil glaube ich (es). 19 Es muss ja auch Abspaltungen unter euch geben, damit auch8 die (in Treue) Bewährten offenbar werden unter euch. 20

Wenn ihr also am selben Ort zusammenkommt, geschieht es (gar) nicht, dass ihr ein Herrenmahl (als solches) esst; 21 denn ( jede und) jeder nimmt zuvor das eigene Mahl ein beim Essen, und der eine hat Hunger, der andere ist betrunken. 22 Habt ihr etwa keine Häuser für das (alltägliche) Essen und Trinken? Oder verachtet ihr die Gemeindeversammlung Gottes und beschämt die, die (solch eine Möglichkeit) nicht haben? Was soll ich euch sagen? Soll ich euch loben? In diesem (Verhalten) lobe ich euch nicht. 6 Zur Zurückweisung der zumal in der älteren Forschung häufiger vertretenen These, Paulus reagiere in 2Kor 3 auf judaisierende Gegner, vgl. SCHMELLER, Brief I, 196f.204f. 7 Die von etlichen Textzeugen gebotene, vorausweisende Lesart “Dies aber ordne ich an, wobei ich nicht lobe” stellt eine spätere, das Textverständnis erleichternde Bearbeitung dar. – Hier und im Folgenden sind mein Textverständnis verdeutlichende Zusätze in Klammern gesetzt. Zur näheren Begründung vergleiche WILK, Brief, 154–162. 8 Viele Handschriften glätten den Text durch Streichung des “auch”.

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

433

23 Ich habe ja empfangen vom Herrn, was ich euch auch überliefert habe: Der Herr Jesus – in der Nacht, in der er ausgeliefert wurde – nahm ein(en Laib) Brot, 24 und als er gedankt hatte, brach er (ihn) und sagte: “Dies ist mein Leib, der für euch (gegeben ist); dies tut zu meiner Vergegenwärtigung”. 25 Ebenso (nahm er) auch den Kelch nach der Mahlzeit, indem er sagte: “Dieser Kelch ist die neue Bundes-Verfügung(, erlassen) in meinem Blut; dies tut, sooft ihr (ihn) trinkt, zu meiner Vergegenwärtigung”. 26 Denn sooft ihr dieses Brot esst und den Kelch trinkt, verkündet ihr (damit) den Tod des Herrn, bis er kommt. 27

Daher (gilt:) Wer auch immer auf unwürdige Weise das Brot (des Herrn) isst oder den Kelch des Herrn trinkt, wird schuldig sein am Leib und am Blut des Herrn. Es soll sich aber ein ( jeder) Mensch selbst prüfen und (nur) so von dem Brot essen und aus dem Kelch trinken; denn wer isst und trinkt, isst und trinkt sich selbst ein Gericht(surteil), wenn er (dabei) nicht den Leib (des Herrn in seiner Würde) herausstellt.

28 29 30

Deshalb (gibt es) unter euch viele Schwache und Kraftlose, und es entschlafen (wirklich) genug (von ihnen). Wenn aber wir uns selbst (zu) beurteil(en hät)ten, würden wir nicht gerichtet; da wir aber vom Herrn gerichtet werden, werden wir (von ihm) erzogen, damit wir nicht mit der Welt verurteilt werden.

31 32 33

Daher, meine Geschwister: Wenn ihr zum Essen zusammenkommt, empfangt einander (zum Essen). 34 Falls jemand Hunger hat, soll er im Haus essen, damit ihr nicht zum Gericht(surteil) zusammenkommt. Das Übrige aber werde ich verfügen, sobald ich komme.

2.2 Kontext, Thema und Rhema des Abschnitts Der Textabschnitt ist Bestandteil des durch 1Kor 11,2 eröffneten Hauptteils des Briefs, in dem Paulus Probleme im Leben der Adressaten als “Versammlung Gottes” (1,2) hinsichtlich der Gottesdienstpraxis und der Endzeithoffnung behandelt.9 Im Anschluss an die apostolische Anordnung, die er mit 11,3–16 erteilt hat, tadelt er ein weiteres Fehlverhalten der Gemeinde, das – wie der 9

Der innere Zusammenhang von 1Kor 11–15 ergibt sich zum einen aus dem formalen Bezug auf die von Paulus übermittelten Überlieferungen (11,2.23; 15,3), zum anderen aus der eschatologischen Prägung des Gottesdienstes, die sich zumal in der Feier der “neuen Bundesverfügung” (11,25) beim Herrenmahl sowie im Gebrauch der Geistesgaben (12,1 u.ö.), die das “Angeld des Geistes” (2Kor 1,22; 5,5) erfahrbar machen, zeigt.

434

Florian Wilk

Rückgriff auf 11,2 anzeigt – explizit in Spannung zu den paulinischen Traditionen steht.10 Es betrifft das Zusammenkommen der Adressaten (11,17f.20. 33f.) in der Gemeindeversammlung (11,18.22), welches ein gemeinsames Essen ebenso einschließt (11,21f.29.33) wie die Feier des Herrenmahls (11,20. 26–28). Im Zuge dieses Zusammenkommens gibt es “Spaltungen” in der Mahlgemeinschaft (11,18, vgl. 11,21.33f.), wird also die in der Christusbeziehung verankerte Einheit der Gemeinde beschädigt (vgl. 1,10.13).11 Konkret raubt die Gestaltung des gemeinsamen Essens dem Herrenmahl seine Würde (vgl. 11,27) und verhindert so, dass es tatsächlich als Herrenmahl eingenommen werden kann (11,20). Nach 11,21 geschieht das dadurch, dass jedes Gemeindeglied beim Essen zuvor, also vor dem Herrenmahl, seine eigene Mahlzeit verzehrt – und dies infolge der sozialen Durchmischung der Gemeinde (vgl. 1,26) zu einem klaren Gegensatz zwischen ernsthaftem Mangel auf Seiten der Ärmeren und übermäßiger Fülle auf Seiten der Begüterten führt. Es besteht kein Grund, den Aussagegehalt der klaren Ausdrucksweise des Apostels an bestimmten Stellen zu relativieren und anzuzweifeln, dass er tatsächlich “ jedes” Gemeindeglied im Blick hat (vgl. 1Kor 1,12a) und davon spricht, dass man das eigene Mahl “zuvor” einnimmt.12 Dass alle, die am Mahl teilnehmen, jeweils selbst ihr Essen mitbringen, entspricht der Praxis beim antiken Freundschaftsmahl; und προλαμβάνω hat in den antiken Quellen regelmäßig temporalen Sinn.13 Da das Verb dann aber nicht auf einen vorzeitigen Beginn des Mahls seitens der Wohlhabenderen in der Gemeinde bezogen werden kann,14 liegt es nahe, in 11,21a schlicht die Vorordnung des gemeinsamen Essens vor das Herrenmahl ausgesagt zu sehen.15 Paulus votiert demgegenüber mit der Überlieferung für eine Rahmung des gemeinsamen Essens durch Brot und Kelch des Herrenmahls (vgl. 11,25a).16

Eine Entwürdigung des Herrenmahls ist mit der korinthischen Mahlpraxis insofern gegeben, als es an sich der Zugehörigkeit aller Teilnehmenden zum Herrn Ausdruck verleiht – und damit ihrer Einheit als Versammlung Gottes (vgl. 1Kor 10,16f.). Deshalb ist es verfehlt, andere Mitglieder zu beschämen, wie es geschieht, wenn die Ärmeren beim vorausgehenden Essen Mangel leiden (11,22c). Paulus wertet solch beschämendes Verhalten als Anzeichen der für das Eschaton erwarteten Abspaltungen untreuer Christusgläubiger

10

Zum Rückbezug in 1Kor 11,17 auf 11,3–16 und 11,2 vgl. LINDEMANN, Korintherbrief,

249. 11

Vgl. dazu LANG, Briefe, 148. Einen Überblick über die exegetische Diskussion gibt KONRADT, Gericht, 405–411. 13 Vgl. LAMPE, “Herrenmahl”, 194–197 sowie 191. 14 Dass dies auch in sozialgeschichtlicher Hinsicht unwahrscheinlich ist, betont zu Recht KLINGHARDT, “Gemeindeleib”, 52.55 (mit Verweis auf weitere Literatur). 15 Einen derart generellen temporalen Sinn hat προλαμβάνω auch in Gal 6,1 (wohl mit Blick auf die eigene Einsicht des Übertreters; vgl. HOFMANN, Brief, 198) und Mk 14,8. Zur Herleitung jener Vorordnung der Sättigungsmahlzeit vgl. BORNKAMM, “Herrenmahl”, 143f. 16 Vgl. dazu 1Kor 11,33 (s.u.); gegen BORNKAMM, “Herrenmahl”, 155. 12

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

435

(11,19a)17 und als Schaden für die gesamte Gemeinde (11,17), der sich in vielen Krankheits- und Todesfällen konkretisiert (11,30). Er erblickt darin aber zugleich eine Züchtigungsmaßnahme des Herrn (11,32a), welche die Adressaten zur Umkehr ruft, auf dass sie sich nicht durch ihre Entwürdigung des Herrenmahls das endzeitliche Gerichtsurteil zuziehen (11,29.32b).18 2.3 Zur argumentativen Verwendung der Herrenmahlsüberlieferung Zur Begründung seiner Position führt der Apostel eine Tradition an, die er der Gemeinde bereits – wohl bei seinem Gründungsbesuch – mitgeteilt hat (1Kor 11,23–25, vgl. 15,3–5). Mit einem angefügten Kommentar (11,26) benennt er die für die Mahlpraxis wesentlichen Aspekte des Überlieferungsstücks.19 Demnach ist die regelmäßig vollzogene Feier des Herrenmahls auf Dauer Merkmal der eschatologischen Existenz der Gemeinde.20 Indem die Gemeindeglieder der Einsetzung des Herrn Jesus gemäß (vgl. 11,23) das Brot essen und den Kelch trinken, proklamieren sie seinen Tod, welcher ihnen als den durch ihre Sünden belasteten Glaubensgeschwistern zugute geschah (vgl. 8,11; 15,3). Das Herrenmahl dient insofern als öffentliches Zeugnis (vgl. Phil 1,18) des heilstiftenden Handelns Gottes im Kreuz Christi (vgl. 1Kor 2,1f.).21 Zugleich richtet dieses Mahl die Gemeinde auf das endzeitliche Kommen ihres Herrn aus (vgl. 16,22), also auch auf das bevorstehende Gericht (vgl. 4,5). In solcher Kombination von Rückblick und Ausblick aber identifiziert Paulus das Herrenmahl als Ausdruck der existentiellen Bindung derer, die es feiern, an Jesus als ihren Herrn:22 Wie sie durch ihn erlöst, geheiligt, gerecht gemacht sind (6,11), so sind sie seinen Weisungen verpflichtet (7,10) und seinem endzeitlichen Urteil unterstellt (4,4; 11,32a). So führt der Apostel den Adressaten vor Augen, dass sie sich im Horizont des Herrenmahls ethisch zu bewähren haben (vgl. 1,8f.), um an der endzeitlichen Herrlichkeit des Herrn (2,8) Anteil zu erhalten.

17

Vgl. dazu z.B. Justin, Dial. 35,3. Vgl. DELLING, “Abendmahlsgeschehen”, 330. Er stellt treffend fest, dass “Krankheit und Tod” nicht der Vollzug des in 1Kor 11,29 in den Blick genommenen Urteilsspruchs sind. Ein Verständnis von Krankheit und Tod als Sündenstrafe liegt Paulus fern (vgl. Phil 2,26f.; 1Thess 4,13f.); und dass unter den Adressaten gerade die erkranken und sterben, die im Sinne von 1Kor 11,27 Schuld auf sich laden, ist weder gesagt, noch ist es angesichts von 11,21f. wahrscheinlich. Vielmehr ist der Satz 11,30, der sich ja an alle Briefadressaten richtet, als Begründung des Aufrufs zur Selbstprüfung in 11,28 zu verstehen. 19 Wie LIETZMANN, Korinther, 58, zutreffend notiert, zeigt τοῦ κυρίου, dass 1Kor 11,26 “nicht mehr zu den Worten Jesu” gehört. 20 Vgl. FEE, Epistle, 617. 21 Vgl. THISELTON, Epistle, 886f. 22 Ähnlich STROBEL, Brief, 180: “Bewußt paradox werden Tod und Wiederkunft Christi einander zugeordnet, um mit der Hintergründigkeit und Tiefe des Geschehens auch die besondere Verpflichtung derer anzusprechen, die aus ihm leben.” 18

436

Florian Wilk

Für die Gestaltung des Herrenmahls im Kontext des gemeinsamen Essens ergeben sich daraus nach 1Kor 11,27–29 klare Konsequenzen: Es gilt, sich bei der Teilnahme am Herrenmahl selbst zu prüfen, ob man das Brot und den Kelch des Herrn etwa “auf unwürdige Weise” zu sich nimmt. Das geschieht dann, wenn das eigene Verhalten in der Gemeinschaft derer, die “von dem Brot essen und aus dem Kelch trinken”, die leibhaftige Hingabe Jesu für die Menschen entehrt, nämlich die Heilswirksamkeit dieser Hingabe für die Glaubensgeschwister konterkariert.23 Genau solch ein Verhalten aber liegt in dem beschämenden Umgang mit den ärmeren Gemeindegliedern (vgl. 11,22) vor.24 Wer daran mitwirkt, zerstört den Zeugnischarakter des Herrenmahls, wird deshalb gegenüber dem Herrn, dessen Hingabe im Herrenmahl zur Darstellung kommt, schuldig und zieht sich demgemäß das Gerichtsurteil Gottes zu.25 2.4 Zum Verständnis der Überlieferung und der Rede von διαθήκη Im Kontext der argumentativen Einbindung des Überlieferungsstücks lässt sich dessen Interpretation durch Paulus wie folgt beschreiben. Er präsentiert es als “Einsetzungsbericht”,26 in dem Jesus selbst seinen Tod für diejenigen deutet, die das Herrenmahl feiern.27 Diese Deutung vollzieht sich in mehreren Schritten. Zunächst (1Kor 11,23c–24b) wertet sie das Brechen des mit Dank aufgenommenen Brotes als symbolische Darstellung der Hingabe des Leibes Jesu,28 welche den Angeredeten heilsam zugutekommt (vgl. 10,16). Sodann (11,24c) wird jene Darstellung als “Vergegenwärtigung” Jesu und des mit seiner Lebenshingabe vollzogenen Heilsgeschehens bezeichnet.29 Im Vollzug des Herrenmahls werden also diejenigen, die es feiern, auf ähnliche Weise mit Gottes geschichtlichem Heilshandeln gleichzeitig, wie das Passamahl nach m. Pesaḥ 23

Vgl. LINDEMANN, Korintherbrief, 259. “Leib” in 1Kor 11,29 ekklesiologisch zu deuten, liegt nach 11,24.27 nicht nahe. Zur Übersetzung von διακρίνω in 11,29 vgl. 4,7a; hier wie dort bezeichnet das Verb ein auf vergleichender Prüfung beruhendes Hervorheben bzw. “Auszeichnen” (so BÜCHSEL, “διακρίνω”, 948). 24 Vgl. SCHOTTROFF, Brief, 237. 25 Vgl. dazu (bei etwas anderer Textinterpretation im Detail) KONRADT, Gericht, 451: “Die grundsätzliche Frage, ob die Gemeindeglieder das Mahl als Herrenmahl begehen, entscheidet sich an ihrem Sozialverhalten, mit dem sie entweder der im Tod Christi begründeten Struktur christlicher Gemeinschaft entsprechen oder sich faktisch außerhalb dieser Gemeinschaft stellen.” 26 Vgl. SCHRAGE, Brief III, 31. 27 Die Anrede der Briefadressaten in 1Kor 11,23b.26 sorgt dafür, dass sie sich durch die Worte Jesu in 11,24b–c.25b–e angesprochen sehen, auch wenn die 2. Person Pl. dort zuerst denen gilt, die am letzten Mahl Jesu teilnahmen. 28 “Dies” (τοῦτο) in 1Kor 11,24b verweist nicht auf das im Griechischen maskuline Wort “Brot” (ἄρτος), sondern wie in 11,24c auf das, was mit dem Brot geschieht; vgl. SCHRÖTER, Abendmahl, 128 (der dazu allerdings auch den von Paulus – im Gegensatz zu Mk 14,22 – nicht erwähnten Vorgang des Austeilens hinzuzählt). 29 Vgl. WOLFF, Erste Brief, 273.

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

437

10,5 dem jüdischen Volk Anteil am Auszug aus Ägypten gibt; bei diesem Mahl werden ja einzelne Elemente auf Aspekte der Auszugserfahrung bezogen (m. Pesaḥ 10,4f.). In einem weiteren Schritt (1Kor 11,25) wird daraufhin – statt eines Getränks – der von allen getrunkene Kelch gedeutet:30 Er stellt symbolisch die καινὴ διαθήκη dar. Im gemeinsamen Trinken des Kelchs wird somit gefeiert, dass Gott diese διαθήκη aufgerichtet hat, und Jesus als der vergegenwärtigt, durch den dies geschehen ist. Wie die Wendung “in meinem Blut” anzeigt (vgl. 1Kor 10,16), wird näherhin der gewaltsame Tod Jesu als Mittel der Inkraftsetzung dieser διαθήκη vorgestellt.31 Paulus versteht Letztere demnach als eine heilvolle Setzung, mit der Gott ein für alle Mal seinen Heilswillen festgelegt hat (vgl. Gal 3,17). Man kann διαθήκη dann im Anschluss an die LXX passend als “Bundes-Verfügung” übersetzen.32 Was sie ihren Empfängern – den Christusgläubigen – im Sinne des Paulus erschließt, ergibt sich aus der Konvergenz zwischen den paulinischen Aussagen zur διαθήκη und denen zur heilvollen Wirkung des Todes Jesu: Sündenvergebung (vgl. Röm 11,27 und 1Kor 15,3), eschatologische Gerechtigkeit (vgl. 2Kor 3,9 und Röm 3,25f.; 5,9) sowie ewiges Leben (vgl. 2Kor 3,6 und Röm 5,18).33 Da dieses Leben aber nach Röm 6,10f. in der Gottes- und Christusbeziehung zu führen ist, also auch in der Abkehr von der Sünde, hat diese Verfügung für diejenigen, denen sie heilvoll zukommt, auch verpflichtende Wirkung:34 Es gilt, “dem Herrn zu leben” (14,8, vgl. 2Kor 5,15); denn mit ihm sind die Gläubigen ausweislich des Herrenmahls in eine “Gemeinschaft” gestellt (vgl. 1Kor 10,16f.). 2.5 Zum Bezug auf Jer 38[31],31–34LXX Vor diesem Hintergrund lässt sich die Streitfrage, ob Paulus in 1Kor 11 mit der Überlieferung 11,23c–25 auf Jer 38[31],31–34LXX Bezug nimmt, positiv beantworten.35 Diese Verheißung lautet in deutscher Übersetzung wie folgt: 30 Dass gemäß 1Kor 11,26–28 alle aus einem Kelch trinken, entspricht nicht dem jüdischen “Segenskelch” (10,16a; Jos. Asen. 19,5), wohl aber dem Vortrunk, der im griechisch-römischen Kontext, nach dem Ausgießen des Trankopfers, das dem Mahl folgende Trinkgelage eröffnete; allerdings verband sich jener Vortrunk mit dem gegenseitigen Zuspruch von Glück (vgl. KLINGHARDT, “Becher”, 41–43), während 1Kor 11,25b–e eine heilsgeschichtliche Deutung vollzieht. 31 Vgl. STROBEL, Brief, 179. Zur Verknüpfung von Blut und Tod Jesu vgl. Röm 5,9f., zur Anwendung des Ausdrucks auf den Tod Jesu auch Mk 14,24, ferner Mt 27,24. 32 Vgl. ZELLER, Brief, 373, zur LXX RÖSEL, “Übersetzung”, 170 (beide nutzen als Äquivalent “Verfügung”). 33 Dazu passt die Wertung der antik-jüdischen Deutung des “Bundesblutes” aus Ex 24,8 als Sühnemittel, wie sie in Tg. Onq. und Tg. Yer. I bezeugt ist (vgl. STRACK/BILLERBECK, Kommentar I, 991). 34 Vgl. HAYS, Corinthians, 199. 35 Gegen WOLFF, Erste Brief, 268; VOGEL, Heil, 83.

438

Florian Wilk

31 Siehe, es kommen Tage spricht der Herr, da werde ich für das Haus Israel und das Haus Juda eine neue Bundes-Verfügung festsetzen, 32 nicht gemäß der Bundes-Verfügung, die ich für ihre Väter festsetzte …; 33 …bWenn ich meine Gesetze gebe, werde ich (sie) in ihren Verstand und auf ihre Herzen schreiben; cund ich werde für sie Gott sein, und sie werden für mich Volk sein; 34[…] balle werden mich kennen, von ihrem Kleinsten bis zu ihrem Größten, cdenn ich werde gnädig sein gegenüber ihren Ungerechtigkeiten, und ihrer Sünden werde ich gewiss nicht mehr gedenken.

Für den Bezug spricht nicht nur der Sachverhalt, dass in der LXX an keiner anderen Stelle von einer “neuen Bundes-Verfügung” gesprochen wird.36 Gewiss spielt das Vergießen von Blut – anders als in Ex 24 – in Jer 38[31] keine Rolle, und die Sprache des prophetischen Textes hat kaum auf das Überlieferungsstück 1Kor 11,23–25 eingewirkt. Dessen Verwendung durch Paulus ist jedoch ihrer Logik nach stark vom Jeremiatext geprägt: Hier wie dort wird Gottes Heilssetzung eschatologisch aufgefasst (vgl. Jer 38[31],31 mit 1Kor 11,26b und dazu 2Kor 3,6);37 hier wie dort wird sie auf eine Gemeinschaft von Erwählten bezogen (vgl. Jer 38[31],33c mit 1Kor 11,22b und dazu 2Kor 6,16),38 die untereinander gleichgestellt sind (vgl. Jer 38[31],34b mit 1Kor 11,18–22 und dazu 4,7); und hier wie dort wird sie als Akt der Sündenvergebung bestimmt (vgl. Jer 38[31],34c mit 1Kor 11,24b und dazu 15,3), der zugleich auf ein Leben nach dem Willen Gottes verpflichtet (vgl. Jer 38[31],33b mit 1Kor 11,26–29 und dazu 10,6–11).39 2.6 Zum Bezug auf die Gründungspredigt des Paulus in Korinth Dass Paulus die in Christus gestiftete Gottesbeziehung der Adressaten mit der Aufnahme der Herrenmahlsüberlieferung in 1Kor 11 als Teilhabe an der “neuen Bundes-Verfügung” nach Jer 38[31]LXX deutet, ist auch deshalb wahrscheinlich, weil sich dabei deutliche Konvergenzen mit der Gründungspredigt des Apostels ergeben, wie sie in 2Kor 6,14–7,1 in Erinnerung gerufen wird.40 Dort, in 6,16, wird die in Jer 38[31],33c angeführte Bundesformel, die Gott und Gottesvolk miteinander verbindet, in der Fassung aus Lev 26,11f. adaptiert;41 und im argumentativen Zusammenhang wird sie, ganz im Sinne von Jer 38[31],33b, auf die Trennung der Gläubigen von jeder Gesetzlosigkeit (vgl. 2Kor 6,14) und die “Reinigung” ihrer Existenz von allem Gottwidrigen (vgl. 6,17; 7,1) bezogen, welche aus der gestifteten Gottesbeziehung erwachsen. 36 Wohl deshalb hält KÄSEMANN, “Anliegen”, 28, die Herleitung aus Jer 38[31],31–34 für “unbestreitbar”. Skeptisch bleibt dagegen KARRER, “Kelch”, 219. 37 Vgl. zur Sache LANG, Briefe, 153. 38 Vgl. HEGERMANN, “διαθήκη”, 722. 39 Vgl. zu diesem dritten Gesichtspunkt ZELLER, Brief, 374. 40 Zu dieser Einordnung des Abschnitts 2Kor 6,14–7,1 vgl. WILK, “Bezüge”, 157–159; den Gründungsaufenthalt rückt Paulus – im Anschluss an 6,1 – sowohl mit 6,11.13 als auch mit 7,2 in den Blick. Zur Textinterpretation im Einzelnen vgl. WILK, “Wort”. 41 Vgl. WILK, “Wort”, 679–684.

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

439

Vermutlich steht bei der erinnernden Zusammenfassung der Gründungspredigt auch Ez 37,21–28 im Hintergrund, also der prophetische Text, der in Analogie zu Jer 38[31],31– 34 eine “Friedens-Bundes-Verfügung” als “ewige Bundes-Verfügung” verheißt (Ez 37,26) und in diesem Kontext seinerseits die Bundesformel rezipiert (37,23.27). Jedenfalls ergeben sich hier wiederum markante Übereinstimmungen mit der paulinischen Deutung des Herrenmahls, betont der Ezechieltext doch seinerseits die Einheit des Gottesvolkes (37,22, vgl. 1Kor 10,17), dessen Trennung von den Götzen (Ez 37,23, vgl. 1Kor 10,7.18–21; 2Kor 6,16f.), seine Rettung aus den Gesetzlosigkeiten (Ez 37,23, vgl. 2Kor 6,14), seine Reinigung und Heiligung (Ez 37,23.28, vgl. 2Kor 7,1) sowie seinen Gehorsam gegen Gottes Anordnungen (Ez 37,24, vgl. 1Kor 10,6) im Horizont der Aufrichtung des endzeitlichen Heiligtums (Ez 37,26–28, vgl. 2Kor 6,16b).42

2.7 Zur Verarbeitung der Bundeskonzeption im ersten Korintherbrief Der präsentierte Befund lässt erwarten, dass Paulus das Konzept des Bundes im ersten Korintherbrief umfassender rezipiert. Dieser Brief stellt ja ein Dokument der Unterweisung dar, das die Adressaten zu einer ihrer Identität als “Versammlung Gottes” (1Kor 1,2) entsprechenden Denk- und Lebensweise anleitet.43 In der Tat wird in ihm der verpflichtende Charakter jener geschenkten Identität immer wieder mit Bezug auf die Schrift entfaltet; diese Bezüge erfolgen z.T. in Form von – explizit als solchen ausgewiesenen – Zitaten oder zitatähnlichen Anspielungen, z.T. auch in Form von narrativen Explikationen oder thematischen Verweisen.44 Auffälligerweise spielen dabei gerade im zweiten Hauptteil 4,16–11,1,45 der die Existenz der Gemeindeglieder im paganen Umfeld mit Blick auf die Themen Sexualsünde und Götzendienst behandelt, Bezüge auf Worte und Formulierungen aus dem Deuteronomium eine große Rolle.46 Demnach arbeitet der Apostel im ersten Korintherbrief in der Tat daran, die Adressaten in ein Selbstverständnis einzuweisen, wie er es gemäß 2Kor 6,16 in seiner Gründungspredigt entworfen hat: ein Verständnis als Gemeinschaft der “neuen Bundes-Verfügung” Gottes, welche ihr Dasein in Entsprechung zu dem des jüdischen Gottesvolkes begreift und ihre Existenz in Analogie zu den ihm geltenden Bestimmungen der Thora beurteilt.47

42

Die Ankündigung der Herrschaft des neuen David (Ez 37,24f.) passt dann zu der paulinischen Präsentation des Christus (2Kor 6,15a; 1Kor 10,16), die Röm 1,3 und 15,12 bezeugen (vgl. dazu WILK, Bedeutung, 169f.). 43 Vgl. WILK, “Schriftkenntnis”, 22. 44 Einen Überblick gibt WILK, “Bezüge”; zum mit den Schriftbezügen verfolgten Bildungsprogramm vgl. WILK, “Schriftauslegung”. 45 Zur Abgrenzung vgl. WILK, Brief, 65. 46 Vgl. 1Kor 5,13 (Dtn 17,7.12 u.ö.); 6,17 (Dtn 6,13 u.ö.); 8,4 (Dtn 6,4); 9,7 (Dtn 20,6); 9,9 (Dtn 25,4); 10,20 (Dtn 32,17); 10,22 (Dtn 32,21). Zur eingehenden Interpretation dieser Schriftbezüge vgl. etwa CIAMPA/ROSNER, Letter, passim. 47 Ähnlich MACASKILL, “Way”, 112f.

440

Florian Wilk

Als Leitbegriff dafür ist διαθήκη freilich kaum geeignet, da dieses Wort – wie gezeigt – vor allem die heilvolle Setzung Gottes zum Ausdruck bringt.48 Stattdessen etabliert das Proömium des Briefs in 1Kor 1,9 – im Anschluss an die Gründungspredigt (2Kor 6,14) – den Leitbegriff κοινωνία.49 Er bezeichnet pagan-griechischem Wortgebrauch nach das Privileg der Teilhabe an einem bestimmten Opfer samt der damit verbundenen Verpflichtung gegenüber der Gottheit und der dadurch begründeten Verbindung zwischen denen, die am Opfer teilnehmen.50 Insofern stellt er schon an sich “das nächste pagane Äquivalent der biblischen Bundesvorstellung” dar.51 Dass Paulus ihn tatsächlich in diesem Sinne verwendet, belegt in 1,9 die Verknüpfung mit der aus der Bundeskonzeption entlehnten Formel “treu ist Gott” (vgl. Dtn 7,6–9 u.ö.), die nach 1Thess 5,24 die Treue des erwählenden Gottes zu den Erwählten bezeichnet. Im Kontext von 1Kor 1,6–9 verweist der Begriff sowohl auf die Teilhabe an der endzeitlichen Herrlichkeit des Gottessohnes als auch auf die Verpflichtung zu einem Leben gemäß den Weisungen des Herrn Jesus Christus, welches allererst den Weg zu solcher Teilhabe bahnt.52 In 1Kor 10,12–22 werden Formel (10,13) und Begriff (10,16.20) dann erneut verwendet, um den Adressaten die Notwendigkeit anzuzeigen, Gott verbunden zu bleiben; denn im Herrenmahl erschließt Gott ihnen die rettende Wirkung der Lebenshingabe Jesu Christi und stellt sie damit zugleich in die Gemeinschaft mit ihm als ihrem Herrn, welche sie ganz in Anspruch nimmt (vgl. 10,21).53 Auf diese Weise wird deutlich, dass zwar nicht der in der Herrenmahlsüberlieferung vorgegebene Begriff διαθήκη, sehr wohl aber die hinter ihm stehende und durch ihn aufgegriffene Konzeption der in Jer 38[31],31–34 verheißenen “neuen Bundes-Verfügung” grundlegende Bedeutung für die Entfaltung der Botschaft des ersten Korintherbriefs hat.

48

Man vgl. dazu den Befund bei Josephus, der verschiedene Bundestexte der heiligen Schrift referiert, aber in diesen Zusammenhängen seiner griechischsprachigen Leserschaft gegenüber den Terminus διαθήκη gerade vermeidet und ihn nur zur Bezeichnung eines letzten Willens verwendet (vgl. B.J. 1,451; A.J. 13,349 u.ö. sowie DAS, “Rethinking”, 73f.). 49 1Kor 1,9 lautet in Übersetzung: “Treu ist Gott, von dem ihr berufen wurdet zur Gemeinschaft seines Sohnes, Jesu Christi, unseres Herrn.” 50 Vgl. NIKKANEN, Participation, 176.182. 51 Vgl. OTTO, Welten, 296; ähnlich bereits WILLIS, Meat, 209. GARDNER, Corinthians, 67, übersetzt κοινωνία sachlich durchaus treffend mit “covenantal participation”. 52 Vgl. WILK, Brief, 52. 53 Vgl. WILK, Brief, 132.137–139.

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

441

3. Die Rede vom “Bund” in 2Kor 3,(2f.)4–18 3.1 Übersetzung und Gliederung 2 3

Unser (Empfehlungs-)Brief seid ihr, eingeschrieben in unsere Herzen, erkannt und gelesen von allen Menschen,54 da ihr ja (darin) offenbar werdet, dass ihr ein Brief Christi seid, bedient von uns, aufgeschrieben nicht mit Tinte, sondern mit dem Geist des lebendigen Gottes, (und das) nicht auf steinerne Tafeln, sondern auf fleischerne Herzens-Tafeln.

4 5

Solches Zutrauen aber haben wir durch den Christus im Hinblick auf Gott. (Es ist) nicht (so,) dass wir aus uns selbst heraus fähig sind, um uns irgendetwas zuzurechnen, als (käme es) aus uns selbst; sondern unsere Befähigung (kommt) aus Gott, 6 der uns auch befähigt hat zu Dienern einer neuen Bundesverfügung, nicht des Geschriebenen, sondern des Geistes; denn das Geschriebene tötet, der Geist aber macht lebendig. 7 Wenn aber (schon) der Todes-Dienst, durch Schriftzeichen Steinen eingemeißelt, in einem Herrlichkeitsglanz in Erscheinung trat, sodass die Kinder Israel nicht in der Lage waren, (dauerhaft) ins Gesicht des Mose zu schauen wegen des Herrlichkeitsglanzes auf seinem Gesicht, der doch wirkungslos wird, 8 wie wird nicht umso eher der Geistes-Dienst in einem Herrlichkeitsglanz (da)sein? 9 Denn wenn dem Dienst der Verurteilung ein Herrlichkeitsglanz eignet, wie viel eher ist der Dienst der Gerechtigkeit überreich an Herrlichkeitsglanz. 10 Denn in der Tat ist das (einst) Verherrlichte (gar) nicht verherrlicht in dieser Hinsicht, in Anbetracht des (sich jetzt) über(t)ragenden Herrlichkeitsglanzes. 11 Denn wenn das, was wirkungslos wird, mit Herrlichkeitsglanz (ausgestattet ist), wie viel eher (erscheint) das, was bleibt, in einem Herrlichkeitsglanz. 12 Da wir also solche Hoffnung haben, verfahren wir (in jeder Hinsicht) mit großem Freimut. 13 Und (es ist) nicht wie (bei) Mose: Er legte (stets) eine Decke über sein Gesicht, sodass die Kinder Israel nicht auf das Ende dessen schau(en konn)ten, was (nun) wirkungslos wird. 14 Vielmehr wurden ihre Sinne verhärtet. Denn bis zum heutigen Tag bleibt dieselbe Decke während der Verlesung der alten Bundesverfügung (liegen); 54 Hier und im Folgenden sind mein Textverständnis verdeutlichende Zusätze in Klammern gesetzt.

442

Florian Wilk es wird (also) nicht aufgedeckt, dass (Letztere) in Christus wirkungslos wird. Vielmehr liegt bis heute, sobald ‘Mose’ verlesen wird, eine Decke über ihrem Herzen; “sobald er (Mose) sich aber zum Herrn umwendet, wird die Decke weggenommen”. Der (soeben genannte) “Herr” aber ist der Geist; wo aber der Geist des Herrn (wirkt, da herrscht) Freiheit (von der Verurteilung). Wir alle aber, indem wir auf einem aufgedeckten Gesicht die Herrlichkeit des Herrn wie in einem Spiegel betrachten, werden in dasselbe Bild verwandelt: von (seiner) Herrlichkeit zu (unserer) Herrlichkeit, (also so) wie von dem Herrn, der der Geist ist.

15 16 17

18

3.2 Kontext, Thema und Rhema des Abschnitts Im Rahmen des 2. Korintherbriefs, mit dem Paulus und Timotheus (1,1)55 um die erneuerte, vollständige Einsicht der Adressaten werben, “dass wir euer Ruhm sind” (1,14b),56 reflektiert der erste Hauptteil 1,15–7,16 die inzwischen bewältigten Störungen der Beziehung zwischen Apostel und Gemeinde, die im Zuge der geänderten Besuchspläne (1,15f.) und des misslungenen Zwischenbesuchs des Paulus (2,1–5) auftraten.57 In diesem Kontext behandelt der Abschnitt 2,3–7,1658 die nach jenem Besuch erfolgte Sendung eines unter Tränen geschriebenen Briefs (2,4a) sowie des Mitarbeiters Titus (7,14f.) und deren positive Wirkung. Dabei entfaltet die große Apologie des paulinischen Apostolats (2,14–7,3) den Sachgrund der “Umkehr” (7,9) der korinthischen Gemeinde zu Paulus, indem sie die Beziehung zwischen ihnen so darstellt, dass seine Liebe anschaulich (2,4b) und ihr Gehorsam begründet wird (2,9; 7,15). Die Verfasser unterstellen also das Einverständnis der Adressaten mit ihrer Darstellung, dass sie infolge ihrer göttlichen Befähigung in der Tat für das ihnen anvertraute Amt geeignet sind (2,16c) und es sachgerecht wahrnehmen. Mit dem ersten Abschnitt der Apologie, 2Kor 3,1–4,6,59 stellen die Verfasser ihren “Dienst” (3,3 u.ö.) dar, der Menschen zur Erkenntnis der Herrlichkeit Gottes auf dem Angesicht Jesu Christi führt (4,6, vgl. 2,14) – einer Herrlichkeit, die Gerechtigkeit und Leben statt Verurteilung und Tod bewirkt (3,6.9), da sie im Übermaß, unverhüllt wirksam wird (3,10.18). Die Darstellung soll 55

Wie das im Brief vielfach genutzte “Wir” (2Kor 1,4 u.ö.) zeigt, wird Timotheus in 1,1 nicht nur – wie in 1Kor 1,1 – als Mitabsender genannt, sondern als Repräsentant der Gruppe um Paulus, die den apostolischen Dienst gleichsam im Team wahrnimmt und deshalb auch dessen briefliche Darstellung gemeinsam verantwortet. 56 Vgl. WILK, “propositio”, 14–16. 57 Vgl. WILK, “Funktion”, 140f. 58 Zum Folgenden vgl. WILK, “Funktion”, 144–146. 59 Zum Folgenden vgl. WILK, “Funktion”, 149–153.

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

443

aufzeigen, dass Paulus und seine Mitarbeiterschaft als Boten des Evangeliums anderen Menschen denselben Akt der Neuschöpfung erschließen, der sich an ihnen vollzogen hat, d.h. einen Akt, der ins Leben führt (2,16b), ein fleischernes Herz gibt (3,3c) und dem Dunkel entreißt (4,6b).60 Ausweislich des Spannungsbogens zwischen den Rahmenstücken 2Kor 3,1– 3 und 4,1–6 sowie der Rückbezüge auf die Einleitung 2,14–17 wird mit 3,4– 18 in diesem Zusammenhang dargelegt, dass der paulinische Dienst allen Menschen das Wort Gottes unverfälscht darbietet (2,17; 4,2) also die Wahrheit des Evangeliums tatsächlich offenbar macht (4,2) und dabei zumal die Briefadressaten zu der – neues, ewiges Leben stiftenden – Erkenntnis Gottes in Jesus Christus führt (2,14; 4,5f.). Besonderer Nachdruck liegt dabei auf dem Nachweis, dass Gottes Herrlichkeit als Herrlichkeit Christi (4,4) durch das Evangelium unverhüllt an dessen Hörerschaft wirksam wird.61 3.3 Zur argumentativen Verwendung der Bundesmotivik in 2Kor 3,4–18 Von einer “neuen Bundes-Verfügung”, die den Adressaten aus der Herrenmahlsüberlieferung und ihrer Verarbeitung in 1Kor 11 bekannt ist, sprechen die Briefabsender in 2Kor 3,6. Sie erscheint hier als Gegenstand und Horizont des Dienstes, zu dem Gott Paulus und seine Mitarbeiterschaft befähigt hat. Dass deren Wirken als “Diener” in der Kraft des Geistes Gottes geschieht und also Leben in der Gottesbeziehung stiftet, wird an der Existenz der Briefadressaten selbst deutlich: Sie dienen in Person als lebendiger, öffentlich wahrgenommener, durch den Geist des lebendigen Gottes geschriebener Empfehlungsbrief der Gruppe um Paulus (3,2f.).62 Dabei identifiziert 3,3 die Christusgläubigen zu Korinth mit der Zuschreibung “fleischerner Herzen” als solche, deren Existenz durch die “neue Bundes-Verfügung” grundlegend neu geworden ist. Denn dieser Ausdruck erinnert an Ez 11,19; 36,26, wo die Gabe solch eines Herzens explizit als Element einer Erneuerung des Gottesvolkes63 im Zuge der Neubegründung seines mit der Bundesformel umschriebenen Gottesverhältnisses (11,20b; 36,28b) erscheint. Zugleich erklärt sich aus diesen Ezechielworten auch der Rekurs auf den Geist, da sie dem Gottesvolk mit einem neuen Herzen auch einen neuen Geist verheißen (11,19; 36,26f.).

60 Zum Motiv der Neuschöpfung, welches das aus Gen 1,2f. und Jes 9,2[1] neu gebildete Gotteswort 2Kor 4,6a–b evoziert, vgl. WILK, “Wort”, 683f. Zur Deutung von 4,6c (“[Gott] ließ es aufleuchten in unseren Herzen zum Aufstrahlen [des von uns verkündigten Evangeliums mit dem Ziel] der Erkenntnis [auf Seiten seiner Hörerschaft] …”) auf die auch für seine Mitarbeiterschaft ausgewertete Berufungserfahrung des Paulus vgl. WILK, Bedeutung, 271f. 61 Vgl. zum ganzen Absatz WILK, “Funktion”, 154. 62 Vgl. GRÄSSER, Brief I, 121–123. 63 So FURNISH, II Corinthians, 195.

444

Florian Wilk

Zur Erläuterung beziehen die Briefabsender das durch sie vermittelte eschatologische Handeln Gottes an den Adressaten auf das Gotteshandeln, das sich mittels der Thora vom Sinai vollzieht. Auf sie verweist ja die Rede vom Schreiben auf steinerne Tafeln in 2Kor 3,3b–c.64 Da auch diese von Gott selbst beschrieben worden sind,65 hat der Verweis – trotz der Gegenüberstellung von tötendem Geschriebenen und lebendig machendem Geist in 3,6b–d – nicht primär antithetische Funktion.66 Das belegt zusätzlich der anschließende Passus 3,7–11.67 Er schließt von der Herrlichkeit des Mosedienstes – welche der in Ex 34,29–35 erwähnte Glanz auf dem Angesicht des Mose symbolisch darstellt – auf die überragende Herrlichkeit des paulinischen Dienstes, setzt also eine fundamentale Übereinstimmung zwischen beiden voraus. Allerdings wird dabei auch eine Überbietung des ersten durch den zweiten angezeigt: Letzterer bringt nicht Verurteilung, sondern Gerechtigkeit (2Kor 3,9, vgl. Röm 5,18), wird nicht unwirksam, sondern bleibt (2Kor 3,11).68 Dies beruht nach 3,9b–10 darauf, dass die Herrlichkeit Gottes im paulinischen Dienst “überfließt” – und eben in dieser Hinsicht “das verherrlichte” Gesicht des Mose (Ex 34,30) in den Schatten stellt, welches nach 2Kor 3,7 von den Israeliten gar nicht dauerhaft angeschaut werden konnte.69 Die Hoffnung auf solch einen Erweis der Herrlichkeit70 verleiht der PaulusGruppe großen Freimut (2Kor 3,12). Denn durch ihren Dienst eröffnet sich Menschen der Blick auf ein Angesicht, auf dem die Herrlichkeit des Herrn wie in einem Spiegel geschaut werden kann;71 und im Vollzug dieses Schauens überträgt sich – durch die Wirksamkeit des Geistes Gottes – jene Herrlichkeit

64

Vgl. dazu Ex 31,18; 32,15; Dtn 4,13; 5,22[19]; 9,10. Vgl. dazu ferner die Hinweise auf Gottes Finger in Ex 31,18; Dtn 9,10 und Gottes Schrift in Ex 32,16. 66 Ähnlich SCHMELLER, Brief I, 181. Den engen Zusammenhang zwischen beiden Etappen des Gotteshandelns unterstreicht die – logisch und sprachlich sperrige – Wiederaufnahme des Ausdrucks “Tafeln” in Verbindung mit dem Motiv der fleischernen Herzen. 67 Zum Konnex mit 2Kor 3,6 vgl. WOLFF, Zweite Brief, 66. 68 Zur Übersetzung von καταργούμενον in 2Kor 3,11 (vgl. τὴν καταργουμέην in 3,7) vgl. HAFEMANN, “Moses”, 164. Gegen Hafemann deute ich die Partizipien aber mit Bezug auf 3,9 von 3,14c her auf das Unwirksam-Werden der durch die Thora ausgesprochenen Verurteilung (vgl. Gal 3,10) in Christus; s.u. im Haupttext nach Anm. 76. 69 Vgl. OTTO, Welten, 551–554. Zum Motiv der überwältigenden Stärke des Glanzes auf dem Angesicht des Mose vgl. Philon, Mos. 2,70. 70 Der Bezug auf die Aussagen ἔσται ἐν δόξῃ (2Kor 3,8), περισσεύει … δόξῃ (3,9b) und … ἐν δόξῃ (3,11b) liegt sachlich und sprachlich näher als die meist behauptete Anknüpfung an das Partizip τὸ μένον (so etwa THRALL, Commentary I, 254). 71 Zur Übersetzung des Medium-Partizips κατοπτριζόμενοι in 2Kor 3,18 vgl. FURNISH, II Corinthians, 214. 65

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

445

auf sie und verwandelt sie (3,18).72 Dieses Angesicht aber ist, wie schon die Rede von “demselben Bild” nahe legt (vgl. Röm 8,29) und 2Kor 4,6 dann eindeutig klarstellt, das Angesicht Jesu Christi.73 Dieser Wirkungszusammenhang aber unterscheidet den paulinischen Dienst grundlegend vom Mosedienst.74 Um das darzustellen, referieren die Briefabsender nun auf den Begriff “die alte Bundesverfügung” (2Kor 3,14a). Wie Mose einst nach Ex 34,33.35 eine Hülle auf sein Angesicht legte, so liegt auch gegenwärtig ein Hülle über der Verlesung jener Bundesverfügung, d.h. der mosaischen Schriften, und damit faktisch über den Herzen der Israeliten (2Kor 3,13–15).75 Nach 3,14a bringt die bildliche Rede von der Hülle dabei die Verhärtung ihrer Gedanken durch Gott (vgl. Röm 11,7f.) zum Ausdruck.76 Was ihnen verborgen bleibt, wird zunächst in 2Kor 3,13fin. und dann in 3,14c gesagt. Verborgen bleibt, dass der Mosedienst, also die Verlesung der Thora als alter Bundes-Verfügung, ein Todesurteil über sie ausspricht77 – und dass diese Verfügung bzw., genauer, deren Verlesung eben darin durch Christus unwirksam wird;78 denn wie 5,21 ausführt, nimmt Christus die die Menschen beherrschende Sünde auf sich, um ihnen von Gott her Gerechtigkeit zuzueignen. Erst 72 Die Wendung καθάπερ ἀπὸ … πνεύματος dürfte im Satzzusammenhang als Erläuterung von ἀπὸ δόξης zu verstehen sein und auf den göttlichen Ursprung der Verwandlung der Christusgläubigen in das Bild Christi verweisen (vgl. ἀπὸ θεοῦ in 1Kor 1,30 u.ö.) 73 ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ in 2Kor 3,18 ist also nicht – wie meist ohne Weiteres angenommen – als instrumentaler, sondern als lokativer oder auch kausaler Dativ (“aufgrund eines aufgedeckten Angesichts”) aufzufassen. 74 2Kor 3,13 (καὶ οὐ καθάπερ Μωϋσῆς ἐτίθει …) ist syntaktisch in Analogie zu Gal 3,6 (καθὼς Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν …) als verkürzende Kombination aus Einleitung und Wiedergabe eines Schriftbezugs aufzufassen. Die Einleitungswendung führt also nicht einfach 2Kor 3,12 fort, sondern stellt einen Neueinsatz dar: “Und (es ist) nicht wie (bei) Mose: Er legte (stets) …”; vgl. BULTMANN, Brief, 88. 75 Zur Bezeichnung der mosaischen Schriften mit dem Mosenamen in 2Kor 3,15 vgl. Apg 15,21. Dass mit der Verlagerung der Hülle gegenüber 2Kor 3,14 “nichts völlig Neues” ausgesagt wird, betont treffend SCHMELLER, Brief I, 219: “Die Hülle hat gleichsam eine zur Tora (V. 14) und eine zu den Lesern gewandte Seite (V. 15).” 76 Es bleibt keineswegs offen, ob die Verhärtung stattdessen nicht etwa “auf den Teufel … zurückgeführt” wird (so HEINRICI, Brief, 128, unter Hinweis auf 2Kor 4,4). In der Unterscheidung zwischen göttlichem Handeln an Israeliten und dem Handeln widergöttlicher Mächte an Nicht-Juden spiegelt sich gerade der Sachverhalt, dass der Apostel die Erwählung Israels als unwiderruflich anerkennt (Röm 9,4; 11,28); vgl. WILK, “Verblendet”, 205.212. Das Gegenstück im Ensemble der “zwei Betrachtungsweisen” (HEINRICI), die die paulinische Reflexion über Glauben und Unglauben, Verstehen und Nicht-Verstehen bestimmen, ist das jeweilige menschliche Handeln; vgl. WILK, “Wille”, 110–112. 77 Im Horizont von 2Kor 3,7 (“Dienst des Todes”) und 3,9 (“Dienst der Verurteilung”) ist τέλος in 3,13 ebenso zu deuten wie in Röm 6,21. 78 Vgl. BACK, Verwandlung, 116–118. Zur Übersetzung von 2Kor 3,14c in begrifflicher Übereinstimmung mit 3,7.11.13 (καταργoῦμαι), im syntaktischen Anschluss an 3,14b (ähnlich BULTMANN, Brief, 89, der aber den ὅτι-Satz unmittelbar auf die παλαιὰ διαθήκη bezieht)

446

Florian Wilk

wenn sich – wie 3,16 in modifizierender Aufnahme von Ex 34,34 formuliert – Mose zum Herrn hinwendet, wenn also die mosaischen Schriften in die Gegenwart Jesu Christi gestellt und dort gelesen werden,79 wird die Hülle weggenommen, tritt also der von ihr verdeckte eigentliche Sinn jener Bundes-Verfügung zutage.80 Woran das liegt, macht der kommentierende Zusatz 2Kor 3,17 deutlich:81 Mit Blick auf die Gegenwart ist die Rede vom Herrn im angeführten Exoduswort auf den Geist zu beziehen, der den Dienst am neuen Bund prägt und Leben schafft (3,6) – und dieser Geist vermittelt die in Christus gestiftete Freiheit von der Verurteilung, die durch besagte Verlesung ergeht.82 3.4 Zum Verständnis der Rede von διαθήκη Grundsätzlich bewährt sich sowohl für 2Kor 3,6 als auch für 3,14 die oben anhand von 1Kor 11 entwickelte Übersetzung “Bundes-Verfügung”; in beiden Versen geht es um eine Setzung, durch die sich den jeweiligen Rezipienten der Entschluss Gottes hinsichtlich ihrer Gottesbeziehung mitteilt. In der konkreten Füllung ergeben sich freilich je andere Zuspitzungen: Die “alte Bundes-Verfügung”

Die “neue Bundes-Verfügung”

wird als Text verlesen,

vollzieht sich in der Verkündigung,

verhängt das Todesurteil über Israeliten;

schenkt den Christusgläubigen Leben;

ihr Diener ist Mose samt denen, die seine Schriften verlesen;

ihr Diener ist Paulus samt seiner Mitarbeiterschaft;

das Wirkmittel ist der Geist, der das Wirkmittel ist das Geschriebene, den Menschen ins Herz schreibt; ursprünglich auf Steintafeln eingemeißelt; ihre Herrlichkeit überträgt sich nicht: – die Israeliten können sie nicht ertragen, – sie wird verhüllt;

ihre Herrlichkeit überträgt sich: – sie verwandelt die Gläubigen, – sie ist auf Christi Angesicht wie in einem Spiegel wahrzunehmen;

ihr Todesurteil wird in Christus unwirksam.

ihre rechtfertigende Wirkung und die durch sie bewirkte Freiheit bleiben.

Beide Verfügungen sind also in 2Kor 3 eng aufeinander bezogen: Wie dort die Rolle der Herrlichkeit in der neuen Bundesverfügung per analogiam aus dem und in formaler Entsprechung zu Jes 22,14 (dort ἀνακεκαλυμμένα … ὅτι) vgl. WILK, “Rede”, 470. 79 Angesichts der klaren Strukturparallele zwischen 2Kor 3,15 und 3,16 ist auch in 3,16a an Mose, und zwar an den durch seine Schriften repräsentierten Mose, als Subjekt zu denken. 80 Vgl. zum letztgenannten Gedanken WRIGHT, Climax, 182. 81 Zur Form dieses exegetischen Kommentars vgl. 1Kor 15,56. 82 Vgl. BARNETT, Epistle, 202f.; in der Sache vgl. Röm 8,1f.

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

447

Schriftzeugnis zur Herrlichkeit auf Moses Angesicht erschlossen wird, so ergibt sich umgekehrt die Erkenntnis des Sinns, den der Dienst an der alten Bundesverfügung hat, erst im Lichte des Christusgeschehens. In der Tat kann überhaupt erst im Raum der neuen Bundesverfügung von den mosaischen Schriften als alter, weil in ihrer verurteilenden Wirkung durch Christus aufgehobener Bundesverfügung gesprochen werden.83 Methodologische Zwischenbemerkung: Der Verweis auf die alte Bundes-Verfügung in 2Kor 3,14 steht ganz im Dienst der sachgerechten Beschreibung des paulinischen Dienstes an der neuen Bundesverfügung. Daher können die folgenden Überlegungen auf Letztere konzentriert werden.

3.5 Zum Bezug auf Jer 38[31],31–34LXX Wie unter 2.5 dargestellt, sind die Herrenmahlstradition und ihre Verarbeitung in 1Kor 11 auf die Verheißung der neuen Bundes-Verfügung in Jer 38[31],31– 34 bezogen. Ein solcher Bezug liegt daher a priori auch für 2Kor 3 nahe. Das Fehlen des bestimmten Artikels bei καινῆς διαθήκης spricht keineswegs dagegen,84 da es sich schlicht aus der Erläuterung des Ausdrucks durch die nachfolgende Wendung οὐ γράμματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος erklärt. Zudem lassen sich erneut diverse Sachbezüge auf den Jeremiatext aufweisen, namentlich in der eschatologischen Deutung der neuen Bundes-Verfügung (vgl. Jer 38[31],31 mit 2Kor 3,6 und dazu Röm 8,10f.),85 im Rückbezug auf eine frühere BundesVerfügung Gottes mit Israel (vgl. Jer 38[31],32 mit 2Kor 3,14),86 im Motiv des Schreibens auf die Herzen (vgl. Jer 38[31],33 mit 2Kor 3,2f.),87 in der Rede von unmittelbarer Gotteserkenntnis (vgl. Jer 38[31],34 mit 2Kor 2,14; 4,6)

83

Hier ist 2Kor 3,13–17 sachlich eng mit 5,17 verknüpft, wo – in Anlehnung Jes 43,18 – das Dasein jenseits der durch Christus erschlossenen Neuschöpfung als “alt” (τὰ ἀρχαῖα) bezeichnet wird; vgl. HARRIS, Epistle, 433f. 84 Gegen WOLFF, Zweite Brief, 61. Wenn er zudem anführt, dass “der Gegensatz ‘Buchstabe – Geist’ … dort (sc. in Jer 38[31]) nicht enthalten” sei, stellt er eine überzogene Bedingung für einen “begrifflichen Verweis” auf, wie er hier vorliegt (zur Kategorisierung solch eines Schriftbezugs vgl. WILK, “Bezüge”, 152); vgl. dazu etwa die ihrerseits innovative, anreichernde Verarbeitung der Passamotivik in 1Kor 5,7 (und dazu WILK, Brief, 70f.73). 85 Vgl. zum sachlichen Konnex mit Röm 8,10f. FURNISH, II Corinthians, 200f. 86 Damit ist der o. in Anm. 84 angeführte zweite Einwand von WOLFF gegen die Annahme eines Rekurses auf Jer 38[31],31–34 in 2Kor 3,6 auch der Sache nach entkräftet. Dass hier von Buchstabe und Geist gesprochen wird, basiert ja auf 3,3; und dort leitet sich die Motivik, wie dargelegt (s.o. bei Anm. 63f.), aus den Bezügen auf Ex 31,18; 32,15 einerseits und Ez 11,19; 36,26f. andererseits her. Die Gegenüberstellung in 2Kor 3,6b ist also nichts Anderes als eine aus den genannten Schriftworten erwachsene, begrifflich kondensierte Aufnahme der kontrastiven Verknüpfung der neuen mit der früheren Bundesverfügung Gottes für die Väter Israels, die in Jer 38[31],31f. vorliegt. 87 Vgl. WOLTER, “Geschriebene”, 365.

448

Florian Wilk

sowie in der Zusage der Sündenvergebung (vgl. Jer 38[31],34 mit 2Kor 3,13fin..14.17 und dazu 2Kor 5,17 und Röm 8,1f.). 3.6 Zum Bezug auf den ersten Korintherbrief Dass der paulinische Dienst an der neuen Bundes-Verfügung mit 2Kor 3 im Bezug auf Jer 38[31]LXX gedeutet wird, ist auch deshalb wahrscheinlich, weil sich hinsichtlich der Darstellung und Entfaltung des paulinischen Apostolats bereits im ersten Korintherbrief deutliche Entsprechungen zum Jeremiatext ergeben.88 So erinnert Paulus die Adressaten als apostolischer Lehrer explizit an das Versagen der Israeliten im Kontext der Bundes-Verfügung vom Sinai (vgl. Jer 38[31],32 mit 1Kor 10,1.6–10.18),89 schärft ihnen fortlaufend die Orientierung an Gottes Geboten ein (vgl. Jer 38[31],33 mit 1Kor 5,8; 6,9–11 u.ö.), zeigt ihnen die fundamentale Umorientierung des Denkens in der Gottesbeziehung an (vgl. Jer 38[31],33 mit 1Kor 2,13–16), vertritt ihnen gegenüber mit Nachdruck die Gleichstellung und das geschwisterliche Miteinander aller Gläubigen (vgl. Jer 38[31],34 mit 1Kor 12,4–11 sowie 6,8; 8,11 u. ö.), erinnert sie an die allen gegebene Kenntnis Gottes (vgl. Jer 38[31],34 mit 1Kor 8,1.4) und verweist wiederholt auf die grundlegende Bedeutung der Tilgung der Sünden (vgl. Jer 38[31],34 mit 1Kor 6,11; 15,3). 3.7 Zur Verarbeitung der Bundeskonzeption im zweiten Korintherbrief Als eine Art Werbeschrift in eigener Sache entfaltet der Brief die paulinische Sicht auf “die apostolische Existenz”,90 um die Adressaten zum umfassenden Einverständnis mit ihrem Apostel zurückzuführen. Die Verpflichtungen, die ihnen aus ihrer neu geschenkten Identität als Christusgläubige erwachsen,91 werden daher in diesem Brief in erster Linie auf ihre Beziehung zu Paulus und seiner Mitarbeiterschaft ausgerichtet. Dies zeigt sich besonders deutlich an der Integration von 2Kor 6,14–7,1 in die Apologie des Apostolats 2,14–7,3. Legen die Briefabsender mit dem Passus 5,11–7,1(3) im Horizont von 2,17 zunächst dar, dass ihre Verkündigung organisch aus Gottes Heilshandeln in Christus erwächst und die Gestaltung ihrer Existenz ihm in Gänze entspricht (5,11– 6,10),92 so macht der Schlussteil 6,11–7,1(3) im Rückgriff auf die Gründungs88 Auch die Dienst-Begrifflichkeit ist in 1Kor 3,5 bereits angelegt. – Die Gegenüberstellung von “altem Sauerteig” (παλαιὰ ζύμη) und “neuem Teig” (νέον φύραμα) im Horizont der Passamotivik, die in 1Kor 5,6–8 vorliegt, ist kategorial anders gelagert (vgl. dazu WILK, “Rede”, 456–458) und deshalb hier nicht zu berücksichtigen. 89 Zum Rückbezug in 1Kor 10,18 auf den zuvor narrativ in Erinnerung gerufenen Götzendienst Israels vgl. WINKLER, Identität, 20–54. 90 Vgl. WOLFF, Zweite Brief, 11. 91 Siehe o. bei Anm. 43f. 92 Vgl. WILK, “Funktion”, 146–148. 2Kor 7,2f. bildet als Pendant zu 2,14–17 das hintere Rahmenstück der ganzen Apologie und gehört insofern nur bedingt zum Abschnitt 5,11–7,1.

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

449

predigt deutlich, wie gefährlich es ist, dass die Adressaten sich durch das Auftreten von Konkurrenten verleiten ließen, die Integrität und Güte des paulinischen Wirkens in Frage zu stellen: Soll die Annahme des Evangeliums nicht vergeblich gewesen sein (6,1), müssen sie sich ebenso entschieden von den Konkurrenten abwenden, wie sie sich einst von den Götzen getrennt haben (6,16f.).93 In diesem Kontext ist es bemerkenswert, dass der in Gründungspredigt (2Kor 6,14) und Proömium des ersten Korintherbriefs (1Kor 1,9) etablierte Leitbegriff Begriff κοινωνία94 auch im zweiten Korintherbrief prominent eingesetzt wird: Mit ihm beschreibt das Proömium die Verbundenheit der Adressaten mit den Briefabsendern in der Christusbeziehung als solchen, die gemeinschaftlich an den Leiden Christi und an dem durch ihn erschlossenen Trost teilhaben (2Kor 1,7), um die Adressaten in die Gemeinschaft mit den ihrerseits leidenden und getrösteten Briefabsendern einzuweisen.95 Und mit ihm bezeichnet der triadisch erweiterte Gnadenzuspruch des Postskripts (13,13) “die Gemeinsamkeit der Teilhabe aller Glaubenden am Geist, die ihre Gemeinschaft untereinander begründet”96, um die Adressaten in die Einheit der Verbundenheit mit ihrem Apostel zurückzuholen. Dass der Begriff dann auch mit Bezug auf die Kollekte für die Christusgläubigen in Jerusalem verwendet wird (8,4), ist, da die Kollekte die ökumenische Verbundenheit der paulinischen Gemeinden mit Jerusalem dokumentiert, nur konsequent. Dazu passt dann der erneute Gebrauch der deuteronomischen Treueformel aus 1Kor 1,9; 10,13 in 2Kor 1,18; denn dort zeigt sie an: So gewiss der verkündigte Christus das bekräftigende “Ja” zu allen Verheißungen Gottes ist, welches allererst den eigentlichen Sinn dieser Verheißungen erkennen lässt,97 so gewiss wurde und wird dieser Christus den Adressaten durch Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter ebenso verlässlich wie eindeutig verkündigt (1,19f.). Insofern ist es gerade der paulinische Dienst an der Gemeinde zu Korinth, der ihr die Bundestreue Gottes anzeigt und erschließt.

4. Zusammenfassende Auswertung Der Apostel Paulus übernimmt den Begriff καινὴ διαθήκη aus der in 1Kor 11,23–25 zitierten Herrenmahlstradition. Er verwendet sie in 11,17–34, um darzulegen, welche Folgen für die Mahlgemeinschaft der Gemeinde sich aus der Vergegenwärtigung der leibhaftigen Hingabe Jesu Christi und des 93 Vgl. WILK, “Bezüge”, 159. Zum rückblickenden Sinn von 2Kor 6,1 vgl. 11,4; 1Thess 1,6; 2,13 sowie MARTIN, 2 Corinthians, 166. 94 Siehe o. Abschnitt 2.7. 95 Vgl. dazu WILK, “propositio”, 12. 96 SCHMELLER, Brief II, 406. 97 Vgl. dazu WILK, “Wort”, 692.

450

Florian Wilk

durch sie erschlossenen Heils im Herrenmahl ergeben. Dabei wird dieses Heil über jenen Begriff als Stiftung eschatologischer Gerechtigkeit auf der Basis der Vergebung der Sünden mit dem Ziel ewigen Lebens definiert. In 2Kor 3,2–18 greifen er und Timotheus den Begriff erneut auf, um die Würde und Herrlichkeit des paulinischen Dienstes für die korinthische Gemeinde darzulegen. Dazu setzen sie ihn in ein Verhältnis der Analogie und Überbietung zum Dienst des Mose am Volk Israel, der durch die Verlesung der mosaischen Schriften auf Dauer gestellt worden ist. Diese Schriften erweisen sich im Lichte der durch den Tod Jesu in Kraft gesetzten καινὴ διαθήκη samt ihrer Verkündigung durch Paulus und seine Mitarbeiterschaft als παλαιὰ διαθήκη, mit deren Verlesung über die in Sünde verstrickten Israeliten ein Todesurteil ausgesprochen wird. Dieser Vorgang bleibt ihnen freilich ebenso verborgen wie die durch das Christusgeschehen vollzogene Aufhebung des Todesurteils; beides wird erst in der Gegenwart Jesu Christi erkennbar. Erst sein Angesicht spiegelt auch die Herrlichkeit Gottes so wider, dass sie sich die Christusgläubigen, welche sie – vermittelt durch den im Evangelium wirksamen Geist – erblicken, anverwandelt. In beiden Textzusammenhängen ist καινὴ διαθήκη als eschatologisch-heilvolle Setzung verstanden, mit der Gott denen Rettung und Leben schenkt, die sich im Glauben zu Christus halten. Der Apostel fungiert im ersten Korintherbrief vor allem als Interpret dieser Setzung Gottes, im zweiten Korintherbrief dann zudem als ihr Diener. Hier wie dort attestiert er ihr aber auch eine die Lebensführung der Glaubenden verpflichtende Wirkung. Sie betrifft im ersten Brief in erster Linie die Existenz der Adressaten in ihrem paganen Umfeld, im zweiten Brief primär die Treue zu Paulus und seiner Mitarbeiterschaft. Auf diese Weise ist der Ausdruck der Sache nach zentral von seinem biblischen Quelltext (Jer 38[31],31–34LXX) her verstanden. Den Anschluss an diesen Text unterstreichen entsprechende Rückbezüge auf die Gründungspredigt im ersten Brief sowie auf diesen im zweiten Brief. Die verpflichtende Wirkung wird allerdings ob der einseitig die Aktivität Gottes anzeigenden Eigenart des Begriffs διαθήκη von der Gründungspredigt an (2Kor 6,14) mit Hilfe des paganen Ausdrucks κοινωνία beschrieben: In die “Gemeinschaft Jesu Christi” sind die Christusgläubigen berufen (1Kor 1,9). Diese Gemeinschaft bindet sie an den Willen Gottes, wie er mittels der Schrift aus der Christusbotschaft erhoben wird, trennt sie also von den Götzenbildern (2Kor 6,16f.) und den in ihrer Verehrung wirksamen Dämonen (1Kor 10,20); zugleich sind in dieser Gemeinschaft sowohl untereinander (10,16f.) als auch mit ihrem Apostel Paulus verbunden (2Kor 1,7). Die Verwurzelung der Rede von “Gemeinschaft” im Konzept der BundesVerfügung tritt in ihrer Verknüpfung zuerst mit der biblischen Bundesformel (2Kor 6,16), sodann zumal mit der deuteronomischen Formel “Treu ist Gott” (1Kor 1,9; 10,13; 2Kor 1,18) zutage. Demgemäß ist jene Gemeinschaft vom Geist geprägt (13,13) und in den Herzen sowohl der Paulus-Gruppe als auch der Gemeindeglieder verankert (3,2f.). Ihr Ziel ist die endzeitliche Herrlichkeit

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

451

(1Kor 2,7f.), die auf dem Angesicht Jesu Christi schon jetzt im Glauben so wahrgenommen werden kann, dass sie sich auf die Glaubenden überträgt und sie verwandelt (2Kor 3,18). Für die Korintherbriefe ergibt sich damit ein klarer Befund: So rar die Verwendung der biblischen Bundesterminologie in ihnen ist, so grundlegend ist die paulinische Theologie hier jeweils vom biblischen Bundeskonzept bestimmt.98 Dies zeigt sich allerdings nur punktuell in der Verarbeitung bestimmter Aspekte der Gründungsgeschichte Israels; es zeigt sich vor allem in der Ausarbeitung des Grundgedankens der eschatologischen Gemeinschaft, die Gottes erwählende Treue für die Christusgläubigen gestiftet hat.

Literatur BACK, FRANCES, Verwandlung durch Offenbarung bei Paulus: Eine religionsgeschichtlichexegetische Untersuchung zu 2Kor 2,14–4,6 (WUNT II/153), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. BARNETT, PAUL, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT), Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997. BORNKAMM, GÜNTHER, “Herrenmahl und Kirche bei Paulus” [1956], in IDEM, Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum: Gesammelte Aufsätze Band II, München: Chr. Kaiser, 1959, 138–176. BÜCHSEL, FRIEDRICH, “διακρίνω”, ThWNT 3 (1938): 948–951. BULTMANN, RUDOLF, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (KEK Sonderband), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS, “The Meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Romans: An Intertextual Suggestion”, in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (SBLSymS 50), edited by Stanley E. Porter / Christopher D. Stanley, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2008, 189–212. CIAMPA, ROY E. und ROSNER, BRIAN S., The First Letter to the Corinthians (The Pillar New Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010. DAS, A. ANDREW, “Rethinking the Covenantal Paul”, in Paul and the Stories of Israel: Grand Thematic Narratives in Galatians, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016, 65–92. DELLING, GERHARD, “Das Abendmahlsgeschehen nach Paulus” [1964], in Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum hellenistischen Judentum: Gesammelte Aufsätze 1950 – 1968, edited by Ferdinand Hahn et al., Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1970, 318–335. DUNN, JAMES D. G., “The New Perspective on Paul” [1983], in The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (WUNT 185), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 89–110. –, “The New Perspective: Whence, what and whither?” [2005], in The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (WUNT 185), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 1–88. FEE, GORDON D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians: Revised Edition (NICNT), Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2014. FURNISH, VICTOR P., II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 32A), Garden City: Doubleday, 1984.

98

Ähnlich HAFEMANN, “Temple”, 34.

452

Florian Wilk

GARDNER, PAUL, 1 Corinthians (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018. GRÄSSER, ERICH, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther: Kapitel 1,1–7,16 (ÖTK 8/1), Gütersloh: Gütersloher / Würzburg: Echter, 2002. HAACKER, KLAUS, “Merits and Limits of the ‘New Perspective on the Apostle Paul’”, in History and Exegesis: FS E. Earle Ellis, edited by Sang-Won Son, New York / London: T&T Clark, 2006, 275–289. HAFEMANN, SCOTT J., “Like and Unlike Moses: Paul’s Eschatological Comparisons in 2 Corinthians 3”, in Paul and Moses: The Exodus und Sinai Traditions in the Letters of Paul (Studies in Education and Religion in Ancient and Pre-Modern History in the Mediterranean and Its Environs 11), edited by Florian Wilk, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020, 155– 180. –, “The ‘Temple of the Spirit’ as the Inaugural Fulfillment of the New Covenant within the Corinthian Correspondence”, ExAud 12 (1996): 29–42. HAYS, RICHARD B., First Corinthians (Interpretation), Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 2011. HEGERMANN, HARALD, “διαθήκη”, Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament I (1980): 718–725. HOFMANN, JOHANN C.K. VON, Der Brief Pauli an die Galater (Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht 2/1), Nördlingen: Beck, 1863. KÄSEMANN, ERNST, “Anliegen und Eigenart der paulinischen Abendmahlslehre”, in IDEM, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen: Erster Band, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960, 11–34. KARRER, MARTIN, “Der Kelch des neuen Bundes: Erwägungen zum Verständnis des Herrenmahls nach 1Kor 11:23b–25”, BZ 34 (1990): 198–221. KLINGHARDT, MATTHIAS, “Der vergossene Becher: Ritual und Gemeinschaft im lukanischen Mahlbericht”, Early Christianity 3 (2012): 33–58. –, “Gemeindeleib und Mahlritual: Sōma in den paulinischen Mahltexten”, Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 27 (2011): 51–56. KONRADT, MATTHIAS, Gericht und Gemeinde: Eine Studie zur Bedeutung und Funktion von Gerichtsaussagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesiologie und Ethik im 1Thess und 1Kor (BZNW 117), Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 2003. LAMPE, PETER, “Das korinthische Herrenmahl im Schnittpunkt hellenistisch-römischer Mahlpraxis und paulinischer Theologia Crucis (1Kor 11,17–34)”, ZNW 82 (1991): 183– 213. LANDMESSER, CHRISTOPH, “Umstrittener Paulus: Die gegenwärtige Diskussion um die paulinische Theologie”, ZTK 105 (2008): 387–410. LANG, FRIEDRICH, Die Briefe an die Korinther (NTD 7), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. LIETZMANN, HANS, An die Korinther I·II (HNT 9), Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 4 1949. LINDEMANN, ANDREAS, Der erste Korintherbrief (HNT 9/1), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. LOHSE, EDUARD, “Theologie der Rechtfertigung im kritischen Disput – zu einigen neuen Perspektiven in der Interpretation der Theologie des Apostels Paulus”, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 249 (1997): 66–81.

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

453

LONGENECKER, BRUCE W., “Sharing in Their Spiritual Blessings? The Stories of Israel in Galatians and Romans”, in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, edited by Bruce W. Longenecker, Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 2002, 58–84. MARTIN, RALPH P., 2 Corinthians (WBC 40), Waco: Word Books, 1986. MACASKILL, GRANT, “The Way the One God Works: Covenant and Ethics in 1 Corinthians”. in One God, One People, One Future (FS N. T. Wright), edited by John Anthony Dunne / Eric Lewellen, London: SPCK, 2018, 112–125. NIKKANEN, P. MARKUS, Participaton in Christ: Paul and Pre-Pauline Eucharistic Tradition, Aberdeen University Thesis, 2018 (https://eu03.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/deli very/44ABE_INST/12152787970005941, letzter Zugriff am 4.1.2021). OTTO, KONRAD, Zwischen den Welten: Rezeption und Verarbeitung der Mose-Exodus-Tradition in 1Kor 10 und 2Kor 3, Diss. theol. Göttingen, 2020. PITRE, Brant / BARBER, Michael P. / KINCAID, John A., Paul, a New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline Theology, Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2019. PORTER, STANLEY E., “Covenant in Paul”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, edited by Stanley E. Porter / Jacqueline C.R. de Roo, Leiden et al.: Brill, 2003, 269–285. RÖSEL, MARTIN, “Exkurs: Zur Übersetzung von διαθήκη”, in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, Band I: Genesis bis Makkabäer, edited by Martin Karrer / Wolfgang Kraus, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011, 170. SANDERS, ED PARISH, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, London 1977. SCHMELLER, THOMAS, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther: Teilband 1: 2Kor 1,1–7,4 (EKKNT 8/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener / Ostfildern: Patmos, 2010. –, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther: Teilband 2: 2Kor 7,5–13,13 (EKKNT 8/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener / Ostfildern: Patmos, 2015. SCHOTTROFF, LUISE, Der erste Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth (Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 7), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013. SCHRAGE, WOLFGANG, Der erste Brief an die Korinther: 1. Teilband: 1Kor 1,1–6,11 (EKKNT 7/1), Zürich et al.: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. –, Der erste Brief an die Korinther: 3. Teilband: 1Kor 11,17–14,40 (EKKNT 7/3), Zürich et al.: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999. SCHRÖTER, JENS, Das Abendmahl: Frühchristliche Deutungen und Impulse für die Gegenwart (SBS 210), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2006. STENDAHL, KRISTER, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West”, HTR 56 (1963): 199–215. STRACK, HERMANN / BILLERBECK, PAUL, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Erster Band: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, München: Beck, 21956. STRECKER, CHRISTIAN, “Paulus aus einer ‘neuen Perspektive’: Der Paradigmenwechsel in der jüngeren Paulusforschung”, Kirche und Israel 11 (1996): 3–18. STROBEL, AUGUST, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Zürcher Bibelkommentare NT 6.1), Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989. THISELTON, ANTHONY C., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000. THRALL, MARGARET E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Volume I: Introduction and Commentary on II Corinthians I–VII (ICC), London / New York: T&T Clark, 2004.

454

Florian Wilk

VOGEL, MANUEL, Das Heil des Bundes: Bundestheologie im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 18), Tübingen: Francke, 1996. WELCH, JOHN W. / RENNAKER, JACOB, “Paul and the Covenant”, in Oxford Handbook of Biblical Law, edited by Pamela Barmash, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019, 437– 449. WESTERHOLM, STEPHEN, Perspectives Old and New on Paul. The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics, Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004. WILK, FLORIAN, “Alte und neue Rede von Gott in den Korintherbriefen?!” in Über Gott. Festschrift für Reinhard Feldmeier zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Jan Dochhorn et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022, 451–474. –, “Bezüge auf ‘die Schriften’ in den Korintherbriefen”, in Paulinische Schriftrezeption. Grundlagen – Ausprägungen – Wirkungen – Wertungen (FRLANT 268), edited by Florian Wilk / Markus Öhler, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017, 149–173. –, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (NTD 7/1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2023. –, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus (FRLANT 179), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. –, “Durch Schriftkenntnis zur Vollkommenheit: Zur Funktion des vielgestaltigen Schriftgebrauchs in 1Kor 2,6–16 und 14,20–25”, ZNW 110 (2019): 21–41. –, “Gottes Wort und Gottes Verheißungen: Zur Eigenart der Schriftverwendung in 2Kor 6,14–7,1”, in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (WUNT 219), edited by Martin Karrer / Wolfgang Kraus, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 673–696. –, “Schriftauslegung als Bildungsvorgang im ersten Korintherbrief des Paulus – untersucht ausgehend von 1Kor 4,6”, in Scriptural Interpretation at the Interface between Education and Religion: In Memory of Hans Conzelmann (Themes in Biblical Narrative 22), edited by Florian Wilk, Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2019, 88–111. –, “‘Unfreier Wille’? Paulus zur Rolle menschlichen Wollens, Trachtens und Handelns im Gegenüber zu Gott”, KD 64 (2018): 100–115. –, “Verblendet oder verstockt? Gottes Macht und der Misserfolg des Evangeliums in der Sicht des Paulus”, in Vorsehung, Schicksal und göttliche Macht: Antike Stimmen zu einem aktuellen Thema, edited by Reinhard G. Kratz / Hermann Spieckermann, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 193–214. –, “Zur Funktion von 2Kor 3,4–18 in seinem literarischen Zusammenhang”, in Paul and Moses. The Exodus and Sinai Traditions in the Letters of Paul, edited by Florian Wilk (Studies in Education and Religion in Ancient and Pre-Modern History in the Mediterranean and Its Environs 11), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020, 139–154. –, “2Kor 1,12–14 als propositio des ganzen zweiten Korintherbriefs”, in Frühes Christentum und religionsgeschichtliche Schule: FS Gerd Lüdemann (NTOA 95), edited by Martina Janßen et al., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, 11–23. WILLIS, WENDELL L., Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (SBLDS 68), Chico: Scholars, 1985. WINKLER, WIBKE E., Die Identität Israels bei Paulus: Eine Untersuchung des Israels-Begriffs im paulinischen Schrifttum, Diss. theol. Göttingen, 2020. WOLFF, CHRISTIAN, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (THKNT 7), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1996. –, Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (THKNT 8), Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989.

Bundesterminologie und Bundeskonzeption in den Korintherbriefen

455

WOLTER, MICHAEL, “‘Das Geschriebene tötet, der Geist aber macht lebendig’ (2Kor 3,6). Ein Versuch zur paulinischen Antithese von γράμμα und πνεύμα”, in Der zweite Korintherbrief. Literarische Gestalt – historische Situation – theologische Argumentation. FS Dietrich-Alex Koch (FRLANT 250), edited by Dieter Sänger, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012, 355–379. –, “Eine neue paulinische Perspektive”, Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 14 (2004): 2–9. WRIGHT, N.T., The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. –, “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith”, TynBul 29 (1978): 61–88. ZELLER, DIETER, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK 5), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

JENS HERZER Jens Herzer

In memoriam Peter von der Osten-Sacken (1940–2022) A project like this is both a challenge and a temptation. The challenge results from the enormous and widely ramified scholarly debate about Paul and his relation to Judaism specifically with regard to Galatians and Romans, which has been going on for about half a century. Thus, there is the temptation to deal merely with the various aspects of this highly controversial debate rather than exploring the texts themselves. In this contribution it is impossible to attend appropriately to all aspects of the debate, in which every jota has been turned over again and again. Within the comprehensive concept of the conference, I will first sketch out some of the most relevant aspects of the debate and their implications for the topic of covenant, and secondly, I will present a condensed reading of the respective passages in Galatians and Romans.

1. Preliminary Remarks 1.1 The Significance of the Covenant It is well-known that “covenant” does not belong to the central themes of the New Testament. Erich Grässer once perceived a “‘covenant silence’ in large parts of the New Testament writings.”1 Thus, the very first question to raise is whether a concept of covenant in Paul’s theological thinking has some significance at all. The familiar statistical assessment is illuminating. Given the (relative) prominence of the covenant theme in the history of Israel and (less extensively) in early Judaism, there are surprisingly few texts dealing explicitly with the idea of covenant in the comparatively large corpus of Pauline letters.2 1

GRÄSSER, “Bund”, 14 (“‘Bundesschweigen’ in weiten Teilen des neutestamentlichen Schrifttums”). 2 Most remarkably, two of the most productive authors of Hellenistic Judaism do not (Josephus) or only rarely (Philo of Alexandria) use the term, see, e.g., GRABBE, “Covenant”; BÖHM, Rezeption, 137–138, 402; STERLING, “Silence”. In Qumran, however, covenant is

458

Jens Herzer

Out of a total of 33 instances of the term διαθήκη in the New Testament, only eight can be found in Paul’s authentic letters (Rom 9:4; 11:27; Gal 3:15, 17; 4:24; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6, 14). In his paper, Florian Wilk impressively demonstrates that the covenant passages in 1 and 2 Corinthians represent an important landmark for Paul’s idea of covenant within his theological thinking.3 But how central is this idea for Paul? I would like to go one step further and emphasize that the covenant passages in the Corinthian correspondence build a significant link between Paul’s earlier references to the idea of the covenant in Galatians and his later statements in Romans.4 The significance of the covenant theme in Paul is based on the notion that it appears in all of his four main letters. With regard to the texts themselves, however, the theme is not very prominent.5 Yet, on the other hand, there certainly is no “covenant silence” in Paul. I would argue that especially in Rom 9–11 Paul’s theological arguments are grounded in a certain concept of covenant. For a Jew like Paul trained in Jewish law and customs, it seems rather inconceivable that he would not regard covenant as an important category of his theological thinking.6 Especially Romans and Galatians witness to an intense reflection on the meaning of the Torah given at Sinai as the charter of the covenant. When the law (and in a metonymic way also circumcision) is at issue, the covenantal structure of Israel’s religion is, too. This does not necessarily imply a focus on the Sinai covenant only, for Paul in Rom 9:4 explicitly refers to multiple covenants.7 It seems appropriate, however, to conclude that covenant as a structural idea of the Jewish religion frames Paul’s theological thinking and also the debates, in which Paul engages with his fellow Jews and Jewish Christ-believers who remain focused on the Torah. While such a frame does not presuppose a concise “covenant theology”

more prominent. On these different areas, see the contributions of Gert Steyn and Brent A. Strawn in this volume. 3 Cf. Florian Wilk’s contribution in this volume. 4 This assessment implies that Paul’s letter to the Galatians and his letter to the Romans do not belong as closely together as is commonly assumed in scholarship because of the supposedly similar treatment of the doctrine of justification in both letters, cf., e.g., SCHNELLE, Einleitung, 116–118. See also below n. 14. 5 Cf. DUNN, “Did Paul have a covenant theology?” 6 See, e.g., already DAVIES, Paul, 259–260; HARTMAN, “Bundesideologie”; more recently LONGENECKER, “Blessings”; PORTER, “Concept of Covenant”, 269–285; WARE, “Law”. SANDERS, Paul, 420–421, noted, “that it is the fundamental nature of the covenant conception which largely accounts for the relative scarcity of appearances of the term ‘covenant’ in Rabbinic literature.” Cf. critically DAS, Stories, 65–92, who rightly demands a “more careful definition” of covenant. However, he inappropriately downplays the significance of structural covenantal aspects in Paul’s theology. 7 See below 1.3.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

459

of Paul,8 it is obviously the reason why Paul in Rom 9–11 consequently has to deal with Israel and its covenantal status. Finally, one has to consider whether for rhetorical and apologetic reasons Paul may construct a picture of Judaism, which is marked by his own biography and experience as well as by his understanding of certain aspects of Judaism from a Christ-related perspective. Additionally, the obvious caveats in translating the Hebrew ‫ ברית‬by the Greek διαθήκη and both terms by “covenant” or “contract” (German: “Bund” or “Vertrag”) not only reveal conceptual issues, but at the same time make clear that “covenant” is a cipher for a complex relational system which includes many aspects of religious beliefs, norms, customs, and practices.9 Interestingly, according to 1 Cor 11:25 Paul knew the specific idea of a new covenant as part of a traditional formula from the Jesus tradition, and reflects this idea theologically and most prominently in 2 Cor 3:6, 14. In Romans and Galatians, he completely dispenses with this idea and refers only to God’s covenant with Israel and its relation to the Gentiles. Why does Paul not engage with the eschatologically important idea of a new covenant in Romans and Galatians? Would it not perfectly solve the Israel-Gentile-problem in Rom 9– 11 – instead of talking about a mystery? 1.2 Developments in Paul’s Theological Thinking? A seemingly marginal aspect of my initial notes is the relation between Romans and Galatians. It is disputed whether or not there was a development in Paul’s theological thinking about essentials like the law, the justification by God’s grace, and also various eschatological issues. Some scholars assume significant transformations (“Wandlungen”) in Paul’s thinking from a rather simple apocalyptical theology in 1 Thessalonians towards an individual eschatology and the “high theology” of Galatians and Romans. This thesis consequently implies a factual and temporal proximity of both letters.10 Obviously, Paul was continuously engaged in various kind of debates, which arose from different contextual challenges, and which were marked by a permanent questioning of his theological positions. Moreover, we also have to consider that Paul’s theological thinking in general was shaped by a longer process since his conversion to a Christ-believing form of Judaism.11 Such a 8 Cf. DUNN, “Did Paul have a covenant theology?”, esp. 429–430; critically DAS, Stories, 68–69. 9 See the contribution of Martin Rösel in this volume; cf. also on the terminological problem from a legal perspective SELB, “Διαθήκη”, esp. 185–189. 10 Cf., e.g., RÄISÄNEN, “Conversion”; HAHN, “Entwicklung”, esp. 343; SCHNELLE, Wandlungen, esp. 49–76. 11 Cf. THEISSEN, “Bekehrung”, esp. 17–20. Theißen, however, calls Paul’s conversion a conversion to “Christianity”, a somehow anachronistic category that is not quite appropriate in order to characterize Paul’s theological thinking. See also comprehensively KONRADT,

460

Jens Herzer

perspective includes more flexibility in differentiating Paul’s ideas about certain theological issues. For instance, one cannot assume that Paul’s arguments about the law, justice and righteousness, and thus also about God’s covenant with Israel, are only relevant at a later phase of his thinking. To the contrary, his arguments in Galatians and even more explicitly in Romans clearly indicate that the law – and all its relations including the quest for the covenant – is at stake as soon as he proclaims the Gospel to the Gentiles. Thus, there is no convincing argument why Galatians can only be written soon or “immediately” (Schnelle) before Romans, just because of their common theological themes. We have to consider that all of Paul’s letters were written within a span of perhaps only ten years at most.12 A sharp distinction between an “early Paul” and a “late Paul” does not seem appropriate, an insight that does not exclude adjustments, modifications, specifications, and transformations of various positions.13 Paul’s situation and perspective while writing Romans suggest that he takes up debates that go back to his quarrels in Jerusalem from the very beginning. After the Jerusalem council at the latest, his struggle for the “Gospel of the Gentiles” started with a harsh controversy reflected in Gal 2:4, 11–14, and ended with a final reference to the people in Judea and Jerusalem (although names are not mentioned) in Rom 15:30–31.14 Here Paul asks his fellow Christbelivers in Rome to support him fighting through their prayers so that God might save him from the ἀπειθοῦντες in Judea. He wishes that the collection for “the saints in Jerusalem” might be received well, an enterprise that most probably was not successful.15 In both letters, Galatians and Romans, the

“Bekehrung”, esp. 116, who hints at “Unschärfefaktoren” (“indistinctness factors”) in Paul’s statements about his past thinking (97). 12 Depending on the dating of Philippians and Philemon; cf. SCHNELLE, Einleitung, 163 and 174, who dates Phil in 60 AD and Phlm in 61 AD, whereas the common opinion dates them earlier in the time of an Ephesian imprisonment between 52–55 AD. In any case, between the supposedly first letter of Paul 1 Thessalonians (50 AD) and Romans (56 AD) there are only six or seven years; cf. HAHN, “Entwicklung”, 344. 13 Cf., e.g., VON BENDEMANN, “Erwägungen”; KIM, Paul, 53–57; SÄNGER, “Kontinuität”, esp. 132–134; IDEM, “Adressaten”, 206–209; KONRADT, “Bekehrung”, 99–100. THEOBALD, “Wandlungen”, 509–510, uses the term “retractatio”. For a comprehensive assessment see MEISER, “Galaterbrief”, esp. 109–119. 14 I assume that Galatians belongs to an earlier phase of Paul’s missionary activities, cf., e.g., BREYTENBACH, Paulus, esp. 172–173. For the historical context of Galatians cf. JOHN, Galaterbrief. For a very “early” dating see, e.g., LONGENECKER, Galatians, LXXXVIII. DE BOER, Galatians, 11, dates the letter in 51 CE, shortly after 1 Thessalonians; cf. already HÜBNER, Gottes Ich, 127–135; BELL, Call, 315. Cf. also SCHÄFER, Paulus, esp. 490–494. 15 Cf., e.g., HORN, “Jerusalemreise”, who assumes that Paul used the money for the release of a Nasirean pledge, cf. Acts 21:23–26. WOLTER, Römer 2, 451, uses the term “money laundering” (“Geldwäsche”). According to Wolter, the term ἀπειθοῦντες in Rom

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

461

project of a collection by the Gentile Christ-believers to the “poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Rom 15:26; cf. Gal 2:10) is closely related to Paul’s idea of God’s covenant with Israel. In Romans, however, Paul names the gift of his gentile Christ-believing communities as a προσφορά, an “offering” which he delivers like a priest (Rom 15:16). Therefore, Paul’s growing inner and outer distance to Jerusalem is unmistakable.16 Yet, this modified perspective also influenced Paul’s thinking about Israel and the Gentiles, law and grace, Christ and Moses, and also God’s covenant(s). 1.3 New Perspective(s) on Paul It is impossible to re-evaluate the debate about the so-called “New Perspective on Paul” and its previous and following theories. One of its major impulses was undoubtedly Ed P. Sanders’ thesis about Paul’s “covenantal nomism”, resuming the earlier criticism of Krister Stendahl of a traditional and confessional (mis-)representation of Paul and his relation to Judaism.17 In his Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Sanders construes a “type of religion best called ‘covenantal nomism’ [which] is common to Judaism as it appears in the literature considered here. The ‘pattern’ or ‘structure’ of covenantal nomism is this: (1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God’s promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenance or reestablishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God’s mercy belong to a group which will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God’s mercy rather than human achievement.”18 “Covenantal nomism” thus refers to “the maintenance of status” within the covenant relationship established by God.19 James Dunn generally follows Sanders’ thesis of “covenantal nomism”, insofar as the idea of Israel’s election is based on God’s grace in granting the covenant: “This covenant relationship was regulated by the law, not as a way of entering the covenant, or of gaining merit, but as the way of living within the covenant […].”20 It has been correctly noticed that the traditional “Western”21 perspective on the Jewish religion is not adequate for all the Jewish literature,22 and it was debated intensively whether Paul had “left” Judaism for

15:31 refers to “Jews in Judaea who have remained non-Christian” (“nichtchristlich gebliebene Juden in Judäa”, ibid., 449). 16 See, e.g., HORN, “Jerusalemreise”. 17 STENDAHL, “Conscience”; SANDERS, Paul. For a recent assessment see, e.g., MASCHMEIER, Rechtfertigung. 18 SANDERS, Paul, 422. 19 SANDERS, Paul, 544. 20 DUNN, Romans 1–8, lxv. 21 See STENDAHL, “Conscience”. 22 Cf. already SANDERS, Paul, 423; further, e.g., COLLINS, “Identity”.

462

Jens Herzer

“Christianity”.23 Parallel to the debate about Sanders’ proposal (originally from 1977) the notion of a specific kind of Palestinian Judaism in the Jewish heartland as opposed to Hellenistic or Hellenized forms of Judaism in the Diaspora was not considered appropriate.24 Among many others,25 John Barclay particularly criticized the one-sidedness of Sanders’ uniform construction of Judaism based on the ubiquity of grace.26 Moreover, Barclay specifies Dunn’s representation of the relationship between Paul and his fellow Jews with regard to grace: “The difference lies in different perfections of grace, and the issue could be simply put: Paul and his fellow Jews agreed on the priority of grace, but disagreed on its incongruity, at least in relation to ethnic worth. […] One would clearly need to reexamine the texts to see if this was so, but, on this reading, what needs to be clarified is not whether grace is perfected by Paul and by other Jewish authors, but how.”27 This focus on the correlation between the fundamental priority of grace on the one side and its incongruity on the other also has consequences regarding the importance of the covenant conception in Paul’s theological thinking.

Dunn’s transformation of Sanders’ proposal into a “New Perspective on Paul” certainly stimulated a vibrant debate, although – as Christine Gerber winkingly notes – the new perspective has grown older.28 Continuing for more than half a century, this new perspective has produced various approaches to the relevant questions, headed by catchy titles like “Paul among Jews and Gentiles”,29 “Paul Among the Gentiles”,30 “Paul within Judaism”,31 “Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles”,32 “Paul and the Law”,33 the “universalism” of Paul,34 and so on. Currently, the discussion has shifted again to the personal aspect of Paul’s identity as a former Pharisaic Jew who came to believe in the resurrected Jesus as the Messiah of both Israel and the nations.35 The original impulse of the new perspective on Paul provided not only a differing assessment of Pauline 23

Cf. SANDERS, Paul, 550–552: “In short, this is what Paul finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity” (522); see also RÄISÄNEN, “Break”. 24 Cf. SANDERS, Paul, 543–556: “We cannot give an account here of Paul’s relationship to all the contemporary religious movements, but it does appear that it may be just as difficult to peg him as a Hellenistic Jew who thought that Christ presented the true mystery or true gnosis as it is to characterize him as a Rabbinic Jew who thought that Jesus was the Messiah” (555). See also the contributions of Sara Ronis and Matthias Henze in this volume. 25 Cf., e.g., AVEMARIE, Tora, 34–44, 579–584. 26 Cf. BARCLAY, Paul, 151–165. 27 BARCLAY, Paul, 165; cf. also GERBER, “Blicke”, 58–60. 28 See Dunn’s collected essays in New Perspective; cf. also BACHMANN, Paulusperspektive; WESTERHOLM, Perspectives. For a critical assessment cf. GERBER, “Blicke”. 29 Cf. STENDAHL, “Jews”. 30 Cf. MORTENSEN, Paul. 31 Cf. NANOS/ZETTERHOLM, Paul. 32 Cf. WATSON, Paul. 33 Cf., e.g., RÄISÄNEN, Paul. 34 Cf. HOLTZ, Universalismus; SCHRÖTER, “Universalisierung”. 35 See, e.g., COLLINS, “Identity”, 159–181, 246–254; NIEBUHR, Heidenapostel; THEISSEN, “Bekehrung”; BACHMANN, “Identität”; BUTTICAZ, “Paul”; EHRENSPERGER, Paul; WINDSOR, Paul; PORTENHAUSER, Identität, esp. 400–482.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

463

theology, but also marked the beginning of a differentiated perception of Judaism and its various forms.36 The critique on Sanders was one of the reasons why the “covenant” topic has taken a back seat in the debate in the long run, despite several attempts of a covenantal interpretation of Paul.37 As the scholarly discussion has shown, the issues at stake are more complex than the older controversies about Paul’s “doctrine of justification” suggest, whether justification represents the center of Paul’s theology or rather a marginal idea that has emerged from his struggle with his Jewish opponents.38 The meaning of covenant concepts in Paul also depends very much on how one evaluates the “Parting of the way(s)” between Judaism and Christianity.39 Obviously, in the Paul-and-Judaism-relation-debate the final word has not yet been spoken (and perhaps never will).40 In his Paul and the Gift from 2015, John Barclay congenially recapitulates the major contributions and issues of the current debate(s).41 His conclusion “from these heated and often confused debates in the wake of Sanders”42 is that scholars need to focus on an appropriate understanding of grace, and thus the main goal of his book is to unfold Paul’s “theology of grace”. Yet, despite the prominence of the covenant theme in Sander’s original thesis, covenantal aspects of Paul’s theology are largely underrepresented in the debate. 1.4 The Overall Perspective: Continuity or Discontinuity of Covenants In 1 Cor 11:23, Paul’s introduction to the citation of Jesus’ words spoken at the last supper demonstrates that the Apostle was indeed familiar with the idea of the covenant in the context of the early Jesus tradition. Referring to a tradition handed over to him at an earlier stage of his career he must have been aware that Jesus himself did explain and interpret his own death with reference to God’s covenant. More specifically, Paul received this tradition already with the notion of “the new covenant”. In the older (and most probably original) version 36 A major caveat in scholarship with regard to Sanders’ view on Judaism was the idea of a “break with Judaism”; cf. RÄISÄNEN, “Break”, 183–184; cf. also SCHNELLE, Wege. 37 Cf., e.g., CHRISTIANSEN, Covenant in Judaism and Paul; VOGEL, Heil; PITRE et al., Paul, has no entry for “covenant”. 38 In the sense of William Wrede’s “Kampfeslehre” (WREDE, Paulus, 72) or Albert Schweitzer’s “Nebenkrater” (SCHWEITZER, Mystik, 220–221). Cf. VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, “Beobachtungen”, esp. 351–354. 39 See, e.g., most recently EvTh 80/6 (2020) on the “Parting of the Ways. Die Trennung der Wege von Juden und Christen in der neueren Forschung”. 40 Cf., e.g., James Dunn’s revealing critique of Mark Nanos’ and Magnus Zetterholm’s volume Paul within Judaism, in JTS 66 (2015): 782–784; and the comprehensive reflection of the debate by DUNN, “Dialogue”. 41 BARCLAY, Paul, esp. 166–188. 42 BARCLAY, Paul, 174.

464

Jens Herzer

of the words at the last supper Jesus spoke of the “blood of the covenant”, referring explicitly to the Sinai covenant of Exod 24:8 (τὸ αἶμα τῆς διαθήκης/ ‫)דַּ ם־הַ בְּ ִרית‬.43 According to Exod 24:8 the focus is exclusively on Israel: It is “the covenant that the Lord established related to you,” i.e., to Moses and the chosen people of the Exodus. The particular notion of ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη “the new covenant” in the Lukan and pre-Pauline version of the last supper of Jesus probably refers to Jer 31:31.44 Jeremiah’s idea of “a” new covenant, however, invokes Israel’s exile and the question of how the story of God’s covenant with Israel might continue given this peculiar situation, in which all the traditional “covenant institutions” – the temple, the cult, and the land – are lost. In this situation, the Torah as the document of the Sinai covenant gains a specific “new” meaning by imagining that it will be inscribed on the hearts of God’s people. In Jeremiah, it is still the same Torah of the Sinai covenant, transferred into a new interpretative framework.45 From these observations the question arises, whether, and if so, how the original idea of Jer 31(38 LXX):31–33 as reflected in 1 Cor 11 (words of Jesus) and 2 Cor 3 (new covenant in contrast to the old one) may have influenced Paul’s understanding of covenant, its relation to the so-called Christ-event, and the meaning of the law.46 In Galatians and Romans, however, Paul does not refer to Jer 31 when he talks about the covenant. So, does the “echo” of Jer 31 in the notion of the “new covenant”47 in 1 and 2 Cor suggest that Paul’s refers to a renewal of the Sinai covenant? If this would have been Paul’s intention, he should have taken up the idea of the new covenant at least in Rom 9–11. He quotes Isaiah extensively48 and other scriptures as well – why not Jer 31? Does Paul develop a new perspective on covenant that leads beyond the traditional alternative of “old” versus “new”?

2. Aspects of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans Although the term διαθήκη is rather rare both in Paul and in the New Testament,49 my introductory remarks already indicate that the covenant theme is something like a sub-text of Pauline theology. If one could ask him, Paul perhaps would have answered that – as a Pharisaic Jew – all he says about the Torah, sin and forgiveness of sins, reconciliation and so on obviously falls 43

See the contributions of Thomas Hieke and Christian Eberhart in this volume. See the contribution of Florian Wilk in this volume. 45 See the contribution of Karin Finsterbusch in this volume. 46 Although commonly assumed (cf. SCHMELLER, Korinther, 183–184), even in 2 Cor 3 the reference to Jer 31 is at least not explicit; cf., however, WOLFF, Jeremiah, 61; cautiously also FREY, “Reception”, 516–517. 47 Cf. HAYS, Echoes, 128–130. 48 Cf. comprehensively WILK, Bedeutung. 49 See above 1.1. 44

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

465

within the framework of God’s covenant. It is important to note, however, that the idea of continuity between several covenants initially was not included in Paul’s theological reflections on the Christ-event. The inclusive perspective of Rom 9–11 on Israel’s covenants (plural) told as a continuing narrative is the final destination of a thorny path Paul had to go in fighting for “his gospel” (Rom 2:16). The beginning of this route in Galatia, however, was not really promising. Thus, it is no surprise that in Galatians and in Romans we find two different perspectives and differing arguments with regard to covenant. In the process of his thinking, “covenant” develops into a concept, something like a “grand narrative”,50 which for Paul essentially relates to the Christ-event and thus redefines all aspects of his original Jewish belief. In the perspective of the Christ-event, “covenant” becomes a concept that transcends traditional alternatives of “old” and “new”, of being “in” or “out”, “Jew” or “Greek” and so on. 2.1 Abraham: The Gentiles and the Covenant in Galatians 3 Paul’s argument in Galatians mirrors a very harsh controversy about the question of how pagan Christ-believers can participate in the heritage of God’s promises in order to become righteous. Paul’s opponents in Galatia obviously regarded circumcision of the Gentiles and thus observance of the law as crucial. It is not clear whether the opponents argued explicitly with regard to covenant. The way Paul refers to the covenant indicates that this idea was not very prominent in the debate. Nevertheless, since the idea of covenant develops in the course of the argument and since his opponents considered circumcision and observance of the law as the two main “identity markers” of “being in” the covenant,51 it seems obvious that Paul would use the notion of covenant in order to explain his position in the controversy. He begins his argument by looking back at a key event. In Gal 2:15–16 Paul formulates his position by recalling an initial controversy between him and Peter in Antioch, caused by “people from James” who came from Jerusalem and made Peter (and others) withdraw from the table fellowship with the Gentile Christ-believers. Referring to this so-called Antioch incident, Paul recounts his argument with Peter: (15) We are Jews by birth (φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι) and not sinners from the Gentiles; (16) and because we [as Jews!, who have the Christ-experience] know that a person is justified not by works of the law but through the Jesus-Christ-faith (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by the Christ-faith, and not

50

For narratological approaches to various aspects of Paul’s theology cf. LONGENECKER, Dynamics. 51 See above 1.3.

466

Jens Herzer

by works of the law (ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου), because by works of the law no flesh will be justified.52

Paul explicitly emphasizes his Jewish point of view. It is within this perspective that the soteriological significance of the Christ-experience prioritizes faith over “works of the law”.53 In the following chapter, Paul focuses on the contrast of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου and διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in characterizing Abraham’s faith (see below). From this perspective, for Paul the Christ-experience obviously generates an insight into the basic structure of righteousness by faith, and in fact initiates a restoration of the Abraham covenant based on the promise of faith. As a consequence, Gentiles who come to believe in the God of Israel through this Christ-experience do not have to become part of the covenant defined by circumcision, which in this perspective stands for righteousness ἐξ ἔργων νόμου. For Paul, this specific “kind” of covenant, marked by circumcision and thus by the obligation to keep the Torah, represents the exclusive relation between God and Israel. Yet, this does not exclude Gentiles from the promise of salvation. On the contrary, Paul widens the horizon of the covenant idea and decides – in Galatians and in Romans – to focus on Abraham and his faith.54 The figure of Abraham dominates not only the entire argument in Gal 3, but the reference to him and his two descendants also signifies chapter 4.55 According to Gal 3:6–9, the reason for starting out with Abraham is the structural significance of faith as the basis for justification: (6) As (it reads): ‘Abraham believed in God and this was considered as righteousness for him’. (7) You should know, therefore, that those of faith – these are sons of Abraham. (8) But the scripture – anticipating that Gott justifies the Gentiles by faith (ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ θεός) – beforehand proclaimed as good news to Abraham: ‘In you all the Gentiles will be blessed’. (9) Thus, those of faith (οἱ ἐκ πίστεως) are blessed together with the faithful Abraham (σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Ἀβραάμ).

What Paul explains here is not a fairly “Christian” argument, but an argument about the basic relation between faith and righteousness derived from “the Scripture” (ἡ γραφή), referring to Gen 15:6 in combination with Gen 12:3 and 18:18 respectively.56 Paul quotes these verses in order to build an argument from his own (claiming to be a Jewish) perspective for the sake of his position 52

All translations in this essay are mine. Cf. SCHRÖTER, “Universalisierung”, 174–176. 54 Except of 2 Cor 11:22, within Paul’s letters Abraham does only appear in Romans and Galatians. 55 Cf. comprehensively HANSEN, Abraham, 97–154. 56 For an analysis and interpretation of Gen 15:6 cf. KÖCKERT, “Glaube”, esp. 439–441, on the Septuagint version of the passage. In fact, Gal 3:8c blends – perhaps Paul quoting by heart – the personal promise to Abraham as a blessing “for all tribes on earth” (πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς / ‫ )כֹּ ל ִמ ְשׁפְּ חֹ ת הָ ֲאדָ מָ ה‬in Gen 12:3 with the all-Gentile perspective in Gen 18:18 (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς / ‫)כֹּ ל גּוֹיֵי הָ אָֽ ֶרץ‬. Cf. KOCH, Schrift, 162–163; VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, Brief, 141–142. 53

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

467

in the Galatian debate.57 Methodologically, this is true for all of Paul’s arguments from scripture. The important point is that here Paul declares “faith” as being the identity marker of Abraham, the original receiver of the promise, and hence, also of Abraham’s true descendants.58 Therefore, being a descendant of Abraham is the principal condition for inheriting the promises that God gave to Abraham and his offspring. It is, again, a genuine Jewish claim. Paul refers to it several times, and in Rom 11:1 he even emphasizes without any polemic regarding his own identity: “I am also an Israelite, from the offspring of Abraham, belonging to the tribe of Benjamin” (καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ Ἰσραηλίτης εἰμί, ἐκ σπέρματος Ἀβραάμ, φυλῆς Βενιαμίν).59 He also uses this feature in his argument about the relationship of a genealogically based kinship of Abraham (κατὰ σάρκα) and a spiritual lineage (Rom 9:6–8). The latter passage certainly draws upon his considerations about Abraham made in the context of Galatians. At the beginning of Gal 3, however, Paul does neither mention the Abrahamic covenant explicitly, nor does he emphasize that circumcision is not a constituting marker of the Sinai covenant but the seal of God’s promise to Abraham (cf. Gen 17:10). To engage in a discussion about these aspects would certainly not have been conductive to Paul’s position, not only due to the polemic against the demand of circumcision by the opponents, but also because circumcision was commanded to Abraham and all his descendants as a basic identity marker of an “eternal covenant” (17:7–9). Not to be circumcised therefore not only means to break the covenant with Abraham but to invalidate it, which would have radical social consequences (17:14). Thus, by appealing to Abraham Paul takes some risk, indeed, because the argument could be turned against him.60 This is perhaps the reason why in Rom 4:9–10 Paul explicitly notes that the justification of Abraham by faith (Gen 15) was effective before circumcision (Gen 17), and thus he even can call Abraham an ἀσεβής (Rom

57

Cf. KONRADT, “Erwägungen”, 25. In his exegesis of Gen 15:6, Philo of Alexandria declares Abraham’s faith as the “royal one among the virtues” (τὴν βασιλίδα τῶν ἀρετῶν, De Abrahamo 270), cf. BÖHM, Rezeption, 161–164. However, compared with Paul, Philo defines faith differently, cf. BÖHM, ibid., 162–163. For interpretations of Gen 15:6 in early Judaism see, e.g., KÖCKERT, “Abrahams Glaube”, 27–45. 59 See further 2 Cor 11:22 (polemical context); Phil 3:5 (also polemical, without a reference to Abraham), cf. NIEBUHR, Heidenapostel, 105–106, 130–132, 167–171; TIWALD, Hebräer, esp. 154–164; SÄNGER, “Kontinuität”, 125–127. 60 We do not know whether Paul was successful in convincing the Galatian congregations. His opponents, however, certainly knew the Abraham story better than the Gentile Christ-believers in Galatia; see also VAN DER HORST, “Did the Gentiles Know Who Abraham Was?” 58

468

Jens Herzer

4:5).61 In Galatians, he does not mention Abraham’s circumcision at all.62 But even so, from a Jewish perspective the priority of faith over circumcision would not necessarily render circumcision obsolete as an identity marker of the covenant. Paul’s opponents in Galatia may have drawn this conclusion. Luke, for example, does indeed describe their position in a similar way: The Gentile Christ-believers have to be circumcised and thus adhere to the law of Moses (Acts 15:1, 5; cf. also Gal 2:1–5). Paul principally confirms this logic: Those who are being circumcised commit themselves to keep the entire Torah (Gal 3:10; 5:2–3).63 His opposition against circumcising the Gentile Christbelievers, however, reveals that he has come to a different conviction because of his Christ-experience. For Paul, the principle of Abraham’s kinship as a precondition for being included in God’s promise remains valid for all Christ-believers, either Jewish or Gentile (because it is a principle: “those of faith”, Gal 3:7), and he refers to it several times in Galatians. Obviously, the most important issue concerning Paul’s Gospel is how the Gentiles become descendants of Abraham and can participate in Abraham’s “blessing”, i.e., the Abraham covenant. In Gal 3:14, Paul explains his Gospel of the crucified Messiah Jesus and what is crucial for understanding God’s way of salvation. For Paul, it is even the purpose of Jesus’ crucifixion “that Abraham’s blessing comes about by the Messiah Jesus to the Nations, so that we (all) receive the spiritual promise through faith” (ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως). Against the background of Abraham’s covenant marked by circumcision in Genesis, Paul replaces circumcision by introducing faith as a spiritual identity marker.

61

Cf. KÖCKERT, “Abrahams Glaube”, 19–20. SELLIN, “Hagar”, 64, assumes an implicit reference to circumcision in the κατὰ σάρκα formula in Gal 4:23, 29. Philo is also quite selective in his approach to circumcision. In his treatise De Abrahamo he does not deal with Gen 17 and Abraham’s circumcision, while elsewhere he interprets circumcision allegorically; cf. BÖHM, Rezeption, 137; KONRADT, “Erwägungen”, 36–37. According to KÖCKERT, “Abrahams Glaube”, 44, for Philo circumcision as a marker of Jewish identity clearly recedes into the background. 63 According to DALTON, “Paul”, 55, Gal 5:11 may indicate that Paul “once” also “preached circumcision” for Gentiles, perhaps in a Jewish proselyte mission before his conversion: “But I, brothers (and sisters), if I would still (ἔτι) preach circumcision – why am I prosecuted?” The particle ἔτι is missing in some parts of the tradition, but its omission appears to be intentional. Cf. BETZ, Galatians, 268: “What the Apostle has precisely in mind will in all likelihood always be hidden from our knowledge.” The verse could, however, mirror an argument of the opponents who seek to “bewitch” the Galatians away from Paul (Gal 3:1): Paul himself once preached circumcision, so what could be wrong if you will be circumcised? This interpretation, of course, remains speculative; cf. MEISER, Galater, ad loc. Gal 5:11. On the option of foregoing circumcision in early Christian traditions, cf. HORN, “Verzicht”. 62

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

469

This principle of faith being the crucial factor of salvation is not new to Israel’s tradition, it derives from Paul’s reading of Scripture. In Gal 3:8 Paul even holds that “the Scripture has foreseen” that God will justify the Gentiles through faith – based on the promise to Abraham. Paul’s quotation of Hab 2:4 in Gal 3:11 further supports this insight: “The one who is justified by faith will live” (ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται).64 Initiated by the Christ-experience the original root of salvation or righteousness respectively “is revealed” (cf. Gal 3:23), and according to Paul’s argument we would have to add: again. “In Christ”, faith (as opposed to the works of the law) comes into its own – again – as the decisive way of being included in God’s promise to Abraham.65 As Paul continues, this promise represents God’s covenant with Abraham, which in line of God’s history with Israel precedes the promulgation of the Torah. Gal 3:15–18 shows that in Paul already has the idea of Abraham’s covenant in mind, when he introduces the term διαθήκη: (15) Brothers and sisters, I give you an example from human experience: Similar to a person’s last will (διαθήκη) – once it has been ratified, no one annuls it or adds something to it. (16) The promises, however, were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, ‘and to descendants’, as of many, but as of one: ‘and to your offspring’, who is Christ. (17) This is what I mean: The law, which came 430 years later, does not annul a last will (διαθήκη) previously ratified by God as to invalidate the promise (εἰς τὸ καταργῆσαι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν). (18) For if the inheritance would depend on the law, then it would not depend on the promise. God, however, has granted (it [i.e., the inheritance of the covenant]) to Abraham by promise.

In Gal 3:15 Paul uses the term διαθήκη for the very first time, and further on, this term plays a significant role in his Abraham narrative. Although in Gal 4:24 Paul clearly refers to the Sinai covenant, his reference to Abraham remains crucial for his covenantal argument. According to Paul’s christological interpretation of the singular καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου (Gen 13:15LXX; cf. 17:8; 24:7) in Gal 3:16, Christ is the true heir of the promise, and therefore all who are “in Christ” are also descendants of Abraham and thus heirs according to the promise.66 In this perspective, the νόμος receives only subordinated value expressed by the span of 430 years (according to Ex 12:40LXX) that the law was 64

The wording of the quote is the same in Gal 3:11 and in Rom 1:17. Interestingly, though, it differs from all known text versions, the Masoretic text or the Septuagint including the variants; cf. BETZ, Galatians, 146–147; OEGEMA, Israel, 110–112. Paul is not relying on a certain text version, but rather quotes by heart as he understands this reference with regard to his Gospel. 65 Rom 1:16–17 shows how important this principle is for Paul’s Gospel, when he again uses Hab 2:4 in order to justify his programmatic conviction that his Gospel is “a power of God for salvation for everyone who believes, for Jews first, and also for Gentiles”, cf. SCHLIESSER, Faith, 240–247. KÖCKERT, “Glaube”, 415, emphasizes that in the Hebrew Bible “faith” and “righteousness” are closely connected only in Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4. 66 Cf. SÄNGER, “Gesetz”, esp. 178–184.

470

Jens Herzer

given after the promise to Abraham (Gal 3:17). 3:18 names the logical consequence: “If the inheritance would depend on the law, then it would not depend on the promise. God, however, has granted it to Abraham by promise.” In Gal 3:15 the term διαθήκη is not (yet) related to a specific covenant, but used in a more general way in order to explain what it means to establish an “enactment” in the literal sense of the word.67 Being explicitly introduced as an everyday example (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω) the term here means “testament” or “last will” of a person in a legal sense, not “covenant” in a narrow sense of a “contract” between two parties. Although the legal implications of Paul’s idea of the immutability of the ordinance may undermine the persuasiveness of this example,68 Paul relates διαθήκη to the Abraham covenant and thus regards it as an “enactment” of the promise by God to Abraham and his descendants (3:16–17).69 Because of this specific character of the covenant, it is legally not possible to abolish, replace, or nullify it. More importantly for Paul, it is also not possible to add something to the promise, i.e., the law which was introduced 430 years later (3:17) and given not by God but “by angels in the hand of a μεσίτης” (3:19).70 Paul’s disqualification of Moses as a “mediator” is obvious, who after all is not even mentioned by name – a clear indication that Moses as the law-giver is the authority for Paul’s opponents in Galatia.71 Πρεσβύτερον κρείττων – “the older the better” would be an appropriate description of Paul’s argument about the chronological priority of the covenant defined by God’s promise over against the covenant defined by the law which is given much later by mediators.72 “The νόμος is not set to intervene with the

67

Cf. SCHRÖTER, “Universalisierung”, 188–191. For the legal background cf. SELB, “Διαθήκη”. Selb emphasizes that the Greek term διαθήκη always bears a legal aspect. The idea of the dead of the testator appears to be inappropriate in relation to God, cf. SELB, ibid., 191. 69 Cf. SCHRÖTER, “Universalisierung”, 189–190, who rightly points to the focus on the heirs, not on the testator, and also to the specific modelling of the case in Paul’s argument. 70 Cf. also Acts 7:53 and Heb 2:2; on Paul’s reading of the Sinai tradition cf. POLLMANN, Motive, 226–229 (referring to the tradition of the “angel of the nations”); BELLEVILLE, “Tradition”, 330, who emphasizes that the motif of mediator(s) not necessarily implies a depreciation of the law. For an exegetical analysis of Gal 3:19 cf. also HEIL, “Engel”, esp. 236–240, who hints to a traditional motif, esp. – among others – to the angels at Sinai mentioned in Deut 33:2LXX and Jub 1:27–29. 71 According to AssMos 1:14, Moses names himself “mediator of the covenant” (τῆς διαθήκης μεσίτης); cf. HEIL, “Engel”, 240–242. 72 Cf. FELDMEIER/SPIECKERMANN, Gott, 461 with note 79; POLLMANN, Motive, 219– 230. For the argument of the “Altersbeweis” in early Judaism cf. PILHOFER, ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΝ, 143–220. 68

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

471

promise of the διαθήκη.”73 It is also important to note that, of course, the law is given particularly to Israel, not to Abraham and his descendants.74 In the context of the polemical situation in Galatians, Paul’s purpose is twofold: He needs to develop (first) an idea of how Gentiles could be included in God’s promise of salvation apart from Moses’ Torah75 and circumcision, but (second) at the same time he has to argue plausibly how this idea could be rooted in the tradition of Israel in order to establish a common covenantal frame for Jews and Gentiles alike. However, from Paul’s argument in Gal 3:6–18 a simple question arises: What is the problem with the law? Paul raises this question explicitly in 3:19: If faithful Abraham is the key witness of the promise – “What then about the law?” Abraham was certainly one of the most prominent figures in early Judaism and a decisive factor in Israel’s identity formation.76 Therefore, one may reasonably assume that the notion of Abraham as “our father” was also discussed in early Christ-believing groups who were familiar with the Jewish Abraham reception.77 For the purpose of this contribution and in order to illustrate that Paul’s question in Gal 3:19 is unavoidable, it seems appropriate to refer at least to one text that reflects the relationship between Abraham, covenant, and the law. In the famous “praise of the fathers” (Sir 44–50), covenant certainly functions as a general principle of God’s relation to the fathers and the people. Multiple covenants (from Noah through David) are named as trustful basis of Israel’s continuing history with God. Concerning Abraham, Sir 44:19–20 emphasizes that he already “kept the law of the Highest and was in a covenant with him” (συνετήρησεν νόμον ὑψίστου καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν διαθήκῃ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ). Circumcision serves as the seal of the covenant, and Abraham’s loyalty to this covenant is the precondition of God’s promise.78 Yet, the promise is not that Abraham will become the father of many nations, but that the nations will be blessed through his descendants.79 In Sir 44, the original promise concerning the nations has gained a different profile that already supposes Israel’s specific status as the people of the covenant and, of course, focuses on the Sinai covenant. Different to Paul in Gal 3, Sir 44 obviously arranges 73 SELB, “Διαθήκη”, 192: “[…] der νόμος ist nicht dafür gesetzt, in die Verheißung der διαθήκη einzugreifen.” 74 Cf. KONRADT, “Erwägungen”, 42. 75 Cf. also the idea in Rom 3:21 of the revelation of God’s righteousness χωρὶς νόμου which (i.e., the revelation) is testified in the law and the prophets. 76 Cf. GOODMAN et al., Abraham; also, e.g., EGO, “Abraham”; OEMING, “Glaube”; KÖCKERT, “Glaube”. For a compilation of early Jewish texts on Abraham cf. KONRADT, “Erwägungen”, 26–38; KÖCKERT, “Abrahams Glaube”, 27–45; MÜHLING, Abraham. For the rich Abraham tradition in Jubilees, see VAN RUITEN, Abraham. For an extensive interpretation of Abraham in Philo’s tractate De Abrahamo, but also his exegetical commentaries on Genesis (Allegorical Commentary and Questiones), cf. BÖHM, Rezeption, 123–177, 268– 400. Particularly Philo’s interpretation of Abraham’s two wives is completely different to Paul; see BÖHM, ibid., 364–370. 77 Besides Paul, especially John 8:30–59 and James 2:14–25 witness to such discourses. 78 Cf. VOGEL, Heil, 256–257 (with a notable reference to Acts 7:8), 278–279; KONRADT, “Erwägungen”, 29. For the interpretative difficulties of the Hebrew version of the passage cf. BEENTJES, “Ben Sira”, 218–221. 79 Cf. MARTTILLA, Nations, esp. 169–171.

472

Jens Herzer

the material from Genesis in a certain sequence that does not follow the biblical text, but a covenantal pattern that assumes the prevalence of the Torah kept by Abraham.80 Whereas Paul emphasizes that the law has come only 430 years after God’s promise to Abraham, according to Ben Sira, Abraham’s exceptional and proleptic obedience of the law dignifies him in order to receive the covenantal promise.

For Paul’s opponents it was obvious that pagans for the sake of their salvation should enter God’s covenant with Israel by circumcision. Despite the origin of the Abraham covenant in Gen 17, circumcision in early Judaism had become the most significant identity marker of the Jews as the people of the covenant and thus implied the obligation to keep the Torah of Moses. Paul himself confirms this connectivity: Those who want to become circumcised are obliged to do “all that is written in the book of the law” (Gal 3:10). He repeats this argument in Rom 10:5 with emphasis on Moses (quoting Lev 18:5): “Moses writes about righteousness that comes from the law: ‘The one who does them (i.e., the works of the law) will live through them’.”81 For a conservative Jewish Christ-believer like, for example, James of Jerusalem, this connection must have been self-evident and thus binding also for Gentile Christ-believers. As we have seen, Paul obviously had a different view. In Gal 3:19 he already says what the law is about: It was given for the sake of transgressions. Correspondingly, in Gal 3:23–29 he continues this line of reasoning with regard to faith as the principle of salvation derived from the Abraham tradition. (23) But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, locked up until the upcoming faith would be revealed. (24) Therefore, the law was our disciplinarian all the way to Christ, in order to become righteous by faith. (25) But since faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian. (26) For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. (27) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female; for you all are in Christ Jesus. (29) But if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

Paul here still thinks in temporal categories. After a period, in which the law was ruling, the original faith as the principle of salvation is (again) revealed in 80 This perspective presupposes the sapiential idea that the Torah existed from the beginning of creation (cf. Prov 8:22–23; Sir 24). A similar pattern can be found in Jubilees (23:10 – the perfection and righteousness of Abraham in his deeds; 24:11 – God’s praise of Abraham for keeping the law and the covenant), cf. MERMELSTEIN, Creation, 88–132, esp. 110–118. 81 Cf. VOGEL, Heil, 257; AVEMARIE, Tora, 104–117, 493–496, and esp. 587–588; OEGEMA, Israel, 95–101. AVEMARIE, ibid., 587, names Lev 18:5 a “biblical cornerstone of the rabbinic understanding of the Torah.” Cf. also THEISSEN, “Röm 9–11”, 325–326. As a recapitulation of the argument developed in Gal 3:10, the references in Rom 2:13 and 10:5 are most significant with regard to the debate on “works of the law” flared up by the final publication of 4QMMT in 1994; cf., e.g., DUNN, “4QMMT”; BACHMANN, “4QMMT”; DE ROO, Works; COLLINS, “Invention”, 169–171.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

473

the Christ-experience. Because of their faith, all Christ-believers are “sons” of God (v. 26), and being “in Christ” means belonging to Christ (v. 28).82 And again: For Christ is the true descendant of Abraham and as such represents the faith-principle, all who belong to Christ participate in the heritage of the promise, which is based on faith only.83 And thus, as it comes to salvation and righteousness of the Gentiles, i.e., their inclusion in the promise given to Abraham (Gal 3:14), they do not have any disadvantage towards the Jews with regard to the law, for the law as a way to righteousness is not valid anymore – as it never was. The recourse on Abraham shows that for Paul faith always was the prior principle of God’s relation to his people, which now “in Christ” has become available also to the Gentiles. With regard to covenant, Paul is convinced that faith is and always was the only valid criterion of being included in the covenant as defined by Abraham. His consistent references to the Scriptures show that he finds this idea deeply rooted in and in accordance with Israel’s own tradition.84 2.2 Hagar and Sarah: The Two Covenants in Galatians 4 Paul’s idea of the covenant in relation to Abraham developed in Gal 3 is crucial to understand his argument of the “two covenants” in Gal 4. While still arguing with those “who want to be under the law” (4:21), which probably hints at an argument of his opponents,85 Paul challenges his addressees to listen carefully to the Scripture and illustrates his position by an allegorical interpretation of Gen 16–17 and 21 (again by skipping the circumcision of Abraham): The two sons of Abraham represent two different covenants of opposite characters: slavery and freedom. The one from the slave woman represents a human line of decent (κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται), the one from the free woman represents the original promise to Abraham’s offspring, as Paul has argued in chapter 3. He characterizes this promise as a covenant of freedom as opposed to a covenant of slavery, the latter certainly referring to the δουλεία (5,1) into which the circumcision forces those who do not resist (5:1–4). In a rather adventurous and unique interpretation, Paul starts a chain86 of allegorical identifications of one of these two covenants by referring first to the Sinai event: At Sinai, the 82 The particle εἷς in Gal 3:28, which usually carries much weight in interpretation, most likely is caused by a homoioteleuton and thus secondary, see HERZER, “Gal 3,28”. 83 Cf. ULRICHS, Christusglaube; SCHLIESSER, “‘Christ-faith’”, 293, who argues for an eschatological “event-character” of πίστις as related to Christ. 84 Cf. KRAUS, Volk, 241–242. 85 Cf., e.g., BARRETT, “Allegory”, esp. 9; KONRADT, “Erwägungen”, 25. Cf. also STANDHARTINGER, “Hagar”, 289–290, 302, who holds that Paul himself created the allegory for his argument. 86 Cf. BARRETT, “Allegory”, 11, identifies a rhetorical kemin homær (“as on a string of pearls”) figure; cf. also KOCH, Schrift, 204–211.

474

Jens Herzer

covenant “begets” (i.e., produces children) for slavery. Then, because of the slavery, the Sinai covenant is identified with Hagar, Abraham’s surrogate wife and Sarah’s slave. Consequently, Hagar allegorically represents “mount Sinai” in the Arabia, which Paul identifies as the present Jerusalem (ἡ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ).87 More importantly, in the context of the actual controversy with the Galatian community, “the present Jerusalem”, in fact, refers in a subtle way to Paul’s current opponents (he mentions the influence of those people explicitly in 2:12 when he names some delegates of James), who literally come from the earthly Jerusalem in geographical terms.88 Here again, in Gal 4:27, Paul finds support in the Scripture by quoting Isa 54:1LXX. It is this “present Jerusalem” that forces Gentile Christ-believers in Galatia to submit themselves to the law by circumcision. For Paul this would mean nothing else than getting voluntarily enslaved by the law. In the Galatian controversy, the remark that the child of the free was persecuted by the one “from the flesh” (Gal 4:29 referring to Gen 21:9) alludes to Paul’s own situation of being controlled by people from Jerusalem (cf. Gal 5:11: “why am I still persecuted?”; also Gal 2:4: “false brethren, who […] spy out our freedom”).89 In opposition to this “present Jerusalem”, Paul names “the Jerusalem above” (ἡ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλήμ), which he calls “our mother” (Gal 4:26). The spatial category “above” obviously does not correspond to the temporal category “present” in 4:25. In contrast to the former reference to Hagar, Paul does not identify the “Jerusalem above” explicitly with Sarah (although this would be consequent, but the name is not mentioned). More importantly, he imagines a somehow spiritual Jerusalem of a “higher”, i.e., a superior order, transcending the one already existing. For this argument it is essential to note that the phrase ἡ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλήμ is extremely rare in early Jewish and Christian literature. Commentators often interpret it with regard to apocalyptic expectations of a heavenly Jerusalem coming in the future.90 For a heavenly 87

Here it is not the place to engage in the scholarly debate on text critical issues (besides the commentaries see, e.g., SELLIN, “Hagar”, 73–74) and the question how and why Hagar could represent Sinai and why it is located “in the Arabia”, cf. GESE, “Ἁγάρ”; KNAUF, “Arabienreise”; SCHWEMER, “Stadt”, 200–201; cf. the critical assessment by DAVIES, “Hagar”. Although Paul does not make it explicit, for the purpose of the allegorical argument the association of “the term” (cf. τὸ δέ) Hagar with “the mountain Sinai” may just be stimulated by the alliteration of the Hebrew name ‫( הָ גָר‬Hagar) and the Hebrew word ‫( הָ הָ ר‬the mountain), which is very dominant in the Sinai tradition in Exod 19 and 24 (cf. PUUKKO, “Paulus”, 7, 75, naming Hausrath 1875). At least, Paul mentions the term “mountain” explicitly, but there is no need for geographical speculations about the identification of a specific mountain. For different interpretations cf. BETZ, Galatians, 244–255; KOCH, Schrift, 207–208. 88 Cf. also Gal 2:1: Paul went up (ἀναβαίνω) to Jerusalem. 89 Cf. KRAUS, Volk, 243–245. 90 Cf. BETZ, Galatians, 246–248; ROHDE, Galater, 200; MOO, Galatians, 304–305; more cautiously MEISER, Galater, ad loc. Gal 4:26.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

475

Jerusalem being revealed in the future, Rev 21:2–3, 10–27; 2 Bar 4:1–7; 4 Ezra 7:26; 8:52 et al. are clear indications,91 but they do not speak of a “Jerusalem above”, even though admittedly the heavenly Jerusalem “locates” in heaven above. If he would have thought in these categories, Paul, however, could have used the term “heavenly” (in analogy, e.g., to Phil 3:20), “new”, or “coming” Jerusalem (in opposition to the “present Jerusalem”).92 Obviously, the only linguistic equivalent to ἡ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλήμ in Gal 4:26 can be found in 4 Bar 5:34: “God may lead you by his light into the city of Jerusalem above (εἰς τὴν ἄνω πόλιν Ἰερουσαλήμ)”. In the course of the story, this is an old man’s wish for Abimelech, who was sleeping for 66 years during Jerusalem’s destruction and the exile of changed the people, and when he woke up, he no longer recognized the city. This reference is also commonly interpreted in an eschatological perspective.93 However, there is no connection to the much earlier idea in Gal 4:26.94 Besides the fact that the idea of a heavenly Jerusalem coming in the future would be singular in Paul’s thinking, the text and the context in Galatians does not hint at apocalyptic ideas, construing an opposition of the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem. The distinction between the idea of the existence of a “Jerusalem above” and an eschatological Jerusalem coming down from heaven seems to be rooted in Jewish traditions and each of them bears specific emphasis.95 In fact, ἄνω has a much broader lexical range of meanings, and in a context like Gal 4 it has to be interpreted accordingly. Semantically, there is a somehow analogous phrase in Phil 3:14, where Paul speaks about ἡ ἄνω κλῆσις τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Here, the particle also denotes not primarily a local category (it lacks the opposing perspective of κάτω), but rather the “higher status” or the godly origin of the election.96

Paul intends to contrast the two covenants, which are not compatible, different in character, but obviously coexist and are represented by the actual “enslaved” Jerusalem (referring to the promotors of circumcision) and a spiritual Jerusalem of the free as “true” heirs of Abraham.97 Thus, the imagination of a spiritual Jerusalem incorporates the idea of being “children” of the free woman of 91

Cf. SÖLLNER, Jerusalem, bes. 161–169; SCHWEMER, “Stadt”, 207–219. Thus, ROHDE, Galater, 200, rightly states that one would rather expect the expression μέλλουσα instead of ἄνω, but for the purpose in Gal 4:25 he refers to the present existence of the eschatological Jerusalem in heaven, which according to Rohde is also witnessed by the idea of τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς in Phil 3:20; cf., however, MÜLLER, Philipper, 179– 181; SCHWEMER, “Stadt”, 228–232; SCHINKEL, Bürgerschaft, esp. 119–122. In Phil 3:20, Paul does not speak of a coming heavenly Jerusalem, but of the expectation of the coming of Christ, and accordingly he expresses his wish “to be with Christ” (Phil 1:23). 93 Cf. WOLFF, “Jerusalem”. SÖLLNER, Jerusalem, does not treat this reference. 94 4 Bar dates in the beginning of the 2nd cent. CE. 95 Cf. SÖLLNER, Jerusalem; also BILLERBECK, Briefe, 575. 96 Cf. LSJ s.v. II c. This interpretation corresponds with the more general meaning of ἄνω in the sense of “higher, more general” with regard to categories (cf. LSJ s.v. II n). For a semantic parallel see Philo, De plantatione 23: ἄνω καλεῖσθαι. For a comparison between Gal 4 and Phil 3 see also SCHINKEL, Bürgerschaft, 134–137, who emphasizes the relational intention of the motif; at stage is the relation of the Christ-believers to the promise of Abraham (ibid., 136). Cf. also SELLIN, “Hagar”, 70–71. 97 Cf. MAIER, “Psalm 87”, 484, referring to the idea of a purified and renewed Jerusalem as in Bar 5; PsSol 11, 17; and Qumran (cf. for the latter YARBRO-COLLINS, “New Jerusalem”). 92

476

Jens Herzer

Abraham who was subject to the promise. At least one of the covenants can be clearly identified: The Sinai covenant, which represents (or allegorically corresponds to: συστοιχεῖ) slavery under the law (4:25).98 The second covenant, however, although not explicitly noted, refers to the Abraham covenant that Paul explained already in chapter 3. Interestingly, though, Paul associates both covenants with Abraham. In this perspective, the Sinai covenant implicitly appears to be a degeneration of the original promise inasmuch as the basis of this covenant is not God’s definite commitment but human effort (Gal 4:23: κατὰ σάρκα as opposed to δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας). In support of his interpretation, Paul again refers to Scripture. Besides the quotation from Isa 54:1LXX in Gal 4:27,99 the unique female personification of Jerusalem as “our mother” in Gal 4:26 echoes Ps 86:5–6LXX: “(5) ‘Mother Zion’ will a human say because a human was born in her, and he himself, the most High, has founded her. (6) The Lord will register in a book those people and rulers who were born in her”. Psalm 86:5LXX is the only reference in the Septuagint that names Jerusalem a “mother” of the nations (not represented in the Hebrew text), which have already settled in the city for generations.100 In Gal 4, Paul emphasizes a new kind of inhabitants for a “spiritual Jerusalem” as opposed to those in the actual city (ἡ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ) who do not want to give way to the spirit of the promise and concede that the nations also belong to Abraham’s covenant. Like Ps 86LXX, Paul imagines symbolically his fellow Christ-believers of gentile origin to be children of a spiritual Jerusalem, which is already a reality of faith. Although speaking of “two covenants” in Gal 4:24, Paul does not engage in the old-and-new covenant terminology as in 2 Cor 3. Instead, both covenants mentioned in Gal 4 are rooted in God’s promise to Abraham. They represent two different ways of putting this promise into effect. When Paul introduces the well-known dualism of κατὰ σάρκα und κατὰ πνεῦμα in Gal 4:28–30, he speaks of two different perspectives of the one and only covenant that God has given once to Abraham – and οὕτως καὶ νῦν – “so also today” (4:29).101 The allegorical interpretation of the Abraham story implies the idea that Abraham himself has initiated two different implementations of the covenantal promise: one κατὰ σάρκα with Hagar the slave, and one κατὰ πνεῦμα which was the way 98 Cf. SELLIN, “Hagar”, 68–69: συστοιχεῖν indicates the affiliation to the same category (with reference to Aristotelian categories); differently KOCH, Schrift, 205. 99 Cf. WILK, Jesaja, 90–96, 190–194. 100 Cf. SCHWEMER, “Stadt”, 232–235; MAIER, “Psalm 87”, 480–481: “The idea that Zion is the mother of the nations is unheeded in the rest of the Hebrew Bible because it disregards all boundaries between Israel and the nations and denies any prerequisite for joining with Israel in its faith in Yhwh.” On the relevance of Ps 86LXX for Gal 4:25 see esp. ibid., 481– 486. For the motif cf. also 4 Ezra 10:6–7. 101 Cf. TIWALD, Hebräer, 394–395. Tiwald’s interpretation, however, remains in the oldnew-covenant categories also for Galatians and Romans.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

477

God has shown him through Isaak. Paul argues that “in Christ” the κατὰπνεῦμα-way of a universal covenant102 that justifies all who believe has been proven to be original.103 Despite the polemical situation mirrored in the letter, in Gal 4 Paul obviously does not disqualify Israel’s exclusive relation to God by means of the law. He just opens a different perspective for Gentiles to participate in the old covenantal promises, which according to Abraham’s promise are valid for “everyone who believes, first for the Jews, but also for the Greeks” (Rom 1:16). Consequently, Paul engages this decisive perspective in the opening of Romans. Yet, even in Galatians, Paul also answers the question raised in Gal 3:19 (“What about the law?”) by admonishing that being freed from the “curse of the law”, Christ-believers are free to do what the law is demanding by bearing “fruits of the spirit”. In Gal 5:22–23, Paul explicitly notes that the law is not in opposition to the fruits of the spirit as they are in accordance with the demands of the law.104 In Gal 6:16, the final word on the issue in the letter, Paul even prays for peace and grace not only for those in Christ but “also for the Israel of God”. Commonly, interpreters do not relate this (basically biblical105) phrase to Israel, but either to all Christ-believers (Jewish and non-Jewish) to which Paul refers to as καινὴ κτίσις (6:15) and “who are living according to this standard” (6:16a),106 or more specifically to “Jewish believers in Christ who remain fully law observant”.107 Betz, however, rightly emphasizes the uniqueness of this blessing in Paul’s letters.108 The syntax of the whole phrase is unusual: εἰρήνη ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.109 In the first part, ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς clearly refers to those who represent the “new creation”, both Jewish and non-Jewish Christ-believers, and καὶ ἔλεος may still belong to the blessing of them (εἰρήνη […] καὶ ἔλεος). Yet, introduced by a second καί, the last part of the verse rather indicates that Paul adds a final thought going beyond this perspective by wishing mercy also on Israel who does not follow Paul’s Gospel (including also those Jewish Christians who demand circumcision of the 102

Gen 17:13, 16; 26:3 speak of an “eternal covenant”, a term, which Paul does not employ. 103 This conclusion is identical to the one in Gal 3:28–29, cf. KRAUS, Volk, 228–231. 104 Cf. HORN, “Werke, esp. 341–342; FINSTERBUSCH, Thora, esp. 98–100. 105 Cf. Ps 125:5; 128:6; 4QMMT C31–32; cf. also BILLERBECK, Briefe, 579; BETZ, Galatians, 321–322, assumes a relation to the Shemoneh Esreh tradition. See also BACHMANN, “Bemerkungen”, 111–112; MOO, Galatians, 399–400. 106 See, e.g., BETZ, Galatians, 321–323; ROHDE, Galater, 278; also GRÄSSER, “Heilswege”, 222–223; KRAUS, Volk, 251–252; THEOBALD, “Kirche”, 331; BELL, Call, 179; WOLTER, Paulus, 413–414; THEISSEN / VON GEMÜNDEN, Römerbrief, 308–309. 107 DE BOER, Galatians, 408. 108 BETZ, Galatians, 321. 109 Cf. MOO, Galatians, 400–403; MEISER, Galater, ad loc. Gal 6:16.

478

Jens Herzer

Gentile Christians). Despite all his polemic and his emphasis on the devaluation of the Sinai covenant,110 in the end Paul rhetorically strikes a different note that will finally – after taking a “detour” via a speculation about the new and old covenant in 2 Cor 3 – lead him to a perspective, which he employs in Rom 9–11 with regard to the salvation of πᾶς Ἰσραήλ (Rom 11:26).111 Moreover, the expression Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ is unique in Paul, and thus, it would be inappropriate to assume that the wish of mercy ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ cannot refer to the present Israel as the people of God.112 “In what sense and for what reason Israel’s position might be considered special is not explained in this letter, but the hints that this is so are enough to suggest that Romans 9–11 is a development, not a reversal, of this aspect of Galatians”.113 2.3 God’s many Covenants and the Salvation of all Israel in Romans 9–11 Due to the spatial limitations of this essay it is not possible to deal extensively with all the aspects of Romans that relate to the larger framework of covenant. Thus, I will only summarize some that are relevant for an understanding of Paul’s idea of covenant. The focus has to be on Rom 9–11, the only context in the letter in which Paul actually speaks about covenant. While this does not mean that the idea of covenant is not relevant for other arguments in the letter, it shows at least that for Paul the covenantal aspects remain after all closely connected to Israel and the quest for its status with regard to salvation. Paul’s final wish of grace for the “Israel of God” in Gal 6:16 marks an important reference point for Paul’s extensive reflection on Israel and its exclusive relation to God in Rom 9–11. In Romans, Paul comes back again to all the issues regarding the law and his Gospel raised over the years of controversy. It is impressive how many aspects in Romans are taken up from earlier letters (and debates), and Galatians certainly occupies a special stance.114 In Rom 1:17, Paul starts programmatically with the quotation of Hab 2:4, which he already used in Galatians, in order to show that according to the Scripture faith is and always has been the decisive category for salvation.115 In Rom 4, he also reconsiders Gen 15:6 and Abraham’s faith as the important 110 Cf. KRAUS, Volk, 243. HÜBNER, Gottes Ich, 132, speaks of a “total defamation” of the Mosaic law and Israel; cf. BELL, Call, 178: “The whole argument of Galatians 3–4 is devastating […]”. 111 Cf., e.g., MUSSNER, Galaterbrief, 417; DUNN, Galatians, 343–346; BACHMANN, “Bemerkungen”, 108–117; EASTMAN, “Israel”; VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, Brief, 314–316. For a moderate interpretation with regard to Israel as the children of Hagar cf. LINDEMANN, “Israel”, 175–176. For a discussion see also BARCLAY, Paul, 418–421. 112 Cf. DUNN, Galatians, 345–346; VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, Brief, 316; MEISER, Galater, ad loc. Gal 6:16; for a different interpretation cf. KRAUS, Volk, 118–119. 113 BARCLAY, Paul, 421. 114 Cf. WOLTER, Römer 1, 47–48. 115 Cf. VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, “Verständnis”, 303–304.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

479

reference to how God’s promise becomes effective for all who believe. In this context, however, he does not stress the covenantal issues that he polemically explored in Gal 4. The allegorical interpretation of Abraham’s wives and their sons does not play any role in Romans. Only in the context of Rom 9–11, Paul comes to unfold another covenantal idea in two single references at the beginning and at the end of this passage; the last being a quotation from Scripture (Rom 9:4 and 11:27 [Isa 27:9]). Another aspect with regard to the law is Paul’s differentiation between “letter” and “spirit”. In 2 Cor 3 he first developed this idea, which obviously was not (yet) on his mind when he wrote Galatians. After a first reference to γράμμα and πνεῦμα in Rom 2:27–29 with regard to law and circumcision, in Rom 7:6 Paul declares that the law has to be received spiritually, not according to its written letters.116 In the course of Romans, Paul does not engage again in the new-old-covenant terminology as in 2 Cor 3, because this alternative, in his view, does not adequately describe the relation of Israel and the Gentiles towards the covenant structure of divine salvation. The context of 2 Cor 3 was quite different and did neither refer to the ἔργα-νόμου-problem nor the Jewsand-Gentile-problem.117 Paul wrote Romans in a situation in which obviously the “old” questions had to be reviewed in a different perspective. The intense scholarly debate about the addressees of Romans118 at least shows that Paul did not only have missionary plans towards Spain (Rom 15:22–24), but also (and perhaps even primarily) serious concerns about his imminent journey to Jerusalem in order to deliver the collection (15:25–33).119 Looking back to the Galatian debate, Paul in Romans faces yet another controversy with the “present Jerusalem”, and thus Romans as a whole at least also recapitulates thoroughly all the former questions raised in the context of the Galatian conflict about law and faith (cf. Rom 2–4), circumcision (2:25–3:2, 30; 4:9–12) as well as the issue of covenant and its implications (9–11).120 116

Cf. WOLTER, “Antithese”, esp. 375–378. Cf. for an analysis of the argument VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, “Decke”, 410, but also the hermeneutical considerations ibid., 417–424. 118 See, e.g, DONFRIED, Debate; REICHERT, Römerbrief; WOLTER, Römer 1, 41–56. THEISSEN / VON GEMÜNDEN, Römerbrief, 442, characterize Romans as account of a failing reformer (“Rechenschaft eines scheiternden Reformators”). 119 Cf. JERVELL, “Letter”; WILCKENS, Römer I, 44–46; HAACKER, Römer, 14–15; THEISSEN / VON GEMÜNDEN, Römerbrief, 89–134, 360–382. See also HORN, “Jerusalemreise”, esp. 88–94. 120 WOLTER, Römer 1, 49, holds that the implicit dialogue partner of the Apostel Paul in Romans is the Jew Paul. It is, however, the Apostle Paul who – being still a Jew – was struggling with Jewish opponents in the past and who presently fears again Jewish opponents in Jerusalem. Paul’s “inner dialogue” is also an examination of his own roots and their continuing importance, cf. also HAACKER, Römer, 15. 117

480

Jens Herzer

Whereas he avoided it in Galatians, in Romans Paul does talk about Abraham’s circumcision, because his opponents knew of course what Paul would finally concede in Rom 4:11: Circumcision is the “seal of the righteousness of faith”. According to Gen 17:11LXX, to which Paul implicitly refers, circumcision is named the “seal of the covenant” (σημεῖον διαθήκης). Paul does not explicitly take up the covenant motif in this context, but rather tries to argue that Abraham received this seal of his righteousness when he was still uncircumcised. This is admittedly a rather odd argument, because it does not invalidate the objection regarding circumcision.121 Paul therefore comes back to his actual point quite quickly, namely to name the faith of Abraham as the blueprint for receiving the promise (4:12–13).122 The argument is similar to Gal 3:6–29, emphasizing the actual goal of God’s will for salvation, namely the Gentiles’ inclusion into the promise based on their faith that corresponds with Abraham’s faith (Rom 4:16–17): (16) Therefore, the principle applies: by faith, so that it also applies: by grace, in order to ensure that the promise is secured for every descendant, not only for the one ‘from the law’, but also for the one ‘from the faith of Abraham’, who is the father of us all – (17) as it is written: ‘I have appointed you as father of many nations’ – in sight of him whom he believed, God, who makes the dead alive and calls the non-being into being.

From this passage, Paul clearly regards the promise of Abraham to be justified by faith valid for both, the Jews (ἐκ τοῦ νόμου) and the Gentiles (ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ).123 In contrast to Galatians, Paul emphasizes this common ground several times in Romans, yet not without noting the privilege of the Jews: “Jews first, but also the Greeks” (1:16; 2:9–10; also 3:29).124 However, no advantage can be derived from this “pre” of the Jews with regard to righteousness. Faith applies to both, but each of them has a different approach to this faith of Abraham; and for the Jews, the law is one of the actual factors defining their identity. This is their “advantage” (Rom 3:1–2) but for Paul even this advantage has no value with regard to the promise. The tension between Rom 3:1–2 on the one hand, and the whole argument about works of the law and faith in 3:9–4:25 on the other, is obvious. Based on the principle of faith and the conviction that justification is effective by faith without works of the law (Rom 3:28; cf. 3:20 as result of a reflection of biblical traditions), Paul himself witnesses to the challenge of his interpretation of the law-faith-relation by 121

Cf. WOLTER, Römer 1, 289–293. Circumcision will not be mentioned anymore – with one exception in 15:8, where – after Rom 9–11 – it bears no negative tone and denotes the Jewish people being served by Christ: “Christ has become a servant of circumcision for the truth of God in order to confirm the promises of the fathers, but the Gentiles shall praise God for (his) mercy” (Rom 15:8– 9). 123 Cf. WOLTER, Römer 1, 301–302. 124 Cf. THEOBALD, “Glaubensformel”. 122

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

481

asking two decisive questions and giving clear answers: “Is God alone the God of the Jews and not also of the Gentiles? Of course, he is also the God of the Gentiles, for ‘God is one’ who justifies circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith” (Rom 3:29–30). This first question is, of course, rhetorical, for the answer concurs with a given conviction125 which Paul explains in Rom 4 with regard to Abraham. The second question is similar to Gal 3:19 and probably witnesses to an actual allegation or misrepresentation raised by his law-observant opponents: “Do we then abolish the law by the faith?” Paul’s answer is clear and explicit: “By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law!” (Rom 3:31) Both questions and answers imply covenantal aspects.126 Accordingly, the diatribe-style argumentation about the law in Romans leads Paul to the strong statement that the Torah is “holy” and “spiritual” and the commandments are “holy, just and good” (Rom 7:12),127 and finally to the issue of Israel’s destiny and its covenants in Rom 9–11. Consequently, in the very heart of Rom 9–11, Paul characterizes Christ as the τέλος νόμου (10:4) – which after all cannot indicate Christ as the end of the Torah, the holy document of God’s covenant with Israel. The rather common interpretation of τέλος νόμου as “end of the law”128 would certainly thwart Paul’s emphasis on God’s faithfulness with regard to all his covenants with Israel (Rom 9:1–5). τέλος νόμου rather denotes Christ as the one who brings to light once and for all the original Abrahamic dimension of faith (cf. Rom 4), which is the basis of forgiveness of sins and righteousness for “everyone who believes”, Jews and non-Jews, or rather, as Paul says several times in Romans (only): “the Jews first, but also the Greeks” (1:16; 2:9, 10; cf. 3:29–30).129 The structure of this idea comes close to Paul’s original argument in Gal 3:19–29. In this perspective, the subject of the sentence130 is τέλος νόμου, specified by the predicate 125 Paul obviously refers to the Schema Israel tradition according to Deut 6:4; cf. HAACKER, Römer, 112; WOLTER, Römer 1, 272. 126 WOLTER, Römer 1, 275, hints at the similar argument on the law in Gal 4:21, which is followed by an argument on Abraham. For an interpretation of Rom 3:27–31 cf. VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, “Verständnis”, 301–310. 127 Cf. DUNN, “Law”, esp. 279–281, who emphasizes the contextual formation of Paul’s statements about the law in Romans and Galatians. 128 Cf., e.g., LINDEMANN, “Gerechtigkeit”, esp. 238; OEGEMA, Israel, 217–251; THEOBALD, Römerbrief, 215–219; HOFIUS, “Römer 10,4”; AVEMARIE, “Ungehorsam”, 312 (end of the pursuit of works of the law). 129 See, for a discussion, VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, “Verständnis”, 310–318 (aim [“Ziel”] or fulfilment [“Erfüllung”]); HAACKER, Römer, 247–250. According to Haacker, τέλος νόμου Χριστός indicates that Christ – representing the basis of righteousness for all believers – is the “main issue” (“Hauptsache”) of the law (ibid., 250); cf. already VON DER OSTENSACKEN, Römer 8, 250–256; IDEM, “Verständnis”, 310–318. THEISSEN, “Röm 9–11”, 315– 316, votes for “Endpunkt des Gesetzes (im Sinne eines Ziels).” 130 Cf. KONRADT, “Bekehrung”, 101–102; WOLTER, Römer 2, 111–112; differently, e.g., HOFIUS, “Römer 10,4”, esp. 100; cf. also critically AVEMARIE, “Ungehorsam”, 309–310.

482

Jens Herzer

Christ as representing the original and spiritual intention of the law as the way in which the covenant by means of faith shall be realized in the life of all believers. Consequently, in Rom 9:4 Paul explicitly focuses on all the covenants of God as a decisive part of the heritage of the Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα. He strongly persists in God’s faithfulness towards Israel, which cannot fail and finally will ensure Israel’s salvation. In the end, it becomes plausible that with regard to Israel’s salvation, Paul can only quote from Israel’s Scriptures (Rom 11:26– 29): (26) And then131 all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘From Zion shall come the Savior; he will take away ungodliness from Jacob. (27) And this will be the covenant (ἡ διαθήκη) by me, when I take away their sins’. (28) They are indeed enemies for your sake with regard to the gospel, but with regard to election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers, (29) because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.

Paul emphasizes that by God’s mercy Israel, his chosen people, will finally be saved, because all the gifts of grace (χαρίσματα, 11:29), which Paul has listed in Rom 9:4, are still valid and represent an irrevocable vocation. He still thinks in temporal categories looking forward to an eschatological future in which the “mystery” about “all Israel’s” salvation (11:25) will be revealed.132 In correspondence to the plural of covenants 9:4 the singular in 11:27 is striking. This incongruity reveals that in 11:27 Paul has not in mind one of the traditionally known covenants, to which he referred in 9:4. He does also – again – not refer to the new covenant announced by Jeremiah (Jer 31:33–34), for this perspective would still limit the covenant to Israel and the law, received in a new and more effective manner by heart. This is not what Paul is getting at, for it would again force the Gentiles to become part of the Sinai covenant and submit them to the law of Moses. By quoting a combination of Isa 59:20–21 and 27:9.133 Paul relates neither Israel’s nor the Gentiles’ fate to a certain covenant of the past that will be reestablished by God for all human beings.134 He rather opens up a universal covenantal realm, an all-determining covenant horizon and thus speaks of the final covenantal “ordinance” (ἡ παρ’ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη) by which the promise of God’s mercy finally overcomes also Israel’s 131

VAN DER HORST, “Note”, esp. 524–525, emphasizes that the common modal interpretation of καὶ οὕτως does not exclude the temporal aspect; cf. e.g., HOFIUS, “Evangelium”, 192–193, who prefers a “logical meaning”. For a discussion see WOLTER, Römer 2, 208– 210, who pleads for a connective interpretation (“thereupon”), which includes both a temporal aspect as well as the preconditions of an event; cf. also WILK, Bedeutung, 71. 132 Cf. BARCLAY, Paul, 544–556. 133 Cf. KOCH, Schrift, 175–178; WILK, Bedeutung, 56–58, 64–73, 199–203. 134 Therefore, some proposed to translate διαθήκη in Rom 11:27 more generally as “decree/ordinance”, cf. WILK, Bedeutung, 57, 201; WOLTER, Römer 2, 211. Different to Wilk, who holds that in Rom 11:26d Christ is the coming savior (ibid., 200–202), Wolter sees the intention of the quotation in an eschatological coming of God (ibid., 214).

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

483

sin and enmity – just as it did with the Gentiles in Christ – “for God has included all under disobedience, so that he might have mercy on them all” (11:32). Although this verse mutatis mutandis recalls the argument of Rom 3:9–24, it is noteworthy that in Rom 11 Paul does not mention Christ even once, though the Christ-experience is certainly present. The agent in the mystery of Israel’s eschatological salvation is God alone.135

3. Looking Back Together from the Olive Tree: A Résumé Regarding the relation between Israel and the Gentiles in view of God’s covenantal promise, in Rom 11:22 Paul urges the Gentile Christ-believers to notice God’s “kindness and severity” (χρηστότης καὶ ἀποτομία): His severity against the “fallen” Jews and his kindness to the Gentiles – as a warning against any kind of arrogance of the latter: “You do not carry the root, but the root carries you” (11:18).136 The olive tree as a “metaphorical abstraction”137 is not easy to interpret; after all, Paul speaks of two olive trees (11:17, 24), and the process of breaking out the branches and grafting them in again is not correctly described.138 But the metaphor once again underlines what is at stake. Paul is not concerned with extending Israel’s exclusive covenant relationship in the form of the Sinai covenant to the Gentiles. Nor is he concerned with the incorporation of the Gentiles into this covenant of Israel. Thus, despite the traditional metaphor (cf., e.g., Jer 11:16; Hos 14:6–7), the olive tree in the argument of Rom 11 cannot simply be identified with Israel, nor is it plausible to identify it with Christ.139 Paul’s concern is rather that, just as Israel has no advantage over the Gentiles from its exclusive relationship with God, the Gentiles also have no advantage over Israel from their inclusion in the promise determined by Christ. The Gentiles are also rooted in the ancient and 135 Cf. BARCLAY, “Grace”, esp. 104–109, who emphasizes the uniqueness of Paul’s thinking at this point. AVEMARIE, “Ungehorsam”, 320, understands the puzzling disobedience of Israel in Rom 10 as part of “the all-overwhelming mystery of Israel’s salvation” (“dem alles überwältigenden Mysterium von Israels Errettung”). 136 Cf. WOLTER, Römer 2, 192–193. 137 WOLTER, Römer 2, 179. 138 Cf., e.g., VON GEMÜNDEN, Vegetationsmetaphorik, 275–284; NANOS, “Metaphor”, esp. 352–372; for the course of the argument cf. SIEGERT, Argumentation, 164–176. 139 Cf. WALTER, “Römer 9–11”, 179–181; for a discussion see WOLTER, Römer 2, 179– 184. It is still a challenge to approach Paul’s use and understanding of the term “Israel”, which after all is relatively rare in his letters. REINBOLD, “Bedeutung”, esp. 414, identifies six different meanings in Rom 9–11; in Rom 11:25, however, Israel refers to the Jewish people of Israel; cf. also, e.g., HOFIUS, “Evangelium”, 194–195. The important question remains, whether Paul in fact develops the idea that “in Christ” the nations are included or incorporated into Israel as “the people of God”, as is often assumed.

484

Jens Herzer

fundamental covenant structures of this promise. The olive tree, on which the Gentiles are grafted besides the Israelites, is not the Sinai covenant, nor the new covenant of Jeremiah, nor any other particular covenant in the history of Israel (cf. Rom 9:4), nor is it Israel itself. The old olive tree functions as an abstraction in order to describe God’s universal promise to all humankind (see Rom 4 related to Abraham), on which Israel also depends and on which “disobedient” Israel can and will also be grafted again (11:23–24).140 The roots of this olive tree feed all its branches by God’s faithfulness.141 Looking back from here to the argument in Galatians, a shift in Paul’s strategy becomes apparent. It is God’s faithfulness (cf. 11:1–2) that compels Paul to a position that leaves behind the polemic of the “Galatian crisis”. The reference to Abraham and the two covenants in Galatians show that for Paul the idea of the covenant plays a decisive role for the issue of the inclusion of the “fullness of the Gentiles” (πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν, 11:25b) in God’s promises.142 As a Jewish scribe with a Pharisaic background, Paul is deeply committed to think in covenantal structures in relation to circumcision, the law, faith etc., structures that have been transformed, however, by the Christexperience. With the reference to Abraham, Paul universalizes against the “Judaizers” in Galatia the principle of faith as a fundamental covenant principle in contrast to narrowing it towards the Sinai covenant.143 Sinai remains a specific covenant of God with Israel, determined by the law of Moses, and subordinate to the Abraham covenant. Nevertheless, for Paul the election of Israel and its commitment to the law according to the Sinai covenant does not abrogate the principle of faith, but rather presupposes it. In Romans, however, he avoids the explicit reference to the Abraham covenant in its validity for the Gentiles, at least in a formal sense; perhaps because it did not stand the test in the debate he conducted in the context of the Galatian conflict. This change in strategy may be due to various inconsistencies in his argumentation, most importantly regarding circumcision of Abraham and his descendants, a detail 140 Cf. WALTER, “Römer 9–11”, 181, 185; HAACKER, Römer, 278; SCHALLER, “Rolle”, 23–24. WOLTER, Römer 2, 183–184, emphasizes the openness of the metaphor that includes various associations. 141 The term πιότης (“fattiness”, LSJ s.v.) in combination with the roots of the olive tree refers to the nutrients provided by the roots for the tree. Broken branches can no longer be supplied by the root and thus cannot produce fatty fruits. Cf. SIEGERT, Argumentation, 168– 169; JEWETT, Romans, 684–685. 142 WALTER, “Römer 9–11”, 183, rightly points out that “the fullness of the Gentiles” hardly means the same as “all Israel”. “The fullness of the Gentiles” does not indicate a predetermined number; πλήρωμα could rather be understood in an indefinite sense of “as many as possible”, just as “all Israel” also is not a numeric specification; cf. SIEGERT, Argumentation, 172 n. 42; HOLTZ, Universalismus, 57–59. 143 Cf. HOLTZ, Universalismus, esp. 206–219; SCHRÖTER, “Universalisierung”, esp. 198– 201.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

485

that Paul omits in Galatians. His opponents certainly would reproach him, and so he has to reinterpret circumcision in Romans. In addition, the Hagar-Sarah allegory in Gal 4 runs counter to both the biblical tradition and the reception of this tradition in Judaism. Thus, the argument does not carry as far as Paul has elaborated it. In Romans, Paul apparently gave up the idea of the two covenants. In any case, he no longer uses it in Romans and rather concentrates on Israel in the context of the covenant question (Rom 9–11). The eschatological perspective is the reason why Paul finally speaks of a mystery with regard to the disobedience of parts of Israel to the gospel (Rom 11:25). The mystery of the salvation of all Israel lies in God’s covenant faithfulness: The “filiation, the dignifying presence, the covenants, the legislation, the worship, the promises, the fathers, and even the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom 9:4–5) remain Israel’s heritage because of God’s unbreakable faithfulness.144 Are these – from Paul’s Perspective – the actual “identity markers” of Judaism? However, the Christ-experience has put all this in proper perspective (cf. 2 Cor 4:6), revealing the old covenantal roots of faith over against works of the law and thus showing, how Gentiles, too, can have a share in the promises of Israel and ultimately be saved with all Israel.145 “Did Paul have a covenant theology?”, James Dunn once asked in a muchnoticed essay, and he resumed: Where that heritage was disputed, as its terms certainly were between Paul and other missionaries, it was a dispute within that heritage, not dissimilar in terms and claims to the dispute between the Qumran new covenanters and the rest of Israel. The dispute was not over the fact of the covenant, or that it was Israel’s covenant, or that it was open to the Gentiles. The dispute was rather over its terms and timing, of how sonship to Abraham was determined and sustained, of how Moses functioned as a paradigm of ministry, and of how its eschatological promise would be implemented. Paul’s covenant theology is an in-house contribution to Israel’s understanding of itself as God’s covenant people.146

After his weighty reflections in the letter to the Romans, it would have been truly interesting to see how Paul’s proclamation of the gospel would have worket out in the mission to Spain and beyond.

Bibliography AVEMARIE, FRIEDRICH, Tora und Leben: Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur (TSAJ 55), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. –, “Israels rätselhafter Ungehorsam: Römer 10 als Anatomie eines von Gott provozierten Unglaubens”, in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of

144

Cf. VOGEL, Heil, 230–234. Cf. SCHALLER, “Rolle”, 24–28. 146 DUNN, “Did Paul have a covenant theology?”, 445. 145

486

Jens Herzer

Romans 9–11 (WUNT 257), edited by Florian Wilk / J. Ross Wagner (with the assistance of Frank Schleritt), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 299–320. BACHMANN, MICHAEL, “Bemerkungen zur Auslegung zweier Genetivverbindungen des Galaterbriefs: ‘Werke des Gesetzes’ (Gal 2,16 u.ö.) und ‘Israel Gottes’ (Gal 6,16)”, in Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theologie des Paulus-Schreibens (BThSt 106), edited by Michael Bachmann / Bernd Kollmann, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010, 95–118. –, “Identität bei Paulus: Beobachtungen am Galaterbrief”, NTS 58 (2012): 571–597. –, “4QMMT und Galaterbrief, ‫ מעשי החורה‬und EΡΓΑ ΝΟΜΟΥ”, ZNW 89 (1998): 91– 113. BACHMANN, MICHAEL (ed., in collaboration with Johannes Woyke), Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion (WUNT 182), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. BARCLAY, JOHN M.G., Paul and the Gift, Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2015. –, “Unnerving Grace: Approaching Romans 9–11 from the Wisdom of Solomon”, in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (WUNT 257), edited by Florian Wilk / J. Ross Wagner (with the assistance of Frank Schleritt), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 91–109. BARRETT, CHARLES K., “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians”, in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Johannes Friedrich et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976, 1–16. BEENTJES, PANCRATIUS C., “Ben Sira 44:19–23 – The Patriarchs: Text, Tradition, Theology”, in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006 (JSJ.S 127), edited by Géza G. Xeravits / József Zsengellér, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008, 209–228. BELL, RICHARD H., The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel (WUNT 184), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. BELLEVILLE, LINDA L., “The Sinai-Mεσίτης Tradition in Galatians 3:19–20”, in Paul and Scripture (Pauline Studies 10), edited by Stanley E. Porter / Christopher D. Land, Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2019, 325–334. BETZ, HANS DIETER, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia), Philadephia, PA: Fortress, 1979. BILLERBECK, PAUL, Die Briefe des Neuen Testaments und die Offenbarung des Johannes erläutert aus Talmud und Midrasch (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 3), 2nd ed., München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1926. BÖHM, MARTINA, Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandria: Zum Zusammenhang von Kontext, Hermeneutik und Exegese im frühen Judentum (BZNW 128), Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 2005. BREYTENBACH, CILLIERS, Paulus und Barnabas in der Provinz Galatien: Studien zu Apostelgeschichte 13f.; 16,6; 18,23 und den Adressaten des Galaterbriefes (AGAJU 38), Leiden u. a.: Brill, 1996. BUTTICAZ, SIMON, “Paul et le Judaïsme: Des identités en construction”, RHPhR 94 (2014): 253–273. CHRISTIANSEN, ELLEN J., The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers (AGAJU 27), Leiden et al.: Brill, 1995. COLLINS, JOHN J., Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in Hellenistic Diaspora, New York: Crossroad, 1983.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

487

–, The Invention of Judaism: Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul, Oakland: University of California Press, 2017. DALTON, WILLIAM, “Once More Paul Among Jews and Gentiles”, Pacifica 4 (1991): 51– 61. DAS, ANDREW A., Paul and the Stories of Israel: Grand Thematic Narratives in Galatians, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. DAVIES, GRAHAM I., “Hagar, El-Heğra and the Location of Mount Sinai with an Additional Note on Reqem”, VT 22 (1972): 152–163. DAVIES, WILLIAM DAVID, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, London: SPCK, 1955. DE BOER, MARTINUS C., Galatians: A Commentary (The New Testament Library), Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 2011. DE ROO, JACQUELINE C. R., Works of the Law at Qumran and in Paul (NTM 13), Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007. DONFRIED, KARL P. (ed.), The Romans Debate, revised and extended edition, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991. DUNN, JAMES D. G., “Did Paul have a covenant theology? Reflections on Romans 9:4 and 11:27”, in IDEM, The New Perspective on Paul: Revised Edition, Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005, 429–445. –, “The Dialogue Progresses”, in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion (WUNT 182), edited by Michael Bachmann (in collaboration with Johannes Woyke), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 389–430. –, The Epistle to the Galatians (Black’s New Testament Commentaries), Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993. –, The New Perspective on Paul: Revised Edition, Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005. –, “Was Paul against the Law? The Law in Galatians and Romans: A Test-Case of Text in Context” (1995), in IDEM, The New Perspective on Paul: Revised Edition, Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005, 265–283. –, “4QMMT and Galatians” (1997), in IDEM, The New Perspective on Paul: Revised Edition, Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005, 339–345. –, DUNN, JAMES D. G., Romans 1–8 (WBC 38A), Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988. EASTMAN, SUSAN GROVE, “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-reading of Galatians 6:16 and Romans 9–11”, NTS 56 (2010): 367–395. EGO, BEATE, “Abraham als Urbild der Toratreue Israels”, in Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), edited by Friedrich Avemarie / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 25–40. EHRENSPERGER, KATHY, Searching Paul: Conversations with the Jewish Apostle to the Nations: Collected Essays (WUNT 429), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. FELDMEIER, REINHARD und HERMANN SPIECKERMANN, Der Gott der Lebendigen: Eine biblische Gotteslehre (ToBiTh 1), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. FINSTERBUSCH, KARIN, Die Thora als Lebensanweisung für Heidenchristen: Studien zur Bedeutung der Thora für die paulinische Ethik (StUNT 20), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. FREY, JÖRG, “The Reception of Jeremiah and the Impact of Jeremianic Traditions in the New Testament: A Survey”, in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and

488

Jens Herzer

Transformation (JSJ.S 173), edited by Hindy Najman / Konrad Schmid, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017, 499–522. GEMÜNDEN, PETRA VON, Vegetationsmetaphorik im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Eine Bildfelduntersuchung (NTOA 18); Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. GERBER, CHRISTINE, “Blicke auf Paulus: Die New Perspective on Paul in der jüngeren Diskussion”, VF 55 (2010): 45–60. GESE, HARTMUT, “Τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ (Gal 4,25)”, in IDEM, Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie (BETh 64), München: Chr. Kaiser, 1974, 49–62. GOODMAN, MARTIN et al. (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010. GRABBE, LESTER L., “Did all Jews Think Alike? ‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus in the Context of Second Temple Judaic Religion”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.S 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter / J. C. R. de Roo, Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2003, 252–266. GRÄSSER, ERICH, “Der Alte Bund im Neuen: Eine exegetische Vorlesung”, in IDEM, Der Alte Bund im Neuen: Exegetische Studien zur Israelfrage im Neuen Testament (WUNT 35), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985, 1–134. –, “Zwei Heilswege? Zum theologischen Verhältnis von Kirche und Israel”, in IDEM, Der Alte Bund im Neuen: Exegetische Studien zur Israelfrage im Neuen Testament (WUNT 35), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985, 212–230. HAACKER, KLAUS, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (ThHK 6), 4th ed., Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. HAHN, FERDINAND, “Gibt es eine Entwicklung in den Aussagen über die Rechtfertigung bei Paulus?”, EvTh 53 (1993): 342–366. HANSEN, G. WALTER, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (JSNT.S 29), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. HARTMAN, LARS, “Bundesideologie in und hinter einigen paulinischen Texten” (1980), in IDEM, Approaching New Testament Texts and Contexts: Collected Essays II (WUNT 311), edited by David Hellholm and Tord Fornberg, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, 41– 56. HAYS, RICHARD B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, New Haven / London: Yale University Press, 1989. HEIL, CHRISTOPH, “‘Angeordnet durch Engel durch die Hand eines Mittlers’ (Gal 3:19): Das paulinische Konzept von der Vermittlung der Tora”, in Vermittelte Gegenwart: Konzeptionen der Gottespräsenz von der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels bis Anfang des 2. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. (WUNT 367), edited by Andrea Taschl-Erber / Irmtraud Fischer, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016, 229–243. HERZER, JENS, “‘Alle Einer in Christus’ – Gal 3,28b und kein Ende? Ein Vorschlag”, in Spurensuche zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Eine Festschrift im Dialog mit Udo Schnelle (FRLANT 271), edited by Michael Labahn, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017, 125–142. HOFIUS, OTFRIED, “Zu Römer 10,4: τέλος νόμου Χριστός”, in IDEM, Exegetische Studien (WUNT 223), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 95–101. –, “Das Evangelium und Israel: Erwägungen zu Römer 9–11”, in IDEM, Paulusstudien (WUNT 51), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989, 175–202.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

489

HOLTZ, GUDRUN, Damit Gott sei alles in allem: Studien zum paulinischen und frühjüdischen Universalismus (BZNW 149), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. HORN, FRIEDRICH WILHELM, “Die letzte Jerusalemreise des Paulus”, in IDEM, Paulusstudien (NET 22), Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto, 2017, 78–97. –, “Werke des Gesetzes, Werke des Fleisches, Werke der Finsternis: Kennt Paulus auch Werke im Glauben?”, in IDEM, Paulusstudien (NET 22), Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto, 2017, 325–345. –, “Der Verzicht auf die Beschneidung im frühen Christentum”, in IDEM, Paulusstudien (NET 22), Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto, 2017, 14–39. HÜBNER, HANS, Gottes Ich und Israel: Zum Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Römer 9–11 (FRLANT 136), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. JERVELL, JAKOB, “The Letter to Jerusalem”, in The Romans Debate, edited by Karl P. Donfried, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991, 53–64. JEWETT, ROBERT, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. JOHN, FELIX, Der Galaterbrief im Kontext historischer Lebenswelten im antiken Kleinasien (FRLANT 264), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. KIM, SEYOON, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (WUNT 140), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. KNAUF, ERNST AXEL, “Die Arabienreise des Apostels Paulus”, in Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien: Die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels (WUNT 108), edited by Martin Hengel / Anna Maria Schwemer, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998, 465–471. KOCH, DIETRICH-ALEX, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHTh 168), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. KÖCKERT, MATTHIAS, “‘Glaube’ und ‘Gerechtigkeit’ in Gen 15,6”, ZThK 109 (2012): 415– 444. –, “Abrahams Glaube in Röm 4 und im vorpaulinischen Judentum”, in Der Römerbrief als Vermächtnis an die Kirche: Rezeptionsgeschichten aus zwei Jahrtausenden (Neukirchener Theologie), edited by Cilliers Breytenbach, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2012, 15–47. KONRADT, MATTHIAS, “Bekehrung – Berufung – Lebenswende: Perspektiven auf das Damaskusgeschehen in der neueren Paulusforschung”, in Ancient Perspectives on Paul (NTOA/StUNT 102), edited by Tobias Nicklas et al., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013, 96–120. –, “‘Die aus Glauben, diese sind Abrahams Kinder’ (Gal 3,7): Erwägungen zum galatischen Konflikt im Lichte frühjüdischer Abrahamstraditionen”, in Kontexte der Schrift I: Text, Ethik, Judentum und Christentum, Gesellschaft (FS E.W. Stegemann), edited by Gabriella Gelardini, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005, 25–48. KRAUS, WOLFGANG, Das Volk Gottes: Zur Grundlegung der Ekklesiologie bei Paulus (WUNT 85), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. LINDEMANN, ANDREAS, “Israel im Neuen Testament”, WuD 25 (1999): 167–192. –, “Die Gerechtigkeit aus dem Gesetz: Erwägungen zur Auslegung und Textgeschichte von Röm 10,5”, ZNW 73 (1982): 231–250. LONGENECKER, BRUCE W., “Sharing in Their Spiritual Blessings? The Stories of Israel in Galatians and Romans”, in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, edited by Bruce W. Longenecker, Louisville/London: Westminster / John Knox, 2002, 58–84. – (ed.), Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, Louisville/London: Westminster / John Knox, 2002.

490

Jens Herzer

LONGENECKER, RICHARD N., Galatians (WBC 41), Dallas: Word, 1990. MAIER, CHRISTL M., “Psalm 87 as a Reappraisal of the Zion Tradition and Its Reception in Galatians 4:26”, CBQ 69 (2007): 473–486. MARTTILLA, MARKO, Foreign Nations in the Wisdom of Ben Sira: A Jewish Sage between Opposition and Assimilation (DCLS 13), Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2012. MASCHMEIER, JENS-CHRISTIAN, Rechtfertigung bei Paulus: Eine Kritik alter und neuer Paulusperspektiven (BWANT 189), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010. MEISER, MARTIN, “Der Galaterbrief im Rahmen der Chronologie der Paulusbriefe”, in Spurensuche zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Eine Festschrift im Dialog mit Udo Schnelle (FRLANT 271), edited by Michael Labahn, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017, 109–124. –, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (ThHK 9), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2022. MERMELSTEIN, ARI, Creation, Covenant, and the Beginnings of Judaism: Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.S 168), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014. MOO, DOUGLAS J., Galatians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids: 2013. MORTENSEN, JACOB P. B., Paul Among the Gentiles: A ‘Radical’ Reading of Romans (NET 28), Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto, 2018. MÜHLING, ANKE, “Blickt auf Abraham, euren Vater”: Abraham als Identifikationsfigur des Judentums in der Zeit des Exils und des Zweiten Tempels (FRLANT 236), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. MÜLLER, ULRICH B., Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (ThHK 11/1), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1993. MUSSNER, FRANZ, Der Galaterbrief (HThKNT IX), Freiburg: Herder, 1974. NANOS, MARK D., “‘Broken Branches’: A Pauline Metaphor Gone Awry? (Romans 11:11– 24)”, in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9– 11 (WUNT 257), edited by Florian Wilk / J. Ross Wagner (with the assistance of Frank Schleritt), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 339–376. NANOS MARK D. / MAGNUS ZETTERHOLM (eds.), Paul within Judaism: Restoring the FirstCentury Context to the Apostle, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. NIEBUHR, KARL-WILHELM, Heidenapostel aus Israel: Die jüdische Identität des Paulus nach ihrer Darstellung in seinen Briefen (WUNT 62), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. OEGEMA, GERBERN S., Für Israel und die Völker: Studien zum alttestamentlich-jüdischen Hintergrund der paulinischen Theologie (NovTSup 95), Leiden: Brill, 1999. OEMING, MANFRED, “Der Glaube Abrahams: Zur Rezeptionsgeschichte von Gen 15,6 in der Zeit des zweiten Tempels”, ZAW 110 (1998): 16–33. PILHOFER, PETER, ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΝ ΚΡΕΙΤΤΟΝ: Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte (WUNT II/39), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990. PITRE, BRANT et al. (eds.), Paul, a New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019. POLLMANN, INES, Gesetzeskritische Motive im Judentum und die Gesetzeskritik des Paulus (NTOA/StUNT 98), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. PORTENHAUSER, FRIEDERIKE, Personale Identität in der Theologie des Paulus (HUTh 79), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. PORTER, STANLEY E., “The Concept of Covenant in Paul”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.S 71), edited by Stanley E. Porter / Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003, 269–285.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

491

PUUKKO, ANTTI FILEMON, “Paulus und das Judentum”, StudOr 2 (1928): 1–87. RÄISÄNEN, HEIKKI, Paul and the Law (WUNT 29), 2nd ed., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. –, “Paul’s Conversion and the Development of his View of the Law”, NTS 33 (1987): 404– 419. –, “Galatians 2:16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism”, NTS 31 (1985): 543–553. REICHERT, ANGELIKA, Der Römerbrief als Gratwanderung: Eine Untersuchung zur Abfassungsproblematik (FRLANT 194), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. REINBOLD, WOLFGANG, “Zur Bedeutung des Begriffes ‘Israel’ in Römer 9–11”, in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (WUNT 257), edited by Florian Wilk / J. Ross Wagner (with the assistance of Frank Schleritt), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 401–416. ROHDE, JOACHIM, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (ThHK 9), Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989. SANDERS, ED P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977. SÄNGER, DIETER, “Die Adressaten des Galaterbriefes und das Problem einer Entwicklung in Paulus’ theologischem Denken”, in IDEM, Schrift – Tradition – Evangelium: Studien zum frühen Judentum und zur paulinischen Theologie, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2016, 200–228. –, “‘Das Gesetz ist unser παιδαγωγός geworden bis zu Christus’ (Gal 3,24): Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes im Galaterbrief” (2006), in IDEM, Von der Bestimmtheit des Anfangs: Studien zu Jesus, Paulus und zum frühchristlichen Schriftverständnis, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 2007, 158–184. –, “‘Er wird die Gottlosigkeit von Jakob entfernen’ (Röm 11,26): Kontinuität und Wandel in den Israelaussagen des Apostels Paulus”, in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (WUNT 257), edited by Florian Wilk / J. Ross Wagner (with the assistance of Frank Schleritt), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 121– 146. SCHÄFER, RUTH, Paulus bis zum Apostelkonzil: Ein Beitrag zur Einleitung in den Galaterbrief, zur Geschichte der Jesusbewegung und zur Pauluschronologie (WUNT II/179), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. SCHALLER, BERNDT, “Die Rolle des Paulus im Verhältnis zwischen Christen und Juden”, in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (WUNT 257), edited by Florian Wilk / J. Ross Wagner (with the assistance of Frank Schleritt), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 1–36. SCHINKEL, DIRK, Die himmlische Bürgerschaft: Untersuchungen zu einem urchristlichen Sprachmotiv im Spannungsfeld von religiöser Integration und Abgrenzung im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert (FRLANT 220), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. SCHMELLER, THOMAS, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (2Kor 1,1–7,4) (EKK VIII/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn/Ostfildern: Neukirchener/Patmos, 2010. SCHNELLE, UDO, Die getrennten Wege von Römern, Juden und Christen: Religionspolitik im 1. Jahrhundert n.Chr., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. –, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB 1830), 8th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. –, Wandlungen im paulinischen Denken (SBS 137), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. SCHLIESSER, BENJAMIN, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4: Paul’s Concept of Faith in Light of the History of Reception of Genesis 15:6 (WUNT II/224), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

492

Jens Herzer

–, “‘Christ-Faith’ as an Eschatological Event (Galatians 3.23–26): A ‘Third View’ on Πίστις Χριστοῦ”, JSNT 38 (2016): 277–300. SCHRÖTER, JENS, “Die Universalisierung des Gesetzes im Galaterbrief: Ein Beitrag zum Gesetzesverständnis des Paulus”, in IDEM, Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons (WUNT 204), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007, 171–201. SCHWEMER, ANNA MARIA, “Himmlische Stadt und himmlisches Bürgerrecht bei Paulus (Gal 4,26 und Phil 3,20)”, in La Cité de Dieu – Die Stadt Gottes: 3. Symposium Strasbourg, Tübingen, Upsala 19.–23. September 1998 in Tübingen (WUNT 129), edited by Martin Hengel et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, 195–244. SCHWEITZER, ALBERT, Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus, 2nd ed., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1954. SELB, WALTER, “Διαθήκη im Neuen Testament: Randbemerkungen eines Juristen zu einem Theologenstreit”, JJS 25 (1974): 183–196. SELLIN, GERHARD, “Hagar und Sara: Religionsgeschichtliche Hintergründe der Schriftallegorese Gal 4,21–31”, in Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte (FS Jürgen Becker; BZNW 100), edited by Ulrich Mell / Ulrich B. Müller, Berlin / New York: de Gruyter 1999, 59–85. SIEGERT, FOLKER, Argumentation bei Paulus gezeigt an Röm 9–11 (WUNT 34), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. SÖLLNER, PETER, Jerusalem, die hochgebaute Stadt: Eschatologisches und himmlisches Jerusalem im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (TANZ 25), Tübingen: Narr Francke, 1998. STANDHARTINGER, ANGELA, “‘Zur Freiheit … befreit’? Hagar im Galaterbrief”, EvTh 62 (2002): 288–303. STENDAHL, KRISTER, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West (1963)”, in IDEM, Paul among Jews and Gentiles and other Essays, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976, 78–96. –, “Paul among Jews and Gentiles”, in IDEM, Paul among Jews and Gentiles and other Essays, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976, 1–77. STERLING, GREGORY E., “Thunderous Silence: The Omission of the Sinai Pericope in Philo of Alexandria”, JSJ 49 (2018): 449–474. THEISSEN, GERD, “Die Bekehrung des Paulus und seine Entwicklung vom Fundamentalisten zum Universalisten”, EvTh 7 (2010): 10–25. –, “Röm 9–11 – eine Auseinandersetzung des Paulus mit Israel und mit sich selbst: Versuch einer psychologischen Auslegung”, in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity (FS H. Räisänen, NovTSup 103), edited by Ismo Dunderberg et al., Leiden et al.: Brill, 2002, 311–341. THEISSEN, GERD / PETRA VON GEMÜNDEN, Der Römerbrief: Rechenschaft eines Reformators, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. THEOBALD, MICHAEL, Der Römerbrief (EdF 294), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000. –, “‘Dem Juden zuerst und auch dem Heiden’: Die paulinische Auslegung der Glaubensformel Röm 1,3f. (1981)”, in IDEM, Studien zum Römerbrief (WUNT 136), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001, 102–118. –, “Kirche und Israel nach Röm 9–11 (1987)”, in IDEM, Studien zum Römerbrief (WUNT 136), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001, 324–349. –, “Wandlungen im paulinischen Denken (Paulus-Synopse)”, in Paulus Handbuch, edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, 504–511.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Galatians and Romans

493

TIWALD, MARKUS, Hebräer von Hebräern: Paulus auf dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Argumentation und biblischer Interpretation (HSB 52), Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008. ULRICHS, KARL FRIEDRICH, Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma πίστις Χριστοῦ und zum paulinischen Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung (WUNT II/227), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. VAN DER HORST, PIETER W., “Did the Gentiles Know Who Abraham Was?” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13), edited by Martin Goodman et al., Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010, 61–75. –, “‘Only then will All Israel be Saved’: A Short Note on the Meaning of καὶ οὕτως in Romans 11:26”, JBL 119 (2000): 521–525. VAN RUITEN, JACQUES T. A. G. M., Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26–25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8 (JSJ.S 161), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012. VOGEL, MANUEL, Das Heil des Bundes: Bundestheologie im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (TANZ 18), Tübingen: Francke, 1996. VON BENDEMANN, REINHARD, “‘Frühpaulinisch’ und/oder ‘spätpaulinisch’? Erwägungen zu der These einer Entwicklung der Paulinischen Theologie am Beispiel des Gesetzesverständnisses”, EvTh 60 (2000): 210–229. VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, PETER, Der Brief an die Gemeinden in Galatien (ThKNT 9), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019. –, Römer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie (FRLANT 112), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. –, “Die Decke des Mose: Zur Exegese und Hermeneutik von Geist und Buchstabe in 2Korinther 3”, in IDEM, Der Gott der Hoffnung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Theologie des Paulus (SKI.NF 3), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014, 395–424. –, “Das Verständnis des Gesetzes im Römerbrief”, in IDEM, Der Gott der Hoffnung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Theologie des Paulus (SKI.NF 3), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014, 286–337. –, “Beobachtungen zur ‘New Perspective on Paul’”, in IDEM, Der Gott der Hoffnung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Theologie des Paulus (SKI.NF 3), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014, 338–355. WALTER, NIKOLAUS, “Zur Interpretation von Römer 9–11”, ZThK 81 (1984): 172–195. WARE, JAMES P., “Law, Christ, and Covenant: Paul’s Theology of the Law in Romans 3:19– 20”, JThS 62 (2011): 513–540. WATSON, FRANCIS, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007. WESTERHOLM, STEPHEN, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and his Critics, Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004. WILCKENS, ULRICH, Der Brief an die Römer: 1. Teilband: Röm 1–5 (EKK VI/1), Zürich u. a.: Beniger, 2nd ed. 1987. WILK, FLORIAN, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus (FRLANT 179), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. WINDSOR, LIONEL J., Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul’s Jewish Identity Informs His Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans (BZNW 205), Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 2014. WOLFF, CHRISTIAN, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum (TU 118), Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1976.

494

Jens Herzer

–, “Irdisches und himmlisches Jerusalem – Die Heilshoffnung in den Paralipomena Jeremiae”, ZNW 82 (1991): 147–158. WOLTER, MICHAEL, Der Brief an die Römer: Teilband 1: Röm 1–8 (EKK VI/1), NeukirchenVluyn/Ostfildern: Neukirchener/Patmos, 2014. –, Der Brief an die Römer: Teilband 2: Röm 9–16 (EKK VI/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn/Ostfildern: Neukirchener/Patmos, 2019. –, “‘Das Geschriebene tötet, der Geist aber macht lebendig’ (2Kor 3,6): Ein Versuch zur paulinischen Antithese von γράμμα und πνεῦμα”, in Der zweite Korintherbrief: Literarische Gestalt – historische Situation – theologische Argumentation (FS D.-A. Koch, FRLANT 250), edited by Dieter Sänger, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012, 355–379. –, Paulus: Ein Grundriss seiner Theologie, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2011. WREDE, WILLIAM, Paulus, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2nd ed. 1907. YARBRO-COLLINS, ADELA, “The Dream of a New Jerusalem at Qumran”, in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins, vol. 3: The Scrolls and Christian Origins, edited by James H. Charlesworth, Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006, 231–254.

Διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews Διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews

WOLFGANG KRAUS Wolfgang Kraus

1. Introduction When we investigate the meaning of the term διαθήκη in the “Letter to the Hebrews”, several questions and problems need to be considered. First, we have to address a semantic question: Is there a homogeneous understanding of διαθήκη in Hebrews that applies to all occurrences? Second: What function does the term διαθήκη have in the overall argument of Hebrews? The different aspects of “first”, “earlier”, “better”, “new”, and “eternal” covenant have to be analyzed to respond to this question. And third: What is the theological value of the concept of διαθήκη throughout Hebrews? I will address these questions in four steps: 1. On the content of διαθήκη in Heb 10:15‒18. 2. Reflections on statistics. 3. On the function of the concept of διαθήκη. 4. On the theology of the concept of διαθήκη.1

2. The Content of διαθήκη in Heb 10:15‒18 The author of Hebrews quotes in full the promise of the new διαθήκη from Jer 38(31):31‒34 LXX in Heb 8:7‒13 and again in Heb 10:15‒18 in excerpts.2 The quote of Jeremiah in Heb 8 and its recurrence in Heb 10 thus form an inclusion of the central Christological middle part of the letter.3 In Heb 10, the quote from Jeremiah follows the statement that the high priest Jesus, through his unique sacrifice and offering, completed forever those who are sanctified (v. 14). Then, the witness of the Holy Spirit is introduced: (v. 15) “for after saying: (v. 16) ‘This is the διαθήκη that I will make with them after those days’, declares the Lord: ‘I will put my laws on their hearts, and write 1

The following paper is a new attempt at analyzing the meaning of διαθήκη in Hebrews. It elaborates on an earlier study of mine entitled “Zur Bedeutung von διαθήκη”, 67‒83. The contribution presented here is a revised, continued, and in some points corrected view of things, which corresponds to my current understanding. A number of overlaps with other contributions are unavoidable: KRAUS, “Heil für Israel”, 113‒147; IDEM, “Die Rezeption von Jer 38,31‒34 (LXX)”, 447‒462; IDEM, “Zur Aufnahme und Funktion”, 459‒474. 2 On the differences between the LXX Vorlage and the citation in Hebrews see below. 3 BACKHAUS, “Bundesmotiv”, 161.

496

Wolfgang Kraus

them on their minds, (v. 17) I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more’.” Subsequently, a conclusion is drawn: (v. 18) “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.” This summarizing remark refers not only to the immediate quotation preceding it, but also to the entire narrative beginning in Heb 8:1.4 The content of the new διαθήκη according to Heb 10:15‒18 is thus the inscription of the laws in the heart and mind and the non-remembrance of sins and misdeeds.5 Jesus’ action – as it was said before – was to “purify our conscience from dead works” and to enable us to “serve the living God” out of inner motivation (cf. 9:14). Heb 10:15‒18 clearly indicates that the author was interested in the original content of Jeremiahʼs promise of a new διαθήκη and did not use the term διαθήκη primarily to describe what is sometimes called “Christian” identity.6

3. Reflections on Statistics The noun διαθήκη is significantly distributed throughout the New Testament: Of 33 references in total, it is frequently found in the Letter to the Hebrews, namely 17 times, i.e., more than half of all New Testament references occur there.7 4 The author of the Letter to the Hebrews does not offer the middle part of the quote of Jeremiah again at this point. He quotes only v. 33 (whereas the reference to ‘the house of Israel’ is replaced by ‘them’, the fig. etym. διδοὺς δώσω is dispersed; heart and mind are in reversed order compared to Jer-LXX) and v. 34c (in which besides the ἁμαρτίαι also the ἀνομίαι are mentioned, which God no longer remembers). Emphasis is thus placed on the laws within human beings that enable them to do God’s will (cf. 10:7, 9) and on liberation from sins and injustice. 5 Cf. FUHRMANN, Vergeben und Vergessen, 226. Fuhrmann has correctly recognized that “forgiveness” is a central content of the new διαθήκη. Even if this no longer appears in the “result” (ibid., 226‒227), it is stated elsewhere: “Andererseits muss aber auch geschaut werden, welche Güter neben der Sündenvergebung verheißen werden: Gottes Gesetze werden in Verstand und Herzen des Volkes gegeben werden (LXXJer 38:33b = Hebr 8:10b) und das Volk wird zum ‘Eigentumsvolk’ (LXXJer 38:33c = Hebr 8:10c). … So sind letztlich neben der Sündenvergebung zwei Güter aufgeführt: Die göttlichen Gesetze werden verinnerlicht und das Bundesvolk Eigentumsvolk Gottes sein.” The aspect of being God’s own people, however, is no longer listed in Heb 10:15‒18. 6 But this is the tendency of BACKHAUS, Bund; IDEM, “Bundesmotiv”, 153‒173; VOGEL, Heil, each with different accents. On the other hand, FREY, “διαθήκη”, 263‒310, locates the motif of διαθήκη in soteriology. In his opinion it is intended to explicate the “gültige Heilsdispositionen” (296). The theological achievement of the author consists of his use of the traditional motif, which he has “zur Explikation des Christusbekenntnisses aufgegriffen und weit über den überkommenen Sprachgebrauch hinaus zum soteriologischen Kernbegriff ausgebaut” (297). 7 There are four further references in the eucharistic tradition (Mark 14:24; Matt 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25), the term occurs seven times in Paul’s writings (2 Cor 3:6, 14; Gal

Διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews

497

In addition to the 17 explicit references (Heb 7:22; 8:6, 8, 9 [two], 10; 9:4, 15, 16, 17, 204; 10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20), διαθήκη is to be implicitly inserted in four places, namely 8:7, 13; 9:1, 18. Thus the total number is 21. The verbum διατίθεσται occurs seven times in the New Testament (Luke 22:29 [two]; Acts 3:25 [in addition to the noun!]), four of them in Heb (8:10; 9:16, 17; 10:16). These statistics indicate that the majority of the references in Hebrews occur in the Christological part, ch. 7‒10. Initially ‒ surprising at first sight ‒ the term is found in 7:22, three times in the parenetic final part (10:29; 12:24; 13:20), in other words, four times outside ch. 7‒10. The remaining thirteen resp. seventeen references are all found in 8:1‒10:18. The same applies to the verb: all references are found in 8:1‒10:18. Among the seventeen explicit resp. twenty-one references in total, there are six quotes from the Old Testament ‒ divided into two texts: Jer 38(31):31‒34 and Exod 24:8, although αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης in Exod 24 is again quoted in 10:29 and 13:20. In Heb 9:4, two Old Testament technical terms are used: κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης and πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης. Ten references are coined from the Septuagint contexts8 or alternatively used. Seven resp. eleven (out of 17 resp. 21 references) are coined by the author of Hebrews himself.9 This demonstrates the significance of the term for the author. The first reference of διαθήκη in Heb 7:22 designates Jesus as the “guarantor” (ἔγγυος) of a better διαθήκη. The term “guarantor” (ἔγγυος) is a legal term; in the New Testament and in the Apostolic Fathers it is a hapax legomenon. The second reference of διαθήκη in Heb 8:6 names Jesus μεσίτης of a better διαθήκη. The same term μεσίτης is also featured in 9:15 and 12:24, however in 9:15 as μεσίτης καινῆς διαθήκης and in 12:24 as μεσίτης νέας διαθήκης. The terminology is therefore not entirely consistent.10 4:24; Rom 9:4 [plural]; Rom 11:27; Gal 3:15, 17 [as testament]). Otherwise there are only five more instances in the New Testament: According to Luke 1:72, God remembers his διαθήκη; Acts 3:25 speaks of the διαθήκη that God has decreed for the fathers; Acts 7:8 mentions the διαθήκη of circumcision; Eph 2:12 names the διαθήκη of promise; Rev 11:19 mentions the ark of διαθήκη in the heavenly temple. Among the Apostolic Fathers, thirteen references are found in the Letter of Barnabas. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho) features 31 references. Cf. on Justin the essay by Jörg Ulrich in this volume, p. 587–608. 8 Cf. FREY, “διαθήκη”, 266. 9 In Heb 11:32, the masc. participle seems to indicate that the author was male, notwithstanding that it could also be meant in a generic sense. 10 The proof in Heb 13:20 is a unique case, as the striking and controversial formulation of the “blood of an eternal διαθήκη” is used only here. But the problem of chapter 13 can be disregarded for the purpose of this essay. It seems to me that Hebr 13 forms an appendix to the speech contained in Hebr 1–12. But this question has to be considered separately. S. KRAUS, “Schriftverwendung in Hebräer 13”.

498 7:22: 8:6: 9:15: 12:24:

Wolfgang Kraus ἔγγυος – κρείττονος διαθήκης μεσίτης – κρείττονος διαθήκης μεσίτης – καινῆς διαθήκης μεσίτης – νέας διαθήκης

At this point, it would be necessary to deal with the terminology ἔγγυος and μεσίτης in more detail. However, that would be a contribution of its own. A few remarks must suffice:11 The keyword μεσίτης is encountered six times in the New Testament: twice in Gal 3:19, referring to angels as mediators of the Torah, once in 1 Tim 2:5, referring to Jesus as the mediator between God and humanity, and three times in Hebrews in association with διαθήκη (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). The verbum μεσιτεύω (a New Testament hapax legomenon) is used only in Heb 6:17: God “guaranteed it with an oath” to indicate “the unchangeable character of his purpose.”12 In the Old Testament, the term μεσίτης appears only in Job 9:33 LXX,13 and in the Greek Pseudepigrapha in two places (T.Dan 6:2; As.Mos [Fragmenta] 2:17,17).14 However, its use as a term of hellenistic legal language is common (e.g., Diod. Sic. IV 54:7; PLond II 254, No. 370:6, 9, 14; Josephus, Ant. 4:133). The semantic spectrum of μεσίτης has three main emphases: “1. The mediator as the neutral arbitrator who intervenes between two parties and mediates impartially in the legal dispute between them. – 2. μεσίτης as the guarantor or witness who is responsible for the implementation of the agreement in a legal transaction or who puts this agreement into force. – 3. μεσίτης as the mediator who establishes through his personal involvement a previously non-existent relationship between two parties who are distanced or hostile towards each other.”15 For Hebrews, the second meaning can be considered: “guarantor” or “witness”. But, as we will see, Jesus is even more. He inaugurates the New Covenant. Insofar Jesus is “guarantor”, “witness”, and “inaugurator” of the new and better διαθήκη.16 In Heb 7:22 Jesus, as mentioned above, is referred to with the hapax legomenon ἔγγυος, i.e., as guarantor of a better διαθήκη. In secular Greek and 11

For details cf. KRAUS, “Jesus”, 101‒122. OEPKE, “μεσίτης, μεσιτεύω”, 624. 13 A somewhat similar notion of mediation is conveyed in Lev 26:46, where Moses is the one by whose hand “the statutes and ordinances and law” (τὰ κρίματα καὶ τὰ προστάγματα καὶ ὁ νόμος) were given “between him (God) and between the Israelites” (ἀνὰ μέσον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ) at Sinai. 14 In As.Mos (Fragm) 2:17, μεσίτης is connected with διαθήκη. Cf. the Latin text of As.Mos 1:14; 3:12, where Moses is understood as “arbiter” (see Philon, Mos. 2:166; 3:19). For Greek references see DENIS, Concordance, 541, 843, 901. 15 ROLOFF, Timotheus, 121 (transl. W.K.), cf. on this topic OEPKE, “μεσίτης, μεσιτεύω”, 602‒629; SÄNGER, “μεσίτης”, 110. 16 Cf. KRAUS, “Mittler”, 313. 12

Διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews

499

in the papyrus documents, the term “guarantor” (ἔγγυος) typically has a juridical meaning: It covers administrative and procedural law or private contract law.17 The guarantor accepts the legal obligation: he is the guarantor thereof, but not the guarantor of a relationship. This is, thus, the meaning of μεσίτης as well; the author of Hebrews interprets μεσίτης as a synonym for the term ἔγγυος (Heb 7:22).18 However, the understanding of “mediator” cannot simply be taken for granted. In secular Greek the expression μεσίτης διαθήκης denotes a “rare but possible expression in Hellenistic inheritance law […].”19 In other words, for Hebrews, the meaning “guarantor” is the most appropriate one.20 “The legal basic understanding of μεσίτης in Hebrews is confirmed not least by 9:15ff, if at this point the term διαθήκη appears to have been explicitly stipulated in the context of a testamentary decree, and in this context also the death of μεσίτης is classified.”21 If in Heb 8:6 Jesus is described as μεσίτης of a better διαθήκη, then this means, based on such a semantic background: He is witness or guarantor of a (divine) order or settlement. Therefore, it is not a matter of the mediator of a covenant relationship, nor of a mediator between the world of God and the human world. Heb 9:15‒17 then states that Jesus as μεσίτης of a καινὴ διαθήκη is the one who, with his death, has put this διαθήκη ‒ here in the context of the Testament ‒ into being. In Heb 7:22 and 8:6, the repeated καί, which is not entirely undisputed from a text-critical point of view, but probably original, is conspicuous. Jesus is “also” ἔγγυος or μεσίτης of a better διαθήκη. Heb 8:6 reveals how “also” is meant: “Jesus obtained holy ministries, which differ exceedingly from the Levitical cult order.”22 That is why he is “also” μεσίτης of a διαθήκη better than the Aaronite cult order. The phrase “exceeding ministries” refers to his λειτουργία as high priest according to the order of Melchizedek at the heavenly, true σκηνή (cf. 8:2). 17

BACKHAUS, Bund, 83. OEPKE, “μεσίτης, μεσιτεύω”, 624; GRÄSSER, Hebräer, 93. 19 OEPKE, “μεσίτης, μεσιτεύω”, 624, 628‒629 (transl. W.K.). 20 GRÄSSER, Hebräer, 93‒94; WEISS, Hebräer, 441. See OEPKE, “μεσίτης, μεσιτεύω”, 603‒604, Meaning 1b: Witness or guarantor for the implementation of agreements. 21 WEISS, Hebräer, 442 (transl. W.K.); cf. GRÄSSER, Hebräer, 93. Some interpret διαθήκη also in 9:16, 17 with a meaning other than “testament” (cf. WEISS, Hebräer, 478 fn. 13). However, v. 17b clearly contradicts this. For a discussion see GRÄSSER, Hebräer, 172‒ 175. Even the more recent attempts of HAHN, “A Broken Covenant”, 419‒421; IDEM, “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-of-Death”, 65‒88, cannot prove that the understanding in 9:16‒17 as “testament” is wrong. They cannot do without additional assumptions which are not supported by the text. Moreover, his understanding of “covenant” in Hebrews must be questioned. Without discussion, Hahn assumes that διαθήκη in Hebrews should be understood as Berit in the sense of a bilateral agreement. 22 KARRER, Hebräer, 114 (transl. W.K.). 18

500

Wolfgang Kraus

4. The Function of the Concept of διαθήκη What is the function of deploying the term of a better, new, or fresh διαθήκη in Hebrews? We endeavor to clarify this by following the line of argumentation of the Christological main part, Heb 7:1‒10:18. The exegetes agree that Heb 7‒10 follows the same train of thought. At the end of Heb 6, the author concludes that Jesus, the high priest in the order of Melchizedek for eternity, preceded his people into the Holy of Holies, the inner place behind the curtain, as a prodromos (Heb 6:20). This verse mentions Melchizedek and his priesthood for a third time (after 5:6, 10). A detailed description of his high priesthood, mentioned previously (in 5:6, 10; 6:20) without much detail, follows after 7:1. The initial focus is on the person of Melchisedek who blessed Abraham after receiving the tithe from him, recounting the narrative of Gen 14:18‒20. Melchizedek thus proves to be superior to Abraham and, by extension, to all his descendants – Levi included. Since Melchizedek has no genealogy, neither a beginning of time nor an end of life, he resembles the Son of God. The priesthood of both is eternal. Beginning in Heb 7:11, the author addresses the issue as to why the establishment of a priesthood according to the Melchizedekian order was at all necessary. The reason is that the Levitical priesthood did not bring about completion. The establishment of a new priesthood has been made necessary as a result of the inadequacy of the first (v. 11, 18–19). The priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek – unlike the Levitical priesthood – has not been established by the law of an earthly commandment, but by the power of indestructible life (v. 16). This change in the priesthood implies at the same time a shift in the legal basis (v. 12, 18). Otherwise Jesus could not be a high priest. Since he descends from the tribe of Judah, the Torah simply has no basis to justify his high priesthood. The appointment of Jesus as high priest according to the order of Melchizedek is based on the word of God, which is given in Ps 109(110):4 LXX. This is a divine oath (v. 20–21) by which the former – inadequate – provision of the law is repealed (v. 18). The Scriptural basis therefore is Ps 109(110):4, even if there is no reference to a “high priest”, but only to a “priest forever”. The substitution of the “former” with the “better” is first explained in Heb 7:18. It deals with the legal basis of the Levitical priesthood. The former commandment (ἐντολή, v. 18) is substituted by the better hope (ἐλπίς, v. 19), as the commandment was weak and useless – consequently, it could not lead to fulfillment. The author provides this contrast as an explanation as to why Jesus was appointed high priest according to the order of Melchizedek after quoting God’s oath in Ps 109(110):4 as a justification (v. 17). The “better hope” is

Διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews

501

based on the divine oath. Heb 6:17–18 is used here where the oath is already echoed. The wording “better διαθήκη” in 7:22 is analogous to “better hope” in 7:19. The latter refers to the completion of God’s promise, which the law could not bring (7:19a). The replacement of the previous commandment and the introduction of a better hope is summarized in 7:22 as better διαθήκη, whose guarantor is Jesus. The author initially does not specify what the content of this better διαθήκη is. Indeed, he addresses the difference between the many temporal priests and the one perpetual high priest, whose priesthood is abiding because it is eternal and absolute from God by oath. The author explicitly stresses that this appointment by oath occurred after the gift of the Torah. He already anticipates at this point – without explicitly mentioning it – the statement in 8:13: “In speaking of a new διαθήκη, he makes the first one ready to disappear.” Starting in Heb 8:1, the author discusses his “main concern”. The expression κεφάλαιον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις is a rhetorical signal, κεφάλαιον is a terminus technicus.23 The term refers to the “decisive facts”, the “key viewpoint”, or the “punch line”.24 The words ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις mean: with respect to “the current argumentation.”25 This key viewpoint comprises three aspects that are based on Scripture references, employed with some poetic license: 1. There is a high priest, based on the combination of Ps 109(110):4 and Gen 14:15‒18, although the Psalm reads only “priest”. 2. He is seated at the right hand (of the throne) of the Majesty, according to Ps 109(110):1; also independently verbalized by the author and not simply a citation from the Psalm, as the wording ἐν δεξιᾷ differs from the wording ἐκ δεξιῶν in the Psalm. 3. He serves in the true (heavenly) holy places (Exod 25:40, cited in Heb 8:5), not on earth, where the Levitical priesthood performs its ministry. The second reference to διαθήκη occurs in Heb 8:6. Jesus is μεσίτης κρείττονος διαθήκης. The διαθήκη is “better” because it is ordered by better promises (νενομοθέτηται, cf. 7:12!). The reference to 7:11‒12, according to which a change in the priestly ministry also entails a change in the nomos, can be immediately seen in the usage of the verb. The function of Jesus as a μεσίτης κρείττονος διαθήκης is related to the more excellent priestly ministries (διαφορωτέραι λειτουργίαι) that he performs.

23

BACKHAUS, Bund, 153; IDEM, Hebräer, 288. Georg Gäbel explains correctly: “Es geht um den leitenden Gesichtspunkt, unter dem die Argumentation als ganze betrachtet und verstanden werden will und durch den alles andere erst seinen Sinn erhält. Am besten übersetzt man κεφάλαιον i.d.S. als ‘Pointe’, nämlich Pointe der ganzen Argumentation.” GÄBEL, Kulttheologie, 240. 25 BRAUN, Hebräer, 227 (transl. W.K.). 24

502

Wolfgang Kraus

Heb 8:7 refers once again to the statement that the “first” (διαθήκη has to be added) was insufficient and could not bring about completion (cf. 7:11, 18). That is why a new concept was required. A verbatim quotation from Jer 38(31):31‒34 provides the rationale.26 The understanding of the quotation from Jeremiah is standardized by the verses Heb 8:8a and 13 which are used as a frame: V. 8a speaks of a “fault”, v. 13 sums up that the first (again διαθήκη has to be added) is close to vanishing.27 By introducing the quotation using μεμφόμενος αὐτούς (“reprimanding them”), it appears that Hebrews understood the word of consolation in Jeremiah as an invective, a prophetic scolding.28 However, the reprimand is not directed against the first διαθήκη,29 but against the listeners to whom it is addressed.30 “The failure of humans thus erodes the one given law. God, however, remains the effective giver of the law (…). He maintains this central dimension of his action, founding it only on the predominant (…) assurance of his promises.”31 Hence, it is now clear that the function of the quote from Jeremiah serves as scriptural evidence in our context. It proves that Ps 109(110):4 rightfully applies to Jesus and that by his actions the promised new διαθήκη is brought into existence. The passage concludes with the remark that introducing a new διαθήκη makes the former an old one that will be disappearing shortly. Heb 9 focuses in its entirety on the analogy and difference between the first and the better διαθήκη as well as the action of the high priest at the earthly sanctuary and the work of Jesus at the true heavenly one. Already the first διαθήκη had explicit guidelines regarding its realization. This is explained in 9:1‒10 through the description of the sanctuary and the annual activities of the high priest at Yom ha-Kippurim. Jesus, on the other hand, entered the perfect sanctuary with his own blood in order to obtain eternal salvation (v. 11‒14). In chapter 9:15‒17, it is argued on the basis of a legal metaphor how Jesus could become καινῆς διαθήκης 26 Cf. FREY, “διαθήκη”, 277; for details see KRAUS, “Rezeption”. There is hardly any interference with the LXX (the text is close to the tradition of Cod. A). The replacement of διατίθεσθαι by συντελεῖν could be a stylistic improvement, or the finality of the better διαθήκη could be intended. ATTRIDGE, Hebrews; BRAUN, Hebräer, 239; GRÄSSER, Hebräer, 98; Frey, “διαθήκη”, 277‒278 fn. 64. 27 It has not yet disappeared, cf. KARRER, Hebräer, 124, 128, against SCHENKER, Bund, 40‒42. 28 GRÄSSER, Bund, 108; GRÄSSER, Hebräer, 97; FREY, “διαθήκη”, 279; BACKHAUS, Hebräer, 295. 29 This is the opinion of GRÄSSER, Bund, 108 and fn. 444; the proof by Otto Michel mentioned in Grässer, loc. cit., MICHEL, Hebräer, 294, does not apply. Cf. MICHEL, Hebräer, 295: “allerdings gilt der Tadel Gottes nicht dem Bund, sondern den Menschen.” 30 FREY, “διαθήκη”, 279; KARRER, Hebräer, 113. 31 KARRER, Hebräer, 113 (transl. W.K.).

Διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews

503

μεσίτης due to his death.32 The keyword διαθήκη here clearly signifies “testament” or “last will”, as is usually the case in secular Greek. The author then considers the second crucial Old Testament context: In analogy and difference, he relates the actions of Moses at Mount Sinai (Exod 24:3‒8) to the work of Jesus at the heavenly sanctuary. He considers the unique blood rite in Exod 24 as a purification or consecration rite (Heb 9).33 Thereby it is interpreted in the light of the blood rites at the sanctuary, through which the sanctuary is cleansed or consecrated from impurities.34 The people and the entire cult inventory were consecrated for the first διαθήκη according to Hebrews.35 The following differences between Hebrews and the quote from Exod 24 LXX are important:36 a) διέθετω is substituted by ἐνετείλατω. b) κύριος is replaced by θεός and set at the end (implying an accentuation). c) περὶ πάντων τῶν λόγων τούτων is omitted. This can be accounted for by the situation. d) ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα is altered to τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα. That is often explained as an influence of the tradition of the Lord’s Supper / Eucharist,37 but it may remain ambivalent in our context for now.38 Furthermore, the continuation of the citation in Heb 9:19b, 21 is of great importance, as the blood rite of Exod 24:8 is considerably broadened. The introduction of the blood of goats next to that of bulls demonstrates that the blood rite of Exod 24 is to be interpreted in terms of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16), for there too these animals are mentioned.39 A guiding characteristic remains that the heavenly sanctuary is more important than the earthly one. Heb 10 deals first with the imperfection of the earthly sacrificial practices. Sacrifices must be continuously repeated, but they cannot definitively eradicate sins. The imperfection of the earthly sacrificial practices is then justified biblically by quoting Ps 39(40):7‒9. Sacrifices ‒ although commanded by the law ‒ do not represent the true will of God. It is obedience that he wants. Jesus has complied with this. Through his unique sacrifice, he prevailed over the many sacrifices, which cannot eradicate sins, and sat down at the right hand of 32

It is irrelevant whether 9:15 features the theological sum of the whole letter (so Backhaus) or is only a transitional verse (so Weiss). According to FREY, “διαθήκη”, 282, 9:11‒12, 15 constitute the sum (yet ibid., 288 is different; there, following Backhaus, only 9:15 is mentioned). I prefer to determine the sum of the letter in connection with 8:1‒2. 33 Cf. KRAUS, Tod, 238‒245. On the meaning of Exod 24:3‒8 MT cf. KUTSCH, Testament, 27‒37. 34 Cf. EBERHART, Studien, 263‒273, 286. 35 In my opinion it is better not to speak of a “sühnetheologische(s) Anliegen” in this general sense, as does FREY, “διαθήκη”, 289. 36 On the reception of Exod 24/25 in Hebrews cf. KRAUS, “Rezeption”, 91‒112. 37 FREY, “διαθήκη”, 290. 38 Differently VOGEL, Heil, 97. 39 VOGEL, Heil, 99.

504

Wolfgang Kraus

God. Once again, we encounter the central leitmotif of Hebrews, namely that of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God.40 Another citation of Jer 38(31), this time only partial, follows. The deficiency of the old and the potency of the new διαθήκη are evident in the eradication of sins (Heb 10:1‒4). This fact is emphasized in the recurrence of the citation from Jeremiah in Heb 10:16‒17. Here, it is introduced as a testimony of the Holy Spirit to the present time. Moreover, the words τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν are added to the quotation in v. 17a, which once again express the ultimate eradication of sins as the main content of the better διαθήκη. The line of argument concludes with the phrase “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin” (v. 18).41 If we ask retrospectively about the function of the concept of διαθήκη, it can be said that the term διαθήκη or the associated concept is of very specific relevance. The introduction of a new, better διαθήκη serves (1.) to establish the high priesthood of Jesus in surpassing the Levitical priesthood, (2.) to provide content for the liberation from sins as a central characteristic that is achieved by Jesus’ death. (3.) In order to support Ps 109(110):4 in its reliance on Jesus, Jer 38(31) is presented as scriptural evidence. To confirm the soteriological quality of the high priesthood of Jesus, it is postulated that he is the one who puts into effect the prophetic promise announced by Jeremiah. The concept of διαθήκη serves a very specific function in Hebrews insofar as Jer 38(31) promises the laws in heart and mind as well as the no-moreremembrance of sins, thus establishing a new διαθήκη, beyond or after the older (surpassed) one, by which the Levitical priests were ordained.42 40

Cf. on the citation of Ps 39 LXX in Heb 10: KRAUS, “Ps 40(39 LXX),7‒9”, 110‒129. It is worth noting that Hebrews uses the term ἄφεσις here (see 9:22). Although it is often understood as forgiveness, it also means “liberation, release”. In the LXX, the term ἄφεσις in the sense of forgiveness is found only in Lev 16:26. In the NT, the term usually refers to Godʼs forgiveness; cf. BULTMANN, “ἀφίημι κτλ.”. 507; 508. According to Hebrews, Jesusʼ death leads to the cleansing of sins in the conscience, followed by the nonremembrance by God, which in the end means forgiveness. 42 In determining the function of the concept of διαθήκη in Hebrews, the thesis of FUHRMANN, Vergeben und Vergessen, is at once refuted. According to his thesis, the reference to the Day of Atonement is only an “auxiliary arrangement” to illuminate the motive of Christ’s high priesthood (251). The typology of the Day of Atonement merely played a “subordinate role” (226) and the “meaning of the redemptive suffering and death of Jesus” in Hebrews had to be expanded “with regard to the ambiguity of the concept of διαθήκη” (252, transl. W.K.). According to Fuhrmann, the ordination of Jesus as high priest also marks at the same time the establishment of the new διαθήκη (ibid., 131, 161, 175, 209, 225). Hereafter, the main sin-relieving experience would be the establishment of the new διαθήκη. In my opinion, the emphasis is different. It is not the establishment of a better διαθήκη that marks the redemptive experience according to Hebrews, but Jesus’ work as 41

Διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews

505

5. The Theology of the Concept of διαθήκη How is the term διαθήκη to be understood in Hebrews, and how can its meaning be adequately conveyed? In my explanations above, I have deliberately avoided translating διαθήκη. The understanding in Heb 9:16‒17 is undisputed by most exegetes: In this case, διαθήκη is referred to as “testament/last will”. However, the interpretation is fiercely discussed in all other references. In my opinion, the following key points are crucial for a decision: 1. In the common usage of Hellenistic times, διαθήκη signified “order”, “decree”, “settlement” or “endowment”.43 The term is often used in laws dealing with inheritance, in which case it means “last will” or “testament” (as in Heb 9:16, 17). 2. In the LXX, διαθήκη is most frequently encountered as the equivalent of ‫ברית‬. However, διαθήκη also refers to ‫( חוק‬Sir 11:20; 14:12, 17; 16:22; 42:2; 44:20b; 45:5, 7; 45:17; 47:11) and even to ‫( תורה‬Dan 9:13; cf. Sir 24:23, where διαθήκη is aligned with νόμος, and the striking expression ParII [2 Chr] 25:4: κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην τοῦ νόμου κυρίου, see also Sir 39:8; 42:2).44 3. Regarding the understanding of ‫ברית‬, Ernst Kutsch argued that a representation with “covenant” was improper, since it did not satisfactorily express God’s one-sided disposition or setting or self-obligation.45 The objection against it and the subsequent discussion have shown that the argument of Kutsch was one-sided.46 His derivation of ‫ ברית‬is etymologically inconclusive.47 The bias of commitment or self-commitment does not always apply. ‫ ברית‬may as well contain the idea of reciprocity. Even in a “covenant” not made by two equivalent partners, reciprocity may still be the guiding principle.48 4. Even if διαθήκη is the equivalent of ‫ ברית‬in most cases, this does not mean that we (a) have to assume a consistent use of terminology in the Septuagint high priest in accordance with the order of Melchizedek. The prerequisite for Jesus’ action was the establishment of the new διαθήκη announced by Jeremiah. Jesus’ death brought liberation (ἀπολύτρωσις) from the transgressions committed under the first διαθήκη, so that the believers can now inherit the promised eternal legacy (9:15). 43 Cf. LOHMEYER, Diatheke; BEHM/QUELL, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”, 105‒137; WEISS, Hebräer, 413. 44 On “Bundestheologie” in Sirach cf. the contribution of Bonifatia Gesche in this volume; in addition see MARBÖCK, “Geschichte Israels”, 103‒123; FABRY, “Männer”, 49‒ 60; IDEM, “Übersetzung”, 2182‒2183. For the use of language in the Pentateuch see RÖSEL, “Übersetzung”, 170; SCHENKER, “διαθήκη”, 125‒131; KÜBLER, “Testament (juristisch)”, 966‒1010. 45 KUTSCH, Neues Testament, passim; IDEM, “berit – Verpflichtung”, 339‒352; IDEM, “Bund”, 397‒410. 46 Cf. esp. LEVIN, Verheißung, 119ff., 269 fn. 8; HERRMANN, “Fehlübersetzung”, 210‒ 220; NEEF, “Aspekte”, 1‒23. 47 Cf. NEEF, “Aspekte”, 3. 48 Cf. WEINFELD, “‫”ברית‬, 781‒808.

506

Wolfgang Kraus

and that (b) the author of Hebrews has adopted “the” use of terminology of “the” Septuagint. Instead, the meaning of the term needs to be determined in consideration of the respective context of διαθήκη in Hebrews. 5. Thus we face the question of a German or English translation. If one adopts the position of Martin Karrer, a translation with “covenant” is justified with some limits: “Diathêkê is derived from tithenai (‘to establish, to place, to determine’, etc.), more precisely from the compositum diatithenai (‘to order’, ‘to issue a provision’ etc.). The term is deployed wherever regulations are issued, from the command of God in Paradise (Apoc. Mos 8:2 according to 7:1) via the Mosaic law (Dan 9:13 LXX; Sir 14:17) and individual legal regulations (…) to the testament (…). In this respect, the great decrees in which God turns to humans and his chosen people also establish salvation; they are not agreements between equal partners … These terminological details make the translation by ‘provision’, ‘order’ or ‘obligation’ more appropriate than the standard translation ‘covenant’ (which in German etymology is reminiscent of ‘alliance’). We only adhere to the latter because ‘covenant’ became a special theological term and as such adopted the primacy of God (however, whenever this becomes questionable, the word ‘covenant’ should be replaced).”49 If someone finds this consideration not entirely convincing, then alternatives must be sought. 6. Disposition, obligation, settlement, decree emphasize the one-sidedness of the provision that is ordered by God. The verbs used in Hebrews alongside διαθήκη are: συντελέομαι, διατίθημι, ποιέω, ἐντελέω, νομοθετέω. In the New Testament, the last verb νομοθετέω occurs only in Heb 7:11 and 8:6. In Heb 7:11 the people received legal instruction concerning the Levitical priesthood, i.e., the Levitical priesthood was established by law. In Heb 8:6, it is the better διαθήκη that has been legislated due to better hope. The better διαθήκη therefore has its binding principle in a better hope. διαθήκη here does not only denote a disposition or an obligation, but also designates an order for life, a (legally) binding principle. The present and future salvation of humanity is based on this fundamental order. In this respect, I agree with Hans-Friedrich Weiss who translates διαθήκη here with “order of salvation” (“Heilsordnung”),50 whereas the aspect of salvation does not involve the term διαθήκη itself, but results from the context.51

49

KARRER, Hebräer, 86‒87 (transl. and italics by W.K.); cf. loc.cit. 99. WEISS, Hebräer, passim. 51 I am thus modifying my earlier position, according to which I considered “Heilsordnung” to be worthy of consideration, but ultimately voted for a rendering with “Verfügung” or “Setzung”. See KRAUS, “Bedeutung”, 81. 50

Διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews

507

This meaning in Heb 8:6 can be successfully applied to all other occurrences of διαθήκη in Hebrews (except for the two already mentioned passages 9:16, 17).52

6. Conclusion When the concept of the better / new διαθήκη is used in juxtaposition to the former, neither the Old Testament nor Judaism nor the Old Covenant is meant as a cipher referring to the time before Christ.53 The author of Hebrews, therefore, does not operate with a theology of “supersessionism”, which he was accused of.54 The comparison is rather exclusively made with the Levitical cult order, which due to its feebleness is replaced by a new order (of salvation). And this line of argument could certainly be understood as a position of a teacher who – in his self-understanding – was a Jewish follower of Jesus.55 The establishment of a new, better διαθήκη on the ground of Jer 38(31) comprises three aspects: 1. It establishes the high priesthood of Jesus as surpassing the Levitical priesthood. 2. It highlights the main content of salvation: God forgives sins and iniquities. 3. It provides the scriptural evidence for applying Ps 109(110):4 to Jesus and the new ‘order of salvation’ inaugurated and guaranteed by him. The soteriological work of Jesus is then explained in greater detail by means of further Old Testament references (especially Exod 24; Lev 16; Num 19). The central theological idea in Heb (7:1) 8:1‒10:18, however, is not a particular “theology of the covenant”, but the thoroughly original Christology concept of the high priest according to Ps 109(110):4 in association with the exaltation testimony in Ps 109(110):1. The confession of the exaltation of Jesus belongs to the fundamental beliefs of the addressees of Hebrews. In 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2, the author of Hebrews refers to Jesus sitting at the right hand of God. At this point it is a leitmotif that extends throughout all of Hebrews, that according to Ps 109(110):1, Jesus is exalted to God. The continuation of Ps 109(110):4 (in combination with Gen 14:18–20) enables the author of Hebrews to comprehend 52 Heb 9:16, 17 in particular show that, everywhere else in Hebrews, διαθήκη is understood as a unilateral order by the author, either from a person or from God; otherwise the pun would not work. A testament is a unilateral ʻdecreeʼ and not a bilateral ʻcovenantʼ. 53 BACKHAUS, “Bundesmotiv”, 162. 54 See for example the reproach in EISENBAUM, “Hebrews”, 461‒462. Differently SVARTVIK, “Epistle”, 77‒91. 55 Cf. KRAUS, “Wer soll das verstehen?”, 279‒293; IDEM, “Argumentation”, 259‒277.

508

Wolfgang Kraus

Jesus as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, who brought the final salvation to which the congregation has already been joined in faith (cf. Heb 12:22‒24): προσεληλύθατε (“you have arrived”) – although this cannot be seen yet (Heb 2,8c).56

Bibliography ATTRIDGE, HAROLD W., The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermenia), Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. BACKHAUS, KNUT, Der Brief an die Hebräer: Übersetzt und erklärt (RNT) Regensburg: Pustet, 2010. ‒, “Das Bundesmotiv in der frühchristlichen Schwellenzeit: Hebräerbrief, Barnabasbrief, Dialogus cum Tryphone” in IDEM, Der sprechende Gott: Gesammelte Studien zum Hebräerbrief (WUNT 240), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, 153‒173. ‒, Der neue Bund und das Werden der Kirche: Die Diatheke-Deutung des Hebräerbriefes im Rahmen der frühchristlichen Theologiegeschichte (NTA.NF 29), Münster: Aschendorff, 1996. BEHM, JOHANNES / GOTTFRIED QUELL, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη”, ThWNT 2 (1935): 105‒137. BRAUN, HERBERT, An die Hebräer (HNT 14), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. BULTMANN, RUDOLF, “ἀφίημι κτλ.”, ThWNT 1 (1933): 506‒509. DENIS, ALBERT-MARIE, Concordance greque des Pseudépigraphes de l’Ancien Testament, Leiden: Brill / Leuven: Peeters, 1987. EBERHART, CHRISTIAN A., Studien zu Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament: Die Signifikanz von Blut- und Verbrennungsriten im kultischen Rahmen (WMANT 94), NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 2002. EISENBAUM, PAMELA, “The Letter to the Hebrews”, in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, edited by Amy-Jill Levine / Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 22017, 460‒488. FABRY, HEINZ-JOSEF, “Exkurs: Zur Übersetzung von διαθήκη in Jesus Sirach”, in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare II, edited by Martin Karrer / Wolfgang Kraus, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011, 2182‒2183. –, “‘Wir wollen nun loben Männer von gutem Ruf’ (Sir 44,1): Der Pinhas-Bund im ‘Lob der Väter’”, in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie in der Bibel (SBS 211), edited by Christoph Dohmen / Christian Frevel, FS F.-L. Hossfeld, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007, 49‒60. FREY, JÖRG, “Die alte und die neue διαθήκη nach dem Hebräerbrief”, in Bund und Tora (WUNT 92), edited by Friedrich Avemarie / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 263‒310. FUHRMANN, SEBASTIAN, Vergeben und Vergessen: Christologie und Neuer Bund im Hebräerbrief (WMANT 113), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2007. GÄBEL, GEORG, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie (WUNT II/212), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

56 I thank Ira Dibra and Elena Belenkaja, both from Saarbrücken, for substantial help with the translation of this paper into English.

Διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews

509

GRÄSSER, ERICH, An die Hebräer (Hebr 7,1–10,18) (EKK XVII/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1993. ‒, Der Alte Bund im Neuen: Exegetische Studien zur Israelfrage im Neuen Testament (WUNT 35), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. HAHN, SCOTT W., “A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15‒ 22”, CBQ 66 (2004): 416‒436 (reprinted in The Letter to the Hebrews: Critical Readings, edited by Scott D. Mackie, London: T&T Clark, 2018, 417‒437). ‒, “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-of-Death: Διαθήκη in Heb 9:15–22”, in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (BIS 75), edited by Gabriella Gelardini, Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2005, 65‒88. HERRMANN, SIEGFRIED, “‘Bund’ eine Fehlübersetzung von ‘berît’? Zur Auseinandersetzung mit Ernst Kutsch”, in IDEM, Gesammelte Schriften zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments (ThB 75), München: Chr. Kaiser, 1986, 210‒220. KARRER, MARTIN, Der Brief an die Hebräer II. Kapitel 5,11–13,25 (ÖTK 20/II), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2008. KRAUS, WOLFGANG, “Das Heil für Israel und die Völker nach dem Hebräerbrief”, in Der eine Gott und die Völker in eschatologischer Perspektive (BThSt 137), edited by Luke Neubert / Michael Tilly, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2013, 113‒147. ‒, “Die Rezeption von Jer 38,31–34 (LXX) in Hebräer 8–10 und dessen Funktion in der Argumentation des Hebräerbriefes”, in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint (VT.S 157), edited by Johann Cook / Hermann-Josef Stipp, Leiden: Brill, 2012, 447‒462. ‒, “Jesus als ‘Mittler’ im Hebräerbrief”, in Vermittelte Gegenwart (WUNT 367), edited by Andrea Taschl-Erber, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016, 101‒122. ‒, Jesu Tod als Heiligtumsweihe: Eine Untersuchung zum Umfeld der Sühnevorstellung in Römer 3,25–26a (WMANT 66), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. –, “Wer soll das verstehen? Überlegungen zu den Adressaten des Hebräerbriefs: Ein Gespräch mit Udo Schnelle”, in Spurensuche zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Eine Festschrift im Dialog mit Udo Schnelle (FRLANT 271), edited by Michael Labahn, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017, 279‒293. –, “Wogegen richtet sich die Argumentation im Hebräerbrief?”, in Gegenspieler. Zur Auseinandersetzung mit dem Gegner in frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Literatur (WUNT 428), edited by Ulrich Mell / Michael Tilly, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019, 259‒277. ‒, “Zur Aufnahme und Funktion von Gen 14,18–20 und Ps 109 LXX im Hebräerbrief”, in Text ‒ Textgeschichte ‒ Textwirkung, FS S. Kreuzer (AOAT 419), edited by Thomas Wagner et al., Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014, 459‒474. ‒, “Zur Bedeutung von διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief”, in The Reception of Septuagint Words (WUNT II/367), edited by Eberhard Bons et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014, 67‒83. ‒, “Zur Rezeption von Ex 24/25 im Hebräerbrief”, in Heiliger Raum: Exegese und Rezeption der Heiligtumstexte in Ex 24‒40 (Theologische Akzente 8), edited by Matthias Hopf et al., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016, 91‒112. ‒, “Zur Rezeption von Ps 40(39 LXX),7‒9 in Heb 10,5‒10”, in Die Septuaginta – Geschichte, Wirkung, Relevanz (WUNT 405), edited by Martin Meiser et. al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018, 110‒129. –, “Zur Schriftverwendung in Hebräer 13. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Hebr 13 zu Hebr 1–12”, in Die Schriftzitate im Hebräerbrief als Zeugen für die Überlieferung der Septuaginta (WUNT II/580), edited by Marcus Sigismund / Siegfried Kreuzer, 177–192.

510

Wolfgang Kraus

KUTSCH, ERNST, “berit – Verpflichtung”, THAT 1 (1971): 339‒352. ‒, “Bund”, TRE 7 (1981): 397‒410. –, Neues Testament – neuer Bund? Eine Fehlübersetzung wird korrigiert, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1978. KÜBLER, BERNHARD, “Testament (juristisch)”, PRE 5 A/1 (1934): 966‒1010. LEVIN, CHRISTOPH, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes (FRLANT 137), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. LOHMEYER, ERNST, Diatheke: Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung des neutestamentlichen Begriffs (UNT 2), Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1913. MARBÖCK, JOHANNES, “Die ‘Geschichte Israels’ als ‘Bundesgeschichte’ nach dem Sirachbuch”, in IDEM, Gottes Weisheit unter uns: Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach (HBS 6), Freiburg: Herder, 1995, 103‒123. MICHEL, OTTO, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK XIII), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6 1966. NEEF, HEINZ-DIETER, “Aspekte alttestamentlicher Bundestheologie”, in Bund und Tora (WUNT 92), edited by Friedrich Avemarie / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 1‒23. OEPKE, ALBRECHT, “μεσίτης, μεσιτεύω”, ThWNT 4 (1942): 602‒629. ROLOFF, JÜRGEN, Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKK XV), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1988. RÖSEL, MARTIN, “Exkurs: Zur Übersetzung von διαθήκη”, in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare I, edited by Martin Karrer / Wolfgang Kraus, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011, 170. SÄNGER, DIETER, “μεσίτης”, EWNT 2 (1981): 110. SCHENKER, ADRIAN, Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten: Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel, von der Textgeschichte zur Theologie, Synagoge und Kirche (FRLANT 212), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. ‒, “διαθήκη pour ‫ברית‬: l’option de traduction de la LXX à la double lumière du droit sucessoral de l’Égypte ptolemaique et du livre de la Genèse”, in Lectures et Relectures de la Bible, FS P.-M. Bogaert (BEThL 144), edited by Jean M. Auvers / André Wenin, Leuven: Peeters, 1999, 125‒131. SVARTVIK, JESPER, “Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews Without Presupposing Supersessionism”, in Christ Jesus and the Jewish People Today: New Explorations of Theological Interrelationships, edited by Philip Cunningham et al., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011, 77‒91. VOGEL, MANUEL, Das Heil des Bundes: Bundestheologie im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (TANZ 18), Tübingen/Basel: Francke, 1996. WEINFELD, MOSCHE, “‫”ברית‬, ThWAT 1 (1973): 781‒808. WEISS, HANS-FRIEDRICH, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19 The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

MARTIN KARRER Martin Karrer Καὶ ἠνοίγη ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ὤφθη ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐγένοντο ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ βρονταὶ καὶ σεισμὸς καὶ χάλαζα μεγάλη.

And God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant1 was seen in his temple, and there were flashes of lightning and voices and peals of thunder and an earthquake and heavy hail.

So reads Rev 11:19 (text according to Nestle-Aland28).2 It is the only occurrence of the term “covenant” in Revelation, but it is not by chance that the verse is placed exactly in the middle of the book. The scene is of great relevance for the book of Revelation and for biblical theology. Our verse is prepared in the preceding chapters of Rev; we hear of God’s temple (ναός) in 3:12; 7:15 and 11:1–2 (between heaven and earth). The image is modified in the second half of Rev: The form of the temple becomes comparable to a tent (cf. 13:6).3 Rev 15:5 combines the image of the temple and the tent (ὁ ναὸς τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ). 21:3 goes on to a new time and concentrates on the tent; God will “camp” with humanity when the new heaven and new earth come down (σκηνώσει μετ᾽ αὐτῶν [= τῶν ἀνθρώπων]). The result is an impressive trajectory: The heavenly temple is first seen as a firm and stable building (ναός). Then it becomes a mobile tent (σκηνή). The ark of the covenant is brought into a solid and yet mobile dwelling. It symbolizes God’s escort for Israel and humanity in the present and the coming world.

In the New Testament, the ark of the covenant is mentioned only here and in Heb 9:4. The narrative of Rev 11 exceeds the description of Hebrews, elevating God’s “ark of the covenant” (or in another translation “the ark of God’s

1 Or “his ark of the covenant”: The pronoun αὐτοῦ can be equally related to either ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης or τῆς διαθήκης. The ambiguous Greek syntax appears to be intentional; but it is not easy to preserve this ambiguity when rendering the phrase in a modern language (cf. STOWASSER, “Bundestheologie”, 74). I choose the translation “the ark of his covenant” since the “ark” has normally the meaning “God’s ark” in modern languages and ask the reader for understanding the English idiom as emphasizing both, “God’s ark” and “God’s covenant”. 2 For the state of research, see the commentaries and STOWASSER, “Bundestheologie” (more literature there). 3 The word σκηνή is not found in Revelation before this mention in 13:6.

512

Martin Karrer

covenant”)4 and situating it in heaven. Thus, the scenery of Revelation climaxes in the motif of the ark which has deep roots in Israel.5 Rev 11:19 strikes a nerve of Christian-Jewish theology. The following paragraphs will explore the significance of the argument in Rev. I begin with some comments regarding textual criticism (§ 1). Then, I will reflect on the meaning of the verse within the larger narrative structure of Revelation (§ 2). I will go on to a comparison with the book of Hebrews (§ 3). Afterwards, I will look at the peculiarity of the statement in Rev 11:19 and explore its meaning (§ 4). Finally, I will track the trajectory from Rev 11:19 to 15:5 and 21:3 (§ 5) and provide a summary (§ 6). The book of Revelation has exerted a strong influence on theology and arts; even modern readers are (often unconsciously) affected by its reception history. I will, therefore, include important aspects of the reception history. An ecclesiastical interpretive tradition obscured the original meaning of the text in medieval times, as will be shown (§ 1 and 2). That perspective was being corrected, however, by an alternative theology coordinating Jewish and Christian reverence for the ark of the covenant. Such an alternative line of interpretation can be detected in the iconography of the apse-mosaic in Germignydes-Prés; I will discuss the mosaic in a separate contribution to the present volume.6

1. Text-Critical Observations The text of the critical edition (Nestle-Aland28) of Rev 11:19 cited above is well established. Nevertheless, some old variants warrant specific mention because they point out the relations of our image. They show God’s ark in heaven (1) and correlated to the ark of Solomon’s temple (2). (1) Two variants enhance the heavenly height of the ark. – God’s presence in heaven is “above”, just as the books of the Law underscore in some passages; ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω is read by Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )א‬in Revelation as in Dtn 4:39LXX (Old Greek) (cf. in the Historical Books 3 Kgdms [1 Kgs] 8:23LXX and in Ps 113:11LXX). – The ark of the covenant is called “ark of the covenant of the Lord” as in the full expression of the Law (ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου, Num 10:33; 14:44; cf. in the Historical Books Josh 3:11; 4:11; 6:8) or “ark of the covenant of God” as in the Law and Historical 4

See the double translation in fn. 1. See the previous chapters of the present volume; cf. also PORZIG, Lade; KREUZER, “Lade”. 6 See KARRER, “The Mosaic of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny-des-Prés”, in the present vol. p. 647–660. In the present study, I cannot give more than a first impression of the reception of our verse in the arts. More information in SCHILLER, Ikonographie vol. 5a, 128–129, 253, etc. and vol. 5b, 94–96 (plus images). 5

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

513

Books of the Septuagint (ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης τοῦ θεοῦ, Deut 31:26; Josh 6:11; 1 Chr 16:6). p47 selects the former idiom in Rev 11:19 (τοῦ κυρίου7), Codex Sinaiticus the latter one (τοῦ θεοῦ instead of αὐτοῦ).8

(2) A third variant connects the scenery of our verse to the memory of 3 Kgdms (1 Kgs) 6LXX: Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (C9) reads ἐδόθη instead of ὤφθη. The ark is set up (ἐδόθη), comparable to the setting of 3 Kgdms 6:19LXX, where the inner room of the temple is designed to set up the ark of the covenant (δοῦναι ἐκεῖ τὴν κιβωτὸν διαθήκης κυρίου). This third variant is enabled by the word ναός (temple-building) which was used in Israel for Salomo’s temple (3 Kgdms [1 Kgs] 6:3,5LXX). The verb ἐδόθη is probably introduced through an error of hearing; ὤφθη and ἐδόθη sound similar. This error is not found in any other manuscript. It is a singular reading and not the oldest text. Nevertheless, it makes sense in the narrative after being introduced: The heavenly temple is opened; the ark can be brought inside, and the “giving” (placing) of the ark is itself a cultic act. One might correlate that plot to the legends of the ark being lost on earth but hidden and present in heaven (cf. § 3.4).

Codex Alexandrinus is an excellent witness for the “Obertext” (καὶ ἠνοίγη ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ὤφθη ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ). But the variants are old (p47, ‫א‬, C) and relevant in two respects: Firstly, they follow the impulses of the Septuagint. – ἄνω simplifies the Hebrew ‫ ממעל‬according to the Septuagint (the prefix -‫ מ‬is ignored), – “God” and “Lord” replace the tetragrammaton as in the Septuagint, – διδόναι gets the special meaning “to place / set up” that was introduced in 3 Kgdms 6:19LXX as equivalence to ‫( נתן‬1 Kgs 6:19).

Thus, the textual transmission of Rev takes place in Greek-speaking contexts. Influences of Israel’s Hebrew scriptures (the texts translated by the LXX) are relevant neither for the “Obertext” nor for the variants.10 Secondly, none of the variants introduces a Christological interpretation. The Greek transmission retains the old Jewish motifs – the ark and the temple – in Christianity despite the new interpretive developments of the Old Church. Those developments are visible in the Latin reception (Greek commentaries are not attested before the Byzantine era): The Old Latin translates ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ correctly with “templum dei”. But the oldest Latin commentator, Victorinus (about 300), allegorizes the motif of the “templum Dei”. According 7

Cf. 046 und 2344 (without article) and the Byzantine “Mehrheitstext” (with article). Because of the reception of the Septuagint, “kyrios” here means God, not Christ. 8 The reading τοῦ θεοῦ is younger than τοῦ κυρίου; cf. SCHMID, Studien II, 115; AUNE, Revelation II, 651. 9 The third main witness to Rev next to Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus. 10 This is not surprising. The author of Rev uses a semitizising Septuagintal Greek and addresses his work to the deeply Hellenized Asia (1:4 etc.). He initiates mental associations to the Septuagint.

514

Martin Karrer

to him, our verse signifies the apparition of “our Lord”, the “Son” of God.11 Consequently, some later Latin manuscripts will alter “Templum Dei” into “Templum Domini”, scil. Christi.12 Christian interpretations start early in reworking the sense of the text, as is seen here. We must be wary of those alterations13 and infer the original meaning over and against interpretations shaped by later thought.

2. The Position of 11:19 in the Book of Revelation Our verse marks, as noted above, the middle of the book. Rev 11:19 concludes the announcement of the seventh trumpeting angel (11:15–19) and the first half of the work (ch. 1 resp. 4 or 6 to 11), if we follow the chapter numbering of the current critical edition (Nestle-Aland28), as many interpretations do up to the present day.14 However, the chapter division and numbering used today first emerged in the Middle Ages and in Latin. It was taken over from the Vulgate into the Greek text by Erasmus in 1516.15 The Vulgate stylized 11:19 to the high point of the entire narrative since ch. 4; the heavenly events of the seals and trumpets came to an end with the appearance of the ark of the covenant. On the other hand, and even more important, it marked ch. 12 as a new vision. The apparition of the heavenly woman, who was increasingly interpreted as Mary, became an epicenter (and for many interpreters the center itself) of Rev. A new chapter started in 12:1.16

11 VICTORIN DE POETOVIO, ed. DULAEY, 98 ad versum: “Apertum esse templum Dei quod est in caelo: apparitio Domini nostri est. Templum Dei Filius ipsius est […].” 12 Cf. GRYSON, Apocalypsis, 451 (Vetus Latina J). 13 The oldest Greek commentator, OECUMENIUS, proposes an eschatological reading (again a “Fortschreibung”): the hidden goods of the future become visible by opening the ark / the temple (Oecumenii Commentarius, ed. DE GROOTE, 169 ad locum). Translations of Oecumenius: WEINRICH, “Oecumenius” and SUGGIT, Commentary. 14 Cf. e.g., STOWASSER, “Bundestheologie”, 77, 78. 15 ERASMUS, Novum Instrumentum. 16 For the history of interpretation of Rev 12, cf., e.g., MONIGHAN-SCHÄFER, Offenbarung 12. Rupert of Deutz was of special importance; cf. KARRER, Rupert von Deutz and other contributions in the volume: HUBER et al., Tot sacramenta.

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

515

Fig. 1a: Codex Alexandrinus NT (British Library) Royal MS 1 D VIII; end of fol. 128v (= 133v):17 Rev 11:19a (ΚΑΙ ΗΝΟΙΓΗ Ο ΝΑΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΘΥ̅ Ο ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΥ̅Ν[Ω] / ΚΑΙ ΩΦΘΗ Η ΚΙΒΩΤΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ̣Σ̣ / ΑΥΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΝΑΩ ΑΥΤΟΥ·)

Fig. 1b: Codex Alexandrinus NT (British Library) Royal MS 1 D VIII; beginning of fol. 129r (= 134r):18 Rev 11:19b–12:2 ([ΚΑΙ ΕΓ]Ε̣ΝΟΝΤΟ ΑΣΤΡΑΠΑΙ· ΚΑΙ ΦΩΝΑΙ /[ΚΑΙ ΒΡ]ΟΝΤΑΙ· ΚΑΙ ΣΙΣΜΟΣ· ΚΑΙ ΧΑΛΑΖΑ / [ΜΕΓΑ]ΛΗ· ΚΑΙ ΣΗΜΕΙΟΝ ΜΕΓΑ ΩΦΘΗ / [ΕΝ Τ]Ω ΟΥ̅ΝΩ· ΓΥΝΗ ΠΕΡΙΒΛΕΠΟΜΕ/[ΝΗ] Τ̣ΟΝ ΗΛΙΟΝ· ΚΑΙ Η ΣΕΛΗΝΗ ΥΠΟΚΑ/[ΤΩ] ΤΩΝ ΠΟΔΩΝ ΑΥΤΗΣ· ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΤΗΣ / [ΚΕ]ΦΑΛΗΣ ΑΥΤΗΣ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ ΑΣΤΕ/[Ρ]Ω̣Ν ΔΩΔΕΚΑ·ΚΑΙ ΕΝ ΓΑΣΤΡΙ ΕΧΟΥΣΑ / [Κ]ΡΑΖΕΙ· ΚΑΙ ΩΔΙΝΟΥΣΑ ΚΑΙ ΒΑΣΑΝΙ/[Ζ]ΟΜΕΝΗ ΤΕΚΕΙΝ·)

The oldest segmentations in the Greek manuscripts steered in a different direction.19 Figure 1a and b show the paragraphs of Alexandrinus (marked by line breaks). Verse 11:19a forms an independent unit in this codex (underlined by ekthesis). Verse 11:19b recalls 4:5 (inclusion ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ βρονταί; cf. also 8:5) and introduces the vision of the woman in heaven (11:19b–12:2). Thus, 11:19 and 12:1 are not separated. The throne of God 17 Photo: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=royal_ms_1_d_viii_fs001r, accessed 20/03/2020. 18 Photo: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=royal_ms_1_d_viii_fs001r, accessed 20/03/2020. 19 See OESCH, “Textgliederungen”, esp. 94–95. Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )א‬is not conclusive since it lacks segmenting markers in our passage.

516

Martin Karrer

Fig. 2: The vision of Rev 11:19 and Rev 12 (seen as a unit) in the Bamberger Apocalypse, fol. 29v.20

(ch. 4) stays in the background of ch. 12, and the perception of the ark of the covenant in the open heavenly temple (11:19a) demands immediate attention. The Codex Ephraemi rescriptus sees 11:16–12:2 as a long unit (marked by line breaks before 11:6 and after 12:2).21 The twenty-four elders in heaven direct the perspective to the ark of the covenant, and the sign of the heavenly woman follows. Both of the great codices forbid a separation of the heavenly woman from the throne- and temple-ark scenery of chapters 4 and 11. The connection between the dispositions of Rev in Greek and Old Latin is not yet explored. But Latin structurations foregoing the Medieval Vulgate are

20 Deutsch: Auftraggeber: Otto III. oder Heinrich II. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Bamberger_Apokalypse-_Book_with_Seven_Seals_-_The_Woman_and_the_Dra gon.JPG), “Bamberger Apokalypse-Book with Seven Seals – The Woman and the Dragon”, als gemeinfrei gekennzeichnet, Details auf Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikime dia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old, last accessed on 20/03/2020. 21 See the photograph and transcription of C in the NTVMR (https://ntvmr.uni-muenster. de/manuscript-workspace, accessed on 20/03/2020).

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

517

known too (since de Bruyne 1914).22 Roger Gryson encounters two old divisions in the Latin manuscripts (Gryson A and B). Both types agree that 11:19 (and not 12:1) begins a new chapter. In type A, 11:19 begins Capitulum 27, in type B – with which the current division is closer – Capitulum 12. In both cases, the chapter goes until 12:6, thus also including the vision of the dragon. Type A titles Cap. 27 “De bello mulieris et draconis”. Type B, by contrast, highlights 11:19 in particular; there the Latin text from 11:19 serves as the title: “Et apertum est templum dei in caelo, et visa est arca testamenti eius in templo eius”.23

The representation of Rev 12 in important works of Western art before 1200 (old Byzantine representations are missing) was in accordance with the old division.24 I select the Bamberger Apocalypse (about 1000; Fig. 2) as an example. It depicts the temple of God with the ark of the covenant in heaven (11:19 above) behind the woman and the dragon (Rev 12:1–6). The book illustrator painted the temple like a Romanesque church with a large opening in the West (cf. “apertum est”, 11:19) since he was unfamiliar with the Jewish temple. In the foreground stands the woman of 12:1; the dragon (below) tries to attack her. One may compare Tyconius, the most widely read of the old Latin commentators: He interpreted the heavenly temple and the woman as the assembly of God (the church / “ecclesia” in the inclusive sense) in which Christ is born (whereas Herod acts as a dragon) and other children are born daily (both is put in a nutshell via the child of 12:2, 4–5).25 So, the miniature in the Bamberger Apocalypse does not point especially to Mary. The art history prefers the neutral designation “The Apocalyptic Woman” appropriately.

The Greek commentators quarreled about the textual division for a short time between the 6th and 7th centuries. Oecumenius, the oldest author, whose commentary remained preserved, subsumed 10:1–12:2 under his chapter 6 (cf. the motif of the temple in 11:1).

22

DE BRUYNE, Sommaires, 553–555. GRYSON, Apocalypsis, 63 (Type A) and 68 (Type B). 24 Cf. SCHILLER, Ikonographie vol. 5b, 94–96. The BEATUS-manuscripts are of special interest besides the Bamberger Apokalypse; for Beatus is using a longer Latin text of 11:19: “apertum est templum dei […] et visa est arca testamenti […] et vidi […] ascendentem bestiam de abysso” / “God’s temple was opened […], and the ark of his covenant was seen […], and I saw the beast coming up from the abyss” (GRYSON, Apocalypsis [Vetus Latina] 450 and 451 ad loc.). The addition presupposes Rev 11:7 (where Beatus has an unusual text, too) and prepares Rev 17:8. Therefore, the miniature to 11:19 in the Beatus manuscripts shows the ark in the upper part and the ascending beast below (e.g. BEATUS of Urgell fol. 138v.; https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatus_(Buchmalerei)#/media/Datei:B_Urgell_138v. jpg, accessed on 26/05/2020). The scene ignores ch. 12 (since there is spoken of the “draco”/ “dragon”) and prepares ch. 13 and 17 (“bestia” 13:1; 17:3, 8). 25 TYCONII Expositio, ed. GRYSON, ad locum. 23

518

Martin Karrer

He proposed that 11:19 still belongs to the seven trumpets (11:15–19)26 and was one of the first interpreters identifying the heavenly woman as Mary.27 Andrew of Caesarea, however, objected. In his commentary (one of the best Byzantine commentaries existing), he rejected the identification of the woman from Rev 12 with the Theotokos.28

Andrew of Caesarea grouped 11:19 with 12:1–6 in his Kephalaion 33.29 His division corresponded to the tendency in the great manuscripts, esp. C (see above).30 It gained acceptance in the Byzantine world. Interestingly, the dominant Byzantine division (Andrew) and the strands A/B of the Vetus Latina correspond in that way; we must not underestimate the cultural contacts between West and East from antiquity well into the Middle Ages.31 Moreover, Andrew’s division is presented in the inner margin of NestleAland28 for good reason. It has a strong argument in its favor: There are only three references to the word ὤφθη (“it was seen”) in Revelation, and all these three passages are found in the nexus of 11:19; 12:1 and 12:3.32 Consequently, the commentaries on Revelation in recent years prefer the break between the scenes before 11:19 (David Aune33 and Craig Koester34) or at least call attention to this division (Klaus Berger35). It would make sense to underscore the relevance of Andrew’s Kephalaia in the critical editions of the New Testament. That could be done, for example, by adding the Old Latin divisions (Vetus Latina);36 the most modern readers do not know that Erasmus’ first print edition of Rev followed the late medieval Vulgate.

Certainly, a connection between 11:19 and the previous chapters of Revelation exists, too. The motifs of the theophany in 11:19b (lightning, rumblings,

26

OECUMENIUS VI 16–17; ed. DE GROOTE, 167–170. OECUMENIUS VI 18–19 and VII 1; ed. DE GROOTE, 170–174. 28 ANDREW CAES. ad Rev 12:1, ed. SCHMID, 121. 29 The chapter is intitled in the headline Περὶ τῶν διωγμῶν τῆς έκκλησίας τῶν προτέρων καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου (ed. SCHMID, 3). 30 The third – and somewhat older – codex ‫ א‬is not conclusive (segmenting markers are missing in our passage); cf. OESCH, “Textgliederungen”, esp. 94–95. 31 These contacts have not been sufficiently researched in connection with textual criticism. The investigation into the titles and textual divisions in New Testament manuscripts is, however, currently experiencing a significant revival through research into paratexts (Dublin – Munich – Wuppertal). 32 DOCHHORN, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 86–87. 33 AUNE, Revelation II, 647 etc. 34 KOESTER, Revelation, 540, 555 etc. 35 BERGER, Apokalypse II, 845; despite his observations on the respective page, Berger does not do away with the conventional division for ch. 12 (which he treats starting at ibid., 852). 36 The Capitula of the Vetus Latina are not provided in Nestle-Aland28. 27

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

519

Fig. 3a (above): Rev 11:15–18 (above) and 11:19 (below) in the Cologne “Blockbuch” of Revelation (late 15th cent.);37 fig. 3b (below): Rev 12:1–6 in the Cologne “Blockbuch”.38

thunder, earthquakes, hail) have been anticipated by 4:5 and 8:5, 7,39 as noted above; and “salpinges” (ancient signaling instruments, “trumpets”; cf. 8:2,6; 11:15) call attention to Israel’s memory of the ark of the covenant (cf. 1 Chr 16:6). A smooth transition (11:15–18) attaches 11:19 with the first half of Revelation. Nevertheless, correcting the current division is inevitable. Our verse opens the second half of the work and belongs to it. 37 Blockbuch [20]-9, right section; http://www.ub.uni-koeln.de/cdm4/document.php? CISOROOT=/inkunabeln&CISOPTR=10648, accessed 20/03/2020. 38 Blockbuch [22]-10, upper part of the left section; http://www.ub.uni-koeln.de/cdm4/ document.php?CISOROOT=/inkunabeln&CISOPTR=10648, accessed 20/03/2020. 39 That line of the text is stressed by STOWASSER, “Bundestheologie”, 78–79. The motifs continue in 16:18, 21; insofar, they do not divide parts of Rev but function as connector in the narrative.

520

Martin Karrer

The decision is important for the interpretation. A comparison of the illustrations in the late medieval “Blockbuch” of Revelation and in a Bible influenced by the ideas of humanism and Reformation elucidates the point: The “Blockbuch” combines the scenes of Rev 11:15–18 and 11:19 on the same page (shown here is the exemplar of Cologne in fig. 3a/b). The seventh angel blows the trumpet. He designates – as the speech bubble comments at the top on the left – the saints (“sancti”) who are exalted in the end of the world (“in fine mundi”). Angels and heavenly kings (the elders of 11:16) underline the call. They pray to the Lord (upper scene), and the temple of God appears (lower scene). That temple (the “templum Dei” of 11:19 Vulgate) is depicted as a church with crosses. The sign of the cross on the temple ties up the older iconography (cf. the Bamberger Apocalypse). In addition, the “archa testamenti” now resembles the reliquary of an altar40 with censers. Thus, the first half of Revelation closes with a strictly ecclesiastical image.41 The second half correspondingly starts in chapter 12 with an image of Mary bearing Christ (fig. 3b). In that way, the Christological and ecclesiastical interpretation, which we observed from Victorinus onwards, culminates. The Israelite provenance of the temple and the ark are forgotten and edged out.42

40

Cf. liturgical reflections from DURANDUS, Rationale divinorum officiorum 1, 7 (transl. and ed. DOUTEIL/SUNTRUP) onwards. 41 More complex is the matter in the Liber Floridus. There, the temple in heaven is introduced in the illustration to 11:1–6 as “templum domini”; the door is open and the altar visible (labeled as “altare”). The illustration to 11:19–12:6 follows. It repeats the image of the temple (shown again as a church), now with the “archa testamenti” and combined with the scene of the apocalyptic woman (according to the older iconographical type). The hand of God holds the “son of the woman” (“filius mulieris”) and guides him to God’s throne passing the heavenly temple. The “son” does not have a nimbus; he is not identified as Christ. Thus, the old iconography is not totally transformed. The illustrator of the Paris exemplar reacts and sketches the ark as an own entity (a roofed building; see WOODWARD, Liber Floridus, 72; file: https://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu:168935/datastream/PDF/ view, accessed 01/05/2022). The Wolfenbuettel exemplar, however, is more “modern”; it depicts the ark as an altar (Wolfenbuettel 00033; http://diglib.hab.de/mss/1-gud-lat/start. htm, accessed 03/23/2020). 42 That kind of interpretation has old predecessors. Oecumenius established the ecclesiastical focus and eschatological interpretation in the Greek commentaries of Rev (cf. above with fn. 13 and 26–27). But Oecumenius was still aware that the foregoing chapters spoke of Israel and the Church even if there are “more saints from the non-Jewish peoples than from Israel” (πλείους οἱ ἐξ ἐθνῶν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ; OECUMENIUS VI 17, ed. DE GROOTE, 168).

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

521

Fig. 4: Hans Holbein the Younger, Illustration of Rev 11:19 and ch. 12 in the Froschauer Bible (Zwinglibibel) of 1531.43

Hans Holbein the Younger in the Zürich Bible, on the other hand, prefers the older iconographic tradition (which was never forgotten).44 He combines 11:19 and 12:1–6 like in the segmentations of the Vetus Latina (fig. 4).45 Hence he draws the ark of the covenant into the heavens above, over the apocalyptic woman and the dragon. And he learns from the humanists. He avoids portraying God’s temple anachronistically as a church. Instead, he symbolizes the open heaven with dissipating clouds. Influenced by humanism and reformation, he reads in the Bible that the child is caught up to God (Rev 12:5). He returns to the apocalyptic woman – against the scene of Mary, bearing the child in the Blockbuch.

43

Fig. 4 see www.johannesoffenbarung.ch/bilderzyklen/zwingli/12_zwingli.jpg, accessed 05/23/2020. 44 The Vulgate text of Rev was not a new translation but only one (young) strand of the Vetus Latin version (Vetus Latina). Therefore, the segmentation of the Vulgate could not outcompete the alternatives. 45 Albrecht Dürer, on the other side, followed the Vulgate and did not introduce the ark of the covenant in his famous woodcut on Rev 12 (“Apocalypsis cum figuris”; digital photos on the internet).

522

Martin Karrer

Surely Holbein did not know any better than the “Blockbuch” how the temple of Israel looked like; but he chose a non-ecclesiastical representation. He corrected the restriction of the medieval iconography (as we observed in the “Blockbuch” and the Bamberg Apocalypse; cf. fig. 2 and 3a/b).46 Thus, by studying the structure of Revelation, we arrive at the central question for the interpretation of Rev 11:19: The ark of the covenant refers to Israel’s scriptures (even in the variants evolving from references to the Septuagint) and is a major symbol for Israel. That was forgotten in important periods of the reception history. Does the text of Revelation itself maintain the perspective of Israel’s scriptures and the relevance of Israel better than the later reception will do it?

3. The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation and Hebrews The question is complex. We must remember that the author of Revelation does not use the term “Christians”. Instead, he brings the children of Israel to mind (esp. 7:4–8) and widens the horizon to the nations, i.e., peoples of non-Israelite provenance (7:9 etc.). His intended readers live in cities of western Asia Minor (“the Asia”) which are deeply Hellenized (1:4, 11; chapters 2–3). The communities (ἐκκλησία, 2:1 etc.) there are composed of a majority of non-Israelites and a few Jewish Christians (if it is allowed to use this term); our author belongs to the latter ones, as his name “John” (= Joḥanan) shows. For the text of Rev, we must therefore ask: What is the effect of the appearance of the ark of the covenant for the relationship between Israel, the church, and the nations? The perspective changes that way. The Byzantine and medieval reception of Revelation took place in a dominantly Christian context, whereas the author of Revelation shaped his theology in light of the differentiation between Jewish and non-Jewish peoples. This old differentiation was relevant for the use of “covenant” terminology: The Hebrew scriptures of Israel had employed the word ‫“( ברית‬covenant”/“commitment”) exclusively in the singular; the covenant manifested the special relationship between Israel and his God.47 Some members of the population in Jerusalem had tried to introduce new ideas in Maccabean times by proposing a covenant with non-Jewish peoples (διαθώμεθα διαθήκην μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν τῶν κύκλῳ ἡμῶν, 1 Macc 1:11). This was denied by the Judean majority and failed, as is told in the books of Maccabees. As a consequence, the followers of Jesus had to test new 46

For the history of the woodcuts to the book of Revelation in the 15th and early 16th century cf. STÖCKLEIN, Offenbarung; but she does not discuss the woodcuts to Rev 11:19, which are of special interest here. 47 It often meant the “self-commitment” of God. For a detailed discussion see the contributions of Manfred Oeming and others in the present volume.

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

523

possibilities for the concept of covenant. Paul emphasized the covenant(s) for Israel (Rom 9:4; 11:27) and developed the idea of a καινὴ διαθήκη (“new covenant” / “commitment”) in the context of the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:25) as well as the antithesis of new/old covenant (2 Cor 3:3–18).48 Pauline impulses were known to the audience of Revelation since Paul had stayed in Ephesus for a long time. The author of Revelation, however, ignores all of the Pauline formulations. The material is too small for allowing the decision if he denies the Pauline theology or simply goes a different way. We must read Revelation separately, in any case. A second and highly elaborated concept was developed in Hebrews at about the time of Revelation (if we accept the most common dating of both books in the early nineties). Hebrews was not addressed to Asia,49 and our author did not know that homily. Nevertheless, Hebrews is the only other text in early Christianity mentioning the ark of the covenant (Heb 9:4).50 Hence, a comparison highlights the contours of Rev:51 3.1 A History of the Covenant? Hebrews develops a history of the covenant. The first covenant (God’s selfcommitment to Israel) has become old (Heb 8:13); it remains relevant (that is disputed in the modern research), and yet, a second, new covenant is initiated (8:7–12; 12:24). The distinction between old and new allows the introduction of Christ as a mediator of the new covenant (μεσίτης, 8:6 etc.). The reference to the ark of the covenant in 9:4 is based on God’s words to Moses (9:4; cf. Exod 25:7–21 LXX). It recalls the first covenant and, nevertheless, becomes relevant for the nations only in a new, Christological dimension.52 By contrast, Rev ignores any gap in the history of the covenant. There is no terminological distinction between a first and second or an old and new covenant in it. The author merely utilizes the images of the temple and the ark of the covenant. 3.2 Ark, Tent and Curtain in Hebrews The viewpoint and the name for the place of the ark differ. Heb 9:1–4 starts on earth and uses the terminology of Israel’s law. The sanctuary is depicted as a 48 The Pauline theology is subject of other contributions in the present volume. In addition, I list two contributions of the present author: KARRER, “Kelch”; IDEM, “Paulus”. 49 Hebr 13:24 mentions “Italy”; hence, it was written in the neighborhood of Rome or addressed to that region. 50 The only mention of κιβωτός in the so-called Apostolic Fathers refers to Noah’s ark (1 Clem 9:4). 51 For a detailed discussion of Hebrews see the contribution to the present volume by Wolfgang Kraus. 52 Cf. KARRER, Hebräer, vol. 2, esp. 126–128 and 144–145.

524

Martin Karrer

(double) tent, a σκηνή (Heb 9:2; cf. σκηνή in LXX Exod 25:8[9]; 26:1 etc.) according to the law (the Greek Nomos). The ark of the covenant is situated in the Holy of the Holies (Ἅγια Ἁγίων, Heb 9:3) and screened from view by a curtain (τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα, Heb 9:3). The heavenly belongings will be addressed in a second step (9:11–28). Instead, the author of Revelation immediately refers to heaven. He knows Israel’s image of the holy tent (see Rev 15:5 and 21:3). But he avoids that image in ch. 1–11 and calls the building of God’s sanctuary ναός in 11:19. Thus, he characterizes the heavenly temple as a firm and stable edifice.53 An imposing temple signalizes the stability of God’s heavenly presence. Both of these positions are important. God’s sanctuary may be envisaged as mobile (symbolized by the tent) and as stable (symbolized by the temple).54 The Greek Nomos of Israel (the translation of the Torah) and Hebrews prefer the former image (according to the Hebrew tradition; the word ναός is absent in the entire Pentateuch). Revelation, alternatively, starts with the image of the temple. According to our author, the heaven must be stable – then a movement from heaven to earth can originate; we will see this dynamic in § 5. This is accompanied by a second aspect. Hebrews favors the image of the curtain, which symbolizes holiness and a holy passage (cf. Heb 6:19; 10:20). Revelation omits this motif (the word καταπέτασμα is missing in the book). The readers of 11:19 do not see a tent and a curtain separating the Holy of the Holies. They look into an open temple (and can imagine, e.g., open doors). 3.3 Ark and Christology Hebrewsʼ concept brings Christological reflections into sharp relief. The text depicts heaven via the second tent and explicates the unique relevance of Christ: he is high priest and sacrifice (Heb 9:6–28). By contrast, Rev 11:19 abstains from Christological explications; Christ is not mentioned. Admittedly, he is referenced as “the anointed” (ὁ χριστός) shortly before. The voices in 11:15 hail “the kingdom (βασιλεία) of our Lord and his anointed (Christ)”. But the high Christology of Rev 11 is royal rather than cultic. Moreover, 11:15–18 and 11:19 are to be separated (cf. § 2). This means that the ark of the covenant in 11:19 is a strictly theonomic symbol, and the Christ of Revelation does not serve as a high priest in the heavenly cult (in contrast to Heb). The last vision of Rev changes these parameters. According to Rev 21, there will be no temple in the new Jerusalem that is coming to earth. God and Christ will be the temple (ναός) themselves (21:22). Thus, a Christological accent is introduced in the end of Revelation. The bookʼs dynamic becomes visible: The 53 Ναός marks a solid building in common Greek as well as in Greek Judaism. E.g., the temple of Solomon was called so in 3 Kgdms 6:16–19LXX (τὸ ἅγιον τῶν ἁγίων v. 16, ὁ ναός v. 17). 54 Philo combines σκηνή and νεώς (vitMos II 88f).

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

525

heavenly temple and the ark of the covenant in 11:19 (the middle of the book) stress the steady and firm aura of the one God of Israel. The text thereafter, initiated by 11:19, introduces a double trajectory. The stable temple becomes a mobile tent (σκηνή), and Christology plays a role in the movement. 3.4 Legends around the ark So far, we have stressed the differences between Hebrews and Revelation. Now we must add a common topic: Neither Hebrews nor Revelation tell any of the legends of the loss and preservation of Israel’s ark of the covenant. These legends spread in the Hellenistic and early Roman times.55 According to Israel’s memory, the ark of the covenant was brought into Solomon’s temple.56 But what happened when this temple was destroyed? Jeremiah lived at that time, and some thought that he could have prevented the loss of the ark.57 The motif developed up to the New Testament era. 2 Macc 2:1–8 mentions that Jeremiah hid the ark (cf. VitProph, vitJer 9–14). 2(=syr) Bar 6:5–10 suggests that an angel conveyed at least the upper plate of the ark into the earth.58

This uncertainty had consequences. Some commentators interpreted Rev 11:19 as an apocalyptic break of time: The terrible loss of the ark of the covenant is now mitigated since the ark is seen in heaven.59 Revelation, however, speaks nowhere of the mundane history of the ark. Our author is not interested in the ark of Solomon’s temple. He strictly focuses on the stability of the heavenly reality from the beginning of time to the end.60 In this respect, the interpretation of our verse should not be narrowed down apocalyptically. Decisive for Revelation is that the heavenly reality outlasts even the worst crisis on earth. The earthly cult may be destroyed (11:1–2) and the earthly Jerusalem may become a desert like Sodom or a place of exodus like Egypt (11:8). The heavenly temple endures,61 the ark of the covenant can be seen from everywhere and persistently (with the noted dynamic to the new Jerusalem).

55

Cf. SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, “Verlust der Lade”, esp. 239–240. The historical question is not relevant for our subject; for the critical discussion, cf. PORZIG, Lade, 211. 57 Cf. Eupolemos frg. 4 (Euseb, PraepEv IX 39:2–5). 58 More information on the legends in the commentaries (e.g. AUNE, Revelation II, 678) and in GÄBEL, Kulttheologie, 43–47, 91–93, 103–104, etc. 59 Cf., e.g., BOUSSET, Offenbarung, 333 and KRAFT, Offenbarung, 162. 60 Cf. DOCHHORN, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 89 (with fn. 3). 61 One may compare important reflections on the heavenly sanctuary in other sources around the first century: in so-called apocalyptic literature (1 Hen 14), hymns (4QShirShabb, esp. 4Q400–407) and philosophical interpretations of Israel’s law (Philo, spec. leg I:66). Philo used models of ideal and material reality (Philo, vitMos II:74–76 and – concerning the ark of the covenant – II:94–100); LAB 11:15 was influenced by the scheme of “Urbild” and “Abbild”. More information in CHURCH, Hebrews, esp. 5–10, 107–172, 315–352, 369–432. 56

526

Martin Karrer

The textual variant in Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (mentioned in § 1.3) alters the point. According to that variant, the ark is placed in the heavenly sanctuary at the moment when that sanctuary is opened (aorist ἐδόθη instead ὤφθη). This corresponds to the legends around the ark: It was lost on earth, but now it is set up in the heavenly temple. An apocalyptic interpretation may draw upon the variant of Codex Ephraemi that the ark was placed in Israel’s temple on earth (cf. 3 Kgdms 6:19LXX) and safely stored in heaven after the destruction of the (first and second) temple. Our verse indicates, therefore, a new time after the apocalyptic break. Yet, the variant is secondary, originating in a scribal error, and cannot be used as “Ausgangstext” (see § 1). It only illuminates some of the interesting theological developments in the Old Church.

4. The Imagery of Rev 11:19 Rev 11:19 is located at the middle of Rev and opens the second half of the book, as we have seen (Introduction and § 2). The author speaks of the sanctuary of the God of Israel and is convinced that it is relevant for the entire world (§ 3). How does he do that? In the following, I shall consider the text and rhetoric of 11:19. 4.1 The Setting The text begins with Καὶ ἠνοίγη ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, “the Temple of God in heaven was opened” (Rev 11:19a). The verb ἀνοίγειν alludes to the opening of ancient temples for the performance of cultic rituals. A striking example can be found in the Septuagint; according to 1 Chr 9:27LXX, the doors of the Jerusalem Temple were opened every morning (τὸ πρωὶ πρωὶ ἀνοίγειν τὰς θύρας τοῦ ἱεροῦ). The implication for Revelation is that the heavenly temple is open for cultic rituals (see thus in 15:5–6; cf. § 5.2).62 4.2 The Kind of Description: an Ekphrasis An open building invites people to approach the entrance and look inside to the center of the building, the most holy place. That is difficult when the temple is far from earth, in heaven. And yet, it is possible to bridge the gap. The Enochtradition (which originated prior to Revelation) does so by a heavenly journey: According to 1 Enoch 14, Enoch enters the holy area in heaven. He has a vision (ἐθεώρουν ἐν τῇ ὁράσει μου; 14:14 in the Greek version) and sees an open door in the inner sanctuary (the “grander house” of God, οἶκος μείζων) before him 62

Rev does not mention a curtain, as we saw above (§ 3.2). The scenery is, therefore, not to be connected with the tearing of the temple curtain at the death of Jesus. The Synoptics (Mk 15:38 par. Mt 27:51; Lk 23:45) used that motif for indicating a break in time affecting the earthly temple. LEITHART, Revelation 1–11, 437 tries to correlate the Synoptic scene and our verse, but this blurs the contours.

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

527

(θύρα ἀνεῳγμένη κατέναντί μου, 14:15). The Lord calls him over (14:15–24). One of the holy figures near God lifts him up and brings him directly to the door (εἷς τῶν ἁγίων ἤγειρέν με καὶ ἔστησέν με, καὶ προσήγαγέν με μέχρι τῆς θύρας 14:25). Only upon reaching the door does he lower his face in awe at being in the presence of God (ἐγὼ δὲ τὸ πρόσωπόν μου κάτω ἔκυφον). One is tempted to read our episode in a similar way. Since Rev 4:1–2, John finds himself in the spirit on a heavenly journey. Does John then, like the mythical Enoch, see and approach the heavenly sanctuary? Interestingly, he avoids such direct terminology. He does not write “I went to the open temple and saw”. Instead, he avoids any reference to himself and chooses the passive: “it was seen” (ὤφθη). This draws on old Christian terminology for visions, though without using the dative to identify individual recipients (cf. ὤφθη Κηφᾷ / ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ / ὤφθη κἀμοί, 1 Cor 15:5–8). Hence, the circle of recipients is opened up. Rev 11:19 suggests that seeing (ὤφθη, passivum divinum) the heavenly temple and ark is a great gift from God. But the vision is now available to all readers of Revelation. The invitation to see applies to all people who themselves “see” the image opening the eyes according to the text. Seeing by a literary image becomes the alternative to Enoch’s ascension. This distinct feature applies to the entire work of Revelation. It is often evinced by the invitation ἰδού, “see”. That invitation permeates the book of Rev (from 1:7 to 22:12) and, indeed, is found in the immediate context of our passage, in 11:14 and 12:3 (next to the third ὤφθη). Thus, the narrative makes the implicit demand: “Look what God has made visible!”63 The literary analysis of Revelation recognizes a widespread form of ancient rhetoric here: Its author builds a bridge by using lively, dynamic descriptions of images in his narrative. He uses the ekphrasis – the vivid drawing of an image –, which the ancients loved.64 4.3 Greek Connotations in the Setting The ekphrasis invites all readers to look upon the sanctuary of God in heaven. If they come from the nations, as Revelation’s address evokes (1:4), they can draw on imagery that is familiar to them from their daily lives. They will notice the parallels in the Greco-Roman religious culture where they grew up. The image description in our verse makes this particularly easy for them; for it describes the scenery in familiar Greek idioms: – It is a cultic standard in the Greek world as well as in Judaism that a temple precinct and / or the temple-building in the area are “opened” for the rites; that 63 John, vice versa, reduces statements in the first person and speaks of himself merely in the greater context of our scene (11:1 and 12:10). 64 For the ekphrasis in antiquity see WEBB, Ekphrasis; for the use of the ekphrasis in Rev compare WHITAKER, Ekphrasis.

528

Martin Karrer

pertinent verb ἀνοίγω / ἀνοίγνυμι is attested in Greek inscriptions (OGIS 222,36; 332,28; SIG 798,20). – The word ναός (temple building) did not originate in Judaism. It derives from the Greek environment and found its way from there to Israel. Israel adopted it to describe the temple building in Jerusalem and yet retained the word σκηνή (“tent”) for distinguishing its own cultic tradition (see § 3.2). The author of Revelation will refer to the tent later on (15:5; 21:3), but he paints the central image of 11:19 for Greek readers in words acquainted to them. – Even the singular “heaven” (οὐρανός) in Rev 11:19 reflects Greek thought. That is hardly recognizable in modern translations but nevertheless relevant: The Hebrew word ‫“( השׁמים‬the heaven”) is a plural. Jewish-Greek translators often transferred the idiom into the singular in Septuagint scriptures. Nevertheless, the plural was not forgotten in Judaism, the early followers of Jesus included. The author of Revelation was acquainted with the plural at least via the Septuagint (cf. Rev 12:12, drawing on Deut 32:43 LXX) and perhaps knew Semitic languages himself. The contemporaneous author of Matthew even preferred the plural οἱ οὐρανοί. Thus, Rev 11:19a is formulated in common Greek idioms. The visual description of Rev 11:19 makes the scenery accessible for a non-Jewish environment. Our author is respectful of non-Jewish readers. 4.4 The Religious Symbolism of the Ark of the Covenant In the case of a sanctuary being opened on earth, Greek and Roman readers expect to catch a glimpse of the symbol of the deity. An image or a sacral representation of the god*dess stands in the adyton and deploys the power of the god*dess.65 Vergil told a famous example in the Aeneid which was read as the epic poem of Rome’s foundation in the Roman Empire: On his journey, Aeneas arrives at the Delian sanctuary of Apollo. When the holiest sanctuary room is unlocked, the tripod yells (“mugire adytis cortina reclusis”; Aen. III 92). The voice of Apollon (Phoebus; III 99) rings out and is carried from the tripod to human ears (“vox fertur ad auris” III 93). The tripod symbolizes the presence of the deity and is the place from which that presence appears. Greco-Roman readers of Revelation will regard the ark of the covenant of our verse as a sacral representation, hence, communicated to them in the vivid imagery of the ekphrasis. They perceive a numinous manifestation, a visible symbol for the presence and the power of the invisible God of Israel. Moreover, they are able to comprehend and appreciate the contrast to the representations of deities in the temples of their environment: 65

One consequence are numinous associations when holy doors are opened: cf. WEIN“Türöffnung”, esp. 207–270 and MCKAY, “Door Magic”.

REICH,

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

529

There is no image of God on the ark. Thus, he is the invisible heavenly God. The invisibility is his proprium; and yet he, the heavenly God par excellence, is perceptible via the presentation of the ark. The ark (κιβωτός) is the visible symbol of the covenant, that he has decided and declared for himself and humanity; he has expressed his self-commitment in the covenant, and a serious will for humanity follows.66 The latter aspect – humanityʼs obligation to God – is not made explicit in the ekphrasis of our verse. However, the readers can recollect the motifs around the διαθήκη and the ark via Israel’s scriptures. They encounter the πλάκες διαθήκης (Deut 9:11), the “tablets of the covenant” or “commandment” (as διαθήκη may be translated here). These πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης are contained in the ark of the covenant, as is told for Solomon’s temple in 3 Kgdms 8:9LXX. Whoever imagines the analogy in the heavenly temple remembers the famous beginning of the tablets: “You shall have no other gods before me” (NETS; οὐκ ἔσονταί σοι θεοὶ ἕτεροι πρὸ προσώπου μου, Deut 5:7; see also Exod 20:3). The directive to have but one God in the heavenly temple is exclusive. Rev 11:19 implicitly demands to reject the foreign gods of the nations;67 that is valid for Israel and now for the non-Jewish readers of Revelation, too. Revelation features two further associations about the ark and God’s covenant. On the one hand, the ark (ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης) holds power like a palladium of war; in consideration of Josh 6:8–13, no wall can resist.68 On the other hand, Gen 9:8–17 highlights the covenant (διαθήκη) in the sense of God’s self-commitment not to destroy humanity. The imagery of Rev 11:19 thus achieves a dual effect. The one God whose ark is seen cares for humanity and possesses frightening power. 4.5 The Signs in Rev 11:19c Lightning, rumblings and thunder (ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ βρονταί) accompany the appearance of the ark of the covenant. These signs, coming out from heaven, call the entire world’s attention to the God of Sinai (cf. φωναὶ καὶ ἀστραπαί, Exod 19:16 LXX; φωνὴ τῆς βροντῆς σου and αἱ ἀστραπαί σου Ps 76,19LXX). Two additional signs mentioned in the text cause fear on earth. An earthquake, σεισμός,69 recalls Mordecai’s dream of imminent dangers (Esth A4 = 1:3LXX), and the last motif of Rev 11:19, hail (χάλαζα), evokes Exod 9:24 where Pharaoh recognized that he had sinned (ἡμάρτηκα, Exod 9:27). The 66 Both – God’s self-commitment and his serious will for humanity – is included in the term διαθήκη: see the lexicographical hints in previous contributions of the present volume. 67 Rev particularly contends with the aforementioned Apollo; “Apollyon” / “destroyer” 9:11 is a parody on the name “Apollo”. 68 Cf. esp. STOWASSER, “Bundestheologie”, 75 (and for the OT PORZIG, Lade, 289–290). 69 Σεισμός is added in 8:5 and 11:19 to the signs from 4:5.

530

Martin Karrer

signs form a climax. They convey that when humans are in danger, then the one God is a mighty ally; this God calls humanity to repentance. For those from the nations, this demands turning away from their gods. Implicit contrasts underline the impulse: Lightning and thunder were classical attributes of Zeus (ἀστραπαὶ […] καὶ βρονταί Apollod., bibl. III 27 etc.);70 now they belong to the one God alone. Voices of foreign gods were thought to be heard at many places in the world;71 e.g., the voice (“vox”, φωνή) of Apollo was heard in Delos72 or Delphi.73 Now “voices” sounding from heaven disclaim all competing voices. When the ground shook, people may have looked for the presence of their foreign gods.74 Now the earthquake demonstrates the powerful presence of the one and unique God, “the God in heaven” (ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, Rev 11:19). 4.6 The Imagery: Summary and Outlook Rev 11:19 champions the universal relevance of God’s heavenly sanctuary in a very impressive way, by using the rhetoric of ekphrasis. Unlike in Hebrews, the author of Revelation develops his proposition through a vision which is strictly concentrated on the one God; 11:19 does not mention Christ and does not lead to Christ as mediator of the present covenant. Instead, the author is convinced that the idea of the heavenly temple suffices in itself for substantiating an innovatively formulated insight: The heavenly sanctuary of the one God persists for all time. It is Israel’s sanctuary and contains the ark of the covenant. At the same time, however, it becomes visible as an open temple all over the world. Thus, it unveils the power of the one God – the God of Israel – to all humanity. The heavenly appearance of the ark of the covenant calls the entire world to recognize and acknowledge the one God as the God in heaven. Interestingly, a Bar Kokhba coin (fig. 5) is known that can be compared iconographically. The coin is contemporaneous to Rev if one prefers Rev’s late dating.75 This dating is questionable; the arguments for the conventional dating of Revelation to the end of the 1st century are stronger.76 Even so, the comparison is instructive:

70

Cf. Orph. Fr. 49 III 6–7; the thunder marks Zeus since Il. 21,199 etc. Cf. O. BETZ, “φωνή κτλ.”, 273–274. 72 Cf. “vox” in Vergil, Aen. III 93 (quoted in § 4.4). 73 Cf. φωνή in X., Ap. 12–13. 74 See “tremere” and “moveri” in the context of the cited passage from Vergil, Aen. III 90.91; cf. Call., Ap. 1–2 and AUNE, Revelation II, 678. 75 WITULSKI, Apk 11 und der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand, has proposed that Revelation should be dated to the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. He did not comment on the coin in that book. 76 KARRER, Johannesoffenbarung, 55–56. 71

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

531

Fig. 5: Coin from the time of Bar Kokhba; the obverse portrays the front of the Temple and a cultic symbol between the columns77

Rev and the insurrectionists surrounding Bar Kokhba know that the Temple in Jerusalem is destroyed. Both feature counter-images. Revelation tells of the heavenly temple and the heavenly ark, whereas the coin shows an ideal temple facade with another cultic symbol in the middle. The image of the coin evokes the wish for rebuilding the earthly temple and inscribes Hebrew letters (mentioning Jerusalem in the reverse), differing from Rev. Yet the coin and the literary scene show to everybody, to the Jews and to the foreigners using the coin or reading the text, the temple façade and an Israelite cultic item as a symbol for the presence of God. The literary and the minted scene demonstrate the strong relationship between the one God and his people. During the 20th century, some scholars identified the cultic item on the coin with the ark of the covenant. In that case, the image would directly correspond to the ekphrasis of Revelation. More recent scholarship considers the symbol to represent the table for the Bread of the Presence.78 This reduces the analogy. Nevertheless, a related provocation remains: The earthly sanctuary of the one God has been destroyed in 70 CE. But the power and the cult of the one God exist in other ways. The one God remains the God of Israel and demands respect from everyone. The comparison ends with a difference in religious mentality. Revelation doubts any success of human revolts. But that does not impinge on the central 77 Image: Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.cngcoins.com (https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barkokhba-silver-tetradrachm.jpg), “Barkokhba-silver-tetradrachm“, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode (detail), accessed 09/27/2019. 78 For the discussion see MESHORER, Jewish Coins, 159, 161–162, 165 (he gives consideration to the ark – but with a question mark); BARAG, “The Table of the Showbread” (favors the table of the showbread); FINE, Art and Judaism, 150 (favors the table of the showbread).

532

Martin Karrer

common topic: The image of the temple (temple building or temple façade) with a cultic symbol of Jewish provenance emphasizes the relevance of Israel. With regard to the book of Revelation, we must reprehend the perspective of the medieval reception (delineated above in § 2): The author starts his reflection in Israel and not in the church of the Gentiles.

5. Rev 11:19 and the Related Scenes in Rev 12 to 21 The impressive position of Revelation provokes the question: How does the author correlate the distinctive election of Israel – told in Israel’s Scriptures and implicated in 11:19 – and the universalization of God’s power? The question is still being debated in present-day scholarship;79 but the progression from Rev 11:19 to Rev 22 clarifies the matter. I shall briefly lay out the important issues. 5.1 Rev 11:19 and 12:1–6 The scene of 11:19 is prepared in the preceding chapters. Rev 4 spoke of the throne of God, 8:3 of the altar, 11:1 of temple and altar. Insofar, images of ch. 4–11 culminate in 11:19. Yet, the relation of 11:19 to ch. 12 is actually closer as we have seen in § 2. The ekphrasis of 11:19 is taken up in the signs of 12:1–6.80 There, a heavenly woman gives birth to a child “who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ, 12:5). A dragon that rises up against the woman and the child can do nothing to deter it (12:3–6). The scene captures God’s promise in Ps 2: A ruler from Israel is privileged to ask God for ruling over the non-Jewish nations (ἔθνη, 2:8). Read with this background, an inner-Israelite perspective emerges. The woman refers to the heavenly Zion, the male child to the endangered and saved Israel; if early Christian tradition applies the allusion in Rev 12:5 with Christ it condenses a theology of Israel Christologically. The reference to Israel remains.81 The nations are of second order in that narrative.82 Surely, they are recognized as holy (13:7 etc.) if they follow God and Christ. But Revelation 79 Cf. the skeptical considerations of STOWASSER, “Bundestheologie”, 90. He would hesitate to speak of a covenantal theology in Rev. 80 See the three occurrences of ὤφθη in 11:19; 12:1, 3 and the term σημεῖον in 12:1, 3. 81 The details of interpretation are much discussed; see the commentaries and BERGER, Leih mir deine Flügel, 187. Non-Jewish contexts are important for understanding the chapter additionally; see recently VON GEMÜNDEN, “Himmelsfrau”. 82 Ps 2 articulated the motif with great harshness: The ruler who is put in charge upon Zion will shatter his enemies like pottery (ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ ὡς σκεῦος κεραμέως συντρίψεις αὐτούς Ps 2:9). This detail of the psalm, with its criticism of the

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

533

reminds them to honor Israel’s heavenly God. Christ is the anointed one who comes from Israel,83 and his reign is coordinated to the reign of Israel’s God (cf. 11:15; 12:10). 5.2 Rev 15:5–6 In the continuation of Rev 12, the dragon is defeated in heaven. On earth, he rears up and wages war (12:7–17). He challenges the reign of Israel’s God and the apt worship on earth. But in spite of his successes on earth, he is not able to prevent the cult in the heavenly temple. By contrast, the heavenly cult proves to be critical of the world, due to the conflict. Rev 15:5 articulates this point in continuation with 11:19. The verse repeats “the temple was opened in heaven” (καὶ ἠνοίγη ὁ ναὸς […] ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 15:5 = 11:19) and clarifies: Whoever would try to reduce Jewish traditions in the conflict goes astray, for the temple (ναός) in heaven consists of the “tent of witness” (the σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου). The people of the nations must learn the tradition of Israel and reify their familiar image of the temple-ναός with the tent image from Israel (cf. σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου, Exod 27:21; 28:43; 29:4, 10– 11, 30–42, etc.). Moreover, the tent is called tent of “witness”. That evokes another idiom including the term μαρτύριον: The tablets with God’s commandments were called “tablets of witness” (πλάκες τοῦ μαρτυρίου) in Exod 31:18LXX. The tent of witness, therefore, triggers the association with the beginning of the commandments just like the ark did in Rev 11:19:84 “You shall have no other gods” (Deut 5:7; Exod 20:3). This means that the sanctuary in heaven is open for the cult of the one God, and the cult testifies that there are no other gods besides him. Rev 15:6 continues with angels coming out of the sanctuary in order to perform the cult. They wear clean ritual robes (ἐνδεδυμένοι λίνον καθαρὸν…) and high-priestly belts across their chests (περιεζωσμένοι περὶ τὰ στήθη…).85 They take cultic bowls in their hands, but these bowls are filled with God’s wrath and plagues (15:5, 6). The dimension of wrath contrasts with the promise to enter the heavenly sanctuary. The cult of the one God invites all of humanity, nations, is not mentioned explicitly in Rev 12:5; but the readers of Rev are familiar with it from 2:27, and 19:15 will hint at it again. If we accept the connection between 11:19 and 12:1–5, then the heading in 11:19 recalls God’s covenant with Israel and God’s special promises for Israel. 83 Cf. the Christological images in 5:5: the lion from the tribe of Judah and the root of David. 84 Cf. the hint to the πλάκες διαθήκης in § 3.4. 85 The priestly aspects of the image are noticed, e.g., in BERGER, Apokalypse, 1134–1135. Cf. the description of the high priest in Josephus, ant. III 159–187, 214–218. The variant “stone” (λίθον instead of λίνον) adds a connection to Ezek 28:13.

534

Martin Karrer

but becomes disruptive where Israel’s God is rejected by the world (οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἄχρι τελεσθῶσιν αἱ ἑπτὰ πληγαὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων, 15:8). 5.3 Revelation 21:3 The tenor of Rev 12 and 15 is unmistakable: The worship of the one God is challenged. Opposition stands in its way; it is as bad as the war of a dragon. Therefore, visions of judgment comprise much of the next chapters. Readers who remember the ark of the covenant will associate its numinous power in war and wrath. How can a saving dimension of the covenant be established, then? The seer only considers this possible in an upheaval that is as radical as the arrival of a new heaven and new earth. He portrays this upheaval at the end of his book in an ekphrasis. He himself sees (21:1) and appeals to his readers: “look” (ἰδού, 21:386). The first passes away and is no more (21:1; cf. previously 20:11b). The new, holy Jerusalem descends from heaven. The image of an unwavering, solid temple does not meet the requirements of those dynamics. The narrative replaces the motif of the ναός – the firm building in the remoteness of heaven – with the tent that is mobile. The God of heaven, thus, moves towards humanity. He who had promised to be Israel’s God and had assured that Israel would be the chosen people (in the so-called covenantal formula of Lev 26:12, etc.) will “camp” with humanity wherever humans are, and they will be God’s people wherever they may live. The image of the tent conveys how the covenant for Israel extends to all nations. The ἔθνη (foreign nations) become λαοί, like the λαός of Israel (21:3).87 This development within Revelation can be rendered in a diagram: 11:19 Godʼs heavenly sanctuary is a firm building and displayed as the ark of the covenant. The temple is opened so that the heavenly cult can be perceived by all humanity.

86

The Progression within Revelation 15:5–6 21:3 Finally, Godʼs sanctuary is The sanctuary is a place of fully displayed as the tent. heavenly cult and displayed as the tent of witness. The performance of the God “camps” with cult by angels pours out humanity (μετὰ τῶν the wrath of God over all ἀνθρώπων), and all life that is separated from humans potentially become God. his people (universal extension of the covenantal formula).

Cf. the comments regarding ἰδού in § 4.2. Cf. (with different accents) STOWASSER, “Bundestheologie”, 84–86; KARRER, “Offenbarung 21,1–7 / Ewigkeitssonntag”. 87

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

535

That development does in no way diminish God’s care for Israel according to the author of Rev. On the contrary, God’s universal affection is a consequence and ramification of the universal dimension that is included in Israel’s understanding of God. The related description of the new Jerusalem continues this projectory by introducing a third image: The gates of the heavenly Jerusalem stand widely open (21:25). All humans and human kings can enter. Whoever enters will notice, however, the names of the twelve tribes of Israel written above the gates. The doors are open – thanks to God’s history with Israel, not against Israel or substituting Israel. In short, the universalism of Revelation develops the universal relevance of God’s covenant that was known and first manifest in Israel.

6. Conclusion The Book of Revelation mentions the covenant of God only once, in 11:19. However, this one instance has a highly significant meaning. The author seizes upon Israel’s notion of the ark of the covenant in order to construct his own concept of the covenant for Israel and all of humanity. According to him, Israel’s God is a powerful God who makes his covenant visible to humans from all nations. He, the one God, is present at the heavenly ark of the covenant proving his universal power, wrath and mercy. God’s covenant for Israel endures and simultaneously has a universal reach; mercy surpasses wrath in 21:3. The Book of Revelation is no theological discourse. The vision narrative and the vivid images of the ekphrasis allow our author to combine different concepts without merging them. Therefore, he does not explicate Christology within his concept of the covenant. Instead, he concentrates on the motifs surrounding the ark of the covenant in Israel’s traditions; we would say today, he discloses Israel-theology in a prominent manner. That does not depreciate Christology in his opinion. The vision narrative goes on from the heavenly temple (11:19) to the tent (21:3) and from there to the immediate presence of God and Christ in the heavenly Jerusalem, then without any necessity of a temple (21:22; see § 3.3). The image of 11:19 forms one climax of Revelation. The passage in 22:3–4 featuring the face-to-face encounter with God and Christ forms the second one. If Revelation is understood that way, then we should not allow one concept to surpass the other. Both Christology and covenant theology deserve special attention in this book (and other aspects of the book as well). But it is necessary and important to take note of the continuous presence of ‘Israel-theology’ in Revelation, which has often been underestimated. The intriguing ekphrasis of

536

Martin Karrer

the ark of the covenant in Rev 11:19 is a reminder for Christianity not to forget its roots and the enduring relevance of God’s covenant for Israel.88

Bibliography ANDREW OF CEASAREA: SCHMID, JOSEPH, ed., Text. Vol. 1 of Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, I. Teil Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andreas von Kaisareia (Münchener theologische Studien, Historische Abteilung, Ergänzungsband I 1), München: Zink, 1955. AUNE, DAVID E., Revelation II (WBC 52 B), Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. BARAG, DAN, “The Table of the Showbread and the Façade of the Temple on Coins of the Bar Kokhba Revolt”, in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, edited by H. Geva, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994, 272–276. BERGER, KLAUS, Die Apokalypse des Johannes, Kommentar, 2 vols., Freiburg: Herder, 2017. –, Leih mir deine Flügel, Engel: Die Apokalypse des Johannes im Leben der Kirche, Freiburg: Herder, 2018. BETZ, OTTO, “φωνή κτλ.”, TWNT 9 (1973): 272–302. BOUSSET, WILHELM, Die Offenbarung Johannis (KEK 16), 6th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966 = 1906. DE BRUYNE, DONATIEN, Les Sommaires. Vol. 1 of Sommaires, divisions et rubriques de la Bible latine, Namur: Auguste Godenne, 1914. CHURCH, PHILIP, Hebrews and the Temple: Attitudes to the Temple in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews (NovTSup 171), Leiden: Brill, 2017. DOCHHORN, JAN, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie: Der eschatologische Teufelsfall in Apc Joh 12 und seine Bedeutung für das Verständnis der Johannesoffenbarung (WUNT 268), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. DULAEY, MARTINE: see Victorin. DURANDUS, Rationale divinorum officiorum: Übersetzung und Verzeichnisse (LWQF 107), edited by R. Suntrup (translated by H. Douteil), 3 vols., Münster: Aschendorff, 2016. ERASMUS VON ROTTERDAM, Novum Instrumentum [Basel 1516]: Faksimile-Nachdruck, edited by H. Holeczek, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1986. FINE, STEVEN, Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. GÄBEL, GEORG, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie (WUNT II/212), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. GEMÜNDEN, PETRA VON, “Das Bild der Himmelsfrau in Offb 12: Aufnahme und Umwertung antiker Bildmotive im Kontext der frühen Kaiserzeit”, in Sprachbilder und Bildsprache: Studien zur Kontextualisierung biblischer Texte (NTOA 121), edited by M. Lau et al., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019, 295–333. GROOTE, MARC DE: see Oecumenius. GRYSON, ROGER (ed.), Apocalypsis Johannis, Vetus Latina 26/2, Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 2003. 88 I thank Marybeth Hauffe, Solveig Reller, and Benjamin Blum for their help in preparing this contribution for publication.

The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19

537

–, Tyconii Afri Expositio Apocalypseos, (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 107A), Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. HOLECZEK, HEINZ: see Erasmus. HUBER, KONRAD / RAINER KLOTZ / CHRISTOPH WINTERER (eds.), Tot sacramenta quot verba. Zur Kommentierung der Apokalypse des Johannes von den Anfängen bis ins 12. Jahrhundert, Münster: Aschendorff, 2014. KARRER, MARTIN, Der Brief an die Hebräer, vol. 2: Kapitel 5,11–13,25 (ÖTBK 20/2), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008. –, “Der Kelch des neuen Bundes: Erwägungen zum Verständnis des Herrenmahls in 1Kor 11,23b–25”, BZ 34 (1990): 198–221. –, Johannesoffenbarung, vol. 1: Offb 1,1–5,14 (EKK 24/1), Ostfildern: Patmos / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. –, “Offenbarung 21,1–7 / Ewigkeitssonntag”, GPM 64 (2009): 456–462. –, Paulus, Jesaja und Israel – Beobachtungen zu Röm 11,26f., in Die Septuaginta – Themen, Manuskripte, Wirkungen. Septuaginta-Konferenz Wuppertal 2018 (WUNT 444), edited by Eberhard Bons, Michaela Geiger, Martin Meiser, Marcus Sigismund and Frank Ueberschaer, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020, 703–727. –, “Rupert von Deutz und die Textgeschichte der Apokalypse”, in Tot sacramenta quot verba: Zur Kommentierung der Apokalypse des Johannes von den Anfängen bis ins 12. Jahrhundert, edited by K. Huber, R. Klotz and Chr. Winterer, Münster: Aschendorff, 2014, 259–288. –, “The Mosaic of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny-des-Prés”, in Covenant – Concepts of Berit, Diatheke, and Testamentum: Proceedings of the Conference at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston, Texas, November 2019 (WUNT 506), edited by Christian Eberhart and Wolfgang Kraus in Collaboration with Richard Bautch, Matthias Henze, and Martin Rösel, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023, 647–660. KOESTER, CRAIG, Revelation (AB 38A), New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. KRAFT, HEINRICH, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT 16/1), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974. KREUZER, SIEGFRIED, “Lade JHWHs / Bundeslade”, WiBiLex, Online: http://www.bibelwis senschaft.de/stichwort/24545/, accessed on 05/18/2020. LEITHART, PETER J., Revelation 1–11, vol. 1 of Revelation (ITC), London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018. MCKAY, KENNETH J., “Door Magic and The Epiphany Hymn”, Classical Quarterly 17 (1967): 184–194. MESHORER, YA’AKOB, Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period, Chicago: Argonaut, 1969. MONIGHAN-SCHÄFER, JOHANNA, Offenbarung 12 im Spiegel der Zeit: Eine Untersuchung theologischer und künstlerischer Entwicklungen anhand der apokalyptischen Frau, Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Müller, 2008; cf. Archiv UB Universität Marburg; https://archiv. ub.uni-marburg.de/diss/z2005/0126/, last accessed 09/27/2019. OECUMENIUS, Oecumenii Commentarius in Apocalypsin, edited by M. de Groote. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. OESCH, JOSEPH, “Die grafischen Textgliederungen der Johannesoffenbarung in den ältesten griechischen Bibelhandschriften”, in Tot sacramenta quot verba: Zur Kommentierung der Apokalypse des Johannes von den Anfängen bis ins 12. Jahrhundert, edited by K. Huber et al., Münster: Aschendorff, 2014, 59–98.

538

Martin Karrer

PORZIG, PETER, Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den Texten vom Toten Meer (BZAW 397), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, CHRISTA, “‘Sie wird nicht wieder hergestellt werden’, Anmerkungen zum Verlust der Lade”, in Mincha, edited by Erhard Blum, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990, 229–241. SCHILLER, GERTRUD, Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst, Vol. 5a/b. Die Apokalypse des Johannes. Textteil / Bildteil, Gütersloh: Mohn, 1990 (Textteil) / 1991 (Bildteil). SCHMID, JOSEPH, Studien I. Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andreas von Kaisareia: see Andrew of Ceasarea. –, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes II (MThS.HE I 2), München: Zink, 1956. STÖCKLEIN, HEIKE, Illustrierte Offenbarung: Holzschnittillustrationen der Johannes-Apokalypse in deutschen Bibeln (Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte 52), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2019. STOWASSER, MARTIN, “Bundestheologie in der Johannesoffenbarung – eine Spurensuche”, BZ 63 (2019): 71–91. SUGGIT, JOHN (ed.), Oecumenius: Commentary on the Apocalypse (Fathers of the Church 112), Washington: CUA, 2006. VICTORIN DE POETOVIO, Sur l’Apocalypse (SC 423), edited by Martine Dulaey, Paris: Cerf, 1997. WEBB, RUTH, Ekphrasis: Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice, Farnham: Ashgate, 2009. WEINREICH, OTTO, “Türöffnung im Wunder-, Prodigien- und Zauberglauben der Antike, des Judentums und Christentums”, in Genethliakon (Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 5), edited by F. Focke et al., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929, 200–452. WEINRICH, WILLIAM C., transl., “Oecumenius”, in Greek Commentaries on Revelation, edited by Th.C. Oden, Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2011, 1–107. WHITAKER, ROBYN J., Ekphrasis, Vision, and Persuasion in the Book of Revelation (WUNT II/410), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. WITULSKI, THOMAS, Apk 11 und der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand: Eine zeitgeschichtliche Interpretation (WUNT II/337), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. WOODWARD, ELIZABETH M., The Illustrated Apocalypse Cycle in the Liber Floridus of Lambert of Saint-Omer, Tallahassee: Florida State University, 2010.

Early Church

Covenant in the Early Church Writings Covenant in the Early Church Writings

MARTIN MEISER Martin Meiser

In early Christian literature, the term διαθήκη occurs first in a small group of parenetic statements, encompassing the relation between God or Jesus Christ and the believers and including the admonition to obedience to the commandments. A few passages in the First Letter of Clement,1 Tertullian,2 Cyprian,3 Clement of Alexandria,4 Augustine,5 and Leo I. of Rome6 belong to this group. The term διαθήκη, however, has a meaning that is far more extensive and complex when one considers it as evidence of the coherence (and difference) between the old and new covenants. This theme touches on the process of the parting of the ways, which for Jews was increasingly marked by painful experiences of intellectual devaluation, followed by external distress when Christians become the majority in the Roman Empire.7 Within the interplay of coherence and difference of the two covenants, the motif of coherence was initially important; in later times, it was rather the motif of difference. While the withdrawal of Marcionite and Manichaean concepts made a revitalization of the idea of the unity of both testaments superfluous, the continued presence of Jews led to a continued emphasis on the idea of the 1

1 Clem 35.7 quotes Ps 49[50]:16. In the context of the letter as a whole, the scolding reinforces the admonition to the rebellious boys to submit to the presbyters again. 2 Tertullian, anim. 35.3, CC.SL 2:837. Irenaeus is called a zealot for the covenant of Jesus Christ (Eusebius of Caesarea, h.e. 5:4.2, GCS 9/1:434). 3 In Cyprian, the parenetic line includes the reminder to take seriously the primacy of God’s bond over earthly bonds, cf. Cyprian, or. dom. 9, CC.SL 3 A:94, referring to Deut 33:9; Matt 23:9; Matt 8:22. In op. eleem. 16, CC.SL 3 A:65, he refers to Deut 33:9 and 1 John 3:17. Elsewhere, he emphasizes that the Last Judgment also applies to the faithful (Cyprian, bon. pat. 22, CC.SL 3 A:131–132, referring to Mal 4:1; Isa 66:15–16; Isa 42:13– 14). 4 Clement of Alexandria emphasizes the motif of abstaining from sins, cf. Clement of Alexandria, str. 4.32.5, GCS 52:262, quoting Ps 77[78]:36–37; paed. 1.86.1, GCS 12:140, quoting Ps 77[78]8.10; cf. also the same motif in str. 7.69.5, GCS 17:50. 5 Augustine, conf. 8:8/19, CC.SL 27:125 (pactum). 6 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 48.2, CC.SL 138A:281 (“Christi foedus”). 7 One can explain (but not justify!) Christian blindness to Jewish self-denial: Christians saw themselves standing in the reality of the new covenant, of which they had no doubt. Because they believed that the God of Israel has set this reality, they did not understand that Jews who did not believe in Jesus were reluctant to acknowledge this new reality.

542

Martin Meiser

supersession and replacement of the old covenant by the new covenant. Judaism, which does not feature a belief in Jesus, has been perceived as a permanent delegitimization of one’s own claim to truth. On the other hand, the view of the relationship of faith as covenant and the self-positioning of Christians in the new covenant also included, since early times of Christian theology, ethically stricter demands for oneself. In order to avoid repetitions, I have arranged the source material not chronologically but systematically. As a disclaimer, it is not possible to provide exhaustive lists of occurrences for most of the topics in this contribution.

1. The Coherence of the Old and the New Covenant 1.1 The Identity of the Donator It is God who gave both covenants. This notion, unquestioningly assumed by New Testament authors, became important in several ways in the second century. Against Greco-Roman critique, Tertullian emphasizes the ancient origin of Christianity8, whereas Origen refutes Celsus who grasped the seeming antagonisms between the old and the new covenant in order to refute Christianity.9 Against the ideas of Marcion and some Gnostics, Irenaeus10, followed by Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, emphasized the unity of God of both Testaments11 who made several covenants.12 By the Holy Scripture, people were taught to worship God in a new way, but not another God, because it is one God who will justify the circumcised based on faith and the uncircumcised through the same faith (Rom 3:30).13 The new covenant is foretold by the

8

Tertullian, apol. 19.2–7, CC.SL 1:120–121. Origen, Cels. 7:25, GCS 3:176. 10 FERGUSON, “Covenant Idea”, 144, emphasizes the structural importance of the motif of covenant in Irenaeus’ theology. DUNCAN, “Covenant Idea in Irenaeus”, 39–53, gives an exhaustive description of Irenaeus’ concept. Irenaeus uses the term in a relational, a historical, and a testamentary sense (41). He is the first who uses the plural διαθήκαι/ testamenta in the context of Christian theology (46). 11 Irenaeus, haer. 3:12.3, FC 8/3:124, referring to Acts 3:6–8; haer 4:8.3, FC 8/4:66, relating Deut 33:9 to the apostles. How could the prophets who proclaimed the new covenant not have known the name of the unspeakable Father (Irenaeus, haer. 4:34.3, FC 8/4, 280)? 12 Irenaeus, haer. 1:10.3, FC 8/1:200–204. Irenaeus, haer. 3:11.8, FC 8/3:114, refers to the covenants with Noah and Abraham, through Moses and Christ. 13 Irenaeus, haer. 3:10.2, FC 8/3:82–84, referring to Luke 1:26, 30, 32, 46–47; 54–55; 78–79; Irenaeus, haer. 4:9.1, FC 8/4:68, referring to Jer 31:31–2; Irenaeus, haer. 4:9.3, FC 8/4:74, referring to Matt 15:3–4 etc. 9

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

543

prophets;14 Christ fulfilled it.15 Clement of Alexandria relates the term “God” to the term “covenant”; Θεός is derived from θέσις (placing, and order or arrangement).16 The cohesion and agreement of the law and the prophets with the new covenant concluded at the presence of the Lord is the guideline for all knowledge of God and interpretation of Scripture.17 Christians are the new generation in comparison to the Greeks, who are still biased in idolatry, and the Jews, who also still have no faith.18 Clement understands the new covenant, which is meant for Christians, as a renewal and liberation from sins.19 The idea that God has also given the philosophy to the Greeks is part of his concept of universal divine educational action: God educates the Greeks through philosophy,20 the Jews through the law. Greek philosophy is a preliminary stage of the philosophy based on Christ.21 Against the Manicheans, John Chrysostom stated that Jesus does not want to prove with his antitheses that the old covenant comes from the devil; instead he wants to lead beyond the rules that were useful in the old covenant. Even if the Old Testament had the devil as its author, that would not have prevented the Jews from idolatry.22 The unity of the legislator is proven by Jer 31:31–32 and Gal 4:22, 24.23 In his exegesis of Gen 9:8–11, John Chrysostom can praise God’s philanthropy to grant the covenant not only for the immediate addressees but also for their offspring.24 Isidor of Pelusium reflects on the coherence between promises and covenant: The term “covenant” implies immutability; that is why Scripture called the promises “covenant”.25 14

Irenaeus, haer. 4:33.14, FC 8/4:276–278. Irenaeus, haer. 4:34.2, FC 8/4:278–280, referring to Matt 5:17–18. 16 Clement of Alexandria, str. 1:182.2, GCS 52:111. 17 Clement of Alexandria, str. 6:125.3, GCS 52:495. Clement can also use this idea for anti-heretic polemics. The unity of the Church corresponds to the continuous unity of this covenant (Clement of Alexandria, str. 7.107.5, GCS 17:76). In his polemics against the Valentinians, Clement can also write elsewhere: The old covenant was of the same οὐσία as the new (Clement of Alexandria, exc. Theodot. 24, GCS 17:115). 18 Clement of Alexandria, str. 6:44.4, GCS 52:453–454. 19 Clement of Alexandria, str. 2:47.3, GCS 52:139; similarly str. 4:149.5, GCS 52:314. 20 The concept of the Greek’s dependence of God’s revelation in the Old Testament (Clement of Alexandria, str. 5:28.4–29.5, GCS 52:344–345 etc.) is part of this concept. 21 Clement of Alexandria, str. 6:67.1, GCS 52:465; similarly str. 5:28.3, GCS 52:344. 22 John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 17.6, PG 57:262. In hom. in Matt. 17.2, PG 57:256, he refers on Sir 9:8 as analogy to Matt 5:28. 23 John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 16.7, PG 57:247. 24 John Chrysostom, hom. in Gen. 28.2, PG 53:253–254. In the exegesis of Gen 9:4–13, the motif of covenant is not reflected in Ambrose, De Noe 103, CSEL 32/1, 484–485, and in Procopius of Gaza. The bow is regarded as a symbol of God’s power, not of God’s covenant (Procopius of Gaza, Gen., GCS NF 22:217). 25 Isidor of Pelusium, ep. 2:196, PG 78:641d. 15

544

Martin Meiser

Also the pneumatological part of the Creed implied the unity of the covenants, which should not be separated from each other.26 It was the one Holy Spirit who inspired the law and the prophets in the old covenant, the evangelists and apostles in the new covenant27, who sanctified the righteous of the old covenant and the teachers of the new,28 and who instituted both the old and new covenant.29 This unity can also be illustrated in detail. The number of the gospels corresponds to the number of the covenants under Adam, under Noah, under Moses and in Christ.30 Miracles happened in both old and new covenant.31 Jerusalem is the starting point also for the new covenant.32 Not only the God of the Old Testament asks questions but also Jesus Christ.33 Not only the God of the Old Testament blinds human beings, but also Jesus Christ (Mark 4:12: ἵνα … μὴ ἴδωσιν).34 It is heresy to make the God of the old covenant the author of sin on the basis of Deut 4:24 (“eating fire”); it is written, “The Lord kills and makes alive” (1 Sam 2:6).35 According to John Chrysostom, John 1:10–11 and Matt 10:35 (ἦλθον γὰρ διχάσαι) refute the thesis of those who say that the God of the old covenant is evil, while the God of the new covenant is good.36 Terrible punishments are addressed not only in the Old Testament but also in the New Testament.37 The concept of the coherence of the two covenants, however, causes exegetical problems. Augustine justifies John 13:34 (“new commandment”) with reference to Lev 19:18 by pointing to the final clause “as I have loved you”.38 Unfortunately, this motif was also being used for anti-Jewish polemics. If the dead could be raised in the old covenant – see the stories of Elijah and Elisha – then why would the raising of Jesus Christ be impossible? Why do the Jews, therefore, not believe the apostles who were Jews themselves?39 26

Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. 16:3–4, Rupp 206–208. Rufinus of Aquileia, symb. 34, CC.SL 20:170. 28 Theodoret of Cyrus, h.e. 1:4.53, GCS 19:22. 29 Ab eodem Spiritu conditum foedus secundum, a quo primum fuerat institutum. Leo I. of Rome, tract. 75.1, CC.SL 138 A:466. 30 Irenaeus, haer. 3:11.8, FC 8/3:114. 31 Athanasius of Alexandria, in Psalm., PG 27:444a, in his comment on Ps 104:5. 32 Augustine, civ. 18:54, CSEL 40/2:360, referring to Isa 2:3 and Luke 24:27. 33 Epiphanius of Salamis, Anc. 108.1–7, GCS 25:132, referring to Gen 3:9; 4:9; 18:9; John 11:34; Luke 8:45. 34 Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. 6.28, Reischl 192–194. Paul’s statement in 2 Cor 4:4 (ὁ θεός τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) therefore is no proof for the theory of two deities. 35 Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. 6.27, Reischl 192. 36 John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 16.6; 35.1, PG 57:246, 406. 37 Quodvultdeus, lib. prom.. 2:1/2, CC.SL 60:70–71, referring to 1 Tim 1:20; 1 Cor 5:5; Act 5:5, 10. 38 Augustine, tract. Ev. Ioh. 65.1, CC.SL 36:490–491. 39 Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. 14.15, Rupp 126. 27

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

545

Interpreting Matt 12:40, John Chrysostom justifies the punishment of the Jews with their unwillingness to repent. God had already announced the punishments in the old covenant to provide the opportunity for repentance, and he only punishes if these warning are being ignored.40 1.2 The New Covenant is Announced in the Old Testament Almost41 all early Christian scholars offer Old Testament quotations, which they understand as announcements about the new covenant. Examples can be found in Barnabas,42 Justin,43 Irenaeus,44 Tertullian,45 Athanasius of Alexandria,46 Augustine,47 Leo I. of Rome,48 or Fulgentius of Ruspe.49 Standard refe-

40

John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 43.2, PG 57:458–459. The unity of the lawgiver of the Old and the New Testament was no issue in the Trinitarian debates (except Ambrose, see below). The subject “covenant” is almost absent from the works of the Cappadocians. On the other side, theologians who did not support the ὁμοούσιος were convinced of that idea of this unity; cf. Hilarius of Poitiers, Trin. 6:5, CC.SL 62:200. 42 Barn 13.1 quotes Gen 25:23: “the older brother will serve the younger one”. 43 Justin, dial. 11.3, Bobichon I 210, with reference to Isa 55:3–5 and Jer 31:31–32. 44 Irenaeus, haer. 4:33.14, FC 8/4:274, referring to Jer 31; Ezek 36:26–27; Isa 43:18–19. 45 Tertullian, adv. Iud. 3.7, CC.SL 2:1346. 46 Ps 118:135 means that the pious want to see the arrival of the Lord (Athanasius, in Psalm., PG 27:501d). 47 Augustine, catech. rud. 17:11/28, CC.SL 46:153: The saints of the old covenant recognized and foretold his future appearance thanks to the revelation of the [Holy] Spirit, and so they were saved because they believed in his one coming, just as humans were saved by the faith that he had already come. 48 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 51.7, CC.SL 138 A:302, on Jesus’ Transfiguration (Matt 17:1– 9); tract. 75.1, CC.SL 138 A:465. The matching testimonies of the old and new covenants serve our knowledge: the Gospel tells us what the prophets announced (Leo I. of Rome, tract. 60.1, CC.SL 138 A:363). 49 Fulgentius of Ruspe, ep. 14.46, CC.SL 90:443, quotes Sir 9:14–15 for the teaching that one should not despise the old covenant just because the new covenant has begun. The old covenant contains the real promise of the new. The fact that, according to Sir 9:15, wine should be allowed to age so that it tastes good also means that the name and promise of the new covenant are recognized in the old covenant. 41

546

Martin Meiser

rence texts are Ps 110:9,50 Isa 43:18–21,51 Jer 31:31,52 Ezek 36:26–27,53 and other biblical texts without the term “covenant” which are interpreted with regard to the new reality in Christ, his incarnation,54 crucifixion,55 resurrection,56 and ascension,57 sometimes also with regard to debates concerning the biological ancestry of Jesus,58 his preexistence and consubstantiality with God the Father,59 and his true humanity.60 One should note with regard to the quotations from Jer 31:31–32 and Ezek 36:26–27 that the references to the Torah within these texts are usually omitted.

50 Most commentators relate this passage to the new covenant, but with distinct arguments. According to Augustine, the eternal covenant is the new covenant, which is the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4:25–26). While the old covenant contained earthly gifts, e.g. the gift of the city of Jerusalem for the Israelites, and was therefore a transitory covenant, the new covenant contains heavenly gifts, so that one must beware of all earthly covetousness such as greed (Augustine, en. Ps. 110.8, CC.SL 40:1624). Cassiodorus grasps that attribute “eternal”; this means that nothing follows, unlike it was the case with the old covenant (Cassiodorus, in Psalm., CC.SL 98:1018). Prosper of Aquitania emphasizes the transitory character of the old covenant (Prosper of Aquitania, in Psalm., CC.SL 68 A:65). 51 Irenaeus, haer. 4:33:14, FC 8/4:274–276. 52 Tertullian, adv. Marc. 1:20.4, CC.SL 1:461. 53 Irenaeus, haer. 4:33:14, FC 8/4:274. 54 Cf. the reception history of Isa 7:14 (cf. Matt 1:21) e.g. in Justin, dial. 66.4, Bobichon I 364 etc; Gen 3:14–15 in Cyprian, test. 2:9, CC.SL 3:41; 2 Kgs 7:12–14, in Cyprian, test. 2:11, CC.SL 3:43. Sometimes even Ezek 36:26 is related to the incarnation (Barn 6.14). 55 Cf. the reception history of Deut 28:66LXX (Clement of Alexandria, paed. 2:73.3, GCS 12:102; Irenaeus, haer. 5:18.3, FC 8/5:150; Melito, pasch. 61/444–446, SC 123:94), Isa 53 (Acts 8:32; Justin, dial. 13.2–7, Bobichon I 214–216); Isa 65:2; Jer 11:19 (Cyprian, test. 2:20, CC.SL 3,57; for Jer 11:19 cf. also Melito, pasch., 63/453–458, SC 123:94). 56 Cf. the reception history of 1 Sam 2:6 (The Venerable Bede, in 1 Sam., CC.SL 119:23– 24). 57 Cf. the reception history of Ps 23[24]:7 (Eusebius of Caesarea, in Psalm., PG 23:224a et al.); Ps 46[47]:6 (Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. 14.24, Rupp 140–142 et al.); Ps 103[104]:3 (Arnobius, in Psalm., CC.SL 25:153 et al.) and Ps 109[110]:1 (Justin, dial. 32,3, Bobichon I 260 et al.). 58 Tertullian, adv. Marc. 3:20.4–6, CC.SL 1:535, uses Isa 42:6–7 and Isa 55:3–5 to prove that Jesus is also carnally descended from David. The motifs of “until the end of the earth” (Ps 2:7–8) and “eternal covenant” (Ps 110:9) do not apply to David (Tertullian, adv. Marc. 3:20.3, 5, CC.SL 1:535). 59 Whereas, according to Ambrose, nobody can see God (John 1:18), the Son has been visible also in the old covenant: Heretics should abstain from attributing the son’s origin to the birth from the virgin. He, who is born from a virgin, was seen before (Ambrose, in Luc. 1:25, CC.SL 14:19). 60 Leo I. of Rome formulates consequences for the Christology against the Manicheans and against Apollinaris: Types of the old covenant announced that the true Son of God is also true human being (Leo I. of Rome, tract. 47.2, CC.SL 138A:276).

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

547

This is true for Irenaeus,61 Tertullian,62 Clement of Alexandria,63 and other authors. Leo I. realizes the issue of law but, in a sermon on Matt 5:1–9, associates the laws of the old covenant to the decrees of the New Testament.64 While this Christo-centrism has been the rule, the so-called Antiochene school allowed for some exceptions when relating the Psalms mostly to events of the history of Israel instead of Jesus Christ. Following Chronicles, Israel’s salvation from Sennacherib,65 the exile,66 and the events during the Maccabean wars67 are being referenced; the exception here is the fall of the Northern Kingdom. 1.3 The New Testament Includes Testimonies for the Old Covenant Old Testament quotations in the New Testament such as Matt 26:31,68 Luke 4:17,69 Rom 1:1–3,70 or general references like Luke 24:27,71 Rom 3:30,72 or Gal 4:24–26,73 or allusions like in Matt 17:1–974 have given rise to an emphasis on the coherence of the two covenants. In his comment on Matt 28:20b, John Chrysostom states that Christ already gave the promise of his assistance to the prophets of the old covenant, who hesitated because of their task.75 (The reception history of 2 Cor 3:6, 14 and Heb 8:8–13 will be treated in separate paragraphs below).

61 Irenaeus, haer. 4:33.14, FC 8/4:274. The prophets refer to the freedom of the new covenant according to Matt 9:17 (Irenaeus, haer. 4:33.14, FC 8/4:276). 62 Tertullian, adv. Iud. 3.7, CC.SL 2:1346. 63 Clement of Alexandria, str. 6:41.5, GCS 52:452. 64 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 95.1, CC.SL 138 A:583, in his quotation of Jer 31:31. 65 Cf. e.g. Diodor of Tarsus, in Psalm 26, CC.SG 6:152. In the prologue to his commentary, Diodorus lists the captivity of Babylon, events in Egypt, events in the Maccabean period, and events in the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel as historical points of reference (Diodor of Tarsus, in Psalm, prol., CC.SG 6:5). 66 Cf. eg. Diodor of Tarsus, in Psalm 24, CC.SG 6:143; Theodore of Mopsuestia, in Psalm 41 (Hill 520). 67 Cf. eg. Theodore of Mopsuestia, in Psalm 69, Hill 894, 910. 68 John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 82.2, PG 58:740. 69 Ambrose, in Luc. 4:44, CC.SL 14:121–122, against Marcion. 70 Quodvultdeus, adv. quinque haer. 5:3, CC.SL 60:277, against the Manicheans. 71 Fulgentius of Ruspe, ep. 14.47, CC.SL 90:443. 72 Irenaeus, haer. 3:10.2, FC 8/3:82–84, referring to Luke 1:26, 30, 32, 46–47, 78–79; Irenaeus, haer. 4:9.1, FC 8/4:68, referring to Jer 31:31–32; Irenaeus, haer. 4:9.3, FC 8/4:74, referring to Matt 15:3–4 etc. 73 Epiphanius of Salamis, haer. 66.74.6, GCS 37:115, against the Manicheans. 74 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 51.4, CC.SL 138 A:299. Even the motif of the two fishes in Luke 9:13 evoked such a statement (Ambrose, in Luc. 6:82, CC.SL 14:204). 75 John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 90.2, PG 58:789–790.

548

Martin Meiser

1.4 Mysteries of the New Covenant are Hidden in the Old Covenant. Christian scholars used not only quotations but also the similarity of certain motifs to develop their point of view. Writings of Barnabas, Justin and Irenaeus76 evince a preference for the literary device of typology, which is construed as synonym, antithetic or superior typology, concerning persons,77 other figures,78 objects,79 and rites like circumcision,80 or offering81, even the color “red” for blood.82 Origen based his theory of spiritual reading of the Old Testament on the apparent contrast between 2 Cor 3:6–8 and Rom 7:12, 14 on the one hand, and Ezek 20:25 and Ezek 20:11, on the other; the letter that kills and the commandments that are inferior all belong to the realm of the literal; Origen juxtaposes all of that to spiritual reading.83 Unfortunately, also the motif of the prefiguration of the old in the new offers an opportunity for anti-Jewish polemics. Moses had regarded the two tables of the laws as sufficient instruments, but was unaware that they symbolized the old and the new covenant.84 Christological reading often prevents the recognition of fulfillment in the history of Israel: Theodoret mentions the “covenant of peace given to David” (Ezek 34:25) because of the phrase “Christ is our peace” in Eph 2:14.85 76

Irenaeus, haer. 4:25.1–2, FC 8/4:198–200, referring to Gen 38:28. Cf. Isaac in Barn 7.3; Clement of Alexandria, paed. 1.5, GCS 12:103; Aaron in Methodius, lepra 7, GCS 27:459; Jonah in Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. 14.20 Rupp 132–134. Cf. also the series “Abel, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, David” as types of Jesus’ crucifixion in Melito, pasch. 59/430–435, SC 123:92. 78 Cf. e.g. Melito, pasch. 30–33/205–231, SC 123:76, on the sacrifice of the Passover lamb (DUNCAN, “Covenant Idea”, 27–28, emphasizes the differences between Melito and the Letter of Barnabas in covenantal theology); cf. further Ambrose, in Luc. 2:92, CC.SL 14:73–74: The dove (Gen 8:10, 11; Luke 3:22) inspires Ambrose to see Noah’s ark as a type for the church. 79 Noah’s ark is a figure for the church (Maximus of Turin, serm. 49:3, CC.SL 23:193) but can also be interpreted as a type of Mary: As the chest carried the tablets of the covenant, so Mary carried the heir of that covenant (Maximus of Turin, serm., 42.5, CC.SL 23:172). The “stone” can be an allusion to Jesus, on the basis of 1 Cor 10:3 (Cyprian, test. 2:16, CC.SL 3:52 et al.) and 1 Pet 2:6, 8, cf. MERKT, 1. Petrus, 156, with n. 665–666. Also the ladder of Gen 28:12 can be interpreted typologically as a symbol for the two testaments (Zeno of Verona, tract. I 37.1, CC.SL 22:101). 80 Cf. Ambrose, in Luc. 2:56, CC.SL 14:55, in exposition of Luke 2:22: The law in its entirety is a type of the future; circumcision is a type of cleansing from transgressions. 81 The offering of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18) was a prefiguration of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Clement of Alexandria, str. 4:161.3, GCS 52:319–320; Leo I. of Rome, tract. 5:3, CC.SL 138:53). The Old Testament sacrifices announce the sacrifice of Jesus, which fulfills them (Leo I. of Rome, tract. 58.1; 59.7, CC.SL 138 A:340, 358). 82 Cf. 1 Clem 12:7. 83 Origen, Cels 7:20, GCS 3:171–172. 84 Maximus of Turin, serm., 20.5, CC.SL 23:77. 85 Theodoret, in Ezek, PG 81:1161cd. 77

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

549

1.5 The Analogy of Ethical Demands According to Gregory of Nazianzen, God showed full mercy to fallen humanity by previously providing it with, besides everything else, the law (of Moses), the prophets and the unwritten law as “a judge” to rebuke, admonish and educate it. Finally, God offered not only himself as a sacrifice of atonement for the life of the world, but also the apostles, evangelists, teachers and shepherds; furthermore, there were healings, miracles, return to life, deliverance from death, victory over the victor, a shadowy and true covenant, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the mysteries of the new covenant. In this way, Christians too should be merciful and ready to help, to give something of our possessions to the poor.86 Both laws call for tolerance in face of evil,87 mercy,88 righteousness,89 eagerness to martyrdom;90 they prohibit adultery91 or any wrath92 and admonish to heed divine judgement93 so that Christians abstain from sin and perform good deeds.94 The unity of divine speech in both the old and new covenants underlines the urgency of ethical reminders.95 This paragraph also reflects on the fact that certain ethical norms in the new covenant already existed in the old covenant, for instance monogamy,96 or that some stipulation with generally validity in the New Testament has its origins in the old covenant, for example the demand for priests to renounce land ownership.97

86

Gregory of Nazianzen, or. 14.27, PG 35:893ab. Matt 5:39 has its analogy already in Lam 3:27–30 Origen, Cels. 7:25, GCS 3:176. 88 Salvian, eccl. 2:11/50–52, CSEL 8:261, referring to Ps 111[112]:9; Matt 6:19, 24. 89 Theodore of Mopsuestia, in Gal., Swete 76–77. Insofar as Augustine, Qu. Deut. 54, CC.SL 33:307, could ascertain it, this is true also for the Septuagint’s addition of ἐν χερσίν σου/in minibus tuis in Deut 30:14. The Hebrew version, insofar as he could check it, did not include these words. Also Theodoret, qu. Deut 38, PG 80:414a, regards Paul’s usage of Deut 30:11–14 as analogous to proposing reward and punishment for compliance and disregard of the law. 90 In both the old and the new covenant, humans are expected to imitate the willingness of the Maccabean martyrs to suffer by fighting against the passions within them so as to glorify God (Gregory of Nazianzen, or. 15.12, PG 35:932c–933a). 91 Tertullian, pud. 18.6, CC.SL 2:1318, quoting Ps 49[50]:16. 92 John Cassian, inst. 8:15, CSEL 17:161, referring to Lev 19:17; Prov 22:28LXX. 93 Cf. Maximus of Turin, serm. 29.3, CC.SL 23:114: 1 Cor 11:29 (qui manducat et bibit indigne) is subtly announced to the Israelites by the worms for those who collected Manna on the Sabbath (Exod 16:13–15, 31). 94 Fulgentius of Ruspe, serm. 1.10, CC.SL 91 A:894. 95 John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt 29.3, PG 57:361; hom. in Matt. 50.4, PG 58:509. 96 Jerome, ep. 123.12, CSEL 56:87. 97 Salvian of Marseille, eccl. 2:9, CSEL 8:257. 87

550

Martin Meiser

1.6 The Analogy of Religious Practice In addition to the above-mentioned aspects, there were analogies in the area of religious practice, like the laying on of hands, which was understood as a gesture of blessing,98 and fasting, at least in later times, although it had already been demanded in Joel 2:15b–16a.99 Elijah and Elisha were considered as proto-types of monastic life in the old covenant.100 Some of the saints of the old covenant lived in more severity than obliged by the Law of Moses; they were perfect even though it is said with regard to the mosaic law that it could not render anything perfect (Heb 7:19). In this way also the perfect Christians supersede the normal obligations of the Quadragesima.101 In the order of the Benedictines, Ps 119:164 is the scriptural basis for the rule of seven times of prayer throughout the day.102 1.7 The Righteous of the Old Covenant Lived in Accordance with the New Covenant The notion that the righteous of the old covenant already lived in accordance with the new can be traced back to Irenaeus.103 In general, New Testament prooftexts are Gal 3:8 and Matt 22:31,104 but also John 8:36 (for Abraham); Heb 11:26 (for Moses); John 12:41 (for Isaiah); Jud 5 (for all the righteous)105; Gal 3:16; Matt 1:1–16; Luke 3:23–38,106 etc. Irenaeus interpreted the faith of Abraham as persevering the peregrination in this world.107 Abraham was justified even before his circumcision108 and received the covenant of circumcision so that he is a prefiguration of both testaments. He also became the father of all, the believers from circumcision and those from the foreskin.109 God had justified Abraham by faith before he made the covenant with Israel.110 Clement 98

Tertullian, bapt. 8.2, CC.SL 2:283. Leo I. of Rome, tract. 88.1, CC.SL 138A:546; however, he includes an anti-Jewish polemic when suggesting that Christians should obey the demand of Joel 2 to finally achieve the sanctification that was could not be accomplished due to Jewish transgression. 100 John Cassian, inst. 1:2, CSEL 17:8. 101 John Cassian, coll. 21.29, CSEL 13:604–605. 102 CSEL 75:64. In this way also a counterbalance to 1 Thess 5:17 was possible. 103 Irenaeus, haer. 4:27.2, FC 8/4:218 who refers to 1 Pet 3:19; 4:6 without explicit indication. 104 Origen, in Ioh. 6:18, SC 157:144. 105 Jerome, in Gal., CC.SL 77 A:59. 106 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 30.7, CC.SL 138:158–159. 107 Irenaeus, haer. 4:25.1, FC 8/4:198. 108 Circumcision is only a sign of the covenant (Gen 17), but not yet of perfection (Irenaeus, haer. 4:16.1, FC 8/4:116). 109 Irenaeus, haer. 4:25.1, FC 8/4:198. 110 Irenaeus, haer. 4:16.2, FC 8/4:118–120, referring to Deut 5:2. Does Irenaeus not overinterpret the words διαθήκην ταύτην, which imply that God has indeed made other 99

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

551

of Alexandria emphasizes that Abraham111 and Moses had distinguished themselves in virtue; everyone who has learned to free himself from passions and to do good can see himself as one of the apostles.112 According to Jerome, the righteous of the old covenant lived non sub lege, sed quasi sub lege (“not under the Law, bus as if under the Law”).113 According to Rufinus of Aquileia, Jesus brings these righteous into the paradise during his descent into Hades.114 In the fourth and fifth century, the rationale for their salvation was a topic of debate on its own. Ambrosiaster points to their love of God115 and Cyril of Jerusalem to their pleasant lives to God.116 The Pelagians stated, at least according to Augustine, that the righteous of the old covenant reached salvation without grace.117 Augustine rejects this thesis with arguments based on Gal 4:28118; 3:11–12119 or Gal 4:24 and Gal 3:21.120 In the same line of thought, Tajo of Saragossa understands the “freeing” in Gal 4:5 as a reference to the salvation of these righteous.121 Unfortunately, arguments of anti-Jewish polemics have also been derived from this motif. According to Leo I. of Rome, the merits of the Old Testament pious do not cancel the verdict of guilt against all human beings, which is only lifted by Christ.122 The righteous who preceded us only knew a hope of salvation in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the Jewish attitude of literally fulfilling the law is regarded as wrong.123 The cross of Christ replaces the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were supposed to prefigure the future, but are now superfluous.124

covenants with the fathers? According to Irenaeus, haer. 4:16.3, FC 8/3:120, God did not make a covenant with the fathers, because the law is not given to the righteous (1 Tim 1:9), but they have the Decalogue in their hearts. 111 God acted as an educator on Abraham, with the admonition γίνου ἄμεμπτος (Gen 17:1), and made a covenant with him, which includes a friendly connection with the educator (Clement of Alexandria, paed. 1:56.3, GCS 12:123). 112 Clement of Alexandria, str. 6:103.1–106.2, GCS 52:483–485. 113 Jerome, in Gal., CC.SL 77 A:182. 114 Rufinus, symb. 27, CC.SL 20:162, referring to Matt 27:52; Heb 2:10. 115 Ambrosiaster, qu. nov. test. app. 66, CSEL 50:460. 116 Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. 5.10, Reischl 146. 117 Augustine c. ep. Pel. 4,5/10, CSEL 60:531. 118 Augustine, c. ep. Pel. 3,4/13, CSEL 60:501. The patriarchs do not owe their virtue to their own free decision but to the Holy Spirit. 119 Augustine c. ep. Pel. 4,5/10, CSEL 60:531. 120 Augustine, nupt. et conc. 2,11/24, CSEL 42/2:277. Cf. Augustine, conf. 10:43/68, CC.SL 27:192. 121 Tajo of Saragossa, sent. 2,8, PL 80:785d. 122 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 66.1, CC.SL 138 A:400–401. 123 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 66.2, CC.SL 138 A:401–402. 124 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 59.5, CC.SL 138 A:356.

552

Martin Meiser

2. The Transitory Character of the Old Covenant 2.1 The Motif of Shadow The motif of shadow, found already in the Letter to the Hebrews, also occurs in John Chrysostom125, Jerome126, Leo I. of Rome127 and Ambrose who makes the contrast explicit: the Jewish feasts are shadows and types of the celestial feasts. “Here’s the shadow, there’s the truth. Let us then try to penetrate through the shadow to the truth …”128 2.2 The Motif of Inferiority According to Augustine, Christ revealed the new covenant of eternal inheritance, in which humanity is restored by the grace of God and new life is created. The Lord was to show a life of the law. But in so doing, the Lord also exhibited that the old covenant was only a precursor because carnally minded people, with the exception of a few clear-eyed patriarchs and prophets and a few hidden saints, lived in the old ways of carnal desires, demanding from the Lord only a temporal reward and receiving it as models of spiritual goods.129 John Cassian states that, according to Ezek 20:25, the laws of the old covenant are inferior when compared to the perfection of the Gospels.130 2.3 The End of the Old Covenant The motif of the end of the old covenant is found in Irenaeus,131 Eusebius of Caesarea, John Chrysostom132 and others.133 According to Eusebius, Moses himself already prophesied it. When the Romans destroyed the city of Jerusalem, the fulfillment of the Torah became impossible.134 The end of

125

John Chrysostom, hom. in Col. 10.3, PG 62:369. Jerome, ep. 112.14, CSEL 55:383 (to Augustine). 127 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 58.1, CC.SL 138 A:340. 128 Ambrose, exc. Sat. 2:107, CSEL 73:308. 129 Augustine, catech. rud. 22/40, CC.SL 46:164. 130 John Cassian, coll. 23.4, CSEL 13:644. 131 Irenaeus, haer. 4:4.2, FC 8/4:34. 132 According to John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 6.3, PG 57:65, Jesus τὴν μὲν πάλαιαν ἀναπαύειν ἔμελλε πολιτείαν. 133 Tertullian, or. 1.1, CC.SL 1:257; Tertullian, adv. Marc. 1:20.4–6, CC.SL 1:461–462; Athanasius, in Psalm 49, prol., PG 27:229b; Leo I. of Rome, tract. 58.1; 59.7, CC.SL 138 A:340, 358, etc. 134 Eusebius, d.e. 1.6.38–40, GCS 23:28–29. Cf. also Athanasius, in Psalm. 126.1, PG 27:516cd for the motif of the destruction of the temple as the end of the old covenant. 126

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

553

sacrifices is a common topic.135 In the old covenant, there were various sacrifices, in the new only the son is sacrificed.136 In his homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, also John Chrysostom represents the well-known strategy of distinguishing between the ongoing obligation to Old Testament ethics and abrogation of ritual commands. In his exegesis of Matt 5:17, he asks for the objective of Jesus and answers: The Jews believed that Jesus wanted to abolish the regulations of the old covenant; Jesus, however, did not want to weaken virtue but extend it.137 In his exegesis of Matt 26:26–29, he states that Jesus establishes the Eucharist to lead out of Jewish customs.138 The end of the old covenant has been signaled by symbolic acts of people of the old covenants139 and adversaries of Jesus,140 or by symbolic events like the tearing of the curtain in the temple, which, according to Leo I. of Rome, happened to reveal the mysteries of the old covenant. Leo includes a sharp antiJewish polemic: “Heaven and Earth have condemned you, the Jews.”141 2.4 Relativization of the Ceremonies Announced and Confirmed Tertullian quotes Isa 43:19; Jer 31:31 (sic!); Jer 4:4; Hos 2:11 as proof that the creator himself foretold the new covenant through the prophets when the Jewish ceremonies are abrogated, according to the new dispensation.142 According to Epiphanius of Salamis, the hymn of praise of the three men in the furnace of Babylon (Dan 3:25–90) – they knew that no altar was available for a sacrifice – implies that under the influence of the Holy Spirit they turned the old covenant into the new covenant and made their sacrifice of praise (Ps 106:22) in humility (Luke 18:14).143 The relativization of the ceremonies is seen as though it were confirmed by the New Testament. According to John Chrysostom, the supremacy of the commandment of charity over sacrifice suggested by Jesus’ interlocutor (Mark 135 Tertullian, or. 1.1, CC.SL 1:257; Tertullian, adv. Marc. 1:20.4–6, CC.SL 1:461–462; Athanasius, in Psalm 49, prol., PG 27:229b; Leo I. of Rome, tract. 58.1; 59.7, CC.SL 138 A:340, 358, etc. 136 Athanasius, in Psalm., PG 27:400b; cf. also Leo I. of Rome, tract. 58.1, CC.SL 138 A:340–341. 137 John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 16.1, PG 57:239. 138 John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 82.1, PG 58:739. 139 The author of the Epistle of Barnabas uses the external biblically described process that Moses breaks the two plates of the testimony (Deut 9:17) as an indication that the covenant has become invalid (Barn 14:3). 140 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 57.2, CC.SL 138 A:334, refers to the high priest who tears off his garment during the process against Jesus (Matt 26:65). 141 Leo I., tract. 53.2, CC.SL 138 A:314, in application of Matt 27:51. 142 Tertullian, adv. Marc. 1:20.4–6, CC.SL 1:461–462. 143 Epiphanius of Salamis, Anc. 23.4–5, GCS 25:32.

554

Martin Meiser

12:32) was confirmed by Jesus’ answer “You are not far away…” (Mark 12:34).144 Already the Old Testament relativizes the sacrifices and demands mercy, as John Chrysostom argues because of the quotation of Hos 6:6 in Matt 9:13.145 2.5 The Lack of Effect The argument of lack of efficacy is already Justin’s argument to justify the expiration of the old covenant. If the law could enlighten the heathen, what would be the purpose of a new covenant?146 John Chrysostom gives the following characteristic of the old covenant: “when sin was not yet put away, when the law had not yet ceased, when death was not yet bound, when the brazen gates were not yet broken up, but while the ancient polity still was in force.”147 Augustine comments similarly: the law was characterized by threats, but did not provide aid; it commanded, did not heal; made human weakness manifest, but did not take it away.148 To be sure, such statements may claim Gal 3:19 and Rom 3:20 as their scriptural base, but in the end, these Christian scholars formulated a cliché without having Ps 118[119]:70 in mind. 2.6 Israel’s Failure in Past and Present Texts which are used as prooftexts were Exod 32,149 Deut 31:16,150 32:21,151 Ps 49[50]:16,152 Isa 52:13–53:1,153 Jer 32:32,154 etc. Hermeneutically, one can discover a recurring pattern: a point of criticism that was once conceded within the Jewish community now becomes an external argument to undermine the legitimacy of Judaism as a whole, while Christians claim to be the true Israel.155 144

John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 71.1, PG 58:662. John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 29.3, PG 57:365. 146 Justin, dial. 122.5, Bobichon I 514 (cf. φῶς ἐθνῶν in Isa 42:6 concerning φωτίζειν). 147 John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 10:4, PG 57:189. 148 Augustine, tract. Ev. Io. 3.14, CC.SL 36:26; similarly Maximus of Turin, serm. 30.3, CC.SL 23:76. 149 Barn 4.7; Tertullian, adv. Iud. 3.13, CC.SL 2:1347 (with regard to Tertullian, adv. Iud. 2.10–3.13, see the analysis in DUNN, Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos, 113–114). In Irenaeus, haer. 4:15.1, FC 8/4:110–112, the laws considered to be “not good” are the consequence of Israel’s failure according to Exod 32. Irenaeus refers to Stephen’s speech Acts 7:38–43, including the quotation of Am 5:25–26, to corroborate his opinion. 150 Justin, dial. 74.4, Bobichon I 482. 151 Irenaeus, dem. 95, FC 8/1:92–93. 152 This text, which was later used as a reminder within Christ, is quoted as a charge against the Jews by Justin, dial. 22.7–10, Bobichon I 236–238. 153 Justin, dial. 118.3–4, Bobichon I 500–502 including the polemics: “we surpass you Jews, who in your imagination, but not in deed, love God and are wise” (dial. 118.3). 154 Jerome, adv. Pel. 2:28, CC.SL 80:93. 155 Justin, dial. 11.5, Bobichon I 210. 145

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

555

The ritual commandments were given to Israel only because of its stubbornness.156 According to Origen, the Jews of Jesus’ days were not believing in Jesus’ miracles although they are greater than the miracles during the exodus.157 The destruction of the temple is often seen as a divine punishment for Israel’s rejection of Jesus Christ.158 By contrast, a divine promise of correction such as Ezek 16:59 was referred not to the covenant of the law but to the covenant of grace, mediated by the apostles. Theodoret quotes Jer 31:31 in this context but does not mention that it is about the law.159 2.7 The Period of Transition in Church History In early Christianity, the apostles were allowing for temporal accommodation: Their Jewish addressees were not supposed to think that they would destroy their faith but lead them to the new way of worshipping God. This notion was based on the contrast between Acts 16:3 and Gal 2:14. Tertullian regarded the circumcision of Timothy as temporal accommodation,160 Gregory of Nazianzen as ethical οἰκονομία,161 John Chrysostom as a procedure of οἰκοδομή.162

3. Difference between the Old and the New Covenant 3.1 The Mediator of the New Covenant Irenaeus deals with the Jewish denial of the Christian claim that the new covenant had become reality in Jesus Christ. The new covenant, Irenaeus emphasizes, had not already become reality in the reconstruction of the stone building of the Second Temple; after all, the law of Moses continued to be used.163

156

Justin, dial. 43.1, Bobichon I 288. Origen, Cels. 2:75, GCS 2:196. He refers to Luke 11:48 which stands in continuity to the motif “Israel and the fate of the prophets” well-known from 2 Chr 36:15–16. 158 Eusebius, d.e. 1.6.38–40, GCS 23:28–29. For the motif of the destroying of the temple as the end of the old covenant, cf. also Athanasius, in Psalm. 126.1, PG 27:516cd. However, misconduct by Israelites can always serve as a warning against one’s own misconduct (John Cassian, coll 24:17, CSEL 13:693, on Num 25). 159 Theodoret, in Ezek, PG 81:953d–956a. In his exegesis on Gen 17:2, Philo, mut. nom. 52, COLSON, V 168, characterizes διαθήκη itself as a symbol of grace, given to those who are worthy to accept it. 160 Tertullian, pud. 17.19, CC.SL 2:1317; cf. Tertullian, monog. 14.2, CC.SL 2:1249. 161 Gregory of Nazianzen, or. 31.25, FC 22:318–320. 162 John Chrysostom, hom. in Act. 34.3, PG 60:247. 163 Irenaeus, haer. 4:34.4, FC 8/4:282. 157

556

Martin Meiser

Whereas an angel164 or Moses165 can be regarded as mediator of the old covenant, only Jesus Christ is regarded as mediator of the new one. This concept was justified by different biblical passages like 1 Tim 2:5, John 1:17, and Gal 4:5.166 Justin also used Isa 42:6 as proof that God will not keep his glory but will give it to the servant of God.167 3.2 The Addressees of the New Covenant In Justin’s argumentation, the inclusion of the Gentiles is based on the literal parallel of Isa 42:6–7: εἰς διαθήκην γένους, εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν.168 The argument of experience, the conversion of many Gentiles from their idols just under the name of Jesus crucified, is an argument first put forward by Justin,169 then repeated as fulfillment of Isa 54:1 and Gal 4:27. The new covenant provides regulations suitable not only for Israel but for every people.170 The inclusion of Gentiles is a common motif in early Christianity, to be illustrated by texts from Tertullian,171 Athanasius,172 Leo I. of Rome, etc.173 Prooftexts were Isa 2:2– 4,174 Ps 17:45,175 Isa 17:6–8, 65:1,176 Isa 42:6–7,177 Acts 2:9–11,178 Eph 3:6,179 etc. Jewish openness for integrating non-Jews is not explicitly mentioned, although Judaism was an obstacle of concurrence in Antioch180 or Edessa181 or elsewhere.182

164

Clement of Alexandria, paed. 1:59.1–2, GCS 12:124–25, referring to Exod 3:5. Theodore of Mopsuestia, in Gal., Swete 76–77. 166 Augustine, tract. Ev. Io. 3.2, CC.SL 36,20–21, refers to John 1:17 and Gal 4:5. 167 Justin, dial. 65.4, Bobichon I 360. 168 Justin, dial. 26.2, Bobichon I 246; cf. Justin, dial. 65.4 Bobichon I 360. 169 Justin, dial. 11.4, Bobichon I 210–212. 170 Justin, dial. 67.9–10, Bobichon I 364–366. 171 Tertullian, adv. Iud. 3.7, CC.SL 2:1345–46. 172 Athanasius, in Psalm. 9:20, PG 27:88b. 173 Leo I., tract. 59.5, CC.SL 138A:356 … crux Christi non templi esset ara, sed mundi. 174 Tertullian, adv. Iud. 3.8, CC.SL 2:1346. 175 Tertullian, adv. Iud. 3.11, CC.SL 2:1347. 176 Irenaeus, dem. 91–92, FC 8/1:91. 177 Justin, dial. 26.2, Bobichon I 246; cf. dial. 65.4 Bobichon I 360. 178 Tertullian, adv. Iud. 7.4, CC.SL 2:1354, who expands this list. 179 Irenaeus, haer. 1:10.3, FC 8/1:202. 180 John Chrysostom, adv. Iud. 1:5.1, PG 48:850. 181 LANGE, Ephraem I, 17–18. 182 KINZIG, Ephraem 139–145, presents a wealth of material with regard to Jewish practices concerning table fellowship, mixed sexual relations, ownership of slaves, medicine, and rites. 165

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

557

3.3 The Necessity of the New Covenant also for Christians At the beginning of his homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, John Chrysostom states that Christians should not actually be dependent on the aid of the Holy Scriptures; instead they should live a life guided by the Holy Spirit instead of the Holy Scriptures. Why, however, do they need the Holy Scriptures? God personally interacted with Abraham and Moses; but since the Jewish people fell into the abyss of sin, God gave them the Holy Scriptures to admonish them. In the end, however, there is no difference to the religion of the new covenant either: Christians have gone astray, partly in matters of faith, partly in their way of life; therefore, they also need admonitions through the written word.183 Jesus does not want to diminish the meaning of the Old Testament but increase it. If the Old Testament does not lead to the kingdom of heaven, it is not because of its inferiority; otherwise the same would apply to the New. When Christians are in heaven, then the new covenant will also end.184 Jerome is adamant in his refutation of the Montanist’s claim that only the coming of the Holy Spirit in Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla brought salvation, not the ineffective two covenants (partially based on 1 Cor 13:12).185 3.4 New Law and New Gifts of the New Covenant The idea of the new law186 is based on the future tense of the verb in Isa 51:4 (νόμος παρʼ ἐμοῦ ἐξελεύσεται187). According to the patristic concept of “Introduction in the Old Testament”, Isa 51:4 cannot refer to the Pentateuch, since Moses is regarded as its human author.188 In general, early Christian authors claim that Jesus Christ is the lawgiver.189 The gifts of the new covenant are in accordance to the new, spiritual worship of God. The spiritual character of those gifts was a major theme in Augustine’s theology. The new covenant unveiled what was veiled in the old, namely that the one true God should not be worshipped for the sake of earthly and transitory good deeds, which divine providence indiscriminately bestows on the good and on the evil, but for the sake of eternal life, for the sake of enduring gifts, and for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.190

183

John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 1.1, PG 57:13. John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 16.4–5, PG 57:244. 185 Jerome, ep. 41.4, CSEL 54:314. 186 Justin, dial. 34.1, Bobichon I 264. 187 Cf. also νόμος ἐξελεύσεται in Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2. 188 Justin, dial. 34.3–6, Bobichon I 266–268. Therefore, Ps 71 is not addressed to Solomon but to Jesus. 189 Athanasius, in Psalm. 9:21, PG 27:88a. 190 Augustine, civ. 5:18 fine, CSEL 40/1:251. Cf. also Augustine, civ. 4:33, CSEL 40/1:207. 184

558

Martin Meiser

3.5 Appropriate Human Behavior: Fear vs. Love The difference between the circumstances of mediating the two covenants – Justin191 and Leo I. of Rome192 emphasize the calm vs. the fearful style of mediation – has its corollary in the intended effects in the receivers. According to Clement of Alexandria, the old covenant contains the commandment to fear God, the new one to love him193; Deut 6:4–5 is absent from this argumentation. With true freedom, a human fulfills a law not out of fear but love. In a similar way, Leo describes the difference between Christian and Jewish fasting, which he strongly devalues.194 In general, spiritual worship of God is appropriate;195 of course, also the act of offering is spiritualized, for example as gifts associated with praise,196 etc. 3.6 The New Covenant and Religious Practice 3.6.1 Understanding the Holy Scripture Regarding human fulfillment of the Law, the dichotomy “carnal – spiritual” is prominent since Justin and Tertullian.197 For Origen, it was one of the main issues of his theology to establish a spiritual reading of Holy Scriptures that met the intellectual demands of his time and simultaneously promoted Christian separation from Judaism. The spiritual, not the literal, understanding of Holy Scripture corresponds to the existence in the new covenant.198 Jerome emphasizes the onerous character of Jewish ceremonies – he disregards Ps 118[119]:70 for this purpose.199 Sometimes this spiritual understanding of the Law caused an aggressive anti-Jewish polemic with regard to Jewish customs at the author’s own time. Augustine criticizes Jews who use the Sabbath “for luxuriousness and drunkenness. How much better would their women be employed in spinning wool than in dancing on that day in the balconies?”200

191

Justin, dial. 67.9–10, Bobichon I 364–366. Leo I. of Rome, tract. 95.1, CC.SL 138 A:583. 193 Clement of Alexandria, paed. 1:59.1–2, GCS 12:124–25. 194 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 89.3, CC.SL 138 A:553. 195 Eusebius, d.e. 6:38–40, GCS 23:28–29, quotes John 4:23–24 in order to characterize the new way of worship. 196 Athanasius, in Psalm 49, prol., PG 27:229b. 197 Tertullian, or. 1.2, CC.SL 1:257. Cf. also Augustine, civ. 18:31, CSEL 40/2:312. 198 Origen, Cels. 6:70, GCS 3:140. 199 Jerome, adv. Pel. 2:28, CC.SL 80: 93: duro pondere. 200 Augustine, tract. Ev. Io. 3.19, CC.SL 36:29. 192

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

559

3.6.2 Stricter Demands in the New Covenant The motif of supersession of the new covenant is realized also with regard to ethics. In early times the polygamy of the patriarchs, an object of critique by anti-Christian pagans and Manicheans,201 served as example. Tertullian points out that even in the old covenant people lived monogamously.202 Isaac was married only once; therefore those who consider themselves Isaac’s offspring according to the apostle Paul (Rom 9:7) could not justify polygamy for Christians, laymen or clergy.203 According to Methodius of Olympus, polygamy was only a temporary concession, necessary due to the small population of the earth. However, the gift of the Law prepared humans in their moral development under Christ of virginity.204 By contrast, still Theodoret reports that Christian believers would have referred to the polygamy of Abraham to justify their debauchery.205 Ps.Athanasius points to Jesus’ skepticism even to monogamy (Luke 14:26), relating the exact wording of Gen 2:24LXX: it is said καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν, and not οἱ τρεῖς.206 The polygamy of the patriarchs, this author concludes, is the result of the devil’s tyranny.207 In John Chrysostom’s homilies, this motif of stricter demands is present when he discusses subjects as swearing,208 gratitude in illness and poverty,209 and almsgiving.210 Should those who should have surpassed the righteous under the old law be inferior to the philosophers among the pagans?211 Those who live after the coming of Christ have received a higher grace and are called to greater struggles.212 Sometimes the punishments according to the Old Testament are milder in comparison to the New. Whereas David, guilty of adultery and murder, is saved by repentance, Ananias, who kept only a part of his proceeds for himself, is punished with death. According to the author, the

201

NISULA, Augustine and the Functions of Concupiscence, 224. According to Tertullian, uxor. 1:2.3, CC.SL 1:375, it was necessary to introduce things that would later be eliminated by the Law. This was required to perfect the Law. 203 Tertullian, monog. 11.4, CC.SL 2:1244. 204 Methodius of Olympus, symp. 1:2, SC 95:56–58. Therefore, Gen 1:28 is a command which is restricted to the era before Christ. 205 Theodoret of Cyrus, qu. Gen. 67, PG 80:176a. 206 Ps.-Athanasius, qu. ad Antiochum Ducem 98, PG 28:657cd. 207 Ps.-Athanasius, qu. ad Antiochum Ducem 98, PG 28:657d–660a. 208 John Chrysostom, hom. stat. 19.4, PG 49:195. 209 John Chrysostom, hom. in Eph. 19.2, PG 62:129–130, referring to Sir 2:4. 210 John Chrysostom, hom. in Eph. 4.4, PG 62:36. 211 John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 21.4, PG 57:300. 212 John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 52.5, PG 58:525. – Matt 5:20 gives the rationale (John Chrysostom, hom. in Matt. 56.2, PG 58:551; Ambrosiaster, qu. nov. test. app. 66, CSEL 50, 460). 202

560

Martin Meiser

reason for this unequal treatment is the inequality of persons.213 Similarly, Quodvultdeus justified the relatively mild penalty in John 8:11 compared to the death penalty for adulterers by tightening Matt 5:28.214 Also Leo I. of Rome uses this parenetic strategy, combined with anti-Jewish polemics: Christians should not fail where Jews have failed.215 Jesus Christ is the end of the law (Rom 10:4), not in the sense that he had proved the models relating to him null and void but by fulfilling them. Although the old and new covenant have the same author, he transformed the mysterious customs of the exemplary promises by fulfilling the promise and, by his coming, put an end to the prophecies. But in the moral law nothing of what the earlier testament commanded was abolished!216 Even though the old law with its variety of types and strict compulsion is a matter of the past, the salutary demands on the people of the new covenant, although they are now voluntary, have grown.217

4. The Reception History of Some Biblical Texts 4.1 The Reception of Ps 43[44]:17; 49[50]:16; 77[78]:10 4.1.1 Ps 43:17[18] This text is interpreted either generally as referring to sins218 or tribulations,219 or specifically as referring to the distress220 or the virtue221 of the pious during the Maccabean revolt. 4.1.2. Ps 49:16 In the interpretation of this text, general accusations and criticism of the Jews or heretic teachers can be found side by side. Eusebius of Caesarea emphasizes that the author characteristics the sinner not by ἀλλότριος τῶν Γραφῶν but παραβάτης. The point of παράβασις is not the ritual law but the natural law that is exemplified by the golden rule.222 In the fourth and fifth century, some commentators read the passage as a general warning against the contradiction 213

John Chrysostom, hom. in 1 Cor. 16.2, PG 61:131. Quodvultdeus, lib. prom. 2:1/2, CC.SL 60:69–70. 215 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 88.1, CC.SL 138 A:546. 216 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 63.5, CC.SL 138 A:385–386. 217 Leo I. of Rome, tract. 63.5, CC.SL 138 A:385. 218 John Chrysostom, in Psalm., PG 55:179. He refers to the structure of a covenant: οὐκ ἠδικήσαμεν περὶ ταῦτα ἃ ἐπιστεύθημεν. 219 Augustine, en. Ps. 43:17, CC.SL 38:489. 220 Theodore of Mopsuestia, in Psalm, Hill 550. 221 Diodor, in Psalm., CC.SG 6:265; Theodoret, in Psalm., PG 80:1184b; similarly (without using the term ἂρετή) Nicephorus Blemmyda, in Psalm., PG 142:1460d. 222 Eusebius of Caesarea, in Psalm., PG 23:437a. 214

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

561

between self-claim and practice.223 The critique against Jews can be rather general224 or more specifically against priests and scribes.225 Cassiodorus offers two different interpretations, first a general warning of sin and second, a general attack against heretical teachers who pretend to teach God’s law.226 4.1.3 Ps 77:10 In the reception of this passage one can observe both admonition and antiJewish polemic. Theodore of Mopsuestia interprets the psalm on the whole as directed against Jews but not explicitly as proof of Christian superiority. He refers the charge in Ps 77:10 to the veneration of other deities, in contrast to God’s command in Exod 20:2.227 According to Theodoret, David proved well (καλῶς) that human beings have a free will.228 Augustine reads the passage in the light of the preceding conversi sunt in die belli as a general warning: quia promissionem oboedientiae non auditio, sed tentatio probat.229 Cassiodorus, however, only offers anti-Jewish polemic: hoc sic planum est, ut expositione non egeat.230 4.2 The Reception of 2 Cor 3:6, 14 In the Eastern tradition, John Chrysostom’s homilies on Second Corinthians were seminal. In his interpretation of 2 Cor 3:6, the demarcation to Judaism is obvious,231 but the emphasis on the Spirit who makes humans alive focuses on ethical implications. At first, he has to balance Rom 7:14 and 2 Cor 3:6 and explains that the law is spiritual, but cannot mediate the Holy Spirit.232 The mortifying character of the γράμμα is related to the punishment of the sinner233 exemplified by the execution of the man who collected wood on the Sabbath

223 Diodor, in Psalm., CC.SG 6:308; Theodor of Mopsuestia, in Psalm., Hill 660; Augustine, en. Ps. 49:23, CC.SL 38:592; John Chrysostom, in Psalm., PG 55:250; Theodoret, in Psalm, PG 80:1206b. 224 Cyril of Alexandria, in Psalm., PG 69:1084b: the Jew is still a servant of sin. 225 Nicephorus Blemmyda, in Psalm., PG 142:1469b. 226 Cassiodorus, in Psalm., CC.SL 97:448–449. 227 Theodor of Mopsuestia, in Psalm., Hill 1044; similarly Eusebius of Caesarea, in Psalm., PG 23:912a, who mentions the veneration of foreign deities in Samaria. 228 Theodoret, in Psalm., PG 80:1488a. 229 Augustine, en. Ps. 77.10, CC.SL 39:1075. 230 Cassiodorus, expos. Ps. 77.10, CC.SL 98:713. 231 According to John Chrysostom and John of Damascus, the old covenant was given because of arrogant people within Judaism (John Chrysostom, hom. in 2 Cor. 6.2, PG 61:438; John of Damascus, in 2 Cor., PG 95:720d). 232 John Chrysostom, hom. in 2 Cor. 6.2, PG 61:438. 233 John Chrysostom, hom. in 2 Cor. 6.2, PG 61:438; Theodoret, in 2 Cor., PG 82:393b; John of Damascus, in 2 Cor., PG 95:721a; Ps.-Oecumenius, in 2 Cor., PG 118:948b.

562

Martin Meiser

(Num 15:32–36).234 The Spirit is mediated through baptism.235 The phrase τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωοποιεῖ is related to ethics: To make human beings alive is to make them better, to convert them from their former sins.236 If the Spirit is given to humans (John 20:23), then they should not fall back to their former life; similarly Jesus Christ will henceforth not die (Rom 6:10).237 In their exegesis of 2 Cor 3:14,238 John Chrysostom and John of Damascus emphasize that the Jews do not understand the glory of the old covenant, which consists of conversion to Christ.239 They do not see that the Law ceases because they do not believe in Christ. For if the Law is ended through Christ, how should they perceive it if they do not believe?240 Different answers were given to the question where in Christ the end of the law becomes visible. John Chrysostom referred to the cleansing of the temple and its destruction, Ps.Oecumenius of Tricca to Jesus’ healings on the Sabbath and the antitheses (Matt 5); both find the end of the Law announced in Deut 18:15, 19.241 Concerning 2 Cor 3:18, it may suffice to mention two aspects: John Chrysostom defines transformation as cleaning of human souls.242 According to Theodoret, only Moses had the glory under the old covenant; now, all of the believers have it. But, drawing to Matt 5:8, this is true only for those with a pure heart.243 4.3 The Reception of Jer 38[31]:31–34 and Heb 8:8–13 A look at early church receptions of Jer 38:31–34 shows: 1. The passage was not referenced too often; the occurrence in Origen, mentioned earlier, is not too important; the passage remains unmentioned in Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Salamis and the Cappadocians. In some commentaries it hinted at implicitly. 2. Where the text is quoted, both the aspect of surpassing and that of continuity were perceived in it. 234

John Chrysostom, hom. in 2 Cor. 6.3, PG 61:438. John Chrysostom, hom. in 2 Cor. 6.2, PG 61:438; Theodoret, in 2 Cor., PG 82:393b. 236 John Chrysostom, hom. in 2 Cor. 6.3, PG 61:438. 237 John Chrysostom, hom. in 2 Cor. 6.3, PG 61:439. 238 On the reception history of 2 Cor 3:14 vde. the exhaustive presentation in ROUKEMA, “Veil”, 240–247. 239 John Chrysostom, hom. in 2 Cor. 7.2, PG 61:445; John of Damascus, in 2 Cor., PG 95:721d. According to Theodoret, in 2 Cor., PG 82:396c, 2 Cor 3:14 in general is valid for people without faith, not especially for unbelieving Jews. 240 John Chrysostom, hom. in 2 Cor. 7.3, PG 61:445; Theodoret, in 2 Cor., PG 82:396c; John of Damascus, in 2 Cor., PG 95:724a. 241 John Chrysostom, hom. in 2 Cor. 7.3, PG 61:446; Ps.-Oecumenius, in 2 Cor., PG 118:953a. 242 John Chrysostom, hom. in 2 Cor. 7.5, PG 61:448. 243 Theodoret, in 2 Cor, PG 82:379d. 235

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

563

Justin took the passage from Trypho as an apologetic argument that Christians, despite their departure from the literally understood ceremonial law, may feel that they belong to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.244 According to Irenaeus, Jer 31:31–34 refers to the calling of the pagans as proclaimed in Isa 17:6–8; 65:1.245 Tertullian quotes Jer 31:31 (sic!) and Jer 4:4 as proof that the creator himself foretold the new covenant by the prophets where the Jewish ceremonies are abrogated, according to the new dispensation,246 but also as an anti-Marcionite proof for the unity of the God of both testaments.247 This interpretation reoccurs in the dialogue of Adamantius,248 Ps.-Polychronius of Apameia,249 and Theodoret.250 Cyprian read Jer 31:31 as biblical proof for the necessity of a new covenant251 but also as an admonition to fear God.252 Clement of Alexandria refers in particular to the statement of the laws written on the heart and the possibility of knowing God’s salutary work in Christ, to which non-Christians should respond with their conversion to Christianity. The usual interpretation then became the abrogation of the ritual Torah, to which the Christians are no longer bound.253 On the basis of the concept of a spiritual reading of the ritual Torah, Ambrosiaster formulates simply: Noster ergo profeta est Hieremias.254 Jerome, too, in his commentary on Jer 38, offers such an interpretation; Christians are free from the human statutes of Judaism; rather, they are taught by the Holy Spirit, whose work leads to the possession of all virtues through the knowledge of the one God. But he also deals with a well-known problem: Quod autem pactum pro testamento ponimus, Hebraicae veritatis est, licet et testamentum recte pactum appellatur, quia voluntas in eo atque testatio eorum, qui pactum ineunt, continetur.255 Jerome also addresses the possible objection that the church of the Gentiles can hardly be identified with the addressees of the promise: “But if someone has doubts as to why he said: I will make a covenant with the house of Israel …, the answer is this: the first Christian congregation consisted of Jews, and the Lord came to them and said, ‘I came only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt 15:24)’; the apostles also confirmed this: ‘the Word of God was to be proclaimed to you first, and now you reject it and prove yourselves unworthy 244

Justin, dial. 11.1, Bobichon I 210. Irenaeus, dem. 90–92, FC 8/1:90–91. 246 Tertullian, adv. Iud. 3.8, CC.SL 2:1346. 247 Tertullian, adv. Marc. 4:1.6, CC.SL 1:546. 248 Adamantius, dial. 23, GCS 4:44. 249 Polychronius (?), frgm. in Jer., PG 64:981a. 250 Theodoret, in Jer., PG 81:665c–668a. 251 Cyprian, test. 1:11, CC.SL 3:13–14. 252 Cyprian, test. 3:20, CC.SL 3:115. 253 Clement of Alexandria, prot. 114.1–115.2, GCS 12:80–81. 254 Ambrosiaster, quaest. test. 44.12, CSEL 50:78. 255 Jerome, Ier. 6:26.4, CC.SL 74:319–320. 245

564

Martin Meiser

of eternal life; behold, now we turn to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46)’. For it did not serve to give the bread of atonement to the dogs (Matt 15:26), but since the sons did not want to know the Father when he came into his possession, it gave (scil. the word of God) to all the authority that those who received him should become sons of God (John 1:11–12).”256 It is worth comparing the interpretations of Jer 38[31]:31–34 and Heb 8:8– 13 by one and the same author, Theodoret. His interpretation of Heb 8 is not spectacular. According to Theodoret, the Old Testament promises earthly gifts such as the land flowing with milk and honey; the New Testament promises the gift of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, which is why it is superior. Heb 8:8–12 is ἀγών in favor of the New Testament, after the superiority of Christ’s priestly ministry according to the order of Melchizedek over the priesthood of the old covenant had previously been shown in Heb 7.257 If the first tabernacle had been impeccable, no second place would have been sought. But because the Old Testament is unable to convey eternal life, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews disregards it.258 The continued validity of the ethical content of the Old Testament is, of course, not affected by this assessment. In his interpretation of Jer 38, Theodoret combines the line of reasoning that is critical of Israel with one that is anti-Marcionite: The one God is the νομοθέτης of both covenants, but the first covenant was imperfect; otherwise a second covenant would not have been necessary. The incarnate Word is the donor of the gifts of the gospel.259 He was the one who liberated Israel from Egypt and said, “I am who I am” (Exod 3:14). And this word is enough to uncover the Jewish παρανομία as well as the heretical βλασφημία.260 Theodoret points to the situation of the Sermon on the Mount when he suggests that God writes the law on people’s hearts: Christ wrote the divine laws into the hearts of the apostles and gave the Beatitudes to the keepers of virtue. The statement about the future knowledge of God refers to the eschatological future, because there humans no longer need instruction: first, things will be obvious, second, affects will no longer work, and third, bodies will be indestructible.261

5. Conclusion The motif of the covenant was important for the groups relying on Jesus to formulate proximity and distance, connection and contradiction within a 256

Jerome, Ier. 6:26.8–9, CC.SL 74:320. Theodoret, in Hebr., PG 82:736d. 258 Theodoret, in Hebr., PG 82:737b. 259 Theodoret, in Jer., PG 81:665cd. 260 Theodoret, in Jer., PG 81:668a 261 Theodoret, in Jer., PG 81:668b. 257

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

565

competitive situation.262 As time moved on, however, the emphasis shifted increasingly to the aspects of distance and contradiction. Those Jews who did not believe in Jesus were always perceived as a de-legitimization of a Christian claim to universality. In terms of textual criticism, however, Old Testament texts were preserved as texts on their own. Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are not automatically corrected to the New Testament text-form. This does however not include hermeneutical consequences which could have reduced the thoroughgoing Christian anti-Judaism.263

Bibliography Adamantius, De recta in Deum fide, edited by Willem Hendrik van de Sande Bakhuyzen (GCS 4), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901. Ambrosiaster, Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, edited by Alexander Souter (CSEL 50), Wien: Tempsky / Leipzig: Freytag, 1908, 1–416. Ambrose, In Lucam, edited by Marcus Adriaen (CC.SL 14), Turnhout: Brepols, 1957. Ambrose, De Noe, edited by Karl Schenkl (CSEL 32/1), Prag et al.: Tempsky / Vienna: Tempsky / Leipzig: Freytag, 1896, 411–497. Appendix quaestionum noui testamenti, rec. Alexander Souter (CSEL 50), Wien: Tempsky / Leipzig: Freytag, 1908, 417–480. Arnobius, Commentarii in Psalmos, edited by Klaus-Detlef Daur, vol. 1 (CC.SL 25), Turnhout: Brepols, 1990; vol. 2 (CC.SL 25 A), Turnhout: Brepols, 1992; vol. 3, cura et studio Klaus-Detlef Daur / Franco Gori (CC.SL 25 B), Turnhout: Brepols, 2000. Ps.-Athanasius, Expositiones in Psalmos (PG 27:59b–546d). Augustine, Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum, edited by Karl F. Urba / Joseph Zycha (CSEL 60), Wien: Tempsky / Leipzig: Freytag, 1913, 423–570. Augustine, De catechizandis rudibus, edited by Johannes B. Bauer (CC.SL 46), Turnhout: Brepols, 1969, 121–178. Augustine, De civitate Dei, edited by Emanuel Hoffmann, vol. 1: Bücher 1–13 (CSEL 40/1), Prag: Tempsky / Wien: Tempsky / Leipzig: Freytag, 1899; vol. 2: Bücher 14–22 (CSEL 40/2), Prag: Tempsky / Wien: Tempsky / Leipzig: Freytag, 1900. Augustine, Confessiones, edited by Lucas Verheijen (CC.SL 27), Turnhout: Brepols, 1981. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, edited by D. Eligius Dekkers / Jean Fraipont, vol. 1: Ps. 1–50 (CC.SL 38), Turnhout: Brepols, 1956 = 1990; vol. 2: Ps. 51–100 (CC.SL 39), Turnhout: Brepols, 1956 = 1990; vol. 3: Ps. 101–150 (CC.SL 40), Turnhout: Brepols, 1956 = 1990.

262 Cf. MCMICHAEL, “Covenant”, 46, who exposes distinct factors: The ongoing validity of moral obligations, the inclusion of Gentiles, the principle of faith instead of the principle of physical descent, the unity in the economy of salvation, the difference of the covenants, and the interpretation of Israel’s Holy Scripture. His overview is useful, but I would stress the diachronic shift. 263 Warm thanks to Richard J. Bautch for improving my English.

566

Martin Meiser

Augustine, De nuptiis et concupiscentia ad Valerium, edited by Karl F. Urba / Joseph Zycha (CSEL 42/2), Prag: Tempsky / Wien: Tempsky / Leipzig: Freytag, 1902, 211–319. Augustine, In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus, textum ed. cur. Radbod Willems (CC.SL 36), Turnhout: Brepols, 1954. Augustine, Qaestiones in Heptateuchum libri VII, edited by Jean Fraipont (CC.SL 33), Turnhout: Brepols, 1958, 1–377. Cassiodorus, Expositio Psalmorum, edited by Marcus Adriaen, vol. 1: Expositio psalmorum I–LXX (CC.SL 97), Turnhout: Brepols, 1953; vol. 2: Expositio psalmorum LXXI–CL (CC.SL 98), Turnhout: Brepols, 1953. Clement of Alexandria, Excerpta ex Theodoto, edited by Otto Stählin, 3. edition by Ursula Treu (GCS 17), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970, 103–133. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, edited by Otto Stählin, 3. edition by Ursula Treu (GCS 12), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1972, 87–292. Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus, edited by Otto Stählin, 3. edition by Ursula Treu (GCS 12), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1972, 1–86. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata I–VI, edited by Otto Stählin / Ludwig Früchtel, 4. edition by Ursula Treu (GCS 52), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985. Stromata VII–VIII, edited by Otto Stählin, 3. edition by Ursula Treu (GCS 17), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970, 3– 102. Cyprian, De bono patientiae, cura et studio Claudio Moreschini (CC.SL 3 A), Turnhout: Brepols, 1976, 115–133. Cyprian, De Dominica oratione, cura et studio Claudio Moreschini (CC.SL 3 A), Turnhout: Brepols, 1976, 87–113. Cyprian, De opere et eleemosynis, cura et studio Manlio Simonetti (CC.SL 3 A), Turnhout: Brepols, 1976, 53–72. (Ps.?)-Cyprian, Ad Quirinium testimoniorum libri tres, edited by Robert Weber (CC.SL 3), Turnhout: Brepols, 1972, 1–179. Cyril of Alexandria, Explanatio in Psalmos (PG 69:717a–1276b). Cyril of Jerusalem, Opera quae supersunt omnia, edited by Wilhelm Karl Reischl and Joseph Rupp, Munich: Lentner 1848–1860 = Hildesheim: Olms, 1967. Diodor of Tarsus, Commentarii in Psalmos, vol. 1: Commentarii in Psalmos I–L, edited by Jean-Marie Olivier (CC.SG 6), Turnhout: Brepols, 1980. Ephraem, Kommentar zum Diatessaron, transl. and introduced by Christian Lange (FC 54/1– 2), Turnhout: Brepols, 2008. Epiphanius of Salamis, “Ancoratus”, in Epiphanius von Salamis, Ancoratus, Panarion haer. 1–33, edited by Karl Holl (GCS 25), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915, 1–149. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, haer. 1–33, edited by K. Holl (GCS 25), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915; haer. 34–64, edited by Karl Holl (GCS 31), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922, 2nd ed. by Jürgen Dummer, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1980; haer. 65–80, De fide, edited by Karl Holl, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1933, 2nd ed. by Jürgen Dummer, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985. Eusebius of Caesarea, In Psalmos (PG 23; PG 24:9a–76c). Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica, edited by Ivar A. Heikel (GCS 23), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913. Fulgentius of Ruspe, Epistula XIV seu Sancti Fulgentii episcopi liber ad Ferrandum Diaconum de qvinqve qvaestionibvs, cura et studio Jean Fraipont (CC.SL 91), Turnhout: Brepols, 1968, 387–444.

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

567

Fulgentius of Ruspe, Sermones, cura et studio Jean Fraipont (CC.SL 91 A), Turnhout: Brepols, 1968, 887–942. Gregory of Nazianzen, Orationes (PG 35:395a–1252c). Hilarius of Poitiers, De Trinitate, cura et studio Piet Smulders, vol. 1: Praefatio, libri I–VII (CC.SL 62), Turnhout: Brepols, 1979; vol. 2: Libri VIII–XII, indices (CC.SL 62 A), Turnhout: Brepols, 1980. Irenaeus, Demonstratio, edited by Norbert Brox (FC 8/1), Freiburg: Herder, 1993, 21–97. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses: Gegen die Häresien, edited by Norbert Brox, vol. 1 (FC 8/1), Freiburg: Herder, 1993, 99–357; vol. 2 (FC 8/2), Freiburg: Herder, 1993; vol. 3 (FC 8/3), Freiburg: Herder, 1995; vol. 4 (FC 8/4), Freiburg: Herder, 1997; vol. 5 (FC 8/5), Freiburg: Herder, 2001. Isidor of Pelusium, Epistularum libri quinque (PG 78:177a–1646d). Jerome, Dialogus adversus Pelagianos, cura et studio Claudio Moreschini (CC.SL 80), Turnhout: Brepols, 1990. Jerome, Epistulae, rec. Isidor Hilberg, vol. 1, Epistulae 1–70 (CSEL 54), Wien: Tempsky / Leipzig: Freytag, 1910, 2nd ed. by Margit Kamptner, Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996; vol. 2, Epistulae 71–120 (CSEL 55), Wien: Tempsky / Leipzig: Freytag, 1912, 2nd ed. by Margit Kamptner, Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996; vol. 3, Epistulae 121–154 (CSEL 56), Wien: Tempsky / Leipzig: Freytag, 1918, 2nd ed. by Margit Kamptner, Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996. Jerome, Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Galatas libri tres, cura et studio Giacomo Raspanti (CC.SL 77 A), Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. Jerome, Commentarii in Ieremiam, cura et studio Siegfried Reiter (CC.SL 74), Turnhout: Brepols, 1960. John Cassian, Collationes XXIIII, rec. Michael Petschenig; editio altera supplementis aucta curante Gottfried Kreuz (CSEL 13), Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004. John Cassian, De institutis coenobiorum et de octo principalium uitiorum remediis libri XII, rec. Michael Petschenig; editio altera supplementis aucta curante Gottfried Kreuz (CSEL 17), Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004, 1–231. John Chrysostom, Expositio in Psalmos (PG 55:35–498). John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim (PG 53/54). John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Actus Apostolorum (PG 60:13–384). John Chrysostom, Homiliae in primam epistolam ad Corinthos (PG 61:9–382). John Chrysostom, Homiliae in secundam epistolam ad Corinthos (PG 61:381–610). John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ad Ephesios (PG 62:9–176). John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ad Colossenses (PG 62:299–392). John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Matthaeum, hom. 1–44 (PG 57), hom. 45–90 (PG 58). English Translation: Translated by George Prevost and revised by M.B. Riddle. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 10. Edited by Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888). John Chrysostom, Homiliae XXI de Statuis ad populum Antiochenum (PG 49:15–222). John Chrysostom, Orationes VIII adversus Iudaeos (PG 48:841–942). John of Damascus, In secundam epistulam ad Corinthios (PG 95:705d–776c). Justin, Dialogue avec Tryphon, edited by Philippe Bobichon (Par. 47/1–2), Fribourg: Academic Press, 2003.

568

Martin Meiser

Leo I. of Rome, Tractatus septem et nonaginta recensuit Antoine Chavasse (CC.SL 138; 138 A), Turnhout: Brepols, 1973. Maximus of Turin, Sermones, edited by Almut Mutzenbecher (CC.SL 23), Turnhout: Brepols, 1962. Meliton, Sur la paque et fragments, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par Othmar Perler (SC 123), Paris: Cerf, 1966, 1–213. Methodius, De lepra, edited by Nathanael Bonwetsch (GCS 27), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1917, 449–474. Nicephorus Blemmyda, Expositio in Psalmos (PG 142:1321a–1622a). Origen, Contra Celsum. Origenes Werke I, Die Schrift vom Martyrium, vol. I–IV: gegen Celsus, edited by Paul Koetschau (GCS 2), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899, 49–374; vol. V– VIII: gegen Celsus: Die Schrift vom Gebet, edited by Paul Koetschau (GCS 3), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899, 1–293. Origen, Commentaire sur Saint Jean, texte grec, avant-propos, traduction et notes par Cécile Blanc, vol. 2: Livres 6–10 (SC 157), Paris: Cerf, 1970. Procopius of Gaza, Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome, vol. 1: Der Genesiskommentar, edited by Karin Metzler (GCS NF 22), Berlin / München / Boston: de Gruyter, 2015. Ps.-Athanasius, Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem (PG 28:597c–700c). Ps.-Oecumenius of Tricca, In secundam epistulam ad Corinthios (PG 118:905c–1068d). Quodvultdeus, Adversus quinque haereses, in Opera Quodvultdeo Carthaginiensi episcopo tributa, edited by René Braun (CC.SL 60), Turnhout: Brepols, 1976, 259–301. Quodvultdeus, Liber promissionum et Praedicatorum Dei, in Opera Quodvultdeo Carthaginiensi episcopo tributa, edited by René Braun (CC.SL 60), Turnhout: Brepols, 1976, 1–223. Rufinus of Aquileia, Expositio symboli, in Tyrannii Rvfini opera, recognovit Manlio Simonetti (CC.SL 20), Turnhout: Brepols, 1961, 125–182. Salvian of Marseille, Ad ecclesiam, in idem, Opera omnia, rec. et commentario critico instruxit Franz Pauly (CSEL 8), Wien: Gerold, 1893, 224–316. Tajo of Saragossa, Sententiarum libri V (PL 80:727a–990 a). Tertullian, Adversus Iudaeos, cura et studio Aemilius Kroymann (CC.SL 2), Turnhout: Brepols, 1954, 1337–1396. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, cura et studio Aemilius Kroymann (CC.SL 1), Turnhout: Brepols, 1954, 437–726. Tertullian, De anima, cura et studio Jan Hendrik Waszink (CC.SL 2), Turnhout: Brepols, 1954, 779–869. Tertullian, Apologeticum, cura et studio Eligius Dekkers (CC.SL 1), Turnhout: Brepols, 1954, 85–171. Tertullian, De baptismo, cura et studio Jan Wilhelm Philipp Borleffs (CC.SL 2), Turnhout: Brepols, 1954, 275–295. Tertullian, De monogamia, cura et studio Eligius Dekkers (CC.SL 2), Turnhout: Brepols, 1954, 1227–1253. Tertullian, De oratione, edited by Gerhard F. Diercks (CC.SL 1), Turnhout: Brepols, 1954, 255–274. Tertullian, De pudicitia, cura et studio Eligius Dekkers (CC.SL 2), Turnhout: Brepols, 1954, 1279–1330. Tertullian, Ad uxorem, cura et studio Aemilius Kroymann (CC.SL 1), Turnhout: Brepols, 1954, 371–394.

Covenant in the Early Church Writings

569

Theodoret, In Jeremiae Prophetiam interpretatio (PG 81:495a–760b). Theodoret, In divini Ezechielis prophetiam interpretatio (PG 81:808a–1256b). Theodoret, Interpretatio secundae epistulae ad Corinthios (PG 82:375b–460a). Theodoret, Interpretatio Epistulae ad Hebraeos (PG 82:673c–786c). Theodoret, Interpretatio in Psalmos (PG 80:857a–1997b). Theodore of Mopsuestia, In epistolas S. Pauli commentarii (the Latin version with the Greek fragm. in 2 vol. with an introduction, notes and indices by Henry Barclay Swete), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1880–1882. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Psalms 1–81, translated with an Introduction and Notes by Robert C. Hill (Writings from the Greco-Roman World 5), Atlanta: SBL Press, 2006. DUNCAN III. J. LIGON, “The Covenant Idea in Irenaeus: An Introduction and Survey”, in Confessing Our Hope: Essays in Honor of Morton Howison Smith on His Eightieth Birthday, edited by Joseph A. Pipa and C.N. Willborn, Taylors: Southern Presbyterian Press, 2004, 31–55. –, “The Covenant Idea in Melito of Sardis: An Introduction and Survey”, Presbyterion 28 (2002): 12–33. DUNN, GEOFFREY D., Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos: A Rhetorical Analysis (NAPS.PMS 19), Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008. FERGUSON, EVERETT, “The Covenant Idea in the Second Century”, in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers, edited by W. Eugene March, San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980, 135–162. KINZIG, WOLFRAM, “Juden und Christen in der Antike: Trennungen, Transformationen, Kontinuitäten und Annäherungen”, in Among Jews, Gentiles and Christians in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (FS Oskar Skarsaune), edited by Reidar Hvalvik and John Kaufman, Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press, 2011, 129–156. MCMICHAEL, STEVEN J., “The Covenant in Patristic and Medieval Christian Theology”, in Two Faiths, One Covenant? Jewish and Christian Identity in the Presence of the Other, edited by Eugene B. Korn and John T. Pawlikowski (The Bernadin Center Series), Landham: Rowland & Littlefield, 2005, 45–64. MERKT, ANDREAS, 1. Petrus, vol. 1 (Novum Testamentum Patristicum 21/1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. NISULA, TIMO, Augustine and the Functions of Concupiscence (VigChr.S 116), Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2012. ROUKEMA, RIEMER, “The Veil over Moses’ Face in Patristic Interpretation”, in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, edited by Riemer Roukema et al. (CBET 44), Leuven u. a.: Peeters, 2006, 237–252.

The Covenant in Christian Apocrypha The Covenant in Christian Apocrypha

Fragmentary Evidence of a Spectrum of Ideas TOBIAS NICKLAS Tobias Nicklas

Recent years have shown how difficult it is to set clear limits to the “apocryphal continent”1. The production of extracanonical writings did not even stop with the closure of the New Testament canon in late antiquity, and the boundaries between “apocryphal” and “hagiographic literature” are very difficult (and in many cases impossible) to determine.2 At the same time, a stream of new findings from countries like Ethiopia, Syria, Egypt, and others, as well as manuscripts which, for example, had been hidden in the libraries of the former Soviet Union (and other places) makes it impossible to offer a full overview of the available material.3 And finally, it is often no longer easy to distinguish between Christian Apocrypha and what we call Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Should we understand the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs as a Jewish writing which was preserved (and partly rewritten) in Christian libraries? Or is it, as the Leiden school believes,4 an originally Christian text like the Syriac Cave of Treasures, the Ascension of Isaiah or 5 Ezra?5 In addition to that, the meaning of the term “Christian” itself is the subject of ongoing scholarly debate. 1 This term alludes to the title of the volume edited by PIOVANELLI/BURKE, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Texts and Traditions. The number of apocryphal writings which came to the attention of modern scholars only during the last few years seems almost endless. This can, for example, be seen via the fascinating series of volumes devoted to More Noncanonical Scriptures. See BAUCKHAM/PANAYOTOV, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures; BURKE/LANDAU, New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures 1; BURKE, New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures 2; a third volume is currently in preparation. 2 For a discussion see NICKLAS, “Gedanken”, 45–63. 3 Among the most recent discoveries is a new recension of the Armenian Infancy Gospel by MARI MAMYAN, Universität Regensburg (to be published 2022). 4 See, for example, DE JONGE, Pseudepigrapha. Even Joseph and Aseneth has been discussed as a Christian writing (see NIR, Joseph and Aseneth). 5 For the current discussion see, for example, DAVILA, “Christians”, 67–86; YOSHIKO REED, “‘Jewish-Christian’ Apocrypha”, 87–116 (both including discussion of older literature).

572

Tobias Nicklas

Even within such an unmanageable quantity of texts and the problems connected to the overall corpus, it is quite difficult to find writings in which the topic of the “covenant” clearly plays an important role. I will, nevertheless, focus on a few key texts and show how they represent a spectrum of voices regarding different ideas of God’s covenant with His People.6

1. An Unbroken Covenant? The Gospel of the Ebionites Unfortunately, the remains of the so-called “Jewish Christian Gospels” (probably including the “Unknown Gospel” on Papyrus Egerton 2)7 are so fragmentary that we cannot determine what they may say about their ideas of the covenant. The fragments of the (probably mid-second century) Gospel of the Ebionites at least show that the Ebionites practiced a very rigid halakha and thus possibly understood themselves as being part of God’s covenant with Israel (or a form of renewed covenant with Israel). The textual evidence, however, does not allow firm conclusions. If we believe the witnesses of Irenaeus of Lyons (haer. 1:26:2) and the Elenchos traditionally attributed to Hippolyt of Rome (haer. 7,34,2),8 the Torah did not just play an important role for the Ebionites’ way of life, but was also bound closely to their Christology and idea of salvation. According to Ps-Hippolyt, “Jesus practiced the commandments of the Law in an ideal, complete way, and only this made him ‘the Anointed One’. He thus was seen as a kind of example for Ebionite ways of life. An example that had to be followed and could even be reached in one’s

6

Several writings only appear to be relevant for the present purpose, but a closer look reveals that this is not the case. I checked, for example, the so-called Book of the Covenant quoted several times in the writings of Didymos of Alexandria, the contents of which (if we do not want to identify it with Jubilees as earlier writers did) cannot be reconstructed. For more detail see LÜHRMANN, “Alttestamentliche Pseudepigraphen”, 231–249; VANDERKAM, “Book of the Covenant”, 28–32. At the same time, it seems that, for example, Armenian Christian Apocrypha on the figure of Abraham are not concerned with questions of the covenant offered to him by God. See the overview of texts in STONE, Armenian Apocrypha. 7 The term “Jewish Christian” is, of course, highly problematic (see, for example, JACKSON-MCCABE, “What’s in a Name?” 7–38). I use it here only for sake of convenience. At the moment even the number of these texts is discussed. Regarding a theology of the Unknown Gospel on Papyrus Egerton 2, which is much concerned with aspects of Israel’s heritage, see the conclusion in ZELYCK, The Egerton Gospel, 215–216: “It appears that this … situation between 150–250 CE required the author of the EG to affirm Jesus’ continuity with the miracle working prophets Moses and Elisha, his obedience to the Law, divinity, and rejection by malevolent Jewish opponents.” Unfortunately, the remaining text speaks nowhere about the covenant. 8 Regarding the different writings attributed to Hippolytus and their different origins, see the discussion in ARAGIONE/NORELLI, Des évêques.

The Covenant in Christian Apocrypha

573

own life.”9 This, plus the fact that the Gospel of the Ebionites was heavily influenced by the Gospel of Matthew,10 makes it possible that ideas of a covenant may have played some role for the Ebionites (and probably for their Gospel) – but we cannot say anything more.11

2. A Covenant without Connection to an Earlier One? Fragmentary Evidence from the Gospel of Marcion Our second example, the Gospel of Marcion, confronts us with an almost unmanageable set of problems. No manuscript of this text has survived so far; we thus have to rely on reconstructions of the text from quotations of ancient Christian authors like Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius and others.12 It is not necessary to discuss all the problems related to these reconstructions – at the moment it is not even fully clear whether the text was a revised version of the Gospel of Luke or whether the canonical Gospel of Luke is an answer to Marcion’s redactional activities on a proto-Luke.13 In any case, Marcion’s Gospel did not contain Luke 1–2. Therefore, Luke’s assertion that God would remember his holy covenant (Luke 1:72) is not attested in Marcion’s Gospel. The only other Lukan passage which explicitly mentioned the term “covenant” is Luke 22:20. In this Lukan Eucharist scene, Jesus identifies the “cup that is poured out for you” with the “new covenant in my blood” (τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον). The reconstructions of Marcion’s text differ. Jason BeDuhn’s quite straightforward English “edition” of Marcion’s Gospel, for example, offers: “This cup is the contract in my blood”,14 thus following Harnack, Blackman, and Tsutsui.15 Of course, this omission is 9 For this passage see also the material discussed in NICKLAS, Jews and Christians, 204– 208 (quote from ibid., 207). 10 Contrary to the evidence offered by Epiphanius, haer. 30:13:2–3 (who calls the Gospel of the Ebionites a “spurious and mutilated” form of a Gospel of Matthew), the remaining fragments show parallels to all synoptic Gospels. 11 A full discussion of the possible evidence in the Pseudo-Clementines (both in the different extant forms and in their highly complex development) would require another article (or perhaps a monograph). For some first information regarding the fascinating Israel theology of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies see DUNCAN, Novel Hermeneutics, 24–26. 12 Regarding the problems see, for example, ROTH, Text, 46–82, whose careful and cautious reconstruction I follow. 13 For an overview (including his own solution) see SMITH, “Marcion’s Gospel”, 129– 173; for a detailed argument see KLINGHARDT, Evangelium. 14 BEDUHN, First New Testament, 124. The text is attested in Epiphanius, Elench. 61; Tertullian, Marc. 4:40:4 (cf. 3:19:4) and the Dialogue of Adamantius 2:20. 15 See VON HARNACK, Marcion, 233; BLACKMAN, Marcion, 46; TSUTSUI, “Evangelium Marcions”, 67–132, esp. 123.

574

Tobias Nicklas

appealing: If the above reconstruction (without καινή) is correct, Marcion probably wanted to understand the Lord’s supper as the start of a covenant – but not as a new covenant based on or related to an old one offered by the God of Israel. As, however, Marcion’s text of 2 Cor 3:6 still speaks about a καινὴ διαθήκη and as the argument on Luke 22:20 is solely based on the not always reliable Tertullian’s silence regarding the word καινή, Dieter Roth’s reconstruction of the text is more cautious. He writes: “Given this fact, and that the Matthean and Markan parallels do not contain καινή, it should perhaps be queried how certain the omission really is.”16 Again, the fragmentary character of the document makes it very difficult if not impossible to reach a clear assessment of a text’s possible theology of covenant.17

3. The Covenant Taken Away from Israel Today it is commonly observed that, beginning in the second century, the idea emerged that God’s covenant was taken away from Israel at Jesus’ death and given to “the Christians”18 as God’s new chosen people. Interestingly, very few apocryphal writings can be understood as clear witnesses for this conception. Even the Gospel of Peter, which is often understood as extremely anti-Jewish, only says that “the Jews … filled the measure of sins upon their head” (V. 17) when they crucified Jesus, the “Lord”, but never connects this explicitly with the idea of a broken covenant. Perhaps the original text may even have developed a perspective of hope for parts of Israel.19 While the Acts of Pilate seems not to be concerned with the motif of the covenant, the later Greek correspondence between Pilate and Herod (perhaps 4th century CE)20 seems to come close to this idea. According to Pilate’s Letter to Herod, one of the writings which understand Pilate as a Christian, Pilate’s wife Procla has a vision of the risen Christ in which God’s διαθήκη is revealed to her. The idea is that all flesh will be made alive through Jesus’s suffering and death, though the meaning of διαθήκη itself here is not entirely clear. It seems to point more to something more like a “decree” than to a (new) “covenant” (perhaps even 16

ROTH, Text, 260 (who also gives evidence that Tertullian sometimes even adds words to Marcion’s alleged text). 17 Of course, it is quite probable that Marcion did not consider the covenant between JHWH and Israel as relevant for the Jesus movement. The question, in how far this idea was reflected in his Gospel, is, however, very difficult to determine. 18 I am conscious of the fact that the use of the term “Christians” creates an anachronism for many of these texts which use partly different categories. 19 For a detailed discussion of the different positions regarding the role of the “Jews” in the Gospel of Peter see NICKLAS, “Anti-Jewish Polemics”, 153–176. 20 The text is notoriously difficult to date. For a few snippets of argument see NICKLAS, “Tag”, 142–144.

The Covenant in Christian Apocrypha

575

for a new people). Herod’s response in turn does not explicitly mention the term. But it seems clear that there is no future for him, his house or the Jews. Instead, he admits “that the nations are inheritors of the kingdom of God while the sons of Light were thrown outside” (ὥστε εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη κληρονόμα τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ βασιλείας, τοὺς δὲ υἱοὺς τοῦ φωτὸς ἑκβληθῆναι ἔξω). None of these reveals an explicit concept of covenant, but at least presupposes that God’s special relation to Israel – here expressed via the idea of his kingdom – has come to an end after Jesus’ death. 3.1 A Rewritten Torah Given to a Renewed People: 5 Ezra Among early Christian apocalyptic writings, 5 Ezra is certainly the most interesting text for our purpose. Today this short writing of two chapters, originally written in Greek, is preserved in two Latin recensions.21 Since the surviving witnesses are transmitted in connection with 4 Ezra and 6 Ezra, it may be revealing to examine how far the emerging compositions, usually called 2 Esdras, develop something like an overall covenantal theology. However, since this complicated work is the subject of a current doctoral project by Lilia Milbach (Humboldt Universität zu Berlin),22 I will concentrate on 5 Ezra. Fifth Ezra is very difficult to date – perhaps one may think of a period not too long after the Bar Kochba revolt 132–135 CE. It purports to be a prophetic writing offering the “word of the Lord that came to Ezra, the son of Chusi, in the days of the king Nebuchadnezzar” (5 Ezra 1:4).23 The main plotline can be described as follows: it begins with a series of God’s complaints over his people’s outrages and sins. Even though God has done so much for Israel, enumerated in 5 Ezra 1:9–23, his people have never reacted appropriately to his benefactions. As a result, God will go over to another people, who will be given his name and will keep his commands (5 Ezra 1:24b: Transferam me ad gentem alteram et dabo illi nomen meum, et custodientes custodient legitima mea). God will not have mercy on “his” people, Israel, nor listen to them any more (5 Ezra 1:26). While there is no future for the first people, God will give their dwellings to a “coming people” (5 Ezra 1:35: populo venienti) that will behave differently – even if it did not see God’s miracles nor his prophets. Chapter 1 closes with the words:24 Now, father, look with glory and see the people coming from the east. I will lead them, (I) together with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Elijah and Enoch, Zechariah and Hosea, Amos,

21

Regarding the textual transmission see BERGREN, Fifth Ezra, 39–224. For a first few see, however, SCHRÖTER/MILBACH, “Composition”, 97–115. 23 Regarding the problem see also HIRSCHBERGER/NICKLAS, “5 Ezra”, 116–130. 24 Texts and translations following or (slightly) adapted from BERGREN, “Fifth Ezra”, 467–482. 22

576

Tobias Nicklas

Joel, Micah, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Jonah, Malachi, Habakkuk, and twelve angels with flowers25 (5 Ezra 1:38–40).

Chapter 2 changes the constellation. Even if the mother who has born them asks her sons to beg God for mercy (5 Ezra 2:2–4), none will be given. Then in 5 Ezra 2:5–7 we come upon explicit mention of the covenant. First, it sounds as if the prophet himself speaks: I invoke you, father, over the mother of those who were unwilling to keep your covenant (qui noluerunt testamentum tuum servare), that you might give confusion to them and bring their mother to plunder (5 Ezra 2:5–6a).

After this the perspective changes. We seem to hear the father now: Let them never have offspring, let them be scattered among the nations, and let their name be blotted out from the earth, because they have spurned my covenant (quoniam respuerunt testamentum meum) (5 Ezra 2:6b–7).

Starting with 2:10, the Lord addresses Ezra again: Tell my people that I have prepared for them to eat, and I will give them the kingdom of Jerusalem, which I was going to give to Israel.

From this point “my people” (here dative case: populo meo) is clearly distinguished from Israel. The promises given to Israel are now given to “my people.” After a series of promises for the future of the new people (5 Ezra 2:10–19) and a cluster of commandments (5 Ezra 2:20–23), the text turns its focus on future salvation and the end of times (5 Ezra 2:24–37). This is now addressed to “my people” (5 Ezra 2:24). It flows into a vision of the Son of God together with a “great crowd that I could not count” (5 Ezra 2:42)26 praising the Lord and being crowned on their heads (5 Ezra 2:43). The scene closely resembles Revelation 7:9–17 and 14:1–7, but does not relate this crowd to the twelve tribes of Israel any more (5 Ezra 2:42–47).27 Typically this material is taken as a clear theology of substitution in which Christianity (or “the” Church) replaces Israel as God’s Chosen People.28 In her recent monograph Veronika Hirschberger criticizes this view. She argues that 5 Ezra neither describes a complete rejection of Israel, nor the notion that “Christianity” or a Church completely distinct from Israel replaces Israel. Instead, the relation between the “two peoples” mentioned in the text resembles a division not of two distinct religious communities but an inner-Jewish 25 The question what is meant with the “twelve angels with flowers” remains a riddle unsolved. 26 The Spanish recension is slightly different: “a great crowd that no one could count”. 27 Regarding the relation of 5 Ezra and Revelation see NICKLAS, “Rezeption”, 325–348, esp. 336–340, and (more detailed) HIRSCHBERGER, Ringen um Israel, 174–241. 28 See for example, DUENSING / DE SANTOS OTERO, “Esra”, 581–590, esp. 581; WOLTER, 5. Esra-Buch, 6. Esra-Buch, 790–793.

The Covenant in Christian Apocrypha

577

discussion regarding the future of Israel’s traditions.29 While Hirschberger’s approach is an important step towards the right direction, Michael Sommer develops an even more radical reading of 5 Ezra.30 In his estimation, 5 Ezra’s understanding “the people clothed in white” as the ones “who serve you with obedience, because they have fulfilled the law of the Lord” (2:40) indicates God’s promise to Israel still persists.31 However, while the text states that God’s law remains relevant for salvation, it presents a kind of rewritten Torah which partly takes over aspects of Moses’ Torah, while it abandons other parts. It uses cult critical parts of Scripture, like Isa 1 and Jer 7, to ask which aspects of Torah really represent God’s will and are thus relevant for salvation.32 The Cultic Torah and related “Jewish” identity markers are thus excluded as having never been according to God’s will: “When you offer sacrifices to me, I will turn my eyes from you, for I did not command you (to observe) feast days, new moons, Sabbaths and circumcisions” (5 Ezra 1:31). This means that the text presupposes a continuity in God’s will, and thus does not develop a theology of substitution or replacement. Instead, it defends the idea that God has expressed his ethical will from the very beginning and never changed it. An example in which important aspects of this will are summarized in 5 Ezra 2:20– 22: “Treat the widow rightly; secure justice for the orphan; give to the needy; protect the fatherless; clothe the naked; care for the injured and weak. Do not ridicule the lame person, but protect (him). Admit the blind to the vision of my splendor. Gather the old and young within your walls. Watch over your infants. Let your servants and free men be joyful, and your whole company will be happy.” The text’s final vision thus does not present a crowd which is completely distinct from Israel, but a changed people of God which has been opened for the nations.33 It is difficult to describe this people with modern 29

For the full argument see HIRSCHBERGER, Ringen um Israel, 267–276. The following discussion follows SOMMER, Witwen. 31 SOMMER, Witwen, 217: “dass Gottes Verheißung an Israel in der narrativen Welt ungekündigt fortbesteht.” 32 SOMMER, Witwen, 218 n. 100: “Meiner Meinung nach will dieser Text in erster Linie die Tora und den praktischen Umgang mit ihr neu bewerten und diskutieren. 5Esra ist für mich ein Text, dessen Ziel es ist, die Leseweise der Schriften zu diskutieren. Die Tora soll als Wille Gottes präsentiert werden, der als solcher heilsrelevant ist. Allerdings will der Text äußerliche identity marker, die in ihr fest verankert sind, ablegen. … 5Esra okkupiert die Schriften Israels weder christologisch noch ist bei ihm das Christusereignis so präsent wie bei Irenäus oder bei Justin. Die einzige Debatte, die in diesem Text deutlich erkennbar ist, dreht sich um eine in der Tora verankerte Ethik und darum, ob sichtbare identity marker eine Umsetzung des Willens Gottes sind.” 33 SOMMER, Witwen, 222: “Nicht eine von Israel getrennte Menge erhält eschatologischen Lohn, sondern ein verändertes Israel, das sich für die Völkerwelt geöffnet hat. Die genealogisch-biologische Zugehörigkeit zu Israel ist in diesem Konzept kein soteriologisches Ausschlusskriterium mehr. Stattdessen entscheidet eine über Toraobservanz zum Ausdruck gebrachte Gottesbeziehung darüber, wer ins Volk Gottes integriert wird.” 30

578

Tobias Nicklas

terms without introducing new anachronisms: it is a people obeying 5 Ezra’s rewritten Torah and obviously following the “Son of God” mentioned at the end of the text. 3.2 “Apostolic Memoirs” – or: the Covenant Moved to Egypt The concept of God’s covenant either with Israel or with the church seems not to play a role in most of second and third century extracanonical Gospel material.34 Yet there is a group of late antique Coptic writings which was brought to closer scholarly attention only during the last years in which the idea of the covenant features more prominently. These texts, now labelled “Apostolic Memoirs”, were originally produced in Coptic language to develop and defend important aspects of the identity of the post-Chalcedonian miaphysite Church of Egypt, partly even after the Arab conquest. Many of these writings belong to a context of an alleged homily of an important ancient Christian author, some of which speak about the (miraculous) re-discovery of a hidden manuscript going back to Apostolic times. These tell very Gospel-like Jesus stories which are at least in some cases narrated from the perspective of one or more of the apostles.35 Most of these texts show sharp anti-Jewish attitudes – a feature which is even more interesting given the fact that the evidence for the presence of Jews in late antique Egypt is scarce.36 While some of these writings have been known under the title of Gospels, others are relatively unknown and have not yet been translated to English. One of the most fascinating of these writings is a homily attributed to Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem with the title On the Life and the Passion of Christ.37 It begins with a short introduction about the alleged discovery of the text by a certain deacon Theodosius in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, in Jerusalem (§ 5– 8). Most of the remaining text (§ 9–153) is simply a “quote” of this allegedly new discovery, including a few short passages wherein Cyril interrupts the story (see, for example, § 110). The text offers a Gospel-like story starting with the calling of the apostles. As it explicitly presupposes its readers to know the

34 Of course, it is quite probable that the Gospel of Tatian, usually labelled Diatessaron, had some covenant theology. The text, however, is almost impossible to reconstruct as a whole. The only other example which comes close to such ideas is the Protevangelium of James. But even if it is highly interested in questions of Schekhina – that is, God’s dwelling in the Temple of Jerusalem, but also in Mary as a pure virgin – the text does not create a clear connection between these ideas and the concept of a covenant between God and Israel. For a broader discussion see NICKLAS, “Israel”, 133–158. 35 For a helpful introduction to this group of texts see SUCIU, Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon, 70–138. 36 See, for example, the analysis provided for Oxyrhynchos offered by EPP, “Jews”, 13– 52. 37 Edition and all English translations from VAN DEN BROEK, Pseudo-Cyril.

The Covenant in Christian Apocrypha

579

canonical Gospels38 important parts of Jesus’ ministry are summarized very briefly (see, for example § 23–29). The text’s focus is on Jesus’ passion and, even more, on his trial and “the insolence of the Jews” connected to it. A key question is: “For what reason did the Jews hate our Savior so much that they sought to kill him from the beginning?” (both § 31). Jesus’ ministry means the dissolution of the synagogue, the end of Temple service and Jewish law (§ 32– 33); that is why the Jewish leaders not only seek to kill Jesus, but also people who take side for him, like Joseph of Arimathaia (§ 39; see also § 76). When Jesus returns to Jerusalem after the resurrection of Lazarus, his mother warns him: “My son, besides whom I have no one, I hear you now speaking with your brethren: ‘I shall go to Jerusalem’; (but Jerusalem) kills the prophets and Israel has no mercy, for they seek to kill you. Arise, my son, and let me flee to Egypt, which loves strangers, so that the Hebrews might not kill you” (§ 56–57). Of course, nothing can prevent Jesus to go to Jerusalem, where he immediately faces fiercest enmity by the Jewish leaders. Compared to the canonical Gospels the story about Jesus’ arrest and his trial is extremely embellished. For example, it introduces Judas Iskariot’s wife and extensive extracanonical material on Pontius Pilate, his wife Procla, and an exchange of letters with Herod. In this context we also find the text’s key episode regarding covenant. When Pilate offers to give even his own son so that the “Jews” can crucify him instead of Jesus, Jesus calms him down by showing him his supernatural powers (§ 136–137), a after which Pilate falls asleep and has a vision: 138 … There was, as it were, a great darkness outside, spread upon the face of the entire earth. And the whole world was gathered together, blind and not seeing. And, behold, an eagle came from heaven, with a cistern of light around it and a wreath on its head, and the light shone for a short time. 139. The eagle cried out: ‘The light of Charran and the light of Canaan have been given to the Land of Egypt’. The people of the Hebrews at that time remained blind and they did not see. And they cried out: ‘Where is the eagle that has taken away our light so that we may kill him?’ 140 And the eagle came to the people of the Hebrews. They seized him, brought him upon a fruitless tress and killed him. The Egyptians gathered to the eagle, they were amazed that he immediately died. And the eagle lived (again), he flew away and while they were looking at him he went up to heaven as he had come.

After a brief interlude where Procla tells that she also had a dream regarding Jesus (see Matt 27:17), Pilate approaches Jesus to tell him about his vision. Jesus immediately offers an interpretation in which he identifies himself with the eagle and aspects of both Pilate’s and Procla’s visions with the coming passion. The most fascinating aspect, however, is the following: 149 And as to the cry uttered by the eagle, I too shall cry out: ‘My Father, I give my spirit into your hands’. And there will be no longer a covenant made with the Hebrews but it will 38 See, for example, § 21: “But let us not speak amply about the things we found written in the holy Gospels.”

580

Tobias Nicklas

be made with the Egyptians. There will not arise another prophet from the race of the Hebrews for ever. 150 But the people I did not know have served me, and the Egyptians you saw gathering to me as I took the likeness of an eagle will build churches to worship me therein and to continue to commemorate my resurrection and to marvel at my death.

This is certainly not a marginal scene. Instead, it reveals the very purpose for which this text was produced. It admits that there was a covenant between God and “the Hebrews”,39 but asserts that it was continuously broken due to Israel’s sins. This idea is, of course, neither new nor very original. Starting with § 56– 57, however, Egypt is introduced as a place where Jesus had been saved already during his childhood and which could grant him asylum again. Jesus refuses to seek such refuge, and reveals that the covenant will be taken away from Israel at the moment of his death. Even though some passages of the text show a certain universal attitude, its focus is on Egypt. The covenant is not given to the whole community of Christ followers but to only one people, the Egyptians, a statement which both is bold and demonstrates that the text must have been written at a time when the Miaphysite Church of Egypt did not see itself on a common way with the pro-Chalcedonian Church of Byzantium (while Rome seems to be completely out of sight).40

4.Conclusion Of course, I was not able to check the whole “world” of Christian apocryphal writings for this essay.41 As already mentioned in the introduction, it would be interesting to discuss in how far some texts usually labelled as Old Testament 39

Interestingly, § 67–69 describe Jesus even as being from the tribe of Judah. Even though it would certainly be worth taking a closer look into other Apostolic memoirs regarding our question the sheer bulk of (partly not easily accessible) material makes it difficult to offer a fuller overview. Interestingly, another writing, Ps-Evodius’ Homily on the Passion and Resurrection is comparably anti-Jewish. According to this text, however, God’s spirit is taken from Israel and given to the nations (that is, not just Egypt). For more information see BURNS, “Homily”, 41–86, esp. 48–50. Besides the Apostolic Memoires, the Ethiopian Kebra Nagast develops the not just theologically, but, of course, politically relevant idea that the Covenant moved from the people of Israel to another nation: This Ethiopian national writing (the “Glory of the Kings” or “Book of the Glory of the Kings”) tells the story how Menelik, the son of Solomon and the Queen of Saba, brought “Zion”, that is, the ark of the covenant, from the Jerusalem Temple to Ethiopia (where it is kept until today). With the Schekhina the Covenant moved to Ethiopia and remained there with the new chosen people. A full analysis of this rather late text – proposals range between the 6/7th and the 13/14th centuries – would require a book-length study and language skills better than mine. 41 I dismissed, for example, chapter 14 of the Latin Letter of Pseudo-Titus which quotes Isa 56:6–7 and that’s why uses the words “holding fast to my covenant” (Isa 56:6). These words, however, do not play any significant role for the text’s argument. 40

The Covenant in Christian Apocrypha

581

Pseudepigrapha, like the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, could be included in our survey. At least they were transmitted and probably rewritten in “Christian” circles – the question whether they should be called “Jewish” or “Christian” (and in how far these labels are meaningful at all) will go on. I was also not able to look into the many (mainly late antique and early medieval) writings preserved in languages like Armenian, Georgian, Church Slavonic and others which concentrate on Old Testament figures like Adam and Eve, Noah or Abraham. It would certainly need a whole monograph to explore Ethiopian literature among which at least the Kebra Nagast, the “Glory of the Kings”, tells the story of how the Ark of the Covenant made it to Ethiopia (and what this means for the Ethiopian people and its Church). But even now several conclusions can be drawn: First, the idea of a covenant does not play a major role in many Greek and Latin Christian apocryphal writings any more. At least in parts this has to do with the fact that many apocrypha like stories about the life and mission of different apostles and their disciples, but also apocalypses and otherworldly journeys became less interested in Christians’ Jewish heritage than in the exploration of new worlds and the conflicts with the agents of Greco-Roman cults: Many apocryphal Acts describe worlds in which Jews do not play a role – and most Christian Apocalypses after the Book of Revelation are not concerned with Israel at all. While the descriptions of hell in the influential Visio Pauli mention clerics of different rank and order, they do not assign Jews to hell. This is certainly not due to a positive attitude towards Jews, but has to do with a certain “Israel-Vergessenheit”,42 that is, an attitude which forgets the roots of Christianity in Israel’s traditions, in many of the text mentioned. Second, we have to be aware that much of the remaining evidence is highly fragmentary. One would assume that texts like the Gospels of Marcion, but even more, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Nazarenes or the Gospel of the Hebrews took a position regarding the question of God’s covenant with Israel. One would also like to know more about the lost parts of the Gospel of Peter – a text which was perhaps less anti-Jewish than usually thought43 – or the Book of Elchasai.44 All we have, however, are fragments. Third, we have seen that the remaining cases represent a spectrum of voices which certainly must have been even broader than the fragmentary evidence we face today. If we want to understand ancient Christian developments of the “covenant” theme, these voices have to be added to the evidence from the New

42

This term has been coined by Theobald in relation to the Pastoral Epistles (cf. THEOBALD, Israel-Vergessenheit). 43 For a recent overview of discussions see NICKLAS, “Anti-Jewish Polemics”. 44 For a discussion of the historical impact of the fragmentary evidence of this text (and the related group(s)) see NICKLAS, “Jenseits der Kategorien”, 177–200.

582

Tobias Nicklas

Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, so-called “heretics” and “orthodox” authors of the ancient Church.

Bibliography ARAGIONE, GABRIELLA / ENRICO NORELLI (eds.), Des évêques, des écoles et des hérétiques: Actes du colloque international sur la ‘Réfutation de toutes les hérésies’. Genève, 13–14 juin 2008, Prahins: Éditions du Zèbre, 2011. BAUCKHAM, RICHARD et al., (eds.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. BEDUHN, JASON, The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon, Salem: Polebridge, 2013. BERGREN, THEODORE A., Fifth Ezra; The Text, Origin, and Early History (SBLSCS 25), Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. –, “Fifth Ezra”, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, edited by Richard Bauckham et al., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013, 467–482. BLACKMAN, EDWIN C., Marcion and His Influence, London: SPCK, 1948 (repr.: Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004). BURKE, TONY / BRENT LANDAU (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures 1, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. BURKE, TONY (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures 2, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. BURNS, DYLAN M., “A Homily on the Passion and Resurrection”, in New Testament Apocrypha, edited by Tony Burke, 41–86. DAVILA, JAMES R., “Did Christians Write Jewish Pseudepigrapha That Appear to Be Jewish?” in Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Texts and Traditions (WUNT 349), edited by Pierluigi Piovanelli / Tony Burke, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015, 67–86. DE JONGE, MARINUS, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve (SVTP 18), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003. DUENSING, HUGO / AURELIO DE SANTOS OTERO, “Das fünfte und sechste Buch Esra“, in Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung II: Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes, edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 61997, 581–590. DUNCAN, PATRICIA, Novel Hermeneutics in the Greek Pseudo-Clementine Romance (WUNT 395), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. EPP, ELDON J., “The Jews and the Jewish Community in Oxyrhynchus: Socio-Religious Context for the New Testament Papyri”, in New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World (TENT 2), edited by Thomas J. Kraus / Tobias Nicklas, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006, 13–52. HARNACK, ADOLF VON, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 21924. HIRSCHBERGER, VERONIKA, Ringen um Israel: Intertextuelle Perspektiven auf das 5. Buch Esra (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 14), Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2018.

The Covenant in Christian Apocrypha

583

HIRSCHBERGER, VERONIKA / NICKLAS, TOBIAS, “5 Ezra – Prophetic or Apocalyptic Writing?”, in Figures of Ezra (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 13), edited by Jan N. Bremmer at al., Leuven: Peeters, 2018, 116–130. JACKSON-MCCABE, MATT, “What’s in a Name? The Problem of ‘Jewish Christianity’”, in IDEM, Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007, 7–38. KLINGHARDT, MATTHIAS, Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien. 2 vols., Tübingen/Basel: Francke, 2015. LÜHRMANN, DIETER, “Alttestamentliche Pseudepigraphen bei Didymos von Alexandrien”, ZAW 104 (1992): 231–249. NICKLAS, TOBIAS, “‘An diesem Tag aber wurden Pilatus und Herodes Freunde’: Interpretation und Imagination in der Rezeptionsgeschichte von Lk 23,12”, in Freundschaft in den Texten und Kontexten des Neuen Testaments (FS Stefan Alkier; NET 30), edited by Dominic Blauth et al., Tübingen/Basel: Francke, 2021, 133–154. –, “Anti-Jewish Polemics? The Gospel of Peter Revisited”, in Les polémiques religieuses du Ier au IVe siècle de notre ère. Hommage à Bernard Pouderon (Théologie historique 128), edited by Guillaume Bady / Diane Cuny, Paris: Beauchesne, 2019, 153–176. –, “Gedanken zum Verhältnis zwischen christlichen Apokryphen und hagiographischer Literatur: Das Beispiel der Veronika-Traditionen”, NedThT 62 (2008): 45–63. –, “Israel, der Tempel und der theologische Ort des Protevangeliums Jacobi”, in The Protevangelium of James (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 16), edited by Jan N. Bremmer et al., Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2020, 133–158. –, “Jenseits der Kategorien – Elchasai und die Elchasaiten”, in Shadowy Characters and Fragmentary Evidence: The Search for Early Christian Groups and Movements (WUNT 388), edited by idem et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 177–200. –, Jews and Christians? Second Century ‘Christian’ Perspectives on the ‘Parting of the Ways’ (Annual Deichmann Lectures 2013), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. –, “Rezeption und Nicht-Rezeption der Offenbarung des Johannes durch antike christliche Apokryphen”, in Christian Apocrypha. Receptions of the New Testament in Early Christian Apocrypha (NTP 26), edited by Jean-Michel Roessli / Tobias Nicklas, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014, 325–348. NIR, RIVKA, Joseph and Aseneth: A Christian Book, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012. PIOVANELLI, PIERLUIGI / TONY BURKE (eds.), Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Texts and Traditions (WUNT 349), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. ROTH, DIETER, T., The Text of Marcion’s Gospel (NTTSD 49), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015. SCHRÖTER, JENS / LILLIA MILBACH, “The Composition of ‘2 Esdras’: Reflections on the Relationship of 4, 5 and 6 Ezra with Special Regard to the Use of Female Image”, in Figures of Ezra (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 13), edited by Jan Bremmer et al., Leuven: Peeters, 2018, 97–115. SMITH, DANIEL A., “Marcion’s Gospel and the Synoptics”, in Gospels and Gospel Tradition in the Second Century: Experiments in Reception (BZNW 235), edited by Jens Schröter et al., Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2019, 129–173. SOMMER, MICHAEL, Witwen, Recht und Gerechtigkeit: Diskurse über Witwen im frühen Christentum als Rezeptionsorte prophetischer und weisheitlicher Kultkritik gelesen (unpublished Habilitation thesis, University of Regensburg, 2019) [under contract for WUNT].

584

Tobias Nicklas

STONE, MICHAEL E., Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Abraham (SBLEJL 37), Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012. SUCIU, ALIN, The Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon: A Coptic Apostolic Memoir (WUNT 370), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. THEOBALD, MICHAEL, Israel-Vergessenheit in den Pastoralbriefen: Ein neuer Vorschlag zu ihrer historisch-theologischen Verortung im 2. Jahrhundert n.Chr. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ignatius-Briefe (SBS 229), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2016. TSUTSUI, KENJI, “Das Evangelium Marcions: Ein neuer Versuch der Textrekonstruktion”, AJBI 18 (1992): 67–132. VAN DEN BROEK, ROELOF, Pseudo-Cyril: On the Life and the Passion of Christ: A Coptic Apocryphon (VigChr.S 118), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013. VANDERKAM, JAMES, “The Book of the Covenant”, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, edited by Richard Bauckham et al., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013, 28–32. WOLTER, MICHAEL, 5. Esra-Buch, 6. Esra-Buch (JSHRZ III/7), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2001. YOSHIKO REED, ANNETTE, “‘Jewish-Christian’ Apocrypha and the History of Jewish/Christian Relations”, in Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Texts and Traditions (WUNT 349), edited by Pierluigi Piovanelli / Tony Burke, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015, 87–116. ZELYCK, LORNE, The Egerton Gospel (Papyrus Egerton 2 + Papyrus Köln 255): Introduction, Critical Edition, and Commentary (TENT 13), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2019.

Late Antiquity

Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho

JÖRG ULRICH Jörg Ulrich

1. Justins Dialog mit dem Juden Trypho und das Thema der διαθήκη im zweiten Jahrhundert Sucht man in der christlichen Literatur des zweiten Jahrhunderts nach Belegen für eine “Bundestheologie”,1 der im Prozess der wechselseitigen Abgrenzung von “Christentum” und “Judentum”2 eine signifikante Rolle zuzumessen wäre, so erweist sich der Befund als überraschend schmal und konzentriert sich auf wenige Texte: auf den Barnabasbrief, auf die Paschahomilie des Melito und auf den Dialog des “Philosophen und Märtyrers”3 Justin mit dem Juden Trypho. Dabei darf der Dialog Justins mit Trypho insofern besondere Aufmerksamkeit beanspruchen, als sich nur in ihm eine theologische Auseinandersetzung zwischen Christen und Juden über beiderseits als autoritativ angesehene 1 BACKHAUS, Bund, 300–322 (315); BACKHAUS, “Bundesmotiv”, 153–173 (Lit!); VAN UNNIK, “ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη”, 212–227; FERGUSON, “Justin Martyr”, 395–405; STYLIANOPOULOS, Justin, 48–121; PRIGENT, Justin, 50–96; ANDRESEN, Logos, 189–238; nach über einhundert Jahren immer noch brauchbar ist die Arbeit von BEHM, ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, 98–107. 2 Die Forschung der letzten Jahrzehnte hat allerdings unisono zu sehen gelehrt, dass Kategorien wie “das Christentum” oder “das Judentum” oder “der Platonismus” oder “die Stoa” keine eindeutigen, klar abgegrenzten Identitäten abbilden, sondern weitgehend auf Konstruktionsleistungen zeitgenössischer Verfasser und späterer Interpreten beruhen, sei es in apologetischer, sei es in polemischer Absicht. Was “die Wirklichkeit” angeht, zeigt sich eine unübersehbare Fülle von Mischformen und Übergangslagen. Allein “das Christentum” und “das Judentum” weisen im zweiten Jahrhundert jeweils eine große konfessionelle, soziale und institutionelle Vielfalt auf, die auf manchen Zeitgenossen durchaus verwirrend wirkte und als Argument gegen den Wahrheitsanspruch des Christentums in Anschlag gebracht wurde, wie die Polemik des Kelsos am Ende des zweiten Jahrhunderts zeigt: Or., Cels. 3,12– 14; 5,61–64 u.ö. – Die von Christoph Markschies in Bezug auf das Christentums des zweiten Jahrhunderts in Spiel gebrachte Rede vom “Laboratorium” scheint sich mittlerweile auch für die Wahrnehmung vom Judentum und von den philosophischen Schulrichtungen jener Zeit als angemessen zu erweisen und durchzusetzen (vgl. den im Druck befindlichen Aufsatz von DEINES, “Justins Dialogus”). 3 Dieser berühmte gewordene Doppeltitel ist erstmals nachweisbar bei Tertullian: Tert., Val. 5,1. – Zu Justin als christlichem Philosophen im Rahmen der kaiserzeitlichen Philosophie siehe jetzt ULRICH, “Wahre Philosophie”.

588

Jörg Ulrich

Texte und über beiderseits interessierende, strittige Themen widerspiegelt. Die Dialogform bringt dabei die unterschiedlichen Auffassungen zum Vorschein. Demgegenüber ist der Barnabasbrief als brieflich gerahmter theologischer Traktat anzusprechen, der gerade nicht an einem Austausch von Argumenten interessiert ist, sondern der die Lehre vom durch Christus erworbenen Heil darstellen will und diese in Frontstellung gegenüber anderen Christen zu sichern sucht.4 Hierbei werden dem Volk Israel und seinen religiösen Traditionen und Einrichtungen in teils sehr polemischer Weise jegliche Rolle im Heilsplan Gottes abgesprochen und die Patriarchen, Mose und David werden exklusiv als Christusboten reklamiert.5 Von einer Auseinandersetzung mit oder auch nur an einem Interesse an Juden oder am Judentum kann im Barnabasbrief keine Rede sein; eine Kontroverse um das rechte Verständnis des Bundes findet nicht statt.6 Die Paschahomilie des Melito von Sardes7 wiederum gewinnt ihr “quartodezimanisches” Osterverständnis aus einer typologischen Deutung des alttestamentlichen Pascha und verbindet diese mit einer langen polemischen Rede gegen Israel, die jegliche Heilsansprüche des Judentums schroff bestreitet und in dem berüchtigten Vorwurf des Gottesmordes gipfelt (pass. 72–99); unbeschadet der historischen Frage nach möglicherweise im Hintergrund stehenden konkreten Konkurrenzlagen zwischen christlicher Gemeinde und Synagoge in der Region um Sardes kommt das Judentum in der Paschahomilie des Melito nur als längst abgetane Größe in den Blick.8 Auch hier findet kein Austausch von Positionen, Meinungen oder Argumenten statt. Ob ein solcher Austausch von Positionen, Meinungen und Argumenten nun aber wenigstens für den Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho9 vorausgesetzt werden darf, der ja dezidiert als Gespräch arrangiert ist, ist unter den gelehrten Kommentatoren des Textes freilich nicht unumstritten. Namhafte Vertreter der Justinforschung haben immer wieder Zweifel daran geäußert, dass sich hinter 4 PROSTMEIER, Epistola, 9f.; PROSTMEIER, Barnabasbrief; BACKHAUS, Bund, 315–322; BACKHAUS, “Bundesmotiv”, 167–170; CARLETON-PAGET, “Use”, 91–112. 5 Barn. 4,6–8; 5,7; 6,8; 9,7; 11,9; 13,7. 6 BACKHAUS, “Bundesmotiv”, 166: Es “kann auch nicht von altem und neuem Bund die Rede sein. Es gibt nur einen einzigen Gottesbund, der sich (als Urkunde des Gotteswillens verstanden) nie geändert hat. Geändert haben sich dessen Empfänger: Der erste Bund war allenfalls ein heilsgeschichtlicher Fehlversuch; durch Jesu Leiden und Lehre sind die Christen der λαὸς καινός.” 7 HALL, Melito of Sardes; HALL, “Melito von Sardes”, 424–428; COHICK, Peri Pascha; BUCHINGER, “Melito”, 73–90. 8 HALL, “Melito von Sardes”, 426. 9 Griechischer Text sowie eine französische Übersetzung und ausführliche Kommentierung: BOBICHON, Dialogue. Ein griechischer Text mit neuer deutscher Übersetzung durch Heinz-Günther Nesselrath mitsamt Kommentierung und einigen begleitenden Aufsätzen, herausgegeben von Tobias Georges, entsteht zurzeit im Rahmen des Göttinger Editionsprojekts SAPERE (Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam REligionemque pertinentia, “Schriften der späteren Antike zu ethischen und religiösen Fragen”).

Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho

589

dem Dialog mit dem Juden Trypho überhaupt eine “echte” Auseinandersetzung eines christlichen Philosophen und Theologen mit einem Lehrer des Judentums erweisen lasse: Zu evident seien die Spuren literarischer Be- und Überarbeitung des Textes und zu gering die nachweisbaren Kenntnisse Justins vom zeitgenössischen Judentum, insbesondere der rabbinischen Literatur, um im Dialog mit Trypho von tatsächlichen “interreligiösen” Gesprächsgängen ausgehen zu können.10 Der Trypho Justins sei nicht viel mehr als ein Strohmann, der, wenn er überhaupt je existiert habe, jedenfalls nicht als Vertreter authentischer jüdischer Positionen und schon gar nicht als ebenbürtiger Gesprächspartner in den Blick zu nehmen sei. Seine Rolle in Justins Dialog reduziere sich auf die eines Stichwortgebers für die Ausführungen des christlichen “Dialog”partners, die lediglich auf den letztlichen Erweis der “Richtigkeit” der christlichen Position hinausliefen. Das öffentliche Streitgespräch zwischen beiden, von dem Euseb von Caesaera in seiner Historia ecclesiastica beiläufig berichtet,11 habe möglicherweise nie stattgefunden. Nun ist gegen eine solche wissenschaftliche Position allerdings kritisch zurückzufragen, ob die durchaus zutreffenden Beobachtungen einer literarischen Stilisierung des Textes sowie der weitgehenden Unkenntnis Justins von der rabbinischen Literatur methodisch die weitreichenden Folgerungen zu tragen vermögen, die aus ihnen gezogen werden. Denn zum einen ist die Einsicht in die literarische Bearbeitung des Textes ja noch kein hinreichender Grund dafür, ihn zu einer reinen Fiktion zu erklären – immerhin ist es ebenso denkbar, dass Passagen oder Elemente aus echten Streitgesprächen, die im Kontext von Justins Schulbetrieb in Rom durchaus häufig stattgefunden haben dürften,12 in späterer Zeit zu einem geschlossenen Text zusammengeführt wurden, nämlich zu dem Dialog, den wir heute vor uns haben.13 Während eines solchen Zusammenführungsvorgangs dürfte dann auch die Tendenz des Textes zu einer evidenten argumentativen Überlegenheit der christlichen Seite eingetragen worden sein. Und zum anderen erweist sich der (zutreffende) Hinweis auf Justins 10 HIRSHMAN, “Units”, 371–372; ROKEAH, Justin Martyr. Einen neuen, originellen Deutungsversuch bietet NIEHOFF, “Jew”, 549–578; Niehoff zufolge hätte Justin die Gestalt des Trypho gezielt für ein paganes römisches Publikum konstruiert, um so das Judentum als palästinisch-griechische Randerscheinung zu marginalisieren und das Christentum als authentisch römische Bewegung zu präsentieren. 11 Eus., h.e. IV, 18,5. Euseb zufolge hätte ein solches Gespräch in den 30er Jahren des zweiten Jahrhunderts in Ephesus stattgefunden. 12 Siehe ULRICH, “School”, 62–74; GEORGES, “School”, 75–87; MARKSCHIES, “Lehrer”, 97–120. 13 Der Dialog mit dem Juden Trypho ist etwa auf das Jahr 160 zu datieren; wenn Eusebs Notiz zutrifft, wäre die Niederschrift bzw. Bearbeitung über zwanzig Jahre nach dem Ereignis erfolgt. – Für einen realen Streitgespräch-Hintergrund des literarisch gestalteten Dialogs plädieren u. a. HEID, “Iustinus Martyr I”, 804; HORNER, Listening, 167–193 (Horner versucht, Trypho in den Kontext des griechisch-kleinasiatischen Diasporajudentums einzuzeichnen); DEINES, “Justins Dialogus”; GEORGES, “Einleitung”.

590

Jörg Ulrich

fehlende Kenntnisse vom rabbinischen Judentum einem älteren, inzwischen aber doch überholten Paradigma der Judaistik verpflichtet, welchem zufolge es eine nachweisbare Kontinuität zwischen dem Judentum vor Ende des zweiten Tempels und dem rabbinischen Judentum des zweiten und dritten Jahrhunderts gegeben habe. Hier jedoch haben neuere Forschungen zu sehen gelehrt, dass sich das rabbinische Judentum der ersten Jahrhunderte erst langsam herausbildete und dass dieser Prozess keinesfalls als unabhängig vom Phänomen der Entstehung und Ausbreitung des Christentums gesehen werden kann. Wenn es sich aber so verhält, dass das Rabbinentum im zweiten Jahrhundert allenfalls einen sehr überschaubaren Teil jüdischer Wirklichkeit repräsentiert,14 von dem außerdem zur Zeit Justin noch kein einziges schriftliches Dokument erhalten ist, dann wird man erstens dem Justin seinen Mangel an Kenntnissen der rabbinischen Tradition nicht als Defizit oder als Indiz für sachliches Desinteresse am Judentum ankreiden dürfen und wird zweitens die Aussagen Justins und seines jüdischen Gesprächspartners stärker als (selbstverständlich kritisch zu benutzende) Quelle für das in Betracht ziehen müssen, was unserem leider so unscharfen Bild von der jüdischen Geschichte und Lebenswelt im zweiten Jahrhundert wenigstens etwas Kontur verleiht.15 Der Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho wäre dann zu würdigen als eines der wenigen Schlaglichter, die uns wenigstens punktuell einen Blick auf den Vorgang der Geburt des Christentums aus dem Geist des Judentums wie auch der des Judentums aus dem Geist des Christentums gewähren.16 Er wäre – bei aller Polemik und auch Einseitigkeit zu Lasten des jüdischen Teils und bei allem monologischen Achtergewicht des “Dialogs”17 – zu verstehen als ein durchaus beeindruckendes Zeugnis eines Gesprächs unter religiös unterschiedlich gebundenen Intellektuellen, die sich aus wechselseitigem Interesse und Erkenntnisdrang, vor allem aber auch im Ringen darum, auf wessen Seite das religiöse Heil denn nun zu finden sei, miteinander auseinandersetzen; und die dabei beide möglicherweise auch missionarische Absichten im Blick auf zeitgenössische Nichtjuden hegen, die eine Hinwendung entweder zum Judentum oder eben zum Christentum in Erwägung zogen.18 Philippe Bobichon hat in seiner monumentalen Kommentierung des Dialogs mit Trypho nachdrücklich auf die relative Komplementarität in den Äußerungen Justins und Tryphos aufmerksam gemacht: Beide 14

STEMBERGER, Judentum, 7–8. Siehe hierzu den Aufsatz von DEINES, “Justins Dialogus”. 16 Ich beziehe mich hier auf den Titel und die Grundgedanken der einschlägigen Monographie von SCHÄFER, Geburt (VIII). 17 Von einem “monologischen Lehrgespräch mit dialogischen Elementen” spricht, bezogen auf den großen Abschnitt dial. 8,2b–141,5; HEYDEN, “Transformation”, 216. Man kann fragen, ob diese Formulierung die Dialogizität des Textes nicht doch zu arg herabsetzt, gerade im Vergleich mit anderen zeitgenössischen Dialogwerken, so GEORGES, “Einleitung”. 18 Siehe hierzu ausführlich DEINES, “Justins Dialogus”. – Zum religiösen Hintergrund der Begleiter des Trypho siehe STANTON, “Boundaries”, 363–375 (371). 15

Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho

591

Dialogpartner drängen auf die Klärung wichtiger Fragen und Themen, um die herum ihre gesamte Auseinandersetzung organisiert und literarisch gestaltet ist. Als solche wichtigen Themen nennt Bobichon: den Zusammenhang von Gesetz und Heil, die Frage nach der Messianität Jesu, die Frage nach dem Verständnis des Logos bzw. nach der Existenz eines anderen Gottes, die Begründung und Deutung christologischer Paradoxe sowie die Frage nach dem wahren Israel.19 Vor diesem hier nur knapp zu skizzierenden Hintergrund ist nun auch unsere Ausgangsfrage nach dem alten und neuen Bund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho zu beleuchten. Denn auffälligerweise hat die Frage nach dem Verständnis des neuen Bundes für Justin nur innerhalb der Auseinandersetzung mit Trypho bzw. mit den durch Trypho repräsentierten Juden Bedeutung. In seinen beiden Apologien spielt die Bundes-Thematik hingegen keinerlei Rolle,20 auch nicht in den Passagen, in denen Justin seine kaiserlichen Adressaten auf Unterschiede zwischen Christen und Juden hinweist, um sie von der Vernunftgemäßheit, der philosophischen Satisfaktionsfähigkeit, der Gottgewolltheit, der Altehrwürdigkeit und vor allem von der politischen Zuverlässigkeit des Christentums zu überzeugen.21 Ein Verweis auf den alten Bund und auf den neuen Bund in Christus hätte sich in diesem Zusammenhang durchaus angeboten, um Kontinuität und Diskontinuität zwischen Christentum und Judentum aufzuzeigen und zu illustrieren. Dass Justin in den beiden Apologien hiervon keinen Gebrauch macht, zeigt, dass die Frage für ihn in einen anderen Kontext gehört, nämlich in den der jüdisch-christlichen Kontroversen um die Legitimität des jeweiligen Wahrheitsanspruchs und um die rechte Auslegung und das rechte Verständnis der gemeinsamen Schriftüberlieferung. Für den Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho ergibt sich, wenn man nach den Belegen für das Nomen διαθήκη fragt, rein numerisch folgender Befund: Das Wort kommt 31mal vor, davon 11mal innerhalb von Schriftzitaten.22 Freilich ergeben sich, wenn man die Stellen im Einzelnen durchsieht, unterschiedliche Gewichtungen. Von den Belegen innerhalb von Schriftzitaten sind einige als argumentativ signifikant anzusehen, weil sie Gegenstand kontroverser theologischer Auffassungen über den Gottesbund sind (etwa zur Auslegung von Jer 38[31],31f.; Jes 51,4f.; 55,3), andere wiederum vernachlässigenswert, weil das Nomen hier eher “zufällig” in einem Schriftzitat vorkommt, das in einem ganz

19

BOBICHON, Dialogue, 17–48 (36f.); GEORGES, “Einleitung”. Der Begriff διαθήκη kommt in den Apologien nicht ein einziges Mal vor, so der Hinweis von BOBICHON, Dialogue, 984. 21 Just., 1apol. 31,2–6; 32,4 u.ö.; zu den einschlägigen Einleitungsfragen und zur ausführlichen Kommentierung der Apologien Justins siehe ULRICH, Apolgien, und ULRICH, Apologiae. 22 Siehe BACKHAUS, Bund, 316. 20

592

Jörg Ulrich

anderen Sachzusammenhang verwendet wird.23 An einigen wenigen Stellen kommt das Wort διαθήκη nicht in theologisch gefülltem Sinne auf den Gottesbund bezogen vor, sondern meint ganz allgemein ein “Bündnis”, einen “Vertrag” oder eine “Vereinbarung”.24 Auch trifft die Behauptung, dass sich das Nomen διαθήκη systematisch über die ganze Schrift (= den ganzen Dialog mit dem Juden Trypho) verteilt finde,25 nur bedingt zu, denn in konzentrierter Weise spielt es eigentlich nur in drei kurzen Diskursen eine Rolle (dial. 10,4– 12,2; 67,9f.; 121,1–123,9), die ihrerseits allerdings an durchaus zentralen Stellen im Dialog platziert sind. Diese Beobachtung sollte dazu helfen, die Bedeutung der Bundesthematik im Dialog mit Trypho richtig einzuordnen,26 zumal es angesichts der mitunter recht losen Begriffsverwendungen, Argumentationsweisen und Stoffdisposition Justins27 ohnehin ratsam sein dürfte, von “Übersystematisierungen” der Befunde abzusehen. Aus diesem Grunde konzentrieren sich die folgenden Ausführungen auf diejenigen drei Gesprächsgänge im Dialog mit Trypho, in denen die Kontrahenten auf das Thema “Bund” zu sprechen kommen (und in denen das Nomen διαθήκη signifikant häufig belegt ist), und unternehmen es, die einschlägigen Passagen zu analysieren und einzuordnen. Ziel meiner Darlegungen ist es, auf diese Weise den oben genannten Forschungsarbeiten zur “Bundestheologie” Justins28 einen Beitrag an die Seite zu stellen, der enger an der Dialogstruktur des Textes und an den unterschiedlichen Auffassungen beider Dialogpartner zum Thema διαθήκη orientiert ist.

23 Dial. 22,7 (Ps 49[50],5); 22,9 (Ps 49[50],16); 26,2 (Jes 42,6: Christus als das Licht der Heiden); 34,1 (Ps 18[19],8: der Psalm beziehe sich auf Christus, nicht auf Salomo); 65,4 (Jes 42,6: wie dial. 26,2); 126,2 (Ex 6,4: Jesus ist als Sohn des einen ungezeugten Gottes selbst Gott, weil er als Gott bezeichnet wurde, als er sich als vorinkarnierter Logos den alttestamentlichen Patriarchen offenbarte); ein spezielles Problem ist der Beleg dial. 74,4 (Dtn 31,6), weil dieser Passus sich unmittelbar hinter der großen Textlücke (dial. 74,3) befindet, wodurch der Argumentationszusammenhang für uns nicht mehr rekonstruierbar ist. Zum Problem der lacuna zwischen dial 74,3 und 74,4 siehe GEORGES, “Einleitung”, und ausführlich BOBICHON, Dialogue, 49–72. 24 Dial. 11,2: νόμος δὲ κατὰ νόμου τεθεὶς τὸν πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἔπαυσε, καὶ διαθήκη μετέπειτα γενομένη τὴν προτέραν ὁμοίως ἔστησεν. Siehe hierzu BOBICHON, Dialogue, 612 no. 11. 25 So BACKHAUS, “Bundesmotiv”, 168. 26 So sah z.B. Philipp Haeuser in seiner wirkmächtigen deutschen Ausgabe des Dialogs mit Trypho in der Bibliothek der Kirchenväter den gesamten ersten und den gesamten letzten Hauptteil (dial. 8,2–43.2 bzw. dial. 119,1–141,4) als ganz und gar von der Bundesthematik bestimmt an, wie seine Gliederung des Textes (HAEUSER, Dialog, XVIII–XXII) zeigt. Diese Gewichtung erweist sich angesichts der relativ wenigen Textbelege als irreführend. 27 Siehe hierzu für den Dialog mit Trypho GEORGES, “Einleitung”, und für die Apologien ULRICH, Apologien, 72–75. Einen Überblick über die durchaus disparaten gelehrten Gliederungsversuche für den Dialog mit Trypho mitsamt einer hilfreichen Synopse bietet BOBICHON, Dialogue, 19–24 (20). 28 Siehe oben no. 1.

Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho

593

2. Das Thema διαθήκη innerhalb des Gesprächsgangs über Beschneidung und Gesetzesobservanz (dial. 10,1–12,3) Ein erster Diskurs zwischen Justin und Trypho über den Bund findet sich kurz nach Ende des Prologs (dial. 8,2a) bzw. am Anfang des großen zweitens Teils des Dialogs. Dieser Gedankenaustausch reicht von dial. 10,1–12,3. Es handelt sich um einen relativ kurzen Abschnitt, der jedoch nicht weniger als 10 der insgesamt 31 Belege für das Nomen διαθήκη im gesamten Text des Dialogs enthält, also ein knappes Drittel. Wichtig ist es allerdings zu sehen, dass dieser kurze Diskurs nur einen geringen Abschnitt jenes großen zweiten Teils des Dialogs ausmacht, in dem die Themen Gesetzesobservanz und die Beschneidung ausführlich thematisiert werden; je nachdem, wie man die Abgrenzung dieses zweiten Teils vornimmt, umfasst der Gedankenaustauch über den Bund darin lediglich drei von höchstens 37 oder mindestens 20 Kapiteln.29 Die Debatte beginnt damit, dass Justin seine jüdischen Gesprächspartner nach deren Vorbehalten gegen die Christen fragt: Bestehen diese Vorbehalte “nur” in der Nichtbeachtung von Beschneidungs- und Sabbatgebot oder teilen die Juden darüber hinaus auch die gängigen moralischen Vorurteile, die den Christen aus der römischen Gesellschaft entgegenschlagen? (dial. 10,1).30 Die Antwort Tryphos (dial. 10,2) ist die, dass man den Vorurteilen der Masse keinesfalls glaube, weil das den Christen unterstellte unmoralische Verhalten schon durch “die erstaunlichen Lehren im sogenannten Evangelium” (τὰ ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ Εὐαγγελίῳ παραγγέλματα θαυμαστά), die er mit Interesse gelesen habe, ausgeschlossen sei; der Anspruch der Christen, gottesfürchtig zu leben, werde allerdings unglaubwürdig dadurch, dass sie sich nicht von den Heidenvölkern zurückzögen, dass sie Feste, Sabbat und Beschneidung missachteten und dass sie ihre Hoffnung auf einen gekreuzigten Menschen setzten (dial. 10,3). In diesem Zusammenhang zitiert Trypho Gen 17,14a und wirft den Christen vor, den Bund zu verachten, weil sie das Bundeszeichen der Beschneidung ablehnen (dial. 10,4).31 29

Die Abgrenzung für diesen ersten Teil wird in den Gliederungen (siehe oben no. 27) etwas unterschiedlich vorgenommen: Vorgeschlagen werden dial. 10,1–29,3; dial. 10,1– 30,3; dial. 8,3–43,1; dial. 10,1–47,6. 30 Die Rede ist von Kannibalismus, Trinkgelagen und sexuellen Orgien; gegen derlei Vorurteile wehrt sich Justin auch in den Apologien: 1apol. 10,6; 23,2; 26,7; 2apol. 12,1. 31 Es fällt natürlich auf, dass Trypho sein Schriftzitat mit Gen 17,14a beendet (dial. 10,3) und so ausgerechnet den Begriff διαθήκη aus dem unmittelbar folgenden Nebensatz Gen 17,14b nicht mitzitiert, obwohl er in der Folge (dial. 10,4) eben auf das Problem der διαθήκη zu sprechen kommt. Es ist indes nicht erforderlich, hier eine absichtliche Manipulation Justins oder möglicher späterer Bearbeiter des Textes oder aber einen Überlieferungsfehler anzunehmen. Es verhält sich vielmehr einfach so, dass Trypho, exegetischen Standards der Zeit folgend, davon ausgehen kann, dass sowohl die jüdischen als auch die christlichen Gesprächspartner wissen, dass in Gen 17,14b ὅτι τὴν διαθήκην μου διεσκέδασεν zu lesen war.

594

Jörg Ulrich

Justin wird nun von Trypho dazu aufgefordert, eine “Verteidigung vorzubringen” (ἀπολογήσασθαι), d.h. zu erläutern, wie es zu denken ist, dass die Christen zwar die Beschneidung ablehnen, aber zugleich behaupten, den Bund gerade nicht zu verachten, sondern ihm in besonderer Weise zu entsprechen. Dem dient der Passus dial. 11,1–12,3, in dem Justin – ohne sich durch weitere Zwischenfragen oder -bemerkungen Tryphos unterbrechen zu lassen – seine Sicht der Dinge darlegt und begründet. Dabei ist es wichtig zu sehen, dass Justin in seinen Ausführungen über den Bund alle eingangs von Trypho vorgetragenen Einwände berücksichtigt und beantwortet: Der Bund, dem die Christen folgen, beinhaltet es, dass sie das (alte) Gesetz nicht befolgen (vgl. dial. 10,3 mit dial. 11,1), sich nicht von den “Völkern” (τῶν ἐθνῶν) distanzieren (vgl. dial. 10,3 mit dial. 11,4) und dass sie dem Namen des gekreuzigten Jesus Christus folgen (vgl. dial. 10,3 mit dial. 11,4), durch den sie zu Gott Zugang finden und so das Unrecht meiden und ihre Frömmigkeit praktizieren (εὐσέβειαν ποιεῖσθαι). Die Ausführungen Justins setzen damit ein, dass er zunächst die Gemeinsamkeit zwischen Juden und Christen betont. Damit entspricht er der Argumentationsstrategie seines Gesprächspartners, der sich ja auch zunächst auf die Seite der Christen gestellt und ihnen attestiert hatte, dass die gegen sie erhobenen moralischen Vorwürfe gegenstandslos seien. Justin verweist darauf, dass der Gott der Christen und der Juden ein und derselbe ist und dass es weder jemals einen anderen Gott gegeben habe noch je einen anderen Gott geben werde. Diesen Gott identifiziert er (unter Anspielung auf Dtn 5,15 und Ps 135[136],12) als den Gott des Auszugs aus Ägypten sowie als den Gott Abrahams, Isaaks und Jakobs (dial. 11,1). Die Differenz freilich besteht in der Frage nach dem Zugang zu diesem einen Gott. Anders als die Juden sind die Christen nicht durch Mose oder durch das Gesetz zur Hoffnung gelangt (ἠλπίκαμεν), sondern durch ein vom mosaischen Gesetz offenbar unterschiedenes “ewiges und endgültiges Gesetz”, das mit Christus selbst identifiziert wird (αἰώνιός τε ἡμῖν νόμος καὶ τελευταῖος ὁ Χριστὸς ἐδόθη).32 Justin resümiert: “Und dieser Die Frage nach dem Bund war damit auf dem Tisch, auch wenn das vorangestellte Textzitat Gen 17,14a den Begriff nicht explizit bringt. Das Fehlen von Gen 17,14b in dial. 10,3 bzw. der Einsatz mit ταύτης οὖν τῆς διαθήκης in dial. 10,4 müssen daher nicht überraschen. Siehe hierzu BOBICHON, Dialogue, 609 no. 12 mitsamt einem Referat verschiedener gelehrter Positionen zu diesem Problem. 32 Im Unterschied zu diesem τελευταῖος νόμος wird der nicht-endgültige, provisorische Charakter des mosaischen Gesetzes von Justin an anderer Stelle mit der Wendung πρόσκαιρος νόμος markiert (dial. 40,1; 113,4). – Zu der in anderen frühchristlichen Texten so nicht belegten Wendung τελευταῖος νόμος könnte Justin durch Röm 10,4 inspiriert worden sein, zumal er Christus an unserer Stelle und mitunter auch sonst mit dem neuen Gesetz bzw. dem neuen Bund identifiziert (vgl. dial. 43,1; 122,6). Die Wendung αἰώνιος νόμος findet sich zwar in Lev 6,15 und Num 15,15, jedoch werden diese Schriftstellen im Dialog nirgends herangezogen. Es liegt nahe, dass Justin hier bereits an die διαθήκη αἰώνιος aus Jes 55,3

Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho

595

Bund ist verlässlich” (καὶ ἡ διαθήκη πιστή).33 Damit ist die Frage nach dem neuen Bund aufgeworfen und zugleich als zentraler Differenzpunkt markiert. Zugunsten des neuen Bundes argumentiert Justin, der Gesamtanlage des Dialogs mit Trypho entsprechend, auf Basis der Schrift (νυνὶ δὲ ἀνέγνων γάρ, ὦ Τρύφων),34 allerdings geht er auf die von seinem Gesprächspartner eingangs ins Feld geführte Genesisstelle nicht mehr eigens ein. Er muss dies auch nicht, denn dass das Beschneidungsgebot überholt und dass das auf dem Horeb gegebene Gesetz alt (ὁ γάρ ἐν Χωρὴβ παλαιὸς ἤδη νόμος) und beendet ist, ergibt sich für ihn nicht aus einer bestimmten Deutung der diese Gesetze betreffenden biblischen Stellen, sondern aus der Ankündigung und Gabe jenes “ewigen und endgültigen Gesetzes”, auf das kein weiteres Gesetz, keine Verordnung und kein Gebot (οὐ νόμος, οὐ πρόσταγμα, οὐκ ἐντολή) mehr folgen werden. Jenes Gesetz, das in Christus gegeben ist, ist der neue, verlässliche Bund. Justin muss also beweisen, dass ein solcher neuer, den alten aufhebender und ablösender Bund tatsächlich von den Propheten angekündigt ist. Hierzu bedient er sich eines Doppelzitats von Jes 51,4f. und Jer 38(31),31f. (dial. 11,3). Das Jesajazitat über den Ausgang des Gesetzes dient ihm zunächst dazu, auf das Licht der Völker und auf die Hoffnung für die Völker aufmerksam zu machen; dass mit dem νόμος aus Jes 51,4 nichts anderes als der neue Bund gemeint sein kann, ergibt sich aus der Identifikation von νόμος und διαθήκη, die er einleitend vorgenommen hatte und daraus, dass er das nun folgende Jeremiazitat mit dem Rückverweis einführt, es spreche über “eben diesen neuen Bund” (περὶ ταύτης αὐτῆς τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης). Für die Ankündigung des neuen Bundes ist Jer 38(31),31 für Justin wie auch sonst in der frühchristlichen Literatur einschlägig,35 allerdings wartet Justin gegenüber den früheren christlichen Zeugen insofern mit einer signifikanten Neuerung auf, als er die Wendung οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην weglässt, die sich in der LXX am Anfang von Jer 38(31),32 findet.36 Damit verschiebt sich natürlich die Interpretationsrichtung: Ohne das οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην kann der Jeremiatext so gedeutet werden, dass der neue Bund dem alten widerspricht und ihn ersetzt. Die theologische Konsequenz hieraus wird von Justin klar formuliert: Es sind die Christen als die Teilhaber am neuen denkt, was er sogleich zitieren wird (dial. 12,1; vgl. 14,4; 43,1 und auch Hebr 13,20), zumal νόμος und διαθήκη für ihn austauschbare Begriffe sind. Siehe BOBICHON, Dialogue, 613 no. 14. 33 Die Wendung διαθήκη πιστή dürfte sich Ps 88(89),29 verdanken. Justin zitiert diesen Text nirgends explizit, aber es liegt auf der Hand, dass er die Stelle christologisch verstanden haben dürfte. Der Ausdruck διαθήκη πιστή findet sich noch in dial. 123,4 (hier in Verbindung mit den “ewigen Wegen” aus Jer 6,16). 34 Der Hinweis auf das Lesen der Schrift wird in dial. 11,3 mit direkter Anrede an Typho wiederholt: ἢ σὺ ταῦτα οὐκ ἀνέγνως … 35 Siehe die Belege bei PRIGENT, Justin, 237f. 36 Man vergleiche das Zitat derselben Jeremiapassage im Hebräerbrief, wo οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην stehen geblieben ist: Hebr 8,8f.; Vgl. hierzu BOBICHON, Dialogue, 613 no. 16.

596

Jörg Ulrich

Bund, die nun das wahre, spirituelle Volk Israel (ἰσραηλιτικὸν γὰρ τὸ ἀληθινόν, πνευματικόν)37 und die das Geschlecht Judas, Jakobs, Isaaks und Abrahams sind (dial. 11,5). Mit dem Hinweis darauf, dass Abraham noch im Stande der Nichtbeschneidung aufgrund seines Glaubens von Gott gesegnet und Vater vieler Völker (Gen 17,5; vgl. Röm 4,17f.) genannt wurde, schlägt Justin den Bogen zur Ausgangsargumentation Tryphos zurück, die ja mit Gen 17,14 eingesetzt hatte. Dass der neue Bund, anders als der alte, nicht zeitlich befristet, sondern ewig ist, belegt er schließlich mit einem Zitat von Jes 55,3–5 (dial. 12,1). Rhetorisch geschickt präsentiert er am Schluss des Diskurses noch eine retorsio (dial. 12,2f.), die die beachtliche Kohärenz von dial. 10,1–12,3 erkennen lässt:38 So wie Trypho eingangs den Christen vorgeworfen hatte, durch die Ablehnung der Beschneidung den Bund verachtet zu haben (dial. 10,4: ταύτης οὖν τῆς διαθήκης εὐθέως καταφρονήσαντες), so wirft Justin am Schluss des Passus nun den Juden vor, das neue Gesetz entehrt und den neuen heiligen Bund verachtet zu haben (dial. 12,2: τοῦτον αὐτὸν ὑμεῖς ἠτιμώσατε τὸν νόμον καὶ τὴν καινὴν ἁγίαν αὐτοῦ διαθήκην ἐφαυλίσατε). Statt sich der “zweiten Beschneidung, der es nunmehr bedarf” (δευτέρας ἤδη χρεία περιτομῆς) anzuschließen, seien die Juden nach wie vor “stolz auf das Fleisch” (ἐπὶ τῇ σαρκὶ μέγα φρονεῖτε, d.h. auf die in Gen 17 als Bundeszeichen eingeführte Beschneidung) (dial 12,3). Die retorsio wird abschließend noch ein wenig hinsichtlich ihrer Konsequenzen entfaltet. Justin unterstellt den Juden, Augen, Ohren und Herzen zu verschließen, an nur einem Tag Sabbat zu feiern (anstelle einer andauernden Sabbatfeier, die sich im Tun des Guten äußern sollte)39 und ungesäuerte Brote zu essen. Im Hintergrund stehen biblische Stellen wie Jes 6,10 (vgl. Mt 13,15; Acta 28,27); 29,18f. (vgl. Mt 11,5; Lk 7,22); 58,13; 1,16; der explizite Rekurs auf den Propheten Jeremia (κέκραγεν Ἱερεμίας)40 zeigt jedoch, dass der Sache nach weiterhin die Stelle Jer 38(31),31f. im Zentrum der Argumentation steht

37 Das Wort ἰσραελιτικὸν dürfte Justins eigene Kreation sein (siehe noch dial. 135,3), es findet sich sonst nirgends im frühchristlichen Sprachgebrauch. Die beiden anderen Adjektive verdanken sich wohl paulinischem Sprachgebrauch, zu πνευματικόν vgl. Röm 2,29. 38 Siehe BOBICHON, Dialogue, 616 no. 4. 39 Man beachte auch hier, dass die retorsio Justins genau dem anfänglichen Vorwurf des Trypho entspricht: dial. 10,3 und dial. 12,3. – Zu dem gegen die Juden gerichteten Argument, dass die angemessene Feier des Sabbat im andauernden Tun des Guten bestehe, siehe auch Tertullian, adv. Iud. 4. 40 Es überrascht zunächst, dass die Nennung des Namens Jeremia unmittelbar auf das Zitat von Jes 6,10 folgt. Es handelt sich aber wohl nicht um eine fehlerhafte Zuschreibung, sondern um einen neuerlichen, hier nur noch impliziten Hinweis auf die in dial. 11,3 bereits zitierte zentrale Belegstelle Jer 38(31),31f. Siehe hierzu BOBICHON, Dialogue, 616 no. 8. Eine Konjektur (THIRLBY z.B. liest Ἡσαίας statt Ἱερεμίας) ist nicht erforderlich und verdeckt eher den Impetus der Argumentation.

Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho

597

– die entscheidende Belegstelle Justins für den neuen Bund, der an die Stelle des alten getreten ist und jenem ein Ende gesetzt hat (dial. 11,2). Die den gesamten zweiten Teil des Dialogs beherrschende Auseinandersetzung um die Beachtung oder Nichtbeachtung von Beschneidung und Gesetz geht nun noch knapp 20 Kapitel weiter, ohne dass das Thema Bund noch einmal expliziert würde. Der Begriff der διαθήκη kommt im Weiteren nur noch in den Schriftzitaten Jes 55,3 (dial. 14,4, eine im Vergleich zu dial. 12,1 ausführlichere Wiederholung derselben Schriftstelle), Ps 49(50),5.16 (dial. 22,7.9), Jer 38(31),31 (dial. 24,1, wie bereits dial. 11,3) und Jes 42,6 (dial. 26,2) vor. Auch die Antworten des Trypho (dial. 19,1; 20,2; 25,6; 27,1; 28,1) thematisieren zwar Beschneidung, Sabbat, Fest und die Frage nach dem Erbe, nehmen das Thema Bund aber nicht mehr eigens auf.

3. Das Thema διαθήκη innerhalb des Gesprächsgangs über die Jungfrauengeburt (dial. 67,9f.) Dieser sehr kurze Abschnitt gehört in den großen dritten Teil des Dialogs über Fragen der Christologie.41 Hierin markiert dial. 66,1 zunächst deutlich einen Neueinsatz, wie Justins Verweis auf seine vormaligen Ausführungen über die Jungfrauengeburt zeigt, die er bereits in dial 43,1–44, präsentiert hatte. Schon dort war der aus der Jungfrau geborene Christus als das ewige Gesetz und der neue Bund genannt worden (dial. 43,1), entsprechend der bereits bekannten Deutung von Jer 38(31),31 und Jes 54,3 in dial. 11,2 bzw. von Jes 55,3–5 in dial 12,1.42 Hieran schließt dial. 67,1 an. Es geht zunächst um die strittige Interpretation von Jes 7,14; Trypho bringt das bekannte Argument vor, die Schrift lese nicht παρθένος, sondern νεᾶνις (vgl. dial 43,8 [Referat der jüdischen Meinung durch Justin]; 84,1.3 [Gegenbehauptung Justins]). Die christliche Auffassung von der Jungfrauengeburt tut er als schändliche und dümmliche Wundergeschichte nach Art der griechischen Mythen ab und zieht als Parallele die Geburt des Perseus aus der Jungfrau Danae heran, die von Zeus im Goldregen überströmt wurde.43 Diesen Mythos sieht Trypho als lächerlich an

41 Zu den unterschiedlichen Vorschlägen hinsichtlich der genauen Abgrenzungen dieses Teils siehe die Synopse bei BOBICHON, Dialogue, 19–24 (20) und GEORGES, “Einleitung”. 42 Siehe oben no. 32. 43 Die Geschichte von der Geburt des Perseus spielt auch in den Apologien Justins eine Rolle: 1apol. 21,2; 22,5. Im Blick auf seine paganen Adressaten in den Apologien nutzt Justin die Geschichte interessanterweise dazu, die Jungfrauengeburt anhand eines Beispiels aus der Mythologie zu plausibilisieren. Dies steht in einer gewissen Spannung zu seinem sonstigen Umgang mit den Mythen der Griechen, die er oft als lächerlich abtut, für jugendgefährdend hält und als von Dämonen erfunden Schauermärchen einordnet. Siehe hierzu ULRICH, Apologien, 257f. 265f.; für Trypho ist auch die Perseusgeschichte lächerlich – er

598

Jörg Ulrich

und stellt dem die jüdische Auffassung entgegen, der Gesalbte müsse ein von Menschen geborener Mensch sein, der wegen seines gesetzesmäßigen und vollkommenen Wandels würdig befunden werde, zum Gesalbten berufen zu werden (dial. 67,2; siehe auch die Antwort Justins dial. 67,3).44 An diesen Kriterien solle die christliche Argumentation sich orientieren, wenn sie den Beweis führen wolle, dass Jesus der Gesalbte sei, nicht aber an absonderlichen Wundermärchen. Trypho verweist darauf, dass Justin selbst eingeräumt (aber angeblich mittlerweile wieder revoziert) habe, dass der von den Christen als Gesalbter identifizierte Jesus beschnitten gewesen sei und die mosaischen Gesetze beachtet habe (dial. 67,5), was Justin bestätigt (dial. 67,6).45 Die Antwort Justins betont, dass der Gesalbte durch die Beachtung der Gesetze nicht etwa gerecht werden, sondern einen Heilsplan vollenden (τὴν οἰκονομίαν ἀπαρτίζοντα) wollte. So wie er es auf sich nahm, den Gesetzesvorschriften zu folgen, so nahm er auch den Kreuzestod auf sich und alles, was die Menschen aus Tryphos Volk ihm angetan hätten. Die zweifache Benutzung des Verbs ὑπομένω in dial. 67,6 unterstreicht die Kontinuität dieses Heilsplans, der auf Jesu Geburt (aus der Jungfrau) und auf seinen Kreuzestod zuläuft. Die Reaktion Justins auf die Einlassung Tryphos ist abermals eine retorsio: Nicht er, Justin, sondern vielmehr Trypho sei es, der vormals gemachte Zugeständnisse nun nicht mehr wahrhaben wolle (dial. 67,7.11). In diesem Zusammenhang verweist Justin auf einige entscheidende Etappen des Heilsplans und veranlasst Trypho, diese angesichts unabweisbarer Schriftbelege nun doch endgültig anzuerkennen: Er nennt die selige Rettung der vor Mose (und damit gesetzesfrei) lebenden, unbeschnittenen Patriarchen (dial, 67,7);46 das Gebot von Opfern und Abgaben nicht wegen des Bedürfnisses Gottes, sondern aufgrund der Herzenshärtigkeit und der Götzenverehrung des Volkes (dial. 67,8);47 die Voraussage der Einrichtung eines neuen Bundes neben dem am Horeb geschlossenen

steht damit in der Linie der Mythenkritik, wie wir sie bei den meisten christlichen und auch bei paganen Autoren der Zeit kennen. 44 Zu den jüdischen Messiasvorstellungen, wie sie im Dialog mit Trypho (sowohl im Referat Tryphos als auch in der Wiedergabe durch Justin) erkennbar werden, siehe BOBICHON, Dialogue, 84f. 45 Daran, dass Justin die Beschneidung Jesu und dessen gesetzestreuen Wandel bereits ausdrücklich eingeräumt habe, wie Trypho behauptet, kann kein Zweifel bestehen. Das zeigt schon die unmittelbare Antwort Justins. Im vorliegenden Text des Dialogs ist allerdings vor unserer Stelle nirgends von einem solchen “Eingeständnis” Justins die Rede (vgl. HAEUSER, Dialog, 109 no. 1). Der Grund hierfür konnte in einer Überlieferungslücke oder in der nicht immer ganz konsequenten Disposition des Dialogs zu suchen sein. 46 Schriftbezug ist u. a. Gen 4,4; 5,24; 17,5; 19,29; das Argument ist schon in dial. 19,4; 45,4 vorgetragen worden. Für die etwas spätere christliche Literatur vgl. Irenaeus, haer. 4,16,2 und Tertullian, adv. Iud. 2. 47 Schriftbezug ist u. a. Am 5,18–6,7; das Argument ist schon in dial. 22,1–11 vorgetragen worden.

Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho

599

(dial. 67,9);48 die Festsetzung des alten Bundes unter Furcht und Zittern der Väter (dial. 67,9);49 schließlich die Ankündigung des neuen Bundes bzw. neuen Gesetzes vom Zion (dial. 67,10).50 Auf alle von Justin genannten Punkte reagiert Trypho, indem er jedes Mal ausdrücklich zustimmt (dial. 67,8–11), wobei seine Zustimmung allerdings nur als Bestätigung des Inhalts der von Justin teils explizit, teils implizit ins Spiel gebrachten Schriftstellen zu verstehen ist und nicht als Konsens mit Justins christologischer Deutung derselben als Etappen auf einem in Christus letztgültig vollendeten Heilsplan. Das zeigt sich schon daran, dass die Kontroverse über die Christologie in der unmittelbaren Folge unseres Passus weitergeht: Während es bislang die Jungfrauengeburt war, über die die beiden Gesprächspartner unterschiedlicher Meinung waren, ist es von nun an (dial. 68,1) die Menschwerdung Gottes, die Trypho als “unglaubwürdige und nahezu unmögliche Sache” (ἄπιστον γὰρ καὶ ἀδύνατον σχεδὸν πρᾶγμα) in Zweifel zieht, während Justin sie aus den Schriften zu “beweisen” versucht. Für unsere Frage nach der διαθήκη trägt der kurze Abschnitt dial. 67,9f. trotz des dreimaligen Vorkommens des Begriffs keine inhaltlich relevanten Aspekte aus, die über die bei der Analyse von dial. 10,1–12,3 gewonnenen Erkenntnisse hinausgingen. Im Rahmen der kontroversen Gespräche über die Christologie macht Justin für den in Christus vollendeten Heilsplan auf einige Etappen aufmerksam, die er mit Schriftbelegen versieht. Hierbei spielt auch die Frage des Bundes eine Rolle, indem die Festsetzung des alten Bundes, die Einrichtung eines neuen Bundes neben dem am Horeb geschlossenen und die Ankündigung des neuen Bundes vom Zion als solche Etappen in den Blick gerückt werden. Die aus Sicht Justins hierfür einschlägigen Schriftstellen sind die aus dial. 10,1–12,3 bereits bekannten. Die einzige ersichtliche sachliche Differenz scheint mir darin zu bestehen, dass Justin in dial. 67,9 (in impliziter Deutung von Jer 38[31],31) davon spricht, dass Gott einen neuen Bund neben dem auf dem Berg Horeb geschlossenen einrichten werde (καὶ ὅτι καινὴν διαθήκην διαθήσεσθαι ὁ θεὸς ἐπήγγελται παρὰ τὴν ἐν ὄρει Χωρήβ), während in dial. 11,2 davon die Rede war, dass der neue Bund den alten vom Horeb ablöse. Was dort ausdrücklich als Aufhebung des alten Bundes und als dessen Substitution durch den neuen angesprochen war, hört sich an unserer Stelle etwas mehr nach einem komplementären Nebeneinander an. Freilich handelt sich hier um eine der ganz wenigen Stellen im Dialog, die im Sinne einer Komplementarität gedeutet werden könnten. Die meisten Passagen im Dialog mit Trypho wie auch in den Apologien sprechen eine andere Sprache. 48

Schriftbezug ist Jer 38(31),31f.; das Argument sahen wir bereits in dial. 11,2f., s.o. Schriftbezüge sind u. a. Ex 15,16; 19,12–18; 20,18f.; Dtn 2,25; 4,11; 11,25. Vgl. Hebr 12,18f. 50 Schriftbezüge sind Jer 38(31),31; Jes 54,3; 51,4f.; derselbe Hinweis findet sich bereits in dial. 11,2f.; 12,1; 24,1 sowie dial. 19,6; 45,3. 49

600

Jörg Ulrich

4. Das Thema διαθήκη innerhalb des Gesprächsgangs über die Proselyten (dial. 121,1–123,9) Der dritte Passus aus dem Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho, in dem der Begriff der διαθήκη eine Rolle spielt, ist der Gesprächsgang über die Frage, ob sich einschlägige Stellen der Schrift auf die Christen und Heiden oder aber auf die (jüdischen) Proselyten beziehen. Dieser Abschnitt findet sich in der mit dial. 73,4 einsetzenden zweiten Hälfte des Dialogs, die üblicherweise dem zweiten Disputationstag zugewiesen wird.51 Inhaltlich ist er dem großen, in dial. 109,1 beginnenden Schlussteil des Dialogs mit Trypho zuzurechnen, der in den wissenschaftlichen Gliederungsvorschlägen mit “Die Berufung der Heiden(völker)” oder “Das wahre Gottesvolk” überschrieben ist. In dem für uns relevanten Abschnitt dial. 121,1–123,9 kommt das Nomen διαθήκη gehäuft, nämlich sieben Mal vor; das ist ein knappes Viertel der insgesamt 31 Belege im Dialog überhaupt. Der Abschnitt ist in seinen Aussagen über die διαθήκη eng an dial. 11,2f. orientiert (siehe hierzu oben unter 2.) und weist zugleich eine hohe Binnenkohärenz auf. Das ist schon daran zu erkennen, dass die Formulierung “auch jenes” (κἀκεῖνα), die den Schluss des Abschnitts einleitet (dial. 123,1) sich auf die beiden am Anfang des Abschnitts zitierten Schriftstellen Ps 71(72),17 und Jes 49,6 zurückbezieht. Deren Deutung will Justin in seiner Argumentation als richtig erwiesen haben. Aus Ps 71(72),1752 schließt er zum einen, dass Jesus der Gesalbte ist, in dem alle Völker gesegnet werden sollen; denn obwohl er bei seiner ersten Parusie ehrlos und für nichts erachtet war, leuchtete er dennoch und zeigte Kraft,53 sodass auf ihn bezogen werden muss, was im Psalm

51 Das Gespräch war offensichtlich von vornherein als ein zweitägiges angelegt. In dial. 56,16 wird angemerkt, dass sich der Tag bereits dem Ende neigte, in dial. 78,6 ist die Rede von Teilnehmern, die erst heute dazugekommen seien. Der zweite Gesprächstag wird in dial. 85,4; 94,4; 122,4 ausdrücklich benannt. Im erhaltenen Text des Dialogs mit Trypho ist jedoch vom Ende des ersten und vom Beginn des zweiten Tages nirgends die Rede, so dass die Vermutung naheliegt, dass diese Zäsur sich in der Überlieferungslücke vor dial. 74,4 (zu dieser lacuna siehe oben no. 23) befunden haben muss. Der gesamte Text des Dialogs ab dial. 74,4 wäre mithin dem zweiten Tag zuzuordnen. Siehe hierzu GEORGES, “Einleitung”, und BOBICHON, Dialogue, 51. 52 Dieser Psalmvers war schon in dial. 34,6; 64,6 zitiert worden. Er gilt Justin als Schriftbeleg für die Präexistenz des Logos. An unserer Stelle findet sich eine textliche Abweichung gegenüber LXX und den vorgenannten Zitierungen des Verse, die darauf zurückzuführen sein dürfte, dass Justin hier mit ὑπὲρ τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατελεῖ (statt πρὸ τοῦ ἡλίου διαμενεῖ) den Zusammenhang mit der etwas später folgenden Sacharjastelle Sach 6,12 evident machen will, wo das Nomen ἀνατολή steht (siehe dial. 121,2). 53 In dial. 121,3 ist mit dem Verb ἴσχυσεν auf das Kreuz Christi angespielt, vgl. hierzu dial. 26,3 (Jes 63,1; 30,3; 75,3; 7,7). Gleiches gilt von der Wendung τοσοῦτον ἔλαμψεν (vgl. Mt 27,45) und für den Hinweis auf die Unterwerfung der Dämonen unter den Namen Christi,

Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho

601

angekündigt ist: Sein Name wird für die Ewigkeit über die Sonne hinausgehen (dial. 121,3). Es ergibt sich dann auch zwingend, dass es die Christen sind, die gemäß dem Psalmvers die durch den Gesalbten Gesegneten sind, weil sie es sind, die aus allen Völkern an ihn glauben (dial. 121,1) und darüber hinaus bereit sind, um seines Namens willen zu leiden und zu sterben54 – was selbst für die einstmals zur Anbetung freigegebene Sonne55 noch nie jemand getan habe (dial. 121,2). In dieselbe Richtung geht auch die Deutung von Jes 49,6: Der Gesalbte, an den sich der Vers richtet, wird als Kind bzw. Knecht56 Gottes bezeichnet, der zum Licht der Völker eingesetzt und Rettung bis ans Ende der Erde für sie ist. Damit ist zum einen bewiesen, dass Jesus der Gesalbte und der Sohn Gottes ist, und zum anderen gezeigt, dass es den Christen, die sich aus den Heidenvölkern aus allen Enden der Erde zusammensetzen, gegeben ist, durch diesen Gesalbten gerettet zu werden (dial. 121,4). Gegen letztere Deutung erhebt sich Widerspruch von Seiten der Gesprächspartner57 Justins, den Justin folgendermaßen paraphrasiert: Seine Gegner gehen davon aus, dass sich die Worte von der Segnung durch den Gesalbten (Ps 71[72],17) und von der Rettung durch den Sohn (Jes 49,6) gar nicht auf die Christen, sondern vielmehr auf den Geora und die Proselyten beziehen.58 In den Zusammenhang der Diskussion dieser strittigen Frage gehört nun auch der neuerliche, im Verlauf des Dialogs mit Trypho dritte und letzte Diskurs über die Frage nach dem alten und neuen Bund. Justin beginnt mit einem freien, wohl aus dem Gedächtnis wiedergegebenen Zitat vom Mt 23,15, das zeigen soll, dass der Gesalbte eben nicht für die Proselyten Zeugnis abgelegt, sondern sie ganz im Gegenteil “zweimal mehr Söhne der Hölle” (διπλότερον υἱοὶ γεέννης) genannt habe.59 Damit ist klar, dass weder die Ankündigung des Logos, er werde Blinde auf einen Weg führen, den sie siehe hierzu BOBICHON, Dialogue, 878 no. 12. Die Auseinandersetzung mit jüdischen Kritikern veranlasst Justin ganz offensichtlich dazu, dass Kreuzesgeschehen immer neu als entscheidenden Bestandteil des Heilsplans Gottes zu thematisieren, sei es explizit (dial. 10,3 mit 11,4 oder dial. 67,6 (s.o.), sei es – wie hier – implizit. 54 Dasselbe Argument findet sich auch in den Apologien: 1apol. 8,2f.; 2apol. 10,8; 12,1f. 55 Der Bezug ist Dtn 4,19; ein ähnlicher Verweis findet sich schon in dial. 55,1. 56 Das Nomen παὶς kann sowohl einen Sohn wie auch einen Sklaven/Knecht bezeichnen. 57 Es ist deutlich, dass die Gegner Justins in diesem Diskurs von der Person des Trypho zu unterscheiden sind. Sie halten sich kaum an angemessene Gesprächsmanieren und sind erst am zweiten Tag des Gesprächs überhaupt hinzugetreten (dial. 122,4); möglicherweise handelt es sich bei ihnen um interessierte Nichtjuden, für die die “Proselytenfrage” von eigenem Interesse war. Vgl. STANTON, “Boundaries”, 363–375. 58 “Geora” ist griechische Transkription aus dem Hebräischen, vgl. Ex 12,19. Für Justin sind die Begriffe “Geora” und “Proselyt” austauschbar; das gilt auch für andere frühchristliche Autoren, z.B. für den Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides: Eus., h.e. 1,7,13. 59 Das aus Mt 23,15 stammende Adverb διπλότερον meint Justin eigens erläutern zu müssen: Er interpretiert es durch die Behauptung, dass die Proselyten zweimal mehr (als die Juden) den Namen Jesu lästern würden.

602

Jörg Ulrich

nicht kannten (Jes 42,16), noch das gemeinsame Zeugnis Gottes des Herrn und seines auserwählten Sohnes bzw. Knechtes60 (Jes 43,10) auf die Proselyten bezogen sein können (dial. 122,1). Gleiches gilt für die Stelle Jes 42,6f., mit der nun das Thema des Bundes des Volkes und des Lichtes der Völker (εἰς διαθήκην γένους, εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν) in den Blick kommt. Die Wahl ausgerechnet dieses Verses dürfte allerdings weniger dem Interesse an der Bundethematik, sondern vielmehr der Tatsache geschuldet sein, dass auch in ihm von der Erleuchtung der Blinden (wie im unmittelbar zuvor zitierten Vers Jes 42,16) und vom Licht der Völker (wie im kurz zuvor zitierten Vers Jes 49,6) die Rede ist. Das Thema Bund kommt offenbar nur deshalb zur Sprache, weil in den Versen Jes 42,6f. die διαθήκη γένους vor der Sequenz εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν, ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς τυφλῶν ausdrücklich genannt ist. In der Deutung des Verses kommt Justin natürlich zum selben Ergebnis wie bei allen zuvor zitierten Schriftstellen: Auch Jes 42,6f. bezieht sich auf Christus als den Gesalbten (wodurch sowohl φῶς als auch διαθήκη zu christologischen Titeln werden)61 und er bezieht sich auf die Heidenvölker, die erleuchtet worden sind (περὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν τῶν πεφωτισμένων), also auf die Christen; der Vers bezieht sich mithin nicht auf das Gesetz und nicht auf die Proselyten.62 Abermals erhebt sich hiergegen starker (und offenbar lautstarker) Widerspruch der Gesprächspartner Justins (dial. 122,4), woraufhin Justin sich nunmehr veranlasst sieht, ein Argument nachzuschieben, das seine Deutung der διαθήκη γένους begründen soll: Gott habe einen neuen Bund (καινὴν διαθήκην), ein ewiges Gesetz (νόμον αἰώνιον) und ein Gebot (πρόσταγμα) zu schicken angekündigt. Ein solcher neuer Bund und ein solches ewiges Gesetz seien aber überflüssig, wenn das alte, bestehende Gesetz es vermöchte, die Völker und die, die das Gesetz bereits haben, zu erleuchten. Die Rede vom neuen Bund, vom ewigen Gesetz und vom Gebot kann sich also nicht auf das alte Gesetz beziehen und auch nicht auf die Juden und auf die Proselyten, die dem 60

Siehe oben no. 56. Vgl. BOBICHON, Dialogue, 881 no. 7. 62 Es gibt zwei weitere Zitierungen von Jes 42,6f. im Dialog, nämlich dial. 26,2 und dial. 65,4. Diese beiden Zitierungen entsprechen dem Text der LXX. An unserer Stelle finden sich hingegen einige Abweichungen: Das ὁ θεὸς nach κύριος fehlt (die von MARCOVICH vorgeschlagene Konjektur einer Ergänzung des ὁ θεὸς in dial. 122,3 ist überflüssig), es steht τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ statt ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ und das Hauptverb lautet θήσω statt ἔδωκα. Anders als an anderen Stellen des Dialogs sind diese Textdifferenzen aber nicht Gegenstand der Kontroverse, weil sie auf die Streitfrage keinen Einfluss haben. Die Veränderung beim Tempus des Hauptverbs dürfte dem Anliegen geschuldet sein, die Prophezeiung als auf die Zukunft gerichtete kenntlich zu machen, die Veränderung beim Wort selbst auf die lexikalische Verwandtschaft von τίθημι und διαθήκη zurückzuführen sein. Ob Justin an unserer Stelle frei zitiert oder sich einer anderen Vorlage als der LXX bediente, wird nicht zu entscheiden sein, denn Jes 42,6f. wird in den Apologien nicht zitiert, so dass ein Vergleich nicht möglich ist. – Im NT wird Jes 42,6 in Lk 2,32 auf Christus und in Apg 26,18 auf die Christusverkündigung bezogen. 61

Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho

603

alten Gesetz folgen oder ihm beitreten wollen. Sie bezieht sich vielmehr auf Christus und auf die Christen. Justin resümiert mit Hilfe rhetorischer Fragen: Sind nun etwa nicht die (Heiden)Völker das Erbteil des Gesandten? Und ist nun nicht etwa Christus der (neue) Bund Gottes? (dial. 122,6). Seine Argumentation insinuiert zweimal die Antwort “Ja”. Justin schließt mit den Versen Ps 2,7f. als zusammenfassendem Beleg: Dem von Gott gezeugten Sohn werden die (Heiden)Völker als Erbteil gegeben werden, eine Ankündigung, die er im Christusgeschehen erfüllt sieht. Das Argumentationsmaterial, das Justin an unserer Stelle verwendet, ist aus dem ersten Gesprächsgang über Gesetz und Beschneidung wohl bekannt. Auch dort war schon von der καινὴ διαθήκη, vom νόμος αἰώνιος und vom πρόσταγμα die Rede gewesen (dial. 11,3; 12,1; 11,2). Im Hintergrund stehen hier wie dort die biblischen Stellen Jer 38(31),31f., Jes 55,3–5 und Ps 2,7.63 Neu ist lediglich das Argument, dass der neue Bund überflüssig sei, wenn durch das (alte) Gesetz die Erleuchtung derer, die ihm folgen, bewerkstelligt werden könnte. Dieses Argument erinnert an Gal 3,15–2164 und es ist möglich, dass Justin hier auf Paulus rekurriert. Seine Folgerung lautet: Wie die Worte von der Segnung durch den Gesalbten (Ps 71[72],17) und von der Rettung durch den Sohn (Jes 49,6), so beziehen sich auch die Worte über den neuen Bund und das ewige Gesetz auf Christus und auf “seine Proselyten” (τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ τοὺς προσηλύτους αὐτοῦ), also auf die Christen, die Christus als dem neuen Bund angehören und von ihm erleuchtet werden. Die Proselyten hingegen, die dem alten Gesetz beitreten und sich beschneiden lassen wollen, um dem (alten) Volk Israel angehören zu können (vgl. Jes 14,1), erkennen den neuen Bund nicht und meinen ihn nicht zu benötigen, weil sie dem alten anhangen. Ihnen bleiben (wie den Juden)65 die Segnung durch den Gesalbten, die Rettung durch den Sohn und die Erleuchtung versperrt; die einschlägigen Prophezeiungen gelten ihnen nicht. Damit ist die anhängige Streitfrage aus Justins Sicht entschieden. Der erforderliche Beweis ist erbracht. Justin führt seine Ausführungen noch weiter, indem er die Themen der Blindheit bzw. des Öffnens der Augen und der Gotteserkenntnis ein wenig variiert. In diesem Zusammenhang fällt auch noch einmal der Begriff διαθήκη, wenn Justin in dial. 123,4 den Proselyten vorwirft, sie seien unfähig, “den treuen Bund des Herrn zu finden”

63 Ein expliziter Schriftbeleg für πρόσταγμα findet sich im Dialog mit Trypho zwar nicht, es liegt aber nahe, an Ps 2,7 zu denken, da Justin Ps 2,7b–c in der unmittelbaren Folge zitiert. Ps 2,7a lautet: διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα κυρίου. In den Apologien wird Ps 2,7 als Schriftbeleg für die Gottessohnschaft und für die Glaubenden aus den Völkern präsentiert, vgl. 1apol. 40,7.13–15, kommentierend hierzu ULRICH, Apologien, 351–356. 64 So auch BOBICHON, Dialogue, 881 no. 8. 65 Im Unterschied zu den Proselyten, die dem Gesetz beitreten und sich beschneiden lassen wollen, bezeichnet Justin die Juden hier als Mitglieder (Israels) durch Geburt (ὡς αὐτόχθων). Wörtlich meint αὐτόχθων einen der Erde (des Landes) selbst Entsprossenen.

604

Jörg Ulrich

(διαθήκην κυρίου πιστὴν … εὑρεῖν). Die Wendung διαθήκη πιστή ist aus dial. 11,2 bekannt.66 Hier wie dort ist sie als christologischer Titel verwendet. Justin führt den Passus zu Ende, indem er für die Christen den Anspruch geltend macht, das wahre Israel zu sein (dial. 123,5f.). Dieser Anspruch steht auch sonst in Zentrum der Auseinandersetzungen des Dialogs mit Trypho und war ebenfalls im ersten der hier besprochenen Abschnitte bereits thematisiert worden (dial. 11,4). Danach geht Justin auf Basis einer Interpretation von Ps 81(82) zur Beweisführung über, dass die Christen die wahren Kinder Gottes seien (dial. 124,1–4). Der Bundesbegriff spielt in diesem Zusammenhang keine Rolle mehr.67

5. Zusammenfassung und Schlussfolgerungen Das Thema διαθήκη wird im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho im Wesentlichen in drei kurzen Diskursen verhandelt, die jeweils Teil eines größeren, ausführlicheren Gesprächsgangs sind. Die διαθήκη wird zum Diskussionspunkt im Gespräch über Gesetzesobservanz und Beschneidung (2.), im Gespräch über die Christologie, näherhin über das Problem der Jungfrauengeburt (3.), und schließlich in der Debatte darüber, ob biblische Voraussagen wie Ps 71(72),17 oder Jes 49,6 auf die Proselyten zu beziehen sind oder auf die (gesetzesfreien) Christen (4.). Dabei spielen die Diskurse über die διαθήκη keine eigenständige Rolle, stellen aber jeweils wichtige und auch integrale Teile weitergehender Auseinandersetzungen dar. Die Ansichten Justins und Tryphos über den alten und neuen Bund erweisen sich in diesen Diskursen als unterschiedlich und auch als gegensätzlich: Das Thema διαθήκη kommt dreimal als eines in den Blick, das zwischen den Diskussionspartnern fundamental umstritten ist. Beide Seiten bestreiten die Haltbarkeit der jeweils anderen Position: Aus Justins Sicht entspricht Tryphos Verständnis der διαθήκη nicht der Schrift – und umgekehrt. Justin stützt sich auf Jer 38(31),31f., Jes 55,3–5 und Jes 51,4f. als zentrale Belegstellen für seine Position. Die Schriftgemäßheit des neuen Bundes ist Angelpunkt seiner Argumentation,68 wie ja der ganze Dialog mit Trypho eine Auseinandersetzung um das rechte Verständnis der Schrift ist. Im neuen Bund sieht 66

Siehe oben no. 33. In dial. 126,2 taucht das Nomen διαθήκη im Rahmen einer Wiedergabe von Ex 6,2–4a noch einmal auf. Aber hier liegt einfach ein Zitationszufall vor (s.o. no. 23). Denn Justin will hier die Göttlichkeit des von Gott gezeugten Logos beweisen, indem er zu zeigen sucht, dass der Logos anlässlich seiner Epiphanien Gott genannt wurde. Hierzu verweist er auf Ex 6,2f. Dass am Schluss der Bundesbegriff fällt, liegt allein daran, dass das Zitat erst mit Ex 6,4a abbricht. Für die eigentlich zur Diskussion stehende Frage nach der Göttlichkeit des Logos trägt der Bundesbegriff hier nichts weiter aus. 68 Siehe BACKHAUS, Bund, 318. 67

Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho

605

er ein neues, endgültiges, ewiges Gesetz angekündigt und gegeben, dem kein weiteres mehr folgen wird. Die Gabe des – ganz theozentrisch gedeuteten – neuen Bundes entspricht dem ewigen Heilsplan Gottes, der sich in der temporären Gabe des alten Gesetzes an Israel wie in der Ankündigung des neuen Bundes gezeigt und in der Menschwerdung und im Kreuz Jesu Christi vollendet hat. Deshalb kann Christus selbst als neuer Bund bezeichnet und der neue Bund zum christologischen Titel werden. Der neue Bund dient der Erleuchtung der (Heiden)Völker und auch derer, die das (alte) Gesetz bereits haben; er wäre überflüssig, wenn das Gesetz vom Horeb diese Erleuchtung bewerkstelligen könnte. Auch für die Juden (und Proselyten) gilt, dass das Heil für sie nur in der Anerkenntnis dieses neuen Bundes erreichbar ist. Umgekehrt kann es für die Christen keine Verpflichtung gegenüber dem alten Bund geben, denn die διαθήκη des alten Nomos war nicht mehr als eine provisorische, nur temporär relevante Gesetzgebung, die allein den Juden galt und den Zweck hatte, deren Hartherzigkeit zu mildern; die Christen sind diesem alten, überholten Nomos, nicht verpflichtet und nicht an ihm orientiert, sondern am göttlichen “Sittengesetz”, welches vom Lehrer Jesus gelehrt wurde und in den Evangelien mitgeteilt ist.69 Tryphos Position ist derjenigen Justins entgegengesetzt: Er sieht in der Ablehnung der Beschneidung und in der schriftwidrigen Nichtbeachtung des Gesetzes durch die Christen eine Verachtung des Gottesbundes. Diese Verachtung des Gottesbundes nimmt den Christen ihre Glaubwürdigkeit, die man ihnen angesichts der unbestrittenen moralischen Erhabenheit ihrer Lehren durchaus zuerkennen könnte. Justins exegetische Hinweise auf die διαθήκη im Zusammenhang der Frage nach der Jungfrauengeburt und Justins Deutung der einschlägigen Schriftstellen vermögen Trypho nicht zu überzeugen: Er nennt sowohl den Gedanken einer übernatürlichen Zeugung des Gesalbten als auch den der Menschwerdung Gottes “nahezu unmöglich”. Auch in der Streitfrage, wem die biblischen Ankündigungen von der Erleuchtung der Völker denn gelten, steht Trypho seinen (nichtjüdischen?) Begleitern näher als seinem christlichen Diskussionsgegner Justin. Wenn der Dialog mit dem Juden Tryphon als (überlieferungsgeschichtlich singuläres) literarisches Zeugnis für Auseinandersetzungen zwischen “dem Christentum” und “dem Judentum” des zweiten Jahrhunderts ernst zu nehmen ist,70 dann ist dieser Text einerseits ein weiterer Beleg dafür, dass prominente Vertreter des frühen Christentums die Christen als legitime und auch als einzige Träger des (neuen) Gottesbundes verstanden, die die Juden als Träger des

69 Zu Jesus als dem Lehrer siehe besonders die Apologien Justins, vor allem 1apol. 13– 23 (vgl. ULRICH, Apologiae, 86–109); der hochstufigen Ethik der “sogenannten Evangelien” bringt auch Justins Dialogpartner Trypho Respekt entgegen (dial. 10,2). 70 Siehe hierzu oben no. 2.

606

Jörg Ulrich

(alten) Gottesbundes abgelöst hatten; denn auch die – in der Sprachwahl meistenteils freundlich-moderat vorgetragene – Position Justins steht letztlich für ein Modell, welchem zufolge die Christen als Volk Gottes an die Stelle der Juden als ehemaliges Volk Gottes getreten waren. Aber im Spiegel der Diskurse und Gesprächsgänge des Dialogs wird an der Gegenposition Tryphos, soweit sie aus der Quelle rekonstruierbar ist, andererseits eben auch klar, dass umgekehrt auch die Juden das christliche Verständnis des Bundes, wie es sich in Justins Ausführungen zeigt, nicht zu akzeptieren und es auch nicht als mögliche tolerable Variante innerhalb der Vielfalt des Judentums anzuerkennen vermochten. Das “parting of ways” manifestierte sich auch darin, dass in der Frage der διαθήκη Gottes mit seinem Volk kein Konsens und auch keine Annäherung zu erzielen waren – auch nicht in theologischen Lehrgesprächen zwischen einem gebildeten Juden und einem gebildeten Christen, die unbeschadet des Interesses an der erfolgreichen Darlegung eigener Positionen ja eigentlich durchaus auf wechselseitig besseres Verstehen abzielten (dial. 8,3; 32,3; 45,1; 56,16; 87,1; 142,1). Der Befund, dass bei alldem die διαθήκη-Diskurse im Dialog mit Trypho lediglich den Rang subsidiärer, im Rahmen wesentlich weiterreichender Fragestellungen verhandelter Argumentationsgänge einnehmen, verstärkt diesen Eindruck eines weitgehenden Dissenses noch. Dass der Dialog sich angesichts eines solchen Dissenses dennoch einer urbanen, “akademischen” Tonart befleißigt und mit dem höflich-respektvollen Auseinandergehen der beteiligten Gesprächspartner endet (dial. 142,1f.), macht ihn zu einem damals wie heute besonderen und bemerkenswerten Dokument.

Bibliographie ANDRESEN, CARL, Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum (AKG 30), Berlin: de Gruyter, 1955. BACKHAUS, KNUT, Der Neue Bund und das Werden der Kirche: Die Diatheke-Deutung des Hebräerbriefs im Rahmen der frühchristlichen Theologiegeschichte (NTA 29), Münster: Aschendorff, 1996. –, “Das Bundesmotiv in der frühkirchlichen Schwellenzeit”, in IDEM, Der sprechende Gott: Gesammelte Studien zum Hebräerbrief (WUNT 240), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, 153–173. BEHM, JOHANNES, Der Begriff ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ im Neuen Testament, Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1912. BOBICHON, PHILIPPE, Justin, Dialogue avec Trypho: Édition critique, traduction, commentaire (Par. 47/1. 47/2), Fribourg: Academic Press, 2003. BUCHINGER, HARALD, “Melito, ‘Israel’ und die Bibel beider Testamente”, in The “New Testament” as a Polemical Tool: Studies in Ancient Christian Anti-Jewish Rhetoric and Beliefs (NTOA 118), edited by R. Roukema / H. Amirav, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018, 73–90.

Diskurse über den Gottesbund im Dialog Justins mit dem Juden Trypho

607

CARLETON-PAGET, JAMES, “Barnabas’ Anti-Jewish Use of Some New Testament Texts: Fact or Fiction?” in The “New Testament” as a Polemical Tool: Studies in Ancient Christian Anti-Jewish Rhetoric and Beliefs (NTOA 118), edited by Riemer Roukema and Hagit Amirav, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018, 91–112. COHICK, LYNN H., The Peri Pascha attributed to Melito of Sardis: Setting, Purpose and Sources (BJSt 327), Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000. DEINES, ROLAND, “Justins Dialogus und das Judentum seiner Zeit”, in Justin, Dialog mit dem Juden Trypho, edited by Tobias Georges (SAPERE), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck (im Druck). FERGUSON, EVERETT, “Justin Martyr on Jews, Christians and the Convenant”, in Early Christianity in Context: Monuments and Documents, edited by Frédéric M. Manns / Eugenio Alliata (SBF.CMa 38), Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing 1993, 395–405. GEORGES, TOBIAS, “Justin’s School in Rome – Reflections on Early Christian ‘Schools’”, ZAC 16 (2012): 75–87. –, “Einleitung”, in Justin, Dialog mit dem Juden Trypho, edited by Tobias Georges (SAPERE), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck (im Druck). HAEUSER, PHILIPP, Des heiligen Philosophen und Märtyrers Justinus’ Dialog mit dem Juden Trypho (BKV 33), Kempten: Kösel, 1917. HALL, STUART G., Melito of Sardes On Pascha and Fragments: Texts and Translations (OECT), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. –, “Melito von Sardes”, TRE 22 (1992): 424–428. HEID, STEFAN, “Iustinus Martyr I”, RAC 19 (2000): 801–847. HEYDEN, KATHARINA, “Christliche Transformation des antiken Dialogs bei Justin und Minucius Felix”, ZAC 13 (2009): 204–232. HIRSHMAN, MARC, “Polemic Literary Units in the Classical Midrashim and Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho”, JQR 83 (1993): 369–384. HORNER, TIMOTHY J., Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyr’s Dialogue Reconsidered (CBET 28), Leuven: Peeters, 2001. MARKSCHIES, CHRISTOPH, “Lehrer, Schüler, Schule: Zur Bedeutung einer Institution für das antike Christentum”, in Religiöse Vereine in der römischen Antike: Untersuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung (STAC 13), edited by Ute Engelhaaf-Gaiser / Alfred Schäfer, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002, 97–120. NIEHOFF, MAREN, “A Jew for Roman Tastes: The Parting of Ways in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho from a Post-Colonial Perspective”, EJSC 27 (2019): 549–578. PRIGENT, PIERRE, Justin et l’Ancien Testament: L’argumentation scripturaire du traité de Justin contre les hérésies comme sources principale du Dialogue avec Tryphon et la Première Apologie, Paris: Gabalda, 1964. PROSTMEIER, FERDINAND R., Der Barnabasbrief (KAV 8), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. –, Epistola Barnabae: Barnabasbrief (FC 72), Freiburg: Herder, 2018. ROKEAH, DAVID, Justin Martyr and the Jews, Leiden: Brill 2002. SCHÄFER, PETER, Die Geburt des Judentums aus dem Geist des Christentums: Fünf Vorlesungen zur Entstehung des rabbinischen Judentums (TrC 6), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. STANTON, GRAHAM, “Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho: Group Boundaries, ‘Proselytes’, and ‘God-Fearers’”, in Studies in Matthew and Early Christianity (WUNT 309), edited by Markus Bockmuehl / Davis Lincicum, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, 363– 375.

608

Jörg Ulrich

STEMBERGER, GÜNTER, “Das Judentum in frührabbinischer Zeit: Zu neuen Entwicklungen in der Forschung”, HZ 300 (2015): 1–32. STYLIANOPOULOS, THEODORE G., Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law (SBLDS 20), Missoula: SBL Press, 1975. ULRICH, JÖRG, “What Do We Know about Justin’s School in Rome?” ZAC 16 (2012): 62– 74. –, Justin: Apologien (KfA 4/5), Freiburg: Herder, 2019. –, Justin: Apologiae: Apologien (FC 91), Freiburg: Herder, 2021. –, “‘Wahre Philosophie’: Der Christ Justin und die kaiserzeitliche Philosophie”. in Justin, Dialog mit dem Juden Trypho, edited by Tobias Georges (SAPERE), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck (im Druck). VAN UNNIK, WILLEM CORNELIS, “‘ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη’ – a Problem in the Early History of the Canon”, TU 79 (1961): 212–227.

Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen

1. Einleitung In seinem Nachruf auf die 404 n.Chr. in Bethlehem verstorbene Paula erinnert sich Hieronymus an die gemeinsame Reise durch das Heilige Land, die er mit seiner römischen Freundin und Gönnerin Jahrzehnte zuvor unternommen hatte.1 Beide hatten 385 n.Chr. Rom für immer verlassen, um im Osten des Römischen Reiches eine neue Heimat zu finden, die sie enger mit der christlichen Heilsbotschaft verbinden sollte, als dies im Westen möglich war. Offen war anfangs aber, wo und in welcher Form dies geschehen sollte. Am Ende wählten Paula und Hieronymus Bethlehem zur neuen Wohnstätte, erbauten hier Klöster und richten sich in ihrem gemeinschaftlichen Leben ein, das Hieronymus auch die Möglichkeit bot, seine Tätigkeit als Übersetzer, Morallehrer und Exeget fortzusetzen, mit der er schon in Rom Aufsehen erregt hatte.2 In welcher Weise er theologisch dachte und welche Bedeutung für ihn dabei auch die Bundestheologie haben konnte, wird an dem ausführlichen Reisebericht deutlich, mit dem er im Nachruf auf Paula die ersten Eindrücke schildert, die beide bei ihrer Ankunft im Heiligen Land empfangen hatten. Die Reiseroute führte Paula und Hieronymus mitsamt ihrer Begleitung vom syrischen Antiochia aus in den Süden, wobei sie mehrfach Grenzen der spätantiken Provinzen überschritten. Über Koilesyrien und Phönizien wanderte die Pilgergruppe nach und durch Palästina, schließlich sogar nach Ägypten, bevor sie endgültig nach Bethlehem zurückkehrte. Hieronymus widmet seinem Reisebericht sieben lange Kapitel, wobei er betont, nur die Orte nennen zu wollen, die auch in der Heiligen Schrift erwähnt würden. Dabei brachten die Reisenden bei der Wahl ihrer Pilgerziele ihr christliches Bekenntnis klar zum Ausdruck. Als man sich in der Nähe von Hebron aufhielt, soll es Paula abgelehnt haben, die Ortschaft Kirjath Sepher zu besuchen, die “Stadt der Buchstaben”. Denn, so schreibt Hieronymus, sie habe “den tötenden Buchstaben verachtet, nachdem sie den lebendig machenden Geist entdeckt hatte” (ep. 108,11: quia 1 CAIN, Jerome’s Epitaph, 14–20; 213–314; SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN, Hieronymus, 173–201; GÄRTNER, Heilig-Land-Pilgerinnen, 152–160. 2 MEERSHOEK, Le latin biblique, pass.; KELLY, Jerome, 129–167; KÖPF, Hieronymus, pass.; FÜRST, Hieronymus, 59–144; SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN, Hieronymus, 233–242.

610

Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen

contemnens occidentem litteram, reppereat spiritum vivificantem). Das ist als antijüdische Positionierung zu verstehen, weil Paula und Hieronymus damit nicht nur die Differenz zwischen dem Alten und dem Neuen Bund in Erinnerung riefen, sondern diese auch zur Grundlage einer Entscheidung machten, welche Orte des Heiligen Landes besucht werden sollten und welche nicht. Auch über die aktuelle Frage hinaus, ob man Kirjath Sepher aufsuchen sollte, stellte sich auf ihrer Pilgerfahrt immer wieder die Aufgabe, die besichtigten Schauplätze, sofern sie mit Ereignissen aus dem Alten Testament verbunden waren, in einen Zusammenhang mit dem neutestamentlichen Heilsgeschehen zu bringen; nur wenn diese Aufgabe gelöst wurde, konnte man sich als christlicher Pilger verstehen. Dafür bedurfte es mitunter auch besonderer exegetischer Geschicklichkeit, wie sie Hieronymus bei der Besichtigung der Bewässerungsanlagen bewies, die sich ebenfalls in der Nähe von Hebron befanden.3 Sie wurden auf die Zeit des Othniel zurückgeführt, der, wie im Buch Richter erzählt wird, mit der Eroberung von Kirjath Sefer auch die “oberen und unteren Quellen” gewonnen hatte. Die alte Bewässerungsanlage wurde noch im vierten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert verwendet, um das Land fruchtbar zu halten. Wie aber war dieses Bauwerk mit dem christlichen Glauben zu verbinden? Was Hieronymus dazu in seinem Nachruf auf Paula schreibt, hatte er vermutlich schon vor Ort seinen Begleitern vorgetragen: Das von Othniel zur Bewässerung des trockenen Landes verwendete Wasser sollte die Besucher daran denken lassen, “dass man in dem Taufwasser die Vergebung der vorhergegangenen Sünden finden kann” (ep. 108,11: ut redemptionem veterum peccatorum, in aquis baptismi reperiret). Das Geschehen des Alten Testaments wird mit der frohen Botschaft vom Neuen Bund zusammengeführt, für den das Wasser der Taufe bzw. das Taufsakrament einen zentralen Ausdruck darstellt. Wie stark das Kirchenverständnis des Hieronymus von der Opposition zwischen Altem und Neuem Bund geprägt ist, zeigt sich an einem weiteren Abschnitt des Reiseberichts. Als die Pilger zum zweiten Mal Jerusalem betraten, sei vom Ölberg das Kreuz erstrahlt, das die Kaiserin Helena dort zur Erinnerung an die Himmelfahrt Christi errichtet habe. Hieronymus belehrt die Mitreisenden und seine Leser, dass sich auf dem Ölberg auch der Ort befinde, an dem die Juden in früheren Zeiten alljährlich ein Opfer dargebracht hätten, das aus einer roten Kuh bestand. Mit der Opferasche seien dann die Gläubigen gereinigt worden, bevor sie den Tempel betraten. An die Schilderung des jüdischen Ritus schließt Hieronymus den Hinweis auf die Vision des Propheten Hesekiel an: Nachdem Gott den Befehl zur Zerstörung des ungläubigen Jerusalem gegeben und den Tempel verlassen hatte, seien die Cherubim auf den Ölberg gezogen. Damit, so Hieronymus weiter, hätten sie den “Grundstein für die Kirche des Herren” (ep. 108,12: … ecclesiam domini fundaverunt) gelegt, denn Gottes Strafe war der Vision des Propheten zufolge mit der Ankündigung 3

SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN, Hieronymus, 193f.

Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus

611

verbunden, die unter den Völkern verstreuten Gläubigen zu sammeln und ihnen “ein anderes Herz und einen neuen Geist” (Hes 11,19) zu geben. Für Hesekiel war dies das Versprechen, den Alten Bund zu erneuern, für Hieronymus aber die Ankündigung des Neuen, durch die Kirche Christi gebildeten Bundes. Erlebt man also in Hieronymus’ Reisebericht eine ‘angewandte Bundestheologie’, so reichen die Zeugnisse in den Schriften des Hieronymus, die seine Auseinandersetzung mit diesem Thema belegen, weit darüber hinaus. Zwar hat Hieronymus weder die für die jüdische Bundestheologie zentralen Abschnitte des Alten Testamentes in Genesis und Exodus noch den für den Neuen Bund wichtigen Abschnitt im Lukas-Evangelium ausführlich kommentiert; diese Bücher der Bibel umfasste sein Kommentar-Werk nicht.4 Doch finden sich in seinen Briefen und Abhandlungen sowie in seinem Kommentar zu den PaulusBriefen aufschlussreiche Aussagen zum vielleicht nicht besonders originellen, aber gleichwohl wirkungsmächtigen Bundes-Denken des Kirchenvaters, der schließlich auch mit seinen Übersetzungen das begriffliche Verständnis der Bundestheologie im lateinischen Sprachraum vorgegeben hat. Im Folgenden soll gezeigt werden, wie Hieronymus die Bundestheologie in seine Exegese integriert, wie er sie als antijüdisches Argument verwendet, sie zeitgeschichtlich, moraltheologisch und antihäretisch interpretiert und in seiner Übersetzungstätigkeit, aus der die Vulgata hervorging, gehandhabt hat.

2. Die Bundestheologie in der Exegese des Hieronymus Nachdem Hieronymus 380 n.Chr. von Konstantinopel nach Rom gekommen war, gelangte er hier recht schnell in den engeren Kreis um den Bischof Damasus. Hieronymus hatte sich als Kirchenschriftsteller bereits einen Namen gemacht; in den Jahren zuvor hatte er seine Mönchsviten geschrieben und die Übersetzung der Chronik des Euseb angefertigt, die er zudem bis in das Jahr 378 n.Chr. fortschrieb. Wie auch Hieronymus’ Stellung als “Sekretär” des Damasus genauer zu verstehen sein mag,5 deutlich wird aus den überlieferten Briefen, dass der Bischof von Rom die theologischen Kenntnisse seines neuen Gesprächspartners hoch einschätze.6 Obwohl sehr viel älter, fragte Damasus bei Hieronymus schriftlich an, wie denn das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn zu verstehen sei (ep.21,1)? Sollte der ältere Sohn für den Juden und der jüngere für den Christen stehen? Oder war der Ältere das Sinnbild des Gerechten, der jüngere Sohn aber das des Sünders? Und wer sei mit dem Vater gemeint? Hieronymus verfasste als Antwort ein langes Schreiben, in dem er das Gleichnis zunächst in seine Entstehungssituation einbettet. Dann erklärt er, wie 4

FÜRST, Hieronymus, 122–125. Vgl. z.B. REBENICH, Hieronymus, 144; CAIN, Letters, 43–48. 6 CAIN, Letters, 53–67. 5

612

Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen

die Heilsrolle Christi zu verstehen sei. Habe vor Christi Erscheinen im jüdischen Glauben die unbedingte Herrschaft des Gesetzes bestanden, so sei dies durch das Leiden und den Tod des Heilands überwunden worden. Der durch Christus geschaffene Bund sei durch eine ganz neue Qualität gekennzeichnet. Dem Alten Bund habe das Mitleid, die clementia, gefehlt, während das Verhältnis zwischen Gott und den Menschen im Neuen Bund eben durch dieses “Versöhnungsmittel”, das propitiatorium des Mitleids, geprägt sei. Dabei käme es darauf an, das Mitleid praktisch anzuwenden, und diese Anwendung bestehe zuvörderst darin, die gefallenen Sünder zu Reue und Umkehr zu bewegen. Jesus habe die drei Gleichnisse von dem verlorenen Schaf, der verlorenen Münze und dem verlorenen Sohn eben deshalb erzählt, um diesen zentralen Punkt des Neuen Bundes zu vermitteln (ep. 21,2f.). Da Hieronymus das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn in diesem Sinne bundestheologisch auslegt, ist für ihn auch die Frage, wer denn mit dem jungen, vom Vater freudig wieder aufgenommenen Sohn gemeint sei, einfach zu beantworten: Gemeint seien die Heiden, die erst durch Christi Wirken in das Bundesverhältnis mit Gott treten konnten. Und Christi Tod sei mit dem Mastkalb bezeichnet, das der Vater zum Fest der Rückkehr schlachten ließ. Mit diesem Brief an Damasus, den Hieronymus um 383 n.Chr. geschrieben hat, liegt das erste Zeugnis seiner Bundestheologie vor. In ihren hier sichtbaren Grundzügen wird sie der Kirchenvater in den kommenden Jahrzehnten mehrfach wiederholen, wobei die exegetische Dimension dieses Themas für ihn wie für andere Kirchenväter darin besteht, die Schriften des Alten Testaments nur unter der Prämisse des Neuen Bundes für den christlichen Glauben fruchtbar machen zu können. Das Alte Testament sei also als Ankündigung des Neuen Bundes zu verstehen, der mit dem Erscheinen des Messias einsetze. Die Kunst der Exegese muss dann darin bestehen, die im Alten Testament verborgenen Hinweise aufzuspüren und auszudeuten; auf dieser Grundlage gilt es, die Parallelen zwischen dem, was im Alten Testament angekündigt, und dem, was im Neuen Testament als Heilsgeschehen berichtet wird, aufzuzeigen.7 Wie Hieronymus diesen Deutungsansatz umsetzt, lässt sich an seiner Jonas-Interpretation, die um 396 n.Chr. in Bethlehem entstanden ist, gut nachvollziehen.8 In der Deutung der Figur des Jonas wendet Hieronymus das typologische Prinzip an: in einer solchen Gestalt verbirgt sich ein für die Heilsgeschichte grundlegender Zug. Jonas ist der “Typus des Erlösers” (typus est Salvatoris),9 weil er mit seinem dreitägigen Aufenthalt im Bauch des Walfisches die Auferstehung Christi ankündigt. Typologisch ist auch die Erzählung von Jonas’ Schlaf im Inneren des Schiffes zu verstehen, jene Szene, die sich während des Unwetters auf See abspielte, bevor die Matrosen ihn dann über Bord warfen, 7

Zur Exegese des Hieronymus vgl. FÜRST, Hieronymus, 122–144. ANTIN, Saint Jérôme. 9 In Ionam prol., ed. Antin 51. 8

Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus

613

um Gottes Zorn zu besänftigen. Jonas’ fester Schlaf während des Sturms ist für Hieronymus insofern “typisch”, als er jeden Menschen bezeichnet, der “im Schlaf seines Irrtums erstarrt” ist.10 Für die bundestheologische Argumentation ist dann der Abschnitt aus Hieronymus’ Kommentar zum Buch Jonas aufschlussreich, in dem er auf Ninive eingeht.11 Auch hier führt die typologische Deutung zur Ausweitung der Gültigkeit des Erzählten: Mit Nivine ist zwar zunächst eine konkrete Stadt, dann aber auch die weltliche Verworfenheit im Allgemeinen gemeint, die sich nun einmal besonders im städtischen Leben zeige. Wenn Gott Jonas beauftragt, in Ninive Umkehr zu predigen, so sei das als Appell an die gesamte Menschheit zu verstehen, sich der Sünden zu enthalten und den Glauben zu leben. Ins Negative gewendet, sieht man an Jonas’ anfänglichem Versuch, sich dem Auftrag Gottes zu entziehen, wie sich ein Mensch verhält, der “die Mahnungen Gottes missachtet, sich von Gottes Angesicht entfernt und sich im Weltlichen verliert” (qui Dei praecepta contemnens, recessit a facie eius et se mundo tradidit).12 Die Parallelisierung zwischen dem Alten und dem Neuen Bund stellt schließlich den Zielpunkt der Ausführungen des Hieronymus dar: Dass Jonas zuletzt die Einwohner von Ninive ermahnt und ihnen Rettung verspricht, wenn sie auf ihn hören, nimmt im Kleinen vorweg, dass Christus später die “verlorenen Schafe des Hauses Israel” erretten wird.13 Jonas und Ninive stehen somit für die Möglichkeiten, den Alten Bund durch die Befolgung der Mahnungen Gottes zu erhalten, zugleich aber weisen sie auf den Neuen Bund voraus, der neben den Heiden auch die Juden zu neuer Gottesnähe führen kann, wenn sie denn dem christlichen ‘Weckruf’ folgen.

3. Die antijüdische Ausrichtung der Bundestheologie Nicht nur Hieronymus, sondern alle christlichen Bibelinterpreten der Spätantike vertreten eine antijüdische Position, die auch aus der Gegenüberstellung des Alten mit dem Neuen Bund abgeleitet wurde.14 Bei Hieronymus ist dies auch die Grundlage seiner Deutung des Buches Jonas: dessen von Gott aufgetragenes Handeln erscheint Hieronymus als Hinweis auf die Zielgerichtetheit der Heilsgeschichte, die zum Neuen Bund führt, weil Gott den Alten Bund 10

In Ionam I 5, ed. Antin 66. SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN, Hieronymus, 233–237. 12 In Ionam I 4, ed. Antin 64. 13 In Ionam I 3, ed. Antin 58. 14 BLUMENKRANZ, Judenpredigt, 164–175; GAGER, Anti-Semitism, 155–159; SCHRECKENBERG, Adversus-Judaeos-Texte, pass. (bes. 323 zu Johannes Chrysostomos, 336f. zu Hieronymus, 355–358 zu Augustinus); GRÄBE, Bund, 179–183; KAMPLING, Angesicht Israels, 139–152 (zu Zeno von Verona; Erstveröffentlichung in Kairos 26 [1984], 16–27); FÜRST, Origenes, 296f.; LANDESMANN, Antijudaismus, 109–113. 11

614

Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen

nicht mehr aufrecht erhält, ja die Juden aufgrund ihrer Ungläubigkeit, mit dem sie dem Messias begegnen, von sich weist. Eben das Volk, das Gott gedient hat, solange der Alte Bund bestand, hat dann den lebendigen Gott, der den Neuen Bund begründet, gekreuzigt, so argumentiert Hieronymus nicht anders als andere Kirchenväter. Dieser Neue Bund steht den Heiden offen, während die Juden in ihrer unerklärlichen Abwehr der neuen Heilsbotschaft in Gefahr sind, für alle Zeiten verworfen zu sein. “Ninive hat sich zum Glauben bekannt”, so schreibt Hieronymus im letzten Teil seines Jonas-Kommentars, “während Israel in der Ungläubigkeit verhaftet blieb” (Credidit Nineve et Israhel incredulus perseverat).15 Diese antijüdische Deutung der christlichen Heilsgeschichte, die als “Substitutionstheologie” zu verstehen ist, weil sie die vollständige Umwandlung bzw. Ersetzung des Alten Bundes durch den Neuen postuliert,16 hat weitreichende Auswirkungen auf die Exegese, wie sich wieder an Hieronymus zeigen lässt. Er stellt die Frage, warum sich denn Jonas überhaupt der Berufung durch Gott entziehen wollte? Die Antwort, die Hieronymus gibt, beruht auf dem 3. Kapitel des Buches Jonas, das von der Buße der Einwohner und auch des Königs von Ninive erzählt. Obwohl damit das moralisch-theologische Ziel der Predigt, die Jonas in Ninive gehalten hat, erreicht ist, ärgert sich Jonas darüber, dass das von ihm angekündigte Strafgericht Gottes ausbleibt. Hieronymus indes argumentiert gegen den Inhalt der Erzählung, indem er den Versuch des Propheten, sich des göttlichen Auftrags zu entziehen, mit den von Jonas vorausgesehenen Folgen seiner Predigt erklärt, würde diese denn erfolgreich sein: Weil Jonas weiß, dass die Juden uneinsichtig sind und sein werden, fürchtet er sich vor dem Erfolg seiner Predigt, die er nicht Juden, sondern Heiden halten soll. Würden diese ihren Lebenswandel ändern und sich Gott zuwenden, wäre damit bereits der Neue Bund eingeleitet. Dieser aber wird den Alten Bund ablösen und ersetzen, was die Juden aus ihrem privilegierten Nahverhältnis zu Gott herausreißen wird: “Der Prophet (Jona) weiß, weil ihm dies durch den Heiligen Geist eingegeben ist, dass die Bußfertigkeit der Heiden den Untergang des Judentums bedeutet. Und weil er sein Vaterland liebt, neidet er nicht etwa Ninive das Heil, sondern er fürchtet um sein eigenes Volk. […] Er fürchtet also, dass sich die Einwohner von Ninive unter dem Eindruck seiner Predigt zur Buße entschließen werden und dass Israel gänzlich von Gott aufgegeben wird.”17

15 In Ionam III 5; ed. Antin 95. Zu einer ähnlichen, früheren Position im Barnabasbrief vgl. VOGEL, Heil des Bundes, 332–337. 16 BIRNBAUM, Koheletkommentar, 36; SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN, Hieronymus, 236f. 17 In Ionam I 3a; ed. Antin 57f.: Scit prophetae, Sancto sibi Spiritu suggerente, quod poenitentia gentium ruina sit Iudaeorum. Idcirco amator patriae suae non tam saluti invidet Nineve quam non vult perire populum suum. […] timebat ne per occasionem praedicationis suae, illis conversis ad paenitentim, Israhel penitus relinqueretur.

Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus

615

Diese Interpretation überträgt Hieronymus dann auch auf die Matrosen. Sie hätten Jonas gar nicht über Bord werfen wollen, so kann Hieronymus unter Bezug auf Jona 1,14 argumentieren. Ausgeführt haben sie die Untat nur, weil dies Gottes Wille gewesen sei. Das erinnere doch, so Hieronymus weiter, an Pilatus, der seine Hände wäscht und erklärt, keine Verantwortung für die Hinrichtung Jesu zu tragen.18 So weisen die Matrosen auf dem Boot auf die Heiden voraus, die hier von Pilatus verkörpert werden und die anders als die Juden Christus nicht hätten töten wollen. Sie, die Heiden, hätten sich also “gegen das Vergießen von unschuldigem Blut” ausgesprochen, während die Juden die Tötung des Messias verlangt hätten. Damit aber haben sie sich gegen Gott gestellt. Von nun an werden sie von Gott nicht mehr erhört, “strecken sie auch ihre Hände zum Himmel, denn diese sind voller Blut”.19 Alle diese Argumente liegen auf der Linie, die Hieronymus bereits im Prolog zu seinem Jonas-Kommentar auf eine kurze Formel bringt: “Das jüdische Geschlecht ist verurteilt, während die Welt den rechten Glauben besitzt” (condemnatur generatio Iudaeorum, credente mundo).20 Das hat den wissbegierigen Hieronymus nicht davon abgehalten, Hebräisch zu lernen und sich dabei ebenso der Hilfe jüdischer Lehrer zu bedienen wie er auch das Gespräch mit jüdischen Theologen suchte, um seine Übersetzungen verbessern und seine Kommentare schreiben zu können.21 Jenseits des persönlichen Kontaktes aber verfällt er immer wieder in seine antijüdische Argumentation, zu deren Repertoire auch der Vorwurf gehört, die Bearbeiter der hebräischen Bibel hätten den Urtext verfälscht, um alle Spuren zu löschen, die als Hinweise auf die Ankunft Christi zu lesen gewesen wären.22 Dieser Vorwurf trifft dann auch die jüdischen Autoren der griechischen Bibelübersetzungen Aquila, Symmachus und Theodotion. Im Prolog zu seiner Hiob-Übersetzung hält Hieronymus diesen Männern vor, sie hätten durch ihre “betrügerischen Übersetzungen viele Geheimnisse des Heils verborgen” (qui multa mysteria Salvatoris subdola interpretatione celarunt).23

18

In Ionam I 14; ed. Antin 74. Vgl. zur Handwaschung DEMANDT, Hände in Unschuld,

169. 19

In Ionam I 14; ed. Antin 74. In Ionam prol.; ed. Antin 55. 21 KELLY, Jerome, 134; BROWN, Vir Trilinguis, 172f.; STROUMSA, “Religious dynamics”, 160; NEWMAN, Jerome’s Hebrew competence, 134f.; FÜRST, Hieronymus, 107–111. 22 SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN, Hieronymus, 224–226. Zum christlich-jüdischen Verhältnis in der Spätantike vgl. z.B. STROUMSA, “Religious dynamics”, pass. 23 PL 28, 1082. 20

616

Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen

4. Die Bundes-Terminologie in der Vulgata Seit seiner Zeit in Rom, während der er begann, die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu in die lateinische Sprache zu übersetzen, sah sich Hieronymus selbst mit dem Vorwurf konfrontiert, Gottes Wort in seiner gegenwärtigen Präsenz zu verfälschen. Angesichts der uneinheitlichen und widersprüchlichen Textüberlieferungen mochte es für philologisch gebildete Zeitgenossen (wie Damasus und Hieronymus) naheliegend erscheinen, die Handschriften zu vergleichen und einen möglichst ursprünglichen Text zu erstellen, doch hatte sich die Kirche im Westen an ihre lateinischen Texte gewöhnt, wie etwa die bekannte, von Augustinus berichtete Episode aus dem nordafrikanischen Oea zeigt, wo der neue, von Hieronymus erstellte Text des Buches Jonas (in dem der Prophet nun nicht mehr unter einem Kürbis, sondern unter einem Efeu saß) für erheblichen Ärger gesorgt hatte.24 Und wie hatte sich gerade Hieronymus das Recht anmaßen können, die Texte zu revidieren und seine Fassungen zu verbreiten? Selbst Augustinus wollte nicht einsehen, warum eine erneute Übersetzung des Alten und des Neuen Testaments notwendig war, und auch nicht verstehen, mit welchen philologischen Instrumenten Hieronymus, ganz in der Nachfolge des Origenes, seine wissenschaftlich-theologische Arbeit betrieb.25 Nun sind nicht alle Bücher der Vulgata Übersetzungen, die Hieronymus angefertigt hat. Vieles lief auch unter seinem, schon gegen Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts berühmtem Namen.26 Aber als sicher gelten kann, dass die Pentateuch-Übersetzungen von Hieronymus stammen; er hat sie um 400 n.Chr. in Bethlehem aus dem Hebräischen erarbeitet.27 Älter sind seine EvangelienÜbersetzungen; sie stammen noch aus den Jahren in Rom. Es empfiehlt sich, die Stellen in den Evangelien sowie in den Büchern Genesis und Exodus durchzugehen, die vom Alten und Neuen Bund handeln, um die Begrifflichkeit, die Hieronymus verwendet hat, näher kennen zu lernen; auch ein Vergleich mit der Vetus Latina ist dabei aufschlussreich.28 Vorab sei bemerkt, dass Christoph Becker in einem kurzen Beitrag aus dem Jahr 2018 bereits deutlich gemacht hat, dass die Bundes-Terminologie der Vulgata stark von dem römischen Rechtsdenken geprägt ist. Die zumeist verwendeten Begriffe pactum und foedus betonen dabei den Charakter des Bundes als “eine von Gott und Mensch auf Gottes Angebot hin gemeinsam getroffene Bestimmung”.29 Es handele sich also nach dem Verständnis des Hieronymus um 24

FÜRST, Origenes, 315–322. SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN, Hieronymus, 242–246. 26 KELLY, Jerome, 88. Vgl. auch SPARKS, “Jerome”, 521f.; LÖHR, “Christianities”, 27f.; KAMESAR, “Jerome”, 659f. 27 EVERSON, “Vetus Latina”, 521–523. 28 Vgl. zur Bundestheologie in Genesis und Exodus ausführlich auch HILLERS, “Covenant”, pass.; NEEF, “Aspekte”, pass.; ASSMANN, Exodus, bes. 241–286. 29 BECKER, “Bund”, 6. 25

Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus

617

Vereinbarungen, mit der auf beiden Seiten Pflichten verbunden sind. Das ist einerseits ein wichtiger Ausgangspunkt für die Frage, wie Hieronymus aus seiner Bundestheologie auch moralische Verpflichtungen der Menschen ableiten kann, wie später noch darzulegen sein wird. Andererseits stellt sich aber auch die Frage, wie weit die Gemeinsamkeit zwischen Gott und den Menschen beim foedus – historisch wie theologisch – gegeben ist. Das soll sogleich näher betrachtet werden. Becker hat außerdem darauf hingewiesen, dass die Lukas-Übersetzung mit dem Begriff testamentum eine Variante in der Terminologie zeigt. Er versteht diesen Ausdruck im Sinne von “Zeugnis”. Da sich die entsprechende Stelle (22,20) auf das von Jesus eingesetzte Altarsakrament bezieht, könnte man auch argumentieren, dass dieser Ausdruck passender als die zuvor genannten sei, weil es sich hier doch um einseitige Willensäußerungen bzw. Bestimmungen handelt. Hieronymus hätte dann Jesu Handeln in einem bestimmten Zusammenhang bewusst in anderer Terminologie beschreiben; dies bleibt aber im Kontext der Bundestheologie die Ausnahme. Dazu passt die weitere Beobachtung Beckers, dass die Vulgata bestimmte Begriffe wie constitutio, edictum oder statutum, die in der spätantiken Rechtswelt omnipräsent sind, nicht verwendet. Sie würden “auf eine hoheitliche, einseitige Satzung durch Gott hinweisen”.30 Beckers Argumentation läuft darauf hinaus, dass ein solchermaßen “hoheitliches” Handeln Gottes dem Verständnis des Hieronymus nicht entsprechen würde. Der Kaiser wäre für ihn dann also kein Modell, um das Wirken Gottes im Neuen Bund zu erläutern. M.E. trifft das zwar weitgehend, aber nicht vollständig zu. Zwei Probleme verdienen wohl zusätzlich Berücksichtigung: Zunächst sind die spätantiken foedera von den Zeitgenossen nicht als Bündnisse oder Verträge zwischen gleichberechtigten Partnern verstanden worden; vielmehr wird auf römischer Seite immer wieder die überragende Autorität des Kaisers betont, wobei allerdings beide Seiten Bedingungen zu erfüllen hatten.31 Gerade deshalb könnte der Begriff foedus Hieronymus als besonders geeignet erschienen sein: Es ist Gott, der den Bund konstituiert, wobei er ihn mit Versprechen und Ankündigungen begleitet; aber die Menschen müssen die mit ihm etablierten Bedingungen erfüllen, um ihn in seiner Dauerhaftigkeit zu erhalten. Diese Eigenschaften des Alten Bundes treten an vielen der einschlägigen Bibelstellen deutlich hervor, und deshalb wäre weiterhin zu fragen, wie Hieronymus auf die jeweils spezifische Textstelle reagiert. Wie weit nimmt er für sein Verständnis der Bundestheologie Rücksicht auf den Sinn der hebräischen bzw. griechischen Vorlage? Und hat er überhaupt eigene Entscheidungen in diesen Kontexten getroffen? Hat er sich von den Vorgaben der Vetus latina gelöst?

30

BECKER, “Bund”, 8. SCHWARCZ, “Foederati”, 291–293; HEATHER, “Foedera”, pass.; DEMANDT, Spätantike, 321. 31

618

Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen

Um diesen Fragen näher nachzugehen, sollen jetzt die Bibelpassagen im Vergleich betrachtet werden, für die das angesichts des Editionsstandes der Vetus latina möglich ist. In der zeitlichen Abfolge der Übersetzungen des Hieronymus stehen die Evangelien-Übersetzungen am Anfang. Dabei zeigt sich im Hinblick auf die Abendmahlszene eine einheitliche Vorgehensweise des Hieronymus. So wie die griechische Version des Lukas-Evangeliums, verwenden auch die Berichte bei Matthäus (26,28) und Markus (14,24) über das Letzte Abendmahl und die Sakramentseinsetzung den Ausdruck διαθήκη, der das direkte griechische Pendant zu dem Begriff testamentum darstellt und genau dieselbe einseitige Setzung eines Tatbestandes meint. Und Hieronymus hat entsprechend auch in allen drei Fällen den Ausdruck testamentum gewählt bzw. beibehalten. Denn dies entspricht in diesem Falle den Vorgaben der Vulgata (Matthäus 26,28: Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti …; Marcus 14,24: Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti …; Lukas 22,20: Hic calix est novi testamenti in meo sanguine …). Es lässt sich nur nicht entscheiden, ob Hieronymus hier eine überlegte Entscheidung getroffen oder in den Anfängen seiner Übersetzungstätigkeit ohne tiefere theologische Reflexion dann die Vorlagen übernommen hat, wenn sie widerspruchsfrei erschienen. Denn der Ausgangspunkt seiner Übersetzungstätigkeit bestand in den Befund der divergierenden Handschriften, deren Widersprüche zu bereinigen waren. Später in Bethlehem hat sich Hieronymus jedenfalls von den Vorgaben der Vetus latina gelöst und eigene Entscheidungen getroffen. Das zeigt sich an allen Stellen, für die der Vergleich zwischen der Vetus latina und der Vulgata möglich ist. Während die Vetus latina, von wenigen Ausnahmen abgesehen, an dem Begriff testamentum festhält, wenn es um den Alten oder Neuen Bund geht, hat Hieronymus diesen Ausdruck, wie bereits erwähnt, nicht mehr verwendet. Am häufigsten nutzt er den Begriff foedus; das geschieht auch an Stellen, an denen keineswegs von einem zweiseitigen, gemeinsamen Bundes-Abschluss die Rede ist. Denn als einen solchen wird man den Noah-Bund wohl kaum verstehen können. Hier ist doch Gott ganz deutlich der Handelnde, und anders als beim SinaiBund haben die Israeliten als Vertragspartner gar kein Mitsprache- bzw. zumindest Bestätigungsrecht: “Ich richte meinen Bund auf mit euch und mit euren Nachkommen nach euch …” (Gen 9,8) oder: “ich stifte den Bund” (12), so lauten die Formulierungen zunächst, und als Folge des göttlichen Handelns wird dann der “Bund bestehen zwischen mir und euch …” (14). Während die Septuaginta hier immer wieder den Ausdruck διαθήκη wiederholt und die Vetus latina konsequent von testamentum spricht, bringt Hieronymus seine bereits von Becker notierten Alternativen, indem er sowohl pactum als auch foedus verwendet, den Begriff testamentum aber vermeidet. Becker hat zu der Formulierung für 9,8: ego statuam pactum meum vobiscum ausgeführt, dass

Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus

619

“das Wort statuam … für Einseitigkeit der Bestimmung zu sprechen [scheint]. Aber das Wort pactum löst, zunächst in einem allgemeinen Sprachverständnis interpretiert, den Zweifel in Richtung Zweiseitigkeit auf. Jede Partei eines Vertrages kann einseitig von sich sagen, sie tätige das Geschäft. Das Geschäft kommt jedoch stets erst im beiderseitigen Einvernehmen zustande, in einer Vereinbarung.”32

So verschiebt Hieronymus hier also die Deutung, und die Vermutung liegt nahe, dass dies geschieht, weil er den Alten Bund aus der Perspektive des Neuen und von der Frage her betrachtet, wie die ‘Mitgliedschaft’ im Neuen Bund zustande komme.33 Sie verlangt die Entscheidung zum Glauben an den Messias, so dass die Wahl auf der Seite der Menschen und nicht Gottes liegt, ganz im Gegenteil zu dem, was über den Noah-Bund berichtet wird. Mit den Ausdrücken pactum und foedus, auch wenn letzterer wieder etwas mehr Gewicht auf die Seite der Autorität, hier also Gottes, legt, zieht Hieronymus eine neue Deutung in den alten Text ein. Und ebenso stellt sich dann die Situation einige Kapitel später bei der Übersetzung von Gen 15,18 dar; so wird auch Gottes Bund mit Abraham über διαθήκη in der Septuaginta und testamentum in der Vetus latina zu foedus in der Vulgata. Doch es bleibt nicht bei diesem Befund. Der folgende Abschnitt Gen 17 bringt wieder ein anderes Bild; er ist aufgrund der eindringlichen Wiederholung der Leitbegriffe besonders prägnant: finden sich in der Septuaginta elfmal διαθήκη und in der Vetus latina elfmal testamentum, so verwendet Hieronymus alle Varianten von foedus über pactum meum zu statuam pactum meum und constituam pactum meum und damit Begriffsverbindungen, die doch wieder stärker die Setzung Gottes verdeutlichen, indem das pactum wiederholt ein pactum meum ist. Berücksichtigt man, dass auch ein testamentum auf einen Empfänger ausgerichtet ist, der sich dann an die Vorgaben halten soll, besteht zwischen testamentum und pactum meum keine größere Differenz mehr. Hieronymus hat sich hier ein Stück weit dem genaueren Sinn seiner Vorlagen angenähert. Konstatieren lässt sich somit ein gewisses Schwanken des Hieronymus zwischen einem Verständnis, das dem alttestamentlichen Konzept des allmächtigen Gottes folgt, und einer theologischen Interpretation im neutestamentlichen Sinn, die postuliert, dass grundsätzlich alle Menschen ‘bundes-fähig’ im Sinne einer Entscheidungsmöglichkeit seien. Es ist dann nur schlüssig, dass Hieronymus auch bei der Übersetzung von Ex 24 die foedus-Begrifflichkeit anwendet. Hier ist das Volk der Israeliten am Abschluss des Bundes beteiligt: Moses verliest die von Gott gegebenen Rechtsordnungen (πᾶντα τα δικαιώματα; volumen foederis), und das Volk akzeptiert die Vorgaben: “alles was der Herr gesagt hat, wollen wir tun und darauf hören”. Entsprechendes ließe sich auch

32 33

BECKER, “Bund”, 6. BODIN, Saint Jérôme, 108–118.

620

Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen

zu Jos 24,25 – d.h. zum Landtag von Sichem – ausführen; hier sind die Israeliten “Zeugen gegen euch selbst, dass ihr euch den Herrn gewählt habt.” Dass Hieronymus bisweilen an seinem Verständnis des Bundes festhält, auch wenn es dem ursprünglichen Sinn kaum noch entspricht, wird schließlich an seiner Jesaia-Übersetzung klar: Da Gott Jesaia “zum Bund für das Volk bestellt, dass du das Land aufrichtest” (Jes 49,8), entbehrt dieses Handeln Gottes ganz der zweiten ‘Vertragsseite’; folglich sprechen die Septuaginta wieder von διαθήκη und die Vetus latina von testamentum, Hieronymus aber erneut und wenig passend von foedus. Auch die Übersetzung, die Hieronymus zu Jer 31,31 gibt (foedus novum und pactum quod pepigi) lässt sich hier noch anfügen.34

5. Die moraltheologischen Konsequenzen Für Hieronymus ergeben sich aus der Differenz zwischen dem Alten und dem Neuen Bund Konsequenzen für seine Morallehre. Denn die umstrittene Frage, ob sich Christen der Ehe enthalten oder aber dem alten Gebot zur Vermehrung folgen sollten, lässt sich für ihn klar beantworten: Was im Alten Bund galt, trifft so für den Neuen Bund nicht mehr zu! Hieronymus neigt dazu, nachdrücklich für die Askese zu votieren, wie er dies z.B. in seinem langen Brief an die junge Eustochium tut (ep. 22).35 Sie wird eindringlich ermahnt, an dem eingeschlagenen Lebensweg festzuhalten und allen Versuchungen zu widerstehen. Nichts Schlimmeres könne ihr widerfahren, als ihre Jungfräulichkeit zu verlieren. Gott ist zwar allmächtig, aber hier gibt es eine Grenze seiner Macht: Einer gefallenen Jungfrau kann auch Gott die Jungfräulichkeit nicht zurückgeben! Neben dieser Abschreckung steht ein Versprechen, das Hieronymus gibt: Jede Jungfrau stehe dem Paradies nahe, da doch der Mensch in seinem ersten, von Gott geschaffenen Zustand ohne Geschlechtsleben gewesen sei. Die Ehe sei erst aufgekommen, nachdem Eva ihre Blöße bedeckt hatte; sie kennzeichne also das menschliche Leben nach dem Sündenfall.36 Nun können sich die Christen aber auch auf Paulus berufen und argumentieren, dass der Apostel doch den Ehestand gerechtfertigt habe. Weder im Brief an Eustochium noch später in seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Helvidius begeht Hieronymus den Fehler, sich gegen Paulus zu stellen. Aber dessen Lehre muss ergänzt werden. Eustochium gegenüber erklärt Hieronymus, dass Ehen, wenn sie denn geschlossen werden, ja auch den Sinn haben, neue Menschen zu zeugen, die dann ihrerseits den Weg der Askese und Jungfräulichkeit einschlagen können. Und man müsse den Unterschied zwischen dem Alten Bund und dem 34

Zur Stelle bei Jeremia vgl. z.B. GROSS, Bund, pass. CAIN, Letters, 38–40; vgl. auch CAIN, “Rethinking”, 47–57. 36 SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN, Hieronymus, 17. 35

Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus

621

Neuen berücksichtigen: sei der Alte Bund, für den Eva stehe, durch Eheschließungen und Geburten gekennzeichnet, ist es Maria, die das Signum des Neuen Bundes personifiziert, und sie steht für die Jungfräulichkeit. Hinzukommt für Hieronymus, dass er sich am Ende der Weltzeit sieht. Schon Paulus hat die “bevorstehende Drangsal” angekündigt, und wenn man sich nun, sichtbar angesichts aller Schrecken, denen das Römische Reich aufgrund und infolge der Germanenangriffe ausgesetzt sei, doch offenkundig am Ende der Geschichte befinde, dann sei es doch wohl jetzt an der Zeit, auf Eheschließungen zu verzichten. Das ist genau die Linie, die Hieronymus dann z.B. auch in contra Helvidium (20) vertreten wird. Angesichts der Schrecken, die sich in den Provinzen des Römischen Reiches, auch in denen des Ostens, seit der Niederlage von Adrianopel 378 n.Chr. ausgebreitet hatten, gewinnt die alttestamentliche Bundestheologie – das sei hier noch kurz erwähnt – für Hieronymus auch eine zeithistorische Relevanz.37 Denn die Frage, warum das Reich in so große, ja existenzbedrohende Bedrängnis geraten sei, wird von Hieronymus mit dem “Zorn Gottes” erklärt, der angesichts der Glaubensferne der Menschen unvermeidbar erscheint: “Unseren Sünden verdanken die Barbaren ihre Macht, unserer Laster wegen wird das römische Heer geschlagen”, so schreibt er etwa an Heliodor (ep. 60,17): “Wie unglücklich sind wir, wenn wir Gott so sehr missfallen, dass sich sein Zorn gegen uns wilder Barbaren bedient.”38 Helfen kann nur noch Demut und Wandel, Rückkehr zum wahren Glauben und zur rechten christlichen Lebensführung. Vielleicht, so möchte man Hieronymus hier ergänzen, könnte dann der Bund zwischen Gott und den Christen doch noch einmal erneuert werden.

Literatur ANTIN, PAUL, Saint Jérôme, Sur Jonas. Introduction, texte latin, traduction et notes, Paris 1956. ASSMANN, JAN, Exodus. Die Revolution der Alten Welt, München: Beck, 2015. AVEMARIE, FRIEDRICH / HERMANN LICHTENBERGER (Hg.), Bund und Thora: zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. BECKER, CHRISTOPH, “Bund” in der Vulgata aus rechthistorischer Sicht. Vulgata in Dialogue 3 (2019), 1–12. BIRNBAUM, ELISABETH, Der Koheletkommentar des Hieronymus. Einleitung, revidierter Text, Übersetzung und Kommentierung, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014.

37

Zur ‘Dekadenz-Analyse’ des Hieronymus vgl. SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN, Hieronymus, 264–279. 38 Nostris peccatis barbari fortes sunt, nostris vitiis Romanus superatur exercitus […] infelices nos, qui tantum displicemus Deo, ut per rabiem barbarorum illius in nos ira scribitur.

622

Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen

BLUMENKRANZ, BERNHARD, Die Judenpredigt Augustins. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der jüdisch-christlichen Beziehungen in den ersten Jahrhunderten, Basel: Études Augustiennes, 1946. BODIN, YVON, Saint Jérôme et l’Église, Paris: Beauchesne, 1966. BROWN, DENNIS, Vir Trilinguis: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome, Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992. CAIN, ANDREW, “Rethinking Jerome’s Portraits of Holy Women”, in Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy, edited by Andrew Cain / Josef Lössl, London: Routledge, 2009, 47–57. –, The Letters of Jerome: Ascetisms, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford: Osford University Press, 2009. –, Jerome’s Epitaph on Paula. A Commentary on the Epitaphium Sanctae Paulae with an Introduction, Text, and Translation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013 CAIN, ANDREW / JOSEF LÖSSL (eds.), Jerome of Stridon. His Life, Writings and Legacy, London: Loutledge, 2009. CASSIDY, AUGUSTINE / FREDERIK WALTER NORRIS (eds.), The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 2, Constantine to c. 600, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. DEMANDT, ALEXANDER, Die Spätantike. Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian 284–565 n.Chr., München: Beck, 22007. –, Hände in Unschuld. Pontius Pilatus in der Geschichte, Köln: Böhlau, 1999. EVERSON, DAVID L., “The Vetus Latina and the Vulgate of the Book of Exodus”, in The Book of Genesis. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, edited by A. Evans Craig et al., Leiden: Brill, 2014, 370–386. FÜRST, ALFONS, Von Origines und Hieronymus zu Augustinus. Studien zur antiken Theologiegeschichte, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. (Erstveröffentlichung 2003: “Jüdisch-christliche Gemeinsamkeiten im Kontext der Antike. Zur Hermeneutik der patristischen Theologie”, in Methodische Erneuerung der Theologie. Konsequenzen der wiederentdeckten jüdisch-christlichen Gemeinsamkeiten, edited by Peter Hünermann / Thomas Söding, Freiburg i.Br., Basel und Wien: Herder, 2003, 71–92) (Erstveröffentlichung 1994: Kürbis oder Efeu? Zur Übersetzung von Jona 4,5 in der Septuaginta und bei Hieronymus, Biblische Notizen 72 [1982], 12–19). –, Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike, Freiburg: Herder, 2016. GAGER, JOHN G., The Origins of Anti-Semitism. Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity, New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. GÄRTNER, EVA-MARIA, Heilig-Land-Pilgerinnen des lateinischen Westens im 4. Jahrhundert. Eine prosopographische Studie zu ihren Biographien, Itinerarien und Motiven, Münster: Aschendorff, 2019. GRÄBE, PETRUS J., Der neue Bund in der frühchristlichen Literatur: unter Berücksichtigung der alttestamentlich-jüdischen Voraussetzungen (FzB 96), Würzburg: Echter, 2001. GROSS, WALTER, “Erneuerter oder Neuer Bund? Wortlaut und Aussageintention in Jer 31,31–34”, in Bund und Thora: zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), edited by Friedrich Avemarie / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 41–66. HEATHER, PETER, “Foedera and foederati of the fourth century”, in From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms, edited by Thomas F.X. Noble, New York: Routledge, 2006, 292– 308.

Der Alte und der Neue Bund bei Hieronymus

623

HILLERS, DELBERT R., Covenant. The history of a biblical idea, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969. KAMESAR, ADAM, “Jerome”, in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I: From the Beginnings to 600, edited by James Carleton Paget / Joachim Schaper, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, 653–675. KAMPLING, RAINER, Im Angesicht Israels. Studien zum historischen und theologischen Verhältnis von Kirche und Israel (SBB 47), Stuttgart: Kath. Bibelwerk, 2002. KELLY, JOHN N.D., Jerome. His Life, Writings, and Controversies, London: Duckworth, 1975. KÖPF, ULRICH, “Hieronymus als Bibelübersetzer”, in Eine Bibel – viele Übersetzungen. Not und Notwendigkeit, edited by Siegfried Meurer, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1978, 71–89. LANDESMANN, PETER, Der Antijudaismus auf dem Weg vom Judentum zum Christentum, Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 2012. LÖHR, WINRICH A., “Western Christianities”, in The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 2, Constantine to c. 600, edited by Augustine Cassidy / Frederik Walter Norris, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 9–51. MEERSHOEK, GERARDUS Q.A., Le latin biblique d’après Saint Jérôme. Aspects linguistiques de la rencontre entre la Bible et le monde classique, Nijmegen: Dekker & van de Vegt: 1966. NEEF, HEINZ-DIETER, “Aspekte alttestamentlicher Bundestheologie”, in Bund und Thora: zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92), edited by Friedrich Avemarie / Hermann Lichtenberger, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1996, 1–23. NEWMAN, HILLEL I., “How should we measure Jerome’s Hebrew competence”, in Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy, edited by Andrew Cain / Josef Lössl, London: Routledge, 2009, 131–140. REBENICH, STEFAN, Hieronymus und sein Kreis: Prosopographische und sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Stuttgart: Steiner, 1992. SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN, HEINRICH, Hieronymus. Eine historische Biografie, Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern, 2018. SCHRECKENBERG, HEINZ, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.–11. Jh.) (EHS XXIII/172), 3., erw. Auflage, Lang, Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang 1995. SCHWARCZ, ANDREAS, “Foederati”, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, Bd. 9, 1995, 290–299. SPARKS, HEDLEY F.-D., “Jerome as Biblical Scholar”, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, edited by Peter R. Ackroyd / Christopher F. Evans, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1970, 510–541. STROUMSA, GUY G., “Religious dynamics between Christians and Jews in late antiquity (312–640)”, in The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 2, Constantine to c. 600, edited by Augustine Cassidy / Frederik Walter Norris, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 151–172. VOGEL, MANUEL, Das Heil des Bundes. Bundestheologie im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (TANZ 18), Tübingen: Francke 1996.

Sons of the Covenant? Sons of the Covenant?

The Rabbinic Body and the Covenant with God* SARA RONIS Sara Ronis

As the other chapters in this work demonstrate, the concept of the covenant is used in a number of ways in the Hebrew Bible. The rabbis – a Jewish scholastic elite in Late Antiquity – use the word covenant with an even greater diversity of meaning. One such use is in the term “bnei brit”, children of the covenant. Bnei brit, singular ben brit, is a technical term in rabbinic literature which refers to those who are circumcised by Jews, whether or not they are themselves Jewish.1 Most commonly in rabbinic literature, it refers to nonJewish individuals who are enslaved by Jews.2 According to Genesis 17, Abraham and his descendants are covenantally required to circumcise those they have enslaved, including “the homeborn slave and the one bought from an outsider who is not of your offspring” (17:12). The rabbinic category of ben brit thus includes all men – free and enslaved – who have been circumcised by Jews. Here, the covenant becomes a specific referent to circumcision, a referent which does not map neatly onto ideas of Jewishness. How does the rabbinic category of ben brit, an enslaved person attached to a Jewish household, shed light on the rabbinic understanding of their particular covenantal relationship to God? To answer this question, we first must understand how the rabbis thought about the covenant of circumcision more broadly. I argue that the rabbis of Late Antique Babylonia construct a covenantal theology of circumcision through a series of interpretive moves which read biblical circumcision * I would like to thank the organizers of the conference for their kind invitation to participate, Matthias Henze and the Rice Program in Judaic Studies, and the St. Mary’s Center for Catholic Studies and the Speed Fellowship for all their support of my participation, and the conference participants for their feedback. My gratitude also to Rebecca Hirsch for her bibliographic support, and to Pratima Gopalakrishnan for her critical insights. All mistakes remain my own. 1 See also B. Bava Metzi’a 71b, B. Qiddushin 41b. 2 Bnei brit must be distinguished from the poetic phrase “bnei britekha”, “children of Your covenant”, which appears once in a prayer formula in T. Berakhot 3:7 relating to the Sabbath liturgy, and takes on greater prominence in medieval and early modern Jewish liturgy, as can be seen in Seder Rav Amram Gaon and Machzor Vitry.

626

Sara Ronis

narrowly. This rabbinic construction stands in tension with earlier rabbinic exegetical attempts to read circumcision more broadly.3 The rabbis limit universalizing readings of the Hebrew Bible while emphasizing their own connectedness to a chain of rabbinic tradition which they see as directly emerging from the Hebrew Bible. I make this argument in three stages: First, I explore three possible universalizing readings of the Biblical covenant of circumcision – through the lens of Adam, Noah, and Abraham – and examining the ways that the Babylonian rabbis limit and delimit each of these readings to refer exclusively to Jews. Second, I return to the strange case of the ben brit, one who is biblically required to be circumcised but is not in fact fully Jewish. And finally, I offer some potential explanations for the construction of the ben brit and the amorphous category of the Jewish household in light of the rabbis’ covenantal theology of circumcision. Three caveats before I engage with the sources. First, the rabbis were a scholastic elite which emerged and developed in across the Roman and Sasanian Empires over the course of at least four hundred years. The Babylonian Talmud is a collectively-authored multi-vocal text composed and redacted between the second century CE and the sixth century.4 It is framed as a commentary on the second century CE Mishnah, which contains sixty-three tractates on a range of a topics. None of the tractates are exclusively about either covenants or circumcision. Rabbinic midrash too is multi-vocal and collectively authored it is framed as a commentary on the Hebrew Bible. In order to construct an understanding of the rabbis’ construction of covenant and Jewish identity in these texts, then, we need to both read carefully and resist arguments that suggest a single answer, a single explanation, or a single attitude. Second, throughout this paper, I refer to texts that discuss the circumcision of Jewish men. We know that circumcision – the physical circumcision of the foreskin of the penis, not just the spiritual circumcision of the heart – was an 3 This work thus attempts to understand what COHEN, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 13 has called “the Ishmael Paradox”: “if circumcision is the covenant, then Ishmael, and by extension all circumcised gentiles, should be part of the covenantal people, but they are not.” As Cohen notes, “The non-circumcision of Sarah and of all Jewish women, and the circumcision of Ishmael and of many other non-Israelite groups, provided fodder to later Christians who sought to impugn the covenantal value of circumcision” (ibid, 13). While Cohen names the paradox, his work engages in more depth in what he terms the “Sarah paradox: if the covenant is circumcision, then Sarah, and by extension all Israelite and Jewish women, who are not circumcised, must be excluded, but they are not excluded” (ibid). 4 For different scholarly understandings of how the Talmud was formed and redacted, see FRIEDMAN, “‫ בצירוף מבוא כללי על דרך חקר הסוגיא‬:‫”פרק האשה רבה בבלי‬, 277–321; HAUPTMAN, “Development of the Talmudic”, 227–250; RUBENSTEIN, Talmudic Stories; HALIVNI, The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud; KALMIN, “The Formation and Character of the Babylonian Talmud”, 840–876.

Sons of the Covenant?

627

important ritual element of the rabbis’ conception of Jewish identity. In a recent dissertation, M Adryael Tong argues that circumcision also serves as a bodily discourse, “an integrated symbolic system, one that functions at the intersection of bodies and language”.5 Max Strassfeld has demonstrated that the rabbis uphold binaries of both sex and gender, even when their own data complicates those binaries.6 The rabbis’ bodily discourse is one which insists, against their own evidence to the contrary, that gender and sex are normative binaries. I will be discussing and analyzing texts based on this insistence, trying to understand the rabbis’ own thinking about this issue, but I want to recognize and name that this assumption is incorrect and harmful to the transgender community. Modern scholarship has established both the distinction between sex and gender, and the insufficiency of a simple binary of either category.7 Third, there is a great deal that we do not know about the institution of slavery in the late antique east. We know that slavery was practiced in Sasanian Babylonia across religious communities; the institution was not unique to the Jewish community. We know that some Jews were enslaved, by other Jews and by non-Jews. We know that at least some rabbis owned enslaved individuals. We know that the rabbis as a group found the idea of enslaved people to be an interesting way to think about liminal identities as they related to civil and criminal law however difficult modern readers might find their abstraction of the violence of enslavement. But due to the limits of both our primary sources and secondary sources, we have little documentation of how common slavery was, particularly outside of the elite; whether the majority of enslaved individuals were born into slavery and/or died as enslaved people; what enslaved people themselves thought and felt about their enslavement (though more recent parallels remind us that the writings of slaveholders do not reflect the attitudes and experiences of those they enslave); how free people related to the enslaved people in their households; how the economy of enslavement shaped the worldviews of the diverse citizens of the empire, and how the rabbis situated the class of enslaved people in their understanding of God’s covenantal relationship with the Jewish people. This paper is my attempt to collect some of what we can know about this last topic in the Babylonian Talmud in order to help move forward these important conversations and to point us towards further areas of research.

5

TONG, “Given as a Sign”. STRASSFELD, “Categorizing the Human”; IDEM, Transing the Talmud. 7 See, for example, the foundational work of BUTLER, Bodies That Matter. 6

628

Sara Ronis

1. Limiting the Covenant Before we can talk about how the late antique Babylonian rabbis include and exclude enslaved people from the covenant, we must first explore how the rabbis thought about free non-Jews and the covenant of circumcision. I focus this exploration on three characters – Abraham, Noah, and Adam. Each of these figures is important in contemporaneous Christian discourse about covenants, and is also important to later scholarly reconstructions of covenant. As we will see, these figures play a very particular role in the rabbinic understanding of their covenantal relationship with God. Through these figures, the rabbis reject the possibility of universalizing readings of the Biblical covenant of circumcision. nterestingly, i First, the case of Adam. The book of Genesis offers no information on whether Adam was circumcised. The rabbis fill in this gap.8 Interestingly, in tractate Sanhedrin 38b, the Babylonian rabbis sidestep the question of how God initially created Adam’s genitals, focusing instead on what happens next. As part of a broader exegetical discussion about the creation of Adam, Rabbi Judah cites a number of traditions in the name of the first-generation Babylonian amora, rabbis of the third-sixth centuries CE, Rav. The final tradition he cites reads, The first man was a min,9 as it says, “The LORD God called out to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’” (Genesis 3:9) – where has your heart turned? Rabbi Isaac said: [Adam] performed epispasm. It is written here: “But they, like Adam [lit. to a man], have transgressed the Covenant” (Hosea 6:7), and it is written there, “[And if any man who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin;] he has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17: 14). Rav Naḥman said: [Adam] denied the principle [of monotheism]. It is written here, “But they, like Adam [lit. to a man], have 8 In Genesis Rabbah, the Palestinian amoraim insist that Adam was born uncircumcised, a sign that all of creation requires perfecting by human beings. According to the Avot of Rabbi Natan, however, Adam and a number of other biblical men were indeed born circumcised. Avot of Rabbi Natan 2.5 names Job, Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, “Balaam the wicked”, Samuel, David, Jeremiah, and Zerubbabel as those born circumcised. The epithet of “the wicked” for Balaam suggests that for the authors of this midrash, aposthia (the medical condition of being born without a foreskin) was not necessarily a sign of righteousness. COHEN, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 24 writes that “The claim that Adam was created circumcised may have been intended to respond to those heretics (Christians, for example) who argued the contrary.” Fascinatingly, the biblical evidence that the authors of Avot of Rabbi Natan muster for Adam’s aposthia is Genesis 1:27, “God created humankind in His image”; this reading implies that Adam must have been circumcised because God is circumcised. For more on God’s (male) body, see: EILBERG-SCHWARTZ, God’s Phallus and Other Problems for Men and Monotheism. 9 See HAYES, “Displaced Self-Perceptions”, 249–289; GROSSBERG, Heresy and the Formation of the Rabbinic Community; BAR-ASHER SIEGAL, “Heresy and the Minim of the Babylonian Talmud”, esp. 9–15 for a survey of earlier scholarship on the term “minim”.

Sons of the Covenant?

629

transgressed the Covenant” (Hosea 6:7), and it is written there, “They will say, ‘Because they forsook the covenant with the LORD their God [and bowed down to other gods and served them]’” (Jeremiah 22:9).10

Rabbi Isaac assumes that Adam was foreskin-less, though he is less clear about whether he believes that Adam was created that way or underwent circumcision after his creation. And yet Rabbi Isaac insists that Adam went so far as to perform epispasm, a surgical stretching of the remaining foreskin to undo the visual effects of circumcision. This act is associated in antiquity with Jews attempting to assimilate into wider Greco-Roman culture.11 Why does Rabbi Isaac insist that Adam spiritually and physically rejected his relationship to God? If Adam was originally a circumcised monotheistic believer, why is it important to Rabbi Isaac that he eventually becomes an uncircumcised polytheistic heretic? One answer to this question may be found in the later events of Genesis 3 and 4. Adam’s eventual disobedience of God and his ultimate expulsion from Eden, as well as the actions of his eldest son Cain, might suggest an original spiritual and moral weakness – clearly, someone who would disobey what was basically God’s only command to humankind at the time must have been a terrible believer from the start.12 But a second answer may be found in the role Adam plays as progenitor of the human race. Adam as progenitor of the human race has to end up an uncircumcised polytheistic heretic, in order to explain the behavior of later generations and the exceptionally righteous anomaly that is Abraham. We will come back to this second possibility. The second biblical progenitor of the entire human race is Noah, whose sons and daughters-in-law repopulate the earth after the Flood. Noah has the important distinction of being the first human with whom God explicitly makes a covenant, according to the redactors of Genesis. Using the common rabbinic exegetical strategy of gezeirah shavah, linguistic analogy, the rabbis could have easily interpreted the language of covenant in the story of Noah in light of other biblical passages to refer to circumcision.13 But the Babylonian rabbis

10 My translation is based on the Vilna print edition. All translations of rabbinic literature are my own. Biblical translations are adapted from the NJPS. 11 See 1 Maccabees 1. The other biblical figure who the Babylonian rabbis insist performed epispasm was Achan, who violated God’s herem in Jericho and was subsequently put to death. See B. Sanhedrin 44a. 12 Particularly if one understands personalities to be static. 13 And like Adam, Noah appears in Avot of Rabbi Natan’s list of men who were born circumcised. Curiously, Genesis Rabbah 31:12 interprets the “covenant” discussed in Genesis 9 as being extremely specifically related to the experience in the Ark, and incumbent only on Noah and his sons. In parallel to later moves undertaken by the Babylonian rabbis, the Palestinian rabbis here circumscribe an explicitly universal covenant, even if not about circumcision.

630

Sara Ronis

of the Talmud read Noah and his offspring as fundamentally uncircumcised, both as individuals and as models for their descendants.14 Tractate Sanhedrin also contains an extended discussion of the Noahide laws, those laws that God commanded Noah and his descendants to observe after the Flood as part of the covenant offered in Genesis 9.15 In the Hebrew Bible, the Noahide laws appear to be incumbent on all human beings after the flood. As part of their discussion of these laws, the rabbis offer a general principle: … Rabbi Yose b. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Every commandment which was spoken to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for these [Noahides] and those [the Israelites]. [Those commandments] spoken to the sons of Noah and not repeated at Sinai were meant [only] for Israel and not for the Noahides … (B. Sanhedrin 59a).

This principle is counterintuitive, suggesting that anything given to Noah only was meant for the Israelites, and anything repeated to the Israelites during or after the theophany at Sinai was also meant for Noah and his descendants. The rabbinic redactor of this passage notes this counterintuitiveness: “On the contrary! Those [commandments] repeated at Sinai should be meant only for the Israelites and not for Noahides! From the fact that idolatry is [forbidden] at Sinai and we find that [Noahide] idolaters are punished for their idolatry, we learn that [those commandments given at Sinai] were meant for both Israelites and Noahides …”. How do the rabbis connect this principle to circumcision? The passage continues, And circumcision – which was given to the sons of Noah, as it says, “And you shall observe my covenant” (Genesis 17:9), and then was repeated at Sinai, “And on the eighth day, he shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 11:2) – was given to Israel and not to the sons of Noah? This [repetition] was meant to permit [circumcision on] the Sabbath, by insisting “on the [eighth] day”, even if it is the Sabbath (B. Sanhedrin 59a).

The language of covenant is used in Genesis 9, and so the rabbis here the covenant of circumcision back into the pre-Sinaitic period using the exegetical method of gezeira shavah. However, they see its placement in Genesis as an insistence that the covenant of circumcision is exclusive to Israel.16 Not only 14

For an outstanding analysis of the Babylonian rabbis’ depiction of Noah in conversation with Syriac Christian interpretations of Noah, see KOLTUN-FROMM, “Aphrahat and the Rabbis”, 57–71. 15 For a more focused analyses of the rabbinic construction of the Noahide laws, see 40–67. 16 In B. Yoma 28b, Rav avers that Abraham observed all of the commandments in the Torah (and perhaps even those rabbinically ordained); choosing to observe commandments and being obligated to observe commandments are not the same thing. The rabbis insist that Noah, father of all humankind after the flood, was not obligated in the commandment of circumcision, even though this insistence contradicts their own reading of the Noahide laws together with post-Sinaitic laws. Indeed it is curious how little rabbinic midrash there is on Genesis 9. Midrashic exegesis of the Noahide covenant is largely absent from classical

Sons of the Covenant?

631

that, with their use of Genesis 17 as their prooftext, they connect the question of Noahide circumcision to both as individuals and as models for their descendants. Abraham. According to the anonymous voice of the passage, the verse in Leviticus is not a simple repetition of an earlier commandment but a new teaching about the relationship between circumcision and the Sabbath. And thus, even though one following rabbinic logic would think that circumcision was incumbent on Noah and his descendants, it is not. Abraham and his offspring are included in the ranks of the Noahides, and indeed replace Noah in the rabbinic discussion. While not the usual way the rabbis talk about Abraham, it makes sense given the fact that, for the Babylonian rabbis, Abraham – who lived before the theophany at Sinai – was only obligated in those commandments given to Noah and his offspring. As we have seen, the rabbis use a range of exegetical tools to insist that Adam and Noah were not circumcised, that they were not obligated in circumcision, and that even if Adam had been created circumcised, he had obscured that fact using a surgical process as part of broader heretical tendencies. Though their exegetical process is elaborate, the rabbis ultimately align with a more literal reading of the biblical text, in which neither Adam nor Noah is described as circumcised. As we shall see, the same cannot be said for the rabbis’ treatment of Abraham. Abraham is the first person explicitly commanded to undergo and perform circumcision in the Bible. Abraham is commanded not only to circumcise himself, a painful procedure for an elderly man, but to circumcise his offspring for all future generations. The very first person who Abraham circumcises is his son Ishmael. We might logically expect that the rabbis understand the commandment of circumcision to be incumbent on all those who they see as descending from Abraham: the Arabs through Ishmael, Rome through Esau, as well as Abraham’s many other offspring with his later wife, Keturah. And yet the same Talmudic passage which we’ve just discussed continues, If you want, say [instead] that circumcision was originally [commanded only] to Abraham [and not the rest of the Noahides], for God warns him, “As for you, you and your offspring to come throughout the ages shall keep My covenant” (Genesis 17:9) – you and your offspring, yes, other people – no. But if so, wouldn’t the sons of Ishmael also be obligated [as Ishmael too is Abraham’s offspring]? [Therefore the Bible specifies,] “it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued for you” (Genesis 21: 12). [But if so, wouldn’t] the offspring of Esau also be obligated? “Through Isaac” and not all of Isaac[’s offspring].17

rabbinic materials, and as we have seen, in the one place in the Babylonian Talmud where the laws are examined in depth, the language of covenant is largely absent, and the connection to the covenant God makes with Noah in Genesis 9 is limited. 17 The passage continues, “Rabbi Oshaya objected, from here, one should assume that the children of Keturah are also not obligated in circumcision [and we know that they are indeed obligated!]. Has not Rabbi Yose b. Avin, and some say R. Yose b. Hanina, said, ‘[And if

632

Sara Ronis

The rabbis insist that in fact, only the descendants of both Isaac and Jacob are obligated to continue to perform the covenant of circumcision. Where Abraham might be seen as a universalizing figure, the rabbis limit and delimit his reach by restricting who counts as his “true” offspring.18 Why do the rabbis insist that the covenant of circumcision is incumbent only on the descendants of Jacob, i.e. the Jews? The Palestinian rabbinic texts do not simply mirror practices in the Roman empire; the Babylonian Talmud does not simply mirror practice in Sasanian Babylonia. While neither Roman pagans, Christians, nor Zoroastrians practiced circumcision, circumcision was a common practice across the Arab tribes and other Afroasiatic peoples.19 So then what was the purpose of this delimiting? It is a truism to say that the rabbis read the Bible and their interpretive tradition as offering an exclusive relationship between God and the Jewish people. But calling it a truism makes it no less true. As a text, the Hebrew Bible is the product of a particular people in a particular place over a particular any man who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin;] he has broken My covenant’ – [this phrase comes] to include the offspring of Keturah.” Why then are the children of Keturah obligated in circumcision? This clause is found in all the extant manuscripts and cannot be understood as a scribal error. Elsewhere in tractate Sanhedrin, the offspring of Keturah are depicted together with Ishmael as rivals with the Jews for the land of Israel, so it is unlikely to reflect a particular affinity between Late Antique Jews and those nations who they saw as descended from Keturah. See B. Sanhedrin 91a. It is certainly possible that the rabbis are reading the verses in Genesis as an obligation upon Abraham to circumcise all of those in his household – including the children of Keturah. It is unclear why the Talmudic redactors include the children of Keturah in the obligation to circumcise when they work so hard to exclude Ishmael and Esau. The medieval commentator Rabbi Shlomo Yitchzaki, also known as Rashi, suggests that the Talmudic redactors meant only that Abraham was obligated to circumcise his six sons with Keturah, and not that Keturah’s descendants would then be obligated to perform circumcision on future generations. While I cannot speak to the accuracy of Rashi’s interpretation, it is striking that Rashi reads the Talmud’s understanding of the obligation of circumcision as even more restricted and delimited than the plain meaning of the Talmudic text. Clearly, the Talmud’s act of limiting the covenant of circumcision to the Jews continued to be meaningful into the medieval period, where it was explicitly extended even further. Political resonances in medieval France, in particular theological arguments between Jews and Christians over the covenant, are likely at play in supporting Rashi’s interpretation in his own context. My thanks to Shulamit Shinnar for noting this context. 18 The anonymous voice of the Babylonian Talmud makes a similar move in a discussion about vows in tractate Nedarim 31a: “‘[If one says: I vow] that I will not benefit from the offspring of Abraham, he is forbidden [to benefit] from Israel, but permitted to benefit from non – Jews’. But isn’t there Ishmael? ‘It is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued for you’ (Genesis 21: 12). And Esau? ‘Through Isaac’ and not all of Isaac[’s offspring].” Here again, the Israelites are interpreted as Abraham’s only rhetorically – legitimate descendants. 19 ŠAKŪRZĀDA/OMIDSALAR, “Circumcision”.

Sons of the Covenant?

633

number of centuries. And yet the Hebrew Bible became fertile ground for the religious lives of later generations, some of whom were biologically related to the people who first wrote and circulated this sacred scripture, and some of whom were not. And these groups competed, even if only in their own echo chambers, for the perception of being the authorized heirs to this text and the divine promises contained therein: the land, the exclusive relationship with God, and the promise of things to come in the future. As part of these internal discourses, the rabbis insist on reading moments in the text with the potential to be read as inclusive to non-insiders as exclusive. While the Babylonian rabbis may not have had the imperial connections of many Christian polemicists in the Roman West, they insisted that they and they alone had the power of the covenant, a covenant not with Abraham, father of many nations, but with Jacob, father of Israel. And for some rabbis, God’s covenant with Abraham’s grandson Jacob is the foundation of the universe as we know it. Mishnah Nedarim 3:11 contains a series of meditations on the greatness of circumcision. It concludes that “Great is circumcision for if not for it, God would not have created His world, as it says: ‘Thus said the Lord: As surely as I have established my covenant with day and night – the laws of heaven and earth’ (Jeremiah 33:25)”.20 This meditation is then picked up and echoed by the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud, who cite another tradition on the greatness of circumcision: “Great is circumcision for it is equal to all of the commandments in the Torah, as it says ‘for in accordance with these commandments [I make a covenant with you and with Israel]’” (Exodus 34:27).21 Circumcision not only enables creation, but perhaps more importantly for the rabbis, it is equal to the entirety of Jewish

20

The entire passage reads: “Rabbi Yishmael said: Great is circumcision for thirteen covenants were sealed upon it. Rabbi Yose said: Great is circumcision for it overrides the strict [observance of] Shabbat. Rabbi Joshua b. Korhah said: Great is circumcision for Moses the righteous did not [have his punishment be] suspended for it for even an hour. Rabbi Nehemiah said: Great is circumcision which overrides the [laws around] skin diseases. Rabbi said: Great is circumcision for [even with] all the commandments that Abraham our Father fulfilled, he was not called complete until he circumcised [himself], as it says, ‘Walk in my ways and be perfect’ (Genesis 17:1). Another thing: Great is circumcision for if not for it, God would not have created His world, as it says, ‘Thus said the Lord: As surely as I have established my covenant with day and night – the laws of heaven and earth’” (Jeremiah 33:25). The Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon b. Yohai Beshalah also states that God split the sea during the exodus only due to the merit of circumcision. 21 Note however that the Talmudic redactors subsequently juxtapose the teaching connecting circumcision and creation with a contradictory teaching by Rabbi Eliezer, which states that the universe was created only due to the Torah (and not circumcision). This contradiction remains unresolved in the text.

634

Sara Ronis

law.22 Circumcision becomes a key way to distinguish and empower the Jewish community – not only physically, but also spiritually. The rabbis are not the only ones to make this kind of interpretive move. They are not even the first Jews to do so. In the first century CE, Paul of Tarsus uses this same biblical episode with Abraham, and a similar act of delimiting, to make a very different point. 15

Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, ‘And to offsprings’, as of many; but it says, ‘And to your offspring’, that is, to one person, who is Christ. 17 My point is this: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise (Gal 3:15–18).

Paul reads this biblical story as exclusive not to the Jewish people but to a single figure – Jesus, who can then provide access to the covenant for his followers. The covenant is read as centering not circumcision but blessing and salvation through faith (Gal 3:6–9). Paul’s Letter to the Galatians downplays the role of circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant, while insisting on the covenant’s ultimate exclusivity not to a family but to a single savior. However, while Paul’s conclusion did not align with that of the rabbis, his hermeneutical tool absolutely did. Ironically, Paul’s understanding of the relationship between circumcision and Jewish identity also aligned with that of the rabbis. To be circumcised is to be Jewish, and to be Jewish is to be circumcised. Throughout Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, Paul refers to his intended audience interchangeably as “the uncircumcised” and “the Gentiles” (Gal 2:7–8). And indeed M. Nedarim 3:11 begins by arguing that “the ‘uncircumcised’ is a term that refers only to nonJews. The Mishnah reads: [One who says] I vow that I will not benefit from the uncircumcised is permitted [to benefit] from the uncircumcised of Israel and is forbidden [to benefit] from the circumcised among the non-Jews. [One who says] I vow that I will not benefit from the circumcised is forbidden [to benefit] from the uncircumcised among Israel, and is permitted [to benefit] from the circumcised among the non-Jews, for ‘the uncircumcised’ is a term that refers only to nonJews, as it says, ‘For all these nations are uncircumcised, but all the House of Israel are uncircumcised of heart’ (Jeremiah 9:25), and it says: ‘And that uncircumcised Philistine 22

The word covenant appears most densely in the biblical discussion of circumcision, but the rabbis’ argument is not simply a numerical one. For Rabbi, circumcision is the culmination of Abrahamic perfection, a perfection then transmitted to his heirs. The passage concludes with an anonymous rabbi who argues that the universe itself rests on the covenant of circumcision. The effect of these claims is a belief that the universe was created for and because of God’s relationship with Abraham and his authorized Jewish heirs. It centers the rabbis and their correligionists in a diverse multicultural world with different communities arguing for political and religious supremacy.

Sons of the Covenant?

635

shall’ (I Samuel 17:36), and it says: ‘Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult’ (II Samuel 1:20). Rabbi Eleazar b. Azariah said: the foreskin is repulsive, for the evildoers are shamed through it, as it says, ‘For all these nations are uncircumcised’” (Jeremiah 9:25). ‘For all these nations are uncircumcised, but all the House of Israel are uncircumcised of heart’ (Jeremiah 9:25).

According to this mishnah, the terms circumcised and uncircumcised are national and religious markers that transcend and even contradict the actual state of any particular individual’s foreskin. To be Jewish means to be circumcised, and to be circumcised means to be Jewish, even if a Jewish man is actually uncircumcised. But where Paul’s focus is on the uncircumcised, the Babylonian rabbis focus in on those who participate in the covenant of circumcision. In the rabbinic texts discussed here, they insist that the covenant of circumcision – this foundational, essential covenant on which the whole universe rests – is exclusive to the Jews, even when biblical evidence might suggest otherwise.23 This was not the only interpretive option, but it is the option that the Babylonian rabbis take. So then we are left with the question with which we began: given the rabbinic importance of the association between covenant, circumcision, and Jewish identity, why does the Talmud continue to insist that some non-Jews, those who are enslaved, must be circumcised and use the epithet ben brit, son of the covenant, to refer to them? Why do they interpret away God’s command that all of Abraham’s offspring be circumcised, while insisting on a literal reading of God’s command that Abraham – and all Jews – are commanded to circumcise enslaved individuals?

2. The Case of the Ben Brit In Palestinian rabbinic literature of the second and third centuries CE, the term ben brit is a technical term for one who is circumcised, either because he is himself Jewish or because he is an enslaved man who is owned by a Jewish household.24 A ben brit has certain obligations – most notably circumcision –

23 The Torah actually twice insists that some non-Israelites must be circumcised, first in God’s command to Abraham to circumcise enslaved individuals, and second, in the discussion of the paschal offering in Exodus 12, where foreigners who would like to celebrate Passover are required to circumcise both themselves and their households before participating. 24 Curiously, the term ben brit does not appears in the extant Dead Sea Scrolls, though a variant appears in 1QM VII, in the form ‫בני בריתו‬, which may have more to do with the term ‫בני בריתך‬, discussed above in fn. 2. ‫ בני בריתך‬does appear several times in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In all of these cases, this term is a generic term for Jews or members of the community.

636

Sara Ronis

but also has specific rights – to property, to life, to serve as an agent, and, if free, to testify in court.25 But most often, the ben brit is not free; he is an enslaved non-Jewish man owned by a Jewish household. In fact, in their discussion of who is obligated/ entitled to observe the Sabbath, the authors of the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael 23:12 gloss “your enslaved men and women” with the words ben brit. Cynthia Baker has noted that “[t]hose born into slavery … often – though not always – had no legally recognized ethnicity in Mediterranean antiquity, while those who became enslaved were often shorn of their ethnicity – including any choice in matters of worship or piety.”26 Slavery was relatively common in the GrecoRoman world of Late Antiquity,27 and as part of the Greco-Roman world, the Mishnah and Tosefta are full of stories of rabbis who own enslaved people, and of laws that touch on enslaved people in some way. Across religious communities in the Mediterranean, enslaved people were thus profoundly liminal – between worlds, between statuses, between the legal protection of the law. Tosefta Berakhot 6:17–18 lists the blessings to be recited by the one performing the circumcision of an infant, a convert, and an enslaved man. When an infant is circumcised, the father of the child says, “Blessed […] who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Abraham.” And yet, in the case of the enslaved man, according to the anonymous rabbi, “The one who blesses [presumably the owner of the enslaved man], says “Blessed […] who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to circumcise enslaved men and to draw from them the blood of the covenant …”.28 In this case, the commandment is incumbent on the circumciser and the owner, not on the enslaved man himself. The active agents are the men reciting the blessing and performing the circumcision; the enslaved man is only described as having blood “drawn from him”. Of the infant, convert, and enslaved man, only the enslaved man is an adult who we 25 See M. Bava Qamma 1:2–3, where a legal witness is defined as one who is both a free person and a ben brit. See also T. Bava Qamma 1:1–2; T. Sanhedrin 11:1. The Palestinian rabbis continue in this interpretive line. See P. Baba Qamma 1:2, where a ben brit is contrasted to a nokhri, a gentile; P. Terumot 1:1. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael BaHodesh 7. Curiously, the expression “bat brit”, daughter of the covenant, appears twice in Sifra Zuta. The vast majority of rabbinic literature associates this term with the male body and the act of circumcision, and it is unclear what led the authors of Sifra Zuta to use this term differently. See Sifra Zuta 35:12, 19:10, 31:19. 26 BAKER, Jew, 28. 27 See the many scholarly works on slavery in Greco-Roman Late Antiquity, including JOSHEL, Slavery in the Roman World; HODKINSON et al., “The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Slaveries”; HUNT, Ancient Greek and Roman Slavery. 28 This blessing has an identical ending to the blessing recited upon circumcision of a convert.

Sons of the Covenant?

637

could imagine might physically resist this act. The rabbis are not interested in the enslaved man’s will; they appear to care about the free Jewish man’s obligation to create a circumcised household. Furthermore, while the infant’s circumcision is explicitly connected to God’s covenant with Abraham, the enslaved man’s circumcision (and also that of the convert) is connected instead to the verse in Jeremiah about how the covenant upholds God’s universe, discussed above. Even though enslaved men are only required to be circumcised because God tells Abraham so, the early Palestinian rabbis rabbis do not name them as part of the Abrahamic covenant but instead identify enslaved men as part of a broader universe which centers circumcised Jewish men. But this universe is one which is still covenantal, and still about the relationship between God and Israel. The Babylonian rabbis continue in the interpretive vein laid out by the earlier Palestinian rabbis. Tractate Gittin of the Babylonian Talmud discusses the rabbinic laws of divorce. In B. Gittin 23b, the rabbis ask the later Palestinian rabbi Rabbi Ammi a question about the laws of divorce. Can a woman appoint an enslaved man her agent to receive her bill of divorce from her soonto-be-ex-husband? Rabbi Ammi responds that – since the Mishnah disqualifies only an idol worshipper, an enslaved man is permitted to act as her agent. Rabbi Ammi’s opinion is based on the principle that enslaved individuals owned by Jews are forbidden from worshipping idols, so they would be permitted to serve as agents in this case. Over the course of the subsequent rabbinic discussion, the rabbis propose a general principle: “Just as you who are commanded to fulfill the commandments are ‘Israel’, so too your agents must be ‘Israel’. However, the school of Rabbi Yannai rejects this principle, suggesting instead: “Just as you who are bnei brit, so too your agents must be bnei brit.” The Talmudic redactors allow this statement to stand without contradiction. Given the school of Rabbi Yannai’s rejection of the rabbis’ position, it is clear that bnei brit here is not synonymous with Israel. If the rabbis use Israel to refer to a genealogical relationship to the Jewish community, bnei brit, members of the covenant, must mean something else.

3. Slavery and Religious Agency Given their tendency to limit God’s covenant of circumcision, why don’t the Babylonian rabbis go even further than the Tannaim and read the enslaved man out of the covenant entirely? They could have interpreted God’s covenant with Abraham in a more limited fashion, as they do with Ishmael and Esau, or they could have doubled-down on the enslaved man’s circumcision, suggesting that it functioned as a formal act of conversion. Why do they do neither? I would like to propose two possibilities. First, I have argued elsewhere that, at times, the Babylonian rabbis saw themselves as loyal to tannaitic teachings

638

Sara Ronis

even when they had fundamentally changed their perceptions of the situation at hand.29 Rabbinic Judaism was dynamic and continually being shaped in the context of particular histories and culture. And yet, the Babylonian rabbis were a scholastic elite that saw itself as loyal to inherited traditions.30 In this case, they are loyal to two sets of inherited traditions: that of the Tannaim who insist that enslaved men must be circumcised, and so take up a liminal status where they are empowered in particular legal instances while still enslaved, and that of the Torah itself, in which God covenantally commands Abraham to circumcise his enslaved men. According to the traditions that are central to the rabbis’ understanding of their own identities, to be a Jewish man is to circumcise your human property, even when that leads to legal complications. As such, even as they read the covenant of circumcision as more exclusive, they continue to uphold and sanctify the circumcision of the enslaved ben brit. But the rabbis did not live in a rabbinic vacuum, they were part of a rich and diverse late antique world. And this too was a world in which slavery played an important economic role. The rabbinic movement as a whole had two centers, one in Roman Palestine and one in Sasanian Babylonia. These communities were in contact with each other while also being deeply embedded in distinct cultural contexts. We have extensive evidence for the legal treatment of enslaved people in Roman law.31 Most relevant to my discussion here is the Roman empire’s imperial rules regarding circumcision and slavery. The forced circumcision of enslaved people was a topic of significant legal discussion in late antique Roman law in the period after the Tannaim and the redaction of the Mishnah and Tosefta. In the late fourth century, the jurist Paul ruled that “if Jews shall circumcise purchased slaves of another nation, they shall be banished or suffer capital punishment”.32 In 335 CE, the emperor Constantine proclaimed that “if one of the Jews shall buy and circumcise a Christian slave or of any other sect, he shall on no account retain the circumcised in slavery, but he who suffered this shall acquire the privileges of liberty.”33 In the sixth century, the emperor Justinian would later ban Jews from owning non-Jewish enslaved people entirely.34 Though Palestinian rabbinic literature does not address these bans, 29

RONIS, “Rabbinic Attitudes toward the Fetus in Late Antique Palestine”. On the rabbis as a scholastic elite, see HEZSER, “Rabbis as Intellectuals in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Christian Scholasticism”, 169–186; BALBERG/VIDAS, “Impure Scholasticism”, 312–356; See also BECKER, Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom; CABEZÓN, “Introduction”, 1–8. 31 See, for example, JOSHEL, Slavery in the Roman World; HUNT, Ancient Greek and Roman Slavery. 32 Cited in HEZSER, Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, 41. 33 C. Th. 19.9.1 cited in ibid., 42. 34 See further discussions in ABUSCH, “Negotiating Difference”, 71–92; HEZSER, Jewish Slavery in Antiquity; CORCORAN, “Observations on the Sasanian Law-Book in the Light of 30

Sons of the Covenant?

639

Catherine Hezser has suggested that the repeated statements outlawing the circumcision of enslaved people implies “that Jews continued to own and circumcise non-Jewish slaves at that time.”35 It is clear that the ability to circumcise ones’ enslaved people was deeply contested. There is a remarkable dearth of scholarship on slavery in the Sasanian world,36 most of it focusing in on specific religious communities. Ilaria Ramelli has argued that ascetic Christians such as Gregory of Nyssa and Aphrahat denounced and even renounced slavery (at least in their rhetoric); many Christians and Zoroastrians also owned enslaved persons.37 Hezser has collected extensive Talmudic references to slavery and enslaved people in connection to rabbis who lived in Babylonia in Late Antiquity.38 Tobias Scheunchen has compared slavery in Syriac Christian, Zoroastrian, and Muslim law.39 Slavery appears to have been common across religious communities in the Late Antique East. The rabbis’ practices of enslavement were deeply embedded in a broader economy of enslavement in the Sasanian Empire. Maria Macuch has shown that the rabbis were aware of specific Sasanian legal practices about the sale of enslaved people together with the land to which they were bound.40 Alyssa Gray has demonstrated that, in general, enslaved people had greater rights to agency, life, property in Sasanian Babylonia than did enslaved people in Roman Palestine. They also had greater recourse to the law to uphold these rights.41 These moves mirrored the legal rights afforded to enslaved people in Zoroastrian law.42

Roman Legal Writing”, 77–114. My thanks to MOKHTARIAN, “The Boundaries of an Infidel in Zoroastrianism”, 99–115 for pointing me to the Corcoran article. 35 HEZSER, Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, 42. 36 See the discussion about the limitations of the available evidence in REZAKHANI/ MORONY, “Markets for Land”, 235. There are a few exceptions, discussed in the footnotes here. It is notable that these scholars all examine the same extremely limited primary source evidence. 37 RAMELLI, Social Justice and the Legitimacy of Slavery. See also HOLMAN, The Hungry Are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia; my thanks to Allison L. Gray for this bibliographic suggestion. 38 See HEZSER, “‘The Slave of a Scholar Is like a Scholar’”, 181–200. 39 SCHEUNCHEN, Cosmology, Law, and Elites in Late Antiquity. 40 MACUCH, “Allusions to Sasanian Law in the Babylonian Talmud”, 102–113. See also 250–283. Dating this text is very difficult. See discussion in REZAKHANI/MORONY, “Markets for Land, Labour and Capital in Late Antique Iraq, AD 200–700”. 41 GRAY, “The Power Conferred by Distance from Power: Redaction and Meaning in b. A.Z. 10a–11a”, 23–69. 42 For a discussion of parallels between the Babylonian Talmud’s laws regarding slavery and those of the Zoroastrian elite, see JANY, “The Legal Status of Slaves in Sasanian and Talmudic Law”, 470–485.

640

Sara Ronis

Within a world in which enslaved people had more agency, the question of religious identity took on renewed interest. The religious identity of enslaved individuals appears to have been an important area of tension between Zoroastrians and Christians. According to the Zoroastrian legal text Mādayān ī hazār dādestān, “a slave [owned by a Zoroastrian] may not be sold to a nonZoroastrian.”43 Presumably, there is a concern that the enslaved person – who is or has become a Zoroastrian – will now be forced to follow a non-Zoroastrian faith. Even more stark, according to the Mādayān ī hazār dādestān, “if a slave belonging to a Christian converts to Zoroastrianism and (enters the service) of a Zoroastrian, (the latter) must return the value of the slave to (his former master) and free the slave, and the latter must compensate him for this loss.”44 Basically, a slave converted to Zoroastrianism could leave his non-Zoroastrian owner and “become a free citizen, after having compensated his previous master.”45 The law is explicitly framed in terms of Christianity. The text does not mention Jews in this context; though Jews were not in the same liminal legal or social state as Christians, who were associated with the Christianizing Roman empire. Syriac Christian laws, on the other hand, do not discuss the religious status of their enslaved people.46 Given the differential power dynamics, it makes sense that the Zoroastrian elite could offer incentives for enslaved individuals to convert to Zoroastrianism, while the Christian nonelites could, presumably, only hope that their enslaved individuals did not become Zoroastrian. The ability to shape the religious status of one’s enslaved property was a privilege of power. This privilege was seen both in the Romans’ progressive outlawing of Jewish circumcision of enslaved non-Jews, and in Zoroastrian legal rulings. In a world where their Palestinian correligionists were having this power taken from them by the power of Rome,47 and where other religious minorities were never given this power to begin with, perhaps the Babylonian rabbis were especially conscious of this privilege and unwilling to give it up, 43

See discussion in SCHEUNCHEN, Cosmology, Law, and Elites in Late Antiquity, 92. SCHEUNCHEN, ibid, 96. 45 MACUCH, “BARDA and BARDA-DĀRI II. In the Sasanian Period”. Macuch continues that “an important passage in the Ērbadestān indicates that even a loan (abām) was granted (probably by a religious institution) to the slave for this purpose.” My thanks to SCHEUNCHEN, Cosmology, Law, and Elites in Late Antiquity for pointing me to this source. See also JANY, “The Legal Status of Slaves in Sasanian and Talmudic Law”, 481. 46 Syriac Christian law does explicitly create much more financial independence for enslaved individuals, who can own and manage assets. See discussion in SCHEUNCHEN, Cosmology, Law, and Elites in Late Antiquity, 101–103. 47 And in fact, the ben brit appears in only three rabbinic discussions in the Palestinian Talmud: P. Bava Qamma 1:2, and P. Demai 6:1, paralleled at P. Terumot 1:1. These last two discussions contain a parallel teaching to B. Gittin 23b, discussed above. Yet here, the ben brit is contrasted to the goy, and the “worshipper of stars and constellations”, not to Israel. More work must be done on the ben brit in the Palestinian Talmud. 44

Sons of the Covenant?

641

even when it stood in contrast to their own preference to delimit and limit the covenant of circumcision.

4. Conclusion The rabbis construct an exclusive covenantal theology of circumcision by exegetically limiting the Abrahamic covenant to Jacob’s offspring. And yet, their own understanding of themselves as Jacob’s offspring – inheritors of the Torah and Tannaitic teachings, obligated and privileged in particular ways, within the context of late antique Sasanian Babylonia led them to insist that the covenant required them to circumcise their non-Jewish enslaved men.48 Jewish identity was thus tied to the physical bodies of Jewish men, but perhaps even more importantly, it was tied to the actions undertaken by those men upon their households, properties, and communities. When the focus is on the actions of free Jewish men, the rabbis treat the ethnic and religious identity of the enslaved person and their relationship to the covenant as more malleable, more liminal, than we might have thought. This liminality centers the body of rabbis – themselves as a religious body, and the actions of their actual bodies – in a covenantal relationship to God.

Bibliography ABUSCH, RA’ANAN, “Negotiating Difference: Genital Mutilation in Roman Slave Law and the History of the Bar Kokhba Revolt”, in The Bar Kokhba Revolt Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, edited by Peter Schäfer, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002, 71–92. BAKER, CYNTHIA M., Jew, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2017. BALBERG, MIRA / MOULIE VIDAS, “Impure Scholasticism: The Study of Purity Laws and Rabbinic Self-Criticism in the Babylonian Talmud”, Prooftexts 32, no. 3 (2012): 312– 356.

48

Ironically, the rabbis’ exclusive tendencies have ultimately won out. In 1843, twelve German Jewish immigrants came together in New York City to form a Jewish benevolent society and fraternity that they decided to name Söhne des Bundes. As they accommodated to America, they changed the name to the Hebrew equivalent – B’nai Brith, sons of the covenant. Note that during this period, slavery was still legal and practiced in much of the United States, though it had been abolished in New York State in 1827. The term bnei brit, which had a technical restricted meaning in rabbinic legislation and which stood in tension with Jewish identity, has in the modern period become a far less complicated signifier for Jews. Similarly, in Yiddish, and thus in the vernacular of modern American Ashkenazi Jews, a baby boy’s circumcision is called simply a bris, the Yiddish pronunciation of the word brit.

642

Sara Ronis

BAR-ASHER SIEGAL, MICHAL, “Heresy and the Minim of the Babylonian Talmud”, Jewish Thought 1 (2019): 9–31. BECKER, ADAM HOWARD, Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis and Christian Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. BUTLER, JUDITH, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex, Florence: Routledge, 2011. COHEN, SHAYE J.D., Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. CORCORAN, SIMON, “Observations on the Sasanian Law-Book in the Light of Roman Legal Writing”, in Law, Custom, and Justice in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages: Proceedings of the 2008 Byzantine Colloquium, edited by Alice Rio, Occasional Publications (King’s College London. Centre for Hellenic Studies), London: Centre for Hellenic Studies, 2011, 77–114. EILBERG-SCHWARTZ, HOWARD, God’s Phallus and Other Problems for Men and Monotheism, Boston: Beacon Press, 1994. ELMAN, YAAKOV, “Commercial Law in Rome and Ctesiphon: Roman Jurisconsults, Rabbis, and Sasanian Dastwars on Risk”, in Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (AJEC 89), edited by Ronit Nikolsky / Tal Ilan, Leiden: Brill, 2014, 250–283. FRIEDMAN, SHAMMA, “‫ בצירוף מבוא כללי על דרך חקר הסוגיא‬:‫”פרק האשה רבה בבלי‬, in Texts and Studies: Analecta Judaica, vol. 1, edited by H.Z. Dimitrovsky, New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1977, 277–321. GRAY, ALYSSA, “The Power Conferred by Distance from Power: Redaction and Meaning in b. A.Z. 10a–11a”, in Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada (TSAJ 114), edited by Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 23–69. GROSSBERG, DAVID M., Heresy and the Formation of the Rabbinic Community (TSAJ 168), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. HALIVNI, DAVID WEISS, The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud, tanslated by Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. HAUPTMAN, JUDITH, “Development of the Talmudic Sugya by Amoraic and Post-Amoraic Amplification of a Tannaitic Proto-Sugya”, HUCA 58 (1987): 227–250. HAYES, CHRISTINE E., “Displaced Self-Perceptions: The Deployment of Minim and Romans, in B. Sanhedrin 90b–91a”, Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, edited by Hayim Lapin, Bethesda: University Press of Maryland, 1998, 249– 289. HEZSER, CATHERINE, Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. –, “Rabbis as Intellectuals in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Christian Scholasticism”, in Scholastic Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras: Greek, Latin, and Jewish, edited by Sean A. Adams, Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2019, 169–186. –, “‘The Slave of a Scholar Is like a Scholar’: Stories about Rabbis and Their Slaves in the Babylonian Talmud”, in Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada (TSAJ 114), edited by Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 181–200. HODKINSON, STEPHEN et al., “The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Slaveries”, The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Slaveries, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Sons of the Covenant?

643

HOLMAN, SUSAN R., The Hungry Are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. HUNT, PETER, Ancient Greek and Roman Slavery, Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2018. JANY, JÁNOS, “The Legal Status of Slaves in Sasanian and Talmudic Law”, in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich, edited by Károly Dániel Dobos / Miklós Kőszeghy, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009, 470–485. JOSÉ IGNACIO CABEZÓN, “Introduction”, in Scholasticism: Cross-Cultural and Comparative Perspectives, edited by José Ignacio Cabezón (Toward a Comparative Philosophy of Religions), Albany: SUNY Press, 1998, 1–8. JOSHEL, SANDRA R., Slavery in the Roman World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. KALMIN, RICHARD, “The Formation and Character of the Babylonian Talmud”, in Cambridge History of Judaism, edited by Steven T. Katz, Vol. 4, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 840–876. KOLTUN-FROMM, NAOMI, “Aphrahat and the Rabbis on Noah’s Righteousness in Light of the Jewish-Christian Polemic”, in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation (Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5), edited by Judith Frishman / Lucas Van Rompay, Leuven: Peeters, 1997, 57–71. MACUCH, MARIA, “Allusions to Sasanian Law in the Babylonian Talmud”, in The Talmud in Its Iranian Context, edited by Carol Bakhos / M. Rahim Shayegan, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 102–113. –, “BARDA and BARDA-DĀRI II. In the Sasanian Period”, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, 2000 1988. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/barda-ii (last access 10/20/2022). MOKHTARIAN, JASON, “The Boundaries of an Infidel in Zoroastrianism: A Middle Persian Term of Otherness for Jews, Christians, and Muslims”, Iranian Studies: Religious Trends in Late Ancient and Early Islamic Iran 48, no. 1 (2015): 99–115. NOVAK, DAVID, The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism: The Idea of Noahide Law, second edition, Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2011. RAMELLI, ILARIA, Social Justice and the Legitimacy of Slavery: The Role of Philosophical Asceticism from Ancient Judaism to Late Antiquity (Role of Philosophical Asceticism from Ancient Judaism to Late Antiquity), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. REZAKHANI, KHODADAD / MICHAEL G. MORONY, “Markets for Land, Labour and Capital in Late Antique Iraq, AD 200–700”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 57, no. 2 (2014): 231–261. RONIS, SARA, “Rabbinic Attitudes toward the Fetus in Late Antique Palestine”. Annual Meeting of the History and Literature of Early Rabbinic Judaism Unit at the National Society for Biblical Literature, Chicago, IL, November 19, 2012. RUBENSTEIN, JEFFREY L., Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. ŠAKŪRZĀDA, EBRĀHĪM / MAHMOUD OMIDSALAR, “Circumcision”, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, 2011 1991. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/circumcision (last access 10/20/2022). SCHEUNCHEN, TOBIAS, Cosmology, Law, and Elites in Late Antiquity: Marriage and Slavery in Zoroastrianism, Eastern Christianity, and Islam (Arbeitsmaterialien zum Orient 32), Baden-Baden: Ergon Verlag, 2019. STONE, SUZANNE LAST, “Sinaitic and Noahide Law: Legal Pluralism, in Jewish Law”, Cardozo Law Review 12, no. 3–4 (1991): 1157–1214.

644

Sara Ronis

STRASSFELD, MAX, “Categorizing the Human: The Androginos in Tosefta Bikurim”, 2014 (unpublished AAR presentation). –, Transing the Talmud: Androgynes and Eunuchs in Rabbinic Literature, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2022. TONG, M ADRYAEL, “‘Given as a Sign’: Circumcision and Bodily Discourse”, Ancient Jew Review (blog), December 5, 2019. https://www.ancientjewreview.com/articles/2019/12/ 5/given-as-a-sign-circumcision-and-bodily-discourse (10/20/2022). WASSERMAN, MIRA BETH, “Noahide Law, Animal Ethics, and Talmudic Narrative”, Journal of Jewish Ethics 5, no. 1 (2019): 40–67.

Covenant in the Arts and in Systematic Discourse

The Mosaic of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny-des-Prés The Mosaic of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny-des-Prés

MARTIN KARRER Martin Karrer

The book of Revelation holds the ark of the covenant in high esteem, as has been shown in the previous contribution to the present volume.1 The author of Revelation respects and preserves Israel’s tradition. He refers to an early Jewish symbol (ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης, “the ark of the covenant”) and speaks of only one covenant, as the Hebrew Scriptures did (cf. the singular ‫ ברית‬there). He ignores the concept of a historical succession of covenants (plural) emerging shortly before or around his time.2 Instead, he actualizes the idea of God’s one covenant in his own way and puts special emphasis on the vivid drawing (ekphrasis) of the central image in Rev 11:19: The ark in God’s heavenly sanctuary becomes visible all over the world for those who follow God. That means the one covenant is being opened up because God maintains the covenant of old with Israel, yet makes it accessible to all peoples. Reifying divine universality, the one God is now God for Israel and the nations. This exegesis has important hermeneutical ramifications. The church and academy today should take note of the respect that the author expresses for Israel and its sacred traditions. Yet throughout the centuries, the principal stream of Christian reception has taken the interpretation of Rev 11:19 in a different direction, as the aforementioned essay has shown. The indebtedness to Israel has often been disregarded; famous medieval illustrations to Revelation imagined the heavenly temple as a church that housed the ark like a reliquary or an altar.3 Nevertheless, the text of Revelation maintained the original sense by featuring the referenced Hebrew Bible / Old Testament (HB / OT) motif, if read literally. Therefore, the iconographical tradition was not only being corrected sometimes.4 In addition, another iconographical tradition arose that was even more faithful to the biblical texts. That iconographical type showing the ark of the covenant in reference to the Old Testament and Rev is 1

KARRER, “The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19”, 511–538. See the articles on Paul and Hebrews in the present volume. 3 See KARRER, “The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19”, esp. § 2 and fig. 2 (Bamberger Apokalypse) and fig. 3 (Blockbuch). 4 That was done at least partially in the time of humanism and the Reformation: see KARRER, “The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19”, fig. 4 (Hans Holbein the Younger). 2

648

Martin Karrer

Fig. 1: The ark of the covenant as part of the apse mosaic at Germigny-des-Prés (about 806 CE)5

represented by the mosaic on the ceiling of the apse in the church at Germignydes-Prés near Orléans (fig. 1). That mosaic is an exceptional masterpiece of Carolingian art.6 The artist presupposed the Latin text and theology of the

5 Fig. after MANFRED HEYDE (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Germigny_ Des_Pres_2007_01.jpg), “Germigny Des Pres 2007 01“, https://creativecommons.org/licen ses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode, accessed 05/17/2020. 6 See BLOCH, “Apsismosaik”; VIEILLARD-TROIEKOUROFF, “Nouvelles études sur les mosaïques de Germigny-des-Prés”; FREEMAN/MEYVAERT, “Theodulfe’s Apse Mosaic”; GAUTHIER/GAUTHIER, L’oratoire carolingien; BRADU, “la mosaïque de Germigny-desPrés”; MACKIE, “Theodulf of Orléans”; NN, “Germigny-des-Prés”, Grove Encyclopedia 2:692–694. Cf. also PAUL MEYVAERT in http://jfbradu.free.fr/mosaiques/germigny/index.htm, accessed 03/28/2020.

The Mosaic of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny-des-Prés

649

Carolingian period, not the Greek text interpreted today. Nevertheless, his work is worth a detailed analysis. A preliminary note is required: The mosaic was disregarded later and plastered over during the French Revolution. Rediscovered in 1840, it was restored and is in good condition today. Yet some details are controversial; 19th cent. drawings must occasionally be consulted. Moreover, the old context for the artwork is lost in the building. The altar in the apse – the center of the Christian service – was removed, and other mosaics of the Carolingian chapel were destroyed. Therefore, it is impossible to reconstruct the decorative scheme as a whole.7 In this study, we shall focus on the theological implications of the iconography; we cannot explore distinct aspects of art history (e.g., the Byzantine influences on the architecture, the ornaments and traces of the Ummayyad culture in details such as the flowers).8

1. Deliberations on the Ark of the Covenant in the Libri Carolini The conception of the chapel – the architecture of which follows a Greek cross – and the plan for the mosaic at Germigny-des-Prés can be attributed to Theodulf of Fleury, a great teacher of the Carolingian period. He participated in the controversial discussions on the value of images at the beginning of the year 790 CE. These discussions were provoked by a defective Latin translation of the decisions of Nicaea II, the last ecumenical council, held in 787. The decisions restored the veneration of icons against the iconoclastic clashes troubling the Byzantine east. The unfortunate Latin translation simplified the elaborated Greek argumentation. Hence, it seemed that the council had allowed the veneration of images in adoration. Protest erupted and was comprehensively registered in the Opus Caroli regis contra synodum (793/794). Today Theodulf is widely considered the main author of that assessment report later called Libri Carolini; it rejects the use of images. The ark of the covenant takes a prominent place in the Libri Carolini since Nicaea II had reclaimed Exod 25:10–22 for the thesis (quoted in Libri Carolini I 20): “Just as the ancestors had the Cherubim overshadowing the mercy-seat (scl. the cover of the ark of the covenant), let us have images of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the holy Mother of God and of the Saints, overshadowing the altar.”9 The Libri Carolini replied in the central chapter I 15: The ark and the

7

The problems of the restorations are discussed in POILPRÉ, “Le décor”. See, e.g., GRABAR, “Les mosaïques de Germigny-des-Prés” (looking at influences from Byzantine and Islamic art); FOLETTI, “Germigny-des-Prés” (relevant for ornaments etc.). 9 FREEMAN/MEYVAERT, Libri Carolini, 195, lines 27–30: “Sicut veteres habuerunt cherubim obumbrantem propitiatorium, et nos imagines Domini nostri Iesu Christi et sanctae 8

650

Martin Karrer

cherubim are items made by Moses at God’s direct orders. Their dignity requires looking at them with the heart and spiritually, by the eye of the intellect, rather than at images on tables or walls.10 Theodulf’s rejection of images was soon considered to be too severe. The Libri Carolini were archived at the Carolingian court, but the programmatic rejection of images proved to be unsuccessful.11 The mosaic on the apse wall at Germigny-des-Prés evinces that even Theodulf revised his position a decade later. But to what degree did he do so? The matter is of particular relevance since the Libri Carolini are not only discussing the limitations of art; in addition, they quote the two common interpretations of the ark prominent in Theodulf’s time: a) “The ark of the covenant denotes according to some our Lord and Savior” (= Christ), who brought the covenant of peace with the father.12 b) “But according to the most ones being scholars by divine law13” gold (the material used for the surface of the ark and the cherubim in Exod 25:11, 18) “signifies Wisdom”, and the ark signifies “God’s eminent and secret being”.14 The crescendo from “some” to “most” scholars in the rhetoric of the paragraph signalizes a preference for the theonomic (non-Christological) interpretation (thesis b). Therefore, our exploration of the mosaic at Germigny must ask: Does Theofuld thoroughly correct his earlier position, or does he skillfully integrate the impulse “hear and do without seeing!” into the iconographical conception? And we may add more specifically: Does he pick up now, in the famous mosaic, the Christological understanding of the ark? Or

Dei genetricis et sanctorum eius habeamus obumbrantes altare.” Cf. Nicaea II, Actio IV (Mansi 13, col. 6D). 10 FREEMAN/MEYVAERT, Libri Carolini, 169–175; I quote from the conclusion, lines 2– 8: “Haec […] insignia, arca videlicet […] sive cherubim, semper a nobis spiritali intuitu cernantur […]. Nec ea in depictis tabulis sive parietibus quaeramus, sed in penetrabilibus nostri cordis mentis oculo aspiciamus.” 11 See FREEMAN/MEYVAERT, “Theodulf’s Apse Mosaic”, esp. 125–126. 12 “Arca […] foederis secundum quosdam Dominum et Salvatorem nostrum, in quo solus foedus pacis apud Petrem habemus, designat” (FREEMAN/MEYVAERT, Libri Carolini, 170, lines 20–23). The text marked by Freeman in italics refers to Beda Venerabilis, De templo Salomonis 1. 13 The sense of the idiom “doctor divinae legis” has changed in the centuries. In our text, it describes eminent scholars who lived and worked in cities which were characterized by the divine law, i.e., which had seats of episcopes or patriarchs. The most prominent of those scholars was Augustine. 14 “Secundum plerosque vero divinae legis doctores […] aurum sapientiam significat, arca secretum Dei” (FREEMAN/MEYVAERT, Libri Carolini, 172, lines 20–23). The text marked by Freeman in Italics refers to Augustine, Quaestiones in Hept., Exod. 105. The motif of the “secretum” shows that God’s eminence transcends human perception; the translation tries a paraphrase (“eminent and secret being”).

The Mosaic of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny-des-Prés

651

does he actualize the second, sapiential-theological interpretation?15 To answer this question, we shall now have a look at the mosaic itself.

2. The Iconography of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny Theodulf built the palace complex of Germigny-des-Prés more than a decade after writing the Libri Carolini. The chapel was consecrated in January 80616 and the mosaic completed at that time or shortly thereafter. The motifs on the mosaic combine the descriptions of the ark in Exod 25:10–22, 1 Kgs 6:23–28, and Rev 11:19. The passage in Rev 11:19 provides the setting: The ark of the covenant appears in heaven. Not surprisingly, stars and other details symbolize the heavenly surroundings. A vision of heavenly beings is common in the iconography of apses and domes of Carolingian or Byzantine churches. Yet, the motif of the ark goes against the prevalent iconographical trend; normally a depiction of the Pantocrator is the dominant feature.17 One is inevitably reminded of the iconoclastic controversies at the time; the opponents to Nicaea II – such as Theodulf – rejected images of Christ. This was, however, commonly done by replacing the Pantocrator through a cross.18 There is no other example in Carolingian or contemporary Byzantine art for replacing the Pantocrator through the ark of the covenant. A widespread interpretation of this mosaic tries to overcome that difference through a Christological reflection. Referring to the above-mentioned interpretation a) of the Libri Carolini, it identifies the ark as an allegory of Christ. In that case, Theodulf’s rejection of images was the reason for choosing an uncommon representation of Christ.19 Yet, why is any Christological explication missing? One must ask why Theodulf chose the ark and not the cross. Undeniably, the images in the mosaic, which features angels with human faces, do not support an iconoclastic position. Therefore, a figurative hint to 15 The literature discusses, in addition, a Mariological interpretation (MACKIE, “Theodulf of Orléans”, result 53). But the indications for this connotation must be taken from outside; the ark is an allegory for Mary in some Church Fathers since she bears Christ in herself as the chest bore holy content. Libri Carolini I 20 (quoted above), however, avoids an allegory (while analogizing the ark and Christian images), and clear Mariological symbols are lacking in the mosaic. 16 The inscription naming this date originated between the 9th and 11th cent., but was renewed later. 17 The cathedral of Aachen showed the Pantocrator in the dome; the mosaic today is a substitution of the late 19th cent. 18 The most famous example is the cross in the apse of the Hagia Irene Church in Istanbul. 19 Cf. FELD, Ikonoklasmus, 20–22.

652

Martin Karrer

Christ would certainly be allowed. Nevertheless, Theodulf did not mark the ark even with a Christological sign. Any explicit Christological symbol – the cross, Chi-Rho or AΩ – is absent from the impressive chest. Therefore, the Christological interpretation of the symbol is unlikely. Instead, one should take note of the fact that the middle of the mosaic shows a theocentric symbol. The hand of God appears out of the upper spheres of heaven indicating God’s involvement in the scene.20 God himself orders the design and the construction of the chest, the cherubim, the wooden poles, and the cover; and all is made of gold in accordance with Exod 25:10–22. That fits perfectly with the second, theological-sapiential interpretation mentioned in the Libri Carolini: God is invisible and, nevertheless, at work. The golden shimmer symbolizes God’s wisdom giving light to heaven and the world, and the ark documents God’s presence. The ark is the seat of God’s expiating mercy and the place from which God will speak according to Exod 25:22 (Vulgate “loquar”).21 Its form is based on Exod 25, and its allocation in heaven is based on Rev 11:19. Thus, the ark with the cherubim represents the invisible presence of the one God in heaven who transcends all human understanding. The ark serves as a majestic symbol for the incomparable secret of the heavenly God. If the ark is reconstructed correctly in the renovations undertaken since the rediscovery, then the cover does not allow recognition of anything in the interior. The scene conveys that true wisdom is humble and abstains from wanting to recognize God’s inner thoughts. However, the reconstruction is disputed. Drawings made after the rediscovery in the 19th cent. (Prosper Mérimée, Théodore Chrétin) show a curtain on the ark instead of the cover. The curtain is half opened and the interior of the ark empty. This iconography suggests further correlations between the gold of wisdom and “negative” theology: The curtain opens, but God remains invisible. The secret of his eminence is greater than any perception. Human thought must become empty when looking for God’s secret.

20

The restoration of the hand is much discussed (e.g., POILPRÉ, “Le décor”, 294). It shows a shadow in its midst that is sometimes explained as a stigmatization and, therefore, a reference to Christ. FREEMAN/MEYVAERT, “Theodulfe’s Apse Mosaic”, 133–134 search for additional Christological connotations via Isidor, et. VII 2:23 (who articulates the conviction that the creating hand of God is identical with the creating Son) and the mention of Christ’s wounds in Theodulf, carm. 11. But the iconographically decisive shadow can be easier explained as a decorative element enforcing the dynamic movement in God’s hand. 21 The Vulgate translated the word for the cover of the ark (‫ )כפרת‬in Exod 25:17 as “propitiatorium” (place for expiation; KJV: mercy seat) and in Exod 25:18 as “oraculum”, i.e., the place, where God speaks (cf. the “oracula” in the foreign religions of antiquity). Exod 25:22 combines the motifs; God declares that he will speak from above the “propitiatorium”, between the two cherubim (“loquar ad te supra propitiatorio scilicet ac medio duorum cherubin”).

The Mosaic of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny-des-Prés

653

The second interpretation is appealing.22 Nonetheless, the present reconstruction of the mosaic (the state after the renovations) should be favored. Perhaps a part of the ark was still painted over at the time of the drawings.23 The famous drawers (Mérimée, Chrétin) may have erred.

3. The Large Angels on Both Sides of the Scene The motifs on the mosaic actually reach beyond the imagery found in Exod 25 and Rev 11. In addition, the iconography uses the description of Solomon’s temple in 1 Kgs 6:23–28. The measurements of the cherubim in 1 Kgs 6:23– 26, however, exceed the measurements of the ark in Exod 25:10, 17. Theodulf concluded that 1 Kgs 6 speaks of two extra cherubim and integrated them into the mosaic. Hence, two tall angels hover over the ark on either side. Their clothes are not golden (in contrast to the cherubim at the ark); but golden pinions indicate their participation in the heavenly wisdom.24 They do not touch the ark (again in contrast to the golden cherubim at the ark). Instead, they pay obeisance to the ark and bow down. Their wings extend to the outer wall and their feet reach the ground beneath heaven (see fig. 1). The iconography shows their function: They open the borders of heaven and point to the ark with their hands. They are the angels leading humanity to God. But why are there two angels? The Libri Carolini quote the Venerable Bede in this. He explains that the angels extend their wings unto the walls of the temple in 1 Kgs 6 “as the faithful of both peoples, Jews and Gentiles take part together with them in the heavenly court”.25 Christians and Jews alike pay obeisance to the ark. It seems that Bede was not interested in whether or not the faithful Jews are non-Christian Jews, although this question has been asked at all times and the reference to Israel’s temple in Exod 25 / 1 Kgs 6 definitely implies pre-Chris22 It would allow to acknowledge influences from the tradition of Pseudo-DionysiusAreopagita. And indeed, the “Corpus Areopagiticum” was introduced into the Latin West in Carolingian times. 23 This possibility is mentioned by FREEMAN/MEYVAERT, “Theodulf’s Apse Mosaic”, 129. Nevertheless, they give preference to the situation shown in the drawings. Moreover, they propose decoding the scene into categories of salvation history: According to them, the empty interior of the ark points to the future when it will be filled by the new covenant in Christ (129–131). 24 The Vulgate uses the verb “tegere” in 1 Kgs 6:28 whereas the cherubim in Exod 25:18 were simply called “golden” (“cherubin aurei”). The mosaic understands “tegere” (“overlay”) in the special meaning “to vest” / “to clothe”; the golden pinions satisfy this description (although the cherubim of the ark are completely made of gold). 25 “[…] parietes suis tangunt alis, quia fideles utriusque populi, Iudaeorum scilicet et gentium, conpotes secum habent aulae caelestis” (FREEMAN/MEYVAERT, Libri Carolini, 199, lines 12–14; italics in the original).

654

Martin Karrer

tian Jews.26 The mosaic at Germigny does not make with a distant memory. It elucidates the point with a special iconographical feature. A. Freeman and P. Meyvaert observe that the “angel on the right side of the Ark has a cruciform halo”; he represents Christianity. “The halo of the angel on the left side […] lacks this feature”; he is guiding Israel to God in respecting its non-Christian holiness.27 Thus, both Christianity and Judaism jointly honor the one God whose presence is symbolized by the ark of the covenant.28 It must be conceded that Theodulf thought of the Jews “in abstracto” when planning the mosaic. Only a few Jews lived “transalpine” in approx. 800;29 as far as we know Theodulf’s biography, his contact with a Jewish scholar (important for his improvements of the Latin text of biblical Scriptures) dates to the period after the completion of the chapel at Germigny.30 Hence, there is no evidence that personal encounters with Jews influenced the conception of the mosaic at Germigny. Moreover, shortly afterwards, Christian-Jewish polemics developed in Lyon.31 But nevertheless, the mosaic at Germigny is an outstanding work. Setting aside Christian-Jewish controversies from antiquity and those in Lyon a few years later, it invites its viewers to admire and respect the left angel (Israel’s angel) as well as the right angel. The scenery becomes complete when we take into consideration the church liturgy. The mosaic and the altar in the Carolingian apse (lost today) belonged 26

Cf. “fideles” in Neh 13:13 (Vulgate) etc. Both quotations FREEMAN/MEYVAERT, “Theodulf’s Apse Mosaic”, 129. The sides are seen from the ark. Therefore, the lines in the halo of the right angel are seen on the left in fig. 1; the lines are not easy to spot because that halo is poorly renovated. 28 FREEMAN/MEYVAERT, “Theodulf’s Apse Mosaic”, 129 insert Christology into their conclusion: “So we see that Theodulf meant the large angel on the right of the Ark to stand for the Christian people, and the one on the left to stand for the Jewish nation, which at the end of time would be united with Christ. Thus, he succeeded in transferring the symbolism of ch. 20 in the Opus Caroli to the apse mosaic of his church”. I am more cautious with regard to a Christological entry. 29 A famous Jew called Isaac was member of a Carolingian delegation going overseas to Harun-al-Rashid; his activity took place far from Orléans. Jewish life seems to have existed in Lyon at about that time. But the local distance between Lyon and Orléans, and other theological developments in Lyon must be taken into account (cf. the references to Agobard of Lyon below, in fn. 31 and 49). For a survey of research see LOTTER, “Stellung der Juden”. 30 Following clues from the manuscripts of the so-called Theodulf-Bible and adjacent sources, a Hebraist helped Theodulf (and scholars with him) in correcting the biblical text. Theodulf started this work after the completion of Germigny. The Hebraist is sometimes doubted and often understood as a Jewish-Christian. But Reims, Bibl. Municipale, ms. Lat. 118 says explicitly “ille Judaeus”. Thus, it is very probable that scholarly contacts between Christians and (non-converted) Jews developed at this time (cf. HEIL, “Theodulf”, esp. 122). But these contacts were scattered, and the occasional notices leave us with sketchy insights. Nevertheless, one can say that the respect for Judaism in Germigny shows that Theodulf did not display a supersessionist attitude (in spite of HEIL, “Theodulf”, 133). 31 The central figure was Agobard; cf. HEIL, “Agobard”. 27

The Mosaic of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny-des-Prés

655

together and corresponded in the Divine Service. The altar was the location of the Eucharist. Therefore, Christian participants in the service looked to the ark of the covenant from the perspective of the right angel.32 The Christian perception of the ark was fully present and, nevertheless, open for the recognition of Israel via Israel’s angel.33

4. The Inscription The lower edge of the mosaic features a long inscription which can be translated as:34 “Gaze – looking in awe – upon the holy sanctuary (‘oranclum’) here and the cherubim, and the ark of God’s covenant shimmers. When you are perceiving these things and endeavoring to knock on the thunderer(’s ear) with prayers, include, I beg you, Theodulf in your invocations.”35 How does it relate to the mosaic as such? 4.1 The first sentence sums up the scene of the apse – and, to repeat, introduces neither an ecclesiological nor a Christological explication. Thus, the inscription supports the decision to avoid a Christological allegorization of the ark and the surrounding scenery.36 The correlation of the heaven in Rev 11:19, shimmering due to the theophany,37 and the descriptions of the holiest place in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament are decisive for Theodulf’s intention. 32 In later centuries, a special type of art will demonstrate the correlation between ark (God’s Mercy Seat) and Eucharist: Small models of the ark of the covenant were being used as a pyxis for the eucharistic bread in Christian communities. Images from one such example from the Evangelische Stadtpfarrkirche Wien I (dated 1728) are posted online (http://doc player.org/22968895-Pfarrblatt-engel-sichtbar-unsichtbar.html, accessed 03/29/2020). 33 Finally, another motif of the mosaic is also relevant for Jews and Christians: FREEMAN/ MEYVAERT, “Theodulf’s Apse Mosaic”, 131 identify the blue band below the ark as the river Jordan. This identification is not certain; no name is written on the band, and two rivers of paradise may be represented, alternatively. If the band is identified as the Jordan River, then it marks Israel’s entry into the holy land and reminds Christians of baptism. Both aspects show the blessing and grace of God. FREEMAN/MEYVAERT, “Theodulf’s Apse Mosaic”, 131–133 favor baptism without citing reasons. 34 The inscription was badly damaged before restoration. The text could be reconstructed; the original art (mosaic, ornamentation) is lost (cf. POILPRÉ, “Le décor”, 294). 35 Latin text: “ORANC(u)LUM S(an)C(tu)M ET CERUBIN HIC ASPICE SPECTANS ET TESTAMENTI MICAT ARCA DEI HAEC CERNENS PRECIBUSQUE STUDENS PULSARE TONANTEM THEODULPHUM VOTIS IUNGITO GUAESO (= quaeso) TUIS.” 36 Most print and online comments about the mosaic at Germigny claim a stronger ecclesial impact on the mosaic, as noted. This should be corrected; cf. fn. 20 and 33 above. 37 Lightnings (“fulgura”) are mentioned as signs of God’s presence in the theophany of Exod 19:16 (Vulgate: “micare fulgura”). This association explains the use of “micat” in the

656

Martin Karrer

The name “oranclum” (= “oraculum”) for the sanctuary, the first word of the Latin text, pinpoints Theodulf’s message. The word is derived from the Vulgate text of Exod 25:18, which describes the ark of the covenant: The ark and its cover are the place from where God speaks (“oraculum” Exod 25:18, “loquar” 25:22 Vulgate). The adoption in Rev 11:19 highlights this meaning; the ekphrasis tells of tremendous “voices” (φωναί / “voces”) coming out of the heavenly sanctuary. All the world is supposed to hear the invisible God speaking from the ark of the covenant. A second connotation of “oranclum”, the sense “place for prayer” – as evoked by the wordplay on “orare” – occurs in the end and completes the matter: The best way to experience God’s presence is prayer. Theodulf is so concentrated on this point that he does not quote the second and more famous name for the holiest place, “Mercy Seat” (“propitiatorium”, Exod 25:20, 2238). He conceptualizes the image of the mosaic taking into consideration the criticism of any image showing God. Indeed, he solves the problem of iconography in an elegant way: The mosaic shows an image, but the image avoids any graphic depiction of God. On the contrary, all symbols in the mosaic prove the necessity to hear rather than to see God.39 Interestingly, Rev 11:19 has a comparable intent. The ekphrasis demands awareness of the one God who is mighty and speaks in wrath as well as in mercy.40 4.2 The second part of the inscription contains the request to pray for the founder. This is adequate and common in a founder’s inscription. The depiction of the prayer as an invocation “knocking” on the thunderer(’s ear) plays with a popular motif (cf. the saying “knocking on heaven’s door”). But who is the “thunderer” (tonans)? Two explanations are commonly being considered: a) The name may refer to John, the author of Revelation, since he was identified with the “son of thunder”,41 John, the son of Zebedee. Such an interpretation would be supported by the Christian veneration of saints.42 Indeed, Theodulf wrote a short commentary on Revelation a few years later in which he allegorized: The “heaven” of Rev 11:19 is “the heavenly Jerusalem, that is, the souls of the saints.”43 Read against this background, the inscription inscription: “micat arca” evokes that the ark with it golden shimmer likes the lightnings in heaven which are visible and audible from afar. 38 Cf. fn. 21. 39 Cf. BELTING, “Nieder mit den Bildern”, esp. 39–40. 40 Rev does not mention the ἱλαστήριον / “propitiatorium” of Exod 25:20, 22. 41 Cf. “filius tonitrui” in Mk 3:17. 42 It was customary to mention saints in prayers in the Carolingian period (cf. the salutation “Stephane” in the Codex Badische Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe Aug.perg. 82, fol. 134v). 43 English translation according to GUMERLOCK, Carolingian Commentaries on the Apocalypse, 51.

The Mosaic of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny-des-Prés

657

instructs the praying Christian to identify the golden background of the ark with the heavenly Jerusalem where the souls of saints are present. The prayer knocks on the ear of the saints, especially the ear of John, the Seer, who with a thundering voice told of the ark of the covenant.44 One must concede, however, that tonans (“thunderer”) does not point to John in any other text of Theodulf.45 Moreover, there is no allusion to the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21)46 in the mosaic. Therefore, another interpretation is preferable: b) The second interpretation relates the “thunderer” directly to God. This is a common connection in various religious traditions. The attribute tonans (“thunderer”) was transferred from Jupiter to the God of Christians and Jews in late antiquity.47 Tonans was used in this way in the Carolingian period,48 and thunderclaps show the presence of God at the ark of the covenant in Rev 11:19. Read from this perspective, the heavenly God alone proves to be the highest God, the “thunderer”. No other god is beside him. It is probable that Theodulf preferred the second meaning and nonetheless wanted to evoke both connotations (a and b). Both round off the great theme of the apse: The ark of the covenant shows the mighty presence of the invisible God of heaven. The visitor is asked to look up, to pray, and to trust the angel who is guiding him or her to the ark.

5. Outlook The historical situation changed shortly after the completion of the mosaic at Germigny. Christians in the social circles of Agobard of Lyon started to challenge Jews, as noted above. The Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae spread49 and degraded the synagogue. The mismatched pair “Ecclesia et 44 One may compare Greek epigrams venerating John as having the “sound of thunder” (βροντόφωνος; https://www.dbbe.ugent.be/types/7054, accessed 03/28/2020) and being the brilliantly flashing son of thunder (τοῦ φῶς ἀπαστράψαντος ὡς βροντῆς γόνου BNF gr. 224; https://www.dbbe.ugent.be/occurrences/17158, accessed 03/28/2020). I thank Emmanuel van Elverdinghe for pointing out the connection. 45 But Theodulf used the attribute tonans (“thunderer” / “thundering”) for the late antique poet Iuvencus in Carmen 45 (in other numbering Carmen 44), line 14. 46 A special aspect of the study of FOLETTI, “Germigny-des-Prés”. 47 Cf., e.g., Iuvencus 4:553. 48 Theodulf uses tonans for characterizing God in his Versus ad Karolum regem, line 36 (“grates persolve Tonanti”). 49 The genesis of the Altercatio was localized in the environment of Agobard of Lyon by a line of earlier research; that is refused today. But the distribution of the polemical work increased from his time onwards (OEHL, Die Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae, esp. 33– 34).

658

Martin Karrer

Synagoga” soon arose during the Carolingian and Ottonian periods and dominated the iconography in the Middle Ages.50 In the wake of this unfortunate development, the scene of the two angels inviting and guiding to heaven will be revised. An ivory made in southern Italy in the 11th cent. (today in Berlin, K.F.M.)51 expresses the counterpart: It features two angels similar to Theodulf’s cherubim. Both of them hold the halo as they do at Germigny, since they are angels; but only the angel to the right (seen from the image) blesses. He greets the church. The angel to the left, however, turns about and pushes the synagogue away. His holy function has become anti-Jewish. What a mutation! In other words: The mosaic at Germigny is a valuable and necessary reminder to challenge and to correct the iconography of “ecclesia and synagogue”.

6. Conclusion It would be wrong to ignore the idiosyncrasies of Carolingian interpretations. Theodulf’s theology, his iconoclastic background and angelology belong to a bygone era. And yet, the implicit theology of the mosaic at Germigny shows the possibility of actualizing the passage in Rev 11:19 together with Israel’s descriptions of the ark of the covenant through time. Moreover, Theodulf’s dialectic image may be compared hermeneutically to the textual form of Revelation: Theodulf demands to hear rather than to see and expresses his intention in the iconography. John (the author of Revelation) uses vivid language to replace real images; he makes real images irrelevant via a literal form, the ekphrasis. Both respect God’s invisibility, each in his own way. Both the book of Revelation and Theodulf take into account that humans are unable to see God and Christ before the new world comes.52 The author of Revelation and Theodulf are convinced that the invisible God is active and mighty and can be perceived via the heavenly ark of the covenant. Whoever is aware of the message of the mosaic and the text of Rev 11:19 will, therefore, look upwards to the ark of the one God in heaven. That ark is Israel’s ark. It shows God’s covenant for Israel which is now open for Christian communities from the nations and likewise invites agnostic visitors to the church at Germigny-des-Prés.

50

Cf. WENNINGER, “Juden-Bilder im mittelalterlichen Kirchenraum”. http://www.rdklabor.de/wiki/Ekklesia_und_Synagoge#/media/File:04-1191-1.jpg, accessed 03/28/2020. 52 In the new world, matters change according to Rev 22:3–4. Then God and the heavenly Christ will be seen face to face. 51

The Mosaic of the Ark of the Covenant at Germigny-des-Prés

659

Hence, the mosaic of Germigny helps us appreciate the theme of our biblical text. The passage in Rev 11:19 is a peak of Israel-theology in early Christianity. The mosaic transforms the message of Revelation into the image of angels for the Church and for Israel. The exegesis underlines, and the mosaic makes visible: The ark of the covenant connects Judaism and Christianity.53

Bibliography BELTING, HANS, “Nieder mit den Bildern. Alle Macht den Zeichen: Aus der Vorgeschichte der Semiotik”, in Bild-Zeichen: Perspektiven einer Wissenschaft vom Bild, edited by St. Majetschak, München: Fink Verlag, 2005, 31–47. BLOCH, PETER, “Das Apsismosaik von Germigny-des Prés, Karl der Große und der Alte Bund”, in Karl der Große: Lebenswerk und Nachleben (Karolingische Kunst, Vol. 3), edited by H. Beumann / W. Braunfels, Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1965, 234–261. BRADU, JEAN-FRANCOIS, “Une nouvelle lecture de la mosaïque de Germigny-des-Prés”, in Lumières de l’an mil en Orléanais, Autour du millénaire d’Abbon de Fleury. Catalogue d’exposition du Musée des Beaux-Arts Orléans, edited by A. Notter / A. Bosc-Lauby, Turnhout: Brepols, 2004, 126–128. FELD, HELMUT, Der Ikonoklasmus des Westens (Studies in the History of Christian Thought 41), Leiden: Brill, 1990. FOLETTI, IVAN, “Germigny-des-Prés, il Santo Sepolcro е la Gerusalemme Celeste”, Convivium 1 (2014): 32–49. FREEMAN, ANN / PAUL MEYVAERT, Opus Caroli regis contra synodum (Libri Carolini) (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Concilia, Vol. 2. Supplementum I), Hannover: Hahn, 1998. –, “The Meaning of Theodulfe’s Apse Mosaic at Germigny-des-Prés”, Gesta 40 (2001): 125–139. GAUTHIER, MONIQUE / MICHEL GAUTHIER, L’oratoire carolingien de Germigny des Prés, Sandillon: M.G., 2003. GRABAR, ANDRÉ, “Les mosaïques de Germigny-des-Prés”, Cahiers archéologiques 7 (1954): 172–184. GUMERLOCK, FRANCIS X., ed., Carolingian Commentaries on the Apocalypse by Theodulf and Smaragdus, Translated Texts and Introduction, Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2019. HEIL, JOHANNES, “Agobard, Amulo, das Kirchengut und die Juden von Lyon”, Francia 25 (1998): 39–76. –, “Theodulf, Haimo, and Jewish Traditions of Biblical Learning, Exploring Carolingian Culture’s Lost Spanish Heritage”, in Discovery and Distinction in the Early Middle Ages: Studies in Honour of John J. Contreni, edited by C. Chandler / St. Stofferahn, Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2013, 103–134. HOURIHANE, COLUM (ed.), The Grove Encyclopedia of Medieval Art and Architecture, Vol. 2, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

53 I am grateful to Marybeth Hauffe, Solveig Reller, and Benjamin Blum for their help in preparing this contribution for publication.

660

Martin Karrer

JOCHUM, HERBERT, “Ecclesia und Synagoga, Alter und Neuer Bund in der christlichen Kunst”, in Der ungekündigte Bund? Antworten des Neuen Testaments, edited by H. Frankemölle (QD 172), Freiburg: Herder, 1998, 248–276. KARRER, MARTIN, “The Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11:19”, in Covenant – Concepts of Berit, Diatheke, and Testamentum: Proceedings of the Conference at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston, Texas November 19–22, 2019 (WUNT 506), edited by Christian Eberhart and Wolfgang Kraus in Collaboration with Richard Bautch, Matthias Henze, and Martin Rösel, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023, 511–538. LOTTER, FRIEDRICH, “Zur Stellung der Juden im Frankenreich der Merowinger und Karolinger”, Aschkenas – Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kultur der Juden 10 (2000): 525– 538. MACKIE, GILLIAN, “Theodulf of Orléans and the Ark of the Covenant: A New Allegorical Interpretation at Germigny-des-Prés”, RACAR: revue d’art canadienne 32 (2007): 45– 58. MEYVAERT: see Freeman and Meyvaert OEHL, BENEDIKT, Die Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae. Ein antijudaistischer Dialog der Spätantike, Bonn: Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Bonn, 2012; http://hss.ulb.unibonn.de/2012/2812/2812.pdf, accessed 03/30/2020. POILPRÉ, ANNE-ORANGE, “Le décor de l’oratoire de Germigny-des-Prés: L’authentique et le restauré”, Cahiers de civilisation mediévale Xe – XIIe siècles 41 (1998): (https:// www.persee.fr/doc/ccmed_0007-9731_1998_num_41_163_2727, accessed 03/30/2020), 281–297. VIEILLARD-TROÏEKOUROFF, MAY, “Nouvelles études sur les mosaïques de Germigny-desPrés”, Cahiers archéologiques 17 (1967): 103–112. WENNINGER, MARKUS, “Juden-Bilder im mittelalterlichen Kirchenraum”, Das jüdische Echo 46 (1997): 255–262.

Covenant as Convivence Covenant as Convivence

The Relevance of Covenantal Theology in Contemporary Theological Discourses MARGIT ERNST-HABIB Margit Ernst-Habib

1. Covenantal Theology – an Obsolete Model for Contemporary Discourses in Systematic Theology? Throughout the history of Christian Systematic Theology, “covenant” and “covenantal/federal theologies” provided central and influential conceptual frameworks and hermeneutical interpretaments for a multiplicity of theologies in a number of Christian traditions, but in particular so for theologians belonging to the broader Reformed Tradition.1 Interpreting Scriptures, organizing doctrines, instituting church orders, and governing local congregations, regional synods, and even national churches – all of this was deeply and inherently influenced by the biblical concept(s) of covenant(s) between God and God’s people. Concepts of federalism, based upon this theological framework, furthermore, proved to be of major importance not only for theology and church, but also for social practices and beliefs, for political philosophies and history in general. Covenantal ideas influenced institutions, states and communities from Europe to the United States, from South Africa to New Zealand, a process especially noticeable in North American history, but effective all over the world: Covenantal ideas significantly influenced civic and political life in early America. The political principles implemented in colonial America were elaborations of Puritan covenant theology that saw all society – including civic and political institutions – as a derivative of the ‘basic biblical covenant between God and his people’. […] Ultimately, covenantal ideals provided a model for community, religious or civil, wherein equal individuals come together and through a mutual and morally binding pact (witnessed by God) establish a new polity and governing institutions.2

Covenantal theology and theological federalism thus proved to be one of the major impulses and motors for the emergence of the modern political ideas of 1 2

See, for example, WITTE, Reformation, and HOFHEINZ, “Bund”, 11–14. NILES, “Covenant Theology”, 127.

662

Margit Ernst-Habib

federalism3 and even democracy in general.4 With this history in mind, one could even argue that there is no other theological idea with an equal or higher influence on political and social thoughts in modern times.5 Even our current understanding and models of democratic institutions and states depend to a great extent on patterns of covenantal or federal societies, influenced by covenant theologies, as H. Richard Niebuhr observed already in the 1950s, and without those covenantal ideals, “our democracy would be something quite different from what it is”.6 The concept of covenant, in theology as well as in political thought, does not, however, come without its problematic, or even dangerous side. Most easily this might be seen in the history of South Africa, where a particular understanding of covenant theology or rather a sort of “covenantal myth” supported not only the development of an “Afrikaner” identity as God’s elect people over against all so-called “non-Whites”, but also the development of the policy of “separateness” or apartheid. And even though, interestingly, the term “covenant” itself was not used as frequently and authoritatively as is sometimes thought,7 the covenantal myth of God’s elect people over and against the nonelect became a foundational concept and framework for theological, social, economic, and political exclusivism and dominance.8 Jewish Feminist theologian Judith Plaskow points to another form of exclusivism related to the theological and communal understanding of covenant. In her highly influential book Standing at Sinai again: Judaism from a Feminist perspective from 1991, she notes: When, for example, God enters into a covenant with Abraham and says to him, ‘This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised’ (Gen. 17:10), women can hear this only as establishing our marginality. Even if circumcision is not itself the covenant but only the sign of the covenant, what role can women have in the covenant community when the primary 3

See ELAZAR, Covenant, 45, who argues that the basis for modern political federalism has its basis in Protestant covenant theology, and that the modern theorists “borrowed it lock, stock, and barrel. […] Rather than draw upon Roman or medieval contractualism, these modern theorists and practitioners embraced the covenant idea and secularized it”. 4 See WALLACE, Federal Theology, 137, and MCCOY, Federalism, 17. 5 Cf. LINK, “Calvin”, 105. 6 NIEBUHR, “Covenant”, 135. 7 See, for example, DU TOIT, “No Chosen People”. 8 SMIT, “Covenant”, 266: “In fact, one could argue that covenant metaphors, covenant language and covenant ethics did not really play this role in Afrikaner Reformed thought and in apartheid-society. […] Fundamental ideas later used to undergird the apartheid myth were certainly covenantal: the awareness of being a chosen people; the sense of calling, mission, purpose or duty; the importance of identity, of remaining separate and pure; the promise of land; the association with the Old Testament people of God, and so forth. The expression ‘covenant’ was, however, seldom used within this religious, ideological, and political myth.”

Covenant as Convivence

663

symbol of the covenant pertains only to men? This important passage seems to presuppose a religious community composed of males only, an impression reinforced by other texts. The covenant at Sinai is spoken in male pronouns, for example, and its content assumes male hearers.9

And it is exactly this kind of potential exclusivism and dominance, obviously not only within the South African or Jewish context, that provides the starting point for all kinds of critiques of covenant theologies: does not the concept of God’s covenant with one distinct group of human beings (be it Christians, Jews (or Jewish men), Afrikaner, Reformed Christians, Baptist churches, US Americans, etc.) inevitably carry the germ of exclusion of and domination over all other groups in itself? Does not the correlative concept of election necessarily include a concept of damnation as well? Does not a covenantal understanding of God’s relationship with one religion (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) inescapably lead to the end of all true interfaith dialogue and commitment? Can and should Christian covenantal theology with its history of anti-Judaism, supersessionism, and replacement claims be redeemed at all? In other words: Can a contemporary covenantal theology escape the dangers of supporting and producing oppressive and discriminative attitudes and understandings such as anti-Judaism, racism, nationalism, but also imperialism, colonialism, and Eurocentrism in general? Are the theological terms and concepts of covenant and election, despite their biblical centrality, obsolete and neglected in much of modern Systematic theology for good reasons? Indeed, these criticisms prove to be valid and justified, and any contemporary theology is called to heed their warnings when engaging the concept of covenant for constructive theological discourses. Contemporary theologians do not encounter the biblical term covenant as a neutral, unambiguous concept, but as a concept that needs itself to be an object of a hermeneutic of suspicion, resisting the temptation to single out one biblical/theological narrative as exclusively and uncritically normative for all theological endeavors. The term covenant comes with a history of promises as well as challenges. Nevertheless, the doctrine of covenant, because of its central role in Scriptures, because of what it reveals to us about God and God’s relation to human beings and all of creation, and because it centers around grace and community, maintains to be a viable concept of great potential for contemporary Systematic theology. A carefully constructed and revised covenantal theology actually may help in dealing with a number of challenges Systematic theology is currently facing – even though covenantal theology (as all other forms of theology) will never lose its inherent dangers and ambiguities. With this ambiguity in mind, I will suggest six issues as impulses a reconstructed covenantal theology might provide for contemporary theological discourses: (1) The single covenant of grace in two forms; (2) covenant and creation; (3) 9

PLASKOW, Sinai, 82.

664

Margit Ernst-Habib

covenantal God and covenantal humanity; (4) mandatum and telos of the covenant; (5) covenantal ethics and acts of covenanting; and, finally, (6) Living Togetherness: covenant as convivence.

2. The Single Covenant of Grace in Two Forms10 In times of rampant and rising anti-Judaism in many countries all over the world, contemporary Systematic theology from a Christian perspective is called yet again to not only re-consider its own history of anti-Judaism or support thereof, but to develop a solid foundation for a theology that condemns violent attacks on Jewish people and synagogues and that confesses publicly and continuously, that God’s covenant with the Jewish people, with God’s own people is unbroken. In humbleness, Christian churches and theologians acknowledge that our faithful God has not forsaken God’s own people, and has not replaced it with the Christian Church, but rather has brought the church under the one ark of the one covenant of grace, as Karl Barth did not tire to emphasize.11 This kind of understanding of a single covenant, of the one covenant that does not have a plural, provides a starting point for contemporary theological discourse from a Christian perspective. With this understanding in mind, theologians and churches could never associate with any “Christians first!” claim of whatever provenience, but would have rather to acknowledge, that we are adopted latecomers, “fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of God’s household” [Eph. 2:19]. With Karl Barth, contemporary theology cannot speak of God’s faithfulness apart from God being ever faithful to God’s first love, the people of Israel. Omitting this particular history and presence of God’s covenant, as witnessed in both testaments, Christian theology fails to be Christian. For Christians, Jesus Christ is, as Barth argues, the ultimate subject and object of God’s covenant of grace with all of humanity,12 fulfillment of the one covenant of grace, which does exist in two 10

On this topic in general, see, for example, BUSCH, “Covenant”. So, for example, in BARTH, CD II/2, 204: “The bow of the covenant that arches over both”, Israel and the Church. Much has been written on the covenant of grace in Barth’s theology and Barth’s relation to and understanding of Israel; see, among others, BUSCH, “Bund”; LINDSAY, Barth; SONDEREGGER, Jesus Christ; MARQUARDT, Entdeckung, and KLAPPERT, Israel und die Kirche as well as “Öffnung”. 12 Cf. BARTH, CD II/2, 101–102: “In the beginning, before time and space as we know them, before creation, before there was any reality distinct from God which could be the object of the love of God or the setting for His acts of freedom, God anticipated and determined within Himself (in the power of His love and freedom, of His knowing and willing) that the goal and meaning of all His dealings with the as yet non-existent universe should be the fact that in His Son He would be gracious towards man, uniting Himself with him. In the beginning it was the choice of the Father Himself to establish this covenant with 11

Covenant as Convivence

665

forms: Israel and the Church, the Church remaining the younger and adopted sibling.13 What is elected in Jesus Christ (His ‘body’) is the community which has the twofold form of Israel and the Church. The glory of the election, the love of God to man as the basis of the election, the bow of the covenant that God in His love to man has from eternity purposed and established – all these are the same in the one case as in the other, for in both cases it is Jesus Christ who originally and properly is both Elector and Elected, and in both cases we find ourselves in His environment. Admittedly everything has a different form in the two cases. […] The ineffaceable differentiation of the two forms of the community has certainly to be noted. But it has also to be noted that thereby its indissoluble unity is also brought to light.14

Granted, Barth’s teaching has been criticized, and in parts justifiably so, for its exclusively Christological focus (and there is no space to take up this particular, library filling discussion here), but it nevertheless reminds us forcefully that the identity of the Church, that Christian identity is only to be understood and confessed and lived as joyful, grateful and humble witness to God’s covenantal faithfulness and God’s single covenant of grace. That Judaism and Jewish Theology will most likely interpret the story of God’s covenant in different, even contrary ways, is obvious, and remains a challenge for Christian theology. But this does not relieve Christian theology from understanding, interpreting and proclaiming God’s covenantal faithfulness in its twofold form,15 since “God’ self-commitment to the covenant is the cantus firmus of both the Old and the New Testament”.16

man by giving up His Son for him, that He Himself might become man in the fulfilment of His grace. In the beginning it was the choice of the Son to be obedient to grace, and therefore to offer up Himself and to become man in order that this covenant might be made a reality. In the beginning it was the resolve of the Holy Spirit that the unity of God, of Father and Son should not be disturbed or rent by this covenant with man, but that it should be made the more glorious, the deity of God, the divinity of His love and freedom, being confirmed and demonstrated by this offering of the Father and this self-offering of the Son. This choice was in the beginning. As the subject and object of this choice, Jesus Christ was at the beginning. He was not at the beginning of God, for God has indeed no beginning. But He was at the beginning of all things, at the beginning of God’s dealings with the reality which is distinct from Himself. Jesus Christ was the choice or election of God in respect of this reality. He was the election of God’s grace as directed towards man. He was the election of God’s covenant with man.” 13 Cf. BARTH, CD II/2, § 33 The Election of Jesus Christ and § 34 The Election of the Community. 14 BARTH, CD II/2, 199f. 15 For a contemporary interpretation from a Feminist perspective cf. PAUW, “Graced Infirmity”, 195–198. 16 VISCHER, “Berith”, 381.

666

Margit Ernst-Habib

Following Barth’s interpretation, the former Presbyterian Church in the US confessed in its Declaration of Faith (1976/77)17 this understanding of Church and Israel, of God’s faithfulness in terms of “the single story of those chosen to serve and proclaim the living God”, and their confession may serve as an insightful illustration of these dogmatic deliberations: (3) The Christian church arose within Israel. The followers of Jesus remained at first within the people of Israel. As persons from all nations joined them, they were separated from the Jewish community. Yet they continued to accept Israel’s story as their own and to consider themselves part of the people of God. We can never lay exclusive claim to being God’s people, as though we had replaced those to whom the covenant, the law, and the promises belong. We affirm that God has not rejected his people the Jews. The Lord does not take back his promises. We Christians have often rejected Jews throughout our history with shameful prejudice and cruelty. God calls us to dialogue and cooperation that do not ignore our real disagreements, yet proceed in mutual respect and love. We are bound together with them in the single story of those chosen to serve and proclaim the living God.

3. Not merely a Theatre: Covenant and Creation In times of a global ecological crisis, threatening the future of humankind and maybe of the whole planet, contemporary Systematic theology needs to reconsider the role and place of humankind within God’s creation. It has long been recognized, in Christian theology and beyond, how problematic, even outright dangerous Christian doctrines of creation with their anthropocentric worldview have proven to be; there is no need for repeating this discussion. In struggling to find viable models of doing theology in light of the ecological crisis we are facing, many theologians18 have turned once more to Karl Barth in search of impulses in this matter. And here again, the hermeneutical framework of covenantal theology proves to be promising. In an almost breathtaking move, Barth joins creation and covenant so closely to each other, 17

The declaration may be found online at https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/up loads/theologyandworship/pdfs/decoffaith.pdf (last accessed on 09/19/2022). 18 For example, GABRIEL, Creation; LANGDON, “Jesus Christ”; MOLTMANN, “Creation”.

Covenant as Convivence

667

that they become almost inseparable. In his famous chapter on “Creation and Covenant”19, Barth argues that “the meaning of creation is to make possible the history of God’s covenant with human beings which has its beginning, its centre and its culmination in Jesus Christ. The history of this covenant is as much the goal of creation as creation itself is the beginning of this history”.20 He then goes on to claim that “creation is the external basis [‘Grund’] of the covenant” and that “the covenant is the internal basis [‘Grund’] of creation”. In other words: creation is there because of the covenant of God with humanity, and without creation, there would be no covenantal life of God with humanity. Exploiting, violating, and endangering creation, then, is a direct attack on God’s covenantal faithfulness. Understanding God’s call in electing and covenanting the community of believers as a call to living faithfully as God’s covenantal partner, includes a different relation to all of creation as part of God’s covenant. In his Theology of Jewish-Christian Reality, Paul van Buren takes up and broadens this perspective of the covenant-creation relationship with respect to “Israel’s Testimony” under the heading “Creation as Covenant”, when he writes, Israel’s story of Creation is told from the perspective of Sinai. So it was in the Torah of Moses that Ezra brought to Jerusalem after the Return from the Exile and read to all the people. So it has been in the tradition of rabbinic interpretation for the continuing life of the Jewish people. The whole Creation story, from the first through the eleventh chapter of Genesis, is shaped by Israel’s primal and originating experience. Creation is therefore seen as being itself covenantal. The world, as Israel knows it, is not just there; it is there for God’s purpose. It is commanded. […] What God did at Sinai was not foreign to his ways with his creation, for as Israel tells its story, God’s mind was set on this covenant from the beginning. Already in God’s determination of himself and his creation, a covenant was implicit ‘in the beginning’. To covenant-shaped eyes, creation itself appears as a covenant.21

Contemporary covenantal theology from an ecological perspective would have to go beyond Barth and van Buren here at this point, though. With “covenantshaped eyes”, theologians would have to look at all of creation from a new perspective, and at the devastation modern times have wrought upon it. Theologians would have to self-critically asses the role, theological anthropocentrism has played in defending the exploitation of nature, and would have to return to the biblical understanding of shalom, which includes all aspects of creation. With this understanding in mind, the “covenant-shaped eyes” of contemporary theologians would see the non-human creation in a different light, leading to the recognition that

19

BARTH, CD III/1, § 41 Creation and Covenant. BARTH, CD III/1, 43. 21 VAN BUREN, Theology, 72.74 (emphases added). 20

668

Margit Ernst-Habib

creation is not merely the stage for the drama between God and humanity but that it is also an object of God’s election and thereby participates in reconciliation and redemption. […] In Jesus Christ, God elects the Christian community and individuals for salvation within the community of creation. […] Non-human creation has a place secured in the eternal will and purposes of God, and Jesus Christ is viewed as the creator and savior of humanity and nature. The natural world becomes an object of God’s electing will and not merely the place in which human election is received. By including nature in the doctrine of election, it receives a different ontological status than Barth’s instrumentalist view in which it is the ‘external basis’ or ‘theatre’ for the covenant. In other words, both humanity and nature are included in the covenant, for all things are hold together in Christ (Col 1:17).22

This perspective of including both humanity and nature in the covenant is sometimes even referred to as a universal, “ecological covenant”23, especially regarding God’s covenant with Noah [Gen. 8], which provides not only a “powerful biblical symbol for ecological responsibility”, but, indeed, introduces an “ecological covenant […], a symbol of the unbreakable bonds among all creatures and with their Creator”.24 The groaning of the whole creation and the promise of liberation from its bondage to decay [Rom. 8:22] reminds contemporary theology that all of creation does indeed participate in God’s acts of covenantal creation, redemption, and reconciliation. In contemporary Systematic discourses, we urgently need to find models to relate covenant to creation, claiming God’s saving acts of grace as a basis for relating theology and ecology, even to the extent that we might want to consider the hermeneutical model of what Willis Jenkins calls “covenant ecology”25. If creation and covenant are inherently connected, as Barth, van Buren, and other theologians suggest, then this has immediate consequences for our theology as well as ethics; a central challenge for contemporary Systematic theology to which we will return later.

22 LANGDON, “Jesus Christ”, 453, 455 (emphasis added). Adrian Langdon understands this revision of Barth as being faithful not only to Scripture, but also to Barth’s own theology: “To add to Barth, then, the summary of election should read: in Jesus Christ, God elects the Christian community and individuals for salvation within the community of creation. Not only would this be faithful to these New Testament passages, it would also be faithful to Barth’s suggestion that creation accompanies reconciliation and the lights of creation shine forth reflecting God’s glory, as explicated in CD IV/3” (468). 23 Cf. ANDERSON, “Biblical Theology”, 84. 24 HOYT, “Justice”, 173. 25 JENKINS, Ecologies, 163. Cf. also FRICK, “Covenantal Ecology”.

Covenant as Convivence

669

4. Covenantal The-anthropology: The Covenantal God and Covenantal Humanity At this point of our deliberation, we will have to take a closer look at what a covenantal understanding of the doctrine of God and the doctrine of human beings (as part of God’s creation) might look like. It is not only through the biblical concept of the covenantal God that we might learn about God’s intrinsically covenantal nature, even though God’s covenantal relationship with human beings is, indeed, “indisputably a primary emphasis throughout the Bible”.26 Contemporary Systematic theology, inspired by German theologian Jürgen Moltmann among others,27 brings to light the covenantal nature of the Triune God, understanding the trinity in itself as God in a relational and committed covenant. Daniel Migliore summarizes this “social” understanding of the covenantal, Trinitarian God in a helpful way: Trinitarian faith attests the ‘sociality’ of God. The God of the Bible establishes and maintains life in communion. God is no supreme monad existing in eternal solitude; God is the covenantal God. God’s will for life in relationship with and among creatures is an expression of God’s faithfulness to God’s own eternal life, which is essentially communal.28

God is no monolithic block, no absolute monarch, but a relational God of covenant in Godself and, at the same time, in a relational covenant with humanity and, as we have maintained above, indeed with all of creation.29 Human beings are thus relational beings, created for relationship with a relational God and with others30 – human beings are created for covenant, they are “covenantal beings by nature” as South African theologian Russell Botman reminded us.31 And even though the fact that there is no single Biblical 26 Cf. TRELSTAD, “Cross”, 108: “While all the diverse books of the Bible cannot be forced to adhere to a single pattern or theme, God’s covenant relationship with humanity is indisputably a primary emphasis throughout the Bible. God continuously offering God’s self in covenant relationships, promising to accompany humanity over and over again, best illustrates God’s unswerving steadfastness.” 27 See, for example, MOLTMANN, Trinity. 28 MIGLIORE, Faith, 79 (emphasis added). 29 Cf. BRUEGGEMANN, “Covenanting”, 117: “The God of the Old Testament and of the New Testament is disclosed as a God who wills covenant, makes covenant, and keeps covenant.” 30 Cf. KNIGHT, “Hope”, 209, who traces this covenantal nature of human beings back to God’s covenant with Israel: “Israel’s covenant is both for Israel’s own sake and for the sake of the world. Israel is in the world – of the gentiles – as the presence of God with man, as the witness of God to man and the embodiment of man’s proper recognition and worship of God. Since Israel is covenantal, humankind is covenantal. Each human is in relationship, fundamentally and immediately, with God and, through God, with every other human being.” 31 BOTMAN, “Covenantal Anthropology”.

670

Margit Ernst-Habib

perspective on anthropology is obvious, Walter Brueggemann maintains that “covenant is the dominant metaphor for biblical faith by which human personality can be understood”,32 thus placing the concept of covenant in the center of theological deliberations on human nature and life: “Covenant is the deep and pervasive affirmation that our lives in all aspects depend upon our relatedness to this other One who retains initiative in our lives (sovereignty) and who wills more good for us than we do for ourselves (graciousness; cf. Eph. 3:20).”33 This kind of understanding leads to a form of the-anthropology34 which cannot understand human beings without their fundamental and essential relation to God, but also to an understanding of human beings being in a fundamental and essential relation to one another. Botman states: Human beings are capable of entering into covenant with each other because they are covenantal beings by nature. Their dignity resides in the fact that God unilaterally accords to every human being the status of God’s own covenant partner in creation, defends that status in redemption, and works toward its comprehensive fulfillment in the future. Covenant is an anthropological reflection not only of what humans do but also of what humans are in light of God. As such, covenant provides a suitable metaphor for integrating the discourses and practices of equality (covenant and creation), reconciliation (covenant and re-creation), and oikos (covenant and fulness of life).35

It is immediately obvious that this three-dimensional anthropology on a Trinitarian basis, or rather: this three-dimensional the-anthropology, has direct implications not only for our understanding of human nature in itself, but for Christian life as covenantal life, of life in and of the covenant. Covenant, thus, is “not a metaphysical object granted by God to the community He chooses,”36 but a way of living the faith. With this Trinitarian perspective in mind, I would like to suggest expanding or deepening the theological framework of covenant – so far, covenantal 32 BRUEGGEMANN, “Covenanting”, 115. Walter Brueggemann goes on (116): “Human persons are grounded in Another who initiates personhood and who stays bound to persons in loyal ways for their well-being. This is, of course, a way of saying that human persons have to do fundamentally with God. Moreover, it is to claim that human persons have to do with a quite specific identifiable God whose name we have been told and in whose history we have been invited.” 33 BRUEGGEMANN, “Covenanting”, 116. 34 For an introduction into and discussion of Barth’s understanding of “theanthropology” see, for example, CONGDON, “Theology”. 35 BOTMAN, “Covenantal Anthropology”, 86 (emphasis added). 36 SOLOMON, “Judaism”, 222. Cf. ibid. Solomon’s astute observation on problems of any covenantal theology in general: “Covenant theology generates awkward problems of dialogue, since it posits a special relationship between God and a specific community. If you are content to regard ‘covenant’ simply as metaphor to express a community’s relationship with God, no contradiction is involved when two or more community’s claim a covenantal relationship; if, on the other hand, you think ‘covenant’ is a unique metaphysical object granted by God to the community He chooses, competition arises between rival claimants.”

Covenant as Convivence

671

theology has mostly been understood in relation with the first two persons of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit has virtually been absent from theological deliberations on the nature of covenant. What I would like to suggest here is that within a covenantal framework, the work of the Holy Spirit should be understood as the work of the covenantal Spirit, particularly in the work of the Spirit in binding us to Christ: “The Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually binds us to himself”, writes John Calvin.37 The German term of “Bund” for covenant does indeed suggest a binding together or being bound together. It is the Holy Spirit who brings us into the covenant and keeps us through sanctification in this covenant, empowering us for covenantal life. All covenantal Christian theology, therefore, needs to be pneumatically grounded and oriented theology, understanding the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the covenant, understanding all works of the Holy Spirit in creating, redeeming, and sanctifying as works of the covenant. This, again, has immediate consequences for our understanding of Christian life as covenantal life, of a life in and of the covenant, because it is by the reconciling and sanctifying grace of the covenantal Spirit that we aim to strive for, living out our covenantal calling. The Holy Spirit as the Spirit, the dynamis of Covenant reminds us that covenant is not a status or contract, not a static precondition of human life or metaphysical given, but indeed a dynamic way of living, empowered by the Holy Spirit. Being brought into the covenant is just the beginning of the covenantal journey with God, the covenantal pilgrimage of the people of God. To use the language of the Barmen Theological Declaration (1934): covenant and covenantal life are at the same time God’s gracious gift and assurance (Zuspruch) as well as God’s mighty claim (Anspruch) upon our whole life.38 We will continue this line of thought with deliberating the mandatum and telos of the covenant.

5. Mandatum and Telos of the Covenant Covenant understood in the way that I have tried to delineate so far, is, thus, not – as noted above – simply a status or a treaty. It is not just a legal declaration of who God is and who we are. It is not a gift from God to be received and stored away; nor is it a divine promise to be proud of which would separate us from the rest of humanity and creation. Following biblical understandings of covenantal life, it has to be emphasized that the covenant of God includes a 37

Inst. III.1.1. The Second Thesis of the Barmen Theological Declaration confesses: “As Jesus Christ is God’s assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so in the same way and with the same seriousness is he also God’s mighty claim upon our whole life.” For a discussion of the Second Thesis cf. ERNST-HABIB, “Conversation”, 77–78. 38

672

Margit Ernst-Habib

claim, a task, and a goal as well. The covenant is a gift of grace, but of the double grace, the duplex gratia, as Calvin was fond to call it:39 the grace that brings us into the covenant and the grace that sustains us in the covenant, or with traditional theological terms, the grace of justification and the grace of sanctification. And this covenant of double grace, this covenant of justification and sanctification, contains a mandatum, a mandate, and a telos, a goal. In other words: God instituted the covenant for a reason, the covenant is not an end in itself, but an instrument of God’s will for all of humanity and all of creation. Ultimately, the final goal of the covenant is the glory of God, the fulfillment of God’s will for all of creation, the realization and implementation of God’s reign of Grace, and it is this reign of Grace, beginning in Christ, his words as well as his deeds, that Christians are called to live out in their covenantal lives. Being God’s covenantal partners, then, means to understand and live out the claim, that being created for covenant, being redeemed for covenant and being sanctified for covenant includes the mandate to live according to the covenant for the sake of all of creation. Being God’s covenantal partner, called and sustained by the Spirit of the Covenant, is then, again, no basis for pride, exclusivism or dominance of any kind, but rather for being oriented towards the well-being and fulness of life for of all creation. Being God’s covenant partner in this sense does not lead to a spirit of segregation or oppression, but rather to a spirit of service; it results not in an attitude of superiority and dominance, but in an attitude of confident and hopeful humbleness, praying “Thy kingdom come” and applying all faculties to this end. In other words: God’s covenant with human beings is not an end in itself, but always oriented towards God’s will and plan for God’s creation; God’s covenant is a means to God’s end for the world God so loves. God’s covenant is a medium by which God brings God’s people and all of creation in the closest possible relation with Godself and keeps them there for the sake of all.40 God’s persisting and faithful covenant, despite everything, calls for human beings to keep covenant with one another with respect to all aspects of life;41 particularly so, as Liberation Theologies have reminded us, to keep covenant with those, who have been excluded, exploited and marginalized so far.42 Miroslav Volf puts this claim forcefully into the context of the Eucharist, when he writes:

39

Cf. CALVIN, Inst. 3.11.1: “Christ was given to us by God’s generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ’s blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ’s spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life” (emphasis added). 40 Cf. the convincing argument ZEINDLER proposes throughout his book Erwählung. 41 VOLF, Exclusion & Embrace, 156. 42 Cf. BAKER, Covenant, 310–313.

Covenant as Convivence

673

The Eucharist is the ritual time in which we celebrate [the] divine ‘making-space-for-us-and inviting-us-in’. By eating bread and drinking the wine, we remember the body broken ‘for us’ who were God’s enemies, and the blood spilled to establish a ‘new covenant’ with us who have broken the covenant […]. We would most profoundly misunderstand the Eucharist, however, if we thought of it only as a sacrament of God’s embrace, of which we are simple the fortunate beneficiaries. Inscribed on the very heart of God’s grace is the rule that we can be its recipients only if we do not resist being made into its agents; what happened to us must be done by us.43

If the Eucharist as “Bundesmahl”44 (covenant meal) symbolizes God’s covenant, then covenantal life is Eucharistic life only in the sense Volf has described here. Believers are not only embraced by God’s embrace, are not simply recipients of God’s grace, but are also made into agents – that is the inner logic of God’s covenant, instituted for the world God loves. Being reminded, thus, of the mandatum and telos of the covenant, we will have to spend some thoughts now on what Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggeman and others have called “covenantal obedience”,45 or covenantal ethics.

6. Covenantal Ethics and Acts of Covenanting46 As God’s covenantal partners, Christians are called to live a life of covenantal obedience, guided and sustained by the Spirit of the covenant. If we do agree that Christian teaching and Christian ethics are inherently related (without presenting interchangeable topics), covenantal theology naturally leads towards a covenantal understanding of ethics. Covenantal faith is to be lived out, confessed in words and deeds, in concrete acts of proclamation as well as service. In that sense, covenantal ethics from a Christian perspective mirror – despite all lasting and fundamental differences – a Jewish understanding of the meaning of covenant: In Jewish culture […] the covenant par excellence is the covenant at Sinai. The covenant at Sinai is first and foremost an exclusive covenant between God and the people of Israel. […] Over the generations, one of the best-known and most frequently quoted Midrashim is the one that recounts how God offered the Torah to every single nation, who refused to accept it; but when He offered it to Israel the answer was, ‘We will do and [then (sic)] we will hear’ (Exod. 24:87). Thus this is a covenant of doing, a covenant of commandments or precepts. The covenant is directly linked to the mission assigned to the people of Israel, who are the ‘community of those commanded’, and to every individual member thereof.47

43

VOLF, Exclusion & Embrace, 130. Cf. BARTH, Abendmahl. 45 Cf. BRUEGGEMANN, “Covenanted Self”, viii et passim. 46 Cf. STACKHOUSE, “Covenant”. 47 ROTHENBERG, Otherness, 83; cf. also KORN, “The People Israel”, 145: “God’s covenant with the Jewish people at Sinai would be meaningless without [the] historical 44

674

Margit Ernst-Habib

Keeping this interpretation in mind, it may not come as a surprise that the term covenantal ethics, actually, describes a specific research and teaching area within contemporary Systematic theology, both in Jewish48 and Christian theologies. The Society of Christian Ethics even has a particular “Covenantal Ethics Interest Group”, which in 1996 published a whole volume on Covenantal Ethics.49 The introduction to this volume is especially helpful in providing a starting point for covenantal ethics: The idea of covenant is prominent in both the bible and a number of classical theological traditions. It points to the deep interrelatedness of human life under God in a manner that emphasizes participation in social structures and the discernment of moral norms. It links reflections about faithfulness, human responsibility, and institutions from the family to professions and civil government. Moreover, covenantal language is more than merely traditional. It continues to function not only in the scholarly writings of many ethicists, but also in church statements about moral issues and in popular political rhetoric.50

Equally helpful is the warning of the editors, and it is a caveat that would have to be applied to all attempts at formulating covenantal theologies. The editors continue: “Nevertheless, there are also significant difficulties. One is a nagging unclarity. There is so little agreement about the meaning of covenant that one is tempted to conclude that there are almost as many different ideas of covenant as there are minds.”51 Each concept not only of covenantal ethics, but of covenantal theology in general would thus need a solid foundation in biblical scholarship, as well as in traditional and contemporary theology and philosophy, which, obviously, cannot sufficiently be done in a limited paper. Yet the warning of the editors serves indeed to remind us that “covenant”, as any theological concept or term, always remains an ambiguous term at best, a human invention which might be used and molded according to one’s own presuppositions and goals. The fact, that conservative theologians and churches as well as liberal and progressive ones both use the concept of covenantal ethics, points us the necessity of clearly defining and explaining the meaning of “covenant” – in itself it is a somewhat neutral term which could be filled and understood in a multiplicity of ways, even opposing ones. “Covenant” is not only a “complex symbol”, as Max Stackhouse in his deliberations on covenantal ethics puts it,52 it is also projection screen for all kinds of theological, ethical and ecclesial purposes and intentions. mandate. A divine covenant with individuals whose purpose is personal redemption is possible without a historical dimension, but the God of history’s covenant with an eternal people assumes purpose only if the covenantal people has an enduring mission over the sweep of time.” 48 See, for example, OCHS, “Covenantal Ethics”. 49 OTTATI/SCHUURMAN, “Covenantal Ethics”. 50 OTTATI/SCHUURMAN, “Covenantal Ethics”, 245–246. 51 Ibid. 52 STACKHOUSE, “Covenant”, 252.

Covenant as Convivence

675

Since as complex a subject as covenantal ethics cannot really be adequately described here, I would like to introduce just one brief thought which hopefully sheds some light on the promises and perils of covenantal ethics. As we have discussed before, God’s faithfulness and the faithful response of God’s covenant partners are at the heart of all covenantal theology, biblical as well as traditional and contemporary. It should not come as a surprise, then, that covenantal ethics often center around this term, most commonly with respect to sexuality and faithful relations. The German term “Bund der Ehe” or “Ehebund” (literally: covenant of marriage) still keeps this idea of a covenanted relationship, more so than the English equivalents of “bond of marriage” or “holy bond of matrimony”. But in times not only of a global ecological crisis, but of a global economic and social crisis that not only threatens the lives and well-being of millions of people, but actually is one of the leading causes for thousands of deaths each day, the context of covenantal faithfulness would have to be described differently. In this context, the concept of “faithfulness” with relation to economic and social crises gains new dimensions: What is the mandate for God’s covenant partners with respect to poverty, exploitation, economic and social oppression and exclusion worldwide? Keeping in mind that the Bible in both testaments is much more concerned with justice, just relationships and even mercy and generousness in social and economic encounters and systems than with specific sexual orientations and practices, it becomes obvious that human faithfulness as “keeping covenant with one another” does indeed demand a new interpretation and emphasis. In 2005, the former World Alliance of Reformed Churches issued a new confessional statement, “trying to be faithful to the covenant of God,”53 which aimed to formulate a faithful response to the global challenges and dangers of our times. The confession is an application of covenantal theology and ethics, and serves as powerful and impressive example of a global attempt to bind together biblical story, contemporary challenges and theological deliberation.54 Already in 1979, German Reformed scholar Hans-Joachim Kraus had claimed: “If God’s covenant means that man is claimed and sanctified for God, this has far-reaching implications of an ecclesiological and social ethical kind.”55 The World Alliance of Reformed Churches followed this lead, culminating in the so-called Accra Confession. The opening sentences of the Confession state that: “[The Accra confession] is based on the theological conviction that the economic and ecological injustices of today’s global economy require the Reformed family to respond as a matter of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” 53

Paragraph 15 of the Confession; the so-called Accra-Confession may be found at https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/hunger/pdf/accra-confession.pdf (last accessed on 09/19/2022). 54 For more background on the Accra Confession, see PILLAY, “The Accra Confession”. 55 KRAUS, “God’s Covenant”, 267.

676

Margit Ernst-Habib

A few quotes of this confession, which has been adopted by a number of churches particularly in the global South, may exemplify many of the deliberations we have looked at so far and provide an example of contemporary covenantal ethics. It is of importance to keep in mind that these confessional statements have been called for especially by churches of the majority world, who suffer from all kinds of injustices and who confess the covenant as a gift of grace over against all that threatens human and creational life in fulness: 19. Therefore, we reject the current world economic order imposed by global neoliberal capitalism and any other economic system, including absolute planned economies, which defy God’s covenant by excluding the poor, the vulnerable and the whole of creation from the fullness of life. We reject any claim of economic, political and military empire that subverts God’s sovereignty over life and acts contrary to God’s just rule. 20. We believe that God has made a covenant with all of creation (Gen 9.8–12). God has brought into being an earth community based on the vision of justice and peace. The covenant is a gift of grace that is not for sale in the market place (Is 55.1). It is an economy of grace for the household of all of creation. Jesus shows that this is an inclusive covenant in which the poor and marginalized are preferential partners and calls us to put justice for the ‘least of these’ (Mt 25.40) at the centre of the community of life. All creation is blessed and included in this covenant (Hos 2.18ff). 21. Therefore we reject the culture of rampant consumerism and the competitive greed and selfishness of the neoliberal global market system or any other system which claims there is no alternative. 22. We believe that any economy of the household of life given to us by God’s covenant to sustain life is accountable to God. We believe the economy exists to serve the dignity and wellbeing of people in community, within the bounds of the sustainability of creation. We believe that human beings are called to choose God over Mammon and that confessing our faith is an act of obedience. 23. Therefore we reject the unregulated accumulation of wealth and limitless growth that has already cost the lives of millions and destroyed much of God’s creation. […] 33. We commit ourselves to seek a global covenant for justice in the economy and the earth in the household of God. […] Covenanting for Justice 37. By confessing our faith together, we covenant in obedience to God’s will as an act of faithfulness in mutual solidarity and in accountable relationships. This binds us together to work for justice in the economy and the earth both in our common global context as well as our various regional and local settings. […] 39. The General Council calls upon member churches, on the basis of this covenanting relationship, to undertake the difficult and prophetic task of interpreting this confession to their local congregations.

It is interesting to note here how the Accra Confession moves from describing God’s covenant to the global covenant for justice Reformed churches are seeking, and then moves on to emphasizing covenant as a verb and an activity: in the face of the signs of times, the churches call for covenanting activities and covenanting relationships, all as an expression of covenantal obedience to God. In doing so, the Confession interprets and describes God’s covenant as a “covenant of resistance and hope.” In using “covenant” as a verb and activity,

Covenant as Convivence

677

though, careful consideration has to be placed on the difference of God as the initiator and sustainer of covenant and covenantal life, and the human answer in the act of covenanting in order not to confuse the two, as Lukas Vischer maintains: “The discourse of covenanting has the merit of giving expression and shape to God’s covenant. The biblical discourse on God’s covenant points to the firm basis on which all true witness must be built.”56 The Accra Confession, as contextually influenced as it is, orients theological thoughts towards the general question of what our life according to God’s will should (and could?) look like, and with this thought we turn to the last impulse, which tries to point into the direction of what a theology and ethic of covenant could look like today.

7. Living Togetherness: Covenant as Convivence Most readers of this volume will be well aware of the semantic roots of the English term “covenant”, going back through the French “covenant” to the Latin “con-venire” – coming together. With this last impulse for contemporary Systematic theology, I dare to leave the ground of biblical or historical interpretations of the term covenant by bringing it together with another theological term from a quite different context. My guiding question for this last impulse is the question of what a contemporary version of covenantal theology facing today’s challenges and crises could actually look like. Throughout my deliberations, I already indicated where I discern promising as well difficult features of a contemporized covenantal theology, and these accents will provide the background for my concluding remarks. The term covenant, understood as the coming together for the sake of a treaty or contract, does not quite capture the depth of divine and human faithfulness, of the dynamic call and life of God’s people sustained by God’s Spirit, of God’s love for God’s own people and their adopted younger siblings within the community of creation. It does not capture the biblical depth of what covenant in its different contexts and meanings conveys. Covenant is not merely a legal relationship, but a living reality flowing from the work and promise of the living God. As God brings and keeps us in this living reality, the people of the living God are called to align themselves, their mindset, and their lifestyle to this living reality. For this deliberate and purposeful alignment, I would like to introduce the term convivence, using it in a slightly modified way, because it adds a deeper layer to our theological endeavor from which a revision of covenantal theology may profit. Convivence, from the Spanish “convivencia” and the Portuguese “convivência”, could be translated as living togetherness and was first used in 56

VISCHER, “Berith”, 383.

678

Margit Ernst-Habib

medieval Spain in order to describe the peaceful coexistence of Jews, Christians, and Muslims.57 As Christoffer Grundmann notes: “Convivencia does not just describe a situation; rather, it is seen as the outcome of a conscious effort toward successful management of living togetherness in a culturally diverse environment, because Convivencia is the ‘accion de convivir’.”58 Introduced into liberation theology and pedagogy through the Brazilian educator and theorist Paulo Freire, the term has become an accepted neologism even beyond theological discourses. The term has been re-introduced into theological discussion by German ecumenist and theologian Theo Sundermeier, describing a solidarity community of (religious, cultural, ethnical) strangers, which does not simply live together, but is constituted by conscious efforts of helping and learning from each other, as well as feasting together.59 It is important to note that within this concept, “the tension between convivence and difference is not neglected but accepted in mutual respect.”60 Covenant understood within the context of convivence, then, is – as noted above – no end in itself, is not a mere contract or declaration or treaty, but a communal space of grace, in which the covenant reveals not only the true identity of God, but also of human beings as God’s covenantal partners in a covenantal community.61 In both testaments, God is characterized as the one who – as creator, as source of all life – wants to be with human beings, even to the extent that “the word became flesh and dwelt among us” [Joh. 1:14]. “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God”. [Rev. 21:3]62 It is Jesus Christ, the fulfilment of the one covenant of grace, who performed and realized in his deeds as well as with his message God’s ultimate will to convivence; it is Jesus Christ, who brought the younger siblings into the covenant, who sends his Spirit to transform and sustain his followers in their covenantal life of convivence. Following the six impulses covenantal theology might provide for contemporary Systematic theology as outlined above, we will try to apply the concept of “covenant as convivence” to each of these topics, opening a space for imaginative re-consideration and re-construction.

57

Cf. GRUNDMANN, Beyond “Holy Wars”,71. Ibid. 59 Cf. SUNDERMEIER, Konvivenz; and SUNDERMEIER, “Convivence”. See also WROGEMANN, Theologies of Mission, 336f. 60 KÜSTER, “Intercultural Theology”, 175. 61 Cf. MÉNDEZ-MONTOYA, Theology of Food, 160, who brings the term “convivium”/ ”convivir” into relationship with the Eucharist in order to explore it from a sacramental perspective. 62 Cf. SUNDERMEIER, Konvivenz, 55–60. 58

Covenant as Convivence

679

The Single Covenant of Grace in Two Forms As noted above, the term convivencia actually originated in a multi-religious context, and this fact may help us understanding the concrete potential for the actualization of this theological term. If we understand the covenant as a communal space of grace, as the basis and movens for our desire and call to pursue a living togetherness without neglecting differences, then JewishChristian relationships may prove to be the primary locus where this understanding could (or even should) come to fruition. The Single Covenant of Grace in Two Forms, then, is not simply a theological statement, but has to be lived out in the spirit of living togetherness – a call to active convivencia, which includes humbleness, metanoia and admission of guilt, as the younger siblings with our history of exclusion, dominance, and even persecution, but also solidarity, feasting together and mutual learning, in mutual respect and love, as the Declaration of Faith quoted above63 confesses. Not merely a Theatre: Covenant and Creation If creation is more than a theatre and background for God’s story with humankind, but instead the object of God’s election, reconciliation and redemption, then our covenant-shaped eyes will perceive creation in a new light. Living togetherness will then also describe our attitude towards creation with the understanding that all of creation shares a space of grace, is bound together with God, the Creator, Redeemer and Reconciler, in God’s everlasting covenant. Living faithfully, giving God all glory does not include an indifferent stance over against creation, but rather embraces non-human creation as a creation-sibling, which we are called to take good care of. Seeing creation with covenant-shaped eyes offers more than the correction of wrongdoing, as Trelstad notes: Covenant […] describes the fundamental promise and reality of relationship God offers to creation. It does not argue a supersessionist or exclusionary notion of election and covenant since it assumes, ultimately, that covenantal love is essential to God’s nature and thus this relationship is extended to all creation. This atoning relationship does more than correct wrongdoing. It offers a wider vision of salvation as wholeness and beauty; it provides creative possibilities for new forms of becoming. Grace and truth meet together in God’s continual offer to love to the earth and God’s enfolding of creation back into God’s self.64

Covenantal relationship is more than a metaphysical declaration of God’s relationship with creation, it is ever being actualized and realized in salvific

63 64

See footnote 17. TRELSTAD, “Cross”, 109.

680

Margit Ernst-Habib

and creative ways of all of creation becoming what it is and what it is called to be.65 Covenantal The-anthropology: The Covenantal God and Covenantal Humanity The covenantal God is living togetherness, in Godself and in relation with all of creation. The covenantal God cannot be understood in terms of metaphysical philosophy only or primarily, but in terms of God’s ongoing love-story with humankind. Human beings, created in the image of God, reflect this character of living togetherness: being created as humans, we are created for being together with God and with one another. Living togetherness, convivencia, is marked, as we have noted above, by mutual respect, but also and even more so, by love: “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind’. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” [Mt. 22:36–40] This is who we are called to be: God, neighbor and self-loving human beings, living the covenant in togetherness. Covenant as convivence as a realization of love, then, describes the nature and call of humanity in all of its aspects. Mandatum and Telos of the Covenant Convivence, covenantal living-togetherness is marked, furthermore, not only by “good will and intention”, but by the pattern of life of the berit, which is governed by peace (shalom), justice (sedaka) and right (mispat), as HansJoachim Kraus observes: “In its widest sense, shalom is the unbroken good condition of all relationships, sedaka faithful behavior in accordance with fellowship, and mispat the basis of law established by the apodictic and casuistic commands of God.”66 Covenantal living-togetherness is an ordered way of living, grounded by God’s live-giving and live-protecting laws, in order to protect the weak and to liberate the enslaved; God introduces Godself as the liberating and covenanting God before God gives the gift of the decalogue to God’s people: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” [Ex. 20:2]. Covenantal living-together is as 65

Cf. CLIFFORD, “Feminist Perspectives”, 351: “To truly be a covenant partner with nonhuman nature rules out a stance of domination. In an age of ecological crisis, I believe that creation theology can be transformed by bringing mutual covenant partnership into dialogue with the understanding of nature operative in some scientific work. […] The organic model of science offers a corrective to human imperialism over nonhuman nature and provides rich prospects for theological understanding of the human as a covenant partner with the rest of creation.” 66 KRAUS, “God’s Covenant”, 258.

Covenant as Convivence

681

biased as is this God who brought God’s people out of slavery and not a contractual understanding of neutral and actually loveless living next to each other. Covenantal Ethics and Acts of Covenanting Bringing all of the above said together, it seems obvious that covenantal livingtogetherness relates to all of Christian life and faith, individually and communally, and includes a conscious effort to embody and actualize covenantal ethics. Humanity, as part of creation, is created and re-created to live together coram Deo. The work of the Holy Spirit is grounded in the dynamis of life and life-giving, not only to human beings by themselves, individually and privately, but communally as well as the One Body of Christ. All ethics, then, would have to be directed towards this aim: how to best enable and encourage the Christian life as a life of living-togetherness in all forms and aspects? How do covenantal ethics help to envision the covenant as a space of grace, in which believers as the justified and sanctified community come together for acts of covenanting? In other words, how do churches strive to follow the commandment of loving God, neighbor and self in their preaching and teaching, as well as in concrete acts? How do humans become who they already are? Covenant as a Subversive Paradigm for Convivence Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann takes this interpretation of the covenant even further, when he calls for drastically new affirmations over against all (Western) Christian presuppositions, and directs the focus on covenant as a subversive paradigm. As a form of conclusion to our deliberations on “covenant as convivence” delineated above, Brueggemann’s narrative of this subversive paradigm will be suggested as a stimulating and inspiring interpretation for understanding the relevance of covenantal theologies for contemporary theological discourses. Why and how does the covenant in Brueggemann’s reading of the Hebrew Bible become a subversive paradigm? Brueggemann explains: The central affirmations of covenant stand against and subvert the dominant forms, patterns and presuppositions of our culture and cultural Christianity. The subversion (which means undermining and exposure to dismantling) is directed against a theology that knows too much, a God who is too strong, a church that is too allied with triumphalist culture, and a ministry that moves too much from strength. Against all of these, the covenant offers an alternative perception of how things are in heaven and how they could be on earth. Covenant as a recharacterization of God, church and world is not simply a restatement of conventional Western assumptions; it requires drastically new affirmations.67

67

BRUEGGEMANN, “Covenant”, 1094.

682

Margit Ernst-Habib

Recharacterizing God, church and world with and through the covenant is first and foremost, according to Brueggemann, based on God’s irreversible move “toward earth to identify a faithful covenant partner, responding to the groans of oppressed people (Exod. 2:12–25).”68 This covenantal God moving toward earth in solidarity with it leads to a new ecclesiology, subverts common notions of the church, and proclaims the possibility of a church as “the community attentive to the dangers and possibilities of solidarity in a culture which thrives on and celebrates our divisions and isolations.”69 God’s bringing us into covenant with Godself, moving towards us and drawing us towards God, is – according to Brueggemann – the decisive and subversive move of God “which makes all things new on earth – even human covenanting.”70 The aim of this human covenanting could be understood according to what I have described above as convivence, living togetherness – rearticulating the covenantal hope for the world beyond the believing community.71 What relevance, then, does a covenantal theology might possess for contemporary theological discourses? Brueggemann’s exhortation is unambiguous in this context, and may serve as a stimulus for all reimaginations and reconstructions of covenantal theologies in today’s world: “The covenantal paradigm affirms the world which we serve, and for which we care, is a world yet to be liberated. A theology of covenanting is not worth the effort unless it leads to energy and courage for mission. […] The mission of the believing community is to articulate, anticipate and practice the transformation which is sure to come.”72 Covenant as a subversive paradigm for God, church and world; covenantal theology aimed at subversive and hopeful convivence – not only a theological concept, but ecclesiological reality around the Lord’s Table, where “we eat and drink in covenant”73, where we are nourished for the way, where we celebrate and rejoice together, where we give thanks for the God of Grace, who chose to be our covenantal God.

Bibliography ANDERSON, BERNHARD W., Biblical Theology – Old Testament, in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M. Metzger / Michael David Coogan, Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press 1993, 82–87. ANDREWS, DALE P., Practical Theology for Black Churches: Bridging Black Theology and African American Folk Religion, Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 2002. 68

BRUEGGEMANN, “Covenant”, 1094. BRUEGGEMANN, “Covenant”, 1096. 70 BRUEGGEMANN, “Covenant”, 1096. 71 Cf. BRUEGGEMANN, “Covenant”, 1097. 72 BRUEGGEMANN, “Covenant”, 1099. 73 BRUEGGEMANN, “Covenant”, 1099. 69

Covenant as Convivence

683

BAKER, CHRISTOPHER J., Covenant and Liberation: Giving New Heart to God’s Endangered Family (EHS XXIII/411), Frankfurt a.M.: P. Lang, 1991. BAKER, J. WAYNE, “Faces of Federalism: From Bullinger to Jefferson”, Publius 4 (2000): 25–41. BARTH, KARL, Church Dogmatics II/2, The Doctrine of God: The election of God Volume 2, transl. by G.W. Bromiley / Th.F. Torrance, London: T&T Clark, 2009. –, Church Dogmatics III/1, The Doctrine of Creation Volume 1, transl. by G. W. Bromiley / Th.F. Torrance, London: T&T Clark, 2009. BARTH, MARKUS, Das Abendmahl: Passamahl, Bundesmahl und Messiasmahl, Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1945. BOTMAN, H. RUSSEL, “Covenantal Anthropology: Integrating Three Contemporary Discourses of Human Dignity”, in God and Human Dignity, edited by R. Kendall Soulen / Linda Woodhead, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006, 72–86. BRUEGGEMANN, WALTER, “Covenanting as Human Vocation: A Discussion of the Relation of Bible and Pastoral Care”, Interpr 2 (1979): 115–129. –, “Covenant as a Subversive Paradigm”, ChrCent (November 12, 1990): 1094–1099. –, The Covenanted Self: Explorations in Law and Covenant, edited by Patrick D. Miller, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. BUSCH, EBERHARD, “Calvins Lehre vom Bund und die Föderaltheologie”, in Calvins Erbe: Beiträge zur Wirkungsgeschichte Johannes Calvins, edited by Marco Hofheinz; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, 169–181. –, “The Covenant of Grace Fulfilled in Christ as the Foundation of the Indissoluble Solidarity of the Church with Israel: Barth’s Position on the Jews During the Hitler Era”; Scottish Journal of Theology 4 (1999): 476–503. –, Unter dem Bogen des einen Bundes: Karl Barth und die Juden 1933–1945, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1996. CLIFFORD, ANNE M., “Feminist Perspectives on Science: Implications for an Ecological Theology of Creation”, in Readings in Ecology and Feminist Theology, edited by Mary Heather McKinnon / Moni McIntyre, Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1995, 334–360. CONGDON, DAVID W., “Theology as Theanthropology: Barth’s Theology of Existence in Its Existentialist Context”, in Karl Barth and the Making of Evangelical Theology: A FiftyYear Perspective, edited by Clifford B. Anderson / Bruce McCormack, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2015, 30–66. DU TOIT, ANDRÉ, “No Chosen People: The Myth of the Calvinist Origins of Afrikaner Nationalism and Racial Ideology”, AHR 4 (1983): 920–952. ELAZAR, DANIEL J., Covenant and Commonwealth: From Christian Separation through the Protestant Reformation (The Covenant Tradition in Politics 2), New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1996. ERNST-HABIB, MARGIT, “A Conversation with Twentieth-Century Confessions”, in Conversations with the Confessions: Dialogue in the Reformed Tradition, edited by Joseph D. Small, Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 2005, 69–92. FRICK, BRANDON, “Covenantal Ecology: The Inseparability of Creation and Covenant in Genesis”, in Genesis and Christian Theology, edited by Nathan MacDonald et al., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012, 204–215. GABRIEL, ANDREW K., Barth’s Doctrine of Creation: Creation, Nature, Jesus, and the Trinity, Eugene: Cascade Books, 2014. GRUNDMANN, CHRISTOFFER H., Beyond “Holy Wars”: Forging Sustainable Peace through Interreligious Dialogue – A Christian Perspective, Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2014.

684

Margit Ernst-Habib

HOFHEINZ, MARCO, “‘… der Bund und Treue hält ewiglich”. Der Bund als Grundmetapher einer theologischen Ethik”, in ZThK 117 (2020): 164–195. HOYT, THOMAS L. JR., “Environmental Justice and Black Theology of Liberating Community”, in Theology for Earth Community: A Field Guide, edited by. Dieter T. Hessel, Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers 2003, 165–175. JENKINS, WILLIS, Ecologies of Grace: Environmental Ethics and Christian Theology, Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2008. KLAPPERT, BERTOLD, Israel und die Kirche: Erwägungen zur Israellehre Karl Barths (Theologische Existenz Heute 207), München: Chr. Kaiser, 1980. –, “Die Öffnung des Israelbundes für die Völker: Karl Barths Israeltheologie und die Bundestheologie der reformierten Reformation”, Vortrag vor der EKD-Kommission “Kirche und Judentum” am 2, März 1995 in Fulda, in IDEM, Miterben der Verheißung: Beiträge zum jüdisch-christlichen Dialog (Neukirchener Beiträge zur Systematischen Theologie vol. 25), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000, 390–406. KNIGHT, DOUGLAS, “Hope and Responsibility: The Assembly with the Promise of God”, in Covenant and Hope: Christian and Jewish Reflections: Essays in Constructive Theology from the Institute for Theological Inquiry, edited by Robert W. Jenson / Eugene B. Korn, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2012, 209–221. KORN, EUGEN B., “The People Israel, Christianity, and the Covenantal Responsibility to History”, in Covenant and Hope: Christian and Jewish Reflections: Essays in Constructive Theology from the Institute for Theological Inquiry, edited by Robert W. Jenson / Eugene B. Korn, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2012, 145–172. KRAUS, HANS-JOACHIM, “God’s Covenant”, Reformed World 6 (1979): 258–268. KÜSTER, VOLKER, “Toward an Intercultural Theology: Paradigm Shifts in Missiology, Ecumenics, and Comparative Theology”, in Theology and the Religions: A Dialogue, edited by Viggo Mortensen, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003, 171–184. LANGDON, ADRIAN, “Jesus Christ, election and nature: Revising Barth during the ecological crisis”, SJT 4 (2015): 453–470. LINDSAY, MARK R., Barth, Israel, and Jesus: Karl Barth’s Theology of Israel, London: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2007. LINK, CHRISTIAN, “Calvin und Calvinismus: Eine Skizze”, in Hilfreiches Erbe: Zur Relevanz reformatorischer Theologie: Festschrift für Hans Scholl, edited by Martin Heimbucher / Joachim Lenz, Bovenden: foedus, 1995, 97–119. MARQUARDT, FRIEDRICH-WILHELM, Die Entdeckung des Judentums für die christliche Theologie: Israel im Denken Karl Barths (ACJD 1), München: Chr. Kaiser, 1967. MCCOY, CHARLES S. and BAKER, J. WAYNE, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition, Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 1991. MÉNDEZ-MONTOYA, ANGEL F., The Theology of Food: Eating and the Eucharist, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. MIGLIORE, DANIEL L., Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 22008. MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN, The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. –, “Creation, Covenant and Glory: A Conversation on Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Creation”, in IDEM, History and the Triune God: Contributions of Trinitarian Theology (transl. by John Bowden), New York: Crossroad, 1992, 125–142. NIEBUHR, RICHARD, “The Idea of Covenant and American Democracy”, Church History 2 (1954): 126–135.

Covenant as Convivence

685

NILES, FRANKLYN C., “Covenantal Theology”, in Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics, edited by Paul A. Djupe / Laura R. Olson, New York: Checkmark Books, 2003, 127. OCHS, PETER, “Covenantal Ethics: Eugene Borowitz’s Practice and Theory of Virtue”, Journal of Jewish Ethics 1 (2015): 39–58. OTTATI, DOUGLAS F. / DOUGLAS J. SCHUURMAN, “Covenantal Ethics: Introduction”, Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics (1996): 245–247. PAUW, AMY PLATINGA, “The Graced Infirmity of the Church”, in Feminist and Womanist Essays in Reformed Dogmatics, edited by Amy Platinga Pauw / Serene Jones, Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 22011, 189–203. PILLAY, JERRY, “The Accra Confession as a response to empire”, HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies [Online], 74.4 (2018), 6 pages [https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v74i4. 5284, Last accessed on 09/19/2022]. PLASKOW, JUDITH, Standing Again at Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990. RADFORD RUETHER, ROSEMARY, “The Biblical Vision of the Ecological Crisis”, in Readings in Ecology and Feminist Theology, edited by Mary Heather McKinnon / Moni McIntyre, Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1995, 75–81. ROTHENBERG, NAFTALI, “Three Forms of Otherness: Covenant, Mission, and Relation to the Other in Rabbinic Perspective”, in Covenant and Hope: Christian and Jewish Reflections: Essays in Constructive Theology from the Institute for Theological Inquiry, edited by Robert W. Jenson / Eugene B. Korn, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012, 80–98. SMIT, DIRK J., “Covenant and Ethics? Comments from a South African Perspective”, Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics (1996): 265–282. SOLOMON, NORMAN, “Judaism and Inter-Faith Relations Since World War II”, in Judaism III: Culture and Modernity (Die Religionen der Menschheit 27), edited by Michael Tilly / Burton L. Visotzky, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2020, 198–230. SONDEREGGER, KATHERINE, That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew: Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Israel, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. STACKHOUSE, MAX, “The Moral Meanings of Covenant”, The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics (1996): 249–264. SUNDERMEIER, THEO, Konvivenz und Differenz: Studien zu einer verstehenden Missionswissenschaft: Anlässlich seines 60. Geburtstages, edited by Volker Küster, Erlangen: Verlag der Ev.-Luth. Mission, 1995. –, “Convivence – The Concept and Origin”, Scriptura: Journal of Bible and Theology in Southern Africa, Special Issue (1992): 68–80. TRELSTAD, MARIT, “Putting the Cross in Context: Atonement through Covenant”, in Transformative Lutheran Theologies: Feminist, Womanist, and Mujerista Perspectives, edited by Mary J. Streufert, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010, 107–122. VAN BUREN, PAUL MATTHEWS, A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality, Part 2: A Christian Theology of the People of Israel, Lanham: University Press of America, 1995. VISCHER, LUKAS, “Berith, covenant and covenanting”, Reformed World 55/4 (2005): 380– 383. VOLF, MIROSLAV, Exclusion & Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, Nashville: Abingdon, 1997. WALLACE, DEWEY D. JR., “Federal Theology”, in Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, edited by Donald McKim, Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 1992, 136–137.

686

Margit Ernst-Habib

WITTE, JOHN JR., The Reformation of Rights: Law, Religion and Human Rights in Early Modern Calvinism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. WROGEMANN, HENNING, Theologies of Mission (Intercultural Theology 2), Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2018. ZEINDLER, MATTHIAS, Erwählung: Gottes Weg in der Welt, Zürich: TVZ, 2009.

List of Contributors List of Contributors List of Contributors

Bautch, Richard Ph.D. 2001 The University of Notre Dame, Professor of Humanities, St. Edward’s University, Austin, TX, USA. Bons, Eberhard Dr. phil. 1988 University of Mainz, Dr. theol. 1993 Philosophisch-theologische Hochschule Sankt Georgen, Frankfurt, 2000 Habilitation University of Strasbourg, since 2004 professor of biblical studies (Old Testament), University of Strasbourg, France. Eberhart, Christian A. Dr. theol. 2002 Universität Heidelberg, Dr. theol. habil. 2011 Universität Mainz, Professor of Religious Studies and Director, Religious Studies Program, University of Houston, TX, USA. Ernst-Habib, Margit Dr. phil. 2015 University of Siegen, Dr. theol. habil. 2021 University of Hanover, lecturer and research assistant, University of the Saarland, Saarbrücken, Germany. Fabry, Heinz-Josef Dr. theol. 1975 Bonn, habil. 1979 Bonn, 1982 Professor für Einleitung in das Alte Testament und Geschichte Israels, Universität Bonn, Germany, 2011 Emeritus. Finsterbusch, Karin Dr. theol. 1994 Heidelberg, Dr. theol. habil. 2004 Tübingen, Professor of Old Testament, Institut für Evangelische Theologie Landau, Rheinland-Pfälzische Technische Universität Kaiserslautern-Landau (RPTU). Gesche, Bonifatia OSB Dr. phil. 1998 Assyriology Heidelberg, until 2022 research assistant of New Testament Studies, University of the Saarland, Saarbrücken, Germany, since 2023 at the Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal, affiliated to the Vetus Latina Institute Beuron, Germany.

688

List of Contributors

Henze, Matthias PhD 1997 Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, Isla Carroll and Percy E. Turner Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA. Herzer, Jens Dr. theol. 1993 Berlin, Dr. theol. habil. 1997 Berlin, Professor of New Testament Studies, University of Leipzig, Germany. Hieke, Thomas Dr. theol. 1996 Bamberg, Dr. theol. habil. 2003 Regensburg, Professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany. Karrer, Martin Dr. theol. 1983 Erlangen, Dr. theol. habil. 1988 Erlangen, Professor for New Testament and its Environment, Kirchliche Hochschule/Protestant University Wuppertal, Germany, Research Associate Dept. of New Testament, University of Pretoria, South Africa, 2020 Emeritus. Kraus, Wolfgang Dr. theol. 1990 Erlangen, Dr. theol. habil. 1994 Erlangen, Professor of New Testament Studies, University of the Saarland, Saarbrücken, Germany, Research Associate Dept. of New Testament, University of Pretoria, South Africa, 2021 Emeritus. Kreuzer, Siegfried Dr. theol. 1981 Wien, Dr. theol. habil. 1987 Wien, Professor of Old Testament Studies, Kirchliche Hochschule/Protestant University Wuppertal, Germany, 2015 Emeritus. Macatangay, Francis S.Th.D. 2010 Pontifical Gregorian University Rome, Adjunct Professor of Sacred Scripture, University of St. Thomas, Houston, TX, USA. Meiser, Martin Dr. theol. 1992 Erlangen, Dr. theol. habil. 1996 Erlangen, extraordinary Professor of New Testament Studies, University of the Saarland, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2023 Emeritus. Nicklas, Tobias Dr. theol. 2000 Regensburg, Habilitation 2004 Regensburg, Professor of New Testament Studies and Director of the Centre for Advanced Studies “Beyond

List of Contributors

689

Canon,” University of Regensburg, Germany; Research Associate University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Oeming, Manfred Dr. theol. 1984 Bonn, Dr. theol. habil. 1989, Bonn, Professor für Altes Testament, Universität Heidelberg, Germany. Ronis, Sara Ph.D. 2015 in Judaism in Late Antiquity in the Program in Judaic Studies and the Department of Religious Studies, Yale University, 2020 associate professor of Theology, St. Mary’s University, San Antonio, TX, USA. Rösel, Martin Dr. theol. 1994 Hamburg, Habilitation 1999 Hamburg, Lecturer in Hebrew and Old Testament, University of Rostock, Germany; Professor extraordinary, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. Schlange-Schöningen, Heinrich Dr. phil. 1993 FU Berlin, Habilitation 2003 FU Berlin, Professor of Ancient History, University of the Saarland, Saarbrücken, Germany. Steyn, Gert J. Dr. Div. 1994 Pretoria, Dr. Litt. Stellenbosch 2008, Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Theology, Ewersbach Theological University (Theologische Hochschule Ewersbach), Germany. Strawn, Brent A. Ph.D. 2001 Princeton Theological Seminary, D. Moody Smith Distinguished Professor of Old Testament and Professor of Law, Duke University, North Carolina, USA. Tushingham, Poppy MA, researcher at the CRC “Cultures of Vigilance. Transformations – Spaces – Practices,” LMU Munich, Germany. Ulrich, Jörg Dr. theol. 1993 Erlangen, Dr. theol. habil. 1997 Erlangen, Professor für Ältere Kirchengeschichte, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. Wilk, Florian Dr. theol. 1996 Universität Jena, Dr. theol. habil. 2001 Universität Jena, Professor of New Testament, University of Göttingen, Germany.

Index of Ancient Sources Index of Ancient Sources Index of Ancient Sources

1. Hebrew Bible / Septuagint / New Testament Genesis 1 1:27 1:28 2:24LXX 3 3:9 4 6:18 9 9:7 9:8–17 9:9 9:9–17 9:11LXX 9:12–13 9:13 9:15 9:15–16 9:15–17 9:16 12:3 14:13 14:18‒20 15 15:6 15:9–11 15:9–17 15:18 15:17LXX 15:18LXX 15:18–21 16–17 17 17LXX

165, 171 628 559 559 629 628 629 72, 83, 234, 241 16, 76, 165, 174, 243, 311, 327, 630 166 83, 529 72 83 314, 315 72 289 289 79 72 72, 74, 75, 83, 166, 373 75, 466 81, 84, 242 500 16, 18, 311, 316, 322, 467 234, 466, 478 374 389 73, 83, 311, 329, 619 316 316 374 473 16, 76, 165, 311, 316, 318, 322, 625 316, 319

17:1–2 17:1–21LXX 17:2 17:2–21 17:4 17:7 17:7–8 17:7–9 17:9 17:10 17:11 17:11LXX 17:13 17:14 17:14a 17:14b 17:17LXX 17:19 17:19LXX 17:19–21 17:20 17:20LXX 17:21 17:21LXX 18:18 21 21:9 21:12 21:27 21:32 26:28 31 31:14 31:43–54 31:44 31:49 35:1–15

317 316 72, 242 83 317 72, 74, 75, 83, 146, 166 79, 375 467 77, 83, 630, 631 77, 83, 329, 467, 662 72 480 72, 74, 75, 83, 146 78, 83, 467, 628 593 593 319 74, 75, 83, 146, 166 319 329 318 318 72 318 466 473 474 631 81, 242 81 81, 242 31 237 18 32, 81, 242, 261 261 282

692 35:14 49:11 Exodus 2:23–24 2:24 4:14–17 6:2–8 6:5 6:7 9:27 12:49 15:15–17 19:5 19–24 19–34 20:1–17 20:1–21 21–23 23:22 23:32 24 24:1–11 24:3–8 24:4 24:6 24:6–8 24:7 24:8

24:8LXX 24:9–11 24:12–18 25:10–22 25:11 25:18 25:22 25:40 27:21 31:7 31:12–17 31:16 32:19 32–34 34 34:6–7 34:12

Index of Ancient Sources 235 368

376 79, 83 103 79, 83 242 79 529 234 195 77, 83 18 23 382 379 15 84 81 165, 619 379, 381, 401, 414 18, 381, 384, 387, 392, 393, 394, 395, 503 405 389, 405 382 15, 18, 77 73, 83, 113, 388, 389, 390, 393, 405, 410, 464, 497 370 18, 381, 394, 406 379 651 650 650 652 501 84 84 76, 375 74, 75, 76, 83, 166 376 171 198, 242, 280 78 81, 281, 282

34:14–15 34:15 34:27 34:29–35 39:15

281, 305 81 633 444 84

Leviticus 2:4 2:13 8:30 10:11 11:2 16 17–26 18:5 24:8 26 26:9 26:11 26:12 26:14–41 26:15 26:39–45 26:40–45 26:42 26:44 26:45 26:46

97 76, 262, 286 389 101 630 409 166 472 74, 75, 83, 375 79 85 85, 241 534 182 78, 83 303 78 83, 376 78, 83, 301 83 498

Numbers 6 6:24 6:24–27 6:25 6:26 6:27 16:46–50 18:19 18:20 25 25:6–13 25:13

94, 100 94 91, 93, 96, 99, 100 94 94, 95 100 220 76, 101, 166, 262, 286 237 216 101, 216 77, 166, 216

Deuteronomy 1:12–13 4:1 4:13–14 4:23 4:31

285 146 77 79, 242 79, 81

693

Index of Ancient Sources 5:2–3 5:3 5:15 7 7:2 7:6–9 7:9 7:12 8:18 9 9:5 9:5LXX 9:8–21 9:11 9:15 9:17 11:31–32 13 24:1–4 26:18–19 28 28:15–68 28:58–68 28:69 28–32 29:11 29:11–14 29:15 29:19 29:20 29:20(19) 29:21 29:28 30:1–10 30:15–20 30:19 31:10–11 31:16 31:20 32:14 33 33:4 33:9 33:9b–10aLXX

73, 207 83 594 176 81, 261 440 77, 83, 146 77, 81, 83 81, 85 311, 322 84, 85, 86, 241 319, 320 380 241 84 553 146 25, 28, 29 175 346 24, 25, 28, 29, 167 171 169, 182 73, 113 223 258 73 83 86, 241 86 85 86 266 118 390 347 180 78, 83 78, 83 368 311, 321, 322 203 77 321

Joshua 6:8–13 24 24:24

529 28, 190 175

1 Samuel 17:36

635

2 Samuel 7 7:8–16 23:5

166, 263 148 166

1 Kings 5:26b–32 6:23–28 8:65 15:19 20:34 22:8–12 25

261 651, 653 180 32, 261 32 184 169

3 Kingdoms 6:19 8:9 11:11

513, 526 529 243

4 Kingdoms 17:15

236

1 Chronicles 9:27LXX 16:15–17 16:17 24:1

526 243 166 104

2 Chronicles 7:8 13:5 13:10 34 34:30–32

180 262, 286 104 184 166

Ezra 1–6 3:12–13 7–8 9 9:2 9–10 10 10:3

180 182 180 180 175, 180 176, 180 184 176, 179

694

Index of Ancient Sources

Nehemiah 1:5 2–6 8 8:3 8:5 8:6 8:8 8:9 8–10 8:10 8:14–15 8:14–17 8:18 9 9:3 9:8 9:13 9:32 10 10:1–2 10:29–40 10:30 10:40 11:23 11–12 13:24–25 13:26–27

179 180 180 182 182 181 182 182 179, 180, 184, 185, 186 182 178 180 182 182 182 179 97 179, 182, 184 176 183 184 183 184 183 180 176 178

Ester 9:28 Job 9:33LXX 31:1 Psalms 2 2:7–8 24:14LXX 25:14 39(40):7‒9 43:17(18) 44:18 44:21 46 49:16 50:5

178

50:16 50:16–17 55:21 68:3 71(72):17 74:19–21 74:20 77:10 78 78:10 78:37 86:5–6LXX 89:4 89:4–5 89:34 89:35 103:17–18 105:8–10 105:10 106:23 106:43–46 109(110):4LXX 110:9 111:5 111:9 119 119:105 119:162 132:10–11 135(136):12 151A

153 166 296 26 600 159 145, 156. 158, 161 561 149 150 149 476 166 148 154 296 150 146 166, 278 216 147 500, 507 546 147 147 183 183 183 149 594 254

498 177

Proverbs 1:14 3:18

235 292

532 603 326 151 503 560 145, 153, 154, 155, 156 155 213 560 152

Isaiah 5:1–3 6:13 7:14 22:14 27:9 28:15 30:1 40–66 42:6–7 49:6 49:8 51:4

33 175 597 446 482 236 236 166 556, 602 600 620 557

695

Index of Ancient Sources 51:4–5 52:13–53:12LXX 54:1LXX 55:3–5 59:20–21 Jeremiah 1:7–9 2–3 3:1 3:19–25 9:25 11:3–4 11:16 14:19 22:9 23:5–6 31 31:31 31:31–32 31:31–34

595, 604 371, 407, 414 474 603, 604 482

38:33LXX 41:13LXX 52

103 175 175 175 635 113 483 113 629 280 23, 24 166, 245, 464 543, 546 115, 171, 280, 396, 563 464 482 402 228 166 98 633 32 113 18, 26 17 411 595, 596, 603, 604 110, 397, 414, 437, 495. 497, 562, 564 402 113 169

Ezekiel 11:13–21 11:19 11:20 16:8 16:59 16:60 17:13–14

127 443, 611 443 124, 131, 400 125, 126, 555 125, 126 32

31(38):31–33 31:33–34 31:33 32:38–40 32:40 33:14–26 33:25 34 34:13 34:18 34:18–20 38:31LXX 38(31):31–32 38:31–34LXX

18:21–32 18:31 20:5 20:5–7 20:25 20:37 33:11 34:25 36:26 36:26–27 37:11–14 37:21–28 37:22 37:26 37:26–27 44:7 47:1–12

283 171 133 134 548, 552 134 283 128, 136, 400 171 443, 546 283 439 400 400 378 130, 131, 137 171

Daniel 3:23–24 3:25–90 9 9:4 9:4–19 9:26–27 11:6 11:32 11:30–31

225 553 221, 228 287 227 207, 221 236 297, 298 222

Hosea 1–3 2:13 4:1–4 5:10–13 6:6 6:7 11 11:1–3 12:2 14:6–7

31, 175, 385 295 32 32 554 171, 300, 629 31 33 31, 32 483

Habakkuk 2:4

469, 478

Zechariah 9:11 11 11:10 11:10–15

394, 403 176 264 176

696

Index of Ancient Sources

Malachi 1:6 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:11–12 1:14 2:1 2:2 2:4 2:4–7 2:4–9 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:10 3:22 3:23

91 94 94 94 94 92, 94, 96 92, 95 94, 95, 96 95 177 90, 95 95 95, 97 95, 96, 97 95, 96, 98 96 296, 306 96, 101 101

1 Maccabees 1:11 2:19–22 14:41–49

207, 221, 522 222 217

1–2 Maccabees

228

2 Maccabees 2:1–8 5:17 6 6:14–7:1 6:16 6:16–17 6:17 7 7:34–38 12:4

525 447 549 438 438 450 438 549 207, 222 235

Baruch 2:34–35

207, 227

Judith 9:8–9 9:11–14 9:13

213 207, 211 342

Prayer of Azariah 11–13 207 Sirach 11:20 11:34 14:12 14:17 16:22 17:11–12 17:12 24:23 24:33 28:7 38:34b 39:8 42:2 43:23–44:5 44:12 44:16–18 44:19–20 44:19–21 44:21 44–50 45:5 45:6 45:15 45:23 45:23–24 45:23–26 50:22–24 50:24

199, 353 353 200, 353 201, 353 201, 353 202 353 203 353 353 203 353 353 194 193 193 471 194 235 214, 471 195 196 178 196 207, 216 218 218 353

Tobit 1:3–8 1:16–17 3:3–4 4:12 13:5–6

207, 208 209 209 175 210

Wisdom 1:16 10–19 10:15–21 12:21 13–15 18 18:4 18:9

219, 387 218, 219 219 219, 236 219 220 219 219

697

Index of Ancient Sources 18:20–22 18:22

207, 218 219, 220, 221, 235, 339

Psalms of Solomon 9:8–11 10:3–4 10:4 17:13–15 17:15

339 341, 353 339, 343 342 339, 342, 343, 353

Matthew 5:3–12 5:17 5:17–18 15:24 20:28 22:36–40 26:27 26:28

27:51 Mark 10:45 11:15–19 14:22 14:23 14:24

14:25 Luke 1:72 1:72–73 22:17 22:20

564 553 543 563 371, 405 680 366 363, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 405, 407, 410, 414 553

371, 405 408 366 404, 405 363, 367, 368, 369, 370, 404, 405, 406, 407, 410, 414, 437 406

363, 573 402 366 363, 368, 369, 370, 371, 410, 411, 573, 574, 617

Acts 13:46 15:1 15:5 16:3

564 468 468 555

Romans 1:17 2:27–29

478 479

2:29 3:1–2 3:9–4:25 3:29–30 3:31 4 4:5 4:9–10 4:11 4:16–17 7:6 7:12 9–11 9:4 9:6–8 10:4 10:5 11:1 11:1–2 11:17 11:18 11:22 11:23–24 11:24 11:25 11:26 11:26–29 11:27 11:32 15:16 15:26 15:30–31

596 480 480 481 481 478 468 467 480 480 479 481 478 482, 523 467 481, 560 472 467 484 483 483 483 484 483 482, 484 478 482 482, 523 483 461 461 460

1 Corinthians 1:9 1:10 1:13 1:26 4:6 10:1–18 10:12–22 10:16–17 11–15 11:17–34 11:23 11:25

440 434 434 434 443 448 440 434 433 432 463 369, 432, 523

2 Corinthians 1:18

449

698

Index of Ancient Sources

3 3:1–4:6 3:3–18 3:4–18 3:6 3:6–8 3:14 3:18

479 442 523 441 432, 561 548 432, 561, 562 562

Galatians 2:4 2:7–8 2:10 2:11–14 2:15–16 3:2–3 3:6–9 3:8 3:10 3:11 3:15 3:15–18 3:16–17 3:19 3:23–29 4:21 4:23 4:25 4:26 4:27 4:28–30 4:29 5:1–4 5:11 6:15 6:16

460, 474 634 461 460 465 468 466, 634 469 468, 472 469 470 469, 634 470 470, 471, 498 472 473 476 476 474, 475, 476 474 476 474 473 474 477 477

Philippians 3:14

475

1 Timothy 2:5

498

Hebrews 1:3

507

1:13 7:1‒10:18 7:22 8:1 8:1‒10:18 8:6 8:7 8:7–12 8:7‒13 8:8 8:8–9 8:8–12 8:9 8:10 8:13 9:1 9:1–4 9:4 9:6–28 9:15 9:15‒17 9:16 9:16–17 9:17 9:18 9:20 10:12 10:15‒18 10:16 10:29 12:2 12:22‒24 12:24 13:20

507 500 497, 498 501, 507 497, 507 497, 499, 501 497 523 495 497 595 564 497 497 497, 523 497 523 497, 523 524 497 502 497 238 497 497 409 507 495, 496 497 497 507 508 497, 523 497

Revelation 11:16–12:2 11:19 12:1 12:1–6 15:5–6 21:3 21:22 22:3–4

516 511, 647, 651 514 521, 532 526, 533 534, 535 524, 535 535

699

Index of Ancient Sources

2. Qumran / 2nd Temple Judaism 1Q22 276 1Q22 1 i 8–9 293 1Q22 1 ii 8 284 1Q22 1 iii 3 288 1Q22 1i8 262 261 1QHa IV,27 259 1QHa VIII,16 255 1QHa XII,34 263 1QHa XIII,23 257 1QHa XV,10 257 1QHa XV,8 259 1QHa XVIII,30 256 1QHa XXI 1QM 1,2 297, 298 1QM 18,8 255 1QM XII,3 257 1QM XIII,8 259 1QM XIV,10//4Q491 8–10i7 260 1QM XIV,4 257 1QM XVII,7 257 1QpHab II,6 268 1QS ii:19–23 338 1QS IV,22 256 1QS VI,15 256 1QSb I,2 256 4Q166 3,14–15 295 4Q171 1+3–4iii12 268 4Q171 1–2ii13 268 4Q179 276 4Q179 1 i 3 301 4Q183 1ii3 256 4Q185 3,9 303 4Q216 2,16–17 292 4Q216 2,8 293 4Q249j 1–2,3 300 4Q252 276, 284 4Q252 V,4 256 4Q271 4ii2 255 4Q280 2,6 255 4Q284a 252, 277 4Q368 2,7 281 4Q370 1 i 7 262, 289, 290 4Q381 279 4Q381 69,5–6 278 4Q381 69,8 282, 302 4Q382 104,1 291

4Q383 A 2 4Q385 2,1 4Q385a 18 i a–b,9 4Q385a 18 ii 8–9 4Q385a 3a–c,6 4Q387 3,6 4Q387 3,8 4Q388 7,3 4Q388a 7 ii 2 4Q390 1,8 4Q390 2 i 6 4Q392 1,3 4Q393 4Q393 3,2 4Q414 4Q436 1a+bi4 4Q463 1,3 4Q470 4Q470 1,3.6 4Q471 4Q471 2,2 4Q504 4Q504 1–2 iii 9 4Q504 1–2 iv 6 4Q504 1–2 v 8 4Q504 1–2 v 9 4Q504 1–2 vi 5–9 4Q504 1–2ii9 4Q504 3 ii 13 4Q508 4,2 4Q521 10,2 5Q13 28,3 11Q5 11Q5 (= 11QPsa) 11Q19 (11QTa) 11Q19 II,4 11Q19 XXIX,10 11Q20 (11QTb) 11Q20 IV,24 11QT 20,19–20 11QT 29,10 11QT 4,24 11QT 55,17 11QT 59,8 11QTa 2,12 11QTa 2,4–5

296 256, 283 288 288 294 297, 298 255 284 301 292 300 259 252 287 252 257 301 280 279 254 263 279 290 277 303 290 303 255 282 256 287 255 252, 277 252 252 257, 261 262 252 262 285 282 285 300 302 281 280

700

Index of Ancient Sources

11QTa 29,10 CD 3,13–16 CD I,17 CD IX,3 CD XIX,16 PAM 43.686 30

281 295 241 256 259 293

1 Enoch 14 106:13 93:6 99:2

526 354 354 341, 354

2 Baruch 11:11 19:1–3 41:1–42:5 84:2 84:8

243 347 348 348 348

4 Baruch 5:34

475

4 Ezra 3:15 3:32 4:23 5:29 7:24 7:46 7:83 8:27

350 351 346, 350 351 352 352 352 352

5 Ezra 1:9–23 1:24–26 1:35 1:38–40 2:2–10 2:20–22

575 575 575 576 576 577

Apocalypsis of Moses 8:2 506 Assumptio Mosis [Fragmenta] 2:17,17 498 Josephus Contr. Ap. 1.128

326

Ant. 1.71 – 1.108 Ant. 1.92 Ant. 1.103 Ant. 1.107–108 Ant. 1.157 Ant. 1.170 Ant. 1.183–185 Ant. 1.184 Ant. 1.187 Ant. 1.189 Ant. 1.191 Ant. 1.191–193 Ant. 1.208 Ant. 1.234–235 Ant. 1.236 Ant. 1.281–282 Ant. 1.284 Ant. 1.313 Ant. 2.219 Ant. 2.242 Ant. 2.253 Ant. 2.269 Ant. 2.275 Ant. 3.23 Ant. 3.24 Ant. 3.77 Ant. 4.114 Ant. 4.118 Ant. 5.16 Ant. 5.54 Ant. 5.55 Ant. 5.159 Ant. 6.230 Ant. 6.236 Ant. 6.253 Ant. 6.276 Ant. 7.111 Ant. 7.25 Ant. 7.31 Ant. 8.101 Ant. 8.207 Ant. 8.258 Ant. 8.388 Ant. 9.65 Ant. 9.67 Ant. 9.96 Ant. 9.254 Ant. 10.63 Ant. 12.154

327 327 327 328 329 329 330 329 328 329 328 330 326 328 327, 328 328 329 327 327 327 326 329 326 326 327 327 325 326 326 326 326 326 326 326 326 327 326 326 326 327 326 326 326 326 326 326 326 327 327

701

Index of Ancient Sources Ant. 12.249 Ant. 12.281 Ant. 13.392 Ant. 14.7 Ant. 16.118 Ant. 16.222 Ant. 16.270 Ant. 16.346 Ant. 16.351 Ant. 17.337 Ant. 18.154

327 327 326 326 326 326 326 326 326 326 326

J.W. 1.451 J.W. 1.573 J.W. 1.588 J.W. 1.600 J.W. 1.625 J.W. 1.646 J.W. 1.664 J.W. 1.669 J.W. 2.2 J.W. 2.20 J.W. 2.31 J.W. 2.38 J.W. 2.98 J.W. 2.99 J.W. 2.389 J.W. 4.462 J.W. 7.25 J.W. 7.31 J.W. 7.209 J.W. 7.221

325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 327 327 326 326 326 326

Jubilees 1:5 1:9–10 1:9 1:10 1:14 6:11–12 6:17–19 6:17 14:20 23:19

Philo Det. 44 Det. 62 Det. 63 Det. 64 Det. 65 Det. 66 Det. 67–68 Det. 68 Her. 312 Her. 313 Her. 313–314 Leg. 3.85 Mut. 261 Mut. 262 Mut. 263 Mut. 264 Mut. 51 Mut. 51–58 Mut. 52 Mut. 52 Mut. 53 Mut. 57 Mut. 58 Praem. 79–84 Sacr. 56–57 Sacr. 57 Somn. 2. 223 Somn. 2.223–224 Somn. 2.224

377 294 294 293 295 394 338 377 338 292, 293

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum LAB 13:10 346

Somn. 2.237

312 321 321 321 322 322 321 321, 323, 324 316 311 316 324 318 318 311, 312, 313, 316, 318, 323 318 317, 324 316 311, 313, 316, 317, 323, 324 555 311, 317, 323 316 311, 312, 316, 317, 323, 324 310, 311, 314 319 311, 313, 320, 323 312, 314, 311, 314, 323, 324 311, 314 312, 313, 315, 323, 324 310, 312, 314, 315, 323, 324

Testamenta Patriarcharum T.Mos. 1:9 345 1:14 344 2:7 344, 345 3:9 345 4:2 345 10:15 344 11:17 344, 345 12:13 346

702

Index of Ancient Sources

T.Dan 6:2

Vitae Prophetarum vitJer 9–14 525

498

3. Greek and Latin Authors / Cuneiform Texts / Papyri Homer Iliad 3,70 3,105 Plato Nomoi I.624

235 235

Mattila, Legal Transactions, no. 155 53 Reynolds, Babylonian Correspondence, no. 100 47

238

Plutarch Solon 21

236

Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince (= Livingstone, Court Poetry, no. 32) 53, 57

Vergil Aeneid III 92

528

YBC 11382 (= Frahm, Hochverrat) 47, 48, 49

Esarhaddon’s Letter to the God Aššur (= Leichty, Royal Inscriptions, no. 33) 56

Papyri P Ryl II, 116,9 237

4. Rabbinic Sources Avot of Rabbi Natan 2.5 m. Nedarim 3:11 m. Pesaḥim 10,5 b. Gittin 23b

628 633, 634 437 637

b. Sanhedrin 38b 628 b. Yoma 28b 630 Tosefta Berakhot 6:17–18 636

5. Ancient Christian Authors Apollodorus bibl. III 27

530

Augustine catech. rud. 17:11/28, CC.SL 46:153 545 catech. rud. 22/40 552 en. Ps. 77.10 561 Qu. Deut. 54 549 Barnabas, Letter of Barn 11,9 Barn 13,7 Barn 4,6–8 Barn 5,7 Barn 6,8 Barn 9,7

588 588 588 588 588 588

Cassian coll 24:17

555

Clement of Alexandria str. 5:28.4–29.5 543 str. 7.107.5 543 Eusebius of Caesarea Historia ecclesiastica 1,7,13 601 4,18,5 589 Fulgentius of Ruspe ep. 14.46 545

703

Index of Ancient Sources Gregory of Nazianzen or. 14.27, PG 35:893ab Irenaeus of Lyon haer. 1:26:2 haer. 4:15.1 haer. 4:34.2 Isaeus or. 6,27 Jerome ep. 108,11 ep. 108,12 ep. 21,2–3 ep. 60,17 ep. 21,1 Ier. 6:26.8–9 In Ionam I 3 In Ionam I 3a In Ionam I 4 In Ionam I 5 In Ionam I 14 In Ionam III 5 In Ionam prol.

572 554 543

dial. 121:1 dial. 121:2 dial. 121:3 dial. 121:4 dial. 122:1 dial. 142:1–2

601 601 601 601 602 606

Leo I. of Rome tract. 63.5

560

236 Melito von Sardes Paschahomilie 72–99 588 609 610 612 621 611 564 613 614 613 613 615 614 615

John Chrysostom hom. in 1 Cor. 16.2 560 hom. in Matt. 1.1 557 hom. in Matt. 29.3 554 Justin Martyr 1 Apol. 66:3 dial. 8:2 dial. 10:1 dial. 10:1–12,3 dial. 10:2 dial. 10:3 dial. 11:3 dial. 12:2–3 dial. 26:2 dial. 34:3–6 dial. 65:4 dial. 66:1 dial. 67:8–11 dial. 67:9–10

549

Origen Cels. 6:70

558

Peter, Gospel of 17 574 Phoebus III 93 Phoebus III 99

528 528

Ps-Cyril On the Life and Passion of Christ 56–57 579 138–140 579 149–150 579 Ps-Hippolyt haer. 7,34,2

572

Salvian of Marseille eccl. 2:9 549 369 593 593 593 593 593, 594 595 596 602 557 602 597 599 597

Tertullian Adversus Iudaeos 4 596 Adversus Valentinianos 5,1 587 Theodor of Mopsuestia in Psalm., Hill 1044 561 Theodoret of Cyros in Jer. 564 11:10 264 9:11 394, 403 in Ezek, PG 81:953d–956a 555

Index of Authors Index of Authors Index of Authors Abegg, Martin A. 216, 249, 258, 260, 262, 265, 266, 269 Abusch, Ra’anan 638, 641 Adams, Sean A. 227, 228, 229 Ådna, Jostein 404, 415 Aejmelaeus, Anneli 234, 244 Albertz, Rainer 382, 391, 416 Alexandre, Manuel 318, 330 Alikin, Valeriy A. 370, 415, 416 Allen, Leslie C. 134, 139 Allison, Dale C. Jr. 337, 355 Alonso Schökel, Luis 145, 154, 159, 161, 162 Alster, Bendt 55, 61 Anderson, Bernhardt W. 668, 682 Anderson, Gary A. 209, 210, 229 André, Gunnel 392, 416 Andresen, Carl 588, 606 Antin, Paul 612, 621 Aragione, Gabriella 57, 582 Arnold, Bill T. 255, 269 Asselt, Willem J. van 13, 35 Assmann, Jan 191, 198, 199, 202, 204, 616, 621 Atkinson, Kenneth 339, 341, 342, 355 Attridge, Harold W. 324, 325, 303, 502, 508, 536 Aune, David E. 513, 518, 525, 530, 536 Aurelius, Erik 204, 383, 384, 416 Avemarie, Friedrich 269, 462, 472, 481, 483, 485, 621 Avioz, Michael 328, 330 Bach, Johannes 56, 61 Bachmann, Michael 364, 416, 462, 472, 477, 478, 486 Back, Frances 445, 451 Backhaus, Knut 364, 372, 387, 393, 410, 411, 416, 495, 496, 499, 501, 502, 503, 507, 587, 588, 591, 592, 604, 606 Baker, Christopher J. 672, 683 Baker, Cynthia M. 636, 641

Baker, Heather D. 48, 56, 61 Baker, J. Wayne 683, 684 Baltzer, Klaus 15, 22, 35, 165, 186, 343, 355 Barag, Dan 531, 536 Bar-Asher Siegal, Michal 628, 642 Barcina, Cristina 52, 53, 57, 61 Barclay, John 462, 463, 478, 482, 483, 486 Barnett, Paul 446, 451 Barr, James 122, 139, 243, 244 Barré, Michael L. 13, 26, 28, 35, 261, 269 Barrett, Charles K. 473, 486 Barth, Gerhard 368, 371, 416 Barth, Karl 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 683 Barth, Markus 673, 683 Barthélemy, Dominique 158, 162 Bauckham, Richard 571, 582 Bauks, Michaela 379, 416 Bautch, Richard J. 71, 72, 74, 80, 82, 89, 98, 137, 172, 173, 174, 175, 186, 263, 268, 269, 337, 338, 355, 376, 377, 378, 385, 386, 394, 399, 400, 401, 565 Beck, Hans 235, 244 Becker, Adam Howard 638, 642 Becker, Christoph 616, 617, 619, 621 Becker, Joachim 91, 105 BeDuhn, Jason 573, 582 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 353, 355, 471, 486 Begrich, Joachim 14, 35, 373, 395, 416 Behm, Johannes 236, 237, 238, 239, 244, 250, 271, 312, 313, 314, 320, 326, 330, 364, 386, 391, 403, 416, 505, 508, 587, 606 Bekken, Per Jarle 310, 314, 330 Bell, Richard H. 460, 477, 478, 486 Belleville, Linda L. 470, 486 Belting, Hans 656, 659 Ben Zvi, Ehud 173, 385, 416 Bendemann, Reinhard von 460, 493 Berger, Klaus 370, 416, 518, 532, 533, 536

Index of Authors Bergren, Theodore A. 350, 358, 575, 582 Bernstein, Moshe J. 301, 306 Bertram, Georg 326, 331 Betz, Hans Dieter 369, 416, 468, 469, 474, 477, 486 Betz, Otto 530, 536 Billerbeck, Paul 437, 453, 475, 477, 486 Billings, Bradly S. 370, 416 Birnbaum, Elisabeth 614, 621 Birnbaum, Ellen 310, 331 Biscardi, Arnaldo 236, 244 Black, Jeremy 43, 61 Blackman, Edwin C. 573, 582 Blanton, Thomas R. IV 266, 269 Blaschke, Andreas 319, 331 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 97, 99, 105, 371, 383, 417 Bloch, Peter 648, 659 Block, Daniel 125, 126, 128, 131, 134, 135, 139 Blomqvist, Jerker 404, 415, 417 Blomqvist, Karin 404, 415, 417 Blum, Erhard 389, 417 Blumenkranz, Bernhard 613, 622 Bobichon, Philippe 588, 590, 591, 592, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 600, 601, 602, 603, 606 Boda, Mark J. 97, 106, 173, 386, 417 Bodin, Yvon 619, 622 Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice 109, 110, 111, 112, 119, 346355 Böhm, Martina 457, 467, 468, 471, 486 Bolyki, János 369, 406, 412, 417 Bons, Eberhard 143, 338, 355 Borgen, Peder 318, 320, 321, 331 Bornkamm, Günther 434, 451 Botman, H. Russel 669, 670, 683 Böttrich, Christfried 370, 412, 417 Bousset, Wilhelm 525, 536 Bovon, François 313, 331, 363, 369, 406, 411, 417 Box, G.H. 214, 230 Boyarin, Daniel 364, 417 Bradu, Jean-Francois 648, 659 Braulik, Georg 151, 162 Braun, Herbert 501, 502, 508 Brawley, Robert L. 74, 82, 86, 417 Breytenbach, Cilliers 460, 486 Brinkman, John A. 43, 61

705

Brooke, George J. 276, 306, 349, 355 Brown, Dennis 615, 622 Brown, Raymond E. 369, 417 Brueggemann, Walter 669, 670, 673, 681, 682, 683 Brümmer, Julia 300, 306 Bryant, Jacob 314, 331 Buchinger, Harald 588, 606 Büchsel, Friedrich 436, 451 Bultmann, Rudolf 369, 417, 445, 451, 504, 508 Burke, Tony 571, 582 Burns, Dylan M. 580, 582 Busch, Eberhard 664, 683 Butler, Judith 627, 642 Butticaz, Simon 462, 486 Byron, John 309, 331 Byrskog, Samuel 368, 370, 403, 411, 417 Cabezón, José Ignacio 638, 643 Cain, Andrew 609, 611, 620, 622 Calvert, Nancy L. 311, 331 Campbell, Douglas 431, 451 Campbell, William S. 365, 417 Carasik, Michael 374, 389, 418 Carleton-Paget, James 588, 607 Carr, David M. 376, 406, 418 Chang, Dongshin D. 262, 269 Charles, Robert H. 344, 355 Chazon, Esther G. 273, 277, 282, 306 Chesnutt, Randall D. 219, 220, 230, 340, 345, 355 Choi, John H. 255, 269 Christiansen, Ellen Juhl 230, 260, 261, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 463, 486 Church, Philip 525, 536 Ciampa, Roy E. 439, 451 Clifford, Anne M. 680, 683 Cohen, Shaye J.D. 626, 628, 642 Cohick, Lynn H. 588, 607 Cohn, Leopold 322, 331 Collins, Adela Yarbro -> Yarbro Collins Collins, John J. 207, 209, 212, 218, 230, 250, 265, 269, 287, 306, 310, 331, 346, 355, 461, 462, 472, 493, 494, 504 Collins, Raymond F. 263, 269 Colson, Francis H. 320, 331, 355 Congdon, David W. 670, 683 Cook, Michael J. 366, 418

706

Index of Authors

Corcoran, Simon 638, 642 Cowley, A.E. 213, 230 Craven, Toni 212, 230 Cross, Frank M. 210, 230 Crouch, Carly L. 45, 61 Dahmen, Ulrich 106, 291, 306 Dalton, William 468, 487 Daniel, Jerry L. 325, 331 Das, Andrew A. 431, 440, 451, 458, 459, 487 Davies, Graham I. 382, 383, 418, 474, 487 Davies, Philip R. 268, 269 Davies, William David 458, 487 Davila, James R. 571, 582 Day, John 380, 418 de Angelo Cunha, Wilson 378, 418 De Boer, Martinus C. 460, 477, 487 de Bruyne, Donatien 517, 536 De Jonge, Marinus 571, 582 de Roo, Jacqueline C. R. 357, 472, 487 de Santos Otero, Aurelio 576, 582 Deasley, Alex R.G. 249, 263, 269 Debel, Hans 396, 418 Deines, Roland 587, 589, 590, 607 Deissmann, Adolf 239, 244 Delitzsch, Franz 147, 151, 162 Delling, Gerhard 366, 371, 403, 418, 435, 451 Demandt, Alexander 615, 617, 622 Dempsey, Carol J. 173, 385, 418 Denis, Albert-Marie 498, 508 Di Lella, Alexander A. 215, 216, 218, 231 Dimant, Devorah 209, 230, 250, 251, 269, 273, 284, 288, 296, 299, 306 Dochhorn, Jan 518, 525, 536 Dogniez, Cécile 241, 244 Dohmen, Christoph 23, 35, 82, 86, 165, 186, 382, 384, 387, 389, 391, 392, 396, 418 Donbaz, Veysel 52, 61 Donfried, Karl P. 479, 487 Doran, Robert 223, 224, 230 Du Toit, André 662, 683 Duensing, Hugo 576, 582 Duggan, Michael W. 180, 186, 223, 225, 230 Dulaey, Martine 514, 536 Duncan III., J. Ligon 542, 548, 569

Duncan, Patricia 573, 582 Dunn, Geoffrey D. 554, 569 Dunn, James D. G. 364, 418, 431, 451, 458, 459, 461, 463, 472, 478, 481, 485, 487 Durand, Jean-Marie 43, 44 Durandus 520, 536 Eastman, Susan Grove 478, 487 Eberhart, Christian A. 1, 361, 370, 375, 389, 390, 395, 418, 464, 503, 508 Eckhardt, Benedikt 342, 356, 411, 418 Edel, Elmar 21, 35 Edenburg, Cynthia 173, 361, 418 Ederer, Matthias 375, 419 Ego, Beate 471, 487 Ehrensperger, Kathy 462, 487 Ehrman, Bart D. 335, 356 Eichrodt, Walther 20, 23, 24, 35, 249, 261, 269 Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard 628, 642 Eisenbaum, Pamela 507, 508 Elazar, Daniel 662, 683 Elliger, Karl 110, 119 Ellman, Barat 376, 406, 419 Embry, Brad 340, 356 Epp, Eldon J. 370, 419, 578, 582 Ernst-Habib, Margit 661, 671, 683 Eschner, Christina 413, 419 Evans, Craig A. 249, 260, 263, 265, 266, 269, 401, 419 Everson, David L. 616, 622 Eynde, S. van den 211, 230 Fabry, Heinz-Josef 197, 205, 243, 249, 251, 252, 273, 283, 285, 306, 364, 505, 508 Fadhil, Anmar Abdulillah 53, 62 Faist, Betina 52, 62 Fales, Frederick Mario 44, 50, 62 Falk, Daniel 276, 287, 307 Fee, Gordon D. 435, 451 Feld, Helmut 368, 419, 651, 659 Feldman, Louis H. 324, 325, 327, 328, 329, 331 Feldmeier, Reinhard 189, 205, 372, 384, 385, 386, 398, 399, 419, 470, 487 Ferguson, Everett 542, 569, 587, 607 Fine, Steven 531, 536 Finlan, Stephen 407, 419

Index of Authors Finn, Jennifer 53, 54, 55, 56, 62 Finsterbusch, Karin 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 128, 136, 140, 143, 151, 162, 171, 172, 397, 399, 419, 464, 477, 488 Fischer, Georg 113, 119 Fish, Stanley 392, 419 Fiss, Ann-Cathrin 151 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 17, 22, 35, 44, 62, 208, 230 Foerster, Werner 237, 244 Foletti, Ivan 649, 657, 659 Foster, Benjamin 53, 54, 55, 56, 62 Frahm, Eckart 44, 46, 47, 48, 51, 62 Freedman, David N. 399, 419 Freeman, Ann 648, 649, 650, 652, 653, 654, 655, 659 Frevel, Christian 23, 35, 165, 380, 419 Frey, Jörg 409, 419, 464, 488, 496, 497, 502, 503, 508 Frick, Brandon 668, 583 Friedman, Shamma 626, 642 Friedrich, Johannes 21, 35 Fröhlich, Ida 273, 307 Fuglseth, Kåre 318 Fuhrmann, Sebastian 411, 419, 496, 504, 508 Funke, Peter 235, 244 Furnish, Victor P. 443, 444, 447, 451 Fürst, Alfons 609, 611, 612, 613, 615, 616, 622 Gäbel, Georg 501, 508, 525, 536 Gabriel, Andrew K. 666, 683 Gager, John G. 613, 622 Ganzel, Tova 132, 140 García-Martínez, Florentino 290, 301, 307 Gardner, Paul 440 Gärtner, Eva-Maria 610, 622 Gärtner, Judith 146, 147, 149, 150, 162 Gathercole, Simon J. 336, 356 Gauthier, Michel 648, 659 Gauthier, Monique 648, 659 Gemünden, Petra von 477, 479, 483, 488, 493, 532, 536 George, Andrew R. 44, 52, 61, 62 Georges, Tobias 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 597, 600, 607 Gerber, Christine 462, 488

707

Gertz, Jan Christian 144, 162, 167, 186, 374, 385, 419 Gesche, Bonifatia 189, 243, 353, 356, 505 Gese, Hartmut 474, 488 Gies, Kathrin 151, 163 Gilders, William K. 364, 377, 381, 387394, 401, 419 Glicksman, Andrew 218, 230 Gnilka, Joachim 370, 419 Goodenough, Erwin 309, 311 Goodman, Martin 471, 488, 420 Gosse, Bernard 137, 140, 398, 400 Grabar, André 649, 659 Grabbe, Lester L. 189, 205, 238, 244, 309, 312, 313, 323, 324, 330, 331, 356, 420, 457, 488 Gräbe, Petrus J. 613, 622 Grappe, Christian 395, 424 Grässer, Erich 363, 411, 420, 443, 452, 457, 477, 488, 499, 502, 509 Grätz, Sebastian 172, 178, 179, 180, 186 Graupner, Axel 381, 382, 383, 398, 399, 403, 405, 420 Gray, Alyssa 639, 642 Grayson, Albert Kirk 44, 46, 62 Grayston, Kenneth 403, 420 Greenberg, Moshe 124, 125, 126, 129, 135, 140 Groote, Marc de 514, 518, 520, 536 Gross, Walter 69, 78, 81, 82, 84, 87, 110, 113, 114, 116, 119, 124, 140, 144, 146, 154, 162, 163, 165, 374, 375, 376, 377, 398, 399, 400, 420 620, 622 Grossberg, David M. 628, 642 Grossman, Maxine L. 401, 420 Gruenwald, Ithamar 407, 420 Grundmann, Christoffer H. 678, 683 Gryson, Roger 514, 517, 536 Gumerlock, Francis X. 656, 659 Gunkel, Hermann 16, 20, 35, 153, 155, 158, 163 Gunneweg, Antonius H.J. 180, 186 Gurtner, Daniel M. 338, 343, 356 Haacker, Klaus 431, 452, 479, 481, 484, 488 Haeuser, Philipp 592, 598, 607 Hafemann, Scott J. 444, 451, 452

708

Index of Authors

Hahn, Ferdinand 366, 368, 403, 404, 411, 420, 459, 460, 488 Hahn, Scott 383, 390, 395, 421, 499, 509 Halivni, David Weiss 626, 642 Hall, Stuart G. 588, 607 Hallo, William W. 26, 36, 378, 383, 384, 395, 421 Halpern-Amaru, Betsy 325, 328, 331, 337, 346, 356 Hanhart, Robert 87 Hansberger, Therese 287, 307 Hansen, G. Walter 466, 488 Haran, Menahem 373, 380, 421 Harl, Marguerite 233, 238, 241, 244 Harlow, Daniel C. 310, 331, Harnack, Adolf von 573, 582 Harnisch, Wolfgang 348, 352, 356 Harrison, Timothy P. 45, 62 Hartman, Lars 458, 488 Hata, Gohei 325, 327 Hatch, Edwin 312, 331 Hauptman, Judith 626, 642 Hay, David M. 310, 331, 332 Hayes, Christine E. 628, 642 Hays, Richard B. 403, 407, 421, 437, 452, 464, 488 Heather, Peter 617, 622 Hegermann, Harald 438, 452 Heid, Stefan 589, 607 Heil, Christoph 470, 488 Heil, Johannes 654, 659 Heinemann, Isaak 309, 310, 331 Heintz, Jean-Georges 16, 36, 395, 421 Hellholm, David 370, 372, 406, 407, 415, 421 Henze, Matthias 207, 214, 221, 335, 346, 347, 349, 351, 354, 356, 377, 462, 625 Herbordt, Suzanne 43, 62 Herion, Gaty A. 13, 21, 26, 37 Herrmann, Johannes 237, 244 Herrmann, Siegfried 14, 36, 386, 421, 505, 509 Herzer, Jens 364, 457, 473, 488 Heyden, Katharina 590, 607 Hezser, Catherine 638, 639, 642 Hieke, Thomas 69, 78, 80, 87, 173, 180, 181, 186, 375, 376, 377, 378, 389, 392, 400, 421, 464

Hill, Andrew E. 89, 91, 96, 106 Hill, David, 244 Hillers, Delbert 165, 186, 249, 250, 261, 265, 268, 269, 616, 623 Hirschberger, Veronika 575, 576, 577, 582, 583 Hirshman, Marc 589, 607 Hodkinson, Stephen 636, 642 Hofheinz, Marco 661, 684 Hofius, Otfried 481, 482, 483, 489 Hofmann, Johann C.K. von 434, 452 Hofmann, Norbert Johannes 343, 344, 345, 356 Holladay, William 98, 116, 119, 398, 399, 400, 421 Holman, Susan R. 639, 643 Holmstrand, Jonas 404, 412, 421 Holtz, Gudrun 409, 411, 421, 462, 484, 489 Hooker, Morna D. 365, 407, 421 Horbury, William 240, 244 Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm 460, 461, 468, 477, 479, 489 Horner, Timothy J. 589, 607 Horton, Michael Scott 13, 36 Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar 147, 149, 150, 152, 153, 158, 163, 164, 296, 308 Hoyt, Thomas L. Jr. 668, 684 Huber, Konrad 514, 537 Hübner, Hans 460, 478, 489 Hugenberger, Gordon P. 124, 140, 422 Hultgren, Stephen 258, 260, 265, 266, 270, 356 Human, Dirk J. 158, 159, 160, 163 Humphrey, Edith M. 415, 422 Hunt, Peter 636, 638, 643 Ilg, Norbert 264, 270 Jackson-McCabe, Matt 572, 583 Jacobson, Howard 337, 357 Jacoby, Norbert 115, 119 Janowski, Bernd 36, 146, 163 Jany, János 639, 640, 643 Jassen, Alex P. 296, 307 Jastrow, Marcus 253, 270 Jaubert, Annie 238, 243, 260, 264, 270, 364, 422 Jenkins, Willis 668, 684

Index of Authors Jepsen, Alfred 14, 36 Jeremias, Jörg 147, 163, 385, 422 Jervell, Jakob 479, 489 Jewett, Robert 361, 406, 422, 484, 489 John, Felix 460, 489 Jokiranta, Jutta M. 273, 307 Joshel, Sandra R. 636, 638, 643 Juhl Christiansen, Ellen 214, 230, 269 Jüngling, Hans-Winfried 121, 126, 140 Kahl, Werner 415, 422 Kaiser, Otto 36, 216, 230 Kalimi, Isaac 377, 422 Kalmin, Richard 626, 643 Kamesar, Adam 616, 623 Kampling, Rainer 613, 623 Kaplan, Jacob 375, 422 Karrer, Martin 14, 36, 233, 397, 409, 411, 422, 438, 452, 499, 502, 506, 509, 511, 512, 514, 523, 530, 534, 537, 647, 660 Kartveit, Magnar 113. 119 Käsemann, Ernst 438, 452 Kazen, Thomas 368-371, 388, 403, 408, 411, 413, 422 Keener, Craig 314, 332 Kelly, John N.D. 609, 615, 616, 623 Kinzig, Wolfram 556, 569 Kitchen, Kenneth A. 261, 270 Klappert, Bertold 664, 684 Klengel-Brandt, Evelyn 52, 62 Klinghardt, Matthias 370, 401, 411, 412, 413, 422, 434, 437, 452, 573, 583 Klotz, Rainer 514, 537 Knapp, Andrew 46, 63 Knauf, Ernst Axel 474, 489 Knibb, Michael 287, 307, 350, 357 Knight, Douglas 669, 684 Knoppers, Gary N. 74, 86, 89, 98, 103, 105, 106, 172, 173, 174, 175, 186, 205, 355 Koch, Christoph 13, 16, 26, 27, 28, 32, 34, 45, 70, 71, 73, 81, 87, 113, 119, 165, 167, 169, 172, 187, 190, 205, 241, 244, 363, 373, 378, 384, 385, 390, 422 Koch, Dietrich-Alex 466, 473, 474, 476, 482, 489 Köckert, Matthias 172, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 489 Koester, Craig 518, 537

709

Koester, Helmut 405, 422 Koltun-Fromm, Naomi 630, 643 Konkel, Michael 121, 140, 189, 202, 205, 288, 307, 400, 401, 422 Konradt, Matthias 434, 436, 459, 460, 467, 468, 471, 473, 481, 489 Koole, Jan L. 160, 163 Köpf, Ulrich 609, 623 Korn, Eugen B. 673, 684 Korošec, Viktor 15, 20, 21, 36 Körting, Corinna 158, 163 Kraft, Heinrich 525, 537 Kratz, Reinhard G. 180, 181, 187, 394, 422 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 20, 36, 151, 156, 158, 675, 680, 684 Kraus, Wolfgang 14, 36, 109, 118, 119, 233, 238, 244, 364, 371, 372, 397, 398, 399, 400, 407, 410, 411, 422, 473, 474, 477, 478, 489, 495, 497, 498, 502, 503, 504, 506, 507, 509, 523 Krause, Joachim J. 16, 36, 69, 72, 74, 78, 79, 80, 81, 87, 146, 163, 173, 176, 177, 187, 190, 191, 205, 377, 423 Kreller, Hans 237, 245 Kreuzer, Siegfried 13, 31, 36, 165, 166, 185, 187, 240, 361, 384, 385, 390, 512, 537 Kübler, Bernhard 236, 237, 245, 505, 510 Kugler, Robert A. 237, 245, 343, 346, 357 Küster, Volker 678, 684 Kutsch, Ernst 13, 14, 36, 122, 143, 145, 146, 148, 156, 158, 160, 163, 167, 170, 187, 192, 205, 239, 240, 243, 245, 265, 270, 364, 372, 386, 423, 503, 505, 510 Kwakkel, Gert 154, 156, 163 Kwasman, Theodore 53, 63 Lampe, Peter 434, 452 Landau, Brent 571, 582 Landesmann, Peter 613, 623 Landmesser, Christoph 431, 452 Lang, Bernhard 369, 423 Lang, Friedrich 366, 423, 434, 438, 452 Langdon, Adrian 666, 668, 684 Lange, Armin 109, 119, 121, 137, 140, 250, 270, 273, 307 Lange, Christian 556, 566

710

Index of Authors

Larson, Erik 280, 307 Lattke, Michael 338, 357 Lauinger, Jacob 24, 37, 43, 44, 46, 50, 51, 52, 63 Lawrence, Paul J.N. 261, 270 Le Boulluec, Alain 395, 423 Leaney, A.R.C. 258, 270 Legrand, Thierry 268, 270 Leichty, Erle 56, 63 Leithart, Peter J. 526, 537 Lemaire, Peter J. 44, 63 Léon-Dufour, Xavier 403, 423 Levenson, Jon D. 131, 140, 225, 230 Levin, Christoph 24, 37, 171, 187, 190, 191, 205, 377, 378, 382, 386, 395, 423, 505, 510 Levinson, Bernard M. 45, 63 Levitt Kohn, Risa 131, 132, 140, 141 Lichtenberger, Hermann 304, 307, 366, 367, 368, 369, 372, 388, 389, 403, 423, 621 Liddell, Henry G. 321, 332 Lied, Liv Ingeborg 349, 357 Lietzmann, Hans 435, 452 Lilly, Ingrid 121, 141 Lindemann, Andreas 434, 436, 452, 478, 481, 489 Lindsay, Mark R. 664, 684 Link, Christian 662, 684 Livingstone, Alasdair 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 63 Loader, James A. 19, 37 Loader, William 369, 371, 403, 407, 409, 424 Lohfink, Norbert 144, 151, 152, 162, 163, 166 Lohmeyer, Ernst 236, 237, 238, 239, 245, 505, 510 Löhr, Hermut 365, 367, 372, 412, 424 Löhr, Winrich A. 616, 623 Lohse, Eduard 431, 452 Loktionov, Alexandre Alexandrovich 54, 57, 63 Longenecker, Bruce W. 336, 357, 431, 453, 457, 458, 465, 490 Longenecker, Richard N. 460, 490 Lotter, Friedrich 654, 660 Lührmann, Dieter 572, 583 Lust, Johan 106, 121, 141, 233, 245 Luukko, Mikko 48, 63

Luz, Ulrich 367, 370, 371, 407, 424 Lyons, Michael A. 128, 141 Macaskill, Grant 439, 453 Macatangay, Francis M. 207, 208, 210, 230, 353, 357 MacDonald, Nathan 172, 187 Machinist, Peter 43, 61, 63 Mack, Burton 193, 205, 215, 216, 230 Mackie, Gillian 648, 651, 660 Macuch, Maria 639, 640, 643 Maier, Christl M. 475, 476, 490 Maier, Johann 290, 307 Mansoor, Menahem 258, 260, 270 Marböck, Johannes 192, 205, 505, 510 Markschies, Christoph 587, 589, 607 Marquardt, Friedrich-Wilhelm 664, 684 Marttilla, Marko 205, 471 Martin, Ralph P. 449, 453 Martin-Achard, Robert 377, 384, 390, 395, 424 Marx, Alfred 375, 392, 395, 424 Maschmeier, Jens-Christian 461, 490 Mason, Stephen 74, 87. 424 Mason, Steve 324, 330, 332 Mattila, Raija 53, 63 Mayfield, Tylor D. 122, 141 Mazzoni, Stefania 44, 62 McCarthy, Dennis J. 15, 26, 37, 165, 187, 249, 261, 270 McConville, J. Gordon 122, 141, 249, 260. 265, 267, 268, 270 McCoy, Charles S. 662, 684 McKane, William 116, 119 McKay, Kenneth J. 528, 537 McKenzie, Steven L. 165, 187, 249, 261, 270, 363, 364, 373, 378, 379, 383, 384, 390, 424 McKnight, Scot 365, 366, 403, 424 McMichael, Steven J. 565, 569 Meershoek, Gerardus Q.A. 609, 623 Meiser, Martin 118, 460, 468, 474, 477, 478, 490, 541 Melville, Sarah 46, 63 Mendenhall, George E. 13, 15, 20, 21, 26, 37, 165, 187, 394, 424 Méndez-Montoya, Angel F. 678, 684 Merkt, Andreas 548, 569

Index of Authors Mermelstein, Ari 217, 231, 337, 350, 353, 357, 472, 490 Merz, Annette 365, 366, 369, 403, 411, 428 Meshorer, Ya’akob 531, 537 Metso, Sarianna 268, 270 Metzger, Bruce M. 367, 424 Meyers, Carol L. 368, 376, 379, 380, 381, 384, 394, 424 Meyers, Eric M. 368, 394, 424 Meyvaert, Paul 648, 649, 650, 652, 653, 654, 655, 659 Michel, Otto 326, 332, 502, 510 Migliore, Daniel 669, 684 Milbach, Lillia 575, 583 Milgrom, Jacob 74, 87, 375, 424 Milik, Jozef T. 276, 284, 292, 293, 307, 308 Miller II., Robert D. 168, 249, 261, 267 Miller, Shem 291, 307 Mitchell, Christine 173, 174, 386, 424 Mittmann, Ulrike 371, 407 Mokhtarian, Jason 639, 643 Moltmann, Jürgen 666, 669, 684 Monighan-Schäfer, Johanna 514, 537 Montanari, Franco 233, 235, 245 Moo, Douglas 474, 477, 490 Moore, Carey A. 208, 211, 231 Morony, Michael G. 639, 643 Morrow, William S. 44, 63 Mortensen, Jacob P.B. 462, 490 Moscicke, Hans M. 409, 424 Mühling. Anke 471, 490 Müller, Mogens 386, 398, 424 Müller, Ulrich B. 475, 490 Muraoka, Takamitsu 233, 245 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome 401, 424 Mussner, Franz 478, 490 Myers, Ched 335, 366, 403, 404, 412 Najman, Hindy 335, 357 Nam, Roger S. 250, 270 Nanos, Mark D. 462, 483, 490 Neef, Heinz-Dieter 374, 383, 386, 391, 398, 399, 400, 411, 425, 505, 510, 616, 623 Newman, Hillel I. 615, 623 Newman, Judith H. 211, 231 Newsom, Carol A. 221, 231, 250, 258, 260, 261, 264, 270, 271, 290, 307, 399, 425

711

Ngoa, Mathieu 155, 163 Nicholson, Ernest W. 249, 270, 389, 425 Nickelsburg, George W.E. 211, 219, 227, 231, 340, 341, 343, 346, 354, 357 Nicklas, Tobias 571, 573–576, 578, 581, 583 Niebuhr, H. Richard 662, 684 Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm 462, 467, 490 Niehoff, Maren R. 319, 332, 589, 607 Niehr, Herbert 379, 425 Nihan, Christophe 71, 78, 82, 87, 126, 136, 137, 141, 377, 425 Nikkanen, P. Markus 440, 453 Niles, Franklyn C. 661, 685 Nir, Rivka 571, 583 Nissinen, Martti 48, 63 Nisula, Timo 559, 569 Nodet, Étienne 366, 425 Nord, Christiane 370, 416 Norelli, Enrico 572, 582 Norton, Frederick O. 236, 245 Noth, Martin 166, 253, 256, 271, 364 Novakovic, Lidija 290, 307 Novotny, Jamie 46, 57, 62 Ochs, Peter 674, 685 Oegema, Gerbern S. 469, 472, 481, 490 Oehl, Benedikt 657, 660 Oeming, Manfred 30, 31, 37, 165, 166, 167, 177, 185, 187, 373, 385, 386, 403, 425, 471, 490, 522 Oepke, Albrecht 498, 499, 510 Oesch, Joseph 515, 518, 537 Oesterley, W.O.E. 214, 230 Öhler, Markus 411, 425 Olley, John W. 133, 141 Olyan, Saul M. 385, 425 Omidsalar, Mahmoud 632, 643 Oswald, Wolfgang 173, 378, 383, 384, 393, 396, 425 Ottati, Douglas F. 674, 685 Otto, Eckart 24, 25, 29, 37, 91, 102, 103, 106, 167, 168, 169, 187, 289, 307, 384, 389, 426 Otto, Konrad 440, 444, 453 Otzen, Benedikt 214, 231 Paget, James C. 330, 332 Parpola, Simo(n) 27, 28, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49–53, 57, 61, 63, 68

712

Index of Authors

Passaro, Angelo 146, 163 Paul, André 327, 332 Pauw, Amy Platinga 665, 685 Pedersen, Johannes 37 Pedersén, Olof 53, 64 Peirano Garrison, Irene 335, 357 Perkins, Larry 380, 386, 426 Perlitt, Lothar 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 37, 143, 149, 164, 165, 167, 188, 190, 205, 363, 378, 381, 383, 384, 385, 391, 426 Pesch, Rudolf 367, 412, 426 Petersen, David L. 90, 93, 94, 101, 106 Peterson, Brian Neil 125, 141 Pietersma, Albert 320, 332 Pilhofer, Peter 470, 490 Pillay, Jerry 675, 685 Piovanelli, Pierluigi 571, 583 Pitre, Brant 431, 453, 463, 491 Plaskow, Judith 662, 663, 685 Pohlmann, Hans 236, 239, 245 Poilpré, Anne-Orange 649, 652, 655, 660 Polak, Frank H. 390, 391, 395, 426 Pollmann, Ines 470, 491 Pomykala, Kenneth E. 217, 218, 231 Ponchia, Simonetta 50, 64 Portenhauser, Friederike 462, 491 Porter, Stanley E. 357, 431, 458, 491 Porzig, Peter 512, 525, 529, 538 Poser, Ruth 122, 141 Pouchelle, Patrick 338, 355 Preuss, Horst-Dietrich 154, 164 Prigent, Pierre 587, 595, 607 Propp, William H.C. 376, 381, 382, 383, 388, 396, 426 Prostmeier, Ferdinand R. 588, 607 Puukko, Antti Filemon 474, 491 Qimron, Elisha 255, 271, 298, 307 Quell, Gottfried 250, 261, 271, 364, 386, 391, 403, 416, 505, 508 Rad, Gerhard von 20, 22, 23, 38, 71, 87 Radebach-Huonker, Christiane 152, 153, 164 Radner, Karen 43–49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 62, 64 Rahlfs, Alfred 84, 241 Räisänen, Heikki 459, 462, 463, 491 Rajak, Tessa 330, 332

Ramelli, Ilaria 639, 643 Rebenich, Stefan 611, 623 Reddoch, M. Jason 310, 332 Reed, Stephen A. 268, 271 Regev, Eyal 401, 426 Reichert, Angelika 479, 491 Reinbold, Wolfgang 483, 491 Renaud, Bernard 109, 116, 119, 125, 126, 141, 155, 164 Rendtorff, Rolf 76, 77, 79, 82, 87, 373, 379, 387, 389, 392, 426 Rennaker, Jacob 431, 454 Reventlow, Henning Graf 20, 38 Reynolds, Frances S. 47, 65 Rezakhani, Khodadad 639, 643 Riede, Peter 286, 307 Rieger, Hans-Martin 364, 426 Riggenbach, Eduard 237, 238, 245 Ringgren, Eduard 263, 267, 268, 271 Rogers, Trent A. 309, 332 Rohde, Joachim 474, 475, 477, 491 Rokeah, David 589, 607 Röllig, Wolfgang 56, 65 Roloff, Jürgen 498, 510 Römer, Thomas 174, 175, 364, 426 Rom-Shiloni, Dalit 113, 119, 136, 141, 173, 175, 385, 426 Ronis, Sara 625, 638, 643 Rösel, Martin 122, 233, 234, 243, 245, 361, 386, 387, 398, 427, 437, 453, 459, 505, 510 Rosner, Brian S. 439, 451 Roth, Dieter T. 573, 574, 583 Rothenberg, Naftali 673, 685 Roukema, Riemer 562, 569 Royse, James R. 311, 332 Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. 626, 643 Rudolph, Wilhelm 90, 110, 119 Ruiten, Jacques van 337, 358, 471, 493 Runia, David T. 310, 314, 322, 323, 332 Rüterswörden, Udo 25, 38, 171, 188, 373, 427 Šakūrzāda, Ebrāhīm 632, 643 Sanders, Ed P. 205, 254, 260, 264-268, 271, 309, 310, 332, 336, 358, 364, 401, 427, 431, 453, 458, 461, 462, 463, 491 Sanders, Seth L. 53, 56, 65 Sandevoir, Pierre 395, 423

Index of Authors Sandnes, Karl Olav 365, 367, 369, 371, 403, 404, 407, 410, 427 Sänger, Dieter 460, 467, 469, 491, 498, 510 Sarna, Nahum M. 387, 391, 392, 427 Sayler, Gwendolyn B. 346, 358 Schäfer, Peter 590, 607 Schäfer, Ruth 460, 491 Schäfer-Lichtenberger, Christa 525, 538 Schäfers, Kirsten 297, 307 Schaller, Berndt 484, 485, 491 Schaper, Joachim 379, 382, 427 Schenker, Adrian 109, 110, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 125, 126, 141, 240, 241, 245, 394, 395, 399, 427, 502, 505, 510 Scheunchen, Tobias 639, 640, 643 Schiemann, Gottfried 236, 245 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 261, 265, 266, 271, 280, 307 Schiller, Gertrud 512, 517, 538 Schinkel, Dirk 475, 491 Schlange-Schöningen, Heinrich 609, 610, 613-616, 620, 621, 623 Schliesser, Benjamin 469, 473, 492 Schmeller, Thomas 432, 444, 445, 449, 453, 464, 492 Schmid, Joseph 513, 518, 536, 538 Schmid, Konrad 92, 93, 97, 107, 165, 171, 177, 188, 206 Schmidt, A. Jordan 217, 231 Schmidt, Ludwig 376, 381, 382, 389, 427 Schmidt, Werner H. 38, 399, 427 Schmitz, Barbara 211, 212, 231 Schneider, Johannes 235, 245 Schnelle, Udo 371, 372, 412, 427, 458, 459, 460, 463, 492 Schönemann, Hubertus 155, 164 Schöning, Benedict 152, 164 Schottroff, Luise 436, 453 Schrage, Wolfgang 431, 436, 453 Schreckenberg, Heinz 613, 623 Schröter, Jens 372, 436, 453, 462, 466, 470, 484, 492, 575, 583 Schüle, Andreas 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 87, 173, 375, 427 Schuller, Eileen 258, 260, 261, 271, 302, 307 Schultz, Brian 297, 307

713

Schüpphaus, Joachim 339, 341, 358 Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth 365, 427 Schuurman, Douglas J. 674, 685 Schwarcz, Andreas 617, 623 Schwartz, Daniel 344, 358 Schweitzer, Albert 463, 492 Schweitzer, Steven 174, 188 Schwemer, Anna Maria 235, 237, 238, 240, 245, 314, 316, 332, 474, 475, 476, 492 Screnock, John 292, 307 Sedlmeier, Franz 126, 141 Seebass, Horst 38, 154, 164, 286, 307, 389, 427 Seely, David 299, 308 Seiler, Stefan 147, 156, 157, 164 Selb, Walter 459, 470, 471, 492 Sellin, Gerhard 468, 474, 475, 476, 492 Seybold, Klaus 149, 153, 156, 158, 164 Siegert, Folker 243, 245, 483, 484, 492 Sjöberg, Åke W. 43, 65 Sjöberg, Matthew 173 Ska, Jean-Louis 383, 427 Skarsten, Roald 318 Skehan, Patrick 215, 216, 218, 231 Smend, Rudolf 190, 202, 206 Smit, Dirk J. 662, 685 Smith, Barry 372, 427 Smith, Daniel A. 573, 583 Smith, Dennis E. 370, 371, 403, 404, 427 Soden, Wolfram von 43, 53, 56, 57, 65 Sommer, Michael 577, 583 Sonderegger, Katherine 664, 685 Sparks, Hedley F.-D. 616, 623 Speyer, Wolfgang 335, 358 Spieckermann, Hermann 150, 156, 157, 159, 160, 164, 189, 205, 372, 384, 385, 386, 398, 399, 419, 470, 487 Sprinkle, Preston M. 310, 332 Stackhouse, Max 673, 674, 685 Stade, Bernhard 191, 206 Standhartinger, Angela 473, 492 Stanton, Graham 590, 601, 607 Starr, Ivan 46, 65 Stemberger, Günter 590, 608 Stendahl, Krister 431, 453, 461, 462, 492 Sterling, Gregory E. 309, 310, 311, 317, 332, 394, 428, 457, 492 Steudel, Annette 295, 307

714

Index of Authors

Steymans, Hans Ulrich 25, 29, 38, 45, 50, 65, 148, 149, 164 Stipp, Hermann-Josef 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 120, 124, 141, 377, 428 Stöcklein, Heike 522, 538 Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel 409, 428 Stone, Michael E. 349, 350, 351, 358, 572, 584 Stone, Szanne L. 643 Stowasser, Martin 511, 514, 519, 529, 532, 534, 538 Strack, Hermann 437, 453 Strassfeld, Max 627, 644 Strawn, Brent A. 124, 141, 249, 250, 252, 267, 271, 273, 276, 277, 307, 364, 401, 458 Strecker, Christian 431, 453 Strobel, August 435, 437, 453 Stroumsa, Guy G. 615, 623 Strugnell, John 280, 285, 301, 307, 308 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 207, 231, 335, 354, 358 Stuhlmacher, Peter 366, 368, 371, 403, 428 Stylianopoulos, Theodore G. 587, 608 Suciu, Alin 578, 584 Suggit, John 514, 538 Sundermeier, Theo 678, 685 Svartvik, Jesper 507, 510 Sweeney, Marvin A. 74, 75, 77, 80, 87, 122, 141 Swetnam, James 237, 245, 386, 428 Talmon, Shemaryahu 249, 265, 266, 268, 271, 401, 428 Tate, Marvin E. 157, 158, 159, 164 Terrien, Samuel 161, 164 Theissen, Gerd 365, 366, 369, 403, 411, 428, 459, 462, 472, 477, 479, 481, 492, 493 Theobald, Michael 371, 411, 412, 460, 477, 480, 481, 493, 581, 584 Thiel, Winfried 190, 206, 363, 428 Thiselton, Anthony C. 435, 453 Thompson, Richard Jude 29, 30, 38 Thrall, Margaret E. 444, 453 Thür, Gerhard 236, 237, 245 Tiede, David L. 344, 358 Tigchelaar, Eibert 290, 293, 294, 301, 307 Tita, Hubert 117, 120

Tiwald, Markus 316, 333, 467, 476, 493 Tong, M Adryael 627, 644 Tooman, William A. 129, 137, 142 Tov, Emanuel 122, 142, 239, 240, 246, 288, 308 Trelstad, Marit 669, 679, 685 Tromp, Johannes 343, 344, 345, 358 Tsutsui, Kenji 573, 584 Tushingham, Poppy 26, 43, 52, 65, 385 Ulrich, Jörg 497, 587, 589, 591, 592, 597, 603, 605, 608 Ulrichs, Karl Friedrich 473, 493 Urbach, Ephraim E. 351, 358 van Buren, Paul Matthews 667, 668, 685 Van Buylaere, Greta 48, 63 van den Broek, Roelof 578, 584 van der Horst, Pieter W. 467, 482, 493 van der Kooij, Arie 371, 428 van Henten, Jan Willem 371, 428 van Seters, John 384, 389, 428 van Unnik, Willem Cornelis 587, 608 VanderKam, James C. 209, 231, 265-268, 271, 292, 337, 338, 354, 394, 572 Vanhoye, Albert 363, 428 Venema, René 180, 188 Vermes, Geza 260, 271, 335, 336, 358 Victorin de Poetovio 514, 536 Vieillard-Troïekouroff, May 648, 660 Violet, Bruno 348, 358 Vischer, Lukas 665, 677, 685 Vogel, Manuel 240, 246, 309, 310, 333, 411, 428, 437, 454, 463, 471, 472, 485, 493, 496, 503, 510, 614, 623 Volf, Miroslav 672, 673, 685 Volgger, David 149, 164 von der Osten-Sacken, Peter 457, 463, 466, 478, 479, 481, 493 Vonach, Andreas 397, 428 Wacholder, Ben Zion 255, 256, 271, 283, 308 Wallace, Dewey D. Jr. 662, 685 Walser, Georg 109, 111, 118, 120 Walter, Nikolaus 483, 484, 493 Ware, James P. 458, 493 Watanabe, Kazuko 24, 27, 28, 37, 38, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49-52, 57, 64, 65

Index of Authors Watson, Francis 462, 493 Watts, James W. 389, 392, 428 Webb, Ruth 527, 538 Weber, Max 14, 15, 19, 20, 38 Weidner, Ernst Friedrich 51, 62 Weinfeld, Moshe 27, 92, 107, 143, 145, 164, 165, 166, 188, 234, 243, 246, 268, 271, 280, 299, 308, 380, 385, 428, 505, 510 Weinreich, Otto 528, 538 Weinrich, William 514, 538 Weis, Richard D. 109, 120, 397, 429 Weiss, Hans-Friedrich 499, 503, 505, 506, 510 Welch, John W. 431, 454 Wellhausen, Julius 15, 19, 20, 31, 38, 165, 166, 188, 172, 190, 206 Wenham, Gordon J. 16, 38 Wenninger, Markus 658, 660 Werline, Rodney A. 227, 231, 340, 358 Wernberg-Møller, P. 258, 272 Westerholm, Stephen 431, 454, 462, 494 Westermann, Claus 16, 38 Wevers, John W. 85, 87, 238, 241, 242, 246, 317, 320, 321, 333 Whiston, William 326, 328, 329, 333 Whitaker, George H. 320, 331 Whitaker, Robyn J. 527, 538 Whitlark, Jason 317, 333 Wick, Peter 370, 403, 429 Wilckens, Ulrich 479, 494 Wiley, Tatha 365, 429 Wilk, Florian 244, 364, 371, 372, 428, 429, 431, 432, 438, 439, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 458, 464, 476, 482, 494 Williamson, Hugh 101, 105, 107 Williamson, Paul 316, 318, 333 Willi-Plein, Ida 381, 383, 387, 429 Willis, Wendell L. 440, 454 Wills, Lawrence M. 212, 213, 231 Windsor, Lionel J. 462, 494 Winkler, Wibke E. 448, 454 Winninge, Mikael 370, 413, 429 Winterer, Christoph 514, 537

715

Wischmeyer, Oda 372, 429 Wise, Michael O. 258, 264, 272 Wiseman, Donald John 24, 39, 50, 66 Witt, Andrew 277, 308 Witte, John Jr. 661, 686 Witulski, Thomas 530, 538 Wöhrle, Jakob 72, 74, 75, 87, 90, 107, 173, 174, 375, 429 Wolff, Christian 436, 437, 444, 447, 448, 454, 464, 475, 494 Wolff, Hans Walter 265, 272 Wolter, Michael 431, 447, 455, 460, 477, 478-484, 494, 576, 584 Woodward, Elizabeth M. 520, 538 Wrede, William 463, 494 Wright, Benjamin G. 216, 231, 283, 320, 332 Wright, Jacob 180, 188 Wright, N.T. 431, 446, 455 Wright, Robert B. 339, 340, 348 Wrogemann, Henning 678, 686 Xeravits, Géza 211, 212, 231 Yabro Collins, Adela 367, 370, 371, 408, 429, 475, 494 Yonge, Charles D. 320, 333 Yoshiko Reed, Annette 335, 343, 358, 571, 584 Younger, K. Lawson 26, 36 Zaia, Shana 51, 66 Zeindler, Matthias 672, 686 Zeller, Dieter 310, 312, 314, 323, 333, 437, 438, 455 Zelyck, Lorne 572, 584 Zenger, Erich 15, 23, 39, 147, 156, 159, 163, 164, 189, 206 Zetterholm, Magnus 462, 463, 490 Ziegler, Josef 109, 120, 194, 202 Zimmerli, Walther 16, 39, 74, 87, 131, 142, 169, 170, 176, 177, 188, 385, 395, 429 Zimmermann, Norbert 411, 429

Subject Index Subject Index Subject Index Aaron 77, 91, 166, 204, 215, 216, 220, 221 Aaronide blessing 91, 93, 95, 96, 101 Abihu 262, 381, 394 Abraham/Abram 69, 71–73, 81–85, 89, 165, 170, 174, 175, 194, 215, 220, 224, 226, 227, 242, 262, 309, 311, 316, 317, 319, 324, 328–330, 378, 387, 389, 465, 480, 484, 550, 551, 557, 626, 631, 633 Abraham’s faith 466–467, 478, 480 Acts of charity 208–209 Acts of Pilate 574 Adam 171, 218, 350, 544, 581, 626, 628, 629, 631 adê (treaty, oath, covenant) 26–28, 43–61 Adoption 174, 175, 185, 236, 240 Akkadian treaty 26 Alexandria 218, 234, 372 Allegorical/allegorization 310, 313, 316, 322, 323, 473–476, 479, 513, 655–656 Almsgiving 210, 228, 559 Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae 657 Andrew of Caesarea 518 Anthropology 118, 670 Anti-Apollinaristic polemics 546 Anti-Gnostic polemics 542, 543 Anti-Jewish polemics 239, 544, 548, 551, 553, 554, 558, 560, 564–565, 571, 578 Anti-Manichean polemics 543, 546 Anti-Marcionite polemics 542, 563, 564 Anti-Montanist polemics 557 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 221–224, 297, 299, 306 Anti-Pelagian polemics 551 Apostolic Memoirs 578 Aquila 236 Aramaic 16, 22, 26, 28, 43, 44, 102, 234, 298, 384 Aristophanes 237 Assur 29, 47–49, 52–53, 168, 179 Assurbanipal 24, 46–53, 58 Atonement 196, 216, 262, 304, 336, 388– 391, 405–411, 413–414, 437, 461, 549

Azariah 225, 229 Babylon 171 Babylonian Talmud 626, 633, 637 Balaam 325 Bamberger Apocalypse 517 bandaka relationship 174, 386 Belial 260 Ben Sira 189–204, 214–217, 229 Bet-El 283 Blood of the covenant 73, 367, 369, 372, 381, 387–389, 393, 401–409, 414–415, 464 Blood rite 387, 388, 393, 395, 410, 414 Bodily resurrection 223 Book of the covenant 15, 381, 393, 401 Bread 411–414, 434 Charity 208–210, 228, 553 Cherubim 379, 650, 653, 655, 658 Church and Israel 666 Circumcision 70, 72, 76, 82, 166, 169, 170, 194, 318, 319, 322, 329, 330, 337, 387, 471, 479, 480, 481, 484, 550, 593, 596–598, 603–605, 625, 626, 628, 630– 631, 634–636, 640, 662 Collection (for the saints in Jerusalem) 460–461, 479 Commandment 629–631, 633, 638 Conversion 259, 636 Conviviality 412, 413 Covenant – ark of 327, 511, 529, 647, 659 – at Sinai 15, 113, 159, 160, 209, 279, 377–396, 401, 464, 471, 474, 476, 482– 484, 503, 663 – better 495, 501 – broken 44–45, 47, 49, 56–60, 78, 83, 146, 147, 155, 256, 301–303, 327, 376– 377, 380, 398–399, 402, 414–415, 554, 564–565, 580 – conditional 74, 149, 190

Subject Index – curse 44, 47, 49–52, 55, 58 – Davidic 77, 137–139, 262, 322, 548 – Deuteronomistic 190, 377–378 – earlier 495 – enforce 45, 49, 58, 60, 61 – establish 70, 72–76, 77, 83, 148, 262, 311, 313–320, 322–325, 393, 410 – eternal/everlasting 70, 72, 74–76, 80, 83, 126, 129, 130, 146, 166, 169, 174, 177, 193, 196, 198, 228, 229, 262, 312, 319, 324, 328, 341, 373–375, 377, 378, 400, 495, 546 – first 70–71, 82–84, 495 – for justice 676 – guarantor 497, 498 – impose 45–48, 50, 57, 58, 60 – in Moab 113 – keep 77, 83, 149–151 – metaphor for marriage 30 – Mosaic 77, 82, 161, 262, 312, 322, 377– 396, 405, 414 – new 118, 171–172, 261, 396–403, 410– 414, 502, 542, 550, 552–561, 565–570, 591, 595, 599, 601–602, 673 – of Abraham 169, 171, 311–312, 316– 319, 322–323, 466, 469, 484, 634, 641 – of circumcision 625, 630, 632, 637 – of Israel 483 – of Jeremiah 396–402, 482, 484 – of justice 267 – of Levi 89, 90, 93, 95, 97–99, 137 – of mercy 169, 176, 177, 278 – of loyalty 199 – of peace 129, 378, 400 – of salt 101, 286, 305 – of the kingship 263 – of truth 204 – old 495, 542, 550–565, 591, 599, 601 – priestly 190, 283 – remember 78–80, 83 – renewal 80, 83, 166, 174, 192, 261, 263, 264, 268, 295, 322, 338, 350, 376–377, 402, 407, 464, 572 – ritual 381 – sacred 45 – silence 143, 190, 457, 458 – terminology 34, 277, 431, 563 – unconditional 74, 76, 77, 146, 190, 278, 399

717

– universal 70–75, 79, 83, 84, 197, 199 – with Abraham 124, 138, 337, 662 – with (all of) creation 75, 79, 82, 83, 202, 628, 633, 663, 664, 666–669, 672, 676, 677, 679–681 – with ancestors 262, 339, 340 – with David 77, 137–139, 215, 216, 262, 322, 548 – with Isaak 337 – with Jacob 337 – with Moses 337 – with Noah 159, 171, 262, 312–315, 322, 337, 619 – with the fathers 344 – witness 497–498 Covenant and ethics 549, 553, 559, 569– 570, 662, 673–675, 681 Covenant formula 79, 144, 191, 284, 534 Covenant relation 33, 34, 212, 386 Covenant statistics 496, 497 Covenant statutes 267 Covenant – Testament 499, 505 Covenant theology 144, 165, 166, 168, 171, 172, 177, 179, 180, 184, 185, 387, 399, 458, 663, 666, 674, 675, 677, 682 Covenantal life 670–673, 677 Covenantal myth 662 Covenantal nomism 336, 346, 364, 431, 461 Crucifixion 368, 369, 415, 435, 468, 546, 548, 574, 594, 598, 600, 605, 614 Cult order 499 Cult vestment 196 Cup of the covenant 363–370, 433, 435– 437 Curtain 500, 523, 524, 526, 553, 652 Damascus Document 250, 251, 258, 264 David 148, 166, 172, 185, 197, 215, 263, 588 Day of Atonement (Yom ha-Kippurim) 390, 409, 502–504 Decalogue 18, 21, 22, 124, 195, 376, 380, 382, 680 Deuteronomic scheme 207, 209, 336, 354 Deuteronomistic historiography 362, 364, 415 Diaspora 135, 139, 243, 325, 329, 589 Divorce 637

718

Subject Index

Doctrines of creation 666 Dynasty of David 166 Ebla texts 26 Ecclesia and synagogue 658 Edomiter 165, 297 Egypt 26, 113, 132–136, 139, 168, 195, 198, 218–219, 237, 279, 285, 298, 378– 379, 437, 525, 564, 594, 609 Ekphrasis 526, 530, 656 Eleazar 216, 262 Election 135, 214, 267, 663, 665, 668 Endogamie 180 Esarhaddon, Esarhaddon’s Treaty 27–29, 44, 46–53, 57, 58, 60, 81 Esau 165 Esther 209 Eucharist/Lord’s Supper 361, 365–369, 406, 407, 411–414, 503, 573, 617, 673 Eucharistic bread 362, 366–369, 407, 411– 413, 655, 673 Eucharistic cup 361, 369, 403, 406, 410 Eve 581 Exaltation of Christ 501, 507 Festival of Weeks 209 Federal theology 13 Federalism 661 Festival 178, 182, 209, 294 Flood 193, 327 Foedus 13, 616–618 Forgiveness 369, 407, 414, 437, 438, 448, 450, 504, 610 Germigny-des-Prés 647 Gift 312, 313, 315, 317, 320, 322–324, 328 Golden calf 216, 376, 380 Grace 170–171, 176, 182, 243, 267, 277– 278, 312–317, 320, 323, 324, 449 Hagar 318, 473–476, 485 Hasmonean 211, 217, 229, 342 Heavenly Jerusalem 474, 475, 535, 656, 657 Heavenly sanctuary 503, 525–527, 530, 533, 534, 647, 656 Hellenization 221, 362, 462 High priesthood 216–218, 229, 495, 500– 504

Hittite 20, 24, 26 Holiness/sanctity 32, 92, 196, 199, 204, 212, 214, 220, 382, 405, 409, 524, 544, 638, 654, 671–672, 681 Holy Spirit 504, 544, 561, 563, 671, 681 Identity 166, 168, 169, 175, 439 Idolatry 278, 282, 439, 449, 450, 598, 630, 637 Imperial politics 174 Isaac 70, 72, 79, 81, 83, 165, 175, 215, 220, 224, 226–227, 262, 305, 309, 318– 319, 328, 329, 477, 594, 596, 632 Ishmael 165, 318, 329, 626, 631–633, 637 Israel 165, 261, 309, 310, 312, 321, 322, 325, 329, 484, 550, 664, 665 Ithamar 257, 262 Jacob 70, 72, 79, 81, 83, 165, 195, 196, 215, 220, 224, 227, 261, 262, 309, 321, 328, 329, 632, 641 Jason 221, 222 Jeremiah 172, 174, 229 Jerusalem 214, 227, 342, 344 Jerusalem above 474 Jerusalem council 460 Jewish Christian Gospels 572 Jewish revolt 222, 223, 325, 560, 575 Jewish-Christian dialogue 15, 23, 591 Judas Maccabeus 223 Judith 209, 211, 228 Last Supper 361, 365, 368, 371, 372, 404– 413, 618 Law 155, 202, 203, 312, 323, 471–473, 479–481, 554, 591, 594, 597, 602–603 Levi 259 Levites 321 Levitical priesthood 215, 506 Libation 235, 412, 414 Liber Floridus 520 Libri Carolini 649 Logos 591, 601, 604 Loyalty oaths 28 Maccabean revolt 221–223 Maccabees 326 Marriage 166, 175, 176 Mattathias 218, 222

Subject Index Media 24, 27 Mediator 343, 344, 558 Melchizedek 499, 500, 505, 508 Menelaus 222 Mercy Seat 649, 655, 656 Miaphysite Church of Egypt 580 Mishnah 626 Monotheism 191, 198, 199, 204 Mosaic covenant 262, 337, 405, 414 Moses 73, 74, 77, 79, 89, 131, 165, 166, 177–179, 183, 185, 194, 195, 196, 215, 218, 219, 257, 321, 329, 330, 343, 444, 544, 551, 557, 588, 598 Moses-Apokryphon 285 Mt. Zion 212–214 Mt. Sinai 376, 378, 379, 380, 381, 387, 392, 394, 398, 401, 402, 404, 405, 414 Nadab 262, 381, 394 Neo-Assyrian treaties 27, 167, 172, 175 New Perspective(s) on Paul 431, 461–464 Noah 70–76, 79, 83, 165, 170, 174, 175, 191, 215, 220, 241, 315, 327, 330, 373, 374, 378, 544, 626, 629, 631 Oecumenius 517, 520 Old Babylonian treaties from Mari 16 Onias III 218, 221 Passover 104, 365–366, 404, 413, 436, 588, 635 Patriarchal testament 237, 239 Pax assyriaca 167 Pentateuchal Redaction 101 Pentecost 209 Persians 165, 172, 173, 176, 177, 178, 185 Pharaoh 21, 26, 195, 219, 529 Phinehas 77, 196–197, 215–218, 229, 282, 283, 337, 400 Pilate 366, 574, 578–579 Prayer of Azariah 11–13, 225, 229 Priest 166, 173, 177–181, 183, 186, 196, 198, 215, 217 Priestly code/source 19, 100, 101, 146– 147, 161, 165, 169–171, 174, 185, 290 Procla (Pilate’s wife) 579 Promise 152, 282, 311, 319, 326, 327– 330, 476, 482 Pseudepigrapha 273, 335, 571

719

Punishment 21, 34, 50, 55–60, 78–81, 104, 105, 114, 123, 125, 135, 148, 150, 154, 167, 168, 184, 190, 219, 221–224, 228, 327, 336, 339–343, 352, 389, 391, 414, 544–545, 555, 559, 610, 638 Purim 178 Puritan covenant theology 661 Qumran 209, 249–272, 273–308, 364, 485 Rainbow 16, 322, 327, 330, 373 Reciprocity 70, 77, 83, 210, 317, 376, 386, 505 Remembrance 70, 209, 363, 376, 399, 413 Restoration of Israel 227 Resurrection 223–225, 283–284, 287–288, 546, 579–580, 612 Rewritten Torah 575–578 Righteous Teacher 264 Righteousness 192, 193, 437, 466, 469, 472–473, 481, 549 Romans (people) 325, 329 Rule of the Community 265 Sabbath 76, 82, 83, 166, 184, 266, 293, 549, 558, 596, 597 Sacrifice 18, 92, 96, 104, 131, 208, 222, 226, 328, 381, 382, 387, 404, 405, 408, 495, 503, 524, 549, 551, 553–554 Salvation 70, 79, 80, 242, 267, 309, 394, 400, 405–406 Sarah/Sarai 318, 319, 328, 473, 485, 626 Scribe 34, 173, 181, 186 Sefire treaties 26, 28 Sennacherib of Assyria 46 Septuagint 233–244, 362, 410, 476, 497, 505–506, 513, 526, 528, 618–620 Simeon 197, 212 Simon II 216 Sinai 15, 165, 171, 209, 262, 265, 464, 471, 474, 476, 482–483, 630, 667, 673 Slavery 17, 21, 79, 219, 279, 472–476, 625, 627–628, 635–637, 639, 640 Solomon 215–218 Supersessionism 507, 654, 663, 679 Symbol 32, 52, 60, 77, 169, 311, 313, 315, 317, 323, 627, 647, 652, 654, 656, 668, 673–674 Symmachus 236

720

Subject Index

Symposium 370, 411–413 Synagogue 185, 579, 657, 658, 664 Syria 261 Tabernacle 70, 83, 375, 379, 396 Tablets of the covenant 77, 85, 243, 337, 376, 380, 444, 529, 533 Tell Tayinat 24, 27, 50, 51

Tetragrammaton 278, 287, 290, 291, 513 Textual criticism 122, 499, 512, 565 Vassal Treaty 167, 168, 190 Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon 24, 29 Zadok 104, 276 Zedekiah 124, 263